Talk:Byakuya Kuchiki

110 years ago
Why did Tensa Zabimaru undo my post? What i changed had implyed that it was 110 years before the start of the storyline when in fact it was 110 years before Aizen began his attack on Karakura Town, which in itself was a good while after the start of the story line. White Flare 03:26, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

You are actually not accurate on this. Byakuya was shown as a kid 110 years ago before the current time/storyline. It has not been more than 110 years as you were implying nor was it at the time of the battles in fake karakura town. While in reality its been 5 years, in the world of bleach it has only been a matter of 8 months or so. --Salubri (Talk)  04:36, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

8 months is 8 months. all i did was added the word "more" to 110 years because it was 8 months MORE. And it was 110 years from the Fake Karakura town arc because when it comes back to 'present time' it is showing the Vizards sitting in there warehouse to go out and fight Aizan which is 8 months later then the "start of the story line" also when i added MORE to his dislike for yurichi it was true, Byakuya obviously didnt start hating her that day, he disliked her BEFORE that day which makes it MORE then 110 years White Flare 20:54, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

Well you have no idea when he started to have a dislike for Yoruichi or if it started years ago before the 110 or not that speculation. As for your view of 110 years it has nothing to do with when the fake karakura town arc started it has to do with the start of the story and even if it didn't, 8 months later from the start of the current story does not equal more than 110 years until a year has actually fully passed. Salubri (Talk)  22:53, July 12, 2010 (UTC)

So your saying 110 years and 1 day is not more then 110 years? every day that passes makes it that much more then 110 years and every month even more so. more implies it could have been a day, a month, or years more then whats stated. what is written now implies it is set in stone that the rivalry started 110 years ago so leave it as is or remove it because saying it didnt happen before 110 years ago is speculation. White Flare 00:59, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

As far as im concerned this is a done conversation. You are not aware of the way things are done here you comments to Godisme make apparent you think this is some average wiki sight and aren't different in anyway, which is completely wrong. We have policies and you apparently don't know anything about the sight, how we do things or half as much as you think, seeing as you seem to think you know better when more than one person has explained this to you and your wrong. If you respond to a closed discussion it further proves my point of how you don't know the site policies. Any more edits on this point will be considered inserting false information. Salubri (Talk)  01:16, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Smile info
"which is only responded by a smile similar to that of Gin Ichimaru's" - surely this line in the personality section is pointless, i mean the smile looks nothing like Gins and even at that are we going to compare everyones smile to Gins and make his the benchmark. I dont think this has any value in the article, nor is it true, so i think it should be deleted. GinIchimaru (talk)

i would tend to agree. Salubri (Talk)  18:17, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I found his smile un-ginlike as well. I was thinking of changing it to "secretive" if no one has any objections?Licourtrix (talk) 09:06, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Heh, old discussion, but I'd say go ahead. Not too sure if it's official policy, but my rule of thumb has always been to avoid comparing one character's appearance to another's. Mohrpheus   (Talk)  12:45, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that entire paragraph looks like it could be removed. The reference given is from an omake segment, and it doesn't really fit his in-universe personality. CJett92 (talk) 12:58, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Bankai gif
I made this for use on my user page. I figured I might as well put flag it here on the off-chance it might be useful in the article. But really, the gif was made for my own personal amusement. Tinni  (Talk)  10:09, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Thats actually pretty nice. There is very little instances of his bankai that look real good i think. This one is pretty good. Id put it up.Salubri (Talk)  13:37, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Tinni  (Talk)  01:52, August 10, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia point
Is the point about Kariya's comment relevant? If we are to include the information on Byakuya's popularity, I doubt it'd be good to put it that way. I may be making a fuss for a small matter but it merits a think. Blaze (Talk)  12:34, October 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as worthwhile, but more to the point it has no reference and if one is not found for it soon, it will be removed regardless of if anyone finds it relevant or not. 13:47, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Mr Woren or New Actor?
In his recent appearence in the english dub, I noticed Byakuya's voice sounded completely different than usual; more deeper and loud compared to Dan Woren's more calm voice. Does anyone know if Dan Woren is still voicing Byakuya?Hockey Machete (talk) 20:47, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

I myself haven't thought much of it, since Byakuya has a very minor role in the Amagai arc. If there have been no interviews and no change in the casting credits (the latter which is harder to prove, due to the TV airings not changing the credit list after the initial playthrough of a new ending theme) to state this, then we can't assume that Dan Woren has been replaced yet. I'm not sure if there is another source out there that might be fueling this belief, but the best bet for now is to not make any assumptions until after we have some sort of official confirmation that Dan Woren was replaced. Arrancar109 (Talk)  03:22, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Number of blade fragments
My changes to his zanpaktou has been undone. I added those numbers because they were stated in the manga and the anime. Are they removed because fan translations aren't reliable? Just asking, so I know in case something like this happens again.Empty moon (talk) 19:54, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

Most likely it's because these are approximated values, and aren't really to be taken literally. Then again, I haven't looked at the actual edits, so I wouldn't know.

Those values actually were mentioned Sal, but then again who is to say that Senbonzakura Kageoyshi has to be 100 million blades at a time? And who's to say that it's literally one hundred million? People approximate when they say these things. Since we cannot be certain of their number, we have to be general about what we say sometimes. Then again, I'm not an admin or committee member, so the final say isn't mine. Don't feel bad though; these sorts of things happen fairly frequently.

I understand,I just thought that maybe they were worth being mentioned, to give people a better idea of the actual number. Ofcourse I don't feel bad, just want to make this wikia as good as possible. Eitherway, thanks for your concern.Empty moon (talk) 20:20, November 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * Apparently people think I have been doing this so long that I just randomly undo edits without doing any checking. This would be a false way of thinking. The way one edits depends on their source, Senbonzakura Kageyoshi is stated to have a thousand blades (i.e. the giant blades that rise from the ground upon its activation). Directly after this statement it states that Those thousand swords then scatter and countless flying blades pierce the enemy. No one knows the exact number of blades generated and no one can see the movements of those blades or even dodge them. Thus the first edit on the page naming a thousand pieces of blade is in fact wrong. The second edit changed countless to 100 million. This issue came up before because two separate translations are given neither could be determined to be accurate for two reasons. 1 being that it was already determined previously that exact number of the blades is unknown and 2 this was addressed on Byakuya's talk page over a year ago under the Archives 1 of that page under the heading "Blade number in Bankai, Goukei". Where we had a translator determine the proper use was innumerable as a specific number is not in fact given in kanji, most likely a mistake on the chapter translators part. Hence the second edit on the page being wrong as well. Hopefully in the future it will be understood that with little exception there is a bases for undone edits by myself.


 * That the edits are wrong I can understand, but the first edit was not 'a thousand' but 'over a million' as read here. But if you checked before, I believe you. I don't think you just randomly undo edits, I just wanted to know why, so I could use this information in the futur. Sorry if it sounded like I was insulting you, that wasn't my intention.Empty moon (talk) 12:10, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

Hurtless Area
Why has Byakuya's Hurtless Area been renamed into Sheltered Zone? In the manga it clearly says Hurtless Area in Chapter 469 page 7 on Mangastream. []

From Ichimru-TsangHay Jing Tsang (talk) 20:39, November 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Mangastream is not the best translator, they are merely one of the fastest. The most reliable translations are from Cnet from Mangahelpers who translated it as Sheltered Zone.--

Thanks. From Ichimaru-Tsang

Just to throw a spanner in the works there, it is written in English in the raw as "Hurtless Area". Cnet may call it Sheltered Zone and that may well be the most accurate translation, but Kubo wrote it in English himself too. You can have the Bleach Wiki:Translation Corner look at it if you really want 14:04, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree with Yyp as I was going to state that too, but I thought I was wrong so I didn't. From Ichimaru-TsangHay Jing Tsang (talk) 15:10, November 18, 2011 (UTC)

If Kubo himself gave the term in English, then we should use that form not the unofficial one. -- The Goblin   Talk   01:48, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Bankai
Is it important to mention, that he can still perform Bankai even if his zanpaktou is broken? (chapter 472, page 7) Empty moon (talk) 16:27, January 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Not really, remember he left his battle with Ichigo stating that his Zanpakutō was broken so he was beaten!! I the case you are referencing, his blade was only snapped in half and he was able to do it then, so it's not a definite certainty that regardless of it breaking he can do it!! SunXia   (Chat)  16:40, January 25, 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, now I understand what you mean, thanks for explaining! Empty moon (talk) 16:59, January 25, 2012 (UTC)

Bankai ability translations
On this page Senkei and Gokei are translated as "Slaughtscape" and "Endscape" respectively. I was poking around the Senbonzakura (Spirit) page, and noticed that Senkei and Gokei are translated as "Massacre Scene" and "Pivotal Scene" on that page. I don't know anything about Japanese characters so I don't know which one is the correct translation. Just wanted to call it out to those in the know. Gmanzap24 (talk)


 * The ones on Byakuya's page are most literal translations of the techniques. The ones on the zanpakuto spirit page are what we used previously, it isnt the most literal version but it is somewhat correct. Though considering it should be changed to the better version that we now use on byakuya's page. --<font color="00BFFF" size="2px">Salubri <font color="1E90FF" size="2px">(Talk)  10:05, January 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out Gmanzap24. 12:11, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Spiritual power section
In Byakuya's spiritual power section in powers and abilities: it says: "He is capable of exerting a vast Spiritual Pressure" He, without a doubt has immense sp, and it says so as well, but this is what it says anyway after his sp is said to be immense. Can I fix it?--Blossom Tree (talk) 21:31, April 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well as long as it means sort of the same thing so maybe just immense since yes he is classified as Immense and only Kenpachi and Ichigo are really Vast, thank you!!
 * I am such a balloon, I didn't sign this!! Oops!!

The first to see Senkei?
In Ichigo's fight with Byakuya, Byakuya activates his Senkei, calling Ichigo the first to ever see it. IIRC, didn't Byakuya use the ability against Renji during their fight? IIRC, he did show the ability to use multiple swords in that fight, but he didn't name the technique. Should we not assume that that attack was Senkei, and that Renji was the first to see it? 21:40, April 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we can't really just assume. Maybe it was, but it is speculation and according to our speculation policy that means it cant go into the article. A lot of people think that it is, but without any means of proving it, I'm afraid it cant be in the article 21:42, April 12, 2012 (UTC)


 * Thats actually incorrect Byakuya told Ichigo he was the second person to see it. Meaning if the same technique was used against Renji though not mentioned as such Renji is the first to see it, or considering that the technique specifically wasnt named it may have been seen by another. Either way Ichigo was the 2nd person mentioned to see it.--

That's right. also, Renji was not attacked by Sekei. So yeah.--Blossom Tree (talk) 23:16, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry. When I said "calling Ichigo the first to ever see it", I mis-typed. Yeah, I meant that he called Ichigo the second, apologies. 02:36, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

Dead.
Soooo... yeah... according to the latest chapter, Byakuya died. It wasn't as ambiguous as Kira, someone literally said he'd died and we saw his body had kinda exploded/vanished. So is it okay to go through and change everything in the page to past-tense? Igaram (talk) 09:56, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Generally, the policy is to keep everything on the articles in present tense, even for deceased characters. He is already acknowledged as being dead, so I do not believe further change is necessary. Mohrpheus  (Talk)  09:59, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Ahkay, not a problem, just wondered. Igaram (talk) 09:59, July 25, 2012 (UTC)

Change opening statement?
I read in a different part of this talk page that things are normally kept in the present tense throughout the page, even if the character whose page it is has died. However, wouldn't it be rational to change the opening statement (the one that appears before the table of contents) to past tense? Like so:

"Byakuya Kuchiki (朽木 白哉, Kuchiki Byakuya) was the 28th head of the Kuchiki Clan, one of the four great noble clans in Soul Society. He was also the captain of the 6th Division in the Gotei 13 and his lieutenant was Renji Abarai."

This is just out of curiosity, as this is what's done on all other deceased or defected character's pages, such as Chojiro Sasakibe or Gin Ichimaru. Schiffy (talk) 19:58, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. The change seems really inconsistent across the wiki. Sasakibe's page does mention him being the former 1st Division Lieutenant, referencing his death. But then someone like Zommari's page says that he "is" the seventh Espada in Aizen's now non-existent forces. Igaram (talk) 09:21, July 27, 2012 (UTC)

Blood Forms Part of Ability?
I notice in the descripton of the zanpakutou powers, Byakuyas bankai ability Senkei says it is created by his blood. This is not right, it just unites the scattered blades into complete swords. The chapter were it is first used says nothing about blood and no other chapter does. The page is blocked, so can someone fix that --SternRitterÄs (talk) 14:32, July 28, 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed.--

Final Words
Now that it seems pretty certain he's dead, I feel it necessary to add his supposedly final words to the Quotes section. I'd add it myself but the page is locked. Here's the quote, to the best of my knowledge:


 * "I... don't have much time left. As a captain of the Gotei 13, rendered helpless by these malevolent beings that trespass on Soul Society, resulting in the massacre of all these warriors, leaving nothing but an empty void in the families of my subordinates, and, without a doubt, facing death's doorstep under these circumstaces brings a humiliation that echoes througout every fiber of my being. If that weren't enough, now you, a human boy, never meant to tread onto this battlefield, never meant to be here... In the end, please indulge this one last request from this contemptible man standing before you, for having to place this burden on your shoulders. Please.... Protect Soul Society, Kurosaki Ichigo...!"

--Silver-Haired Seireitou (talk) 04:52, October 18, 2012 (UTC)

You infer alot of assumption by stating something you cant confirm. Outside of that if the quote which shall not be labeled last words, as thats tired and cheesy. If it has any merit to showcasing him stating something relevant about his character then it will stay on the page if placed if not it wont. --

Left arm lost
I believe Byakuya to have had his left arm severed when As Nodt attacked him with Senbonzakura Kageoshi, something that can be somewhat seen in ch. 512 p. 12, as well as ch. 513 p. 5 (also hinted when his arm sticks out during the attack - ch. 502 p. 8 & 9). I think this could be added to the paragraph about the attack or the one about the state in which Ichigo finds him. --Papuraverde (talk) 16:18, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Huh, never noticed that before. But the exact details of Byakuya's injuries are unnecessary for this article - we don't go into the specifics for the plot summaries. It is worth a mention in the fight article for him and As Nodt, however. Mohrpheus  (Talk)  16:51, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Agreed it's not vital information, but loss of members have been mentioned on previous occasions, even in plots or character bios (of course, many previous cases were also more obvious or relevant - Yamamoto, Toshiro, Gin, Ishida). Agreed on leaving it for the fight article, as well. --Papuraverde (talk) 19:23, October 25, 2012 (UTC)

Erroneous Category
Byakuya Kuchiki is still erroneously listed amongst the "Former Shinigami Captains". This was done when y'all wrote him off as dead. He's no longer listed as Deceased (and Chapter 515 confirms that he's still alive), but the Former Shinigami Captain thing might need to be corrected.- Nield

fixed.--

Locked
Why do we still have this page under lockdown? --Xilinoc (talk) 09:27, December 2, 2012 (UTC)