Talk:List of Bleach characters

More Indepth Character Guide

Why do we not have a guide with all the captains and their wepons shikai and bankai states names and powers. While we're at it we should do the Espada as well because these characters are important and need to be noted and respected.--69.136.50.184 (talk) 15:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)The Bleach Guru

Because this is an encyclopedia and not a fansite and character lists are only for brief overviews not cruft. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, the Espada are listed in the List of hollows in Bleach. --Suki Dakara 18:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I think he's right, a character should have all of its information BECAUSE this is an encyclopedia, but anyway, why is Zennosuke not listed. He does appear if not only minorly. He does have a shikai and is deserving of a small bio. He is unmetioned and he should be noted as he is the official shinigami in charge of Karakura. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.133.26 (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that important to the series? That information would suitable in the Bleach wiki. This is an encyclopedia not a fansite.Tintor2 (talk) 02:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia has to cover every single character in Bleach. Zennosuke has only had a couple of appearances and isn't really a major recurring character. I myself have wondered whether or not Don Kanonji is a relevant character but I don't think he is. Evilgidgit (talk) 20:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Zennosuke's the afro guy, right? The manga says he was a stand-in for Rukia since she was sentenced to exicution at the time he was introduced. He's really just a comic relief character and not really deserving of a mention in the article in my opinion. If you disagree, feel free to do so. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of a quote

In the Reception part of the article, it quotes an internet site as saying: "However, the reviewer commented that it is hard to take the series serious when one of the arrancar is called Grimmjow Jeager-Jacques in the manga."

When in fact the full quote is: "I mean, it's very difficult to take a book seriously when one of its main characters is named "Grimmjow Jeager-Jacques", but damned if this book doesn't pull it off."

Only half the quote has been put in, so its meaning has been twisted by the editor. I do not know how to edit properly, but it needs to either be reworded to show the full quote, or removed altogether. Chrissd21 (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Then please be bold. I'm a bit inactive nowadays.Tintor2 (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

merge

Given that there has been a reasonable timeframe of 6 months since the tags on the soul repear page about it being too in-universe and that Wikipedia has been moving to consolidate excessive character lists for other such works there is no reason to have a seperate list here. A list of every major character can be consolidated in one list quite easily; see List of One Piece characters as proof of such a concept. This merge proposal is just about the lists; not about indivisual characters.陣内_Jinnai 18:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think merging the hollow page first would be better as that's a smaller list. By the way, the One Piece list could still be trimmed.Tintor2 (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably, for OP, but the point made was for a long-running series with many characters it was all fit on one page. As for the order, if you think the Hollow page would be easier, then that's fine.陣内_Jinnai 17:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the list should be reorganized as there is no antagonist list and while some hollows are not antagonists (Nel) some Soul Reapers are (Aizen).Tintor2 (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Generally, if you can, its always best to use protagonist/anatagonist/other classifications. It's not always possible I'll admit. In any event the classification should generally not use plot devices which in this instance would be Hollow, Soul Reaper, etc. unless you have a lot of "other" characters.陣内_Jinnai 17:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, guys? Bleach has loads and loads of characters. I'm concerned that a merged article would be unnavigable.--Rmky87 (talk) 20:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There are so many characters that are notable inside Bleach universe and not notable for the real world, I have no idea how to put them all into one list. -- deerstop. 20:43, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that merging the pages will bring lots of weight issues besides lots of discussion about what characters are notable (vice-captain does blah blah...). However, some parts of the hollow and Soul Reaper lists are very detailed and they sure need some clean up (in some arrancar, it is even described their appearances with lots of details).Tintor2 (talk) 00:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

"Delete, delete, delete." is ultimately what will occur if a merger happens. Section lengths will be reduced drastically, some of the minor, less noteworthy characters will be removed entirely, and almost nobody will be happy with the end result. You may as well merge the List of Hollows page into this one, and, heck, why not Ichigo's, Rukia's , Aizen's, and all the other characters' pages? It's what happened with the Inuyasha page once the manga ended, so why not do it to the Bleach pages, or to the Naruto pages, or, heck, to all the manga/anime pages? It's what's gonna happen anyway once they end, so why not just get it over with? Note, I am being sarcastic. I do not support any of the above actions taking place. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

You may want to read some wikipedia guidelines before making such a big oppose such as WP:Notability, or WP:Fancruft. Most individual characters articles actually pass notability requirements so most of them don't need to be merged. If you want articles for every character or a list for every race go to the Bleach wikia or a fansite.Tintor2 (talk) 16:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said. It really doesn't matter to me whether or not the List of Shinigami/Soul Reapers in Bleach is merged to this page or not. Although, you say "Most individual characters articles actually pass notability requirements so most of them don't need to be merged," but the trend I've seen with the anime articles on Wikipedia is that all of the articles are consolidated into one once it's finished. And Bleach Wiki - and all the other anime fansite wikis for that matter - are more or less cut and paste from Wikipedia back when the articles were full of original research and speculation and had plot summaries that were ten or more paragraphs long. I'm not saying that was a good thing, or that I want Wikipedia to go back to being like that, because it was rather disorganized and hard to make sense of. I'm just pointing out the trend I mentioned earlier. Wikipedia's better for another reason: no computer viruses - which Bleach Wiki has, FYI. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 17:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

If a Anime/manga character article from wiki was merged was because it was against guidelines. The Bleach and Naruto individual character articles already have what they take to avoid any merging (though some still need work). The point is that the Bleach lists are still rather unnorganized, as they include characters that have appeared very little in the series, while some have lots of details (all the Espada's transformations are highly explained while Kouga Kuchiki's section is very long considering he appeared for less than six episodes). I haven't never read all of Inuyasha's chapters so I'm not very familiar with the characters that appear in the series, but I know that minor characters from the series like Kagome's young brother were removed for good.Tintor2 (talk) 17:59, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, I'm not too informed on this argument but I still want to put my two cents in. Despite how unorganized some "lists" articles, especially those associated with animes/mangas, can be, I still appreciate them for their ease of reference. The point of articles like List of Soul Reapers in Bleach is to expand on a subtopic that has so much more underlying content that cannot be expressed on the main page without making it either disorderly or way too long. And speaking of the latter, isn't there some sort of wiki guideline that opposes extremely long articles? I've seen a warning at the top of a page before that states the article is "too long" and suggests that certain sections should be made into sub-articles (or other pages, can't remember what the exact terminology was) to cut down the article length. So wouldn't merging the soul reaper list article with the main Bleach article ultimately merit this request? Unless you cut out A LOT of the content, something someone above has already reasoned against. In short, I just wanted to say that articles like List of Soul Reapers in Bleach are great tools for quickly looking something specific about a character that you were curious about or read before and just couldn't remember. It's an easy "fact-checker," which is what I love best about Wikipedia as a whole. Having this side article is like being able to flip to a nicely organized (this can be achieved!), designated page to learn more about something referenced in a general index. Cutemoron16 19:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As most of that expansion would be in-universe, that fails WP:WAF and WP:SALAT reason splitting. There is no reason why you couldn't put all the articles under one banner and have all that same info. It is a bit different with indivisual characters that may have a lot of production info and critical analysis on them.陣内_Jinnai 01:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is a very pressing reason: a combined list would be over 200 kilobytes long after we cut out the relatively insignificant characters, before we expanded the major character entries to WP:FL standards, and this is for a broad definition of "relatively".
I urge editors on both sides of the aisle here to remember that the goal for inclusion of in-universe info is not comprehensiveness, but is comprehensibility. I am all for the limitation of individual character pages to characters about which we can deliver more than plot information, and the tightening up of prose within the lists, but the lists cannot be effectively merged, especially not if we wish to bring them to featured list quality, which for lists of characters requires paragraphs to pages of information on each character. --erachima talk 01:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The Hōgyoku's True Powers

The article says that "the Hōgyoku (崩玉?, "breakdown sphere"), [is] a device that mixes Soul Reapers with hollows." According to the latest chapter, it does all that, and more... it was what let Rukia transfer her shinigami powers to Ichigo and what gave Orihime and Chad their powers. This definitely needs to be added in somewhere. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 06:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Then please wait until a bigger definition of Hogyoku's power to avoid unneeded weekly updates.Tintor2 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking that was the "bigger definition" of the Hōgyoku's powers. Everyone, including its creator, thought it just turned Shinigami into Visords and Hollows into Arrancar, but, no, it's sentient and it's true power is to grant the wishes of its wielder. It just "mixes Soul Reapers with Hollows" because that's what the people using it wanted it to do and all they thought it could do. At least, that's what Aizen - who, judging by his earlier statements, could have been lying - said. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 17:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering what was happening in the latest chapter to Aizen's appearance, a bigger definition may come as you said "and more". Besides, such info should only be added to places where it is important like Aizen's article while the mention in Urahara's section should only be modified a bit.Tintor2 (talk) 18:03, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I did add it to Aizen's article. I suggest modifying the bit in Uruhara's section from "a device that mixes Soul Reapers with hollows." to "a device that grants its wielder's wishes." 75.157.115.154 (talk) 19:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, but it wouldn't make sense with the following sentence, considering Urahara did not know it.Tintor2 (talk) 19:16, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

So how should we change it? "initially believed to mix Soul Reapers with Hollows"? What do you suggest? 75.157.115.154 (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The way it is now seems okay as it mentions one of its functions and explains Urahara's concern with it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but it only mentions one of its functions in a way that makes it sound like that's it's only function. 75.157.115.154 (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It does not state it is it's only function. Besides, such info is better in Aizen's article or in some weeks in Urahara's if he explains something about it.Tintor2 (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ichigo's Dad

Both Ichigo and Isshin Kurosaki have the same zanpakuto technique, Getsuga Tensho, as revealed in the latest chapter. I think that this should be included in Isshin's section, so I will include it. Whether this means they have the same zanpakuto or whether zanpakuto abilities are inherited is mere speculation, but I think that the fact that they have the same powers should be included. 75.157.78.82 (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

VIZARDS

its NOT Visoreds. not in the original manga, and NOT in the dub manga- http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100423090414/bleach/en/images/d/dc/VizVolume21Vizard.jpg --98.117.175.177 (talk) 16:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

It was used in the following volumes as seen here.Tintor2 (talk) 19:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

This spelling dispute is actually on WP:LAME, did you know that? The short answer to the argument is that both terms are incorrect. "Visoreds" is grammatical butchery, as it means they are calling them "maskeds". "Vizards" rhymes with "wizards", is an archaic term, and means the wrong thing. The characters in question should be called "a visored" singly and "the visored" collectively, but that usage is not supported by any source, and (per WP:NAME and some other stuff) Wikipedia can't just make up names where official ones exist, even if the official ones are wrong. --erachima talk 20:57, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is no decent proof to spell it "Vizored" apart from wikipedian's trying to be pedantic about english spelling. However, we are dealing with non-english translations here. Please cite sources for it to be called "vizored".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.148.187.154 (talk) 07:30:14, 16 Ocotober 2010 (UTC)

New Characters

There are several new characters that need to be added such as Kugo Ginjo--150.212.72.23 (talk) 18:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)