Talk:Bleach (TV series)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

I can't work now

Ryulong, you have locked me out of editing for 24 hours with your edit warring. Now you'll just revert it out of existance when I got my back turned. I can't even improve the article because of this, lest I break 3RR. I didn't realize you are so desperate to prevent coverage of anime and manga topics that you would do this again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made two reverts (one back to one of your edits at that) and everything else I've done to the page is minor edits what are you talking about?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm at 3RR. I can't edit now without breaking it! I had to revert my improvement because of it. Now I'm essentially locked out an you sorta broke 3RR... maybe? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how you're at 3RR. You made one revert.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't matter if its different edits or reverts, I'm at 3RR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:03, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
What? Are you saying that if two people edit an article at the same time they're at risk of violating WP:3RR when the edits are done in good faith and nothing was removed? You're just grasping at straws.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I was told that is true. In whole or in part, and the alteration or addition doesn't have to have been made within 24 hours either. So I can't edit. I can only watch now. And I doubt you want to work on it in the mean time. If you don't want to work together this sort of thing will keep happening... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
False. Different edits are not reverts, just like manual reverts (cut and paste) are not reverts. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 21:39, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
You don't know the policy, please stop commenting on it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Re: Cast list

I really don't see why we need a separate section for the cast list when we already have such information in List of Bleach characters. WP:MOS-TV#Cast information says, when displaying it as it is here as "character: Japanese actor: English actor", "a brief description of the character is given" and that the "key is to provide real world context to the character through production information, and without simply re-iterating IMDb", i.e. IMDb merely gives "character: actor" without providing anything else. Seeing as how the separate character list already satisfies the suggestions of adding in a "brief description of the character", it would be redundant to provide the same information here, and would only serve as a content fork to do so.

I'd also like to point out that, while not specifically pertaining to this article, WP:VG/GL has a long-standing consensus not to list voice casts in video game articles: WP:GAMECRUFT point 10.--十八 21:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Please read the exception: " Exceptions to the rule would be games where the video game cast is particularly notable, such as actors reprising their roles in a video game translation of a film." VG/GL has no absolute authority and less an anime. Rather than having a long prose section on the Japanese cast and the American cast, I started out with this. It is easier to read and is a good mid-step in the development process from "nothing". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
There is nothing particularly notable about any of these voice actors. That video game exception is there for cases where well-known actors voice characters in a game. Beyond: Two Souls would be a good example. Besides, I only put in that extra VG guideline to show you that other places on Wikipedia generally do not put cast lists in their articles. The MOS-TV line about not "simply re-iterating IMDb" is the big issue here. Cast lists that merely list "character -- actor" are useless outside of any context already given in a character list. Why would we need the same information both on the character list and here? Talk about redundant.--十八 03:58, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:CASTLIST says "Tables are also recommended to display different casts, such as a Japanese-language voice cast and an English-language voice cast in a Japanese animated film." Any argument about a page not even a fraction complete or calling "redundant" because information is listed on a character list is a gross misinterpretation of the facts. Simply put, presenting the information of the most notable and important actors in a clean format is acceptable. And you can save your objections for when the work is actually done; talk about dogpiling. I am tired of several members of this project coordinating behind the scenes against me and some of these objections are not only a giant waste of time, but actually damaging. Save your objections and arguments for later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Behind the scenes? I hope you have some evidence to back that up. This issue with Bleach was brought up at WT:MOS-AM, a public forum anyone can read, on top of there being a merge template at the top of Bleach (manga). There doesn't have to be any "behind the scenes" cabal for things like this to happen. If you do something others disagree with, prepare to be called out on it.--十八 06:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I struck it, no sense in making things worse. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Follow BLAR

Erachima, stop redirecting a work in progress out and follow BLAR. This page meets N/GNG and you are just disrupting and negatively impacting Wikipedia by continuing this hostile edit warring. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Text copies in RSes

[1] This page uses text from Wikipedia without credit and should not be used because of circular sourcing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Article userfied

I have userfied the article to User:ChrisGualtieri/Bleach (anime) so that he may continue to edit the page while disputes are resolved. Since the most recent dispute resolution step was taken by Chris in filing WP:DRN#Bleach (anime), I suggest the discussion move to there for the time being. --erachima talk 14:20, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not ask you to userify or edit war. You do not remove pages under DRN or under contested BLAR; it goes to AFD. I have done that for you. You cannot revert it out again, you must follow the process. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I have withdrawn said nomination.
The process is 1. Establish consensus. 2. Redirect the page. Both of those have been done, and you're WP:NOTLISTENING. --erachima talk 14:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what happened with the userification, the page Bleach (anime) doesn't seem to be the same as before, with a completely missing history, yet its talk page leads here...Anyway, we've reached consensus at Talk:Bleach_(anime)#Proposed merge with Bleach (manga) that Bleach (anime) should not be split from Bleach (manga) and redirected instead, so ChrisGualtieri's efforts to restore the content, and to prevent a redirection by forcing a pointless AfD are WP:DISRUPTIVE actions that could earn him a block.Folken de Fanel (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

What happened is that I moved the article to a subpage of his space so that he could keep improving the page if he feels like it and make a case for the article's existence at a later date. And then he kept editing the mainpage one. Which technically adds copyvio to his list of offenses since he copy/pasted without attribution this time, but that really doesn't matter since the page doesn't exist. --erachima talk 15:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I'll bring this to RFC or wider discussion. I won't reinstate it for the time being. Procedures must be allowed to be made per policy and while AFD is one, RFC is valid. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
  • No need for an RFC on this article, you have already initiated requests at DRN, ANI, VPP, etc. Unless it's an RFC about your own atrocious responses to people disagreeing with you or the broader issue of whether editors are allowed to merge pages by consensus (hint: Yes) I see no reason why you should be allowed to forum shop further. --erachima talk 16:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
"We have already established consensus and need no wider input" seems a rather strange position, espcially when the original discussion took all of 14 hours, was in a rather isolated place and not widely announced (the VPP thread seems to predate the merger discussion, the ANI thread seems more to agree that a discussion on the underlying issues should be held than that it already was held; see for example Knowledgekid87's comment; DRN finally is not the place to garner wider community input) and finally when there are allegation that the established consensus is merely local and does not correspond to wider community consensus. So why not keep the discussion open at least a pre-determined amount of time and notify the wider community - say, a RfC with an agreed-upon length of a week? (I don't expect we'd need the full 30 days of a regular RfC.) Would something like that be acceptable to all participants? Some additional comments:
  • On the one hand I fully understand if the opponents of a separate article groan: Yet another discussion on the issue? Well, you don't have to actually do anything except humor ChrisGualtieri for a week; you can sit back and watch the previously uninvolved editors' opinions trundling in. In fact, if you agree to something like that, it may be better if all the currently involved editors (including ChrisGualtieri, of course) engage in some self-restraint and don't comment on or reply to every single opinion they disagree with...
  • Conversely I would ask ChrisGualtieri, if something like that is agreed on, to accept the result, something he seems to find very difficult to do. Chris, sometimes community consensus simply does not agree with your personal opinion, in which case you have to accept the consensus - trying to impose your personal opinion anyway, say via WP:IAR, is guaranteed to fail among much drama.
  • Also, I don't care one whit whether for the duration of the debate this page is a redirect, an article or whatever - that would be temporary anyway. We surely can provide links to revisions of the pages that are close enough to the respective sides' preferences to illustrate what the discussion is about, and if ChrisGualtieri feels an urge to improve the article now, he can just as well improve a userspace draft.
So, again, is something like this acceptable to you? Huon (talk) 18:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll say the same thing I said to Knowledgekid when he asked basically the same thing: Chris is free to file an RfC if he wants. I am not hopeful as to it being a productive effort however, given Chris's established pattern of initiating DR processes in bad faith and then abandoning them for another forum as soon as they turn against him. --erachima talk 18:22, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not opposed (and I don't think anyone is) to a wider and longer discussion on the general issue, that we are already having in sort at WT:MOS-AM. But this is about an individual set of articles, we already have enough for such a localized issue. That ChrisGualtieri can't tolerate disagreement doesn't mean we have to take his allegations of "not corresponding to wider community consensus" at face value. We already have WP:PAGEDECIDE backing up individual editorial decisions on the question. The problem is rather that ChrisGualtieri is trying to use individual articles to prove a point when his propositions in the wider WT:MOS-AM discussion fail to reach consensus, when he should try to get consensus on his underlying opinion first before focusing on individual pages. Finally, the discussion here is still open and users are free to participate, but that is really enough to know what to do with the pages, and to prevent Chris from just reverting if he's not happy about it.Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Meets GNG/N. Worth keeping

Policy is clear on this. Any contested blank and redirects need to be brought to AFD to test them in case of disputes. After the clear consensus at the Dragon Ball (anime) AFD and subsequent merge discussions - the mere notion that a handful of members can rule by fiat is entirely unacceptable. I'm here to build an encyclopedia, not have it degrade into a heavily biased and limited scope of content. Notable content can get its own stand alone page and blanking and redirecting does nothing. If Ryulong or anyone else doesn't give a proper argument backed by policy, then I don't want to see this blanked and redirected again. AFD is the way. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No. We already had a discussion that decided that it should not exist above here and at WT:MOSAM. Just because someone agrees with you at Talk:Ghost in the Shell doesn't mean you suddenly get to override the previous decision. This is WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:CFORK at play here, as well as the decision made less than a month, ago.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
And fine, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleach (anime). If it weren't for the fact that I abhor it, I'd bring this shit to ArbCom immediately.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Less than a month ago.. as it was placed on hold for mediation. But clearly the community does not agree with your opinion and actions. AFD is the proper test. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any indication that you stopped because we started with mediation. And less than a month ago the community seemed to agree with me that this page was unnecessary. But fine, an AFD has been started to get to another "no consensus" close and you feel like you get your way but I am fucking bringing this to ArbCom if you keep baiting me like this.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
This is not "baiting" and that is a personal attack. Disagreements should be resolved by examining the issue, its impact and benefits to Wikipedia. Appealing to three editors and trying to keep it stuffed in the Wikiproject level by forcibly removing the AFD shows a clear intent to prevent community consensus from forming. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:12, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
If there was already a consensus formed here and at WT:MOSAM it seems you are trying to prevent a community consensus that you disagree with.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:03, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
  • It is at AFD. You are not listening to anyone so I am done arguing with you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:19, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

We need information about the filler episodes

Plenty of reliable sources mentioning the filler episodes. [2] Need something in the article about that. Anyone know many there were total? Dream Focus 08:39, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This is covered by the episode lists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:48, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
The article about the anime, needs to show how many of the episodes were filler, and mention briefly why the filler episodes exist. Link to the reviews in reliable sources that comment on the fillers. Dream Focus 08:56, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
111 in total are filler. I believe that I can handle this part tomorrow. I am having difficulty finding proper analysis of the filler material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Music

Ryulong removed a lot of sources to the content for the music CDs, particularly ones that covered the release date and number of songs.[3] He also decided to remove all the music including the opening and ending themes afterwards.[4] Thank you Dream Focus for reverting it. This is clearly important to include because it easily displays something that becomes very unwieldy in prose. I tried it and it didn't work out well.[5] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I made a whole damn new article for it at Music of Bleach just like how One Piece discography, List of K-On! albums Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion, and List of Macross Frontier albums also all exist for this same reason. You make a ton of great contributions to these pages but they are best suited for completly different articles than the ones you insist that they be used on.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
No. This needs to be covered at this article. I will deal with the albums later, but wholesale removal is not the right. People should be able to grasp the proper context on all aspects without going to different pages. Music is included. "Maining" out to another article hinders this page. Your deletion was reverted by Dream Focus and now I. A detailed music article will follow soon. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
No it does not. Make a summary style version but 11 thousand bits just dedicated to the music is ridiculous, particualrly when you are completely formatting everything wrong. You are using the YYYY/MM/DD date formatting which is not how it should be done, a massive block of text to describe them rather than provide a list, and you didn't bother to link to band names or song articles despite the fact that they existed. This information is meant for other articles and not this one. This is padding out the article to make it seem like there's enough information for it to stand on its own.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
You complain about this article being too small to be an article, then go and create one smaller? Your new article would be just 12,183 bytes. Music of Neon Genesis Evangeon has 90,214 bytes. Different situation here. No need to split it unless the total size of this article gets too long. Dream Focus 20:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Evangelion's article also contains the track listings of every single release. Obviously that would happen with an article solely dedicated to the music of Bleach as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Covering 41 releases in only a few hundred words is hard enough, but if you want a proper split the best way is to do the whole thing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The format it's currently in simply needs more of an expansion to be a fully fledged article, because the music is more or less related to the manga as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
The music was created for the anime and not the other way around. And what about Discography of Bleach which should contain the 40+ CDs worth of information. I heavily compressed that character album down, but I just need to go through pull the track lengths and fill it in. But this is the foundation and single page dedicated to the music. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware that that other article existed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:01, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh wait you just made it. Chris, you need to not format the pages as you have been doing. Section titles only start with a single capital letter, there's a Template:Track listing to make putting everything together easier (and without tables). However, I've moved it to User:ChrisGualtieri/Discography of Bleach so we can work on it and bring it up to par before having it live in the article space. Also, I don't know why you didn't feel like restarting Music of Bleach but whatever.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Ugh. That template thing is really annoying to work on in that format. I really don't have the time to go through each part of that and it will make the page extremely intensive to load for me. This is why I object to large size pages, because after a certain point it just becomes extremely long to fix and load. If you are gonna template swap... can we do them all at once? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, for the theme songs each one is probably notable for its own article (many of them already possess them so it doesn't matter). And from what I can tell the beat collection whatevers I don't know what they're called were singles so the track listings shouldn't be too long.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability for each song? Maybe, but it'd ruin the flow with a bunch of subpar articles. Let's hold off on that till we get a decent amount of information and sources. I dislike song articles without ample discussion on its creation and individual successes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, most of the bands/artists are notable on their own and the use in Bleach probably shot the songs up in the charts. Asterisk (song) for example already exists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at each single individually, not all of them are notable per WP:ALBUMS Its best to keep them merged until substantial ammount of each album has been added to prove notability.Lucia Black (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I do believe that several of the singles in fact do meet the requirements for notability as their mere usage within Bleach gave them national or even international recognition and pass WP:GNG.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't necessarily prove notability. I'm looking at several of these, and don't necessarily prove the notability you claim. Just because a song was used "internationally" doesn't mean it was covered by enough sources to consider it notable. Notability has to be proven by coverage not. WP:NSONGS is a good example for those and i'm seeing several that don't "hint" notability.Lucia Black (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
The songs' association with Bleach and subsequent international recognition as a theme song of Bleach gives enough reliable sources out there somewhere (not just in searching in English) to show that the songs are notable on their own. A cursory search at the Oricon will also at least show you how high the individual tracks charted in sales, and anything that has charted is notable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:12, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Ryulong is correct about this, Lucia. I'm going to refrain from elaborating, but if anyone can grab some of "bible" type books we'd have enough to do just about anything and everything in the space. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:NMUSIC begs to differ, A single requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That a single is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article. So regardless if association to Bleach, it has to be notable on its own merits (and this is still about coverage). Also note that, even if made it to the oricon chart (maybe top 50) it still needs more evidence of notability. Because information like that can still be present in the discography page. Example: Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion has a section dedicated to release details of the release such as Oricon Chart ranking. you may have different goals, mine isn't to needlessly create more articles if it means providing more poor-quality articles. Which is why i'm not keen on the idea of splitting singles (especially foreign releases that have never received western release).

Can we at least compromise that we don't split until there's enough information on said single? Because when you are wanting a split all these singles out, you're also committing to prove notability.Lucia Black (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong does not seem to be advocating doing splits for them all, but he is correct in pointing out that each one is independently notable and meets the criteria for a stand alone article according to policy. That is the difference. Also, this is actually what WP:NOPAGE means - the editorial decision about not creating a separate article just because you can under the claim of notability. Many small stubs do nothing beneficial here - so until Ryulong starts making 150 word articles on the songs, back off. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree entirely, WP:NOPAGE covers a large variety. Otherwise, it wouldn'thave brought up big potential splits for its example.Lucia Black (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

No merge during RFC

I'm going to go out and say this now before it comes up. Since the RFC into this very issue is currently underway, the merge issue which is part of a much larger and broader discussion should be concluded first and foremost before continuing here. Consensus is already found to have more than one article on a case by case basis - let's see what comes of the rest. Otherwise I foresee an ANI and blocks all around. Everyone does, ja? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Ugh but this article doesn't need to be separate simply because there were four filler seasons.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
You said you would respect the community's decisions and discussion into the matter is still ongoing. Unless you are itching for a topic ban; I'd highly advise dropping the stick during the RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The AFD just ended today. If you have the same exact discussion yet again, you know it will end the same way, there no consensus to delete/merge this article. Dream Focus 00:45, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
From what I'm reading at the RFC, people agree that uniqueness from the source material is the metric for separation and no one seems to be saying anything about individual notability. And there were definitely more people going "this shouldn't have been split off" than there were arguing to keep.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:46, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed with Ryulong. but I'm sure we can wait for the RfC. it would be good to use both Dragon Ball (anime) and Bleach (anime) as examples, i no order to prove a more solid consensus in the future.Lucia Black (talk) 00:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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

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

  • http://sgcafe.com/2013/07/bleach-5-week-hiatus-prepare-final-battle/
    Triggered by \bsgcafe\.com\b on the local blacklist

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

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 20:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hatnote

For the record, I checked all incoming links from articlespace, and none were meant for Bleach (manga). So we don't need the hatnote to help readers who followed a misdirected link. Huon (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

  • [6] I agree it shouldn't be here. The one editor who wanted it was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring it back in. Dream Focus 01:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Me being blocked for the past day is not a reason for the hatnote to be removed, Dream Focus. The issue still stands that Bleach (anime) previously served as a redirect to Bleach (manga).—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You were blocked for edit warring it back in when multiple editors tried to remove it. Everyone else wants it out. The only reason a discussion had to be started was because you stubbornly kept trying to put it back in again. Dream Focus 08:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It was not "multiple editors". It was a single person on multiple IP addresses.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Why is the fact that Bleach (anime) previously served as a redirect to Bleach (manga) relevant? Who exactly would be helped by the hatnote? I see no use for it. Huon (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
It's relevant because this page merely existed as a search term to lead people to the other page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Current merge discussion needs more participants

Most people have been ignoring the merge discussion tag at the top of both articles for weeks now. We need participates. [7] Dream Focus 08:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

For the record, the RfC on franchise coverage is over, and it's time to wrap up the merger discussion for this franchise. Huon (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Themes

Lucia Black removed the "themes" section. Many of its sources explicitly discussed the anime, not the manga, for example Von Feigenblatt's Japanese Animation as a Global Product or the various anime reviews. I don't think the voice actor's opinion on her character would even be relevant to the manga. Thus I disagree with the removal of the section and will re-add it if no valid rationale is provided. (I'm sorry, but I didn't quite understand what Lucia Black meant by her latest edit summary of "they source the anime, however not subjected to the anime." If that was meant to say that the anime is not the subject of those sources, I disagree - for example, this source at times even contrasts it to the manga.) Huon (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing unique about the themes of the anime in comparison to the themes of the manga. The only reason the anime gets any coverage is because it is the prominent form that gets consumed outside of Japan. Unless there is discussion of something only found in the anime, then it is better for the manga page, when this page gets merged with the other one anyway.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
I somehow doubt you can provide a source for the lack of uniqueness, and anyway I disagree that something not unique to the anime shouldn't be discussed in this article - unless we decide to merge it all back into the manga page; in that case there's no need to remove sections piecemeal. Also, you seem to be arguing that we should merge the content to this page, not the other, because the anime is the primary topic. Did I understand that correctly? Huon (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Do we need to provide a source for something like that? what needs to be source is the uniqueness of the themes compared to the manga, not the other way around. its like saying "can you provide a source to prove that this is original research"?Lucia Black (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
No, you clearly did not understand me correctly Huon. There only needs to be one page and that is the one that's been around and covered this content for longer, which is Bleach (manga). There is nothing here that can't be discussed there, particularly because the only difference between the two topics is that one is read and the other is watched, and one had two seasons of original material to pad out broadcast dates so they did not overshoot the other's slower publishing schedule.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

History merge

The history of this page has become split back in October. I'll soon merge page histories. Huon (talk) 02:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

What? There was no history splitting. This was made into its own article then merged back and unmerged without discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Still the pre-October history got stuck at User:ChrisGualtieri/Bleach (anime) in the process. I see no reason not to merge it back; do you? Huon (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I see then.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 Done Huon (talk) 00:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Bleach (anime). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Bleach (anime). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:20, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Bleach (manga)

This split was contentious when discussed at WT:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles#Nonsense instructions and ChrisGualtieri went ahead with it anyway. He is part of a minority of editors who believe that manga and anime adaptations deserve separate articles due to the glut of sources that discuss their reception and release separately, when the majority of the members of WP:ANIME believe that articles are best kept as about both forms of media and information regarding the separate media are relegated to list articles. —Ryulong (琉竜) 20:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

You cannot preclude creation of an article, you ignored the inuse and you brought it to 3RR with your tagging so I can't edit it or improve it. You are actively engaged in preventing improvement because you disagree that we need a page on the anime, even when hundreds of sources exist and there is a vast different in content. The LOCALCONSENSUS was rejected at the RFC, MOSAM has no authority and cannot prevent article creation or limiting of notable content that deserves a page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
How was tagging it and fixing your mistakes bringing it to 3RR? And I am not the only one who disagrees "that we need a page on the anime". This is a plot summary (identical to that for the manga except for stuff like the Bount arc), a cast list (no other anime article features a cast list other than ones that you've done this same treatment to; that information is usually left to the character list pages), and you've just turned Bleach (manga)#Anime into a "release" section and copied over the two paragraphs on the reception of the anime. The amount of padding you've put into this to make it appear as a suitable standalone article is ridiculous. And I will not repeat what Konveyor Belt has said, but I will point out a line you seem to be ignoring on WP:N: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." That is what WP:ANIME did for these pages so you need to stop complaining about "LOCALCONSENSUS".—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. We don't need extra articles clogging the wiki. As I said in the MOSAM discussion:

but although I do believe that these articles should be expanded, there is a fine line. GNG says that such articles can be created, but it doesn't justify their creation. Any decisions about merging or not merging will need to be done based on the individual needs of each article.

— Konveyor Belt, WT:MOS-AM

This article appears not to need two standalone articles when the purpose could easily be served with one. Konveyor Belt express your horror at my edits 20:32, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oppose - Meets N/GNG, and I just made the page and the result is 3RR from the tagging and good faith additions of Ryulong. I can't work on it for 24 hours now. Konveyor Belt should read WP:NOTPAPER and realize that their entire argument goes against it and WP:DETAIL. What one "likes or needs" does not determine whether or not an article can exist, including merging of a major topic that unquestioningly meets N and GNG. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Oh it looks that Erachima has unilaterally removed the page in a bizarre and another out of process removal during a listed merge. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I really see no reason to have an anime page currently. Is Bleach (manga) unreadable? Isn't the plot section basically a copypaste from the manga's plot section but with minor differences? How could the article become a GA when there is no production information? I would suggest first working in a sandbox and then proposing a split.Tintor2 (talk) 00:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm at 3RR, I can't add that. And before removing you do WP:BEFORE and we all know Bleach has tons of information. I was in the middle of writing the content with an "in use" when this happened. And you are the one who supported DBGT's removal in the same way, "I support the merge. The DBGT article lacks production and reception section and need a nice clean up". Deletion is not clean up. I don't understand why this project has editors who go against the policies to establish their own little mediocre walled gardens. But it seems that rather than doing work, you want to do as least amount of work as possible and having one terrible and useless articles is better than two articles in development. Going so far as to revert it out during an newly made merge discussion and doing it in such a way as to avoid the article alert system. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Why did you dodge the questions? I don't care about creating new articles but I'm not okay with copy pasting articles.Tintor2 (talk) 17:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Since Chris refuses to communicate with other editors via talk page, I'll repeat my statement here: The proper process for redirecting redundant pages is to redirect the page. No need for drama and bureaucracy on this. --erachima talk 01:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Topics are different, redundant is same topic. There is no page solely about the anime and calling it redundant is not only false, but justification for your disruptive actions when a formal process has already begun. You also left an insulting edit on my talk page when I asked you repeatedly not to and took you to ANI over it; you are harassing me. Stop wikihounding me and attacking me already! Not sure what your issue is, but you have not made any effort to work constructively and instead resort to bullying and personal attacks with every interaction with me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:01, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
First off, Chris, disagreeing with you is not insulting you. Second, I got here when I saw that silly template on Bleach (manga), read the new article, and redirected it because it was an utterly worthless content fork. I had literally no idea you were involved in this until you showed up on my talk page. Third, I will always reply to any comments you send to me on your talk page.
If you still believe you have the right to ban people who you are posting messages to from replying to you on your talk page, you are welcome to try going back to ANI about it again, but we both know how that turned out last time: you got slammed for hypocrisy and abusive edit summaries. Now go edit something constructively instead of copy-pasting other people's work onto extra pages. --erachima talk 05:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Erachima has reinserted the personal attack and cast more aspersions. Characterizing my removal of the offensive post as vandalism and refusing to discuss on the talk page.[8] This post is false because I followed WP:CWW and cited attribution. I am feeling harassed and that I am being maliciously attacked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
How is whether you followed WP:CWW or not relevant to my statement? I did not accuse you of copyvio. --erachima talk 06:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Chris, I respect your opinion that you feel you're being maliciously attacked, but no one reading erachima's post above would see it as a personal attack, or at least not a very strong one. Take it from someone, like me, who really has been maliciously attacked in the past and had to go to WP:OVERSIGHT to get a user's contributions removed from Wikipedia entirely, and then we'll talk.--十八 06:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Aww look, and now Chris is accusing me of "refusing to discuss on the talk page" with him while blanking my comments replying to his talk page posts. That's so intolerably hypocritical and rude that it's almost funny. --erachima talk 06:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
And just to solidly push this over the top, Chris, who is ever vigilant against anything that could suggest behind-the-scenes coordination, is now seen insinuating to another editor that he has things to talk about that he "will not discuss on Wiki". :D --erachima talk 06:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Support the merge, though each article theoretically meets GNG independently, WP:PAGEDECIDE provides for the possibility to cover several notable topics within one article, and Bleach clearly benefits from it. The separate anime and manga pages are so redundant, with so many identical section (plot, reception) and the two media are so dependent from each other that an all-encompassing Bleach page is the way to go. Separately, you'd have to reduce them to little more than stubs to avoid any issue, that's ridiculous.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Support, the article is unnecessary. As for the argument about anime having fillers, these filler episodes spans an entire season, and we all must not forget that there are individual article for each seasons discussing these diverging plot elements from the original manga. So I do think this is unnecessary. Penpaperpencil (Talk) 12:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 25 January 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Bleach (anime) → Bleach (TV series) – Per the first line of this article, it is about a "television series". This brings it under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television)#Series television which necessarily will have to override the conflicted direction given at MOS:ANIME. Netoholic @ 13:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943 (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

  • I don't really care either way, but why should naming conventions trump the manual of style? I recall you were advised to get consensus about changing one to suit the other; I assume you didn't do that. —Xezbeth (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per precedent, most other anime TV series are disambiguated this way. Unless we can establish an agreed upon standard, it should continue to use the direction of MOS:ANIME. This isn't the place to discuss that standard, and it's best if things are not changed peacemeal like this if it really should be overridden.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
    There is wide consensus that smaller genre communities should not override wider-scale naming conventions like WP:NCTV. There is no reason anime is special enough for its own designation when all other animated TV series follow WP:NCTV. I'll also point out that the MOS at the present time doesn't even mention anime TV series as a separate subject from anime release in other ways. At best, the MOS is incomplete and I've brought the inconsistency up on that talk page. In the short term, there is no reason to prevent this article from moving to the most appropriate and WP:CONSISTENT disambiguation used for other TV series. WP:NCTV doesn't have different handling for different genre of television series - they all use one disambiguation method. -- Netoholic @ 05:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'm taking about WP:CONSISTENCY within anime article titles, not WP:CONSISTENCY of anime articles vs regular TV shows. There is such a large amount of articles that use (anime) as a disambiguation, that they should all be moved at once or not at all. (And personally, I am not a fan of the "TV series" moniker - in my view, it implies that something is live action and not an anime or cartoon.)ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but WP:LOCALCONSENSUS - Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. A MOS for a niche genre community cannot override a guideline that covers all television. -- Netoholic @ 05:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
    MOS:ANIME is also a guideline, television titles can not override a guideline that covers Wikipedia's manual of style on how to write articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per MOS:ANIME. This isn't the right venue, to discuss guideline changes you should bring up the discussion at WP:VPP AFTER this discussion closes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose (anime) is a much simpler and more natural disambiguation than (TV series). It is also been used by other articles when disambiguation is needed do to naming conflicts. The purpose of disambiguation is the let the reader know that they found the topic they were looking for. There is no question that Bleach (anime) lets the readier know that they found the article for the Bleach anime series. Just like Bleach (manga) lets the reader know that they found the article for the Bleach manga series. However, Bleach (TV series) is much less clear to the reader. —Farix (t | c) 19:30, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. This should be done as part of a larger discussion. However, I did create a redirect at the proposed new title pointing to this page. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. -- AlexTW 21:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support – we should not disambiguate by genre, and there is no other TV series with the title "Bleach". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Note that moving to "TV series" does not preclude also having a redirect at the "anime" disambig. title. "Redirects are cheap", so having "anime"-based disambig. redirects is A-OK. But the base article should not reside at a disambig-by-genre title. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Anime isn't a genre though as not every anime is a television series. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
      • Bleach, the subject of this RM, is though. -- Netoholic @ 15:35, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Support Larger discussion is that the (anime) and other style specific ones should not be used, and TV series used for all TV series. TV series is more widely recognizable. Though I guess they should be bundled.. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bleach_(TV_series)/Archive_1&oldid=1092069816"