Talk:Bleach (manga)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bleach (manga) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Bleach (manga) is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page (Talk). See our portal to learn more.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This is a summary of our archived standardization topics for the Bleach (manga) article, originated by tjstrf and with additional compilation from Dekimasu. Although consensus can change, please consider these points when adding information to Bleach-related articles.
  • In titling, we use Bleach (manga), not Bleach (anime) or BLEACH.
  • We are using the English naming conventions for characters, given name first.
  • Quincy and Soul Society are capitalized, but we do not capitalize most other terms (shinigami, hollow, plus, zanpakutō, etc.).
  • It's lieutenant, not vice-captain; the onmitsukidō is to be referred to as "special forces"; demon arts has been superceded by kidō, since all versions of the series use the Japanese term. Soul Reaper vs. shinigami is unresolved, but we use shinigami since it remains the more common usage.
  • The main characters on the page are listed in the order of their appearance.
  • Correct character spellings include Bount (pl. Bounts), Yammy, Luppi, and Kuroud.
  • Spoilers should not be included in the main article unless they significantly contribute to an overall understanding of the series.
  • We refer to "artificial souls" rather than "modified souls" in order to incorporate all manufactured souls.

The citation format for the original manga is as follows (1-999 represents a page number):

  • Kubo, Tite (2006). Bleach Official Character Book SOULs. Tokyo, Japan: Shueisha, 1-999. ISBN 4088740793
  • Kubo, Tite (2006). Bleach Official Animation Book VIBEs. Tokyo, Japan: Shueisha, 1-999. ISBN 4088740807
  • Kubo, Tite (2002). Bleach, Volume 1. Tokyo, Japan: Shueisha, 1-999. ISBN 4088732138 (disputed below)
Archive
Archives
  1. April 2005 — September 2005
  2. September 2005 — March 2006
  3. April 2006 — September 2006
  4. September 2006 — February 2007

Contents

[edit] Grand Fisher

Is it just me or does anyone else feel that GrandFisher doesn't need his own article? It might be a bit better if it was rewritten by someone who knows what they're doing (no offense, Seth). Anyone interested? // DecaimientoPoético 12:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

It does need a serious clean up. It is very poorly written. I'll work on rewriting it. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 13:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that he should keep his article, even if an article isint about much, it still has the right to exist. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Letuce (talk • contribs).

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

yeah, if we can justify giving EVERY SINGLE captain and vice captain their own article, we can DEFINITELY justify giving grand fisher one. i mean, half these vice captains/captains are complete enigmas. 67.175.45.179 04:55, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improving attribution

Other than the normal vandalism reversions, the page has become much more stable lately. I still think that there are issues with the plot summary (introduction) and main character sections that need to be worked out, but the stability in the page does have its advantages.

I'd like to propose that we take the opportunity to do better referencing for the sections on character types and settings, using the primary source (the manga and merchandise itself). As long as the notability of the series has been established by third-party sources — and this is clearly demonstrated in the media section — I don't see a problem with referencing plot/situational information with citations from the manga and anime.

Although I want to help with this, too, my copies of the manga are not in the same country as me at the moment. Would anyone else be willing to help me find good manga references for what a hollow is, or how many people can see spirits, or how Soul Society is organized, et cetera? Dekimasuが... 05:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tj's just added to our standardization section and it's made me realize that it's about time to archive this page again and work out what we've decided lately, which I'm going to do now. (Update: I have recompiled the standardization topics and added them to a template at the top of the page. The old talk section is now in archive 4 Let me know what you think.) I think we have a fairly strong core of information to use to bring this article forward and it may be time to submit it to a peer review. It would necessarily be harsh, but we need a kick. Dekimasuよ! 12:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding Storyline

I think that we should change the introduction section into something like "story thus far" and write what has been happening in the story instead of just the first chapter. Ricky 17:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Kurosaki Ricky

The thing is, do we follow the anime, or the manga? And do we follow the English release, or the Japanese? It's better to just let it stay an introduction to the story, and let the reader decide if they want to read/experience the series on their own or not. Nique talk 18:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Readers already know the story in general, and new readers ought to be shielded from plot spoilers. The characters and setting sections are much more valuable to new readers. Who would a "story thus far" section be useful to? –Gunslinger47 18:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I disagree. At the moment the page is very friendly to new people who are just starting to watch Bleach, but it isn't fulfilling all of its role as an encyclopedia article. There needs to be a plot summary introduced at some point, even though it will reintroduce spoiler tags to the article. I started to work on one in... I think... October, by translating the plot summary from the Japanese article. We had additional style problems that point because the actual introduction to the article and the Introduction section of the article were substantially the same. I stopped working on it for some reason, but I definitely think it's the responsibility of the article to describe the complete plots of both the manga and anime. Dekimasuよ! 12:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
But neither is complete, nor planned to be complete anywhere in the near future. Plot summaries are available with a quick Google search if someone really wants to look it up. (A search for "Bleach plot" turns up quite a comprehensive plot summary in the first result for me, albeit not very up to date.) We could go a short way into the 'future' beyond the first chapter or so, but as Gunslinger47 said, who would it be useful to? People already into the series know the story, anyone who doesn't care about the story doesn't need the details, and newbies interested in the story should read it before going through a detailed plot analysis. Spoiler warnings only compound the "Why?" factor of it, because again, either people already know the story, want to learn the story but really should experience it on their own, or don't care about the story. Nique talk 12:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are we mentioning characters by their first name or last?

After reading through several character pages, I noticed that we seem to have a bad habit of swithcing back and forth between given names and family names. For example, while reading through Gin Ichimaru, I noticed that the page refers to him as Gin and then Ichimaru a couple of sentences later. This can get quite confusing for some readers and something should be done about this. Should we go by their first names? Or their last? Or does it not really matter? // DecaimientoPoético 22:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well for the main characters, I think either is fine but I lean towards given names for them. Secondary characters like the captains and lieutenants should be named by their family name. Arrancar are a mixed bag. Espada are mostly known by their given name but what about the Numeros? Gdo01 22:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with referring to the main characters by their first names, especially Ichigo and Uryu due to the re-emergence of Isshin and Ryuken (more so Uryu. I don't think we ever called Ichigo or Isshin "Kurosaki" to begin with). // DecaimientoPoético 21:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
For characters other than Uryu, it makes almost no difference (unless you are writing about the one chapter where Orihime and her brother were both around at the same time). I tend to purposefully alternate between them to make my writing less redundant (Gin one sentence, Ichimaru the next). Uryu should definitely be noted as Uryu in most cases though. --tjstrf talk 21:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Demon arts is now at Kidō

In accordance with a long-forgotten discussion that concluded that all existent forms of the series use the Japanese term, I have moved Demon arts to Kidō. Unless I meet with objections I will be putting this into the standardization reminder later today. --tjstrf talk 21:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

No objections here. I'm glad you moved it. Its just more accurate to list it under the Japanese term in my opinion. --88wolfmaster 21:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manga/Anime Pics

Is there any reason that as soon as an anime picture of a character arrives, it switches out the manga picture? I noticed this pattern, but recently the picture of Ikkaku Madarame's bankai was switched, and my friends and I thought the manga picture looked better. Is replacing it with the anime some sort of rule, or is it just something the main editors of these pages agreed to?72.70.150.230 04:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Dan

Generally, the anime gives a better quality image, as well as it being in full colour. That's probably why they're switched out. I don't know though, you may want to look into who's doing the switching (the History button at the top will show you who did what) and, if it's just one person, asking them on their Talk page. Nique talk 04:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
As a side note, I've started to go through Category:Bleach images to clean out orphaned fair use images like Image:Grimmjow jaggerjack.JPG and Image:PA.70283.001.jpg. Please feel free to help, or check through them and see if they are superior to whichever fair use images we're using now. Dekimasuよ! 04:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Character types: vizard and arrancar?

Over the last few weeks we seem to have lost our consensus on incorporating arrancar in the section on hollows and the vizard in the section on the shinigami. I think we should discuss this a bit before moving forward. What are the advantages to having them together? What are the advantages to having them apart? Dekimasuよ! 08:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Given the complexity of the Bleach universe and that this is the main page, which is supposed to be an overview, I would prefer they be kept together. There's already too much complexity and not enough context in that section.
I'd also appreciate it if we didn't italicize shinigami every single time it appears, since it makes the text annoying as hell to read due to overformatting. --tjstrf talk 08:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me this has to be all or nothing (or else it just looks messy); see the section I was writing below when you posted this. We would need an actual reason to remove the italics, as far as I can tell. Dekimasuよ! 08:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You have to understand though that if its kept together that someone who just started watching the show (or someone who is just getting into it) might not know what Vizard/Arrancar are and therefore if they are just merely included in the section then they might not see the brief descriptions of this. I do not necessarily argee with having them completely separated as they are a sub-class which is why I came up with the compromise of the subset group (but it seems that was reverted. although I do not know why since those who wanted the seperation got it with out the repeating, and those who wanted to keep them together still gets the feel of them being together). As for the italics, there is no need for every other word to be italized --88wolfmaster 03:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

The reason for having italics on death gods, soul slayers, etc. is that they fall under WP:MOS#Foreign terms. It says "Wikipedia prefers italics for phrases in other languages and for isolated foreign words that do not yet have common use in the English language" and goes on to imply that this means inclusion in an English dictionary. There doesn't seem to be any specific directive or consistency at WP:MOS-JP, which may mean something was overlooked there. I discuss things quite a bit on that page and will bring it up.

Since the words we are talking about for this article do have English names (they're just not the ones we are using for these articles), I don't see how we can justify removing the italics. The broader article on shinigami, for example, uses italics throughout; it's not a term made up for the Bleach series either, so we don't have that to fall back on as we might for "arrancar" or "vizard". I don't find it to create any legibility problems myself. Dekimasuよ! 08:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Plot Article

I feel that we should create a new article which specifically talks about the plot of Bleach so far, including what is happening and what is about to happen. This article should be similar to the article of the Plot of Naruto and the Plot of Naruto: Shippūden.

So instead for other users to look at certain character profiles just to get an idea what the character itself 'contributed' to the overall plot of the story, there should be an article which highlights every single storyline and the events that happen/about to happen. After all, isn't Wikipedia meant to be an area where everyone can view information easily and quickly? --Omghgomg 09:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

We have one. List of Bleach episodes. --tjstrf talk 10:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
There's that one. But what if people wanted to look for further 'spoilers' that have not been released in the anime, only in the manga? Then where do they look for the information? --Omghgomg 07:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Presumably they read the manga. If they want to know about a specific character or aspect they can find it in the relevant article, but if they really want a complete detailing of the plot it's not like it's difficult to find scanlations. --tjstrf talk 08:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that is that some people may not feel right reading scanlations for ethical reasons (I wouldn't know, since I'm fine with scanlations and am looking into typesetting). It shouldn't be too difficult to add information from the manga storyline with a small disclaimer acknowledging the source of the information (ie, a small mention that the following storyline is derived from the manga, and may differ in the anime, etc). DestradoZero 05:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Why would people who don't feel comfortable reading scanlations feel comfortable knowing what happens in the manga based on the summaries of people who read scanlations? Or you can always learn Japanese. (^^)b Dekimasuよ! 02:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

yes i'm sure learning japanese is so much easier than us creating a "plot of bleach" page or pages lol. no, of course we need to create a "plot of bleach" page (or pages, presumably one article per arc or something to cut down on size). then we can get rid of all the extremely disorganized/overlapping nonsense we have in each and every character profile. the problem is people are TRYING to write down a "plot of bleach" but we are doing it CHARACTER BY CHARACTER, and this is pretty chaotic. we need a single set of articles for the plot of ALL characters, definitely. obviously it will be significantly abridged version from the manga. (to avoid apparently getting into copyright issues vis a vis the plot of naruto page, right now is going through that stuff) 67.175.45.179 05:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bleach: the name

Does anyone know why Bleach is called what it is? (at least in English…) Article as of 16 Mar 2007 makes no mention. I suspect either: (deliberate) mistranslation of "Burīchi", which could instead have been "Breach"; or a symbolic reference to bleach, as the shinigami are responsible for "cleansing" hollows.—Nahum Reduta 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion numerous times. There is no official source, therefore anything so far is speculation, however, users have stated that it could possibly refer to Ichigo's bleached hair. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
From my own reading of the manga, Kubo goes out of his way to use certain verbs at key points in the manga (someru, to dye, and sarasu, to bleach) in reference to conflicts between good and evil. Due to that, I'd thought the title was a reference to "cleaning" evil, although I've never tried to search for any sources. Maybe we should look around in Japanese... or do you know that Kubo has never said anything about it? Dekimasuよ! 02:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
In Bleach, black and white have reversed symbolism. "To bleach" would figuratively mean a decent into darkness. And, yes, Ichigo's hair color is a bleached, peroxide strawberry blonde. –Gunslinger47 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I am pretty sure Ichigo's hair is supposed to be that color naturally. Dekimasuよ! 16:02, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It's said pretty early on, isn't it, that his hair is naturally orange? Karin's hair is really light, and his mother's hair was light too, so it could be a reference to people thinking his hair is bleached, but it's not a reference to him bleaching his hair. Nique talk 16:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it's that color naturally. He says in the 11th episode (according to Lunar Anime's fansub), "With this orange hair, all kinds of things are tougher for me," leading me to believe it's something he has to live with, that's out of his control. Besides, what sick person bleaches their child's hair (referring to when Masaki was still alive). Some theories I've heard state that "Bleach" has to do with the "bleached" color a ghost is, or how the shinigami "bleach" the hollows into normal spirits. Another one, which is rather interesting, is that Tite Kubo is a big Nirvana fan, and named the series after their debut album, "Bleach". I'm not saying I support both of these, just saying what I've heard. Jezebel Parks 19:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
I was speaking strictly of its color. It is identically colored to peroxide strawberry blonde, despite being his freakishly natural color. –Gunslinger47 19:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

the name "bleach" is clearly a double entendre of sorts, reffering both literally to the presumption that ichigo (and indeed orihime) have "bleached" hair color, and also to the fact that as a soul reaper one "bleaches" the hollows. 67.175.45.179 05:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] illegal to gain powers?

in the article about shinigamis it says this : "A group of shinigami known as the vizard have also obtained hollow powers through illegal means," should illegal really be the right word to use? Letuce 21:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the manga stated this. There is really no other word I can think of except perhaps forbidden. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
um i could view forbidden as being a better word, but from what i get out of the story of getting vizard powers... they arent really doing anything wrong from what i can tell... Letuce 00:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
The shinigami have killed people for lesser offenses. –Gunslinger47 00:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

well the vizard are actually NEVER referred to by any of the soul reapers in the entire gotei 13 at any point in the entire storyline thus far, but PRESUMABLY it is one of their overly strict rules - remember they were going to kill rukia for ACCIDENTALLY giving a human her powers *in order to save the human's life from a hollow*, a seemingly irrational sentence indeed. so it would appear that they would definitely look down on "becoming more hollow esque" as something inherently disgraceful, and impure, and so punishable/forbidden/illegal/etc. 67.175.45.179 05:08, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change Title

Instead of Bleach(manga) -- it'll be better to refer to Bleach(anime). After all, the Bountou did not appear in the manga (or as far as I know). KyuuA4 16:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The manga was the original medium (most important factor), is the furthest ahead in terms of storyline, and is possibly the most popular medium as well. Hence, manga instead of anime, and why it should stay that way. (Also, please create new discussions at the bottom of the page, or use the little + button next to Edit this Page to create a new Talk discussion in the proper format.) Nique talk 17:07, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
We cover content not yet in the anime, so that would be equally inaccurate. Nique has it right, the manga is the original material and has priority because of that. --tjstrf talk 17:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Bleach (manga)/Archive 3#Bleach (manga) vs. Bleach (series). –Gunslinger47 02:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
how about Bleach(manga/anime) ?? Letuce 07:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
But why? Anyone reading it will know that it encompasses the manga, the anime, as well as the musical and the games. It should stay (manga), for the reasons outlined in the above-linked discussion. Just because it doesn't say "anime" in the title, doesn't mean it's excluding the anime, it just means the anime didn't come first. Nique talk 14:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify the earlier debate: there was no consensus to move, therefor it stayed. –Gunslinger47 23:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
No consensus here, perhaps, but when the issue was brought up at the project page they endorsed the title and we are currently used as an example on WP:MANGA for dealing primarily with the original form of the subject:
"Article introductions should be primarily about the first format of a work (usually manga) and not about the most popular format of that work (usually anime). For example: "Bleach is a manga series, that was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name." In cases where title disambiguation is necessary, a similar guideline should be followed."
So I'm pretty certain that we are at the correct title right now. --tjstrf talk 05:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

i really don't see anything wrong or misleading whatsoever about doing "Bleach (manga/anime)" after all 'manga' still has precedence, and that clears up the whole bount issue too. 67.175.45.179 05:09, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so as I see it, these are the two best options (in my opinion, at least): 1) Leave it the way it is, or 2) Change it to Bleach (series) so that we don't have to worry about forgeting about the musical, or the games, or the anime, or anything. Fair enough? // DecaimientoPoético 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am for keeping it the way it is. This article is about the manga and its plot (this includes anime additions), it doesn't talk about the musical or games except to mention that they exist as other related products. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:31, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also for keeping it the way it is. The plot changes between the manga and anime are very minor, and it seems fair to give precedence to the format that spawned the franchise. Other articles that employ "series" in the name (usually about video games) are separate from articles about the individual formats and are set up more like what we have at Bleach media and materials. They tend to just explain what the different formats are. Dekimasuよ! 04:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs a plot summary

In all honesty, this article should have a summary of its' plot. For gods' sake, even Naruto has its' plot summarized weekly. Anyone with me on this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.55.218.183 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. Not only is extensive plot summary verboten according to policy, but we already have a nice episode list. For information from the manga, it is just as little work to download the manga and read it than it is to read a plot summary we wrote, and more complete and accurate. --tjstrf talk 00:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Plot sections are really only needed in cases like Neon Genesis Evangelion where you have people searching Wikipedia trying to find out what the hell just happened. The plot of Bleach is pretty straight forward, however, so I fail to see the need for one.
Out of curiosity, what use would you have for a plot summary? –Gunslinger47 17:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
If you really need one, here's a one sentence summary of Bleach: Ichigo and his friends travel from world to world rescuing their compananions, meeting well-drawn people with unique and varied character designs, breaking things, and occasionally encountering unexpected plot twists. --tjstrf talk 18:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
we have an introduction, therefore a plot summary is not needed (this being the main page and all).--88wolfmaster 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree we should have a plot summary, significantly abridged form of the manga. an episode list just does not cut it i'm afraid. and it is a lot more accessible for newbies to read about a plot on wikipedia than to hunt down scanlations of manga, for sure. it might inspire people to go out and BUY some manga volumes, if we had a decent plot article. 67.175.45.179 05:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out a number of times, and with good reason, we don't need a plot summary. To sum it up: anyone that interested in the plot can read or watch the series themselves (in another discussion you mention learning Japanese; there are scanslations out there for people who don't know it), and anyone who's read or watched the series or who just doesn't care about the plot will find the plot summary useless. Just because it's true doesn't mean it needs to be included on Wikipedia. We should stick to the intro and the sheer volume of plot covered on the episodes page and the character pages. Nique talk 15:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:GA?

While it will always need updating and tweaking, Bleach (manga) has long settled into relatively stability. We currently meet most of the content criteria for Wikipedia:Good Article status (take a look at similarly classed Elfen Lied and Death Note), and it would be great if we could undergo a preliminary review for promotion sometime in the next week or so.

Earlier today I took a look at the organization setup given at WP:MANGA, which we are expected to comply with in order to earn Good Article status, and saw that brief descriptions of the main characters are expected. To avoid excessive length, we should probably summarize the characters in a few sentences or short paragraph each. --tjstrf talk 20:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a list of things that needed to be done, and this was one of them... it must be in the archive now. But as I said in the "Improving attribution" section above, this can't get to GA status without citations. Almost all of the content description in the article is completely unsourced. Dekimasuよ! 02:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Could somebody who can actually tolerate Rukia's character please write her a brief character summary? Everything I'm coming up with is decidedly negative POV. --tjstrf talk 23:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
We worked quite hard to make the main article spoiler-free. I hope it can stay that way. –Gunslinger47 00:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, I'm trying. It's pretty hard to write about Urahara without giving spoilers, but I think I managed pretty well by simply saying he's a mastermind who knows a lot about the spiritual world. --tjstrf talk 00:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
How about overviewing the characters from an out-of-universe perspective? Explain their significance to the series and their importance to the narrative. In a general sense. For example, Rukia's situation at the end of the introductory arcs is rather complicated and doesn't really need an explanation here. What's important is it serves to pit Ichigo against Soul Society, setting up the first real antagonists of the series. Prior to that, you just had the (predominantly) unorganized hollows, who stood as mostly generic menaces.
That aside, explaining who she is rather than what she did might prove more valuable. She is a 300 year old woman (despite her adolescent frame) who grew up, orphaned in the slums of Soul Society. She has an almost sibling relationship with Renji. She suffered great trauma from the death of her idol/crush Kaien, but Ichigo slowly rescues her from her depression. Something like that. –Gunslinger47 02:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Mentioning that she pits Ichigo vs. SS doesn't make much sense unless/until we update the introduction section to say that he has to go rescue her. Otherwise, though, that is a sensible group of things to add. --tjstrf talk 02:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
An out-of-universe perspective would be great, but that requires sourcing too. We are probably safe if we say "protagonist" or "antagonist", but sentences like the one I added to the bottom of the character types section several months ago when I was new to the site ("Encounters between roaming and displaced characters are a driving plot force in Bleach.") aren't really acceptable without attribution. Dekimasuよ! 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Shh!!! If you don't mention it then maybe we can keep it in based on it being true rather than attributable! :) --tjstrf talk 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
But really, if this article is going to be ready to for good article status, we should thoroughly cite the plot points from the manga itself (that should be fairly easy) and track down as many third-party sources as possible. I'd also suggest that we should send this to peer review before sending it to GA review. This article is often listed in the top 150 Wikipedia searches, so we would probably get some responses there. Dekimasuよ! 02:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think any other Good Articles use the plot citation system, but it certainly wouldn't hurt anything since we are a bit short on cites in general in this article. The only other place I know that uses plot citations is Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy, and they take the imo slightly insane step of putting HUGE quotes of game dialogue into the references. But hey, they practically have half their articles featured, so they must be doing something right. --tjstrf talk 03:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am terrible at writing personality descriptions. Will someone give me a hand in the short description for Kurosaki ichigo and Kuchiki Rukia? I also left some "invisible" commentary under Rukia concerning something I want to add but think may be considered spoilers. Take a look and tell me what you think. 71.226.56.79 01:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The only note currently there is asking for infomation on her personality. The summary provided does not require this so I removed the note.--88wolfmaster 05:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I dealt with the request already. My apologies, I should have said something so that you didn't waste your time. --tjstrf talk 05:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It was not a waste of my time.--88wolfmaster 06:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

i take an issue with calling renji abarai an "elite" shinigami. at the time he is introduced, he's hardly that. 67.175.45.179 05:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Lies and deceit! Have you considered how many Shinigami there are? Kenpachi's duel with the previous 11th captain was overseen by at least 200 men, and there are 13 divisions plus their support staff and the other groups of shinigami like the covert ops. At minimum that gives us a couple thousand shinigami, probably far more. Now, of all those shinigami, Renji is ranked within the top 26.
Really, people... Renji may have a reputation among the fans as a jobber, but saying he wasn't an elite is just silly. (I'd argue that even Hanataro is an elite shinigami, seeing as he's a seated officer.) --tjstrf talk 04:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two wording disputes in the character summaries

There appear to be two disputes in the character summaries that I can't see a simple way to deal with by rewording, so I'm bringing them here.

  1. How do we describe the process by which Ichigo becomes a real shinigami? I prefer withstanding death to unlock his own shinigami abilities because it gives a concise but accurate summary of what he actual did in order to gain them. 71.226.56.79 prefers to just say by unlocking his own latent abilities but I'm not going to put words in his mouth as to why.
  2. Uryu: The last Quincy or supposedly the last Quincy? I wrote the former, because that is how he introduces himself and because the "supposedly" is sort of odd sounding. Additionally, he is one of the two contenders for the title and if you listen to Uryu's definition then he is the last because his father isn't active and doesn't uphold the traditions. Ryuken says he's the last Quincy because even though he doesn't like the title he is the only current Quincy to master every technique.

Comments? --tjstrf talk 02:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ishida is a Quincy, and Ichigo is a shinigami. We already have the introduction. We should write the sections from an absolute context if we can, not just in a style of plot introduction/overview. –Gunslinger47 03:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly I kind of like it the way it is now as "Uryū Ishida is actually a Quincy, descendant of a line of priest-like hollow hunting archers." It avoids the problem entirely. You could probably also get around it by saying he introduces himself as the last Quincy. I consider both Ryuken and Uryū Quincy because they both have the powers. 71.226.56.79 17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant to the main article whether Ishida is the last Quincy or not. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

One other thing not related to the above but could cause a wording dispute later: I used "dimensional" when describing the "fabric" that separates the places in the settings section. While I don't know if it's official wording, it is more clarifying than the vague standalone word "fabric." Per WP:Bold I went ahead and did it anyway. Don't hold your peace if you object. 71.226.56.79 17:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

1. I would have to go with by unlocking his own latent abilities just cause it doesn't give away to much plot. 2. There is no need to avoid the subject, Uryu is the last Quincy (whether his father practices or not) because he is the last of thier family line.--88wolfmaster 05:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

are you referring to when rukia makes ichigo a shinigami, or when urahara re-makes him a shinigami? in the first case, clearly ichigo is NOT "unlocking his latent powers", in the second case he definitely is. in the first case he is just TAKING OVER someone else's powers. 67.175.45.179 05:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something I'm confused about: Flying characters

I have been slightly confused about this for a while. Why is it that some characters appear to be able to "fly" some of the time, but not other times. Two particular instances that strike me are Ikkaku Madarame in episode 118 and 119 (I guess this could be part of his bankai), and Ichigo while fighting the bad guy (name escapes me) in the Sealed Sword Frenzy OVA. I will assume that the vizard and the arrancar have some sort of natural ability to do that since D-roy said something like that when fighting Rukia, but what about the shinigami? The way it looks to me is that they kind of force the air to solidify under their feet when "flying" rather than actually floating or hovering. Is this present in the Manga? Has anyone else been kind of confused about this of is it just me? 71.226.56.79 18:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely present in the manga. In fact, the first use was in Ichigo's fight vs. Acid Wire when he recovered from a blow by braking against the air. It's not actually flight though, but rather running/walking/standing on the air using their spirit energy. The "air-stepping" technique is presumably part of the same class of technique as shunpo, so they are concentrating reiatsu at their feet to form a surface to stand on just like shunpo concentrates reiatsu in the feet to accelerate them. (I'm assuming it's in the same group as shunpo because the Quincy skill hirenkyaku does both.) --tjstrf talk 21:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems spiritual matter can move through solid matter, so where you stand in relationship to the ground is somewhat irrelevant. It appears easier to push off of solid matter or other spiritual matter, however. Especially for travelling over a distance, as evidenced by the necessity for Yoruichi's wing-thing that she gave Ichigo in episode 41. –Gunslinger47 07:02, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References formatting problems

I think we need to change the standard reference format for the manga citations. Since we necessarily rely on manga scans at least for recent information which is not yet compiled into volumes, the current format is unacceptable both because it makes all the page numbers inaccurate when we convert from the previously used volume, chapter, page form and because it is inapplicable to all chapters which have not been republished in tankobon form yet. And yes, the page citations are necessary. --tjstrf talk 01:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have changed them somewhat before readding them, because I noticed the problem with the chapter numbering, but since all of the citations are from the tankōbon, we should be able to use the exact tankōbon page numbering. The problem is that if we cite individual chapters, we should be citing Shōnen Jump instead. That's actually no problem at all for new stuff; I buy it almost every week. Just let me know if something is needed. Since my manga volumes are in a different country from me, though, it would be nice if someone could figure out the correct page numbers from the tankōbon for the citations we already have. Dekimasuよ! 01:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I mostly agree with you in principle, but think that the chapter reference does need maintained in some form or another even if we do convert to volume page numbering. Looking at what you've done, that does seem like a good temporary solution.
Another possibility I'd thought of, considering that the actual names of the volumes are not "Volume X" but rather things like "Quincy Archer Hates You" was making use of our List of Bleach manga chapters and section anchors (either the arc ones or {{anchor}}) to create a format like this:
Bleach manga volume 4, chapter 28, page 18.
Then the ISBN numbers in both Japanese and English, actual volume title, etc. would all be available by following a simple link at the bottom of the page. Full and precise information could then be incorporated without being messy. --tjstrf talk 02:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I think the references should be self-sufficient. Linking the article on the chapters as an addition is a good idea, but I think the citations on this page itself need to retain all of the information necessary to verify the information on the page, including the author and publisher. For the time being, I'll get the tankōbon page numbers the next time I'm at Book-Off. Dekimasuよ! 02:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edits to make this a GA

Ok here are some suggestion I have to raise this to a good article

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

[edit] Notes on kanji and voice actors

We had decided previously not to use kanji on any series-specific words that have their own pages. However, we've added the kanji for Ichigo's name when we already link to Ichigo's article, where that information can be found. I think using the kanji for the main characters is a good exception to the rule, but I think care should be taken that it doesn't spread to every term throughout the article.

Also, I don't think it is mandated by WP:MANGA to show the names of the voice actors on this page, as long as they are shown on a page. When the contents of the article become so long that we have to break out new articles, it is up to us what remains in the summary on the main page. Personally, I think it is good to have the names of the voice actors on this page too, but I don't know if we need to use the template. If we can incorporate them back into the main text, we can more easily use a bulleted list without breaks like the one we used for the other sections, to keep the formatting consistent throughout the article. Dekimasuよ! 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm. I have no strong stance for or against either of them, despite my edit. –Gunslinger47 02:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep the voice actor names, they are to the side and out of the way.--88wolfmaster 02:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Bulleting

We need to have a short summary above the listings for each character, just as we have a short summary above the listings for each character type and each location. Once that is added, it will look better to have a bulleted list that mirrors the formatting of the other sections, because otherwise the headings won't appear to be broken-out text. I'm not going to readd the bulleting now, but I'd like to see posts on the talk page first to discuss new edits rather than seeing reversions... especially since there are so many big changes going on here at the moment. Dekimasuよ! 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I seems that definition lists work best for the characters because there is quite of bit of text on the first line. For the other two sections, the bullet lists look better because their section names are only one or two word. The surrounding paragraphs also give a nice framing effect. I don't believe there is any reason to have all three lists use the same list type. –Gunslinger47 02:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
That's part of what I'm saying. There should be surrounding paragraphs for the section on the characters as well. I also suggest that even if we retain the information, we shouldn't retain the animevoices template, which eliminates the extra text. Incorporating the voice actor information into the character descriptions also encourages the necessary out-of-universe perspective. Dekimasuよ! 02:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you remember when we talked about having the sections for main characters and character types merged into "characters", with the current sections as subsections? Maybe we should work on that now. In any case, I am also starting to wonder if the character types section should be above the section on the main characters. The character types section explains a lot of the information necessary to understand the descriptions of the characters. As it stands, we say that Ishida is a Quincy before we explain what a Quincy is. Dekimasuよ! 02:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
if you wish to talk about this lets talk about this. A non bulleted list just looks more professional. the titles/names clearly stand out. in reguards to a short summary for the character section i believe its not necessary because main characters is straight forward and should need no explaination. in reguards to the summary for the setting section it needs editing because it does not properly lead into / transition to the specific settings. voice actors need to be included (i'm impartial as to how as long as its not overbearing). character types would go better before main characters but not merged (as that would just be confusing).--88wolfmaster 02:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You might want to make it a little easier in your posts to see what you are stating as opinion and what you think is grounded in policy or guidelines. I've already stated above that voice actors do not need to be included based on the guidance of WP:MANGA. It wouldn't be a straight merge; rather, it would be reorganized into subsections. Since we are linking to a main article, we need to summarize the contents of that main article rather than starting a list at the beginning of the section. It is also an opportunity, if done correctly, to explain why the characters that are in the section are there. People adding, deleting, or reordering characters in the main characters section is one of the major problems that we have with this article.
I disagree that a non-bulleted list looks more professional; however, WP:MOS states that there shouldn't be bulleting if every paragraph in the section is bulleted, so I am content with leaving it out until a summary (which I believe is needed) goes in. Dekimasuよ! 02:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
i've voiced my opinions and all i asked is that they be considered. Moreover just because you do not have to include voice actors does not mean that you have to exclude them either. I am more than happy to concede to your subsection idea if that is the consensus. i dont care about the particular format as much as having a well orgainized, straightforward, and easy to read/understand article.--88wolfmaster 03:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I already said this in the section above, but I believe having voice actor information is good for the page, just not required. The template is not required. Dekimasuよ! 03:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IGN reviews: Reliable? Worth mentioning?

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

While I'm on the subject, [2] looks like it might have some decent stuff. (For instance, Bleach Volume 17 was apparently #1 manga in North American sales this February.) --tjstrf talk 21:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD on List of Bleach story arcs

Despite the long-standing consensus against it, a user just created the article List of Bleach story arcs to hold Bleach plot summary. I have nominated it for deletion. Please express your opinions there. --tjstrf talk 08:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just one comment: while I previously thought that the arc titles were unable to be attributed, they are used on the DVDs (at least in Japan), and therefore do have some basis in fact. Dekimasuよ! 02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Oy. Thanx for letting me know about this one. I also don't see much of a point to give a detailed summary of a pretty straight forward anime like this. Though there are a few that leave me going "WTF just happend?", bleach isn't one of them. -Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 03:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info on Title Songs

Hey all, I was wondering where that should be put, the media article, or the main article? Just H 23:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bleach media and materials –Gunslinger47 00:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shinigami

Why is every practically every single mention of shinigami on the page in italics when every single other page doesn't follow this standard? Sephiroth BCR 03:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Bleach (manga)#Italics above, as well as a few notes on the talk page above that. Since that time I did ask for clarification at WP:MOS-JP as well, and it appears that the wording that will enter the Japanese MOS is that we should follow the main manual of style, which mandates italics. If there are any cases on the page now of "shinigami" (without italics), please let me know. Dekimasuよ! 03:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem if that's the accepted policy. I'm merely pointing to basically every other mention of shinigami in character articles, conceptual articles (zanpakutō, kidō, etc.), and other Bleach articles that does not use shinigami in italics. The consistency simply seems odd. Sephiroth BCR 06:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
It's probably because I'm the person who was strongly in favor of putting the italics in place here, and I only regularly edit three or four other Bleach-related articles. I believe they should be italicized in those articles too, as should zanpakutō and kidō. Dekimasuよ! 06:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I find it visually disruptive to the extreme. But then, I also put commas outside of quotation marks, so whatever. --tjstrf talk 06:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions please

I don't know how I found it, but I happened to stumble across List of Bleach cast members. I didn't even know that it existed until just five minutes ago. Am I the only one who thinks the list is pointless and should be redirected or deleted? Should we work to improve it instead of redirecting/deleting it? // DecaimientoPoético 17:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know its purpose, but it was created by the CanisRufus bot. Presumably there was a purpose. You might want to ask the bot's designer. –Gunslinger47 18:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
That CanisRufus bot has been taking away categories like "Bleach Cast Members", "Fullmetal Alchemist Cast Members", "Naruto Cast Members" and so on from all the voice actors/seiyuu that I watch. I really would like to know why he feels the need to remove those categories just to make a page which is totally unneeded. We already state on the character articles who does the voices, so it's just another redundant page. Jezebel Parks 20:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, about that. There was a mass CfD a while back that decided against having any more voice actors by series categories since they were cluttering the pages of the voice actors. I probably should've mentioned this earlier since I knew, but I spaced it out. As for the list, I'll redirect it to the main media and materials page. --tjstrf talk 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hōgyoku vs Orb of Distortion

Obligatory topic start in the hopes that something is accomplished.

Which should be used? The latter is commonly used now. I personally find it more understandable when the term's in English. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Stay with Orb of Distortion until we find out what the English dub uses. If they went with the Japanese version, then switch to Hōgyoku. --tjstrf talk 01:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
There is precedent on Bleach articles for using the Japanese terms instead of the English (shinigami, kidō, etc.). We want to be consistent in these things, so changing to/using the English would mean changing instances of "shinigami" to "death god", and "kidō" to "demon arts", among other changes, and innumerable edits to pretty much every article relating to the Bleach universe to change all of them. Hasn't the English manga reached the point where the item in question is talked about? And does the English manga consistently use the Japanese terms like shinigami and kidō?
Personally, it doesn't much matter to me which we use, as long as it's consistent across all relevant terms and articles. Nique talk 01:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The anime's actually better about preserving terms. The manga changes them more often, such as shinigami and zanpakuto. If the anime goes with Hōgyoku, I'd be fine with changing it, but for the moment Orb of Distortion is slightly less confusing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The entire point of translating terms is to make them more understandable to English readers. If the translations don't do a good job of informing (as in death god), or even if they hamper understanding (as in demonic arts) then I definitely favor the original Japanese terms. How that applies to the current situation, I'm undecided. –Gunslinger47 02:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The translated and untranslated terms are about equal there imo. The literal meaning of "crumbling jewel" is actually the most accurate representation of what it does in English. Not in the normal sense of crumbling, where it would mean "A jewel that is disintegrating", but in the alternate sense where it would mean "A jewel that disintegrates/causes disintegration". It disintegrates the barrier between hollow and shinigami. --tjstrf talk 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
As you already know, I'm for Hōgyoku. Not because I prefer it, but for consistency and a precise reason. On every page, we rightly use "shinigami", "zanpakutō", "kidō", "bankai" etc. and to me Hōgyoku it's not different. They aren't japanese words, but Bleach specific keywords. Lord Air 02:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Shikai and bankai are written initial and final release, actually. --tjstrf talk 02:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Ow, you are right. Thanks for pointing that out, I was under the impression that "Bankai" was used somewhere. Anyway, that's another reason to make things clear and consistent. We should translate every one of them, or none.Lord Air 02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
And the same argument, can be used with spanish keywords in Bleach. If we use "Espada", why we don't use "Resurrección" instead of "Arrancar release" ?Lord Air 02:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I personally just use English equivalents when the Spanish terms are so close in pronunciation. Resurrection. Negation. Vast Lord. Etc. –Gunslinger47 04:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

As many editors here know, I'm staunchly in favour of using purely English terms for everything. However, here are some points to consider (from/for both sides of the argument):

  • Someone said there is a precedent of using Japanese terms on Wikipedia. In fact, there is no such precedent. Shinigami was used because of a straw poll conducted a long time ago. Demon arts, and not kidō, was used until very recently. Same with initial and final release.
  • There is a guideline on Wikipedia to use the most common term. Usuaully that is the Japanese term at the moment, but that is slowly going to change with the English dub progressing. Except for Japanese terms which the English dub uses. This is precisely why "demon arts" was changed to kidō - with the English dub using this term already, there is no reasonable chance that "demon arts" will ever become the most common form. However, this does not apply to the term soul reaper/shinigami.
  • When using Japanese terms, there is a guideline on Wikipedia to always use italics. This is fairly inconvenient.
  • English terms are understandable to an audience that does not consist only of existing Bleach fans.
  • Consistency here is a relative term. You can, for example, use Japanese-only terms for consistency within Wikipedia, but then you wouldn't be consistent with, say, the English dub, and therefore (at least eventually) likely violate the guideline of preferring the most common term. Also you'd be violating the guideline saying to prefer the English term when possible.
  • On the other hand, most common is not always correct/official. This is one reason why many supported using shinigami over "soul reaper" in the beginning. Soul reaper doesn't explain anything. However, correctness is important. That's why it's Soifon, not Soi Fong (the most common version). By the way we have yet to see what the English dub makes of her name.
  • If we are to go for correctness, in combination with following Wikipedia's guidelines of using the English term if possible, you'd want to look at the English version of the manga, which translates all terms. There you will not see things like zanpakutō, kidō and shinigami. This is incidentally the system I support. However, many oppose it on the grounds that it's very difficult to come up with an accurate translation of certain terms, such as hōgyoku.

Please consider all these points (and more which I probably forgot) before forming a final opinion. Unfortunatly this will probably be solved with a straw poll in the end. One reason that's bad is that I have noticed a trend where many anime 'otakus' who know absolutely no Japanese (except words like kawaii and yarō - a level above the usual arigatō and sayōnara) support using all-Japanese terms. I'm not talking only about Bleach and only about Wikipedia, so please don't take offense in what I said (those who support using all-Japanese). This cannot be good. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:53, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say on Wikipedia as a whole, I said within Bleach articles, since we do use shinigami and kidō, among others. Just to set that straight. >.> Nique talk 19:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying, although even so, there is no such precedent. We used demons arts until recently and all the other terms I outlined. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I like having the Japanese terms, but I insist on having a glossary. And if I term does not have its own article then you link the term to the glossary. And if the term's page doesn't include in the lead both Japanese and English terms then I just include it. This way, in my opinion at least, helps keep Japanese roots, and make the series more understandable if you watch the subs without being terribly confusing to the English-speaking, dub-watching fans.--88wolfmaster 22:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I would support a glossary on a Bleach information site, as it may be the easiest way to get people to understand terms, but this is non-encyclopedia. Maybe it's better fit for WikiBooks. But anyway, most terms are explained in depth on at least one page. We just need to link to that page. For example, as it stands now, Orb of Distortion should link to Kisuke Urahara#Inventions. How many such links do you see? I think that is one of our main problems. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 00:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/l/e/Talk%7EBleach_%28manga%29_22bc.html"