Talk:List of Bleach characters/Archive 2

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shou Takanashi 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: A separation by rank on this page is much more logical and I would support it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  The more I think about it, the better I like the way it was. --Eruhildo 19:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soul Society - Squads 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I've redirected it to Karakura Town. Further comments can be made here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Karakura High School]] 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: If it was just a random minor league team, it could probably be tagged with  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)
thread_title:  Removal of some extremely minor characters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I don't think the VA's name is right 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  How to handle popularity information? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Editting Suggestions 

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Return to cleanup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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.AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Add all the pages to WikiProject 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just a thankyou 

message: 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)
replies: text: Here ya go: Talk:Bleach (manga)#Soul Reaper vs. Shinigami. The article will be renamed and all usages changed over. Its being done now. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: LOL, see what happens when you post at 2 am ;) AnmaFinotera (talk) 14:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did I miss something? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  R O-o-U info for the Kisuke Urahara article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Shinigami Research Institute 

message: Did anyone find out last night who played the voice of Kuroudo? I tried to read the end credits, but it was difficult. 209.247.23.41 (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice 

message: On several articles (e.g., list of Bounts in Bleach) a merge with this article has been proposed.
*Oppose; the article is going to bee too long for Wikipedia's standards. Lysis rationale (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: I'd like to say that I've been digging up character reception and other information for the characters and I've found some info for Ishida, Kon, Renji, Byakuya, Aizen & Gin. The sections do need re-writing though...and I'm still looking for out-of-universe information concerning Kisuke, Ukitake & Mayuri. I am trying hard and I really don't want them to be merged. RedEyesMetal (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Find some for Mayuri, he's one of my favorite Soul Reapers next to Ikkaku and Gin, the former of which already got merged and the latter doesn't seem to be going anywhere. Urahara merchandise is available, but that alone won't hold up in his article. StardustDragon 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up Part II - Getting references etc. 

message: Oh, and just to clarify, the following would be merged:
*Kisuke Urahara
*Yoruichi Shihōin
*Gin Ichimaru
*Kaname Tōsen
*Kon (Bleach)
*Vizard
*List of Bounts in Bleach
*List of Espada in Bleach
*Ulquiorra Schiffer
*Grimmjow Jeagerjaques
My big sticking point is making sure that the page doesn't get so big, which is why I inserted a  template for the Gotei 13 pointing to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach. I'm still iffy on the notability on the lesser members in the "protagonists" section, but oh well. List of hollows in Bleach is a giant collection of one-shot enemies and in-universe summary that needs to go (do we need to cover the hollow Ichigo kills in the first episode and every subsequent one he kills during the first arc?). The Espada can be summarized in the antagonists section (present article has four paragraphs on a twenty chapter character, and we have to have a whole paragraph on appearance for every character?), but how best to organize it (bold headers + span tags to avoid having to use lots of level four headers is my preference, or it can just be solid prose). 
Onto the rest of the articles, the following simply need to go, as they're AfD bait.
*Quincy (Bleach) - completely in-universe, long list of attacks, WP:NOT#PLOT bait.
*Soul Reaper (Bleach) - same reason. Material is way too detailed and can be summarized at List of Soul Reapers in Bleach.
*Hollow (Bleach) - same reason.
*Bount - same reason, and even less justifiable than the previous two.
*Kidō - giant list of attacks, more WP:NOT#PLOT bait. We lost the jutsu lists at the Naruto articles, and kidō is far less prominent in the Bleach universe than jutsu is in the Naruto universe.
*Zanpakutō - giant list of weapons, NOT#PLOT bait, etc. We already discuss zanpakutō for practically all characters, so this article is really redundant.
I can see a Bleach universe or Universe of Bleach article having some weight, considering that I think the setting receives some reception, so the above can fit nicely into it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the merge idea.--Tintor2 (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with the merge idea and the planned arrangement. Looks like a good, neutral way to sort them. I also agree on the need to deal with the rest of the articles. I don't know if a Bleach universe type article would work. Any thing available about it other than some reception? Creation/conception for example? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Soul Reaper has survived two afds, so the kido, zanpakuto can go there. Hollow page can go into the hollow list I suppose, and the Espada list too, maybe. Bount and Quincy onto the character page. As long as at least the main characters have pages, I won't complain. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Good idea.  I agreed that the Espada split was ok for WP:SIZE but I think the Espada, like the Akatsuki, have worn out their welcome and a full antagonist section is warranted at this point.  I'd also go for a merge for just about everything you covered with maybe the Urahara article being merged yet copied to a sandbox for anyone with way too much free time on their hands to maybe find some info that asserts notability, much like Tintor is doing with Itachi in his userspace. Sasuke9031 (talk) 04:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

text: AnmaFinotera, to answer your question, concept/creation information is hard to find since NONE of the Bleach databooks have been released in English, neither the artbooks. I've been trying to find if theres a translation online, but then no luck still. So I'm sorry to say, reception is the only thing we can work with. As for Kisuke, I'm still working on finding universe reception for him. I'll have a bit more...RedEyesMetal (talk) 06:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By universe, you are referring to out-of-universe, right? Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, if we're talking about getting rid of the Zanpakuto list we shouldn't get rid of the section specifically talking about the Zanpakuto in each character's bio, if that isn't already understood. 209.83.240.60 (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: That isn't your choice to make. Consensus was clear, it stays merged. Your attempt to undo it was already undone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It wasn't a true merge in the first place, an entire article was deleted then only character descriptions were added to the list of characters. The info about the Quincy people as a whole was lost. By the way, I left the merged info, I accidentally undid it then put it back, all I did afterward was restore the deleted Quincy article. 24.178.106.120 (talk) 00:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The merge was fine. Merge does not mean you put the entire old article into the new one. Its merging the relevant info, not all of it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Nobody cares about the techniques. The merge is fine StardustDragon 03:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And besides, even if it is merged, the info is still there for posterity and research, which is better than what would have happened if it had not been merged, which is total deletion.  This way, if info does come up that makes it notable (doubt it, but you never know) we have a base with which to start it back up.  The best thing I can say at this point is any techniques that are remotely noteworthy should be merged into Uryu's article (assuming he uses them) though I seriously doube that they are anything more than fancruft and thus would not be inclined to do so myself.  The rest looks fine as is (post-merge of course). Sasuke9031 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd say yes on both. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. That's my first merge, so feel free to correct anything I didn't do right. StardustDragon 18:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. Only note (both for you and other mergers) is to remind folks when you do the redirect on the merged article, make sure to add  after the redirect so its properly categorized. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't believe that bullshit's finally over... those discussions have been at a standstill with no input from anything but anonymous IP fanboi's for such a long time. StardustDragon 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: I noted that Ririn name is now given as Lirin, because is how "adultswim" gives it (do to my browser I haven't been able to comfirm this). My question is why are we using this as her name when in "Bleach Beat Collection 2nd Session:04" her name is clearly spelled as Ririn?205.110.157.251 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:UE. sephiroth bcr (converse) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ririn vs. Lirin 

message: Ok, since when did vizards become visored? Is that even correct? ~ Hyakurei (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the summary when the page was renamed, "visored" is used in the latest English releases of the manga. I think some discussion before the rename would have been good, but if it is used in the manga releases, then per the MoS that is the name that should be used throughout the Bleach articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Huh, I'm going to have to look at some of the english manga, 'cause i don't recall that... ~ Hyakurei (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Visored?