Talk:Jutsu

message: So it's perfectly okay for the non-Naruto Ninjutsu and Taijutsu to have their own articles, while Jutsu is a redirect to the Naruto jutsu? --Alexie 03:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naruto jutsu

message: As it currently appears, the article contains only impermissible content.  The list of links violates WP:DAB#Lists, and once the list is removed, the dictionary definition violates WP:NOT#DICT.  Only the English dubbed version of Naruto uses the term "jutsu" as a noun or stand-alone term, it is usually only used the suffix for other words.  Because it means "practical art" (or something like that), an article could be written about the "Practical arts of Japan", but that might be too broad (lots of things unrelated to martial arts also use the suffix jutsu) - members of such a class should probably each have their own article, and at any rate such an article should not be titled "Jutsu", but should have an English title, such as "Practical arts of Japan", per WP:Use English. I've preserved the page's former text below: 
"
Jutsu is the Japanese term for "technique, method, skill". In martial arts, a "jutsu" differs from a "do" (as in jujutsu/judo) in that the former is a fighting method unrelated to sport competition, while the latter relates to the sport aspect of the art.
*Kenjutsu
*Battojutsu
*Jujutsu
*Ninjutsu
*Taijutsu
*see Jutsu (Naruto) for usage of the term in the Naruto series

pl:Jutsu
"
Bradford44 14:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I disagree, and stand by my earlier assertions. Therefore, it seems to me that the most sensible course is to AfD the article, and allow uninvolved editors to give their opinions. Bradford44 16:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Convert to redirect

message: Just a note in response to the hidden comment on the main page; The article had been signifinactly changed since the additon of the template... --Nate1481( t/c) 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unref tag 

message: An edit conflict hindered my addition of this comment to the AfD:
*Questions/comments. But first a preamble. As I've said, I think the article is very dodgy. As I haven't said, I strongly disagree with the "Similar crap exists" argument for "keep". So, now that's out of the way: What do you people think of  this lot? Are they unencyclopedic too, or are they OK because they're English? ¶ What does really puzzle me is the tolerance for stuff like "Jutsu (Naruto)", a hybrid between (a) prolix lexicography about terms in some fictional language, and (b) "in-universe" trivia/fancruft material. Should en:WP be so much more concerned with the language of a few fictional Japanese people than with that of millions of real Japanese people? -- ~~~~
And then it turned out that the other edit was the non-conclusion of the AfD. 
(What a boring outcome. I'd hoped for an elegantly and persuasively argued conclusion, one way or another.) -- Hoary 14:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "no consensus"

message: This article has notes via . These are easier to read than the same thing in the miniaturizing template. There's little chance that they'll be misread as something other than notes, because (i) they are numbered, (ii) their content is the kind of thing that's typical for notes, and (iii) they're under the heading "Notes". -- Hoary 07:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes, legibility of

message: I think this should be part of the followinfg WikiProject! Akira-otomo (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProjects 

message: The redirect 術 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Remsense诉 03:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:術]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]