Talk:List of Naruto episodes/Archive 2

message: Episode 209 is supposed to be the official start of season 9. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Korn22x (talk • contribs) 7 October 2006.
:Source? Floria L 12:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Season 1 had 27 episodes.  Season 2 had 25 episodes.  Every season since (the five from 3 to 7) have had exactly 26 episodes.  Assuming Season 8 follows the same pattern, 208 will be the last of this season, and 209 will be the start of Season 9.  I have not seen any sources which corroborate this, but it is the assumption we should operate under until we are told differently. –Gunslinger47 06:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TV.com has the start of season 9 listed as 203. Which makes sense to me since that's when it switched to thursday, and I believe that's when the new opening started. Why wouldn't it go by OP changes? Whoa2000 20:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The new openings haven't typically corresponded with the seasons in the past.  As an example, there are one point where an opening ran for only four episodes or so.  More importantly, each season has had 28 episodes each since the beginning.  The reason for all this ambiguity is Japanese television is not partitioned into seasons as strictly as American television.  There are no season premieres or season finales.  What we have instead are annual anniversaries, or at best, the Golden Week, or whatever it's called, which muuch of Japaense television is scheduled around. –Gunslinger47 18:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 209 

message: Since each section had its own title card and only begins what appears to be another arc (with at least 4 more episodes), should the summary pages even mention that these 3 episodes were a "special". As the only thing special about them was 3 episodes airing on the same day. Filler arc 24 was started with the name Kurama Clan on the story arcs article. Someone else might want to fill in better info than what I have started. shadzar|Talk|contribs 09:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We shouldn't even have individual articles on each episode. ~MDD4696 14:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you guys feel about story-arc / season style articles as an alternative to individual episode articles? For example, Clow Card Arc: 1-18. -- Ned Scott 00:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that was what the merge on the AfD was meaning. But linking them form the Episode titles, and grouping them I don't know about so I didn't mention it. I am new here and don't have seniority on the subject, but I like arc articles divided by episode sections. The question would be just whether people will still complain about those episodes that follow the manga arc. But I think each anime arc having its own article for the contained episodes would be enough. Little easier to locate vandals to fix also with less pages. shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  90 minute special 202-204 

message: so when's the kakashi gaiden special coming out... i forgot what dattebayo (the company that subs the episodes and releases them) said... - taira shikyo
:We don't know. Neither does Dattebayo. They're a fansubbing group, by the way. They're by no means an official distributor. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If one exists, it'll most likely be after the Komura Filler Arc near the beggingin of Season 9. Floria L 23:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A month ago Dattebayo said that the 203-205 special would be the Kakashi Gaiden.  They were wrong.  Likely on purpose. –Gunslinger47 05:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt it was intentional. The fillers just keep dragging on and on... they were supposed to end last year IIRC.71.113.254.254 14:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kakashi Gaiden episode 

message: Repaired 24 articles that were turned into redirects (merged?) by Ned Scott. They stil need to be expanded. shadzar|Talk|contribs 00:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Repaired? Those articles have no content at all, and Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes says to not split episodes into episode articles until there is enough info on the list of episodes article for that episode. It also makes expanding these episode write-ups a lot slower when you have to visit, what, 200 different articles. -- Ned Scott 01:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just doing what I thought the To-do list meant to prepare for expanding those articles. Included your name in case someone wanted to ask you why they were redirects in the first place... shadzar|Talk|contribs 01:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: On second thought **** it. Not everyone is expert in Wikipedia and things like list level are meaningless to people who don't know what the **** you are talking about. You seem to get ***** about someone trying to help so as far as Naruto is concerned I won't even bother anymore. Its tiring and frustrating to try to help just to have somone ***** at you all the time for trying follow everyone contradicting guidelines of what goes where and no one explaining things but with vague things like list level. shadzar|Talk|contribs 01:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, calm down man. I didn't mean to offend you, but look at it from my perspective. Someone comes along and "repairs" something that I did when I also believed I was doing the right thing. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you should explain your terminology about this list level somewhere that you keep refering to, and I personally can find nothing about on Wikipedia. Someone came along and put a to-do list so it is hard to tell what coincides with the WP:LOE unless it is spelled out. I understand that empty articles are not good, but they can't be filled in a single day. I am no technical writer, and can only guess people are happy with my ep 203 summary's content and grammar. We do need a to-do list here that tells people what needs done so they can work on making things right. If the individual articles are gonna be merged into story arc articles, then someone needs to start a discussion here about it and make a mock-up template or example for people to go through and combine to reduce the numebr and size of the articles, if that is a problem. You know things more than others I would guess, at least me. So explain so that we can ALL make the articles better and follow Wikipedia S&P. To me list level means this article which derives its summary from the main articles of the episodes from what I understand. If that is wrong; PLEASE, explain your term list level so that everyone can understand what you mean when looking at your edits. shadzar|Talk|contribs 05:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It means you should add summaries on the list level (that giant list on the article page) before making empty articles. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. would it have been so hard to call it episode list rather than list level since that is what it is and less confusing. or does everyone in this world just like making up convoloted terms for things, aka "using $20 words where a $2 word will do". Now that I know if I can figure out how to add those summaries that have none I can go through my archives and try to put them in and maybe expand other articles. or should I wait until a concensus has been reached about merging the episode articles by story arcs? shadzar|Talk|contribs 08:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Well I am now told that summaries aren't wanted....sheesh wish people would make up their minds. shadzar|Talk|contribs 09:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

text: That'd be an interesting bit of trivia to include in each of the episode articles.  If we can give more information to the episode articles, especially information with real-world context, that'd be good. –Gunslinger47 19:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To-do list 

message: For the sake of bandwidth and the fact the fillers are still going ad naseum, should this page be split to better conform to the 32k article size? If so where should it be split? Season 6 maybe. this will have 6 non-filler episode seperated from the rest of the manga arcs but mostly keeps them all together and leave plenty of room for the remainding filelrs as they churn them out. Maybe even split further to allow for the missing episode summaries? I don't want to add all the summaries to make the page uneditable before a decision can be made. Ideas? shadzar|Talk|contribs 16:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is a quote from the guidelines:Occasional exceptionsTwo exceptions are lists, and articles summarizing certain fields. These act as summaries and starting points for a field and in the case of some broad subjects or lists either do not have a natural division point or work better as a single article. In such cases, the article should nonetheless be kept short where possible. Major subsections should use summary style where a separate article for a subtopic is reasonable, and the article should be written with greater than usual attention to readability.Readers of such articles will usually accept complexity provided the article is well written, created with a sensible structure and style, and is an appropriate length for the topic. Most articles do not need to be excessively long, but when a long or very long article is unavoidable, its complexity should be minimized. Readability is still the key criterion.This entry is simply a list of episodes.  I don't believe adding verbose summaries of each would be appropriate.  What I suggest is the list of Naruto story arcs be expanded instead, where interest or necessity require. –Gunslinger47 03:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The page is only 34.47kb...83.146.55.2 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  75+ kilobytes 

message: The episodes summaries for 206 and 207 were constantly reverted to stay, but when someone tried to add an episode summary for Season 3, Ep 1, it was reverted. Twice. I may have missed something, just requiring an explanation. Floria L 23:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't always pay attention to this page. Just restore them if they were accurate. I think I reverted one which destroyed the format. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Summaries 

message: How is this site for reference? is it reliable?. (ep. 211 - Starting Kakashi Gaiden? dare we hope???) --TheYmode 07:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unreliable. Don't cite it. They've been wrong at least three times. Wait for whatever cite is commonly used to verify things here. That link at the bottom. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The link you supplied is publically editable and subject to vandalism.  In fact, it seems like someone has added the episode title for #213, entitled "213. Anime News Network loves to post fake titles. Eps 210-211 are FAKE. Thanks for nothing ANN."  Something tells me that's not the actual name for the episode. :D –Gunslinger47 00:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know where you're getting "Kakashi Gaiden" from "Memories of Flame" [or was that a chapter title?], but that reference site at the bottom of the ep. list is showing that ANN was right this time. -Whoa2000 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things change.  If you look at the dates, we were discussing this nearly a week ago.  The real episodes are there up to 211 now. –Gunslinger47 04:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.animenewsnetwork.com 

message: Me and Someguy have been arguing over naming episodes. See page history. Episodes should be capitalised according to previous naming conventions, where place names have been in caps. Also The Enemy Shinobazu is the correct translation from Japanese, or The Enemies are Shinobazu, not what Someguy always reverts to. I will continue to rv his edits of these. I have asked him to explain on this talk page. Anyone else's opinion would be good too. Note: Previous people have capatalised titles but Someguy always rv's their edits. I do not what this to turn into an edit war. Thanks 211.28.44.94 03:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had my own edits reverted for the same reasons. Non-dub titles aren't in caps. Also, dattebayo, which I have more faith in than wherever you're getting your title from, translates it as "are". – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Careful when you comment. Don't delete parts of other's comments. As for "are", I don't really care about that, but the existing redirect is "is." If and when someone wants to make an article, that has an existing history to work with. Japanese can also be difficult with those singular plural things, so it doesn't really matter either way. Finally, as for the episode titles, since everything else is in non-caps style, consistentcy is key. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok my bad for accidently deleteing some of your comment, however if you look at previous episodes you will see that caps is the norm. The Forest of Chakra, you just need to look and see... so caps is correct plus it looks better and is correct style. (NOTE: that is why the ep, forest of B..., should have a cap B, it is inconsistent otherwise, i'm sure you see the point.211.28.44.94 04:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do see your point, but you've missed mine. Those are dub titles. All the non-dub titles, which is something like 65 to now, aren't caps. As we get dub titles, we change them. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who says they are not caps? Correct english dictates they are caps, regardless of whether the english dub has come out. It does not look good to have some in caps and others not. And how come you change it back to "is"? Even you before admitted that "are" is correct. 211.28.44.94 04:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone else needs to comment on this to get somewhere. I covered the "is" thing in my earlier comment. Second one. As for titles, here's Florida L's reason: "Romaji is only capitilzed if its the first word, start of a new phrase, or a proper noun. No reason why these should be when the other 200 eps don't". Seems good to me. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Stop edit-warring mid-discussion. Make your case then change. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is. It's basically a group of rogue ninja. It's like saying the enemy is Akatsuki. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my understanding that the Shinobazu were a specific group of missing-nin.  From Dattebayo's dub, Tsunade says "Shinobazu are shinobi who've deserted thier village and grouped with gangs..."  This is ambigious and I believe it mistakenly leads some to believe that all shinobi who've deserted their village and grouped with their gangs are called Shinobazu.  This is not the case.  Zabuza Momochi was refered to as a nukenin or missing-nin.  Dattebayo probably translated the title as "are" because saying "is" implies definitively that the current enemey is the entire group of Shinobazu as a whole.  There is still a chance that that's not precisely the case, so they went with "are" which means "the enemy we're currently fighting are of the Shinobazu".  Less precise, but it is just as accurate as the original Japanese was. –Gunslinger47 21:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok so you believe that it should be "it" even though dattebayo names it "are"? Also opinions are needed on the fact that in some episodes place names are in caps and others it is not. The argument that those that have been dubbed are in caps does not hold up as if that is the case, then for consistency all need to be in caps, regardless. Dattebayo caps, and an example i used before with "Forest" being in caps in "The Forest of Chakra" or "Special Report: Live From the Forest of Death" etc etc but each time I change "The forest of bewilderment" it is rv'ed is very stubborn.  This goes with other names as well.211.28.44.94 03:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't use a lot of dattebayo's translations, in case you hadn't noticed. And as I've pointed out, those are dub titles. These are transliterated titles. We're trying to be consistent here. At the very least, if you must edit was constantly, be thorough. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, so are you kinda in agreement with me about the caps? It does make sense, and you have done a lot of work for all the naruto articles. What do you mean by "if you must edit was constantly" 211.28.44.94 03:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "War", it's a typo. And you keep edit warring over one damn section claiming it's correct yet not bothering to do the rest. Do the rest if you care, but don't do one section and edit war over it constantly. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It is the policy of Wikipedia as a whole to not unnecessarily capitalize words.  English itself has no strict rules about which words should and should not be capitalized under title emphasis.  As such, translated titles should be written without capitalization, except on the first letters and with proper nouns and other names.  The English episode titles are different.  The titles, along with their capitalization, come directly from the creators. –Gunslinger47 06:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming of Episodes & of specific Episodes 

message: There seems to be great confusion on Wikipedia regarding episode articles.  Episode 208 is up for deletion.  If it goes, that sets a precedence that all episode articles should be deleted or merged, except for maybe a dozen or so key episodes.  I thought it'd pass the deletion attempt since the batch of episodes as a whole had previously survived a deletion attempt.  No matter which way the vote goes, it seems that we have to start discussing right now exactly how we're going to clean up some of the mess (i.e. the stubs) and more efficient ways to archive detailed plot and episode trivia if we're not allowed to make individual articles.  And, I suppose, we should take a close look and decide honestly if we need such detailed episode summaries, since their presence obviously seem to bother many Wikipedians (despite the fact that there are more Naruto images than episode articles). –Gunslinger47 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing particularly wrong with having them. This is just another battle in the ongoing debate between include or delete. That said, quite a few could use expansion. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode on its way to deletion 

message: This page needs to use proper capitalization. In an episose title all words other than articles (a, an, the), conjoing conjunctions (and, or, nor, but), and prepositions less than five letters long are to be capitalized. The words "is" and "be" are included in this. It does not matter how the original author wrote it as usually titles are in all capital letters for aesthetic reasons. Jay32183 23:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in English there is no standard way of how to capitalize for emphasis.  It is Wikipedia's policy to never capitalize unnecessarily.  The translated titles are not official, so we're not going to decide what capitals go where because it'd be entirely arbitrary, depending on our country of origin and a thousand other factors.  On the other hand, the dubbed episodes do come with capitals, so we use them without argument.  –Gunslinger47 08:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Naruto dubbed episodes use the exact capitalization I specified in TV Guide listings. I have only altered official titles. The subbed only episodes shold use the same capitalization for consistency though.Jay32183 02:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry.  I didn't think the dubs had gotten that far, for some reason. –Gunslinger47 03:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The episode I changed was tonight's actually. Sorry if I sounded rude. Jay32183 03:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capital letters 

message: I posted a long-ish spiel on the Naruto episode article set in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Naruto Episodes Clean-up.  Please leave any suggestion/comments/etc on my proposal there.  Thanks,  --Phirazo 06:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto Episodes Clean-up 

message: Its titled "setting off" could possibly be the episode where  Naruto leaves to train for the next 2 1/2 yrs????? FlamiN12345 12:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the last filler episode, so yes. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, 219 is the last filler episode, unless part of 220 is a continuation of the last filler arc. The Splendiferous Gegiford 18:50, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Last non-timeskip episode then. In either case, the series begins anew the week after. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can anyone tell me where I can watch the latest Naruto episodes, besides YouTube? I really got to watch 219 and 220, but the IT department here in the office is blocking YouTube. I know this shouldn't be discussed here, but I'm desperate. Moonwalkerwiz 07:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Google. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:19, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Better yet, when watching subtitled clips on YouTube, pay close attention to the opening credits to see who the subtitle group is and what their preferred distribution method is.  The guys who do the best Naruto and Bleach subs usually put their information on the TokyoTV splash, right at the end of the introduction. –Gunslinger47 08:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Dattebayo is one of the best fansub groups available. Easy to read fonts, grammically correct and well timed. That's just my opinion. Verde830 09:05, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode 220 

message: Is episode 220 the series finale of Naruto (1)?
最終回 「旅立ち」　2007年2月8日放送 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goldendoggy (talk • contribs) 03:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto '''最終回'''? 

message: I was wondering if I could get somebody to decide how to do the summaries for each episode. I do one each week as the dub progresses, since I watch it and having the episode fresh in my mind helps me do well on them, but does anyone have an objection or suggestion? Should I just go through and do all of them? Treima 02:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that it would be good to go through and redo a lot of these.  It would be nice if they were all 3-4 sentences long, and really explained what happened in the episode.  Ex. "Naruto's attempts at gaining attention and recognition from his peers and mentors quickly create a crisis." should be more like "Naruto's attempts at gaining attention and recognition from his peers and mentors quickly create a crisis.  Mizuki Toji convinces Naruto he will pass the ninja exam if he steals a scroll.  Mizuki really wants the scroll for himself, and Iruka helps Naruto get the scroll back, but not before Naruto learns the shadow replication technique from it." - Peregrine Fisher 18:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I kind of prefer them to be really short so they only take up one line of text, and I did rewrite a lot of them, mainly because they were still using fanlation syntax and spelling. Making them longer would just strengthen the case for deletionists to nominate this article for deletion, which they have done in the past. Anyone else got an opinion about it? Treima 01:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'm not really against them being short, as much as I would like for them to contain more information.  A lot of them kind of read like teasers, just trying to get someone to watch it without telling them what happened.  Since we're an encyclopedia, we should try and convey the plot as much as possible in our little short plot summary.  As far as deletionists, the time has past when they were able to delete list of episode pages, or even individual episode pages.  I've been participating in all the episode AfDs lately, and I haven't seen one close with delete in about two months.  They've pretty much stopped trying this past month.  We've pretty much won that battle, so I wouldn't make any decisions based on what would please or displease a deletionist. - Peregrine Fisher 03:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summaries 

message: I would argue those are unnecessary. A single screenshot doesn't have any value for any episode, but is more like eye candy. I doubt those would really fall under fair use, as it isn't used to identify a character or for critical commentary. graphitesmoothie (talk | contributions) 03:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a somewhat controversial issue.  The only consensus so far is that we are not going to change the current rules to prohibit the use of images in lists like this, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Fair use criteria/Amendment 2. - Peregrine Fisher 03:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the link. Well, I doubt that it would just change.Something else I forgot to mention is that the number of images there would be total would make the page huge...r than it already is. graphitesmoothie (talk | contributions) 04:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There are a great number of Naruto screenshots already.  Those images should be used for this list if possible to avoid redundancy.  Uploading an image just for use on this list and inside its episode article seems excessive, unless the episode itself is notable enough to warrant it.  (there's also the side note of the excessive download time) –Gunslinger47 04:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This page is going to be big; check out List of One Piece episodes, which is getting close to being done.  There are several ways to break up pages like this, but personally I would like to let the page be finished before breaking it up.  It's a lot of work, and I think it would be harder spread out.  As for reusing an image, it has to be from the same episode as the summary it goes with, which I think will be hard to determine.  If you can figure out what goes with what, please add them. - Peregrine Fisher 05:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, actually I saw that when I was browsing around. I would highly recommend not continuing to add more images. It takes far too long to load all the images, especially for those on not-too-great Internet connections. I often access this page while on break at school to find an episode to watch, and my connection at school isn't too great. However, I see nothing wrong with having the images on the page for that certain episode, but on the list is just pushing it. graphitesmoothie (talk | contributions) 05:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want to start a version without images, that would be OK.  Eventually it could be used to link to pages with greater detail, like List of The Simpsons episodes does.  Just go a couple of days back in the history and copy that version.  A problem with that is that then there will be two places to put summaries, unless you do a summary-less one like the simpsons list.  Again, I would like to finish this one now while people are actively working on it.  If you break it up into seasons (or whatever), then people won't notice what needs to be done in a season unless they go to the particular season page. - Peregrine Fisher 05:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And why does this article need images? Most seem to be fairly random and aren't of anything significant in the episode. Additionally, each image only serves to dramatically increase the size of the article; List of One Piece episodes, for example, is 5 mb in size, and it forces people with slow internet connections to spend far too long waiting for the page to load. So, why is this exponential increase in size necessary? ~SnapperTo 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The images are used to illustrate their associated text, just like all images on wikipedia.  If you don't think an image is representative of it's episode, you can remove it. - Peregrine Fisher 01:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I know why they're used. What I want to know is why they are necessary. All of these images would be better suited in the individual episode summaries, not next to a sentence or two that may or may not touch upon what is going on in the image. And since these are fair use images, they "must contribute significantly to the article and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Again, they aren't going to be helpful next to a one line blurb, and most of these images are only being shown in this article so that each episode can have an associated image. Defying guidelines and making the article many times larger than it needs to be just so that the article can have some images is bad judgment. ~SnapperTo 03:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Why are these here? There's already a screenshot when you click on the link. We don't need 2. one is fine. Verde830 02:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

text: This is the standard use of :Template:List of Anime Ep TV.  It has a screenshot parameter for a reason.  There are several anime episode lists that have gained featured list status including List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes and List of RahXephon media, and all of them have screenshots.  List of South Park episodes is also a featured list and roughly the same size as this page will be, although it's not anime.  These images meet fair use requirements and don't defy any guidelines.  I'm not sure which guideline Snapper is talking about, but the images have no effect on Wikipedia:Article size, if that's the one.  I mentioned it above but the only consensus we have regarding images in lists of episodes is that we aren't going to change our rules to prohibit them; you can read about it here and here. - Peregrine Fisher 04:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was unaware of those discussions, and I suppose I won't argue with them. And, for reference, I was referring to this (specifically point 8). Still, using the South Park list as an example, this article is on track to become extremely large in kb size. South Park has about 160 images which adds up to 659 kb. This article has 38 images and they already add up to 732 kb (granted not all of these images have size restraints, but you get the idea). Obviously this article is going to become several times larger than the South Park list, and in fact already is. Likewise, and as I've said earlier, the South Park images for the most part have something to do with the bulk of each episode, which can't be said for a number of images currently in place in this article. While I won't argue against the addition of images any longer, I hope to nip these issues in the bud before 200 more images are added to the article. ~SnapperTo 04:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the images aren't neccessory. There are 220 episodes, so that means that we need 220 images, which the size of the page will become longer and less time to load. And the images are really needed, a summary would be good enough! If we do use images lets get some that does'nt have the Cartoon Network logo, or images from TV TOkyo or some from fansubs (subtitles are not neccessory).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by YATAnshin! (talk • contribs) 21:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Episode Images 

message: I'd like to get rid of the Kanji and Romaji names.  There already included in the individual episode pages, and they lead to horrible formatting.  Look at episode 14, for instance, it has 4 lines of name and one line of plot summary.  If we want to have summaries that really summarize, we need to make room for them.  I would like to make it look like List of One Piece episodes, for an example. - Peregrine Fisher 02:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps for the seasons that are 100% finished being dubbed. –Gunslinger47 03:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, which ones are those? - Peregrine Fisher 03:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 79 just aired yesterday, so that'd be seasons one through three. –Gunslinger47 03:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I did it to the first season.  I'm going to wait a bit before doing the next to and see if anyone else wants to comment.  It sure looks a lot cleaner. - Peregrine Fisher 04:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Err, no, let's not. We already let you post pictures here; don't mess up anything else. Why not just remove the images again? The page didn't look nearly as messy before they were added. The Splendiferous Gegiford 04:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Scratch that, I made it better. I've got the first season formatted the same way List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes is. I'm liking this much better. The Splendiferous Gegiford 04:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That does look good.  Good work. - Peregrine Fisher 04:35, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'd like to get rid of the Kanji and Romaji names 

message: The result of the discussion was to merge :Category:Naruto episodes → List of Naruto episodes
----
Unrelated to the proposal above which deals with the size of this article, I invite everyone to re-evaluate the idea of merging the separate episodes into consolidated Naruto X story arc or Naruto (season X) articles, based on the following rationales:
* I ,Zachary Webb, think that the episodes should be merged. I Support this debate and hope the see the Naruto and Naruto: Shippuden episodes merged. I also think that each episode and video game should have it's own article!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachary Webb (talk • contribs) 15:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That draft looks good. Try to keep the terminology correlate with what is commonly used though (i.e. cursed seal over cursed mark, hand seals over hand signs, etc.). Sephiroth BCR 07:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Update: I created a draft for Naruto Shippuden at my sandbox, which is welcome for editing by everyone btw. I took the summaries from the articles and removed the parts that I felt were superfluous, but if you think they need more details then go ahead and edit the page. — Sandtiger 02:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Offer a valid set of reasoning why this proposal should not go through; otherwise your opinion will not be taken into consideration. Sephiroth BCR 06:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment List of episodes might be able to serve as a directory. Or perhaps it might just disappear and have Story Arcs serve as the directory. Right now, my draft is for a two-season-per-article system and is subdivided by arc, so either way can work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by You Can't See Me! (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Comment - draft it as a single article for now. Let's get this out of the way before we begin discussing whether to split it into multiple arcs. Sephiroth BCR 00:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to merge separate articles into Story Arcs or Seasons 

message: I need these images deleted please. They are lossless PNGs that are unwieldy for web use:
#:Image:Naruto 205 ss.png
#:Image:Naruto 204 ss.png
#:Image:Naruto 203 ss.png
#:Image:Naruto 202 ss.png
#:Image:Naruto 201 ss.png
#:Image:Naruto 200 ss.png
#:Image:Naruto 199 ss.png
Also if someone can provide the missing images for the List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 7-9) page that would be great. Thanks — Sandtiger 17:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: PS if you're taking screenshots from a fansub video, don't use an image showing subtitles. — Sandtiger 17:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It's not just those images.  There are tons of inappropriate PNGs in use.   I just came from a marathon of labeling every image I could find as :Category:Naruto images.  As a side note, did you know there are 800 entries in that category?  Something seems wrong with that. –Gunslinger47 18:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh yeah you're right. Maybe we can just remove all references to them and remove the license tag so that a bot can automatically delete them.— Sandtiger 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I feel the need to ask: how did you come across many of those images? Some haven't been in articles for a few months, if ever. ~SnapperTo 22:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched for "Naruto" under the Image namespace. –Gunslinger47 23:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: I've noticed on several episodes that the image doesn't necessarily correlate with the episode in question. Sure, it's a good fair use rationale, but shouldn't we try for as much accuracy as possible? Sephiroth BCR 03:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean it doesn't accurately represent the episode as a whole, or that the screen cap is not from the episode in question? –Gunslinger47 03:51, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both probably. A lot of them look so bad that when thumbnailed they become meaningless. We need to set guidelines on how to select a screenshot for an episode. 04:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Both in some cases, one or the other in some. For instance, #26 isn't from the episode, #126 isn't even from that episode, and many more are essentially random images that don't really capture what the episode was about. I'm aware that having all of them exactly perfect is an unrealistic image, but it would be good for changes to be made accordingly Sephiroth BCR 04:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because Luffy messed up the image filename and summary: :Image:Naruto episode 026.png.  Obviously, if they don't match up they should be corrected.  As for looking bad, try looking under :Category:Naruto images for a better one from that episode rather than uploading a new one.  We should put off uploading until we have the image situation under control. –Gunslinger47 04:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Episode 26 is a clip show, so while what is depicted in that image did not actually occur in that episode, that image is shown in the episode. Episode 126 has also been remedied. It's unlikely that each image is going to correspond with the most important event in an episode, as some images are used because they are from that episode and are used in another article, and having one image serve two purposes is simpler than two images serving two purposes. ~SnapperTo 04:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Issue 

message: I'm sorry to interupt but I think the separate arcticles were better because you can read what is going to happen but you can see what happens when you watch the episodes. For instance I always get on here read to read up what all happens then I would watch that episode that Saturday. The other way was just so much easier for me and everyone else. Please reconsider this proposal.
:No way. After all the effort we took to tear the thing apart and do away with all the stubs, undoing that would simply be unacceptable. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You can still read a preview of what's to come in the short episode summaries within the list.  If you really enjoy experiencing Naruto through reading, you might consider reading the manga.  VIZ is fast tracking their publishing this year, but until then you can read some scanlations. –Gunslinger47 22:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

text: thank you ... sorry to bug you guys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.132.85.96 (talk) 00:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest Unsplit? 

message: i was just wandering if you could add the trivia part of the old epidsode list back into the new epidsode list because that was my favorite part and the main reasonn why i would look at old epidsode articles--Dneal07 06:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? It's trivial, hence the name. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia that is interesting, if not necessarily notable, can still be a good addition to articles.  Essay: Wikipedia:Trivia. –Gunslinger47 07:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bring back the Trivia section 

message: What the hell happened to images (I've said the same thing on the List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes?  This makes no sense at all!  Put them back at once! --Putmalk 22:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A discussion on fair-use policy determined that images put in for the sole purpose of decorating a list should be removed. This was the case. Sephiroth BCR 22:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMAGES 

message: There used to be summaries and trivia for each episode and now they are erased? What gives.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.172.223.86 (talk) 00:09:05, August 19, 2007 (UTC) 
:Well, these pages were "ruined" because they were composed soley of summaries and trivia. Because they could not hold their own against a large monster known as "the Standards of Wikipedia," he ate them and left behind their remains as redirects and paragraph-long summaries. You Can't See Me! 01:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was this page ruined? 

message: Someone keeps changing the english airdates for the last 5 episodes of season four to various times in August and September, while in actuality, they were all aired on YTV in a marathon on August 17.  I keep having to change them back since someone keeps changing them. Phazon Chaos 03:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who keeps changing the dates? 

message: I've heavily cleaned up List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2), and it is up to par with current standards established by featured lists such as List of Planetes episodes, List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, and List of Bleach Agent of the Shinigami arc episodes. Unless anyone has a major quibble, then I believe it should be nominated at WP:FLC. Feel free to improve it in any fashion possible. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was bold and nominated it. Please make any and all necessary improvements. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLC 

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)
thread_title:  FLC, again 

message: I've noticed some inconsistencies between the episode lists on the full series page and the individual season pages. Episodes that are listed as part of one season here are listed as part of another season on the individual season pages. Any reason behind this, or should the main list be edited to place the episodes in the correct seasons? (Ex: Ep. 104 is listed as part of Season 4 on this page and part of Season 5 on the individual page) Up to Season 4, this isn't a problem, but it seemed a little weird. Didn't know if it was an error or intentional. Infectedelf 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inconsistencies? 

message: Hey I'm just passing through but Assuming your using US Cartoon network for the English airdate, Episode 107-109 did not air on those dates. 107 just aired last week and from what I read 108 and 109 are set to air tomorrow. If I have something wrong please disregard this but I just want to make sure you are aware. ~ 71.110.7.33 06:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong air date? 

message: 4.226.66.170 21:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speeding UP 

message: Are they going to skip filler in the english version of the anime because they don't have to and plus they can't write an english filler. User: Pocket  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.224.10 (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filler 

message: Breaking apart the current lists into individual seasons (List of Naruto episodes (season 1), List of Naruto episodes (season 2), etc.) seems to be necessary. The method in which we divided the original episode list was rather arbitrary, and given how practically every other list of episodes with seasons does it individually, there's no reason we should follow suit. Naturally, this will mean that List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2) and List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3-4) will lose their featured status, but I don't see any problems in them regaining it after the articles are divided, as they're already at featured quality, and it would be fairly simple. Thoughts? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking the season lists 

message: How exactly are the seasons determined? They don't match up with the opening themes or years. The appear to consist of 26 episodes each, but even then there are exceptions. Besides, why 26 episodes?
Most of the Japanese sources I've seen either don't split them up into any sort of seasons, or split them up by year. JadziaLover (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Determining the seasons 

message: In the article it says, "Seven pieces of theme music are used in the episodes; two opening themes and six ending themes."  
2+6 doesnt = 7
2+6=8
I believe thats a mistake
75.104.128.38 (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme Music Inconsistancy 

message: The article suggests the filler episodes will keep going until September and I'm wondering if there's any source for this as everything I looked at only goes up to May at the latest.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: there are about 70 more episodes of filler from what is left of the Naruto 220 episodes to air. at 2 episodes per week on CN that means 35 weeks more of filler, IF they don't alter the schedule or show reruns and continue 2 new episodes per week. so with the last 5 minutes of episode 220 it will be non filler, and come back into line with the manga. then Shippuden begins chronologically. so by my count the final episode of filelr should be on or about Nov 29, 2008 following the current schedule. but that doesn't mean Shippuden will begin imediately when Naruto ends. and everything from the most recent CN airings to the end of the 1st series is all filler. shadzar-talk 08:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand but I'm wondering if there's any source for the information verifying this. I looked at the sources and I couldn't find which one, if any, says the episodes will be airing into September. Viz Media said a year ago that they intend to skip most of the filler episodes and the timeline they gave suggests Shippuden would most likely start in the summer so I am wondering if there's any source saying the filler episodes will be airing into at least September before Shippuden airs.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for filler running into September? 

message: I suggested this a while back above, but never garnered any response. My comments precisely to why this should be done can be found at Talk:List of One Piece episodes#List organization, but I think the way we've split the Naruto episodes then was a bit arbitrary and basically goes against what every other multi-season television series has been doing (List of Simpsons episodes, List of South Park episodes, etc.). As such, splitting the current lists into individual season lists (List of Naruto episodes (season 1), List of Naruto episodes (season 2), etc.) would be best. We'd lose two FLs, but they likely can get their featured status back with little fuss, and we'd end up with four FLs (six if List of Naruto episodes (seasons 5-6) is brought up to par, which is totally possible). Discuss. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you Sephiroth, but I have a question. It's something I already asked before, but never got a response to. How are these seasons determined? Is there an official source that splits the episodes into the seasons used on Wikipedia? --JadziaLover (talk) 16:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd also support, as long as all concerns about the exact episodes on which season splits are made get addressed. —Dinoguy1000 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The first season of Naruto is available for purchase on Xbox Live. Since my Xbox is fried I can't say which episodes are put under Season 1, but a couple Google results (, , and as always TV.com) seem reliable/consistent enough. ~SnapperTo 18:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree a split is a good idea. I'd also suggest that, if splitting, the lists also be updated to use transclusions (like many TV episode lists), so we aren't having to maintain duplicate lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

text: The arc names are fan creations, and not verifiable by Wikipedia standards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breaking the season lists, round two 

message: Why are the DVD releases the first thing in the list? They should be at the bottom, being a less important part of the list than the actual episodes. Also, why are the movies in an episode list? They aren't episodes and are already covered in the main article and their individual articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  DVD releases 

message: The OVA list has been tagged for merging here since May 13, but nothing's been done yet. Is anybody up to it? —Dinoguy1000 17:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. :) Needs some fixing up, though, and the video game one is iffy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work! It definitely needs some sources, but at least one of them have been translated and aired in the U.S. (Cartoon Network shows Battle at the Hidden Waterfall Village from time to time), so there *should* be sources on it to be found... somewhere. =P —Dinoguy1000 18:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  OVA list merge 

message: Is this page actually still protected at all? according to the page logs, this article was last semiprotected back in 2006, but no expiry date was given in the summary. —Dinoguy1000 16:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: From the complete lack of IP editing since 2006, I would guess that yes, it still is. They must have intended for it to be removed by request, and no one ever made the request. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe a admin removed it as they do nto believe it is required.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) If that was the case, an entry would have appeared in the page logs. There is no such entry for the most recent protection. In any case, if there are no objections, I'll go ahead and request unprotection (or else get chided for requesting unprotection on an unprotected article ;P ). —Dinoguy1000 19:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. I've never seen a page like this have no IP edits for two years, which would strongly indicate it is still protected. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All right, I've requested unprotection from the admin who originally protected it, and now await a response. —Dinoguy1000 19:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Ahh, thanks for the unprotection! —Dinoguy1000 17:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection? 

message: Tomorrow's (or today's, depending on where you live) episodes of Naruto seem to be airing as though Toonami hadn't gotten canceled (in fact, DirecTV's listings show two episodes of Naruto, followed by Ben 10: Alien Force, and then Samurai Jack, which is identical to Toonami's pre-cancellation schedule). However, the schedule listings for Saturday next week only show one episode of Naruto airing at 8:30 P.M. CST. DirecTV's listings are almos always accurate, just so you all know. Any thoughts? --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.22.178 (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. Is it the on screen schedule? I know on Dish Network, there are sometimes mistakes, usually from a "last minute" schedule change. I think it would be good to see if any other reliable sources are also still showing it airing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Aah, I should have specified... yes, it's according to the on-screen schedule (as well as a handy little list of all the episodes in the guide at this time). As for nistakes, it's basically the same for DirecTV, but there's really not much they can do about those spur-of-the-moment schedule changes. I should be able to tell around Wednesday or so whether the guide shows another episode of Naruto for the second week in October. --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.22.178 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Well, technically Viz would be doing the DVD only releases :P But yeah...it seems pretty up in the air at the moment with the end of Toonami. Be nice if they'd say something so people will stop just adding the old dates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Can you point to a specific link. Just saying "Cartoon Network" isn't a source by itself. Also, the MSN site is not a valid source as its similar to the TV guide and preloads a lot of that stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: http://schedule.cartoonnetwork.com/xmlServices/ScheduleServices?methodName=mainSchedule&showId=335883&title=Naruto&name=Naruto&timezone=EST The November 1 date for episode 202 was changed from the preloaded October 4.Mumbo230 (talk) 05:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alrighty, the 18th date can stay, but the November 1 needs more verification. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By the looks of it, the schedule is going to be Naruto every Saturday at 10:30 pm unless the movie before is two hours long. MSN TV has the dates for episodes 203 and 204 as November 15 and 22 respectively, can those dates be added now? Mumbo230 (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future episodes 

message: It seems like there's an edit war happening here, whether the episode airs on December 13 or December 27. moocows rule 22:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: December 27 is the correct date, possibly. "Batman VS Dracula" or something like that is on. moocows rule 23:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit war? 

message: Just wondered wether it might be a good idea ot add information on this, as other lists have it and when i was looking for information on it the other day this is one of the few that does not so i had to look elsewhere.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 00:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm... you mean opening and ending themes, right? These are (or should be) noted on the individual sublists, in the leads. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 21:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yip that what i mean, but the information is vague doesnt even tell you what episodes us ethe credits. and it be nice to have it on this one in a table format similar to i think one piece?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't do themes in tables. One Piece is a temporary exception, because until just recently, it didn't have any sublists, and converting the table to prose would have resulted in several paragraphs' worth of text. Now that sublists have been created for OP, the themes table needs to be split out to those sublists, coverted to prose, and sourced, as I noted on the talk page. As for the vagueness of the Naruto theme info, you're more than welcome to expand on it if you want (unless anyone else cares to add it, of course). 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 00:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening and ending credits 

message: S-class link is broken.
There is nothing at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_Naruto#S-class --83.237.121.57 (talk) 17:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken links 

message: :Please fogive any faux-pas I may be about to commit, I am new to contribution etiquette.
I was trying to use this article to inform me as to what order I should view an OVA in with respect to the series episodes so as not to spoil any plot development. However this information was not clearly apparent in this article, and I believe it would be a most appropriate place to find at least a signpost to such cataloguing, if not incorporation of the catalogue itself. 
It is perhaps the case that Original airdate serves this purpose; however, this is not necessarily the case. May I site OVA "Mission: Protect the Waterfall village"; Original airdate=2004, would imply no more than it belongs at a point which is anywhere between Season 3 and Season 5. It may only be the case that greater precision is required for the date values of a couple of elements. If this is the case it could be made explicit that plot chronology follows from airdate; bear in mind that if the producers ever depart from this convention that a great deal of re-editing would be required.
To emphasise: It may be that this information does not belong in this article (perhaps because it is not officially laid down), but inclusion of a signpost to the appropriate article would seem helpful.
*Personally I believe that use of a term (eg.'airdate') should be strictly confined to conveying information that agrees with its "dictionary definition". If one wants to convey a similar but distinct meaning then one should include separate entries under the appropriate terminology (even if any resulting matrices are identical). Apologies if this information already exists elsewhere and I simply have not found it, in which case adding signposting is a benefit QED. Regretfully my contribution most likely ends here since I am not sufficiently authoritative on the Naruto story arc across all its media (anime, manga, etc.). Also, my term "plot chronology" seems too pretentious, I would welcome another term being used. 
Awrl100 (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits of addition or clarification of 'plot-wise' chronology?