Talk:Summoning: Giant Shuriken

Deletion
Can we finish the other argument first (which was started after this was made). Thomas Finlayson (talk) 21:52, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with it?
 * Exactly what I was wondering. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 22:54, June 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * A double wammy: There is no indication it is anything different from the Generic Sealing Technique, and if it isn't that, then there is nothing different from it an a normal Summoning Technique. There is nothing particularly special about this.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 23:27, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * How many summoning techniques summon an actual weapon? And how many summons get their own pages? Finally, how it is it like Generic Sealing Technique? Thomas Finlayson (talk) 23:30, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a generic weapon, being summoned and used. Generic Sealing Technique. The Summoning Technique can call humans, animals and corpses. I fail to see how a weapon would be beyond it's power.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 23:36, June 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then allow me to say so on the summoning site. Moreover, why put it on the "sealing" site, i.e. storage, and not on the "summoning" site. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 00:08, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

I was going to let this go and let others deal with this, but because you (again) removed the delete tag you have successfully gained my ire and attention. Anyway, not much to add. It can be mentioned that he can summon weapons in Pa's article, maybe a refernece to the possibility of summoning weapons without scrolls in the Generic Sealing Technique article or the possibility of summoning weapons in Summoning Technique. But their own articles when they fit in potentially 2 already existing ones, and can really just be kept in Pa's article is unneeded.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 00:25, June 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually had put it in the summoning section a while ago, but it was deleted. That is why I did this page. And I still do not understand how it falls under a sealing technique. As for your ire, mine came from being labelled as deletion when the discussion was not complete. I know that it is only supposed to be a formality and is not supposed to be deleted for a while, but I had enough trouble a while back when people would make a talk page comment and then utterly delete the article a few seconds later; most annoying and leads me to be a tad paranoid for some reason.
 * I apologize if this comment is too personal, if it is you can remove everything after 'under a sealing technique.' Thomas Finlayson (talk) 02:52, June 20, 2010 (UTC)

But maybe we can connect with the owner of the aricle and tell him what the issues that we have with the aricle, before we make any harsh disends. Doesn't that sound like an geart idea? Added: July, 4th 1:50 AM
 * That would be me. Go ahead. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 03:05, July 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * And thanks for waiting. Thomas Finlayson (talk) 03:10, July 5, 2010 (UTC)