Talk:Naruto/Archive 9

message: 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)
thread_title:  Improve 

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

text: Is this an issue with NPOV on the part of the article, or User:Usarnaime? --tjstrf talk 05:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Just delete or rephrase the sentence already.  Problem solved. —davidh.oz.au 12:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutral Point of View? Again? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Japanese proper names vs. English translations 

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

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I disagree.  Its use is acceptable for the intended purpose. (i.e. )  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)
thread_title:  I think there needs to be a disclaimer for the Naruto Editz site link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  minor detail you can buy upto volume 24 now see link below for proof 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Ichiraku Ramen Bar]] merge 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Movies 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A way to improve this article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FLC, again 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Naruto Universe 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Decision 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Names 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FLC aid 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Chinese Naruto 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you have proof of that? Awesome as it sounds, I remain skeptical. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 13:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, we're not going to add anything without a reliable source. –Gunslinger47 16:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  English fillers 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Picture on Info box 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Similarities to 666 Satan 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  FLC for [[List of Naruto chapters]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question: lessons from another orphan? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  A minor but very useful suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Major Spoiler Warning 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Question Regarding a Spoiler Removal 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  END? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Did you check the infobox? ~SnapperTo 23:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of episodes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  VIZ 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Next week. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  No chapter 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reception paragraph 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Future Episodes 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Character Bloodtypes 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Characters's Ages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Seconded.  Its a work in progress, and will b eheading there one day, but it is not ready yet. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Request GA withdrawal 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Copy editing? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  GA fail 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I figured something like that would come up, good thing I asked. --Geopgeop (T) 10:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shippūden on Hero TV in Philippines 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Okay Listen People 

message: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Things 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Similarities 

message: 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. Lettrikanatina (talk) 22:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless it can be sourced, otherwise it's just so much original research. —Dinoguy1000 00:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

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

text: I've removed the link as it violates WP:COPYVIO. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appearances in other media 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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. . 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)
thread_title:  Naruto Cancelation 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Oh, yeah, an info box should be added for it. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto light novel 

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

message: 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.AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Reception Stuff 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would a blurb in Reception be too much to ask? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: IIRC, the sandbox was a foot deep so it's possible. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That would be good to add to the article. Do you remember the source? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: What controversy?  Literally, that is quite a poor term to use. –Gunslinger47 01:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  10 Year Old Dies in Sandbox 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Naruto ng 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: (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.  AnmaFinotera (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I see now.  I'll have to go look for stuff now.  Thanks! ;-] Ichliebezuko (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Maybe in the videogames article if that game is legal.Tintor2 (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto In Wc3 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: How bout the USA's Current Amount!--Akemi Mokoto (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Episodes: Accuracy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Action => Martial arts. The characters are martial artists, aren't they?--Nohansen (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Genres (copied from [[Talk:Dragon Ball (manga)]]) 

message: I noticed that someone chnaged the original main image [] was replaced with a picture of the first Tankōbon []. 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Regarding main image change 

message: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Episode theme music is covered in the individual episode season lists. AnmaFinotera (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Reception and Media 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you hinting that overlinking in references is fine? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm plainly saying that overlinking doesn't apply to references. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Not really...I'd also rather you not do an undo. As I mentioned before, my revert included some needed text rewriting as well. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disagree with "partial rv" by Collectonian 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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*). AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plural of 'ninja' 

message: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps the fansubs? Never did wonder that myself. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for the deletion of these pages. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Are there not DVDs with the story arcs yet? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arc names 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Ongoing? 

message: 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. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto in Animerica 

message: 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)
thread_title:  hdtv or "upscaled 16:9" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, because there's such a huge difference between the two. ~SnapperTo 18:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Japanese is more "authentic", English is not. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 18:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's flawless reasoning. ~SnapperTo 18:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

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

message: Why is Naruto being downsized on this site, I think its stupid. Someone please explain.
Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk) 13:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because this is an encyclopedia and not a fansite? Only reliably referenced and verifiable real-world notable information about the series belongs here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

text: 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). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: Possible FT in the works.
*Naruto - currently  - improved to , main article, plenty of GAs on relevant franchises to go off, very feasible with enough effort
*List of Naruto manga volumes - currently 
*List of Naruto episodes - meets provisions for an "audited" article, as it's ongoing in English media, needs to be improved to something like List of YuYu Hakusho episodes
*List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes - meets provisions for an "audited" article, as it's ongoing, needs to be brought up to par, summaries need some trimming and copy-editing
*List of Naruto video games - currently  - improved to , List of Castlevania titles is a relevant model we can go for
*List of Naruto characters - currently  - improved to , after we figure out what to do with the minor characters summarization and get a copy-editor, then it can go to WP:FLC
*Naruto universe - currently  - improved to , the in-universe content in Naruto universe needs to be drastically cut and better summarized, and I think the artbook conception in addition to some reception is enough to push it to GA
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)
replies: text: About Naruto#Characters, isnt a bit overdetailed? It seems to use a fansite as a source.Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I'll take a look into it. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

text: 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* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: As far as navboxes are concerned, Naruto currently has three (!): , , and . In addition, since  just redirected to , I marked it for speedy deletion under criterion G6 (general housekeeping) in preparation for moving  there (it's yet to actually be deleted). After that,  and  can be very easily merged (just a matter of adding the season links for the list of episodes to the main template), and  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)

text: Just finished the template merges. I ended up omitting the "Crossover games" row from  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)
replies: text: And what about ? —Dinoguy1000 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  FT? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No idea where to find them, any idea?--Tintor2 (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found a few off of Book Navi:
*http://books.shueisha.co.jp/CGI/search/syousai_put.cgi?isbn_cd=4-08-703158-6&mode=1
*http://books.shueisha.co.jp/CGI/search/syousai_put.cgi?isbn_cd=4-08-703170-5&mode=1
*http://books.shueisha.co.jp/CGI/search/syousai_put.cgi?isbn_cd=978-4-08-703187-4&mode=1
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Well, Im kinda confused^_^, what should we do?--Tintor2 (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Novels 

message: 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)
replies: text: You can check that in the season 6 article.Tintor2 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Feel free to also visit the Naruto wikia, as I believe the page was transwikied there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: That's not a bad idea. I know Star Trek and Star Wars articles have links to corresponding Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia articles, it could easily work for the Naruto wikia. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 21:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Not sure on this one, since there is already a DMOZ link there, making any fansite links unnecessary, including Narutopedia, as it should already be on the DMOZ page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, would it possible for you to explain what you mean by a DMOZ link/page in this context? And why does that make fansite links unnecessary? Feebas_factor 19:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: DMOZ = Open Directory. Its a directory of links, which would link to all fansites. Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia are rarer, and notable, wikias which is why they have been given linking exceptions.  In general, however, fansites fail WP:EL, and while Narutopedia is a wikia, it is also still a fansite and violates WP:ELNO #12. Memory Alpha and Wookieepedia meet #12 as they are in the Interwiki map. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The merged articles still exist in their respective page history. Simply track down what you're looking for there. ~SnapperTo 23:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Theres a reason the information is history. And its not so people can get information from it. -.-;. Besides, I know ALOT of people out their who don't even know how to /check/ the history. You might as well be saying 'If they want information go to your library and start researching in eighty year old books. Dragon queen4ever (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a poor analogy. Regardless, the page histories are for people who want to transfer information elsewhere, not for people who want to look something up. For that they can use the Naruto wikia. ~SnapperTo 17:50, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Um... I thought others were generally ok with it, but shortly after I added the link the whole section was redone and the link removed. Is it not an appropriate external link? I listed my reasons above, and the article for other series (as noted, Star Wars and Star Trek) have links to their respective wikis as well. Feebas_factor 19:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't the whole reason the arguement can't end is because of the fact that everyone seems to agree that the Naruto Wikia is horrible?Dragon queen4ever (talk) 15:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my note above. The Wikia doesn't meet the EL guidelines. Most wikias/wikis don't. Only a few are considered high enough quality to be on the list of allowed ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, okay wait. You forcefully eject and screw with all the information in these articles, porting it all over to the Naruto Wikia, then have it so people who still want the information  can't get it because linking to understaffed Wikias isn't allowed? Rhetorical question. I want to you to look at this fact long and hard and then respond with your thoughts on the matter. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't port it, others did. The articles were brought in line with WIKIPEDIA guidelines, not fan desires. Suggesting people transwiki unacceptable stuff to a more appropriate place is allowed, and a frequent suggestion made in deletion discussions. That does NOT mean that a link to that wikia is allowed in the article. Don't blame me because the Naruto Wikia, like most, is still a fansite and can't meet WP:EL. People want to find such info, they will find it without Wikipedia. That's what Google is for. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, you sound like you work for some super official, bureaucratic agency right now. You're on Wikipedia. You know, the site that got its entire content base off the fans whose "desires" you seem so vehemently opposed to people having. The site that claims itself to be an encyclopedia but will never in a million years be considerered a scholarly source. The site that gets a huge portion of its traffic from people looking up Naruto characters and sex positions. The site where approximately 400 shut-in nerds decide what can or can't be read by the millions of people who access and write content for the site. You're not doing anyone a service here, you're not helping the greater good or changing the world. If you want to do that go work at a real government office instead of what you are doing: wasting countless hours trolling a horrible parody of one like Wikipedia is, greatly annoying a group of anime fans on the Internet and everyone else who wants to easily look up information on an encyclopedia there's a good chance they helped create. Thoughts and actions like these are not what Jim Wales had in mind when he wanted to create a free and comprehensive encyclopedia for the betterment of human knowledge. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Take your attitude and your rants elsewhere. You're not doing anything constructive with the discussion here. Furthering this topic is nothing more than soapboxing. This discussion is over. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one did anything constructive with the discussion from the start. It was just the usual shit of a select two to five users not acknowledging anything they actually have to think about, and opting instead to cite precedents they set themselves or policy after nonsensical policy entrenched with barely relevant links and righteous "I will wage a holy war against inferior people who want to read stuff on the internet" attutudes. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And again, you can take your soapboaxing and ranting elsewhere. If you have an axe to grind, this isn't the place to do it. If you persist in soapboxing, then it will be construed as disruptive editing. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This merging bullspit has gotten out of hand. 

message: I read a story in which a 11 year old child died being buried in sand as he and his friends were imitating what they saw in Naruto - is this relevant enough to be in the article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.140.94 (talk) 04:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We've all read it. It isn't. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: See Talk:Naruto/Archive 9#10 Year Old Dies in Sandbox -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: To summarize: There was never any controversy. –Gunslinger47 04:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

text: He has his significance within certain circles, but other wikis are really more appropriate for that kind of coverage. –Gunslinger47 06:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto controversy? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Unless I am missing something this has noting to do with the dub (I am assuming that you mean the dub due to the word watch). So the comment seems kind of pointless. --76.71.210.109 (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this? 

message: In the space where the article mentions, "Regarding technology Kishimoto said that Naruto would not have any firearms." It should be noted that in Episode 76 (Assassin Under The Moonlight) Yashamaru is telling Gaara what it is like to get hurt, and around 8 minutes 32 seconds she mentions "Like, when a person is shot..." Clearly indicating that there are firearms in the Naruto universe but they are not shown.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DFW333 (talk • contribs) 02:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply a bad translation choice. The verb used in Japanese for a gunshot can apply to any strike, hit, or attack.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 02:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Firearms 

message: I see there is already a discussion about this, but my point is a little different. I understand that the general Wikipedia cannot contain information on EVERY character and such, but why do Rock Lee and Shikamaru have their own pages? What allows these characters to have their own page compared to the other members? Also, many shows do have complete character lists with detailed analysis. What if I want to find out why Neji is the way he is, or who characters from fillers are, etc. Just wondering why you cannot have separate character lists when they do exist.Languageleon (talk) 04:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Character Pages 

message: I just read that Naruto was a former FA, but isn't anymore so I wondering if anybody was interested in joining a Naruto Work Group. I am going to see if I can create one, because I really think we can make Naruto a FA. Hyakurei (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the article was FA candidate, but it failed due to many things. Now, the article it is very improved compared to the last review, but it still needs some fixes to become GA such as expanding reception or other stuff. I think it would be good somebody create to do list to know what to improve.--Tintor2 (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, there was a Naruto Work Group earlier, but it was deleted due to not doing anything. If we can get users that are interested in updating or editing Naruto articles, or those who already do so, to be interested in a Naruto Work Group, it would be great. I know I am. Now to get more people. Hyakurei (talk) 13:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto Work Group 

message: I was reading on Saiyan Island about Viz Media's new branch (Viz Productions) and it said that Viz might be making Naruto, Bleach, Death Note, Inuyasha, and Naoki Urasawa's Monster into live action movies. I don't know how much of a reliable source this is, but was just wondering it someone would put it on the main page for me. I don't know how to cite and am worried that someone will delete it, and I don't know how to cite... Here's the site: http://www.saiyanisland.com/?subaction=showfull&id=1216785870&archive=&start_from=&ucat=10&
Moocowsrule (talk) 06:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a reliable source, so nothing to add. Its just a rumor on a fansite. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibility of a Live Action Movie 

message: Just to bring this to the general attention, I recently found advertisements leading to the following links on this page (as well as other major pages about Naruto):
*http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/anime/naruto/goods/game.html
*http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/anime/naruto/goods/game2007.html
These links were hidden and accessible by clicking any part of the right hand side of the page. They also gave the page extra blank length (so scrolling was a nightmare). I've deleted all of these on the major Naruto pages. Should someone find another one on any page (or find these again on the major Naruto pages), please delete them. If you don't know how, post the page here so someone can have them deleted. Thank you.
[NOTE] I added the warning above to the Naruto Uzumaki page. Realizing this should go on the main Naruto page, I went to add this section when I found the same hidden ads. These ads blocked me from clicking the "Edit this page" link. 
So I repeat, should anyone find these ads, delete them! If you don't know how, post the page here so someone can have them deleted. 98.110.164.162 (talk) 17:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is on whatever computer you're using, not Wikipedia. Run a spyware/adware removal program or something. ~SnapperTo 18:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried on another computer before I deleted them all, and they were there. I then tried it on a Mac, and they were there. The ads  were on the actual make-up of the page. 98.110.164.162 (talk) 18:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I can't replicate the problem. Additionally, you were only removing random Japanese characters (ie. ま, Ｌ, etc.) from the articles, not the links. Can your computers render Japanese? ~SnapperTo 18:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Ads Removed 

message: Reads like an add. CBF logging in to edit right now, but if someone could make it more NPOV, that would be appreciated 10:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Elaborate. –Gunslinger47 23:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weasel words in the character section? 

message: A lot of which have worked actually :p But anyways, with the good topic process up and running, there are topics that can be made of all good topics (and all lists must be featured). As such, we can push for a Naruto characters good topic, and finally centralize our work on those articles into something tangible. The current state of the topic:
So yeah. Basically we have four characters that need to go to GA, and the antagonists list needs to go to FL (yikes!). The order of difficulty is probably Shikamaru-Lee-Jiraiya-Naruto-antagonists list and is probably the one we should take (although of course, anyone is free to work on anything they want). Anything anyone can find in terms of reception and conception stuff is welcome, and cleaning up the in-universe stuff is always good. Whenever I get time (considering I'm starting school tomorrow), I'll work on copy-editing and fixing up the articles, and hopefully we can get this to fruition. My biggest worry is about the antagonists list, namely reception, so anything anyone can get on that would be greatly appreciated (the antagonists list will require a copy-editor, as it's going through WP:FLC). sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, but why is Naruto one of the hardest? The new databook has something about conception of some villains, I ll try to add it later.Tintor2 (talk) 21:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would guess that Naruto is more difficult because, as the main character, he has much more available information to sift through than characters like Shikamaru. ~SnapperTo 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. The more information, the harder it is to present it well. sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another of my big, dramatic ideas 

message: Seriously, this page was better 2 years ago when everybody had individual pages. Merging all characters pages together is stupid.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamlover13 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I completely agree with you on that, especially since some characters have their own pages.  Earlier the pages seemed quite detailed too, but now not so much. Yes, I know that minor characters probably don't require a whole page, but at least each Konoha 12, should have their own page, and the sand siblings. And I'm still new at this, but it would hurt to add a List of Characters link or something, because I had to go through other characters' pages to get to the one I was looking for. Hyakurei (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This merged version is terrible, and will someone tell me who decided that everything Naruto-related ought to merged like this? Adding to what you guys said, it also is harder to find things now. I'm gonna move for the article to be re-separated, because if we made each page (all 4 of 'em) acceptably detailed, people would begin complaining that they're too long. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can "move" all you want, but considering List of Naruto characters is now a featured list, I seriously doubt you will find any support on it. The merging of all the character articles was a large scale effort and done in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If you want individual articles for every little character, google Naruto wikia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be right, but it's all still definitely of inferior quality than it would be if they'd kept things separate (they could've grouped certain characters and related topics without total mergism); that's almost proven by the fact that if you want quality should look for a non-Wikipedia Wiki. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just depends on your definition of quality. If you want fan-oriented material, then yes, looking off Wikipedia is best. This is the place for brief, summarizing encyclopedic coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I value most things you do for anime and manga on wikipedia collectionian but I think you need to be slightly less prescriptive on the guidelines and policies, its not all about making featured articles, even though it is a worthy cause, after all one of the main policies is 'ignore all rules'. if the articles dont include information that the average person who would search for a list of characters in naruto looking at the page would expect to find, and currently i think the information is a bit scant. But on the other hand agree that its alot better than it was before, you dont need everything that has happened to a character, and  think most of these people complaining should be looking somewhere else for their information. A bit off topic but i think it would greatly improve the list if there was a picture of each character next to their name, as this would be perfect for naruto novices, and i know this contradicts the fair use policy slightly, but to be honest i dont think the makers will mind, which is the main reason the policy is there, and at the moment the pictures are hard to tie to the characters for someone who may have only seen a few episodes, and i think this is a case where you can safely 'ignore all rules', especially when individual pictures are used elsewhere on wikipedia and already has fair use.86.131.91.141 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, no I don't need to, and yes, all articles should have the goal of being of high quality. Being content with being substandard is never ideal and calling IAR just to try to make it more fansite like will never fly. Pictures of each character does not contradict the fair use policy "slightly" it blatantly breaks it and it will not be allowed. They would be quickly and rightly removed and deleted. That is not a very negotiable policy and it is not one that you can call IAR on pretty much ever. It and copyright are too of the most stringently enforced policies. The fact that other stuff exists is also not valid. Many of those individual pictures are being removed one by one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasnt to make it more like a fansite, i wish you wouldnt be so aggressive in youre replys, and i wouldnt add something without consensus. Sheesh youre too used to getting abuse obviously, i was just trying to have a discussion. There is individual pictures of characters on the pages for notable individual characters for instance, cant they then be used anywhere on wikipedia without debating fair use? For other characters the rational for fair use it to minimize legal exposure, and so if no additional exposure is added to wikipedia, and the article is significantly improved then maybe this could be debated? At the moment there is no way for a novice to be able to identify an individual character from the pictures, therefore under youre rational should be deleted completely because its not really notable to the complete newbie? Or maybe something in between could happen, with a picture of each team, or just better notation of character names, im not trying to have a go, just debate a way the article could be improved, since ive noticed a significant flaw?86.131.91.141 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much, no on individual character images being used away from their articles. Individual images are allowed on individual character articles because they are illustrative of the primary topic of the article (and in those articles, those images should be limited, usually to one image unless there is conceptual art or major changes in appearances throughout the series). Outside of individual articles, character lists are allowed 1-3 group images but individual images are a big no no. In other articles, for the most part, such images are not allowed at all unless accompanied by sourced critical discussion of the image. Many many many discussions have occurred over this issue and it was agreed by large scale consensus that individual character images do not significantly improve any character list and blantantly violate WP:NONFREE and the edicts of the Wikimedia Foundation to reduce the use of non-free images. It was felt that such images were primarily decoration and that a visual image was not necessary to identify characters. If you look at any of the higher quality character lists, you'll see many such images have been removed during their history. Trinity Blood's character list had some 30 images removed. Ditto the Blood+ character list and Tokyo Mew Mew's. Its one of the first things hit on during peer reviews, FA noms, etc. Excessive images. There are some group images in the character list for those wishing to see the major characters, but none are needed on this article. This isn't the primary article about the Naruto characters, the character list is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with identifying people in the images is probably best solved by better captioning. --erachima talk 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, it is a large scale effort by multiple people. And you are right, it isn't a playground. It isn't a playground for a bunch of fans who want to fill with it a ton of plot and personal opinions about a fictional series. It is for actual encyclopedic coverage of a topic. You want that, go elsewhere. The pages have not been "mindlessly deleted" they were discussed and merged, as is appropriate in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies (though things people like you like to forget exist, but guess what, tehy DO). Wikipedia's greatest strength is NOT that is has "all information" about a subject at hand. That's total BS. Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines are verifiability, which means reliably sourced information, and notability, meaning its actually worth mentioning. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's With the Merging? 

message: This a relatively new album, and it features the Japanese cast of Naruto singing some of the theme songs. It has "distance" sung by Junko Takeuchi (Naruto), "R★O★C★K★S" sung by Kazuhiko Inoue (Kakashi), "シナリオ" (Shinario) sung by Noriaki Sugiyama (Sasuke),      "流れ星~Shooting Star~" (Nagareboshi~Shooting Star~) sung by Showtaro Morikubo (Shikamaru), "ユラユラ" (Yura Yura) sung by Chie Nakamura (Sakura), "つぼみ" (Tsubomi) sung by Junko Takeuchi (Naruto), "目覚めろ!野性" (Mezamero! Yasei) sung by Kazuhiko Inoue (Kakashi), "キミモノガタリ" (Kimi Monogatari) by Noriaki Sugiyama (Sasuke), Re:Member by Showtaro Morikubo (Shikamaru) and ピノキオ (Pinokio) by Chie Nakamura (Sakura). Anyways yea. I don't really want to create the info on my own because I'd probably write it horribly...Moocowsrule (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-13-71-nu-49-jp-70-2t2a.html is the site I got it from and there are a few videos on YouTube with the songs... Quite frankly I think Showtaro Morikubo ruined Nagareboshi... It just sounds weird... but that's off topic. Anyways it was released like in July so it just hasn't been created. I haven't heard much about it actually. Doesn't seem that popular... I should look at the Oricon charts...Moocowsrule (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Naruto All Stars" 

message: remove the fan image at the botom and change it with a betetr one !! 
http://z.about.com/d/manga/1/0/G/1/-/-/AX07_naruto_500.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The image you are suggesting is not a free image. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  remove image 

message: Why is "Movies" the title of the header? Shouldn't it be something like "Animated films", for clarity? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's sort of obvious from context. わwaらraうu Smile! 01:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But maybe it should be more specific, since some anime have been adapted to live-action films like Dragon Ball and Death Note.Tintor2 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I guess films would be the correct title. わwaらraうu Smile! 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movies section 

message: Here there is a image explaining the censorship from Naruto. Could we add it?Tintor2 (talk) 16:01, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: I'd like to add link to wiki-like site named Narutopedia here. 
I think that's a good site where all fans can add their articles, to held Wikipedia clean from fan-POV articles (fansites) --MEG (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sign your posts please and no. We can not link Wikias here, we've had a discussion about that regarding Gantz not too long ago. J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 21:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope that helps the noobs more!... Of course I ish still a noob T~T Moocows rule 22:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

text: What I mean is that I added a link. Moocows rule 22:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can make interwiki links to the Naruto Wikia by saying Wikia:Naruto:Main Page. –Gunslinger47 16:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A link to Narutopedia 

message: I added description about the announcement of TV Tokyo on the Naruto Shippuden internet streaming service, but the edit was reverted　(I don't know why). Currently the article has description on the new service by VIZ Media, but they will in the service under the agreement by the Japanese TV network, and the source does not explain the three important points; streaming with English subtitles on same day as its Japanese premiere, background why they will start the service, and the one of the Japanese major TV networks will start worldwide internet streaming of anime for the first time. I think we should consider the importance of the decision a little in this case. thanks,--Morio (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, I don't think that was intentional, but an attempt at fixing the layout error you had made. Corrected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Thank you to improve the layout and wording.--Morio (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Internet streaming 

message: Please include the censorship
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Naruto_Absolute_Perfect.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 11:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: I don't suppose anyone knows what's up with the order of the infobox components? Beyond being sorted by media type, it seems pretty random. Are there any good reasons not to just sort them all by release date? —Dinoguy1000 19:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, we had this stuff months ago. Thanks for the heads-up anyways! ;) (wait, you already got February's SJ? Curses! >_< ) 「ダイノガイ千？！」 05:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: GAH... They haven't even sent me January's D: モーモー?talk to moo 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? When did you get the last issue? Maybe you should email them or something... 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: I could get some pages of the newest Naruto volumes (38 to 42) that contain notes from the author (probably conception of the series). However, it is all in Japanese, and I dont understand anything. Anybody who can help, just tell me and I ll show them the images.Tintor2 (talk) 00:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anybody with good Japanese? 

message: A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion 
or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please 
visit the discussion at 
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters 

message: *The first sentence in the video game section states that the Naruto games "have appeared on various consoles from Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Bandai." However, Bandai doesn't make a video game console. Though Bandai Games holds the distribution rights for the Naruto franchise.
*The final sentence in the video game section contains several grammar errors, which make its message less understandable.
:"The first games released outside Japan were the Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen series and the Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu series, were released in North America under the titles of Naruto: Clash of Ninja and Naruto: Ninja Council that any Naruto games were officially available outside of Japan."
Sergeus (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One small point, one game actually did exist on a Bandai Console. According the the List of Naruto video games article Naruto: Konoha Ninpouchou was release on the WonderSwan Color  which was a handhold console made by Bandai. I am not sure if one game would be enough to have Bandai listed but I thought it was worth mentioning. --70.24.180.103 (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I wasn't aware that Bandai had a console in the past, though, considering the brief nature of the video game part of the article, I doubt inclusion of it for the one game would be necessary. (I couldn't edit the Naruto page, because it's semi-protected and I'm new. :( ) I think Bandai could warrant mention on their distribution of most of the Naruto games though.--Sergeus (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That also raises the question of whether a handheld gaming system could legitimately be called a "console" (consoles to me are the larger systems - Colecovision, NES, Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox 360, etc.), but that's neither here nor there. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Games Section - Proposed Edits 

message: A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion 
or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please 
visit the discussion at 
Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters 

message: *The first sentence in the video game section states that the Naruto games "have appeared on various consoles from Nintendo, Sony, Microsoft, and Bandai." However, Bandai doesn't make a video game console. Though Bandai Games holds the distribution rights for the Naruto franchise.
*The final sentence in the video game section contains several grammar errors, which make its message less understandable.
:"The first games released outside Japan were the Naruto: Gekitou Ninja Taisen series and the Naruto: Saikyou Ninja Daikesshu series, were released in North America under the titles of Naruto: Clash of Ninja and Naruto: Ninja Council that any Naruto games were officially available outside of Japan."
Sergeus (talk) 16:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: One small point, one game actually did exist on a Bandai Console. According the the List of Naruto video games article Naruto: Konoha Ninpouchou was release on the WonderSwan Color  which was a handhold console made by Bandai. I am not sure if one game would be enough to have Bandai listed but I thought it was worth mentioning. --70.24.180.103 (talk) 19:23, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I wasn't aware that Bandai had a console in the past, though, considering the brief nature of the video game part of the article, I doubt inclusion of it for the one game would be necessary. (I couldn't edit the Naruto page, because it's semi-protected and I'm new. :( ) I think Bandai could warrant mention on their distribution of most of the Naruto games though.--Sergeus (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That also raises the question of whether a handheld gaming system could legitimately be called a "console" (consoles to me are the larger systems - Colecovision, NES, Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox 360, etc.), but that's neither here nor there. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Games Section - Proposed Edits 

message: What's the consensus on adding a few more, tasteful photos? Ordinarily, I'm the one adding the gallery tag and trying to get photos removed, but we have a good sized article that in my opinion could easily accept a few more pictures. --Pstanton (talk) 23:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Photos? 

message: Is there any confirmed date for which Naruto Shippuden will be released in full English Dub? Is there any true site that has the information on it that I can contribute to this article?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagemaru16 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed Date? 

message: There is an error about Naruto, volume 11 receiving the Quill Award in 2006. Naruto, volume 7 received the award. Source: Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Overlord of Knowledge (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem; the article states that it's volume 7: "The seventh volume of Viz's release became the first manga win a Quill Award when it claimed the award for "Best Graphic Novel" in 2006." 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  editsemiprotected 

message: I think adding "VIZ online" will make a good contribution to this page because it allows people in the United States to watch Naruto a couple days after it is aired from Japan. The website is free and is subbed fairly well.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanhngo (talk • contribs) 02:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subbing and new websites to watch Naruto on 

message: Shouldn't the names be Uzumaki Naruto, Uchiha Sasuke, Haruno Sakura etc ? I mean Last Name followed by First Name. --kris (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: The new episode is tv-14,according to my guide. "Long Time No See! Long Time No See! Jiraiya Returns!". They're changing it to Adult Swim for Shippuden,right? 98.14.15.12 (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't note episode ratings, and "Long Time No See! Jiraiya Returns!" is episode 53, not a new episode (I can't say if that's the episode that actually aired on Saturday, though, having not watched it yet). As for Shippuden airing on Adult Swim, I haven't heard anything like that, and I seriously doubt AS would air Naruto - it's a lot more kiddy than their typical fare (and they've been paring anime down for about a year anyways, no thanks to whiny fans who want more crap like Xavier =P ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tv-14? 

message: Is there any news if Cartoon Network is bringing it back on. Since it is not on anymore completely. Nothing on the schedule about it. So what's going with them? Are they just taking it off temporarily for the bring back bash of '09 when they finally announce the US release of Shippuden--Kagemaru the Ninja of the Shadows (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No one knows. Viz says they've continued dubbing Naruto, and have started on Shippuden, but they don't have any agreements yet for broadcast dates or channels. There's a bit more detail and a ref in the lead of List of Naruto episodes. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 18:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't be surprised if that kid who died in a sandbox had something to do with this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.76.164 (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I find that to be unlikely. I have not heard any of coverage of the death in months nor any lawsuits etc. As far as I can tell media attention lasted for a few weeks at most. The show also aired for quite some time after the incidient in question. The removal is probabally more related to the end of Toonami and a more general removal of Anime by CN.--70.24.177.158 (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I think we CN killed Toonami, they killed Naruto and all the other anime shows. I don't exspect to see the show again this year. Maybe never. They should hand over the viewing rights to someone else. The Naruto community wants to hostily take over Cartoon Network at this point. BTW, what incident are you guys talking about? Since it has to do with a sandbox, I bet some little kid was trying to do something Gaara did on the show. The show is rated PG for a reason. 76.182.138.202 (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: . ~SnapperTo 20:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gone on CN?