Talk:List of Naruto characters/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merge n' Purge

Latest comment: 16 years ago36 comments10 people in discussion

The last discussion became ridiculously long ridiculously fast, so it has been archived. If you would like to sift through the prior debates (good or bad), you can look there. In any event, my revised opinions on merges are as follows, given under the impression that each and every random jutsu will not follow the character to a list.

Easily mergeable

Can be merged

Unfeasibly mergeable

Note the key word in the second list: "can". Emphasis means that it is possible to merge the character, though not necessarily advisable. Provide opinions on the matter below. Also avoid basing your opinions on your personal interest in the character or their importance within the series; doing so will cause your opinion to be conveniently ignored. ~Snapper T o 20:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Guy should be merged, half of his article (besides templates and links and stuff) is a big, repeating page about his relationship with Lee, like how Hinata's repeated the same info over and over. I could actually say Orochimaru can be merged (not saying he should), large parts of his article is his abilities or past, which can be trimmed down. We've gone too far with this merging thing, by the way, and we should generally just decide not only by just how mergeable they are, but their importance for the series too. Shikamaru, for example, has done more than Sakura has in the series and played a bigger role in the Hidan and Kakuzu arc than Naruto himself did, and thus can be verified as a main character. Sai and Yamato should be merged, and I could care less if it is in the Konoha page or not. Jiraiya, Tsunade, and Shikamaru, considering how Kishimoto has given no out of universe information on any of them, (or any other characters) are nicely written articles. Neji, Lee, Itachi are also written in a satisfying enough way. Half of Gaara's article is his abilities, so I'm not sure about him. So, basically, keep Team 7, the Sannin, Shikamaru, Lee and Neji, and Itachi; merge Sai and Yamato, Kabuto, Guy, and the Third Hokage. And also, I repeat, the merging obsession has gone too far, we should take more into consideration than one-minded thought about who can and can't be merged. Seriously, if we're just going to keep five articles, I'll just merge them too, even Naruto. (And yes, I WOULD do that and wouldn't be against it) Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I love how you seem to love bringing this back up Snap. /sigh Anyway: I guess Guy could be trimmed and placed on the Konoha ninja page, the Sannin and the Third all have importance to the show, for when they were in the show to when they left or stayed. Sai and Yamato I have said many times, while they are new, they count as main for what they have done so far. I count them on a similar level as Gaara, who is obviously a main. But I agree with Artist, this Merge Obsession is getting much to far, we have enough articles, with good information in each, and we don't need to merge anymore. TheUltimate3 19:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not brought this up since your request that we take a break a few weeks back, Ult, something other people have not been as courteous to do. As for bringing an end to this "merge obsession", I am aware that we are reaching the point where it can no longer be continued without complicating things. I am also aware that something that can be merged should not necessarily be merged. I have no interest in merging Shikamaru; I was merely pointing out that he could be merged if necessary. In any event, Artist has suggested merging five of the six articles that I believe can be merged with little difficulty. I'll sit on this for a few days and see if any other suggestions/objections come up, and then I'll put this discussion to rest. ~Snapper T o 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you mean four of the five, unless you include Guy? Guy can so very easily be merged without effort, as most of that article can be shortened, worked around, or simply ignored. And Yamato has the shortest article in Naruto, it is only 6,687 bytes, so he'd be merged so very easily too, and to a lesser extent so can Sai and Kabuto, regardless of their role. (And Sai and Yamato aren't main characters yet, they are more like Kiba or Choji at this point) Alot of the Third's article can be worked around or ignored, and death sections can always be shortened to a paragraph. Itachi is a special case, as we know by a month from now he'll most likely be playing a colossal role, and his article is already large enough as it is, so we might as well keep it and see how it goes for the next two or three months for now. The rest are keep for various reasons. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

You suggested five merges: Sai, Yamato, Kabuto, Guy, and the Third Hokage. I believe Itachi could easily be added to that mix, hence them being "five of the six articles that I believe can be merged with little difficulty". ~Snapper T o 20:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If Sai and Yamato are Choji and Kiba at this point, they still aren't extras which is why I oppose merging them to a list. The Third requires thought. Anyway I go on vacation on thursday and won't be back until at least Monday, can we hold off until then?

Sai and Yamato (along with Kabuto and Guy) can be merged so very easily their role doesn't matter (virtually nothing listed there could be lost unless it is absolutely useless, like Blood Type). And I really don't mean to disappoint you, but something this major would be very hard to hold off. We should still discuss, though, but not act. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I know they can easily be merged, its just I don't want to see them clumped with Konohamaru and the other extras which they are clearly not. And the discussion but not act works for me, as long as everyone who wants to be apart of this is included on the outcome. TheUltimate3 21:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

There isn't anywhere else they could go other than the list of "extras". Besides, List of Konoha ninja is not entirely composed of random characters; look at the Fourth Hokage for instance. ~Snapper T o 00:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For all extensive purposes, he is an extra. /shrug Isn't there any place we can put those two thats not the Konoha nin page?TheUltimate3 01:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. And there's nothing wrong with the Konoha nin page, regardless of what its current content suggests it's intended for. ~Snapper T o 03:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Its just when they get on that page, any real importance they have is lost and they become for or less foot notes. Because I got lots of crap to do today before I go off, here's a question, what would be lost if they were to be merged? Because really all those two characters have are their abilities, and their personalitiesTheUltimate3 12:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, with Guy nothing that is not useless will be lost (see my attempt here). Sai and Yamato will keep virtually everything. Kabuto can be summed up in four paragraphs. We should try to not make a large list of abilities for the Third and only the few that actually matter, and then mention he excels in fire and earth jutsu blah blah. Itachi's article is already long enough to keep, and by two or three months his role will largely increase and we'll know a lot more about him, mabye even when this translation comes out. Yeah, Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball, but Itachi is a major character and major antagonist in the series under WP:FICT and his article is of an appropriate enough length to keep. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 14:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity,wasn't it majority rule that Kabuto not be merged?Lastbetrayal 16:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But that was small scale majority rule, for at least medium scale, look at the Itachi article's talk page. Large scale is over 25 people saying it shouldn't be deleted. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

That was expected. Not happy with it obviously but expected. /shrug But I still say Sai should atleast be moved to Konoha 11. At least under (Other Members) if it could be added. EDIT: Pity. Aw well, images saved until needed.TheUltimate3 21:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Gaara can not be that easily merged. His abilities can be trimmed but he is still a very big and import character to the story appearing in many, many archs. I'd hold off on Itachi seening as his current role will increase as Artist says.(Sorry if i'm eoching anyone)Blackcat1313 00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have screwed up the entire Naruto section.

Who here hates the new footer that only lists about 10 characters out of a 25+ character manga? Not only that, but many main characters and important characters have been removed from the footer and merged into a general article, causing massive loadtimes for those articles.

Example? Oto's page. I can't imagine how long it takes that much text to load on Dial-up. Do you want people to not be able to load the articles?

Also, because of the merges, it is now harder to find character information. Sifting through massive pages takes much more time to find the character you're looking for, even if you use the top-clicky thing.

I'm begging you, please undo this horrible mistake. It'll be much easier to add all of the new information on these so-called 'mergeable' characters that is sure to bombard us eventually if you just undo this screw-up now.

We're not here to deal with the problems of people who have a slow Internet connection. There's no problem with it under the current size guideline. There's a big table of contents for finding information on the person you want. And if you want articles on those characters, then find where they have real-world coverage by reliable, verifiable third party sources. We'll be more than happy to make them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. Wikipedia does acknowledge the problem of pages taking too much time to load when using slow connections, see technical issues in the size guidelines article. If a significant number of people are having trouble loading this page then "we" have a problem. People being unable to attain information from this site interfere with wikipedias goal of producing reference material free to all people. Though I'm not sure myself if the size of this article should be considered as too large for people with dial-up connections (probably not), it's certainly an issue to be aware of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.177.4.84 (talk) 14:43, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Specific Characters:

Merging Orochimaru's page is surely out of the question. It's massively long! If you add it to the Otogakure page, you'll kill any hope of it being loaded on Dial-up.

I would recommend strongly against merging Kabuto's page, since it has been hinted that he maybe a key factor in the manga later, depending on the Orochimaru's DNA situation. Better to be safe than sorry.

Merging Jiraiya and Tsunade's pages: No. If you absolutely have to merge the Sannin's pages, give them an article to themselves titled 'The Sannin' or something so that their articles don't kill the already over-whelmed Otogakure and Konohagakure pages.

Merging the Hokage pages: Sarutobi's article is another one that is rather lengthy. I can understand merging the 1-4th Hokage pages- They're rather minor at this point, with the exception of the 4th. If you are to merge the 3rd and the 4th, perhaps create a new page called 'The Hokages' and put all of the 1-4th Hokage's information there? Same reasoning as the Sannin's pages.

Again, we don't care about the problems of people using a dial-up connection. Merging Jiraiya or Tsunade would be fine merely because the content of those articles would be easily fit into a list. The Third Hokage is alraedy merged into the List of Konoha ninja page. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem Pages

Otogakure's page. It's HUGE. I'd hate to have Dial-up and load that Mother. Suggested Fix: Take out that thing that reads "Snake". Not only is it useless information, it should be in Sasuke's article. Demerge Kabuto's page. He has a potential to maybe recieve characterization because of his DNA mishap with Orochimaru, and because he is going to attempt to kill Sasuke. DO NOT MERGE Orochimaru's page into that page. His article is extremely long. All Hebi members are not technically Oto-nin, and shouldn't be on the Otogakure page. If we were going by birthplace, Orochimaru and Kabuto would be Konoha-nin. They severed their ties with Otogakure when they joined Sasuke. They also have the potential for major character development.

Just by doing that, the Otogakure page would be at a decent length. If you wanted to, you could create another page for the Sound Five and only the Sound Five, although they won't be recieving any new info.

Another thing...The Land of Sound is a debated name. The geographical area (as said by Konoha-nin) is The Land of Rice Fields, and Oto is it's hidden village. But the Oto-nin refer to it as The Land of Sound. Would it be refered to as the Land of Sound or The Land of Rice Fields? Information: http://www.leafninja.com/

Konohagakure's Page- Same problem as Otogakure's page. It's massively long. Suggested Fix: The Hokages are the longest articles there. Giving all four of them their own page is adviseable. Just removing those four articles would bring the page down to a loadable length.

Land of Fire's page- Uh. Why are there Konoha-nin and their clans on this page? Shouldn't they be on the Konoha-nin page? Of course, moving all the clans to the Konoha-nin page would kill it... Perhaps a page for each clan, plus all known members that can be fit onto it without swamping the page?

The Minor Villains page- Same problem as Konohagakure's and Otogakure's pages, but not to the extent of the others. Perhaps move the movie villains to the page of the movie they're from? I haven't found a link to the movies yet because they're not on the footer anymore.

And yet again, we could care less about the problems of those with a dial-up connection. Read WP:SIZE, which is still not binding by any means. For Kabuto's "future" notability, we're not here to speculate on whether he will be notable in the future, but rather on whether he's notable now. He's not. The "Snake" ninja don't deserve a separate article, and belong no where else besides here. Land of Sound is fine since it's the most recent and well known version of the name. List of Konoha ninja is fine by size and readability concerns, and it's not going to be split. Land of Fire has ninja with no defined rank on them. Read the header on List of Konoha ninja. Moving the movie villains to their own movie isn't a bad idea actually. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do the characters need their own pages?

There are many reasons the characters need their own pages. Number one is that with the current merges, the pages are simply too long. They take forever to load and even longer to sift through looking for the information you need to find, even with the clicky thing.

Number Two: When each character has their own article, it leads to less screw-ups. With many characters on one page, there is an increased chance of information being put on the wrong character, accidental deletion, and many other errors.

Number Three: It's much easier for each character to have their own article, navigation-wise, assuming that the footer is fixed back to the way it was as well. With the footer that has all the characters on it, all you have to do is scroll down, click and poof! A nice, moderate-sized article pops up in a decent amount of time. Not scroll down, suffer tremendous load-times, and then waste even more time digging through the pages listed to find the character you want to find information on. What's the point besides to make things more complicated?

Number Four: Vandalism is a common problem. With combined pages, vandalism is much more often an occurance.

Why? Simple. Because there is more than one character there, a fan of a certain character will go to that page and go to add information. In the process, however, they notice that their least favorite character is on the same page and that all they'd have to do at that point is type in some vandalism. Therefore, they'd be helping and vandalising in two fell clicks. (Example- Orochimaru-Kimimaro-Kabuto. OroKimi fans often dislike Kabuto. OroKabu fans often dislike Kimimaro. KimiKabu or KabuKimi fans often dislike Orochimaru.)

For the fourth time, we don't care about the Internet problems of our readers. As for your second concern, it's actually easier to manage combined articles since it removes the difficulty of managing vandalism on many different articles. As for three, none of those characters can pass WP:FICT's standard for acquiring their own article - coverage by reliable sources independent of the source material. We have them in lists or not at all. As for your fourth concern, vandalism is less of a problem because it's centered on one page, and thus grants easier management, as well as only one report to WP:RPP. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Footer

The Footer (I think that's what it's called, correct me if I'm wrong) is completely screwy. You can't find anything anymore, without having to click through two, three, four pages to find it. And then the pages it does lead to are swamped with so much information you can't even load it if you have dial-up.

Of course, the footer just shows how much has been merged into impossibly long and impractical articles. If there was anyway to revert everything back to the way it was...How long ago now? I would do so in a heart-beat.--68.209.169.2 02:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The footer is relevant to the set of articles you are reading. It takes you one click to get to the other footer anyway. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Using Snapper2's list again, I'm just going to modify it a bit.

Easily mergeable

~~Itachi Uchiha~~ (merged)
~~Kabuto Yakushi~~ (merged)
~~Sai (Naruto)~~ (merged)
~~Third Hokage~~ (merged)
~~Yamato (Naruto)~~ (merged)

Can be merged

Unfeasibly mergeable

As you can see, the section where the characters are under "easily mergable" have been merged or about to after discussion, although I don't believe that Itachi Uchiha's page should be merged as he is deemed the catalyst of the plot of Naruto. Omghgomg 11:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's already pretty good how it is. I just think that, maybe, Rock Lee and Neji could be merged :/ - Access Timeco 01:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Furhter edited the list with Itachi's merge. As said, they can be merged, though not suggested. The Sannin could have their own page, and a big page about the Kage (including Sungakure) can be made so we could go in depth about them, especially the 3rd and 4th. Orochimaru is merge-able, as so much of it is abilities that don't need mentioned, and his history can be shortened down, though I rather have him, Jiraiya, and Tsunade merged in one Sannin page should it be decided they get merged. Gaara is largely abilities. Shikamaru, Neji, and Lee have great balances between sections, though they too are mergeable. In the end only Team 7 is a definite keep. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Major characters in Naruto

Tsunade, Jiraiya, Shikamaru, Lee, and Neji would probably fit on a single page if condensed and merged. This might also include already-merged characters, such as the Third Hokage, Kabuto, Zabuza, and Haku, who are placed on pages with significantly less prominent figures (emphasis on Zabuza and Haku). With that out of the way, Kakashi, Sakura, Orochimaru, and Gaara will be the only remaining completely-in-universe single-character articles (The only reason I didn't add Gaara into that list is because of his extensive Personality and Abilities sections). It's quite a stretch to create the major characters article, though, but I think it could be work. You Can 't Review Me!!! 22:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging again? Well regardless, Shikamaru, Lee, and Neji could go into the List of major Naruto Teams with the rest of their teams. The Sannin as I've said before, I don't think they should be merged. But them are where they are I suppose, no problem there.--TheUltimate3 22:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

In the event that Akatsuki (Naruto) is not brought up to WP:FICT standards, I've been working on reducing the 10 character lists (this one excluded) to 3; major, minor, and villain. My current major character draft is at 45 kb. Although I might be able to shave off an additional kb or two, I don't think I can make it any shorter. This would create a size issue were additional characters to be added to it, necessitating a split and only restarting us on the road to 10 lists. I could perhaps remedy this problem by moving Chiyo and the Third Hokage to minor characters, though that might just create the same problem (I've yet to see how big that article would be without them). My point is: I'll get back to you on my opinion. *random Nice Guy pose* ~Snapper T o 23:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, what does this have to do with moving the Third and Chiyo-baa? I was under the impression that being in the List of Konoha Nin, and Land of Wind pages pretty much MADE them minor.--TheUltimate3 23:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

By that same token, Kankuro and Tsunade are minor as well. Regardless, they are currently included on my draft major character list, and I was pointing out that if necessary they could be moved to my draft minor character list. ~Snapper T o 02:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If necessary. OH. Well currently they are all fine where they are I suppose.--TheUltimate3 02:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

How could Itachi lose his article and Lee and Neji keep their? They are nowhere important as he is. They had a one shot importance and was that! Itachi, on the other hand, keeps the story moving far before he even appeared :/ - Access Timeco 19:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Lee and Neji's articles are longer than Itachi's was. That is the difference between them. A character's importance within the series is irrelevant in this regard. If you feel you can adequately reduce the both of them to two paragraphs you are welcome to try and merge them as well. ~Snapper T o 21:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I will pass, but thanks! Although I don't agree with Itachi loosing his articles when Lee and Neji keep their, I am inclined to think all the 3 should keep their articles. I will leave the merge party to those wikipedia addicted, they need it. - Access Timeco 22:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

But there is no merge tag for the articles that can be merged. Our main discussion now lies with the merge of tailed beasts. σмgн gσмg 10:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hm...ok so the only way to get images back is to create stub articles....

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

So speaketh Durin. But stub articles are by their very nature, stubs. Usually so small and minute that they must be merged with a main article in which they MAY or MAY NOT have any real connection to. So friends, allies, chums, enemies, whatever else I can use, what do we do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheUltimate3 (talk • contribs) 12:51, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Just bring back Kisame, Deidara, Pein, and Tobi/Madara for the Akatsuki page. They are the only ones that could serve use without controversy. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

However, we're not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Itachi Uchiha is already on shaky notability grounds, and the rest of the Akatsuki characters don't come close to that, something that you yourself admitted when arguing for Itachi Uchiha's article retention. Bringing those articles would generate controversy simply because there's hardly anything to write about them that wouldn't be a heavily drawn out and unnecessary discussion. It's not the end of the world that they have no images. Deal with it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

He isn't planing on disturbing Wikipedia, he's only saying that if we are allowed to use images minimally, we could atleast bring them back for the important ones.--TheUltimate3 23:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There is currently a discussion here regarding weather or not naruto characters should have there own articles.

Would it make more sense to organize the not-team-7 Konoha ninja by team? Right now the Konoha ninja page is a mishmash of merged and not-merged characters, resulting in a rather inconsistent look. It'd also allow more flexibility in giving some characters more space than others in the team pages. Nifboy 19:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

They are organized by team, well the ones we actually know what team they are on anyway. Beyond the members of Konoha 11 and Konohamaru's team (none of which deserve articles) no Konoha nin really needs to be broken up.--TheUltimate3 19:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I mean individual articles, one for Ino-Shika-Cho, one for Team Guy, and Team 8 (with none of their members having individual articles). Admittingly these are not great article titles, but it's more even in terms of organization. Nifboy 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That was proposed then thrown out (However there is more chance for it now...who knows). Someone proposed that and the idea was scrapped because it was easier to put Team 10 (Ino-Shika-Cho), Team Guy, an Team 8 in Konoha 11, which was then upgraded to "List of Konoha Ninja Teams". This way (apparently at the cost of images because pics in a "List" makes policy cry) we could keep them all together and have sense kept it better organized.--TheUltimate3 20:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Tailed Beasts

Latest comment: 16 years ago25 comments13 people in discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was do not merge Tailed Beasts into List of Naruto Characters.

There really is no need for an article on it. The main topic can be covered in the main article or somewhere else, and the separate characters can easily fit in where ever you feel like shoving them. TTN 21:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about moving coverage of the main topic to the main article, though I really don't know where else you'd put it. As for the character entires themselves, they are predominately a detailing of the abilities the beast gives its host (which is repeated under the host's entry) and not about the beast itself. Were you to cut that out/condense it there'd be little need for an article on the subject. I'd agree to whatever given that this article is lacking in meaningful content. ~Snapper T o 22:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I say no, as it would (for all intensive purposes) gut the info we managed to get of the tailed beasts. No real need to move them, they are prefectly fine where they are.--TheUltimate3 01:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And here I thought the merge craze was over.Damn.I say no on the basis that,aside from Shukaku(maybe) and the nine-tails,they are not technically characters.Lastbetrayal 03:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention the article would be insanely long. - Access Timeco 17:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The ability info needs to be removed or severely trimmed (for example, Shukaku's ability grants can simplify to "gives power over sand to Gaara, for the most part), since it's not about the Bijuu. However, not only are they are the predominant driving force of the series, but they are hardly characters in and of themselves.KrytenKoro 23:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Beasts two, three, and four are unmention-worthy. The other two can be placed elsewhere, like here or their host's page. We should find a way to place the info about the beasts in general besides here. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't support it. They aren't neccessarily characters. Also, Akatsuki role is to gather all the tailed beasts. New information is going to be released on them and the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th tailed beasts. So, after a while and still no information, then merge. But currently, no, not yet. σмgн gσмg 06:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just improve two articles and get rid of one that will never get improved at this point: put the tailed beasts into List of Naruto characters and put the other info in the Naruto geography and change the latter into on big Naruto universe article? Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you rephrase that?Lastbetrayal 22:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditch the Tailed beasts article, merge it with Naruto geography, re-name it Naruto universe, and add other information there too, like Jutsu, ninja ranks, and general information. I'm beginning to do so here. Put the beasts themselves in List of Naruto characters, and start other improvement on page. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 00:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it wise to merge so much into one article. Do that and it gets to long and messed up. Keep Jutsu and Ninja ranks seperate and we would probably have to add some sort description of the Akatsuki there if we don't get the needed sources in a week I guess and we are discussing the Tailed Beasts thing now.--TheUltimate3 00:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No no, it can be done, but we just need to take care to only list extremely mentionable issues and try to keep it as short as possible. But it will be challenging. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good idea! Eventually, we may be able to reduce the whole of wikipedia to a single page. Lascoden 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I checked your sandbox. It has 50 kilobytes. That is too long for an article - also goes against WP:SIZE. σмgн gσмg 08:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

what? merge this with list of characters? the tailed beast are not really character themselves save for two i think that have been seen actively participating in the story. for the most part they are being used as tools or cretures within the world. i would ask then should kunai, be listed with characters? should the insects used by bugmasters, or the dolls used by puppt masters also be included within the list of characters? they are special entities and not characters themselves and should NOT be classified as such. if there was some place where special things like the tailed beast fit then i probably owuldn't object, but as it is the tailed beast are something so special and outside of the norm that they can not really be classified as character within the Naruto universe, nor could they just be called tools like a ninjas weapons. i think they fit with their own article. it would be more beneficial to wait and see what happens with them rather than merge them and then have to split them back out. within the tailed beasts article you can show their special part of the story as a whole such as the fact that Akatsuki are looking for them, the reason for this, and possibly new evidence that may be coming soon about how they came to be. as it appears they may be summons and might end up needing to belong with other summoned creatures like Gamabunta, Manda, etc. so i would strongly suggest waiting until they are found out rather than causing excess work by converting them and making the existing list of Naruto characters overly long when they may better belong elsewhere in the long run. shadzar|Talk|contribs 01:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats it ive had had enough there is no reason that they should be merged. Merging things or shortnening them does not make them more intresting to read. I know it is alright by wiki to shorten and merge but it doesnt make it intresting to read and I dont want the tailed beast to be gone ridicolous. Blanknothingoknaruto 20:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)Blanknothingoknaruto

So far, the only reasoning people used were "I like it" or "they aren't characters". Although 2-4 certainly aren't, 1 and 9 certainly are, as they are given a backround, voice actors, and personality, and as such they can be put here. The info on 2 can be listed at Yugito's section here. 4 is 100% unmentionworthy, and 3 is for the most part. Also, there are articles that are 50,000 bytes long, including FA-Class articles such as Shadow of the Colossus, so there's no reason that another article shouldn't be 50,000 bytes. Above 60,000 bytes, yes, it should be seperated or shortened, but 50,000 isn't a problem. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 23:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is fine. They don't belong broken apart on various pages or other such things, and quite frankly the volume at which this whole lot has been merged is practically insane. Merging is not the answer to everything. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging is a solution when a page is beyond improvement, though there are others. Tailed beasts doesn't meet up to standards right now, and I doubt it really can be improved that much. And not only that, Naruto has become an increasingly popular target for merges and deletion lately, so, in case another wave of that comes soon, we'll have to think of ways to still retain the information and satisfy our predators. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

this wont end people are from different states and countries yes so we shoulkd vote on it in seprate discussion title it sounds fair Blanknothingoknaruto 19:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)Blanknothingoknaruto

The way the Naruto section is going you might as well just merge the whole lot into four sections and be done with it: - an introduction page - the list of story arc page - a character page - a list of media page The way things are going the Naruto section feels it's heading in that direction anyway. Personally, I feel it actually reads worse with all the merging that's gone on - not that I'm against merging, some I've felt have been necessary, it's just that recently it's felt like merge, merge, merge I'm not an editor so perhaps my comments aren't really worth much in this case as it's the editors who are the ones who are going to merge this.

With the exception of articles that have absolutely no future or chance of improvement (Like Media (half of it is voice actors, and the rest can be put elsewhere) or Summons (too many none notable summons and information there)), we should actually consider something besides merging. Naruto is a main character and manga cultural influence in Japan, and as such there's no question he's notable, and Sasuke is also highly popular in the manga and anime universe. Sakura and Kakashi can't really be put elsewhere, so we'll just have to keep them. Shikamaru, Gaara, Tsunade, Jiraiya, and Orochimaru can be merged, but not at all advised, while Neji and Lee are iffy subjects. The rest of the articles other than the failure ones can't be put anywhere else. It's possible we can put geography, ranks, jutsu, and, should we need to, Akatsuki (considering how much of a traget it is to "MERGE MERGE MERGE!" messages) and Tailed beasts can be put in there too. The list of jutsu should have its own topic, but only notable ones that play important roles (Rasengan, the sealing statue jutsu, Chidori, Medical techniques, taijutsu, water jutsu, etc.) rather than every jutsu that exists. I have no satisfaction with the movies articles. Oh, but look at me ramble on. But in any case, some cannot be merged further, despite any complaints made. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There is one very very simple reason why the tailed beast shouldn't be here. That reason? They are an in universe concept. Concepts should be separated out from characters. - perfectblue 20:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

it has been over a month. any concensus yet on this merger? shadzar|Talk|contribs 16:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be no merge, but...eh. *Shrugs*Lastbetrayal 21:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I changed Nagato's bio

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

We don't know if he did become Pein. This is an assumption. Until it is stated that he is Pein, we shouldn't leap to that conclusion. --Vehgah 18:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

Hello.

I wanted to look at some information about Akamaru. When I clikced the name in "List of Naruto characters" I got into "Land of Fire".. So I looked at the other names, to see if it was a rare case, and saw that Danzo ended in the same place(To be noted, there is nothing else than a description about Land of Fire, not about the people living there).

First Kazekage ended at the top of Land of Wind, instead of at the place he was on the list, infact, he wasn't at the list at all...?
Fugaku Uchiha ended in Land of Fire, as well.
Gamkichi and Gamatatsu end at Gama Family in the list of summons, but not at the place that they are listed. I know it sounds stupid, since everybody know that you can scroll down to the right point, but still...
Haimaru Sankyodai also ends in Land of Fire.
Hanabi Hyuga ends there as well. So does Hiashi Hyuga and Homura Mitokado.
Isaribi ends up in.. guess what?.. Land of Fire...
Iwashi Tatami ends up in List of Konoha ninja at the top of the list. But isn't on the list..?
Kyodaiji ends at the top of the list of summons. Like Gamakichi and Gamatatsu, it's not a big deal, but since some people might be in doubt who it is - like me, I forgot until I read about it - it'd be a good idea to link it to the right placė.
Land of Wind's Daimyo ends in the top of the list of Land of Wind. Like the summons I mentioned right before, can you see him on the list, but you have to scroll down.
Mikoto Uchiha ends up at the top of the list called Land of Fire, but it's different from the other, that most the ones I've mentioned ends at. And it's also not the actual list she is described.
Second Kazekage ends the same place as First, and alike the First, he isn't on the list (couldn't you just delete them, if you don't know anything about them? It's waste of space to put them on the list, anyway).
Three Tails ends up in the Tailed beasts list, but at the top. It's the same problem as the summoms I mentioned.
Yugito doesn't lead anywhere. When I click it, it's the same page, and there is no timeglass, or green box at the bottom of the page, saying that it's loading...

And that's what I could find. Sorry for the long at tiring post, and sorry that I didn't change the mistakes myself; since I don't know how to it. I'm not really good at computers...

I hope for some changes - monkey :D

Fixed. Land of Fire had been blanked at the time, so that's why the links to there didn't work. ~Snapper T o 21:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't Kaiza be under the Lave of Waves villagers section? 211.31.37.193 11:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No because he wasn't born there. It was just his affliation. σмgн gσмg 12:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Affliation is enough of a reason, Kimimaro is NOT listed under the Land of Water just because his clan originated there. Especially since Kaiza is related to the people in the Land of Waves.211.31.37.193 11:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason why Kimimaro is not under the Land of Water is because he was one of Orochimaru's subordinates - he served Orochimaru. Also, he was part of the Sound Five whose section was in the Land of Sound. σмgн gσмg 12:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

And is Kaiza not like a spiritual leader of the villagers in the Land of Waves? Just because "he's not born there" is not a reason. His birthplace really doesnt matter, I mean, are all people affilated with their ninja clan/village born within that clan/village? It's just very odd to keep him as a "miscellaneous character" when he should be under the same section as the other villagers.211.31.37.193 13:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The List of minor allies in Naruto page is for allies and allies only. There was never a time when Kaiza helped Naruto. He is not an ally, even if he was affiliated to the Land of Waves. All he is is a dead memory. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 17:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is called "Allies in Naruto", not "Allies to Naruto". Kaiza is an ally of an ally, making him an ally to the second degree. Putting him in a different article than the rest of his "family" for some minor technicality is ridiculous. ~Snapper T o 19:36, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Naruto's mother is in the exact same situation, she was an ally of Konoha, yet we don't list her in either articles. Kaiza is no different, all he is is a past memory. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Then move her too; being a past or present ally is irrelevant. ~Snapper T o 21:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a need for the two "minor" lists?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Most of the space is taken up by characters that appear in very few episodes. There is really no need to give undue weight to them when they can either be summed up very quickly or just not even mentioned (letting the episode summaries describe them would be fine). In the very least, each minor arc should be cut down to one or two paragraphs, and one episode and movie characters should just redirect to their episode/movie. TTN 19:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I meant to bring this up at an earlier date, but was busy. There is really no reason that we need to give an extraordinary amount of coverage to characters that appear in one or two episodes, and even those in a single arc. Condensing them by arc or a similar method would be preferable. At our current juncture, the information on the characters is giant jumble of in-universe cruft. Even List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, which is very in-universe by nature, would be a preferable choice. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing, projections, and other stuff

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Given that we now have two character GAs (Sasuke Uchiha and Sakura Haruno), I think we can begin to seriously assess what we want to do with the character section here, especially considering that it's within our reach to turn this into a rather nice model for other anime character articles. Of the remaining character articles, I can feasibly see the following acquiring GA status after a bit of work:

Another possible one is Shikamaru Nara, but I'm irked by the fact that there's no real conception information (plenty of reception to drag up though). As such, proper referencing for the plot, abilities, and related sections would be nice, in addition to further condensing the in-universe content. The rest are more difficult. I can possibly see Orochimaru (Naruto) becoming a GA (fair amount of reception, about as much as Shikamaru), but the rest fall on the wayside. I was about to rewrite Jiraiya (Naruto), but found an utterly dismal amount of reception information. As it stands, Jiraiya (Naruto) and Tsunade (Naruto) should probably be merged. This is more so a result of neither character being featured early in the anime or manga (Chunin Exam arc people backwards tend to be much easier, it would be easier to write an article on Ino for instance) and reviews being very sparse from that point forward (yes IGN has episode reviews, but they rarely, if ever, give significant commentary that can constitute a reception section). As follows, Akatsuki (Naruto) should probably be merged into List of Naruto villains due to the same problem, as you can't carry the whole article on Itachi's and Kisame's highly limited reception (quite sparse for the former, practically nonexistent for the latter). Certainly, if such reception can be pulled for any of my recommended merges, then go ahead, but present your case before starting an edit war over the matter. Recall that blogs, fan sites, and other unreliable sources don't work.

Anyhow, onto a rather more pleasing subject: the character lists. I feel List of major Naruto characters has a big WP:NPOV problem in terms of the article being arbitrary in who we determine as "major" (minor tends to be easier, as tertiary characters can be easily identified, but the gray area past that creates the POV problem). Merging back into List of Naruto characters seems suitable. Now, before length becomes a complaint, see Characters of Final Fantasy XII, Characters of Kingdom Hearts, and Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, which stretch on pretty damn long. See my sandbox for a skeleton of what the page will look like. It follows the format set by Characters of Kingdom Hearts (which has a rather large cast as well). Furthermore, with out-of-universe tidbits on practically every major character (tertiary and minor characters aren't expected to have out-of-universe details, reality of the situation), the character sections can't be hit for being entirely in-universe, and we have rather substantive conception and reception sections (far, far, far easier to find reception on the characters in general instead of specific characters). See Characters of Kingdom Hearts, List of characters in Castlevania: Sorrow series, or Characters of Final Fantasy VIII for what it eventually would like. From there, a featured list nomination is feasible (I know I'm sounding optimistic, but it actually can be done, although the workload to create it will be rather steep). Merging List of Naruto villains and List of minor Naruto characters may be suitable also. In any case, thoughts, discussion, decision building, let's go. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:09, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your merge proposal, but the only problem is WP:SIZE, where merging the entire list would be too long. I think we should merge the information from List of minor Naruto characters into List of Naruto characters and place their information below. But proposing that, I can see that there will be problems.

As for Tsunade (Naruto) and Jiraiya (Naruto), they should be merged into the List of major Naruto characters and be given a new section, Team Sarutobi. I don't know, it seems to be a plausible idea. These are my ideas, let's see what other people think. σмgнgσмg ^(talk) 11:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

My fan-stincts flare up at the thought of merging Tsunade and Jiraiya; I realize they can't support themselves, but I weep at the thought of summarizing them in two paragraphs or less. As such, I shall rely solely on the judgment of others in regards to their fate.

As to the lists, it seems odd to return the "major" characters to this list while minor sit by their lonesomes; it's a reverse of what is normally done. Instead, seeing as maybe half of the characters at List of minor Naruto characters could be removed entirely, combine major and minor into something like List of Naruto protagonists, or simply this article. Going on to merge villains here would create an insanely large article, especially once Akatsuki joins the mix and references are actually added. Two Naruto character lists, as opposed to the current four, is the least that could feasibly be done. ~Snapper T o 04:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, my merge suggestions aren't absolute. They're the ones lying on the edge, and can stay for the moment if necessary. Anyhow, I think excising some of the minor characters and merging might be good. See how Characters of Kingdom Hearts (a bucket load of minor characters) treats it. Due to the size constraints, retaining List of Naruto villains might be suitable. Oh, and if any conception information can be dug out for Rock Lee, an article can be feasibly created, as there's quite a bit of reception information. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's a number of sources for his Bruce Lee qualities. That's the only conception-related information I'm aware of. ~Snapper T o 20:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

My proposal: (bolded are those that I can see make or already are GA quality with what we already know is currently available to say out-of-universe wise)

Keep

In the middle

Orochimaru (Naruto)

Merge

If Jiraiya and Tsunade do get merged, then to the major characters page, and without making a new section just for them.

As for the character lists, then the only number I can see will be three: this one right here, List of Naruto protagonists, and List of Naruto antagonists/List of Naruto villains (name doesn't concern me very much). Merging them all here on one list will be a hassle as things currently are. Instead, unless we remove a big load of characters, then just make hero and villain lists. As for neutral ones, like Kushina, put them under the side that best fits them (Kushina to hero, for example). Should we remove characters, then I suggest that we remove the following. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed on Raiga and Matsuri (no need to mention filler characters), Hanzo (he's mentioned on the Sanni's pages and in Pain's bio, which is his only real significance), Mizuki (only appeared in the first chapter and a filler arc), and the Three Tails, Two Tails, Yugito and Yura (all very minor characters). I think the other characters are at least notable enough to have a small bio, however.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Some time ago I added a bit of an early of Jiraiya but it was a bit improvised since I dont know japanese. Can somebody who knows japanese read [1] and check if there is more info to add more?

About Shikamaru, shouldnt there be information about he in the Uzumaki Artbook? I would like to check it but they dont sell it in my country Tintor2 (talk) 14:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wandering, but when will we stop working our way around it and finally start working on the series' protagonist's article again? Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll get to it at some juncture. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes that article needs to be expanded its in-universe info a bit and the the out-of needs to be organized. But, what about the copyedit problem? I made a request at the league of copyeditors but it will take too much time. If we get some experienced user to do that I can delete the request without problemsTintor2 (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The copy-edit request is largely unnecessary. The only sections that really need fixing are the lead, "appearances in other media," and "reception" sections, which I can do. And really, a WP:LOCE request is only necessary when shooting for FA (fulfilling criterion 1a) - getting a copy-edit for GA is massive overkill. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why do we put in stuff from the fillers?

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've noticed that a lot of the pages base personalities and techniques off of the fillers, like with the Hinata one it says that she created this technique, and it says she can do moves like 64 palms. In cannon, the manga, she can't, so I don't think we should put that there, or at least say "In the fillers," Instead of "In the anime," because people think by anime it means the manga converted to anime. Ally1313 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Own Article

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

What happened to most of the characters having their own articles with pictures, special ninjutsu , and their role in Shippuden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.22.59.91 (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The short? They had to be merged. The jutsu lists were mostly cruft and had to go, and their roles in Part II were plot and had gotten rid of.--TheUltimate3 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Why did they get rid of them? Ally1313 (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing unnecessary characters

Latest comment: 16 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

So... as has been already pointed out, there are character whom we do not need to mention. The question is, which ones should get removed? As for my opinion on the matter, see here. I'll give this about a week. If there are no objections to who made or didn't make the list, then I will be bold and remove them myself. After that, I will decide my opinion for the others. If any of you wish to bring a character back after I remove them, as long as you have a good reason to keep them, I won't bother you. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

My doubt is that if you see those characters as unnecessary, why dont you want to delete Kushina Uzumaki who hasnt done anything in the series? I think that Anko and Kimimaro made more things in the series than her. If it is about how relevant the Kushina is, you shouldnt delete the three-tailed beast. Well, that was my doubt.--Tintor2 (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a fairly inconsistent list o' suggestions; maybe removing Ninken, but not maybe removing snakes? Keep Kushina but remove Danzo? Get rid of the Sound Genin but keep Yashamru? And so on in that fashion. ~Snapper T o 22:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Mainly, characters that didn't make the list aren't there because of how difficult (or impossible) it would be not mentioning them. So I won't be filling up the talk page with explanations for each character, I'll do so on the sandbox page. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yet you still have a consistency problem (assuming you've listed everyone you're considering). Nawaki and Dan aren't needed, on this I agree. But with the same reasoning for removing them you can remove most others relatives/significant others; Fugaku, Yashamaru, Hizashi, Hiashi, Shisui, etc. A good rule of thumb, I think, is that if the only mention a character gets is in episode/manga summaries (excluding lists of relatives), they're expendable. ~Snapper T o 23:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

While Fugaku might be understandible, the other's aren't. Not mentioning them as characters, rather "uncle" or "best friend", would make it very difficult for the readers to understand what the heck we're writing. (Imagine how confusing it would be if we removed Hizashi and Hiashi and only put "Hinata's father" and "Neji's father" ^_^) The Sound Four/Five, for example, can easily be avoided in articles (outside of episode summaries, of course), they aren't even mentioned in Sasuke's page. All that would need to be mentioned is something along the lines of "Eventually, Sasuke's desire to kill Itachi, coupled with his growing jealousy of Naruto's constantly rising strength, would lead him to seek Orochimaru for power." If a character can get removed without causing significant confusion towards readers or the articles, then there's little point in keeping them. Characters like Anko, Hayate, Baki, and Ibiki are example of that. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

As the various articles are currently written, Hizashi and Yashamaru aren't mentioned at all, Fugaku and Hiashi are only mentioned so far as being the father in their children's relevant sections, and Shisui's name need only be dropped from Itachi's entry for his removal to be complete. Their absence would be just as neglectable as Dan and Nawaki's. ~Snapper T o 03:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, seeing this, most of those you said are understandable. However, before we continue running around in circles any longer, perhaps we should get rid of the characters we can easily agree are just taking up space (Hayate, Ibiki, Baki, Anko, etc.) to get something done, at least. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 16:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

What about Kushina Uzumaki? I dont think she has made important things in the series.Tintor2 (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

She's been added as well. Well, it's been six days, and it seems like there aren't any others we haven't covered. I'll start now, but only for ones that are wasting space and nothing else (namely the tailed beasts). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, because the villains article is pretty empty now, I suggest merge to minor characters article. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 17:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted a couple of your removals. Neither the minor nor villains list are strapped for space, so what is basically reducing them to four characters a piece is unnecessary. ~Snapper T o 19:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Major revamp

Latest comment: 16 years ago15 comments7 people in discussion

See my sandbox. I still need to work on the merchandise section and expand the reception a bit, but that's the general idea. List of major Naruto characters would be merged into this article, and needs to be anyway as the title itself is a WP:NPOV problem (minor is fine since tertiary characters are easy to identify). Discuss. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Also noting that this can go off to WP:FLC as soon as all the content is here and sourced. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The sanity-stealing penguins give their approval. This article could use some content. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking good to me! My only question is should reception be above the list? I seem to remember seeing it both ways in character lists and wasn't sure what was the preferred order. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It's after. See the WP:VG featured character lists. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

But that's for video games. :P Though the anime project should probably get around to writing up something similar. :) AnmaFinotera (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It looks awesome. The only thing I wonder is the length. The list of major Naruto characters is already 63 kylobites long (the longest Naruto article). Thanks Sephiroth for the message.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. This Major/Minor thing is just plain ridiculous. This is one of those times where WP:SIZE can in fact be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. Not to mention, that article needs content, and the major/minor things have all the content we need. Endorse merge. Sasuke9031 (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Characters of Kingdom Hearts (FA) an exception to that?--Tintor2 (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Post-merge stuff

Merge done. To-do list:

Add brief summaries for the characters that have articles.
Figure out what the hell to do with the "Other characters" section
Find more reception tidbits
Rewrite/copy-edit the whole thing to death

Relevant comparisons include Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, Characters of Kingdom Hearts, and List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow. For the first item, be brief, summarize the article, and make sure everything is sourced. For the second item, I personally like what is done on the Kingdom Hearts character page (add a broad section in "Other characters" and use one-liners in prose for each character). For the third item, knock yourself out. However, do note that this is WP:FLC, not WP:GAN. Significant coverage is important. Trivial stuff should be disregarded. For the last item, the whole thing needs to be cleaned up (for instance, I haphazardly converted the seiyu/voice actor part into prose, with flow not in mind), and sourced entirely. After that, we'll probably have to recruit someone at WP:LOCE to look over the article considering how big it will be. That said, after the above is done, we basically have the model for WP:ANIME's first featured character list. Discuss. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: Due to suggestions of merging Tsunade and Jiraiya, move them here under a Sannin section, with a link to Orochimaru's page as well. As for Other Characters, put characters in there that have major importance for a non-filler single arc, like Zabuza or Chiyo, or characters that have important affects on the outcome of the series, like the nine-tails. The characters who are either flashback only (First Hokage and Madara) or truly minor (Gato) stay in minor characters page. Team Snake is fine either way, though. Yes, this will drastically increase the size of this article, but, as it is pointed out, articles can be as large or small as possible as long as they have established notability. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

To the first suggestion, that splits up protagonists/antagonists, which is the main way the whole article is sectioned. To the second suggestion, that seems rather arbitrary. The only reason Orochimaru and Akatsuki are the only listed members in the "Antagonists" section is because they actually have individual articles and truly constitute the only real villains of sorts in the series (Zabuza/Haku were one arc, Kabuto isn't major enough, Sound Four and Snake for the aforementioned reasons). I personally think the choice lies between the setup at Characters of Final Fantasy VIII (listing all of them, impractical) and the setup at Characters of Kingdom Hearts (making big sections and listing with one-liners in prose). The latter could work, and I think the only two major sections would be "Konohagakure" and "Sunagakure." All other characters are too difficult to group together and just having these two big sections cuts down on space. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

What about Akatsuki? Shouldnt they be merged in the list of villains?Tintor2 (talk) 00:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I highly disagree with the merging of all Naruto characters onto one page. I liked the old system of articles by name, as it gave all relevent information about the characters including techniques, birthdays, family relations, etc., that is no logner present. Team "Snake" should be under Team Hebi, as that is the official name. Also, the names should be in Japanese order because it is a Japanese-based society, regardless of the dub name order. Akatsuki should not be merged into villeins. If this merging continues, we will have a tiny summary about Naruto on one page. Although individual articles are longer, this allows them to have much more information. If all else fails, I would say to make something along the lines of Military Characters of the Fullmetal Alchemist Manga, in which many characters are on one page but the information is not cut short. Also, there are ninja from Iwagakure and Bloody Mist as well as Konoha and Suna, and what about Temari? She is a liasion between the two, not exactly living in either place. Plus, there are really only a few characters from Suna as compared to Konoha, I beleive that to be a poor way of sorting. I also believe that all filler information should be removed from the articles and put under a seperate filler article, as it is not cannon story and should not be treated as such. Ruingaraf (talk) 00:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

All the former articles failed to meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). You aren't going to win that argument. Next, the majority of the information you're mentioning (techniques, birthdays, etc.) is in-universe cruft that is ultimately extraneous information. We're an encyclopedia that gives a concise summary of whatever we're covering, not a fansite that goes into any detail. Try the Naruto wikia if that's what you're looking for. As for the rest of your concerns: "Hebi" means "Snake," and we use English if at all possible, the names shouldn't be in Japanese order per WP:MOS-JP, as we're catering to an English-speaking audience, and all English media use the English order, and Akatsuki should be merged because it fails the aforementioned notability requirement. That we end up with "a small summary on one page" for all Naruto material is rather ridiculous and unfounded. As for the Fullmetal Alchemist articles, they're also in need of heavy cleanup, something editors are beginning to tackle there, and citing other poorly written articles isn't the best way to back your argument. As for the Iwagakure ninja, there's been like what, three filler characters and Deidara from there? The utter majority of Naruto characters are unimportant to the plot and can be largely omitted; those that are relevant are on the minor characters page. As for your issue with filler material, your so-called "canon" doesn't apply here. What is presented in the anime is official no matter how you want to put it, and we will present it as it is, as we don't support any point of view on the matter. At this point, you're really beating a dead horse. Honestly, the Naruto articles are in far better shape than they were six or so months ago, and when compared to most anime and manga articles, they're actually quite impressive (five featured lists, four good articles, one featured topic). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, filler characters are characters too.

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

What happens if I want information on them? - 4.156.54.55 (talk) 02:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

wikia:Naruto. ~Snapper T o 03:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

...Conveniently doesn't have any information on filler characters, such as voice actors and etc. Thanks for the thoughtless redirect though. - 4.154.239.195 (talk) 02:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it you didn't even bother searching? Because I found a few quickly enough. ~Snapper T o 02:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Love intrest

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Shouldent hinata have her own artical since she is the one of the main love interests Poohman0 (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No. Unless Hinata has enough out-of-universe information, such as reception and merchandise, available to justify giving her an article (like the four articles that are GAs), then she will not be getting an article. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Lee

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

There are three things we should probably mention about Lee:

Drunken Fist
Attacking while unconcious
Nickname "Bushy brows"

However, when I added these, they were deleted. Anyone want to discuss this? Noodle2D23 (talk) 19:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We're strapped for space, so we can't mention everything. Since Drunken Fist and fighting while unconscious are of significance only once, they get shoved into non-mention. Bushy Brows, however, would be a fine addition. ~Snapper T o 19:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think he should have his own page... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megaman en m (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Final merging set

Latest comment: 15 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

After mulling about it, I think List of minor Naruto characters can be merged here. Suggestions below:

Create a "Hokage" section under the "Other characters" section

Short paragraph briefly describing the position and the first two.
Section for the Third and Fourth and move Tsunade into this section

Iruka, the nine-tailed demon fox, Chiyo, and Konohamaru get merged into "Other"

Rest of the characters are one-shot characters that aren't necessary. My only concern is that we have 20k left until we break the upper limit dictated by WP:SIZE, but I think it's manageable. If it comes down to it, Chiyo can but cut altogether from the "Other" section, as she's really a one arc character, while the rest of the suggested mergers are still present in the storyline or were around long enough to warrant mention. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the Shukaku? Although it does not play a big part in the series its totally important with Gaara.Tintor2 (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing a cursory check, I think the article would be able to accommodate First + Second, Third, Fourth, Iruka, Konohamaru, Chiyo, Fox, Shukaku, and Kushina (just 'cause I feels like it) without exceeding 100. Maybe 102-ish tops. And are Jiraiya and Tsunade still to be merged here? If so, I'd put more emphasis on the "ish" part. Since refs can make a big impact on article size, we might be able to shave off a few kbs if we pay better attention to WP:REF: that "all material that is likely to be challenged needs a reliable source", not the current practice of "all material needs a reliable source". ~Snapper T o 03:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I support adding Chiyo and Shukaku to the article. Even if she is a one-arc character, Chiyo still played an important role in the plot of the story. Shukaku plays an important role throughout the series as well. I support merging Tsunade to this article, but I think that we should keep Jiraiya and wait and see if he can be brought up to GA - status before we decide what to do with him. I still am concerned, however, about what to do with the antagonists list. If we really are planning on making the Naruto articles a featured topic, then what are we going to do about that? Improve the article, or merge it? Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 15:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah how the hell can that be called a merge when you're barely merging anything from the other article? The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think she's a one arc character, but we were left with more room than I thought. Shukaku doesn't need to be included, and the relevant details are already present at Gaara - heck, it's more minor than Chiyo. The antagonists list will stay as is. It's not feasible to merge it when we have all the Akatsuki members on that article. Oh, and for the purposes of a FT, just List of Naruto characters would be sufficient if it was a FL. It's why we wouldn't need the individual character articles or say individual video games if List of Naruto video games became a FL. Now, if we wanted a Naruto characters FT, then that would be different, but we can worry about that another time. And to Geg, the rest of the characters were cut since they're one-shot characters present in one arc that are barely important to the plot and don't need to be included for reader comprehension. We're not having sections on characters that barely appeared for any given period of time (Kushina, Yahiko, Rin, Yugito, etc.). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems fine to me, but what about giving Rock Lee his article from this draft? (anybody else draft, I dont care). Though conception lacks, it passes notability and it will reduce the length of this article a bit, since Tsunade seems to be merged due to its issues.Tintor2 (talk) 19:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Tintor, perhaps it would be a good idea to separate the Itachi draft and the Lee draft so we can see how Lee passes notability without Itachi getting in the way and vice versa. Sasuke9031 (talk) 04:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this?Tintor2 (talk) 16:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if Chiyo was a one-arc character, she played a much bigger role in the plot than several recurring characters we ARE listing, so I still choose to support mentioning her. Both Sasori's section on the villains page and Gaara's article still mention Chiyo, but without mentioning her, this confuses the reader and leaves them with no clue who this "Chiyo" is. I saw Shukaku coming, but I'm fine with that, it isn't that big a deal. As for Rock Lee, conception is clearly lacking, but other anime and manga article already made GA without conception information (Rukia Kuchiki, for example), so there really isn't much harm giving him an article (it would look good for us if we get another GA ^_^ ). Tsunade has no hope for meeting the criteria, so we should just merge her here already. And I know I've brought this up several times before, but why are we still ignoring the character article not at GA right now? (Naruto, Gaara, Shikamaru, and Jiraiya) Aren't they important too? Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll incorporate her when I have some time. For the individual character articles, it's because this will be the first character list for WP:ANIME to become a featured list if it passes, and I have a predisposition towards featured lists. Remember that we're volunteers - we aren't obligated to work on anything really. That said, I'll work on getting them up to par after this goes through. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 20:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Does that also mean Lee will get his own article, too? Also, if we want to be the first anime and manga characters list to make Featured List status, than we should hurry. List of Fruits Basket characters could beet us at this rate. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined towards giving him an article. And List of Fruits Basket characters has a long way to go before being a FL, naming the fact that it lacks a conception and reception section, and the individual character sections are too over-detailed and concentrate too much on minor tidbits. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is no response in this weekend (this sounded very bad...) I will give Rock Lee his article and I will also add some refs to it.Tintor2 (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Kanji error on Namikaze

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Its pronounced Namizake, the kanji doesn't mean kaze, its zake. The american animefans thought it would be better to have kaze since the name is similar to wind. But in all actuality it is totally wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.164.43.4 (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

風 would suggest you are wrong. ~Snapper T o 03:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Question - How in any way does "kaze" sound similar to the word "wind"? Am I understanding you correctly, anon-san? And please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Thank you! IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 00:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Kaze" is Japanese for "wind". ~Snapper T o 03:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what kaze means, I'm just a little confused on what the anon is telling us. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 21:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Toads

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I think a case could be made for the toads without violating WP:CRYSTAL. They've certainly played an essential role in many battles, and I think that they could be here for the same reason the Kyuubi is: They're the most-often-seen characters of their type. I'll add them back, come to discuss it here. Belgium EO (talk) 23:54, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Importance in battles equals squat, as you simply reference it in Naruto's and Jiraiya's articles. The only reason the nine-tailed demon fox is there is because he is integral to the plot, and needs to have an entry for the sake of reader comprehension of the plot. The reader doesn't need that for toads - you can say that Jiraiya was trained by toads, can summon giant toads and stomachs, and Naruto can do so too. Done. Nothing more you need to cover. Anyhow, I citied WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR in reference to your statement that they "will be important"; even if they do train Naruto, they don't need an entry. We don't cover excessively minor characters per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT#INFO. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I still disagree, and I guess it comes down to different definitions of "importance." I doubt I'll ever convince you, so I'll try once more, then back down if you revert it again. I don't want to shed e-blood over this, but at the same time, I don't want to think that one definition of "important" is somehow better than another. Belgium EO (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Toads are, at best, a weapon, as no one toad is recurring enough to need an entry. Whatever weapon-related information there is can go with Naruto and Jiraiya. Additionally, chapter 409 has done nothing to improve the importance of toads no matter how you may "call it". Resuming edit warring is just as pointless now as it was last month. ~Snapper T o 03:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no increase in importance. Anything Naruto learns can go under his "Abilities" section. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to chime in here - Agreed with Sephiroth. As it was stated, Kyuubi is a big factor in the plot. Until toads become something equal to the Kyuubi, they're staying the way they are. IceUnshattered^{[ t | c ]} 00:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Page messed up

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Under Neji it says he is gay with no source, most likely vandalism. However, I can't seem to be able to edit it out of the page. Any help would be appreciated. 75.191.186.158 (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It has already been removed. Try clearing your cache if it still shows up. ~Snapper T o 05:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Shizune, the Toads, etc

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not exactly sure what I should be discussing here. Shizune is a major recurring character, almost always being in the same scenes where Tsunade is present along with appearing in various fighting games and etc. The Toads, like Gamabunta and Gamakichi have been long-time recurring characters and more recently the elder toads have become a fairly important part of the story. Those I've mentioned so far have had more screen-time and plot related to them than Tenten, Shino, Iruka and other minor recurring characters of the series. Then there's the matter of the completely unmentioned major arc-specific filler characters; according to AnmaFinotera at least, "filler" is a term that violates WP:NPOV and such things should be treated with equal weight as canon material. I honestly don't think it was a very wise decision to condense a cast of characters relating to such an incredibly long series to two main articles. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm more partial to Shizune, but let's not add anything unless it's sourced completely and written well (considering the article is at WP:FLC). The toads are weapons at best - they're not essential for understanding of the plot and anything major they do is in relation to the major characters and can be included in their articles. There's nothing against filler characters. Filler characters are simply so minor that they don't need to be included. There's no filler arc character that transcends one-arc status that needs to be included. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from in regards to this article what with the FLC, sourcing and etc, but I don't see why a reasonably sized list of minor characters can't exist as long as it's sourced and well-written. Like the toads, several characters on this current list have little notability and very infrequent plot relevence and could also just be condensed down to passing mentions in other sections. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The majority of the minor characters (Shino, Tenten, etc.) are on the list because the rest of their team is, and for the sake of completion, they're included. As for the minor character list, I simply don't think there is enough content to justify it. After you get past the toads and a couple Konoha ninja, there's not a whole lot. At that point, you start to include random characters just to fill up the list, and it becomes a dumping ground for every other character in the series, which is what we don't want and is undue weight. More or less, that was what the old minor character list was, and why it was merged. I'm open on the issue, but I'm pretty sure all the characters that needed to be merged from the minor character list were merged. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A section on toads might be appropriate if it was actually about toads as a whole. The few attempts that have been made in the past have been a list of every toad introduced in the series in prose format, with little indication of how Naruto toads are any different from real toads. If it was about the species rather than each individual character (as no one toad is recurring enough), a case could be made that the section is just as warranted as one on Konohamaru, Iruka, or Shizune (whose inclusion I have no qualms with). ~Snapper T o 21:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Lumping the toads together as a singular character entry is indeed the best course of action should they be included here and was what I was thinking to do. Looking further into it, a minor characters article isn't particularly needed and would probably just lead to a bunch of unneeded entries, I was just thinking that it would be nifty. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Rock Lee's Page

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I really don't think Lee should get his own page. He is not that large a character in the series, and all the stuff mentioned on his page could easily fit into the main character's page. There are some people, like Neji, who are shown just as much, if not more, and have MUCH more to be written about that don't have a page. I think that if you are going to make a page, you should make a page for all those other characters. It's only fair, and, it makes more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.251.197 (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not a given character recieves his or her own article is determined just as much by the amount of sourceable real-world info on that character as by how much of the series focuses on that character, if not more. If Rock Lee has his own article whereas Neji and others don't, it just means there's enough real-world info on Lee to support an independant article, whereas there is not for Neji et al. —Dino guy 1000 16:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

MANY missing characters

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I couldnt help but notice that there are so many links of character names to this page, but upon being directed to the page, I find that they are nowhere to be seen. People like, among many many others, Ebisu, Gamabunta, Pakkun, Anko, Baki, are given links in the episodes section, which point people here, but have absolutely no mention whatsoever. The same goes for the antagonists page. Among others, the soung genin in the chunin exam are absent, although they are linked to there as well. Why is this? and there are no filler characters either, or even any material that appears only in the anime, and not even the word manga is used. The articles seem to only be talking about the manga, although this is not stated, and picture from the anime are even used. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.69.48 (talk) 01:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To put it simply, pretty much all characters missing are meaningless characters that need no mention. We only need to mention the big characters, and that's it. The reason there are still links, however, is because when we deleted the information, we forgot to remove the links to these characters. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 16:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If the links bother you that much, no one is stopping you from removing them yourself, just be sure that you don't inadvertently remove functioning links as well. —Dino guy 1000 18:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Well im not really all that involved in wikipedia, and to be quite honest I dont have the time to go through all those episodes. Maybe we could leave the links, but link them to Naruto Wikia instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.69.48 (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, as a general rule, links to external websites (even Wikia) are not placed in prose, and in any case, linking to the Naruto Wikia has been discussed and rejected more than once on the Naruto talk page. —Dino guy 1000 17:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Danzo: In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Naruto:_Shippuden_episodes, Danzo is linked to this page and mentioned for Episodes 32, 34, 35, 43, 44, 53, 59, 60, 63 and 64. I think he's important enough to be mentioned in the "List of Naruto characters". 84.148.252.167 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Might Guy

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Confused...the punishments Guy sets for himself for failure DO make him stronger...it's a way of training Lots42 (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd change the confusing sentence I mentioned but it has a reference and just increases the confusion. Oh well. Lots42 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hyuga? Not Hyuuga?

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I'm pretty sure that in the animes it is Hyuuga... and I'm 100% sure it's Hyuuga in games... correct please 87.205.209.176 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

No, its not. Viz translated manga use Hyuga. So that's what we use. Besides, where are you getting your anime translations from anyway? Fansubs? Those really don't count. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 18:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

"Hyūga" maybe. --IdLoveOne (talk) 03:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Merging

Latest comment: 15 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

Why have all these sections been merged? I understand that they are considered 'minor' characters, but in a series this large, there are no real 'minor' characters. There is too much that needs to be said about these characters to be shoved into one paragraph, particularly if one is loking for their birthdays, like I was. 24.115.71.110 (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Birthdays don't need to be said, because they add nothing to the character. ~Snapper T o 18:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And there most definitely are minor characters in Naruto - what about Tsunade (Imari's mother, back from the Land of Mist arc)? Or most of the students in the academy with Naruto at the very beginning of the series? And pretty much *all* of the characters introduced in the anime filler episodes are minor. —Dino guy 1000 18:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Birthdays may add nothing to the character, but there are other important facts. I'm not saying that Inari's mother needs her own article, but as for the rookie nine, Gai's team, The Sand ninja, and Tsunade (Who is the Godaime, not Inari's mother) contribute too much to the plot to be considered 'minor.' Many of them even have their own arcs! In articles such as Neji's old one, there were several sections, each consisting of two or more paragraphs of relevant information. How did you condense that into one tiny paragraph? There is too much to be said about these characters, ESPECIALLY the Hyuugas. 71.181.164.42 (talk) 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

They weren't merged because they were "minor", they were merged because there isn't enough conception/reception information on them to keep their articles. If you're interested, the Naruto wikia has all of the individual articles in their former glory. ~Snapper T o 19:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont know why Tsunade was gotten rid of. That was just a stupid decision. Tsunade gets merged, but Lee keeps his article. Tsunade is in pretty much every episodes after she was introduced. Lee was not. Not even close. (I'm not implying that Lee should be merged, what I'm saying is that nobody was complaining that Tsunade had her own article. Now they're complaining that she doesnt. It was perfectly fine the way it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.69.48 (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer is that Tsunades article no no out of universe info whatsoever unlilke Rock Lee's. Tsuande's article had no creation or concept section and there was no information regarding reception (Ie what critics etc thought of the chaaracter). Rocke Lee's article has both with reiable sources to back the statments up. In short Tsuande's article clearly failes WP:FICT whiile Lee's does not. If you do want the article recreated finding reliable sources regarding reception and character creation is the best way to start. --76.69.171.73 (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think this article could do with more pictures, maybe a picture of each team next to the team heading, i think this would be a worthy addition to the article, it would certainly make it more informative for people who don't know very much about Naruto, which is often touted as the raison d'etre of the page?82.69.83.28 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair use concerns. The images are copyrighted material and we can only use them sparingly. As such, group pictures are generally what are used over several individual pictures. Yes, the article would look nicer, but it's against official policy on the matter. See WP:NONFREE and WP:NFCC for more information. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 00:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Pardon, But...

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I added in an entry for Anko on this list, and I come back to find it has been deleted, the reasoning being she is a minor character. I for one think this may be a baseless or unfair assumption, as characters such as Chiyo and Konohamaru, who are both arguably as unimportant as Anko, are both on this list. I was wondering if it would be possible to revert the entry to the way it was. --76.100.18.78 (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

This article has size issues, so the line for which characters get listed needs to be drawn somewhere. Speaking strictly from a manga standpoint, Anko has not made an appearance in the series in well over 300 chapters (and a passing mention some 260 chapters ago). Iruka and Konohamaru have appeared much more recently than that. Similarly, she is of negligible significance during her short appearance, as her only worthwhile contribution is a failed attempt to kill Orochimaru. Chiyo has a volume or two dedicated to her and she actually kills Sasori. Both points, I think, would qualify Anko as more of a minor character than Iruka, Konohamaru, and Chiyo. I realize her appearances in the anime have done something to overcome these shortcomings, but not enough to be included here. Were Anko to be added to the list some umpteen equally recurring characters would be added as well, making the article's size issues only more apparent. ~Snapper T o 18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you just divide up the page and let people make a section specifically for recurring characters then?76.28.11.90 (talk) 03:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Because those recurring characters add nothing to the story. They exist to serve an extremely specialized role and to otherwise increase the cast size. As a result, there is little of significance that can be said about most of them. Creating additional articles or making this one even bigger just to add what little information of value there is on the innumerable miscellaneous characters is highly impractical. If someone really wants to read up on Ino's father (who becomes a "recurring character" in chapter 418), they can check the Naruto wikia. ~Snapper T o 03:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

How is it impractical? You don't have to create the articles or the additional entries. The original poster already went through the trouble of creating a very brief paragraph about Anko. Besides, if someone really wants to read up on any of the Naruto characters, they can visit Naruto wikia. So why haven't just deleted the entire page and put a link to the other wiki? What makes this article somehow more appropriate for Wikipedia than an article dealing with more characters? It's not as though most of these characters have any relevance to the real world. It seems like your sole concern is with keeping this article short, not with providing information to those that seek it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.11.90 (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the gist of it. Contrary to Wikipedia's advertising, it has no desire to be a collection of all human knowledge. It instead strives to succinctly cover what human knowledge the masses might actually look up. Were someone with no interest in Naruto to randomly stumble across an article filled to bursting point with one-shot characters, they scream for its head on a binary platter (aka. wholesale deletion). Should they instead stumble upon this article, stuffed within reason with characters central to the series, they are more inclined to look elsewhere to slay their lust for digital death. This leads to the excommunication of characters like Anko on Wikipedia, and whosoever is compelled to look them up, not find them, and ask about it are pointed towards more informative wikias. ~Snapper T o 03:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

However, at the same time, Wikipedia has no links, not even under an "external links" section to said wikia. In the case that someone does not know of the wikia's existance and wants to look up information on a side character, they will be stuck up a creek without a paddle. This presents us with two options, the first of which is automatically ruled out: allow people to add characters to the article as they please, or add in a link to the wikia somewhere. 206.158.3.71 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Or do neither. This isn't a site for fans to throw up info on all their favorite characters, nor is it an advertisement for wikia (nor is it a link directory). Folks wanting to do that can use Google very easily to find a site more to their liking. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not your babysitter. It's not our job to link you to sites you could have found with a simple Google search. If, for some reason, you wish to know about Mitarashi Anko, you are free to put her name into that little Google search bar in your internet browser, press Enter, and click on whatever result floats your boat. Sui get su 23:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why Sasuke is

Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Why is Sasuke still listed under Protagonists? At this point, after all he's done and now knowing he wants to kill everyone in Konoha, he should definitely be taken out of this section. I don't see how there could be any debate about that. He's done nothing protagonistic in many many ages. And he's already listed in "List of Naruto antagonists" as part of Team Hawk, so having him here too can't be correct. Can't be both at the same time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.120.97.162 (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

He's still a main character, which is what the section is geared at covering. The section might need renaming to better reflect that. ~Snapper T o 02:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes he is, but the two main lists are entitled protagonists and antagonists, not main characters and antagonists. Not to mention he's in both, so it would be entirely appropriate to remove him from the former. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.170.38 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I suggested renaming the section "Main characters". Name aside, the current section he is in is most appropriate; Sasuke has always been a protagonist (main character), only recently becoming an antagonist (works against protagonist; not necessarily a main character). It's going to be somewhat confusing no matter where he's placed, and placing him with the rest of the original Team 7 is simply more accessible to readers. ~Snapper T o 23:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

He's shouldn't be one. Being a Main character doesn't mean you're a protagonist. His motives are the opposite of Naruto which makes him an antagonist. --Vehgah (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. By definition, protagonist simply means "main character", and antagonist means "those who oppose the main characters". As such, Sasuke, being a main character, is a protagonist. 174.130.12.242 (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Tsunade....

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Why is Tsunade here, but the Orochimaru and Jiraiya have their own articles?Moocowsrule (talk) 01:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Because she does not reception info that all the other articles have.Tintor2 (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There was alo not a creation and concept section either which all the other articles that have not be merged have as well. --76.66.182.242 (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's weird that the two Sannin who are dead (well one who is semi-absorbed/dead) have their own articles, yet the current Hokage doesn't. But if they didn't meet the criteria, then I guess it didn't deserve it's own article. But then someone should research that stuff about her. I think she deserves her own article, or Orochimaru and Jiraiya should be merged into this page. Moocowsrule (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Importance within the series is entirely irrelevant to whether it has an article or not. If the character has enough coverage by independent reliable sources, then it passes WP:NOTE and the character will have an article. Both Jiraiya and Orochimaru have such sources and as such, are notable and should have articles. Tsunade's role in the series has zero effect on whether she has an article or not, and she has no such sources to demonstrate notability. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have said it differently. I meant someone should find more info about her. I was saying because she's a important character she deserves her own article, not that that's the only reason. I meant that that's one of the factors. Moocowsrule (talk) 06:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

There's not always information that's actually available. Please give examples of how she "deserves her own article". For now, it doesn't hurt to keep her here. 72.10.96.173 (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

>_<*... I need to work on explaining my ideas better... I meant if someone finds more info then she should get her own article.Moocowsrule (talk) 05:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Months before the merge, I looked everywhere to look for reception. There was nothing of that. If you want to recreate that article I recommend you to make a sandbox of reception of Tsunade and then comment in the talk page. That is what I did when Rock Lee was merged.Tintor2 (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

An idea

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I've really scoured the Internet for reception information, but List of Naruto antagonists comes up short in that regard, as practically no reviews address the antagonists as a whole in any given spot. As such, that list gaining FL status is practically impossible, and this topic becomes impossible as well. Merging that list here has long been derided because we would exceed WP:SIZE, but given some examples of articles I've seen that have exceeded 100k simply because of the depth of the topic, I think we can ignore it here (say History of the Roman Catholic Church or Line of succession to the British throne). The character base is simply so large for a series this extensive that going over 100k is inevitable. As for the actual merge, the antagonists list has about 50k of mergeable content. That goes down to about 40k if you remove the Sound Four, and after an extensive copy-edit, I can see that going down to 30-35k (probably more actually, as we have a lot of detail on several of these characters). So yeah, unless someone can find some sources that I've missed, this seems to be the path we have to take. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea. I think it would help to define antagonists since it is a bit confusing if Gaara or Sasuke are antagonists (or at least readers have commented it in some talk pages).Tintor2 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I detest this idea. List of Metal Gear Solid characters has little on the characters as a whole yet still manages FL status. It instead relies on out-of-universe info given for each individual character, something I'm sure the antagonists list could manage (especially since the third databaook apparently has design comments for every character). Further, antagonists are characters too, so to some extent you could rehash the Conception/Reception sections of this article. ~Snapper T o 19:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Metal Gear Solid characters is a fairly old FL that would not pass the current FLC process, and would have a good chance of being delisted if it was brought to FLRC. It's not the model to follow (relevant model was established with Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and so on from there), and the antagonists list will not pass FLC with random tidbits of reception under various characters (which is impossible in most cases considering that several of the Akatsuki characters are in no English media). Trust me when I say that I am very familiar with the FLC process (for obvious reasons). In any case, the conception in the antagonists list is bare-bones (most of the conception section replicates what is already present here in this character list), and the reception section is non-existant. There's not even much to say about the individual characters, who would get completely random mentions from odd sources if we follow the Metal Gear Solid character list model (making it look similar to Jutsu (Naruto) with the random IGN mentions, which is awful). I don't see the downsides to merging. It's not like the characters are being removed (I'm welcome to discussion on keeping the Sound Four, which seems plausible given that they have conception information), and there's no point to keeping the additional list if it's going to sit there. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:19, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am well aware of of your F/GA history. I am simply adverse to the idea of merging for the sake of merging. And yet I am even more adverse to thinning the character count by more than has already been done. If all the characters currently on the antagonists list survive the transfer I will be more agreeable to the idea. As an aside, there's some amount of reference overlap with the two articles (ex: Choji and Jirobo both reference chapter 190). Since references can make a considerable impact on an article's size, catching the duplicates should help with article size reduction. ~Snapper T o 19:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not proposing this for the sake of merging. If the antagonists list could go to FL, I wouldn't have a problem in keeping it, and I know that you're adverse against thinning the character count. Given the conception information for the Sound Four, I'm a bit more agreeable to keeping them, so to that end, we're keeping all our antagonists. Right now, copy-editing the character entries on the antagonists list down for the merge will IMO, significantly reduce the size of the merge, so let's do that and get to merging. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wait, the entire basis for merging here is because at the current time there's a possibility the antagonist list can't reach FA status? Good Christ, this is an awful idea with an awful basis and I'm almost terrified that it's come down to the point where three people vaguely agreeing on something this huge qualifies as "consensus". I honestly can't see any particularly positive outcome of this, all that a merger would accomplish here would be information loss and this article becoming bigger and more unwieldy. The question of "How would this benefit the readers?" doesn't seem to come up at all here. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

You'll notice that in the three months since this was discussed, nothing has been merged. That's because some people (like me!) aren't terribly enthusiastic about the idea. But I can assure you that nothing would be lost; I have the end product saved to my computer and it is essentially List of Naruto antagonists C&P'd into this article. It also happens to be 130kb. As an aside, I'm not sure Sephiroth still plans on carrying out the merge, as he has more recently expressed interest in bringing the antagonists list up to FL standards. ~Snapper T o 22:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I should've guessed that something was up given how old this conversation is, though AnmaFinotera said something about it still being carried out so I figured I'd throw in a comment anyway. Well then, carry on. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Probley a good idea

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why dont we put each team on their own page ? Poohman0 (talk) 02:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)Mercinary

Because not many of them have reliable coverage. If you could find a reliable source we probably could, but it would take up a lot of room. And don't you mean "probably"? Moocowsrule (talk) 03:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

YeaPoohman0 (talk) 00:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Whoever Put Chiyo Back In...

Latest comment: 15 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

Tell me why in the world she's even close to being relevant. I thought Wikipedia isn't a list of indiscriminate information? 76.100.18.78 (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

She is a main character... and what do you mean by "a list of indiscriminate information?"... that makes no sense... Moocowsrule (talk) 03:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

It's not. If it was then there'd be an entry for that woman who loses her cat at the start of the series. An old discussion decided Chiyo was "major" enough to receive an entry. ~Snapper T o 03:43, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

If Tenten, Shino, Iruka and Konohamaru are worthy to be on this page, than Chiyo certainly is. She plays a larger role in the story than any of them, even if she was only in one story arc. I don't think there's really any question about the validity of characters on this list belonging here.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really have a problem with this page. You allow characters who have only been shown in one arc, but won't allow so called "One-shot characters". If you're only concerned about size, as it appears from said discussion, why not just remove the entire other section? 76.100.18.78 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume by one-shot character you mean Anko and the like? If you can give a compelling reason to add Anko, Ibiki, or any other infrequently-cameoing-higher-ranked-supplementary-character, they might very well be added. As to getting rid of the Other section, where then would we put Jiraiya or the nine-tailed plot device? ~Snapper T o 02:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

... err... um... *looks* Oh, right, I had... yeah... eh-heh... at any rate, valid point. However, it may (may not) be worthy of note that Kishimoto himself has stated Anko is his favorite female character, as stated in the Naruto Anime Profiles, Volume 1: Episodes 1-37, on page 198. In addition, she has been playable in more Naruto video games than any other so-called side characters. Also, she has been seen in the anime more than other characters not seen past their arcs. She even had her own "filler arc", with an episode in it almost completely dedicated to finding out about her past.76.100.18.78 (talk) 01:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Which says something about her surprisingly good fortune. Despite being basically forgotten by Kishimoto (read: 300 chapter [6 year] vacation), Anko has enjoyed the status of well-exposed lost potential. If she were somewhat more active in the series then her extra credentials would probably be enough. As it stands, more prevalent characters get shafted just to appease fiction-hating Wikipedians, and adding Anko would give reason to add all the missing characters from higher up on the food chain too. ~Snapper T o 03:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Alright then, I suppose that it does make sense. Thanks for clearing that up. ... and personally, I agree she has wasted potential, but that's opinion... again, thanks for clearing that up.76.100.18.78 (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Just throwing this out there: In a dramatic twist unlike anything I've ever seen, the author has managed to call Anko back into the plot after a 5 year hiatus. [2] So maybe soon she'll actually manage to make it on the list.- Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Why there's no mention of Ichiraku Teuchi?

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

While I agree that he isn't a much seeing character, there are pretty much references to Ichiraku Teuchi and his ramen bar.

He is first time shown at the beginning of the manga and is mentioned (more than showed, true) while the manga and anime many times. One of anime fillers (169, if I'm right) give us ever some sort of his biography. In anime he has almost the same amount of 'screen time' as Konohamaru.

Also he is one of the most mentioned supporting cast character in fanfictions (and the writers often ask what's his proper name). --MEG (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the previous entry
Maybe a simple list (as sub-site / reference) with minor characters names (sorted via time appearance or alphabetically) would be informative and satisfactory enough for users? So no one would ask Why this character isn't on the list? Also, there's hard to say who is/will be protagonist or antagonist so I don't think that this division will be useful before the series ends (and event then). --MEG (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't Erase Team Ebisu

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Not cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.58.133 (talk) 03:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No confirmation of Hinata's death

Latest comment: 15 years ago16 comments7 people in discussion

Everyone continues to believe that Hinata is dead, when there is basically no proof that she has died - she may just be knocked down. Until another character proves that she is dead then it is generally best to alter the information regarding her alleged death until it is properly confirmed. Evilgidgit (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

True. Wait until next week or the chapter where her condition has been confirmed. Many speculate that she is. Many say that she isn't. Any info included should be limited to only what we know as of now. Fox816 (talk) 22:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It Dosent look to me like shes dead Poohman0 (talk) 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll know by next week (Hopefully, then again, Kakashi is not confirmed yet either). If not, Kishi should tell us eventually. Hopefully with the addition of one word, the edit warring will stop. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This information is not needed in the article. I feel that the information regarding the recent chapter of the Naruto Manga on Hinata and her speculated "death", should not be added to the article for several reasons, it serves as a major spoiler for fans of the series who do not read the manga, are new and so on, it is also mostly speculation, Hinata has not been confirmed "dead" and she was not "stabbed", she was however blocked from readers view by rubble, meaning that her being stabbed is still speculation and has not yet been confirmed. JoycieC (talk) 02:31, 28 February 2009

Wikipedia does not hide spoilers, it's an Encyclopedia of information for everyone, not just for one sect, for example "Those who are just getting into Naruto". Thus it's not important to remove information like this. Otherwise we'd be removing everything from chapter 2 onwards for those just getting into it if we were to only accommodate to newcomers to the series. True her 'stabbing' was not shown, that is why I have added 'seemingly' as it caters to those who think she was stabbed, and those who don't think she has been. Surely you cannot still have a problem with this? DaisukeVulgar (talk) 02:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to sound arrogant, by all means, it's just that from personal experience with spoilers that I really felt were completely unnecessary which have ruined a series I myself had been enjoying for a long time, I just don't feel that others should have that same sort of feeling by mistakingly reading something that will ruin part of the story. On the stabbing note, very well "seemingly" is fine, let's leave it at that then. However, not just because of the spoiler involved etc, I feel that this information is to be honest, completely unnecessary, it serves little purpose to the article in my opinion, but I think that it could be more suited to the article if left until more information is confirmed, that way we can get rid of speculation and provide real information. JoycieC (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2009

(edit conflict)"Seemingly" is open to claims of original research. While I agree she was almost certainly stabbed, that's not enough for Wikipedia. Clear evidence either from the manga or the author need to be shown as it is obviously a controversial statement. That she fought pain and confessed to Naruto and he got angry after her brief battle is verifiable. The rest is pure conjecture.じんない 02:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree on what you've put now in the place of 'seemingly', this will hopefully make everyone happy, whether you're pro-stabbing, or against-stabbing. If any bit of that was to be taken out, I believed it was that, but to have the confession taken out, I completely disagreed on. Like I said, hopefully we shall know the true results soon, until then, I see no reason for this edit warring to continue, we've reached a suitable agreement I'd say. Always worthwhile using the discussion. Oh and on the spoiler subject, I agree that spoiler is an annoying thing to read, especially for newcomers, but it's not just for them, it's for the veterans of the series to who wish to recap incase they have forgotten something important perhaps. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You bring up valid points which I can agree on, spoilers/information regarding a subject can sometimes ruin something for somebody but you bring a valid point up for those who would like to refer back to old events in the series, I myself have done that so I will back down from the confession, but let's leave the "stabbing" incident until conformation in the next few weeks, so let's leave it all as it is for now and just see how it goes. JoycieC (talk) 03:13, 28 February 2009

I'm glad this was resolved civilly. We will indeed wait for more information and confirmation before writing up the if she was stabbed or not, just saying she confronted Pain sounds reasonable enough. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, that sounds reasonable enough. :) JoycieC (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2009

I made a small rewrite to the information, staying concise and neutral while expanding more on what had happened in the latest chaper.

Current ~ "Before her confrontation with Pain and subsequent defeat, Hinata confesses her love to Naruto."

Previous~ "Hinata eventually confesses her love for Naruto, shortly before attacking Pain."

I'm bringing this up since an anonymous user reverted my edit, apparently disagreeing. The previous line does not state what happened to her after attacking Pain. It would be best to include that information, not leaving things on a cliffhanger since the manga already showed explicitly what happened. She was, in fact, defeated in battle. Whether or not she died, stabbed, etc...is up in the air and as such I avoided stating that in my edit. Basically, I made sure the facts are all there. There should be no problems. Fox816 (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The only reason I wanted you to come to the discussion was because of the warring yesterday and that, given that we all reached an agreement previously, it should not just be changed without others input. Your change does indeed remain neutral. Does anyone else have an objection to it? DaisukeVulgar (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My edit should not have warranted two reverts (General Notice for Users: Take Note of the Three-Revert-Rule Please. It applies per person, not per account.) and a forced discussion. Careful consideration of what I wrote shows that I steered clear of conflicting what had been agreed here and made the information more clear and whole. I did not believe my edit was controversial or needed agreement on. Assuming that, I do apologize for not bringing it up here first. To be fair, edits that correct the sentence and stay in line with what is agreed here should be permitted without reverting or discussion. Only if it is seen as controversial should a revert be necessary. Simply reverting to force a discussion, especially if you agree with the edit in the first place, is not good edit etiquette and puts that user on the block for violating the Three-Revert-Rule. Fox816 (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to note I won't change the edit back to how I wrote it until it's green, so as to avoid any more unnecessary conflict. Fox816 (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, while I almost personally agree that Hinata was defeated, because often we have seen characters in Naruto seemingly knocked down at the end of a chapter only to rise back up the next it is a contriversial statement, even for Hinata. This is because if we used her relative power to Pain that would be synthesis. Therefore we can only know she confessed her love to Naruto and attacked Pain.じんない 06:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe with 438 out we can see that Hinata is alive. Hopefully no more edit warring will happen should this page be unlocked. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Cant you guys just simply lock it?Haseo445 (talk) 15:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Already been done, however this article is starting to resemble a fansite, so I suggest people start toning down what they add to the article and remember to follow the rules, add spoilers so long as it contributes, not just "because it happened", Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a weekly update page for fans. 91.104.22.8 (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This article is starting to resemble a fansite

Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments6 people in discussion

It's locked for now, but this article is starting to resemble a fansite that's being updated weekly, an example of this would be the recent "hinata" incident, where hordes of edits were applied claiming she is alive, dead and so on, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it should be treated as such, the recent edits containing information so far into the series are irrelevant and unnecessary, I suggest that when this is unlocked people stop editting it, read it and check for any information that does not belong or isn't needed, for example the incident regarding Hinata and confessing to Naruto, the incident with Shizune and her "soul being removed", Gaara and Jaraiya's sections are perfect examples of how it should be, unlike Hinata and Shizune's. 91.104.22.8 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The additions to Hinata and Shizune's sections are appropriate given the significance of those events to the character (profession of love and death respectively). Jiraiya and Gaara's sections are the way they are because they each have their own article, so any plot developments pertaining to them are detailed there. ~Snapper T o 21:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you not aware of how much unneccesary information is being injected into this article? the article is pretty much turning out to be a weekly update page for fans, and the edit history will back this up, which is why I'm suggesting that the article be reviewed and editted accordingly by somebody who will do a proper job, spoilers are one thing, but when the article basically becomes a train full of unneeded passengers, it gets crowded, and with a crowd there's bound to be some people that do not need to be there, I use that example for this article, because it's turning into a page where fans can just edit it every single week when a new episode/chapter is released, this is what locked the article in the first place with all the edits, and with so much information that is not needed, the article is straying from the original goal of being part of an encyclopedia and turning into a page that resembles a fansite, a very unorganised one at that. The need for information beyond their personality, name, age and other such is unneccasary and should not be added because it is straying from the original reason for Wikipedia existing in the first place. 91.104.18.166 (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Care to give some specific examples. I'd certainly argue that information on a character's role in the plot is pretty important to note. It gives context for why they're actually on the list. Certainly trivial details should be left out, and everything doesn't need to be noted, but things such as Hinata's confession (a huge moment for her character) and Shizune's death (which is pretty important to note, seeing as she, you know, dies) are not trivial information.kuwabaratheman (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The two most recent additions to the article have been Shizune's death and Hinata's confession. In that time there have been ten chapters. That amounts to an average of one update every month. A [series of] weekly update[s] would be, "Shizune thinks she finds out who Pain is. Then she confirms it. After that she tries telling ppl. Recently, she tried telling Tsunade, but was captured. Then she was dead. Maybe. Then she was for sure dead. Also, Naruto learned Sage Mode. That's not really relevant to Shizune but you should probably know. And I heard that Sage Mode is like Super Saiyan or something. But seriously, Shizune's dead. I'm sad. Her character was so built up over the last month that it's disappointing she went and died. Stupid Pain. I hate him no matter how cool he is. I hope Naruto kills him or learns him some manners. Oh, and when I said 'recently' I meant then, as in when I wrote it. Not now. I don't pay much attention to what the thing says because I just shovel new developments on to the end of the paragraph every week." See? A weekly update would amount to a paragraph-long description that would be better off as a sentence. Not the case here. ~Snapper T o 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your examples support the counter-argument since these are serious moments for each character. If you can cite other examples you think should be removed, then that is open to discussion. If they are deaths or major events that a significant amount of development has gone into FE: numerous chapters and scenes went into developing Hinata's shyness and inability to tell Naruto her feelings. It was a major part of her character. Telling Naruto about her feelings amounts to serious character development.じんない 06:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

i believe it wouldn't sound like fanfic or fandubbed if you could just simply describe it briefly. it wont hurt the article to have some additional information. anyways.... if things like describing there own view, than we would have to revert it back.Haseo445 (talk) 17:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think it needs some cleanup for prose or some statments, go ahead and say so. For the latter though, you probably should be more familiar with the series as to what denotes a major plot development unlike the person claiming Hinata's admittance of liking Naruto wasn't major.じんない 00:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

minato

Latest comment: 15 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

shouldn't we say the reason why naruto's name doesn't carry minato's surname even though he is his father? i think that bit of information is important.DeathBerry talk 17:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo445 (talk • contribs)

Its never explained.Tintor2 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

what are you talking about? of course it explained. it was when jaraiya was dying. he was having flashbacks of minato and his pregnant wife and decided to name there son after the first novel of jaraiya (which apparently didn't have good ratings) because he was the only one that liked the story.

and jaraiya told minato not to name him after that since he only thought it up after eating ramen. Also in the latest chapters, minato said he had to keep him being a fourtrh hokage's son a secret so no one would hurt him.DeathBerry talk 15:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo445 (talk • contribs)

But he never confirmed the reason of his surname. Jiraiya only named him Naruto.Tintor2 (talk) 15:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

jaraiya didn't named him, the fourth hokage did. the fourth hokage merely took the name off the book of jaraiya's. thats reason enough. Also the fourth hokage explained that naruto had to be kept secret because it would endanger his life if people find out that he was the fourth hokage's son. also i'm pretty sure the book mentions "uzumaki" as well. i believe it was when naruto was reading it.DeathBerry talk 6:26 pm, Today (UTC+1) DeathBerry talk 17:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haseo445 (talk • contribs)

The book never states why Naruto was given the name 'Uzumaki' it's only stated why he was given the name 'Naruto' which as you stated, was because Minato took it from Jiraiya's unsuccessful book. Now, when the manga states why Naruto took Kushina's surname and not Minato's, we'll include it. It may just be to protect him incase he found out the Fourth's name was Minato Namikaze, but so far that is Original Research so we can't put it. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

doesnt sound to far off though. if minato practically said it when he was talking to naruto.DeathBerry talk 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

But he never said the reason of his surname.Tintor2 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

very well then. though it might not have been minato's decision to change it.DeathBerry talk 16:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is that Baki guy on this list?

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

He was a pretty minor villain character who disappeared a few hundred chapters ago with no significant appearances in any other media, did someone sneak him on? Replace his section with Anko, Ibiki, Fukusaku/Ma or some other minor character of larger importance. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 21:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It was there because it was added a short time beforehand about a little more than 20 minuits before you posted based on the history. It has since been removed. --76.66.184.249 (talk) 02:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)-

My goodness. If you guys don't like the character what ever. He didn't disapear. The last time we saw the sand ninja he was with them. He is on the council. He is their sensei. If your going to erase his than you might as well erase all the senseis files! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.45.230 (talk) 04:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason he was removed is because he is a minor character who was much less involved in the overall plot than any of the sand siblings. If by removing senseis you mean Kakashi and Guy that is simply not going to happen since they have much more plot importance than Baki and any attempt to remove them due to Baki's removal would be a clear case of WP:POINT. --76.65.142.33 (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hiruzen Sarutobi

Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

When was this revealed to be his name? --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sarutobi in his fight against Orochimaru. Hiruzen in the newest databook.Tintor2 (talk) 19:16, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

But using the databooks as a source is considered inaccurate, and their contents are sometimes proven wrong [through the manga] a time later. Though his name is shown as Hiruzen in chapter 440, I only note this so the source can be called "correct". Spindori (talk) 23:41, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Since when are officially published databooks not allowed? They are still primary sources.陣内 _Jinnai 02:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say anything like that. It's just that I myself, don't trust them for common referance. Still new to the policies here, but could changing the source to the chapter make it any less credible? Spindori (talk) 13:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? The material from the books is written by Masashi Kishimoto author of the manga.Tintor2 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is often contradicted by the manga itself. To change the referance to any chapter now, there is no need - since it's been proven, but going with what proved it true may be better than said "it" as a referance. As far as I've been told, I'm overruled by the Wikipedia guidelines already, so I won't continue. I only defend myself because I was asked, not for wanting the change. Spindori (talk) 15:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

When is it contradicted?Tintor2 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

If they are written by the author they are both considered reliable sources. If Kishimoto has said his databooks are not to be considered canon, or only canon if it doesn't contradict the manga, that's fine. If not, saying the manga is primary source if it contradicts the guides, written by him as well, is original research.

At the very least contradictions should be noted in creation and concept sections.陣内 _Jinnai 21:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Splitting

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the discussion of the main page (Naruto) is said that some propose to split the character's page. Even if I like the fact that I could find about minor Naruto's characters in Wiki, I'm not sure it is necessary. Though, a simple list/table would be interesting/helpful.

I don't see anything on the Naruto talk page about splitting. There is also little chance of a minor character page being created since thet existed in the past and was merged by consensus.--70.24.177.158 (talk) 03:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

doubtful because there have more pushes to get List of Naruto antagonists back into this list. Just its taking time so this list doesn't lose its FA status.じんない 03:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Teuchi Ichiraku

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm strongly for adding this character in Others section. Why? 1. It's one of few civilian characters showed in anime/manga 2. There was anime episode about him (167 if I'm not mistaken) - we know he was a ninja, has daughter ect. 3. His place is often show in anime and mentioned in manga 4. His name is very popular in fanfiction, so people may look up for this character However it's true this character is not necessary for the plot MEG (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

why isn't killer bee on the list?

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

he's a minor character, but but heis alot more important then guys like tenten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.224.132 (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why isn't Sasuke an antagonist

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

In the manga Sasuke is obviously opposed to Naruto's(principal character and according to the Greek usage of the word the only true protagonist) goal. That makes him an antagonist.

--Vehgah (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Because he's also a protagonist that receives almost as much screentime as Naruto. ~Snapper T o 15:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That makes little sense. An antagonist is someone that opposes the protagonist. Naruto is named after ....Naruto and he will always be more of a protagonist. Wonder if Sasuke becomes the out and out villain of the manga? The problem is this article's definition of protagonist. Sasuke is even a part of Akatsuki now....who're labeled as antagonist. --Vehgah (talk) 19:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

For the purposes of this article, "protagonist" is a fancy way of saying "main character". To that end, Naruto is considered the protagonist and Sasuke is considered a protagonist. His current motives do not change the fact that a considerable portion of the series (at least in recent years) has been dedicated to him. What do you do when one protagonist opposes another? Stay tuned for this and other exciting answers! ~Snapper T o 20:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

In the storyline as a whole, he is more of an antagonist, even though he starts off a protagonist. The user does have legitmate basis as to question it so dismissing it because it is currently is should not be done so lightly.陣内 _Jinnai 21:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The user have a right to protest the fact that Sasuke is a protagonist, but you have to consider the fact that this Wiki may not be updated. You can also consider that Sasuke could be still label a protagonist because he is not the villian of the story at any point. He is only trying to gain more power to avenge his clan and in attempting to do that he continuously finds out that the person that he is after is not the villian at all. There are many correlated conflict in this story in which the villian is not the antagonist, for instance, Konoha vs Akatsuki, First Hokage vs Madara. Sasuke only opposed Naruto one time and even at that time they were comrades. And the finally evaluation of the actual Antagonist to me would be high ranking officials of Konoha. They caused the series of events known as Naruto to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.235.53.230 (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Konohamaru Sarutobi and images

Latest comment: 14 years ago16 comments3 people in discussion

Konohamaru Sarutobi is not among the characters in the group pictures. His section discusses his design characteristics. I would like to upload a low resolution picture of Konohamaru to illustrate his character so the reader can visualize how Kishimoto created the character. Would it be alright if I uploaded a small image of Konohamaru for his section? I am asking because this is a featured article. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A fourth image likely wouldn't doom this article, but images depicting multiple characters tend to be favored. Maybe find an image with both Konohamaru and Iruka (since his design is also referenced)? ~Snapper T o 17:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find one with the two together. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... so far I haven't found any images of Konohamaru together with Iruka on Google Image search. Would it be okay if I looked through Naruto volumes to see if there are any pages with the two together? WhisperToMe (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't remember any image featuring both. I think it would be easier to find one of the first four hokage.Tintor2 (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I got one of Konohamaru. I had to cut down the original image so that the new image shows Konohamaru's face. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Uploading an individual image in a list is very questionable. Konohamaru is not the only character who did not have an image. Adding more images will bring WP: Nonfree issues and replacing an individual image with a group image is more suitable.Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Aside from characters who have their own articles and characters who are already present in the existing group images, I don't know if any characters on the page, besides Konohamaru and Iruka, have their character designs discussed. Maybe if there was a photo with Konohamaru and Iruka together... WhisperToMe (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The sections already talk about the designs. If there is something concept that would need explanation with an image, the best thing to do is to clarify the text to avoid uploading more nonfree images.Tintor2 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Nonfree#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles says "Images which are discussed in detail in the context of the article body, such as a discussion of the art style, or a contentious element of the work, are preferable to those that simply provide visual identification of the elements." - So if one had to pick and choose, it would be best to illustrate the characters who have their designs discussed. "Images that show multiple elements of the list at the same time, such as a cast shot or montage for a television show, are strongly preferred over individual images." also applies, so hopefully a group image with Konohamaru and Iruka will surface. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

But uploading two images will already bring nonfree issues.Tintor2 (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't uploaded a second image at this time, though. Tintor, do you remember if Konohamaru and Iruka appear in the same scene together at any point in the manga? I'll see if I can find a scan of that particular scene. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep. But there needs to be a neutral point of view for the images. In only remember that during the invasion to Konoha, Konohamaru was in Iruka's class.Tintor2 (talk) 01:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The bit where Iruka is minding Konohamaru's class begins in Episode 68. I'm looking for a good screenshot with the two of them. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And here's the shot of Iruka and Konohamaru together: File:KonohamaruIruka.PNG - Thank you for mentioning the scene and its details! WhisperToMe (talk) 02:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cool.Tintor2 (talk) 13:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Killer Bee needs to be added

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

With these current chapters he is clearly more important to both the plot of the series and as a character than quite a few characters listed here like Chiyo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.112.20 (talk) 06:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yamato

Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Yamato is a Jonin, in addition to being an ANBU. Tsunade and other characters have said that multiple times in the series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.5.109 (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Disparity

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just a query... why do articles like List of Tenjho Tenge characters have a subarticle for almost every character, when Naruto only have subarticles for the main characters? This, in spite of Tenjho Tenge's lower popularity than Naruto. A bit puzzzling. --PenaltyKillah^{^Jw21} 23:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not really puzzling, but you have highlighted a problem with Tenjo Tenge, not Naruto. Naruto's character pages all use discussion from reliable sources (such as review sites) to demonstrate real word notability. The ones that don't are kept to the list article. Naruto has a lot of editors who look after the articles to make sure that this is true. Tenjho Tenge doesn't have this, for reasons similar to what you mention and the pages need to be merged at some point. Unfortunately the backlog for such merges is long as only a handful of people perform them. Please start a topic on my talk page if you would like more informartionor would like to help with that.Dandy Sephy (talk) 00:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Naruto, Sasuke and Kakashi's names

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why are 'uzumaki', 'uchiha' and 'hatake' written in hiragana? Other character's names aren't, like "haruno" (sakura). They should be changed to kanji, no? Indigochild 01:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that's how Masashi Kishimoto writtes them.Tintor2 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hasn't this page deserve a page protection yet? I've seen this page vandalized too often. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 22:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Besides that, users keep predicting English voices of some characters.Tintor2 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Is there an entry for the mother of Naruto? Kushina Uzumaki

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I think it is needed, especially now that becomes more relevant, right?A.Cython (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I've been curious about Kushina. It seems she is becoming a major factor in the plot. If included would she get her own section or be mentioned in other sections like Minato's or the fox's? Evilgidgit (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

She can be mentioned, but as she barely appeared in the series for three chapters, so let's wait before creating a section.Tintor2 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Even if she will not have a separate section for her at least we can add her name instead of referring her just as wife and mother.A.Cython (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not very familiar with these issues, but mention her name can bring some redirect issues. The same happened with Obito Uchiha, Sakumo Hatake, and the Raikage.Tintor2 (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cython, for encyclopedic purposes we should start using her name where and when appropriate. Redirect problems can be taken care of if and when they occur. Fox816 (talk) 05:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Minato a Jinchuriki?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Minato was shown sealing halfthe fox's chakra into himself with the Dead Demon seal and the other half into Naruto shortly before he died, so wouldn't that make him a Jinchuriki? If so, that should be mentioned. 75.157.120.15 (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research. No confirmation. DragonZero (talk · contribs) 02:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does it not talk about Sia and Yamato?

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It said that the page talks about part two but there's know Sia or Yamato on the page why is that (by Nitlok)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kooronbunbuns (talk • contribs) 14:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

What about Hinata

Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Hinata Hyuga is a member of team 8, but is hardly mentioned. Kiba, Shino, Kurenai, and even Akamaru have sectiones. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.208.113 (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Restored. Apparently, it was lost between various blanking edits.Tintor2 (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should put in a request at WP:RFPP if the blanking is bad enough. —Farix (t | c) 12:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Following up on the subject of Hinata, there's an actual Hinata article, located at Hinata Hyuga. Shouldn't we link to that since it's been up since around 2007? 76.100.18.78 (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Redirected. The article was done without a previous discussion or work to make it pass WP:Notability.Tintor2 (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Madara Uchiha

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It should talk about Madara Uchiha...such as how he had control over the nine-tailed beast...then used it to attack the konaha village...but then he lost most of the power of the nine-tailed when the 4th sealed the nine-tailed in his own son Naruto Uzimake... —Preceding unsigned comment added by GayMikeBrown (talk • contribs) 02:58, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

No mention of animals?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pacun, Gama Bunta, Pa and Ma toads(mostly Pa), Sage toad, and Nine-tailed fox are all notable animal characters.
Less notable ones would include Manda, Katsuya, Shukaku, Shizune's pig, other dogs of Kakashi, Temari's ferret thing, the toad with the body of a scroll, Gama Bunta's son and his friend, the cats guarding the Uchiha storage house, Kisame, the talking parrot from the search for the forth hokage's legacy, the turtle that throws a pinwheel and stops Lee from using the primary lotus on Sasuke, Akimaru(actually he might be mentioned), the giant warrior toad who repeatedly refers to himself as being "clumsy", the fire-breathing mountain toad Jiraiya occasionally summons to eat people- the list goes on but the point I'm trying to make is that animals play a significant role in Naruto and at least a few should get mentioned.

I think the clumsy toad is Gamaken San, Eight-tailed ox/octopus is also important. Kisame isn't animal. The turtle is Guy sensai's summon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.161.248 (talk) 20:15, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hokages

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the hokage part of the article it says that after Danzo dies Tsunade gets the title of hokage back. I believe Kakashi gets elected as 7th Hokage, while Tsunade is still in a coma. Can someone explain why it says Tsunade gets the title of hokage back?

From what I heard we was just about to be named Hokage but Tsundae recovered before he became the Hokage so she never lost the position. Also Danzo was only a candidate for being the sixth hokage and was never officially gained the position so Tsunade never actually lost her original position and was still the actual the Hokage the whole time.--76.66.180.220 (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Danzo

Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why is there no section on Danzo here? They mention him in so many other characters sections, but he doesn't have his own. JDDJS (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Restored. Apparently removed by vandals.Tintor2 (talk) 15:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

It was actually removed in December 2010 [[3]]. Someone should probably take a close look at the article because if that section was missing for almost nine months before being noticed there is a chance that other removals have not been reverted yet.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 04:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

On a slightly related note I noticed that Killer Bee was changed to Killer B. Did the English version change his name or is that some more undetected vandalism that slipped though? I don't read the manga myself so I don't know.--70.24.211.105 (talk) 04:22, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:320px-SoundFour.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An image used in this article, File:320px-SoundFour.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

"Madara" isn't Madara after all

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The 6th coffin Kabuto used to blackmail Tobi contains none other than Madara himself, the real Madara, and Tobi is evidently an imposter posing as him. 173.180.66.225 (talk) 16:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. However, it remains ambiguous as to what Tobi did do in the background events, and what Madara did. I guess Madara Uchiha should still be redirected to Tobi per wp:common names unless a section for the real Madara would be created. A third opinion would be helpful.Tintor2 (talk) 00:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Tobi did: he controlled the Sandiame Mizukage, fought Yondiame Hokage, and talked to Itachi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.161.248 (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The real Madara also mentions having met Nagato while Tobi claims he gave him the Rinnegan, so whoever gave him the Rinnegan still remain ambiguous.Tintor2 (talk) 01:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I created a new subsection for Madara, could you please expand on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenix827 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Better to remove it until a referenced one with notable information is available.Tintor2 (talk) 02:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2012

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

i would like to add; "When this link is created between him and opponent, he has a skeletal appearance. The white area that makes up the "skeleton" has a piece missing near his eye and a circle shape in the middle of his forehead. this is because of pieces missing from his actual skeleton. (from battles and self-inflicted damage)"

71.53.100.193 (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)sarah

Wouldn't that be excessive for a description? There is no need to explain every change he suffers.Tintor2 (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: Information about his appearance excessive. If it must truly be added, his transformation can be summed up in a single sentence. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:57, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Small Correction need for Tobi Section

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The Tobi section mentions Madara Uchiha but uses Uchiha Madara instead. Since Madara's section does not use Uchiha Madara nor any other section uses the surname given name order it should be changed.--70.24.209.52 (talk) 06:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--70.24.209.52 (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

One Tailed Shukaku

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

running through the wiki trying to catch the Naruto plot, so i'm not entirely sure what should be done here, but One-Tailed Shukaku (linked from the episode summaries) redirects to a defunct section header on this page, making a sort of dead end. romnempire (talk) 04:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

The character is mentioned briefly in the Akatsuki and Gaara sections so maybe linking it to one of those sections is a good idea. Personally I would choose the Gaara section.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 07:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It may also be a good idea to see if the other tailed beast have redirect issues because with the exception of nine-tails none of them have sections.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Update

Latest comment: 11 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

can we update the characters and world of Naruto now?I mean Should we merdge World of Naruto page with the Character pages?--Toxin45 (talk) 04:30, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? Discussion regarding the World of Naruto should take place in its talk page.Tintor2 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I mean we have volume 61 so add more information to the characters in Naruto.--Toxin45 (talk) 19:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Excessive plot information should be avoided unless it's crucial to a character per WP:Plot.Tintor2 (talk) 20:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Some examples of crucial info would be if Tobi's real identity is ever revealed, A major character like Kabuto is killed in battle, a character switches sides or reveals that they are a double agent etc.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. However, in volume 61 nothing of that happens as it ends before Itachi can deactivate Kabuto's Jutsu who has not died.Tintor2 (talk) 02:10, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If the volume 61 statement was meant for me I was actually giving potential examples in case anyone was unsure of what would constitute crucial info would entail. I did not even know that Itachi and Kabuto were fighting in that volume nor was I suggesting that Kabuto was actually dead.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Uchiha Obito voice

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In this article is said that the seiyu of Uchiha Obito is Naoya Uchida, but in the source is written this: "ボーナストラック「暁RADIO」：内田直哉（うちはマダラ役）". Uchiha Madara voice actor is Naoya Uchida but the Obito seiyu is Sousuke Komori. Can I use this site as source? Gabriel Yuji (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

I have never seen that site. Better ask in the project.Tintor2 (talk) 01:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

How about his official profile in the management company he belongs to? Oda Mari (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I think it's OK. I used the first source. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Mei, A, and Onoki?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think that adding these three characters to this page can be justified. They have each left an important impact on the plot over their several appearances, they have prominent personalities and distinct battle moves that can be covered, their leadership of three of the five main villages gives them an important role in the series' universe, and they have more-or-less been the focus of several parts of the series since their introduction. The Naruto series took an important turn because of their role in the plot, and I think that it should be mentioned here. 207.255.135.158 (talk) 02:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

First Hokage

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'm just wondering if everyone thinks, now with the back story on the first, that his biography should be included. He is no longer just an insignifigant character with no background, but an increasingly important character with an increasingly large portion of his background being told. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.44.38.99 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Not much to add. Removing all the useless background details, the only thing important left is "He was friends with Madara". DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 12:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Minato

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see in Minato's section someone put this there "Kishimoto has expressed desire to make a spin-off series with Minato as the protagonist, but much younger." I looked for proof and was just wondering, where did you guys get it? Could you link me. I don't mind it being there, but I just want to see where you guys got it ;). He's my 3rd fav Naruto Character and would love to see it :D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.45.17.82 (talk) 04:33, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If you clicked the [29], you would've seen "Shonen Jump (Viz Media) 7 (11 #83)" which means its from Shonen Jump (magazine). DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:36, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

AfC draft about Uchiha Madara

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's a draft at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Uchiha Madara. —rybec 01:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say delete. There is no real world information about the character's popularity by reliable sources. Also, it has a lot of bias, fansites as sources and even the last name first.Tintor2 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Prose issues 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The tags are correct and there are prose issues in the article. The main issue is the lack of concision in the character summaries. It may be time to send this to FLRC. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 20:12, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a lot of work to do and I don't think I can handle all this. Tintor2 (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

genuine encyclopaedic content?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since nobody so far seems to have cared about WP rotting away in murky corners - I certainly do. This type of "article" would probably not even be accepted by a fanzine. So incomprehensible the English, so blatantly irrelevant the singular facts, so insipid the renarrations. This is an truckload of tripe, unworthy to be included in any type of halfway seriously-minded encyclopaedia. Excuse me for probably having the majority of the manga fanboy universe against me. It's not just about this article (although I find it a particularly find specimen to illustrate the overall principle). I couldn't care less, actually. When I open a compilation of knowledge, I certainly do not expect to stumble upon confused and unreadable fiction every now and then. But this is what WP in its remote parts degenerates to, diluting search results for questions about serious matters, drawing part of the honorable community deeper and deeper in trivialities utterly detached from what is (still) generally known as "KNOWLEDGE". -- Kku 08:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I put up for FLRC. You should participate. It will be up to consensus now. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Gekko Hayate

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I noticed that there was no Gekko Hayate on the list. Awesomeninja1589 (talk) 06:52, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Holy spoilers Batman.

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I read this article for information on Fuu Yamanaka. After reading this article for 10 minutes, not only did I not get the info I was lookng for, I now know the names of Naruto's kids, who he marries and part of the ending of Shippuden. Is there anything that can be done so this article can be used by people who haven't read EVERY issue of the manga? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.190.112 (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not possible... Robin. Check Wikipedia:Spoiler mostly "It is not acceptable to delete information from an article because you think it spoils the plot."Tintor2 (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Dates

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

There are no dates in this article! I assume this is all stuff created somewhere in the past couple of decades, but there is absolutely no indication of that other than the fact that it's manga and anime. When were these characters first created? Etc. - Jmabel | Talk 16:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. You mean the dates for websites or tankobon volumes?Tintor2 (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

For anything! If you read the article and don't have a context, you wouldn't even have an indication of what century this work is from! - Jmabel | Talk 21:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Take it easy. All sources have dates like "Studio Pierrot (August 12, 2007). "Team Kakashi Deployed". Naruto: Shippūden. TV Tokyo." Also, if Naruto uses a calendar it should be avoided at any costs for being WP:fancruft.Tintor2 (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

A reader should not have to read the footnotes to know what era a work is from. - Jmabel | Talk 19:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

We need footnotes to prove the article's information is truth.Tintor2 (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Of course. But, again, you also need some basic context in the body of the article. - Jmabel | Talk 15:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

What's more to it than a ch.#? This isn't going nowhere. I'll ask for a third opinion in the project.Tintor2 (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It basically boils down to whether to include the years of the medium in the lead. It can be argued the main article is enough for this information. It becomes a matter of preference. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 10:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Current state

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

There is currently a mini edit war here in the list. These involved User:Sjones23, User talk:Mumbai0618, an anon and me. I believe we should discuss here before making any changes to the list. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have some complaints right away from the recent edits which I have reverted [4]. The phrases such as "the slow-witted Naruto" and "partially-immortal" are editorializing the descriptions. Expanding of phrases such as "ideal girl" to "ideal main female character" is changing the context when it is referenced to the author's interview. Adding that Team 7 "They eventually dissolve on good terms after a few years due to each of their individual preoccupations, but all members remain good friends." without any source to back it up. Adding "Friends" title should be footnoted, for example "efn|Although Sai has a reputation of never naming his works, he did name one "Friends" in chapter/episode/storyline (chapter/episode ref) ". Also in the IP's recent edit about adding the English voice actors and titles for the movie should be sourced. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I see. I agree there.Tintor2 (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

All right, so I'm the guy who thinks they should stay. However, I do agree with some of AngusWOOF's claims. I'm not sure what editorializing the descriptions means; I only found them more descriptive and accurate respectively. Same thing goes for the girl thing, although I'll give that credit since it has a source. I guess the Team 7 thing was unsourced and I'll let that go also, while I'm okay with the footnote thing. The thing is that this page has so many improper citations. Almost all of them pertain to Ch. 243, which obviously can't contain every single thing that goes into this page. I feel the page needs to go through a a major citation haul along with the changes. Mumbai0618 (talk) 04:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Mumbai0618

Editorializing (WP:EDITORIAL) is throwing in some personal opinions or points of view into the description that can't be determined by the description / series itself. If Sasuke calls or thinks of Naruto as "slow-witted" regularly when it can stay with a citation, but otherwise it is a proposed opinion. You're right in that the page probably needs to be scrutinized for the recent edits without citations that were snuck in since its FA status. Thanks for understanding. As for partially immortal, that's like partially dead, he's either immortal or he's not. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Pain vs Nagato

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Currently, there have been too many edits to change Nagato's section to Pain. The reason why I don't support Pain is that such name is an alias for both Nagato and "The Six Paths of Pain". Although he has initially been called Pain, Nagato became more prominent after meeting Naruto. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Tintor. While some edits have tried to compromise using "Nagato/Pain", the latter wouldn't be appropriate and makes for an awkward section heading. The alias is mentioned within the first sentence under the subsection so it really is unnecessary. Opencooper (talk) 15:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Another edit.Tintor2 (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Firejally has changed Nagato's section title yet again without consensus. Should we get them blocked?Gonzales John (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Addition of minor characters

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Please, @FireJelly: stop adding minor characters from the series and avoid the Narutopedia too. This article is a FL and might be reviewed if these edits keep going on.Tintor2 (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

These things happen, I do not think a review would be in order as no material is hotly being contested through discussions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree this a single editor adding minor characters would not be enough to warrant a review of the article.--70.27.228.184 (talk) 23:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Minor character discussion

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Following a recent comment on my talk page by Tintor2 (talk · contribs), I am opening up a discussion on which minor characters should we leave out. Please voice your suggestions here. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I wonder if some Ōtsutsuki characters should be removed since they appear only in movies. Also, think Akamaru could be merged into Kiba's section.Then there's Himawari Uzumaki who hasn't done a thing in most of her appearances. What do you guys think?Tintor2 (talk) 15:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Although now that I remember the Boruto manga could make some of them more relevant.Tintor2 (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

In which case would that not necessitate a separate list? They may share the same universe but given the size of the franchise and the number of characters would it not be a good idea to use Boruto as a divider? Disclaimer: I'm not exactly up to date with the franchise. SephyTheThird (talk) 13:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Of characters we should add, I would put the Five Kage (excluding Gaara and Tsunade, who of course are already on the list) under Supporting characters, Tobi/Guruguru under Antagonists, and a specific section for the Tailed Beasts under Supporting characters. Also in Supporting characters, we should put Boruto, Mitsuki, Sarada, and Konohamaru under one section ("Team Konohamaru"), and to that end put Mitsuki back in.Mumbai0618 (talk) 05:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Mumbai0618

I forgot to mention: along with Mitsuki we should put in Inojin Yamanaka and possibly Metal Lee, if we are also using Shikadai and Chocho.Mumbai0618 (talk) 05:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Mumbai0618

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Naruto characters. 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/20110810231727/http://www.mania.com/naruto-box-set-04-also-wspecial-edition_article_79366.html to http://www.mania.com/naruto-box-set-04-also-wspecial-edition_article_79366.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No raikage found in the article

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

He is a major supporting character, we should add him. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.81.14.202 (talk) 01:59, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Naruto characters. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Other characters

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I am finding it extremely hard to see a reason for the "Other characters" section of this page. I tried changing it recently but was told to take it here instead, so I'll just give it. They are currently only three characters in the section, which is incredibly miniscule, and on top of that they are all major supporters. Iruka, Kushina, and Himawari all belong under the Supporting characters tab (specifically the Konohagakure section), given that they are still very essential to the plot. I know it used to say ninja, but even then both Iruka and Kushina are ninja in the series, and Himawari despite being just a resident still has ninjutsu powers. There seems to be no reason as to why this section should exist, at least from my perspective.Mumbai0618 (talk) 05:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)Mumbai0618

I agree Whistle toe llll (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2019

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to List of Naruto characters has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Team Hanabi to the secondary characters. Team Hanabi is a shinobi team from Konohagakure, led by Hanabi Hyūga, consisting of Sumire Kakei (which is cited as a supporting character), Wasabi Izuno, and Namida Suzumeno. MunchKing27 (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 16:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding an article on Madara Uchiha

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm trying to create an article on Uchiha Madara, because of his contributions on shaping the Naruto storyline. But I can't find any image of Madara. Is any one here, who can help me with it.AbhiMukh97^Speak 03:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request to List of Naruto characters has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For the table of contents, clicking on Kushina Uzumaki's name directs you to Minato instead. Could you please fix this? Thank you. 73.51.182.127 (talk) 21:53, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. It was an anchor issue. Thanks for the comment.Tintor2 (talk) 22:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This edit request to List of Naruto characters has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To change a few spelling mistakes 2607:FEA8:A9A9:4600:D90B:F6E1:BD6:952B (talk) 14:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Should we give Hashirama his own Wikipedia Article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.43.219.32 (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Because? The subject should follow wp:notability guidelines before becoming an article. I haven't seen any sandbox so I'm pretty such it can't have an article.Tintor2 (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC)