Talk:List of Bleach characters/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Shou Takanashi

Who is he? Is there a source proving that this is indeed the name of the 3rd seat in the 5th division? If so, please post it here. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I did a google search, apparently this is a roleplaying character from a bleach Forum RP site. There is no such person. 75.2.152.77 19:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Soul Society - Squads

Sometime since the last time I checked out the article, someone removed all information regarding the Squads including any information about characters that don't have their own page.

I've added Headers for the SQUADS so at least users can quickly find the information they are looking for but someone should tie up the ends related how and why the minor characters have no information anymore. Either they need their own articles at this point or something within the article. --Knighthammer 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You tend to understand why people revert you when you realize what you're doing is redundant. That information was moved. Please stop trying to restore it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
How is it 'redundant'. I refer to this page frequently and not having something to indicate who belongs to what squad makes it extremely frustrating to find what I am looking for. This section has become unusable unless you already know exactly who belongs where off the top of your head. By the nature of the show, there are already too many characters to follow. If you're *NOT* going to have Squad/Division headers, at least make the section ABOUT the Squad and Division and have a brief snipplet about relevant facts related to the Division/Squad including the captain and second in charge in paragraph form. Either way, the current layout is intolerable as a reference. --Knighthammer 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Beyond that, this section doesn't even flow as it should. The section is "Shinigami court divisions" not "Shinigami", "Shinigami Division Members" or "Shinigami Officers". The section should be ABOUT the divisions! Facts about who they are and who belongs to them. --Knighthammer 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you tried visiting the article Shinigami in Bleach listed right above the Shinigami court divisions section? All the info on Shinigami that used to be in this article was moved to that article. The reason the section is called "Shinigami court divisions" is the same reason there are "Special forces", "Gate watchers", and "Other shinigami" sections - that is those characters' role in the series. Just like there are sections called "Karakura High School" and "Urahara Shop" - those sections don't talk about those places, but the characters from them. After all, this is a character page. --Eruhildo 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't use the word squads. The correct word is division. But I agree with Someguy. Its redundant. Also please sign your name.--Hanaichi 07:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with Knighthammer, I'd rather the list stay the way it was before people started messing with it. If it's going to be moved elsewhere, take it completely out of here. Whoever thought that long list of names with no divisions was a good idea: it's not. It looks tacky. -SeaFox 01:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with knighthammer, the way this list of names is set up does not make sence since they are military like force with ranks and divisions as opossed to the way the Bount and the Vaizrd are, or at least it should look a little like the Hollow sections and separate by saying Captians, Lieutenant and others WhiteStrike 01:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
A separation by rank on this page is much more logical and I would support it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The more I think about it, the better I like the way it was. --Eruhildo 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All (if not most) of the images have been tagged.

I blame how long they've been on Wiki, but there but the Free Use rational is all outdated and they've been tagged. While I type this, I've rationaled Ichigo, Inoue, Chad, Ishida, Tatsuki, Keigo, and Squads 1 to 3, and could use some help here. EDIT: Anybody? Anybody at all?TheUltimate3 11:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While it's good that you're enthusiastic about preventing images from being deleted, it's not good for you to whine for help. Please realize that I and the other editors have lives and things we must attend to. We will surely help when we get the chance. Jezebel Parks 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think most of us put the fair use rationale in, you just didn't see it. Most of us put it into a parangraph, not a table. However, we must thank your efforts on making sure none of the images get deleted. So basically about 2/3 of the images have their fair use rationale.--Hanaichi 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well since my first comment I reached Squad 12 if I'm correct. Mayuri straight down the Info box thing, has been unedited. Sorry to sound whiny, I just don't like it when something seems overdo for fixing and nobody does anything. Pet peev of mine I guess. Also about those paragraph fair use ones, I did see alot of those, and replaced a few I think with the template. A nervous precaution if you will. TheUltimate3 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Linkage and Descriptions

About a month ago, when someone decided to remove the Shinigami Division Headers, it seems a lot more information disappeared with that removal.

We have a great number of sections now that mention characters with no page dedicated to that character and no information about the character(s).

Further more, many characters have enough information about them to warrant a page dedicated to them, especially since character backgrounds are starting to grow.

I have a four part proposal for this.

  1. 1.) All descriptions on this page be limited to a short description of the significance of the members under each header.
  1. 2.) All sections be given a page to themselves (this means a few sections need added pages, particularly the hollows section)
  1. 3.) All characters that have enough information to sustain a page to themselves be given a page to themselves.
  1. 4.) All descriptions for characters be limited to a brief mention of their current status (dead or alive), position and extremely important details about them. The Shinigami section is a good section to reference for this.

I'm certainly willing to do the leg work for most of this, but I don't need people flipping out fighting for edit layouts like what happened when I tried to fix the headers for the Divisions last time.--Knighthammer 21:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't most of the information in Shinigami in Bleach section?--Hanaichi 08:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This is my working test page Bleach Test. It's not 100% but it reflects what I am looking to do. The bottom line is making information as quick to find as possible and save the in depth information for more focused pages.--Knighthammer 05:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
When you're proposing something, you should be putting it in your user namespace, not making some seven odd actual articles. ~SnapperTo 06:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Website design in of itself comes down to making something behind the scenes before it becomes public. In this case, the only other option is herding everyone over to the Sandbox and have those interested look at it which as you can imagine is a trite. Visuals get better results then waiting for everyone to sit around and discuss it. The pages can always be removed later. Now there is a visual for what I am hoping the main page could look like. This should make it easier for users to find the information they want. Besides, free time is free time and when you have it to use, you use it or loose it. This should allow everyone to decide if they like the format I created over whats currently available. The work is mostly done, it only comes down to deciding which format is better now. --Knighthammer 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think what Snapper was saying is that using User:Knighthammer/Bleach Test would have been best.
Also, after looking at your Bleach Test page, I realize it is just a test page but not only is the format absolutely dreadful, the content is being drowned in countless, oversized fair use images. // DecaimientoPoético 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
How so? Each section has ONE image to go with. The format makes it much quicker to find content and connect with with major attributes about the character you may be hunting for. That's the main goal of this layout. To maintain uniformity throughout the article.--Knighthammer 22:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Poetic is correct; when proposing an article, you make a draft somewhere (such as User:Knighthammer/Sandbox, User:Knighthammer/Modsouls, etc). When it is agreed upon then you put it into an actual article. ~SnapperTo 20:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My appologees in that regard, I didn't know individual sandboxes existed. Nothing in the help files or snadbox suggested that it existed either =(. Either way, the format is done.--Knighthammer 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
All the articles I generated are moved into my user section. --Knighthammer 22:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Remove all the images. You are not allowed to have non-free images in your userspace. Read WP:NONFREE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Then how else do you propose the article be conveyed for review? The images used are critical to illustrate the format. Give me an answer to that and I'll work on it when I have time.--Knighthammer 05:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Any "review" of any sort takes into consideration that images cannot be there. In any case, the present images are a horrendous violation of fair use - an image for every single squad, group, etc.? Read WP:NONFREE closely. Your format is also highly inconsistent - the boxes change between each set of characters, and you have ugly blank spots in practically every table, not to mention that the content selection is extremely arbitrary. To be blunt, this is not an improvement to the present page, and you would be better off thinking of an alternative method. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Second. This format is frankly god awful. The articled setup we have now is vastly superior. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Karakura High School

Is simply a list of characters already present on this page. I believe it should be redirected here or to Karakura Town, but I'll open this discussion for courtesy's sake. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a remnant of the above proposal, though this particular iteration was not actually created by User:Knighthammer. It, as well as the rest of the mistakenly created theoretical articles, should probably be redirected elsewhere. ~SnapperTo 03:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've redirected it to Karakura Town. Further comments can be made here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Ashido

Yes. Someone has made an Ashido article. I'm not sure exactly how to go through the motions of nominating it for deletion. He's a minor, anime-filler character who probably won't last past the next 2 or 3 episodes. C'mon, we don't even have an article for Nel Tu, but we have one for Ashido now? Cotton 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the character actually exists, deletion is unnecessary. Just redirect it. ~SnapperTo 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Clean Up Suggestions

I've made the first round of merge suggestions to get all of the Bleach character lists combined into a single list. I've seen the above discussions, and the only reason this list is so long is because it seems to contain just about every character that ever even sort of appeared in the show. Wikipedia is not a series guide and every character should NOT be included in any of these lists, just the major, significant, and notable characters should be listed (see WP:FICT, WP:N, WP:V, Anime MOS, and TV MOS). All of the individual character articles also need to be merged into the list. They fail WP:N and few, if any, would survive an AfD (as has already been seen in many recent character and episode article deletions). Fancruft and massive character articles are not appropriate on Wikipedia. Such detailed articles would be more appropriate in a Bleach wiki, one of the many anime wikis out there, or a Bleach fan site. AnmaFinotera 11:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You probably missed the entire big conversation the Bleach editors did a couple of weeks ago.--Hanaichi 13:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I read back, but I don't see anything actually addressing these issues that was then implemented. AnmaFinotera 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we just ignore all the merge suggestions unless they are willing to not just give every article an AFD. Let's be civil, people, not wild animals listening only to their own opinions. P.S. I don't support merging Kon, even someone with the English manga can get out-of-universe info for him, and you must be crazy to think you can put the List of Bleach shinigami page here, but the rest go ahead. Except the seven listed as main, Kenpachi, Byakuya, Toshiro, Kon, Aizen, and Ichimaru, and mabye Yoruichi, merge them all. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I am willing to (and will) AfD them all if no signs of a willingness to clean up the article and all the little break out articles is shown. The articles need to brought in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The merge suggestion is a way to give y'all some chance to keep whats in the other articles (in an appropriate form), and the attempt to be nice about it. With an AfD, you just lose them all and have to restart this list from scratch. My merge suggestions (and offer to help) are an attempt to let editors be proactive in taking care of the problems rather than just losing it all. Recent AfD have axed numerous character pages from anime, video games, and TV shows (even Star Trek pages). So it is extremely unlikely that any of these separate pages would survive. Keep in mind, the character information should give a general over view of each character, not minute details regurgitating every last second they appear in the series. And, FYI, the manga itself does not count as "real world" information. Real world is outside of the primary source. For Bleach, the anime and manga are primary sources and in-universe. AnmaFinotera 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I tried putting up a secondary character, and the fan reaction was quite hideous. You might have better results, though. TTN 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's because you admitted to nominating it just to make a point. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Entirely agree with a clean out of minor characters. We don't need to know the names of the skateboarders who piss Ichigo off in chapter 1. ~SnapperTo 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Minor characters are not notable enough for inclusion in a character list and those should be axed ASAP. Then go from there to clean up the rest. AnmaFinotera 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot of characters, most of whom are at least somewhat relevant to the series. A single list would be needlessly long, when forks can be made, and are encouraged, to reduce such things. Not that the pages couldn't be trimmed, of course, but not to the point that they should be stuffed into a single list. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be for the seperation but trimming, along with Someguy. One list equals a very long article, which isn't needed. The one thing I am adament against is deletion. The histories are needed.--TheUltimate3 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don;t believe you would have to worry about deletion. A character list, unless is is really, really full of pointless crap (plot summary does not fall under that), is unlikely to ever be deleted. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he meant this list. You are correct, it is unlikely to be deleted, nor should it be, though without some serious clean up, anything is possible if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters (2nd nomination) is any example. The individual character articles are all highly deletable and most (if not all) would probably fail under an AfD. Hence my suggestions for pruning and merging so the histories can be kept, while also providing a more appropriate article for Wikipedia.
Minor characters are not notable, and there should be none in character lists. A glut of minor and subcharacter lists are currently up in AfD now, including several anime related ones from series as big, or bigger, than Bleach like InuYasha and Sailor Moon. Wikipedia is not a directory of every character in a series. For this level of detail, again, it would be better served in a Bleach or anime wiki or other fan site. If the minor characters were axed out of all of the lists, and the individual descriptions cleaned up, there is no reason that the Bleach characters can not all fit into a single article, despite the length of the show. AnmaFinotera 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree that the character articles would fail AfD. I might even vote merge (sans Grimm as I voted). As for the lists, however, a quick overview of AfD shows maybe ten (I only did two days, guessing at number), two of which you just put up, and the East-Enders being understandably insignificant. Of those I checked, I see maybe two failing. This goes into my point, which is that the failing criteria is that the lists are inherently all minor characters, while these three lists are largely notable characters with minor ones tossed in. I doubt a single one would fail AfD, with merge being the likely worst-case. There's no reason to lump characters onto a single page. It's a hindrance, navigationally speaking, and it aids readers to track through specialized lists. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The average reader who has no clue about the show would find the specialized lists more confusing. How are they supposed to know where to find information about certain characters if they are relatively new to the show and have no idea what each of the categories is. A well done article could easily accommodate all of the characters in a single list if the effort were made to do so. As it stands now, a reader may have to read through six different articles to get an over view of the show characters. That, to me, is a hindrance. AnmaFinotera 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
In some ways it's one, in others…you get the idea. For the uninitiated, it might be a problem to look through several different pages. Then again, people generally have an idea of what they're looking at when visiting any given article, even if it's at the most basic level. As for the six pages things, You seem to be blowing it out of proportion a bit. assuming you make your way from the main article, or even a sub, it's three at the most unless you've no clue what you're looking for. The way I see it, a bit of page jumping is a small price for helpful forking. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) To the Warcraft example, from what I've seen, character lists for video games, short of things like Halo, are generally hard to justify as pages. That deletion doesn't particularly surprise me. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Very true, though interestingly for the Warcraft one, it came after individual character articles were getting AfDed and a merge was suggested, now the merged article is also up for AfD. *doh* AnmaFinotera 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ouch, a lot has changed since I participated in the September discussion. I think that we should keep the character list, and especially the Quincy (Bleach) article seeing as that itself has the descriptions and history of the Quincy. As for Shinji and Hanataro, I really think its time to reconsider merging them. Having a single long list of characters might be VERY tedious and tiring to read, and thats why we seperated them in the first place.--Hanaichi 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Mergings can work for some of the articles but not with the Shinigami article. Even a newcomer to the series would know enough or relatively come quick to the conclusion that the character they're looking for would be a shinigami or not. The soul reapers are a class of themselves like the hollows, easily identifiable and separate. It would be an annoyance to readers to merge the Shinigami article even if we managed to trim off the unnecessary tidbits and shorten prose. Basically it's just an overload of information. That's also putting aside that the series is still on-going and info is constantly being updated whenever coming up. Fox816 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just removed some unmentionables. Preparing to merge some characters. P.S., when I referred to Kon, I meant at the end of several volumes is something called "Radio Kon Baby", where Kon and another character answer a series of fan mail sent by fans of the series about the other character hosting. This counts as out-of-universe info. He scored high in popularity polls during the first part of the serries, and people even sent their own versions of Kon dolls they made to Kudo. Kon has out-of-universe info we haven't even listed yet. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Having the character break the fourth wall does not have anything to do with the real world. It may work as supplemental info, though. Real world info would be things such as the creation of Kon's initial concept, personality, design, ect, how the fans have reacted (contests and dolls would work well here, but they cannot be the only things present), how reviewers/critics have reacted, and anything else like that. TTN 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We could put him under others, he really is nothing but a comdy act in the anime, he never really inhabaits Ichigo's body we could list him under the modified souls section with Ririn, Kuroud and Noba.Ultimaterasengan (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So is the consensus not to merge the Shinigami list because that's what it looks like to me and if that is the case then maybe fix the merge template?? Sasuke9031 (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't tell. I think some of the discussion was on characters, but I have no idea who thought what about the Shinigami. For now, I'd be fine with removing it from the merge discussion and focusing on individual character articles and the bount list.AnmaFinotera (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


I brought it up earlier but there wasn't much play on it. Either way, the Shinigami list should remain independant from the rest. We've been workin on cleaning it up this past few weeks and it's still far too large to merge it. As well, I pointed out that the Shinigami are basically a class of their own. Like the hollows, it's best to keep them separate. Fox816 (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So here's a question...why does Kon seem to rate as a race equal to Hallows, Qunicy, Bounts, ect. according to the little Bleach table available at the bottom of some pages? 72.192.206.80 (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Final views?

It's been awhile since anyone posted about the merge. If I am reading correctly, Kon's article had a consensus for merge, while the rest I'm not sure. To give a better idea of consensus, please post below with an oppose/support style comment for each article suggested on an individual basis, along with your comments on why you support/oppose. Here, again, are a list of the articles currently suggested for merging:

AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • List of Bleach shinigami, support, merge here or maybe rename and expand to include all of the Soul Society characters, with a better introduction
  • List of Bounts in Bleach, support, the only thing this article has is another list of characters that could fit in the current Bount section here with clean up
  • Quincy (Bleach), support, support, if all of the OR and unnecessary content were removed, it would easily fit in the article and as there are only two in the series, there is really no WP:N to stand alone; would also support the suggestion ofmerging into Uryu's article
  • Vizard, support, no reason to have separate, and with some clean up it could easily fit into this article
  • Kon (Bleach), support, individual character fails WP:N and would not pass an AfD. Better to merge than let it get deleted.
I believe all of these articles could be covered with a single article, if steps were taken to cut down the amount of extraneous content, excessive detail, OR speculations, and reduced to proper summary style content both in the individual articles and in this one. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • List of Bleach shinigami, support AnmaFinotera's suggestion to rename it and include all characters in Soul Society, as that would also solve the Soul Society article problem.
  • List of Bounts in Bleach, support, mainly due to the fact that the bounts are not notable, as it was a filler arc.
  • Quincy (Bleach), Not supported. The Quincy are not notable all by themselves I agree, but perhaps to merge into Uryu's article would be a more viable solution?
  • Vizard, support, come on. The only notable Vizard is Ichigo Kurosaki.
  • Kon (Bleach), support. Again, come on. He's not notable. Sasuke9031 (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • List of Bleach shinigami, Reject Merge - Shinigami are an entire class of their own. Merging would make the Character list unnecessarily long even with information trimming. A renaming wouldn't be a bad idea. The vizard listing could be edged in.
  • Support merge for Kon (Bleach). I'm not sure about the Quincy or Bounts however because of placements. Fox816 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Not doing the point by point. I would agree to merging the description pages into their relevant list articles, as well as some of the characters into list articles. Aside from the Bount, I'm against merging character lists into one another, as they are quite long as is, and trimming alone will not reduce the sheer amount of volume that would result. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment If I knew how to merge, I'd go ahead and merge Kon, since that's where consensus is heading. Since I don't, if someone could merge him and tell me how to merge on my talk page. Sasuke9031 (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To merge, basically trim down the Kon article to remove any excessive stuff or OR and remove the infobox & image. Then copy/paste what's left into the Kon section here, fix any formatting and grammar to match this page and save. On the Kon page, replace everything but the categories with a Redirect and add {{R from merge}}{{R to list entry}} after the Redirect code. AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a suggestion of mine is to merge the Vizard, Quincy, and Bounts into a single article (List of races in Bleach). In doing so, we avoid overcrowding the main character list yet retain more information then we normally would.--Hanaichi 06:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think, if they were cut down some, the general Vizard, Quincy, and Bount could just be nice introductions to those sections of the list. AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Doing what Hanaichi suggested would be kind of like what was done with the Espada, which would be something I would totally support. The articles would still be merged, but not as much info would have to be lost. As for Kon, he deserves to be merged here in this article. Sasuke9031 (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus - as it seems consensus is with keeping Bleach shinigami separate, I've gone ahead and removed that one from the merge list. I have started a discussion on that list about the idea of renaming it and expanding it to cover all of the Soul Society. AnmaFinotera (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of some extremely minor characters

I think in a discussion a few weeks ago someone declared that they unilaterally deleted some extremely minor characters, like Mrs. Shinmura and the 3 kids whom Ichigo beat up in the first chapter. While I can understand the reasoning of the user, this is simply unencyclopedic behavior and against the purpose of Wikipedia, which aims to bring comprehensive coverage of its topics. Every series on Wikipedia has a list of minor characters, and in many series they're specially called List of minor characters in Series. If someone is of the opinion that such characters would clutter this page, I propose making a list of minor characters in Bleach, each one with no more than 1-2 lines of text. Examples are the two above, as well as Hiyosu and Akon, Raku the cat, the little girl whom Kon and Matsumoto saved from a hollow, etc. Otherwise, I think the user who made this deletion should repair their damage because it would take much longer for anyone else to do this as they might not know when the edit took place and what exactly was removed.

Again, I do not support providing an in-depth background about every single character, no matter how minor, but they should at least be listed, possibly even without descriptions.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an incorrect sweeping argument. Most shows do NOT have lists of minor characters and all relevant MOS not that minor characters should specifically not be included in the list of characters and only need mention in the episode/volume summaries and if they have had any minor impact in another character's section. It is not unencyclopedic behavior, it is, in fact, in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a guide for shows. That level of minute detail is appropriate and welcome on the Bleach wikia, but not here. The removal of those minor characters was supported by other editors and properly handled. It does not need to be undone at all. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a link to a manual of style which says that they 'should specifically not be included in the list of characters'. There are some lists, like List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball, which lists ridiculously minor characters like Marron and Akuman, including descriptions which are far too large, same with Selipa and Toma in List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball, whose only purpose was to die (in a 40-minute TV special), etc., and this is after some deletionist crusader removed all the DB/Z character articles (I think each of the above characters had his own article). For other series, Inuyasha has an article for practically every lesser character, such as Ah-Un; Prison Break (not anime) has an article for Pad Man, who is probably on par with Chōjirō Sasakibe in terms of notability. I realize that I haven't provided a true 'list of minor characters' only, but the above were all for series that I know well. For series which I don't watch, here's a short list of such articles, including (for anime), List of minor characters in One Piece, which seems to list just about every character possible. Again though, please point me to a rule about how minor characters should not be included in lists. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument in a discussion. Minor characters are not notable. Just because fans have made articles doesn't mean they are appropriate. Many such pages have been AfDed, and many more will be heading there as other editors find them, and you might notice that one of those examples you pointed out is already tagged for merging because it shouldn't exist. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia so of course some slip through. As for rule, its call WP:N, with WP:FICTION and the anime and TV MOS's to help some more. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It is convenient for you to point to a generic guideline like WP:N to 'prove' your point, except that none of the links you provided states that minor characters should not be listed in a broader list of characters. Please provide evidence for your claims. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just also noticed, WP:FICT's very status as a guideline is disputed, and it has been stripped to a bare-bone version of its former self. Ha! The reason is obvious - because good contributing Wikipedians are fed up with deletionist crusaders trying to delete every article related to fiction. As Jimbo Wales said, the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not notability. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The entire guideline isn't disputed; how to deal with non-notable articles is disputed. Does it immediately go to AfD? Does someone start a merge discussion on its talk page? Does the material get sent to a wikia? etc. ~SnapperTo 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with AnmaFinotera on this. The three kids Ichigo beat up in the beginning are just not notable enough to even warrant a section. You can't have every single victim, or monster, or character to be noted down. Such things exist for the wikia. I see List of minor Sailor Moon characters do not have extremly minor characters, like the boy who resembles Shinnosuke from Crayon Shin-chan or the artist who was speculated to be gay. It has characters which appear in a special segment, or recurrs quite a number of times.

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Currently half of our articles in the Bleach series do not have real world information or reliable sources independent of the subject and not to mention is written in a in universe style. Unless such things could be found, we fail WP:FICT - Editors must prove, preferably in the article itself, that there is an availability of sources providing real-world information by: providing hyperlinks to such sources; outlining a rewrite, expansion, or merge plan; and/or gaining the consensus of established editors. Although WP:FICT is currently disputed, the fact remains clear that we cannot list the extremely minor characters unless they have some sort of real world information or is important to the series.--Hanaichi 11:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about notability for individual sections or, by extension, entire articles. I'm talking about notability to be included for a list. There's no evidence whatsoever that something can be non-notable for a list. Technically, there isn't even a policy or guideline preventing listing of completely ordinary non-notable people, as long as the article's topic is notable. An example is a local town's [insert a sort] team, which is barely notable in itself, but should (for completeness) list its roster, probably consisting of completely non-notable people. You can't try to delete just the roster, because the article would not be complete without it. Same here - in the name of comprehensive coverage, there's no reason not to include each and every character in the series in a list. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If it was just a random minor league team, it could probably be tagged with {{db-group}} without incident. Even if that weren't the case, a roster isn't necessarily required; knowing that Patré Pickleton plays pitcher doesn't add to your understanding of the team, as you already know that someone will be playing that position. This gets back to WP:NOT#INFO; just because something is true doesn't mean it needs to be mentioned. That Don Kanonji weighs 71kg is interesting I suppose, but how does that really matter to anything? That those skateboarders that pissed Ichigo off have names is perhaps a nice tidbit of information, but why would you need to know their names? They aren't mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, and they only appear in the series for four pages. Many things add to an article's "completeness", but very few of those things would actually be missed. ~SnapperTo 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the VA's name is right

I was watching Bleach on the Internet, when I heard Don Kanonji's voice. I know it's the same one that was used in Bo-Bo Bo, so I think the name is wrong. Can anyone tell me if I'm right or not? Neo Guyver (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How to handle popularity information?

Yesterday I added some info on the popularity pools. Most character articles include notes on their popularity (which I don't think age too well, incidentally, since they use wording such as "the most recent character popularity pool"), and IMNSHO it only makes sense to at least mention the matter here. The Manga itself has at least clear references to those pools, and they are becoming even more proeminent as of late. Despite that, the section was removed very soon. I think it should stay, and welcome suggestions for alternatives. Luis Dantas (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire section is rather short and much of the info provided is a given (e.g. That popularity tends to change based on progression of the storyline). Everything could be expressed in a single sentence, maybe two. It ends up being just a sliver of information for readers, not so important to devote an entire section to it where expansion is slim to none. As well, SJ polls are rather standard for their popular series so Bleach is no exception. I do agree that information about the polls themselves should be noted somewhere. The best place would be on the Bleach (manga) article since it's general information relating to the manga and franchise, where it's more appropriate. At best only one or two liners are needed and can be fitted onto one of prose in the intro paragraph to the article. Lists and individual character articles should only contain poll results for the characters where it's relavent. Fox816 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that rather than having a section on it, the information should be added in to each character's profile. The 'most recent' thing shouldn't be there, either. It should state the 'fourth' for that one. And I think information on how the characters did in older popularity polls is relevant, too. So my suggestion would be to delete that section, but add info from each of the polls to the individual character profiles (either on their own page, or on the List pages such as this one).Kuwabaratheman (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A history of poll results serves very little purpose. The poll results themselves don't garner that much importance to have that kind of detail, hence why sticking to just recent results is preferred. Some of the time a high/low record is kept as in the highest and lowest ranks that character has achieved. That provides a slight increase in perspective in how the character has done overall with the fan base. Fox816 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Editting Suggestions

I think people are going off to the wrong direction. Editting should be done to improve readability and accuracy. We should not shorten an article solely for the sake of shortening it if the article is already readable to common folks. Also, this is not a courtroom and we're not lawyers. Use the wikipedia as guidelines in how to improve the article not to use it to fight. Discussion about plot summary should take place in the discussion page of plot summary not character page and vise versa. Bleach is a world with a lot of depth and characters, so i don't think it is weird that it would spawn so many long articles (look at star wars articles or articles on shakespearean plays, no one is complaining about those). I recommend everyone to try to add tags and move things around to organize things but avoid outright deletions to the best of your ability, then everyone will be happy. Ssh83 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Return to cleanup

With the arbitration case included and the injunction concluded, we are free to continue with the merge options discussed above. Also note that I have started working on Rukia Kuchiki for a GA run, with the model being the recent Naruto GAs (Sasuke Uchiha, Sakura Haruno, Kakashi Hatake, also Gaara at WP:GAN). I'll begin adding an "appearances in other media" section to the aforementioned article, but the remaining sections need to be condensed and properly cited using {{cite book}}. My only quibble is that there's a lack of conception information - is anyone aware of a source of conception information for the Bleach characters? If it's not available, then it's not available, but it would make the process smoother if it did. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you about lack of conception information. Can anyone find a copy of the Bleach Databooks Online? There HAS to be one somewhere....There's "Every Colour But The Black" & "VIBE ANIMation: Souls" RedEyesMetal (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Add all the pages to WikiProject

Why can't these be added to WikiProject? The simple solution is not always the best solution. Not when there is soo much that can be added and improved to each page. It's not like any of these pages a stubs. Neovu79 (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the pages are in the Anime and manga Wikiproject. They need to be merged because they fail WP:FICT. This is a work initiated in part by the project because we want to improve our articles within the guidelines of Wikipedia.AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is missing that makes these pages fail WP:FICT? If so, why not impove them to make them comply with the guidelines? What I've noticed since joining Wiki a while back is that most people are lazy and do not want to put in the amount of time needed to work on pages. Instead of working on them to make the better and/or comply to Wiki guidelines, they make thing worse by deletion, merging or reverting articles. There would be less controversy and talk over things like these if they aren't taking the easy way out. Neovu79 (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with laziness. WP:FICT requires individual character and episode articles have SIGNIFICANT real-world coverage in third-party reliable sources. Primary sources can NOT be used to establish this notability (which would include the manga series, the anime series, art books, fan books, etc). Most, if not all, of the Bleach characters lack this. What doesn't exist doesn't exist and no amount of effort by Wikipedia users will fix that. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
While I am inclined to agree, most of the problem revolves around Google and its filtration systems. Maybe if we could have a search engine that allowed fansite filters and stuck to WP:N principles, we could actually keep the articles. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with there being some articles missing notability, there are plenty of third-party sources out there can satisfy WP:N, for example Newtype, Shonen Jump or OTAKU magazine. The question is, who is willing to research the information? Neovu79 (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If you believe such notability exists, then improve them. That months upon months have passed without notability asserted are a big an indication as any. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, if I wasn't working on other Wiki pages, I would. I'm trying to get other decenters to help out instead. Not, saying any of you fall into that catagory but I believe a lot do. Neovu79 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've written quite a few fictional character articles, and as such, have a fairly good idea about what is notable and not in this regard. The majority of these characters aren't notable period. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I can agree with that, but I do beleive that there are a few exceptions that can be WP:N that would greatly benefit from working to avoid many Wiki controversies. Neovu79 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If notability could be proven, we wouldn't be having this discussion. All of your points ignore the fact that absolutely no notability is asserted for the grand majority of these characters. Provide the relevant sources to prove such notability or the articles are merged. It's a quite simple matter. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
After review of many of these articles the last couple of hours, I hate to admit it, but you guys are right. All of these characters in the Merge do not factor in strongly in the series and do not deserve mainstream attention. I do like to add that Kenpachi Zaraki should be moved to the Merged catagory. Neovu79 (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We're currently looking up out-of-universe info on Zaraki. Once we conclude if he has or hasn't enough out-of-universe info, then he will be merged or kept. For an article with enough out-of-universe info, take a look at the Naruto character articles. Once we bring them up to THAT level, then we can keep the articles. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah, wait. I agree that Soifon and Kaname and the rest should definitely be merged, but are you sure about merging Urahara? Doesn't he count as a main character? After all, with him and the Hougyoku (however you spell it), wouldn't he count as a person representing a big part of the series. I have to reread that stuff on notabliity. And I agree that we should merge Zaraki. He doesn't represent an insanely important place in the series. IceUnshattered (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We're not working on importance towards the plot, but the amount of out-of-universe information that can be brought up for that character. Zaraki might have enough out-of-universe information to be kept, along with other characters. Unless we are sure there is enough out-of-universe information on the character, which basically means GA-level, then we can keep them. If not, then we merge them. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a thankyou

I just wanted to say thankyou for all the work people put into this. I watched the anime episodes first and then started reading the manga, and I was so confused when the manga showed Shiba Kukaku with a stump for a left arm, because I remembered her having one in the anime, and I was started to wonder if I was having trouble seeing or if the poses were just weird...75.2.53.198 (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

Can someone please link me to the consensus where Shinigami were going to be called Soul Reapers here? It's cool either way, but it threw me for a loop. Sasuke9031 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go: Talk:Bleach (manga)#Soul Reaper vs. Shinigami. The article will be renamed and all usages changed over. Its being done now. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. You linked to the article for the chemical, but I was able to find the info. (At least this wasn't as bad as the Paein debacle. Thank Goodness!!!) Sasuke9031 (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, see what happens when you post at 2 am ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

R O-o-U info for the Kisuke Urahara article

I know this is a weird request, but I'm lazy, so can someone dig up enough out-of-universe info from reliable sources for the Kisuke Urahara article to pass WP:FICT and WP:N? AnimeNikkaJamal (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Shinigami Research Institute

I think there probably needs to be a short two or three-liner about the members of the Shinigami Research Institute on this page (the ones who work with Mayuri and Urahara), mostly since they have appeared a couple times in the series and in the omake (mostly Akon but maybe a couple others too) and as a note to their connection to 12th Squad. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Voice

Did anyone find out last night who played the voice of Kuroudo? I tried to read the end credits, but it was difficult. 209.247.23.41 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

On several articles (e.g., list of Bounts in Bleach) a merge with this article has been proposed.

  • Oppose; the article is going to bee too long for Wikipedia's standards. Lysis rationale (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, just keep it at a list for each race. StardustDragon 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Clean up Part II - Getting references etc.

I'd like to say that I've been digging up character reception and other information for the characters and I've found some info for Ishida, Kon, Renji, Byakuya, Aizen & Gin. The sections do need re-writing though...and I'm still looking for out-of-universe information concerning Kisuke, Ukitake & Mayuri. I am trying hard and I really don't want them to be merged. RedEyesMetal (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Find some for Mayuri, he's one of my favorite Soul Reapers next to Ikkaku and Gin, the former of which already got merged and the latter doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Urahara merchandise is available, but that alone won't hold up in his article. StardustDragon 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Layout and merging

See my sandbox. Similar to List of Naruto characters. In sections describing groups, characters get listed in prose similar to Characters of Kingdom Hearts, as putting headers for individual characters when they are being listed in prose feels weird. Discuss. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks good. Very clean. The only change I would make is instead of "Other Inhabitants" just make it "Other". Inhabitants is sort of an iffy plus we can include some of the stand alone main characters like Senna from the movie as well as the Mod Souls under that listing. Fox816 (talk) 01:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Senna would actually be more appropriate on the actual movie article, and I don't think any of the mod souls except Kon (who can go under "Kurosaki family") really need to be mentioned (the Bount arc ones can go under "Urahara Shop"). The only mod soul besides these two is Chappy, who appears for one episode and that's really it, as far as I can remember. And I think "inhabitants" can work, as it's an actual place, and Ganju, Kukaku, the one gatekeeper Ichigo fought (his name eludes me at the moment), and all the characters in the present arc can be included there. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
The main problem with giving Bleach articles the "Naruto treatment" (for lack of a better term) is that the characters' abilities are so intricate. With Naruto you can leave it at just the effect (ie. Shino controls bugs + room to elaborate), whereas with Bleach you've got zanpakuto name (translations + kanji + romanji), release command (translations + kanji + romanji), appearance before and after its releases, released effect, and finally anything else worthy of note. Including all of that leaves you with twice as much content as a character with an equal level of impact in Naruto. A solution for this is needed if you're going to put so many characters on the same page. ~SnapperTo 03:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that's my big issue here, and why I realized that trying to merge List of Soul Reapers in Bleach simply wasn't going to happen. As for this list, the only section I can really see this becoming an issue in is the Espada section, but let's look at an rough example of how it would look.

...Zommari Leroux, the Seventh Espada, is the self-proclaimed fastest Espada, with his movement fast to the point that he form afterimages when he moves. His zanpakutō, Brujería (呪眼僧伽（ブルヘリア）, Buruheria, Spanish: "witchcraft," Japanese: "sangha of bewitching eyes"), is released with the command "suppress" (鎮まれ, shizumare), and covers his body with eyes, replacing his legs with a circular structure with eyes on it as well. When he gazes upon something with one of his eyes, he can take control of its movements. The Eighth Espada is Szayel Aporro Granz, the scientist of the Espada, and as a result, he is adept at analyzing his opponent's abilities and nullifying them using his inventions. When released with the command "sip" (啜れ, susure), Szayel's zanpakutō, Fornicarás (邪淫妃（フォルニカラス）, Forunikarasu, Spanish: "will fornicate," Japanese: "lewd concubine") grants him a pair of long wing-like structures while covering his lower body with tentacles. In this form, Szayel can utilize a variety of abilities, including making clones of his opponents, creating voodoo dolls of them in order to destroy their internal organs, and impregnating himself into his opponent in order to reproduce himself while tearing his host apart...

So yeah, it's long. I suppose you could cut out the naming details and go the "Naruto route" by simply stating what his abilities are in his regular and released states without going into naming, but I would like to preserve the information (although I'm increasingly seeing this as the route we have to go, at least for very minor characters). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, on second thought, it wouldn't be that long (at least for now). #1-4 have shown no abilities (although you would have a bit more detail for Ulquiorra), #5-9 are the big chunk, and Yammy can be summed up in a sentence or two. It would be a bit long, but I suppose it could work. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh, so you are going the prose route. Either way, while size issues might initially be avoided, problems are going to arise eventually. All the Espada, the handful of notable hollows/arrancar, Uraraha, Yoruichi, Tessai, Isshin, Aizen and friends, the Vizard, and the Bount (though the dolls don't seem that complex?) are undoubtedly going to have release information by the end of the series. That creates a great size burden, especially when the kb-consuming refs are added for all of it. You could skip over naming details as is done with the Naruto articles, but that would seem rather incomplete. Not to emulate the Naruto articles, but a List of Bleach antagonists would be the best way to alleviate some of the inevitable pressure without sacrificing content. ~SnapperTo 18:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. The page is going to get really long at this rate. List of Bleach antagonists is probably warranted. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I've got some time on my hands. Want me to take care of that antagonists list now? StardustDragon 01:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging

Oh, and just to clarify, the following would be merged:

My big sticking point is making sure that the page doesn't get so big, which is why I inserted a {{main}} template for the Gotei 13 pointing to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach. I'm still iffy on the notability on the lesser members in the "protagonists" section, but oh well. List of hollows in Bleach is a giant collection of one-shot enemies and in-universe summary that needs to go (do we need to cover the hollow Ichigo kills in the first episode and every subsequent one he kills during the first arc?). The Espada can be summarized in the antagonists section (present article has four paragraphs on a twenty chapter character, and we have to have a whole paragraph on appearance for every character?), but how best to organize it (bold headers + span tags to avoid having to use lots of level four headers is my preference, or it can just be solid prose). Onto the rest of the articles, the following simply need to go, as they're AfD bait.

  • Quincy (Bleach) - completely in-universe, long list of attacks, WP:NOT#PLOT bait.
  • Soul Reaper (Bleach) - same reason. Material is way too detailed and can be summarized at List of Soul Reapers in Bleach.
  • Hollow (Bleach) - same reason.
  • Bount - same reason, and even less justifiable than the previous two.
  • Kidō - giant list of attacks, more WP:NOT#PLOT bait. We lost the jutsu lists at the Naruto articles, and kidō is far less prominent in the Bleach universe than jutsu is in the Naruto universe.
  • Zanpakutō - giant list of weapons, NOT#PLOT bait, etc. We already discuss zanpakutō for practically all characters, so this article is really redundant.

I can see a Bleach universe or Universe of Bleach article having some weight, considering that I think the setting receives some reception, so the above can fit nicely into it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merge idea.--Tintor2 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with the merge idea and the planned arrangement. Looks like a good, neutral way to sort them. I also agree on the need to deal with the rest of the articles. I don't know if a Bleach universe type article would work. Any thing available about it other than some reception? Creation/conception for example? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Soul Reaper has survived two afds, so the kido, zanpakuto can go there. Hollow page can go into the hollow list I suppose, and the Espada list too, maybe. Bount and Quincy onto the character page. As long as at least the main characters have pages, I won't complain. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Good idea. I agreed that the Espada split was ok for WP:SIZE but I think the Espada, like the Akatsuki, have worn out their welcome and a full antagonist section is warranted at this point. I'd also go for a merge for just about everything you covered with maybe the Urahara article being merged yet copied to a sandbox for anyone with way too much free time on their hands to maybe find some info that asserts notability, much like Tintor is doing with Itachi in his userspace. Sasuke9031 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Sure, Hollows and Espada should be merged into something like List of Naruto antagonists, alhough I suppose that simply summarizing Espada as prose text is a bad idea (it'll mess them). As for Bleach universe... Seemes that the main point of interest and reception in the universe is the shinigami world. What else? --deerstop (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Ah, Sephiroth BCR, in your sandbox, which group Don Kanonji belongs to? ^_^ --deerstop (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera, to answer your question, concept/creation information is hard to find since NONE of the Bleach databooks have been released in English, neither the artbooks. I've been trying to find if theres a translation online, but then no luck still. So I'm sorry to say, reception is the only thing we can work with. As for Kisuke, I'm still working on finding universe reception for him. I'll have a bit more...RedEyesMetal (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
By universe, you are referring to out-of-universe, right? Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why merge the Espada list? The article is fine as it is now and we should really try to preserve the information on there. The article we're looking to create here is enormous as is. 209.83.240.60 (talk) 17:36, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if we're talking about getting rid of the Zanpakuto list we shouldn't get rid of the section specifically talking about the Zanpakuto in each character's bio, if that isn't already understood. 209.83.240.60 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I undid the merge on the Quincy article simply because the merge deleted valuable information about Quincy items and abilities. Quincys should have their own article so that they can be explained in depth. I left the merged stuff about the Quincy characters on the List of Characters in Bleach article because it was fine. I dont think the Quincy article should be merged anymore. Lets just focus on increasing the info about Quincy on it okay :) 24.178.106.120 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't your choice to make. Consensus was clear, it stays merged. Your attempt to undo it was already undone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't a true merge in the first place, an entire article was deleted then only character descriptions were added to the list of characters. The info about the Quincy people as a whole was lost. By the way, I left the merged info, I accidentally undid it then put it back, all I did afterward was restore the deleted Quincy article. 24.178.106.120 (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The merge was fine. Merge does not mean you put the entire old article into the new one. Its merging the relevant info, not all of it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I have redone the merge of the quincy article in a more favorable way, only the character section of the article was merged, the rest of the quincy article remains as-is, no valuable information was lost. 24.178.106.120 (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody cares about the techniques. The merge is fine StardustDragon 03:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
And besides, even if it is merged, the info is still there for posterity and research, which is better than what would have happened if it had not been merged, which is total deletion. This way, if info does come up that makes it notable (doubt it, but you never know) we have a base with which to start it back up. The best thing I can say at this point is any techniques that are remotely noteworthy should be merged into Uryu's article (assuming he uses them) though I seriously doube that they are anything more than fancruft and thus would not be inclined to do so myself. The rest looks fine as is (post-merge of course). Sasuke9031 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The Grimmjow and Ulquiorra merges have gone nowhere since we left off. Sephiroth already ordered we merge them both a long time ago, can I go ahead and do that now?StardustDragon 14:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes on both. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Done. That's my first merge, so feel free to correct anything I didn't do right. StardustDragon 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Looks fine to me. Only note (both for you and other mergers) is to remind folks when you do the redirect on the merged article, make sure to add {{CharR to list entry|Bleach}} after the redirect so its properly categorized. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Can't believe that bullshit's finally over... those discussions have been at a standstill with no input from anything but anonymous IP fanboi's for such a long time. StardustDragon 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

With the recent cleanup done to the Naruto characters (resulting in two GAs: Sasuke Uchiha and Sakura Haruno, and Kakashi Hatake at WP:GAN), a similar approach can be taken here.

The following in terms of merges should likely take place. For the sake of brevity, I will point to WP:FICT, as several of the editors here are involved in editing the Naruto characters and are familiar with the reasoning. Taken realistically, the grand majority of the present characters do not meet the aforementioned guideline, and should be merged into a list, as they will likely never survive an AfD. Please note that whether these articles are kept or not depends entirely on the degree of reception they get from reliable independent sources. "Importance" to the plot is irrelevant, "future importance" is original research and speculation, and mere popularity (in other words, solely having the Shonen Jump polls) does not guarantee one an article. Anyhow, the following are my recommendations in terms of merging:

Keep:

Fairly straightforward. Note that characters featured relatively early in the plot stand the best chance of acquiring articles, as they are the ones who get reception from English sources, which is where the entirety of our reception information is coming from.

Ambiguous:

Sado is featured early, but slightly less prominently than his peers. Aizen is probably fine, but I'm iffy as well.

Merge:

All either far too minor, featured far too late for any significant English reception, or both.

How they will be merged, or rather what they will be merged into is one of the subjects of this discussion. The character lists also need major cleanup, but I would rather resolve the issue of merging before moving onto that. Anyway, as for the character articles that stay, they would be reformatted practically the same way as the aforementioned Naruto character GAs, and the in-universe information reduced to a manageable amount. Discuss. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree on the need to merge, and support merging all of the suggested ones and the ambiguous ones into either this list, or the other appropriate character list. For the keeps...I would agree Ichigo should be able to support a stand alone article. While the others have early appearances, I'm not sure they have the real-world to support, but would agree on giving them a chance. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Merge all those suggested as soon as the ArbCom thing is over. They really aren't all that notable and truly should be merged. If WP:SIZE concerns anyone in terms of merging the shinigami, maybe a major and minor list is in order. Either way, this needs to be done. Sasuke9031 (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. There is a lot of information to work with. Instead if shrinking it, FIX them. That's what WikiProjects are for. Neovu79 (talk) 05:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
I think Chad and Aizen are worthy of keeping their articles, and I'd argue in favor of Urahara and Grimmjow as well, although there should probably some more out of universe information for all of them if available. The others should definitely be merged in their present state. How Soifon even has an article is beyond me.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd think Urahara could sustain an article, though I suppose the amount of mystery surrounding him doesn't help much in that regard. Aizen and Chad should be fine by themselves. ~SnapperTo 06:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
(Thank you for telling me about this, Sephiroth) I agree with those that have made the keep list, and the two that mabye the iffy list and Urahara should also be considered (not saying yes or no yet, however). I once merged Soifon, Rangiku, and Ukitake, (they were reverted, though) so you could use my old versions to merge them. The rest will be a more difficult matter. Bleach is not as popular a series as Naruto, however, and thus there is not a definite answer to how much info we can find on these characters, so we should see the degree of out-of-universe info about the ones you suggested for keep along with my three iffy ones before we stick to who does get kept and who doesn't. If there is not much, then a merge will be appropriate. This won't be as easy as was Naruto for another reason, and that is that we at the Naruto articles had already finished most of the merging, unlike here. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to post after myself, but if I have read correctly here, article related to televisions series are no longer to be deleted, redirected, merged, unredirected, unmerged, or undeleted until a final decision is made. Until such is made, all we can do is discuss our options. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Naturally, no actual merging will be done until the conclusion of that particular arbitration case, but it doesn't hurt to get the ball moving. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It also isn't against the injunction to begin including the material into the target article. Merge or no merge, the characters should be summarized on the list anyways. --Farix (Talk) 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
From the requests for clarifications that actually got answered, the merge work in terms of editing and moving in content can be done before the injunction is listed, I think. Its just the merged in articles can't be redirected or deleted, and no new tags added regarding merging or notability. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Which is why some of us are trying to get the ball rolling. The injunction was useful at first, but it's blown into full on annoying. On the hindrance scale, it's about a 7.9. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Everything looks pretty solid. There's really nothing more I can add apart from support and helping in the merges. To save on size, we could possibly try keeping the information about individual soul reaper zanpakuto's to a bare minimum seeing as the Zanpakuto have their own article and information is straight-forward and detailed there already. Possibly just a couple of liners of direct info : commands and shikai / bankai forms (not abilities which can be read over in the zanpakuto article). Fox816 (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
This is a lot of information to merge into one page. Instead of merging, why can't people focuss there energy into fixing each individual page because there is a lot of information for each character to work with. Neovu79 (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Just so y'all know, the injunction ceased to be in effect as of a few hours ago, so if you want to further discuss this and/or merge anything, it's OK now. Thanks for sticking it out through the "Month of Hell" and good luck. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely not support the merger of Urahara's article. Given the central place he has within bleach and the relative amount of information given about him he is certainly important enough to warrant a separate article. 137.73.22.142 (talk) 11:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Chad is a main character. Merge him, and you might as well merge everyone into one big, fat, messy laundry list. Urahara is also far too pivotal a character to have his article merged. His article is currently substantial, and will only become more refined as the series progresses and his character continues to develop (which it will). Merging Aizen, the primary antagonist, is similarly silly. The only suggested merges that do make any sense at all to me are: Ikkaku, Isshin, and potentially Matsumoto and Rangiku. Mayuri is not the series's primary antagonist, but he is Ishida's primary antagonist, and has played a major role in both the SS and HM arcs. He has also appeared in the recent flashback arc, and has been linked with Urahara. Ukitake isn't as major a figure, currently, as Mayuri, but occupies an instrumental role in the story as Rukia's mentor. Ukitake is guaranteed to receive further development, and merging him now will just mean making a new article for him later. (His article is substantial, as is, anyway.) Yoruichi goes hand-in-hand with Urahara in terms of plot-relevance: she is the piece that he moves on the board, and her influence in the SS arc was enormous. Ichimaru and Tousen, I suppose, might "justifiably" be merged on the poor basis that neither has "done much," which would be untrue, but again, merging them now would mean making them new articles later. They are Aizen's right-hand men, Tousen especially has already been quite fleshed out, and Ichimaru will be - the plot has dropped more teasing remarks about Ichimaru than substantial ones about Isshin. Ulquiorra and Grimmjow might also be merged under the logic that would merge Tousen and Ichimaru, but Ulquiorra and Grimmjow are the HM arc's top dogs, in terms of plot, Grimmjow even more so for being Ichigo's rival. And Kon - poor Kon - I guess he could be merged because he plays such a little role in the narrative, but in my mind, he embodies all of Bleach's comedy - he's like a physical representation of part of what makes the show itself - and his article, like all of these articles, currently IS substantial. The only reason it would "need" to be merged is if someone wanted to act in the capacity of a righteous clean-up crew. And as for Soifon, while she might not be major, she is a solid and developed character with cards up her sleeve which she hasn't yet come close to showing. She's larger than minor, though not quite major, but major enough to get her own article. So, in my mind:
MUST KEEP: Chad, Aizen, Urahara, Yoruichi, Mayuri, Ukitake
Should Keep: Soifon, Ichimaru, Tousen, Ulquiorra, Grimmjow
Could Be Merged Potentially, But Have What Are Currently Good Articles Anyway: Ikkaku, Matsumoto, Isshin, Kon
And actually, I think that Ikkaku and Yumichika should share their own article. CowofYes (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Let me just say about Mayuri, have you seen how much content we have on him? Sure, he lacks concept and creation notes, but look how much we've learned about him in terms of character development. If you wanna try and cut all that information on him into 3/4 Paragraphs then I'm sorry, you are out of your mind. Anyway, I'm trying to look for some real-world reception for him, wish me luck. Aizen, I'm trying to dig up some stuff also, if anyone could lend me hand, I'd be grateful. RedEyesMetal (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


I realise my opinon probbaly doens't matter, but we can't merge Isshin into the List of Current Shingami. If we do that, we spoil an EXTREMELY late chapter where that is revealed. If Isshin is not kept seperate, you will be spoiling his part of the Plot, infact, you might have already spoiled some of it because of that Tag at the top of his page. I also belive that the Espada should get sperate Articles. It might not make much sense, but the Espada, more then any other hollow, deserve their own pictures of Realeses, and I have noticed that most of the joint pages have almost no pictures at all. Not giving the Espada pictures of their release and Zanpaktous, would be the equivalant of not showing the Known Captain's Shikais, or Renji's. They are important characters, even if they recive little page time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.185.207 (talk) 18:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone and we don't do anything to try to hide spoilers. For a character to have its own article, they must have real-world notability and meet the requirements of WP:FICT. Their role within the series is irrelevant. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
If that was true, we wouldn't have spoiler warnings on the pages, but there are. He isn't going to win any popularity contests, I will admit that, but then again, neither will Renji, or even Ichigo anymore, due to the "Hitsuyga Boom" as I refer to the fact that he just jumped up to the top as fast as he did, but at the same time, you can't say that it has to be focused purely on their outside Notability, that makes no sense, because then Ulquorria should keep his own Atricle, and Momo should have her own, as should everyone else who reached the Top 10 this last time, btu thats not the case, because some of the favirotes have too little information to actually make an article, while Isshin has enough information to make one, he has been in just about every volume so far, and many more then Momo, so you can't say that it should be based on Popularity in the Real World alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.13.185.207 (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
If there are spoiler warnings, they should be removed immediately. They don't belong, period. As for the est, it has nothing to do with "popularity" in the real world, but notability, which is a different issue. Their roles in the series, their popularity among fans, etc has absolutely nothing to do with whether they meet the requirements for their own articles. Its the availability of real-world, reliably sourced content on the characters real world aspects, including creation/conception, reception, and any cultural impacts. If all you can say about the character is a plot summary and the results of reader popularity polls, he/she isn't notable and at best belongs in a list of characters list.AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to point out where the spoiler warnings are and we'll be happy to remove them for you. Fox816 (talk) 17:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've seen Urahara hat replicas for sale as official Bleach merchandise. I dunno if that fits into cultural impacts or whatever, but it's there. StardustDragon 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We who are working on the Bleach articles are currently hoping to make our character articles look like the Naruto characters articles, FOUR!!!! of which are of GA-status. The Naruto articles contain not only stuff from the plot, but also information about the creation and reception of the characters, and their appearances in media that are not part of the serialization, all of which have reliable, third-part sources not related to Kishimoto's serialization. In short, except for Rukia Kuchiki, all of the Bleach character articles are FAR from the standards of the Naruto character articles. Unless a Bleach character article can recieve that much coverage, then keeping them is a direct violation of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia on creating articles about fiction. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I would agree to merge all of the articles listed for merging, with perhaps the exception of Kisuke Urahara. I would add him to the ambiguous list for now, since he has received just about as much characterization as Aizen if not more. 4.129.80.219 (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We're no longer working with how much plot-related information we have on the characters. The only reason to justify keeping them is if they have a large number of information on their creation, reception, merchandising, and appearances in other media. Plot stuff, like where they were in this episode or whatnot, doesn't really matter. Only small summaries should be given for those characters (hence with the Naruto character articles). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • And what's so special in Kenpachi Zaraki? I think article about Aizen should stay, instead of Kenpachi Zaraki. --deerstop (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
What's-so-special about Kenpachi is that he probably has enough reception information, along with any other out-of-universe content, to become a GA-article. Same with Aizen. As was said: WE ARE NOT KEEPING ARTICLES BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF IN-UNIVERSE CONTENT!!!!! 98.21.136.27 (talk) 22:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • There's no any reception information in his article. --deerstop (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Yoruichi, her page is just as long as Kisuke's. If you get merge her's then merge Kisuke. Don't complain to me about how he is a main character. He IS NOT! Just becuase he shows up more than Yoruichi does not make him a main character. Just because he formed the team does not make him a main character! Her created very important things yes but yoruichi did important things as well. Ultimaterasengan (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you capable of reading? WE DO NOT CARE IF THEY ARE MAIN CHARACTERS OR NOT. ALL THAT MATTERS IS THE AMOUNT OF OUT OF UNIVERSE INFORMATION WE HAVE ON THEM. StardustDragon 23:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Now tell me if YOU are capable of reading. i just stated that Yoruichi has just as long of a page as Kisuke, Renji and Uryu so if you merge her you might as well merge them.Ultimaterasengan (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
No, you didn't even read what I said. How long their pages are doesn't mean shit. Is there out-of-universe information on them? Yes? Then they keep their page. No? They're merged. Easy as that. StardustDragon —Preceding comment was added at 21:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

there is pelenty of info on her.Ultimaterasengan (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not info, out of universe info. Do you understand what this is? StardustDragon 14:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree with Stardust, here. We know plenty of things about her Bleach abilities and stuff, but there's very little to know info from outside sources upon her character. Look at Rukia's page, which is a Good article, something this Project needs more of. We have a little info on Michelle Ruff's work, some info on Rukia's character, a little bit about Rukia-related merchandise...it's nicely sized and well-distributed. On the other had, we have nothing on Yoruichi from what I see on this article. That's the defining factor. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

MERGE Yoruichi as well as many other bleach characters have a main pages that contradicts with WP:FICT,and should not have a page of their own.........Grimmjow E6 (talk) 05:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How abut not merging Yoruichi, she's been shown doing useful acts in the series and has shown to have a long history with Kisuke, and traveled with the Protaginists during the Soul Socity Arc, as well as revealed the Bount are responsible during the start of the Bount Arc. She also proves to be more useful than more than half of the merged Shinigami. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.226.31 (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesus christ. This was explained just above. WE DO NOT GIVE A SHIT WHAT THEY ARE IN TERMS OF THE STORY. PERIOD. STOP BRINGING THIS UP. StardustDragon 02:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have not been reading this discussion page for a while so I don't know if there is a solution to this yet but here's my suggestion:
Protaganists-Ichigo and his friends, Urahara Shop, MAYBE Vizards, nel and her fraccion, and most of the soul reapers like captains lieutenits and ikkau and yumichika. If they have enough real world info like ichigo and maybe rukia then they keep their own articles. If not, then we try to merge them and keep most of their info like personality, abilities, and a short plot overview.
Antagonists-Aizen, Gin, Tosen, Espada and arrancar, and the bounts. If you all can find info real world info maybe aizen and gin can get their own articles.
Minor- I've seen the character list and it looks fine for minor characters like ichigo's family, his school friends and other minor characters like maybe ganju, and some soul reapers like yamamotos lieutenit, though that could maybe be merged with yama. As for Races, you can just turn that into races in bleach and merge basic info on hollows, arrancar, quincy, bounts, mod souls, vizards and soul reapers. You can also breifly talk about the abilities and maybe plot overview and try and find real world info. it needs a lot of work and will be debated but it's doable with reasonable compromise.--Sanji_1990 (talk) 21:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ririn vs. Lirin

I noted that Ririn name is now given as Lirin, because is how "adultswim" gives it (do to my browser I haven't been able to comfirm this). My question is why are we using this as her name when in "Bleach Beat Collection 2nd Session:04" her name is clearly spelled as Ririn?205.110.157.251 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:UE. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Visored?

Ok, since when did vizards become visored? Is that even correct? ~ Hyakurei (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

From the summary when the page was renamed, "visored" is used in the latest English releases of the manga. I think some discussion before the rename would have been good, but if it is used in the manga releases, then per the MoS that is the name that should be used throughout the Bleach articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Really? Huh, I'm going to have to look at some of the english manga, 'cause i don't recall that... ~ Hyakurei (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Bleach_characters/Archive_2&oldid=1136262102"