Talk:List of Bleach characters/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Shou Takanashi

Who is he? Is there a source proving that this is indeed the name of the 3rd seat in the 5th division? If so, please post it here. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 19:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I did a google search, apparently this is a roleplaying character from a bleach Forum RP site. There is no such person. 75.2.152.77 19:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Soul Society - Squads

Sometime since the last time I checked out the article, someone removed all information regarding the Squads including any information about characters that don't have their own page.

I've added Headers for the SQUADS so at least users can quickly find the information they are looking for but someone should tie up the ends related how and why the minor characters have no information anymore. Either they need their own articles at this point or something within the article. --Knighthammer 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

You tend to understand why people revert you when you realize what you're doing is redundant. That information was moved. Please stop trying to restore it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
How is it 'redundant'. I refer to this page frequently and not having something to indicate who belongs to what squad makes it extremely frustrating to find what I am looking for. This section has become unusable unless you already know exactly who belongs where off the top of your head. By the nature of the show, there are already too many characters to follow. If you're *NOT* going to have Squad/Division headers, at least make the section ABOUT the Squad and Division and have a brief snipplet about relevant facts related to the Division/Squad including the captain and second in charge in paragraph form. Either way, the current layout is intolerable as a reference. --Knighthammer 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Beyond that, this section doesn't even flow as it should. The section is "Shinigami court divisions" not "Shinigami", "Shinigami Division Members" or "Shinigami Officers". The section should be ABOUT the divisions! Facts about who they are and who belongs to them. --Knighthammer 17:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Have you tried visiting the article Shinigami in Bleach listed right above the Shinigami court divisions section? All the info on Shinigami that used to be in this article was moved to that article. The reason the section is called "Shinigami court divisions" is the same reason there are "Special forces", "Gate watchers", and "Other shinigami" sections - that is those characters' role in the series. Just like there are sections called "Karakura High School" and "Urahara Shop" - those sections don't talk about those places, but the characters from them. After all, this is a character page. --Eruhildo 17:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't use the word squads. The correct word is division. But I agree with Someguy. Its redundant. Also please sign your name.--Hanaichi 07:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with Knighthammer, I'd rather the list stay the way it was before people started messing with it. If it's going to be moved elsewhere, take it completely out of here. Whoever thought that long list of names with no divisions was a good idea: it's not. It looks tacky. -SeaFox 01:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I also agree with knighthammer, the way this list of names is set up does not make sence since they are military like force with ranks and divisions as opossed to the way the Bount and the Vaizrd are, or at least it should look a little like the Hollow sections and separate by saying Captians, Lieutenant and others WhiteStrike 01:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
A separation by rank on this page is much more logical and I would support it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The more I think about it, the better I like the way it was. --Eruhildo 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

All (if not most) of the images have been tagged.

I blame how long they've been on Wiki, but there but the Free Use rational is all outdated and they've been tagged. While I type this, I've rationaled Ichigo, Inoue, Chad, Ishida, Tatsuki, Keigo, and Squads 1 to 3, and could use some help here. EDIT: Anybody? Anybody at all?TheUltimate3 11:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While it's good that you're enthusiastic about preventing images from being deleted, it's not good for you to whine for help. Please realize that I and the other editors have lives and things we must attend to. We will surely help when we get the chance. Jezebel Parks 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I think most of us put the fair use rationale in, you just didn't see it. Most of us put it into a parangraph, not a table. However, we must thank your efforts on making sure none of the images get deleted. So basically about 2/3 of the images have their fair use rationale.--Hanaichi 01:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Well since my first comment I reached Squad 12 if I'm correct. Mayuri straight down the Info box thing, has been unedited. Sorry to sound whiny, I just don't like it when something seems overdo for fixing and nobody does anything. Pet peev of mine I guess. Also about those paragraph fair use ones, I did see alot of those, and replaced a few I think with the template. A nervous precaution if you will. TheUltimate3 02:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Linkage and Descriptions

About a month ago, when someone decided to remove the Shinigami Division Headers, it seems a lot more information disappeared with that removal.

We have a great number of sections now that mention characters with no page dedicated to that character and no information about the character(s).

Further more, many characters have enough information about them to warrant a page dedicated to them, especially since character backgrounds are starting to grow.

I have a four part proposal for this.

  1. 1.) All descriptions on this page be limited to a short description of the significance of the members under each header.
  1. 2.) All sections be given a page to themselves (this means a few sections need added pages, particularly the hollows section)
  1. 3.) All characters that have enough information to sustain a page to themselves be given a page to themselves.
  1. 4.) All descriptions for characters be limited to a brief mention of their current status (dead or alive), position and extremely important details about them. The Shinigami section is a good section to reference for this.

I'm certainly willing to do the leg work for most of this, but I don't need people flipping out fighting for edit layouts like what happened when I tried to fix the headers for the Divisions last time.--Knighthammer 21:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't most of the information in Shinigami in Bleach section?--Hanaichi 08:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This is my working test page Bleach Test. It's not 100% but it reflects what I am looking to do. The bottom line is making information as quick to find as possible and save the in depth information for more focused pages.--Knighthammer 05:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
When you're proposing something, you should be putting it in your user namespace, not making some seven odd actual articles. ~SnapperTo 06:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Website design in of itself comes down to making something behind the scenes before it becomes public. In this case, the only other option is herding everyone over to the Sandbox and have those interested look at it which as you can imagine is a trite. Visuals get better results then waiting for everyone to sit around and discuss it. The pages can always be removed later. Now there is a visual for what I am hoping the main page could look like. This should make it easier for users to find the information they want. Besides, free time is free time and when you have it to use, you use it or loose it. This should allow everyone to decide if they like the format I created over whats currently available. The work is mostly done, it only comes down to deciding which format is better now. --Knighthammer 17:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I think what Snapper was saying is that using User:Knighthammer/Bleach Test would have been best.
Also, after looking at your Bleach Test page, I realize it is just a test page but not only is the format absolutely dreadful, the content is being drowned in countless, oversized fair use images. // DecaimientoPoético 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
How so? Each section has ONE image to go with. The format makes it much quicker to find content and connect with with major attributes about the character you may be hunting for. That's the main goal of this layout. To maintain uniformity throughout the article.--Knighthammer 22:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Poetic is correct; when proposing an article, you make a draft somewhere (such as User:Knighthammer/Sandbox, User:Knighthammer/Modsouls, etc). When it is agreed upon then you put it into an actual article. ~SnapperTo 20:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
My appologees in that regard, I didn't know individual sandboxes existed. Nothing in the help files or snadbox suggested that it existed either =(. Either way, the format is done.--Knighthammer 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
All the articles I generated are moved into my user section. --Knighthammer 22:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Remove all the images. You are not allowed to have non-free images in your userspace. Read WP:NONFREE. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:15, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Then how else do you propose the article be conveyed for review? The images used are critical to illustrate the format. Give me an answer to that and I'll work on it when I have time.--Knighthammer 05:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Any "review" of any sort takes into consideration that images cannot be there. In any case, the present images are a horrendous violation of fair use - an image for every single squad, group, etc.? Read WP:NONFREE closely. Your format is also highly inconsistent - the boxes change between each set of characters, and you have ugly blank spots in practically every table, not to mention that the content selection is extremely arbitrary. To be blunt, this is not an improvement to the present page, and you would be better off thinking of an alternative method. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Second. This format is frankly god awful. The articled setup we have now is vastly superior. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:42, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Karakura High School

Is simply a list of characters already present on this page. I believe it should be redirected here or to Karakura Town, but I'll open this discussion for courtesy's sake. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a remnant of the above proposal, though this particular iteration was not actually created by User:Knighthammer. It, as well as the rest of the mistakenly created theoretical articles, should probably be redirected elsewhere. ~SnapperTo 03:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've redirected it to Karakura Town. Further comments can be made here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Ashido

Yes. Someone has made an Ashido article. I'm not sure exactly how to go through the motions of nominating it for deletion. He's a minor, anime-filler character who probably won't last past the next 2 or 3 episodes. C'mon, we don't even have an article for Nel Tu, but we have one for Ashido now? Cotton 16:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Since the character actually exists, deletion is unnecessary. Just redirect it. ~SnapperTo 23:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge and Clean Up Suggestions

I've made the first round of merge suggestions to get all of the Bleach character lists combined into a single list. I've seen the above discussions, and the only reason this list is so long is because it seems to contain just about every character that ever even sort of appeared in the show. Wikipedia is not a series guide and every character should NOT be included in any of these lists, just the major, significant, and notable characters should be listed (see WP:FICT, WP:N, WP:V, Anime MOS, and TV MOS). All of the individual character articles also need to be merged into the list. They fail WP:N and few, if any, would survive an AfD (as has already been seen in many recent character and episode article deletions). Fancruft and massive character articles are not appropriate on Wikipedia. Such detailed articles would be more appropriate in a Bleach wiki, one of the many anime wikis out there, or a Bleach fan site. Collectonian 11:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You probably missed the entire big conversation the Bleach editors did a couple of weeks ago.--Hanaichi 13:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I read back, but I don't see anything actually addressing these issues that was then implemented. Collectonian 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we just ignore all the merge suggestions unless they are willing to not just give every article an AFD. Let's be civil, people, not wild animals listening only to their own opinions. P.S. I don't support merging Kon, even someone with the English manga can get out-of-universe info for him, and you must be crazy to think you can put the List of Bleach shinigami page here, but the rest go ahead. Except the seven listed as main, Kenpachi, Byakuya, Toshiro, Kon, Aizen, and Ichimaru, and mabye Yoruichi, merge them all. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, yes, I am willing to (and will) AfD them all if no signs of a willingness to clean up the article and all the little break out articles is shown. The articles need to brought in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The merge suggestion is a way to give y'all some chance to keep whats in the other articles (in an appropriate form), and the attempt to be nice about it. With an AfD, you just lose them all and have to restart this list from scratch. My merge suggestions (and offer to help) are an attempt to let editors be proactive in taking care of the problems rather than just losing it all. Recent AfD have axed numerous character pages from anime, video games, and TV shows (even Star Trek pages). So it is extremely unlikely that any of these separate pages would survive. Keep in mind, the character information should give a general over view of each character, not minute details regurgitating every last second they appear in the series. And, FYI, the manga itself does not count as "real world" information. Real world is outside of the primary source. For Bleach, the anime and manga are primary sources and in-universe. Collectonian 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I tried putting up a secondary character, and the fan reaction was quite hideous. You might have better results, though. TTN 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
That's because you admitted to nominating it just to make a point. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Entirely agree with a clean out of minor characters. We don't need to know the names of the skateboarders who piss Ichigo off in chapter 1. ~SnapperTo 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Minor characters are not notable enough for inclusion in a character list and those should be axed ASAP. Then go from there to clean up the rest. Collectonian 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
There's a lot of characters, most of whom are at least somewhat relevant to the series. A single list would be needlessly long, when forks can be made, and are encouraged, to reduce such things. Not that the pages couldn't be trimmed, of course, but not to the point that they should be stuffed into a single list. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I would be for the seperation but trimming, along with Someguy. One list equals a very long article, which isn't needed. The one thing I am adament against is deletion. The histories are needed.--TheUltimate3 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don;t believe you would have to worry about deletion. A character list, unless is is really, really full of pointless crap (plot summary does not fall under that), is unlikely to ever be deleted. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't think he meant this list. You are correct, it is unlikely to be deleted, nor should it be, though without some serious clean up, anything is possible if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters (2nd nomination) is any example. The individual character articles are all highly deletable and most (if not all) would probably fail under an AfD. Hence my suggestions for pruning and merging so the histories can be kept, while also providing a more appropriate article for Wikipedia.
Minor characters are not notable, and there should be none in character lists. A glut of minor and subcharacter lists are currently up in AfD now, including several anime related ones from series as big, or bigger, than Bleach like InuYasha and Sailor Moon. Wikipedia is not a directory of every character in a series. For this level of detail, again, it would be better served in a Bleach or anime wiki or other fan site. If the minor characters were axed out of all of the lists, and the individual descriptions cleaned up, there is no reason that the Bleach characters can not all fit into a single article, despite the length of the show. Collectonian 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd agree that the character articles would fail AfD. I might even vote merge (sans Grimm as I voted). As for the lists, however, a quick overview of AfD shows maybe ten (I only did two days, guessing at number), two of which you just put up, and the East-Enders being understandably insignificant. Of those I checked, I see maybe two failing. This goes into my point, which is that the failing criteria is that the lists are inherently all minor characters, while these three lists are largely notable characters with minor ones tossed in. I doubt a single one would fail AfD, with merge being the likely worst-case. There's no reason to lump characters onto a single page. It's a hindrance, navigationally speaking, and it aids readers to track through specialized lists. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The average reader who has no clue about the show would find the specialized lists more confusing. How are they supposed to know where to find information about certain characters if they are relatively new to the show and have no idea what each of the categories is. A well done article could easily accommodate all of the characters in a single list if the effort were made to do so. As it stands now, a reader may have to read through six different articles to get an over view of the show characters. That, to me, is a hindrance. Collectonian 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
In some ways it's one, in others…you get the idea. For the uninitiated, it might be a problem to look through several different pages. Then again, people generally have an idea of what they're looking at when visiting any given article, even if it's at the most basic level. As for the six pages things, You seem to be blowing it out of proportion a bit. assuming you make your way from the main article, or even a sub, it's three at the most unless you've no clue what you're looking for. The way I see it, a bit of page jumping is a small price for helpful forking. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) To the Warcraft example, from what I've seen, character lists for video games, short of things like Halo, are generally hard to justify as pages. That deletion doesn't particularly surprise me. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Very true, though interestingly for the Warcraft one, it came after individual character articles were getting AfDed and a merge was suggested, now the merged article is also up for AfD. *doh* Collectonian 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Ouch, a lot has changed since I participated in the September discussion. I think that we should keep the character list, and especially the Quincy (Bleach) article seeing as that itself has the descriptions and history of the Quincy. As for Shinji and Hanataro, I really think its time to reconsider merging them. Having a single long list of characters might be VERY tedious and tiring to read, and thats why we seperated them in the first place.--Hanaichi 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Mergings can work for some of the articles but not with the Shinigami article. Even a newcomer to the series would know enough or relatively come quick to the conclusion that the character they're looking for would be a shinigami or not. The soul reapers are a class of themselves like the hollows, easily identifiable and separate. It would be an annoyance to readers to merge the Shinigami article even if we managed to trim off the unnecessary tidbits and shorten prose. Basically it's just an overload of information. That's also putting aside that the series is still on-going and info is constantly being updated whenever coming up. Fox816 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Just removed some unmentionables. Preparing to merge some characters. P.S., when I referred to Kon, I meant at the end of several volumes is something called "Radio Kon Baby", where Kon and another character answer a series of fan mail sent by fans of the series about the other character hosting. This counts as out-of-universe info. He scored high in popularity polls during the first part of the serries, and people even sent their own versions of Kon dolls they made to Kudo. Kon has out-of-universe info we haven't even listed yet. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Having the character break the fourth wall does not have anything to do with the real world. It may work as supplemental info, though. Real world info would be things such as the creation of Kon's initial concept, personality, design, ect, how the fans have reacted (contests and dolls would work well here, but they cannot be the only things present), how reviewers/critics have reacted, and anything else like that. TTN 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
We could put him under others, he really is nothing but a comdy act in the anime, he never really inhabaits Ichigo's body we could list him under the modified souls section with Ririn, Kuroud and Noba.Ultimaterasengan (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

So is the consensus not to merge the Shinigami list because that's what it looks like to me and if that is the case then maybe fix the merge template?? Sasuke9031 (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I can't tell. I think some of the discussion was on characters, but I have no idea who thought what about the Shinigami. For now, I'd be fine with removing it from the merge discussion and focusing on individual character articles and the bount list.Collectonian (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)


I brought it up earlier but there wasn't much play on it. Either way, the Shinigami list should remain independant from the rest. We've been workin on cleaning it up this past few weeks and it's still far too large to merge it. As well, I pointed out that the Shinigami are basically a class of their own. Like the hollows, it's best to keep them separate. Fox816 (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

So here's a question...why does Kon seem to rate as a race equal to Hallows, Qunicy, Bounts, ect. according to the little Bleach table available at the bottom of some pages? 72.192.206.80 (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Final views?

It's been awhile since anyone posted about the merge. If I am reading correctly, Kon's article had a consensus for merge, while the rest I'm not sure. To give a better idea of consensus, please post below with an oppose/support style comment for each article suggested on an individual basis, along with your comments on why you support/oppose. Here, again, are a list of the articles currently suggested for merging:

Collectonian (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • List of Bleach shinigami, support, merge here or maybe rename and expand to include all of the Soul Society characters, with a better introduction
  • List of Bounts in Bleach, support, the only thing this article has is another list of characters that could fit in the current Bount section here with clean up
  • Quincy (Bleach), support, support, if all of the OR and unnecessary content were removed, it would easily fit in the article and as there are only two in the series, there is really no WP:N to stand alone; would also support the suggestion ofmerging into Uryu's article
  • Vizard, support, no reason to have separate, and with some clean up it could easily fit into this article
  • Kon (Bleach), support, individual character fails WP:N and would not pass an AfD. Better to merge than let it get deleted.
I believe all of these articles could be covered with a single article, if steps were taken to cut down the amount of extraneous content, excessive detail, OR speculations, and reduced to proper summary style content both in the individual articles and in this one. Collectonian (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • List of Bleach shinigami, support Collectonian's suggestion to rename it and include all characters in Soul Society, as that would also solve the Soul Society article problem.
  • List of Bounts in Bleach, support, mainly due to the fact that the bounts are not notable, as it was a filler arc.
  • Quincy (Bleach), Not supported. The Quincy are not notable all by themselves I agree, but perhaps to merge into Uryu's article would be a more viable solution?
  • Vizard, support, come on. The only notable Vizard is Ichigo Kurosaki.
  • Kon (Bleach), support. Again, come on. He's not notable. Sasuke9031 (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • List of Bleach shinigami, Reject Merge - Shinigami are an entire class of their own. Merging would make the Character list unnecessarily long even with information trimming. A renaming wouldn't be a bad idea. The vizard listing could be edged in.
  • Support merge for Kon (Bleach). I'm not sure about the Quincy or Bounts however because of placements. Fox816 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Not doing the point by point. I would agree to merging the description pages into their relevant list articles, as well as some of the characters into list articles. Aside from the Bount, I'm against merging character lists into one another, as they are quite long as is, and trimming alone will not reduce the sheer amount of volume that would result. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment If I knew how to merge, I'd go ahead and merge Kon, since that's where consensus is heading. Since I don't, if someone could merge him and tell me how to merge on my talk page. Sasuke9031 (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

To merge, basically trim down the Kon article to remove any excessive stuff or OR and remove the infobox & image. Then copy/paste what's left into the Kon section here, fix any formatting and grammar to match this page and save. On the Kon page, replace everything but the categories with a Redirect and add {{R from merge}}{{R to list entry}} after the Redirect code. Collectonian (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • List of Bleach shinigami, Reject merge, per WP:SIZE concerns. The reason why we split it up in the first place is because the main character list was becoming too long.
  • List of Bounts in Bleach, Merge into Bount - same as Vizard and Quincy was done.
  • Quincy (Bleach), Keep or Merge into an article containing all the other races. (List of races in Bleach)
  • Vizard, Keep or Merge into an article containing all the other races. (List of races in Bleach)
  • Kon (Bleach), Support, Kon fails WP:N and would not pass an AfD. Better to merge than let it get deleted.
Actually, a suggestion of mine is to merge the Vizard, Quincy, and Bounts into a single article (List of races in Bleach). In doing so, we avoid overcrowding the main character list yet retain more information then we normally would.--Hanaichi 06:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think, if they were cut down some, the general Vizard, Quincy, and Bount could just be nice introductions to those sections of the list. Collectonian (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment Doing what Hanaichi suggested would be kind of like what was done with the Espada, which would be something I would totally support. The articles would still be merged, but not as much info would have to be lost. As for Kon, he deserves to be merged here in this article. Sasuke9031 (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus - as it seems consensus is with keeping Bleach shinigami separate, I've gone ahead and removed that one from the merge list. I have started a discussion on that list about the idea of renaming it and expanding it to cover all of the Soul Society. Collectonian (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of some extremely minor characters

I think in a discussion a few weeks ago someone declared that they unilaterally deleted some extremely minor characters, like Mrs. Shinmura and the 3 kids whom Ichigo beat up in the first chapter. While I can understand the reasoning of the user, this is simply unencyclopedic behavior and against the purpose of Wikipedia, which aims to bring comprehensive coverage of its topics. Every series on Wikipedia has a list of minor characters, and in many series they're specially called List of minor characters in Series. If someone is of the opinion that such characters would clutter this page, I propose making a list of minor characters in Bleach, each one with no more than 1-2 lines of text. Examples are the two above, as well as Hiyosu and Akon, Raku the cat, the little girl whom Kon and Matsumoto saved from a hollow, etc. Otherwise, I think the user who made this deletion should repair their damage because it would take much longer for anyone else to do this as they might not know when the edit took place and what exactly was removed.

Again, I do not support providing an in-depth background about every single character, no matter how minor, but they should at least be listed, possibly even without descriptions.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

That is an incorrect sweeping argument. Most shows do NOT have lists of minor characters and all relevant MOS not that minor characters should specifically not be included in the list of characters and only need mention in the episode/volume summaries and if they have had any minor impact in another character's section. It is not unencyclopedic behavior, it is, in fact, in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a guide for shows. That level of minute detail is appropriate and welcome on the Bleach wikia, but not here. The removal of those minor characters was supported by other editors and properly handled. It does not need to be undone at all. Collectonian (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Please provide a link to a manual of style which says that they 'should specifically not be included in the list of characters'. There are some lists, like List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball, which lists ridiculously minor characters like Marron and Akuman, including descriptions which are far too large, same with Selipa and Toma in List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball, whose only purpose was to die (in a 40-minute TV special), etc., and this is after some deletionist crusader removed all the DB/Z character articles (I think each of the above characters had his own article). For other series, Inuyasha has an article for practically every lesser character, such as Ah-Un; Prison Break (not anime) has an article for Pad Man, who is probably on par with Chōjirō Sasakibe in terms of notability. I realize that I haven't provided a true 'list of minor characters' only, but the above were all for series that I know well. For series which I don't watch, here's a short list of such articles, including (for anime), List of minor characters in One Piece, which seems to list just about every character possible. Again though, please point me to a rule about how minor characters should not be included in lists. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument in a discussion. Minor characters are not notable. Just because fans have made articles doesn't mean they are appropriate. Many such pages have been AfDed, and many more will be heading there as other editors find them, and you might notice that one of those examples you pointed out is already tagged for merging because it shouldn't exist. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia so of course some slip through. As for rule, its call WP:N, with WP:FICTION and the anime and TV MOS's to help some more. Collectonian (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
It is convenient for you to point to a generic guideline like WP:N to 'prove' your point, except that none of the links you provided states that minor characters should not be listed in a broader list of characters. Please provide evidence for your claims. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just also noticed, WP:FICT's very status as a guideline is disputed, and it has been stripped to a bare-bone version of its former self. Ha! The reason is obvious - because good contributing Wikipedians are fed up with deletionist crusaders trying to delete every article related to fiction. As Jimbo Wales said, the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not notability. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
The entire guideline isn't disputed; how to deal with non-notable articles is disputed. Does it immediately go to AfD? Does someone start a merge discussion on its talk page? Does the material get sent to a wikia? etc. ~SnapperTo 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Collectonian on this. The three kids Ichigo beat up in the beginning are just not notable enough to even warrant a section. You can't have every single victim, or monster, or character to be noted down. Such things exist for the wikia. I see List of minor Sailor Moon characters do not have extremly minor characters, like the boy who resembles Shinnosuke from Crayon Shin-chan or the artist who was speculated to be gay. It has characters which appear in a special segment, or recurrs quite a number of times.

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Currently half of our articles in the Bleach series do not have real world information or reliable sources independent of the subject and not to mention is written in a in universe style. Unless such things could be found, we fail WP:FICT - Editors must prove, preferably in the article itself, that there is an availability of sources providing real-world information by: providing hyperlinks to such sources; outlining a rewrite, expansion, or merge plan; and/or gaining the consensus of established editors. Although WP:FICT is currently disputed, the fact remains clear that we cannot list the extremely minor characters unless they have some sort of real world information or is important to the series.--Hanaichi 11:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about notability for individual sections or, by extension, entire articles. I'm talking about notability to be included for a list. There's no evidence whatsoever that something can be non-notable for a list. Technically, there isn't even a policy or guideline preventing listing of completely ordinary non-notable people, as long as the article's topic is notable. An example is a local town's [insert a sort] team, which is barely notable in itself, but should (for completeness) list its roster, probably consisting of completely non-notable people. You can't try to delete just the roster, because the article would not be complete without it. Same here - in the name of comprehensive coverage, there's no reason not to include each and every character in the series in a list. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
If it was just a random minor league team, it could probably be tagged with {{db-group}} without incident. Even if that weren't the case, a roster isn't necessarily required; knowing that Patré Pickleton plays pitcher doesn't add to your understanding of the team, as you already know that someone will be playing that position. This gets back to WP:NOT#INFO; just because something is true doesn't mean it needs to be mentioned. That Don Kanonji weighs 71kg is interesting I suppose, but how does that really matter to anything? That those skateboarders that pissed Ichigo off have names is perhaps a nice tidbit of information, but why would you need to know their names? They aren't mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, and they only appear in the series for four pages. Many things add to an article's "completeness", but very few of those things would actually be missed. ~SnapperTo 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the VA's name is right

I was watching Bleach on the Internet, when I heard Don Kanonji's voice. I know it's the same one that was used in Bo-Bo Bo, so I think the name is wrong. Can anyone tell me if I'm right or not? Neo Guyver (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How to handle popularity information?

Yesterday I added some info on the popularity pools. Most character articles include notes on their popularity (which I don't think age too well, incidentally, since they use wording such as "the most recent character popularity pool"), and IMNSHO it only makes sense to at least mention the matter here. The Manga itself has at least clear references to those pools, and they are becoming even more proeminent as of late. Despite that, the section was removed very soon. I think it should stay, and welcome suggestions for alternatives. Luis Dantas (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The entire section is rather short and much of the info provided is a given (e.g. That popularity tends to change based on progression of the storyline). Everything could be expressed in a single sentence, maybe two. It ends up being just a sliver of information for readers, not so important to devote an entire section to it where expansion is slim to none. As well, SJ polls are rather standard for their popular series so Bleach is no exception. I do agree that information about the polls themselves should be noted somewhere. The best place would be on the Bleach (manga) article since it's general information relating to the manga and franchise, where it's more appropriate. At best only one or two liners are needed and can be fitted onto one of prose in the intro paragraph to the article. Lists and individual character articles should only contain poll results for the characters where it's relavent. Fox816 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion is that rather than having a section on it, the information should be added in to each character's profile. The 'most recent' thing shouldn't be there, either. It should state the 'fourth' for that one. And I think information on how the characters did in older popularity polls is relevant, too. So my suggestion would be to delete that section, but add info from each of the polls to the individual character profiles (either on their own page, or on the List pages such as this one).Kuwabaratheman (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A history of poll results serves very little purpose. The poll results themselves don't garner that much importance to have that kind of detail, hence why sticking to just recent results is preferred. Some of the time a high/low record is kept as in the highest and lowest ranks that character has achieved. That provides a slight increase in perspective in how the character has done overall with the fan base. Fox816 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Editting Suggestions

I think people are going off to the wrong direction. Editting should be done to improve readability and accuracy. We should not shorten an article solely for the sake of shortening it if the article is already readable to common folks. Also, this is not a courtroom and we're not lawyers. Use the wikipedia as guidelines in how to improve the article not to use it to fight. Discussion about plot summary should take place in the discussion page of plot summary not character page and vise versa. Bleach is a world with a lot of depth and characters, so i don't think it is weird that it would spawn so many long articles (look at star wars articles or articles on shakespearean plays, no one is complaining about those). I recommend everyone to try to add tags and move things around to organize things but avoid outright deletions to the best of your ability, then everyone will be happy. Ssh83 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Return to cleanup

With the arbitration case included and the injunction concluded, we are free to continue with the merge options discussed above. Also note that I have started working on Rukia Kuchiki for a GA run, with the model being the recent Naruto GAs (Sasuke Uchiha, Sakura Haruno, Kakashi Hatake, also Gaara at WP:GAN). I'll begin adding an "appearances in other media" section to the aforementioned article, but the remaining sections need to be condensed and properly cited using {{cite book}}. My only quibble is that there's a lack of conception information - is anyone aware of a source of conception information for the Bleach characters? If it's not available, then it's not available, but it would make the process smoother if it did. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you about lack of conception information. Can anyone find a copy of the Bleach Databooks Online? There HAS to be one somewhere....There's "Every Colour But The Black" & "VIBE ANIMation: Souls" RedEyesMetal (talk) 12:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Add all the pages to WikiProject

Why can't these be added to WikiProject? The simple solution is not always the best solution. Not when there is soo much that can be added and improved to each page. It's not like any of these pages a stubs. Neovu79 (talk) 05:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

All of the pages are in the Anime and manga Wikiproject. They need to be merged because they fail WP:FICT. This is a work initiated in part by the project because we want to improve our articles within the guidelines of Wikipedia.Collectonian (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
What exactly is missing that makes these pages fail WP:FICT? If so, why not impove them to make them comply with the guidelines? What I've noticed since joining Wiki a while back is that most people are lazy and do not want to put in the amount of time needed to work on pages. Instead of working on them to make the better and/or comply to Wiki guidelines, they make thing worse by deletion, merging or reverting articles. There would be less controversy and talk over things like these if they aren't taking the easy way out. Neovu79 (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Has nothing to do with laziness. WP:FICT requires individual character and episode articles have SIGNIFICANT real-world coverage in third-party reliable sources. Primary sources can NOT be used to establish this notability (which would include the manga series, the anime series, art books, fan books, etc). Most, if not all, of the Bleach characters lack this. What doesn't exist doesn't exist and no amount of effort by Wikipedia users will fix that. Collectonian (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
While I am inclined to agree, most of the problem revolves around Google and its filtration systems. Maybe if we could have a search engine that allowed fansite filters and stuck to WP:N principles, we could actually keep the articles. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with there being some articles missing notability, there are plenty of third-party sources out there can satisfy WP:N, for example Newtype, Shonen Jump or OTAKU magazine. The question is, who is willing to research the information? Neovu79 (talk) 03:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If you believe such notability exists, then improve them. That months upon months have passed without notability asserted are a big an indication as any. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Believe me, if I wasn't working on other Wiki pages, I would. I'm trying to get other decenters to help out instead. Not, saying any of you fall into that catagory but I believe a lot do. Neovu79 (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I've written quite a few fictional character articles, and as such, have a fairly good idea about what is notable and not in this regard. The majority of these characters aren't notable period. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I can agree with that, but I do beleive that there are a few exceptions that can be WP:N that would greatly benefit from working to avoid many Wiki controversies. Neovu79 (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
If notability could be proven, we wouldn't be having this discussion. All of your points ignore the fact that absolutely no notability is asserted for the grand majority of these characters. Provide the relevant sources to prove such notability or the articles are merged. It's a quite simple matter. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
After review of many of these articles the last couple of hours, I hate to admit it, but you guys are right. All of these characters in the Merge do not factor in strongly in the series and do not deserve mainstream attention. I do like to add that Kenpachi Zaraki should be moved to the Merged catagory. Neovu79 (talk) 04:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

We're currently looking up out-of-universe info on Zaraki. Once we conclude if he has or hasn't enough out-of-universe info, then he will be merged or kept. For an article with enough out-of-universe info, take a look at the Naruto character articles. Once we bring them up to THAT level, then we can keep the articles. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Gah, wait. I agree that Soifon and Kaname and the rest should definitely be merged, but are you sure about merging Urahara? Doesn't he count as a main character? After all, with him and the Hougyoku (however you spell it), wouldn't he count as a person representing a big part of the series. I have to reread that stuff on notabliity. And I agree that we should merge Zaraki. He doesn't represent an insanely important place in the series. IceUnshattered (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
We're not working on importance towards the plot, but the amount of out-of-universe information that can be brought up for that character. Zaraki might have enough out-of-universe information to be kept, along with other characters. Unless we are sure there is enough out-of-universe information on the character, which basically means GA-level, then we can keep them. If not, then we merge them. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a thankyou

I just wanted to say thankyou for all the work people put into this. I watched the anime episodes first and then started reading the manga, and I was so confused when the manga showed Shiba Kukaku with a stump for a left arm, because I remembered her having one in the anime, and I was started to wonder if I was having trouble seeing or if the poses were just weird...75.2.53.198 (talk) 02:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

Can someone please link me to the consensus where Shinigami were going to be called Soul Reapers here? It's cool either way, but it threw me for a loop. Sasuke9031 (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go: Talk:Bleach (manga)#Soul Reaper vs. Shinigami. The article will be renamed and all usages changed over. Its being done now. Collectonian (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. You linked to the article for the chemical, but I was able to find the info. (At least this wasn't as bad as the Paein debacle. Thank Goodness!!!) Sasuke9031 (talk) 06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
LOL, see what happens when you post at 2 am ;) Collectonian (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

R O-o-U info for the Kisuke Urahara article

I know this is a weird request, but I'm lazy, so can someone dig up enough out-of-universe info from reliable sources for the Kisuke Urahara article to pass WP:FICT and WP:N? AnimeNikkaJamal (talk) 23:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Shinigami Research Institute

I think there probably needs to be a short two or three-liner about the members of the Shinigami Research Institute on this page (the ones who work with Mayuri and Urahara), mostly since they have appeared a couple times in the series and in the omake (mostly Akon but maybe a couple others too) and as a note to their connection to 12th Squad. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)