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.