Talk:List of Bleach characters/Archive 3

message: While most agreed that some articles would need to be merged (like Chōjirō Sasakibe), the merging is getting out of hand. TTN now merged Izuru Kira, an important character with numerous appearances, who even takes part in the Bount filler arc, into List of Bleach shinigami. What's more, a consensus was never reached at the discussion on what exactly to merge, and the only revised proposals were made by User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares, who isn't even active on Bleach-related pages. This problem needs to be fixed ASAP and the mass-merging has to be stopped until a concensus is reached on each and every character.
The above comment will appear on Talk:Bleach (manga) and Talk:List of Bleach characters. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stop!

message: Seriously, the merging should stop now. We've done enough. We do too much, we won't even have articles at all. What we've got now, is alright and I believe its perfect. RedEyesMetal 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to remind you all, we're going to be improving articles now, starting with the main characters apparently. Kira, Momo, and the others merged have no hope of ever getting past stub-class, EVER. And they can be described in three average-sized paragraphs. Any character that can be like that shouldn't have articles at all. Also, can we please merge Nnoitora? There's no way of improving that article at all, or noticibly changing it, and it is Bleach's wosrt. I've also made a merge attempt in my sandbox. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 19:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it was generally agreed in the Talk:List of Bleach hollows that we keep Szayel and Nniotra's articles until they finish their fight. RedEyes, the table looks good, just a couple of things wrong a bit. Theres little or no hope at all that Nel gets an article, unless the section about her looks extremely long, which it isn't.--Hanaichi 01:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why're you guys so convinced that Szayel won't get enough relevancy to have an article EVER, hes article is 9.5 kilobytes, that's longer than Kaien (8.5), Tousen (9), Shinji (8), Isshin (8.5)'s article, who you're so determined to keep, I think we could all improve their article (Szayel included) so we wont have to merge them, Noitora's article is not much more than a stub, so I wont protest if you delete it, but Szayel, NO! Also, why do you think Nell would 'never' get enough relevancy to have an article? I know we dont have to write an article for her now, but you cant predict the future, can you? Hartebeest 23:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, we can't predict the future, but I view Szayel as a temporary thing, much like Luppi when he was introduced. I think the main reason why Szayel has alot of information is because of the comparison to Mayuri and that his release has been revealed. Currently there isn't enough info for Nell to warrant her own article, because if she does get her own article it will probably look like a stub.--Hanaichi 04:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Okay, that's enough

message: For lack of third party sources, everything here, in the Naruto section, and probably all over the place is open for deletion. Maybe we ticked off the admins to much so that they care now, maybe not who knows. Just giving you all the fair warnning and try to find a way to save all the info. Thats it, good day.--TheUltimate3 16:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: http://bleach.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page New wikia, a start and a place to move the info to if Wikipedia cracks down.--TheUltimate3 17:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what exactly are we expected to do? Write about influences, popular culture, and designs, then completely forget about the characters themselves? // DecaimientoPoético 00:21, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: That my friend, is up to you and the other Bleach editors. I was just giving you fair warning that "lack of third party sources" seems to be a tactic for deleting articles.--TheUltimate3 00:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, that is what we should be doing. If we had done that, then they would all be GAs right now. See Batman. It's a very well written FA that treats its subject in a very out-of-universe voice. If we did that for all the Bleach character articles (although I believe it would have been already done if the information was available) then there would be no problems in retaining them or in passing them onto GA status. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Sort of. That's the ongoing debate. The Naruto related articles recently experienced a merging bit - see List of major Konoha teams, and the tighter WP:FICT ruling resulting in an Afd for List of Akatsuki members here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair bit of warning: All the Bleach articles are most likely open for deletion. 

message: Can anyone add the information about the characters unique to recent fillers? I wanna do it myself, but I can't remember their name, so can you? Hartebeest 23:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: List of Bleach The Arrancar arc episodes mentions a guy named Patros or something, is that who you meant? Sorry, I've been so busy I've barely been able to read the manga, much less keep up with filler plot. --tjstrf talk 08:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I could do it, but I'll be out of town until Monday.  If it's not done by then, I'll do it. --Eruhildo 15:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Patros is already there, and so is his lil buddies, by filler characters I mean the kids (think it's Shouta and Yui) from ep. 128 - 131, the boy Shinji (I know he has the same name as Hirako, but yeah) in the Kendo episode, the cake baker in 134, the lil girl in 135, and Shintaro, I know that's a lot, but thanks. Hartebeest 23:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why include such excessively minor characters? The various depositories of Bleach characters are already littered with subjects you could never hope to care about or know where in the series they appear. For example: Harunobu Ogidō. Who? Does he actually do anything, or is he a background character Kubo decided to give a name to? What chapter does he even appear in? Unless they are relevant to the story there is no need to stuff them in somewhere. ~SnapperTo 00:09, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I don't think you should call Shouta a minor character, a 4 episode character, FOUR Episodes!! That's as much as Grand Fisher! Hartebeest 00:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - most of the filler characters are very minor and don't need to be listed here, but Shouta did play a big role in the fillers.  I think he should be added.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eruhildo (talk • contribs) 05:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Gonna add them myself if nobody does it. Hartebeest 00:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New filler characters? 

message: I have run into a problem with merge tags being placed for characters that have been deemed appropriate per WP:N, WP:FICT and several other policies by User:Sephiroth BCR on this discussion and this discussion.  Instead of being blocked for edit warring, I thought I'd bring it to the community as a whole per WP:CCC.  Please discuss.  Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? Which characters and is the problem with people removing the tags or merging them? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This one and This one.  Apparently User:Shrine Maiden has templated them for not enough screen time, and I have explained that screen time does not demonstrate notability alone, and directed them to WP:N, but if the merges do go through, they should be for the right reasons, like no longer passing WP:N and WP:FICT, right?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasuke9031 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about "not enough screentime". They are obviously not main characters and although Bleach fanboys love them, ask anyone about "Kenpachi Zaraki" and they'll say "WHO?" Shrine Maiden (talk) 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Shrine Maiden, see my note below and please review the relevant policies. Being main characters is also not a sign of notability. Some very notable characters in some series have been supporting characters (Q from Star Trek: The Next Generation for example, who only appears in a handful of episodes). That said, as I've noted below, your are within your rights to request a new discussion on merging these articles, however please make sure to properly tag them with the correct target name and to include the appropriate corresponding tag on the list page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Correct. Merging should be done after being sure they can't meet WP:N and WP:FICT (and I usually add WP:PLOT and WP:WAF for those who dispute FICT). Now, that said, if she has tagged it for a merge, as it isn't vandalism or blatantly silly, it must now go through a discussion to reach consensus. She is basically challenging the February discussion, and as the articles haven't yet been cleaned up like some of the others, I can see the fairness in her questioning it. That being the case, I've created a merge discussion below for each one. A merge from multiple tag also needs to be added to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach with the appropriate discussion link here, and the merge tags fixed in both articles to point to the actual list. (actually three articles now, from the look of it) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only what mentioned above, Kisuke Urahara, Kaname Tōsen, Gin Ichimaru all need to be merged. Well, silly shonen anime like Naruto and Bleach often have better chances to go to mainstream US TV and have unusually large kid fanbase, so if you are so worked up over it, keep them, I will withdraw to watch my stuff like Lucky Star. = ) Shrine Maiden (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well those I can understand and would have tagged 'em and bagged 'em myself if not for having been beaten to the punch. Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) While you are within your rights to question the notability, coming at it from a standpoint like that and referring to it as "silly shonen anime" makes it appear that you are not viewing the articles totally from a neutral standpoint based on Wikipedia guidelines, but from your own viewing preferences. Please make sure your merge suggests are grounded in the former, and not the latter. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, because Bleach and Naruto and other shonen stuffs went to America and got some anime reviews, being mentioned in one review does not automatically make one character become "notable" in my opinion. If you say one character is important in the plot and so on, why are all Claymore character jammed in one nasty page? Maybe I am not viewing the articles from a neutral standpoints, Bleach fanboys also certainly not. Shrine Maiden (talk) 20:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, you are not speaking neutrally, and are bordering on incivility. Please remember to WP:AGF, as many of these pages were created before today's current standards exist. Many series have slowly been undergoing merge discussions, but there have been delays and it is a time consuming process, particularly for a series as large as Bleach. The series itself, as well as Naruto has been the subject of multiple reviews, news articles, and have been mentioned in multiple books, so please don't discount them as unimportant simply because you dislike shonen works. As per the above discussions, these articles were looked at neutrally by the majority of the editors, and continue to do so. That doesn't mean everything will get fixed overnight, however. I myself have been working on the merge of the individual character articles of Tokyo Mew Mew, and it has taken several months with one left to do. All of the editors working on these Bleach character articles are highly experienced editors who want to do a good job, not just shove everything on a single page to make yet another unsourced, ugly list. Instead, they work to merge articles in as decently written prose with the majority of sources in place, so that in the end we will end up with something like List of Naruto characters, which is a featured list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: This proposal seems somewhat pointy, born out of this discussion; if Tekken characters aren't notable enough to have their own individual articles, then neither are characters from "unremarkable" anime. That said, these articles do have too much plot stuff, and continue to need parring down. That does not mean they do not have the necessary out-of-universe information, as most of these articles have some semblance of a reception section. Sephiroth BCR has indicated that they have the potential to reach GA status, and I'm inclined to agree with him given his success rate in such matters. ~SnapperTo 20:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand why shonen characters' "techniques" and "ability" and "signature attacks" need to be comprehensively written down in Wikipedia. Surely that's help humanity alot >_> Shrine Maiden (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The articles need cleaning up, but again, that has nothing to do with notability. If, as Snapper has noted, you are starting this discussion soley because of the Tekken Fighters discussion (and the rather disturbing one you started on Talk:Tekken regarding "deletion of articles", I am going to ask that you stop at this point and not add anymore articles to the discussion list. As it is, you have reawakened the early discussion and it will continue, but if you continue, it will appear that you are being disruptive to make a point, rather than actually having legitimate concern. As for the articles "helping humanity," if that was the criteria for articles, entire TV series and film articles would be gone, along with the great bulk of the encyclopedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's some big accusations. I added 2 merge tags to 2 Bleach characters articles because I see they are not main characters and are not "notable" in any way (save Bleach fanboys). Other articles had been tagged since March and no one cares. If I am trying to be disruptive, I should have placed those tags on all Bleach characters, but I did not place merge tag on Ichigo or Orihime because they are obviously main characters and deserve their own articles given that this anime has a large fanbase, but other deathgod guys don't deserve it just because Bleach fanboys love them. Tekken characters just turned my attention to this and I see they are the same. Make legitimate points to prove that those characters are notable enough rather than attacking me. Shrine Maiden (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really.  If you look into our history, you will see this user who pretty much did the same thing, except listed the articles for deletion instead of merge.  While I admit that merge is less disruptive than deletion, it is such a time consuming process, and most of us have jobs we need to go to.  All we ask is that you consider the reasons for such a merge proposal, and prove us wrong. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Those characters are not main characters and only appear briefly here and there, so prove that they are notable other than "I'm a Bleach fanboy and I love those characters so they deserve a page and I will oppose those who propose a merge". Shrine Maiden (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then.  Here goes.  Notability is established through outside sources.  Most of these sources are either found in a Creation and conception section or in a reception section.  Of the two articles that I opposed merging below, they both have reception sections to the best of my knowledge, and they have had some trimming done on plot summaries, albiet thy probably could use more, but that's my proof. Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a discussion below so you can vote for it or against it. It's simple. As for the "reception", being "mentioned" in one review doesn't mean they are that notable. Shrine Maiden (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Already voted.  The only thing left on my to do list is to attempt to reason with you so that discussion can proceed normally for everybody else. Sasuke9031 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't need to reason with me, I have good faith = ) Shrine Maiden (talk) 22:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good to hear.  Let's get underway then shall we? Sasuke9031 (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: One again, Shrine Maiden, you are very close to being uncivil and making personal attacks on editors without any real basis for those attacks or valid reason. No one has said they will oppose those who propose a merge. Indeed, despite your poor attitude, a merge discussion was started to allow consensus to be reached on each article. So stop calling people "fanboys" just because the articles exist and allow the process to happen without flame baiting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources that "fanboy" = personal attack? I am a proud Lucky Star fangirl. Shrine Maiden (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your tone makes it very obvious you don't mean it in a good way. It falls well within the whelm of Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Particularly: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views" which your comments do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that so? = \ Shrine Maiden (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

text: (ec) The same can be said of almost all fictional topics. Even real things have that issue; does humanity really care if George W. Bush "as a child, was not accepted for admission by St. John's School"? I highly doubt it. But it is relevant to Bush, just as a character's techniques are relevant to the character. ~SnapperTo 21:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly Bush plays a more significant role in human history than "Strawberry Ichigo". Shrine Maiden (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but this is an encyclopedia, not a history text.  Sasuke9031 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, stop your annoying "shonen anime (x)" elitist bullshit. Your neutral point of view is already questioned enough without it. Suigetsu 03:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge proposals, faulty or not? 

message: This ANN news piece says that the guy does the anime character designs. However, an old Studio Pierrot site citation that I recall adding some months ago and has apparently either been lost or gone deadlink since then credited him as "anime designer", and in a Japanese interview given prior to the Diamond Dust movie release Kubo said that he does all the anime character designs personally.
This begs the question of exactly what the guy's job really is. I would presume that he's in charge of translating the manga designs into something animatable, but that's just a guess. Anyone know a better/clearer source? --erachima talk 07:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Every mention I've finding of him refers to him as the character designer for the various movies and series, as well as the animation directory. Basically, as you already guessed, the character designer designs the basic characters for the animated series, based on Tite's original manga characters. That's why there are some subtle differences between the media appearances, if you do a side by side comparison, as they will often put their own little touches on the characters, or make subtle changes to match a change in tone or focus of the anime. :) Most anime series based on a manga have a character designer deal with adapting the characters to the animated version. http://www.aicanime.com/introanime/process06.html has a nice article on the process of making an anime talking about the role of the character designer.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masashi Kudo cite 

message: We could use some folks over at Talk:List of Soul Reapers in Bleach#Officer/Former Officer issue to discuss the issue of current/former officer labeling. There was so much edit warring going on over it that the article is currently fully protected while we talk it out. Please come offer your thoughts so we can reach some consensus and get things going again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Soul Reaper List 

message: Suggested merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it. I'm fairly positive his name was thrown around in my new SJ issue, I'll check it later today. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Byakuya Kuchiki]]

message: Suggested merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach (originally tagged in March, updated to be included in new discussion).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information Suigetsu 03:04, 22 August 2008 (*UTC)
*Support Per Sui and WP:N, which I think Kaname just fails. Do what AnmaFinotera said :D IceUnshattered [ t ] 17:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Kaname Tōsen]]

message: Suggested merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach (originally tagged in March, updated to be included in new discussion).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Can you point out additional sourced reception info, besides the two relatively minor IGN episode reviews? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why you get to arbitrarily call the IGN reviews minor when they're enough for other articles. Suigetsu 03:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Also, I highly doubt other info doesn't exist, given Gin's... well, Gin-ness. Suigetsu 19:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Gin Ichimaru]]

message: Suggested merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach (originally tagged in March, updated to be included in new discussion).-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Information alone is in no way a criterion for inclusion, and to be honest, I don't really find the information on these pages to be that helpful either. Either way, the matter at hand is that these articles have absolutely no real-world notability, which is a red flag for delete that shit. Otherwise I'd be creating articles about myself and my own different techniques that I wish I had. Suigetsu 03:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment I don't particularly care about the fate of these articles, but it really makes my blood boil when I see an everyday person on Wikipeda with a concern being written off by "higher" users as an idiot fan and basically being told to go away through copy-pasting links to policies. Please stop. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Good for you. Too bad the policy is completely valid because his main argument is that he doesn't want the "info to be lost." I copypasted a policy that specifically contradicts this sentiment because he copypasted the same response to all of these characters. How dare I wish to uphold Wikipedia's standards and policies instead of giving in to the demands of someone who openly goes against them! 207.80.142.5 (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *It really is more like "How dare I try to apply Wikipedia's vague and sometimes subjective information inclusion guidelines in an arbitrary manner against average users and long-standing articles", but I digress since a few of the pages in question should probably be merged anyway. By the way, all your links go to the wrong policy page, you're looking for WP:NOT. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I want you to look up the word "arbitrary" because I don't think it means what you think it means. In layman's terms, arbitrary means random. In no way is "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" random given his claim, which is just as vague, given that it is just "it's info and shouldn't be deleted. I also don't appreciate your painting me as an "established user that bullies less-established users." If you did some research, I'm not established at all, most of my edits amount to little more than stupid corrections and arguing with this dude (hehe). Sorry to burst your bubble, but no matter what, the policy I cited (or attempted to cite >.<) directly contradicts the user's argument. I didn't see it worth much more than that for a response. Suigetsu 23:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

text: By the way, "average users" and "longstanding articles" are not excuses for articles that do not uphold Wikipedia's standards and policies. That shit don't fly here, bro. 4srs. Suigetsu 23:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Norse's point is that doing nothing but citing WP:NOT#INFO isn't really constructive. While Shunkboy's argument is exactly compelling, it would be more productive for you to explain why he is wrong beyond merely citing policy (see WP:BASH). Such a tone could be considered in violation of WP:BITE and WP:CIVIL, so try to be a bit nicer in the future. Yes, NOT#INFO is a refutation of his argument, but it would be more mature to frame that in the context of a larger argument. sephiroth bcr (converse) 06:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited comment to reflect what I meant by WP:NOT#INFO, mmm? Although I agree I should have been more specific, Norse's original post was using something resembling slippery-slope logic: I am copy-pasting links to Wikipolicies, thus, I must be writing off newer users as fanboys, thus, I must be telling them to go away. Only the first is true, which was what I was trying to argue.  Suigetsu 13:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and Skunkboy, you do understand that if you really wanted to see the article again you could just look at the history and use an old diff to get your info?Suigetsu 13:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually did not know that. Thanks for the tip! --Skunkboy74 (talk) 17:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Use http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NAME_OF_ARTICLE&action=history to browse associated history. ~SnapperTo 18:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Yoruichi Shihōin]]