Talk:Naruto

Template:FAOL

Episodes: Accuracy?

I see that Naruto has 220 Episo, oh let me get to the point: The Episode Amount is NOT spcific and probily isnt even updated! I say that because, oh I dont know maybe because ITS STILL AIRING NEW EPISODES...sorry Im just a wee bit PISSED OFF right now! Point is can ya give an accurate update on Episode Numbers for the USA if ya may? =^_^=--Akemi Mokoto (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Naruto has finished airing in Japan. It has 220 episodes. That is the accurate episode count. When the US run finishes, it will have the exact same number of episodes. Collectonian (talk) 15:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

How bout the USA's Current Amount!--Akemi Mokoto (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should that be listed? No other anime article that I've seen directly indicates the number of episodes released in English, and it's easy enough to see by looking at the dates on the appropriate "List of ... episodes" article. —Dinoguy1000 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Dino. We're talking about the series as a WHOLE, not just specifically the series in America, even if we ARE on the English-language version of Wikipedia! IceUnshattered (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Genres (copied from Talk:Dragon Ball (manga))

Dragon Ball (manga) has been recategorized to the "Action" sub-genre of "Martial Arts". Should Naruto and YuYu Hakusho undergo the same adjustment?--Nohansen (talk) 19:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Tenjho Tenge may need some attention as well. I had some second thoughts about "adventure", but only because this series [Dragon Ball] isn't as broad as, say, One Piece or Saiyuki. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Naruto is "okay" where it stands. What exactly did you want to modify? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Action => Martial arts. The characters are martial artists, aren't they?--Nohansen (talk) 19:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say yes, and no. Is there a genre which covers the whole ninja concept? Naruto, to me, leans more towards the styles of Ninja Scroll and Basilisk. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Scroll is a chanbara. I haven't read Basilisk but I have a feeling it is a chanbara, as well. Naruto is not. While I don't know of any "ninja genre", I can tell you that ninjutsu is, for all intents and purposes, a martial art.--Nohansen (talk) 21:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There are early references to chanbara in Naruto but perhaps too minour to apply here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Arc names

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

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

As the title "arc" suggests, they are story arcs. A useful label that comes from watching the show. Hmm. —davidh.oz.au 04:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. My point is that there's no official name for the story arcs, and I suspect they're merely fan-made names that we're using here. If this is the case, they should be removed wholesale. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

But don't forget that the English language is not made by "officials" but by all the people on an ongoing basis (it is a living language), so fans have a legitimate input into names ... just a thought. :) Abtract (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Your comparison, aside from making no sense, is irrelevant. We operate by a set of guidelines and policies, and while these may change, we use what we have now, not what they might change into. The arc names violate WP:OR if they are fan-made and removal is appropriate in this case. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:56, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sephiroth. I've yet to see those names in any official media, and as such they are nothing but WP:OR and do not belong. Collectonian (talk) 18:49, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

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

There's no pages on them. List of Naruto story arcs was merged a while ago. The only change would be removing them from all the episode lists and all mentions of them throughout the Naruto articles. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 21:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes seems to take the arc names from a japanese website. Maybe asking sby from there we may know the ones of the previous seasons, for example User:Geg seems to have knowledge of that.Tintor2 (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a bit of discussion of that on the talk page. Other than that, I feel that the arc titles for Naruto should go, but am unopinionated on Shippūden. And on a side note, there seem to be several examples of concerns about exactly when the season splits are done on the Naruto episode list, though I don't know if they've been addressed since they were raised. —Dinoguy1000 17:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Regarding main image change

I noticed that someone chnaged the original main image [[1]] was replaced with a picture of the first Tankōbon [[2]]. This appears to have been changed without discussion and I think that a consensus for the change should have ocuured first before anyting happened. personally think the previous picture of the main characters is better than what we have now. Finally, if a decision is made to use the old pitcure it should be added as quicky as possible since it is currently tagged for deletion due to not being used in any articles. Finally, the page is protected so someone else will need to make the change. --76.69.166.248 (talk) 23:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who change it and it is not necessary to make a consensus for this. I thought it would be better since there is already a picture with Team 7 main characters in the article and that the manga is the primary work of the series but this can be discussed and replace the image with a better point than "I like it". Cheers.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

hdtv or "upscaled 16:9"

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

More Reception and Media

Naruto 29 debuted at the top of the Book Scan list, and 28 returned with its released: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-05-07/usa-today-booklist-april-28-may-4

As all of the relevant parts from List of Naruto media has been properly merged to this article in sourced prose, I've removed the link and redirected the old page. Collectonian (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a list, on the media page, of all the songs used in the opening/ending sequences; where has the list been moved to? --WhaT2k (talk) 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Episode theme music is covered in the individual episode season lists. Collectonian (talk) 22:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with "partial rv" by Collectonian

WP:CONTEXT#What generally should not be linked says to avoid redundant links, such as common terms (like "ninja") or the same link multiple times. Category:Japanese television series is a parent cat. And changed the image size since it was too blurry. Please tell me, what is wrong with the inclusion of Category:Shapeshifting in fiction? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually my partial revert had to do more with the other dewikifications, which shouldn't have been done (like the numerous dewikifying in the references, which does not fall under the same link multiple times clause). I tried to put back the ones I agreed with, though I missed the category and ninja. You did so many, a partial revert was the only easy way to undo. I wish you had waited for an answer or just redone those items rather than reverting, since I also rewrote some very badly written stuff in my revert. As such, I've done another partial revert, keeping those items you've noted. Collectonian (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, why are you overlinking the following: Viz Media, Weekly Shonen Jump, manga, Japan, Shueisha, tankōbon, Anime News Network, and others? I'd like to do what Sano's page is doing: one link in the article context, and one in "References". Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not overlinking in references. Not a single FA/FL has brought up any problems with "overlinking" in the references. It should be linked each time in the reference. Within the article, the first mention in the lead, and the first mention in its section is an appropriate amount of linking as well. Collectonian (talk) 18:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see some FA/FL samples, as I still don't agree with you, and the guideline supports me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well let's see...all of mine: List of Trinity Blood episodes, List of Meerkat Manor episodes, List of Meerkat Manor meerkats, Meerkat Manor. Or look at the news section of the A?M project, and look at pretty much all of the FLs there from other folks, such as List of Gunslinger Girl episodes, List of Myself ; Yourself episodes, etc. Can also look at our recent GAs, which all use the same. The features and GAs support this, not the guideline. The guideline is dealing with prose, not references. Just as references use ISO dates rather than whatever date format is used in the text, it also uses wikification of publisher/work on all uses not just one. Collectonian (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you hinting that overlinking in references is fine? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm plainly saying that overlinking doesn't apply to references. Collectonian (talk) 01:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to "partially rv" your revision then, keeping the current mulitple sections and many links in references. Understandable? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Not really...I'd also rather you not do an undo. As I mentioned before, my revert included some needed text rewriting as well. Collectonian (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I won't use undo. Just want to do here like what I just did to Kenshin's article. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:02, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

That should be fine. Why use reflist 3 in Kenshin's article? Not a fan of the 3 column myself, and rarely see it used, so curious. Collectonian (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told, I've been seeing it around more often than I used to for numbers higher than 30. Kinda got into the habit. Think it's wrong? Can't find particular examples ATM. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea on the right/wrong. Not one I particularly like myself, and I never use it myself. I haven't seen it in many FAs/FLs, though may just be because most are used to 2. Collectonian (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing?

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

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

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

Plural of 'ninja'

This has probably been discussed somewhere but I'd like to know off the top of someone's head if the plural of 'ninja' in the series is 'ninjas'. I know we have Category:Fictional ninjas but I'm not sure if it qualifies here, as the Naruto case may be different. Thoughts anyone? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I always thought the plural of ninja was ninja. Both ninja article and good old Merriamm-Webster support this, but also note that in American English ninjas can also be used (case in point 3 Ninjas *evil grin*). Collectonian (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

What should we go here? Actually, what do the English translated series of Naruto use? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to say use what Naruto uses. Someone else will have to answer the question of what that is, though, as I haven't read or watched any of the series. :P Collectonian (talk) 20:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Naruto in Animerica

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

FT?

Possible FT in the works.

• Naruto - currently - improved to Template:GA-symbol, main article, plenty of GAs on relevant franchises to go off, very feasible with enough effort
• List of Naruto manga volumes - currently
• List of Naruto episodes - meets provisions for an "audited" article, as it's ongoing in English media, needs to be improved to something like List of YuYu Hakusho episodes
• List of Naruto: Shippūden episodes - meets provisions for an "audited" article, as it's ongoing, needs to be brought up to par, summaries need some trimming and copy-editing
• List of Naruto video games - currently - improved to , List of Castlevania titles is a relevant model we can go for
• List of Naruto characters - currently - improved to , after we figure out what to do with the minor characters summarization and get a copy-editor, then it can go to WP:FLC
• Naruto universe - currently - improved to Template:GA-symbol, the in-universe content in Naruto universe needs to be drastically cut and better summarized, and I think the artbook conception in addition to some reception is enough to push it to GA

Mergers that need to take place:

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

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

About Naruto#Characters, isnt a bit overdetailed? It seems to use a fansite as a source.Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there more conception info about Shikamaru Nara? I would like to take it to GA. It also seems more reception of Jiraiya is appearing now-a-days with the these dvd releases. Should the info be added or we are sure it has to be merged?Tintor2 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

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

Confused....Naruto universe isn't a GA article nor is this article? Or did you mean what we should do to get this to FT? Naruto universe, I firmly believe should be axed all together. Its a glut of excessive plot stuff all mish-mashed together. I agree on the list of needed merges, and I that the films should come here to the main. List of Naruto video games, once cleaned up to the actual sourceable stuff, I think could fit back here in the main, particular as several have their own articles. I'd say let's get it cleaned up first, though, then that can be rediscussed when its shortened, referenced form can be seen. I do think it could be a great featured topic, when finished though. A nice boon to the project *grin* Also, another merge needed...video game template into the main. *doh* -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The "improved to" section is what it should be for a FT to work. In any case, Naruto universe can feasibly be a GA, and I think there's enough reception on it to work (I already know there's enough conception). List of Naruto video games definitely shouldn't be merged, as there's enough games, and the relevant model is List of Castlevania titles. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as navboxes are concerned, Naruto currently has three (!): {{Naruto info}}, {{Naruto games}}, and {{Naruto episodes}}. In addition, since {{Naruto}} just redirected to {{Naruto info}}, I marked it for speedy deletion under criterion G6 (general housekeeping) in preparation for moving {{Naruto info}} there (it's yet to actually be deleted). After that, {{Naruto info}} and {{Naruto episodes}} can be very easily merged (just a matter of adding the season links for the list of episodes to the main template), and {{Naruto games}} shouldn't be too hard to do (though I'm not 100% sure what to do with the "Crossover games" row...). —Dinoguy1000 16:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just finished the template merges. I ended up omitting the "Crossover games" row from {{Naruto games}} because I wasn't sure of the best place to put them, if anyone has any ideas, feel free to put them in there wherever. —Dinoguy1000 17:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

And what about {{Naruto season navigation}}? —Dinoguy1000 17:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it certainly seems the Naruto editors have high hopes. ^_^ This isn't going to be as easy as Sephiroth is making it out to be, it's actually going to be much harder. First off, I think that our top priority should be the characters articles at the moment. With four of them at GA level, and Naruto and Gaara surely being capable of making that as well, characters are the easiest obstacle at the moment. Shikamaru and Jiraiya, and perhaps Rock Lee, COULD make GA, but it's not as big a possibility as the others were. Tsunade has no potential, merge her into the characters article. When we do the rest of the article can be decided later. Also, I DO have concerns about this: List of minor Naruto characters and List of Naruto villains. What to do with them? Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)