Misplaced Pages

Talk:Bleach (TV series)

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elli (talk | contribs) at 05:18, 4 January 2022 (Notification: listing of Bleach(anime) at WP:Redirects for discussion.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:18, 4 January 2022 by Elli (talk | contribs) (Notification: listing of Bleach(anime) at WP:Redirects for discussion.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion on 2 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bleach (TV series) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 4 months 
Skip to table of contents
WikiProject iconAnime and manga C‑class Mid‑importance
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 Misplaced Pages. 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
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

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. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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 - /contributions 18:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. -- Alex 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)
  • 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.

Revisit proposed merge with Bleach (manga)

I don't see any point of separating anime and manga articles. You see most anime are adaptation of the manga and Bleach is not an exception. What really matters is the series itself and the plot, you can have multiple media (anime TV series, manga, light novel, anime film, and live action) in one article (series). It also saves the hassle of visiting two different articles to compare the medias. I'll be waiting for the greenlit for the merge proposal.—User:Hushskyliner 13:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

New Bleach anime is not confirmed to be new television series

An anime project was announced, but it was not made clear that it would be a TV series or a film. You're making the same mistake made for the Code Geass: Lelouch of the Re;surrection and the Sailor Moon Eternal movies by automatically assuming its going to be a new television anime. monstersandcritics is clearly an unreliable source that has misinterpreted the news; it didn't even bother to cite its own sources. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

"Bleach(anime)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bleach(anime) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 4#Bleach(anime) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories: