Talk:Naruto/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 8 Archive 9

Contents

Improve

The following are way I thought would help improve the article:

  • Make a section about Shippuden
  • Make a sub-section to Characters similar to the Main Characters section in Bleach.
  • Say more about the in-universe Naruto, likes the countries and rankings.
  • Improve the reception section.

Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

NECCESARY IMPROVEMENTS -Rewrite Naruto Uzumaki (character), Kakashi Gaiden and Akatsuki(which was going to be deleted) article to explain the fiction more clearly and provide non-fictional perspective, and add secondary sources specially to Akatsuki. -Add to articles of Kakashi, Shikamaru, Orochimaru, Rock Lee, Tsunade and Land of Fire citation, footnoting, or external linking. -Stop complaining about the jutsu list, this is not narutopedia. If you still want the last jutus list, www.search.com/reference has the one of wikipedia. -Clean up Naruto first movie article. -Find cite and references for the second movie. -Collaborate reverting vandalism. -In the main article a bit about Naruto in all the world -Stop discussing that some characters need their own article, this has been discussed a lot of times(if they do more things, they will probably get their ow article). -And to all one dont use theories like saying the fourth hokage is the Akatsuki Leader. -And have a good time. Tintor2 10:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

shipping section

May I make a segestion about this.. shouldnt we make a "shipping" article for the naruto series on wikipedia? plenty of other anime have it, and it would be good for naruto, due to all of the romantic relationships among characters that fans and facts point out. but, just a suggestion.....24.185.163.37 21:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

plenty of other anime have it,
That's news to me. Regardless if that's true, we're not going to have one. An article about any pairing in the fandom would have no reliable sources and in all likelihood would be unverifiable and be full of original research. Furthermore, not a single pairing, much less shipping in fandom itself, would meet the notability guidelines for fiction. Such articles would be deleted just as soon as they would be created. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"Shipping" in some specific fandom, pretty much by definition, lacks reliable sources and notability. Yeah, sometimes you have J.K. Rowling having a laughing riot over shipping in an interview with shippers a day after book release, but that's far from being representative of anything. What will you be able to say about shipping culture in Naruto that won't be exceedingly shallow and meaningless? "There's NaruSaku, and there's SasuSaku, and there's NaruHina, and there's NejiHina, and, well, everybody's absolutely convinced that the scenes between their characters are beacons of delayed character development and the scenes the other shippers bring up don't mean jack squat." There, I just summed up Naruto shipping, and incidentally most other shipping debates that have occurred and probably will occur.
Until Kishimoto Masashi starts rambling about the themes he had envisioned when setting in motion the epic romantic tale of Neji and Tenten, which he won't, this is one issue that ought to remain covered only in-universe. If other pages have long rambling paragraphs regarding the arguments and counter-arguments of who Ash Ketchum is going to end up with, or whatever, the problem is there, not here. At any rate the exploration of out-of-universe notability the shipping in some fandom has seems to fit much more organically in the actual article about shipping. --AceMyth 02:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have a Shippuden card from Japan made by Bandai which is officially licensed. On the front is Shikamaru close to Temari. The card all but calls them a couple. Would that constitute an out-of-universe shipping example that could be cited in a Naruto "shipping" section? 68.180.195.10 05:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it's still a primary source. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Primary source has nothing to do with it — indeed, if it were a primary source (i.e. series canon from the manga) we could add it to their character articles— the problem is that it's original research. --tjstrf talk 06:18, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Aren't we all forgetting that the romantic elements of Naruto are merely inserted as comedic moments? Romance is not the central point of this series, merely a nice addition. Besides, who are we to decide who loves who when we are only they who post what has happened and not what will? Just a thought guys. ~Ginkini 00:30, 3 September 2007
there should be a relationship part but not just romantic (like from avatar:the last airbender pages) saying how the chars interact and a SHORT history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.31.115.124 (talk) 08:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The InuYasha and Ranma 1/2, way back when, had extended sections about fanfic pairings. Thankfully, they were removed some time ago. JuJube (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View? Again?

The Neutral Point of View issue has yet to be solved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Usarnaime (talk • contribs) 20:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

What neutral point of view issue? NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"Naruto has a large and colorful cast of characters, running a gamut of detailed histories and complex personalities"...seems like it's complementing the "complex" and "detailed" characters. Usarnaime 05:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this an issue with NPOV on the part of the article, or User:Usarnaime? --tjstrf talk 05:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I am sure it is about the article. It seems clear to me that usaranime believes that the phrase "Naruto has a large and colorful cast of characters, running a gamut of detailed histories and complex personalities" is to complementary and should be replaced. --67.68.152.197 07:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Just delete or rephrase the sentence already. Problem solved. —davidh.oz.au 12:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ooh. Both Usarnaime and a helpful anonymous contributor popping up to back up and explain his position misspell "complimentary" in the same way. Now what are the odds of that? --AceMyth 13:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Japanese proper names vs. English translations

The "Leaf Village"? We don't call Tokyo the "Eastern Capital", do we? <sarcasm> Should "Leaf Shadow" replace Hokage? </sarcasm>

Granted, I view the series in Japanese, but the obvious inconsistencies if you start to translate a few proper names here and there makes it look weird. Better to provide a brief glossary with core name components so that the ethusiasts who make it this page actually get a chance to learn - isn't that what Wikipedia is about?

Thomas 15:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC) "T-Rex was a carnivore - not a meateater"

Hokage means fire shadow. o.o And we don't have to just translate everything. Translate how the English manga does (they call it Konoha, I'm pretty sure).—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

Someone repeatedly reversed my edit. So I posted it here to avoid an edit war.

Please give your reason why it should or should not be added to the article. NOTE: your reason should not be whether Naruto does or does not plagiarize other comics, because the edit DOES NOT CLAIM that Naruto plagiarizes, it only CLAIMS that the controversy or debate exists.

If nobody has objection here, I will add it back. Thank you.

"It is hotly debated in Chinese Naruto fans community that Naruto's author Masashi Kishimoto may have been plagiarizing the famous Hong Kong manhua Fung Wan[1]. The evidences are numerous similarities, parallel patterns between the two works on character designs, character developments and plot-lines. Fung Wan was written by Ma Wing Shing in much earlier time. The most striking similarities include, both books have protagonists that seek revenge on the murderer who wiped out their clans, both books have a destined duel between the protagonists which takes place at exactly the same time in the books, that is at the end of volume one of both. In volume two, both books have a secret organization that seeks to complete the collection of a number of unique objects and parallel patterns between Uchiha Clan in Naruto and the Heavenly Sword Sect in Fung Wan are found. The controversy is still at the level of fans, the authors can not be reached for comments and no copyright infringement lawsuits are filed." Kakarukeys 06:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no reliable sources for this claim or that there's controversy around it, it's all original research. A fan site is not a reliable source. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
First of all, the edit was reverted by two different users (including myself), not just one.
Secondly, I think I speak for the both of us when I say I'm a bit skeptical about this. Revenge sought against those who killed loved ones, duels between rival protagonists, item-seeking organizations; it's not like any of these are unique in any form of storytelling. As for the duel taking place at the end of the books, there's really no better place to put a dramatic duel. This pattern can be seen in much more than Naruto and Fung Wan.
Third, and most importantly, is that I have not heard anything about this on any forum I have visited or any fan that I personally know. "Hotly debated" implies that the fact is well-known amongst those who care about either of the two series. Perhaps you're right, and it is discussed among Fung Wan's fans, but aside from a single website that you provided, we have no evidence. I wouldn't call that a controversy until copyright infringement lawsuits are filed. As of now, it's just a comparison.
Thank you for coming here instead of edit warring, by the way. I wish I could read the source you provided so that I could comprehend your point more completely, but as of now I can only read in English and a tiny bit of Spanish and Tagalog :). Regards, You Can't Review Me!!! 06:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
{"Hotly debated" implies that the fact is well-known amongst those who care about either of the two series. } well you can't debate unless you already know both these 2 comic series exist. it is like the matrix, matrix fan still think it is orginal because they never hear of the less known story even when it was proven to be true. that isn't really a soild arguement. but i say leave it out for now, there isn't much interest in this controversy. Akinkhoo 10:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Ya that's why I don't like some of wikipedian editing systems. Even if you are right other editors will deny you because politically speaking, wikipedian editing is a democracy almost communist even (NOT THAT COMMUNISM IS BAD). I believe that Rock Lee is a photocopy of Bruce Lee in terms of identity but editors do not mention that they are supposed to be similar. I wish there was a polar wikipedia where you can put EVERYTHING you have to say and nominated wikipedian handpicked editors would choose the lines you put best fit for article. but then agian, im a little ant and they don't care about me. I heard that a Neo Nazi group opposed the jewish conspiracy on the wikipedian nazi articles and requested to delete them but when the majority vote system was offered only 16 of the 100000 neo nazi's showed up so it was their loss or maybe wikipedian security was rigged ;p. whatever it may be, wikipedia is starting to act a little monarchist rather than democratic. (btw im on ur side if there is ever a vote on ur edits ;-). --• Storkian • 03:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

FLC

I've nominated List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2) for featured list status. Please express your comments at the nomination here at WP:FLC. Feel free to make any and all necessary improvements. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

That would help make Naruto taken more seriously. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Template

I changed the series template so that it includes the seasons articles. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a disclaimer for the Naruto Editz site link

This guy is clearly working from bootlegs. The reason why this presents a problem is because some of what he presents as "editz" are merely CORRECTIONS to the original Japanese broadcast animation. This is a regular practice in this industry. As I'm sure many of you are aware, when these broadcast episodes hit DVD, animations mistakes get corrected. Had he purchased actual Japanese retail DVD's of the show, he would not be pointing out so many "changes".

Clearly what is shown on Cartoon Network is the end result of these corrections. And of course, they then edited in one way or another for broadcast. And while it WOULD be interesting to see what gets changed from Japanese broadcast to DVD to American Broadcast, that's not how this site presents the information. It WILL confuse those not familiar with the correcting process.

I'm pretty sure the Naroto Editz guys himself confused because nowhere on his site does he state this clarification. In fact on his site on the "editz" page he (incorrectly) states:

"-Important Note: All Editz pages in this section have been compared to the DVD version of Naruto. That means that every edit on every page, is 100% accurate."

This is why I believe he's using bootlegs (not that I care, just point it out) and not real DVD's. Anyone can make a bootleg of the broadcast with a DVR and sell it to people who don't know any better.

I shot him an e-mail a long time ago but he never responded.

I say either remove it or get a better Uncensored page. Utils 20:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the link. Being a fansite, there's no way that it meets the verifiability guidelines of the site, and the objections you've brought up bring its accuracy into question. Now, the question is where are we going to find a more reliable source for the changes. (by the way, hi Utils. Small world, huh?) NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 22:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Its use is acceptable for the intended purpose. (i.e. [1]) This is not an exernal link. We were using it as a reference on a single, specific fact. By using it as a reference, we're not putting the Wikipedia Stamp Of Approval™ on anything else the site might say. –Gunslinger47 00:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

minor detail you can buy upto volume 24 now see link below for proof

I read the following text "To date, the first 18 volumes are available. In order to catch up to the translated anime, Viz plans to release volumes 16 to 27 three at a time over the months of September to December 2007.[3]" however I think you should alter it slightly so that it shows upto which volume you can currently buy.


http://www.amazon.co.uk/Naruto-24-Masashi-Kishimoto/dp/1421518600/ref=pd_sxp_grid_pt_0_0/203-1660549-3728764

J 212.219.239.73 17:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You can now buy up to 27, so it needs to be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.200.56 (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Ichiraku Ramen Bar merge

Seriously, no one's edited it for over a year. I suggest a merge to Land of Fire. I posted it there, but no one even looks at it anymore... Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hell, just redirecting and creating quick bios for Teuchi and Ayame on the Land of Fire article would be better. Article's fancruft, there's nothing worthwhile to merge into the article and it's a prime target for deletion as it stands. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Publisher in Mexico

i added the publisher in mexico —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeatGuyRed (talk • contribs) 00:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Movies

I don't really think it's necessary to make an article for every Naruto movie. I suggest we merge them together into something like List of Naruto movies. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 19:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow someone sure is consistent. ^_^ Each movie can waarant it owns article, each has 3rd party sources and can support itself.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 02:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
But are they really notable enough for articles? Not really. And do they each have major affects on the series and movies altogether, like Halloween (film) or King Kong? No, movies don't have affects on the actual series, and no, they don't have major roles on media. And do they have enough information to even warrant articles? No, they're stubs. They would be better if they were all put together into one page about the Naruto movies. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Movies are always notable when they're shown in major theaters, worldwide or not. Only one page about every movie would be foolish. I haven't really cared about the whole merging spree that's been going on lately, but use a little common sense here. They can easily be more than stubs, but merging is not the answer to everything. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

A way to improve this article

I doubt any of you would be capable of doing this, but the Portugal version to this article is an FA-Class article. If someone can read Portugese, please help us improve that article by telling is what it has that we don't. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing it really has is that it has a slightly more comprehensive media section. Aside from that, it's a list of in-universe topics, and wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of passing WP:FAC here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Character Name Order

It was not too long ago that the characters were listed in the proper format (i.e. Uzumaki Naruto). I can't imagine a such a massive and very thorough change could have been made casually, but I don't remember seeing it in this discussion page when I found it that way a month or two ago. I can see how one could say that since this is the english wikipedia page and we don't use names in that order that we should change it, but it seems to me that you can translate words and even give nicknames to things that may just be gibberish in japanese, but you really shouldn't change the name of a character. He is Uzumaki Naruto, and technically Naruto Uzumaki, though containing all the information and corresponding with the Cartoon Network translated episodes, is just not his name. 128.230.155.178 01:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)DanK 10/26/07

Japan and many east-Asian countries use a system in which the family name goes first and the given name goes last. The United States and many "western" (I hate using the terms "western" and "eastern" to describe culture, but...) nations use a system of nomenclature where given name goes first and the family name goes last. We did not change the names; we simply conformed to English grammar. You Can't See Me! 01:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
It's been well over a month since this change took place, more like a year. The discussion was held at length at the time and consensus went in favor of proper grammar. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Over a year ago, in fact. And yeah, the change was to fit with proper grammar, the Manual of Style and common usage. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
I should also be noted that none of the guidlines that supported the move at that time have udergone any changes since that would support overturning the move either. --67.68.152.40 02:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a page meant for explaining the reasoning: Portal:Naruto/FAQ#Name_order. –Gunslinger47 03:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Zhengman777, Sept 27 '07, 17:00:
The English Dub for Naruto (on Cartoon Network) reverses the last/first name sequence of the Japanese Characters, such as saying 'Sasuke Uchiha' rather than the proper version 'Uchiha Sasuke.' This is because the dubbers saw that the anime was called 'Naruto' and to prevent confusing the little kids watching why the anime was named after the Last Name (which is really the first name in Japanese, but like I said, the kids probably won't get it) rather than his First Name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.152.40 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure, but I think that the majority of kids do not browse Wikipedia. Just in case, we should state that the English dub switches the name order if it was not done so already. However, refer to the characters in the correct order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zhengman777 (talk • contribs)
Since when was the Japanese order the correct one? Besides, if you want to change it, you're going to have to get the community to agree to change both the guidelines and consensus for the current order anyway. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that few other anime articles have family names presented first and most if not all that do are of characters that are born before 1868, the first year of the Meiji. Naruto it not set in any particular timeframe so this does not apply here. As per my original point, we don't see animes like Bleach, Sailor Moon, Digimon, varius Gundam Series, etc addopting a family name first so I don't see why this show should be different. Finally, I do not believe the idea children watching the dub should even be a factor in the naming decision because that does not address in any way the guidlines and exsiting consensus against such a change. --70.48.111.217 21:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

"Since when was the Japanese order the correct one? Besides, if you want to change it, you're going to have to get the community to agree to change both the guidelines and consensus for the current order anyway. neochaosX" uhh since it was done originaly in Japanese the correct order is JAPANESE.--Had24get2ice 15:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. The WP:MOS-JA as well as WP:UE which is are Wikipeida guildlines clearly contrdict that claim. There is also no policy or guldine on Wikipeida that even remotely supports the suggestion that the name or names used originally have to tbe the main ones used in articles and as mentioned several times there are several guidlines as well as precident that go against this cliam. --67.68.154.144 19:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

FLC, again

I've nominated List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 3-4) for FL status. After the success of the previous nomination, I see no reason why this list cannot achieve FL status either. Feel free to express your comments here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Just noting here, it's been ten days with only one comment onto the above nomination. Again, all comments are welcome. Thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Haha, looks like I will comment. I'm surprised, I'd never thought a list could be so detailed and interesting to read. Good luck with the FL status. =) σмgнgσмg 07:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Naruto Universe

I've been waiting for a while, though no help was given. As said, articles like the rank article and geography have little chance of survivng much longer. As such, I proposed to create a Naruto universe article that contained all of this and allowed a place to show tailed beast and Akatsuki information should more "MERGE! MERGE! MERGE!" attacks come to those articles. This was supported by a few, who said they rather see a finished product first and then they'll decide. I asked for help on this by them, though no reply was ever made. So I'm basically posting this here, then. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 19:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of merging Tailed Beasts, Akatsuki, and Jutsu topic information into the page if we're just going to keep the rest of the text on those pages as "List of-" articles. My main concern, though, is that the page looks like a collection of almost random information. I don't mean to say that it can't fare, but... I can't really find a way to put this onto words, but the best I could come up with is that there just isn't any flow to it at all. There's no unifying theme to that set aside from the fact that they all have some importance in the Naruto series. Sorry that I can't elaborate my point. You Can't See Me! 20:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the phrase you're looking for is "an indiscriminate collection of information". At least, that's what I see in this proposed article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
My meaning for posting this was not to get the article approved, but improve the sandbox of it so that it can be approved. I'm asking people to help bring it up to standards. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 00:49, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Decision

Since it seems as though this Wiki page is beyond repair, most characters not having their own pages anymore, Jutsu are mainly gone last I checked and more, I say we either fix it up, start a Naruto Wiki, leave it and leave links to other websites with better information. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.236.20.91 (talk) 18:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a Naruto wiki and they are seriously in need of help. See Wikia:Naruto for more information. –Gunslinger47 19:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd also hardly say that Wikipedia is beyond repair simply because a bunch of characters with no real-world significance have listed profiles rather than full pages. If you feel the need to convert them back into full pages, go right ahead, but be sure to include any significance they have out-of-universe, source them, and get rid of plot summary. You Can't See Me! 19:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Names

The character's names are the wrong way around. It isn't Naruto Uzumaki, it is properly said Uzumaki Naruto, putting the family name last. This has been change by the Americans and should be put the way the original Japanese script provided not The American translations. FireyOmega77

Portal:Naruto/FAQ#First or last name first?—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 04:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Please at least read the names of the other threads on the page. Your question was already answered above. You Can't See Me! 04:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It was also mentioned a few topics ago and it was clearly explained why we are not going to due that. In short no one has come up with anything that IMO even remotly justifies going against the WP:MOS-JA. --70.48.173.121 02:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

umm, i was still really confused about this and i'm a die-hard naruto fan but....how can Naruto be the same age as Sasuke and Sakura if he failed the entrance exams like three times?--Bloody rock princess 01:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe they let him in early, who knows? We sure don't. Point is, it's not relevant to the article. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
He could be older or the entrance exams occur several times a year. Remember, Lee, Ten-Ten, and Neji are older yet often lumped in with Naruto's class. There is a proper answer to your question somewhere, but I agree with Someguy that the issue does not have to be solved in this page. Egospite 23:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

In the first and second tests at the academy, Naruto was barely involved with the main ninja (or at all) but he met Sasuke and Sakura at the 3rd, which have meant Naruto was 10 along with Sakura and Sasuke but Naruto was in the academy first. I know this because I made a conclusion by common sense.

FLC aid

The FLC for List of Naruto chapters (Part I) is close to its ten day mark, with no consensus reached over the fact whether to include the serialization dates of the chapters in the individual volumes. Given that the discussion will likely be closed as a "no consensus" result, adding the dates would be better than loosing the nomination altogether and having to place a second nomination. As for specifics, the request has been to add a "Date X to Date Y" for each volume where the chapters were published in the Weekly Shonen Jump (in Japan) and the U.S. Shonen Jump (in the U.S.). Including this in a line below the list of chapters in each volume would be sufficient. As for sourcing that, I'm clueless, otherwise I would have added the information already. Any and all aid is much appreciated. Thanks. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

This concern has been addressed, but as twelve days have elapsed, I would appreciate comments. See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Naruto chapters (Part I) for the nomination. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Chinese Naruto

Is there any reference that can be found linking Naruto series to chinese,because there have often been names of the Naruto characters that are chinese,an example of chinese characters is the symbol on Gaara's forehead '愛' which means love-translated from traditional chinese. User:Wongdai clcheung 08:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

More like linking the entire Japanese language to Chinese. Both use Han characters.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
yup, chinese script is the godfather of eastern langauges much like alphabet was to the west... ^^; i have to thank the japanese for adopting it so we both can understand each other more easily... now if only the politician could understand it... Akinkhoo 10:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

English fillers

Shouldnt we add that the english verison is skipping the fillers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.235.67.222 (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you have proof of that? Awesome as it sounds, I remain skeptical. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 13:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, we're not going to add anything without a reliable source. –Gunslinger47 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
And besides why would cartoon network pass up the chance for 100 plus weeks of high ratings? That makes no sense.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 14:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Speeding up

I was wondering if the english broadcast was speeding up becuase they're showing two new episodes every week and are they going to skip the fillers? Maybe the speeding up should be mentioned in the article?4.227.106.105 23:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Look at the above section. There's no sources that confirm that this is happening. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

But the series is speeding up becuase for the last two weeks and the at least the next week there will be two episodes and in december there will be a total of 10 episodes (got this from the december 2007 issue of Shonen Jump. IF you want proof watch the series on saturday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.227.106.105 (talk) 00:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture on Info box

Now that the anime has reached the sasuke retrieval arc, maybe you could put a new picture, like something along the lines of sasuke vs. naruto, or the retrieval squad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.90.32.175 (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean the English dub has gotten that far? I don't think Wikipedia cares what point the story is, whether it be manga, anime or dub. This infobox picture should be selected as to best represent the series. I believe the current image conveys the visual style well, while showing the primarily recognizable figures from an absolute (non-fan) perspective. –Gunslinger47 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I just thought maybe we could find a picture without Iruka in it, since he is just a supporting character which isn't all that important. Maybe just a picture of team 7? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.90.32.175 (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Similarities to 666 Satan

well since theres a similarities section, on the 666 Satan page, all things being equal wheres Narutos? This manga and its characters have similar traits to the manga series Naruto, mainly because the creator is Seishi's twin brother, Masashi. When 666 Satan was released in Japan it was accused of being a copycat to Naruto[2][3][4][5][6][7]. This can be explained by the fact that the two are brothers. In turn, both share similar influences and similar artistic styles. Both manga were deeply influenced by Akira Toriyama's Dragon Ball and have incorporated many elements from it into their own stories.

Examples of similarities between 666 Satan and Naruto include, but are not limited to:

The main character of both stories lack parents; and substitute others for parental and familial figures. Naruto shares this trait. Both protagonists in each manga (Jio Freed and Naruto Uzumaki respectively) have a very powerful demon inside of them (both the most powerful of a series of demons in each series), such as Naruto's Nine-Tailed Fox and Jio's Satan. Jio and Naruto both share certain physical characteristics of the demons they each play host to such as Naruto's whiskers, eyes and canine teeth and Jio's half-white hair and one red eye. Hard childhood is important for the storyline of both Naruto's and 666 Satan's protagonists. Both Jio and Naruto start friendless because of the demons inside of them which cause them to be shunned by society in general. Both come to the "conclusion" that they need to become the strongest person around, in order to conquer the world/ become hokage. Both Naruto and Jio were trained by hermits, Jio by Kirin and Naruto by Jiraiya. Jiraiya and Kirin look somewhat alike, with long silver hair, and both are very strong. Both Naruto and Jio cannot control their demon. Both have had outside influence in learning how to suppress their demons (in a literal sense). Both stories also have organizations trying to capture these demons. Both Jio Freed and Naruto Uzumaki have "talked" with their demon's and in some cases, even had altercations with them. In certain instances, both Jio and Naruto have had to make usage of their demon's power. Kirin (666 Satan) and Kakashi (Naruto) have each lost their left eye and are in possesion of a unique eye (The Cyclops Eye and the Sharingan Eye respectively) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.55.182 (talk) 15:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

377

Why wasn't chapter 377 released this weak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.226.78.136 (talk) 23:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

FLC for List of Naruto chapters

Note that the WP:FLC nomination for List of Naruto chapters has nearly reached its ten day mark. Feel free to express your comments at the nomination here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 08:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion must be taken about this

As we have seen, the deletion crew seems to have taken a liking to us, and articles are getting deleted left and right. Something must be done about this, and quick. I propose the following:

  • Step 1 - Move Naruto geography, Naruto rankings, and Jutsu (Naruto) to one large Naruto universe topic. - Completed
  • Step 2 - Create seperate page for notable jutsu entitled List of notable jutsu in Naruto. - Abandoned
  • Step 3 - Split Akatsuki (Naruto), Tailed beasts, and List of Naruto summons. Characters get moved to List of Naruto characters. Info on the Tailed beasts and Akatsuki gets moved to Naruto universe. The summoning technique itself listed in notable jutsu. - Completed
  • Step 4 - Split Land of Fire, Land of Sound, and Land of Wind. Country moved to Naruto unvierse. Characters to character page. - Completed
  • Step 5 - Split characters page into several pages by alphabet, like Pokemon and One Piece. - Abandoned
  • Step 6 - Merge List of Naruto media, half of it is voice actors and is almost useless. - Abandoned
  • Step 7 - Merge of all articles with no hope of out-of-universe info that can be merged. This includes Neji Hyuga, Rock Lee, Gaara, Shikamaru Nara, Jiraiya (Naruto), Tsunade (Naruto), and Orochimaru (Naruto). Naruto, Sasuke, Sakura, and Kakashi have out-of-universe info, we just need to dig it out.
  • Step 8 - Merge character and Naruto templates together. - Completed
  • Step 9 - Begin finding all out-of-universe info and use it. This includes anything, like how much a character made in figurine sales. The Naruto article itself should be centered more around the series' success and out-of-universe info rather than the series itself.
  • Step 10 - Begin rapid improvement of all articles below FA/FL-Class status. All episode lists besides Shippuden should reach FL-Class status, the Part 1 chapters too. Video games should be improved largely. Card games should be discussed.
  • Step 11 - In character locations, list what they do in card game, video games, etc., like Pokemon did.


Please note that anything italicized should be done even if this is rejected.

Yes, this seems very drastic, but what else can be done. If we limit the number of articles on our own, the deletion crew might start to ignore us. Doing this, Naruto will become a role model to all other anime and manga articles on Wikipedia and other fictional series as well. Something needs to be done, and that is the point of this discussion. Here I only give my proposal. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Long response:
  • Step 1 - A Naruto universe article is fine. Naruto geography and Naruto ninja ranks should and can be merged into such an article. After recent fiddling, Jutsu (Naruto) can stand on its own, and some concentrated work can bring it to GA status. It can stay. Naturally, a mention along with a {{main}} tag in its section will be included. All in-universe elements should be represented in the Naruto universe article.
  • Step 2 - No. The only two jutsu that would possibly receive recognition is Rasengan or Chidori, and I fail to see how you're going to justify at an AfD that the article should stay on that merit.
  • Step 3 - Tailed beasts and List of Naruto summons should be merged. I'm uncertain about Akatsuki (Naruto), but I'm leaning towards accepting your suggestion in this case.
  • Step 4 - Fine.
  • Step 5 - Eh. Creates unnecessary subpages. Compressed sections are better. If that fails, then subpages become necessary. The biggest thing we have to take into account is that the utterly insignificant minor characters can receive a simple mention in a sentence rather than a full-blown description of them. How this should be organized is a significant topic of discussion.
  • Step 6 - No, no, no. Ideally, it should look like List of Kingdom Hearts media. It's the master list for List of Naruto episodes, List of Naruto manga volumes, List of Naruto video games, and everything else. The justification for those lists is because they cannot feasibly fit into a single media page.
  • Step 7 - Fair enough. They can always be restored if notability is found.
  • Step 8 - If your changes go through, then yes.
  • Step 9 - If we can find this, then we can kiss most of our problems good bye. Good luck though. =/
  • Step 10 - The only lists that can currently achieve FL status are List of Naruto video games and List of Naruto media. Seasons 5-6, Seasons 7-9, and the Shippuden episodes cannot achieve FL status now since they are ongoing (Seasons 5-6, Shippuden), failing the stability requirement, or the English media has not gotten to them yet (Seasons 7-9), thus failing the comprehensiveness and the stability requirements (if they could have FL status, I would have finished and nominated them already :p). Video games can be improved. Note that Naruto: Clash of Ninja (series) isn't the absolute greatest example. I was able to kick it through WP:GAC because the requirements aren't as stringent as WP:FAC. Several recent games such as Clash of Ninja Revolution, Rise of Ninja, and something else that I'm forgetting can definitely have their own articles and begin moving up though.
  • Step 11 - Eh. You could include what they do in other media, but the thing that needs to be there is development and reception. That's the reason all the Pokemon GAs were delisted, and why they're sitting in rather horrible looking lists right now.
Onto the optional stuff:
  • Step 1 - What do you mean by one topic? Into List of Naruto video games you mean? If anything we should be examining which games are individually notable and look into splitting them at this point.
  • Step 2 - Questionable. More information is needed. I can imagine that with significant effort, it could be maintained.
  • Step 3 - Keep them. We don't need a single gigantic template. However, if the characters are merged, then that template should theoretically be merged into the main one.
Nice job on getting on the ball though. All of the above is a sign of progress, which is good. Many of these ideas should and can be implemented. Regards, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Step Opinion Step Opinion
1 Agreed, though not Jutsu 7 Agreed. Keep recognizable figures, merge the rest, move excess data to Wikia:Naruto.
2 Disagree, too few notable 8 n/c
3 Indiscriminate information. Move non-notables to Wikia:Naruto. 9 n/c
4 Summarize and move to Universe. 10 n/c
5 n/c 11 Weak agree.
6 Disagree.
I've been shifting in my stance on Wikipedia fiction coverage lately. I think we should make more links to Wikia:Naruto to encourage users interested in detailed information about the series to go where it is more appropriate. Interlinks are easy (for example Wikia:Naruto:Naruto Uzumaki) and they could use the motivated editors who come here with good faith edits only to be reverted. –Gunslinger47 02:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to make a huge list, so I'm heading back down the indent. Like Seph said, a Naruto universe topic would be a good way to slap all the little details into a topic that won't readily be deleted. I do question the wisdom of a separate jutsu page. I see that getting shot down quickly. Akatsuki is fine as is, tailed beasts could be merged, but the rest is good enough. Don't merge the media page. It needs to exist. To the rest of those steps, again merging is being treated like it's the only option. The articles do not have to be merged for sources to be found, and the suggestion seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. For the optional ones, video games are inherently notable. Merging them (more than we already have) would be foolish. Card game, too. The tempaltes can remain separate because it's a much more helpful form of navigation. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

On the subject of the characters, however, we should seriously reconsider List of Naruto characters. It should be the master list for everything else, but simply listing all the characters is not sufficient. It needs to be comprehensive; ergo, it should have sections for every group of characters, listing them, or summarizing them and providing a link to the main article for those characters in that specific section. As I've said before, much of the material on these characters can be heavily reduced (do we need summaries as long as Sansho, Natsuhi or Haruna?). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree in that respect. That particular list could use a major revamp. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm confused. What exactly is going on here?--TheUltimate3 (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • 1. "List of Naruto terms" seems like a title that is less likely to be attracted to AfDs. Include whatever vocabulary and concepts that are not really covered elsewhere as well.
  • 2. Not going to work. Dragon Ball and One Piece have had their ability lists deleted, and a Naruto counterpart would inevitably meet the same fate.
  • 3. List of Naruto characters should not be a depository for characters that can't go anywhere else. It should be a disambiguation page that acts as an index for every character listed somewhere on Wikipedia. Akatsuki, I've no doubt, could reach GA status once it becomes more prominent in the US anime/manga. Leave it be for the time being.
  • 4. Fine.
  • 5. Character status should suffice; major characters, minor characters, and villain articles can contain every character that needs to be mentioned.
  • 6. Merge to what? Itself? There are few places the information could go. Clean up and a general improvement in quality would be enough.
  • 7. I find it unlikely that all of those characters can be merged. Besides, some are fairly active in the plot and therefore are more likely to have out of universe information.
  • 8. Don't care. Character template probably wouldn't be long enough after whatever merging there will be is done, though it would still serve its purpose by being separate.
  • O1. Unfeasibly long and would be of terribly poor quality. Some games can stand on their own (Clash of Ninja offshoots and Rise of Ninja being two examples).
  • O2. You're overextending. Fiction is the prime target for AfDs, not out of universe material based on that fiction. CCG article is fine by itself.
As Gunslinger suggested, a better reliance/advertisement of the Naruto wikia would lessen the amount of material anons think should be included on Wikipedia. We cover the characters/things necessary to understand the basic plot and whatever else is essential to those characters/things, and depend on the wikia to cover everything else. This would mean an exclusion of filler material (with a handful of exceptions), background characters (family members, Chunin Exam proctors), and things that receive little to no attention in the long run (couple of ranks, most countries and villages) here. Coming up with inclusion criteria, were this idea to be popular enough, would be a good idea. ~SnapperTo 23:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Updated list. Although I can easily see useless characters like that fish girl from the Anko filler arc moved to the wikia, others are questionable. Besides mabye Idate and Aoi, I doubt if any filler character can be called notable. Some manga and anime characters are minor, but it would be hard not mentioning them (Konoha's two elders, for example). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
If a character (filler or manga) isn't mentioned to and significant effect Wikipedia, they don't meed to be listed anywhere. Raiga and Matsuri are two filler characters who see coverage outside of their own entries, and thus I'd support keeping them. The Konoha elders, conversely, are only mentioned as far as being Konoha elders/the Third's former teammates. Nothing substantial, hence little reason to keep them. ~SnapperTo 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
But who will be doing the Wikia moving? I ask this mainly as I am an editor there, but don't have the time nor energy required to move so many to that list.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 19:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Then move five (or however may you have the time and energy for) characters every day until you're done. Or recruit someone to help you. ~SnapperTo 20:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Question: lessons from another orphan?

Can wikipedia's Harry Potter and related articles be used as a template or guideline for the Naruto articles? With respect to the vigilance of Rowling and her publishers these articles do not appear to be infringing on copyright laws. Also both universes possess highly detailed characters, societies, skills and conventions. I understand that Harry's universe has many more secondary sources available to its Western audience because it was originally written in English and has a wider appeal; while Naruto's is more niche and suffers from the the "lost in translation" phenomenon. Still, is this a good idea for the articles' editors? 201.238.81.248 21:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

A minor but very useful suggestion

I suggest that instead of linking to where a merged character is like "Akatsuki (Naruto)#Kisame Hoshigaki|Kisame Hoshigaki", instead we just link to the redirect. That way if the character is moved to somewhere else, all that is needed is to change the redirect page and be done with it rather than searching each article for a link to that character like "Akatsuki (Naruto)#Kisame Hoshigaki|Kisame Hoshigaki". We can also do this to countries as well. As such, a category for Naruto redirects should be made as well. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There's little point in bringing something up for discussion if you aren't going to wait for anyone to discuss it. I have reverted your edits. Redirects should be avoided where possible. Besides, on the various lists you were replacing links to topics within the article with redirects, creating self-redirecting links and forcing the page to reload whenever the link is clicked. Extremely impractical. ~SnapperTo 20:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


Major Spoiler Warning

At the beginning of the 'plot' section it is stated that naruto is the son of the fourth hokage. this has not yet been revealed in the anime and this piece of information may ruin the viewing pleasure for some people. there should either be a major spoiler warning or the line "sacrificed his own life to seal the demon inside his newborn son, Naruto Uzumaki." should be changed to "sacrificed his own life to seal the demon inside a newborn baby, Naruto Uzumaki." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amitamit2 (talk • contribs) 12:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree. There is no reference as to where it is said but the English manga and anime nor the Japanese anime have reached that point. Therefore, the only 'legal' way to find such information is to read the Japanese manga in Japanese. As this is the English Wikipedia, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to include this information so, for now, I shall remove it. If anyone has valid reason why it should remain, please discuss here. Raccool 67.60.197.248 (talk) 16:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind, the page is locked to me because it's semi-protected. Probably need a Wikipedia account in order to edit it and that, as my friend would say, "reeks of effort" and I'm about to leave. I'll let you guys discuss it for now. Raccool 67.60.197.248 (talk) 16:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
While I am inclined to actually agree with you, this is not the norm in Wikipedia right now. I am not going to revert it, but you're likely to run into people more knowledgable about policy than I am telling you why it should stay. JuJube (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I decided to revert it and leave an invisible sign that says "Dont put naruto is his son as that is not confirmed until chapter 366" to avoid anybody editing that. None plot introduction on any channel gives a spoiler. I just was bold.Tintor2 14:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Stray article

A few people are working on a page here: Naruto Shippuden. –Gunslinger47 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

So they used a redirect to this page to recreate Plot of Naruto: Shippuden. I've turned it back to a redirect and going to request that it be protected. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 20:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
It's a shame that we didn't catch it earlier, as it looks like quite a bit of work. Anyone object to handing over the deleted content to Wikia:Naruto? –Gunslinger47 20:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Naruto Wikia

It is now time for us to begin moving information to the Naruto wikia. There is so much information to move, however, that we could be in for some difficulty, and from what I've seen our administrator is picky with moving articles from here to there. How you'llo be handling this, however, I can't participate, as whatever time I'm on my computer anymore will be spent improving the wikia. I'll be starting with the Akatsuki articles, then the ones listed on the major characters article here and the Nine-Tails (who is major), then everyone else. Please treat articles here as good as, possibly better than, those here on Wikipedia if you decide to participate. Why? If an article here is deleted, the Wikia shall be an archieve of the articles for us to use, making it key to our task forces' success on the Naruto articles. P.S. If any help moving is needed, don't hesitate asking One Piece, which is quite skilled at moving to wikias and updates the wikia daily. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be mindful on how the Wikia is structured. I can safetly say that the Akatsuki members (save Itachi which you just worked with) is Zetsu, Deidara, and maybe Sasori. Everyone else is fine. That being said, the Haku article can't be touched as of now due to a very presistant editor and his edit war. Lets see, the Jutsu's are seperated for a reason, and the admin (Dantman) has a plan for them which requires their seperation. So please leave them be. The Tailed Beasts are fine, the only two that could have an article (Demon Fox and the Shukaku) have their own, with the Two and Three tails in the "Tailed Beasts" section. Also I have quite a few archives in my User Page on the Wikia so please just use those to seperate into character articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUltimate3 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The Haku article is fine now. The user didn't have very good relations with the community and appears to have left on his own.
Actually, Tailed-beasts at some point should be split up to, same with the List of Ninja Tools.
As for why everything is getting it's own page. Other than the whole ideal of Wikia ACG's ideal of giving everything it's own space, there is a light technical bit behind it. Wikia is going to be adding Semantic MediaWiki at some point, and I intend to setup our templates to take advantage of that. It'll mean some pointless categories which fill up the list (Like ones on Gender, etc...) won't need to be added to the page. In addition to that, other things like the Ninja Ranks that the Character has achieved, ninja registration, age, birthdate, clan, kekkei genkai, jutsu, etc... Can all be added as Semantic Attributes. That'll allow people to browse by and list/search those with those attributes. And unlike Categories, I remember that Semantic MediaWiki should be able to allow for listing by multiple attributes. So you could search for all the Characters, who have become Chunin or higher, Are female, and are, or have been affiliated with Konoha. ^_^ Intriguing? Not to mention that Semantic MediaWiki (Or for the matter, we could even do it with DPL at the moment) could create automatic Jutsu lists, character lists, list characters in a clan on a clan article, etc... The primary thing is that neither DPL or Semantic MediaWiki can separate the data in a way that lets you put things on the same article. But it's not like that's a big issue, gives you more space, and if you need anything summarized somewhere, we can transclude it.
On another note, I see a Narutopedia link in the External links section of the Wikipedia article, any clue who added that there? Cause it doesn't link to the Narutopedia that Wikipedia editors are copying things to and going to, it appears to link to another wiki that calls itself the Narutopedia, but isn't even as big as us. Perhaps the link should be changed to the Narutopedia that the Wikipedia editors recognize, not one which likely added itself? As for the wiki itself, I think I'll tell them about the Narutopedia at Wikia, see if they want to join in. Dantman (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Question Regarding a Spoiler Removal

Recently the fact that Naruto was the 4th son was removed from the plot infomation section as a spoiler with hidden text stating, Dont put naruto is his son as that is not confirmed until chapter 366,. I assume that the person removed it since the English manga is not that far yet. I personally question that decision and wanted so imput to see if there is agreement with that decision or if it should be reverted. Finally, since I am not a regeristered user I can't change it myself so somone else would have to do it if a reversion is decided on. --65.95.17.231 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No, when we put info about the plot introduction we can only give the information known from the start, we cant say other things like the name of the 3rd hokage or anything. Its not about the english manga as I dont live in USA. Its for anybody watching or reading the series. I put that text in edit to avoid anybody write it. Let me give you an example: in the plot introduction of dragon ball (the whole story) we cant say goku is a saiyan as this is not from the start. Maybe in the plot introduction of the Z saga.--Tintor2 (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, what do you consider plot introduction. Where do you draw that line? My opinion is that we should have all available information on the page. --Naruto Tron 02:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I would assume, anything before episode 3 is considered intro info. If its past Episode 3, then its considered "not intro" and probably can't be used. /shrug I suppose.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't understand why we need to restrict ourselves to that information. Is there any reason? --Naruto Tron 02:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Because a plot introdution is for people who starts watching the series (this would be lik the summary in the back of a DVD, the wont tell you how the Matrix ends. This is the only article in which we cant give spoilers.--Tintor2 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that reveals plot events or twists.

Spoilers on the Internet are sometimes preceded by a spoiler warning. On Wikipedia, however, it is generally expected that the subjects of our articles will be covered in detail. Therefore, Wikipedia carries no spoiler warnings except for the Content disclaimer.

It is not acceptable to delete information from an article about a work of fiction because you think it spoils the plot. Such concerns must not interfere with neutral point of view, encyclopedic tone, completeness, or any other element of article quality (for example, WP:LEAD). (Masterxak (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC))

Recent Kishimoto Interview

There is a Kishimoto interview taken from the Jump Fest 2008 being posted on a number of sites. Apparently it has been confirmed as being real by a number of sources. Kishimoto mentions a few characters like Sasuke, Naruto, Sakura, Kakashi, and Shikamaru. Could this interview be used as a source for these character's articles? Sid122 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I also read it. I only think we could that the info of snake. I dont know if the interview is real as it is only posted in forums.Tintor2 (talk) 22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you hae a link for the interview? or is it in japanese?Dragon queen4ever (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The interview is up at a number of anime/manga sites. Here is just one of them. http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=59857
Perhaps it could be used as a source if it were transfered to a text file. Sid122 talk 10:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

But that it seems we only find it in forums, so it wouldnt be good to use a forum as a source.Tintor2 (talk) 11:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

To me, it almost made no sense at all @_@ am I the only one under the impression someone had done a very bad job translating?Dragon queen4ever (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

END?

With Jiraiya Dead (or dying),Sasuke facing Itachi, and Naruto getting ready to fight Tobi, is the story nearing its end? Does anyone know if Kishimoto has said anything about this... I hope it still has year to go before the end comes...4.90.34.99 (talk) 20:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No verification on that yet that I've heard. It does seem like he's rushing to get somewhere lately, though. –Gunslinger47 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Today there was a joke about that. The series is confirmed to keep at least during the 2008. This talk may be deleted because it looks like a forum. –Tintor2 21:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Number of episodes

I couldn't find the total number of episodes that have been aired until now. Someone please add it to the introduction (as it is for most of the on-going series).Jahilia (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Did you check the infobox? ~SnapperTo 23:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

VIZ

Why did viz only try to advance the Naruto Manga and not the others (such as One PIece which is far behind the japanese counterparts.) I know they wanted to reach part two, but there must be another reason. Does anyone know?4.227.111.40 (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine Naruto was their most profitable "far-behind" series. What better way to cash in on that then to release 12 volumes in four months? This, of course is a guess, as is any other explanation. In any event, I hope One Piece will receive the same treatment in the very near future; 33 volumes behind is far too many. ~SnapperTo 21:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

My idea is that if we put a little section of the villages system in the main article linking it to Naruto universe. I think that would help people to give little explanation of the villages.

Another suggestion is that if we put a brief description of the four main characters linking them to their main articles like the Bleach (manga) article that has reached the GA-status. I will be bold if sby tells me.–Tintor2 19:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. But I would keep it like the Bleach article which gives a brief description of seven characters. Sasuke, Naruto, Sakura, Kakashi, Orochimaru, Shikamaru, and Gaara would probably be the equivalent of the main seven Bleach characters. Sid122 talk 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Those seven were chosen because there were seven, not because there must be seven. Naruto has only four clear-cut main characters (Team 7), while Shikamaru, Gaara, Jiraiya, Tsunade, and Orochimaru also seem to fit very well. If we do go with this, it would be more wise to go with just the original members of Team 7. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

No chapter

why was there no chapter released last week? Is one going to be released this week? 4.227.108.213 (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Next week. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Weekly Shonen Jump won't be published until the 21st, so don't expect to see a RAW until around next Friday. –Gunslinger47 03:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


Reception paragraph

Since card games are mentioned here, how about extending this part and metioning console games and online games as well? Cornim (talk) 22:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Episodes

Since October, Two new episodes have been airing every week on toonami(2 competely new episodes, not repeats). I was just wondering if the schedule is going to be the same for the rest of the fillers and hopefully shippuden. Is there any news on this? Does anyone know? 4.226.78.227 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Character Bloodtypes

Hey, didn't the characters all have their bloodypes on their pages before? I clicked on a bunch of different pages that i could have sworn had their blood type, but it wasn't there. Now have I completely lost it, or did they get removed somewhere down the line. And if so, why'd we get rid of it? Ichliebezuko (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed because they would only be important to fans of the series (as such, they are fancruft) and have no notability towards anything. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. I kind of liked them there, but you do have a point. Thanks! :) Ichliebezuko (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, if that's only important to fans, do the character birthdays have enough notability? I guess they would have some relevance to zodiacs, i guess. IDK. Ichliebezuko (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Characters's Ages

I've noticed that the ages in Part II (aka Hurricane Chronicles) have been deleted, but it still shows how much they aged during Part I. I think it would be a little simpler if the only age shown is when the characters first appeared (if not at the beginning of the series.)

  • Examples: 12 (at the beginning); or 12 (at first appearance)

Do you think this would be better?--Halls452 (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Request GA withdrawal

To put it bluntly, this article isn't even close to being ready for GA status. There is a complete lack of any sort of media section to discuss the enormous breadth of media that encompass the franchise (see Shakugan no Shana#Novels and adaptations, Strawberry Panic!#Media and more). Aside from that, there's no conception/development/etc. information on the manga, anime, or franchise as a whole, and the reception is lackluster at best. Even the in-universe sections are poor: they aren't sourced completely, they could use some expansion, the prose needs work, among other things. In all, the GA nomination should be withdrawn until the article is actually improved. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Also note that if drastic improvements are made to the article in the interim period between now and an actual review, then the article should be failed due to not being stable (as it is the subject of several major edits over a significant course of time). Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. Its a work in progress, and will b eheading there one day, but it is not ready yet. Collectonian (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I would also like for the article to fail GAC review, per request on my talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Who nominated it? If one of you three did, it can be self-withdrawn with very little fuss, just note it in the edit summary "self-withdrawing Naruto per discussion on Talk:Naruto" or something - it's not the usually done thing, but it shouldn't cause a ruckus. -Malkinann (talk) 03:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I support removing it. I'll inform Lord Sesshomaru (who put it there, apparently) that he can self remove Naruto from the list. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Copy editing?

For the past month I've been reading through the various articles and noticed that there are numerous grammer, etc., errors. I'd like to help clean them up in my spare time, any one want to help? A good place to start would be the detailed episode lists, many of the descriptions seem to have been written by non-native English speakers and making corrections would be a great improvement. 76.189.178.118 (talk) 03:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

GA fail

This article is pretty good, but I don't feel it meets the GA criteria, especially for breadth. I have doubts that the 16 citations shown here cover everything worth telling us about this popular series. I see many links in the External Links that seem to carry information that could be added. The reception section could be larger, given it's popularity, and we could use a section describing production and other elements of the show in more detail. Right now, this article reads like it has holes in places research-wise. Feel free to re-nominate once these things are figured out. Wrad (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Shippūden on Hero TV in Philippines

Don't you think that this YouTube link, may probably be a better reference? The ANN link, http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=7293, doesn't really show a source apart from itself, and ANN does not have any information that I can see from its press release page... ABS-CBN and Hero TV's webpages (besides their online forums) don't have any information either that I can find (they mention Naruto in general, but nothing specifically on "Shippūden"/"Season 5"). --Geopgeop (T) 11:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Youtube links are generally discoiurged due to copywright conserns so it would likely not even be allowed as a reference. --76.71.209.177 (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
I figured something like that would come up, good thing I asked. --Geopgeop (T) 10:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay Listen People

I know I will sound like a total weirdo but we should just stop fighting and start fixing. We have lost focus of the true essence of Wikipedia. Facts. We need to state facts(even if it is overly obvious) I mean someone nominated it for a B in best articles. Come on we need to fix this site.--Landabardy (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Two Things

If GA and/or FA is really desired in the future, then isn't it about time this article met the Anime and Manga MOS? :P It may not matter as much for GA, depending on the reviewer, but as someone who generally weighs in on anime related FAs, article's that does not follow the MOS are unlikely to pass.

Also, someone might want to incorporate this into the reception section: Naruto vol 28 #17 on USA Today's list of best selling books which is its highest position ever and the second highest for any manga volume. Collectonian (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Similarities

I find many things in Naruto similar to Hunter x Hunter. Like Kurapika and Sasuke, Hunter exams and Chuunin exams, main character has never met their parents, i think that we need to insert a section like this in the article, like in 666_Satan#Similarities to Naruto.--MCP9999 (talk) 13:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Original research. 666 Satan is neither a GA or FA, so we shouldnt use it as example--Tintor2 (talk) 14:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Appearances in other media

Would it be a good idea to add other anime appearances to the main article? For instance, in an episode of Yakitate!! Japan, Kawachi and Suwabara have a fight while acting like Naruto and Sasuke, respectivly.[2] Lettrikanatina (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Gaia Online also has Naruto-like items available for avatars: the headband, kunai, shuriken, and sandals, to name a few.Lettrikanatina (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Not unless it can be sourced, otherwise it's just so much original research. —Dinoguy1000 00:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If he knows the episode he can use "cite episode" citation.Tintor2 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Random allusions in other anime shouldn't be included. It's trivial. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Naruto Shippuden :Konoha Gakuen special is out now.Is an update necessary? Sorry this is the only reference i got, but it is authentic. Vahneris (Converse) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the link as it violates WP:COPYVIO. Collectonian (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

That video must be some kinf of OVA, however I cant confirm it, although its obvious.Tintor2 (talk) 15:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Naruto Cancelation

I heard that the american version might be canceled. Can someone varify this? Also, even if it isn't, someone should add to "trivia" or make another section that they can put how a ten yr. old killed himself by trying to do the sand coffin.

~~Tayler —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.223.83 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 23 March 2008

First we are going to need a source about the cancelation and there is arleady a discussion and consensus not to add the sandbox story in one of the above section. I am guessing the cancelation thing was likely some rumor based on that story becasuse I would blieve that several anime sites would have mentioned something like that. Personally I bleive that it is highly unlikely. --76.71.208.33 (talk) 19:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Taking a closer look most of the talk about a possibile cancelation has been messageboad discussion about the possibiltiy of a cancelation. The only place where I saw someone state that the show was going to be caneclled was a person on Yahoo Answers who offered no evidence and the date the person said it would be caneclled is a tuesday. [3]. The problem there is that the show does not air on a tuesday. In short this seems like a simple case people speculating and a few people making things up. It is definely not verfiable. --76.71.208.33 (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Naruto light novel

I didn't see any information about it on the article, but it seems there's been at least one Naruto light novel: Naruto– Innocent Heart, Demonic Blood (Naruto –shiro no dōji, keppū no kijin–), written by Masatoshi Kusakabe and published in Japan by Shueisha Inc. in 2002, with an English distribution by VIZ in 2006. Could anyone confirm and expand the details and possibly list any other Naruto light novels? —Dinoguy1000 19:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Its listed in the hideous thing that is List of Naruto media :( Some serious MOS formatting is needed here, and that list could probably just go. Nothing there that doesn't more properly belong here when there are already episode and chapter lists too. Collectonian (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Aah, that makes sense. I've never actually bothered to look at List of Naruto media, but I may now. In any case, I was actually referring to the fact that the light novel recieves no mention whatsoever in the infobox. —Dinoguy1000 20:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, an info box should be added for it. :) Collectonian (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Naruto on Cartoon Network Asia

Cartoon Network Asia is showing Naruto on April 7th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ITAQ (talk • contribs) 05:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

More Reception Stuff

ICv2 has started a new feature: "a monthly list of the "Top 20 Graphic Novels" sold by U.S. book retailers, provided by Nielsen BookScan". They have posted BookScan's Top 20 Graphic Novels for March, and Naruto is dominating the list with its 28th volume at the top of the list, and four more volumes plus the art book also in the top 20. http://www.icv2.com/articles/home/12330.html Certainly speaks to its reception and popularity here.Collectonian (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I ll try to add it.Tintor2 (talk) 23:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

10 Year Old Dies in Sandbox

There's been news recently about a ten-year-old kid who buried his head in 12 feet of sand who has died recently from the complications. The media blames Naruto for this incident. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.65.50 (talk) 06:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  • He was trying to imitate a Sand technique. Which one, I have no clue... when did Gaara use a "Bury Self in Sand and Die" jutsu? JuJube (talk) 06:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • i don't know anything about the events, but the jutsu in quesiton is called in the dubbed version "Earth Style: Headhunter Jutsu" where Kakashi pulls Sasake down into the earth leaving only his head exposed from and early episode when they first met Kakashi. is there a link to the event in the news? shadzar-talk 06:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Unless something actually comes out of it (lawsuit, actual law, etc.), then it's just another random event. It shouldn't be included. A controversy section covering this one event would be ill-advised and unnecessary. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sephiroth BCR. Unless the parents sue, there is mass media hysteria, or CN decides to yank it from the airwaves, its just another story of an unsupervised child imitating something on TV (and the whole bury in the sand thing isn't exactly a unique concept to Naruto), then it isn't a controversy at all. So far Naruto is being named more as a side note than anything else. Collectonian (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Would a blurb in Reception be too much to ask? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Again, unless something actually comes out of it, then it's a minor event that we shouldn't report. See WP:NOT#NEWS. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 07:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

<unindent> Hi, I only came across this article because I just read about this news item on Fox News, it happens to be the number one most read article on their site right now. They actually have the name of the game misspelled which I just created a redirect for. Anyways, I was surprised not to see a little blurb about the incident in the article- at least to explain what the heck these kids thought they were actually imitating anyways- I've never heard of this cartoon before today and some explanation would be helpful- I doubt I'm the only one who would think so. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I too think there should be a small mention. But, apparently, policy comes into play. A shame. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Septhiroth; unless this acutally becomes something, like Chinese schools banning Death Note, then there's not really a point in mentioning this (unless we have gotten to the point where we are searching very desperately for out-of-universe info for this article). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
As one who lives within miles of this sad situation I would think it would bear keeping an eye on in the next few days to see where it goes. Right now there is a lot going on with the story. The family (who has confirmed a direct connection to Naruko specifically) is being attacked more for allowing the boys (three of the other boys who buried him were Codey's cousins) to watch the show at all, which is drawing negative attention to the content of the show and appropriateness of where and when it airs on US television. Much is just media fanning the fires, showing distraught neighbours calling for a ban or boycotts on the show, but sometimes this is how bigger things erupt. OneHappyHusky (talk) 11:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
It's rather depressing watching this type of event unfold in the media, and even more so when you consider the fact that Gaara isn't actually all that major of a character, and thus hardly sets the tone for the series. —Dinoguy1000 18:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I know what you mean. I was literally baffled when this was in the news. Guess some kids have crazier imaginations than most. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm more confused about how it's possible to get your head stuck in sand. Unless my childhood sandboxes are wrong, sandboxes aren't that deep in the first place. Casull 18:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
IIRC, the sandbox was a foot deep so it's possible. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
A foot deep? Man, lucky kids nowadays! Why, when I was their age, *rant rant rant* But in all seriousness, what I do find disturbing are talks of censoring access to Naruto itself, rather than teaching kids nowadays that it's obviously a cartoon. But as this talk page is not meant to be a forum, I suppose I should state this could be article-worthy if something big happens because of it, like AS pulling Naruto or something. Casull 19:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
That would be good to add to the article. Do you remember the source? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) If I may, I'd like to point out that Toonami airs Naruto in the U.S., not Adult Swim. —Dinoguy1000 19:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Naruto got taken of didn't it? I could be wrong....petty sure (definatly in my opinion it should of). Many parents are so naive that Naruto is a teenager show, not Elementary school kid. But I can completly understand CN's selfishness in keeping the show. Jump Guru (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Not that I am aware of. It is still litsed on the website and the according to the schedual it still aires. If you are talking about it being removed from adult swim I don't believe that is the case either since the article mentioned that it debuted on Toonami. --76.66.191.9 (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Naturo was recently on as the last program before AS started its programmign block. but as usuall CN switched around programs not only with AS, but other things and now Naruto no longer airs during the week. instead Storm Hawks has taken over than timeslot. Naruto still airs two new episodes each week on saturday nights. i doubt the schedule change had anything to do with this incident, but rather just the usual messing up of the schedule for CN. shadzar-talk 22:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. It would appear that since naruto was one of several shows that was part of the schedual change that the sandbox incidient was likely not the reason. --76.66.185.175 (talk) 02:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
It definitely belongs in here under a "Controversy" section. (Go, Diego, Go! even has one.) And the Indonesian death needs to be listed as well. Hill of Beans (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
What controversy? Literally, that is quite a poor term to use. –Gunslinger47 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Reporting again from "Ground Zero" Story off the map, "better" tragedies to exploit. Would like to point out only that the sandbox was one constructed by the family in a private back yard, fully enclosed and covered and much larger than conventional public sandboxes, I suspect you could actually bury several persons (even adults) who were laying down as this child was but with head buried deeply to mimic something else. Tragic but possible, sadly. OneHappyHusky (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
This incident does seem like it should have a place in the article, but I don't think 'controversy' is the right word to use, either. The Indonesian death should go into that section, too. As for whether or not Cartoon Network took the show off the air, the answer is no. They still show it every Saturday night. I think they might have taken it off durning the week, but I honestly don't know. Anyway, I think that some info about both this death and the indonesian one would be good for the article. I still don't think the word 'controversy' fits, but whatever. Ichliebezuko (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Per above, unless something significant actually comes out of it (lawsuit, Naruto is pulled off Cartoon Network, mass protests, hysteria, etc.), then there's nothing to put. It's an isolated event with no real significance. We don't cover events that happen once and are forgotten by the media the following day. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Naruto ng

there seems to be a Naruto NG out any one else heard of it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarklonewolf (talk • contribs) 02:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why?

I noticed that a lot of Naruto articles have been shortened and put into articles like lists of naruto villians and stuff. Like Haku used to have his own article, along with Zabuza, Rock Lee, and a few others. I also heard that the tailed beasts used to have an article just abouth them. Is there a reason for this? Ichliebezuko (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Because they fail Wikipedia's notability requirements for fictional articles (WP:FICT) as they have no real-world coverage nor significance. Thus they were merged into character lists where they are more appropriate. Collectonian (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So, if we found some real-world coverage, would we be able to put them back into their own articles again? (sorry, sounds like a stupid question, but i'd rather ask and feel stupid than screw up and feel stupid) Ichliebezuko (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Do note though that the characters would have to receive significant coverage (as in not a trivial mention in a single sentence, or a simple rephrasing of the plot) from reliable, verifiable sources that are independent of the subject material. Do so and we'd be happy to recreate the articles. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 16:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It would have to be significant real-world coverage from reliable sources. For some examples, see: Rukia Kuchiki, Himura Kenshin, and Kakashi Hatake which are our three most recent anime/manga character GAs. Can also look to Naruto Uzumaki and Belldandy, which are prepping for GAC. Notice that while each article does give brief plot information, they also focuses on and include real world aspects including concept/creation, reception, and his appearances in other media. These are not sourced only from the original works and related media, but from third party sources as well. Not all characters from an anime or manga series can be taken to these levels because while they may be relevant to the series, in the real world they are not. Most characters from Naruto will not have this kind of information available or reliable-third party sources discussing them in any detail. If you think you can accomplish this with some of the characters that were merged, I'd recommend working on a new article in your user sandbox, then when ready presenting it for others to see to confirm it does meet the qualifications. Collectonian (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see now. I'll have to go look for stuff now. Thanks! ;-] Ichliebezuko (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
If you were thinking in looking sources for Rock Lee, I was making one here. I could get good reception but nothing about conception.--Tintor2 (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


Naruto In Wc3

Well , Naruto excists in Warcraft 3 too , There are like millions of Naruto RPGs and Naruto Arena maps etc. But those people who makes theese maps goes to Wacraft 3 modding websites and make millions of requests about making them Naruto models or Naruto spell packs.Well whats funny is that they usually use internet language , It may look like this. Lyek Hye Can yuo guyz make me N4ruto spelpax & some models pl0x pl0x. They keep spamming up Wc3 moding websites with theese requests and they dont use the search button! There are millions of threads that contain Naruto Model & Spell packs Requests.==

I think you're talking about the "Naruto Wars" project, or something similar. It isn't worth mentioning in this article. –Gunslinger47 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Maybe in the videogames article if that game is legal.Tintor2 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Episodes: Accuracy?

I see that Naruto has 220 Episo, oh let me get to the point: The Episode Amount is NOT spcific and probily isnt even updated! I say that because, oh I dont know maybe because ITS STILL AIRING NEW EPISODES...sorry Im just a wee bit PISSED OFF right now! Point is can ya give an accurate update on Episode Numbers for the USA if ya may? =^_^=--Akemi Mokoto (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Naruto has finished airing in Japan. It has 220 episodes. That is the accurate episode count. When the US run finishes, it will have the exact same number of episodes. Collectonian (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
How bout the USA's Current Amount!--Akemi Mokoto (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Why should that be listed? No other anime article that I've seen directly indicates the number of episodes released in English, and it's easy enough to see by looking at the dates on the appropriate "List of ... episodes" article. —Dinoguy1000 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Dino. We're talking about the series as a WHOLE, not just specifically the series in America, even if we ARE on the English-language version of Wikipedia! IceUnshattered (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Genres (copied from Talk:Dragon Ball (manga))

Dragon Ball (manga) has been recategorized to the "Action" sub-genre of "Martial Arts". Should Naruto and YuYu Hakusho undergo the same adjustment?--Nohansen (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Tenjho Tenge may need some attention as well. I had some second thoughts about "adventure", but only because this series [Dragon Ball] isn't as broad as, say, One Piece or Saiyuki. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Naruto is "okay" where it stands. What exactly did you want to modify? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Action => Martial arts. The characters are martial artists, aren't they?--Nohansen (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd say yes, and no. Is there a genre which covers the whole ninja concept? Naruto, to me, leans more towards the styles of Ninja Scroll and Basilisk. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ninja Scroll is a chanbara. I haven't read Basilisk but I have a feeling it is a chanbara, as well. Naruto is not. While I don't know of any "ninja genre", I can tell you that ninjutsu is, for all intents and purposes, a martial art.--Nohansen (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There are early references to chanbara in Naruto but perhaps too minour to apply here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding main image change

I noticed that someone chnaged the original main image [[4]] was replaced with a picture of the first Tankōbon [[5]]. This appears to have been changed without discussion and I think that a consensus for the change should have ocuured first before anyting happened. personally think the previous picture of the main characters is better than what we have now. Finally, if a decision is made to use the old pitcure it should be added as quicky as possible since it is currently tagged for deletion due to not being used in any articles. Finally, the page is protected so someone else will need to make the change. --76.69.166.248 (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who change it and it is not necessary to make a consensus for this. I thought it would be better since there is already a picture with Team 7 main characters in the article and that the manga is the primary work of the series but this can be discussed and replace the image with a better point than "I like it". Cheers.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


More Reception and Media

Naruto 29 debuted at the top of the Book Scan list, and 28 returned with its released: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-05-07/usa-today-booklist-april-28-may-4

As all of the relevant parts from List of Naruto media has been properly merged to this article in sourced prose, I've removed the link and redirected the old page. Collectonian (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a list, on the media page, of all the songs used in the opening/ending sequences; where has the list been moved to? --WhaT2k (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Episode theme music is covered in the individual episode season lists. Collectonian (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with "partial rv" by Collectonian

WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked says to avoid redundant links, such as common terms (like "ninja") or the same link multiple times. Category:Japanese television series is a parent cat. And changed the image size since it was too blurry. Please tell me, what is wrong with the inclusion of Category:Shapeshifting in fiction? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually my partial revert had to do more with the other dewikifications, which shouldn't have been done (like the numerous dewikifying in the references, which does not fall under the same link multiple times clause). I tried to put back the ones I agreed with, though I missed the category and ninja. You did so many, a partial revert was the only easy way to undo. I wish you had waited for an answer or just redone those items rather than reverting, since I also rewrote some very badly written stuff in my revert. As such, I've done another partial revert, keeping those items you've noted. Collectonian (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Collectonian, why are you overlinking the following: Viz Media, Weekly Shonen Jump, manga, Japan, Shueisha, tankōbon, Anime News Network, and others? I'd like to do what Sano's page is doing: one link in the article context, and one in "References". Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Because it is not overlinking in references. Not a single FA/FL has brought up any problems with "overlinking" in the references. It should be linked each time in the reference. Within the article, the first mention in the lead, and the first mention in its section is an appropriate amount of linking as well. Collectonian (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see some FA/FL samples, as I still don't agree with you, and the guideline supports me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Well let's see...all of mine: List of Trinity Blood episodes, List of Meerkat Manor episodes, List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, Meerkat Manor. Or look at the news section of the A?M project, and look at pretty much all of the FLs there from other folks, such as List of Gunslinger Girl episodes, List of Myself ; Yourself episodes, etc. Can also look at our recent GAs, which all use the same. The features and GAs support this, not the guideline. The guideline is dealing with prose, not references. Just as references use ISO dates rather than whatever date format is used in the text, it also uses wikification of publisher/work on all uses not just one. Collectonian (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you hinting that overlinking in references is fine? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm plainly saying that overlinking doesn't apply to references. Collectonian (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to "partially rv" your revision then, keeping the current mulitple sections and many links in references. Understandable? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Not really...I'd also rather you not do an undo. As I mentioned before, my revert included some needed text rewriting as well. Collectonian (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, I won't use undo. Just want to do here like what I just did to Kenshin's article. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
That should be fine. Why use reflist 3 in Kenshin's article? Not a fan of the 3 column myself, and rarely see it used, so curious. Collectonian (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Truth be told, I've been seeing it around more often than I used to for numbers higher than 30. Kinda got into the habit. Think it's wrong? Can't find particular examples ATM. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
No idea on the right/wrong. Not one I particularly like myself, and I never use it myself. I haven't seen it in many FAs/FLs, though may just be because most are used to 2. Collectonian (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Plural of 'ninja'

This has probably been discussed somewhere but I'd like to know off the top of someone's head if the plural of 'ninja' in the series is 'ninjas'. I know we have Category:Fictional ninjas but I'm not sure if it qualifies here, as the Naruto case may be different. Thoughts anyone? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I always thought the plural of ninja was ninja. Both ninja article and good old Merriamm-Webster support this, but also note that in American English ninjas can also be used (case in point 3 Ninjas *evil grin*). Collectonian (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
What should we go here? Actually, what do the English translated series of Naruto use? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to say use what Naruto uses. Someone else will have to answer the question of what that is, though, as I haven't read or watched any of the series. :P Collectonian (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)