Talk:Hokage

Add info later
That all about the Hokages One sentence...........oh well I will try to write something better later on or someone can DarkLordofChaos90 Feb 16,07 11:44

I will complete this later...... I still need alot help for copleting this article

DarkLordofChaos90 Feb 17,07 12:36

=Don't Get It= I don't get it. Not the article but the fact that he said that many belive that the 4th is Naruto's dad and you deleated it. Why? He wasn't saying that it's a know fact he was just stating that some people belive it.LoneWolf 5 00:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)LoneWolf 5
 * That was done in accordance with this edit if this one had reason to be kept, then that one would have had reason to. Plus Yondaime already covers all of that information. There is no need for it in other trivia or information sections. ~Dantman(talk) current discussion Apr 17, 2007 @ 01:30 (UTC)

Edit warring
I'm noticing a lot of edit reverts here on whether Madara was defeated or not by one of the hokage in a battle. Can we get some actual facts here to determine what should be put on the page? ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jan 13, 2008 @ 08:22 (UTC)

First Hokage
shouldnt we try to create a seperate article for the First Hokage Soon, also because i think we should soon have enough bagground info to do so.
 * All of the hokage's whould have their own articles. Sticking them in a list was not the point of Wikia ACG, and primarily it's going to interfere with semantics being setup. Hokage's won't be included in the generated list of character's unless they each have their own article. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Apr 25, 2008 @ 10:13 (UTC)

Merge and include project
Ok, I've got a little project for everyone here. The various sections about Hokage here should be merged into their actual articles, and we should be using includes rather than duplicating information.

After you've merged the content of a section into the actual article, take a look at the Second Hokage's section so see how to include part of the other page into the section. Also remember to add section tags to the actual article so the text can be transcluded. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion May 4, 2008 @ 01:59 (UTC)

Hokage article titles
The Hokage title is more of a name than a real title. It 'overrides' the Hokage's original name. For example, the databooks place the Shodai Hokage under the name "Hokage (Shodai)" and not under the name "Senju Hashirama". Therefore, I believe it would be more appropriate to use the Hokage title for the individual Hokage articles, instead of their personal names. --ShounenSuki 19:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I prefer to use their original names now that we've got them. Doing the runaround of First through Fifth now seems unnecessary, especially after their given names were give, they were referred to as their names. (example: The Fourth has been known as the Fourth until it was revealed his name was Minato, since then, the name Minato has taken the place of the Fourth.). And as a bit of foresight, I'd rather not have to deal with the whole Shodai-Yondaime name wars that have finally died on this wiki. Now that we know their names, less and less people try and replace them with their title/numbers.--TheUltimate3 20:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns. Still, using their personal names goes against how their names are used in the manga and databooks. It would be more professional and more respectful to the original story to use the Hokage name. --ShounenSuki 21:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is also professional to use their given names. Look at how the United States Presidency works. At the moment of their election, they go by the title "President" or "President-Elect" if they have yet to be inaugurated. Then President/President-Elect  becomes the normal way of addressing them. However when used their given name is still used as a means of identification, again for example go to Wikipedia and type in George W. Bush, it will take you to that article, under that name, not President George W. Bush. The Hogake title is similar, or as similar as a real world example can get, to that.
 * A more direct similarity is on this wiki in the form of Tenzo. Despite most and even himself preferring to use the name Yamato, we use Tenzo as it is his given name.--TheUltimate3 21:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I didn't explain it clearly... "Hokage" isn't a title, it's a name. As soon as someone becomes Hokage, they stop using their old, personal name and use the Hokage name. It's similar to the stage name in Kabuki.
 * The only people who would call a Hokage by their old, personal name are those that were very close to them, or those that knew them long before they became Hokage. The only time the Hokage's personal name would be used in something like an encyclopædia article is when talking about something that happened before that person became Hokage.
 * The Hokage name isn't similar to the title of President, it's similar to the regnal name. No-one would call Pope Benedict XVI Joseph Ratzinger any more. --ShounenSuki 22:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, point taken, though I don't think Pope Benedict would be mind. Regardless I still stand by the use of given names. We follow the databooks information, but we still aren't the databooks. They gave us their names, and as an encyclopedia we use them.--TheUltimate3 22:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He might not mind, but it's a sign of disrespect and it's a breach of etiquette. As an encyclopædia, we are supposed to be somewhat professional, right? A professional encyclopædia would never use the Hokage's personal name. --ShounenSuki 22:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * An professional encyclopedia also never has to deal with spam trolls, and idiots. But we deal with those on a regular basis(small rant, completely unnecessary to the argument, just venting our daily troubles ^_^)Regardless, after looking at a toilet (Not being funny. I remember alot of things in a restroom), I remembered we had this discussion several months ago when they revealed Minato's name. Dantman himself sayed "Article should be located on the character's Real name." back when I was for using the Hokage titles, in a similar way you are now.--TheUltimate3 22:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately Hokage is their real name. It's just as real as their old names are. --ShounenSuki 22:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Hokage is still a title though. It may take the place of their name (though it didn't in the case of Tsunade, Mintao, and Senju (cant spell his first name) after they were revealed), but it is not their given name.--TheUltimate3 22:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To really understand this, you have to be familiar with Japanese names... Basically, Hokage simply isn't a title. It's a name that's also treated as a title. Only people who have known a Hokage long before they became Hokage would keep using the Hokage's personal name (and even then, only those who are either very close to the Hokage on a personal level, or don't quite respect them as much as they should).
 * For example, the fact that the council members still call the Godaime Hokage "Tsunade" is a clear sign of disrespect. The fact that Jiraiya still called her "Tsunade" shows that he knew her long before she became Hokage and that they're very close. Kakashi usually calls her "Hokage-sama," or "Godaime-sama," but sometimes he reverts to calling her "Tsunade-sama". This shows he's known her long before she became Hokage (and still isn't really used to calling her that), but isn't really close enough to her to keep calling her "Tsunade".
 * I hope you understand what I'm trying to say >< --ShounenSuki 23:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say. But what I am still saying is that we should still use their given names, as a term of easier organization, prevention of obvious mistranslation issues, and the the fact that as proven elsewhere on the wiki, we use the characters given name as opposed to a title and so forth.--TheUltimate3 23:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would think that using the Hokage name would allow for easier organisation. I don't quite understand what mistranslation issues you're talking about, and as I said before, Hokage is as much their name as their personal name is. Even more so, even. Let me ask you, if Pope Benedict XVI was a character from Naruto, would you name his article "[Pope] Benedict XVI," or "Joseph [Alois] Ratzinger"? I also want to ask you to keep in mind that no character from the series would even think twice about naming the articles after the Hokage name.
 * I want to apologise, by the way. I must seem very stubborn and annoying to you. I'm really only doing this, because I think it would make Narutopedia better and more professional. --ShounenSuki 00:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote this an hour or two ago before I left for a movie, so I don't know how relevant it will be now, but here it was.
 * I don't know how accurate that statement is ShonenSuki. Despite being a hokage Tsunade is referred to as Tsunade a fair bit as I recall. However, I would like to stop considering the databooks to be an ironclad source of information. Yes, they are good for citing facts and collecting information. But I believe that the databook have shown us that they don't accurately portray the small meanings or provide a irrefutable source of info always. Remember how the first databook referred to Lee as "Lee" but Guy as "Gai". Rather than "Guy" and "Lee", or "Gai", and "Ri". In fact it conflicted with itself when one used Gai and the next used Guy. The information isn't always consistent or within the context that we think it is. So I'd consider it an unwelcome assumption to say that because the Databooks use Hokage instead of their real names, that Minato intended them to be referred to in that way.
 * Also, remember that this is just a title for the page. For the longest time we decided that when it came to titles we'd stick to using the character's real name. Which is why we use Madara Uchiha instead of Tobi. Despite that, we use whatever title is relevant within the context of an article. Which is why you still see Tobi around most Akatsuki articles. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Nov 9, 2008 @ 01:35 (UTC)

Ok I made a nice long respond to Suki's latest comment, but then Dantman after hours of this debate decides to chime in. And now it all left me. I'll repost to later...--TheUltimate3 01:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent changes

 * I changed something in the Hokage page, the reason for this is because someone wrote something in spanish and someone said I think it was that Tsunade died, then Naruto became Hokage and Sakura became his wife. I've not seen that happen in the manga.--Inferuno Ryuu 19:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

O comon!
This is getting out of hand. Why do you keep deleting info from pages. Haku's you didn't need to!--Inferuno Ryuu 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Sixth Hokage
No disrespect but don't you guys think we're being too hasty on declaring Danzo as the Sixth Hokage? Sure it was stated in the manga that he would succeed Tsunade as leader of Konoha, but don't you think we should wait for the progressing manga chapters on what will happen next? I mean, something significant might still happen; I say remove Danzo from the Hokage list until further notice. Who's with me here?Ethelion (talk) 12:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's fine and dandy. But it doesn't change what has happened. We go by what we know. And we know the Fire Daimyo appointed Danzo the Sixth Hokage, and it has thus been used. If something happens next week which refutes this, than we remove it. Until then, bow before the new Hokage.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. Thanks for at least hearing me out.--Ethelion (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree
I was going to say the same thing about Danzo being the Sixth Hokage.One sentence does not tell us the future. (But thr Fire Daimyo is a tad bit loopy). Itachisharkak (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't think anyone would support my opinion. Thanks for the support Itachisharkak.--Ethelion (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you as well Ethelion. The meeting isn't over yet and it seems that both Shikaku and the ANBU representative do not agree with the Daimyo's decision. There is no way Danzō's going to become Hokage without a struggle. I'd wait a week before changing anything. --ShounenSuki (talk 13:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And I too agree with u Ethilion...Naruto knows that Danzo was trying to ovrthorow the 3rd Hokage...this mite come into the meeting, and on top of that, surely they're not gonna appoint someone who was hinding, thinking of his own safety, and not the villages, during Pain's Invasion as Hokage....I do think that he wont be Hokage without a struggle, and I'm with ShounenSuki and U, on waitin for a week...but well, watevr happens we'll find out next week...unless sum1 add's a sopiler again, and ruin the whole thing..AlienGamer | Talk 14:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Yo, i know i haven't made any edits in a while but i agree with ShounenSuki you should wait a week before deciding anything these things change all the time there are still a few influential people who haven't agreed to it, Tsunade's in a coma and not to mention Naruto, and i also see where TheUltimate3 is coming from and even though it does go along with the rules of this wiki it's not something that'll go well with alot of people.--SalmanH (talk) 14:47, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That being said, u cant change the story line...Although i wud like to wait a week before changin anythin, TheUltimate3 is rite..for now it might as well remain as it it (no matter how much that annoys me). If anything happens next week, it can always be changed...But the info we habe now is that he is infact the 6th Hokage...and till next week it shuld stay that way....its still annoyin to think of Danzo as a hokage..AlienGamer | Talk 14:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Danzo should be removed from the Hokage name list.He was nominated to be Hokage,but not immediatly a real hokage.Plus,remember.Both Naruto Uzumaki and Sasuke Uchiha have dirt about him.Naruto might tell about what he did to poor Yahiko years ago or Sasuke might reveal it was his fault the Uchiha clan died.Yep,fellows.With dirt like this,I don't we have anything to worry about.Well,unless Tsunade dies.That would very said. 24.161.127.23 (talk)


 * Well actually, even though I HATE the fact that he is the Hokage now, since we do not know much about how the Military System of picking a new Leader, unless something happens next week to disprove this, let him be. I can see how Danzo is the new Hokage, as the Fire Daimyo funds Konoha just like the Wind Daimyo does Suna before it started giving more missions to Konoha. He would have a lot of political influence then. Point is, we don't know what exactly is happening, and we can't assume anything yet until next week. --Juubi no Ryuu (talk) 15:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Guys, you should know that the word used at the end "任命" has multiple meanings. While it is commonly used to mean "appoint" it can also be used for the word "nominate". so, if my reading of it is correct based off of the actual japanese script then we cant actually say Danzo has been made hokage as there's a possibility that something entirely different was said. My reading/translation might be wrong, so i'll go ahead and say that before any else of you guys try and pull that one out. --NurXang (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

When a new chapter comes out and adds new information like this which is really vague and deserves waiting till the next chapter we normally omit that information until another chapter or two is released. Thus I removed the section from the page. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Jun 6, 2009 @ 02:32 (UTC)


 * sounds fair. there's just one problem: danzo's page (which is locked and thusly beyond my power), still has him listed as the sixth hokage, and his rank in the infobox is classified as kage. it makes sense that this should be changed until further notice like this page. --NurXang (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2009 (UTC)