Talk:Bleach (manga)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Page nuked?

Wondering if the article was restarted from scratch recently (possibly due to a copyright violation), because the article looks really short. --69.214.232.105 02:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I think that it's always been this short. Jeltz talk 12:09, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

External Links

I wouldn't qualify BleachFan as having "content." It appears to be merely a download link / packlisting site. Speaking more broadly, Wikipedia is not a web directory, so discretion is advised when placing external links. Most articles I've looked at do not link to any fan sites, but only to "official" ones. - mako 06:44, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is what I meant with no content, and the reason for that I removed it. It used to be more than that. There is no reason for wikipedia to link to a pure packlist/downlaod site that I can think of.
As for if we only should link to official sites I'm split. Often time official sites have no interesting content and are just adveritising, and in some cases also not in English. Fansites on the other hand is often more useful for people who which to learn something about the series/game/comcis/etc . The reason for not linking is because, as you said, this isn't a webdirectory. I think that it's best to link fansites but do it with care. Jeltz talk 09:12, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree that fansites can be useful resources and are often more informative than official sites. I still have some qualms about linking to what are primarily download portals, but until this page can match those in information content, it's okay. - mako 16:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Guess we will have to wait and see what becomes of BleachFan. Frankly, I would like to see the domain/website mature into something more than just a guide to downloading the Bleach series. Since we are speaking of qualms, one of mine is the fact that Bleach lacks quality fansites. The quality Bleach fansites vanished after the Bleach fansite spurt, which brought in a lot of "NarutoFan" clones, and that's not a good thing for reasons I shall not adventure unto. - Dotuser 05:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:External links. Fan sites are "maybe ok." However, I've found that on the Naruto page that they've become a huge hassle to maintain. It is hard to judge notability, as they all copy content from eachother, and people keep adding their own sites even though they don't deserve to be there. I've edited the Naruto article to remove the fansite link section, but added a sentence in the article discussing fansites. Now there are some links on the bottom that link to Fansite directories, which I believe is much more appropriate. ~MDD4696 (talk • contribs) 05:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Page title

Hmm, anime-specific information is starting to pop up. This page should probably be moved from its current title of "Bleach (manga)", but I can't think of what it should be though. Or is it not necessary, as the anime is based on the manga... but most animes are... meh. - mako 07:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They're sort of the same topic, and the manga came first. keep the current title.--69.214.227.51 15:54, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, the Bleach (anime) page redirects back here, and most pages on wiki of animanga series usually just keeps the manga page. Maybe we could redirect both bleach (manga) and bleach (anime) to bleach (animanga) and then keep the manga as a basis, but interject with anime-specific sections? Or we could do that with this page: keep the title, keep focus on manga, but come in with anime-specific sections like (Anime Only) blah blah blah. Hobbeslover 16:20, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
I think sticking with the current disambiguation (manga) is all right; the manga came first, and as you mention, it's how the majority of pages are already. The main thing is the storyline: the storyline is the same one (AFAIK) for the anime and manga, so they can share an article. As long as people read the article they'll know that an anime was made, based on the manga.
If you're interested in contributing to article guidelines, check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. - mako 19:21, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Heh, yeah, I saw it earlier today, and I just joined. Well, as you said, we'll keep it then. The anime is a bit more drawn out at points, and recently just had a filler episode, but that's fairly irrelevant. If you watch bleach, please contribute to making this a REAL article :D - Hobbeslover 03:51, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Really Needed?

While I'm sure everyone appreciates the new additions to the page, I consider the extremely detailed information on the first chapter/episode to be unneeded, excessively detailed, and setting a bad precedent for the rest of the page. Wikipedia is not for the creation of episode spoiler guides, that's what fan sites are for. Shouldn't we instead focus on the explanation of the Bleach universe as a whole, rather than just the opening scenes?

Posted by Tjstrf

Heh, I probably went over board with that. Well, trim it down if you must, but do me a favor and keep this idea intact: that his zanpakutou is excessively large, and he is so powerful that even rukia has no idea what's going on. - Hobbeslover 21:57, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh, it's no big deal. I'll just prune it down a bit. Nice to find another bleach fan.

Posted by Tjstrf

Shinigami

Under Shinigami, the Captains and Vice-Captains at the beginning of the series are listed, but wasn't Rukia Vice-Captain for Squad 6 under her brother at that point, and only lost that position when she apparantly went 'rogue' due to losing her powers when she transferred them to Ichigo? Nezu Chiza 21:52, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Nope, she was a member of the 13th squad under Ukitate. My guess is that she was a seated member but I don't believe that she was the vice-captain of the squad. We don't know what position she had. Jeltz talk 22:49, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No, Rukia was never a vice-captain. I don't believe she was even a seated officer. At one point of the manga, there was a flashback and it showed Rukia entering the 13th division and she was coming home. Byakuya asks her "What seat did you make?" and she said she wasn't strong enough to become a seated officer. Of course, this is probably a bit before she met Ichigo, and she MAY have been able to become a seated officer during that time, but it is best to assume that she doesn't hold a officer position. -- Hobbeslover 19:25, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I still believe that she was a seated officer but probably the lowest one. We have seen her on a mission (when Kaien was killed) together with the Captain and the Vice Captain. Why would someone that isn't seated get that honour? I believe that she was something like a 6th seat if such exist. Jeltz talk 10:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Considering that the seated ranks go down to at least 20, (Tōshimori Umesada, 20th seat in the 9th division) I don't think that 6 would be a particularily low rank. --Tjstrf 04:47, 31 July 2005 (UTC) They have never mentioned her as a seated officer of any type, though she may have been under grooming for a position.

Captains/Vice-Captains listing

Under the captains listing, if we are going to include Shiba as dead, we should also include Aizen and Tousen as no longer being captains either. They betrayed Soul Society and left with a bunch of hollows to become hollows themselves. They definitely are no longer captains. If on the other hand, we are simply listing them as they are at the beginning of the series (and as it states under the titles) Shiba should not be called dead.

Posted by Tjstrf

No, Shiba was dead at the beginning of the anime, we just know it yet, but it doesn't mean he's not dead -- Hobbeslover 02:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But if we think he is alive, doesn't that make it still a spoiler to say he is dead? Or is that not the issue? --Tjstrf 04:52, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Don't know. I think when he first was mentioned he was mintroduced as someone dead. I think that we never had any reason to think that he was alive but I don't have access to the manga now so I can't check. That was the reason for that I didn't think of it as a spoiler. Jeltz talk 10:49, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On another issue, do we need a listing of every single captain and vice captain and seated Shinigami's Shikai and Bankai abilites and their release cries? It's making the article really really long.--Tjstrf 21:36, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's the point of this article. Look at Naruto: it's hella long with five or so articles dedicated to it. What we COULD do is condense the listing, then make a seperate page "Bleach Characters" or "Bleach Captains list" and throw all of the current stuff there -- Hobbeslover 23:15, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I guess I just tend towards minimalism on this. Whatever we choose, we should decide quickly, before the page gets to be like the Full Metal Alchemist page, where they have to go and put "in the manga..." after every thing because of poor planning in the initial setup. A seperate page for Characters or captains would be good.--Tjstrf 02:32, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for making a seperate Bleach characters page. With 38 eps to date and no signs of stopping, this could grow to be as big as Naruto and we could end up feasibly making pages for the characters and the zanpakutō as well.--Mitsukai 1 July 2005 15:39 (UTC)

Ichigo's Family

I'm not sure that the info about his father being a Shinigami should be there. The rest of that section has very little spoilers, and NOTHING that isn't in the first few episodes of the anime and chapters of the manga. The bit about his father is a massive spoiler from FAR into the series. Nezu Chiza 23:22, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

I concur that this revelation shouldn't be on the page. This is WAY ahead of the beat the rest of the page carries and it kind of ruins the fun of seeing it for yourself (for casual Bleach-heads who may not have read that far, or may only watch the anime). It's not needed and it really spoils everything. Michuru 00:52, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I read about how his dad destroyed Grand Fisher "With just one punch". I figured somehow his love for his wife or something powered him to super strong attack or something. Or that ichigo's energy rubed off on him. Then, when I read the manga when he fought Grand Fisher and he was actually a Shinigam I was like "WTF?!!??" That was a pretty big suprsie to me. Thanks for not spoiling to much for me whoever it was... Pompadour Samurai 06:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Too many Spoilers

We need to be careful of HOW big a spoilers are placed on the page. The last few days various spoilers for far into the series have been entered into the article, and this goes against what it was intended to be...a general synopsis of the series and some minor information and LIMITED spoilers. People, please stop posting things that basically ruin the mystery of the plot for others? It's one thing to mention who made Rukia's gigai body, it's quite another to go off and mention everything relating to it. Nezu Chiza 16:13, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Once again, please be mindful that most spoilers in the article are quite minor, and putting massive spoilers from far into the series goes against the tone already set. Keep it general, alright? I recommend keeping things limited to what someone can see in a casual viewing of a few episodes, or from reading the first and second manga for the most part. Anyone agree or disagree? I think we need to set a guideline NOW, some of what's having to be deleted is really, REALLY plot breaking at times. Heck, I'm kinda iffy on Aizen's zanpakuto ability spoiler since it involves information that can ruin a major plot point if anyone happens to put two and two together. I'm tempted to chop off the part about the betrayel, and if people make the connection that's there on their own, fine. Thoughts? Nezu Chiza 10:03, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know what we should do about the Aizen spoilers but the spoilers from chapter 185 and later obviously don't belong here. The funny thing is that this article was quite spiler free (except for the Aizen spoilers) untill a couple of days ago. I think that you can try to remove as much Aizen spoilers as possile. Jeltz talk 15:17, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
As a guideline for the future, what do people think of limiting most spoilers(beyond the attack names and such for zanpakuto) to what's currently been fansubbed? Since the majority of people who would view this page are watching those episodes, this would let us keep pace with what's known while also giving a stopping point so we don't have to worry about whether something is a spoiler. Thoughts? Nezu Chiza 18:08, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I would agree with that in general, but I would also add the statement I put on the characters article in that readers "should be aware that the article contains major spoilers" and that "this guide is meant to be read primarily" upon lengthy viewing and/or completion of series.--Mitsukai 17:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Article split

As of this writing, the article has reached 68k, double the recommended Wiki page size. Therefore, it's time to split off a portion of the article. I'm recommending we split off the characters, as that way we can use brief (non-spoiler) descriptions here, then allow a Bleach characters page to go more in-depth on them. Any thoughts on this?--Mitsukai 18:15, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with this. Plus it'll be easier to edit and spellcheck changes if it's broken up. As it stands it's definately too large and unwieldy. Nezu Chiza 21:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I haven't looked at this page in months and now it's huge. Yes, a characters in Bleach page is the right way to go. I'm going to move the episode list and whatnot off to Bleach media information, which will help the size as well. - mako 20:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
If we're going to split the list off into a separate article, we should remove the current characters section.—Tokek 21:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I disagree. Keeping just their names doesn't hurt anything and lets someone know the main characters at a glance without having to dig deeper into more articles. Though the Shinigami and other main sections below the names could be moved to seperate articles, at least. Nezu Chiza 23:26, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
We should keep the major characters, but right now there's still too many minor characters. Though, of course, "minor" is a debatable criterion. IMO some people (Renji, Byakuya, Urahara) are on the edge, but most of the Shinigami are definitely minor. - mako 00:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

i hate this...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bleach_%28manga%29#Quincy_artifacts

That three sentences used to be three paragraphs. Does wikipedia even give a fuck that people are actually lowering the informative nature of their articles...

Used to be two paragraphs, one of which was further into the series than the rest of the article, hence why it was trimmed. Once the anime(which more people are exposed to) gets to the point where it's not a major plot spoiler, feel free to add the info back. On a side note, please don't curse on the talk page. There's no need for it at all. Also, sign your comments per the Wikipedia rules. Thank you. Nezu Chiza 04:14, July 31, 2005 (UTC)
The first paragraph was not cut due to spoilers, but rather that it was very confusingly written and contained off-topic information. It was essentially talking about things Ishida did, not the artifacts themselves. If you want to go and expand it again, feel welcome to do so, that's what wikis are for. --Tjstrf 04:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Standardization of terms

We need to decide whether to use Shinigami or a translation of it, and then standardize it throughout all of the Bleach articles. Most notably people have been using either Soul Reaper or God of Death. I understand that different translation teams use different terms, (Lunar uses Death God, while Bleach Society uses Shinigami) but it is rather annoying and could become more of a problem in the future, especially once Bleach gets licensed. --Tjstrf 08:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I vote for an English version (anything other than Shinigami), since we're writing in English. Soul reaper sounds very nice IMO but it's been a while since a major sub group has used this term, so it might cause confusion. Therefore, my vote goes to Death God. -- Ynhockey 09:22, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Amazon uses "shinigami" in their descritpion of volume 1 of the VIZ translation, so I guess that "shinigami" is what the official English translation and most fan trsnaltions that I have read uses. To me it seems that trnalsiteration is by far the most common choice and we probably should stick to that too. A side note is that I hate the tranlation "god of death". "Soul reaper" or just "reaper" sounds like a better description of what they actually are. But what is actually used in the translations is much more important than my personal preference and that is "shinigami". Jeltz talk 11:39, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the Viz translation uses "Soul Reaper," and the term has cropped up on the Japanese DVDs. I'm not advocating the usage of "Soul Reaper," though. "Shinigami" is just fine and is more than likely the term that most fans have gotten used to. --Soulsteelgray 12:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
Better to stick with the original Japanese version i.e "shinigami" than needlessly debating about which english translation is the 'best' one. That's my opinion anyway. Xedaf 12:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I suspect that "Shinigami" will be the actual term used in the dub, due to the whole (possible) mess that could be caused by something as potentially religiously dividing as "Soul Reaper". They bowdlerized much of the same content in the TV version of Shaman King for the same reason, I considering how popular the show is, I don't doubt it won't end up on TV (at least on adult swim). Additionally, I'm not too keen on Soul reaper or death god, since what the primary function of a shinigami (at least as demonstrated by Rukia and a few others) is that of a psychopomp. However, since I doubt we'll be getting that deep (and as Jeltz says, what I feel is less important than what is official) I think that we're best going with shinigami. Worst comes to, if the final English edition is something else (say, if 4Kids gets the license and suddenly it's "Ghost Samurai" or something equally stupid), we can always go back and change it.--Mitsukai 12:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
5 for, 1 against. I'll change it to Shinigami. --Tjstrf 18:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

But you MUST mention soul reaper!

Now it's 5 against 2. :) Oh, and the whole point of this article is to cater to people who are usually not familiar with the series, so we shall use "Soul Reaper". WhisperToMe 23:41, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought that it did mention soul reaper some days ago but maybe some removed it or my memory could be wrong. Anyway I don't see how soul reaper is more or less confusing than shinigami. As long as all the common anems are mentioend in the beginning of the article. Jeltz talk 16:43, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Mentions of alternate translations is fine, but articles need to have a standardized form they use throughout the body of the article EXCEPT for said mentions. The one which most people seem to prefer is Shinigami, not Soul Reaper. Make mention that Shinigami are also KNOWN as Soul Reapers, but I recommend using Shinigami throughout the article. If not, then at least make sure Soul Reaper is the one used instead, not both at random spots. Nezu Chiza 18:26, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Origin of the title "Bleach"

The latest change says the name comes from Nirvana's first album release. Where was this information found? I don't recall any statement by the mangaka about that, and usually he's pretty good about listing sources for his stuff. Anyone know what volume of the manga lists this info? Nezu Chiza 18:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • No volume lists that information. The idea of the title coming from a Nirvana album is just speculation and is in no way absolute fact. Soulsteelgray 19:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed, I've never heard that either. In fact, aside from the earlier information (which was also taken down), I don't think there's ever been a clear origin given for the title. Admittedly, we could put it up as speculation for the title (as well as the earlier entry) if we specify that it is speculation, nothing more. However, I don't know if that's necessarily encyclopedic at this time.--Mitsukai 19:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Well, it's mentioned that Ichigo got beat up a lot because he bleached his hair orange, so that is the most logical explanation, but again, it would probably be better to wait for something more conclusive. - Hobbeslover 20:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually, his natural hair color is orange, and he got beat up for NOT bleaching it to make it a more normal color. Nezu Chiza 21:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
WTF? Prove this.... manga chapters please. - Hobbeslover 04:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
It is in chapter 7, but I'm not really sure on how to interpret it. Jeltz talk 16:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • From how I understand it, the title "Bleach" is actually a misguided "engrish" reference to Ichigo's odd natural hair color. --Brash 12:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Frankly, unless Kubo or someone in an authorative position comes out and says something about the meaning of the title, I really don't think we should worry about it. The meaning behind the title could take on a million different things to an equal number of people and could still be wrong; for all we know, it could be because the name stuck after Kubo's editor was walking through the laundry supplies section of the supermarket. So I really think the speculation can be tabled until someone has hard evidence. No offense to anyone, but all speculation (whether a SWAG or through thoughtful conjecture) isn't going to do anything more than what's already been said above.--Mitsukai 13:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers (cont.)

What's your (speaking to everyone) position on spoilers? I see people adding and removing them all the time, but we need a clear position on what manga chapter is the limit, what we can/cannot add, etc.

IMO, in the general bleach article (and Characters in Bleach), we shouldn't have any major spoilers (that is, things that are major and not yet covered in the anime), but the individual character articles (or more specific ones like Zanpakuto, etc), should have 100% spoilers, because if someone goes to such a length to read about Bleach, they are probably fans who at least know the outline of the story. Tough luck for those who insist on not reading the manga, but I mean, this is an encyclopedia, not a promotional summary, so the aim is to have encapsulating info.

Also, someone should make an Isshin article for that part of the story :)


-- Ynhockey 15:36, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe the general consensus is that the main article should not have blatent spoilers past what's been fansubbed anime-wise. Spoilers from the manga are pretty much limited to what's been released in the US except for general, non-plot destroying spoilers. This is mainly because people tended to put in the MASSIVE plot twist spoilers from far into the manga, and since the rest of the article is much more safe...well, those spoilers get removed and/or shifted to the character pages. Which, by the way, I agree should be 100% spoilery for those who want to give them. The main article is a general synopsis and info page, the sub-pages are for specifics. Nezu Chiza 16:12, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Separate manga/anime pages?

Does anyone else think we should split the manga and anime pages? That would allow for manga-related info which is considered a spoiler now because it's not in the anime to be added, and also help organization. The negative part is that both pages will have to be updated as more manga/anime comes out in different ways, since the manga is still way ahead in the story.

Also, does anyone have info on the chronology of captaincy? So far here's what I gathered:

  • We know for sure that Yamamoto became captain before Kyouraku and Ukitake
  • We know for sure that Aizen became captain before Ichimaru, Kuchiki and Tousen, and most likely Komamura.
  • We know for sure that Ichimaru and Kuchiki became captains at the same time.
  • We know almost for sure that Ichimaru became captain before Hitsugaya.
  • We know almost for sure that Kurotsuchi and Soi Fong became captains at the same time.

Is there any more info on the chronology? I think Aizen called Ukitake senpai (could be wrong), which would mean that most likely Ukitake became captain first (it would also make sense because both Ukitake and Kyouraku seem to be ancient).

-- Ynhockey 20:58, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm against splitting it up into anime and manga since, except for filler stuff in the anime and a bit of expanded info in the manga that didn't make it into the anime...they're the same. It would be a waste of space and a duplication of effort to try and seperate one from the other and have pages for both. If something MUST be made clear to be seperate in some way, marking it with Anime Only or Manga Only is probably the best way to handle things. Remember, the main Bleach page is for a general synopsis of the series, if someone wants to know more they can go to the subpages such as Characters of Bleach which DOES contain manga only spoilers. Everyone wins that way :) Nezu Chiza 21:20, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
From my understanding, a seperate anime page would only warrant if there's several anime series that vary from the manga (such as the varied Pokemon or YuGiOh series), or if the anime was greatly dissonant from the manga. Aside from that, it would be overkill at this time, especially when we have other pages (such as individual character pages) that we still have to work on.--Mitsukai 12:11, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Which means you guys should look at the Kurotsuchi and Abarai pages I just made recently and probably write a few :P I'm hopelessly bored these days, but even so I often have better things to do. -- Ynhockey 20:34, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Opposed to splitting the topics, there are no major manga/anime differences as yet. Why is there still no Ishida page? That thing's been a blatent red link for over a month and a half, and he is a major character besides. I would write it myself, but I am prone to making inferences that are not directly stated in the manga, which can fall under Point of View. --Tjstrf 20:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I wrote the Ishida page, check it out. -- Ynhockey 20:56, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
Wrote the page on the rock musical - complete with a cast picture. Check it out. --Mitsukai 05:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Newly introduced species

Where do we write about vizards, arankaru, etc.? I don't mean the actual characters, but also a descriptions of what they are, what they do, etc. It would be a huge spoiler in this article, but no other seems suitable, at least while there aren't separate articles for each. Any suggestions? -- Ynhockey 17:46, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

I'd suggest putting them under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_in_Bleach_series, that's the main subpage for that sort of thing and we seem to be going with the consensus that the subpages are where major spoilers go in regards to things. Nezu Chiza 06:44, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Cutting down page size

I think we should remove a lot of info on this page, such as the gotei listings (already on the characters page), as well as specific info like clothes 'modification', which could also go in the description of each character. Does anyone disagree? -- Ynhockey 09:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

We may want to consider creating pages on Shinigami (Bleach) and Soul Society at this point, then.--Mitsukai 15:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Too many pages?

Instead of having seperate pages for Hollows, Plusses, Anraku, and Vaizards, perhaps all the info could be consolidated on a single page?--Chris F.

I disagree. IMO, the more pages the better. No one likes to read a huge page if they only want to find out what Bleach is, and don't care about details. Also, no one wants to search a huge page for a less important detail like how the hollows fight. Modularization also makes it easier for editors like ourselves. In the case of vizards, hollows and arankaru, we don't know much about them yet, but some of the recent manga chapters expand on them. I'm sure the more small details we get, the less full descriptions are appropriate for the main Bleach page. Also, why don't you register an account? -- Ynhockey 00:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

They don't need to go on the main page; there could be a seperate page for all the types of spirits.-- Chris F.

That's exactly what they are doing, except that they are making a seperate page for each different type of spirit.--Tjstrf 17:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/e/Talk%7EBleach_%28manga%29_Archive_1_22eb.html"