Talk:Naruto/Archive 7

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 1

←

Archive 5

Gai Sensei

I'm just wondering, I forget if we ever saw Gai Sensei use ninjutsu? If not, is it possible he can't use any either? 70.55.60.173 02:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Snake

Guy can use summoning jutsu. See Ninkame. –Gunslinger47 02:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can Rock Lee do so, too?Zxyggrhyn 03:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

In Shippūden he's capable of walking on water, which is good to see. We still see no nin- or genjutsu from him, however. –Gunslinger47 04:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

An achievement, it is for Lee then! Hurray! Zxyggrhyn 03:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

An additional note, Guy uses Genjutsu Kai in chapter 114. –Gunslinger47 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's Advocate, cancelling a genjutsu is just disrupting chakra flow in your body, so it's not a jutsu ~~per se~~ that falls into the the nin/tai/genjutsu categories. Theoretically Lee should be able to do that too, just like how he can walk on water. So as far as we know, the only Nin/Genjutsu Guy can perform is summoning Ninkame. -- Seraphchoir 13:32, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Even a simple front kick is a jutsu. Taijutsu to be precise. The Genjutsu Kai technique/method/skill might not fit into the three primary categories, but it is a jutsu by definition, nevertheless. –Gunslinger47 21:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You got me there, heh. -- Seraphchoir 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahem!

Excuse me. Where was the part of section 'Growth and popularity' where Naruto was given recognition as Anime of the Year by UP in the Philippines? To whoever who have deleted the said part, I need to know why have you discarded it. Thank you! Ü Zxyggrhyn 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is the method to discover who removed a certain section: First, go to the page in question and view its history.[1] Next, find a particular version that still has the content.[2] Now, utilizing a manual binary search, you can narrow down the exact place where it was removed. Which, in this case, gives you this diff: [3]

According to Someguy0830's edit summary, he removed it because "that surely doesn't belong there or isn't terribly important".

Earlier, JuJube has a similar position: "uh, no offense, but so what?"[4]

It seems the consensus so far is that the UST's awards were non-notable. –Gunslinger47 05:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Gunslinger47! My mistake, it was UST. Ahihihi! Ü Zxyggrhyn 03:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comedy tag edit war

Rather than edit warring over the tag how about discussing it here? Naruto, while having comedic moments, is for the most part not comedy, and therefor should not be tagged as such. Monty845 05:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree. A large portion of Naruto is comedy. *points to sexy jutsu, just to name one* — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the show should be considered as a whole, is comedy a primary theme, or are there just occasional comedic diversions. Would you call a documentary a comedy if there were some funny parts? Monty845 05:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, but I would consider a documentary a comedy if large portions of it were specifically intended to be funny. Naruto is the same. There are hundreds of examples, half of which are during battles no less. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to assume good faith here when you overlook the fact that large portions of the series are obviously meant to be comedic (such as having one episode centered around Naruto having diarrhea). The only people questioning whether Naruto is a comedy are the people who take Japanese cartoons far too seriously to begin with. JuJube 07:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Comedy and Shonen have some overlap. Would including the Comedy genre in this case be redundant? I'm undecided, but leaning towards "no". –Gunslinger47 08:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing Naruto as a comedy is like labling the movie Steamboy as a comedy because it has 'Some' funny moments or listing Weird Al in the nerdcore hiphop section because he did two nerdcore songs.VicAndPhill 01:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think I did the original revo nyway, so I should have said something. Quatreryukami 01:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagreed. Naruto has a clear comedic slant. JuJube 02:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not disagree that there is a clear slant, I just do not beleive that it is enough for a comedy Genre tag. -- Monty845 02:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is the definition of Genre. An Anime (or anything) should generally only be one Genre (in extremely rare cases two). Labeling with 5 is really not genre anymore, but general categories or classifications. If you accept my approach to Genre Naruto is not comedy as comedy is not its primary defining characteristic. -- Monty845 02:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly quite subjective. Are the genre labels attributable? –Gunslinger47 02:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the main negative argument here is that Naruto is only comedic at some points. Well, by that logic, Naruto is not a drama, since in those parts that Naruto is funny, it is not dramatic at all. Furthermore, it is not an action manga, since there are some relatively long periods without any action. I can go so far to say that it's not a fantasy because of those brief moments that no fantastic events occur. "Sailor Hinata" moments = not Shonen. And so on. Point being, there is as much comedy in Naruto as there is action and drama (Naruto is overbearingly fantasy and Shonen, of course). Therefore, it's all three or none. You Can't See Me! 03:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My hero! JuJube 03:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I mearly ment it was more of a shonen than an actual comedy68.43.180.69 21:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Naruto is a comedy. It has more than a handful of comedic scenes. Why are we even edit warring (or why did we, if the war is over) over something this stupid? // DecaimientoPoético 21:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

LOOK PEOPLE! Can we just make a vote and be done? I really don't care for all this debate, lets see some action! My votes no.Quatreryukami 02:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that Naruto isn't DragonForce and doesn't like Dragonforce, thus he sucks and is a little girly man. --Herman Li

Shadow Imitation Technique

naruto is defenatly my favorite show. But I have a question becauseI missed a few epasodies and I dont really know how the sadow poseeion justsu works. Is the person using the jutsu hurt if the person he is controling is hurt. Sean661 15:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

~~No, injuries are not shared,~~ as seen in the conclusion of his fight against Kin Tsuchi. –Gunslinger47 22:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

who is kin tsuchi and in that hospital epasode when Naruto hit gara and sihkimaruu was using sadow posesion they were both hurt gara and shikumarru that is. Sean661 15:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh. Good point. Looking at the battle again, it seems Shikamaru dropped his jutsu at the last moment, allowing her to willingly slam her head into the wall. Either that, or it was a mistake since that was a filler episode.

So, yeah. Concussive blows are transferred, as seen in the scene you mentioned. –Gunslinger47 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also notice that in the scene with Shika and Naruto are in the hospital and Gaara's trying to kill Lee, Shika traps Gaara in Shadow Imitation, Naruto punches Gaara yada yada OH WAIT WHERE'S GAARA'S INDEPENDENTLY PROTECTIVE SAND? >_> -- Seraphchoir 14:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Shikamaru does not get hurt. Basically, the Jutsu links the two bodies so that each mimics the other's motion. Typically, Shikamaru (or Shikaku, or whatever Nara used the technique) has control, but if the other is forced to make a motion (such as Gaara's recoil from being punched), Shikamaru is forced to copy it too. It can't be that he feels it; otherwise he would have died when Izumo and Kotetsu stuck large kunai into Hidan, or when he nuked Hidan later on.

As for the protective sand, I don't know. You Can't See Me! 06:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

~~Could we move this discussion to the Shikamaru's page or the jutsu's page? -- Seraphchoir 12:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)~~ It's already here -- Seraphchoir 12:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think gara's sand didnt protected him because when your under sadow possesion u can't use justsus. but i cant explain y he was later able to use the sand to atack lee when he was still under the sadow possesion so i gusse the writers or somone made a mistake when they made the show.Sean661 21:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Garra's Sand is not a jutsu, it is just the Sand Demon protecting him. It is part of the demon, not a jutsu that Garra can control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameron Daniel (talk • contribs)

ok i no my grammer and spelling annoys people (like what i just did) but if u can still read my post please dont change it. It really anooyed me that somone changed my first post so i changed it back but messed it up somhow it became a part of th post above it.so thank you however made it its on post again but did u have to change my words. Sean661 21:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge separate articles

Participate in the discussion here. --Sandtiger 23:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Too Little

I really think that there should be more information on the developement and history of the show and about the US broadcast.70.115.174.134 18:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead and add it in. Be Bold!— Sandtiger 18:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Naming

The naming is just bullshit! I know that the english version uses the wrong naming system but WTF why does wiki to do it too Naruto Uzumaki what kind of crap is that!!! its Uzumaki Naruto ffs. And Guy is just LOL its gai for gods sake not guy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.71.111.210 (talk) 12:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

Hey! stop the language, huh? That's enough to hurt somebody!

Who said it was "Gai"? Dattebayo does not own Naruto, so their translations are not official. The guidebook however, which is the #1 canonical source of all things Naruto, says Might Guy. You lose. — Sandtiger 12:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, The Splendiferous Gegiford provided this [5]. Case closed. -- Seraphchoir 17:40, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the name orderings, please see Talk:Naruto Uzumaki/Archive 1#Requested move 2. Here we painstakeningly go the extra mile and reconfirm the use of WP:MOS-JA for Naruto articles. –Gunslinger47 18:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed that link for you. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

But haven't you heard? Kishimoto and the databook are wrong! ^_^ JuJube 19:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Also considering no legitmate reason not to follow the WP:MOS-JA have been presented and that this is consistant with several other anime articles we can safely ignore this claim. Also does it appear that this only seems to happen here. For example I have not seen on Wikipedia Bleach fans demand that we use Kuchiki Rukia Digimon savers fans demand that we use Daimon Masaru or Sailor Moon fans demand we use Tsukino Usagi etc. --67.68.155.33 03:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Naruto images

Last night I finished updating the Category:Naruto images. Many, many, many images weren't in the category. Others were in the category, but all filed under 'I' for 'Image'. In the process, I also corrected license tags, tagged a huge number of them as orphaned and speedy deleted roughly a dozen. Please follow these suggestions when uploading new articles:

Do not file screenshots from the anime with {{non-free film screenshot}}. It's not a film. Please use {{tv-screenshot}}.
Do not use PNG unless you really know what you're doing. See PNG#Comparison with JPEG for more information.
Tag new images with [[Category:Naruto images|{{PAGENAME}}]]. This will keep them all in one manageable location and arrange them by name.
If you're an artist or colorist, your artwork still requires fair-use templates if it includes Naruto content. As an example, for original art featuring one of the Naruto characters, use {{character-artwork}}.

When I next get the urge to spend all night on Wikipedia, I'll be taking another pass at the category. I want to break it into sub-categories, but don't want to go overboard. To begin with, I'm thinking:

Category:Naruto anime screenshots (ideally, JPEGs free of subtitles and watermarks)
Category:Naruto manga scans (ideally, PNGs free of scanlation text but expertly cleaned)
Category:Naruto media covers (games, dvds, OSTs, tankōbon)

Further categories and subcategories can be made if deemed necessary after the initial sorting. I don't want to have the categories get out of control and unmaintainable. The primary point is to ease maintenance, actually. –Gunslinger47 05:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Good work. I added your message to the to-do list.— Sandtiger 07:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I completed migrating the images over for two of the smaller sub-categories. –Gunslinger47 07:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Did you know? There are roughly 200 Naruto articles, including the surviving episode articles. At current count, there are 827 images in Category:Naruto images. –Gunslinger47 03:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the articles can probably be merged. I see a lot of character pages that just repeat the plot. Maybe we can prioritize these next after all the episodes are done? The images are way too many, a lot of them are probably used only once. All the single-used images must be replaced with ones that are reusable. With 200+ articles and 800+ images, this is a huge undertaking so we need to create a project or Portal:Naruto of some sort now. — Sandtiger 03:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A good chunk of the images should be gone within a week, I went through and tagged all the orphans. I personally tagged 70 of them. The reason why we have so many pictures is basically this:

One for every episode.
One for every volume. (actually, before I speedied them, there were three of each)
One for every game.
One for every character, regardless of significance. (three for the two demon brothers)
One for virtually every jutsu. –Gunslinger47 04:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, a great deal of the character articles can be merged. That say Tenten and Shino Aburame have articles is ridiculous considering the miniscule amount of content. The problem is the solution. Merging them into List of Konoha ninja isn't appropiate, as the article will be absolutely massive in scope, and liable to be split, which revives the defunct List of Konoha [ninja rank] articles. This doesn't work either, as the number of Genin is still far too small, making the article seem insignificant, and by all means, we're not merging Naruto Uzumaki into there. Naruto, Sasuke, Sakura, and Kakashi can retain their own articles, as they're the major characters. I suppose enlarging the Rookie Nine article would be a possible solution, but not for all the characters. The big problem is that Neji, Shikamaru, Gaara, Orochimaru and others have more than enough content to qualify as articles. In any case, merging them would indeed solve part of the image issue. The images for each episode can be avoided through using them multiple times, although as seen here, that can lead to problems. Having one for each volume seems fine. Same for games. All the minor characters can have their images removed. The images for the jutsu pages give a visual basis, however, and it's heck of a lot easier to understand the article when you can actually see that Jutsu X produces X effect. In any case, thoughts? Sephiroth BCR 04:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I count in the neighborhood of 200 images strewn across all 9 jutsu pages. If we're to clean something out, that'd be the place to start. Seriously, we don't need that many articles for jutsu, nor do most of these jutsu even need to be listed. Incidentally, Plot of Naruto has become obsolete as of half an hour or so ago. ~Snapper T o 04:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, falling back onto policy... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. There must be a criteria for inclusion of jutsu descriptions. Including every last one is indiscriminate. –Gunslinger47 04:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and here are some questions to ask about each jutsu:

Is there an article that links to the jutsu? If no, it isn't needed. (applies to most, if not all, video game jutsu, as well as many others)
If the jutsu is linked to, does it need to be? If no, it isn't needed. (applies to things like "Kakuzu's mask shoots fire" or "Lee kicks Naruto", and any other jutsu that is linked to and explained at the same time)
Does the jutsu have any impact on anything? If no, it probably isn't needed. (applies to jutsu that are used once and serve no importance, like Fire Sealing Method)
How many times is the jutsu used? If it is used comparably few times, and it plays no crucial rolls other than being an attack, it probably isn't needed. (applies to jutsu that are used to be used, like Demonic Illusion: Mirror Heaven and Earth Change; questions 3 and 4 are remarkably similar)
Can the jutsu easily be listed/mentioned under another jutsu? If yes, the two can probably be merged in some way. (applies to jutsu that are variants of other jutsu)

And so on in that fashion. Another thing that could be considered is whether or not jutsu should simply be relocated to one of the character articles, such as moving List of ninjutsu in Naruto (H-R)#Lightning Blade to Kakashi Hatake. This suggestion may be more difficult to implement. ~Snapper T o 04:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We probably need to review the episode summaries so that all the important jutsus are mentioned and linked properly. Filler-only jutsus can probably be deleted. How about if the jutsu is character-specific then just merge it to the character's page? You would probably look up Makyo Hyo Sho only if you're reading about Haku anyway. BTW which source are we using for the jutsus' English names? — Sandtiger 05:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Even jutsu used by multiple characters can be moved somewhere. As an example, four characters can use Rasengan, though of the four only Naruto uses it frequently. Jiraiya, Kakashi, and the Fourth could all just link to him when they're mentioned to be users of it. And jutsu are named by their literal translation. ~Snapper T o 05:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this simple criteria? "The jutsu must have a discernible effect on the overarching plot to justify the space needed to describe them." As a quick example, the taijutsu Gates effected the plot because it crippled Lee for a long time, caused Konoha to seek out Tsunade and in turn made her the Fifth Hokage. –Gunslinger47 05:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems like something that could easily differ from person to person. What one views as effecting the plot, others might not. Besides, it eliminates a number of jutsu that, while having no impact on the story, are used often enough to warrant mentioning. Choji's Multi-Size Technique for example. ~Snapper T o 05:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to put "signature" jutsu, or the ones we currently have listed for every character on their page as per consensus on the matter, on the articles themselves. The problem of having multiple characters with the same technique is remedied by simply listing the technique on both pages, but putting it in the context of the page. For instance, a mention of Spiraling Sphere on Naruto's page would contain information pertinent to Naruto's experience with the technique. It also solves the problem of having to deal with multiple variants, as they can be mentioned under a larger header. For minor characters, you can simply link the relevant technique to the character page. The big problem is that this starts to make the pages excessively long, so cutting down on the rather ridiculous amount of plot summary there would be a start. Sephiroth BCR 05:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I was planning on going through the character articles again, so give me an idea of what to cut down on. What in Kakashi's article would you shorten and/or eliminate? And to not pick on the major characters, I ask the same question for Kankuro's article. ~Snapper T o 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Kakashi's article is actually one of the better ones in terms of major characters. Kankuro is fine, especially considering that most of his techniques are related to his puppets. The most egregious example is Naruto Uzumaki. Naruto Uzumaki#Naruto and the demon fox simply needs to be summarized in a brief paragraph, and a link given to Tailed beasts#Nine-Tailed Demon Fox. Naruto Uzumaki#Part 1 is a repeat of Plot of Naruto, which is in turn outdated due to List of Naruto episodes being finished up to that point. Naruto Uzumaki#Part 2 isn't bad, but could be cut down slightly. For Sasuke Uchiha, Sasuke Uchiha#Part 1 is far too long, but the other sections appear to be fine. Sakura Haruno is fine in terms of length. Shikamaru Nara#Part 2 is 90% plot summary. The other articles don't appear to have these problems to the same degree. Sephiroth BCR 20:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-indent. I've made Shikamaru's Part II section as short as I can get it without overly detracting from his role in the arc. Now then, what in Sasuke's Part I section can go? Should I aim for taking out everything that doesn't really impact his development as a character/play a crucial role in the overall plot? ~Snapper T o 21:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that should work. I would reduce Sasuke Uchiha#Childhood, but that's central to understanding the rest of the article. Sephiroth BCR 22:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of Naruto, are there any other articles that need plot-shortening? ~Snapper T o 04:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Neji Hyuga#Chunin Exam arc, summarize Gaara#Gaara and Shukaku and link it to Tailed beasts#One-Tailed Shukaku, Gaara#Anime filler arcs, Orochimaru (Naruto)#Background, which also has an uncessary four images, Sai#Sasuke and Sai arc, and that's all I can see for the moment. Nice job. Sephiroth BCR 05:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

With the exception of Orochimaru, I've done all that are listed, as well as a few others. To return this off topic discussion of article length to the off topic discussion of jutsu, how should we proceed with cleaning out the jutsu articles? ~Snapper T o 03:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

As per above, I would put signature jutsu on the respective page of that specific character. We should set up discussion topics on each list of jutsu to properly allocate them. As an example, however, for List of genjutsu in Naruto, list List of genjutsu in Naruto#Demonic Flute: Dream Sound Chain under Land of Sound#Tayuya, List of genjutsu in Naruto#Demonic Illusion: Tree Bind Death under Kurenai Yuhi, List of genjutsu in Naruto#Temple of Nirvana Technique under Kabuto Yakushi, and List of genjutsu in Naruto#Tsukuyomi under Akatsuki (Naruto)#Itachi Uchiha. The title would be something of the lines of "Signature jutsu." We would include the same format as currently exists for the jutsu articles, except explain it under the context of the character, unless it already does. If a jutsu has multiple users that have it as a "signature jutsu" (say Spiraling Sphere for Jiraiya and Naruto), put it in both, as the explanation in the context of that specific character will account for this. In any case, these discussion topics need to be placed on all jutsu pages to transplant them. And for the non-manga jutsu, I would say just ignore them. Even for the anime-only jutsu for major characters, it's not notable enough for inclusion. However, I would definitely dump all the video game jutsu and forget about them, as they're simply taking up place. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR 04:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing jutsu on a list of characters really wouldn't work out too well. Ideally, we can eliminate enough jutsu to have only 1 list of jutsu, making the relocation of jutsu to character articles unnecessary. As for miscellaneous jutsu, video game jutsu would go unmissed, and anime jutsu would need to be spared to some degree; Hinata's laser show technique for example. ~Snapper T o 19:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

A quick exception to "video game jutsu would go unmissed". If a video game reveals capabilities of a character that we've not yet seen in action within the anime or manga, then that should be taken as canon. For the definitive example of why this is important, see Kaien Shiba#Nejibana from Bleach. –Gunslinger47 19:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-indent. That's true, but practically all of the video game jutsu for Naruto are unnotable, merely showing extensions on a character's already seen abilities. In any case, if we're to reduce the amount of jutsu, then it likely would be preferable to group all the variants under a given header. List of ninjutsu in Naruto (S-Z)#Shadow Clone Technique can encompass Multiple Shadow Clone Technique, Uzumaki Naruto Combo (and 2000 Combo), Shuriken from All Directions, Shuriken Shadow Clone Technique, and any others I missed. For List of taijutsu in Naruto, things like Leaf Gale, Leaf Strong Whirlwind, and more can fall under List of taijutsu in Naruto#Strong Fist, while Eight Trigrams Sixty-Four Palms, Eight Trigrams Palms Heavenly Spin, and more can go under List of taijutsu in Naruto#Gentle Fist. As for the Kekkei genkai-related jutsu, I wouldn't move them to the Kekkei genkai page, as that would clutter space, but rather just add section headings, and provide a link to the respective part of the Kekkei genkai page. In all cases, the variations under the specific grouping would be reduced to save space. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR 19:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Grouping is fine, though your scope seems too broad. We need to set guidelines for what jutsu are included that everyone can agree upon before we move forward with this. ~Snapper T o 20:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ideally, all could be included in that they are reduced to sentence-sized mentions under a larger grouping; however, this is likely unworkable. The jutsu that are included could be those solely be those listed under "Signature jutsu/Kekkei genkai" for each character, in that they define that character's traits or fighting style. Sephiroth BCR 20:06, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some jutsu listed under "Signature jutsu/Kekkei genkai" are listed because there is no need to limit jutsu for some characters. Additionally, some characters don't have "Signature jutsu/Kekkei genkai" sections. What could be done is to give the root jutsu a heading, and refer to the variants throughout the description. Ex:

"Spiraling Sphere (螺旋丸, Rasengan) is a jutsu developed by the Fourth Hokage ... In Part II, Naruto develops a larger, yet more unstable, version of the technique called Great Ball Spiraling Sphere (大玉螺旋丸, Ōdama Rasengan). As Part II progresses, he begins infusing his wind-based with the Spiraling Sphere, and develops the Wind Release: Spiraling Sphere (風遁・螺旋丸, Fūton: Rasengan), though it is only 50% complete at this point."

This example obviously needs to be reworked/expanded, but I think it could work. ~Snapper T o 20:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at, but perhaps I didn't explain it clearly. In any case, that should work, and it would compress the jutsu list tremendously. And on a sidenote before I forget, elemental jutsu could also be grouped under a singular heading and assigned a summary similar to the one you just put. Sephiroth BCR 20:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I guess I misunderstood you. If that's the case, some of these jutsu could be relocated to character entires, specifically those characters who have only one or two jutsu. List of taijutsu in Naruto#Toad Sword Beheading to List of Naruto summons#Gamabunta for example. ~Snapper T o 20:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Developed a start. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR 01:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's an excellent start. Just be sure to include whatever translations the dub or English manga uses where available and unique enough. I'd like to start working the "lesser" jutsu into their respective character entries, such as Sai's ink jutsu and Enma's staff transformations. Any objections? ~Snapper T o 03:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-indent. Thanks. And I have no objections; fire away. Sephiroth BCR 04:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

about Publisher and Network

I want to know the reason to put VIZ Media, one of the publishers of translated versions, on 'Publisher' section. Should not we treat as a 'Other publishers'? Moreover, 'Jump comic' is mere name of comic of Shueisha. Why should we treat it as the name of the publisher?

I want to write same thing about 'Network' section. Should not we put Cartoon Network, one of the networks of translated version, on 'Other networks'? And, Animax is mere cable-network re-broadcasts in Japan. I think it should not be treated at the same level as TV Tokyo, the main network.

I corrected these because I had thought these were strange. However I don't know why but those corrections have been reverted... I think these are due to mere misunderstanding and should be corrected. Thanks, --Morio 01:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The main sections are for the pertinent companies in both source and relevant translation languages. Other is for the trivial ones. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think your opinion has two problems. Publisher/Network are not chosen by such a standard in other articles, ex. Dragon Ball, One Piece, Fullmetal Alchemist. And, I think the idea should be arrogant that we can decide the companys which are pertinents or which are trivials..., and that English publisher, one of the publishers of translated versions, has the right to be put on same place as the original publisher. I understand editers who want to put the English publisher like the original publisher because here is English version. But we can't forget the translated versions' publishers (of this work) are not contributing to the creation of the work and they are different from the original publisher, Shueisha, also in the position on the copyrights. Therefore, I think it is difficult to maintain a present description by the reason that you wrote. --Morio 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll be clearer then. The ones we have listed now are those most pertinent to those reading the English Wikipedia. It's bad practice to hide the information that people are most likely to check one. Other languages are trivial because they aren't English, thus not the first thing people will look for. Now, as to your concern that the field be used only for the original, there is no reason to. The box can stand to have more than one, and it by no means disingenuous to list more than the original, as the infobox only exists to outline facts in a streamlined manner. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maintaining Naruto-related articles

Has anyone ever considered making a WikiProject: Naruto, or something of the sort? Naruto does have a crapload of pages to maintain. Granted, it's nowhere near as much as Pokemon's project has to handle, but it's still a lot. There seems to be a lot to clean up, especially:

Plot stuff: The Plot of Naruto and Plot of Naruto: Shippūden pages (especially that second one) are excessively detailed. At most, I've seen four paragraphs written on a single chapter. I know for a fact that people are using those pages as a substitute for the manga; frankly, I do it, and I've been keeping up with my manga-reading friends, sometimes even pointing out details that they had missed. Granted, the completed Episode List should resolve this to some degree, but that's not catching up to Part II's current status any time soon. Some form of decision has to be made about this.

Character pages: There is little content about the characters themselves on the character pages. Instead, plot events are regurgitated onto any character page whose subject appears in the scene. Instead, a character's pages should really focus more on the character's personality, abilities, and background, with only the most important plot events involving the character noted.

Technique pages: I'm all for a technique list; Naruto-related articles have expanded enough for us to pass off the technique lists as the cherry to go with the sundae. However, I and some other users (see Talk:Cursed Seal jutsu) feel that 9 pages on techniques are a bit excessive. None of us really want to see the articles vanish, but at the same time... With a WikiProject, it might be easier to come to a consensus on what to do with those.

Naming conventions: This happens at an abnormal rate on Naruto-related articles, which is bizzarre because Naruto's characters' names have all gone through translation relatively unchanged and their techniques are often close to direct translations. Still, maintaining Western order, Might Guys, Spiraling Spheres, and single-"u" Hyugas is required far too often.

I don't know if this is the proper place to bring it up, but... yeah. Has anyone considered it? You Can't See Me! 04:55, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what I said. See WP:BLEACH. There's no reason there can't be a WP:NARUTO. Sephiroth BCR 05:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

~~::Sounds like a good idea to me. There seems to be enough people active in the Naruto articles to create a project.~~ Scratch that, are there really enough people to create a separate project? — Sandtiger 06:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless you're assuming that it will be a one man project, then no - I'm relatively certain that there would be more than enough interested parties. Sephiroth BCR 06:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to throw in any support to such a project. At the very least, I could get this off of my user space, at least. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 06:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok then, go for it. A lot of effort goes into answering questions on Gai/Guy, Rasengan/Spiraling sphere, why are the episodes merged, etc. and reverting edits of those unfamiliar with the conventions used here. It would be great to have a central FAQ that explains all these things.— Sandtiger 02:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm in, hit me on my talk with a link so I can vote it in. Quatreryukami 02:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. We can solve things without resporting to staw polls. –Gunslinger47 02:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like Wikiproject Naruto has already been created before then deleted. Perhaps instead of a wikiproject that will only be useful for editors, we can just set up Portal:Naruto which will be useful to both editors and readers. — Sandtiger 15:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just create a task force within WP:ANIME, as the Bleach group has done. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 18:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Based on the deletion log, it seems that WP:NARUTO was deleted because it was an abandoned project, not because it was deemed inappropriate or unworthy. I suppose it's still a valid possibility. I'll leave the decision to someone else, though. You Can't See Me! 06:24, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started work on Portal:Naruto. The idea is to list all the naruto-related articles on a single page, so that you can just click on related changes without having every naruto page on your watchlist. Hopefully this will also motivate more people to get involved in editing. There's still a lot missing so feel free to edit the page. — Sandtiger 18:39, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Datte Baiyo!

Would anyone be interested in making a trivia section on the main article? I've been learning japanese and getting confused by the term "datte baiyo" at the end of Naruto's sentences. I finally looked online for a translation and it turns out that it is very difficult to explain. I've heard people say it means something like an informal "ya know?" but I can't be sure of it. I also wonder if it is the representative of the english translated line of his saying "Believe it!" all the time, because the japanese with subtitles versions that I've been watching don't seem to have him saying "Believe it!" at all, but that could just be something that changed in the seasons and I didn't notice it. I don't think that every little detail should go on the article, but I feel that if someone could find out a good short explanation of the word and it's translation I think it would be a significant trivial fact worth mentioning. Plenty of forums are asking about it online anyway. Youngidealist 20:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See Naruto Uzumaki. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's dattebayo (だってばよ), by the way. –Gunslinger47 22:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Naruto Blitz Begins This Fall

http://comics.ign.com/articles/783/783778p1.html

In summary, "VIZ Media will offer three new volumes of NARUTO per-month from September through December 2007". "The new publishing schedule will carry the series up to Volume 27". This confirms earlier specualation. –Gunslinger47 22:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Plot of Naruto

The Plot of Naruto page has become obsolete now that the anime is finished with that part of the story and the episodes are listed by arc and have summaries. One example is List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2) the List of Naruto story arcs. List of Naruto episodes should change to link to these pages instead of the way it is now. We don't need that long list of episodes when everything is now sorted nicely on different pages. I think the Plot of Naruto page should be kept here or on another talk page for a few months so that it can be integrated into the episode summaries if need be. Malignant Manor 23:03, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Not that simple, I'm afraid. Deleting it outright won't happen, not until it's sufficiently integrated. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

We already have a small summary via List of Naruto story arcs and a large one via List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2). We don't need a medium summary page too. Like I said earlier we can keep a copy on the talk page to help streamline the anime episode summaries. Malignant Manor 23:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Still, it's a much larger page and a much bigger holdout. Reasoning a deletion is much harder at the moment, especially since the series is still running through in translation. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't really expect any major changes to the dub that would impact the storyline. We don't need to change the plot summary into a Dub vs Sub differences listing. There really aren't any changes to the plot from manga to anime either. We already have the filler arcs listed as anime only on the List of Naruto story arcs page. That page links to the anime episodes instead of the plot summary page anyway making the Plot of Naruto page basically useless. Having an extra page would mean more changes anyway if there are translation diferences.

Edit- What about the deletion of the main episode list on the Naruto episode page and just keeping the links for the separate season?Malignant Manor 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That I can assure you won't happen. That needs to exist, both as a concise listing and as a disambiguation page. Plus, it's also where DVD info goes. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:07, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Naruto ready

{{Portal|Naruto}} The new portal can serve both as a gateway and as a project page where we can discuss general improvements to all the Naruto articles. I've linked all the Naruto-related articles I can find but if I missed some then please add them to the page. I've also added NeoChaosX's FAQ on the Guy/Gai fiasco.— Sandtiger 01:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

Well, we just lost most of our Ninjutsu and Genjutsu images, and I can imagine that Taijutsu and the Sealing/Cursed Seal jutsu images will go next. I agree that the amount of images on the page were excessive at the very least, but now those pages just look text-heavy. Any ideas? I'd suggest re-uploading images for at least one signature technique for each character with his or her own article. (Desert Coffin, Two-headed Wolf, Multi-Size, etc). That way, I don't think that the pages will be loaded to the brim and thus safe from another purging. Thoughts? Comments? Criticism? Expletives? You Can't See Me! 22:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[Random expletive]. In any case, I would have at least one picture for signature jutsu for each character. Sephiroth BCR 22:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The images that still remains should be fine, the Ninjutsu and Genjutsu sections are empty enough and I also reduced the Taijutsu images to the most important, what should be sufficent to prevent further "cleanups". We should jsut concentrate on restoring the images to a few important signature techniques for the Ninjutsu section. The images we restore should at least contain Armor of Sand, Body Replacement Technique, Desert Coffin, Great Fireball Technique, Double-Headed Wolf, Sexy Technique (signature ability in its own way) and Summoning Technique. That should make 5 images per page at the most, what should go okay with the "fair use" guilines. ~ Felcis 02:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I went through the remaining list of things and cleaned out some images. Because I am not an admin, I cannot delete the images before those who disagree with me have a chance to disagree, so feel free to examine my work and remove/reinsert images accordingly. ~Snapper T o 04:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you removed the images too drastically. I understood the necessity to cut down the tech-lists and so on, but deleting the pictures of "unimportant" characters as well is a bit too harsh (especially the lesser ninjas and villagers, like the parents of all the supporting characters and the elders). One small image for a lesser character should easily fall under "fair use". ~ Felcis 04:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm attempting to take precautions to keep images for characters who are actually deserving of one. If an admin waltzes along and finds each character to have an image, they might consider themselves an expert on the subject and remove all of them. If, however, they find only a few characters to have images, they might find that a less "decorative" use of fair use images. Do I know this for a fact? No; but then the admin I kind of sort of asked about this hasn't felt like replying. ~Snapper T o 05:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand why you did that, as I saw as well how the "expert"-admin "solved" the image-overflow in the Ninjutsu section. But I still doubt that someone will call 1 image/character a policy violence and delete it all again. The images are smaller (most of them just show the persons face) and it is overall much more justified then one image for each Jutsu. ~ Felcis 05:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While I agree and would like to think that's true, the success rate isn't high. ~Snapper T o 05:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Uck....okay please kick me the next time I believe in healthy commonsense...but I still think we should take the chance and hope that the admins will move on to more important and meaningful tasks soon. ~ Felcis 06:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A big wave of orphaned Naruto images will be up for deletion tomorrow. You might want to look through them to see if any are still useful. There are 111 of them in total: Category:Orphaned fairuse images as of 23 April 2007. –Gunslinger47 05:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As well as a handful of others caught on later days that should be getting deleted within the week. ~Snapper T o 05:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, this question has been begging to be asked: Why were those Naruto lists all hit today? Furthermore, why were so many images knocked off. I can understand knocking off of technique lists, but not the character list and the Tailed Beasts. I'm a bit scared for List of Konoha ninja. You Can't See Me! 08:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the admin who deleted all those images considered the articles in question examples (look down for the articles in question) of "fair use abuse", but I have not yet seen anywhere on Wikipedia policies stating that the number of fair use images has to be restricted to a certain number. Even if it is the case, it affects practically every anime series that has articles devoted to it with some degree of image use. It also appears that he has stopped for now. --BrokenSphere 16:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:FUC #3. JuJube 06:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The admin said he would use more caution when dealing with cutting images in the future, so it probably should be OK for now, unless there are other admins involved. Nemu 21:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What's not clear to me at least is to what degree should any of the deleted images be restored if feasible or warranted. --BrokenSphere 22:03, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point in being able to just go into an article, see more than one picture, and just wipe them all out. A lot of those pictures are actually helpful visual aids. The Splendiferous Gegiford 06:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Geg on most stuff, but not here. Three or four pictures on character articles are good, but 50+ on an episode list page is not necessary as well as, more pressingly, legally tricky and definitely against policy. JuJube 06:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This ridiculous exchange, at least where episode lists are concerned, has been debated back and forth for many a year. Always no consensus on the matter, as it is an entirely subjective interpretation of the policy for such lists. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't care about images on the episode lists but a lot of the pictures on the character articles and the character list articles are needed. The Splendiferous Gegiford 06:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

By some irony, that sort of thing is actually easier to argue against. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Is it now? :) JuJube 06:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Why's that? The Splendiferous Gegiford 06:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I've read. No one seems to care about character lists, but when it comes to episode lists, all sides come together to achieve several days of nothing. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in way too many cases "all sides" are made up of sockpuppets of Bobabobabobabo and Kid Sonic. :/ JuJube 06:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that (as I see quite a few unique users arguing), but I won't argue the point here further, because doing so wouldn't have a point to begin with. Such a thing belongs on the fair-use talk page. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear where I stand, I'm with whatever Wikipedia policy is at. This issue has given me severe headaches trying to figure out whether or not it's okay for episode lists to have pictures, as there are at least t wo featured lists that heavily feature screenshots, but what I'm hearing about fair use policy suggests that screenshots in lists of episodes are never OK. Asking for clarification isn't helpful because apparently people harp heavily about the topic when it's brought up. My personal feelings are that episode lists are better without pictures, in the interests of being 56k friendly, cleaner-looking (and less fanboyish) and of covering our proverbial legal ass. JuJube 06:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you seen Naruto Uzumaki's most recent revision yet? It had seven images including the one in the infobox, all but one of which illustrated a point:

Naruto's image (this one still remains)
The seal on infant Naruto
Some image of Naruto in the village. This one did deserve its disappearance.
Naruto at the Fox's gate
Naruto's first-tailed state, an illustration of the Fox's power.
Naruto's four-tailed state, a crucial part of Shippuden.
Part II Naruto (this one stil remains)

Those seven images were with roughly 45kb of text. It's nothing but text-heavy now. Furthermore, there are no depictions of Naruto's techniques or abilities.

I still don't understand this, though. It was 7 images with 45kb of text. Maybe in the various lists, where I estimate there was one image per 2kb, I might have found that reasonable. But really, 7 images with 45kb wasn't that bad.

I dunno. I support Wikipedia policy and all, but I just think that this (overall) was the equivalent of admins grabbing machettes and running to the first large target they saw. You Can't See Me! 07:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm up in the air about this. I personally think seven is too much, but three is okay. JuJube 07:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

To be reasonable about image use, I'll note some situations where we could reduce without sacrificing identification. Fox chakra, for instance, could be worked into a single composite image (really, you only need the one-tail and four-tail). The infant seal isn't really necessary (alternatively, find a shirtless pic of Naruto and you can kill two birds with one stone). Fox gate isn't really necessary. That's it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:29, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

One way to sort of cheat the numeric image limits some people try to mentally enforce is meshing together a couple screenshots into a single montage-style image. (Double points if the montage was actually used in the series itself.) Sort of the inverse of using a group-shot to illustrate a team. For instance, Hollows in Bleach#Grand Fisher. The character in question is a rather minor one, and if we put those 4 images separately it would rightfully draw complaints. But as a 4-part square it uses up less space, illustrates the concept as well if not better, triggers less red flags from anti-FUers and will eventually make the Fair Use Rationale writer's job easier since he only has to write the thing once. --tjstrf talk 07:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Do all Naruto characters have super strength and super speed?

I have, for the most part, been adding Category:Anime and manga characters with superhuman strength to all anime or manga (or both series) characters I can find who have superhuman strength and/or speed, respectively. Do all of Naruto ninja have super strength and super speed, or just the following: Rock Lee, Tsunade (Naruto), Sakura Haruno, and Guy Might which are already around those categories? ~I'm anonymous

That is a pretty subjective category. Is superhuman "superhuman" to real people or to the characters in the series? Compare the speed and strength of most characters in this series to the regular humans in it, and it's not that much, but compare it to real people and they're pretty damn strong and "supersonic." Nemu 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Tautology: I think the key word here is "fictional superhuman", not including real human-beings. I just want to confirm whether all Naruto characters are beyond that of "normal" superhuman enough to warrant the category or not. Or is it really just those four? ~I'm anonymous

Aside from a few exceptions, most Naruto characters only display a level of strength one would consider peak human performance. Speed, on the other hand, is something you could get away with adding. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Very well, I am presently adding Category:Anime and manga characters who can move at superhuman speeds to any anime or manga characters that have super speed. Are there any further objections if I were to add it to all Naruto ninja? ~I'm anonymous

Choji Akimichi would also fit for "superhuman strength". "Superhuman speed" is true for almost any characters, compared to regular humans, but most notably compared to other Naruto-chars are Rock Lee, Might Guy, Kiba Inuzuka and maybe also Sasuke Uchiha and Kakashi Hatake. I sometimes really miss the more special categories like "Characters with the ability to manipulate fire/water/shadow/etc.". ;__; ~ Felcis 23:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for providing me with that insight. I shall proceed with adding the above cat. to all Naruto ninja and the super strength cat. to Choji. Also, I may begin the water/fire/shadow or darkness, etc., categories after I finish what I am currently doing; however, I do plan to get consensus as such. Last I read, those categories were deleted. ~I'm anonymous

Kisame Hoshigaki is known for his particularly monstrous strength in the Naruto universe. Even Guy commented on it. –Gunslinger47 03:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

His monstrous strength is because he has a tailed-demon inside of him. Hence he IS a monster.

Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard

A new noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard, has been created. - Peregrine Fisher 18:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

This noticeboard has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Fiction noticeboard. Please disregard the above post. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2007 (UTC)