Talk:Bleach (manga)

This is a summary of our archived standardization topics for the Bleach (manga) article, originated by tjstrf and with additional compilation from Dekimasu. Although consensus can change, please consider these points when adding information to Bleach-related articles. In titling, we use Bleach (manga), not Bleach (series), Bleach (anime) or BLEACH. We are using the English naming conventions for characters (given name first). Quincy, Bount and Soul Society are capitalized, but we do not capitalize most other terms (shinigami, hollow, plus, zanpakutō, etc.). It's lieutenant, not vice-captain; the onmitsukidō is to be referred to as "special forces"; demon arts has been superceded by kidō, since all versions of the series use the Japanese term; Soul Reaper is preferred to shinigami. The main characters on the page are listed in the order of their appearance. Correct character spellings include Bount (pl. Bounts), Yammy, Luppi, and Kuroud. Spoilers should not be included in the main article unless they significantly contribute to an overall understanding of the series. We refer to "artificial souls" rather than "modified souls" in order to incorporate all manufactured souls. The citation format for the original manga is as follows (1-999 represents a page number): Kubo, Tite (2006). Bleach Official Character Book SOULs. Tokyo, Japan: Shueisha, 1-999. ISBN 4088740793 Kubo, Tite (2006). Bleach Official Animation Book VIBEs. Tokyo, Japan: Shueisha, 1-999. ISBN 4088740807 Kubo, Tite (2002). Bleach, Volume 1. Tokyo, Japan: Shueisha, 1-999. ISBN 4088732138

Archives
April 2005 — September 2005 September 2005 — March 2006 April 2006 — September 2006 September 2006 — March 2007 April 2007 — September 2007 September 2007 —

Renji?

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

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

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

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

Urahara

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

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

Death of a Shinigami

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

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

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

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

Main Characters.

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

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

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

Movie

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

Bon-what??

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

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

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

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

Bleach name

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Media list

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Soul Reaper vs. Shinigami

Per the MOS we should label names according to the dubs and translated manga. Therefore we should refer to Shinigami in Bleach as "Soul Reapers" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things says we should use the more common name, right? So which MOS page says we should use the official translation? I'm not trying to start an arguement or anything, I just get lost with all the MOS pages and am trying to get things straight. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points. The official English-language adaptations are the best choices according to WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation. I support a move per the MoS. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem: Using one translated term while every other term is left in its original Japanese (or Spanish) will leave us with an inconsistent standard for terminology. Decisions have been made on this same basis for both the Naruto and One Piece series when it came to their terminology in the past.

Because the Bleach series is only partially translated into English, it is not possible to use the official translations consistently (and we'd be faced with an anime or manga decision on some translations anyway), so we have the options of using the original Japanese (shinigami, bankai, kido...), using literal English translations (god of death, final release, demon arts...), or a messy and inconsistent usage (soul reaper, bankai, demon arts...).

In the end, I believe it's more professional to be consistent within articles, and use shinigami. --erachima talk 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "partially translated" - Is there a certain Bleach medium that is not translated? Or is it that not all of the series is finished? The difference with One Piece is that the different licensors (in the USA and Southeast Asia) use different names so there it would make sense to go by Japanese names. AFAIK VIZ is the only English-language company associated with Bleach. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no official English-language media which uses "shinigami" (of course, I'm discounting all illegal fan translations). WhisperToMe's proposal makes absolute sense, per logic and the MoS, and I think we should get the page moved. If this is done, I'll get to the redirects. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reaper is what is used by Viz in the English adaptation of the manga and in the dub track and subtitles of the anime. Soul Reaper is what we should be using throughout the Bleach articles. If Viz chooses to retain the original Japanese for bankai, that is their choice and one we will follow. It isn't the first time its been done and its doubtful it will be the last. Collectonian (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But do you agree that Shinigami (Bleach) should be moved to Soul Reapers? I don't think etymology has a role in this one, as erachima hinted, especially because policy requires that we use common names. Am I right or am I wrong here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to Soul Reaper (Bleach) (singular). I don't think its inconsistent as it is what Viz chose to do themselves. Collectonian (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with moving to Soul Reaper (Bleach), as well as switching out shinigami to soul reapers in all the text to be consistent. I've always been somewhat confuddled with why the articles kept using the term shinigami instead of soul reaper since the latter is the standard in the Bleach english translation, in addition to me being more familiar around with in regards to the Bleach series. Fox816 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reapers should redirect to Soul Reaper (Bleach), and the article should be "Soul Reaper (Bleach)" WhisperToMe (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and move the page Whisper. I'll help with the redirects and link fixes ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it doesn't matter what I think but I think it should stay as Shinigami. Of course my only reason is (in following the Use Common Names thing) NOBODY I know has ever called Shinigami "Soul Reapers", in fact in english they just called them "Death Gods". But meh.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a link to Soul Reapers, I don't think a redirect is needed. If one is added, however, make sure to put in a redirect disambig link for the group Soulreaper. Collectonian (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean a hatnote? I got it ready, but where'd WhisperToMe go? Thought he'd get the move done. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Move done :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit after the fact now, but what I meant by partially translated is that the series is further in Japan than Viz is. This probably won't cause any problems in the case of replacing shinigami, but if you were to, say, start renaming all the kido techniques from Japanese to English, it would get messy, since Viz names only exist for the ones that they've published. --erachima talk 05:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't be renaming anything from Japanese to English until the Viz release was available and the terms being used decided. Collectonian (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you mean until the entire series was available, that wouldn't fix the inconsistency problem. --erachima talk 05:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The partially translated thing is true of all ongoing series; we could use the translated English names that are available and Japanese attack names if the translated English names are not available... WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think it should be Shinigami, as it is used commonly and it's what we've been using for ages. It's really pointless now that we've changed it now...I mean c'mon! Other manga use the term Shinigami and leave it untranslated....Seriously, I don't like how this page is going..first with the media list, and now this name change...RedEyesMetal (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Those manga", are illegal fansubs.Tintor2 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Legality of translations has nothing to do with the issue of which term is more used by English speakers. However, since the usage in the fanbase is split and the usage in official materials is solidly on one side, I'm not going to argue the point. --erachima talk 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just be used as Tite kubo intended it, not Viz? I know the whole debate about common usage but still, using Soul Reaper isn't correct according to the manga, which was decided to be this pages name instead of Bleach(anime). a subnote can always be left showing that both usages are correct if needed.

Issue with brief description of Urahara

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

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

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

Media list....why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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