This Forum has been archivedVisit the new Forums
|Forums: Index → Improvements and Issues → Filler and Bleach Wiki||Post|
I have a really big problem with the fact that Bleach Wikia does not make any distinction between canon material and anime filler/videogame characters. I really think it should be noted in all articles relating to filler characters (Patros, Amagai, Seigen Suzunami, etc) that the characters are not part of the manga canon. This is the single biggest thing that people site as a reason why Bleach Wikia should not be considered a valid and trustworthy source for Bleach facts. I would think that keeping this wiki as factual and helpful as possible would include letting people know which characters are canon and which are not. This distiction must be made if you want informed Bleach fans to take this site seriously. CorpusDei 22:58, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
It is noted. Each article says something like, "Appears in: Anime Only" and each character is in a category that says the same thing, that they're anime-only characters. If you're looking for reasons to be insulting, you should at least pick a valid one. Or, you should contribute more and help be a part of the solution. Twocents 23:02, September 3, 2009 (UTC)
I really don't think that a tiny blurb at the bottom of the right hand table is sufficient. People who have no idea what is canon and what isn't probably wont notice it, and for someone new to Bleach, it could be quite confusing. In my opinion, it should be made abundantly clear that these character are filler, and that they have no bearing on the canon story of Bleach. And I wasn't trying to be insulting, I'm just letting you know how quite a few people view the reliability of the information on this site. If you want to get defensive about the flaws in the site, whatever, do whatever you want. CorpusDei 21:30, September 10, 2009 (UTC)
It's pretty sad (yet somehow unsurprising) that no admins or mods have bothered to fix this. The fact that you guys refuse to acknowledge when things are filler in a staraight forward way (instead hiding the information in the character info box on the right side of the page in tiny letters) is still the most blatant problem on this site. There is a template already in place for use in this situation, here: http://bleach.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Filler. That message should be placed at the top of every non-manga or non-canon piece of information (anime only and videogame only characters and info) on here, it really wouldn't take that much time to do. I would be willing to go through every page and do it myself, but I have a suspicion that if I did that, someone would just go back and delete the message. I'm going to do it to a few pages now, and see if the mods will leave it, before I go through and do it to every page that needs it. CorpusDei 00:19, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Ummm... not that I am against this but is this really necessary? We already have those things listed under the category of anime/game/movie only. Are people really that dumb that they can't deduce from that this is not manga based? Also, if people really are that dumb then adding that template is not going to help. Not that I am against it. I just think this is a waste of time and effort. If people don't get it based on the information that is already associated with those pages, they aren't going to get it. Tinni 00:24, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Well Corpus Dei has already added this to Shusukes page. I'm not against it, but as an anime watcher & the fact that I don't really follow the manga, I really won't help with this. If Corpus wants to do this either by himself he can just as long as he doesn't make any serious changes to the page. Minato88 00:29, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Well as I said, I am not against it, but I am not willing to spend time on this either. Tinni 00:39, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
I have been adding to the intro of filler characters that they are anime-only, but that is a work in progress (one of many). They are also categorized as such, as well as the info box. If there are any pages that do not have this on them, please post them below in a new heading. Also, all the admins here agree that manga comes before anime, and that the fillers are
unreliable not the best sources. You may have noticed the Zanpkuto spirits all have their own individual pages, rather than being made part of the canon character's articles. Also, canon characters that have a role in an anime-only arc have that arc listed as being anime-only in the synopsis. Also, each of the episode pages has in the statistics section a note of what chapters the episode covers, and for filler episodes, states that none were used. --Yyp 00:57, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- I am sorry but I object to the use of the phrase "unreliable as sources". I mean, filler are just that, filler and as such information that is exclusively presented in filler anime should not be part of character profiles without explicitly being distinguished as such. However, "unreliable as sources" cast a doubt on all anime episodes, even those that are based of the manga. Often the anime episodes clarify points of contention that were left vague/considered to have been left vague by fans. For example, anime episode 215 clarified for me that the hollow that were chasing that little ghost girl was killed from the spiritual pressure of all the captains. I was a bit confused as to what was going on when I read that scene in the manga. There is no reason that an anime episode that makes a point explicit that the manga left in doubt is "unreliable". I think this bashing of the anime is gone far enough. The manga comes first but the anime isn't fanon is it but I feel that it is being dismissed as such. The anime is still a legitimate official source and should be treated as such were appropriate. Tinni 01:14, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- I did not say that the anime as a whole is unreliable. And I do not typically indulge in anime bashing. The anime is vital for clarifying many details from the manga and we use it for quite a lot. I am not saying an anime episode that makes a point explicit that the manga left in doubt is unreliable. Far from it. What I meant (and perhaps I could have been clearer) was that things like Sasakibe's zanpakuto spirit being lighting based is not allowed on to Sasakibes page. Instances like that, not the simple animation of the canon manga storyline. --Yyp 01:28, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with you in that things that appear in the filler only should not be drawn into the characters profiles that are manga based. But I still object to the use of the world "unreliable" it has connotation that are really not what we are discussing. Tinni 01:38, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. Use of "unreliable" withdrawn. --Yyp 01:48, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
But the problem is that even anime episodes based on manga chapters can be tainted with non-canon material. For instance, every anime episode that features the mod souls from the bount arc. A good example are the episodes where Isshin was revealed to be a shinigami and fought Grand Fisher. In the anime, the fact that the mod souls were there taints the canon-ness of the anime episodes, since the mod souls don't even exist in the manga universe. It's not that we're bashing the anime, it's fun and I enjoy it, but it isn't strictly canon, only the manga is. And while i agree that in certain instances the anime does help to clarify certain things that might have been confusing in the manga (a good example being the one you mentioned), for the most part the anime shouldn't be considered canon, even the epsidoes that are based on the manga. Also, Yyp said "the fillers are unreliable as sources", and that is 100% accurate, otherwise we'd be faced with huge problems deciding what is and isn;t legitimate. Filler is never canon, and as such is inherently unreliable as a source. CorpusDei 01:24, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- No what Yyp was was not accurate, the manga takes precedence but what happens in the anime is 100% reliable in the context of the anime. My problem is that you are implying that the anime is little more then fanfiction, which is an insult to every fan of bleach who watches the anime only because it implies that they are somehow getting an inferior version of Bleach. I am ware that the mod souls from the bount filler arc have hung around and I am also aware that Omaeda's fight was longer in the anime as fight usually are. Even Ichimaru and Hitsugaya's fight way, way back in SS was padded in the anime. I am all in favour of making it clear what only occured in the anime and I totally support powers and abilities that only appear in filler material be kept out of character profiles. However, I vehemently object to the anime being referred to and treated as if it's a speculative piece of fanfiction that has no official standing. As far as the anime only Bleach fans are concerned, anime is the only canon! I would hate for this wiki to give the impression that the only fans we care about are the manga fans and treat anime only bleach fans and their primary source of bleach with disrespect and bashing. My problem is with the attitude pervading this discussion. Tinni 01:38, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- We can't base our core canon on more than one source, especially when the anime and manga differ so much on so many things. I'm not trying to say that the anime is worthless, but the fact is that the core canon of Bleach is the manga, and when the anime diverges from the manga in any significant way, the anime becomes less reliable for that specific piece of information. CorpusDei 01:50, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- I am actually completely missing what the point you are trying to make here. Ichimaru in an arrancar encyclopedia segment clarified that all of Barragan's and Harribel's faccione are dead. Can we not take that as confirmation that those people are dead? Or are we to discount it just because it's in the anime and an omake of an anime. Surely the fact that the anime writers can get Kubo on the phone and ask him "Kubo-sama can we make an omake where Ichimaru says that all these arrancars are dead?" has to count for something. And yes we can have two sources of canon information. I don't see why we can't. The manga is the primary source and anime is the second source. Were the manga contradicts the anime, the manga takes precedence but where the anime supplements what is in the manga I don't see why the anime can't be seen as canon. Tinni 02:02, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not arguing that the anime is to be completely disregarded. The death of Harribel's fraccion was a subject for debate, depending on which scanlation you read, they were either killed or left alive. The anime clarified the situation in that it confirmed that they were dead, but I have a feeling that the licensed manga translation would have done that anyway, it was the fan scanlations that caused the confusion. The point I am making is that whenever there is a direct contradiction between the anime and manga, the manga is what we should default to, and Yyp has already confirmed that this sentiment is shared by the admins here. All I want to do is make it clear which characters are completely made up anime filler with no basis in the manga canon by adding the blurb, I'm not trying to turn this into a debate between anime and manga fans. CorpusDei 03:02, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- I would also like to point out that not everything in the new Anime Filer arc has been strictly Filler. There was the flashback when Toshiro first met Rangiku, saw Hyorinmaru, & was convinced to become a Shinigami. This is something that happened in the manga(or so i'm told) & is very much Canon. So I would like to ask that u guys are CAREFUL with what u CHANGE. Minato88 01:27, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- You are correct, that scene was from a manga one-off chapter, it was chapter -15 "Death in a Field of Ice". Trust me, I've read all of the chapters multiple times, I know what parts of the anime are canon. I'm not trying to make this into "the anime is bad", since the anime is what got me into Bleach and I still watch it religiously, I'm just trying to clarify what is and isn't filler in an attempt to help this wiki become the most reliable source for information on Bleach in the world. CorpusDei 01:51, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
OK guys, I've gone ahead and added a text blurb at the top of a few characters pages (all of the anime only charcers that start with A) that explicitly states that the characters are filler. I got it from an already existing template here: http://bleach.wikia.com/wiki/Template:Filler. I am willing to go through all of the character pages and do this, as long as you guys are cool with it. I also filled out the page for the word filler, which already existed but was blank, here: http://bleach.wikia.com/wiki/Filler. It includes links to the "Anime only characters" and "Movie only characters" pages, and Yyp just created a "videogame only characters" page that I will add shortly. If anyone can figure out how to make the links to the "* only charcters" pages text-only links (so that the whole link doesn't have to be shown), that would be great, it seems that since they're "category" pages and not normal pages, the wiki wont allow me to make the text only links in the "internal link that shows different text" method suggested in the wiki help page. Anyway, once I get a feel for if you guys are down to let me put the filler blurb on the rest of the filler characters pages, I will get the rest of them done. Thanks. CorpusDei 01:33, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- I have a question? Is the only thing u are doing is adding the blurb, cause if thats the case I am cool with anything u do. Most users who are so adament about Anime Filler usually want the whole section eith downsized removed from the Link pages or sometimes just plain deleted. Minato88 01:38, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, all I want to do is make it clear at the beginning of the article that the information being presented on the page is based on filler (whether it be anime only, movie only, or videogame based), using the blurb . I do not intend on changing the body or text of any of the articles. The only thing I want to do is make it clear for readers from the beginning that the article isn't based on the manga canon. I don't want to downsize any of the articles or remove info from them, since they are legitimate information about characters and scenes in the Bleach universe, albeit non canon ones. CorpusDei 01:47, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
To the people who are arguing that the anime is just as canon as the manga... If you really want to get down to it, here is why I feel the anime really isn't canon. Canon is defined on wikipedia as "a body of material that is considered to be "genuine" or "official", that can be directly referenced as, or as if it were, material produced by the original author or creator of a series." The fact of the matter is that only things directly written by Kubo are canon ie. the manga. While Kubo does have some input on the anime, he doesn't have direct control of the anime. The anime is directed by Noriyuki Abe, and the character design is done by Masashi Kudo (who does get ideas for characters from Kubo sometimes, like Ashido and the Zanpakuto spirits). Bleach was licensed by Shonen Jump to TV Tokyo, and Kubo doesn't have direct control of the contents of the anime. Go and watch the closing credits for a Bleach episode, Kubo only gets an "Original Story by" credit, the actual writing of the episodes is done by a rotating team of 4-6 guys, for instance for episode 162, the screenplay writers were Masahiro Okubo, Natsuko Takahashi, Masashi Sogo, Rika Nakase, Genki Yoshimura, and Michiko Yokote . None of those guys are Tite Kubo, therefore the anime can't really be considered canon by the generally accepted definition given above. There is also another team of people on the anime who's job it is to try to keep continuity within the Bleach universe, and those are the people that are in contact with Kubo the most, but only to make sure that the things happening in the anime aren't going to be directly contradicted later in the manga. Kubo's work on the anime is pretty much in an advisory role only. That's why the anime isn't really canon.
And in case you didn't believe me, here are the credits:
Kubo's "Original Story By" credit:
Masashi Kudo's character design credit:
CorpusDei 03:02, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
I think you are making a big deal out of a minor point. The anime is an extension of the manga and it is official as in Kubo approved it. I rather doubt anything is going to be presented in the anime that Kubo doesn't approve of. This is not the case of JRR Tolkien where the guy is dead and so we have no idea how he feels about the movies. Kubo personally gave his seal of approval to these materials and there is a feedback loop. The most prominent being that Kubo adopted some of the drawing style that Masashi Kudo first employed back into the manga and as a result many characters look significantly different now then what they did back when Bleach first started. It is a collaboration but while Kubo's input varies from minor to major, to dismiss the anime as you are is insulting and offensive. They might be quasi-canon but they are still canon. I repeat, I am not denying the manga holds precedence above all and that character profiles and such should be drawn exclusively from the manga and the japanese version of the manga at that (Viz we know takes liberties when translation) but I cannot approve of the attitude or for that matter being treated as something of a moron with all these warning you insist on adding. But that's just me. Tinni 03:19, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
It's only two sentences. Not everyone knows what characters are core canon and which are anime filler, those are the people the warning is for. The fact that there was no mention of the word filler on Amagai's page until I added the blurb is ridiculous. If we want this wiki to be a fully truthful and reliable source of information about Bleach, we shouldn't gloss over the fact that some characters are filler characters. It's not like I want to change the content of their articles, all I want is a small blurb that states that the character is a filler character, is that so much to ask? This is really the only glaring problem I have with this wiki, the fact that canon and filler characters are mixed together as if they were all the same is what is keeping me from fully trusting the information on this site and recommending it to others. You and TwoCents are acting like I want to just delete the articles of filler characters entirely, all I want is to put some clarification in there for people who don't know. CorpusDei 03:39, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- I disagree with this misrepresentation of my opinion. If you're attempting to influence people to your side, insulting others is not the way to go. Please keep your comments civil. Thank you. Twocents 03:48, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Amagai already was under the category of "Anime character only". Also the first line of his profile has always read "Shūsuke Amagai (天貝 繍助, Amagai Shūsuke), sometimes romanized as Syūsuke Amagai, was introduced as the new Captain of the 3rd Division (anime only) sometime after Gin Ichimaru, its previous captain, betrayed the Soul Society." I merely find it hard to believe that anyone who doesn't read the first sentence is going to read the warning on top of the page. I know I often tune those things out. It's not about whether it is two line or one line. It's about adding something unnecessary and being treated like morons who need to have a big red arrow painted to make clear something is anime only. Anyway, I suggest that we allow more time to pass so that more people, as well as the other admins, can have a reasonable time to have an input on this issue. I mean, I have made my position and reasoning clearly. It's time for other people to have their say. Tinni 03:55, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Ok I just got on to see this whole thing as Yyp had informed me and i am basically of the mindset of this. If there was so much of an issue as people being so confused by what constitutes as canon and non-canon then let it be made clear. Canon material is the manga everyone understands that with few people being the exception. Non-canon material would be the movies, games and filler arcs, which has also been maintained for the longest. Having said that i do not in any way agree with what has taken place with this forum or the ideas that have come from it to which i will express now. CorpisDei you have been on this site since november of last year and contributed much of nothing but some talk on a few of the articles and then you have the nerve to come on the site and tell everyone admin to regular user that they are morons cause every page that is from a filler arc does not have 20+ signs stating that. If people are real fans of bleach you would think that they would know the difference between whats apart of the main story. Why is it that everyone has fallen short of this being a good site because in your view where not smart enough to state something thats common knowledge. I can't recall when any one has come with an issue of whether something from a filler was canon material that couldnt be fixed by simply stating its not canon. Then you bring up the point of speaking for every other person in the world who is fan by stating that they have a problem yet no one has come to present it. The reality is the most informed fans are on this site. Im not aware of who you talk to on what site or forum but this is the only site that has comprehensive and detailed knowledge on bleach. I would suggest if you find some place better and more trustworthy as you say then go there, your not required to be here. But don't sit here and tell us the consensus of everyone whose a fan is that this is not a valid and trustworthy site because we dont have the words filler plastered all over anime only content. Especially when other sites have partial to no real information or information that is out of date and just consists of a bunch of forums filled with speculation and fan fiction without any reference. As you have said all the issue you have are your opinion and as for real users of this site they are apparently of the opinion that its unnecessary. I nor anyone else is about to deconstruct the entire sight that it's only manga information here, all of bleach is presented on this site. If something in the anime is changed or lengthen thats noted in the reference. My basic issue is the lack of respect for the site and the people on it who work hard on it and your total disregard for that work. When yourself have contributed nothing and you tell others their not doing what their supposed to be doing. You seem to be the only one with this problem and as for filler stuff it will be taken care of but the way you have gone about expressing your point from jump has been wrong. You directly insulted the users of the site for not doing what you think they should first and second paragraphs of the conversations and now we are just supposed to go along. Salubri 04:06, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- I already know that at least one of the admins is vehemently against the idea, and Salubri already hates me, so I'm sure the blurb will get deleted. Calling a character anime only in tiny letters in the info box really doesn't cut it as far as I'm concerned, but if you guys want to mislead people and obfuscate the truth about certain characters, I'm obviously powerless to do anything but tell people that this wiki refuses to acknowledge the difference between filler and canon characters in a clear and concise way, and as such shouldn't be considered a trusted source for Bleach information. Does a site that seriously lists Seigen Suzunami and Shusuke Amagai is their list of captains without any mention of the fact that neither of them actually exist in the Bleach canon deserve the respect that you're so obviously clamoring for? I wish you guys would just see the error in not acknowledging that some characters are filler, but I've been trying to get something done about this for months and have been shouted down every time, so I'm really not surprised at the reaction I'm getting this time. It's just more of the same. All I wanted to do was add 2 sentences to the beginning of the filler characters articles, I didn't want to change the text of the articles at all, but somehow I'm advocating that we "deconstruct the entire site"? And about me supposedly insulting all of the users and their work, all I'm saying is that in this case there is room for improvement. If that improvement was made, this site would be 100% accurate IMO, and I even volunteered to do all of the edits myself. Instead, I have two different admins basically telling me that I'm an asshole and that they don't want to change things just because. Whatever guys, you can just keep power tripping away, I've frankly had enough of the ridiculousness here. CorpusDei 04:25, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- Again, I disagree with this misrepresentation of my opinion. I have not once been rude to you, and when I am respectful and courteous to someone else, I expect that they at least offer a modicum of that same courtesy back. My objection to the addition, in a basic summary, is:
- The pages already clearly state multiple times that the character is anime-only. It is also easy to infer that the characters are anime-only by reading the article. If someone chooses not to read the article, then they can't really complain that it doesn't say that the character is anime only.
- The warning is insulting for the fans who actually pay attention. It treats readers like infantile, incompetent individuals who can't deduce basic facts on their own.
- The warning is demeaning to those who love the anime. Anime-only characters are not inferior characters to be simply discarded and ignored. Tite has supported the anime, and we, in order to remain true to the Bleach universe, cannot ignore this.
- The warning is for hypothetical people. Not once in the entire time that I have been here have I seen someone say, for example, "I don't really understand. Is Amagai anime only?" As such, adding a warning for something that's never been needed is pointless and is a waste of space and time.
- Your attitude suggests to me that you're simply picking to be picking. I have done searches, and I have not found any sites that say bleach.wikia.com is a bad source for basic facts. You may correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you have a personal vendetta against the wiki. I really can't help you with that. And I don't see how adding a warning to help someone feel better about a personal issue is beneficial to this site. Twocents 04:36, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- Funnily enough, after you comment I did a google search on "Bleach wiki a bad source". The first hit was the wikipedia article on bleach being not a source of dioxin; the second hit was to Talk:Ikkaku Madarame where CorpusDei once again brought up this issue. From reading that post I gather that one of CorpusDei's beefs with us is that we don't use the word filler. I don't really see why we have to use that slang with "anime only" is sufficient but that's just me. Lastly, from my personal experience, I am aware the espada fans everywhere hate us with a passion because we won't let them do certain things. Like change Harribel's status etc. I don't necessarily see that as a bad thing. After all, wiki isn't here to cater to one group of fans above another. Tinni 06:09, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- But you do cater to one fandom over others, you cater to the anime fandom over the manga fans. That's really the only explanation for refusing to use the word filler, so as not to offend some anime fan who loves the Bounts, Amagai, or the Zanpakuto filler. Hardcore Bleach manga fans see this site as lame because you refuse to make a big enough distinction between Manga canon and anime filler. Hell, I know people who reccommend wikipedia's awful Bleach page over this site for just that reason. In the end, it wont matter to you, since there are probably a million Bleach anime watchers in the US, and maybe 25,000 (at best) hardcore bleach manga readers in the US, so offending the miniscule portion of us manga readers who care about the distinction between canon and filler isn't really going to make a difference, but still, for an admin team that supposedly takes the manga as hard canon over the anime when there are differences, this site sure does it's best not to piss any anime fans off, at the expense of the few of us who care about canon being represented properly. CorpusDei 06:21, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
sigh Once again, why doesn't it cut it? We have (anime only) in the info box. We have (anime only) in the profile's first line. We have the character listed under "anime-only character" category. I honestly find it hard to believe, anyone, anyone would still be confused about the fact that, that article is about an anime only character. I mean, if you want us to make such a change at least give us a reasonable line of argument to follow. From all we have read, it just seems that you personally do not find it enough but why not? It's rather explicit! I mean, in my personal opinion Kubo drawn chibis should be part of the characters articles! They are cute, they are from Kubo! Why not have them! But notice that the Chibis are just on my user page and not on article and I am not pushing for them to be in the articles. Put simply, I doubt the majority of the users of wiki are into chibis as much as I am. As such, such a move would just be making the wiki conform to my aesthetics. In other words, I think the majority of the users of wiki find the existing signs enough. If they don't let them speak-up. I am not against any measure that would truly be an improvement of the wiki. Tinni 04:44, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
I'm not going to keep arguing the point, it's obvious that the powers that be here don't feel like it's an issue worth making a change for, so whatever. I don't feel that a small "anime only" in the info box is enough, it needs to say either filler or non-canon at the beginning of the article. I was willing to take the time to edit the pages, so I really don't see how I'd be wasting anyone else's time, and two sentences isn't a waste of space considering the ridiculously huge trivia sections you allow on here, but whatever. And I know there are people on the boards that I post at (mainly BleachAsylum (where all of your spoilers come from btw), and also BleachForums and NarutoFan's bleach board) who agree that Bleach wikia should make it more obvious what is and isn't canon, and who straight up say that Bleach wikia isn't a valid source for information because you refuse to use the word filler and count Suzunami and Amagai as real captains, but whatever. It seems that you're trying to cater to the anime crowd, which makes sense I guess since there are many thousands more anime fans than manga readers. I was just hoping that adding a little blurb would give you some cred with the hardcore manga readers who, like me, nitpick this kind of stuff to death and really don't give a crap about the anime (since it isn't canon, no matter what you guys want to believe), that's all. CorpusDei 06:21, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- ...See statements like that is why we don't take you seriously. Firstly, we have a very strict anti-speculative trivia policy and have just come off a huge effort to clean-up junk trivia, junk quote and stuff like that. We all work very hard to keep the wiki upto date, speculation free and properly maintained. I would also thank you not to make undue claims. Our spoilers come mainly from FLOL. I know because I am the one who get's them of FLOL and Sheetz and only when Sheetz is away or sleeping do I take it off BleachAsylum. While I do consider myself an hardcore manga fan I don't see what is added by having an ugly sign up the top that says "Filler/non-canon". Why the hell do we have to use the word filler? Is Anime-only not clear enough? Non-canon? It's perfectly canon in the anime verse and we do make the distinction between anime verse and manga verse. I could say a few choice words about the people who you have reference on those boards but I won't. Anyone who who visits that site knows that the majority of the "hard core" people at those forums peddle mostly in speculation and crack and work off a version of bleach that exists only in their head and not the Bleach in front of them. I am sorry but I don't think I want creed with those people. Tinni 06:47, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- It's funny that you are berating Bleach board goers as crack theorists who go by a fantasy Bleach world, but you get your spoilers from a guy who runs an IchixHime pairing board. Hypocrite much? And for the record, BleachAsylum is one of the few boards that doesn't allow crack theories (except in one specific thread), and who holds their users to a pretty high standard when it comes to backing up their theories with actual evidence. And you are missing the whole point, the entire anime-verse, as you put it, is not canon. The only hard canon in Bleach is the manga, since it's the only thing actually written by Kubo. If you take the anime as canon, then there is no way to reconcile the differences between the two. You have to have one source that is canon, and the manga is it, no matter what you think. I think the problem here is that you guys tried (and failed, honestly) to mix the anime and manga into one entity, when there is way too much difference between the two for such a mixing of universes to make sense. The entire manga has taken place over the span of 4 months, tops, and the anime has taken place over about a year and a half. How do you reconcile that and still maintain that both are canon, it just makes no sense. Entire sections of anime are completely made up by the animation team, they aren't canon at all. The entire Bount arc, the entire Amagai arc, the Entire Zanpakuto Tales arc, and probably 15 other stand alone episodes are not in the manga at all. That's like almost half of the anime that isn't canon, and yet somehow you are going to say that both the anime and manga are canon? That's why this site isn't reliable, because the discrepancies between the two universes are way too big to try to say that both are canon. Really, what you should have done is made separate sections for the anime and manga when this wiki was started, but it's too late for that now. Trying to shoehorn everything under one canon umbrella is failing, it's not possible, and that's just going to become more and more apparent as Bleach keeps moving forward. CorpusDei 07:20, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- Ichigo x Orihime is more canon then Ichigo x Rukia but that's my personal opinion and not something I would add to wiki. But let's not get into an argument over the quality of Bleach Asylum or any other Bleach forum. You hang out where you feel most at home and I'll hang out where I feel most at home. You still don't get the fact that we do consider the manga as the primary source that takes precedence above all, anime is a secondary source which is only considered when it doesn't contradict the manga, we also consider databooks and other supplementary material as legitimate sources of information because Kubo made those/gave his notes and stuff so that they could be made. We also consider Colourful Bleach chapters and other omake drawn by Kubo as legitimate sources. You and your friends might disagree but the majority of the users of Bleach wiki do not. We reference things extensively and removes things that are not referenced. It's a system that works well and takes into account the whole of the Bleach verse as defined by Kubo. What we don't take into account is fanon, fanfiction, fandom speculation or anything that Kubo didn't personaly approve off. So there! Tinni 07:39, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
Also, I just happened to notice that every single time the "Zanpakuto Unknown Tales arc" is mentioned on a character page, it says right under it "Note: Events occurring in this arc are only in the anime and do not constitute canon material." (which is exactly what it should say IMO). I didn't put that there (in fact, if I had to guess, I think an admin did it), so I must not be the only one who feels this way. How is that any different from putting the filler blurb on filler character pages? Oh that's right, it's not different at all. EDIT: it also says "Note: Events occurring in this arc are only in the anime and do not constitute canon material." under many of the Bount arc mentions on the character pages. So I guess someone agrees with me, huh? Someone needs to go in and put that under the Amagai arc mentions, and then I'd be half way to being happy about the state of the info on this site. CorpusDei 07:20, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- No, that little blurb is part of our ongoing campaign to improve wiki. Your idea is being rejected because it is unnecessary intrusion on the flow of the article. Tinni 07:39, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that makes very little sense, given that you just spent the better part of tonight trying to argue that the anime is canon, and yet you and the mod team are trying to make this wiki better by saying that the anime filler isn't canon. That exact message "Note: Events occurring in this arc are only in the anime and do not constitute canon material." would be a prefect blurb to add to the beginning of filler character pages, only changed a little bit, such as "Note: This character is only in the anime and does not constitute canon material." It's exactly the same message, for exactly the same reason. You guys made a huge deal that my blurb makes your readers out to be morons, and yet you put an almost identical blurb after the header of every mention of a filler arc in every canon character page? It's starting to look like you guys just don't like my style, and I'll admit that I come off as a huge asshole most of the time, but I really don't see how you can justify adding that message to every instance of a mention of a filler arc, and not think it's a good idea to add it to the pages of the actual characters that make up those filler arcs. Where is the logic in that? If only for consistencies sake, that message should be attached to every filler character and arc, or it shouldn't be included at all (it should definitely be included IMO). CorpusDei 07:52, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- sigh I said consistently that anime is a secondary source after the manga where anime doesn't contradict the manga. No one on wiki considers filler to be canon. Thus the sign. Anyway, I am not going to argue this any more. Just for future reference, the reason we never, ever adopt your ideas is because you always work in an insult with your suggestion and urge us to cater to some group of people who you meet at various Bleach forums who don't like us for whatever reason. These people are unlikely to become regular Bleach wiki users just because adopt changes you suggest. This wiki is what it's users want it to be, with the admins aiding in keeping it relevant and free of fandom content and as true to the world Kubo created and authorised others to add to/create. If those people you meet at forum really want to use wiki but disapprove of something. Let them come and make accounts and start making legitimate contributions. That includes you as well. Hardcore manga fan - why not help us by writing summaries for manga chapters, or adding to articles when the latest manga chapter comes out or even adding to articles from earlier manga chapters because many articles lack those section. See if you actually made a legitimate contribution to wiki instead of insulting us every time you suggested something, you would actually understand how wiki works and how to get your ideas adopted. Tinni 08:15, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
I really don't want to keep adding things to this argument, but I feel there are somethings that need to be stated for future problems of this nature, In the event Corpus or anyone else ever comes back & says these things again. With that said this is going to be a long post, but there are some things that Corpus & all other Bleach Wikia users(Admin or otherwise)need to be alerted to. (To all Admins & Senior users, what i'm going to say is directed toward Corpus & Juniors, because I know u are already aware of these things of & know what u are doing, though u still might want to read what i'm going to say & correct me if i'm wrong.)
1). My first part is directed solely to Corpus & his nameless friends(who despite the fact that creating an account here is free, easy, & takes only a few mins) have never done so. While I was personally not against u'or idea I really didn't like it(& now I see I should have said so yesterday). Still, I wasn't against the idea. U need to seriously read what u have posted. U have personally insulted us here at Bleach Wikia, but as big insult as this is, it is nothing compared to the insult u have dealt Kubo, Noriyuki, & all the others responsible for making Bleach. What u have insuiated is what I consider to be Anime Blasphemy. Do u really think that Noriyuki & the others just make up crap about Bleach as if to say "Screw Kubo, were doing this our way". Whether u realize this or not, by saying that their work on the show isn't legit u have DIRECTLY INSULTED THEM. I will repeat this sentence since u seem to read our comments here & twist them around(an example of this is above, when no matter how many times we tell u that the Manga holds precedence over the Anime u have ignored it everytime). Whether U REALIZE THIS OR NOT, by saying that their work on the show isn't legit u have DIRECTLY INSULTED THEM. Tite Kubo is the owner of Bleach & if he felt that Noriyuki & the others were twisting his story into something else he would have said so & technically he could file a lawsuit against them. He has never done this & as far as I know has never even once said anything negative about the Anime. We consider the Anime Canon, cause of the fact that (whether u are aware of this or not)Kubo APPROVES OF THE ANIME. Allow me to repeat this. We consider the Anime Canon, cause of the fact that (whether u are aware of this or not)Kubo APPROVES OF THE ANIME. I also think u have lied here. U claim to have started watching Bleach cause of the Anime, yet U HAVE INSULTED IT, TRIED TO DISREGARD IT, & HAVE DONE EVERYTHING IN U'OR POWER TO DISOWN IT. AS somebody whom does watch the Anime over the Manga & I have stated many times on this Wikia that I DO(including my UserPage), I feel that the Anime should be taken as Canon. U who claim to have started to follow Bleach cause of the Anime is a lie, cause if u really like it so much, then u wouldn't be so quick to disregard it.
2). The second part is directed towards Corpus & his nameless friends, but it NEEDS to be READ BY ALL USERS ON BLEACH WIKIA, ADMIN OR OTHERWISE. Corpus allow me to clarify something for u. This is Bleach Wikia. Allow me to say it again. THIS IS BLEACH.WIKIA.COM. This is not Tite Kubo.Wikia.Com. This is not BleachManga.Wikia.com. This is not BleachAnimeOnly.Wikia.Com. & if this isn't clear enough for u allow to read the old welcome(which has since been taken down) to u(U & u'or friends probably missed it while u were to busy complaining about the site). "Welcome to Bleach Wikia, a Wikia dedicated to all things Bleach." Let me repeat that last part. A WIKIA DEDICATED TO ALL THINGS BLEACH. We here at bleach Wikia have things listed so as to discuss all things Bleach. Of course we have a Hierarchy. It is Manga First, THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS!!!!. Anime based Manga second, again NO EXCEPTIONS! Anime Only third & it has its own sections & we DO NOT ALLOW FOR DIRECT COMPARISIONS ON THE PAGES BETWEEN THE MANGA & ANIME ONLY. If u need an example I have a good one. Ever since the new Anime Only Arc came out people have been trying to put in Chojiros page that his Zanpakuto is a lightning element(& it probably is & Kubo will show us that later). In fact we have the watercooler & blog features where people can get draw all the connections from Manga to Anime that they want, BUUUUTTTT; WE PROHIBIT THIS ON THE CHARACTERS PAGES & HAVE BLOCKED THOSE WHO FAIL TO ABIDE BY THIS RULE. With all of this said there is one thing we are generally not tolerable of in anyway, Speculation. I have an account at Bleach Asylum & there are far, far more forums & speculation there then on this website, so Corpus, u lied again. Again all speculation here at Bleach Wikia is in the watercooler & blogs. Noriyuki Abe & the others work on the Anime & make it, well, they make it, PERIOD!! Any & everything they come out with in the Anime is Canon to the Anime & I personally view it that way. We did not go through all of the trouble of separating the Manga & Anime only sections for nothing. On every page where the Bounts are mentioned they & the Bount Arc are considered Anime Only. U & u'or unnamed friends(whom haven't posted here) seem to be the only people here who can't tell the difference between the Manga & Anime. Based on u'or earlier comments, u in general seem to not be able to entirely understand Bleach & are confused about somethings.
3). Overall we do a pretty good job here & this website has never had any serious complaints about how its setup. With all of this said, I still consider myself a junior here & if I am wrong on anything I have said above, I would be happy for an Admin or Senior to correct me. Minato88 22:02, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
- I think your passion for the wiki comes across in what you said. I also don't think you said anything wrong. I certainly hope you keep feeling this enthusiastic about Bleach and the wiki. Tinni 09:20, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
My take on this... The manga is Bleach's home, the anime is simply an extension of that home. The manga sometimes only spends a panel on a particular topic, while the anime would go into more detail, thus elucidating on what the manga had stated. I only started reading Bleach because the ANIME aired on Adult Swim. At first I wasn't intrigued by it, but when Grimmjow was introduced and I saw him FIGHT (animated style), I became hooked. And the Bount Arc was the best filler in Anime history, it could even pass as something in the manga, due to the sheer complexity of the Arc. The Amagai Arc showed us how it is when a New Captain joins, something the manga took forever to do. The anime also does things the manga has no time to do, namely, Ashido. Heck, I love the anime more than the manga, the only reason I even read the manga is to see if Grimmjow will live or die. Bottom line, the anime is equally as important as the manga.Grimmjow2 22:21, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
I hate to resurrect this debate but just for the sake of closure I thought I would post one last time. Feeling that perhaps I had lost objectivity on the original topic of discussion, i.e. the actual blurb Corpus Dei wanted to add, I asked a friend to evaluate the blurb strictly from the point of view of a wiki user. He's only watch a few episodes of Bleach but can't really be said to be into Bleach and is certainly not into the Bleach fandom. So he really is totally unbiased. This is what he said,
So I read all three Bleach Wiki links. That's a lotttttttttt of discussion about something so minor. Especially since the information is right in the original article, in the sidebar, where it belongs. That's where I look on Wiki entries for things if I want to know little details like that.
I also think the added line "Be warned ! The following text is talking about an anime-only character, also called filler. This doesn't happen in the manga." not only has a condescending tone, but is also redundant because the side bar text is still there. And quite visible. Aside from the condescending tone, it's not worded properly. "The following article is about an anime-only character." - Would be better, because "This doesn't happen in the manga" is also redundant. If it's an anime only character, of course it's not in the manga. That's also the part that makes the least sense. "This doesn't happen" - What doesn't happen? The character? Any of the events? It could be worded better. And also "anime-only" is incorrect, because he's in the video game too, supposedly, but that's just me being nit-picky. :P
So all in all, it's not about me and what I think is canon (for the record, I consider the manga, colourful Bleach, databooks and omake's Kubo himself drew and included in volumes, databooks as well as volume sketches to be canon) or what other people think. From a wiki use point of view, the blub is not the way to go. So if we are all reasonably satisfied, may I ask that this discussion be closed. Tinni 09:20, November 5, 2009 (UTC)