Talk:List of Bleach characters

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sephiroth BCR (talk | contribs) at 06:01, 11 March 2008 (→‎Return to cleanup: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconAnime and manga: Bleach Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Bleach work group.

Merge and Clean Up Suggestions

I've made the first round of merge suggestions to get all of the Bleach character lists combined into a single list. I've seen the above discussions, and the only reason this list is so long is because it seems to contain just about every character that ever even sort of appeared in the show. Wikipedia is not a series guide and every character should NOT be included in any of these lists, just the major, significant, and notable characters should be listed (see WP:FICT, WP:N, WP:V, Anime MOS, and TV MOS). All of the individual character articles also need to be merged into the list. They fail WP:N and few, if any, would survive an AfD (as has already been seen in many recent character and episode article deletions). Fancruft and massive character articles are not appropriate on Wikipedia. Such detailed articles would be more appropriate in a Bleach wiki, one of the many anime wikis out there, or a Bleach fan site. Collectonian 11:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You probably missed the entire big conversation the Bleach editors did a couple of weeks ago.--Hanaichi 13:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read back, but I don't see anything actually addressing these issues that was then implemented. Collectonian 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest we just ignore all the merge suggestions unless they are willing to not just give every article an AFD. Let's be civil, people, not wild animals listening only to their own opinions. P.S. I don't support merging Kon, even someone with the English manga can get out-of-universe info for him, and you must be crazy to think you can put the List of Bleach shinigami page here, but the rest go ahead. Except the seven listed as main, Kenpachi, Byakuya, Toshiro, Kon, Aizen, and Ichimaru, and mabye Yoruichi, merge them all. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, yes, I am willing to (and will) AfD them all if no signs of a willingness to clean up the article and all the little break out articles is shown. The articles need to brought in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. The merge suggestion is a way to give y'all some chance to keep whats in the other articles (in an appropriate form), and the attempt to be nice about it. With an AfD, you just lose them all and have to restart this list from scratch. My merge suggestions (and offer to help) are an attempt to let editors be proactive in taking care of the problems rather than just losing it all. Recent AfD have axed numerous character pages from anime, video games, and TV shows (even Star Trek pages). So it is extremely unlikely that any of these separate pages would survive. Keep in mind, the character information should give a general over view of each character, not minute details regurgitating every last second they appear in the series. And, FYI, the manga itself does not count as "real world" information. Real world is outside of the primary source. For Bleach, the anime and manga are primary sources and in-universe. Collectonian 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I tried putting up a secondary character, and the fan reaction was quite hideous. You might have better results, though. TTN 20:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you admitted to nominating it just to make a point. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Entirely agree with a clean out of minor characters. We don't need to know the names of the skateboarders who piss Ichigo off in chapter 1. ~SnapperTo 19:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Minor characters are not notable enough for inclusion in a character list and those should be axed ASAP. Then go from there to clean up the rest. Collectonian 20:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of characters, most of whom are at least somewhat relevant to the series. A single list would be needlessly long, when forks can be made, and are encouraged, to reduce such things. Not that the pages couldn't be trimmed, of course, but not to the point that they should be stuffed into a single list. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would be for the seperation but trimming, along with Someguy. One list equals a very long article, which isn't needed. The one thing I am adament against is deletion. The histories are needed.--TheUltimate3 22:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t believe you would have to worry about deletion. A character list, unless is is really, really full of pointless crap (plot summary does not fall under that), is unlikely to ever be deleted. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he meant this list. You are correct, it is unlikely to be deleted, nor should it be, though without some serious clean up, anything is possible if Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Warcraft characters (2nd nomination) is any example. The individual character articles are all highly deletable and most (if not all) would probably fail under an AfD. Hence my suggestions for pruning and merging so the histories can be kept, while also providing a more appropriate article for Wikipedia.
Minor characters are not notable, and there should be none in character lists. A glut of minor and subcharacter lists are currently up in AfD now, including several anime related ones from series as big, or bigger, than Bleach like InuYasha and Sailor Moon. Wikipedia is not a directory of every character in a series. For this level of detail, again, it would be better served in a Bleach or anime wiki or other fan site. If the minor characters were axed out of all of the lists, and the individual descriptions cleaned up, there is no reason that the Bleach characters can not all fit into a single article, despite the length of the show. Collectonian 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree that the character articles would fail AfD. I might even vote merge (sans Grimm as I voted). As for the lists, however, a quick overview of AfD shows maybe ten (I only did two days, guessing at number), two of which you just put up, and the East-Enders being understandably insignificant. Of those I checked, I see maybe two failing. This goes into my point, which is that the failing criteria is that the lists are inherently all minor characters, while these three lists are largely notable characters with minor ones tossed in. I doubt a single one would fail AfD, with merge being the likely worst-case. There's no reason to lump characters onto a single page. It's a hindrance, navigationally speaking, and it aids readers to track through specialized lists. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The average reader who has no clue about the show would find the specialized lists more confusing. How are they supposed to know where to find information about certain characters if they are relatively new to the show and have no idea what each of the categories is. A well done article could easily accommodate all of the characters in a single list if the effort were made to do so. As it stands now, a reader may have to read through six different articles to get an over view of the show characters. That, to me, is a hindrance. Collectonian 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways it's one, in others…you get the idea. For the uninitiated, it might be a problem to look through several different pages. Then again, people generally have an idea of what they're looking at when visiting any given article, even if it's at the most basic level. As for the six pages things, You seem to be blowing it out of proportion a bit. assuming you make your way from the main article, or even a sub, it's three at the most unless you've no clue what you're looking for. The way I see it, a bit of page jumping is a small price for helpful forking. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) To the Warcraft example, from what I've seen, character lists for video games, short of things like Halo, are generally hard to justify as pages. That deletion doesn't particularly surprise me. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, though interestingly for the Warcraft one, it came after individual character articles were getting AfDed and a merge was suggested, now the merged article is also up for AfD. *doh* Collectonian 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, a lot has changed since I participated in the September discussion. I think that we should keep the character list, and especially the Quincy (Bleach) article seeing as that itself has the descriptions and history of the Quincy. As for Shinji and Hanataro, I really think its time to reconsider merging them. Having a single long list of characters might be VERY tedious and tiring to read, and thats why we seperated them in the first place.--Hanaichi 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mergings can work for some of the articles but not with the Shinigami article. Even a newcomer to the series would know enough or relatively come quick to the conclusion that the character they're looking for would be a shinigami or not. The soul reapers are a class of themselves like the hollows, easily identifiable and separate. It would be an annoyance to readers to merge the Shinigami article even if we managed to trim off the unnecessary tidbits and shorten prose. Basically it's just an overload of information. That's also putting aside that the series is still on-going and info is constantly being updated whenever coming up. Fox816 02:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just removed some unmentionables. Preparing to merge some characters. P.S., when I referred to Kon, I meant at the end of several volumes is something called "Radio Kon Baby", where Kon and another character answer a series of fan mail sent by fans of the series about the other character hosting. This counts as out-of-universe info. He scored high in popularity polls during the first part of the serries, and people even sent their own versions of Kon dolls they made to Kudo. Kon has out-of-universe info we haven't even listed yet. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having the character break the fourth wall does not have anything to do with the real world. It may work as supplemental info, though. Real world info would be things such as the creation of Kon's initial concept, personality, design, ect, how the fans have reacted (contests and dolls would work well here, but they cannot be the only things present), how reviewers/critics have reacted, and anything else like that. TTN 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could put him under others, he really is nothing but a comdy act in the anime, he never really inhabaits Ichigo's body we could list him under the modified souls section with Ririn, Kuroud and Noba.Ultimaterasengan (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is the consensus not to merge the Shinigami list because that's what it looks like to me and if that is the case then maybe fix the merge template?? Sasuke9031 (talk) 09:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can't tell. I think some of the discussion was on characters, but I have no idea who thought what about the Shinigami. For now, I'd be fine with removing it from the merge discussion and focusing on individual character articles and the bount list.Collectonian (talk) 10:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I brought it up earlier but there wasn't much play on it. Either way, the Shinigami list should remain independant from the rest. We've been workin on cleaning it up this past few weeks and it's still far too large to merge it. As well, I pointed out that the Shinigami are basically a class of their own. Like the hollows, it's best to keep them separate. Fox816 (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So here's a question...why does Kon seem to rate as a race equal to Hallows, Qunicy, Bounts, ect. according to the little Bleach table available at the bottom of some pages? 72.192.206.80 (talk) 09:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final views?

It's been awhile since anyone posted about the merge. If I am reading correctly, Kon's article had a consensus for merge, while the rest I'm not sure. To give a better idea of consensus, please post below with an oppose/support style comment for each article suggested on an individual basis, along with your comments on why you support/oppose. Here, again, are a list of the articles currently suggested for merging:

Collectonian (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • List of Bleach shinigami, support, merge here or maybe rename and expand to include all of the Soul Society characters, with a better introduction
  • List of Bounts in Bleach, support, the only thing this article has is another list of characters that could fit in the current Bount section here with clean up
  • Quincy (Bleach), support, support, if all of the OR and unnecessary content were removed, it would easily fit in the article and as there are only two in the series, there is really no WP:N to stand alone; would also support the suggestion ofmerging into Uryu's article
  • Vizard, support, no reason to have separate, and with some clean up it could easily fit into this article
  • Kon (Bleach), support, individual character fails WP:N and would not pass an AfD. Better to merge than let it get deleted.
I believe all of these articles could be covered with a single article, if steps were taken to cut down the amount of extraneous content, excessive detail, OR speculations, and reduced to proper summary style content both in the individual articles and in this one. Collectonian (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Bleach shinigami, support Collectonian's suggestion to rename it and include all characters in Soul Society, as that would also solve the Soul Society article problem.
  • List of Bounts in Bleach, support, mainly due to the fact that the bounts are not notable, as it was a filler arc.
  • Quincy (Bleach), Not supported. The Quincy are not notable all by themselves I agree, but perhaps to merge into Uryu's article would be a more viable solution?
  • Vizard, support, come on. The only notable Vizard is Ichigo Kurosaki.
  • Kon (Bleach), support. Again, come on. He's not notable. Sasuke9031 (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of Bleach shinigami, Reject Merge - Shinigami are an entire class of their own. Merging would make the Character list unnecessarily long even with information trimming. A renaming wouldn't be a bad idea. The vizard listing could be edged in.
  • Support merge for Kon (Bleach). I'm not sure about the Quincy or Bounts however because of placements. Fox816 (talk) 05:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not doing the point by point. I would agree to merging the description pages into their relevant list articles, as well as some of the characters into list articles. Aside from the Bount, I'm against merging character lists into one another, as they are quite long as is, and trimming alone will not reduce the sheer amount of volume that would result. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I knew how to merge, I'd go ahead and merge Kon, since that's where consensus is heading. Since I don't, if someone could merge him and tell me how to merge on my talk page. Sasuke9031 (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To merge, basically trim down the Kon article to remove any excessive stuff or OR and remove the infobox & image. Then copy/paste what's left into the Kon section here, fix any formatting and grammar to match this page and save. On the Kon page, replace everything but the categories with a Redirect and add {{R from merge}}{{R to list entry}} after the Redirect code. Collectonian (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a suggestion of mine is to merge the Vizard, Quincy, and Bounts into a single article (List of races in Bleach). In doing so, we avoid overcrowding the main character list yet retain more information then we normally would.--Hanaichi 06:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think, if they were cut down some, the general Vizard, Quincy, and Bount could just be nice introductions to those sections of the list. Collectonian (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Doing what Hanaichi suggested would be kind of like what was done with the Espada, which would be something I would totally support. The articles would still be merged, but not as much info would have to be lost. As for Kon, he deserves to be merged here in this article. Sasuke9031 (talk) 03:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus - as it seems consensus is with keeping Bleach shinigami separate, I've gone ahead and removed that one from the merge list. I have started a discussion on that list about the idea of renaming it and expanding it to cover all of the Soul Society. Collectonian (talk) 12:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of some extremely minor characters

I think in a discussion a few weeks ago someone declared that they unilaterally deleted some extremely minor characters, like Mrs. Shinmura and the 3 kids whom Ichigo beat up in the first chapter. While I can understand the reasoning of the user, this is simply unencyclopedic behavior and against the purpose of Wikipedia, which aims to bring comprehensive coverage of its topics. Every series on Wikipedia has a list of minor characters, and in many series they're specially called List of minor characters in Series. If someone is of the opinion that such characters would clutter this page, I propose making a list of minor characters in Bleach, each one with no more than 1-2 lines of text. Examples are the two above, as well as Hiyosu and Akon, Raku the cat, the little girl whom Kon and Matsumoto saved from a hollow, etc. Otherwise, I think the user who made this deletion should repair their damage because it would take much longer for anyone else to do this as they might not know when the edit took place and what exactly was removed.

Again, I do not support providing an in-depth background about every single character, no matter how minor, but they should at least be listed, possibly even without descriptions.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an incorrect sweeping argument. Most shows do NOT have lists of minor characters and all relevant MOS not that minor characters should specifically not be included in the list of characters and only need mention in the episode/volume summaries and if they have had any minor impact in another character's section. It is not unencyclopedic behavior, it is, in fact, in keeping with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information nor is it a guide for shows. That level of minute detail is appropriate and welcome on the Bleach wikia, but not here. The removal of those minor characters was supported by other editors and properly handled. It does not need to be undone at all. Collectonian (talk) 22:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to a manual of style which says that they 'should specifically not be included in the list of characters'. There are some lists, like List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball, which lists ridiculously minor characters like Marron and Akuman, including descriptions which are far too large, same with Selipa and Toma in List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball, whose only purpose was to die (in a 40-minute TV special), etc., and this is after some deletionist crusader removed all the DB/Z character articles (I think each of the above characters had his own article). For other series, Inuyasha has an article for practically every lesser character, such as Ah-Un; Prison Break (not anime) has an article for Pad Man, who is probably on par with Chōjirō Sasakibe in terms of notability. I realize that I haven't provided a true 'list of minor characters' only, but the above were all for series that I know well. For series which I don't watch, here's a short list of such articles, including (for anime), List of minor characters in One Piece, which seems to list just about every character possible. Again though, please point me to a rule about how minor characters should not be included in lists. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a valid argument in a discussion. Minor characters are not notable. Just because fans have made articles doesn't mean they are appropriate. Many such pages have been AfDed, and many more will be heading there as other editors find them, and you might notice that one of those examples you pointed out is already tagged for merging because it shouldn't exist. There are millions of articles on Wikipedia so of course some slip through. As for rule, its call WP:N, with WP:FICTION and the anime and TV MOS's to help some more. Collectonian (talk) 09:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is convenient for you to point to a generic guideline like WP:N to 'prove' your point, except that none of the links you provided states that minor characters should not be listed in a broader list of characters. Please provide evidence for your claims. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just also noticed, WP:FICT's very status as a guideline is disputed, and it has been stripped to a bare-bone version of its former self. Ha! The reason is obvious - because good contributing Wikipedians are fed up with deletionist crusaders trying to delete every article related to fiction. As Jimbo Wales said, the criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not notability. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 10:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire guideline isn't disputed; how to deal with non-notable articles is disputed. Does it immediately go to AfD? Does someone start a merge discussion on its talk page? Does the material get sent to a wikia? etc. ~SnapperTo 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Collectonian on this. The three kids Ichigo beat up in the beginning are just not notable enough to even warrant a section. You can't have every single victim, or monster, or character to be noted down. Such things exist for the wikia. I see List of minor Sailor Moon characters do not have extremly minor characters, like the boy who resembles Shinnosuke from Crayon Shin-chan or the artist who was speculated to be gay. It has characters which appear in a special segment, or recurrs quite a number of times.

A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Currently half of our articles in the Bleach series do not have real world information or reliable sources independent of the subject and not to mention is written in a in universe style. Unless such things could be found, we fail WP:FICT - Editors must prove, preferably in the article itself, that there is an availability of sources providing real-world information by: providing hyperlinks to such sources; outlining a rewrite, expansion, or merge plan; and/or gaining the consensus of established editors. Although WP:FICT is currently disputed, the fact remains clear that we cannot list the extremely minor characters unless they have some sort of real world information or is important to the series.--Hanaichi 11:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about notability for individual sections or, by extension, entire articles. I'm talking about notability to be included for a list. There's no evidence whatsoever that something can be non-notable for a list. Technically, there isn't even a policy or guideline preventing listing of completely ordinary non-notable people, as long as the article's topic is notable. An example is a local town's [insert a sort] team, which is barely notable in itself, but should (for completeness) list its roster, probably consisting of completely non-notable people. You can't try to delete just the roster, because the article would not be complete without it. Same here - in the name of comprehensive coverage, there's no reason not to include each and every character in the series in a list. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 17:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just a random minor league team, it could probably be tagged with {{db-group}} without incident. Even if that weren't the case, a roster isn't necessarily required; knowing that Patré Pickleton plays pitcher doesn't add to your understanding of the team, as you already know that someone will be playing that position. This gets back to WP:NOT#INFO; just because something is true doesn't mean it needs to be mentioned. That Don Kanonji weighs 71kg is interesting I suppose, but how does that really matter to anything? That those skateboarders that pissed Ichigo off have names is perhaps a nice tidbit of information, but why would you need to know their names? They aren't mentioned anywhere else on Wikipedia, and they only appear in the series for four pages. Many things add to an article's "completeness", but very few of those things would actually be missed. ~SnapperTo 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the VA's name is right

I was watching Bleach on the Internet, when I heard Don Kanonji's voice. I know it's the same one that was used in Bo-Bo Bo, so I think the name is wrong. Can anyone tell me if I'm right or not? Neo Guyver (talk) 20:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

With the recent cleanup done to the Naruto characters (resulting in two GAs: Sasuke Uchiha and Sakura Haruno, and Kakashi Hatake at WP:GAN), a similar approach can be taken here.

The following in terms of merges should likely take place. For the sake of brevity, I will point to WP:FICT, as several of the editors here are involved in editing the Naruto characters and are familiar with the reasoning. Taken realistically, the grand majority of the present characters do not meet the aforementioned guideline, and should be merged into a list, as they will likely never survive an AfD. Please note that whether these articles are kept or not depends entirely on the degree of reception they get from reliable independent sources. "Importance" to the plot is irrelevant, "future importance" is original research and speculation, and mere popularity (in other words, solely having the Shonen Jump polls) does not guarantee one an article. Anyhow, the following are my recommendations in terms of merging:

Keep:

Fairly straightforward. Note that characters featured relatively early in the plot stand the best chance of acquiring articles, as they are the ones who get reception from English sources, which is where the entirety of our reception information is coming from.

Ambiguous:

Sado is featured early, but slightly less prominently than his peers. Aizen is probably fine, but I'm iffy as well.

Merge:

All either far too minor, featured far too late for any significant English reception, or both.

How they will be merged, or rather what they will be merged into is one of the subjects of this discussion. The character lists also need major cleanup, but I would rather resolve the issue of merging before moving onto that. Anyway, as for the character articles that stay, they would be reformatted practically the same way as the aforementioned Naruto character GAs, and the in-universe information reduced to a manageable amount. Discuss. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the need to merge, and support merging all of the suggested ones and the ambiguous ones into either this list, or the other appropriate character list. For the keeps...I would agree Ichigo should be able to support a stand alone article. While the others have early appearances, I'm not sure they have the real-world to support, but would agree on giving them a chance. Collectonian (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all those suggested as soon as the ArbCom thing is over. They really aren't all that notable and truly should be merged. If WP:SIZE concerns anyone in terms of merging the shinigami, maybe a major and minor list is in order. Either way, this needs to be done. Sasuke9031 (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Chad and Aizen are worthy of keeping their articles, and I'd argue in favor of Urahara and Grimmjow as well, although there should probably some more out of universe information for all of them if available. The others should definitely be merged in their present state. How Soifon even has an article is beyond me.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think Urahara could sustain an article, though I suppose the amount of mystery surrounding him doesn't help much in that regard. Aizen and Chad should be fine by themselves. ~SnapperTo 06:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Thank you for telling me about this, Sephiroth) I agree with those that have made the keep list, and the two that mabye the iffy list and Urahara should also be considered (not saying yes or no yet, however). I once merged Soifon, Rangiku, and Ukitake, (they were reverted, though) so you could use my old versions to merge them. The rest will be a more difficult matter. Bleach is not as popular a series as Naruto, however, and thus there is not a definite answer to how much info we can find on these characters, so we should see the degree of out-of-universe info about the ones you suggested for keep along with my three iffy ones before we stick to who does get kept and who doesn't. If there is not much, then a merge will be appropriate. This won't be as easy as was Naruto for another reason, and that is that we at the Naruto articles had already finished most of the merging, unlike here. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to post after myself, but if I have read correctly here, article related to televisions series are no longer to be deleted, redirected, merged, unredirected, unmerged, or undeleted until a final decision is made. Until such is made, all we can do is discuss our options. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally, no actual merging will be done until the conclusion of that particular arbitration case, but it doesn't hurt to get the ball moving. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:05, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It also isn't against the injunction to begin including the material into the target article. Merge or no merge, the characters should be summarized on the list anyways. --Farix (Talk) 23:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the requests for clarifications that actually got answered, the merge work in terms of editing and moving in content can be done before the injunction is listed, I think. Its just the merged in articles can't be redirected or deleted, and no new tags added regarding merging or notability. Collectonian (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why some of us are trying to get the ball rolling. The injunction was useful at first, but it's blown into full on annoying. On the hindrance scale, it's about a 7.9. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks pretty solid. There's really nothing more I can add apart from support and helping in the merges. To save on size, we could possibly try keeping the information about individual soul reaper zanpakuto's to a bare minimum seeing as the Zanpakuto have their own article and information is straight-forward and detailed there already. Possibly just a couple of liners of direct info : commands and shikai / bankai forms (not abilities which can be read over in the zanpakuto article). Fox816 (talk) 03:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so y'all know, the injunction ceased to be in effect as of a few hours ago, so if you want to further discuss this and/or merge anything, it's OK now. Thanks for sticking it out through the "Month of Hell" and good luck. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to handle popularity information?

Yesterday I added some info on the popularity pools. Most character articles include notes on their popularity (which I don't think age too well, incidentally, since they use wording such as "the most recent character popularity pool"), and IMNSHO it only makes sense to at least mention the matter here. The Manga itself has at least clear references to those pools, and they are becoming even more proeminent as of late. Despite that, the section was removed very soon. I think it should stay, and welcome suggestions for alternatives. Luis Dantas (talk) 18:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire section is rather short and much of the info provided is a given (e.g. That popularity tends to change based on progression of the storyline). Everything could be expressed in a single sentence, maybe two. It ends up being just a sliver of information for readers, not so important to devote an entire section to it where expansion is slim to none. As well, SJ polls are rather standard for their popular series so Bleach is no exception. I do agree that information about the polls themselves should be noted somewhere. The best place would be on the Bleach (manga) article since it's general information relating to the manga and franchise, where it's more appropriate. At best only one or two liners are needed and can be fitted onto one of prose in the intro paragraph to the article. Lists and individual character articles should only contain poll results for the characters where it's relavent. Fox816 (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My personal opinion is that rather than having a section on it, the information should be added in to each character's profile. The 'most recent' thing shouldn't be there, either. It should state the 'fourth' for that one. And I think information on how the characters did in older popularity polls is relevant, too. So my suggestion would be to delete that section, but add info from each of the polls to the individual character profiles (either on their own page, or on the List pages such as this one).Kuwabaratheman (talk) 19:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A history of poll results serves very little purpose. The poll results themselves don't garner that much importance to have that kind of detail, hence why sticking to just recent results is preferred. Some of the time a high/low record is kept as in the highest and lowest ranks that character has achieved. That provides a slight increase in perspective in how the character has done overall with the fan base. Fox816 (talk) 19:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editting Suggestions

I think people are going off to the wrong direction. Editting should be done to improve readability and accuracy. We should not shorten an article solely for the sake of shortening it if the article is already readable to common folks. Also, this is not a courtroom and we're not lawyers. Use the wikipedia as guidelines in how to improve the article not to use it to fight. Discussion about plot summary should take place in the discussion page of plot summary not character page and vise versa. Bleach is a world with a lot of depth and characters, so i don't think it is weird that it would spawn so many long articles (look at star wars articles or articles on shakespearean plays, no one is complaining about those). I recommend everyone to try to add tags and move things around to organize things but avoid outright deletions to the best of your ability, then everyone will be happy. Ssh83 (talk) 21:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Return to cleanup

With the arbitration case included and the injunction concluded, we are free to continue with the merge options discussed above. Also note that I have started working on Rukia Kuchiki for a GA run, with the model being the recent Naruto GAs (Sasuke Uchiha, Sakura Haruno, Kakashi Hatake, also Gaara at WP:GAN). I'll begin adding an "appearances in other media" section to the aforementioned article, but the remaining sections need to be condensed and properly cited using {{cite book}}. My only quibble is that there's a lack of conception information - is anyone aware of a source of conception information for the Bleach characters? If it's not available, then it's not available, but it would make the process smoother if it did. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Bleach_characters&oldid=197419618"