Talk:List of Soul Reapers in Bleach

Officer/Former Officer issue

Why are we even attempting to divide each list into "officer" and "former officer"? It seems like an extremely unnecessary division, and does not appear to be in keeping with any other featured character list. Stepping outside of anime (as we only have one FL char list), List of Meerkat Manor meerkats does not sort itself into dead meerkats and living ones. I suggest we get rid of the entire "former" subdivision, and simply put the officers in a neutral order for each division by the order they are introduced. Let the prose handle their move from current to end and thereafter. We also need to work on the general format, such as the voice notes, to be more like List of Naruto characters where in the anime voices are noted at the end to ensure undue weight is not being given to the anime over the manga. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It started because some of the characters were introduced as former officers. Urahara and Yoruichi have never been officers within the actual course of the story, only prior to it. Then, when Aizen and co. defected, it was expanded to include them, and now to the vizard and Captain Filler.

But the whole list needs rewritten anyway, so that's the least of our current concerns. --erachima talk 02:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

A single FA doesn't translate into particularly widespread precedent in the first place though. --erachima talk 03:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

True, but it is a good model to follow considering the amount of reviewing, discussion, etc it has received. We can also look at featured TV character lists, which also do not do the kind of sorting. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Why not split into former officers and current officers? Although I, for one, think that keeping the page as it is would be the best option... maybe put them in a different order, but still. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkmantruck (talk • contribs) 15:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Because the division is not a very good one. Throughout the series, some stop being officers and some seems to fairly subjective as people can't even agree if dying makes you a "former" officer or not. It also seems to be completely unnecessary. We already have the list divided by divisions, and I think that's sufficient enough. Put each division in order of appearance or in order of rank, and leave it at that. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, NOW I understand what you mean. However, it should at least say which is the current captain or lieutenant in brackets or something, just to clarify things. But what if the position is vacant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkmantruck (talk • contribs) 13:13, September 6, 2008 (UTC)

No, not really. This isn't supposed to be a chapter by chapter update or guide; but an overview. If the position is vacant, it isn't listed. This list should just list each notable person in each group with the appropriately written, out-of-universe summary and referencing. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:29, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, the article won't provide much updated information, will it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milkmantruck (talk • contribs) 18:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Although Collectonian's reasons were perfectly valid, I don't think protecting the page will fix anything unless we discuss what we need to fix.

The former officer stuff is a steaming pile of horse shit that needs to go if people are going to try to put Kifune in there repeatedly. My position is this: Dying in the middle of a story arc makes you (deceased), not "former." "Former" should refer to those that defected or were otherwise replaced. That means the dead ones get a (deceased) tag, and the alive and defected (or replaced) ones go in Former Officers because their position is no longer theirs.

Still, one user repeatedly edit warring to get his way does not equate to full protection. I think it'd be a lot more efficient if we just unprotected the page, see if he keeps adding it, and if he does, just block him so the rest of the contributive editors can continue to improve this page. 70.138.167.143 (talk) 01:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree this needs to actually be discussed before we attempt unprotection. We need to come to a consensus regarding the listings and former officers. As already noted, I favor removing the whole system of marking officers as "former/current" as I feel it goes against other featured lists and what is the standard. We don't mark folks as "dead/alive" so I see no real valid reason to do the same here. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:35, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole "former" thing is silly. You have a section header (by division) and you list characters. For the third division, it would be Gin --> Kira --> Rose --> Amagai --> Kifune (unless you have a "Visored" section in the article). sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

When I first added the "Former officer" section I meant for it to be used as Suigetsu described: only for defected or replaced officers. I have no attachment to the practice, but I don't like the organization by division either. Doing so causes some characters, such as Aizen, to be listed twice, and it would necessitate reorganizing the list if a character is ever transferred to a different division. A more simplistic method would simply be listing them all alphabetically or, to divvy it up somewhat, by highest rank achieved, with "X is the Y of Zth division" introing each bio. ~SnapperTo 03:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No reason for Aizen to be listed twice. He isn't an officer, should he should be moved. Maybe an odd comparison, but that was a minor issue at List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, in which meerkats are arranged by group. If a meerkat moved, once it was clear it was long term/permanent, they were moved to their current/final group. I think the same thing would be fine here. Aizen isn't an officer anymore, so he doesn't need listing in his former division. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Why would Aizen be listed twice? He's only seen in the 5th division. By the way, this is Suigetsu, and I don't know why it signed me as an IP user in the OP. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 13:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He's currently listed under 5th division and under other. It would be much easier to see that if it weren't for that very limited menu. That limit seriously needs to come off there and let it be a normal menu. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

He isnt listed under "Other" though, last I checked... Only 5th Division... But I agree, removing the ToC limit would help in seeing who is actually listed on this page. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 16:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna get the kanji for Enryu's zanpakuto and Amagai's bankai so we can get someone to add it in while it's still protected. Anyone know the kanji for "en" and "ku" in "Gouenkaku?" 207.80.142.5 (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

My mistake; I meant to say Gin. He's listed under 3rd and 5th Division. Aizen used to be listed twice, once as lieutenant of 5th Division and again as captain of 5th Division. ~SnapperTo 18:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

So who wants to request unprotection for me? Too lazy to do it myself. 70.138.167.143 (talk) 20:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Until it is clear there is consensus, I don't think it should be submitted yet. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

No one's voiced dissent so far. If someone keeps it up, just have an admin ban him. We shouldn't have to let the article suffer because of one random loser edit warring to get his way. 70.138.167.143 (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we list the characters under squads, and for those who are no longer part of a squad, we could put them in their own subsection?

• Eg 3rd Squad Izuru.
• No mention of Ichimaru Gin.
• Each character who is currently in a squad would be listed in their current squad (And in the body of text, we can mention if they used to be in another squad).

• Former officers
• Ichimaru Gin (and others who are no longer in a squad, in alphabetical order). Kimera757 (talk) 02:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's what is being done now and what is being argued needs to be changed. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering, can anyone make a user subpage with this page in the format that some users want it changed to? I would rather see how the entire page looks before I make a choice. --Skunkboy74 (talk) 04:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Basically it would be just the squads list, without the "former" stuff and the only others would be those who were not officers in the series, rather than being a catch all for "former" and "dead" officers. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we agree that for the time being, we should NOT list Kibune as a "former officer?" That seems to be what people are getting at, not one person has argued otherwise (some people have edited though) Suigetsu 02:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Is something like this what we're trying to do, here? 70.138.167.143 (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I think so...looks about right. No former/past officers at all, just officers in their appropriate section, and others reserved for non-officers. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy it as soon as I get a thumbs-up from someone that can determine if we're in agreement on this. 70.138.167.143 (talk) 19:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, just uh, log in first :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Was gonna do it, but someone beat me to it. Copied it anyways because there were a few minor differences. Suigetsu 02:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you guys think we could add their current ranks right below their names like in the userpage? It really made it easier to navigate, at least to me. Akke Bandvagn (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

updates for Amagai

ok,the Amagai article is really out of date

right now,he's against captain yamamoto,his tuning fork is actually a bakkutou and his Bankai has been revealed,plus his real name isn't even Amagai,so can someone fix this? thanks -hollowpedro666 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hollowpedro666 (talk • contribs) 04:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

done...:)--203.131.145.30 (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

is amagai's gouen ryuuga anything like "giant dragons encircling foes to cursh them"? tried to watch it over and over, still can't see dragons? it isn't even named since the technique has a name already. overzealous editing...--203.131.145.30 (talk) 08:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

According to Bleach Beat Collection 4th Session:03 His name is actually 'Syusuke Amagai (Amagai Syusuke)' as seen here [1] Is anyone willing to agree to a change or is more evidence needed? DaisukeVulgar (talk) 00:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, awesome job. Adding; we've traditionally used the Beat Collections to verify our spellings. Suigetsu 01:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you can stop being so cynical enough to realize that making fun of peoples suggestions wont actually make you a better person. I used it merely because it's an official release so the chances it was spelled properly compared to fansubs was much higher. But please, do leave another sarcastic, oh how I love to read them. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't sarcasm. We do consider the Bleach beat collections to be official spelling sources. (c.f. "bounts") --erachima talk 03:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

My apologizes then. It is of course hard to tell with Suigetsu, his user page even says as such. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the one time I haven't given a sarcastic response to something, can't say I didn't expect to get bitched at. Suigetsu 00:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already expressed my apology, do with it as you will, it's just how I read it. Again, sorry. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 00:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't being sarcastic or attacking there either, more like regret for being an ass. My bad there.Suigetsu 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It's fine, it's been resolved. No bad blood on my end. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kenryuu and Enryuu

the latest episode showed that enryuu can speak his zanpakuto's name and its release command as well as a new ability for kenryuus zanpakuto. Ill have to check but i think the term was "grant a noble death"? It caused pink needles to rain down on the target/

enryuu on the other hand

zanpakuto is"Dachimaru"? meaning"the land' command "rock"

one ability

enryuu smashes the ground and pebbles appear around the target. pebbles then become giant stone hands and trap target.

If anyone can validate my info it would be apprciated.........

Protoatom (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Want to add a comment regarding the claim about Enryuu releasing without speaking its name we do not see this happen we merely see him arrive from offscreen with it released and surely if he had that ability he would not have spoken the second time when he was forced to release it around other people given his extreme embarresement about his voice.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.37.77.40 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC) 

No. We saw the release. We saw him not say anything. Period. Suigetsu 03:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

We saw him jump into the air and we saw him come down with it released after. This doesn't validate that he doesn't need to say a release command. Though it also doesn't validate he needs to either. But judging by everything seen in Bleach so far, those who don't say anything to release can do this because they're already released. E.g. Ichigo & Kenpachi, and after seeing him release with a command, I think it's pretty obvious he does indeed need to say something, otherwise they wouldn't of added it. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per Renji vs. Byakuya, release commands can be bypassed by shinigami other than just those with permanent release types. The implication seems to be that it requires a high level of zanjutsu mastery though, possibly including bankai. Can't add that to the page though, since reading "implications" out of scenes violates WP:NOR. --erachima talk 16:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll rewatch that bit, haven't seen it in a while. If so, I'm surprised they've given a filler character that much ability. I still stick to the idea that he went high into the air as to avoid people hearing his voice, but I'm not going to discredit everything else without further looking at it. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever fancrufted "idea" you stick to doesn't matter unless you can prove that it actually happened. Suigetsu 21:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I said I'd look into it so don't bother bringing old things back up. I could say the same to you, 'prove' he released without saying anything and that him jumping high into the air out of sight was just a way to increase the time in the anime. Yours too is just a 'fancrufted idea' based on your opinion. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 21:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Except mine is backed up by the release we saw, while nothing in the anime suggests he jumped in the air or anything like that. He was in a building... Suigetsu 01:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we saw him release in a building, we also heard his very high voice release that time. But I'm guessing you're just going to ignore the whole scene where he shoost up into the sky, coming back down with his zanpakutou released to break the building, that seems to be the only way you can keep your point valid. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 03:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same scene here? Enryu is inside a building. He releases and we see him break out, at which point he performs the jump you keep harping on. When it was already released. (Not the scene where he uses it on Amagai, by the way.) Either way, I don't think it's an indication that Enryu has achieved bankai, I think it's just a way for him to release it without having to break his silence. Suigetsu 00:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The episode I'm talking about is Bleach 181, both he and Kenryuu are being held by Ōmaeda. At which point Enryuu steps on Ōmaeda's foot and 'rockets' high into the air with Kenryuu making a comment about him before we see him again with Dachimaru released. He then proceeds to come down and smash one of the Kasumiōji buildings. Judging by what you said, we're most probably on about separate things. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 00:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think Omaeda was holding him inside the building I'm thinking of. Suigetsu 01:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I suggest watching it again yourself, it's what I did to make sure I wasn't just making it up in my mind. Like I said, Bleach 181, around 5-6 minutes in. You'll know if it's the scene you were thinking of if you see it I'm sure. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right about the jumping thing, but it actually zooms in on him immediately after Kenryu comments that "he released it" and shows the release, during which he, indeed, doesn't speak. Suigetsu 01:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, I guess it should stay as 'he can release it without speaking' if that is indeed the case. I actually thought the same thing when I re-watched, but thought that it was just the release after he had spoken/hidden his voice by jumping. At least you looked into it though, thanks. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Shusuke

Greetings. I should have brought these issue a couple of weeks ago, but well, no use crying over spilled milk. As you all know, it has been revealed that the captain of the 3rd division during the current arc of the series, that is, shusuke amagai, is the true antagonist of this plot, and it is revealed that his purpose was to avenge his father shin'etsu kisaragi. Well, even though it may be speculation, now that this has been revealed, should not we change Amagai shuusuke to Kisaragi shuusuke? After all, it is only logical to think that Amagai may be a false surname (I am not sure wheter he mentions it on the anime or not) and that his true surname COULD actually be kisaragi, after all, he is that man's son. Anyways, I am just asking what do you think. Thank you. Cristian Cappiello (talk) 01:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME might apply here, but I'm not sure. Suigetsu 16:36, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure either, perhaps if somebody else gave its opinon. Cristian Cappiello (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, until Kisaragi Shusuke is proven to be his given name, we should leave it at Shusuke Amagai, the name he is called the most. He was never actually called Kisaragi Shusuke; in other words, Shusuke could or couldn't be his real name as well, and thus when we're changing stuff like this we can't be sure. Having his father's name be Kisaragi isn't enough: case in point Naruto Uzumaki, who took his mother's surname. "Amagai" could be Shusuke's mother's name. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Who changed it to syusuke? Skeletawn (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC).

I did. It's spelled that way on the Beat Collection, which makes it the official spelling. Suigetsu 00:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I'll fix the rest. Skeletawn (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Noticed last night that I had missed some of the instances of "Shusuke." Thanks. Suigetsu 00:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done a few aswell. Also corrected some wrong links, mostly ones that should link to season 9 but instead link to season 8. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Have no idea how the season 8/9 thing happened, but I too noticed that. Suigetsu 01:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure either but hopefully it's all dealt with now. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Shuhei's release - a pair or not?

This particular detail has come up several times since it was revealed and I want a definite answer to avoid conflict. Should Kazeshini be counted as a paired zanpakuto or not? Yamamoto once stated only two paired zanpakuto's exist, Ukitake's and Kyoraku's, though I believe he meant paired swords and Kazeshini is a kind of kama, but it would defy a verifiable fact to say Kazeshini is a third. Akke Bandvagn (talk) 15:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Edited - My opinion on it is that Yamamoto meant Ukitake and Kyouraku were the only paired swords as you put. Bleach has contradicted itself more than once and this is no difference. If we were to say Shuhei's weren't paired simply because of the chain that holds them both together or something along those lines, then we would also have to discredit Ukitake's from being a paired zanpakutou as well, despite Yama stating it was. If we were to get technical too, even though he is a filler character Enryū also has a paired zanpakutou in the shape of fists also attached by chains. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So wouldn't it be more accurate to say "a pair of kama-like weapons" rather than "the third paired zanpakuto"? Akke Bandvagn (talk) 17:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The paired weapon line is WP:OR. Cut it. Unless someone explicitly refers to his zanpakutō as "paired", then we're grasping at straws here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR doesn't even come close to applying. The definition of "paired" is not OR, nor is the picture we have of his release form. It is WP:OR, however, to assume Yama is talking about swords. He simply said "the only two that exist in a pair." 207.80.142.5 (talk) 18:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Calling his zanpakutō the "third paired zanpakutō in the series" is OR. Saying that the weapon is a paired set of kama is not OR. Note the difference. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So it's OR to say it's a zanpakuto? Or are you harping on "third," which wouldn't be OR at all seeing as though it is indeed the third one revealed to be a pair? Suigetsu 22:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Watching the episode wherein Ukitake and Shunsui fight with Yamamoto, it appears that the dual-zanpakuto classification depends on how many unreleased zanpakuto you wield. Note that only Shunsui has two unreleased zanpakuto, but before or perhaps during) Ukitake's release, his zanpakuto seems to duplicate. (As a fun little theory, perhaps Shunsui has two copies of the same zanpakuto. Diamond Dust rebellion shsowed that multiple copies of s zanpakuto can exist, even with different owners, so why can't one person have two of a single zanpakuto?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.197.51 (talk) 05:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Ukitake's has one sealed, and transforms into a pair when he releases, and it's still counted as a "pair." Kazeshini is the same way. That's the only part of your post that I'm going to respond to; the rest is fancruft. 207.80.142.5 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC).

Even if Kazeshini technically is a pair I don't want to say "third paired zanpakuto" until we get some in-universe confirmation. It seems like everyone here except for Suigetsu agrees that we should drop "third paired" until someone in the series refers to it as such. Should we drop it then? Akke Bandvagn (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but we're saying "third paired" as in it's third in order of introduction. In other words, there's really nothing that's WP:OR. Suigetsu 22:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)