Talk:Naruto Uzumaki/Archive 5

message: I've never seen the anime, but Naruto's Rasengan is yellow, as he has yellow chakra. The Kyuubi has red chakra.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.242.21 (talk) 20:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto's Rasengan 

message: In chapter 367, Namikaze Minato (Fourth Hokage) is confirmed as his father and that his mother is a kunoichi from the Whirlpool Country named Uzumaki Kushina.
:I believe this was already mentioned above in Parentage. NinjaRooster 21:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: note: three weeks pass between the above comment and the following one. -G47
If any of you read Shippuden chapter 370, Jiraiya repeatedly claims that THE FOURTH IS NARUTO'S FATHER. So stop saying that he isn't. TinselTunes 12:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Take the confetti to a fan site. :) At Wikipedia, we have a responsibility towards Wikipedia:Verifiability.  Of course everyone knew that the Fourth was Naruto's father from the first chapter of the manga, but not mentioning it in any Wikipedia articles until there was confirmation was the proper course of action. –Gunslinger47 22:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you not read the manga? Both chapter 367, pages 10-13 and chapter 370, page 13 pretty much say outright that Naruto is the Fourth Hokage's son. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 05:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, whole-heartedly.  That page from Chap. 370 absolutely confirms Naruto's paternal parentage.  367 did so as well, but for those who want to constantly be naysayers, this clinches it. DestradoZero 08:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Parents 

message: Tsunade and Jiraya, note that Naruto's fighting style(and personality) is similar to his mothers. Would it not make sense to at least mention this in the abilities section?74.226.75.69 22:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abilites similar too... 

message: Since Naruto's father's name is Minato Namikaze, shouldn't we refer Naruto as Naruto Namikaze?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.80.93 (talk) 22:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 
:No. From what it looks like, Naruto was either the bastard child of the Fourth and Uzumaki, or they kept his last name Uzumaki so he wouldn't know he was related to the Fourth. Regardless, Naruto, the characters in the show, and the series at large refer to him as Uzumaki Naruto, and as such so do we.--TheUltimate3 22:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. He is much better known as Naruto Uzumaki and unless the name Namikaze becomes used on regular basis at most all we need is a brief mention of the name. --69.156.206.142 02:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It can easily be a cultural thing, like the married couple takes up the name of the female side of family. Uzumaki was Kishimoto-san's intention, and it will remain so, unless stated otherwise by the creator himself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dubtiger (talk • contribs) 14:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Isn't name is far from being published in the US?  Anyway I can site chapter one for Naruto's last name: Uzumaki.  Its been like that since the beginning.Anthonzi 06:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, with all due respect... JUST DROP IT!!! His official character name is Uzumaki, so there. Besides, when you think about it, it doesn't really matter what his name is. Sorry for being Shakespearish, but, "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet". In-U-Face 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto Namikaze? 

message: Erm... sorry to point this out, but in Naruto's abilities section, it says: "Naruto cannot achieve this when he first learned it". I don't have an account, so i can't change it. Could someone do that? tnx. 88.110.144.196 21:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abilities error 

message: I have fully protected this page for one month.  I expect that this time will be used to come to a compromise.  I am personally very disheartened by some of the edit summaries that have been left on this article, and implore the parties to come to a compromise.  When you do, please use  to request changes.  - Philippe | Talk 04:31, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page protection 

message: Can someone tell me why I can't edit this article under my account?  The lock says its a semi-lock so anyone with a longstanding account should be able to edit it.Anthonzi 06:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been fully protected by an administrator due to recent edit warring, and the rather uncivil edit summaries that came with them. As such, no one except an administrator can edit the article as of now. See above. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just saw it.Anthonzi 06:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just what were the conflicts, BTW? Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In a nutshell, people kept comming in and debating if the Fourth was really Naruto's father, and instead of doing it in the Talk Page, they instead did it through edit warring.--TheUltimate3 21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: .....They apparently haven't read chapter 367, or this was before they released that chapter. He's Naruto's father as much as Tobi is Madara, simple as that. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 13:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's just the problem.  Most admins have not read that section of the manga.  Plus, it is only implied that Minato is Naruto's father.  It could be that Naruto just looks like Minato because that's the last person that Kyuubi saw before he got sealed.  You never know until it is confirmed.ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 01:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

text: But Minato is Naruto's father! Halstrom 17:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. We figured that out in the nine days between 71.53.82.182's post and yours. You Can't Review Me!!! 17:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Lock 

message: Plenty of articles have a lack of sources, but this is the first I've seen that has more than it should, well at least the wrong ones.  This article relies entirely on Primary Sources which makes this article a hot bed of Original Research.  For example the article claims that "Naruto's most dangerous trait is his ability to draw chakra from the demon fox", who is saying that and how is it encyclopedic?  I'm not arguing that Naruto lacks Notability, but is there any way that we can find some more secondary sources for this article?  Burzmali 23:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure a number could be found. At the moment, however, nobody can edit the article to add them. ~SnapperTo 03:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then list them here and an admin can add them.  Burzmali 17:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The primary sources will have to do for now. Any source is better than none at all. Once we search through the internet to find episode reviews and such, we'll be able to add them (the parts of the series that relate to parts of Shippuden that have yet to be shown in the anime, however, will just have to deal with being primarily sourced). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of Primary Sources 

message: Confirmed in Chapter 370 (Mangahelper's Naruto 370 Spoiler Pics and Summaries - BEWARE SPOILERS), by at least 3 [major] translators.
Dispute resolved, may we move on? --ren 01:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Page unprotected and entry changed. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed: Minato Namikaze is Naruto's father 

message: its confirmed about the 4th, so thats over.
in the latest chapter, jiraiya makes significant statements about the kyuubi's sealing, and about the "key" to it as well as madara possibly summoning the kyuubi.  look it up.  could someone please add the this article all relevant developments?  and other non-relevant information goes to other articles i suppose.N Dot W 01:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it would also seem by a few translations that NAruto only holds a portion of the demon fox's chakra. that bit is a bit confusing for me to be able to write and rewrite sectins about it, but i think it important to note that he doesn't have the whole demon fox inside him if that is the correct implication. someone with real good writing skills should probably look into fixing that tidbit since we are now missing a part of the demon fox chakra if only half of it is within Naruto. shadzar|Talk|contribs 01:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: agreed.  its too vague to properly understand just what it means by splitting up the chakra.  i think all of the kyuubi is in naruto, but just that the chakra is split up.  in any case, i think its better to just make a mention, such as "jiraiya mentioned that the 4th intentionally split the kyuubi's chakra in two and only sealed the yin chakra with the shiki fuujin, sealing the yang into naruto".  something along those lines.  i think that will do until we learn more about yin yang chakra, and kakashi does state there is something to it.N Dot W 03:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, what they're saying, is that Minato cut the Kyuubi's chakra in half, one half went to the death god/reaper, and the other half went into Naruto.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.68.46 (talk) 03:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New chapter 

message: We mention that Naruto is very blunt, showing respect in a different way. He calls Tsunade "Granny", not only to jab at her age, but it's also a sign of closeness. This is actually one of the motifs in the show - after Naruto's change (wherein he is able to make friends, regardless of who the person is) Naruto gains the ability to befriend just about anyone: Gaara, Neji, even Tsunade. His affection is shown in his names - His affection for Tsunade in particular is reflected in how he calls her as well. Something of the sort should be added to the article, reflecting on his calling Tsunade (which is a microcosm of how he addresses everyone else) baachan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.11.152 (talk) 11:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Go ahead and add a section like that if you'd like, but keep in mind our Wikipedia:No original research policy. –Gunslinger47 13:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto's Manners pertaining to people 

message: Here's a question from a wikipedia/naruto fan, why is the plot summery about naruto removed? The other characters still their's, so why is the summery of event surrounding Naruto not around?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.67.168 (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Notability and copyright violation problems. There is no way an article retelling the plot of Naruto will ever meet the notability guidelines for fiction, which asks for an article to talk about the real-world notability of the subject; and the detail of those plot summaries were making them replacements for reading the manga or watching the anime, which are copyright violations and thus are not allowed on Wikipedia. NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 22:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see here and here for the full AFDs, complete with arguments for and against their deletion. As for why Naruto does not have any plot details on his own page: the plot more-or-less revolves around him, which makes it hard to do a plot overview without making another Plot of Naruto article. You Can't Review Me!!! 23:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe. Editors often stick to several specific franchises at a time, so asking here about what to do with Bleach isn't too effective. I do believe, though, that there are quite a few Bleach Task Force members in the Naruto Task Force; perhaps they can help you with that? You Can't See Me! 02:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just so you know, Threatening force, it was judged by the Bleach task force that the plot is to be shortened. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ?? 

message: Why, at the end of the page, does it say "my ass".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokemonaruto123 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... I don't see that anywhere in recent page history... You Can't Review Me!!! 00:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it's apparently an ass worthy of narration. Seriously, though, it's just vandalism. It's cleared. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: I have a problem with that new picture in his fox form.  I think we should wait until a better one comes out before changing it. In this new one, you can't see his face at all, just his back.Darth G 02:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Corrected it. Clear your cache. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:02, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Never mind. It's fixed. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One tailed picture 

message: stop reverting info about the "Demon Fox Cloak" it is real--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 07:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a term made up by the anime that you did a p[oor job of trying to integrate into the article. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:30, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demon Fox Cloak 

message: Why are we using the pre-time skip pictures of the characters in their profiles? I think we should use newer ones. Naruto doesn't look like that anymore.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.55.226 (talk) 17:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, we should use post time skip pics as thats how the character lookes. Nuff said.///  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.146.111 (talk) 19:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because for all intensive purposes, Part II and Shippuuden are "spin offs" of Part I. Because its standard practice to use the main (a.k.a. Part I) series, we have pre-time skip Naruto and other characters.--TheUltimate3 20:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia entries are ideally written from an absolute perspective, outside of the Naruto universe and outside of Naruto fandom.  Naruto is a fictional character, and his younger appearance is the most globally recognizable. –Gunslinger47 20:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto Pictures 

message: do only jiraya and tsunade know that naruto is minatos son?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.255.55.7 (talk) 00:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All the adults from Konoha who lived through the Kyuubi disaster should know, theoretically. –Gunslinger47 02:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Said that a pupil of Jiraiya's will have the potential to destroy the world or save the world, whoever said they were talking about Pain? Mabye they were referring to Naruto  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.146.207.32 (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jiraiya believed it was a reference to Pein. That's all we have to go by. ~SnapperTo 02:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: My reading of the prophecy is that Jiraya has two students.  One would destroy the world and one would bring peace. One day he'd choose between them. –Gunslinger47 16:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The prophecy clearly states that Jiraiya will have a pupil, and jiraiya will be his master, and the pupil will be a harbinger of revolution, that either destroys the world or brings about peace. It says "a pupil" but then goes on to refer to the pupil as they, but I think thats just a part of how the japanese speak and not literally 2 pupils Buttcheeks 17:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You probably don't want to use the word "clearly" when talking about prophecies or speed translations. –Gunslinger47 23:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the prophecy is talking specifically about Pein because of the powers of his Kekkei genkai.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin (talk • contribs) 05:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big old toad... 

message: Yes, it may be the worst technique, but naruto uses in a very intelligent way, with kunais, clones and bla bla. It should be good citation. –Tintor2 16:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see why his imitation of Kakashi's joke technique warrants mention. –Gunslinger47 21:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  SENNEN GOROSHI!! 

message: Isn't the Rasenshuriken a completed Futon: Rasengan? The manga never actually shows us how Naruto made the crater (could have been the Rasenshuriken since that's the move that beat Kakuzu and it's the move that made the big crater Kakuzu wound up in), and when he uses Futon: Rasengan Yamato say's that it's only half done, but if you look at it you see four small projections on it, like the Rasenshuriken, indicating that Rasenshuriken is probably the full power Futon: Rasengan. Not to be disrespectful, but Naruto doesn't seem like the type to think "Hey I'll make it look like a shuriken cuz that'd be cool" I think it just came out that way. Adding nature changed the jutsu a great deal, but examining the Rasenshuriken's hit, it looks like a normal rasengan but only completes Jiraiya's analogy of "having a typhoon in the palm of your hand". If someone has an official source to say that I'm wrong then site it, but I think Wikipedia's making too many guesses with the completion of Rasengan. I may not be right, but if you can't prove me wrong you're not right either. ~FFFX  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.41 (talk) 19:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its safe to bet (since it was stated in the manga itself) that the Rasenenshuriken is a very powerful add on to the Wind Release: Rasengan, similar to how Great Ball Rasengan is a add on to Rasengan. That being said, because the Rasenshuriken attacks on a celluar level I would say its more than just a super charged Rasengan.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: To what 67.142.130.41  mentions the futon: rasengan is only half done, Naruto first did this jutsu in the training and after he defeats Kazuku, Yamato mentions he could do more rasenshuriken than in the training so the rasenshuriken is only half done (note that Yamato is not surprised when he makes it.
Tintor2  15:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've edited the article to reflect the accurate information, including Tsunade's statements regarding its effect on Naruto. DestradoZero 06:42, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rasenshuriken 

message: You know how a long time ago we took out descriptions of the plot in character profiles? Well I don't see the plot described anywhere else. I think we should put it back.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghadden (talk • contribs) 16:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there is a WP about but, but I'm not sure. Regardless no plot here. You are welcome to go to the Naruto wiki and add plot there, thats all about plot and whatnot. But not here.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 16:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story Plot 

message: :Image:Kyubi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use rationale for Image:Kyubi.jpg 

message: I think it's about time we trying getting this article up to GA quality; it would be a nice moral booster for all the mergings that have been happening as of late. I've gone ahead and rewritten the article, removing minor in universe information, improving the conception section, and am in the process of reffing things. The article is currently in need of other media and reception information, but additional trimming and out-of-universing couldn't hurt. I'm confident this article can make it to GA standards with relatively little effort, giving us a mold to follow for other character articles. ~SnapperTo 22:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm willing to help, but being new to the whole "Grade" system and what needs to be done to get a better grade, I may need a *tiny* bit of help figuring out what needs to be worked on.  If anyone can point me in a direction, it would be much appreciated. DestradoZero 17:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:What is a good article? for one. It should also be in line with Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). ~SnapperTo 19:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice work. The in-universe content can still be reduced a tad bit though. It also reduces the burden of sourcing, as most if not all will have to be sourced for passing a GA review. In any case, the in other media section can include video games, movies, the CCG, and anything else that I've missed. Reception includes merchandising, and critical commentary (which can come from anywhere really, but I suppose Anime News Network, IGN, and assorted sources would be the place to start). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, I have created User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares/Naruto Uzumaki GA!, which can be used as a headquarters for the GA-status search as well as a place to list users participating in improving this article and sites with info, among other things. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA 

message: Well, it seems we're starting to make this article more out-of-universe. As for the Other Media, there's one major problem: the trading card game. For one, I can presume a large number of us here don't even play the TCG. Second, how are we even supposed to list the information? Like the Pokemon articles and mention anything? Or list only a few things and move on to other improvements of the article? This is going to be difficult. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 16:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I wrote a minor blurb conserning the barest of basics on Naruto's cards without going into extensive detail about what each card does or all of their stats.  Hope this works. Dragonranger (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Card Game Troubles 

message: I have just noticed how all references that aren't in the Reception section are tagged Masashi Kishimoto. Unless it is an extra in the volumes (like Kishimoto explaining a disasterous trip he had to Monkey Island as a child in Volume 8, or him explaining how he got each character) it isn't Kishimoto, it's just a first party source from Naruto. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who do you think writes the chapters and volumes? Since it's obviously Kishimoto, he should be placed in the reference per . Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If they're included in the volume, then including Kishimoto as the author is still appropriate, as you're citing the volume, not the Shonen Jump magazine. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but the Naruto volumes are first party sources. Kishimoto and all of the works he makes besides Naruto are a third party source. We should only label them as Kishimoto if it is an extra in the volumes, not the actual storyline. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: ...whether it's a primary source or a secondary source is irrelevant because Kishimoto wrote the damn volume. The book carries his name as the author, and thus all content in the book, regardless of the source, is attributed to him, and carries his name in the reference because he is the book's author. Again, you're citing the volume, not the Shonen Jump magazine. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 21:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what Whocares is saying.  The volume isn't distributed by Kishimoto personally, so it isn't necessarily that all 100% of the information is written for the volume specifically by him.  However, since it is attributed to him as author of the series (unless otherwise noted somewhere in the volume), it should be attributed to him here.  The words aren't necessarily his, but the information used for the volume is.  Authorship is more than just words on a page. DestradoZero 07:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: I am concerned about several lines of what I believe are inaccuracies.  Or to be more exact, one subject that is mentioned several times, that being the frequency that Naruto relies on the Demon Fox's power.
First off, let me state that I have never read the manga in either Japanese or English.  My disagreement is based upon the show only.  That being said, unless the manga specifically mentions a difference, I have to work under the idea that they are both the same in this aspect and that the writer of the article made a mistake.  In the anime, it is stated that Naruto has a deep well of chakra that is all his own, separate from the fox's chakra, and that if it had a color it would be blue (unlike the fox's red chakra) and in the anime his chakra is portrayed as such. 
 
It seems to me that the writer of the article expressed the idea that basically all of Naruto's successful techniques from part 1 were through the assistance of fox chakra.  That is not the case in the anime.  The first time we are given a glimpse of the fox's power is during the fight with Zabuza and Haku at the bridge when he defeats the crystal ice mirrors (though we are shown its healing effect on Naruto earlier in the series).  The next time we see the power is the Forest of Death where they first meet Orochimaru and Naruto protects Sasuke from the giant snake.  After that we only see red chakra when Naruto summons Gamabunta the frist time after being thrown off a cliff,  when he fights Neji in the arena, when he is trapped on top of Shukaku after waking up Gaara, and after that a lot of episodes pass by until he fights Kimimaro and then Sasuke.  Learning the shadow clone jutsu, saving Iruka sensei, saving Kakashi sensei from Zabuza's water prison, learning to climb trees, creating enough clones to blow up a giant snake, defeating the 3 rain ninja in the forest who used genjutsu on them, beating kiba, summoning Gamakichi, creating 1999 clones, summoning Gamabunta the second time, learning the rasengan, the entire tea country arc, and most of the Sasuke retrieval arc were all done with blue chakra, with his own power and not the fox's help.
I bring all this up to say that even though the writer of the article leads the reader to believe that all of Naruto's success with his abilities stem from the large amount of chakra he has from the fox, based on the anime I say that, other than the moments that I mentioned previously (and others from later episodes that aren't mentioned), other then healing, Naruto uses the demon fox's chakra very little if at all. Therefore, if I am correct that the manga agrees with the anime in this respect, then the article should be changed to reflect that.  Naruto is a ninja not to be underestimated, fox or no fox.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.156.107 (talk) 11:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what can Naruto do on his own? 

message: Alright, enough of this. I'm sick of seeing half the recent edits simply changing the name of the plot section, so I've requested the page be fully protected so there can be a discussion and consensus on what the title of the section should be. These changes should be talked about instead of simply edit-warring over them. Let's figure out which title would be best for the article, shall we? NeoChaosX  (talk, walk) 02:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for full protection.  If there are further reversions without discussion on this talk page, offending users will be blocked.  — madman bum and angel 03:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I had already started a discussion here. You can contribute your take here or there if you'd like. ~SnapperTo 21:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: FWIW, I kinda think Plot Overview sounds better than Part in the Story, but that's just me... --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 19:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot/part section naming 

message: The picture now shown only shows Naruto from the back giving no indication to what he actually looks like. I believe we should use the previous picture of him forming the Rasengan.72.24.20.100 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  The previous image was more informative.  I'll flip it back. –Gunslinger47 23:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  demon fox naruto image 

message: someone remove naruto's age in part 2...but that is not what i am about to talk about....in the most recent naruto manga it says that the kyuubi attack 16 yrs ago so i guessed that makes naruto 16 instead of 15--Bow before me (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  naruto's age 

message: Well, we've gotten much closer to our GA-goal, but we aren't quite there yet. Using Sasuke Uchiha, which was just accepted as a GA-Class article, as an example, my suggestions for improving this article to GA-Class are:
*Like Sasuke, a picture of either Naruto in a video game, a picture of one of his Collectible Cards, or of another collectible (figurine, plushie, etc.). Mabye two, but no more.
*Reception looks emptier than it really is. Some more to put there would be a nice addition.
*Putting more about the CCG.
*(More) references for the plot, other media, and reception sections, and anywhere else they can fit. Especially reference his appearance in Gintama.
*Copy Edit (of course)
While I can't help with the image (I'm not really concerned yet with learning how to load images) or the CCG (I don't play it), I can help with the others. Right now I am Ask Jeeves searching for reception on Naruto, and will add anything that seems notable. 
So, any other suggestions. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean to sound like an idiot here, but what part of this article needs copy-editing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The entire article. :) Having the article copy edited by someone, preferably from the League of Copyeditors, is pretty much a requirement before the article should be sent up as a GAC or FAC. Copy edit catches a lot of those little things most of us would never notice. Kinda like when writing a magazine article...you wouldn't want them published without an editor giving them a final going over to check grammar, cohesion, flow of phrase, and to ensure the article does indeed meet the MOS requirements.  That's what a copy editor does. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I was unfamiliar with the League of Copyeditors. I'll keep that in mind. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added the request. Now, lets wait.Tintor2 (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race to GA 

message: After reading some concerns from AnmaFinotera's talk page, I noticed that there are a few instances in this article that need changing: 
#  The sentence, "According to Viz Media, Kishimoto, while creating Naruto, kept in mind to keep Naruto's character "simple and stupid" while giving him many attributes of Son Goku from the Dragon Ball franchise ..." should be edited back to this or something similar.
# The areas in the article where it refers to some parts of Naruto as "Part I" / "Part II" needs to be emphasized so that everyone (including those unfamiliar with the franchise) understand what "Part I" and "Part II" means. I suggest we change "Part I" to "Naruto" and "Part II" to "Naruto: Shippūden"
:Anyone disagree and/or would like to make another proposal? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the first.  Since Kishimoto is the one who said it, the "According to Viz Media" is off.  For the Part I/Part II I'm not as certain.  From what the main article says, the Shippūden label is an anime only thing.  As we should emphasize the original (in this case the manga), over other forms, and someone unfamiliar to the anime would be confused.  Perhaps for the first use of Part II, add a ref note to indicate that in the anime, that part of the story was released as Naruto: Shippūden? AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Problem is, I have no idea how we could reference the Part I/Part II stuff. As a note? We need something that can make it clear. Suggestions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a note, wrapped in refs, would work.  Its been used successfully with some other articles.  Additionally, it can be noted in the text the first time Part II is mentioned. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To reiterate, how 'bout just Naruto: Part I and Naruto: Part II for whatever's in the infobox and the current sections Personality, Abilities, Plot overview, and Reception? I think the anime image that depicts the character in Naruto: Shippūden should remain captioned the way it is. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that would work, and agreed on the anime image since it is from the anime. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! {^_^} I'm wondering if "Part I/II" need to be italisised like it is here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to italisise it because it is a title. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anything else that should be taken into consideration? I've asked the user Snapper2 to comment here but it seems he doesn't choose to do so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a problem with the italics, but simply Part I or Part II is suitable, as Naruto: Part I and similar is never used as a title. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we need a title that the layman can understand. Saying just Part I and Part II can be confusing for them. Anything particular in mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Re-indent. If that's the case, then simply "Part I" and "Part II" sans italics are best. Saying Part I of the manga or Part II of the manga is fairly self-explanatory. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you do the edits? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

text: I think it will be fine, so long as it is clarified for the first use and/or lead. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 19:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some problems 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naruto_Uzumaki&curid=585896&diff=190560453&oldid=190278245 --The Last Uchiha 06:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...are you asking if it should be reverted? AnmaFinotera (talk) 07:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, i havnt been here long enough to revet it my self (the page is protected)--The Last Uchiha 08:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh. In looking at the category description, Naruto would seem to fit, but if not, one of the editors more familiar with the property will revert it soon I'm sure. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the category. Recently, I asked Sephiroth BCR for his opinion and he couldn't help me decide what to say here. Maybe we should look for a reliable source confirming, or what? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert? 

message: I can see why someone might think information should be streamlined for the Rasenshuriken - the fact that it has only been used once.   However, this is obviously a key move for Naruto (if not now, then in the future).  Even Minato couldn't create a jutsu of this caliber, and it has serious dangers for Naruto if he continues to use it.  This is not trivial information, and leaving the information out is in fact doing a disservice to someone who reads this article and thinks that he knows everything about the Rasenshuriken.
If this is to be encyclopaedic, the information should stay.  I have never seen an instance where key information was ever considered trivial, but it seems that some people are trying to make that claim. DestradoZero 22:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we as editors should not attempt to determine if something will be important in the future.  Also, this is about telling everything there is to know about a subject, but simply enough that someone can grasp the basics and get more detailed information from the source itself. King Zeal (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Aside from the above, undue weight should not be given to any one aspect of the topic, especially not over belief of its so-called "importance" to the plot, which is speculation in any case. Excessive detail is not warranted or necessary. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key information taken out of Rasenshuriken 

message: People, did you read the manga? Seriously did you? Look at this:
Their mission failed, they lost Sasuke again, case closed. --Naruto134 00:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not link to copyright violating websites. The link you posted has been removed as a violation of Wikipedia policy. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Doesn't mean they still aren't trying to trace him. Until they actually call it quits and return home, they are following Sasuke. Your statement is speculation if anything. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

text: AnmaFinotera you dont have to remove links in talk pages--The Last Uchiha 00:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes she does. Copyright violations are taken very seriously here on Wikipedia, and legal action would be justified (although trivial, irrelevant though) since such scanlations are illegal in the state of Florida, which is where Wikipedia's servers are based. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 00:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mission Failed, not still following Sasuke 

message: Would it be a good idea to add information about the in-plot origin of Naruto's name?  Specifically, that it came from the main character of a novel that Jiraya was writing.  Because Naruto's parents liked the name they used it for their Child's name.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pookythemagicalbear (talk • contribs) 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. That's notable enough. I s'pose that can go in character history, or something like that. IceUnshattered (talk) 01:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: By Madara Uchiha, in chapter 399, by saying that the Kyuubi attacked 16 years ago.  Is this adequate, and if not, why? Sasuke9031 (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okie dokie.  Just thought I'd run it by you guys before I did anything. Sasuke9031 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Dude, don't ignore things people tell you because you don't like it. You've been blocked before for doing that. Until the manga or some other piece of Naruto media specifically (note the emphasis) says that Naruto/Sasuke/Sakura/Gaara/Shikamaru are 16 years old, a Part II age will not be added. Using chapter 399 (or the much earlier 386) as a source is fine for forum discussions, but it does not suffice for Wikipedia. ~SnapperTo 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age in part 2 now confirmed. 

message: In chapter 403 Itachi makes Naruto swallow one of his crows and then tells him he gave him some of his power.  What do you think of this? 142.26.133.248 (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Itachi Gave Naruto Some of his Power 

message: Could we make this link "Part I" instead of writing Naruto: Part I. The manga never uses that title.Tintor2 (talk) 01:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have some vague memories of a discussion about this, but darned if I can remember on which of the Naruto pages it was at the moment. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think this has been discussed before and the changes were made to make common readers understand it, but with a link its easier since we are not creating titles.Tintor2 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the archive. Never did we come to a conclusion did we? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:32, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not fully, but it looks like the leanings were toward just using Part I, no italics, and with the first mention probably clarifying what Part 1 is. AnmaFinotera (talk) 02:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What do the others use? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The main and the volume list both use Part 1 and Part 2, without the "Naruto: " part. AnmaFinotera (talk) 03:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

text: So, shall we make the change?Tintor2 (talk) 15:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was never supposed to be "Naruto: Part I". I think that was User:Sesshomaru's weird change that had made a while ago. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 18:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, can we make the change?--Tintor2 (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is how the other articles have it, then it must be the correct way. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Part I" or Part I?Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The first instance could be linked. The rest should be just Part I, Part II, etc. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I ll make that in every article.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I think I finished with the main characters.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto: Part I? 

message: The articles about Sakura Haruno, Sasuke Uchiha & Kakashi Hatake are all good articles, and after reviewing the article for about a month, I find that it reads just like them. Therefore, I feel that this article meets the Good Article Criteria just as the former do, and deserves to be elevated to such. Busboy (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. Reception section is garbage right now, the other media section needs work, and the lead needs sprucing up as well. You know, you can make a note here that you want to bring this to GA status and ask others to help you in bringing it up to par, but nominating an article you've never worked on is plain rude. I'd recommend you withdraw the nomination, as it shouldn't pass as it stands. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Never mind. As the nomination was never even transcluded at WP:GAN, I've removed the notice at the top of the page. Please don't nominate it again. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

text: You have edited it twice. Use this tool. I hardly consider that having worked on the article when other people have dozens or even hundreds of edits to the article. And I've already mentioned what the problems are, and why drive-by nominations are plain rude. The impetus falls on you to inform the people who consistently edit the article that you want to nominate it, not the other way around. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN 

message: shouldn't people mention that naruto can summon toads?
--Sanji_1990 (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it has been mentioned. :) Hyakurei (talk) 14:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abilities 

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. 98.110.164.162 (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden Ads Removed 

message: In the latest Databook released in Japan, there was a compilation poll which gathered the results from all the popularity polls and produced an overall popularity ranking. I'm just wondering should it be documented or not? 131.247.244.234 (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overall Popularity Poll 

message: Shouldn't we use the Kanji(渦巻) for "Uzumaki" instead of the Hiragana(うずまき)?Moocowsrule (talk) 23:23, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that Naruto himself writes his name in Hiragana (see Episode 54 of the anime, analagous to chapter 92 of the manga (counting the pilot as chapter 0)), I'm disinclined to agree with a change to Kanji. 141.166.234.196 (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because that's how he writes his name doesn't mean that's how it's written... that didn't make much sense... but I mean he's a kid, how many kid's know they're full name in Kanji? Not that many... well maybe a lot... but anyways, his name is written as "渦巻ナルト". Plus Naruto is a kid's show, and kid's probably don't know how to read "渦巻" unless there is furigana, which would make it weird writing your name in Kanji then furigana, so he probably just wrote it out as "うずまきナルト". His real name is "渦巻ナルト". I have the Japanese version of "Uzumaki: the Art of Naruto" and it's written out as "渦巻" then with Furigana indicating "うずまき". If Kishimoto uses "渦巻" we should too. Moocowsrule (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kanji? 

message: In the plot shouldnt we metion he is being trained by fukatsu  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.99.104 (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could try reading the comment at the end of that section. You know, the one that's been telling all of you not to add week-to-week updates every time a chapter comes out? Wait until something significant comes out of all of this and then we can add it to the plot overview section. NeoChaosX  (talk, edits) 16:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

text: As an aside, there's already a mention of it: "After learning that Jiraiya has been killed by the Akatsuki leader, Pain, Naruto begins training to better prepare for future conflicts with Akatsuki." That should suffice for however long Kishimoto draws out his toad-training. ~SnapperTo 19:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I just saw that. But should that sentence be at the end? It sounds like Naruto goes off after Sasuke after Jiraiya was killed and his training was complete.Hyakurei (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't need to be in chronological order. It's grouped by topic: conflicts with Akatsuki and then search for Sasuke. The mention of Kakuzu, for example, comes before any mention of Sasuke, which is not the order that things happen in in the series. ~SnapperTo 03:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it should be chrono order. In Sasuke's plot you don't read Sasuke working with akatsuki after learning the truth about itachi before sasuke betraying orochimaru and forming his own team to kill itachi. --Sanji_1990 (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Except Sasuke's article isn't Naruto's article Suigetsu 19:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a fair call, but having 2 different pages so closely linked showing no corroboration could be confusing. Frequen-Z (talk) 09:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Disagree.  While Fukasaku does confirm that Naruto has mastered it with the use of the oil, that step is not pivotal in the series or in regards to his abilities.  It's a stepping stone, not an end result, and by all indications it is a phase that will be bypassed in a matter of weeks.  The addition of natural energy to his techniques shouldn't be added until his training with it either ends or goes on a much more definitive hiatus (read: he stops training and leaves Myobokuzan).  141.166.234.196 (talk) 05:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Don't include stuff that you read in scanlations. They're more than likely incorrect. Moocowsrule (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: No. The Nine-Tailed Fox's Chakra is completely different than Sage Chakra. Sage Chakra draws it's energy from the body, and from nature. ムー・カオーズ・ルール 00:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sage Training 

message: Shoudent we add a pic of naruto in his 4 tails trans formation Poohman0 (talk) 03:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you draw one? Or find one for free? Otherwise no. Moocowsrule (talk) 02:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: However, using it would sort of push us over the limit - it may just be too many fair use images for similar subjects in an article. Scapler (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: It still needs some copyediting, but it is improving. Maybe soon, I would think. Scapler (talk) 11:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Reception could also expanded seeing the other characters.Tintor2 (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Definitely, he is the main character, after all... Scapler (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nine Tailed fox 

message: I would ask anyone who can expand the reception section of the article to do so. This section need some more to it, and is the biggest section that needs work before Naruto Uzumaki can even think of Good Article status. Scapler (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * Still mentioned x) -- DEERSTOP (talk). 21:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception Section 

message: I'm aware that a long plot overview is unnecessary, but the current one not only fails to mention the Chunin Exam Arc (Arguably the second most important story arc in part 1) I'm not suggesting a paragraph, more like a half a sentence noting it occured and its significance in establishing a relationship with Gaara. Other than that, the plot summary seems rather misleading- if someone was given the summary alone, they would be hard pressed to conclude that Naruto was the main character. It does a poor job of explaining Naruto's interactions in part 1, which were incredibly important in his character development and the series plot as a whole, and goes so far as to state that he doesn't really do anything important until the final arc of part 1. Then, the part 2 section claims that his role is even less than his already minimalized role in part 1. (That his role is less is true, however coming after the horrendous part 1 description it suggests he is practically forgotten) I'm satisfied with the part 2 paragraph, however, the part one paragraph needs revamping. 65.4.218.6 (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an overreaction perhaps; when I first wrote that synopsis crap like this was still fresh in my memory. Since Naruto's the main character, his "Plot overview" section would be a summary of the entire series that is a) too long, or b) overly vague. To avoid that I focused instead on his interactions with Akatsuki and Orochimaru/Sasuke (the overarching plot lines), which he has only negligible amounts of for most of Part I. In truth the whole article needs a revamp, as it still suffers from the cuts made because of January's joke of an AfD. ~SnapperTo 04:49, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, the article is not in bad state right now. It seems the afd was angry with some deletions of warcraft articles and started pointing this was fancruft while we were starting to use conception and reception sections to every article (as well as some merges). You can even see those discussions in his talk page. In my opinion the article does not suffer from this right now.Tintor2 (talk) 19:03, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Personality section is extremely short for the main character, especially when compared to other articles. The cuts from that section are what I'm referring to. ~SnapperTo 20:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Overview Seems Misleading 

message: they did a crappy job.  Kishi didn't change naruto's costume to appeal to western audience? wtf?  naruto TS happened long before naruto started in america.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.71.223.215 (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, nice civility. Secondly, who said it was about his TS appearance, it is about the first that Kishimoto draw Naruto in drafts and in the one-shot from the series. Then in the manga it was redesigned.Tintor2 (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Kishimoto probably changed the costume to show growth in the character. He seems to be a long way from giving up orange, but he is getting there. ~~Kepy~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.64.39.86 (talk) 06:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  who wrote this? 

message: Based on Rock Lee and Sakura Haruno (both GA articles with less info than this one) I think that Naruto Uzumaki is ready for GA, anyone else have any thoughts on the subject? Scapler (talk) 05:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA? 

message: I'm wondering about whoever wrote this article, why the apparent OVER EMPHASIS on spoilers without so much as a warning? In the "Personality" section, there are millions of things that should be mentioned AHEAD of "his father, the Fourth Hokage", who would start a personality section with something like that?! It's so out of the blue and impossible to avoid reading. This article needs serious editting by someone who isn't so intent on spoiling (like the writer of the article)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raging goddess (talk • contribs) 02:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia:Spoiler. Besides, assuming things are to be addressed chronologically, Naruto's parentage would obviously be first. ~SnapperTo 04:37, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it HAVE to say his father was the Hokage because it would be strange if we left the bit out and just added it later on. Sumhtun (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  why the heavy spoilers? 

message: Situation is still the same, as it was months ago. :) Several sources praise Naruto's battle with Gaara, but nothing is said about it in plot overview. -- DEERSTOP (talk). 22:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot section 

message: I've been going over the older versions of the article and I've been noticing an increase in vandalism by new users and anonymous users. This article should be locked, only allowing established users to edit, to stop the vandalism.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperSaiyaMan (talk • contribs) 17:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of it is good faith edits though, mostly undone because many editors do not read the article before adding duplicate information. Scapler (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On second thought, maybe that would be a good idea, per this version. which I just reverted. Scapler (talk) 02:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Protect it, just make sure to leave the talk page open to IPs, not all of us are vandals. 189.4.250.18 (talk) 00:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a lot of vandalism on this article, discovered today. Can someone correct it all? Zhane Masaki (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting a lock to prevent Vandalism 

message: I think this artical should have a picture of naruto in his four tails state or transformation(I dont know which one). Beacause he usses it in serveral battles. Poohman0 (talk) 05:11, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naruto Four Tails picture 

message: we should add that naruto has broken one of the seals and allowing him to use all 9 tails, but that the fourth hokage (aka naruto's father) would appear in his conscience if 8 tails appeared.Haseo445 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If we add that, we should add at least a few details on his battle with Pain and confrontation with Nagato to the plot summary. 142.26.133.248 (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nine tails 

message: Now that Naruto's beaten the Nine-Tailed Fox, I've updated the article to summarize the basic events of chapters 490-499.  If anyone thinks what I've added can be improved upon, please do so. 75.157.125.234 (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Naruto controlling the Fox is already in the abilities section, so it does not need to be in the plot overview.Tintor2 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, but what about his mom being the Fox's prior host, the one who destroyed Konoha and was killed by Minato?  She doesn't have a section on the character page, so where should we add that?  75.157.120.15 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not for this section. May be more notable for Fox's section.Tintor2 (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Fox doesn't have much of a section, and what's there leaves little room for additions. 75.157.120.15 (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Such a format is outdated and leaves a lot of accuracy to be desired. If someone reads the article as is-they'll think Jiraiya died before Naruto completed his Futon: Rasenshuriken and that Naruto defeated Pain before defeating Kakuzu. --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the article tells in that such things happen in some order? Besides, you appear to find current events in the manga more important than previous ones, and that's no reason to change images.Tintor2 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Given its a PLOT OVERVIEW, and we basically have the part 1 plot in order, yes, we have to have the Part 2 part in order. Otherwise, it's confusing. And yes, current events in the manga sometimes retcon things. We have to keep this article up to date and make things not confusing to the readers. --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, the Sasuke Uchiha article's plot overview is in order, why not have Naruto's in order? Why leave Naruto's as a confusing mess that screws up events?--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid making changes without consensus. I rearranged the plot overview section to remove the ability parts which are misleading. References have to be formatted with cite book to be more specific rather than just giving the chapters. The Part II image is blank and white making it less informative than the Part I, which also shows his Rasengan which is also discussed in the article. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How will we make a 'consensus'? There are only TWO of us here discussing this. And how are the 'ability parts' misleading when I put them down? How is citing just the volume more specific than the actual chapter itself? And how is the Part II image less informative than the outdated Part I one? Just because Naruto is using a Rasengan in it? It doesn't reflect current data. Tintor, stop sticking with the outdated and confusing parts of the article please.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The abilities parts are for the section from the same name. Current is important for real world information, not fictional. Giving unformatted refs for an article is not encyclopedic as read will have no idea where is such chapter from, and will only work in a wikia.Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated the Plot 

message: How come in the entire article there is no mention of who voices Naruto himself in both the Japanese and English dubs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.130.136 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice Actresses 

message: I have made some corrections but someone better than me should go over it "with a fine toothed comb" looking for non sequiturs and any other errors. – Allen4names 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: and  are only ones I found about that. Im not sure what kind of merchandising we need to put.Tintor2 (talk) 9:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merchandising 

message: Now that Naruto's beaten the Nine-Tailed Fox, I've updated the article to summarize the basic events of chapters 490-499.  If anyone thinks what I've added can be improved upon, please do so. 75.157.125.234 (talk) 05:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Naruto controlling the Fox is already in the abilities section, so it does not need to be in the plot overview.Tintor2 (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

text: OK, but what about his mom being the Fox's prior host, the one who destroyed Konoha and was killed by Minato?  She doesn't have a section on the character page, so where should we add that?  75.157.120.15 (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not for this section. May be more notable for Fox's section.Tintor2 (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Fox doesn't have much of a section, and what's there leaves little room for additions. 75.157.120.15 (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Such a format is outdated and leaves a lot of accuracy to be desired. If someone reads the article as is-they'll think Jiraiya died before Naruto completed his Futon: Rasenshuriken and that Naruto defeated Pain before defeating Kakuzu. --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the article tells in that such things happen in some order? Besides, you appear to find current events in the manga more important than previous ones, and that's no reason to change images.Tintor2 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Given its a PLOT OVERVIEW, and we basically have the part 1 plot in order, yes, we have to have the Part 2 part in order. Otherwise, it's confusing. And yes, current events in the manga sometimes retcon things. We have to keep this article up to date and make things not confusing to the readers. --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, the Sasuke Uchiha article's plot overview is in order, why not have Naruto's in order? Why leave Naruto's as a confusing mess that screws up events?--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please avoid making changes without consensus. I rearranged the plot overview section to remove the ability parts which are misleading. References have to be formatted with cite book to be more specific rather than just giving the chapters. The Part II image is blank and white making it less informative than the Part I, which also shows his Rasengan which is also discussed in the article. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: How will we make a 'consensus'? There are only TWO of us here discussing this. And how are the 'ability parts' misleading when I put them down? How is citing just the volume more specific than the actual chapter itself? And how is the Part II image less informative than the outdated Part I one? Just because Naruto is using a Rasengan in it? It doesn't reflect current data. Tintor, stop sticking with the outdated and confusing parts of the article please.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The abilities parts are for the section from the same name. Current is important for real world information, not fictional. Giving unformatted refs for an article is not encyclopedic as read will have no idea where is such chapter from, and will only work in a wikia.Tintor2 (talk) 23:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated the Plot 

message: How come in the entire article there is no mention of who voices Naruto himself in both the Japanese and English dubs?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.88.130.136 (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voice Actresses 

message: I have made some corrections but someone better than me should go over it "with a fine toothed comb" looking for non sequiturs and any other errors. – Allen4names 05:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: 83.42.224.121 posted this comment on 3 May 2013 (view all feedback).
You could put more images.
Any thoughts?
Nonfree images are difficult to list unless they are prominent in the article and have a small resolution.Tintor2 (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reader feedback: You could put more images. 

message: I noticed that  raised the importance rating of this article to mid on the bases that the character is from a series rated as High-important. However, the criteria is that the character is a cultural icon outside of the series. And frankly, I'm not seeing much in the reception section as of yet to justify an upgrade in the importance rating. —Farix (t | c) 20:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake, I was looking at the High-importance criteria, Mid-importance only requires that the character is well known. —Farix (t | c) 20:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Importance scale evaluation. 

message: So, am I getting this correctly? In Japanese, the pronunciation is Nah-roo-toh, like Nah-roo-toe, but in English, some people pronounce as Nare-uh-toh? Like Nare or nar rhyming with the letter R, like the word "are"? Should we put pronunciation on this article? I don't think so, right. I mean, I do, if that's the right thing to do, but I was just asking about the pronunciation. Like nar-ooh-toe, right?
Okay, thanks, and I'm sorry.
From:
:12:25, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of Character's Name 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Naruto Uzumaki. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170909234452/http://www.anime-now.com/entry/2017/09/09/230012 to http://www.anime-now.com/entry/2017/09/09/230012
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:41, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018)