Talk:Rukia Kuchiki

message: As some of you may know, Rukia is apparently the main character in the upcoming 3rd movie. I trust someone who knows japanese better than I do (practically none) is adding info about it as it comes available? --Petrim (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The 3rd Bleach movie?

message: It's very clear that she is talking about herself in the academy. It's a segment about her struggles before entering the G13. Please do not add faulty information on wiki.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.236.208.61 (talk • contribs) 07:12, 14 July 2007
:Taking your comments into account, I have made changes to the page in accordance with what the manga page actually says/implies. Please don't change this without further discussion. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Swordsmanship

message: Just curious, do we know the rank of Rukia? It's actually likely that she was a high-ranking officer, since she went on trips alone with the captain and Kaien (where he got killed), and also she knows 'high-level' shinigami spells, as well as being adopted into a noble family (this probably increases rank or at least prestiege). But on the other hand, she is sent into the human world to do average missions. But, do we have any concrete leads as to her rank? -- Ynhockey 01:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think she is very high-ranked.  However, since she does come from a noble family, she does get access to certain privileges that she would not normally receive.  It happens all the time in the real military, and with teacher's pets.  I suspect that (and bear in mind I'm using a modern-day equivalent), if her squad has a captain, a lieutenant, and a few sergeant majors to run the individual teams, she's probably (at best) a corporal...who happens to be related to a Senator.  Hope that makes sense.--Mitsukai 02:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: As far as we know, she is a completely unseated Shinigami. Any rank she may previously have held was probably stripped from her due to her arrest anyway.--Tjstrf 05:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, as tjstrf said, she is unranked as far as we know. And Mitsukai, your analogy is a bit off. Real life armies have generals, colonels, majors, etc. Soul Society is run by 13 captains, drawing an army analogy would skew the system by a lot. Your thinking on the noble/priviliges thing is correct though. - Hobbeslover 03:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it's already been added to the article. -- Ynhockey || Talk 08:24, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rukia's rank

message: OK, this article is a mess. I just realized that. It has a promotion-like synopsis at the start (which I've put into 'introduction', before it was in 'character outline'), and the articy is just messy overall. What parts do we need to have, and what parts do we not need? I think it should be organized like the other character articles - outline, synopsis, soul cutter. In Rukia's case, there would also be 'Rukia's powers', and a section about her interaction with the human world (residence, school, etc.), which I think should be called... 'Human world'. Any other ideas? -- Ynhockey || Talk 08:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: Someone should put her statistics like height/weight, measurements, etc. IIRC, she's around 4'8 and 75lbs.
:They are already there, look at the infobox on the right. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 21:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How does 33 kg convert to anywhere near 85 lbs? And, although Rukia appears to be lacking a nose in the current picture, your suggestions aren't much better. ~SnapperTo 23:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stats 

message: Can we stick a synopsis section into this article? About Rukia's actions in the Human World, her actions after being sent back to Soul Society, and her actions during the arrancar arc? For a main character of Bleach, her article is greatly lacking... Ynhockey, this might be your area of expertise...--GhostStalker 04:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done up to Soul Society--Gdo01 23:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It says the Hougyoku was put in Rukia when Urahara gave her that gigai. But this is wrong.
Aizen implied that Urahara put the Hougyoku in Rukia before he was exiled from Soul Society. If you say it was put in with the gigai then that just raises a whole bunch of unnecessary questions and just doesn't make sense when looking at what Aizen said.
Aizen: "He attempted to destroy the Hougyoku. But in the end, he couldn't find a way to destroy which he, himself, had created. So he was forced to choose another method. That was to place a protective barrier around the Hougyoku, itself, and hide it buried deep within a soul. You understand now, don't you? The hiding place he chose then...was you, Kuchiki Rukia."
Then when Aizen is about to awake Wonderwice.
Aizen: "It's likely even Urahara Kisuke doesn't know given that he sealed it immediately after it's creation, and never released it even once."
If this doesn't convince then here's even more evidence.
Aizen: "But when I found that out, it was after you had already gone missing in the living world."
Aizen: "Do you understand? He didn't lend you his assistance...he was trying to completely conceal the location of the Hougyoku by turning you into a human."
Aizen pretty much found out it was in Rukia through Urahara's files/records. How would Aizen know this if Urahara decided to only do this once he saw Rukia lying in the streets of the real world? And Aizen even said he had a hunch that Urahara was using that special gigai and that he was trying to completely conceal the location of the Hougyoku by turning you into a human. He doesn't say that Urahara tried to put the Hougyoku in Rukia through the special gigai. So the conclusion is that the Hougyoku was put it her before Urahara was exiled.
Also time line wise makes sense. Urahara was banned a hundred years ago or so. Rukia is at least 150 years old. So she would be alive before Urahara was exiled. It all comes together. Aizen101 04:18, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Er no, thats all speculation. What really happen was that Urahara made the orb, sealed it, got exiled, Aizen found out about it in the records of Central 46. Rukia got injured while saving Ichigo, Ichigo got her powers, Rukia left with no powers, Urahara comes along and gives her a gigai which has the Orb inside. Aizen finds out Rukia's shinigami powers aren't returning, so therefore she has the orb within her. Then all of the events happened, Aizen had to find another way incase Ichigo foiled the execution. So basically it doesn't come together. Rukia was missing in the real world for 2 months (it was said). Aizen had that much time to kill Central 46 and do research. --Hanaichi 09:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Problem with your theory is that if it was in the gigai, then it would've stayed in the real world when she was retrieved.  So, your theory doesn't make sense either.  Bottom line is we don't know when it was put inside Rukia, but I think its a safe bet that it was before she showed up in Ichigo's room that first time... Famartin 10:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a feeling the orb was attached to Rukias soul and hid within it without her realising it. I think its obvious that Urahara gave Rukia a gigai with the orb inside which could fuse with the soul. Anyway this is all speculation anyway, I think one of the episodes, 62 or 61 actually explained what Urahara did.--Hanaichi 10:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, 'you have a feeling'.  Just as bad as the previous person's "speculation".  Bottom line anyway is that we don't know exactly when it was put in... we just know that it was.  Therefore, no time reference should be listed.Famartin 14:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: My theory doesn't have a problem because I never said it was in the gigai. That's your argument. I'm saying he put it in her while she was a child and then hid it with the gigai. Then of course when she was found the gigai was taken away and she was sent to prison with the Hougyoku still in her. I see no problem with my theory. And how can you say that this is what really happened when you yourself admit what you are saying is speculation. I think my theory makes more sense. And until we come to a conclusion maybe we should just leave out how the Hougyoku got in Rukia. Because we don't want to give out false information. Aizen101 21:06, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, it has now been 100% proven without a doubt Urahara put the Hougyoku in Rukia before she met Ichigo.It's stated in the Bleach Official Character Book SOULs.
[img]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/ccguildenstern/lj095.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE]MelodyMix: TOPICS: Hougyoku – bottom bit of the page
(The first part only explains what a Hougyoku is @_@). The Hougyoku was already hid inside Rukia’s body when she came to the human world.[/QUOTE]
後に登場する、死神とホロウの境界を瞬時に無くし死神やホロウの限界を崩す危険な部室。地上へ とやってきた[B]ルキアの体内には、このときすでに宝玉が隠されていたのだった[/B]
Page 178
[img]http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y96/ccguildenstern/scan112.jpg[/img]
すべては彼の掌の上に
死神の限界を破らんとする努力。その唯一の方法とされるのが“死神のホロウ化”だ。愛染を含め多くの物が実 験を重ねたが、成功に至った者は唯一、浦原喜介のみ。浦原は死神とホロウの境界を消す“宝玉”を作りだすが 、[B]その危険性を悟り存在自体を隠蔽した。選ばれし隠し場所は朽木ルキアの魂魄。歳月が経ち、任務だ現世は降りたルキアは、一護に死神の力を奪われる。[/B]これを機に浦原は、特性義骸に霊力 拡散作用だルキア快復を阻害。時と共に霊力を奪われてルキアが人間ぬなってしまえば宝玉は完全に隠されるは ずだった。
[QUOTE]MelodyMix: But what it basically says is, because the Hougyoku was a dangerous substance Kisuke decided to hide it somewhere, and that somewhere was in Rukia’s soul. And after a few years when Rukia came to the human world and gave Ichigo her power Kisuke took that opportunity to destroy the Hougyoku for good by giving Rukia a “special gigai” and turning her into a human. Because the Hougyoku was hid inside Rukia’s soul, as her Shinigami powers disappeared at the same time the Hougyoku will disappear as well, turning her into a human.
Nothing written about when Kisuke hid the Hougyoku inside Rukia or why he chose her. But VIBEs just proved the Hougyoku was inside Rukia before she met Ichigo and gave her power to him.[/QUOTE]
Now the age old question is finally settled. Aizen101 21:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Synopsis 

message: Why are only anime pictures used for the Bleach characters including Rukia?   Are originally colored manga pictures (for instance, Rukia on the special cover for vol. 15 is a nice one) bad for some reason? 206.255.137.124 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anime screenshots are just easier. You can get several poses instead of being limited to a few.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures in the article 

message: Well, basically same to-do list as the recent Naruto GAs (Sasuke Uchiha, Sakura Haruno, Kakashi Hatake). I've added a reception section and I'll start working on a "appearances in other media" section, but the character outline and plot sections need to be condensed, structured per the same sections at the aforementioned GAs, and have all the relevant items properly sourced using . The only particular item of difficulty is the lack of conception information. Is anyone aware of any source of conception information that exists? If not, then it doesn't exist, which can be noted to a GA reviewer, but it should be included if it does. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA run 

message: It is well written. In this respect:
:(a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
:: While there is always room for improvement, I find this article to be of sufficient quality in this regard.
:(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
:: As above, there could be some improvement in regards to the dealing of fictional topics and so forth, however the article is in this area acceptable.
It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:
:(a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
:: The article is quite well sourced.
:(b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons; and
:: The article easily pases here
:(c) contains no original research.
:: Looks good to me.
It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:
:(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic; and
:: The article does a good job of summarising the plot, background, etc of the character, however, conspiculously lacking from this article was a conception and creation section.  I think to meet the precedent set by similar articles, this article really needs such a section.
:(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
:: For what is presented, the article does a good job of this
It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
: Seems good to me here.
It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
: Peeking into the talk pages and etc, I find a history of collaboration and an honest will to improve the article.  While there is always an element of dispute in any article, this one certainly meets the criterion for stability.
It is illustrated, where possible and appropriate, by images. In this respect:
:(a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
:: All good here.
#:(b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.
:: Also fine.
In summary, I'm putting the article on hold until it gains a creation and conception section that meets the standard set by the rest of the article.  On the whole, it looks good; excellent job, guys! --Liempt (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought this would inevitably come up. In any case, per discussion above and elsewhere, the editors here are practically bereft of any conception information altogether. The author, Kubo Tite, has not to our knowledge released any significant pieces of conception concerning the characters. Indeed, any additional material he gives is more often than not omake that serves as nothing more than comedy. As such, the information simply does not exist or it would be present. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

text: After extensive searching and no luck, I'm quite convinced that such information truly doesn't exist.  As a result, I find this article to meet the criterion and the precedent set by other GAs for all areas with existing information, and pass it as a good article.  Congrats! --Liempt (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Review

message: Why is there no source for the "Reception" section when it says she was the "second most popular character in the first two polls" i.e. what is the manga chapter for those first two polls?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill114 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but those kinds of things it can't hurt to research out yourself. -starts looking- User:IceUnshattered (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Before Hitsugaya was introduced, I'm pretty sure Rukia-chan was first... StardustDragon 04:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're right, but that needs a cite :) IceUnshattered (talk) 18:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception? 

message: I just revisited this from an hour or so ago, and found that the image had been changed to Image:Rukiaep49 . Is there anyone out for the old one?
Oh, and is my browser just doing really, really awkward things? IceUnshattered (talk) 00:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reverted the image replacement and added it to my watchlist. May have to hard refresh to get it to appear right again.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks. I believe it's been changed, again, though, to a more full-body picture of her shinigami form against black background? I'll try and revert the replacement this time. (Later I note: Oh, crap. I don't know how to do this. -headdesk-) IceUnshattered (talk) 21:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and reverted again. Thank you to "The Rogue Penguin". IceUnshattered (talk) 22:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image? 

message: "Numerous anime and manga publications have praised and criticized Rukia's character..." The paragraph, citing people's opinions on Rukia and the merchandise she appeared in, is said twice.  Once in the opening entry, and second in the last section, and it is clear that one of these paragraphs has been copied and pasted onto the other place in the article!  One of these should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.159.15 (talk) 02:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's intentional. The lead is meant to summarize the rest of the article, which in this case means duplicating a paragraph. ~SnapperTo 04:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Worded differently now it is. Happy you are now, yes? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant paragraph 

message: In a recent interview in American Shonen Jump, the meaning of Rukia's name was basically revealed.  Should this be incorporated into the article? 
SJ: What does Rukia's name mean, and why is it written in katakana?
Kubo-sensei: When I'm working, I jot down names in the margins of my notebook as they come to me. Once on TV, I saw the original type of cosmos in South America.
SJ: You mean, the flower?
Kubo-sensei: Yes. The show mentioned the name of the flower in Latin or something-like "rukia." It sounded like "Kuchiki Rukia" to me, and I wrote this down. When I created the character, I thought Kuchiki really fit as a Soul Reaper (Shinigami) name and called her Kuchiki Rukia. She had her full name from the very beginning. Later on, I learned that the word "rukia" means "light." She's like a ray of light for Ichigo, which makes the name really suit her.
Sheryl Nome (talk) 02:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's interesting information, and should be included. Do you have a link to the actual interview, or details about where it was published? Because this article has Good Article status, we can't insert anything major without properly sourcing it. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The meaning of Rukia's name? 

message: The part about "several fans wanting to see the image" would better fit into reception section. Why not move it there instead of placing it in "Creation and conception". I think Christmas variant of Rukia has nothing to do with her creation. -- deerstop. 22:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Then maybe it'd be better to leave just one phrase about "he liked Rukia more in the illustrations in which her face expresses pain". Because in current state the sentence focuses readers' attention on "He had drawn a picture, fans wanted to see it". -- deerstop. 22:51, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christmas cover 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Rukia Kuchiki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804013052/http://www.mania.com/bleach-vol-01_article_78776.html to http://www.mania.com/bleach-vol-01_article_78776.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://pierrot.jp/title/bleach/event02.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6RYonFvqr?url=http://animage.jp/gp_new/gpx_2006.html to http://animage.jp/gp_new/gpx_2006.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090627174422/http://animage.jp/old/gp/gp_2005.html to http://animage.jp/old/gp/gp_2005.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070702164815/http://www.popcultureshock.com/review-bleach-vol-1/42354/ to http://www.popcultureshock.com/review-bleach-vol-1/42354/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion