Talk:Bleach (manga)/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

A Source

Tite Kubo was interviewed by the LA Times: http://www.latimes.com/features/books/la-et-book28-2008aug28,0,7578031.story and talks about Bleach some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming that source is reliable, what about http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/la-etw-kuboweb28-2008aug28,0,3099871.story? I thought the story about Bleach getting initially rejected by SJ, following the whole Toriyama inspiring Kubo, was false. On another note is YuYu Hakusho known to be the basis for Bleach (and Zombie Powder?) or it is just Internet gossip? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the LA Times is considered to be fully WP:RS. :P If its repeated in either of those, I would say it is a true story, at least as told to the author.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems it was Saint Seiya that influenced him to be a mangaka, but I can't find a reliable reference for YuYu Hakusho. Sure is hard to get conception data. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

No surprise there, the series was practically a carbon copy of Saint Seiya during the SS arc. YYH and Flame of Recca, the two other most similar manga in recent memory, were inspired by the same source. --erachima talk 05:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Good find, good find.

Actually, there has been a mass influx of Bleach source info recently since Kubo's stateside visit. We should probably do a push to get this page back up to GA in the next week or two. I'm especially cheered to see that the article comments on the character designs a bit, since that's always been one of Bleach's best points, but missed in most early reviews since they were based on only the first few volumes. --erachima talk 05:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The first article is pretty good, but it does have a few errors: for instance, "zanpakuto" is misspelled, and the description of Ichigo's zanpakuto states that it is "inhabited" by a powerful spirit - when, in fact, Zangetsu *is* Ichigo's zanpakuto. Of course, these types of errors are to be expected and therefore somewhat forgivable. I didn't read the second one, but they should both definitely be useful as sources, errors or not. —Dinoguy1000 19:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's an alternate romanization, not an actual spelling error. But whatever, that's why we don't use secondary sources for in-universe information. --erachima talk 19:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've put in a request for a B-class checklist assessment - it'd be easier to go from a B to a GA than it would be from a C. -Malkinann (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

B Checklist

(Version reviewed) I have completed the B checklist per request, find my reasoning below. Good luck in getting the article back to GA status! I will be watching this page, please ask if you require further detail or a re-review. Regards, G.A.S 05:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• B1=Y: Some references requires further formatting before any GA reviews.
• B2=N: (1) Manga section is too short, per WP:SS sections that remains after a split-off, should be 2× the daughter article's length. (2) Musical section is too short (3) Other section is too short.
• B3=N: (1) The lead is too short, and should cover all aspects of the article: (i) Expand a bit about the anime adaptation, (ii) the licensing, and (iii) the reception (For an example, see the structure and detail of the lead of Tokyo Mew Mew). (2) I recommend following the order per WP:MOS-ANIME#Layout for a series article. (3) I find that there are to many lists in the article, please convert these to text, esp (i) Characters (There is already a list in List of Bleach characters — note that the list should cover all characters, even those with sub-articles), (ii) Character types, prose will explain this better, see B6 below, (iii) Setting. (4) Please avoid paragraphs with less than 100 words, esp those that displays as only one or two lines.
• B4=Y
• B5=Y: Though FUR of image:Hollow2.jpg, image:Soul Society.jpg and image:Huecomundoopening.JPG needs updating.
• B6=N: (1) Being unfamiliar with the subject, I have a hard time understanding the Synopsis and Characters sections. (2) There is no need to repeat Japanese text here if there are articles for the characters.

Soul Reaper vs. Shinigami

Per the MOS we should label names according to the dubs and translated manga. Therefore we should refer to Shinigami in Bleach as "Soul Reapers" WhisperToMe (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:NAME#Use common names of persons and things says we should use the more common name, right? So which MOS page says we should use the official translation? I'm not trying to start an arguement or anything, I just get lost with all the MOS pages and am trying to get things straight. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Good points. The official English-language adaptations are the best choices according to WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation. I support a move per the MoS. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Problem: Using one translated term while every other term is left in its original Japanese (or Spanish) will leave us with an inconsistent standard for terminology. Decisions have been made on this same basis for both the Naruto and One Piece series when it came to their terminology in the past.

Because the Bleach series is only partially translated into English, it is not possible to use the official translations consistently (and we'd be faced with an anime or manga decision on some translations anyway), so we have the options of using the original Japanese (shinigami, bankai, kido...), using literal English translations (god of death, final release, demon arts...), or a messy and inconsistent usage (soul reaper, bankai, demon arts...).

In the end, I believe it's more professional to be consistent within articles, and use shinigami. --erachima talk 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "partially translated" - Is there a certain Bleach medium that is not translated? Or is it that not all of the series is finished? The difference with One Piece is that the different licensors (in the USA and Southeast Asia) use different names so there it would make sense to go by Japanese names. AFAIK VIZ is the only English-language company associated with Bleach. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no official English-language media which uses "shinigami" (of course, I'm discounting all illegal fan translations). WhisperToMe's proposal makes absolute sense, per logic and the MoS, and I think we should get the page moved. If this is done, I'll get to the redirects. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reaper is what is used by Viz in the English adaptation of the manga and in the dub track and subtitles of the anime. Soul Reaper is what we should be using throughout the Bleach articles. If Viz chooses to retain the original Japanese for bankai, that is their choice and one we will follow. It isn't the first time its been done and its doubtful it will be the last. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But do you agree that Shinigami (Bleach) should be moved to Soul Reapers? I don't think etymology has a role in this one, as erachima hinted, especially because policy requires that we use common names. Am I right or am I wrong here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it should be moved to Soul Reaper (Bleach) (singular). I don't think its inconsistent as it is what Viz chose to do themselves. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with moving to Soul Reaper (Bleach), as well as switching out shinigami to soul reapers in all the text to be consistent. I've always been somewhat confuddled with why the articles kept using the term shinigami instead of soul reaper since the latter is the standard in the Bleach english translation, in addition to me being more familiar around with in regards to the Bleach series. Fox816 (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reapers should redirect to Soul Reaper (Bleach), and the article should be "Soul Reaper (Bleach)" WhisperToMe (talk) 01:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and move the page Whisper. I'll help with the redirects and link fixes ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I know it doesn't matter what I think but I think it should stay as Shinigami. Of course my only reason is (in following the Use Common Names thing) NOBODY I know has ever called Shinigami "Soul Reapers", in fact in english they just called them "Death Gods". But meh.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 02:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless there is a link to Soul Reapers, I don't think a redirect is needed. If one is added, however, make sure to put in a redirect disambig link for the group Soulreaper. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

You mean a hatnote? I got it ready, but where'd WhisperToMe go? Thought he'd get the move done. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Move done :) WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit after the fact now, but what I meant by partially translated is that the series is further in Japan than Viz is. This probably won't cause any problems in the case of replacing shinigami, but if you were to, say, start renaming all the kido techniques from Japanese to English, it would get messy, since Viz names only exist for the ones that they've published. --erachima talk 05:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

We wouldn't be renaming anything from Japanese to English until the Viz release was available and the terms being used decided. AnmaFinotera (talk) 05:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you mean until the entire series was available, that wouldn't fix the inconsistency problem. --erachima talk 05:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The partially translated thing is true of all ongoing series; we could use the translated English names that are available and Japanese attack names if the translated English names are not available... WhisperToMe (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think it should be Shinigami, as it is used commonly and it's what we've been using for ages. It's really pointless now that we've changed it now...I mean c'mon! Other manga use the term Shinigami and leave it untranslated....Seriously, I don't like how this page is going..first with the media list, and now this name change...RedEyesMetal (talk) 15:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Those manga", are illegal fansubs.Tintor2 (talk) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Legality of translations has nothing to do with the issue of which term is more used by English speakers. However, since the usage in the fanbase is split and the usage in official materials is solidly on one side, I'm not going to argue the point. --erachima talk 23:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just be used as Tite kubo intended it, not Viz? I know the whole debate about common usage but still, using Soul Reaper isn't correct according to the manga, which was decided to be this pages name instead of Bleach(anime). a subnote can always be left showing that both usages are correct if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diablo11d (talk • contribs) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Shinigami is the much more prevalent usage. 2 million vs. 135,000. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We'd call a tanuki a tanuki no matter how vehemently a dubbing company called it a raccoon. On the same sort of logic, I'd support calling a shinigami a shinigami. Note that the term has its own English Wikipedia entry. The term is used across many different types of Japanese media and not using it would weaken these encyclopedic connections. –Gunslinger47 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Y'all do realize that the change has already been completed, right? It is in keeping with our MoS and Wikipedia naming conventions and guidelines. It does not weaken the connections as the actual Soul Reaper article notes it is Bleach's form of a shinigami. It isn't an issue of a "dubbing company" along calling it a raccoon. Soul Reaper is used in the dub, in the subtitles, and in the manga. It isn't the same as someone like 4Kids intentionally Americanizing it. It is Viz's choice to use Soul Reaper in Bleach, just as they retained Shinigami in Full Moon o Sagashite. We follow suit. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the convention was to use the term that people use the most. Isn't this: "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." what we should be following? I'm not super up to date on all NCs. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

We use the Anime and manga MoS naming conventions "Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." Soul Reapers is what is used in all English versions, so it is why it was chosen for use here. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you blind? "Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.18.166 (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Try again "Use the official English titles for article names and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article. If there are multiple official titles, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the broader English-speaking world. If there is no official title, use the most commonly known name. This applies to series, character articles, and fictional element articles." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And this has been resolved for months, you randomly coming in and insulting people definitely isn't going to change anything. —Dinoguy1000 16:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Y'all do realize that the change has already been completed, right?"

Yes, but discussion doesn't have to stop just because a momentary consensus has been reached. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Anyway, this has been discussed several times in the past on this talk page. A while back I noted that the change to "Soul Reaper" was inevitable, so I'm resigned to the change. However, despite consensus and despite the Manual of Style (which is just a guideline reflecting consensus), I can still state my preference to the contrary. :) –Gunslinger47 18:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a lowly IP address, but I'd like to point out that Kubo used the term "Soul Reaper" in the Bleach art book "All Colour But The Black" - the art book has some of Ichigo's traits listed in plain English, and for occupation it clearly says "Soul Reaper". Clearly this is not just some term Viz made up, since Kubo is using it too. --70.249.240.129 (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

That is, in fact, correct. While Kubo has obviously named them shinigami he himself translates their occupation as Soul Reaper. For this reason I have to agree with the change.

However, I personally prefer shinigami; I'm more used to it, it sounds better to me (soul reaper makes them seem different somehow; idk), and I usually (note; usually) prefer using Japanese terminology when referring to Japanese things. But again, that is just my preference; just because I will write things as shinigami doesn't make the change wrong; and of course if I ever edit something within the Bleach pages I will use Soul Reaper.

Anyway, Mr. IP adress, my point was that you are correct. Kyouraku-taichou (talk) 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm stuck in my ways because I knew what shinigami were before I started watching Bleach. Guidelines do clearly suggest we use Soul Reaper, however, and scanlation readers are now starting to get outnumbered. –Gunslinger47 05:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

May someone please mention exactly which guidelines favor "Soul Reaper" over "Shinigami"? I happen to think that Shinigami is obviously a much better choice, among other reasons because it is very much a series-specific concept ("Bleach" Shinigami have barely any resemblance at all to Shinigami/Reapers of other works of fiction). Yes, Kubo translated it into "Soul Reaper", but I don't think that changes much; just because he used an approximate translation at one point it does not mean that the translation is better than the real thing. I have a hard time even guessing a reason to use "Soul Reaper" over "Shinigami". More so in a series that makes liberal use of intentional barbarisms such as "Hueco Mundo". Unneeded translations are just dead weight. Luis Dantas (talk) 09:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If it's the matter of supporting Viz' choices because they are the only english-language licensor so far, I don't think that changes much either. Translations are, after all, just translations - attempts at reproducing an original idea or concept - and (unless there is some sort of official statement from Kubo) are not themselves any sort of canon; is not at all unconceivable that Bleach could eventually be re-released in English language with new translations, after all, but that is hardly any reason in itself to rewrite the articles. There is a clear and definite term for the concept, and it can easily be used in this Wikipedia. That term is Shinigami. Luis Dantas (talk) 09:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The relevant guidelines are already links above, but to reiterate: WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation and WP:NAME. All official English translations use "Soul Reaper" not Shinigami. Kubo, the author of the work, also uses Soul Reaper. This is obviously an intentional translation for Viz, which keeps "shinigami" as "shinigami" in other works, such as Full Moon o Sagashite. Whether some people agree or disagree with them translating it in Bleach, that they have chosen to do so makes Soul Reaper the official English name of the "species" for this series, and the one we will use. It is highly unlikely the series would be re-released in English, but if it is and the term is retranslated, it wouldn't matter. First English version of the primary work, and the one most responsible for introducing the work to the English speaking word (Viz's), would be the one we would use to determine the terms to use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 11:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Shinigami should be used as the mangaka intended, not Viz Media. Tite Kubo did use Soul Reaper in the artbook All Colour But The Black, aside from that there are no other references provided. One use of the term "Soul Reaper" is insufficient reasoning. The point that Viz Media uses "Soul Reaper" in Bleach, and "Shinigami" in Full Moon o Sagashite, could be due to the fact that it started releasing Bleach over 13 months prior to Full Moon o Sagashite. "Soul Reaper" as opposed to "Shinigami" might have seemed to be the better alternative at first, then in time preferring the latter of terms, Viz Media chose to keep "Shinigami" as it was intended in Full Moon o Sagashite. For that possibility, comparing the translation of the terms in two different mangas released in North America from the same company simply because it is their "choice" is irrelevant. From the reiterated guidelines above, i have highlighted from quotes: WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation - "Use official English titles for article names, and place the transliteration of the Japanese on the first line of the article, unless the native form is more commonly recognized by readers than the English form." WP:NAME - "The names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists." - "Generally, article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I also quote Luis Dantas for presenting a very good point. "I happen to think that Shinigami is obviously a much better choice, among other reasons because it is very much a series-specific concept ("Bleach" Shinigami have barely any resemblance at all to Shinigami/Reapers of other works of fiction)." --ShadowCrew (talk) 07:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agin, per the guidelines, we will continue using Soul Reaper and Soul REaper alone. It is the official English name of the group. Period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, per the guidelines, I reiterate "article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize" and "the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors." --ShadowCrew (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

All English language versions use "Soul Reaper" so your argument supports keeping it as is. Also, the MoS is being updated to make it clearer that the official English name should be used, period. Its been the consensus for a long time, but we do realize the MoS doesn't make it as clear as it could. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The most common name an English speaker is ever going to see is "Soul Reaper". You're assuming all English readers of the manga read fansubs or know the original Japanese version. They don't. "Soul Reaper" is the most visible version available to an English speaker and it's the one we're going to use. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I must disagree. Bleach _is_ a Japanese manga, after all; by its very nature it does bring a few specific terms with it. Viz has the publishing license for the English language, but that hardly gives it the power to overrule Tite Kubo or the source material itself. There is, by definition, NO official English term for Shinigami (be it Bleach's variety or any other); folklore Shinigami are an adaptation of the European Grim Reaper, but not quite the same (and, in fact, not well defined at all), while Bleach's variety is quite unique to the manga itself. Besides, in Bleach (as in most manga) readers that have anything more than the slightest of interests in the story will indeed read fansubs and/or the source material; that is to be expected and in some cases needed for fully understanding the manga. Shinigami is far more visible than Soul Reaper, because the first is the romanji for the ideograms that are actually used in the manga, and the wording that was indeed used while the english language fanbase was established, while "Soul Reaper" is an adaptation from "Grim Reaper" that is both unneeded and misleading. Luis Dantas (talk) 09:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I did indeed watch fansubs of the first 40 episodes or so, and they used "Shinigami". However, the MoS still says to use the most commonly used English name, which is indeed "Soul Reaper". I'm sure that the only reason that it is Soul Reaper is because Viz decided to use it instead, but that doesn't change the fact that it is still the most commonly used English name. Tite Kubo can complain if he wants, but he probably thought it was a good idea. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

All of the arguments for using "Shinigami" in leu of "Soul Reaper" have already been made at least twice, and all of them have been shot down even more times. You can all argue against it till you're blue in the face, but that won't change the fact that the official English adaptations of both the manga *and* the anime use "Soul Reaper", Kubo himself has used "Soul Reaper", and the MoS tells us, therefore, that "Soul Reaper" will be used. Fansubs are not, never have been, and never will be, acceptable sources for determining these types of issues. —Dinoguy1000 17:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In my experience Shinigami is the most commonly used term regardless of official translation. --RS Ren (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Per our project MoS, the official translation is used regardless of the "most commonly used term" (which is a subjective measure anyways, depending on where you spend most of your time). —Dinoguy1000 06:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that they create the relevancy of the subject to start with? Sorry, that's simply a bit silly to say. Luis Dantas (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

As a random note: You don't use the terms "shot down" and "will be used" while just referring to mere guidelines. Otherwise you're correct, Dino. –Gunslinger47 15:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, sorry about that, I don't always pay attention to the expressions I use and how they might be interpreted... ;P —Dinoguy1000 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, a whole lot of the WP information on Bleach relates to stuff that is after Volume 24, the latest Viz translation. If we hold to the premise that only the Viz translations are official or canonical, then shouldn't all information gleaning from fan scanlations or translations (which it all really has to be, unless we have a huge number of Japanese-English speaking contributors) be removed? Corbmobile (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your premise. If this is meant to be a completely accurate encyclopedic article based on facts, we cannot have it full of speculative information. Now, I am not suggesting that Viz should be our only source as reference material, but if there is legitimate reference information, then I would say it ok. Fansubs and scanlations are not legitimate reference material.--–m.f ^{(t • c)} 09:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Did it ever occur to you that Soul Reaper, even though that Viz organization used the term without thought, is a VERY different concept and has a different meaning from shinigami to the point that i, as a fan of the tv adaption of the series, do not recognize it anymore and feel very unfamiliar with it? the name, the meaning, all the things that come with the original name of shinigami are lost when using that poorly translitered english term of 'soul reaper'. it is with horror that i noticed the degeneration of the original shinigami (bleach) article. shinigami is a proper name. you can compare it to similar appearances in other series. proper names are no subject to translation. no one would ever try to "translate" words like 'klingons' for example. this makes no sense. and just because the term used by the only official english adaption is soul reaper, it does not make it the most widely recognized and used term for english speaking fans. Watchingthewave (talk) 21:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, we use the official English names per our guidelines and MoS. Whether you agree with Viz's decision to use the term is completely irrelevant. Shinigami is a term, not a proper name. Klingnon is a race of people, not a term, complete with its own Klingnon home world. Shinigamis are a concept and a term that are interpreted in a wide variety of ways. Viz choosing to "translate it" is perfectly acceptable. They licensed the series, and the Bleach franchise supports this translation by continuing to license subsequent media to them. So these articles will continue to use Soul Reaper, per the official English versions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Attention Bleach editors!

Three Bleach-related pages have been selected for inclusion in Wikipedia:0.7, an official test release of Wikipedia on DVD. These pages are Bleach (manga), Ichigo Kurosaki, and Rukia Kuchiki. I think it would be great if we could get all three of these pages to be GA standard when the release date rolls around October 20th, and will be working on them with this intent over the next week or two. Towards that end, I'm making a to-do list below. Feel free to add to it or work on the stuff listed. --erachima talk 10:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Things to do for each page:

• Bleach (manga):

• address G.A.S's concerns above
• a large amount of useful info has recently come out due to Kubo's trip to the US. We should try to add as much production information as we can based on the interviews and articles that came out while he was stateside. (links for several are available earlier on this talk page)
• Consider merging the articles on the musical and the trading card game into the main article. Sure, the musical is notable, but its article is never going to be improved to actually be useful because so few sources on it exist in English. What sources there are could probably be incorporated nicely into the main page.

• Ichigo Kurosaki

• Update the structure to reflect the MoS
• Expand the conception section if possible. If not, merge section to character outline.
• Look for more references that aren't just "guy rambling in an IGN episode commentary".

• Rukia Kuchiki:

• Nothing, she's already at GA.

Umm, I looked at the Wikipedia:0.7 page you linked to and I can't find any evidence of the above 3 articles you mentioned ever being considered. Maybe its just because I'm really tired, but could you point out where exactly they were selected? --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 05:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry. The list is linked from the project talk page. I think the WP:0.7 page only lists the ones from version 0.5 and the new ones which already have a selected version confirmed. --erachima talk 05:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Akira Toriyama again

The original story concept was submitted to Weekly Shōnen Jump shortly after the cancellation of Tite Kubo's previous manga Zombie Powder, but was rejected. Akira Toriyama, the mangaka of Dragon Ball, saw the story and wrote a letter of encouragement to Kubo.

I have a strong feeling that the author of LA Times article took this infromation (which was considered a rumour) from TV.com or other unreliable source, instead of asking Kubo Tite directly. -- DEERSTOP (talk). 18:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...unless a reliable source refutes the statements, though, it can be considered reliably sourced and verifiable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I know, that LA is the reliable sorce, but common sense protests against adding a rumour to the article. *sigh* -- DEERSTOP (talk). 18:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That rumor has been going around for years, yes. But now a reliable source has reported it, making it verifiable if not actually true, thus it deserves mention. If it is later corrected by a more authoritative source (i.e. Kubo or Toriyama says "no, that's just a rumor" in a later interview), then we can rephrase it to something along the lines of "A common rumor asserted that blah blah blah and was reported in the LA Times, but was eventually refuted by [whomever]". --erachima talk 19:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

T_T -- DEERSTOP (talk). 20:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I also noticed that link to Bleach videogames is lost. -- DEERSTOP (talk). 20:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Did I mess it up during my recent rewrite? --erachima talk 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the link to "List of Bleach videogames". ^_^ They are not mentioned in the article at all. -- DEERSTOP (talk). 21:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Bleach video games, though I assume you already knew that. The link is also in the infobox and the template at the bottom of the page. If you can think of a good spot to add it in the page text, then feel free to do that as well. --erachima talk 21:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the link inside the text. -- DEERSTOP (talk). 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Source help needed

A "new SJ interview" with Kubo has just popped up on the web (thank you 4chan), and would be six types of useful if we could confirm its authenticity. It discusses, among other things, why the series is called "Bleach". Text of the interview can be found here, and it meshes well enough with the other interviews and articles I've been searching out recently that I doubt it's a hoax, but before it can be used, we need to know the actual magazine issue it's from. Any SJ subscribers willing to confirm this one and give a proper citation for it? --erachima talk 19:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Giving it a quick skim, it looks identical to the actual interview. I have the issue in question right in front of me, so here's your sourcing information: general: Shonen Jump #71 (November 2008 - volume 6, issue 11, ISSN 1545-7818), feature name is "Tite Kubo's Big Comic-Con Adventure!", pp. 18-20, with no author info in sight (as usual with SJ). Specific page numbers for questions (some questions abbreviated for length): p. 18: (Drawing Inspiration) "Did anyone inspire you to draw?", "Are any of the characters based on people you know?", "You seem to use mythical content[...]. Did any books influence you?", "What does Rukia's name mean[...]?", "You mean, the flower?" - p. 19: "Why did you pick Bleach as the title?", (Behind the Scenes) "Will you ever do an Aizen backstory?", "Does Captain Yamamoto have a larger plan for the Soul Society? [...]", "Will we learn who become captains in place of Aizen, Ichimaru, and Tōsen?" - p. 20: "Will Kon ever get his own body?", "He gets more attention in that body.", "Do you have any plans to make Ichigo and Rukia a couple?", "Which American superheroes do you admire?", (Kubo-sensei on Comic-Con) "What was the most impressive Bleach costume you saw?", "We do call it Comic-Kon!", "He seems to think so.", "We also saw one Arrancar with a mirror.", "He had a round mirror over his stomach to look like a hole.", "What will you tell your family and friends about this trip?", "Thank you so much for the interview!". SJ also implied that there would be further interview stuff with Kubo over the next few months.

If you need any individual questions transcribed (e.g. if you don't trust the transcription on the website you pointed out), feel free to ask me. —Dinoguy1000 18:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality of Article

Just a minor edit regarding the neutrality of the article. Hollows are not "a race of evil spirits who feed on the souls of humans, both living and dead". Hollows are not "evil" in that they are more animalistic than anything else. They have simply been consumed by thier grief or rage and as such cant move on to the next life. Also no Hollow "feeds" on living souls; however close contact with a recently passed soul can increase the speed it turns to a Hollow.

The rest of the section refers specifically to a subgroup of the Hollows; those who remove their masks and become Arrancar. Most are designed with a Spanish motif but not all. ----kav2001c 22:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You apparently have only watched the anime, not read the manga. In the original version of the story, hollows do indeed feast on the souls of the living, particularly their own relatives. This was lightened in the anime rendition, as with many of the darker and bloodier moments of Bleach's story. (As for why we don't cover this difference in the article, I don't recall any WP:RS reliable sources which attest to the differences. So instead we just describe the manga version, as it's the original medium.) --erachima talk 02:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Individual character articles

This will be a VERY VERY unpopular subject (I hate the idea but it must be brought up)... It appears that since there is now a BLEACH wiki for the manga, there may not be a need for any articles that are/is just about one character. If that's the case then maybe we should start fazing them all out. They should just have sections in the list of characters article (Renji, Byakuya, Hitsugaya, Kenpachi, etc. should just have sections in the "List of Soul Reapers in Bleach" article with links to characters section; vice versa with Ichigo and Rukia). If (and a very big IF!!!) this should happen than we should start with all the Soul Reapers characters (except Rukia).

Please discuss.--Halls452 (talk) 20:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia and the Bleach wikia are separate entities. What one does has no impact on the other. ~SnapperTo 22:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ditto what Snapper said. Wikipedia and wiki are two different entities and what they do over there is irrelevant. Here, whether a character has an article is decided on real-world notability backed up by verifiable third-party sources, not what is or is not on wikia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's how it works around here. The Wikipedia rules aren't as lax as Wikia's. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Understood. However, do you think there will any character articles that will have to be fazed out down the road (if the character's notability/reception/popularity drops)? --Halls452 (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability isn't temporary, so if it is established, it stays established. There have been quite a few merge discussions going on recently and I think at the moment, to merge in those that have not established notability. Those that have, however, should have no problems with being merged unless the guidelines for notability change significantly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Link to Bleach, the chemical

The direct link has been placed to bleach the chemical, please do not revert: between a chemical and a comic strip there's not much debate over which gets 'priority'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.162.99.47 (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

BLEACH written in all caps comes here, not the the chemical. Stop vandalizing this article by trying to insert your personal opinion into it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I need help for a separate Bleach Trading Card Game article

In the media section of this article I added a small and brief section on the Bleach Trading Card Game. I'd like to create a seperate article on the Bleach Trading Card Game, (the Trading Card Game based on the Bleach Anime), where I would add more info on it, but I'm having trouble doing so. When you search "Bleach Trading Card Game" it's redirected to the "Bleach(Manga)" article, (which was incorrect until I added a section on it). I tried to make it so that searching "Bleach Trading Card Game" would lead to a seperate article on it and not "Bleach(Manga)", but I'm having trouble doing so and got confused about it, can someone help me please?--Dragon3025 (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

That article was merged here, hence the redirect. The game was not felt to meet the necessary notability guidelines for existance. Somehow the section got lost, so some more information should be here in the article, with appropriate sources of course, but that's all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok then. Maybe someday it will be important enough. For now I'll just try to keep it there as a small part of the media section.--Dragon3025 (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Death in Soul society Vs death by hollow/Quincy/earth

The article talks about what happens to souls that die in the soul society, but it doesn't talk about what happens when they are killed by a Hollow, when they die on earth, killed while still living (An arrancar swallows the souls a crowd of living humans, where he says they tasted bad), or when they are hollows, and they're killed by quincies. It doesn't say if they are still reborn, if they go to hell (do those souls ever come back?), or if they are just...Gone. The article doesn't talk about those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.246.16 (talk) 03:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe there is no accurate reference that we can base the information off of. Besides, it's not THAT related to Bleach as a whole in general. 24.4.95.224 (talk) 05:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It does go into some detail about what happens when Quincies kills hollows. I can't remember which episode it was, but they are destroyed and taken out of the soul cycle (when spirits die in Soul Society they are reborn on earth and when people die on earth they go to Soul Society). That's why Soul Society wanted to kill all of the Quincies (something about maintaining balance or something). I think when hollows are kill by shinigami though, they can go to Soul Society. Chachi-chama (talk) 21:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

hollows that have done mortal sins while living are sent to hell after being slayed by shinigami's, explained in ep. 5 i believe. shyhaida(71.231.253.164 (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC))

Bleach Fade to Black (Movie 3)

What happened to the article on the 3rd Bleach movie that's coming out? All references to it point to the main bleach (manga) page. The page doesn't seem to exist anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabishii Kouen (talk • contribs) 09:09, December 3, 2008

As the film has not even been released yet, it does not meet any of Wikipedia's notability guidelines for having its own article so it was merged here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Should we make it now since it was released today? SuperSilver901 (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No, as it still has no notability. An article should not be created until it can be more than just the release date and plot. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference later whenever the page meets sufficient notability guidelines. Sorry, had some trouble keeping it readable.

The movie opened #3 at box office with $1,679,634 US. http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/japan/?yr=2008&wk=50&p=.htm

It dropped to #10 the next week http://www.boxofficemojo.com/intl/japan/?yr=2008&wk=51&p=.htm and is still #10 last weekend.

Episodes 197-200 were the ones that had opening sequences replaced with movie footage.

The movie's theme song by Porno Graffiti opened at #2 on the Oricon singles chart. http://www.jpopasia.com/play/13781/porno-graffitti/koyoi-tsuki-ga-miezutomo.html

December 17th, 2008, they released a new Bleach Beat Collection, 4th Session 04, with Ichigo and Rukia singing a duet together. http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-13-71-9x-49-en-70-31m2.html The release was timed to come out with the movie.

Ridiculously popular Hirano Aya voices the female villain of the movie.

Weekly Shounen Jump issue 04/05 has a fold-out Fade to Black poster that Kubo drew as promotion. He also drew unique art for it in the movie pamphlet (the thing you get when you go to the movies).

I have a question. There have been a lot (and I MEAN A LOT) of promos and interviews with the seiyuu of Ichigo and Rukia, a TV special with Hirano Aya, and of course, Kubo Tite. They've been scanned and/or translated by fans onto forums, which is how I know. Do these count as legitimate sources to be cited? Some of these are magazines and some are from the official movie guide. A lot of the information would be relevant in the article; stuff about the 80k presold tickets, movie merchandise (.. including guitars), etc. Voice actors aside (though they've got interesting points), in particular I mean Kubo's involvement with the movie and major themes that he emphasizes, since he's basically Word of God. My hesitation is because we'd have to lead the citations back to forums, since that's where the translations were posted. My personal view is that the translations are legit, plus we could only cite the ones that have original Japanese scans so anyone who's capable could easily take a first-hand look. Kylara21 (talk) 18:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing the magazines is fine. Citing fan translations is not, as it fails WP:RS. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 18:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Why was the kido article removed?

Is the list of kido spells that minor? At least, IMO, there need to be a general abilities page instead of listing generaly on every race's page. all type of shinigami combat should go to the page. Icel21m (talk) 09:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are that minor and no, a general abilities list is not appropriate here. Specific abilities are noted where relevant under character sections, no more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Spanish in Bleach

It would be interesting if a new section would be included to discuss why the author came up with all this fictional jargon terms derived from Spanish, as well as, how he manages to give these terms a meaning in Japanese while giving a pronunciation that resembles words from Spanish.88.217.43.209 (talk) 21:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already discussed, at the end of the Production section. —Dinoguy1000 22:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Rōmaji for katakana of "Hueco Mundo"

Sorry, this is a reply to Hanaichi's bid to talk on Nov 2 2008. I corrected the rōmaji for ウェコムンド to Weko Mundo instead of Ueko Mundo because the former is the correct transcription of ウェコムンド: the vowel u (ウ) + a small form of another vowel (here, ェ, small form of エ e) causes u to be pronounced like w. Check the "Table of" section of the Katakana page to confirm this. In summation, the reading Ueko of ウェコ is wrong, and Weko is correct. Adam Restling (talk) 13:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In spanish terms, it would sound like "weko". not "ueko". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.176.77 (talk) 17:33, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

setting

the setting only shows soul society and Las noches. but what about the one place where the blanks are? even though it was in the movie only, and not really part of the series, it should be mentioned.DeathBerry talk 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. It is movie only, so its mentioned, minimally, in the movie article only. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As AnmaFinotera said. The article also used to have a section for "Hell", but that location plays such a minor role in the series that it was cut and is now only mentioned in applicable volume/episode summaries, if at all. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach: Fade to Black, I Call Your Name

Notability of the 3rd movie is under debate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Title?

Has anyone ever gotten a story on the origin of the name of the series? 32.154.110.248 (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, in an interview with Anime Insider, Kubo did give a brief explanation of why he chose the name. Basically, the series is all about black vs. white, and Bleach was a good single-word title that invoked that idea. Why that fact is not currently some place in the article, I do not know.

The other leading theories on why Bleach has that title, such as Ichigo's hair color, it being a pun on Breach, and the Nirvana album, may have a bit of truth in them as well, since we know of several other cases where Kubo has chosen names that had several different intentional meanings, such as the Quincy, and that whole thing with Ulquiorra both being named after some designer and having meanings in Latin and Spanish. --erachima talk 06:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The reason why Kubo's explanation of the title isn't in the article is simply because nobody added it with the source.Tintor2 (talk) 13:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The interview is allegedly within the October 2008 issue of Anime Insider. This interview has actually been cited before at: Tite Kubo#cite note-11 –Gunslinger47 15:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Added. Feel free to check it and fix it if anybody wants.Tintor2 (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be nice if someone could verify the facts from the interview for us. –Gunslinger47 15:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I found the transcript of the interview in lots of sites and they were the same.Tintor2 (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Soul Reaper Vs Shinigami

I'd like to know what people think about translating "shinigami" to "soul reaper". In Japanese culture, does shinigami really refer to what we would call soul reaper ? I mean, when you look at the word, "shini" and "gami", it pretty much says "god of death". So what do you think of the current translation ? Noirdesirs (talk) 19:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course Shinigami is not Soul Reaper. The point is that the Viz Media translation of the series (both manga and anime) use Soul Reaper instead of Shinigami and since this is the English wikipedia we use the official English names.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

God of death, would culturally translate to Grim Reaper. What do the Shinigami or Soul Reapers do? Reap (i.e. gather) souls. So Soul Reaper is an accurate translation, imo. As a side note, what is the original Japanese word of Botan's title in Yu Yu Hakushu? They called her a grim reaper in the english version I believe. So finding what word they used in that anime might help with this question. PedanticSophist (talk) 23:55, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand that but it doesn't seem so clear to me. Forgive the following but, if Viz Media said Sinigami means Ice Cream, we would probably not use that in the English wikipedia as a definition, would we ? Do we always have to admit that what the US editor says about a manga/anime is the official and right way ? After all, is the article about Bleach or Viz Media's edition of Bleach ?Noirdesirs (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The article does not state or admit that Shinigami is Soul Reaper in Japanese. This article is about Bleach, but since this is the English we use the most common names for English readers per WP:Naming conventions.Tintor2 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So the names used here are supposed to be those used by most people. All right then. Noirdesirs (talk) 19:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have left a message for the IP who has been changing the terms in the last few days. If it keeps happening, it may be necessary to request page protection for a few days. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The IPs originates out of England. It may be approriate to have the article semi-protjected in order to encourage the IP editor to discuss his/her edits. —Farix (t | c) 15:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Why is it soul reaper, everyone calls them Shinigami, I have the same issue with vizard. Anyone who only watches english bleach and hence uses the english name isn't a true fan of bleach or is really really really scared of the DMCA for some reason. 74.166.95.229 (talk) 02:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop spouting nonsense, this is not the place to make fanboyish type forum posts. It's got nothing to do with who watches which version.Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that now it says literally this : "Soul Reapers (死神, Shinigami?, lit. "the death")" if we're going to put in that the Japanese kanji translates to the romaji "shinigami" why not put the proper english translation of "shinigami" which is not "the death" but "death god". Maybe no one's been looking at this recently; I see everyones had a substantial argument about it and liscensing won out, but it seems to be up there now as a matter of translation, however the translation is incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.160.37.254 (talk) 16:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This was changed without reason here on the third. I guess no one noticed, otherwise it probably would have been reverted. –Gunslinger47 01:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Just dropping refs here about the Alleged Bleach Plagiarism:

• Nick Simmons' Incarnate Halted Over Alleged Bleach Plagiarism (Updated)
• Radical halts Nick Simmons' Incarnate amid claims of plagiarism
• Rock legend Gene Simmons' son in manga plagiarism storm
• Comic Book Creator Accused of Plagiarism
• Simmons’ Non-Apology Apology For 'Incarnate' Swipes

--KrebMarkt 10:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I heard about that, but that does not seem to be relevant to this article as it did not affect the series' publication. It only affected Incarnate.Tintor2 (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

People of the comics project are handling the Incarnate side of the thing fine. --KrebMarkt 22:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Whyvwould it not be relevant here? It's good reception info.Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Nick's declaration that he is a fan of Bleach would be suitable.Tintor2 (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Probably an undue weight issue in this case :( Even more after reading the brainstorming in this BLP talk page. --KrebMarkt 08:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if plagiarism can be considered "reception". -- deerstop. 09:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

We can possibly use this:

Hot on the heels of accusations that Gene Simmons' kid ripped off Bleach for his own comic Incarnate, Warner Bros. purchased the Bleach movie rights.

Found here [1]. Is the source OK? -- deerstop. 23:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's rather biased. Why do you need to make a connection between Gene Simmons or Nick Simmons in relation to the announcement of the life-action film when there is no relation to start with? —Farix (t | c) 02:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think there's no connection? -- deerstop. 13:03, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Because no reliable sources have made such a connection between the plagiarism allegation and the announcement of the live-action film. The burden of proof for such a connection is on you via reliable third-party sources. —Farix (t | c) 20:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I know! That is why I'm asking if io9 is a reliable source. -- deerstop. 17:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Category:Shinigami

Bleach, Death Note, and Descendants of Darkness all call their people Shinigami. I thought it would be a good idea for there to be a Category:Shinigami for those and any other titles that use the term "Shinigami" Oddly enough Descendants of Darkness wasn't reversed by Tintor2 Hackwrench (talk) 21:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

The category Shinigami would actually fit in a characters article. In a manga/anime series, the title should "Shinigami manga/anime series".Tintor2 (talk) 22:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

plot

On the "Bleach (manga)" page, I request that the plot should be expanded between the parts of Rukia's Execution and Orihime's Abduction. I request this because there is 15 Volumes and between 75 to 81 Chapters in between the two events. —Preceding unsigned comment added by U2dead (talk • contribs) 04:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

If you plan to make additions to the existing plot summary, be sure to read the guidelines here. If you want a more comprehensive summary than what Wikipedia allows, you may be interested in pages like this on the the Bleach Wikia. –Gunslinger47 09:22, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree. As is, the plot summary seems to outline the events without giving too much away and spoiling the experience. For instance, it never talks about how Ichigo beat Kenpachi, which leaves this to future viewers to see for themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arawn V (talk • contribs) 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Review (again)

DVD box set 5 Mania.com --KrebMarkt 12:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Manga vol. 30 mania.com

A link to bleach

I think there should be a link to the cleanser bleach, because this is the first thing to come up when you google "bleach" (believe it or not) 202.89.189.114 (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

But when one types "bleach" into the Search Wikipedia bar it links to the detergent. I believe that may be the reason this article does not link there. If the need is found, I suppose a link from here to there could be made. Now, I just don't see it. Spindori (talk) 19:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

So Bleach appears to be nearing a conclusion very quickly (it could possibly be complete within a few weeks). Should this be noted in the weeks to come? For one the interview with Tite Kupo where he said he had yet to write an ending, is from 2008, and a lot can happen in 2 years (just look at One Piece). Just an FYI, if in anything, keep your eyes peeled in the coming weeks. 70.148.217.99 (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No source, no interview. There is no need to update the article until the plot moves on.Tintor2 (talk) 01:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a source, but I've heard it mentioned a lot on the Bleach Wiki that Kubo stated that after the Arrancar arc, he would do a short arc, and then continue on to a much longer arc. A lot of speculators are pointing to the Decide chapters as the mini-arc, but either way there's supposedly a large arc still to come. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.43.82 (talk) 04:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In an interview with Tite Kubo in MASKED, he said that following the arrancar arc, there will be a short arc followed by a much longer one, the arrancar arc ended with chapter 421, see http://www.shonenjump.com/e/news/index.html.--150.212.38.96 (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the interview in the source, but that could be added to the article with a reference.Tintor2 (talk) 23:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems I made a mistake, the interview was not from MASKED, that is a different interview I am thinking of, here is the correct interview about the short arc and long arc http://iareawesomeness.wordpress.com/2010/03/01/tite-kubo-interview-jump-festa-2009-and-other-spoilers/, I am still hunting down the shonen page that says that the arrancar arc is over but I will keep looking--150.212.38.96 (talk) 23:35, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that the reference has to be from WP:Reliable source and lately many Jump Festa appear to be invented by fans and only appear in forums.Tintor2 (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bleach (manga)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I will review this article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Some places are missing citations, most notably the anime section. Some are missing webcite templates. An archive should use the archive webcite template. The Bleach TCG website's domain is for sale.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No edit wars, only casual vandalism

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   1 image, proper rationale

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Citations are an issue. As of right now, it is not qualified for GA.

Comments

• Ref 2 is dead.
• Ref 13 is dead.
• Ref 21 should link to actual article.
• Ref 24 and 25. Article says it released 22 DVDs, the citation leads up to 20.
• Ref 51 missing cite web template.
• Ref 54, suggested to use archive web template.
• Ref 56, the ref does not say who played who.
• Ref 61 dead.
• Citations needed in anime section.

DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:19, 3 December 2010 (UTC) about the dead references, 10 min on waybackmachine would fix it right? 88.91.182.227 (talk) 17:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

10th Anniversary?

How is episode 304 of the anime the 10th anniversary? Frank0051 (talk) 23:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Title

"Bleach (Manga)" is rather limiting. Maybe it should be "Bleach (franchise)" instead. -- jfry3 (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No consensus achieved for the move. Check the top from the talkpage. Besides, it contradicts the article's lead about what is about.Tintor2 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

genre: comedy

dont u think the genre of this anime can also be labelled as comedy? The anime does feature a lot of comedy in most of the scenes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.254.5.200 (talk) 06:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

It does feature comedy like most shonen series but is more focused on the action and fantasy themes so comedy would secondary.Tintor2 (talk) 13:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Anime ending date debate

Seeing how some people seem to disagree about listing the anime as ending on March 27, here is what I have to say to the people who keep removing the end date: Reliable sources report it ends on March 27th. They do not say anything at all about it moving to a new timeslot. So far, all this "it's been moved" stuff is nothing more than rumor and speculation on forums, unsupported by legitimate sources.

We can only go by what legitimate sources say. Until a source like ANN confirms that it was moved instead of canceled, we have to say what we currently know: that it will end on March 27. That's my two cents on this issue. 67.248.15.175 (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I put in a citation tag on this even though I know is is difficult to cite something clearly stated as speculation. However, a link to some more information about the cancellation and speculation would be helpful I believe. Autumn Wind (talk) 15:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a citation for the cancellation date. I don't know that it's necessarily credible, but better than nothing. Also I reworded it like the episodes article to just plain avoid using the word cancelled which creates ambiguity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autumn Wind (talk • contribs) 15:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote link

Why was my edit undone? All I did was make a link to the Bleach Wikiquote page and to the Bleach wiki. 91.177.199.137 (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Constant removals

Over the past couple of weeks I have noticed that one particular area in the plot section keeps getting removed and re-added all the time. That section is this - Despite using his bankai to attempt to kill him, Juha surprises Yamamoto by stealing his bankai, then instantly kills him using his abilities. As the Vandenreich overrun the soul society, Ichigo arrives to take on Juha Bach. So I just wanted to talk about it and see what people think, is the general consensus that section isn't necessarily needed or do we wanna keep it in? As the constant edits over it are getting really annoying and unnecessary. – Blue☆Stars83 13:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I think the entire plot section is unbalanced. The details for more recent events in the plot takes up a disproportionate amount of text.

174.109.68.46 (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding that Bleach is coming to an end

Should we add that Bleach is coming to it's final arc? Like "Tite Kubo has announced that he is going to start his final arc on February 8th." --KiumaruHamachi (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)KiumaruHamachi

Should be good in the plot or production alongside a wp:reliable source. I'm currently busy right now to the point I am unable to search for them, but Animenewsnetwork.com has an article that talks about it.Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am good with Wikimedia. So I'll add it in. Under the production section. --KiumaruHamachi (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)KiumaruHamachi

Is there anything we can add to dispel speculation by Bleach fans about whether or not a revival is gonna happen anytime soon? --Christengo (talk) 21:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Anime reception

The anime reception is most definitely not applicable or necessary on a page about the manga. It should rightfully be at the Bleach (anime) page. There is no point in having two long paragraphs on something that isn't even examined in detail here. Might as well say that the movies need their own reception as well. Basically, if there is stand alone article, the reception of that topic should not be mirrored to another page when it is only specific and dealing with another adaptation including its original stories. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:32, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://sgcafe.com/2013/07/bleach-5-week-hiatus-prepare-final-battle/

  Triggered by \bsgcafe\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 16:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 05:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement not supported by citations

Under the Characters section, there is the following sentence:

The character Orihime is a complex character who has been both praised and criticized for her appearances. Her role has developed from a "big-breasted bimbo" throughout the story, but the way in which she uses her power has been deemed as stereotypical.[13][14]

Having looked at the citations, nothing in either citation supports any part of the sentence. The closest is the second review (listed as citation [14]) which says the following:

Imagine the usual stereotypes, but skew them with odd traits, and give their personalities an extra edge of attitude: that's what makes these characters special. Ichigo isn't just an excitable, sword-swinging hero—he's a hero with a smart mouth and a chip on his shoulder. Rukia's equally strong personality is the perfect complement to that; together the two of them exchange some of the snappiest dialogue in the show. Ichigo's allies are just as interesting: pretty boy Ishida is cool in every way, from his attacks to his demeanor; girly-girl Orihime discovers her power through fashion accessories; strong and silent Chad proves that the only thing bigger than his frame is his compassion. Call them two-dimensional if you must, but these are some very unique dimensions.

I'm too new to the Wikipedia format to want to mess with the main article, especially when it involves citations, but can someone confirm whether these two citations are being correctly used? Giantgreenstalk (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Good catch, not sure what happened here. Jarred Pine writes "It offers a nice, touching story and I think adds a dimension to Orihime other than the big-breasted bimbo that she is first portrayed as." So the details and the reference was right (same as on the Orihime article) but the URL was wrong for some reason. I've fixed both cases. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Bleach (anime)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As the RFC has apparently been ended, I am now beginning a proper merge discussion here. As previously decided earlier in the year, this split was unfounded and actively argued against. The AFD also leant towards this conclusion. Despite the fact that this series was on the air for 8 years, the issue stands that it is not unique enough from the manga to warrant a split. It may feature more than 100 episodes of original story, but this can be covered in the episode lists or as part of discussion of the anime within the article on the manga, as presently it only comprises a single paragraph on Bleach (anime). The reception section in the anime version of the article is not really specific to praise or criticism of the anime itself, but rather the shared story between the manga and anime. There is very little if any discussion of the filler arcs. The extensive coverage of the English language release is really undue weight. The production of the anime is best suited to a write up in a shared article, as there is no discussion of production in the manga page. The music stuff is best suited for its own separate article, or its current coverage within the episode lists. And the "related media" is still related to the manga as well. While I agree that there are times where separate coverage does benefit the project, it does not seem to be the case with Bleach due to how closely related the anime and manga are. —Ryulong (琉竜) 22:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose' I'd like to quote the article where it says "The anime ran for a total of 366 episodes including 111 episodes of original material not based on the manga." So its not just an animated version of the manga. It also has a different production section, information about the music, and a nice size reception section concerning the anime itself, not the manga. No reason to eliminate this anime article just because 2/3rds of the episodes were based on the manga. You shouldn't try to eliminate articles just because you want it all on one page. If they have significant coverage in reliable sources, then there is no reason not to make a separate article for it. That way it can expand over time and have its own reception section. You tried to do this to the Dragon Ball Anime article already and people overwhelmingly opposed it, 8 to 3. [2] Same issue here. Dream Focus 01:11, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

  The original episodes do not seem to be of any particular note nor are they mentioned by the reliable sources in the criticism/reception. No matter what you may argue, the anime is indeed an adaptation of the manga because it follows the story to a T aside from the parts where they had to develop original seasons in order to not out-run the manga's release dates. And the RFC has shown that things should be determined on a case-by-case basis so the fact that the Dragon Ball merge has failed should have no bearing on whether or not this particular set of articles should be merged.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:58, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

  Why not follow the same format as Naruto? Extra information should be moved to List of Bleach episodes and Anime section of the manga article. And on a separate note (reply to Dream Focus and anyone else wondering), there are 166 episodes out of 366 that are manga only content, according to Bleach wikia site. If you watched the anime and read the manga, you can also easily verify this. Hei Liebrecht 19:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support I personally believe that, while the anime undoubtedly has original content not seen in the original manga, the two are similar enough and follow the same general plot enough to be considered the same article. This will also make it easier for the user to navigate the Bleach oriented pages. The anime is simply an adaptation of the manga, and should be merged with this page. - Munchman15 —Preceding undated comment added 01:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support The anime also holds too much information that's reliant to the main manga article. i think the only reason why this was split was because of the naming seemed misleading since its called "Bleach (manga)". overall, their too similar, and there's no Bleach Z or Bleach GT.Lucia Black (talk) 19:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Same as the previous attempts to delete this were rejected by the community, the article has clearly enough unique coverage, details and its own content that makes it too large to be simply covered on a single page. Whether or not the material includes similar scope, almost a third of the content is NOT the manga and that's a substantial amount even prior to the production, voice actors and music - all of which are not aspects of the manga. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

  No it doesn't. Everything about the anime that was previously found on this article still fits in well with this article. Content on the casting goes to the character list. Content on the theme songs goes in the episode lists. Production solely regards the anime and isn't that extensive at the anime article and is only unduly focused on the English adaptation. Everything fit well on one page before October, after October, and everything was fine until the undiscussed re-splitting. The RFC determined that a noted level of uniqueness between a manga and its anime is the metric by which a split should happen, and simply because there are a ton of filler episodes does not mean that Bleach makes the cut because the bulk of the series still follows the manga's storyline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:TOOLONG. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:40, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

  I don't see how TOOLONG matters when most of the content is already found on this article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:07, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  Most of the content is NOT already found on this page, as has been pointed out to you previously. Dream Focus 09:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  It was previously. Most of what you believe is content original to the other page is about related topics and not directly regarding the anime. Or it concerns both the manga and the anime, such as the "themes" section.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  As mentioned previously, that's not the case. Look at the Reception section, the music section, Release, International releases, two of the three paragraphs in the Production section, the Casting section, etc. There is an awful lot of valid content related only to the Anime. Dream Focus 15:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

  This is because the anime gets preferential treatment when it gets exported and most of this content has to do with the English language translation rather than the original anime. And, again, music is covered in the episode lists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Lucia Black. Plus the disproportional representation of music...which is already covered on the season pages. If Bleach was primary defined by its filler (and music) rather than the manga-based content, I would be swayed otherwise and so would the reception section. « Ryūkotsusei » 08:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per previously suggested. Hei Liebrecht 18:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The articles are just fine the way they are. BlackDragon 00:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  The articles used to be one and were split apart without discussion, put back together after one discussion, then split apart again with no discussion. The way they are is already partially merged because nothing had to be changed at Bleach (manga) to perform this split.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

  Irrelevant to the situation now. The article has been rewritten and expanded with ample information which is Anime specific. Dream Focus 02:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  Not really. All reception regards the story which is the same. Filler arcs do not mean separate coverage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:27, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  Read the reception section and you'll see that isn't true. It list how popular the show is, ratings, polls, and awards it got. It mentions praise for "the striking visual effects" of the anime. And there is a lot more unique content to the article than just its reception section. Dream Focus 04:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  Does the reception point out things that are only applicable to the anime? Can the same things not be said of the manga? Can this not be part of the other article like it was for years until recently? Because all that needs to be done is moving the reception back to this page as there's not much else that's drastically different between the two articles, unless you think the discussion of the anime's soundtracks requires a separate page for hosting it or the three paragraphs spent on discussing the English voice casting decisions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  Kindly read what I just wrote before responding to it. And read the reception section. Both answer your ridiculous question. Dream Focus 05:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

  So the popularity of the show means that it has to be discussed separately from the manga when that was never the case until all the bullshit that happened last year?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. If empty arguments are accepted, I say the article was just fine the way it was before the split. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The anime itself already has enough information, and it also had many large differences compared to the manga. Also, the Manga continued, but the anime ended, so the plot section would not make sense. LazyGurl904 (talk) 00:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

— LazyGurl904 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

• According to that argument, we should split all manga articles that have the anime series ended but the manga is still ongoing. Hei Liebrecht 05:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Additional information about anime should be moved in List of Bleach episodes. I support merging because most episodes are based on manga. (Nightwolf87 (talk) 16:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC))
• Oppose The filler material makes it a viable topic, and merging the two articles wouldn't be beneficial. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:10, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I think either organizational style (separate or merged articles) could be reasonably made to work. I just don't believe that merging them at this point makes our coverage more readable or complete. So I'd prefer we keep the status quo. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Question If folks are still watching this discussion, I noticed a request to close this on WP:ANRFC. As some of you know, I closed this RfC several months ago, which is very relevant here. Are participants OK with me closing, or would you rather I not (due to similar reasons stated at WP:INVOLVED)? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 23:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's better if someone else closes this one. It seems there isn't a strong consensus this time (both sides giving valid arguments), and if this is closed as no consensus, another discussion (potentially even an RfC with a wider hearing) might be needed to settle this once and for all. (For the record, I have only watched this discussion and never participated in it). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 00:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bangsian fantasy

According to the article on Bangsian fantasy, it involves a story where the characters meet dead historical figures, something that never happens in Bleach. Why is it listed as one? 96.229.219.202 (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I pretty sure that the bases for adding "Bangsian fantasy" as a genre is entirely original research rather than something that can be verified by reliable sources. I'll put a {{fact}} tag on it for now and wait for a week or two. If no one presents a source, then it can be replaced by "fantasy". —Farix (t | c) 22:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Change has been made after Bangsian fantasy was challenged for one week. —Farix (t | c) 13:09, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Link to Bleach wikia?

Why aren't we linking to the useful resource that is Bleach Wikia [3]? Please note that the argument that fansites like this violate WP:EL is not valid, I asked about this at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Honorverse_wikia recently. So if there are no other objections, I'll add a link to it to our elink section. As for number 12 at WP:ELNO, it is slightly bigger than the Young Justice wikia ([4]) which was approved at [5]), seems stable and is actively maintained. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

No reason not to. It does help the users get more information. Its large and well established. There are currently 1,422 links to wikia.com on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 09:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Is Bleach still one of the best selling manga in the US?

Bleach does not make the 2011 best selling manga published by the New York Times, link - List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers. I'm not sure about 2012 data though. Should we keep the part in the article about it being one of the best selling manga in the US?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bleach (manga). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217065029/http://comics.shogakukan.co.jp/mangasho/rist.html to http://comics.shogakukan.co.jp/mangasho/rist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217065029/http://comics.shogakukan.co.jp/mangasho/rist.html to http://comics.shogakukan.co.jp/mangasho/rist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:31, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

how do you

howdo you start a book?'Bold text' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ag rosebud (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Live action?

There's this semi-offhand line in the Production section: "Kubo has also stated that he wishes to make Bleach an experience that can only be found by reading manga, and dismissed ideas of creating any live-action film adaptations of the series". With a live action adaptation coming in 2018, should this line be deleted, replaced etc.? I can't see any way to rewrite this bit to mention the new film without wrecking the flow of the section and in context it seems relevant enough to avoid deletion. CaveDragon (talk) 16:18, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

He apparently changed his mind based on the live-action article. However, we could simply reworded as "Kubo initially.... However,".Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bleach (manga). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018201823/http://www.mania.com/bleach-vol-01_article_82089.html to http://www.mania.com/bleach-vol-01_article_82089.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505202945/http://ebookstore.sony.jp/item/ST000000000000000357/ to http://ebookstore.sony.jp/item/ST000000000000000357/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505203339/http://ebookstore.sony.jp/item/ST000000000000000945/ to http://ebookstore.sony.jp/item/ST000000000000000945/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018201823/http://www.mania.com/bleach-vol-01_article_82089.html to http://www.mania.com/bleach-vol-01_article_82089.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)