Talk:Suì-Fēng

Reception Sections
I think that ALL Bleach characters should have a popularity/reception section. It should be highlighted just how popular all of these characters are because I and countless other think this is important and relevant. Curtman2016 (talk) 20:03, March 1, 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be in disagreement over this as there is not an impartial way to do this. A sit like Bleach Wiki was decided long ago to focus on facts, not on opinions, especially when we removed the relationship sections due to Shippers getting into Edit Wars over something silly like who Ichigo fancied when he never professed love for anyone.
 * Adding onto this, there are official character polls that were conducted by Shonen Jump. Those are already included in the trivia sections of various characters and on their own separate page. "Anime Character Database" is not an official site, and does not even seem remotely professional (unlike, for example, MyAnimeList, which is widely known and highly regarded). Sites like these are not an accurate measure of any facts about the series or its characters, and are therefore unacceptable.
 * I agree with Sun and Schiffy here. The only official information on this is the polls which are already included on the pages. 22:46, March 1, 2017 (UTC)
 * I now agree and understand with everything all of you are saying above. However, what I am proposing is moving the official battle/character/Zanpakuto polls that were conducted by Shonen Jump from the trivia section into their own separate section for ALL character articles. This would be called the "Reception" or "Popularity" section, depending on what everybody prefers. I (and many others) think that it is important to highlight the Reception and Popularity of every character based on the official Shonen Jump battle/character/Zanpakuto polls. Curtman2016 (talk) 22:56, March 1, 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh boy, "I and countless/many others think..." - weasel words, my favorite tactic of justifying BS!


 * We actually had a Reception section for Aizen once, mainly because a certain user who shall not be named was obsessed with him and pushed super hard to put and keep it on his article. It was literally just IGN's praise and criticism of him from the anime. Totally worthless for the article, as would be putting polls in their own section: no matter how many different sources and reviews we mentioned or included, there's no way we could portray the overall popularity or likeability of a given character, and on top of that there's no real reason to do so given that our readers can proooooobably form an opinion on a given character without having to read a multi-paragraph Wikipedia-style reception section about how this person and that website reviewed their strengths, weaknesses, and facial hair quality. Oh, and it's very much out-of-universe, which we try to avoid wherever possible.--Xilinoc (talk) 00:09, March 2, 2017 (UTC)

As Xil says, you keep mentioning "many others" yet I haven't seen people who use this site reply in favour of this change. Some reception sections are absolutely ridiculous like "Oh this character was voted the sexiest" wow marvellous, sexiness is subjective to each person and changes from year to year because opinions grow and change so its a little silly. The articles already state the official results of the polls. Opinions are not important on a site like that, the in-universe facts are. I will never be in favour in giving opinions such a massive scope on what is a ite made for in universe facts.

Okay, okay, I get exactly where you all are coming from. Just because a few fans were overly obsessed with certain characters and shipping wars, it basically damaged any chance of having Reception and Relationships sections on character pages ever again, ruining it for all of those fans who are either less obsessed with those matters or want character pages to be more like Wikipedia pages (most character/TV show/movie/music pages do have "Criticism" and "Reception" sections). It is great that you all want to make this Wiki based strictly on Facts, NOT Opinions, and I respect that. However, something to keep in mind for the future: to the casual fan who attempts to make "good faith" edits, they do not fully understand how strict the rules/guidelines on Bleach Wiki are until there is a long and winded discussion about it like the one above (or if they read in detail the very long guidelines/rules page). I did not truly understand just how strict the Bleach Wiki guidelines/rules are until reading everything above. Now, I fully agree with/understand/respect what all of you are trying to accomplish and the overall message, which is: "Making Bleach Wiki less subjective/opinion-based/out-of-universe and more objective/fact-based/in-universe". This is a good thing, but it can be a double-edged sword due to fans (like myself) who are/were ignorant to Bleach Wiki's strict guidelines/rules. Cutting to the chase, I will drop this discussion and stop talking about it because the subject has already been seemingly settled democratically among administrators, I suppose. Curtman2016 (talk) 06:30, March 2, 2017 (UTC)


 * We understand our rules and such are more strict than other Wikis especially Anime Wikis, where the userbase love to focus on the sexual aspects of characters and such, like Fairy Tail. But this is why we developed the warning system to link users to the rules and such to help be informative. This site isn't Wikipedia, we include a lot more relevant information than Wikipedia and develop our articles so that we are the premium database for Bleach Online. Hope all this is understandable.

Suzumebachi sealed form
I've been doing amateur research on the difference between a kodachi and a wakizashi, and while on the page it says the sealed form is that of a wakizashi, the more severe curve of the blade you can see in the gallery makes me think it is actually a kodachi instead. All the research I've managed to put together says that a kodachi has the same kind of appearance as a full tachi sword, just shorter in length.--Kyuu19 (talk) 22:53, October 10, 2020 (UTC)