Talk:Naruto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
Naruto is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
This article was a former Anime and Manga CotW. (2 February 2006)
See how it improved – Before – After
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Naruto as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Portuguese language Wikipedia.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9


Contents

[edit] Arc names

Where on earth are these arc names coming from? I can't find them in any official media, and they seem to be a remnant of the WP:OR floating around from the pre-merge times. I noticed this when I was about to fix up List of Naruto episodes (seasons 5-6) for a run at FL status. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the fansubs? Never did wonder that myself. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
As the title "arc" suggests, they are story arcs. A useful label that comes from watching the show. Hmm. —davidh.oz.au 04:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. My point is that there's no official name for the story arcs, and I suspect they're merely fan-made names that we're using here. If this is the case, they should be removed wholesale. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
But don't forget that the English language is not made by "officials" but by all the people on an ongoing basis (it is a living language), so fans have a legitimate input into names ... just a thought. :) Abtract (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Your comparison, aside from making no sense, is irrelevant. We operate by a set of guidelines and policies, and while these may change, we use what we have now, not what they might change into. The arc names violate WP:OR if they are fan-made and removal is appropriate in this case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sephiroth. I've yet to see those names in any official media, and as such they are nothing but WP:OR and do not belong. Collectonian (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for the deletion of these pages. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There's no pages on them. List of Naruto story arcs was merged a while ago. The only change would be removing them from all the episode lists and all mentions of them throughout the Naruto articles. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes seems to take the arc names from a japanese website. Maybe asking sby from there we may know the ones of the previous seasons, for example User:Geg seems to have knowledge of that.Tintor2 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
There's a bit of discussion of that on the talk page. Other than that, I feel that the arc titles for Naruto should go, but am unopinionated on Shippūden. And on a side note, there seem to be several examples of concerns about exactly when the season splits are done on the Naruto episode list, though I don't know if they've been addressed since they were raised. —Dinoguy1000 17:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Are there not DVDs with the story arcs yet? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I once remember seeing a discussion on the former story arcs page where a group of editors were deciding what to call the Hidan and Kakuzu arc. Perhaps that could help clear things up about how these arc names showed up. 98.21.138.135 (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] hdtv or "upscaled 16:9"

Is Naruto simply "upscaled" as Bleach? I'd love to see that filter, keeping the outlines THAT sharp. --87.168.53.209 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This statement makes no sense. Please clarify Dragon queen4ever (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Ongoing?

I thought the original Naruto series was over. Does it still say ongoing because of the episodes being shown in the US? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.246.105 (talk) 20:41, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It refers to the manga.--Tintor2 (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are now... 59 more episode(there will be 60 on May 22, 2008). The new series is called Naruto: Shippuuden/The Hurricane Chronicles. It follows a mature Naruto and his peers, and like you should expect, there are new enemies that have begun to emerge just now in episode 58(?). Also there is wikipedia page here that lists all the new Shippuuden episodes, past and present. かぜかおる (talk) 03:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Naruto in Animerica

Viz's Spring 2008 issue of their free Animerica mini-magazine includes two articles on Naruto: a review of the 5th uncut box set (p. 27). and a review of the Rise of a Ninja video game (pgs 32-33). The box set review includes some discussion on the edits done in the broadcast version. The mag is available for free at BestBuy, but I can also scan both articles if someone would like to make use of them. Collectonian (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FT?

Possible FT in the works.

Mergers that need to take place:

  • List of Naruto OVAs --> List of Naruto episodes, there's zero reason to have an article on the OVAs, and it's much better as part of the episode list
  • Jutsu (Naruto) --> Naruto universe, it's not going to assert notability on its own, and I think the in-universe content can be summarized better
  • Naruto Collectible Card Game --> Naruto, it's currently a mess, and I don't think it can be feasibly rewritten into a state that could try for GA
  • All the film articles --> Naruto, I would suggest a List of Naruto films, but considering that I want to merge the OVA list, that's a bit hypocritical. Anyhow, none of them assert notability independently, reception for them is sparse or non-existent (maybe except for the first one, and it probably should be merged in any case).

So yeah, that's basically it. It would be our crowning achievement of sorts to have a FT on the whole franchise, and would really signal how far we've gone with these articles. After the English run of the anime finishes, then that's another FT with the episode lists, and if we somehow get one of the character articles to FA, then that's another one there also. I know I'm sounding a bit optimistic, but the above is something really feasible that we can accomplish here. Discuss. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:45, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

About Naruto#Characters, isnt a bit overdetailed? It seems to use a fansite as a source.Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there more conception info about Shikamaru Nara? I would like to take it to GA. It also seems more reception of Jiraiya is appearing now-a-days with the these dvd releases. Should the info be added or we are sure it has to be merged?Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll take a look into it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Confused....Naruto universe isn't a GA article nor is this article? Or did you mean what we should do to get this to FT? Naruto universe, I firmly believe should be axed all together. Its a glut of excessive plot stuff all mish-mashed together. I agree on the list of needed merges, and I that the films should come here to the main. List of Naruto video games, once cleaned up to the actual sourceable stuff, I think could fit back here in the main, particular as several have their own articles. I'd say let's get it cleaned up first, though, then that can be rediscussed when its shortened, referenced form can be seen. I do think it could be a great featured topic, when finished though. A nice boon to the project *grin* Also, another merge needed...video game template into the main. *doh* -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The "improved to" section is what it should be for a FT to work. In any case, Naruto universe can feasibly be a GA, and I think there's enough reception on it to work (I already know there's enough conception). List of Naruto video games definitely shouldn't be merged, as there's enough games, and the relevant model is List of Castlevania titles. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
As far as navboxes are concerned, Naruto currently has three (!): {{Naruto info}}, {{Naruto games}}, and {{Naruto episodes}}. In addition, since {{Naruto}} just redirected to {{Naruto info}}, I marked it for speedy deletion under criterion G6 (general housekeeping) in preparation for moving {{Naruto info}} there (it's yet to actually be deleted). After that, {{Naruto info}} and {{Naruto episodes}} can be very easily merged (just a matter of adding the season links for the list of episodes to the main template), and {{Naruto games}} shouldn't be too hard to do (though I'm not 100% sure what to do with the "Crossover games" row...). —Dinoguy1000 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Just finished the template merges. I ended up omitting the "Crossover games" row from {{Naruto games}} because I wasn't sure of the best place to put them, if anyone has any ideas, feel free to put them in there wherever. —Dinoguy1000 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
And what about {{Naruto season navigation}}? —Dinoguy1000 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, it certainly seems the Naruto editors have high hopes. ^_^ This isn't going to be as easy as Sephiroth is making it out to be, it's actually going to be much harder. First off, I think that our top priority should be the characters articles at the moment. With four of them at GA level, and Naruto and Gaara surely being capable of making that as well, characters are the easiest obstacle at the moment. Shikamaru and Jiraiya, and perhaps Rock Lee, COULD make GA, but it's not as big a possibility as the others were. Tsunade has no potential, merge her into the characters article. When we do the rest of the article can be decided later. Also, I DO have concerns about this: List of minor Naruto characters and List of Naruto villains. What to do with them? Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Novels

How come it says on the "Novels" section, ther has only been two made? There has been two released in the U.S., although in Japan there has been over 20. Every time i've been to Jump j-Books.co.jp, there has been a new Naruto novel. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 23:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Holy... I had no idea, the novels that are used in this article are taken from the Shueisha Book Navi page that lists almost everything about the franchise. Maybe you could help us.^_^--Tintor2 (talk) 23:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
We'd need a seperate list, I can't remember all of them. Maybe we can find a list on the internet as our source. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:06, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No idea where to find them, any idea?--Tintor2 (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Found a few off of Book Navi:

They don't have all of them on Book Navi, of coarse they only have 9 volumes of the series too. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they are already mentioned here: "In addition, three tankōbon, each containing ani-manga based one of the first three Naruto movies, have been released by Shueisha.[49][50][51] " Are they really novels?--Tintor2 (talk) 00:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
It says "Tankōbon / JUMP jBOOKS" at the top of each page. There are novels and there are ani-manga. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, Im kinda confused^_^, what should we do?--Tintor2 (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Dunno, i'll ask Masashi Kishimoto what to do.... I can't find the light novels, at my nearest Kinokuniya they don't have J-Books... – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image

This has always drove we crazy, how come when we finally get a perfect picture of the Japanese cover, we always have to switch it to the crappy English one? The Japan cover was perfect. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, because there's such a huge difference between the two. ~SnapperTo 18:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Japanese is more "authentic", English is not. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That's flawless reasoning. ~SnapperTo 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's put it this way. Everyone knows the English cover, it would be more interesting if it was Japanese. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 23:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I know this might not be to much input, but on the Harry Potter section, they have the british books, His Dark materials also has the british version (actually it has both) , Adn so does the Artemis Fowl series. Those are all british books, hence british covers for the page. This is a japanese manga, hence a japanese cover for the page. Dragon queen4ever (talk) 10:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Normally, our preference is for the Japanese cover first. In cases where the cover has been dramatically redesigned in the English release, however, it is more common to use the English cover in the main article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soundtrack

I was turning the soundtrack section into prose, when I found this, is that a soundtrack?Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the description, it's a recording of a Naruto radio show, so I'd say no. --IdLoveOne (talk) 04:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why?

Why is Naruto being downsized on this site, I think its stupid. Someone please explain. Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia and not a fansite? Only reliably referenced and verifiable real-world notable information about the series belongs here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that might not be what the questioner meant. The reason Narut is being downsized, I believe considering my low knowledge on wikipedia policies, is because Naruto is a fictional series, and does not 'need' pages for minor characters. I don't look up politics on here, but If I am going with my instinct, its the real world events that get the extra pages. Correct? Dragon queen4ever (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Not so much the real world events, but real world aspects. And those also don't get extra pages, in general, but should be covered within the main article, and, as relevant, sublists like a list of episodes or chapters (where its appropriate for it to have such). Plot elements and in-universe content should be kept down to the overall major points. Fansites and places like the Naruto Wikia are where pages for every minor character might be found, but they aren't notable enough for mention here (in general). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
So you're not supposed to go to Wikipedia if you're looking for detailed information on the in-universe elements of a series...? Feebas_factor 18:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No, you're not. Fansites describe that type of detailed in-universe information, Wikipedia describes the overall plot in the context of real-world aspects. —Dinoguy1000 18:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is this?

Viz Media Debuts New Naruto Chapter Book Series at 2008 Book Expo America. I think it will help article, but I have no idea what is this.Tintor2 (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Viz is releasing a new series of kids books based on Naruto. It will be a retelling, though, to emphasis "positive kid messages" like cooperation and stuff. Basically an America rewrite of the series just for the 7-10 group. It won't be a manga anymore, or even a comic or animanga, but an illustrated kids books. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This merging bullspit has gotten out of hand.

Seriously, what the deuce? All I wanted to do was check Wikipedia really quick to see what the 6th opening theme of this series is and the article with the list of media is gone.

Thank you for making Wikipedia a better and more informative place guys. Your tireless efforts are truly helping the encyclopedia. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You can check that in the season 6 article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think it's incredibly arbitrary to seperate a simple list of songs up into a dozen different articles? There was absolutely no need to merge the List of Media article into this one, all that's come out of it is this page being even longer and a bunch of information being scattered around or deleted needlessly. It was a horrendous decision from any standpoint. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm looking over the related discussion pages right now and I can't find anything about there being a consensus to do this. It seems Collectonion decided to do this by herself one day. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Media lists are discouraged by the MoS, and project consensus is that they are to be merged with the main article page, and, when appropriate, split into lists of episodes and/or chapters. Opening and ending themes in particular go on episode lists, and are usually discussed in the lead on those pages. —Dinoguy1000 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
There was plenty of consensus from the AfDs of such lists which always end in deletion, and from the project agreeing that such lists are inappropriate splits, and that opening and ending themes are discussed in the episode lists. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's... absolutely terrible. A consensus actually exists that discourages related, real-world information existing in a single article where it would be quick and easy to reference when needed? I'd argue that logic to my death, but I know for a fact it won't get me anywhere here so instead I'll just facepalm and proceed to use the deleted page's history when I need like a do with so many other articles. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 00:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to also visit the Naruto wikia, as I believe the page was transwikied there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to [vulgar command goes here]. You can be a deletionist crock with the same amount of logic as a houseplant all you want, but don't tell me to go to some horrendous and badly maintained fanwiki just so I can get information you deem too inferior to be seen by thousands of other people. It's truly the most pompus thing a wikiphile can do. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 17:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to take a hike. Seriously, your incivility is not warranted here or necessary. If you have a complaint, issue in a civil manner or don't bother. If you want the material, then go to the history, take it, and transplant it on the Naruto wikia. You aren't helping your case by throwing a tantrum. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
And as far as the condition the Naruto Wikia is in, I'm sure they'd welcome your contributions there. My experience with Wikia is that they tend to be horribly understaffed by dedicated editors, which is exactly why they're in such a sorry state. —Dinoguy1000 18:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't have a full article on every character in the world (no matter how cool that would be.) So yes, thats why they make specific wikis so yoou can get the full pages (not that I can ever find a way to get to these wikias) and besides, people come here who are wondering what in heck is the deal about the blonde dude in the orange jumpsuit. Not to find out ever obscure and miniscule fact about every single ninja. So yes, I hate the merging and such alot, but there is some (annoying) truth behind it, even if I disagree with it. On the point of the Naruto Wiki, I have been to the 'Narutopedia' which I believe is the same thing, and I must ask, what is so horrible about its condition?Dragon queen4ever (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

On that note, I have a small proposal - could we add one link to the Naruto Wiki in the external links on this page? After every new series of Naruto merges, the general recommendation to disgruntled editors seems to be that anyone seeking extensive details should head there instead. I don't necessarily disagree with that... but perhaps then it would be a good idea to leave a clear path? I don't think it will crowd the links too much, it is relevant and fairly important, and, as noted above, they could use a little help (of the type that might not always be helpful here). Feebas_factor 05:05, 13 June 2008 (UTC)