Talk:Naruto

Template:FAOL

What's With the Merging?

Seriously, this page was better 2 years ago when everybody had individual pages. Merging all characters pages together is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamlover13 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on that, especially since some characters have their own pages. Earlier the pages seemed quite detailed too, but now not so much. Yes, I know that minor characters probably don't require a whole page, but at least each Konoha 12, should have their own page, and the sand siblings. And I'm still new at this, but it would hurt to add a List of Characters link or something, because I had to go through other characters' pages to get to the one I was looking for. Hyakurei (talk) 13:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This merged version is terrible, and will someone tell me who decided that everything Naruto-related ought to merged like this? Adding to what you guys said, it also is harder to find things now. I'm gonna move for the article to be re-separated, because if we made each page (all 4 of 'em) acceptably detailed, people would begin complaining that they're too long. --IdLoveOne (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You can "move" all you want, but considering List of Naruto characters is now a featured list, I seriously doubt you will find any support on it. The merging of all the character articles was a large scale effort and done in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If you want individual articles for every little character, google Naruto wikia. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

You might be right, but it's all still definitely of inferior quality than it would be if they'd kept things separate (they could've grouped certain characters and related topics without total mergism); that's almost proven by the fact that if you want quality should look for a non-Wikipedia Wiki. --IdLoveOne (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Just depends on your definition of quality. If you want fan-oriented material, then yes, looking off Wikipedia is best. This is the place for brief, summarizing encyclopedic coverage. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I value most things you do for anime and manga on wikipedia collectionian but I think you need to be slightly less prescriptive on the guidelines and policies, its not all about making featured articles, even though it is a worthy cause, after all one of the main policies is 'ignore all rules'. if the articles dont include information that the average person who would search for a list of characters in naruto looking at the page would expect to find, and currently i think the information is a bit scant. But on the other hand agree that its alot better than it was before, you dont need everything that has happened to a character, and think most of these people complaining should be looking somewhere else for their information. A bit off topic but i think it would greatly improve the list if there was a picture of each character next to their name, as this would be perfect for naruto novices, and i know this contradicts the fair use policy slightly, but to be honest i dont think the makers will mind, which is the main reason the policy is there, and at the moment the pictures are hard to tie to the characters for someone who may have only seen a few episodes, and i think this is a case where you can safely 'ignore all rules', especially when individual pictures are used elsewhere on wikipedia and already has fair use.86.131.91.141 (talk) 23:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, no I don't need to, and yes, all articles should have the goal of being of high quality. Being content with being substandard is never ideal and calling IAR just to try to make it more fansite like will never fly. Pictures of each character does not contradict the fair use policy "slightly" it blatantly breaks it and it will not be allowed. They would be quickly and rightly removed and deleted. That is not a very negotiable policy and it is not one that you can call IAR on pretty much ever. It and copyright are too of the most stringently enforced policies. The fact that other stuff exists is also not valid. Many of those individual pictures are being removed one by one. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasnt to make it more like a fansite, i wish you wouldnt be so aggressive in youre replys, and i wouldnt add something without consensus. Sheesh youre too used to getting abuse obviously, i was just trying to have a discussion. There is individual pictures of characters on the pages for notable individual characters for instance, cant they then be used anywhere on wikipedia without debating fair use? For other characters the rational for fair use it to minimize legal exposure, and so if no additional exposure is added to wikipedia, and the article is significantly improved then maybe this could be debated? At the moment there is no way for a novice to be able to identify an individual character from the pictures, therefore under youre rational should be deleted completely because its not really notable to the complete newbie? Or maybe something in between could happen, with a picture of each team, or just better notation of character names, im not trying to have a go, just debate a way the article could be improved, since ive noticed a significant flaw?86.131.91.141 (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much, no on individual character images being used away from their articles. Individual images are allowed on individual character articles because they are illustrative of the primary topic of the article (and in those articles, those images should be limited, usually to one image unless there is conceptual art or major changes in appearances throughout the series). Outside of individual articles, character lists are allowed 1-3 group images but individual images are a big no no. In other articles, for the most part, such images are not allowed at all unless accompanied by sourced critical discussion of the image. Many many many discussions have occurred over this issue and it was agreed by large scale consensus that individual character images do not significantly improve any character list and blantantly violate WP:NONFREE and the edicts of the Wikimedia Foundation to reduce the use of non-free images. It was felt that such images were primarily decoration and that a visual image was not necessary to identify characters. If you look at any of the higher quality character lists, you'll see many such images have been removed during their history. Trinity Blood's character list had some 30 images removed. Ditto the Blood+ character list and Tokyo Mew Mew's. Its one of the first things hit on during peer reviews, FA noms, etc. Excessive images. There are some group images in the character list for those wishing to see the major characters, but none are needed on this article. This isn't the primary article about the Naruto characters, the character list is. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem with identifying people in the images is probably best solved by better captioning. --erachima talk 00:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

First of all merging of all the character articles and other information was not a large scale effort by multiple people. It was started by single individual who, for whatever reason unknown to me, just decided to start deleting information calling it "unnecessary". In time few people followed him which resulted in erosion of the information despite majority of people complaining about it. Please understand this; wikipedia is a web space where human beings come to gain knowledge about their required topics. It is not a play ground for mindless kids who go around deleting important pages. What right does anyone has to say that we are only going to create pages about "this" but not about "that"? None. Kindly bring back all mindlessly deleted pages. There is no page with information that can be regarded as irrelevant. It may not be relevant to you but you can bet there are thousands of people if not more who do find relevant what you don't. Due to people like the one who first started this "merging" Wikipedia has became a place where if you land just in time you might get the info you want before some gecko deletes those pages or removes info. Wikipedia's greatest strength is that it has these tidbits that are at times hard to find elsewhere, it has ALL information there is about the subject in hand and not just some forcing people to go elsewhere to look for the information they need and are looking for. These gunhappy people deleting information calling it "merging" are slowly destroying Wikipedia. You can go teachnical all you want but it is just semantics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.6.10 (talk • contribs) 04:55, November 12, 2008 (UTC)

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

"Naruto All Stars"

This a relatively new album, and it features the Japanese cast of Naruto singing some of the theme songs. It has "distance" sung by Junko Takeuchi (Naruto), "R★O★C★K★S" sung by Kazuhiko Inoue (Kakashi), "シナリオ" (Shinario) sung by Noriaki Sugiyama (Sasuke), "流れ星~Shooting Star~" (Nagareboshi~Shooting Star~) sung by Showtaro Morikubo (Shikamaru), "ユラユラ" (Yura Yura) sung by Chie Nakamura (Sakura), "つぼみ" (Tsubomi) sung by Junko Takeuchi (Naruto), "目覚めろ!野性" (Mezamero! Yasei) sung by Kazuhiko Inoue (Kakashi), "キミモノガタリ" (Kimi Monogatari) by Noriaki Sugiyama (Sasuke), Re:Member by Showtaro Morikubo (Shikamaru) and ピノキオ (Pinokio) by Chie Nakamura (Sakura). Anyways yea. I don't really want to create the info on my own because I'd probably write it horribly...Moocowsrule (talk) 02:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

Source? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

http://www.play-asia.com/paOS-13-71-nu-49-jp-70-2t2a.html is the site I got it from and there are a few videos on YouTube with the songs... Quite frankly I think Showtaro Morikubo ruined Nagareboshi... It just sounds weird... but that's off topic. Anyways it was released like in July so it just hasn't been created. I haven't heard much about it actually. Doesn't seem that popular... I should look at the Oricon charts...Moocowsrule (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

remove image

remove the fan image at the botom and change it with a betetr one !!

http://z.about.com/d/manga/1/0/G/1/-/-/AX07_naruto_500.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

No. The image you are suggesting is not a free image. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Internet streaming

I added description about the announcement of TV Tokyo on the Naruto Shippuden internet streaming service,[1] but the edit was reverted　(I don't know why). Currently the article has description on the new service by VIZ Media, but they will in the service under the agreement by the Japanese TV network, and the source[2] does not explain the three important points; streaming with English subtitles on same day as its Japanese premiere, background why they will start the service, and the one of the Japanese major TV networks will start worldwide internet streaming of anime for the first time. I think we should consider the importance of the decision a little in this case. thanks,--Morio (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Woops, I don't think that was intentional, but an attempt at fixing the layout error you had made. Corrected. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thank you to improve the layout and wording.--Morio (talk) 04:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article mentions the date that tv tokyo will begin streaming as 2005, which is obviously a typo, which I would fix except the article is locked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.52.146.232 (talk • contribs)

Movies section

Why is "Movies" the title of the header? Shouldn't it be something like "Animated films", for clarity? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's sort of obvious from context. わwaらraうu Smile! 01:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

But maybe it should be more specific, since some anime have been adapted to live-action films like Dragon Ball and Death Note.Tintor2 (talk) 01:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

True. I guess films would be the correct title. わwaらraうu Smile! 01:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Censorship

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

A link to Narutopedia

I'd like to add link to wiki-like site named Narutopedia here. I think that's a good site where all fans can add their articles, to held Wikipedia clean from fan-POV articles (fansites) --MEG (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sign your posts please and no. We can not link Wikias here, we've had a discussion about that regarding Gantz not too long ago. J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hope that helps the noobs more!... Of course I ish still a noob T~T Moocows rule 22:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that I added a link. Moocows rule 22:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)