Talk:Zanpakutō

Grammer
Gotta point out, Zanpakuto Control section, last paragraph, second last line, "Zaraki's immense personal strength not only made it possible for him to buck these rules". Need I say more? Prophet of Sanghelios 00:31, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Someone from the grammar corner will get around to it.Salubri (Talk)  14:34, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Twin Zanpakutō
Can anyone add the information of the twin zanpakuto from the video game Bleach: The 3rd Phantom?D38edooa 23:42, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately they cant be classified readily. Salubri (Talk)  14:34, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Unknown Zanpakuto types : Byakuya?
Shouldn't Byakuyas Zanpakuto be classified as a Plant-Type Zanpakuto as its names is Thousand Cherry Blossoms and most of its attacks involve flower petals, objects made of flower petals, or flower petal related objects?Berfomet 00:39, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

No thats just the name of his zanpakuto, it has been stated many times that they are very small blades they just happen to reflect light in a way that makes them look like cherry blossom petals flowing in the wind, hence the name. They have no connection at all with any form of plant. Salubri (Talk)  01:04, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

So wouldn't that classify it as a projectile-type? Maggosh 01:45, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

It has never been remotely stated as such even though it would seem so, there is no information in either the anime or manga that can place it currently in a particular category. Its likely but not even hinted at so until we get some actual information to that point we cant do anything with it. Salubri (Talk)  01:51, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be in box form like the rest of te types?Saimaroimaru 23:46, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

First why is Isshin Kurosaki's Zanpakutō not part of this box. Second shouldn't Byakuya Kuchiki, Rangiku Matsumoto, and Gin Ichimaru have a box for their Zanpakutō type. The three of them have the ability to manipulate their Zanpakutō's blades, Byakuya turns them into shards, Rangiku into gains of metal, and Gin can extend the length of his blade. A three can change the form of their Zanpakutō's blades so doesn't that make that a seperate type? Tripodssj6 13:58, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Isshin's Zanpakutō is pretty new, so we likely just haven't got round to it, as well as the fact that we really haven't seen enough to make an informed decision. As for the 3 mentioned, we did have Byakuya and Rangiku as Projectile types (coz of the functional similarities to that 4th seat of 7th division guy who's name escapes me...), but we have since changed it. They've never been explicitly classified as far as I'm aware, and their nature does make it a bit akward to do so. TomServo101 (Talk)  14:08, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

We are trying not to make-up classifications if we can at all help it. As far as I know, Kubo has never given a classification for those three zanpakutos. So, for now it is best to keep them unclassified. Tinni  (Talk)  14:26, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

But aren't Byakuya and Rangiku's Zanpaktou the same as Jirobo Ikkanzaka's in that they seperate into pieces to be used offensively (or defensively) at long range. how is that not projectile? and doesn't the fact Gins blade extends up to a specific maximum make it very similar to Renji's (albeit less flexible)? Just seems strange to have such high profile Zanpaktou, all of which with pretty detailed specifications on the unknown section, i though this was really for Zan's that have not been shown Wolfwood (Shoot)  14:06, June 17, 2010 (UTC)

Just because Gin's blade extends like that doesn't mean it's like totally like Renji's. They operate on different mechanics, and their special abilities are nothing alike. Also, Jirobo is different because they literally are projectiles. Plus, he never uses them to block attacks, because projectiles aren't really meant to be blocking attacks. Byakuya's bankai makes Senbonzakura difficult to classify since two of its forms appear to be primarily melee, while gokei and the initial stage of his bankai, plus his shikai involve the usage of many blades to slice up the enemy from all directions. It's hard to classify a Zanpakuto that operates on these principals. Haineko can't really be put into the projectile category either since she doesn't actually shoot or "throw" anything; it's really just a cloud of tiny blades that cuts its foes from all directions. How can you classify a cloud of blades so tiny you can't even tell they're blades? In order for Zanpakuto to be technically be projectile type, they need to literally blast or "throw" something. Don't argue that Jirobo attacks without throwing those blades; those things are basically many shuriken, and they are designed purely to be accelerated at their opponent to deal damage at long range and little, if not nothing, else, which is the fundamental for projectiles. Basically, their numerous subtleties separate these Zanpakuto from others.Aeron Solo (talk) 00:24, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Kido-type and Elemental-type Zanpakuto
Under the classification of each zanpakuto as a different type, it's written that all elemental zanpakuto may merely be kido-type, but since the conversation affirming such a suspicion took place in the anime, it cannot be stated as fact. However, I believe I have found a statement in the manga that confirms that all elemental-type zanpakuto are indeed only kido-types. Behold to the left.



Note: I'm new here, so I apologize if this has been brought up and shot down before. PJDEP 03:41, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

In fact the conversation was brought up before and discussed but not with this obvious evidence to further support the claim that Elemental types are also under Kido. The acknowledgement will be made in the article. Salubri (Talk)  04:35, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

List of the superlative Zanpakutō
It popped into my mind to create a list about superlative (most beautiful, most powerful...) zanpakutou. This may be enlarged, improved and added to the article as its own section, but at least I start to gather some facts. Here it goes:

I don't remember where each of them they were mentioned, but they do are mentioned. Ryūjin Jakka's power is mentioned when Yamamoto fought against Aizen in the latest manga chapters. Hyōrinmaru's power was mentioned in the latest minutes when Hitsugaya fought against Halibel, and Sode no Shirayuki's beautifulness were referred in the Zanpakutō introductions. --Nuti 05:51, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

It's not necessary. It'll only add more clutter to the article and make it more unorganized. Aside from that, these descriptions are already added onto the characters' articles themselves. Arrancar109 (Talk)  05:54, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right. Maybe then (if it happens) when more superlatives are mentioned and they are worth mentioning. --Nuti 06:09, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Jinzen
Just out of curiousity, did anybody else notice that when Tensa Zangetsu cuts Ichigo in the latest chapter, the injury is then reflected on Ichigo's real body? You know, the part where his shoulder is cut. Prophet of Sanghelios 08:01, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Suffice to say that it is a battle within ichigo's mind it would stand to reason that the damage done to him there would be just as real as physical damage especially at the level of connection he is currently using to enter his mind. <font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  19:13, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I thought as much, so would it be worthwhile mentioning on the article that any injuries sustained within a Shinigami's mind while in this state are then reflected on their physical body? Prophet of Sanghelios 01:49, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

lets wait abit to see if anything else happens.--<font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  01:58, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Alright, no worries. Prophet of Sanghelios 02:02, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

the line in the manga about "you must set foot in those thousand years, that you have not touched" he's not saying that this training substitutes in for thousands of years of training he is saying ichigo has not gone through formal shinigami training which itself has been honed over thousands of years so i move for that line being changed to better reflect the textViperaspec (talk) 17:29, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

ok i'm either not understanding how references work cause i have been referencing or what i'm typing isnt coming across like it should. what is currently written for what Jinzen is, does not correspond to what is in the manga. What is written is a misinterpretation and the person who switched it back called what i wrote speculative when what is currently there is worst then speculative, its wrong. i realize i sound a bit pissy about this but its beginning to vex me a bit, nice mixture of frustration that i might be doing something incorrectly and that people arent understanding what i'm putting forth. if anyone has a thought on this please read chapter 408 pages 9-11 and then page 20. Viperaspec (talk) 01:35, August 6, 2010 (UTC)

Sword Shikai
I was going to just remove it, but it seemed to be a pretty big block of text, so I decided that it should be discussed first. In the Shikai section, it mentions that most Shikai take on the forms of some type of sword. Not only do I feel that this statement is pretty inaccurate, but the section proceeds to list a large number of "exceptions," and goes into detail with them. Should that part be removed? With a rough count, I am pretty sure that at least half of the Shikais in the series are not swords. Mohrpheus 03:37, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

It can be written out better i think. Its too much going on now that i look at it. Maybe a better description that goes there. <font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  03:44, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Here's my attempt at a rewrite:

"They almost always take on the form of a weapon of some kind, though the type of weapon can vary greatly among different Zanpakutō. One exception is Retsu Unohana's Shikai, which seems to take on the characteristics of an animal, rather than a weapon."

I suppose it can be edited, but I felt that Unohana's Shikai is worth pointing out, since it really is the one exception. I think. Mohrpheus 04:09, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Bankai status?
For each individual zanpakuto's Bankai status, well specifically the ones who have not achieved Bankai, I think its somewhat misleading to say "None" for their Bankai status. All Zanpakuto have a Bankai, it's just the difference of whether or not the wielder has achieved it. To me, saying "None" sounds like the Bankai is nonexistent and can never be achieved when that is not true (except for characters who are already dead - they can keep their status as "None"). I think this should be changed to what it says in their articles like "Not yet achieved", plus it'll also make it more consistent. Any thoughts on this? Manj 06:48, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

yeah i agree i think "none" should be replaced with "not yet achieved" or "not yet revealed" that seems better. Omegabigb 18:42, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Actually no, For that argument to work there would have to be proof that there is no bankai for all zanapakuto which isn't the case. The specific articles state whether a bankai isn't reveled or whether it is achieved. This page is about zanpakuto not the wielder so much as detailing who the swords belong to. As currently they have not achieved bankai therefore they don't possess it until such time as they do achieve it. Those who don't have the achievement are listed as none those who have but aren't know are considered unknown. <font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  19:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Wabisuke
I just read that wabisuke is among the kido zanpakutó but it depends on cutting the enemy, that seems like melee to me. Omegabigb 18:39, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ok once again with this question. I dont want to be mean but if you don't know what your talking about, how the site works or how the organization of the page works (which is a simple read) then dont bring these questions up. This was determined a while ago. A kido type zanpakuto is designed around a special ability rather than its close combat potential. Therefore Wabisuke while it has to physically hit a opponent or object is kido because its designed entirely around its power. Melee would mean regardless physical attack alone with no addition of powers (outside of spiritual energy) used. <font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  19:41, June 29, 2010 (UTC)

zanpakutos off the manga
something that I don't like is those filler and movies zanpakutos, but something I can't stand is that video game zanpakuto which the owner doesn't even match the story line. I know that I can't ask for someone to take them out, but I would really apreciate if someone e put them in a separated section, or at least write "anime only"or "movie only"or"video game only". thanks Noyas 22:18, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

That would just add clutter to the article. Its noted on the character pages that they are non canon--<font color="black" face="Verdana">God <font color="black" face="Verdana">(Pray)  22:22, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

Organization
I must say putting the organization of Zanpaktu according to type uses massive amount of assumptions, and you could even say original research.

For instance, Kisuke's Benihime is listed as a Kido type, despite it not being fully revealed. We don't know what it actually does. It can fire Reitsu similiar to Cero's, Bala's and make shields, but how is not explained.

Ichigo's black Getsuga Tensho has been shown similiar to Cero Osculas. Yet, it's a melee type.

Kira's Wabisuke relies on close combat to activate it's ability, contrary to the tag of Kido.

Fujimaru's Ryujomaru(or at least the game's cannon version, speed type) uses pure speed, like Ichigo's Bankai, yet, there are in different categories.

Many would readily put Senbonzakura as a projectile type, as it only has one melee ability, Shukei: Hakuteiken. Every other ability relies on projectiles.

They can be argued for in different ways, some haven't been confirmed in one category, yet assumed. If it's not complete, or near complete, in the manga or anime, it shouldn't be followed for a list such as this.

Moogle Buddy (talk) 13:15, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I should go about responding to this just yet, but before I do, there is a problem that you just made me realize that needs to be fixed. While the term has been used for sure, there is no source in the article for the definition of Kidou-type, particularly where it says that any Zanpakuto that relies on its special abilities is considered to be one. This is also strange because it contradicts a previous statement in the article, that they are "classed by the main purpose or effect of their special abilities," a statement that includes every Zanpakuto on the list. This also throws a monkey wrench into the page's policy that "Types are determined by what a Zanpakutō is shown and/or stated to be capable of and nothing more." Particularly the "shown" part. As it is now, the only Zanpakuto that we can actually reference as being Kidou-types for sure are the elemental ones. Mohrpheus (talk) 13:41, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Fine then considered the page deconstructed. --<font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  14:01, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

... I know the type classifications is a bit problematic but this is ridiculous! What was probably the most popular page has just dropped in its usefulness and for what? Just because someone questioned the type classification? That happens all the time! Why is it such an issue now! Put the tables back I say! Or at least, put some sort of table back since we don't have any other page any more that lists all the zanpakutos. Tinni  (Talk)  14:37, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Im really not dealing with these arguments anymore especially considering long time users can't be bothered to even defend the page, instead of talking to admin they agree with person saying its wrong and add more fuel to the fire. Figure out what you wanna do here and it'll be put back. But something is really wrong here when people aren't defending the site and not communicating. If the work done on the page isn't appreciated then it wont be placed. Im not keen on having a whole page long discussion about why it should stay especially if there's no support for it.--<font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  14:45, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if that's how it sounded, but I merely pointed out that Kidou-type classifications might be as controversial as they are because there is no reference for the term in the article, even though they clearly exist. I then listed a number of problems with the article that exist because of this lack of a reference. So what's the solution? Find the reference and put it in. As simple as that. Constructively criticizing the article is more beneficial than wiping out three-fourths of the article. I did not even directly address the controversy with the classifications that was brought up. Mohrpheus (talk) 15:05, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I don't really care about the type classification one way or the other. It's always been controversial and it'll always be controversial. But if you are sick of discussing this Salubri then how about you be sick of discussing this after you restore the old List of Zanpakutō article so that at least our users aren't disadvantaged? Tinni  (Talk)  15:19, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion: just put it back in. Put it up on the article improvement project for referencing. Reference the definitions of all Zanpakuto types, elements are already self-explanatory. Reference the instance where each Zanpakuto on the page is identified as a particular type, or where its abilities show properties of such a type, which is acceptable original research. It'll remain controversial regardless, but we will at least have something to point as proof for individual Zanpakuto types. Otherwise the article was fine as is - there isn't enough argumentation like over the character statuses to just remove it completely. Mohrpheus (talk) 15:53, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I say restore the page to how it was earlier. This page was a personal favorite of mine. I say go with Mohrpheus's idea and put it back the way it was and just throw it in the Article Improvement Project to which I think Mohrpheus should then take as it was his idea :)--<font color="black" face="Verdana">God <font color="black" face="Verdana">(Pray)  16:12, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Just to point 99% of the zanpakuto listed have references attached to them. Secondly Kido description is self-explanatory in its definition if it is incorrect find another reasonable classification that can proven. From all indications and information from the series their are a total of three types of Zanpakuto. Melee, Kido and Elemental. Elemental is more or less a sub category of kido but so large and defined its separate as well. If the zanpakuto is designed around a special ability its kido. For all purpose Yumichika's zanpakuto is truly designed around its ability to do absorb reiatsu. Kira's is designed around its ability to weigh whatever it hits down. There are various others that also meet that criteria. Melee are not designed around any particular ability and while some may possess some they are by and large used for average combat. The language in the article will be clarified for that. --<font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  16:38, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

That should clarify it and so there should be no argument with the table anymore aside from every new user arguing Senbonzakura is a projectile type. Its stupid to take down the table just because one user complained. I know we are all tired of complaining users but lets not give in to them on stuff that we know is right--<font color="black" face="Verdana">God <font color="black" face="Verdana">(Pray)  16:44, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Also to point this out to people who haven't payed attention to the series on this specifically. One knows their zanpakuto-type from shikai, its not determined by bankai. If that was the case then on one would know what type they had till they reached bankai. 99% of the lieutenants wouldn't even know what they were wielding truly. Secondly Urahara's very simple to explain under the definition. Ichigo's was stated to have his concentrated spiritual energy blast (getsuga tensho) as "Similar" to a cero oscuras by Ulquiorra (what would he know of shinigami powers, he was commenting on the feel and power of the blast similar to that of an arrancars power). Kira's obviously has a zanpakuto built around its ability even the shape is. Basically alot of uninformed opinion best left to the forums as it has nothing to do with the content as usual.--<font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  16:49, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Final release
what about the whole new final form of the zanpakuto that ichigop and aizen have achived(the only known ones) aizen said this it was the final and true form of ones blade and that the soul and zanpakuto were in like perfect harmony. It something like that you guys should add that its very important info.

First off sign your posts. Secondly what are you referring to because where ever was a zanpakuto talked about in this context. I think your confused Ichigo has no final form in the way you seem to think. The Final Getsuga Tensho is stated multiple times to be a technique of his Zanpakuto. Its considered final because he gives up his shinigami powers to use it. Aizens form has nothing to do with his zanpakuto they are all transformations brought up by the hogyoku reading either one of their pages explains this in detail. Aizen was referring to their physical look being similar with the way they use their zanpakuto fixed to their right hands and enhanced power not an actual change or anything do to the zanpakuto. --<font color="4169E1" size="2px">Salubri <font color="4169E1" size="2px">(Talk)  22:56, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Katen Kyoukotsu
Question. I know that Katen Kyoukotsu is under kido because it's power is based around it's special ability. I am wondering, however, if "Reality" would be a more specific catagory. Just a passing thought. Jaxomprice18 (talk) 04:03, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

We don't make up type categories here - all of the ones listed were mentioned by the series one way or the other. Besides, "Reality" would apply to every single Zanpakuto on the list if you take the work literally. Mohrpheus  (Talk)  04:10, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

KK. Like i said, just a passing thought. Jaxomprice18 (talk) 23:23, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Anime Jinzen image
Shouldn't we change the manga image we have to the anime image from 302? Just sayin'. WD  Converse  20:23, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Rusaburō Enkōgawa
Would Rusaburō Enkōgawa's (Enryū, Lurichiyo's bodyguard) Zanpakuto count as a Dual-Blade Type? As it has two ends to it connected by a chain much like Hisagi's and the others

Please sign you're posts. I remember reading a similar discusion over Hisagi's Kazeshini. Anyway, Daichimaru would not be considered a dual-blade, as it is (obviously) not two swords, but rather, two giant fists. Also, it was stated by a character in one episode(I forget which) that is a defense type zanpakuto. If that hadn't been said, it would be debatable, but it's type was actually mentioned, so thus, it remains a defense type.NightTrain (talk) 02:56, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Shinso/Kamishini no Yari
Why is Shinso in the poison type section? Only Kamishini no Yari was shown to have a poison of any kind, and if i remember correctly, we only go by the abilities of the shikai. In this case, the poison is exclusive to the bankai. I don't remember where it originally was, but it should definitely move back, because Shinso does not have any poison. NightTrain (talk) 03:00, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Whoever said we only go by shikai abilities? This is nowhere in our rules. Gin's zanpakuto has poison abilities, regardless of whether or not the shikai displayed these abilities, it is still a poison type.--

I read it in one of the discussions over this page. I would go back and find it, but it takes to long for my computer to load one page.NightTrain (talk) 03:08, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

First and foremost if the discussion didn't take place on a article talk page then its not valid to changing anything on the site unless the conversation was set up to make a determination by the admin. Secondly Shinso was in no category previously. Thirdly it was decided that it was proper to remove him from non category to poison as he stated himself that the poison aspect of his his zanpakuto was its main purpose. Also Godisme is correct we never said we only go by the shikai abilities. We go by what is available to us.--<font color="00A86B" size="2px">Salubri <font color="00A86B" size="2px">(Talk)  03:21, March 4, 2011 (UTC)

Tōsen achieving Bankai as a non-captain
I read the Bankai segment and I read this: ''"Besides Ichigo Kurosaki, the only non-captain Shinigami known to have achieved Bankai are Renji Abarai (Lieutenant), who finalized his training at about the same time as Ichigo (although he did not use Urahara's device, but rather perfected it while Ichigo was training), and Ikkaku Madarame (3rd Seat), who did so through his own years of training." ''I think Tōsen should be mentioned as well. As we know, Tōsen used his Bankai to defeat the Vizards during the TBTP-arc. At that time, he was the 9th Division's 5th Seat. So we know for sure that Tōsen achieved Bankai as a non-captain, so I think Tōsen should be mentioned. *Burtn (shout!) 14:58, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

That is more along the lines of speculation, which I'm sure isn't reason for something to be mentioned--Hohenheim of Light (talk) 15:34, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

That whole paragraph smacks of junk trivia and I would not be sorry to see it removed rather than extended. Has some slightly out of universe wording too. 15:37, April 24, 2011 (UTC)

I support deletion of that paragraph. This article is long enough and a little cutting of pointless sections can only improve it. Tinni  (Talk)  16:34, April 24, 2011 (UTC)