Talk:Bleach (manga)

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 (series), Bleach (anime) or BLEACH. We are using the English naming conventions for characters (given name first). Quincy, Bount 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 It's lieutenant, not vice-captain; the onmitsukidō is to be referred to as "special forces"; demon arts has been superceded by kidō, since all versions of the series use the Japanese term; Soul Reaper is preferred to shinigami. 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

Archives
April 2005 — September 2005 September 2005 — March 2006 April 2006 — September 2006 September 2006 — March 2007 April 2007 — September 2007 September 2007 —

Bon-what??

As someone who stumbled into Bleach (on Cartoon Network) mid-way, I would really like to know more about the levels of technique, whether or not the jutsu's, bonkai's, etc. are terms specific to this series and fictitious or if they have literal translations and spur from specific martial arts. I find the samurai mythology embedded in the series fascinating, but I don't know enough about it to make any assumptions.70.245.160.254 (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)newfan

See the articles on the various races as well as the Zanpakutō and Kidō articles - that should help with some stuff. --Eruhildo (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

To partially answer your question, most of them are terms specific to the series, which makes it harder to discuss them here using reliable sources. We generally try to limit ourselves to reporting facts (or report on the fact that someone has a certain published opinion). Dekimasuよ! 13:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

bankai and sekai are just japanese. kai meaning form, ban - final, bankai - final form Diablo11d (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This might be a better question to ask on a Bleach forum, as this talk page exists to discuss the article, not elements of the series itself. 71.234.99.64 (talk) 16:00, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Bankai (卍解, final release), as seen under bankai. For technique and weapon lists, look to Wikia:Bleach. –Gunslinger47 19:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Soul Reaper vs. Shinigami

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reason for keeping {{Redirect}} hatnote

My explanation is here; someone may eventually come along and take off the {{Otheruses}} hatnote per WP:NAMB. This is why some pages, like Horses in warfare and Son Goku (Dragon Ball), have {{Redirect}} and not {{Otheruses}}. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

First, there is no "explanation" here. Second, there is no reason to suppose the otheruses hatnote will be removed. Third, if it is removed time enough to consider change. My reason for the simple hatnote is just that ... it is simple and therefore more easily used to help with disambiguation. It is supported by User:Bkonrad here. Case closed. Abtract (talk) 00:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you being silly? That supposition by Bkonrad would apply if the page was titled "Bleach". It is currently not, and perhaps never will be. And in case you didn't notice, I was referring to my edit summary, which was reason enough for the revert. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The shorter simply disambig is more than sufficient. Bleach goes to the article on the chemical. It is unlikely that anyone is going to type in BLEACH to begin with, and if they are, its not likely to be someone looking for the chemical. The disambig link if more than enough for the likely .01% of hits to this page from that. Also, Abtract, I strongly urge you to remember WP:CIVILITY and stop referring to other editors as "stalkers" in your edit summaries. Collectonian (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You say on your edit summary that the "shorter form is better" but my version was much shorter and simpler so why did you revert me? Was it a mistake? Abtract (talk) 00:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, the hatlink which references the redirect should stay right? Isn't it likely that if we used Abtract's, someone would remove it per WP:NAMB? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not it wasn't a mistake. Sorry for the badly worded edit summary. The redirect reference should stay. Erachima's change to redirect is a good solution. Keeps the redirect, and just skips the chemical all together. Collectonian (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not likely that anyone would remove it. However, it is worth using one of the redirect forms rather than the disambiguation template because there are several bands that use stylized forms of the word Bleach for their titles. (And people tend to type band names in all caps for no reason at all.)

Alternately, we could just redirect BLEACH to the disambiguation page and get rid of the hatnote entirely. --erachima talk 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

OK that seems a good compromise I will go along with that, while the redirect remains in force. Abtract (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Hold on now, isn't the series franchise known as "BLEACH" in Japan? That could be turned into a primary topic on Bleach (disambiguation), hence, stay as a redirect for this page. And what about the brand? Should it not mention the Japanese franchise, like it did before Abtract's reverts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your current change. Though I can understand the reasonings for it, I don't think we need to redirect BLEACH to the disambig page. I also agree that the main Bleach page should mention this series as it did before, since this is one of the most common alternative uses of Bleach and it was added per talk page consensus. Collectonian (talk) 00:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming the article statistics are the same now as they were back when they ran the top viewed Wikipedia articles counter, Bleach (manga) is about 500 times more prevalent of a usage. And that's counting all the hits the chem article got from people typing in Bleach to get here. --erachima talk 01:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

(RE:Sesshomaru)Fixed. And no, I don't think BLEACH makes a good subheader on the dab page either way, since it's only a capitalization difference and Wikipedia intentionally doesn't give articles their "special" trademarked spellings. --erachima talk 01:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

But you're okay with having "BLEACH" target "Bleach (manga)"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer it went to the dab page instead, but I can't dispute that it's a common search term for this page. --erachima talk 01:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly favour it pointing ot the dab page, especially since mos:dab tend not to distinguish between capitalisation variants ... as indeed nor do a lot of readers. Abtract (talk) 01:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Guess everything stays how it is. You know, had it not been for MOS:CAPS, this page could have been titled "BLEACH". Consarn it all! Moving on. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not just 16:9 broadcast...

...it's 720p minimum. --87.168.48.123 (talk) 11:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bleach is animated for 480(i) and 720p and 1080i is just upscales (by brodcaster), it was also case with 4:3 brodcasts. Pahajoki (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Setting

Just wondering - shouldn't Hell be removed from the settings section? It isn't really a location to which characters go at any point, and even in reference, it's only seen twice in the anime... I really don't think it belongs there. -SergeVGmyria (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

But it IS a setting/area and we DO see it. Give me info from WP:N and WP:FICT showing that it doesn't belong there, and then we can see what I'll say. IceUnshattered (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really play any role in the series seperate from just a couple of episodes or chapters, and where it does appear, it has almost no impact on the development of the series as a whole. Just because it's seen in the series doesn't automatically provide it the notability necessary for a mention. Characters with this type of appearance wouldn't even be mentioned on a list of characters (except in a more notable character's description, as necessary), so I don't see much reason to provide Hell with its own section either. —Dinoguy1000 14:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

"in a more notable character's description, as necessary" You mean, like, say, Bleach (manga)#Setting? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muramasa itachi (talk • contribs) 17:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No. In my example, I was referring to occasions in which a character doesn't have the notability to recieve its own section on a list of characters, but that character does play an important role in the development of a character who does have the necessary notability. In that case, the nonnotable character would not recieve its own section, but could be mentioned in the more notable character's section. However, in Bleach, Hell is not notable enough for mention by itself, nor does it help develop any notable character or location in the series - it is suddenly introduced, and just as suddenly pushed to the wayside after just an episode/chapter or two. The only mention it really warrents is in the episode and chapter summaries for those episodes and chapters it is seen in. —Dinoguy1000 16:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Eruhildo (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture

The picture for the infobox looks terrible. It is grainy and stretched out. I don't know anything about pictures on Wikipedia, but I can tell when one doesn't look very good. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean the little one someone tried adding that was reverting or the current one? If the current one, do a hard refresh to make sure its actually showing the right image. Collectonian (talk) 00:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind, it looks fine now. I don't know why it was doing that, because I looked at the page more than once. Mynameisnotpj (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Its probably because I replaced the image a moment ago with the full cover, and the cache hadn't caught up with the new size. It does that sometimes when replacing images. :) Collectonian (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)