Talk:Shinigami

Zanpakuto info
So, in the "Overview" section, it claims that Zanpakutō are "generated from their own souls. A Zanpakutō is a physical manifestation of this force concentrated into a blade". Now, we know by now that this is in fact NOT how Zanpakutō are acquired, and I would change it, but it has an actual reference (databook) to this incorrect statement. Since I don't have the databooks, can someone tell me if this info is still considered accurate? Timjer (talk) 12:06, January 24, 2020 (UTC)
 * I dont have the English version of Masked bar scans of selected pages that I dont remember why I even have, but I have the raw of that page if anyone can read it. 10:44, January 25, 2020 (UTC)


 * I've got the English version but my scanner's lying in several pieces. Here's what it says under the Zanpakutō heading:


 * A Soul Reaper's weapon, its shape is similar to a Japanese katana. Low ranking officers are issued an Asauchi sword, but high-ranking officers arm themselves with unique swords generated from their own souls. Its shape differs depending on its power.


 * And that's that. Kenji-Taichō (Talk)  11:08, January 25, 2020 (UTC)


 * Hm, seems to be a~genuine retcon then. If you ask me, things stated in the story itself (especially later on) take priority over databooks and visual guides and such, so I think we should correct it. Timjer (talk) 11:26, January 25, 2020 (UTC)


 * It depends largely on how you interpret it, sadly. These pieces are presented right alongside information on Shikai and Bankai on the next couple of pages, and the way it reads suggests the uniqueness discussed in the section I posted comes from having learned Bankai. I wouldn't say it's a straight retcon -- everyone, perhaps except Nobles, begin as low-level officers and are given an Asauchi. This then creates the unique Zanpakutō. Given that we now know that a Zanpakutō is dubbed an "Evolved Zanpautō" upon acquiring Bankai, this could be inferred to be the unique swords the higher-ups arm themselves with. As I said though, its open to interpretation.


 * I'd agree with tweaking the reference to support the more relevant information. Given that the older explanation was given in a databook, you could drop a mention of it in the trivia section, as an option. Kenji-Taichō (Talk)  12:57, January 25, 2020 (UTC)