Talk:Zanpakutō

Constant reversions
Why does SunXia keep reverting all recent edits to this article? I checked out like the last five and they contained valid information supported by the manga. Xfing (talk) 20:53, July 11, 2015 (UTC)
 * I undo anything that violates our policies. Let's not be dramatic on the matter. If you add information prove that it is true.

Definition of Sword
(Note: please excuse the poor quality of this message; I was working on a much longer, neater, and more detailed one, when Wikia figured out it would be a perfect moment to "time out" on me, costing me the entire article worth of text)

Recently, SunXia has reverted my edit on the article of Shinken Hakkyōken:


 * Shikai: Shinken Hakkyōken takes the form of an ornate medium-sized sword with a short, wide blade with no cutting edge, and a flat end . Its "blade" is decorated with four inlaid diamonds, resembling the design commonly found on the wrapped hilt of a katana, and its forte possesses a tassel on either side. Instead of a tsuba, there is a ornate band guard covering an inch of the blade with tassels hanging from either side of it. The handle of Shinken Hakkyōken is only somewhat shorter than the "blade", and possesses two tassels attached to the ring at its end.[1] Overall, the design of Shinken Hakkyōken is similar to macuahuitl.

(The green text are the parts that were added by me, but reverted by Sun)

Now, my beef with this is that Shinken Hakkyōken is not a bladeless sword. A sword without a blade is like a spear without a tip or an axe without a head: just a piece of wood. Shinken Hakkyōken is actually a sword without edge.

Part of Sun's reasoning for reverting this was that a blade and the edge are one and the same. This is incorrect. The edge is not the synonym of a blade, but its part. That would be like me calling your entire arm "thumb" simply because it's a part of it.

Parts of the sword are pre-named and pre-defined, and not something for us to decide on. Every sword has a blade and a hilt. Other parts, such as pommel, crossguard, rainguard, handguard/basket, edge, and tip are completely optional, although the lack of an edge makes the sword a blunt weapon.

Second, less important part is how I noted that Shinken Hakkyōken resembles macuahuitl. If you were to put the two of them side-by-side, you would see the uncanny resemblances in the basic design: both have a wide and unorthodox blade, no crossguard or pommel, and no real tip.

For comparison, I made similar comparison for 'Fuji Kujaku, comparing it with a shotel and no one seemed to complain.

My reason fow writing this is that there may be more Zanpakutō articles that are in need of editing, and as no one seems to bother, I wish to tend to it myself. I only wish to avoid conflicts and disagreements that might arise in that process.

 Helel ben Shahaar  ( talk ) 14:35, April 28, 2018 (UTC)


 * While I agree that edgeless works better than bladeless due to the apparent definitions of sword parts (see here), I dont agree with the claim about resembling the Macuahuitl, its not very similar at all judging from that picture. --StarCrossKnight (talk) 21:25, April 30, 2018 (UTC)

Canon or filler status
Hey, I just had an idea I wanted to bring up, feel free to do with it as you please. Now, I noticed that, despite this wiki's strict canon rules, the Zanpakuto page list both canon ones and non canon ones together. Now, I was thinking to do something like the One Piece wiki on Devil Fruits: list the filler and movie ones separately. I mean, it already has game ones listed separately, so why not filler ones? Not only does it make it clearer for newcomers, but it also clarifies which types (such as "defense type") were never actually stated to exist in the manga. What do you think? Timjer (talk) 15:10, August 13, 2019 (UTC)


 * Hmm, nice idea and template. The only change I'd suggest is moving the Bankai of Sakanade (and later Kazeshini) to its own section detailing that these are non-canon releases of canon Zanpakutō, just to avoid confusion from people seeing the Shikai listed in both sections. But overall, I'm in support.--Xilinoc (talk) 15:40, August 13, 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I was thinking of adding Sakanade's Bankai just on its own, but I figured that might be even more confusing as it would seem to be a Bankai without a Shikai at first glance. Timjer (talk) 16:00, August 13, 2019 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I can see that happening. I think the optimal way to present it would be to replace the Shikai section with a User section, so people know who got what Bankai at a glance. Something like:


 * That's just a mockup, the formatting and colors are entirely negotiable, as are the column header names (I added "Type" as well both to fill it out and to compensate for the unconventional listing format), but that's what I'm envisioning.--Xilinoc (talk) 16:11, August 13, 2019 (UTC)


 * Hm, not bad. And Sakanade could still be clarified as an Illusion type, but I'm not sure if Kazeshini (considering the retcon) should be a Kido type or a healing type... Timjer (talk) 16:18, August 13, 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd say just put it as Kidō-type to be safe.--Xilinoc (talk) 17:36, August 13, 2019 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. I was never happy with the user names that used to be there being taken out and wouldnt mind them being put back in for every Zanpakuto. Still think it was a backward step to remove them. Even ardent fans arent going to remember who some of the canon ones belong to, nevermind the filler ones so why expect fans less familiar with it to remember? Shouldn't have to open a new page just to see who it belongs to every time you find one you dont recognise. 09:06, August 14, 2019 (UTC)


 * Good point, Yyp, and while we're at it, we might do the same to the various Resurrección. Besides, I think what the sealed form looks like is far less relevant than the respective owner, so maybe switch those? Timjer (talk) 09:17, August 14, 2019 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me on both counts, though I think there's still a place for the sealed form list.--Xilinoc (talk) 16:07, August 14, 2019 (UTC)

Zanpakuto typing
So, forgive me if this has been discussed before, but I was thinking; shouldn't some Zanpakuto be reclassified? I mean, Senbonzakura fits all the definitions of a "projectile type", while Kinshara and Suzumushi seem to be either an illusion or sound type (if the latter exists) to me. I mean, were Tobuime or Tengumaru ever officially stated to be fire types? Pretty sure we came to that conclusion through logic reasoning. Plus, could we reclassify Minazuki and Tenken as "living" Zanpakuto? I know it's a novel-original term, but it does seem reasonable to call them that. I'm also not really sure if Zangetsu even qualifies as a melee type anymore... Timjer (talk) 12:41, February 6, 2020 (UTC)


 * Going point-by-point:


 * Per this discussion, Senbonzakura isn't listed as a projectile-type because that was a very specific type given to Jirōbō Ikkanzaka's Zanpakutō in (I believe) the first databook, and to ONLY that Zanpakutō - if Senbonzakura fell into the same classification, SOULs could've easily listed it as such since the SS arc was well over by then, but it didn't.


 * Kinshara...I seem to recall the mod team discussing moving it to illusion-type after the Bankai debut during the Mask fight, but it seems like we overlooked that. Time to fix it.


 * I would say Suzumushi falls better into the more broad Kidō-type; similar to how Kinshara would be an illusion-type because of its Bankai, Suzumushi doesn't affect only hearing, but every sense but touch at its "peak", on top of having that weird second Shikai release that is just a physical attack.


 * Reclassifying Minazuki and Tenken I'd want more consensus on, but sure why not, they're unique enough (though we're still not sure what the hell Minazuki the Bankai does, and something that vague might fit Kidō-type better).--Xilinoc (talk) 19:35, February 6, 2020 (UTC)


 * Oh, so that's why Senbonzakura isn't classified as that. I admit I don't fully agree (as to me it just makes perfect sense otherwise), but I'll agree to drop it.


 * Glad I reminded you about Kinshara.


 * Eh, the Bankai of Suzumushi affects all senses, so it would make sense to consider it an Illusion type as well... But I admit the Shikai makes this less clear.


 * Yeah, Minazuki 's Bankai does make things less clear, but Tenken at least deserves to be listed as that. And maybe Yachiru's too. Timjer (talk) 19:45, February 6, 2020 (UTC)


 * Say, while we're at it, I had another idea. Would it make sense for Ichimonji to be classified as a "darkness type" elemental? I mean, Ichibe did blatantly say that his and Ichimonji's power is to control all the "blackness"/"darkness" in existence, and uses it as a sort of ink to complement his name powers. It's release command is even "Blacken", for what it's worth. What do you think? Timjer (talk) 08:49, February 7, 2020 (UTC)


 * Honestly, that sounds fine by me.--Xilinoc (talk) 17:20, February 7, 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll do it right away. Timjer (talk) 18:07, February 7, 2020 (UTC)

Quote color
So, ever since I added the quote here, it's been bothering me that the color does not match the infobox. I'd love to change it myself, but I have honestly no idea how to do that... Timjer (talk) 10:25, July 25, 2020 (UTC)

"Melee-type" to "Power-type"
Hello all, just coming in with something I've only recently noticed/learned with my re-read of the series. In chapter 272, page 11, Szayelaporro specifically refers to Renji's Zabimaru as a Zanpakutō, as it has no unique properties/abilities and a very simple "shape variation theory", which means that his attacks with it are fairly predictable. To me, this indicates that all melee-oriented Zanpakutō, the ones we have currently listed under Melee-Type in the table, are officially designated as Power-Type, since their main attribute is offense matching Szayelaporro's description - anyone else think we should change the table/page to reflect that, or am I extrapolating too much here?--Xilinoc (talk) 04:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering it relies entirely on their power behind their attacks, Reiatsu in this case, yeah, I wouldn't be against this change.
 * agreed for the same reasons. Timjer (talk) 11:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)