Talk:Blood+

Anime and manga B‑class Mid‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This 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
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Blood+ received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Chiropteran plural; Chevalier and Queen caps...

Something that's been bugging me for a while is how "chiropteran" should best be pluralized in the articles. If we go by way of language, than its proper pluralization would be "chiroptera"; however, as I recall, the dubbed anime seems to use the term "chiropterans" (and this is the term I tend to use when editing). You may also want to have a look at this really old discussion. Along a similar vein, should "chevalier" and "queen" be capitalized, or not? —Dino guy 1000 16:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think chevalier, queen or chiroptera should be capitalized as they are not proper names, just identifying terms (like dog, cat, horse, etc). For the chiroptera thing...good question! You've probably noticed I've been back and forth on it myself, but I think you are right. The dub uses chiropterans for plural, as does the manga, so that is probably what we should use. For singular, though, is it chiroptera, or chiropteran? I've seen both used, but the manga uses chiropteran. Collectonian (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the singular form would be "chiropteran", if you follow the rules of Latin concerining singular/plural forms. Of course, I could just be talking out of my ass here, since I've never actually studied Latin. =P —Dino guy 1000 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~snick snick~ I'm guessing chiropteran would also be correct. I really need to hurry up and get my hands on the first DVD set...its supposed to have some extras that would help with the production section. Collectonian (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was always under the impression that "Chevalier" stood for a named group, like "Schiff", but eh. Also, "chiropteran" would be more Greek than Latin, but since the use is Anglicized, use English singluar/plural construction. —TangentCube, Dialogues 19:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right, so it seems we're in agreement that "chiropteran", "chevalier", and "queen" should not be capitalized, and the plural form of "chiropteran" is "chiropterans". Barring any objections, then I'll start making necessary changes across the Blood+ articles (should these also apply to Blood: The Last Vampire?). —Dino guy 1000 15:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've gotten the three Blood+ articles clean, but feel free to recheck, especially on the chiropteran/s one. I don't know on Blood: The Last Vampire. They are separate and I can not remember, at the moment, if they use chiropteran or chiroptera. They do not, however have chevaliers or queens, so it should probably be considered separately based on the film and its manga/novels rather than on Blood+'s Collectonian (talk) 15:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Blood+ only shown on Adult Swim? If this is the case, it was not shown on Cartoon Network. Adult Swim is its own entity that falls under Cartoon Network.

Blood+ navbox?

Does anyone have any objections to making a Blood+ navbox? if not, I'll go ahead and create {{Blood+}} with links to the main article (of course), the lists of episodes and characters, and to Blood: TLV, and then add it to each page. —Dino guy 1000 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would object as I feel it is unnecessary. The articles are already linked very nicely and appropriately. There are only three Blood+ articles, so a template seems very excessive. The main has proper links to the subs, and the two lists are well linked. However, it may be something to consider later, as I'm pretty sure the manga and novels will end up being broken into separate lists, as more volumes are released. The episode list will probably also end up being broken into separate season pages once all of the summaries are in place. Then it would have six and a template would be good. So that said, I guess maybe creating it now would be fine to. :P Collectonian (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, nice about-face... ;) In any case, by your reply (and because I'm feeling a tad lazy ATM), I'll go ahead and hold off on creating the navbox for now. —Dino guy 1000 18:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a go at it - hope you don't mind. What do y'all think? (By the way Collectonian, that's why I added those span tags, guess I should have mentioned that in the edit summary.) --Eruhildo (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! :) And perfect timing since the edit with the span tags finally spurred me to get off my lazy behind and get those two other lists made :) My only concern is the inclusion of Blood the Last Vampire. I'm worried people will think they should go through and add BtLV info in these articles or more of BtLV's links to the template when it shouldn't. Collectonian (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I fixed the template to link to the new articles. It was weird - I was testing the template and all of a sudden the links weren't working right. Then I noticed you reverted my edits, so I posted here, and suddenly you split the article! It's a lot better now. TLV: Yeah, I wasn't quite sure what to do with that one. It probably should left out entirely, I guess. I did think of using two dots to separate it from the rest of the row. What do you think? --Eruhildo (talk) 23:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm....I'd say just take it out. While it was the basis for Blood+ being created, they have little relation beyond that and its only even mentioned really in the main article. I've put the template on all the articles. It should be pretty stable for awhile, though once all the episode summaries are done, the episode list will probably be split into 4, but that will definitely be awhile yet :P Everything else should now be good. Unless the video games every get licensed, its unlikely we'll be able to get much more information about them, so no splits there ;) Collectonian (talk) 23:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Is the formatting of the text good? It's pretty easy to change the justification (center, left, right). --Eruhildo (talk) 23:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the formatting is fine. :) Collectonian (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Ooh, nice work, you two! I went ahead and made a couple of edits to the navbox before reading this, so I added TLV to a "Related" group without knowing that you two had decided to omit it. If you prefer it not be mentioned at all, I'll remove it, otherwise (IMHO) it looks pretty good. —Dino guy 1000 21:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no - that's really good, I wish I had thought of that. The linking on the title is good, but I'm worried it's not obvious enough. Maybe listing Blood+ in the Blood+ section would be good just in case? --Eruhildo (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to all the backstory that used to be in the plot section?

I remember part of the plot explained things about the series such as vampires existing in the past and how they became Chiropterans over generations. Where is all that? Link's Awakening (talk) 20:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was pure fan speculation, personal opinion, and guess work. As none of it could be verified through reliable sources and none of it existed in the actual anime series, it was appropriately removed. Collectonian (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of that did appear in one of the manga series, though I'm pretty sure it was related to TLV. I'll go through it again and add it to the other article. --Eruhildo (talk) 19:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was the other issue, a lot of mixing between Blood+ and TLV. Blood+ first novel is out (yay) and I have it on order, so if it has any thing discussing it, I will add it to the article somewhere. :) Collectonian (talk) 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burning chevaliers

The article states that “a chevalier can also be killed by beheading or burning their whole body,″ yet in episode 49 Amshel is strucked by lighting just to attack Saya again later on. I would assume that strucking by lightingis a way of burning ones whole body. Also I don't remember any other refference which would point out that chevalier may be killed by burning. Can anyone somehow verify it and/or fix the article? Mina86 (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amshel specifically says that chevaliers may be killed by burning either in ep 49 while talking with/taunting Haji. It was the "ironic" foreshadowing to his then being impaled on the pole and struck by lightening). Until set 2 comes out, I can't give the specific time ref though. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

New Book

Dark Horse is releasing something called Blood+ Chevalier's Handbook by Kazuhisa Fujie in September.[1] I can not find anything about it, though, if its a reprint of the Blood+ Encyclopedia, or some other work? Anyone seen this mentioned in any RS elsewhere? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)