Talk:Bleach (manga)/Archive 3

Bount/Bound

I reverted an anon who changed all of the word "Bount" to "Bound", but then realized that we aren't consistent throughout the Bleach articles, Characters in Bleach series, etc. I don't have any clue as to which is the more correct translation, and we obviously don't know what they'll be using in the english dubbed anime yet. Anyway, someone with better knowledge of both the Japanese language and Wikipedia policy for such things please suggest which spelling would be best. --Anaraug 08:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC) Ehh, for now, I'm unreverting it, since the Characters article has Bound consistently already. --Anaraug 08:56, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

well, as i have watched the series, the word the characters use is 'bounto', so i think that we should revert the articles to 'bounto'. anyone agree? OmniAngel 13:23, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's how it's pronounced, but not necessarily spelled. The only recent editor who has any Japanese userbox at all is Ynhockey, who might give us some insight. I just like to make sure an edit is correct before I do it, especially if its a bunch of them. You can probably change it whatever you want (keeping it consistent, of course), since that's what a few anons have been doing anyway, until we figure out what its supposed be (but i'd rather wait). --Anaraug 15:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As Anaraug pointed out, pronunciation isn't the same as spelling. Look at Etna from Disgaia, named after Mount Etna but pronounced Etona in Japanese. Or Bulma from Dragon Ball, pronounced Buruma but clearly spelled as Bulma. Japanese pronunciation is limited by their phonetic alphabet, you simply can't use it as a basis for spellings. Nezu 23:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Since baunto is not a Japanese word, we cannot know (unless there's a source outside of the Bleach anime) how it's supposed to be spelt in English. However, Bound is definitely wrong. It was only consistent throughout Characters in Bleach series, because someone changed it recently (probably the same person who changed it in BLEACH, I haven't looked yet). I think so far Bount, Bounto or Baunto are logical, anything else is wrong, although Dattebayo seems to think it's Bauntō, so that may also be an option (although Dattebayo is inconsistent, I doubt they should be taken seriously). Lunar used Bount until it stopped subbing Bleach. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to hazard an educated (German+Japanese+English) guess here. First of all, I think you're certainly correct to eliminate Bound and any variation of it. The long mark also has to go (it's definitely 'baunto' and not 'bauntou'). That leaves, Baunt, Bount, Bounto, and Baunto. If we assume that this name is of German derivation, like most things associated with the Bount seem to be, we can eliminate the final 'o' as a kana alteration. The German spelling that would cause a romanization of 'baunto' is 'baunt,' rather than 'bount'. Therefore, IF you accept the premise that the name's derivation is German, as well as the premacy of the author's preferred spelling over the English spelling, 'baunt' would seem to be the best romanization. I think 'bount' is the simplest for the average person trying to find out about Bleach... but 'baunt' is the most correct. --Anon in Japan who wishes he had an account now, 28 July 2006

And if you want an account, well, make one I guess. It takes all of 3 seconds. I'll just comment that whatever decision you make, we need to actually write an article about the Bau/ou/ow/nt/o/ou soon. (and some character articles as well) Though we seem to be getting close enough to the end of the filler that we could almost wait until then. --tjstrf 04:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. I'll be around to help from now on. I'll continue to consider this question and get back to you soon. Dekimasu 06:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the plural? One Bount, two Bount? Most words from Japan don't have Ss attached when pluralized. –Gunslinger47 04:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest sticking with that, until official translations say otherwise.--Vercalos 08:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are references given for the "Bounts" plural on the Bount page. Dekimasu 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Heaven

In anime episode 62, Aizen escapes saying that he's going to take the throne of heaven, as he goes to a different place--which implies to me that heaven is not the same thing as Soul Society, contrary to what these articles say. (And it is 'ten' in Japanese.) Ken Arromdee 06:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I interpreted it as a metaphor, as he's planning on gaining so much power as to become godlike, and heaven of course would be where a god would live. But yeah, maybe its an actual place, we need more info in order to say it for sure, but maybe it deserves mention, I'm not sure. --Anaraug 07:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Define heavan? Bleach Mythology has four planes of existance. The living world and Soul society where souls sling shot back and fourth for all eternity die in one world and are reborn in the other souls may be created in either (based on shinigami and others in SS ageing but many others claming never to age in SS). The hollow world which seems to be the space between the worlds and Hell where no soul may leave. Therefore its fair to say the closest thing to a western idea of heavan (Where the good souls go) Is Soul society Rukia and Ichigo both refer to soul society as heavan but Rukia says its like heavan. Hinting that the human idea doesnt exist but SS is close (SS is 60-80% better than earth or somthing like that i think without checking of course). I think its metaphorical, he is saying he will attain ultimate power. (Of course even hollow/shinigami hybrids like Vizard and Ichigo have limits as well)--Seth Turner 20:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem that we all are running into is that soul society does not represent the view of heaven which many people in Western society envision. I agree with Anaraug, I think that when Aizen says he will take the throne of heaven, he means that he wants to become godlike. There are many who believe that there is a god who rules over us all... perhaps this is Aizen's goal: to become powerful enough to rule over not only soul society, but all worlds where souls exists. Bleach Babe 01:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

He was speaking in metaphor. There is no Bleach heaven that we know of, and we should not mention it in the articles unless it is explicitly stated as being real in the manga. (Did anyone else notice that Aizen's speech was quite like Lucifer's Biblical monologue, in which he says he will surpass the most high God?) --Tjstrf 00:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's either from Dante or Milton (can't remember which), not the Bible. I didn't notice it at the time -- haven't read anything like that in ages. --Anaraug 02:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's in the Bible, from Isaiah 14. Milton's famous devil monologue had more to do with the devil as a victim of circumstances (he made him an anti-hero), and Dante's most referenced quote is probably "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here."

You said in your heart, "I will ascend to heaven; I will raise my throne above the stars of God... ...I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." Isaiah 14:13-14, NIV. The question now is, should we mention the parallel or not?--tjstrf 05:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In one of the fansub anime episodes I saw the old guy, Yamma? commander general of the 13 squads, said that they didn't have to worry about Aizen for at least a year because to ascend to "true heaven" required a lot of preperations. I'll grant that it could be mistranslated or the anime guys taking some creative license but there was no mention of this in the Manga? Jargon 06:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Failure

I just realized, after some IP user's edit of the Renji Abarai page (to say that he was moved to the 6th division and not 11th), that maybe so many users are changing the info in the Bleach-related pages because most of our information is unreliable, and therefore the idea of the Bleach-related pages is so far a failure. Therefore, I implore the regular editors to do the following:

1. Immediately grill any edits that are not entirely correct, are misleading, etc. This means revert or delete them!!!
2. Check the current articles for such information and grill it too. If it is sourced, obviously check the source first before changing.
3. If you make an edit of a non-copyedit nature (i.e. actually add new content), make sure to source it, unless it covers a major part of the story which everybody knows about.
4. If you see anything that could be disputed in the current articles, and know where to find the information, find it and source it.
5. A special request from me, try to find the place where Aramaki states his seat (I'm sure he does somewhere), because I can't seem to find it.

In order to source, write:
<ref name="ANYNAME">BLEACH manga; chapter XX(X), page X(X).</ref>
or
<ref name="ANYNAME">BLEACH databook; page X(XX).</ref>
Same with anime, external publications, etc.

If the article doesn't have a ==References== section, add near the bottom:
==References==
<references />

As a rule of thumb, do not use any fansite or other non-official Bleach website as a source.

I'll now be checking articles trying to source stuff, and removing some info I'm not sure about. If I remove anything important, feel free to re-add it with a source.

Thanks, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Poor Ynhockey, always talking to himself... You're very committed, and we do appreciate you. Good advice. And of course, rereading the Bleach manga up to this point would also be a good piece of advice. I think many of the errors are merely the result of people trying to work from material they are remembering that they haven't read in weeks or months.--Tjstrf 04:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Also, by "not entirely correct", you basically mean any speculation of any kind. This sometimes poses a problem for me, since I'm a few episodes/chapters behind, and will probably be that way until summer starts, so sometimes I don't know if something new has been revealed or not. I'm sure this applies to a few other users too, so basically I might see an edit, and I have no idea whether its valid or not -- that might explain why some bad edits are getting through. Sorry. --Anaraug 12:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the warm comments. It isn't that bad though that you're behind on the series - you can still remove a lot of speculative edits. Basically a simple outline:

• Anything with the word 'fan', 'speculate', 'it is thought', 'it is believed', etc. There are a few speculations which are legitimate as they have substantial basis, but they are very few and by reading them you can probably understand that they are important. For instance, the Zaraki vs. Gin/Tousen paragraph which keeps being deleted.
• Any edit by an unregistered user should be suspect by default. I'm not saying it will be bad, because some IP users have made great helpful edits, but most of them either vandalize or insert fancruft which has no place here. Spelling, grammar and style are also very important to watch out for where IP users are concerned.
• If you doubt an edit, you can always bring it up in talk, and if no one replies in a few days, grill it.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved to left Also, standards are very important. If you disagree with any of them, bring it up on this talk page and we'll vote, but so far the standard writing is: shinigami (pl.: shinigami), hollow (pl.: hollows), Quincy (pl.: shinigami), Soul Society (as a place name, there should never be something like: the Soul Society), zanpakutō (pl.: zanpakutō), except Yoruichi Shihouin there should never be the letters 'ou' or 'uu' in a Japanese word, GN-FN name order, arrancar (pl.: arrancar), vizard (pl.: vizard), Bount (pl.: Bount), and probably a bunch I forgot. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bleach (manga) vs. BLEACH

While I am neutral on this issue, I am an advocate of standards, and therefore am curious to know why the title was reverted without discussion to the old one. This kind of action is rather harmful because it means we'll have to change a hundred or so BLEACHes to Bleach (manga) again, even though the move has not reached consensus and therefore we might need to move Bleach (manga) to BLEACH again later. Let's first vote and then see what comes out. Meanwhile, please don't move the article or change instances of BLEACH to Bleach (manga). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to request that all users give a brief reason as to why they support the title that they do. Since we seem to be tied or nearly tied, a clear sign that there is presently no consensus, we may have to settle this by discussion rather than vote, and having reasons given would be a good starting point for such a discussion. --Tjstrf 00:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: can we discount votes, in a manner similar to AfD? I am seeing some votes by very new users and users who have never edited a bleach article in their histories. Do we really want to "ballot stuff"? After all, we are the ones in the end who will work with the article Hobbeslover 03:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In this case, I think you're right, because there is an apparent tie. Although in general, voting counts whether or not the user has edited the articles in question. My List of Bleach characters in the Hebrew Wiki was deleted (on the basis of notability after an AfD vote) even though none of the users who voted actually edited the page (other than myself). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I will strikeout votes then. Feel free to butcher my discounting though, if you feel I am wrong. Hobbeslover 03:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Vote

BLEACH

1. み使い Mitsukai 18:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
2. VDZ 19:42, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Seth Turner 17:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Not sure how much weight my vote carries but i think BLEACH works better
4. Makaio 22:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Bleach Babe 01:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
6. SumGuy 16:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
   • Comment New user, no prior Bleach related edits Hobbeslover 03:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
7. Darknshadow 00:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
   • Comment No prior bleach edits Hobbeslover 03:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Bleach (manga) or Bleach (series)

1. Jeltz talk 16:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Tjstrf 23:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
3. GhostStalker 14:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
4. Gunslinger47 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC) (long comment moved below vote)
5. Hobbeslover 23:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (Discussion below)
6. Crisu 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC) (long comment moves below vote)
7. feydey 00:14, 8 May 2006 (UTC) Per discussion in Talk:Naruto#Requested_move. Or move to Bleach (series).
8. SeizureDog 19:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC) As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner encourages special treatment."

Comment: Don't know about the others, but I was not aware of this guideline. I guess this puts significant weight into the Bleach (manga)/(series) argument. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 11:40, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: This was one of my main reasons for voting for Bleach (whatever). I realized just now that I forgot to mention it. Jeltz talk 19:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment: I think we have a consensus now. No one has presented any argument for all-caps other than it being slightly easier on editors. And when looking at the contributions of those who voted in favor, I can only spot one, maybe two, who have ever even typed [[BLEACH]]. The amount of work saved past the initial conversion will be infinitesimal. "Bleach" the correct method. There is no argument against this assertion. Gunslinger47 04:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral votes don't help, but I'd just like to comment on the options: BLEACH is contrary to some Wiki standards, although it is justified by the common spelling policy. It is also easier for the editors to work with BLEACH. Bleach (manga) is more 'English', and adheres to all Wiki standards and guidelines (not as important as policies but sometimes may be more important). It is however harder to work with Bleach (manga). Please take these things into account before voting.
2. Comment: I wish I could discount users who haven't edited Berserk (manga) before when consitering that page move (see talk:Berserk (manga) for that mess...) I would vote for BLEACH because it's easier, if I was allowed ;_; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aknorals (talk • contribs)
   • Comment: Well, you can comment, but vote stuffing is just so pointless. I don't want 50 votes coming from people who never have or will edit the Bleach articles. And I don't think that BLEACH is all that much more simpler. Of course, typing (manga) or (series) is an extra step, but not much. I have listed my reasons for (manga) or (series) below. Hobbeslover 19:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

---

If a consensus is not reached, we should move to BLEACH, because most links point there and it would be a standardization nightmare to start changing without a clear consensus. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The motivation for my vote is the same as in the previous discussion about this. Bleach is a prefectly acceptable capitalisation and from my experiences from fansites and online bookstores the most common way to write in English text. Wikipedia seems to generally frown on the usage of all caps where it isn't necessary. Other manga articles doesn't use all caps in their titles. Jeltz talk 16:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Found a similar vote about Naruto Talk:Naruto#Requested_move where the conseus clearly was that NARUTO should be moved to Naruto. This could be seen as a president. Jeltz talk 16:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, the perception that BLEACH is the proper capitalization comes from two sources. Primarily, from the title graphic. However it is not uncommon for normal names to be displayed in all-caps when in logo form. Sony being a good example of this. The second source is that Bleach is always written in all-caps when it is mixed within kanji. Take a look at the PS2 game's site for an example of this. However, this is not unusual. Roman characters are almost always in all-caps when mixed with kanji. So... unless there is another source outside of the title logo and kanji, we'll have to assume that ブリーチ is written as "Bleach" in English. Oh, and since the article is about both the manga and the anime, it shouldn't just be called "Bleach (manga)". I suggest Bleach (series), as this can refer to both television series and book series. -- Gunslinger47 23:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with the (series) specification, though it should be noted that in most game and book articles, it is used to specify between articles on a series and articles on the original title that is the series's namesake. So by what seems to be the common usage, (series) would be used to disambig. between Title (series) and Title (book), not Title (series) and Title (real-world location of same name). -Tjstrf

Here are two other examples of where the "manga" disambiguation refers to an anime: Touch (manga) and Slam Dunk (manga). I suppose if we wanted to be really accurate, we could call it Bleach (shōnen)... -- Gunslinger47 14:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I really want to vote for "Bleach (series)" like Gunslinger47. I think if Bleach wasn't already an actual thing, this wouldn't be an issue, and it'd just be "Bleach". -Crisu 05:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

How many people are for "BLEACH" just because it will be easier on editors? I see no one claiming that BLEACH is the correct way of doing things. If Wikipedia has to choose between doing things the easy way and doing things the right way, it should choose the latter. Articles are supposedly written for a much larger audience than just the editors, and we have a responsibility to give this audience correct information. By writing "BLEACH" we are indirectly telling them that this is the correct, which it is not. Is typing Bleach once per article really that hard? -- Gunslinger47 14:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Bleach (manga) because it is the right way of doing this. NO ONE uses BLEACH to describe this manga; it is written as such on covers but that is a stylistic/artistic matter. In actual practice, Bleach is the spelling of choice, and I would go as far as to say the "correct" way of spelling it. If nothing else, BLEACH is obnoxiously loud and disuniform. Additionally, most of the pages on wiki are Series name (manga), even for those that have anime series; this is because anime series are usually derived from manga. If it is the opposite, I'm sure that simply the series name or Series name (anime) would be used. It's a matter of uniformity, along with what's right. If we get concensus, changing all of the articles from even the 10 or so editors here would not be hard, since it would only be a one-time deal Hobbeslover 03:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be easy to change when we reach a consensus. I have done similar changes alone in the past when I have felt that I have had a lot of time on my hands. I could accept Bleach (series) but I don't see anything wrong with simply Bleach (manga), what I'm against is writing BLEACH which from my experience is rare execpt when mixed with kanji. Jeltz talk 09:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Consider Bleach (manga) or Bleach (series) going to win now would it be Bleach (manga) or Bleach (series). IMO its Bleach (series) because it not just all about manga it has other media info too. -- Darknshadow 23:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archive

There is now a new archive, due to growing page size. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant as always! =D Bleach Babe 01:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Bount (anime only)

If there's a section about something that doesn't exist in the manga, shouldn't the article be renamed to Bleach (anime and manga)"?

Someone suggested Bleach (series). However, we're going to wait a few more days to reach a clear consensus whether to use Bleach (something) or simply BLEACH. After that we may use Bleach (series), an idea which I personally support. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be over, so has anything been decided now? Ken Arromdee 15:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said somewhere below, if we don't have an consensus, we should probably stick with what the rest of Wikipedia seems to be doing. That is, using the (manga) disambiguated pages to discuss both the manga canon and the derivative anime. This is not necessarily a bad thing. The term "manga" is roughly similar to the English word "cartoon". Referring to animation using either term is technically allowable and not entirely incorrect. –Gunslinger47 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Bleach (manga) vs. Bleach (series)

Which one? I don't think we should vote on this, but share your thoughts. I pick Bleach (series) as it's more encompassing and doesn't leave out anime (a certain user asked the valid question, why we have anime-only info in an article about manga). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I promote Bleach (manga) on the basis that the manga is the original form for the media. Furthermore, the (series) designation seems to usually be used when referring to series of books that have the series's title as the name of the first book as well. I don't mind either way though. --tjstrf 09:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To begin with, it seems that (manga) is the convention, but it is not necessarily "standard" nor "correct". Here is a list of manga that have been animated that use the (manga) disambiguation to refer to both the manga and anime:

• Berserk (manga)
• Slam Dunk (manga)
• Touch (manga)

The (series) disambiguation has traditionally been used for book series, but that is not necessarily a problem, as the Bleach manga is technically a series of Japanese comic books. Regardless, (series) it is not exclusive to books. My best example of this is Mega Man (series) which covers all the different video game series, the television series, the American comic series, the manga and the anime.

Though, if there is a Japanese word for the superclass of manga and anime, that might be preferable. To further complicate the issue, series might still not be a perfect choice since this page will likely cover Bleach: The Movie as well, when it comes out. The designation (shōnen) might be more accurate (with a redirect from "shonen" of course) as it refers specifically to what Bleach is.

I think series would work the best of all the known alternatives, but if we can't find a clear answer, we should probably stick with manga just because that's what everyone else is doing. We can jump off a bridge while we're at it. :D –Gunslinger47 14:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think using shōnen is problematic because it's a genre, if that was the standard then we'd have stuff like The Da Vinci Code (thriller) instead of The Da Vinci Code (film). I think using genres in general to describe anything should be kept to a minimum, partly due to the uncertainty of the genre for certain works, and the fact that many works can be put into various genres. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 14:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I like manga, because it follows precedent and it is The Original. We make the distinction of canon based on the manga, and any page we make will be heavily manga-centric. Having Bleach (series) and BLEACH redirect to the main page of Bleach (manga) seems to be an eloquent solution to me. Hobbeslover 00:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Bleach (series) and BLEACH redirect to the main page of Bleach (manga) seems to be an eloquent solution to me. I'm not sure I understand what you mean. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 03:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What I mean is, use Bleach (manga) and for the pages of Bleach (series) and BLEACH, redirect it to Bleach (manga). Of course, that is already being done so that's a moot point. As for how we write/link it in articles, it doesn't much matter. All we need is a {{BLEACH / Bleach (manga) / Bleach (series)|Bleach}} and ta-da! Of course, it would be better to have all the links direct to Bleach (manga), but if we want to be lazy, that would work too. Hobbeslover | (talk) (contribs) 03:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any comment on (manga) being non-inclusive as the core entry's name? –Gunslinger47 22:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's non-inclusive, but it's the established precedant to use the original. Mai-HiME would be a case where the anime would be the main page, if there was more than one thing by that name. --tjstrf 22:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me, but what is hobbes talking about? I've read it three times and I have no idea what he's saying. --Makaio 00:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As best I can tell, he's saying that we simply redirect 2 of them to the other, which I might add is already being done. --tjstrf 04:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly what I said, lol. I didn't realize that what I said was apparently so hard to understand. Maybe I phrased it bad. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 16:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with the Be Bold principle, I have replaced every instance of BLEACH (except 2 mentions on the main page) with Bleach (manga), (There were no instances of Bleach (series) to be found) so we are now consistent. If you want to use Bleach (series) you can, but be warned, it will take quite a bit of effort. --tjstrf 08:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

A quick look through the Category:Anime_series no show uses (series) directly. Although they do have a few alternatives: Angelique (Japanese series); Emma (anime and manga); Golden Boy (anime and manga) --Pedantic79 06:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand Japanese, so it's a little hard to do research into the meaning of a term, but it seems that the term "manga" can refer to animation. In English, the term "manga" is exclusively used to refer to Japanese, hand drawn graphical novels drawn in the recognizable style popularized by the like of Tezuka and others. This is far too specific to be the reality of the term in Japan. The literal meaning of the term is 漫 (man-) "random, uncontrolled" + 画 (-ga) "picture, sketch". From this, the original intention seems to be "unrealistic art".

Microsoft seems to support my theory in their dictionary entry for manga. Here, they say that manga is "Japanese comic books or cartoons: a Japanese style of comic books or animated cartoons, often very violent or erotic". In their definition, they suggest that "manga" is primarily a "style". Secondly, the point out that it can refer to both still art and animation. –Gunslinger47 22:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a pretty stupid question, but is wikipedia's search engine case sensitive? Is that part of the reason why we're debating this? Bleach Babe 22:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no: Yes, Wikipedia's search engine is case-sensitive, apart from the first letter, which is automatically made a majuscule (some software issue when Wikipedia was first designed makes all articles begin with a capital; this was fixed for Wiktionary). No, the argument is more about common use vs. naming conventions (two of Wikipedia's key topics regarding page names).

Ahh! I see thanks for the help! Believe it or not, that clears up a lot of things for me! ^_^ Thanks again!!Bleach Babe 05:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the word manga is never used to describe or include anime the same way you'd never call a movie a novel. They are two different types of media. That being said, I personally support in renaming the section into Bleach (series) to better reflect the state of the Bleach franchise. -- Finestela 12:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Character articles

Really, this has got to stop. Users are trying to create articles on minor characters which don't need to have articles. A great example is D-Roy, and now Rupi (Bleach). Especially in D-Roy's case, there is absolutely no more potential information that can be added. I have already AfD'd it, but the result was no consensus (none of the Bleach regulars seemed to vote there too). We should discuss it here and reach a clear consensus. My proposal is:

• Merge all current arrancar articles (and delete them) except Grimmjow and Ulquiorra into Arrancar assaults on the human world.
• This article will have two sections: first assault (Ulquiorra/Yammy), second assault, and third assault.
• It will have a short description of each arrancar with all the info we know, but not spread as thinly as now.
• This can turn into a fairly long and conprehensive article on a Bleach fictional event which includes several character bios, rather than have a million articles which will, even if the information is spread very thinly like it is now, have almost no useful information.
• If support to this idea is given, make a mass-nom and cite this discussion.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Minor characters should be described on the character page. Minor arrancar characters should be described in its arrancar subsection. Regarding D-Roy, everything we know about him can fit easily into a single, well-phrased paragraph. That said, they did do a good job detailing the D-Roy page, considering how undetailed the character is. –Gunslinger47 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Rupi at least deserves his own page, as he is leading the newest attack on Karakura. I agree with the removal of the lesser arrancar that died in the attack led by Grimmjow. --GhostStalker 01:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I kinda agree with Gunslinger. I'm not really sure if making a new article on the arrancar assaults is a good idea. It would probably be redundant anyway, since it would be on all of the character pages and whatnot. But I do agree that all of these characters pages need to STOP. The Characters in Bleach series page (Big Page) is meant for minor characters, and we should delete all of the character pages for minor characters and fold everything back into the Big Page. Not sure if Rupi deserves a page. I think we should hold off for a few more chapters until we can see a significance. For all we know, she could be killed in the next chapter. Other than what Gunslinger has brought up, I agree with Ynhockey. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: Wanderweiss needs to go though, on the account that he has done nothing. At all. Period. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 20:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I was just re-reading some chapters and noticed a character no one talks about who is more notable than both D-Roy and Wonderweiss (and reveals more insight on the nature of the Bleach universe)... drum roll... Rukia's soul candy (the one that makes the pyon sound). Seriously. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up: looks like Luppi has been killed. So much for that character. Now how about that mass-nom? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've mass-nominated the articles in question. Please vote! -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 06:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Official Spellings?

Is there a consensus on what the official spellings of the arrancar are? I thought the correct spelling of the 10th Espada was Yami, and so I made those changes whenever I saw them, but now Im hearing that his name's official spelling is Yammy? Also, I noticed someone changed the spelling of the 6th Espada from Rupi to Luppi. Anyone got a source for these "official" spellings? --GhostStalker 18:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yammy is the official spelling, see cover of chapter 231. Also Luppi is supposedly the spelling uses on the cover of 233, although I haven't been able to get the chapter yet. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks for mentioning the Yammy bit, I never really noticed that before because I dont really pay attention to the cover pages all that much. I'll make a mental note of that from now on. --GhostStalker 19:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I find this amusing, considering that "Tite" can't spell his own name right. --Anon

They're official by author fiat. Of course, we're only doing this with the actual names, not things like "The man of black robe". --tjstrf 03:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Comparison table

Could someone please do a table that shows which manga chapters are adapted into which anime episodes? This seems to be a service that no-one provides at present. Bleachportal.net says it has this on their site, but I can't find it. Thanks in advance. --Jamdav86 20:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While I don't mind doing this for you personally (if you ask me), this is probably not information fit for Wikipedia. Maybe other users will disagree however. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I did ask because I wanted it doing personally. I'd be eternally grateful if you did it for me. :) However this could be added to Wikipedia with the same argument as the Differences between book and film versions of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory page - a useful curiosity, that can help fans avoid spoilers in addition. --Jamdav86 20:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have produced a copy in Microsoft Excel; if you want it, I can probably save it as a different format, if you specify, and emailing is probably easiest. (This goes for anyone else who wants a copy also, just ask. (This is all my own work, using the subtitled anime and raw manga). Setokaiba^✌_≝ 14:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Onmitsukidō (隠密機動)

Should it be Secret Mobile Unit or Covert Ops Corps? The latter has been used so far, but it's mostly just a random nice-sounding phrase invented by scanlators to give onmitsukidō a real-life feel. Secret Mobile Unit doesn't sound that awkward either (although it somewhat does). How about Secret Mobile Corps? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Special Forces. The term "covert operations" implies deniability by the governing body. While denial doesn't appear to be a big factor regarding the onmitsukidō, this does appear to be the convention in the fan community. A more accurate term would be "special forces", or more formally, "special operations forces". Ninja are considered to be special forces. Indeed, they were the world's first. As for the use of the term "corps", I say drop it. It's redundant. –Gunslinger47 00:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I've been learning a bit of Japanese recently and decided to take a closer look at this word. I think you may be transliterating it wrong. The reading of the last character (動) appears to be dou (どう) not just dō (ど). This means that the proper transliteration may be "Onmitsukidou". This term gets more matches in Google, if that counts for anything. This might help us understand the word better. Both "onmitsu" and "kidou" are Japanese terms. Check 'em out here: [1] –Gunslinger47 06:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

* Response. 動 is indeed read as どう. Dō is also read as どう. Dou and dō are exactly the same. For what it's worth, the term "onmitsu" was used in the Edo period to refer to samurai who acted as spies (lit., according to my Japanese-Japanese dictionary, "deeply studied the comings and goings") under the control of the shogun. "Kidou" refers to people and weapons invested in quickly responding to a situation. These both give an implication of "the secret service," which would be a good representation of their role in Bleach. --Anon in Japan, [who now has an account. Dekimasu 05:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)]

Episodes

Just thought I'd mention it here, but I'm going to be working on the episodes page for a while... cleaning it up, wiping it's bottom, yelling at it for being disfunctional... all that good stuff! :) -- Makaio 22:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the show

Is it considered a good anime? adult swim has a reputation of showing crappy anime. --69.67.231.77 04:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very excellent anime. Even the filler isn't bad at all. Of course, the manga is 2 or 3 times better, but still, worth the watching. (Unless they totally destroy it in translation or get really awful voice actors.) --tjstrf 04:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

And for a more cynical review: The first three arcs are the most significant of the anime. The first, titled Agent of the Shinigami, is nothing too special (IMHO, of course), however the series becomes very engaging after Rukia Kuchiki leaves to Soul Society. This period is covered by the following two arcs; Arc 2: Soul Society: The Sneak Entry and Arc 3: Soul Society: The Rescue. This period is shōnen at its best, and I highly recommend it.

At this point, the anime had caught up to the manga it was based off of and it entered into a fourth arc regarding the vampire-like Bount. These episodes are filler and I don't personally recommend it. Though, it is fairly good as far as filler goes (See Kenshin and especially Naruto for other examples of "filler hell"). Meanwhile, the manga continues on a much better story line as Ichigo dabbles with forbidden hollow-like powers. –Gunslinger47 20:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The second Arc is definately when things pick up. I also recomend checking out the manga, if you can. The manga is actually alot better than the anime, even though the anime is good. The first 13 volumes are available in English, and translations of the current issues can be found on almost any fansite. -- Makaio 00:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Spanish references...

The article doesn't make much mention of just how heavy the spanish influence is in naming the evil characters, especially the most powerful of them(the Arrancar, and the Menos Grande hollows..) In fact, out of all the mangas I've seen/read, this one has had the most non-japanese references... Curious, does anyone know if the heavy spanish influence shows up in the japanese version as well?--Vercalos 07:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would assume it carries in the japanese version as well. Though when you say there is no other anime more foreign-influenced, you definitely forget Fate/Stay Night. --tjstrf 23:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm just not sure what section to put such information it. But I do agree that it should be included. Possibly under the hollow and Bount sections. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 02:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's in the Japanese version too. Foreign names in Bleach are usually listed in kanji, but these kanji given furigana, and this is where you see the Spanish words. The most interesting thing is that the arrancar sometimes speak katakana-over-katakana; while the basic text might say "lucky" in transliterated English, it's given Spanish furigana. Strange and fun. Dekimasu 11:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rain, Clouds and Sky

The name of Urahara's mod souls seem to reference the three levels of the heavens. Ririn (rain), Claude (clouds) and Nova (erm... nova). Is there a source to back this up, or is it obvious enough to not require one? Following that, would it be worth mentioning in one of the Bleach articles? –Gunslinger47 07:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really understand the connection between Ririn and rain... -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I guessed that rain was their intention from the common theme of clouds and stars. "Ririn" is, admittedly, quite far from rain. However, on the other hand, Kakarotto is no where near carrot, yet it is still derived from the word. It seems to make sense, but as I suggested, I'm not sure if it should be mentioned, even if it is true. Also, we'd still need an external reference.
My only other guess regarding Ririn's name is it has similar origins as Yachiru's nickname for Chad, "moririn". –Gunslinger47 05:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Kakarotto is actually pretty close to carrot - because Japanese doesn't double Rs, doesn't have a C, etc., and an ending T can usually be written as 'to' or 'tto', English Kacarrot would also be Kakarotto in Japanese. I don't know what the beginning 'ka' is for, but the rest of the word is a 100% accurate transliteration. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My point was that Akira didn't try to make a perfect translation, but rather derived Goku's saiyan name from the English word. I propose that Ririn is derived from "rain" (or "rein" as they say it). A couple friends and I were discussing this, suspecting a pattern with the three modsoul's names.

Claude's name (Kurōdo) is very similar to the Japanese pronunciation of cloud (kuraudo). Nova (Nōba) seems to inarguably be referencing the word "nova". Both of these are English (or at least, non-Japanese) words describing heavenly entities. Assuming Ririn's name follows the same pattern, there is one obvious choice. Anyway, I searched the Internet to see if anyone backed up my theory, but found nothing. –Gunslinger47 04:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless, that would be original research. --tjstrf 04:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, hence the need for a source other than my own musing. –Gunslinger47 18:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

In progress TV show template

I removed the template tag "in progress TV show" for the following reasons, which should be considered before re-adding:

1. This page is titled Bleach (manga), not Bleach (anime). A more apt template would be something like "in progress serialized story".

2. It looks ugly.

3. We do our best to keep speculation off the main page, and driven into the corners of the character articles, if present at all. It just makes us look bad to slap a big speculation warning on the main article when, compared to other series at least, we have almost none. Similarly, the main Bleach article is remarkably stable. For an example, compare the article history with Naruto: We have less edits in the last week than they did in the last 2 days.

In short, the template is unneeded, as it warns of a danger we already have well in check at present. --tjstrf 07:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ordering of main characters

Currently, the "main characters" are ordered alphabetically by first name. This is not necessarily a perfect solution but was selected because the alternative is a completely arbitrary order. We might as well make it official and discuss it. I suggest we leave it as it is for now simply because order is really not important enough to warrant more elaborate solutions. However. not having an official, fixed ordering will just result in people constantly mucking with the order in an arbitrary fashion. Anyway, other viable options are:

• order by appearance in the manga
• order used on official websites
• popularity determined by number of Google results
• amount of "screen time"

Thoughts? –Gunslinger47 05:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think they should be ordered first by race and then by importance/prominence (determined by amount of screen time, back story given, independence from the main character, introduction time, etc). I admit that using this scheme will be fairly difficult when dealing with only five characters, and in such a case I think the race should be scrapped and the order should be: Ichigo Kurosaki, Rukia Kuchiki (the two primary characters who started the story), followed by Ishida (although arguably not as important as Orihime and certain other characters, he is a rival to the main character and moves independetly, which raises his importance significantly), then Orihime and Chad (introduced at almost the same time, both serve as auxiliaries to the main character and train together, etc.) -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 08:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support order of introduction myself. Which would be... Ichigo, Rukia, Orihime, Chad, Ishida, correct? Order of importance raises some POV concerns. Popularity would mean Hitsugaya was a main character, and screen time would put Renji in the main characters, above Chad, Rukia, and Ishida. --tjstrf 09:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's another matter entirely. Just who will we include in the Bleach (manga)#Characters subsection? Renji does indeed appear to be more of a "main character" than Rukia, Chad and Ishida by some measures. But anyway, we should discuss that after we reach a consensus on ordering. I'd be okay with ordering by introduction. I'll support any non-arbitrary ordering method. –Gunslinger47 00:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support ordering by introduction. Dekimasu 13:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ordering by introduction sounds good to me. --GhostStalker 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems like we have a consensus. What do you think, Ynhockey? Are you opposed, or is this acceptable? –Gunslinger47 02:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Another thought: we could also go by the [credits], which would be Ichigo - Rukia - Inoue - Ishida - Chad. Dekimasu 07:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I mentioned "order used on official websites". –Gunslinger47 23:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote

Let's finish this.
Order of appearance (Ichigo-Rukia-Inoue-Chad-Ishida)

1. Leaves more leeway for new characters to become important in the future, and order of appearance can never change. Dekimasu 10:13, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
2. I'll support any non-arbitrary ordering method. I'm signing under this one specifically in the hopes of reaching a speedy consensus. –Gunslinger47 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
3. What dekimasu said. -- Makaio 11:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
4. Order of appearance.Ileenka 03:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
5. Oder of appearence. Famartin 02:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Order used on official websites/anime credits (Ichigo-Rukia-Inoue-Ishida-Chad)

Alphabetical by given name (as is)

Result

Main characters will be listed by order of appearance. Dekimasu 03:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Another vanity article

Ichinose Maki (not even properly named). Does anyone think it deserves to stay? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think he's important enough. Could we posit that individual characters don't become notable unless they appear in the manga - the actual writings of Kubo? On the other hand, that would exclude a lot of the referenced content from the Bleach databook. Dekimasu 11:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We should not make a double standard unless there is a good reason to. The canon and filler should both be held to the same standards for inclusion. –Gunslinger47 02:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It's going to make things a lot harder to explain overall, considering the number of plot holes in the fillers. Not that that means it shouldn't be done. Is he notable, then? Dekimasu 02:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

He certainly can't be considered more important than Kariya, who doesn't have his own page. If he is being given special treatment because he's a Shinigami, he is certainly not more important than, say, Maki Maki. Dekimasu 02:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I can think of a few profiles where nothing is going on. At least Ichinose has a little depth, unlike... oh say, Chojiro, or Omaeda... just to name a few. Sure it's a vanity article... but it seems fairly well written (just glanced at it), and besides not having the proper title it looks ok. -- Makaio 11:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Kensei Muguruma, Hiyori Sarugaki and some more vanity articles, have popped up recently. Considering most of these articles are incredibly stretched out, and the photos uploaded have not been given the proper copyright status (unless francis anime is Tite Kubo), I think both articles should be deleted. What do you guys thinks? -- Makaio 07:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you nominate, I'll vote. By the way, could that picture be bigger? Dekimasu 09:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's make a list... Kensei Muguruma, Ichinose Maki, Hiyori Sarugaki, Lisa Yadoumaru, Modified Souls (Bleach). Anything else before I nominate? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Delete them, no prejudice towards recreation as more information becomes available or if we decide filler characters deserve articles too. Their summary sections weren't removed from the character list, correct?

As for the issue of filler characters in general, I think we will probably need to make articles on Kariya and Yoshino, maybe Utagawa and Ichinose as well. By writing these articles, if we focus most of the filler summary into them, we can significantly improve the article quality of several other characters, who will no longer be forced to explain every detail about their opponents within their articles. Those 2-4 are major characters within the arc itself, and have significant backstories, major impacts on the plot, or relationships with other characters that should be described somewhere, and that somewhere should not have to be the other character's article. --tjstrf 07:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Spotty placement of kanji

The main page uses a few Japanese terms (Kubo's name, Karakura town, etc.), but other terms for which kanji could easily be provided (Shinigami, character names, etc.) are not included. Shouldn't this be somehow systematic? Would you like them to be added? Dekimasu 11:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't really thought about that. Now that I do, I think we should remove all the kanji from the main article. The only Japanese letters that should remain are the spelling of Bleach (ブリーチ) and 魂葬 (konsō) because there's no main Plus article (and by the way, shouldn't be, one existed before and was deleted). -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

In that case, let's remove Karakura, which serves no purpose. Inga no kusari is also written out in the Plus section. Is "Chain of Fate" the official translation in the English version? It's not a very good explanation of the term. Inga usually means "cause and effect," and can also mean "karma" when used in a religious context. Thus the Japanese term implies "reaping what you sow," which is quite different from "fate." If that's the official translation, I suppose it can stay and inga no kusari can go. Dekimasu 01:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: reference removal. It was once again a standardization choice. I'm confused as to why the name of the town, which is mentioned many times, needs a citation. Soul Society doesn't have a reference to page 96 of the databook, and so on throughout the article. I guessed that the person who added the reference was sourcing the kanji, rather than the name of the town. It's a choice which would probably make sense to people reading the English version of the manga. Dekimasu 10:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The reference refers to the lesser-known fact that Karakura Town isn't actually an independent town, but a neighborhood in Tokyo. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 10:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

All right, then. Technically the parts of West Tokyo that Karakura Town is supposed to be in are made up of independent cities with true city status. It is an independent town. But anyway, I see your point in referencing the Tokyo location. This is also mentioned in the manga, though - for example, when the arrancar are detected by the 12th Division. My fault for misunderstanding. Dekimasu 11:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Genre discussion

Some people have been editing the genre box in the template to include things like comedy and fantasy. While I agree that Bleach isn't comedy, I think there needs to be another tag besides the shōnen and action tags. In his last revert Ynhockey implied that the shōnen tag encompasses the fantasy aspect of Bleach, but I don't believe that's really the case. Many popular shōnen comics have no supernatural elements at all (things like Initial D, GTO, Bebop High School, etc.). Those that do have fantasy elements (say, Kenshin) often have a fantasy tag in their genre boxes. Those manga that are most similar to Bleach (the "Shinigami genre") at least have something to note that they aren't realistic. For example, Death Note is listed as "supernatural," and YūYū Hakusho is listed as "paranormal." If "fantasy" carries too much of a Princess Bride-style connotation, couldn't one of these be included? Dekimasu 04:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind 'supernatural' or 'paranormal'. Although I think there should be some kind of standard for tagging anime series like this. It doesn't help if 3 similar series are listed as fantasy, supernatural and paranormal, respectively. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Paranormal ("outside normal sensory channels;" "beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation") seems to be a better fit than supernatural, which can imply divinity, but this is only the case when "death god" is used as in Bleach, with no real implication of divinity. If there seems to be any support behind the idea, let's wrestle the "Shinigami genre" (inc. Full Moon) into the same genre listing - one or the other - to be consistent. Dekimasu 09:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone really pay attention to the genre listing anyway? -- Makaio 11:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, people kept changing it. Dekimasu 12:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, well nevermind. I never really paid attention to the info bar anyway. -- Makaio 04:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

"Original Run" date

I believe the date given (January 5, 2002) to be inaccurate. The Japanese page lists the start of Bleach as 2001, and the cover of my Japanese Shonen Jump (cover date September 4, 2006) has a headline on chapter 239 reading roughly "Celebrating the fifth anniversary of Bleach serialization." I'm changing it to "2001" per the Japanese page until it can be verified. Dekimasu 12:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on Anime News Network, it's January 5, 2002. [2] --Silver Edge 22:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote: "BLEACH © 2001 by Tite Kubo/SHUEISHA Inc." [3] –Gunslinger47 22:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Jan. 5 was probably the beginning of the anime series. --tjstrf 22:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll make a guess too. I think someone at ANN probably counted back the number of weeks and calculated a date rather than seeing if it was actually published every week at the beginning of its run. Dekimasu 01:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

October 5, 2004 is the original anime start date. [4] --Silver Edge 22:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Bah, a pity it couldn't be that simple. Well, in that case either they or the Shounen Jump has the date wrong. It says Bleach 5 year anniversary on the cover page. And I'm inclined to trust the Jump over ANN. --tjstrf 22:36, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it. The ANN listing is for the publication date of the first volume, not the first chapter. Thus, we should be looking for the right date in 2001. Dekimasu 01:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Per this site, Bleach publication began in 2001 in the 36th issue of Shonen Jump. I haven't been able to figure out what date that puts it at, but it's certainly August/September. Dekimasu 01:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Several Japanese sites list the release date as August 6, 2001. It's probably the real release date, but not the real cover date. The cover date on this week's Shonen Jump (No.38) is Septebmer 4th, but the title page tells me to be sure to get No.39 when it comes out on... August 28th. Either way, the correct date will be in August of 2001. Changing the page now. Dekimasu 03:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Lead

I'd like to work a bit on the lead of the article, reversing the order of info and making it look a bit more like the one for One Piece (which reads very smoothly and gets information across quickly). I think the spoiler tag also needs to be moved down the page a bit. Anyone looking for encyclopedic information on Bleach will want to see at least a minor plot summary - at least as much as is written in the blurb on the back of the first volume. Any objections? Dekimasu 02:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I object to the idea that we should emulate the One Piece section. I mean, I love the series, it has nothing to do with that, but have you seen how horrendously cluttered their character articles are? Also, upon looking at it, One Piece's intro has virtually nothing to say about the plot, though it does contain more useful real life information than ours does. Go ahead and rewrite the intro if you feel it will benefit. --tjstrf 02:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The lack of non-spoiler information in this article has bothered me for some time now. I believe we should have only what we need to under the spoilers tag. How is the page useful to someone who hasn't seen the series yet? –Gunslinger47 20:03, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to start by moving the spoiler tag down to the races section of the article? Anything above that is either a broad overview or is revealed in the first tankobon/episode. Dekimasu 15:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

It has more to do with who we want this article intended for... As far as I'm concern, we should just get rid of the spoiler tag from anything that's before 1/4 of the storyline (the first five book, or the first 50 chapters). Finestela 16:26, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I submit that explaining the fictional setting is not spoiler material. People are coming to this page for information. They won't be offended if they find it. –Gunslinger47 02:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Terminology (again) - gigai

I think we should change the standard English translation of gigai from faux body to artificial body, for the following reasons:

• Artificial body is a direct translation of gigai, no string attached
• It sounds better in English
• The reader does not need to be familiar with Bleach or what a gigai actually is, because 'artificial body' is fairly self-explanatory

Please comment, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Faux body always struck me as rather strange sounding, I agree. --tjstrf 19:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in support of using gigai, personally. There's no direct English equivalent for it, and it is not hard to pronounce. Basically for the same reasons I support using "shinigami" over "death god" or whatever. "Artificial body" doesn't seem like a term that real people would ever commonly use (from the perspective of the fictional universe). The dubber's selection of "faux body" seems to be trying to solve that problem. A smarter decision for them would have just been to use the word mannequin. There's nothing wrong with that. –Gunslinger47 03:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Gunslinger... when Rukia first says gigai to Ichigo, he doesn't have any idea what she's talking about, because it's pretty much a made-up word in Japanese too. The word was designed so that it'd have to be explained. Dekimasu 05:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If we made a stub/article on gigai then that would help anyone who was curious about the term. We have a decent amount of information on gigai. Who invented them, how long have they been in use by Soul Society, the people in charge of their creation and maintinance, the various types of gigai (normal and Urahara's hilarious deflatable ones), their significance to the plot of Bleach (namely the one Urahara tried to trap Rukia with) and their relationship to mod. souls. –Gunslinger47 14:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Then again, why go through all of that work? Artificial body is simple, self-explanatory, and perfect for the english readers who will look at gigai and go "WTF?" -- Makaio 00:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

There are many English words as well that English readers would look at and go "WTF", but that doesn't mean that we should replace them with simpler words that only approximate the meaning. If you think that's a good idea, I direct you here for more information. :) –Gunslinger47 01:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually since you mention it, Newspeak would be an awesome language to write an encyclopedia in. I mean, most human languages are complicated and this is good for literature and such, but for articles which are meant to present only facts, the elaboration is unnecessary.

On the actual subject - actually it's not just an approximation of the meaning, it's a direct translation. 義 (gi) means artificial when used as a prefix (gishi - artificial tooth, for instance), and 骸 (kai) means body. The fact that it carries certain connotations within Bleach is irrelevant because many such Bleach 'terms' do, which are usually translated - hadō (as blast or destruction/ive spell) for instance.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one possible translation of 義, but it doesn't always mean artificial when used as a prefix (we have, e.g., the common words gimu and giri, obligation/duty). In fact, I'm looking at my kanjigen now, and the sixth definition of 義, the one you're referring to, reads "名目上の。かりの。人口の。" (emphasis added). In other words, even in the entry you want to look at, the meaning temporary (kari no) is listed before the meaning artificial (jinkou no). And temporary applies to gigai as much as artificial does.

骸, meanwhile, basically means body, but the second definition is "骨組み。内容のない全体のわく。(Shell. A general frame with no contents.)" My feeling is that these issues show well why we shouldn't be trying to simplify a complicated term. Dekimasu 05:13, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

骨組み, which I translated as shell, could also be translated as skeleton or, on an abstract level, framework. Dekimasu 05:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Reference Citation

While the system proposed by Yn above had worked well for a while, I do think it is time to make the citation in line with the rest of Wiki. One issue I have is the way the "official databook" is called. They are not called the official databook, but the official character book. Not to mention there are actually two books, the official character book "SOULs" and the official animation book "VIBEs". If we're going to start citing sources extensively, we'll need to start citing correctly, and clean it up accordingly. Also, inclusion of ISBN for books should also be considered. Finestela 11:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

After your comment on my user talk page, I have also thought of changing this. I will do so today. On a side note, I think we only have one citation of VIBEs. The reason is probably that none of the frequent editors (such as Tjstrf and myself) have a copy of VIBEs online or otherwise. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not a frequent editor yet. Anyway, I have the Japanese versions. Ask me if you need something in particular. Dekimasu 13:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

We need The entire Animation Book VIBEs ;) as well as the pages in SOULs not covered in the RAW released on the internet. However, if you don't have a scanner or don't want to scan everything (hell, I wouldn't), maybe you can quickly skim through the books and tell us about any interesting discoveries you make. When the SOULs RAW was released, I made tons of changes to the articles to reflect new information discovered there. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's the reference citation I think should be used:

• Kubo, Tite (2006). Bleach Official Character Book Souls. Tokyo, Japan: Shueisha, 1-999. ISBN 4088740793
• Kubo, Tite (2006). Bleach Official Animation Book Vibes. Tokyo, Japan: Shueisha, 1-999. ISBN 4088740807
• Kubo, Tite (2002). Japanese Version Bleach Vol. 1. Tokyo, Japan: Shueisha, 1-999. ISBN 4088732138

The 1-999 is the page number(s) for citation. I havn't quite figure out how to cite an episode correctly yet. Any input/suggestion/modification to the above format is welcomed. Also, reply to Yn's comment above. Citation of Vibes isn't totally neccessary since most materials are reviews/analysis of the anime episodes. If there's anything that requires citing when we finally get the chance to do so with various pages, I'll scan the relevent pages. Another thing, the current raw release of Souls is incomplete, but the good news is most important stuff is still there. Oh, and finally, the special side stories (Bleach 0 Side A and B) that's in Souls and Vibes are also featured in Vol. 23, which would now allow most of us to use as direct references for relevent pages. -- Finestela 01:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Foreign Publishers

I've added the publisher for the Traditional Chinese version of the manga. Here's the publishing page for Vol. 23

• Vol. 23 publishing info

Finestela 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• HongKong Publisher Info

Finestela 22:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Bleach 01

There's now an episode article at Bleach 01. Poorly named, and I don't think there should be articles for individual episodes of the anime anyway. How do you feel about it? Dekimasu 15:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

We already have a very nice page with a list of Bleach episodes along with descriptions. Perhaps the contributors' efforts could be directed there instead? –Gunslinger47 02:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm redirecting it, will nominate for deletion if necessary. We only need an episode list. --tjstrf 02:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

On the plus side, #95 is the first good episode in a while. Dekimasu 11:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is such a bad idea to have individual summaries for each episode. I mean take a look at the entries for non-anime TV shows (weekly broadcast that is), most of them do have individual episode summaries.

However, I do agree the title is poorly named... I would personally go for a better format, something like Episode Name (Bleach). -- Finestela 12:45, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it would get very crufty very fast. I am a big Bleach fan, but I don't think it makes Wikipedia more useful to have in-depth descriptions of each episode. A few weeks ago I was fixing redirects and had to go through about 30 Sailor Moon articles in a row and I just wanted to keel over and die. And plot summaries are specifically called out in WP:NOT under Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Dekimasu 13:30, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Dekimasu, I think you should read this also in regards to episode guides and summaries. TV Episodes -- Finestela 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, it would be a bad idea to make a bunch of individual pages for Bleach episodes. I say this because I could write a long page and throw random stuff in to make it huge and wonderful. But it descends from encyclopedic to fan work if it goes too far, such summaries for programs like South Park and such are so incredibly expanded that sometimes they say the same thing in a different way 5 or 7 times. The episode list is perfect the way it is and could actually use some trimming. -- Makaio 07:26, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Which is exactly why we should take a look at the guides that "worked" and learn from them. Stargate is a good place to start. As for the episode list itself, I agree it requires a great deal of trimming down. The short description should be similar to those offered by TV guides, which is one to two sentences max. -- Finestela 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with TV guides is that they have a strict anti-spoiler policy and therefore usually only summarize the first 1/3 or 1/4 of an episode. This is of course unacceptable for us. I agree however that some episode summaries need to be trimmed down. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:54, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yn, this is why I'm proposing the trim-down for episode list along with the episode summary/note pages for individual episodes. Also, I'm not talking about "THE" TV Guide in the US, but program guides/sneak-previews in general such as those you see in manga magazines.

Take 95 for instance. We wouldn't want to pile everything from Byakuya and Jin Kariya wounding one another, Ichigo joining in, the two bankai, Byakuya feels annoyed by Ichigo's joining in, etc. Those are not needed in the episode list. Instead, a short, brief description about Ichigo joining in, fight continues, along with few minor side details would be sufficient. For in depth information, it should be within individual episode info pages linked to the list page.

In essence, I'm supportive toward a system similar to that used by Stargate episode list. -- Finestela 16:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Basic problem: We would have just jacked up the number of Bleach articles to about 150, and no end is in sight for the anime either. You know how hard it would be to even maintain that many articles, let alone write, standardize, and de-cruft them? Articles about individual episodes of shows are probably the highest level of cruft you could possibly achieve. Constructing a large mass of low-quality articles when we can't even get the listed summaries right is just foolish.

Additionally, since we can inspect a noob flood from the 8th circle of Hell starting this Saturday, I really think our highest priority should be coming up with some way to explain how to write an article well to all the new people. --tjstrf 16:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I feel that the link provided agrees with what I was trying to say. For an episode article to work, it has to be based on something notable other than just the plot summary itself; if we are prepared to speak to Bleach's impact on culture, how Bleach is received by critics, or how it is produced, that is one thing; at this point, though, anything like that would be original research and/or unverifiable.

I'm glad I've established myself here a little bit before the newbies show up. Luckily, they won't know about anything past the first few episodes and thus probably won't try to rewrite too much. I'm more scared of a wave of "Bleach sucks! Bleach is cool!" vandalism. Dekimasu 16:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal fears are a bunch of OMFG SPOILERS!!! complaints, and people writing excessively detailed character summaries based on the first episodes to the extent that we have on the latest. That, and a bunch of people wanting to change the names of stuff from Japanese to english, or vice versa. (I don't know how much this was changed in the dub) --tjstrf 16:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of attitude we need to avoid. So what if we need to increase the number of articles? If you want to complain about the number of articles we need to maintain, we can simply follow that of the Japanese version of Bleach article and be done with it.

All I'm saying is, we can't have it both ways. There's no middle ground for the episode list. Either discard excessive information altogether, or preserve them by addition of summary guides for each episodes.

I personally favor the latter simply because from the point of view of a reader, it's helpful this way. As I've pointed out over and over again, there are successful examples out there, and we just need to follow them.

No matter what the outcome from this discussion is, bottom line, the episode list needs a huge makeover.

Also, hostility toward these so-called "newbs" isn't going to help anything. The "failure" section of this article pretty much sums up this problem, though I have yet to see anyone (including Yn himself) living up to that standard. -- Finestela 16:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you considered that this isn't an issue of absolute "must have" or "must not have", so much as an issue of priorities? --tjstrf 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you even read what I wrote? Also, from my understanding, this section talks about, and I quote: "...I don't think there should be articles for individual episodes of the anime anyway. How do you feel about it?"

What does this have to do with priorities? It's a discussion on whether we should have this or not, and I'm merely pointing it out that it is something that has already been done in other wiki-sections, and that it should be done here as well. Did I say it has to be now? Not that I'm aware of.

Again, I'm all for cleaning up the episode list, but as I've said over and over again, it's best to accompany this along with individual episode summaries following the other successful examples in English Wiki. -- Finestela 21:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, in reference to the "flood", we are armed with the power of reverts!*ass woopin' power!* ... And the decision concerning the continuing persuasion of making individual episode articles: No. Reason: Tjstrf told me at one point that tremendous episode summaries are foolish, and I agreed because of the reasoning above. Of coarse if you want to do the 100+ episodes on your own, we won't stop you, we'll just judge you viciously and then delete it if it sucks. -- Makaio 21:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Makaio, if it's only this simple... ;)

Problem remains that not everyone is so... erm... reasonable (?) like you are. There are plenty of people who are against the idea altogether, and wouldn't even place any input as their idea of a "good" individual episode summary/guide/notes/whatever would look like. Untill certain rules are set, it's pointless to "do it on my own" even if I want to (which, to be honest, I don't :P).

All I'm trying to point out is that this is a fairly common practice with degree of success in many cases, and it shouldn't be discouraged. If we do this right, it would be a great achievement. If not, then oh well. Just don't come up with excuses like "excess pages" and "too much work to maintain", because if you're going to complain about workload, we can simply go it like the way they do it in the Japanese article and expect everyone to get the "actual" info from reading the manga/watching the anime itself. -- Finestela 23:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying its an inherently evil idea... i'm just saying its a bad idea. Especially if you put into thought about "who would really want to read an expanded episode summary?" and the biggest one of all: "Who cares?"

It isn't an awful idea, it just doesn't seem a necessity; in truth it seems like fan work. Of coarse it could always be done! Who knows, maybe we can harness the workpower of the "n00bs coming from the 8th circle of hell" to make improvements on articles and come up with ways to present/manufacture those culturaly significant and production design informations that would be necessary for individual episode summaries. (also, these nuckleheads may seem unreasonable... but you'd be amazed at what some butterscotch cookies and milk can accomplish) -- Makaio 01:26, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Link for dates

Correct me if I'm wrong, but why are there an increase in number of modifications which links dates in this article? Links are to provide additional "useful" information for the readers, not just for the sake of linking, aren't they?

In the case of this article, I fail to see the purpose linking "september 1" and "2006". It's not that someone looking for information on Bleach would want to know more about what else happened on the same day the total chapters reached 241.

I move to delete all Wiki links for dates on the main article except for maybe birthdays (if any).

-- Finestela 02:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. When I first added dates for the airing of the dub of Bleach, I put no date links. Next time I check back almost every date has been linked. I don't know who did it or why they did it and I frankly don't care but I agree that links are there to help not to be something trivially linked for the sake of linking. Anyone who wants to go through the trouble can go ahead and do it.Gdo01 03:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Dates are linked for the purpose of allowing readers' date preferences to work. Read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and/or Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) --Silver Edge 03:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Gdo01 03:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Got it, I will start following this guideline as well. -- Finestela 04:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Media information

Just curious about what you guys think, since the media information section is growing with more anime related material, should we start changing that into the bleach anime section of the article? -- Makaio 19:36, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

The media information section has been getting bloated - names of the English voice actors when we never listed the names of the Japanese voice actors, when commercials were released for Adult Swim, etc. I think it really needs to be trimmed more than anything else. The actual media/materials article is pretty incomplete because it ignores a lot of other materials, and especially, a lot of merchandise. Dekimasu 09:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

This section seems to function simply as a dumping ground for random information. –Gunslinger47 15:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've done a lot of cleanup in the media information section and removed the cleanup tag that was there. I think the most important thing that needs to be added is more information related to the manga's publication by Shonen Jump (which should probably be right at the top as the earliest and most important media info). Also, another media-related thing. Why is the number of chapters at 242? The issue with 242 in it hasn't been released yet in Japan. It has been ahead of the Japan publication by 1 for quite a while. If there's any reason this shouldn't be changed back to 241, let it be known.... Dekimasu 10:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm also unclear as to why the media information section states that VIZ Media "acquired" overseas licensing rights when it's owned by the companies that already make the manga and anime. Dekimasu 10:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

More info on this "Shogakukan Manga Award"... VIZ Media is jointly owned by Shueisha and Shogakukan, making it a pretty big conflict of interest for Shogakukan to give Bleach an award. I've removed "prestigious" to reflect this; honestly, it seems like it's just self-promotion and should be removed altogether as unnotable. Dekimasu 10:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

If there aren't any problems with what I've done to the media section, I'll start working on the lead. I'll give it a few days to see if there are any problems to iron out, so that there won't be any conflation of edits. Dekimasu 11:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Dekimasu, don't be alarmed by the award... It's not really a self-promotion as the reward had been there for more than 50 years, and it is simply a award for the "best manga" of the year (by Shogakukan's standard). Granted, westerners might consider it to be some sort of conflict of interest, but to be honest with you, it's like the Pulitzer Prize for mangaka in Japan. After all, Shogakukan IS the oldest publisher in Japan.

Besides, Shueisha and Shogakukan split a long time ago, and had been funtioning as two separate companies ever since. The only reason they co-found VIZ is to make the transfer of publishing rights less complicated as well as pooling their resources (not to mention the semi-monopoly... :P)

I'm going to revert the term prestigious back as it is pretty much the correct word to describe the award. -- Finestela 03:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue with #242 will come out in Japan on September 11. Once again, any reason this is already at 242 in the article? Are they really being prereleased somewhere? Dekimasu 06:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

While I know the Bleach anime is still popular here, I've removed the line that needed a citation about the ratings being strong. In my search for a way to corroborate it a came across this ratings data which shows that Bleach hasn't been in the top 10 in the anime category all year. Despite its popularity among the neighborhood kids/high school students, it's better to take out the line as unverifiable and vague. And ew, I got called a Westerner. Dekimasu 05:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, you are a westerner... -- Makaio 07:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

But I live in Japan, and I've never read any manga in English. Don't make my head asplode! Dekimasu 08:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

There are some bookstores that sells Jump a few days earlier than others (baaaaaad store owners!), and not to mention there are sometimes workers from the printing factory using a digi-cam or cell-cam to get the "poor quality spoilers" in.

The summary/spoilers ususally comes on Wednesday, with actual scans out on Thursday. The scanlation group I'm working with (Chinese Scanlation group) ALWAYS get their raw on or before Friday

As for the data you've provided, it's the data on the broadcast of anime... and currently it's Anime-Original content, which many hardcore fans hate greatly, resulting in a slum in ratings. It is still quite popular in the manga serialization. Indeed, while I can't really quote any data, it's the third popular series in Weekly Shonen Jump.

P.S. Did you guys see how NANA kicked Naruto's butt in the ratings? :P -- Finestela 13:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, after reading the data back further into 2004, I guess Bleach's anime simply... slums from the beginning... :P

And the people in Japan doesn't seem to like Tuesday a lot. There are only few high rating shows on Tuesday...

Ah, one more thing, it seems that they're moving it to Wednesday in the slot right after Naruto in October... we'll just have to see how it goes when they do. -- Finestela 13:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that almost nothing on Tuesday makes the top 10. Like I said, I know that the anime is popular because the kids I see every day still like it; the comment in the article referred to the anime and not the manga. It's fine if it's because it's filler (frankly, I hate the filler too), but the fact remains that saying "the ratings are going strong" is, in this case, as much POV as the "the English dub is good" comments we're talking about below. (Unhappily, I don't see the fillers ending any time soon.)

Thanks for explaining the release dates. It still seems to me like we should be altering the article based on the official release dates, though. Dekimasu 10:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

If this is the case, it would be better to remove the comment about going strong unless someone can find the overall rating increase/decrease for the series. As for the chapter date... I'm not a strict person when it comes to stuff like that, so no comment :P (It's only a day or two! Or Three!) -- Finestela 15:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Soul Reaper... AGAIN!

Well, after the first Soul Reaper thing, I found that the English-language anime uses Soul Reaper. WhisperToMe 04:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

So...? -- Makaio 05:22, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

While I personally would go with Shinigami (I still can't stand the usage of "Soul Reaper" during discussions), it does seem like the current is riding against this. I mean it'd all comes down to whether we want to Americanize (is this even a word? :P) this article completely, or making this simply an English article on a Japanese series?

Bottom line, we might need a vote of some kind... (Darn the English Dub's!!) -- Finestela 13:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It all boils down to WP:Use English - This is a Wikipedia standard. WhisperToMe 02:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Read the part about boardline cases. Previously, the term Shinigami is the most accepted term, and the most familiar term to most editors and users of the page (at least the ones that say something about it when the issue came up).

However, like I've said, the tide is turning, and "Soul Reaper" just might become the preferred term later on. This is why I propose to have a vote on it at some point. -- Finestela 15:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

A few edits ago an anon changed "(known as Soul Reapers in the English manga and anime)" to "(known as Death Gods in the English manga and anime)". I don't watch it, but I was under the impression that the dubbed anime uses "soul reaper". Does the official English manga use "death god"? If so, we should clarify that line. --Anaraug 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

None of the "official" English version of Bleach (manga or anime alike) uses the term "Death Gods". If you see someone changes like that again, just revert back to Soul Reapers. -- Finestela 17:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm almost all the way back in the swing of things... --Anaraug 17:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Do we have a Wikipedia policy called "Don't make large messy changes based on speculation as to what might happen"? (I know that WP:NOT a crystal ball.) In other words, making huge terminology changes after 1 single episode is released would be rather presumptious of us and I would oppose it. --tjstrf 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm just glad that Goku doesn't run around yelling "Turtle Destruction Wave!"  Not everything needs to be translated literally. However, I suppose we can't fight the dubbers… they always know what's right. Believe it. –Gunslinger47 19:28, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well if you want to fix that get a job as a dubber and either come up with good non-literal translations (ala Hellsing's "Angel of Death" translation for Shinigami) or convince the team to let you use the Japanese term. --tjstrf 19:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see whats wrong with the way we have it now, its Shinigami (otherwise known as soul reaper, literal translation death god) Seems nice and informative to me. -- Makaio 19:57, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, first step! I've sent them my résumé! :D Seriously speaking, I think we'll have to use the terminology used by the dubbed anime. Especially if the Bleach dubs pick up a large English following - larger than the number of manga readers and sub. viewers combined. Which seems likely to occur. –Gunslinger47 20:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Untill then (by determination of certain vote/polling), let's just keept it like it is... If some innocent soul cannot figure out what a Shinigami is, they can always click on the wiki-link and find out... :P -- Finestela 20:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree... shinigami remains the most common term. I wish they would have used just about anything besides soul reaper, though. Dekimasu 22:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't blame the dubbers for this one. This occured back when Japanese distributors wanted to use English words on the merchandise. Almost all used the word soul reaper rather than death god. When Tite Kubo was approached about an English dub, he requested that the dub use soul reaper rather than death god since all the merchandise with English on it already said soul reaper. So not the dubs fault and this was decided years ago. Unfortunately, the term death god no longer has a place in this article and I believe it should remain that way.Gdo01 22:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Gdo01, you really need to re-read the whole section... No one is advocating the usage of the term "death god" anywhere in the articles. While Shinigami literally means "death god" when you break the word apart, it's not "death god", but "god of death" or "grim reaper" in translation.

Just like what it states in the WP:Use English, the majority of editors/readers of the article are much more familar and comfortable with the japanese romaji term "shinigami" currently. Untill later when we have a sizable editors/readers prefer the usage of the term "soul reaper", it's better to keep it as it is.

As I've said over and over again, we can always hold a vote to see what people prefer. Currently, by the look of this article itself, the force behind keeping "shinigami" remain strong, though most of us do see it being eventually replaced. -- Finestela 23:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Finestela-- Gdo01 may have been referring (very enthusiastically) to anons occasionally editing "death god" back in. It's pretty clear that all of the regular editors know the real deal... I think that "soul reaper" is quite a good translation because the term would both associate with "grim reaper", the English/American/European cultural equivalent, yet illustrates that they aren't exactly like the grim reaper either. I remember reading some policy about how we're supposed to use the official English translation in most cases, however there are exceptions and IIRC this is one. Really I think it would be equally "good" to have either term, but for now leaving it as "shinigami" clearly makes the most sense. In any case, Googling "shinigami bleach" gives about 20 times as many results as ""soul reaper" bleach". I don't think we should even consider changing it in all the articles until that figure changes. --Anaraug 23:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

What merchandise had soul reaper on it? Dekimasu 14:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And Kubo himself originally translated shinigami as "death" in the title of the first chapter/tankobon (or, really, translated his English title "the death and the strawberry" as "shinigami to ichigo". He also translated shinigami as "dead" in chapter 99 (haha) according to SOULs. I'm not really clear on what distinction Finestela is trying to make between "death god" and "god of death" here. The reason "death god" or "grim reaper" would have been a better translation is that it explains and reinforces the surprise at finding out that the shinigami residents of Soul Society aren't all-powerful, immortal, etc. etc. "Soul Reaper" doesn't really carry any connotations and thus the nuance is lost. Dekimasu 14:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My argument with (or rather to) Gdo01 is this: No one uses the "exact" word Death God anywhere in the article, except for that little line explaining what each individual words in the "Shinigami" kanji stands for. The issue here is between Shinigami, the original Japanese word in romaji, and Soul Reaper, the word used by official English version.

Not to mention Death God isn't really a proper English word to begin with (and a bad direct translation of the word also), and the constant reference to the phrase is not only misleading, but also not helping with the discussion. -- Finestela 20:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am still missing what makes it a bad translation and improper English. I wouldn't advocate capitalizing the "death god" term, but "Rukia is a death god" works just as well as "Ares is a war god." Dekimasu 11:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Because of the fact that the word "war" can be used as both a noun and an adjective (of, belonging to, used in, or due to war) while the word "death" cannot be used in the same way. -- Finestela 15:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It often is used this way. Death rattle, death certificate, death camp, death mask, death rate, death sentence, death squad, death tax, death toll, death warrant, and death instinct come to mind. I'm not going to look at the links, but I bet they all come out blue. Dekimasu 16:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with saying "Rukia is a death god" as opposed to saying "Ares is a war god" is the fact that Ares is a god, and Rukia, clearly, is not. In Japan, shinigami is the idiomatic term used for the personification of death, i.e. the Grim Reaper. The literal decomposition is not highly important. Consider the word straw in strawberry. Translating that to Japanese as warakinomi (lit. berry of straw or straw-berry) would be incorrect. The proper translation is, of course, ichigo. :) –Gunslinger47 16:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Death gods rather speaks for itself here imo. As for the "god" thing, that's why I love the translation used in Hellsing for "shinigami" Walter C. Dornez. They rendered the term as Angel of Death, portraying the intention quite nicely. However, that would not fit quite so well in Bleach, as Angel of Death is a Biblical concept and Bleach does not really feature Christian imagery outside of the Quincy with their crosses. --tjstrf 16:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Death dæmon, perhaps? I always thought "death dealer" would be an interesting term. The potential for double meaning is amusing. Do they deal with death, or do they deal it out? I can guess the Quincy's answer. :D –Gunslinger47 16:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, the reason "death god" or "grim reaper" is a better translation than "soul reaper" is that it explains and reinforces the surprise of many of the human characters at finding out that the shinigami residents of Soul Society aren't all-powerful, immortal, etc. etc. "Soul reaper" doesn't really carry any connotations and the nuance is lost. Our expectations as to what Soul Society is like (based upon the idea that the shinigami are, in fact, gods) are intentionally violated by Kubo to surprise the reader as well. Dekimasu 00:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Voice acting -- NPOV/Verifiable?

"When fans heard the announcement of Viz Media licensing the BLEACH anime, they feared the voice acting will be the same fate as other Dubbed anime's. However, it became the opposite as the voices were well done as the show premiered, receiving praise from fans and anime reviewers."

Aside needing a rewrite for poor writing style, I think that this line might not be NPOV. I would think "However, the voices received praise from fans and anime reviewers alike as as the show premiered." would be better, but I don't want to change it because I don't think it's even verifiable to begin with. Do sources for this exist at all?

--Anaraug 04:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately the only way this can be truly proven is to look through all the anime forums and review sites and see how many positive reviews there are compared to negative reviews. I don't think any source will do this kind of work and officially state that it was generally positive. I guess we could link to a few positive reviews but I don't know of any anime review sites.Gdo01 04:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can't think of any way of making it verifiable, but if anyone can, that'd be nice. I'd definitely rather keep it included, but I'm still going to edit it to make it more NPOV. --Anaraug 05:42, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe add a note saying that this particular translation is still in production, so information regarding it may change as new facts arise?--Vercalos 07:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well it isn't really a question of if the information is going to change, more of if it exists at all right now. I went and looked through the history, and that line was added by an anon, so I doubt we should expect him/her to come back and give us a source. Google gave me nothing but forum posts. Technically, according to WP:V, we can't just look at a bunch of forum posts that say "the dub is good" and then go put "many fans say that the dub is good" in the article. Some "reliable source" would have to do that for us, then we go cite that source. I would think that something like AnimeNewsNetwork would be reliable enough for us, but I can't even find anything like that. I think if we can't find anything in the next few days we should delete it. --Anaraug 09:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it should definitely be taken out and the sections should be put back together. It's not at all encyclopedic as it stands. Dekimasu 10:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

How's this? "When fans heard the announcement of VIZ Media licensing the Bleach anime, they feared that the voice acting would be of poor quality, sharing the fate of many other dubbed anime series. However, the voice acting has already received praise from anime reviewers, notably for keeping the correct pronounciation of all Japanese names. [5]" Any suggestions? It's still a very weak keep -- I just like to attempt to find a reason to keep something if it's true. --Anaraug 22:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the source (even though it's sometimes listed as an encyclopedia) is pretty far from NPOV, and the first sentence would still have to go. Dekimasu 09:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the first sentence is about as unverifiable as they come. --Anaraug 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion: This section of the article is really supposed to be a summary of the main daughter page at Bleach media and materials. The dub discussion should start over there and, once sorted out, the best possible short summary should be put into the main article. There isn't any substantive information about the dub on the main daughter page now, so there shouldn't be anything on the main Bleach page here. Dekimasu 14:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about that... yeah we really don't have too much info on the dub so far at all. I'm leaning twords deletion... --Anaraug 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Headings

Now that the revert wars from the American release have died down a bit, I wanted to bring up an idea on the page flow. I think the page would benefit from having fewer subheadings in this kind of fashion, resulting in a smaller table of contents and a more legible page. It's also the format that "good article"-classified pages use. Something similar could be done to the races section. Just a basic mockup now. Thoughts? (mockup refactored by poster as unnecessary. changes can be seen on the main page) Dekimasu 08:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

By all means. Those sub-headers are left-overs of an earlier stage, when most of those places did not yet have their own articles, and hence had more detailed sections. --tjstrf 14:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Finished quite a bit of work on this section (not here, on the main page). I'm happy with how it's going. Maybe it would benefit from a picture of, say, Soul Society? Races is a bit harder to refashion without the headings because some of the sections are a bit long. Comments welcome. Jump in because I don't want it to seem like I'm claiming the page. Dekimasu 10:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Finished reworking the races section, which involved a bit of editing things out. Here's a summary of the biggest ones that people might dispute, and my reasons:

• as evidenced by Chad and Orihime --> overdetailed for an overview of the manga
• In the case of a human soul removed from a body that isn't dead, this chain is tied to the person's body. --> not bad information in and of itself, but the first sentence says that a plus is the spirit of someone who has died.
• moved information on balance between worlds to the settings section. this also shortened the plus section into one paragraph for the refactoring.
• When captain- or lieutenant-rank shinigami travel to the human world, their power level is limited to 20% of their usual strength to avoid causing unnecessary influence or chaos. They must ask Soul Society for permission to "lift the limit" if they need to release their full power while in the human world. i really don't think that's one of the five or six most important things we can say about the shinigami. this, again, shortened the shinigami section into a manageable paragraph for the refactoring.
• removed references to character names in the Quincy section to make it more of an overview (links to the main article anyway).
• moved the hollow section above the one for modified souls. this puts the sections in order of appearance like the characters, and the hollows have a very high importance anyway.
• former Gotei 13, 5th Division Captain --> while there is a spoiler tag, i don't think we need to give up the biggest spoiler in the series. this way it's a little more vague while still being informative.

Other changes were small. I added a sentence about who the Shinigami are (please check for veracity) and changed wording in some other situations. Again, comments welcome. The page flow is nice, though. Dekimasu 10:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is annoyingly long, and destroys the section formatting now. I've messed around with it for about 12 minutes, but can't get that Ichigo image to fit in without wrecking the page formatting. Is there some way to show/hide the publisher info so that it doesn't do that? --tjstrf 08:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I have an idea. It's been bothering me for a while anyway that there are no summaries of the main character pages, only links. There should be a blurb for each of the main characters just as there is a blurb for each of the character types and each of the locations. If there were ~5 sentences on Ichigo and each of the other main characters, the picture would fit perfectly next to his character summary. The characters are already summarized on many of the pages in other languages (the Spanish ones look really appropriate... if only I spoke Spanish). I could run one of them through babelfish and clean them up, I suppose. The page as it stands is under 20KB so making the page too long isn't an issue. Dekimasu 09:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that myself, but I think it would be easier to simply remove the image of Ichigo. It's sort of out of place anyway. Placing one or two sentence character summaries for them would be a good idea, if you could come up with something that succinct. --tjstrf 09:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate babelfish after all. Here's a sample of the translation. "Rukia Kuchiki: Rukia is one of the co-protagonists of the series. Sometimes it can be fries and other times it can get to risk his own life to save to somebody. It was sent to the Earth to face hollow and is from here that is developed the history of Bleach. They enchant the rabbits to him and it draws them whenever it has the opportunity. His brother is Byakuya Kuchiki and he unites a great bow to him to him." Still, would something this length be too long? Dekimasu 09:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Never use babel fish. I speak a decent amount of spanish so I'll work on translating it now. Malevious 13:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

"Ichigo is the protagonist of the series. he has a very (somthing) and cold personality and somthing somthing social. in contrast to this, he is very protective of his family and friends who he would put his life on the line for without thinking. since he was little, he posessed the capacity to see spirits which makes him have a life out of the ordinary." Thats the best i could get some words i think are slang so i dunno what the mean, i think pasota means passonate or something but im not sure. Malevious 14:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Category name change?

I think the main Bleach category should be renamed to Category:Bleach (manga) to match this article. Also because typing (manga/anime) is annoying. Any objections? Please reply at Category talk:Bleach (manga/anime) to avoid fragmenting the discussion. --tjstrf 21:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested a similar name change for standardization at Talk:Characters in Bleach series, related to the Characters in Bleach series and Hollows in Bleach series pages. Please take a look at that as well. Dekimasu 02:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)