Category talk:OVA

Inconsistency that should be fixed
I once brought this up in form of a forum, but nothing came of that I suppose considering nothing has changed, I don't recall what I was told. For example, we consider techniques from one OVA as "anime only" and they show up in the infoboxes, yet from another we don't and aren't showing up.

For example Big Ball Rasengan isn't in Konohamaru's infobox, yet things like White Snake Possession and Fuuinjutsu Trap do show in Orochimaru's. Same for Hashirama, OVA stuff shows in there. Why is this? The only explanations I can think of are that:
 * some OVAs canon to the anime while others aren't
 * we really are inconsistent
 * the only reason big ball rasengan doesn't show up in Konohamaru's infobox is a bug--Elveonora (talk) 18:13, January 18, 2014 (UTC)

Infobox bug, usually all it takes is a null edit in the jutsu page, and then one in the character. Already did both, and I'm looking at BBR in Konohamaru's infobox in another tab. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 19:02, January 18, 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks. So it's just me being autistic and dramatic over nothing, again xD--Elveonora (talk) 19:18, January 18, 2014 (UTC)

OVA/Movie characters
If we look at the pages for characters that only have been shown in OVA/Movies, it simply says "Plot Overview" where there normally says "Something Arc", How about changing that bit to whatever the OVA/Movie is called? Hope you understand what I'm asking. --Kasan94 (talk) 12:27, April 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * The OVA/Movie is mentioned in the lead of the article. Your suggestion would make sense if the character appeared in multiple films, but most OVA/Movie only characters appear just once (excluding main characters such as Naruto, Kakashi etc) --Speysider Talk Page 12:34, April 26, 2014 (UTC)


 * I see your point, and I can agree with that as it is now it doesn't have to be changed. But what about doing the thing I suggested, and then remove it from the lead? I would gladly do it myself. --Kasan94 (talk) 13:50, April 26, 2014 (UTC)
 * Bump --Kasan94 (talk) 16:57, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * I find it unnecessary. Not wrong, but unneeded. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 19:36, April 28, 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright fair enough --Kasan94 (talk) 20:11, April 28, 2014 (UTC)