Jump to content

Talk:List of Bleach characters: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Kisuke Urahara: Vaguely aimed redundancy followed by ignoring. Brilliant.
Line 131: Line 131:
*'''Oppose to all remaining''' You know, I'm finally looking at all six of these articles right now and none of them are particularly different from one another in terms of formatting or content they present to the reader, so this should be an "all delete" or "all keep" argument. The fact we're actually using some nameless IGN editor's irrelevent fan ramblings and opinions as the sole basis to delete or include articles here is a pathetic joke. - [[User:Norse Am Legend|Norse Am Legend]] ([[User talk:Norse Am Legend|talk]]) 19:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose to all remaining''' You know, I'm finally looking at all six of these articles right now and none of them are particularly different from one another in terms of formatting or content they present to the reader, so this should be an "all delete" or "all keep" argument. The fact we're actually using some nameless IGN editor's irrelevent fan ramblings and opinions as the sole basis to delete or include articles here is a pathetic joke. - [[User:Norse Am Legend|Norse Am Legend]] ([[User talk:Norse Am Legend|talk]]) 19:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' There is more information than you could store viably in the soul reaper page without crouding it <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.168.187.191|58.168.187.191]] ([[User talk:58.168.187.191|talk]]) 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Oppose''' There is more information than you could store viably in the soul reaper page without crouding it <span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/58.168.187.191|58.168.187.191]] ([[User talk:58.168.187.191|talk]]) 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*'''Oppose''' As he appears to be the main character in Turn Back the Pendulum and there being presumably 97 more chapters of it, there is little point in my opinion to delete a decent article only to put it back months later.[[Special:Contributions/86.7.174.100|86.7.174.100]] ([[User talk:86.7.174.100|talk]]) 21:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


===[[Kaname Tōsen]]===
===[[Kaname Tōsen]]===

Revision as of 21:01, 20 September 2008

WikiProject iconAnime and manga: Bleach Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Bleach work group.

Visored?

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

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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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)[reply]

Merge proposals, faulty or not?

I have run into a problem with merge tags being placed for characters that have been deemed appropriate per WP:N, WP:FICT and several other policies by User:Sephiroth BCR on this discussion and this discussion. Instead of being blocked for edit warring, I thought I'd bring it to the community as a whole per WP:CCC. Please discuss. Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? Which characters and is the problem with people removing the tags or merging them? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This one and This one. Apparently User:Shrine Maiden has templated them for not enough screen time, and I have explained that screen time does not demonstrate notability alone, and directed them to WP:N, but if the merges do go through, they should be for the right reasons, like no longer passing WP:N and WP:FICT, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasuke9031 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about "not enough screentime". They are obviously not main characters and although Bleach fanboys love them, ask anyone about "Kenpachi Zaraki" and they'll say "WHO?" Shrine Maiden (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shrine Maiden, see my note below and please review the relevant policies. Being main characters is also not a sign of notability. Some very notable characters in some series have been supporting characters (Q from Star Trek: The Next Generation for example, who only appears in a handful of episodes). That said, as I've noted below, your are within your rights to request a new discussion on merging these articles, however please make sure to properly tag them with the correct target name and to include the appropriate corresponding tag on the list page. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Correct. Merging should be done after being sure they can't meet WP:N and WP:FICT (and I usually add WP:PLOT and WP:WAF for those who dispute FICT). Now, that said, if she has tagged it for a merge, as it isn't vandalism or blatantly silly, it must now go through a discussion to reach consensus. She is basically challenging the February discussion, and as the articles haven't yet been cleaned up like some of the others, I can see the fairness in her questioning it. That being the case, I've created a merge discussion below for each one. A merge from multiple tag also needs to be added to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach with the appropriate discussion link here, and the merge tags fixed in both articles to point to the actual list. (actually three articles now, from the look of it) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Not only what mentioned above, Kisuke Urahara, Kaname Tōsen, Gin Ichimaru all need to be merged. Well, silly shonen anime like Naruto and Bleach often have better chances to go to mainstream US TV and have unusually large kid fanbase, so if you are so worked up over it, keep them, I will withdraw to watch my stuff like Lucky Star. = ) Shrine Maiden (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well those I can understand and would have tagged 'em and bagged 'em myself if not for having been beaten to the punch. Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) While you are within your rights to question the notability, coming at it from a standpoint like that and referring to it as "silly shonen anime" makes it appear that you are not viewing the articles totally from a neutral standpoint based on Wikipedia guidelines, but from your own viewing preferences. Please make sure your merge suggests are grounded in the former, and not the latter. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Also, because Bleach and Naruto and other shonen stuffs went to America and got some anime reviews, being mentioned in one review does not automatically make one character become "notable" in my opinion. If you say one character is important in the plot and so on, why are all Claymore character jammed in one nasty page? Maybe I am not viewing the articles from a neutral standpoints, Bleach fanboys also certainly not. Shrine Maiden (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are not speaking neutrally, and are bordering on incivility. Please remember to WP:AGF, as many of these pages were created before today's current standards exist. Many series have slowly been undergoing merge discussions, but there have been delays and it is a time consuming process, particularly for a series as large as Bleach. The series itself, as well as Naruto has been the subject of multiple reviews, news articles, and have been mentioned in multiple books, so please don't discount them as unimportant simply because you dislike shonen works. As per the above discussions, these articles were looked at neutrally by the majority of the editors, and continue to do so. That doesn't mean everything will get fixed overnight, however. I myself have been working on the merge of the individual character articles of Tokyo Mew Mew, and it has taken several months with one left to do. All of the editors working on these Bleach character articles are highly experienced editors who want to do a good job, not just shove everything on a single page to make yet another unsourced, ugly list. Instead, they work to merge articles in as decently written prose with the majority of sources in place, so that in the end we will end up with something like List of Naruto characters, which is a featured list. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This proposal seems somewhat pointy, born out of this discussion; if Tekken characters aren't notable enough to have their own individual articles, then neither are characters from "unremarkable" anime. That said, these articles do have too much plot stuff, and continue to need parring down. That does not mean they do not have the necessary out-of-universe information, as most of these articles have some semblance of a reception section. Sephiroth BCR has indicated that they have the potential to reach GA status, and I'm inclined to agree with him given his success rate in such matters. ~SnapperTo 20:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why shonen characters' "techniques" and "ability" and "signature attacks" need to be comprehensively written down in Wikipedia. Surely that's help humanity alot >_> Shrine Maiden (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The articles need cleaning up, but again, that has nothing to do with notability. If, as Snapper has noted, you are starting this discussion soley because of the Tekken Fighters discussion (and the rather disturbing one you started on Talk:Tekken regarding "deletion of articles", I am going to ask that you stop at this point and not add anymore articles to the discussion list. As it is, you have reawakened the early discussion and it will continue, but if you continue, it will appear that you are being disruptive to make a point, rather than actually having legitimate concern. As for the articles "helping humanity," if that was the criteria for articles, entire TV series and film articles would be gone, along with the great bulk of the encyclopedia. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No, that's some big accusations. I added 2 merge tags to 2 Bleach characters articles because I see they are not main characters and are not "notable" in any way (save Bleach fanboys). Other articles had been tagged since March and no one cares. If I am trying to be disruptive, I should have placed those tags on all Bleach characters, but I did not place merge tag on Ichigo or Orihime because they are obviously main characters and deserve their own articles given that this anime has a large fanbase, but other deathgod guys don't deserve it just because Bleach fanboys love them. Tekken characters just turned my attention to this and I see they are the same. Make legitimate points to prove that those characters are notable enough rather than attacking me. Shrine Maiden (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really. If you look into our history, you will see this user who pretty much did the same thing, except listed the articles for deletion instead of merge. While I admit that merge is less disruptive than deletion, it is such a time consuming process, and most of us have jobs we need to go to. All we ask is that you consider the reasons for such a merge proposal, and prove us wrong. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those characters are not main characters and only appear briefly here and there, so prove that they are notable other than "I'm a Bleach fanboy and I love those characters so they deserve a page and I will oppose those who propose a merge". Shrine Maiden (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. Here goes. Notability is established through outside sources. Most of these sources are either found in a Creation and conception section or in a reception section. Of the two articles that I opposed merging below, they both have reception sections to the best of my knowledge, and they have had some trimming done on plot summaries, albiet thy probably could use more, but that's my proof. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discussion below so you can vote for it or against it. It's simple. As for the "reception", being "mentioned" in one review doesn't mean they are that notable. Shrine Maiden (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Already voted. The only thing left on my to do list is to attempt to reason with you so that discussion can proceed normally for everybody else. Sasuke9031 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to reason with me, I have good faith = ) Shrine Maiden (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. Let's get underway then shall we? Sasuke9031 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One again, Shrine Maiden, you are very close to being uncivil and making personal attacks on editors without any real basis for those attacks or valid reason. No one has said they will oppose those who propose a merge. Indeed, despite your poor attitude, a merge discussion was started to allow consensus to be reached on each article. So stop calling people "fanboys" just because the articles exist and allow the process to happen without flame baiting. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sources that "fanboy" = personal attack? I am a proud Lucky Star fangirl. Shrine Maiden (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your tone makes it very obvious you don't mean it in a good way. It falls well within the whelm of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Particularly: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" which your comments do. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Is that so? = \ Shrine Maiden (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The same can be said of almost all fictional topics. Even real things have that issue; does humanity really care if George W. Bush "as a child, was not accepted for admission by St. John's School"? I highly doubt it. But it is relevant to Bush, just as a character's techniques are relevant to the character. ~SnapperTo 21:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly Bush plays a more significant role in human history than "Strawberry Ichigo". Shrine Maiden (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but this is an encyclopedia, not a history text. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I did not place merge tag on Ichigo or Orihime because they are obviously main characters" ORLY? Gamma Akutabi is the main character of Zombie Powder, another of Kubo's manga. See his page? No, you don't, because he doesn't have one. The same goes for Izumi Konata, Nietono no Shana, Kazuki Muto, etc. They're main characters of their respective series and they don't have pages. Orihime has absolutely no real-world notability. Why not put a merge tag on her? Ichigo has little more than Gin and arguably less than Kenpachi. Stop adding merge tags on a whim. Suigetsu 02:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, stop your annoying "shonen anime (x)" elitist bullshit. Your neutral point of view is already questioned enough without it. Suigetsu 03:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested character merges

As per above, several character articles have been tagged for a suggested merge by User:Shrine Maiden. I'll leave it for her to add her reasoning, but I've created sections below for each character. Please respond on a character by character basis. I'll add my own views later, for now this is just a straight list of the proposals. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Kenpachi Zaraki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus felt the character Kenpachi Zaraki met all requisite requirements in WP:N to remain a standalone article.

Suggested merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This article has been mentioned in the previous discussions, and has the potential to eventually become a GA. Considering Sephiroth's success rate when it comes to things like this, a merge is unwarranted. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - fairly prominent. If I recall correctly, IGN had quite a bit on him in the episodes he was in. I know I've been promising to do work on these for a while, but hey, I have to enjoy my summer before going to my new school :p sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see why this article needs to be merged. It has a lot of information in it and I highly doubt that all of this information will be kept if merged. Wouldn't deleting possibly-helpful information be pointless? I thought the point of an encyclopedia was to have as much helpful information as possible. By merging this article I believe we will be unnecessarily removing helpful information. (Skunkboy74 (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • For the sake of brevity, I will reply to only your post here. We have articles on Wikipedia solely because they are notable. Notability in the context of Wikipedia means that the subject of the article has received significant coverage by sources independent of the topic (i.e. newspapers, books, online sources). The majority of the merging here is because the subjects of these articles do not meet this requirement, namely Wikipedia:Notability. The only reason I am arguing to keep Kenpachi's and Byakuya's articles is because I believe such significant coverage can be found and notability demonstrated. If I feel that not enough significant coverage exists when I try to cleanup those articles, then I will support a merger. sephiroth bcr (converse) 06:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it's still important in my opinion to have as much information as possible. That's the point of an encyclopedia to me. Merging these articles will remove information and that's just unnecessary. (Skunkboy74 (talk) 18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Feel free Google Bleach wikia if you want a place that caters to fans rather than an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is the latter. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Good luck reading the Bleach wikia. That place is a shithole. Suigetsu 23:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well aren't you kind. Anyway, at least that site keeps information. That's what I want. Information. (Skunkboy74 (talk) 06:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If you're looking for horribly-written, more-often-than-not speculative "information," Bleach wikia is the place to go. Suigetsu 19:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if I'm looking for a place where helpful information is removed, Wikipedia is the place, right? :) (Skunkboy74 (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
If by "helpful" you mean speculative and unnecessary, yes. Good thing Wikipedia caters to standards and not the bitching and moaning of one user. 70.138.167.143 (talk) 22:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, this subject really needs to get dropped, but I'll make one last attempt at explaining why Wikipedia operates the way it does.
Let's say, for example, that I come up with a theory that Nel Tu is evil and only faking her interest in Ichigo to betray him, like Aizen did earlier in the series. And let's say that I scour every episode, manga chapter, and omake for any scrap of evidence that supports my theory. For example, I write: "Every Espada except to Top 3 has been revealed, leading some to speculate that Nel is still the current number 3, and that the other Espada are numbers 0 - 2. If this is true, this could possibly mean that Nel is actually an enemy."
The problem is, there isn't a scrap of evidence that proves that this isn't true, and even if there is, I can still try to stick as much "information" into the article as possible so that it proves my point. This is the exact reason why Wikipedia doesn't just allow indiscriminate information to be put into an article. If they did, anyone and everyone could throw any wild theory or speculation they wanted in there, and it would be impossible to tell the truth from the fanfiction.
I hope that explains it for you. If not, I'm sorry, but we really need to drop this topic now. King Zeal (talk) 12:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Byakuya Kuchiki

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus felt the character Byakuya Kuchiki met all requisite requirements in WP:N to remain a standalone article.

Suggested merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm on it. I'm fairly positive his name was thrown around in my new SJ issue, I'll check it later today. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Kisuke Urahara

Suggested merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, while he amuses me to no end, the 1-2 real world sources I found for this character do not demonstrate the necessary notability to have a stand alone article. What is there can easily be fit into a well-written section in the Soul Reaper list. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't see why this article needs to be merged. It has a lot of information in it and I highly doubt that all of this information will be kept if merged. Wouldn't deleting possibly-helpful information be pointless? I thought the point of an encyclopedia was to have as much helpful information as possible. By merging this article I believe we will be unnecessarily removing helpful information. (Skunkboy74 (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose. Urahara's a main character in the series, and has an entire arc starring him. More English information on his character will become available when the parts of the story which focus on him are released stateside. As there is no deadline for Wikipedia articles, I do not see merging his page as useful. (Especially as his page holds the inventions list, which several other articles rely on for information and cannot be feasibly placed elsewhere.) --erachima talk 02:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really valid, per WP:CRYSTAL. When reception and creation info do come out, we can reinstate the article. Sasuke9031 (talk) 03:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Out of curiosity, have you actually read the link you just cited? WP:CRYSTAL is the segment of WP:NOT which warns against writing articles which speculate about the future. i.e. 2015 Afghani-Iranian conflict, or Speculation sub-sections in fictional articles (which used to be quite common back in the day). It doesn't apply to this case at all. --erachima talk 03:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think his intent was to say that there's no present notability asserted for his character. If sources are found in the future, then the article can be recreated. And welcome back BTW. sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That makes more sense, yes. However, I still don't think lack of sources in a particular foreign language (English) is a reasonable grounds for deletion of something that appears notable on all other grounds and similarly important characters from the same series have sources. It's the classic problem with writing about non-English subjects, English sources are a huge drag to find for them.
And you're welcome, I'll see how long I can go this time without the constant meta arguments annoying me to death. --erachima talk 04:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. English sources are regrettably difficult to find. That said, there's a line we have to draw at some point (say for more minor characters or whatnot). I got Rukia Kuchiki to GA status now thanks to such sourcing, and I recently managed to get List of Naruto characters to FL status (which should be a relevant model for List of Bleach characters). And yeah, I know those arguments are a drag. A new version of WP:FICT ignited into inclusionists vs. deletionists round 4532, and led to FICT losing its guideline status (causing more problems, as we're left with WP:NOTE on one side and the rather pointed inclusionism on the other side with nothing in between). I've gotten so drained over those arguments, fiction AfDs, and whatnot that I eventually just started writing film articles as a way to get away from fiction for a while. sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which has nothing to do with nothing. See above. This isn't about his part in the story, but whether he has any real world notability. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose to all remaining You know, I'm finally looking at all six of these articles right now and none of them are particularly different from one another in terms of formatting or content they present to the reader, so this should be an "all delete" or "all keep" argument. The fact we're actually using some nameless IGN editor's irrelevent fan ramblings and opinions as the sole basis to delete or include articles here is a pathetic joke. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is more information than you could store viably in the soul reaper page without crouding it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.187.191 (talk) 00:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As he appears to be the main character in Turn Back the Pendulum and there being presumably 97 more chapters of it, there is little point in my opinion to delete a decent article only to put it back months later.86.7.174.100 (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaname Tōsen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is that Kaname Tōsen should be merged to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach.

Suggested merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach (originally tagged in March, updated to be included in new discussion).-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - I don't see why this article needs to be merged. It has a lot of information in it and I highly doubt that all of this information will be kept if merged. Wouldn't deleting possibly-helpful information be pointless? I thought the point of an encyclopedia was to have as much helpful information as possible. By merging this article I believe we will be unnecessarily removing helpful information. (Skunkboy74 (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with User: skunkboy74 Cristian Cappiello (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC) (I'lL be more original next time)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gin Ichimaru

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus felt Gin Ichimaru met all requisite requirements in WP:N after additional real world information was found regarding character reception.

Suggested merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach (originally tagged in March, updated to be included in new discussion).-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, while he has some minor coverage in an IGN review of a single episode and he seems popular in the Bleach merchandising, that isn't enough to establish the necessary notability. Again, his article should be trimmed, written to be tighter prose and less in-universe, and merged to the list. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - per Tosen. sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see why this article needs to be merged. It has a lot of information in it and I highly doubt that all of this information will be kept if merged. Wouldn't deleting possibly-helpful information be pointless? I thought the point of an encyclopedia was to have as much helpful information as possible. By merging this article I believe we will be unnecessarily removing helpful information. (Skunkboy74 (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Oppose per the fact that he has reception info, tosen doesn't Suigetsu 02:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you point out additional sourced reception info, besides the two relatively minor IGN episode reviews? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why you get to arbitrarily call the IGN reviews minor when they're enough for other articles. Suigetsu 03:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I highly doubt other info doesn't exist, given Gin's... well, Gin-ness. Suigetsu 19:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yoruichi Shihōin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus agrees that Yoruichi Shihōin should be merged to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach.

Suggested merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach (originally tagged in March, updated to be included in new discussion).-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support, as with Kaname, I found no reliable, third party coverage for this character, and as such feel her article should be properly trimmed up and merged into the list. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - per Kisuke. sephiroth bcr (converse) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't particularly care about the fate of these articles, but it really makes my blood boil when I see an everyday person on Wikipeda with a concern being written off by "higher" users as an idiot fan and basically being told to go away through copy-pasting links to policies. Please stop. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good for you. Too bad the policy is completely valid because his main argument is that he doesn't want the "info to be lost." I copypasted a policy that specifically contradicts this sentiment because he copypasted the same response to all of these characters. How dare I wish to uphold Wikipedia's standards and policies instead of giving in to the demands of someone who openly goes against them! 207.80.142.5 (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really is more like "How dare I try to apply Wikipedia's vague and sometimes subjective information inclusion guidelines in an arbitrary manner against average users and long-standing articles", but I digress since a few of the pages in question should probably be merged anyway. By the way, all your links go to the wrong policy page, you're looking for WP:NOT. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want you to look up the word "arbitrary" because I don't think it means what you think it means. In layman's terms, arbitrary means random. In no way is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" random given his claim, which is just as vague, given that it is just "it's info and shouldn't be deleted. I also don't appreciate your painting me as an "established user that bullies less-established users." If you did some research, I'm not established at all, most of my edits amount to little more than stupid corrections and arguing with this dude (hehe). Sorry to burst your bubble, but no matter what, the policy I cited (or attempted to cite >.<) directly contradicts the user's argument. I didn't see it worth much more than that for a response. Suigetsu 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, "average users" and "longstanding articles" are not excuses for articles that do not uphold Wikipedia's standards and policies. That shit don't fly here, bro. 4srs. Suigetsu 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Norse's point is that doing nothing but citing WP:NOT#INFO isn't really constructive. While Shunkboy's argument is exactly compelling, it would be more productive for you to explain why he is wrong beyond merely citing policy (see WP:BASH). Such a tone could be considered in violation of WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL, so try to be a bit nicer in the future. Yes, NOT#INFO is a refutation of his argument, but it would be more mature to frame that in the context of a larger argument. sephiroth bcr (converse) 06:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edited comment to reflect what I meant by WP:NOT#INFO, mmm? Although I agree I should have been more specific, Norse's original post was using something resembling slippery-slope logic: I am copy-pasting links to Wikipolicies, thus, I must be writing off newer users as fanboys, thus, I must be telling them to go away. Only the first is true, which was what I was trying to argue. Suigetsu 13:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Skunkboy, you do understand that if you really wanted to see the article again you could just look at the history and use an old diff to get your info?Suigetsu 13:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually did not know that. Thanks for the tip! --Skunkboy74 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would've been nice for me to know as well.....can someone provide me a link or something that would let me see old articles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.118.232 (talk) 14:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NAME_OF_ARTICLE&action=history to browse associated history. ~SnapperTo 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Lurichiyo or Rurichiyo

This name seems to be spelled both ways in different articles. Could anyone fill me in on why we can't settle on one spelling? (Skunkboy74 (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

It's because Dattebayo had to make the first R into an L for absolutely no reason. And to too many anonymous users, DB preaches the gospel, so we have to deal with them. The regular editors seem to agree with the sensible R spelling...it's just a matter of reverting the anons.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, with you,Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ this is wikipedia and not Dattebayo LLC, so we should just revert the anonymous editors that copy/paste every little thing they see just because they do not fell like researching a little bit. Cristian Cappiello (talk) 02:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, the answer should be "what is Viz" using in the manga (presuming Viz is up to that point). Otherwise, agree with going for the "sensible" until an official is available. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with you on that one, Coll, might I point out that this entire arc is filler. It is a non-canonical filler arc that does not take place in the manga. *sigh* This is what happens when you do filler without thinking it through. Sasuke9031 (talk) 16:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It being filler isn't an issue. It still has an official English spelling as the anime is also being released (and by Viz), so the answer is still the same. What does Viz use for the anime, if they have released that far yet? :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Well Viz is either just finishing the first Bount arc, or just starting the second. I fell out of touch with Bleach when this new filler started rearing its ugly head. Sasuke9031 (talk) 16:13, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Checked the website...if the current ep list is correct, it will be quite awhile before we have an official answer :P For myself, I recently read the manga for the first time and loved it. The anime was okay, but too much added comedy for my tastes, and too many filler episodes in the main story and that stretching stuff out thing. A battle should not take 4 episodes unless its like WWIII :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Or DBZ. LOL. Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Viz just started the second Bount arc. Hope it's quick and painless. Suigetsu 23:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Masashi Kudo cite

This ANN news piece says that the guy does the anime character designs. However, an old Studio Pierrot site citation that I recall adding some months ago and has apparently either been lost or gone deadlink since then credited him as "anime designer", and in a Japanese interview given prior to the Diamond Dust movie release Kubo said that he does all the anime character designs personally.

This begs the question of exactly what the guy's job really is. I would presume that he's in charge of translating the manga designs into something animatable, but that's just a guess. Anyone know a better/clearer source? --erachima talk 07:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every mention I've finding of him refers to him as the character designer for the various movies and series, as well as the animation directory. Basically, as you already guessed, the character designer designs the basic characters for the animated series, based on Tite's original manga characters. That's why there are some subtle differences between the media appearances, if you do a side by side comparison, as they will often put their own little touches on the characters, or make subtle changes to match a change in tone or focus of the anime. :) Most anime series based on a manga have a character designer deal with adapting the characters to the animated version. http://www.aicanime.com/introanime/process06.html has a nice article on the process of making an anime talking about the role of the character designer.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reaper List

We could use some folks over at Talk:List of Soul Reapers in Bleach#Officer/Former Officer issue to discuss the issue of current/former officer labeling. There was so much edit warring going on over it that the article is currently fully protected while we talk it out. Please come offer your thoughts so we can reach some consensus and get things going again. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Page needs rewritten

In order to get this article up to the standard of other character lists which have been recognized as featured, as well as solve a number of problems that we've been having with our character lists recently, we need to severely overhaul the page arrangement for this list. The key focus of this rearrangement should be to get the page to be clearly presented for non-fans, rather than requiring familiarity with details of Bleach's massive universe that Wikipedia doesn't even cover.

The first step towards this would be to break at least this page out of the purely race-based character presentation to one that more clearly reflects importance of characters to the plot. I believe we can accomplish this by presenting the primary cast with short summary style bios on this page, with the race/faction descriptions and supporting lists linked to after that. For a rough sketch of the page layout, I'd suggest the following:

  • Lead
  • Conception/creation stuff
  • Primary characters
    • Ichigo Kurosaki
    • Rukia Kuchiki
    • Orihime Inoue
    • Yasutora "Chad" Sado
    • Kisuke Urahara
    • Uryū Ishida
    • Renji Abarai
    • Byakuya Kuchiki
    • Yoruichi Shihōin
    • Gin Ichimaru
    • Kenpachi Zaraki
    • Sōsuke Aizen
  • Other characters by race (short faction descriptions and links to secondary lists go here)
    • Human
    • Shinigami
    • Hollow
    • Arrancar
    • Bount
    • Visored
  • Reception
  • References and whatnot

Note that for my definition of "primary character", I limited myself strictly to main team members and major recurring antagonists, and ordered by introduction. If the list seems long, blame Kubo's addiction to character creation and realize that's less than 10% of Bleach's total cast. (Ulquiorra, Grimmjow, and Nel will probably need added to that list as well if they keep up their importance through another arc or two.)

So, questions? Suggestions? Feedback? --erachima talk 09:36, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree, this page needs a major overhaul, starting with how its arranged. That seems like a good starting point to me, particularly since Kubo loves making characters who are not clearly protagonists and antagonists. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I, too, agree that the page needs to be rearranged and rewritten. Actually, it confused me quite a bit even though I'm very familiar with the Bleach universe, the alphabetical arrangement makes no sense and the descriptions are a little shortcoming at times. Akke Bandvagn (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that dividing characters by race is the best solution, but I can't think of anything else... -- DEERSTOP (talk). 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Bleach_characters&oldid=239858584"