Forum:Databook Jutsu

If portions (or, sometimes, all) of a jutsu's article is going to be taken word-for-word from the jutsu's databook entry, I think it's important that the information be presented as such. Doing so would:


 * Let readers know why a particular paragraph sounds different from the rest of the wiki.
 * Let editors know that a particular paragraph should not be modified beyond adding links where appropriate.
 * Solve what is potentially plagiarism in jutsu articles as they are now.

To use Kamui as an example:

Much clearer with a quote, right?

The only potential issue with using is that I don't think it gets along well with the infobox, which means some other way of identifying quotes would need to be found. There's also a question of how to handle image captions, but that's small potatoes. This should be no more complicated than looking at the translations ShounenSuki has done, comparing them to the wiki's articles, and implementing the quote-treatment where the two match. Comments/concerns? 72.192.156.86 (talk) 22:01, December 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe that's why we have references but if people want to start doing that then sure. Joshbl56  22:06, December 13, 2011 (UTC)

So, as an IP, my suggestion is ignored and my edits are reverted. I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I'm really not. I'll also point out that I added several references, which active editors have made little progress with. ~SnapperTo 01:23, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, your suggestion was not ignore, I answered. As for the edits, you should have made one edit and see what people thought, not go through and keep making them as if you were trying to troll. Joshbl56  01:28, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I asked, waited a few days, ended up with 1 yea, 0 nay. If someone thought it was a bad idea they should have said so.
 * And why do I need to make one sample edit? I gave a sample edit in my original suggestion. ~SnapperTo 01:33, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * If only one person answer, then try asking people on their talk page to join, and if they don't then they do not want to change anything. Since no one tried making the changes then no one wanted to put them as quotes. Joshbl56  01:35, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * How does lack of assent translate to dissent? I was under the impression that: assent = assent; dissent = dissent; lack of a response = lack of an interest one way or the other. ~SnapperTo 01:41, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Though I'm not too sure what's up with you nowadays- you really are true to your moniker. However, I will say that you of all people should know that if you want something to be noticed on this wikia, you have to make it get noticed by others. With regards to whether or not we should use quotes, I really don't see an issue with it, but at the same time I don't really care if they're used. Most of the time people don't rewrite the articles but tend to drop in titbits that they deem are relevant and I fear that with quoting that won't be allowed any more. But either is fine with me I suppose. Possibly indicating otherwise that it's a direct quote might be fine as well? Hidden messages are getting popular lately.--Cerez365™ 01:42, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I believe jutsu articles are fine as they are now. I think its unnecessary because we can simply use references to show where they come from.--Deva 27 01:44, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

I thought originally the anon intended to replace the article text with the exact quote, which i would be against since then no one could update it to reflect new information. But adding the databook translation to the top in quotes, seperate from the rest of the article only adds positively to it. — S im A nt 01:46, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * (editconflictx100!) I would also like to say that I just saw some of the articles that were changed to the quote format and, they look really kewl >.> I might be more on the side of using it now. Though I'm not too sure how it'd look it wikia skin as opposed to Monaco. I'm assuming the latter would look better because of the page width. Also, what if there are images in the article itself- what would be done about that?--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 01:48, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I will admit that not quoting directly makes the information a bit more accessible, but these are very meaty excerpts to use and only acknowledge through some floating reference at the end of the article.
 * As an IP, I'm forced to use the Wikia skin, and it doesn't look so bad. It's scrunchy, sure, but so is everything in Wikia.
 * I'm not suggesting that databook quotes be used whenever available. Just that, if the databook is going to be quoted, it might as well be put in quotes. Articles that are long enough to have multiple images don't usually make such extensive use of databook material so they shouldn't be a problem. ~SnapperTo 01:57, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to give an idea of how common (or uncommon) use of databook information is, I made a list of all the articles that were noticeably similar to ShounenSuki's translations. To summarize: the first databook has 86 jutsu entries, of which 15 are used by the wiki; the second databook has 108 jutsu entries, of which 17 are used by the wiki; the third databook has 115 jutsu entries, of which 96 are used by the wiki.
 * Some of these I could be wrong about, and the databook just happens to say more-or-less the same thing as what observation produces. Some of these actually use a reference, so a quote is not required beyond a desire to be consistent (assuming the quote-treatment is desirable). Some of these make very negligible use of databook information when compared to user-submitted content, so a quote would probably not be a good idea.
 * At the very least, the list may give an idea of what articles don't use databook information and thus which may have room for improvement. I only looked at articles for jutsu that ShounenSuki has translated so I suppose it's possible that articles of unlisted jutsu are based on the work of other translators, but I personally doubt it. ~SnapperTo 03:29, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * And TheUltimate3 is posting in a thread he has not read. Will get back to you around next Monday (Final Exams yay!)--TheUltimate3 ~Keeper of Lore~ 04:05, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

If we are going to use this, I think we should just use the meat of the description (at least for the top quote) from the databooks. For Kamui we could just use:

"Third Databook"

- Kakashi's original dōjutsu, released from the Mangekyō Sharingan, that allows one to transfer anything to another dimension. If one spends a lot of time and trains one's chakra over and over again, this technique can be invoked. The target is enveloped with a barrier space and the user concentrates their mind to what they gaze at. The target can struggle helplessly, but against this technique no defence is possible. When the technique is invoked, the space at the centre of the barrier is distorted and the target inside the barrier is drawn in completely. The location and size of the barrier can be specified at will. It is a dreadful technique that, with skilled use and enough chakra, can even pull an entire human being into another dimension.

Or something like that since it still gives us room to put info but still tells how the technique works. Also, would we do something with the character's that are in the databooks? (Just in case you guys and gals already came up with a decision, I have to tell you I just sort of skimmed over most of the conversation '^.^. Also, sorry for being rude earlier, Snapper2) Joshbl56  10:17, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I really think this could work, with any additional info going at the bottom of the article but we do need to hear more from the other members.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 11:54, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if it just that I'm accustomed to the clasic way of presenting things, but I am completely against copy-paste of databook entries. Most of them use a language that, while it may be cool and stuff for databooks, it is not so much for an impartial, data gathering wikia. I've always been against using databook text literally for technique entries. I know that, as a minor editor my opinion isn't quite on par with the fat cats here, but I just wanted to explain myself.--Kind-Hearted-One (talk) 16:11, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I admit not to have read everything in this page, but I mirror a bit of Kind-Hearted-One's opinion in that the language used in the databooks doesn't feel suited the wiki, in my opinion. And doing that would make it a strange having to add updated information regarding something that is in the quote in a different paragraph or something like that. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 19:41, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I dislike how they're worded personally. Just seem too odd and dissimilar to how the rest of the wiki is written. =/ Skitts (talk) 22:53, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above on this, in particular with Omnibender's remarks in regards to the addition of updated information, especially when these can range from simple amendments or, on the rare occasion, complete revisions. I don't know exactly why, but I get the feeling that the application of these quotes could become terribly inconsistent and thus difficult to implement correctly, at least in my opinion. Blackstar1 (talk) 23:12, December 16, 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I don't see much difference in the writing style with the exception of bits like the introductory/one-off sentences. If they are used I don't really see how it'd differ much from the different writing styles that are conflated when several people write articles. On the other had, I will admit that sometimes there are instances where stuff the databook says can be reworded to sound a little better so I think that if we do use the quotations, we shouldn't be as stringent as to say it's an exact quote as sometimes moving stuff around is unavoidable. But as it stands we already use a lot of these direct translations without any problem all we'd be doing is pointing it out. And I'm pro-Kishimoto so I like the idea of integrating him more into the wikia.--Cerez365™ 23:17, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Although I see the writing style being more a matter of opinion, I do have an issue when it comes to employing quotation marks outside of "exact quote[s]", as the purpose of such punctuation is to infer that the text was taken directly from the source in question and as such, isn't open to alteration. This again raises the issue of consistent application of these quotes, because if the text can be altered, how do we define the point where it fails to be a quote anymore? I agree with the ideal of integrating Kishimoto more, but I get the feeling this may not be the best way to do so, given the nature of wikia. Blackstar1 (talk) 23:45, December 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that. Any way, the way I see it is that this is not to prohibit people from making small changes which I believe are at times necessary even when we use translated quotes but to stop what happens when a person rewrites the entire article only to have it reverted at least that's why I would use them. We need to remember that we are working with translations here and while I have great faith in our resident translator, other translators might very well have translate a section/article differently. Given that, I see no reason we couldn't change bits in the translations if it'd be easier to understand. Direct quotes would mean us writing the articles in Japanese not English.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 00:14, December 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * As I tried to indicate above, my main problem arises not from alterations per se, given as those by translators are an absolute necessity, but rather the potential extent of them. Where we choose to draw the line between quotation, paraphrase and interpretation is essential to how we implement what is proposed and as you can probably guess, this is where the matter becomes rather complicated and murky for myself. In my opinion, it's this which would make the application of quotes like this inconsistent and thus difficult to do so correctly, which is the reason why I'm wondering if this method is the best and most worthwhile to achieve the points listed initially. I'm not ruling quotations out, just trying to incite a bit more consideration to ensure we use the best solution possible. Blackstar1 (talk) 00:53, December 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the databooks' style of presenting information isn't appropriate for a wiki, but, as Cerez points out, that hasn't stopped it from being used verbatim in several articles. Poison Mist, for example, only differs from the databook in what punctuation is used (period instead of exclamation point(s)). Others, such as Earth Style Wall, have had slight modifications to reflect material released after the databook, but are still 90% faithful to the original databook entry.
 * Of course there's the other end of the spectrum: Clone Great Explosion was at one time a very close copy of the databook. Since then the information has been well-synthesized. If all articles were to undergo this kind of conversion, there wouldn't be a problem. (Although not all databook entries are as inane as Clone Great Explosion's, so this isn't likely to happen with any great urgency.)
 * Rules of quoting in other writings may be of use in determining how to deal with quotes. When a word is changed ("he" --> "Jirōbō") or content is removed ("the adorably-furry dog with the tic of Tat ran with the purposes of eating across the street with a rapidity that was dangerous to himself and others" --> "the dog ran across the street"), single brackets are placed around the changed content. If brackets are used so often that there is little resemblance to the original quote or if it is awkward to read because there are too many brackets, quotes (and the brackets) aren't bothered with. But if the bracket-usage is minimal and the quote exceeds a certain length (usually four or five lines), quotation marks are expected and it's often a good idea to split it out from the rest of the content in some way (its own paragraph, special indentation, etc.)
 * The solution to this problem may lie elsewhere. Maybe there needs to be a serious effort to cite information? If these articles were referenced and if - relatedly - new information was not shoe-horned into existing material, quoting would not be an issue. Or maybe the wiki needs to decide how in-universe it wants to be? If all information, all the time was supposed to be presented as though Naruto and friends were real people that really did all these things, then obtrusive reminders (like what I suggest) that some piece of information is taken from elsewhere would not be viable. But I remain pessimistic that this wiki can make any committed-decision more complicated than how to spell something. 72.192.156.86 (talk) 22:01, December 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm basically getting that you want the jutsu pages to more like Clone Great Explosion in that it does have the information written but not a direct copy of the databook pages. You are also giving us another solution to the problem in that you are saying we should put more references up for the jutsus?
 * I'm not opposed to add more references as I like adding them myself or changing the wording around but we can only add more references from the manga since we already have a reference to the data in the databook and it would be redundant to put a reference that is already there twice. For some techniques, like Poison Mist, we have only seen once or twice and all the information we could get has already been put into the databooks unless someone/something else uses the technique again. (Just so we are clear, I cherry picked my way through your reply to try and piece together what your intentions were. If I missed something or what you were trying to convey, then I'm sorry.) Joshbl56  00:49, December 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Non editable Quotes from the databooks can be added to articles the same way non editable stats for characters are added, sysop protected included pages. Although I still would prefer the solution of adding plain old references, although that isn't going so well. But we can't really add extensive databook information for character pages, etc. — S im A nt 16:47, December 20, 2011 (UTC)
 * Joshbl56 - As I said in an earlier comment, the floating reference doesn't really cut it; it's only directly applied to the information in the infobox. Readers are left to assume that the rest of the article is verified by this same source as well. When the databook says all that there is to say about a jutsu then this is a fine approach (although there's still no reason to not add a reference too). But when a jutsu has seen differing usage since the databook was released (Spiked Human Bullet Tank) or when the databook doesn't address everything that can be said about a jutsu (Body Pathway Derangement), what is and is not from the databook needs a clearer label.
 * Simant - That's an interesting way of treating quotes that I hadn't thought of. I'd like to think there wouldn't be an issue with people editing quotes when they shouldn't, but people will always surprise me.
 * I'd also like to think people would be more willing to add references if there was less work involved. Like if made In this example, people don't need to bother with page numbers (which can be time-consuming and I have issues with anyway), the forced   eliminates cases where chapter 510 is referenced 7 times in the same article, and the automatic linking to chapters/episodes/whatever helps advertise those articles.
 * Spaghetti is good. 72.192.156.86 (talk) 20:29, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

This idea is really awful, take the example of the article on Asuma's Flying Swallow technique it says: "The materialised chakra is shaped like a blade, cutting up everything it touches at once!" and "Seeing through the movements is a Herculean task!!" and yet again ". It not only raises the power of the weapon, but simultaneously turns oneself into a blade as well!!" first of all the excess use of exclamation marks is awful, second it sounds like some fan's report of the jutsu not Masashi Kishimoto's, the databook was created by Masashi to explain the jutsu and other stuff, he wrote it in his own words so that people can understand it, it wasn't meant to be written on a wikia like that. Besides, it lowers the flexibility or freedom of choice and editing. The wikia would be split that way, less than one-fifth of the total jutsu articles would be looking like that while all the others would be looking something entirely different, this kind of change should only occur if all articles have a databook entry. Personally I don't like it (no offense to anyone). 119.154.68.91 (talk) 11:31, December 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * You are missing the part where, other than punctuation, that article sounds just as inappropriate for a wiki with the quote as it did without the quote. You need to revert back to June to get rid of the "fan's report". <-- Look ma! I used quotes again. I's smrt.
 * Not that I understand why that one article is keeping the quote-treatment in the first place. 72.192.156.86 (talk) 20:48, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Geez who in the blue hell came up with this crazy idea...even if they are databook quotes placing them ipsis verbis in an article like in the Flying Swallow just throws the credibility of the article down the drain. Why is this case being treated differently from the other? Maybe add as a trivia but even so...Darksusanoo (talk) 21:15, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand :s With the exception of the exclamation marks, articles have always been copied and pasted from the databook at times word-for-word. I've done it several time but I will admit that I do change stuff in order for it to "flow better"; people have never had problems with them until it was brought into the 'light' however. Because it sounds like any other thing someone would write so i'm not too sure how it's "inappropriate" or that god-awful. Snaps, I think it was a good idea and for the most part, I think what frightens most contributors is the fact that they won't be allowed to edit what is there. Maybe if we found another way to represent the fact that it's a direct translation without intimidating the masses so much. Like having the "—Second Databook bit without the quotation marks.--Cerez365™ 21:35, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that from what i read so far the databook quotes are some times too allegoric and embellished to be used integrally. Maybe added as a trivia so that a person can have an idea were the article comes from and have the databook stated as source maybe ok; another article that's the case would be Kamui though not to the same extent. I believe that as an enclyclopedia the technique articles have be done using a more neutral and technical writing, and like Cerez-sempai said you have to change certain articles to make it flow better. From what read in other Wikis(using Bleach as my primary example), they use the technical information of their Databooks not do word-by-word takes, cuz it throws the articles in disarray for the readers. Darksusanoo (talk) 21:47, December 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * Bleach isn't a very good example considering stats are the only new pieces of information its databooks give. I also don't see how adding quotation marks throws articles into disarray. I would think it does the exact opposite: clearly arranging information based on where its taken from and eliminating readers' confusion as to why an article sounds peculiar.
 * If a purely-statistical use of the databooks is ideal, then by all means do so. Just know that you'll need to reach very far back to make the change. 2010 in some cases. There's even the occasional jutsu that has never been without a heavy amount of databook material.
 * I don't care whether or not is used. I don't even care if the quotes are modified to make them sound like standard English (although there's some kind of double-standard). But the wiki needs to adopt some way of labeling where information comes from. 72.192.156.86 (talk) 23:46, December 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * What are references for if not to label where information comes from??? Joshbl56  19:50, December 25, 2011 (UTC)

I say we should revert to our past layout and abandon this one. 119.73.69.4 (talk) 11:23, December 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Joshbl56 - For the last time: if people want to use references they need to actually add them. Nobody has directly applied the references to the used material, nor has anybody restored the couple of additional references that I added.
 * 119 - Which past layout? The layout where databook material wasn't used, or the layout where databook material wasn't acknowledged as being from the databook? 72.192.156.86 (talk) 19:39, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

Question, can we (Well I mean SimAnt I suppose) create templates? If he can, I think one without the quotation marks and just the "— X Databook" bit might be a good enough earmark? That way I think it's intimidate people less.--Cerez365™ 19:50, December 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Registered users can create templates, they just may or may not be able to edit existing templates. Template:Quote is included among those templates that users can edit. That said, the giant quotation marks can be removed very easily. I assume you would still want the indentation to remain?
 * If interested, you can also look at Wikipedia's quote templates to see if there's some other style that you prefer. 72.192.156.86 (talk) 20:08, December 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent then. I think the indentation might have to go as well or be decreased since I think someone voiced an issue with that. Not too sure how it'll look after that but meh, concessions.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 20:30, December 27, 2011 (UTC)

I admit I haven't yet read all of the above, so I apologize if I rehash anything already said. Ignoring my previous post, we would need to decide what to do with the quoted material. What I mean is, do we allow it to be editable? There are definitely times where the language of the databooks sounds a little odd when translated and at times is allegorical. Leaving a large part of an article (the entire for some) uneditable would annoy some. I do agree that we should reference what came from the databooks though, so that users know why the writing style is different in certain areas. Skitts (talk) 21:28, December 27, 2011 (UTC)