Category talk:Naruto Terms

Category
I'm thinking about recreating this category.. to categorize these pages: Dattebayo and Believe It, Jashin,  Ryō,  Shinobi,  Nindo,  What a drag and How troublesome, ?Sannin? (maybe), Tomoe. Does anyone disagree with this? Simant (talk) 02:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I suppose that's slightly more than the three articles it had before. ~SnapperTo 03:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

That Technique
I was thinking, should we make an article on the term "that technique"? It's something that has popped up quite a few times. It's not as frequent as Naruto's and Shikamaru's phrases, but I think it appeared enough times to warrant a mention. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 01:44, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't we just have to delete it once the nature of "that technique" is revealed?Ryne 91 (talk) 01:50, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * No it would just be efited...renamed and such. But i'm not against creating an article for it. It'd kinda look cool in Naruto's infobox too :3 --Cerez™☺ 01:57, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about an article for the term. The term has been used many times, to describe many techniques. It's been used to describe Gaara's Shukaku form by Temari back in part one, by Jiraiya to refer to something we don't know yet (presumably Naruto's four-tails form), by Enma to describe the Dead Demon Consuming Seal, by the Deva Path to describe Shapeshifting Technique, by Naruto to describe Rasenshuriken when he was training senjutsu, by Kabuto after he showed Madara how to use Impure World Resurrection, talking about another technique. My point is that this sentence is something which has been used to hype things through the manga. Much like "Child of the Prophecy" has been used to refer to multiple individuals. And these are just the ones I remembered from the top of my head, there could be many others. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 01:58, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I like this idea ^_^  ~ Fmakck© → Talk → Contributions ~ 02:03, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * If that's what you meant, then we really should have an article for it. Would we be listing every technique that corresponds with it in the article? Ryne 91 (talk) 02:05, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh that's what you meant. Well I suppose it's fine. . .--Cerez™☺ 02:09, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think we should, Ryne, I don't see why some of it possible meanings should be left out.  ~ Fmakck© → Talk → Contributions ~ 02:10, March 28, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't disagreeing with that. I was actually just wanting to make sure I understood the entire thing clearly. I completely agree that we should include them all.Ryne 91 (talk) 02:17, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, explaining the term and listing which techniques were mentioned like that (also things like by whom, when and where), is what I meant. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 00:18, March 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * That sounds good to me.Ryne 91 (talk) 00:28, March 29, 2011 (UTC)