Talk:Bleach (manga)/Archive 4

message: There is an optional field of the anime infobox (Template:Infobox animanga/Manga) that allows you to list the foreign publishers in a hidden field with a show/hide tag to reduce its length. However, in it's default form (viewable here) the text is too small for most people to see. I have attempted to fix this, and am currently transcluding one of my user subpages so that I don't have to mess with the main infobox.
For me, the infobox views perfectly. However, User:Dekimasu says that he still can't read the text in the box, and raised a couple other concerns as well. So I am asking for wider input here. I have two questions:
# Does the infobox text show up at a legible size for you? (also, what browser and Wikipedia skin do you use?)
# Is the show/hide field in the infobox a good idea? 
Thanks in advance. For the record, I'm using Monobook (default skin) with Opera and Internet Explorer, and the infobox works. --tjstrf 10:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything is working fine for me. Its legible and im using the default skin and FireFox i believe 1.8 (what ever the most up to date one is) Malevious 23:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even when you expand the publishers? I am running FireFox and the default skin but when I expand the publishers it is reducing the text size as though the contents are under a subheading. Dekimasu 01:16, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works fine for me too, FF 1.0.5.7, WinXPpro sp2, Monobook.--Anaraug 01:26, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't mind if I can't read them, but since the page is really for people who don't know anything about Bleach and not for us, let me know what other settings info I can give you to try to figure out what's happening. Dekimasu 01:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a clue why it isnt working right for you, and it is kinda important for you to read it, cuz if you can't that means other people might have the same problem. not that knowing who publishes it will be too helpfull to anyone lol Malevious 02:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox show/hide function, data and opinion collection 

message: I'm moving it to Bleach (series) because it's not just a manga and it shouldn't be all that controversial Voretus the Benevolent 07:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, but I've reverted this move. Going to "What links here" for Bleach (manga) shows several hundred pages that would have to be editted. Ryūlóng 08:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Aside from the hundreds of double redirects this created, it was already discussed and decided as shown in the standardization reminder above. The discussion is in archive 3. Not that previous discussions are set in stone, but you can see that some thought has gone into the page title. Dekimasu 08:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is the discussion: Talk:Bleach (manga)/Archive 3#Bleach (manga) vs. Bleach (series) –Gunslinger47 20:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest i dont see any conclusion or decision being made in that archive. The debate just stops. I think mabey we should have a final vote and what ever wins, wins and thats the end of it. Even if it means editing 500 articals. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia's not a democracy.  We discussed it and there was no consensus either way, thus we defaulted to not moving it. –Gunslinger47 02:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also note that "Article introductions should be primarily about the first format of a work (usually manga) and not about the most popular format of that work (usually anime). For example: Bleach is a manga series, that was later adapted into an anime series", NOT Bleach is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name. In cases where title disambiguation is necessary, a similar guideline should be followed." from the anime and manga project page. Dekimasu 02:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, when we're the example used for a rule, we probably shouldn't decide to violate that rule. --tjstrf talk 02:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: "In Volume 4, Issue 3 of the American Shonen Jump, there was an interview with the creator of Bleach. In the interview, it was said that Tite Kubo entered into a manga contest, but lost. An editor noticed him, and they worked with each other."
This sentence was in the Media Information section, and I just seem to be unable to make sense of it.  Does anyone understand what this is referring to? 199.126.137.209 21:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That text literally means this:  A magazine held a "manga contest" which Kubo entered.  He did not win, but one of the magazine's editors noticed his talent.  They have since gotten together to work on joint projects.  This was revealed in an interview with Tite Kubo in the "American Shonen Jump" magazine. (Volume 4, Issue 3) –Gunslinger47 23:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This should really be on the Tite Kubo page. It's probably talking about before he wrote Zombie Powder anyway. I'm moving it over. Dekimasu 00:38, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Huh?

message: I cleaned up the mod souls section a little bit because it referred to the arcs and we would have had to argue over the names of Urahara's mod souls all the time. But I'm confused. Isn't Rukia's Chappy another modified soul in the manga? Dekimasu 06:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe mod soul is only used as a name for the souls that have been enhanced of which Chappy isn't one. I really don't know what Chappy would be classified as. Gdo01 06:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chappy is an artificial soul. Kon is a modsoul. The difference is that artificial souls are manufactured personalities designed to temporarily take over a body, while modsouls are modified, specifically designed for combat.  --tjstrf 06:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, which character type is Chappy then, heh. Do we need a new section? I think the thing is that we have to be clear on the scope of the page. I have the feeling that making it more accurate is making it worse, and that pains me. Dekimasu 07:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uhm... she'd be an artificial soul. I'll clarify that. --tjstrf 07:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that artificial souls lack self-awareness.  They are not intelligent beings, and probably do not rank as "characters".  They are a dime a dozen.  I believe Rukia has an entire canister of Chappy soul candy.  –Gunslinger47 03:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nemu Kurotsuchi would like to speak with you. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 09:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously Nemu is somewhat more sophisticated than a piece of soul candy. –Gunslinger47 02:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguments on both sides completely based on OR pyon! Dekimasu 03:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Accidental spoiler pyon! Dekimasu 04:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified souls 

message: I have created a category to classify images you upload for Bleach articles into, :Category:Bleach images. Mainly because I wish to see how many we have, but also because I've felt for quite a while that our Bleach categorization system was incomplete without one. Please categorize any Bleach images you upload just as you would any other article, by adding Category:Bleach images to the bottom of the description page. Thanks. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 09:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New category for images

message: While interesting, the information on Spanish naming/Hispanic origins is not one of the most important things that we can say about Bleach as a whole. I really believe that it is not appropriate to have that information at the top of the main article for the manga/anime, so I have taken it out. The page has to be lean and clean for people who don't know anything about Bleach. Dekimasu 13:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish information in the lead

message: We have been using merchandising to standardize some of the names of characters in the series (the Bount, the mod souls, etc.). However, the merchandising is not always consistent. For example, some merchandise romanizes 市丸ギン to Itimaru Gin rather than Ichimaru, and Bleach DS romanizes Kyōraku's first name to Syunsui rather than Shunsui. This is not an inaccurate romanization system, as it reflects Kunrei-shiki. However, it's not the one that we usually use on Wikipedia (modified Hepburn romanization). It doesn't seem to make sense that we believe "Noba" but toss out "Itimaru". What are your thoughts on this? Dekimasu 03:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said in Talk:Shunsui Kyōraku, there are 2 cases of romanization: for Japanese words and for non-Japanese words. The romanization for Japanese words and names should follow Hepburn and there really isn't much room for deviation. The official character book also spells Hitsugaya's name Toushiro in English, that doesn't mean we should. However, for non-Japanese terms (Bounts, Ulquiorra, cero), we should be more careful and probably make an educated guess until there is an official spelling. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:45, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In the case of Noba/Nova, I think it was decided by the other character, Kuroud/Claude. Any existing romanization system would've placed an o at the end (i.e. Kuroudo or whatever), so it's likely that it's supposed to be an English spelling. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to draw it out after you gave a good answer. I don't mean to suggest that we should toss out the current names, which are certainly better (although we do override the Hepburn and macronization standards for company and personal names that are trademarked or designated as preferred by the companies/individuals themselves). However, following "Immanent God Blues" and the like, I have lost confidence in the idea that anything I see romanized in Jump or Bleach merchandising is reliable. I was happy to have a "solution" when I found "Noba" and "Kuroud" in English, but I'm beginning to believe I was just looking at the flair of an underling at an advertising agency in Japan rather than any true creative intent. It's somewhat frustrating. Dekimasu 07:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming issue

message: As recently announced on WT:MANGA, it is now possible to redirect to a specific section of a page. This is relevant and helpful to our category here because we have about a hundred different character redirect pages that can now be made more specific. For instance, Luppi (As well as Luppi (Bleach) and Rupi (Bleach)) now redirect directly to the Former Espada section of the Hollows in Bleach page, saving a potential searcher time and energy. --tjstrf talk 07:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fantastic.  This was my #1 most desired feature in Wikipedia.  Followed shortly by category intersects and syntax highlighting of code-comments in edit boxes. –Gunslinger47 10:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sectional redirects now possible 

message: I support most of the organizational changes made today, but the lead needs to have some of the publication information reintroduced (both per WP:ANIME and to give the reader context). Also, I think that some of the numerical content (number of volumes, number of chapters) needs to be reintroduced. Information in the infobox should be restated in the article, just as information in the introduction would be. Dekimasu 08:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organizational changes 

message: An anonymous editor recently stated that  name is supposed to be the Spanish word "neutra", which means neutral.  I've reverted the edit, but I'd like to see if there's anything to this.  Thoughts?  –Gunslinger47 09:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Noitora'' = Neutra 

message: The opening paragraph and the "Introduction" section say virtually the same exact things: Ichigo is a tough teenager, sees ghosts, meets Rukia, blah blah. It looks very redundant. Paratousen 20:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have discussions about this on and off but we have never gotten anything done. About 3 months ago I stopped working on a new lead/introduction in my sandbox because the format of the page had changed, but we still don't have the plot summary here that is strongly suggested by WP:ANIME. Does it seem to you like that was heading a better direction before I stopped working on it? I can start again. (Feel free to edit it yourself.) Dekimasu 05:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph and introduction 

message: Jay-Z(Yeah. The rapper) was included in the main characters list. I took the liberty of taking it out immediately. I don't suppose we need to discuss that one, do you?
EDIT: This is actually minor vandalism by(checking the history of the article) 74.117.148.178. I'm just gonna clean up what he put. --Chemicalist 17:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We appreciate the help by removing vandalism but you don't have to let everyone know on the talk page. Talk pages would be archived every day if that were the case. // Sasuke-kun27 17:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jay-Z 

message: Do you think it would be feasible to have a section for anime/manga differences? Or would that be fit for something like Wikibooks instead? --Zeno McDohl (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There really aren't any differences worthy of note outside of the filler. --tjstrf talk 00:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are quite a few, including scenes missing in the anime (Grand Fisher mask taken off), censorships (arm missing) and so on. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 00:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Censorships are a given and can be found in almost every anime. Naruto and Dragon Ball, for example, have loads of censorships. Love Hina, on the other hand, would be the perfect series to have two seperate sections (I believe people were talking about making an entirely new article, one being based off the manga while the other based off the anime) due to the major differences. I have not read much of the Bleach manga (only the first five books) so I can't say from reading the manga and watching the anime how different the two are, but I don't think they are so much different than one another that it deserves it's own section explaining it. // Sasuke-kun27 20:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because it's common doesn't mean it's a reason to not write up a section. There are important missing scenes as I've already stated as well. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 21:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh and don't forget that entire characters are missing from the anime (gate guards). --Zeno McDohl (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh the horror. We lost out on some characters that never did anything anyway. Plus, they were in the anime because we saw them get beaten by the Bount. --tjstrf talk 00:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, just because it's minor is no reason to not include it. Look at this for example. A lot there is just minor stuff. Minor characters, minor event changes etc. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But being minor is a reason not to include it. This article is intended to present the most pertinent information about the series in 30 kilobytes or less. Dekimasu 08:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where did you get that limit? --Nate3000 12:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was paraphrasing Wikipedia:Article size. Dekimasuが...? 15:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I have been trying to keep up with the manga and the anime, and I haven't noticed many differences between minor characters and minor censorship. Stuff that is extremely minor doesn't warrant a section. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Differences 

message: Do we really need this section? Not only is it nearly identical to the lead, but it's also tucked far in the article, which is anticlimatic. I think it should either be moved to the top and edited not to sound the same as the lead, or removed entirely. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction section

message: Hello all. I wanted to upload something for Bleach. I have a pic of it's logo. I know how to upload, but I do not get the information about the Summary box. If there are any volunteers to help me upload it, I would appreciate that.
I'll send you (the volunteers) the file of Bleach logo and upload it. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GigaSP (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's already a logo pic on the page. It's only slightly obscured. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need help...... 

message: Forgive me if I am being stupid for missing it, but I recalled an article related to bleach that as also a featured article.  Where is it... DarkGhost89 05:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shinigami (Bleach) used to be a good article. It was delisted for being too "in-universe". --tjstrf talk 05:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that was the article, shouldn't it have a note saying it was a former featured article with a date of when it was featured?DarkGhost89 20:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasnt a featured article, only a good article. Good articles are only a step down from featured articles, but that article was delisted before it could nominated for FA status. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya!) 22:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, I should have read more closely.  That was not the article then, I swear I recall an article related to bleach that was featured, but now I can't find it anymore.  Anyone remember what it was?DarkGhost89 01:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ah Nvm... looking back through history, I guess my memory is really messed up or something...DarkGhost89 01:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wasn't there was.. 

message: We should put the episode debut of all the characters on the character pages. 
For example : Ichigo Kurosaki  debut: episode 1
please comment in my talk: User:Envidia
:Forgive me for editing your post just a little, but all caps is rude, and some of your grammar was a little off. As for the content, I don't think that episode number debuts are necessary. For one thing, it's anime-centric, which would put an anime-directional bias on the pages. For another, people who watch the anime already know when the characters debut, and people who don't watch the anime probably don't need to know, if they even care, what episode each character debuts in. Nique talk 23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would just cause infobox bloat imo, especially if you included both manga and anime debuts. --tjstrf talk 23:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character debuts 

message: In character list, someone add the arrancar and viazard. About time like. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.12.230.89 (talk) 21:34, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are there under hollow and shinigami, respectively. Gdo01 21:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed 

message: Since all our standardization topics have been archived, here is a summary of what the past discussions have resulted in:
We use shinigami (as opposed to Death God, Soul Reaper, Angel of Death, Reaper, etc.)
We do not capitalize shinigami, hollow, plus, zanpakutō, etc. We do capitalize Soul Society though. Quincy seems to be a grey area, since the Quincy article uses caps almost exclusively and it was never decided one way or the other.
It's lieutenant, not vice-captain.
We are using the english naming conventions for characters, given name first.
It's also Bleach, not BLEACH.
If I got any of these wrong, please point out the error. This is supposed to be a sort of mini-FAQ, so feel free to add to it. --tjstrf 07:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should be SOULs and VIBEs, which is what appears on the actual covers. This is not the same case as BLEACH because it's in all-caps to be inline with Japanese text, while 'Character Book SOULs' is not all-caps therefore there may be meaning to the capitalization. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A standardization reminder

message: Is it just me or does anyone else feel that GrandFisher doesn't need his own article? It might be a bit better if it was rewritten by someone who knows what they're doing (no offense, Seth). Anyone interested? // DecaimientoPoético 12:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It does need a serious clean up. It is very poorly written. I'll work on rewriting it. --Malevious  Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Incorrect, only notable subjects get articles. --tjstrf talk 07:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've said it before, I still strongly disagree with this idea of 'notable' subjects only.  It is highly subjective and conducive to needless arguments.  Also, Grand Fisher is extremely notable in the Bleach universe, seeing as how he/it was responsible for the death of Ichigo's mother, a major factor in the life and motivation of the main character of the entire series.  That alone makes Grand Fisher worthy of an article. DestradoZero 05:37, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Grand Fisher

message: Other than the normal vandalism reversions, the page has become much more stable lately. I still think that there are issues with the plot summary (introduction) and main character sections that need to be worked out, but the stability in the page does have its advantages.
I'd like to propose that we take the opportunity to do better referencing for the sections on character types and settings, using the primary source (the manga and merchandise itself). As long as the notability of the series has been established by third-party sources — and this is clearly demonstrated in the media section — I don't see a problem with referencing plot/situational information with citations from the manga and anime.
Although I want to help with this, too, my copies of the manga are not in the same country as me at the moment. Would anyone else be willing to help me find good manga references for what a hollow is, or how many people can see spirits, or how Soul Society is organized, et cetera? Dekimasuが... 05:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tj's just added to our standardization section and it's made me realize that it's about time to archive this page again and work out what we've decided lately, which I'm going to do now. (Update: I have recompiled the standardization topics and added them to a template at the top of the page. The old talk section is now in archive 4 Let me know what you think.) I think we have a fairly strong core of information to use to bring this article forward and it may be time to submit it to a peer review. It would necessarily be harsh, but we need a kick. Dekimasuよ! 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Improving attribution

message: I think that we should change the introduction section into something like "story thus far"
and write what has been happening in the story instead of just the first chapter.
</font>Ricky 17:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing is, do we follow the anime, or the manga? And do we follow the English release, or the Japanese? It's better to just let it stay an introduction to the story, and let the reader decide if they want to read/experience the series on their own or not. Nique talk 18:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Readers already know the story in general, and new readers ought to be shielded from plot spoilers.  The characters and setting sections are much more valuable to new readers.  Who would a "story thus far" section be useful to? –Gunslinger47 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I disagree. At the moment the page is very friendly to new people who are just starting to watch Bleach, but it isn't fulfilling all of its role as an encyclopedia article. There needs to be a plot summary introduced at some point, even though it will reintroduce spoiler tags to the article. I started to work on one in... I think... October, by translating the plot summary from the Japanese article. We had additional style problems that point because the actual introduction to the article and the Introduction section of the article were substantially the same. I stopped working on it for some reason, but I definitely think it's the responsibility of the article to describe the complete plots of both the manga and anime. Dekimasuよ! 12:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But neither is complete, nor planned to be complete anywhere in the near future. Plot summaries are available with a quick Google search if someone really wants to look it up. (A search for "Bleach plot" turns up quite a comprehensive plot summary in the first result for me, albeit not very up to date.) We could go a short way into the 'future' beyond the first chapter or so, but as Gunslinger47 said, who would it be useful to? People already into the series know the story, anyone who doesn't care about the story doesn't need the details, and newbies interested in the story should read it before going through a detailed plot analysis. Spoiler warnings only compound the "Why?" factor of it, because again, either people already know the story, want to learn the story but really should experience it on their own, or don't care about the story. Nique talk 12:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Both are already mentioned in the article. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 06:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expanding Storyline

message: After reading through several character pages, I noticed that we seem to have a bad habit of swithcing back and forth between given names and family names. For example, while reading through Gin Ichimaru, I noticed that the page refers to him as Gin and then Ichimaru a couple of sentences later. This can get quite confusing for some readers and something should be done about this. Should we go by their first names? Or their last? Or does it not really matter? // DecaimientoPoético 22:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well for the main characters, I think either is fine but I lean towards given names for them. Secondary characters like the captains and lieutenants should be named by their family name. Arrancar are a mixed bag. Espada are mostly known by their given name but what about the Numeros? Gdo01 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with referring to the main characters by their first names, especially Ichigo and Uryu due to the re-emergence of Isshin and Ryuken (more so Uryu. I don't think we ever called Ichigo or Isshin "Kurosaki" to begin with). // DecaimientoPoético 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For characters other than Uryu, it makes almost no difference (unless you are writing about the one chapter where Orihime and her brother were both around at the same time). I tend to purposefully alternate between them to make my writing less redundant (Gin one sentence, Ichimaru the next). Uryu should definitely be noted as Uryu in most cases though. --tjstrf talk 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are we mentioning characters by their first name or last?

message: In accordance with a long-forgotten discussion that concluded that all existent forms of the series use the Japanese term, I have moved Demon arts to Kidō. Unless I meet with objections I will be putting this into the standardization reminder later today. --tjstrf talk 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here.  I'm glad you moved it. Its just more accurate to list it under the Japanese term in my opinion. --88wolfmaster 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Demon arts is now at Kidō

message: Is there any reason that as soon as an anime picture of a character arrives, it switches out the manga picture?  I noticed this pattern, but recently the picture of Ikkaku Madarame's bankai was switched, and my friends and I thought the manga picture looked better.  Is replacing it with the anime some sort of rule, or is it just something the main editors of these pages agreed to?72.70.150.230 04:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, the anime gives a better quality image, as well as it being in full colour. That's probably why they're switched out. I don't know though, you may want to look into who's doing the switching (the History button at the top will show you who did what) and, if it's just one person, asking them on their Talk page. Nique talk 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: As a side note, I've started to go through :Category:Bleach images to clean out orphaned fair use images like :Image:Grimmjow jaggerjack.JPG and :Image:PA.70283.001.jpg. Please feel free to help, or check through them and see if they are superior to whichever fair use images we're using now. Dekimasuよ! 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Manga/Anime Pics

message: The reason for having italics on death gods, soul slayers, etc. is that they fall under WP:MOS#Foreign terms. It says "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have common use in the English language" and goes on to imply that this means inclusion in an English dictionary. There doesn't seem to be any specific directive or consistency at WP:MOS-JP, which may mean something was overlooked there. I discuss things quite a bit on that page and will bring it up.
Since the words we are talking about for this article do have English names (they're just not the ones we are using for these articles), I don't see how we can justify removing the italics. The broader article on shinigami, for example, uses italics throughout; it's not a term made up for the Bleach series either, so we don't have that to fall back on as we might for "arrancar" or "vizard". I don't find it to create any legibility problems myself. Dekimasuよ! 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Italics

message: I feel that we should create a new article which specifically talks about the plot of Bleach so far, including what is happening and what is about to happen. This article should be similar to the article of the Plot of Naruto and the Plot of Naruto: Shippūden.
So instead for other users to look at certain character profiles just to get an idea what the character itself 'contributed' to the overall plot of the story, there should be an article which highlights every single storyline and the events that happen/about to happen. After all, isn't Wikipedia meant to be an area where everyone can view information easily and quickly? --Omghgomg 09:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have one. List of Bleach episodes. --tjstrf talk 10:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's that one. But what if people wanted to look for further 'spoilers' that have not been released in the anime, only in the manga? Then where do they look for the information? --Omghgomg 07:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably they read the manga. If they want to know about a specific character or aspect they can find it in the relevant article, but if they really want a complete detailing of the plot it's not like it's difficult to find scanlations. --tjstrf talk 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with that is that some people may not feel right reading scanlations for ethical reasons (I wouldn't know, since I'm fine with scanlations and am looking into typesetting).  It shouldn't be too difficult to add information from the manga storyline with a small disclaimer acknowledging the source of the information (ie, a small mention that the following storyline is derived from the manga, and may differ in the anime, etc). DestradoZero 05:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would people who don't feel comfortable reading scanlations feel comfortable knowing what happens in the manga based on the summaries of people who read scanlations? Or you can always learn Japanese. (^^)b Dekimasuよ! 02:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Plot Article

message: Does anyone know why Bleach is called what it is? (at least in English…) Article as of 16 Mar 2007 makes no mention. I suspect either: (deliberate) mistranslation of "Burīchi", which could instead have been "Breach"; or a symbolic reference to bleach, as the shinigami are responsible for "cleansing" hollows.—Nahum Reduta 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We've had this discussion numerous times. There is no official source, therefore anything so far is speculation, however, users have stated that it could possibly refer to Ichigo's bleached hair. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From my own reading of the manga, Kubo goes out of his way to use certain verbs at key points in the manga (someru, to dye, and sarasu, to bleach) in reference to conflicts between good and evil. Due to that, I'd thought the title was a reference to "cleaning" evil, although I've never tried to search for any sources. Maybe we should look around in Japanese... or do you know that Kubo has never said anything about it? Dekimasuよ! 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

text: In Bleach, black and white have reversed symbolism.  "To bleach" would figuratively mean a decent into darkness.  And, yes, Ichigo's hair color is a bleached, peroxide strawberry blonde.  –Gunslinger47 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am pretty sure Ichigo's hair is supposed to be that color naturally. Dekimasuよ! 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's said pretty early on, isn't it, that his hair is naturally orange? Karin's hair is really light, and his mother's hair was light too, so it could be a reference to people thinking his hair is bleached, but it's not a reference to him bleaching his hair. Nique talk 16:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's that color naturally.  He says in the 11th episode (according to Lunar Anime's fansub), "With this orange hair, all kinds of things are tougher for me," leading me to believe it's something he has to live with, that's out of his control.  Besides, what sick person bleaches their child's hair (referring to when Masaki was still alive).  Some theories I've heard state that "Bleach" has to do with the "bleached" color a ghost is, or how the shinigami "bleach" the hollows into normal spirits.  Another one, which is rather interesting, is that Tite Kubo is a big Nirvana fan, and named the series after their debut album, "Bleach".  I'm not saying I support both of these, just saying what I've heard. Jezebel Parks 19:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I was speaking strictly of its color.  It is identically colored to peroxide strawberry blonde, despite being his freakishly natural color. –Gunslinger47 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bleach: the name

message: in the article about shinigamis it says this :
"A group of shinigami known as the vizard have also obtained hollow powers through illegal means,"
should illegal really be the right word to use? Letuce 21:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the manga stated this. There is really no other word I can think of except perhaps forbidden. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: um i could view forbidden as being a better word, but from what i get out of the story of getting vizard powers... they arent really doing anything wrong from what i can tell... Letuce 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The shinigami have killed people for lesser offenses. –Gunslinger47 00:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Illegal to gain powers?

message: There appear to be two disputes in the character summaries that I can't see a simple way to deal with by rewording, so I'm bringing them here.
# How do we describe the process by which Ichigo becomes a real shinigami? I prefer withstanding death to unlock his own shinigami abilities because it gives a concise but accurate summary of what he actually did in order to gain them. 71.226.56.79 prefers to just say by unlocking his own latent abilities but I'm not going to put words in his mouth as to why.
# Uryu: The last Quincy or supposedly the last Quincy? I wrote the former, because that is how he introduces himself and because the "supposedly" is sort of odd sounding. Additionally, he is one of the two contenders for the title and if you listen to Uryu's definition then he is the last because his father isn't active and doesn't uphold the traditions. Ryuken says he's the last Quincy because even though he doesn't like the title he is the only current Quincy to master every technique.
Comments? --tjstrf talk 02:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ishida is a Quincy, and Ichigo is a shinigami.  We already have the introduction.  We should write the sections from an absolute context if we can, not just in a style of plot introduction/overview.  –Gunslinger47 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly I kind of like it the way it is now as "Uryū Ishida is actually a Quincy, descendant of a line of priest-like hollow hunting archers." It avoids the problem entirely. You could probably also get around it by saying he introduces himself as the last Quincy. I consider both Ryuken and Uryū Quincy because they both have the powers. 71.226.56.79 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two wording disputes in the character summaries

message: I have been slightly confused about this for a while. Why is it that some characters appear to be able to "fly" some of the time, but not other times. Two particular instances that strike me are Ikkaku Madarame in episode 118 and 119 (I guess this could be part of his bankai), and Ichigo while fighting the bad guy (name escapes me) in the Sealed Sword Frenzy OVA. I will assume that the vizard and the arrancar have some sort of natural ability to do that since D-roy said something like that when fighting Rukia, but what about the shinigami? The way it looks to me is that they kind of force the air to solidify under their feet when "flying" rather than actually floating or hovering. Is this present in the Manga? Has anyone else been kind of confused about this of is it just me? 71.226.56.79 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely present in the manga. In fact, the first use was in Ichigo's fight vs. Acid Wire when he recovered from a blow by braking against the air. It's not actually flight though, but rather running/walking/standing on the air using their spirit energy. The "air-stepping" technique is presumably part of the same class of technique as shunpo, so they are concentrating reiatsu at their feet to form a surface to stand on just like shunpo concentrates reiatsu in the feet to accelerate them. (I'm assuming it's in the same group as shunpo because the Quincy skill hirenkyaku does both.) --tjstrf talk 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: It seems spiritual matter can move through solid matter, so where you stand in relationship to the ground is somewhat irrelevant.  It appears easier to push off of solid matter or other spiritual matter, however.  Especially for travelling over a distance, as evidenced by the necessity for Yoruichi's wing-thing that she gave Ichigo in episode 41. –Gunslinger47 07:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Something I'm confused about: Flying characters

message: Ok here are some suggestion I have to raise this to a good article
:1)The introduction section she be merged with the lead section. The introduction section expands on some information presented in the lead section but not to the extent of requiring its own section.  Or: move all the media section into the lead section and move all introductory/plot summary type information into the introduction section.
:2)Create a subset of shinigami and hollow (repectively) for vizard and arrancar.  They are two major character types and with the current setup they are not properly addressed.  What I mean to say is: bullets are employeed to make the article easier to read.  But because vizard and arrancar are just a sentence at the end of shinigami and hollow (repectively) you can completely over look them.  This is wrong do to the fact that they are major character types important to the plot. (this actually happened to me a while back, before I started editing wikipedia).--88wolfmaster 06:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: edits to make this a GA

message: We had decided previously not to use kanji on any series-specific words that have their own pages. However, we've added the kanji for Ichigo's name when we already link to Ichigo's article, where that information can be found. I think using the kanji for the main characters is a good exception to the rule, but I think care should be taken that it doesn't spread to every term throughout the article.
Also, I don't think it is mandated by WP:MANGA to show the names of the voice actors on this page, as long as they are shown on a page. When the contents of the article become so long that we have to break out new articles, it is up to us what remains in the summary on the main page. Personally, I think it is good to have the names of the voice actors on this page too, but I don't know if we need to use the template. If we can incorporate them back into the main text, we can more easily use a bulleted list without breaks like the one we used for the other sections, to keep the formatting consistent throughout the article. Dekimasuよ! 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm.  I have no strong stance for or against either of them, despite my edit. –Gunslinger47 02:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

text: They aren't to the side if the text is pulled up to start on the same line as the name, like it is in the other sections. Then they are in the middle and in the way. Dekimasuよ! 02:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well i can just tell you how i read.  I tend to skim things to find the part i'm looking for so when I see the names I skip down to the info paragraph.  thus the kanji, japanese name, and voice actors are out of the way.--88wolfmaster 02:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes on kanji and voice actors

message: Website-of-everything-geeky IGN has been nice enough to give us several (3 to be exact) reviews of the Bleach manga. (They were all written in the last couple months, and one in fact was added in the last day, so it's no surprise we previously missed them.) Two are of the most recent English volumes while the third is on, of all things, how it compares to the anime adaptation. Since IGN is a business, their writers are presumably professionals and thus "reliable sources" for opinions, but like all professional rather than fan-written reviews they aren't the most accurate thing ever as far as facts about the series content go. I'm also not sure exactly what we would do with them. Any opinions, suggestions, or other attributable review sources we could use? --tjstrf talk 20:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I'm on the subject,  looks like it might have some decent stuff. (For instance, Bleach Volume 17 was apparently #1 manga in North American sales this February.) --tjstrf talk 21:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IGN reviews: Reliable? Worth mentioning?