Talk:Narutopedia

New Wiki Skin
Wikia is overhauling its look

This was brought up on another Wiki I follow, just wondered if anyone knows how this will affect this site? Arrancar79 (talk) 00:25, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's awful and I am going to try everything in my power to keep the old fashioned Wikipedia one working. Which means I'm going to do absolutely nothing as I have no knowledge on how Wikia works.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 02:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have some experiences with that, maybe I could help a bit. --TakeruDavis (talk) 00:08, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

the new look is nice,but don't some people prefer the old one because it is easier?--Fran513 (talk) 04:22, October 22, 2010 (UTC) fran513

What means senkentai?
What is a senkentai? I know it may mean expedition team, but are they part of ANBU?

Wikia's New Look

 * Moved to Forum talk:Wikia's New Look.

Narutopedia moving out from wikia!
i'm sure some of the members already answered the survey. one of the questions are about "narutopedia moving out of wikia". for me, i don't actually 100% agree on that, why? because of these reasons: --Fran513 (talk) 04:28, October 22, 2010 (UTC)fran513
 * 1) some people who are not memebers of this wikia may have a hard time finding the location of the narutopedia because they weren't informed.
 * 2) even memebers will have a hard time...IF they weren't also informed.
 * 3) wikia helped build narutopedia,so why bail on it?


 * There's a lot of discussion on that over in Forum:Wikia's New Look. But part of Narutopedia's history with Wikia has been Wikia releasing features that break the wiki, then us having to get the feature disabled after it's already caused damage to the wiki we've had to fix. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Oct 22, 2010 @ 04:35 (UTC) 04:35, October 22, 2010 (UTC)

then on second thought...maybe i'm 99.9% sure...thanks for explaining..oh..and all is welcome in my profile if you have any questions or suggestions,--Fran513 (talk) 05:48, October 22, 2010 (UTC)fran513

New mainpage layout
Hey guys, I'm joeyaa from Wikia's Entertainment Team. I'm working with anime wikis to better their SEO and layout, and I think Naruto Wiki will truly benefit by upgrading its mainpage. The current is rather empty and not really about Naruto, which doesn't really help with the presence of the wiki on Google. Therefore, I've spent a bit of time and created a new mainpage that should be much more SEO friendly, and interesting to readers. You can view a screenshot of the prototype here as it would appear on this wiki, or you can see it live on my test wiki on joeyaa.wikia.com (ignore the skin). As this is a prototype, I'm interested in hearing any feedback about it, as we can make changes as needed.

In this prototype you'll see there's a featured article and a featured video game section. The featured article would be voted on by the editors here (the idea is to highlight interesting content) and it will be added to the mainpage by someone at the beginning of the month (if nobody volunteers to, I can do that.) The latter section, featured video game, is more of a placeholder, it can be a featured, character, place, movie, episode, item, etc. I chose video game for this month because of the high volume of searches in Google for the new video game release. Just like the featured article, the community will vote on it and someone will update it monthly.

As you can see, this doesn't require much of an effort, but should be a great way to showcase the great articles we have here, in a dynamic system. I really believe this will benefit the wiki and help drive traffic and readers. If you have any feedback, please let me know! I'd love to implement this and see how well we do! Joey (talk) 23:50, October 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already mentioned this, but those Narutopedia pages on Facebook aren't ours, and the things missing from that variant of the animanga footer. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Oct 24, 2010 @ 00:08 (UTC) 00:08, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point about the Facebook... I forgot to mention that. I think we should create a Facebook page (by an admin?) so that we can get the word out about Narutopedia onto the social networks. This is a website, and the word of mouth for websites is really through social networks and other websites, so it doesn't make sense not to utilize them. If an admin or another user isn't interested in creating the page, then I don't mind doing that either and updating it regularly to keep up some interest.


 * Secondly about the footer, ya it's been slimmed a bit. I'd like to go around and have every wiki listed on it use that template (or a variant). Before, there was a huge list, and that list was better suited on Animanga wiki, as it's an index/hub for all of the anime wikis out there (this template lists to Animanga wiki -- by clicking the unnamed mascot -- so that they can search for their favorite anime wiki if need be). This list has about 25 wikis listed on it, which is better maintainable and better with search engines (150+ links on the last one wasn't exactly Google's friend.) :) A reasonable amount of wikis linking to one another will be much better than a large amount of wikis where only a few wikis link to them. Joey (talk) 00:25, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Time to tear this prototype apart, because that is what I do. Please don't think me an ass, this is how I tend to things.
 * ) Fanart. Bad. Very very bad.
 * ) Dantman already commented on the Facebook issue. I also don't think we should link this wiki to Facebook. I feel it will be a goldmine for potential issues down the road. But that's just my opinion.
 * ) The prototype looks to be missing links to other things on the wiki, like volumes, jutsu, ect, focusing mainly on characters. I know this can be changed, but there you go.
 * ) Fanart bad. Very very very bad. This cannot be said enough.
 * ) By virtue of Oasis being a graphic design nightmare (Not my words, a Graphic Design Major's words), there is a lot of white. In the main section, on the left, the header, just to much white. It's a lot of dead space.
 * ) I really don't see voting for featured articles working. This isn't Wikipedia, as far as I can gather, most users tend to get on, look for whatever they want and leave, while the main editors care more about keeping the information in order than an article popularity contest. I believe this is a part of the glaring differences in what the community wants and the top brass of Wikia want.
 * That being said, because Oasis has turned our current turned our functional homepage into, a visual mess, the prototype has promise, more so than our current layout. I believe it would function better if the current one was reworked to better fit Oasis, and maybe a picture but not needed, I've seen plenty of wikis stuff pictures on the homepage and turned it into a mess.--TheUltimate3~The User King~ 00:31, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflicted) The spotlights are missing, and we already have a shared template. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Oct 24, 2010 @ 00:32 (UTC) 00:32, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * (edit conflicted x2) Not a fan of the really small character image links, I had worked on http://naruto.wikia.com/index.php?title=User:Simant/Sandbox_2&oldid=368981, which was gonna be on the homepage someday (with community approval), only issue that this has is that a small percent of character pages have images that won't show properly. S im A nt 00:37, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * @TheUltimate3 Thanks for the feedback, it's quite useful. This design is in no way set in stone, so we need to adapt things as we see them. I'll respond in order to each point as to not miss anything:


 * 1) I agree, it's more of an example of what the sliders are. If you or anyone have an image that would work well in the slider and represents something people are really looking for, then please share. All the images on that page are tentative!
 * 2) I'm not sure about these potential issues... it's simply there to get people talking about the wiki, and sharing its existence with other Naruto fans. There are ~10 000 results when you search Naruto on facebook, so the fact an official Narutopedia page isn't one of those is a disadvantage for us.
 * 3) The content is supposed to be dynamic; we can focus on different things at different times. You'll notice the characters and their pictures below the slider, that's there to get people started in reading. They follow their favorite character, read their article, and start clicking to the next article (whether an episode, jutsu, location, etc.) More like a simple way to categorize everything. One thing I think we might want to do is create a little box on the right sidebar to fill that extra space, that links to some of the stuff not covered with everything else on the mainpage. E.g. "Into manga? Come checkout the latest manga volumes?" and have that link to the volumes page. With like 4 of those, we'd be diversely covering a lot. Although we have to remember we can't cover it all: google only suggests 100 links/per page; therefore we can't turn the mainpage into a sitemap. I've been trying to fill it with highly searched terms (those are what people are looking for,) and they can always use the search feature to find the less searched-for stuff.
 * 4) I replied to that above.
 * 5) Are you referring to the space between the header and then each box? We can move the headers inside and remove that whitespace, what do others think?
 * 6) Interesting, but I should note that we could always take another route and just change it monthly. The idea of voting would be so everyone has a say, not just one person, but if that's not an issue then we could always just have someone update them on their own. Once again, whatever you guys think would work best.


 * @Dantman Ya, it doesn't really make sense to spotlight a select amount of wikis that you're already spotlighting. If there are 25 wikis all linked from the bottom of the page, why would we want to make one any more prominent than the others? The idea here is that we're spotlighting them all, so the spotlight is deprecated.
 * About the old template, it has two problems: a) it has so many links that it surpasses Google's 100 links/page on its own, which is really bad for the SEO of any wiki it's on; and b) when there are so many links it becomes messy and users will ignore it. Less is more, and as I said, Animanga is best used to spotlight ALL of the anime wikis. I think there will be a better turn out with this new, revised one.


 * @Simant As I said in posts above, the images are tentative... if you have a better one please let me know! I like the character boxes at this size though because they don't overpower the rest of the page, and fall into their own section. When the user clicks each box they are taken to the article, which itself has a lot of bigger, clearer pictures (this box is only to represent the character, not to detail them.) I decided against a slideshow because really, we want them all to be visible, and we don't want to have to require user interaction (clicks) to get them to see what they are interested in.


 * I hope I answered everything. Please keep the feedback coming! Joey (talk) 01:16, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Spotlights aren't simply just linking, they focus on the wiki, and include a image as well. These spotlights are run on the Animanga Wiki and in the shared template, and have proven to be effective at bringing traffic to smaller animanga wiki. "Spotlighting them all" is as good as spotlighting nothing, images are what draw people's attention, if that weren't the case then Wikia wouldn't have images in their own spotlight. I never said don't trim down the links, but don't remove the spotlights either. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Oct 24, 2010 @ 01:23 (UTC) 01:23, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add that I dont want the Anime/Manga section of Wikia to be trimmed down even more than it already has. The Wikia header which used to have a Anime/Manga section has been replaced by things which could easily be categorized into one. Now the footer being the next target is something i'm dead against.
 * The new page looks utterly like a fansite and less like an encyclopedia, and will make policy following a joke amoung users. If we're takin the turn Narutopedia into a fansite route its fine, otherwise I'm against it. And your argument for google search would be fine on a less established wiki, but with Narutopedia already being on top of Goggle Search rankings, there's little point..AlienGamer (Userpage ⁝ Talk) 01:34, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * ) Ok then. Just remember, fanart is bad! /thumbsup
 * ) There are a lot of Naruto things on facebook because Naruto is popular, that's normal. However, anyone and I do mean anyone looking for the Naruto wiki will find it with a simple google search. Facebook is unnecessary, an unneeded third leg that will not bring anything tangible to the wiki. At best, we wouldn't gain any more users than we already do, and at worst facebook will attract the kind of users we typically do not want, namely the vandals who troll around social networks waiting for a chance to cause trouble. Pessimistic outlook, I know but /shrug.
 * ) Nod, understood. I probably was focusing to much on what was already up and not thinking of how it could be changed.
 * ) Ok then...
 * ) There is just, a lot of whitespace. The area around the "Articles, Local Policies, ect" next to the Logo, and all that empty space under the Site Activities. The problem with that is, because Oasis forces that into every article, it flows into well, everything. I would prefer if article content was there instead of all the information being pushed to the left, which is annoying as holy hell by the way.
 * ) This point requires more thought, but I will say for a while, we had a "Featured Article" section and it was never used and ended up being dropped.--TheUltimate3~The User King~ 01:36, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

I think we all want (or I want) a single page, with no scrolling required, that gives easy navigation throughout the site. OR perhaps we could fill the entire page with ani/manga links? S im A nt 13:47, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

If this website is supposed to be a encyclopedia then the most important topic in this discussion is the way a user of this site is able to search for the information he is looking for. The current homepage is useless because I can't figure out how to find the most visited articles, or the other menu topics covered in the previous website version. In the last website version, I sometimes didn't know the name for the article or topic, but that didn't stop me from finding what I needed in the last website version. For the love of god fix this bloody website, even the aforementioned change is better then the current homepage but it isn't as good as the original website version where you had a menu on the left with category setup. 76.199.160.63 (talk) 06:07, October 26, 2010 (UTC) Andrew


 * I'm going to make some more tweaks tomorrow: I plan to change the Facebook widget to a box to help nav to other parts of the sites, going to add spotlights in to the anime template, and will look for some more images for the slider. If you have any suggestions for images please let me know. I think it's best if we stay with the featured content bit for a little while to help drive focus to the articles that often will go unread, especially since many people are looking for this stuff. Obviously the mainpage can't just be a link list, that'd ironically just lay unused and be killed by Google. We need the mainpage to be an expression of what we have on the wiki and get the readers clickin' right away. That said, obviously the current mainpage isn't helping much, so I think in a few days if there are no more suggestions for it that we should put this live here. This is a wiki so it can always be improved, but I think we all agree this is better than the current. Joey (talk) 07:17, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * No offense, but this will be a decision of the Active Community. The staff has no say on how a wikia is designed and run as long as it follows the ToS, and we DO follow the ToS..AlienGamer (Userpage ⁝ Talk) 07:21, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Kinda hostile there, AlienGamer. But yes, this will be a community decision. But considering how I'm still not using Oasis until you force it down my throat, there isn't much I can say on the matter, just that this will be a community decision.(Though I am very bothered by your notion that the current homepage isn't much, considering it's been like the way it has for years and hasn't curbed out reader base at all. Hell I'd argue Oasis will cause more harm than anything, but because I doubt you'd care about my complaints that is neither here nor there.)
 * Looks at the Oasis Homepage* Ugh. The homepage worked perfectly with Monobook and Mocano, but kidnapped and locked in a dungeon by Oasis, but we have to change it now because it just doesn't work anymore.--TheUltimate3 ~The User King ~ 12:37, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its just that the Staff shoved Oasis down eveyone's throat..I dont want the next thing they turn their attention to, is making decisions on how a Wikia is run for us. If thats the case their next step is Standard Layouts across all Wikias', and then there goes the last method of creativity..AlienGamer (Userpage ⁝ Talk) 13:04, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Like revoking sysops rights using a scapegoat excuse to protect their ailing cash cow? S im A nt 21:49, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Bah, nothing they do will suprise me anymore, they've sunk as low as they can..This is why I'm constantly pointing out to our dear staff member above, that the community gets the Final say..might as well make that clear before this gets out of hand and a few rights are taken away. Leave the decisions to the community that made this wikia what it is. ..AlienGamer (Userpage ⁝ Talk) 02:48, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Fanart spotlight, joy. I guess the message that we don't like fanart wasn't taken seriously? S im A nt 20:02, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * It would appear so...do we have the power to change our own spotlights, or are we just screwed?--TheUltimate3 ~The User King ~ 20:15, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * I told Sannse that we don't like fanart and she says she will get it fixed. S im A nt 20:23, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good.--TheUltimate3 ~The User King ~ 20:34, November 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * At least it's one of the rare examples of good fan art. ~SnapperTo 22:31, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

Is there anyway...
Is there anyway Narutopedia can go back to it's original form? I mean all that space on the sides is wasted space...Peruzka (talk) 01:46, October 24, 2010 (UTC) Peruzka
 * For now, you can select the old look by going to your preferences and changing it, but when November 3rd arrives, the new look will be the only look. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 01:48, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

How are you suppose to do that? Everytime I go to my Preferences, and then Skin, I can't find a way to get it back to its orginal self.-- Ninja Sheik  02:06, October 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just select the Monaco look. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 02:18, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Um, okay.-- Ninja Sheik  02:22, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

It's my understanding that MonoBook will still be available. ~SnapperTo 03:56, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that, too. Thank God it will! I hate the New Wikia Look.-- Ninja Sheik  16:41, October 24, 2010 (UTC)

the delete of infobox
why jutsus have been deleted from the infobox?


 * Wikia broke something. We are working on it.--TheUltimate3 ~The User King ~ 18:21, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Family section of infoboxes
Not 100% sure this is the place for this, but here goes. I was trying to edit some of the family information on several pages, but noticed that section was locked. So I figured I'd mention inconsistencies and missing information on here so someone could fix it up. There might be potential reasons for some of these, but I couldn't find anything on the relevant character pages as to why the info would be missing. First off on both Itachi and Sasuke's pages in the family section they are not mentioned on each others pages. Nor is it specified that Fugaku and Mikoto are their Father and Mother respectively on either one of their pages. On Asuma's page his relation to Hiruzen and Biwako are not specified. On Sasuke Sarutobi's page only Hiruzen and Konohamaru are mentioned, it's kind of odd to see his great-grandson mentioned, but not his own grandson Asuma Sarutobi. Hizashi and Hiashi Hyūga are not even mentioned as relatives let alone brothers nor are their statuses as the uncle to each other's children mentioned, which seems odd since they are identical twins. Nor is Hinata and Hanabi's status as cousins to Neji even mentioned, they are first cousins which is as close as it gets. Hanabi and Hinata do not even appear on each others infobox. Neji's family section appears to be a giant mess full of warning images. I also was wondering if there was a reason close affinities or "-in-law's" are not specified or mentioned? For instance Yashamaru has his two nephews Kankurou and Gaara as well as his niece Temari listed, but not his Brother-in-law the Fourth Kazekage. I can understand not listing niece, nephew, aunts, uncles, and cousin-in-laws; but father, mother, sister, brother, daughter, and son-in-laws seem a bit more relevant. Another example of this can be found on Tobirama Senju's page his relation to Nawaki and Tsunade are mentioned, but their grandmother and his sister-in-law Mito Uzumaki is not mentioned. While most of this info may seem superfluous I feel it would be great for all the family sections to be given the same amount of detail. Knowing Tobirama and Mito's relation is not especially important, but having the option of of seeing it in a visible and clear section on the infobox helps to flesh out the Naruto World for any of the Narutopediagoers. Having very clear relations like Hizashi and Hiashi being brothers just helps to keep things clean and concise and is useful information. Also I know that in most of these characters articles many of these things are mentioned, but I felt it was important to point out that the family infobox sections are treated rather inconsistently and the infobox should be the primary location one goes to for that kind of information not scouring articles and using the find function of their browser. If the community disagrees with my assessment that is fine, I was just hoping to contribute what I thought could be an improvement to the site. Also if there is a better or more relevant place to post this please let me know and I will do so. --Abbadona (talk) 09:59, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

monobook skin
im not sure if you're aware of this, you probably are but i'll post it just in case. The monobook is still available, at least to individual users. It can be found in user preferences. Whether it can be used for the entire wiki i don't know but I thought I'd let you know just in case--Soul reaper (talk) 14:43, December 6, 2010 (UTC)

Part 2 Pictures
Hey, quick question. How come we're still using the Part 1 pictures on the character's profiles? I understand that we want to keep them as some sort of history, but I think it best that we at the very least, add the Part 2 pictures alongside the Part 1 counterparts.--Signature/Red Dog31 22:35, December 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what the "Part 2" section of character articles are for... same for the appearance section... There is limited room inside of the infoboxes themselves (and we have EVEN LESS room now with Wikia's crappy new skin) and the infobox image itself should be the first major appearance of the character we are introduced to. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 31, 2010 @ 23:15 (UTC) 23:15, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

Central Wiki Problem?
Is anyone else having the problem of not seeing the infoboxes? Fangzntalonz (talk) 02:25, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * S im A nt 02:40, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

For me, yes. Some of the info boxes stretch out the page and make the page look horrible. Nightrose (talk) 03:59, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Manga only
Is it really necessary to put Manga Only after something? Like for Jutsus or members of a team. I understand why we would put Anime only, but the anime will always have everything the manga has, and more, just because of fillers. So, really, the only purpose of manga only labels is saying that the anime hasn't caught up to this point yet. 98.111.245.135 (talk) 23:31, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * Those show that a something either hasn't debuted in the anime yet, or was changed from the anime. For example, the Bringer-of-Darkness Technique. It's used by one character in the anime, and by other in the manga. One of Konohamaru's sexy techniques was cut from the anime, so that's a manga only technique. Naruto used a variant of the Sexy Technique in a databook omake, so no anime for that as well. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:36, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * To address your last point: yes, "manga only" does basically mean that the anime hasn't gotten to that jutsu. It's a necessary evil to catch the few miscellaneous jutsu Omnibender mentioned. ~SnapperTo 00:25, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

New Zodiac Dates
Since the zodiac dates have changed, will the characters zodiacs also change? Nightrose (talk) 18:58, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Elaborate? S im A nt 19:12, January 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * http://www.techjackal.net/science-and-technology/2011/01/14/new-astrological-dates-and-zodiac-changes-2011/ Nightrose (talk) 19:17, January 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * 1: When it comes to horoscopes, one's birthdate is important. Unless such a change in zodiac signs would be done retroactively, the signs of those already born would not change.
 * 2: The Narutoverse is not the same as the real world. It is doubtful Kishimoto-sensei would ever incorporate a change in zodiac signs.
 * 3: Zodiac signs haven't changed for hundreds of years, despite the fact that the actual constellations have been changing their positions in the sky. No-one's going to change their horoscope based on what a fringe website that isn't even focussed on horoscopes says.
 * —ShounenSuki (talk 19:27, January 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Nothing of importance has changed in terms of the zodiac. At least as far as Naruto is concerned. This is not an issue to worry about.--TheUltimate3 ~Aspect of Wiki ~ 19:40, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Removing character and jutsu page filters?
Does anyone know if the filters on the Character Page and the Jutsu Page are being removed? Because those filters made things so much easier to find. --Davaeigh (talk) 19:06, January 24, 2011 (UTC)

202???
Hey where is now the (the page about) episode 202 ??


 * Sign your posts. It's this article. You know, there is such a thing that shows you new pages. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:17, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Jutsus?
Why are all the attacks of naruto deleted?? like naruto clone jutsu or Rasengan there all gone what happened??Vineet Gaara Rajput (talk) 02:42, March 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * You have to be more specific than that. What do you mean exactly?  ~ Fmakck© → Talk → Contributions ~ 03:04, March 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * There are jutsu missing from infoboxes. Probably a cache problem of smw problem with the central wikia. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 03:12, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

Like i mean if u go to Naruto and when u scroll down where it says Jutsu it only shows Jutsu All Directions Shuriken Pachinko Technique (Anime only) Rasengan Sage Art: Super Great Ball Rasen Tarengan (Manga only) Sage Art: Super Great Ball Rasengan (Manga only) Spiralling Super Large Group Spheres Summoning Technique (Toads) Tailed Beast Rasengan (Manga only)

and when u click Jutsu it shows a page with 31 jutsus..and it does not show other jutsus Why are the jutsus missing from the info box???--Vineet Gaara Rajput (talk) 02:03, March 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * The sysops are aware of this and it should be fixed soon, have patience.  ~ Fmakck© → Talk → Contributions ~ 02:05, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

The Databooks Exact Coverage
Databook 1 (Volumes 1 to 13) It means it spans from the first page of Volume 1 to the last page of Volume 13. Databook 2 (Volumes 14 to 27) It means it spans from the first page of Volume 14 to the last page of Volume 27. Databook 3 (Volumes 28 to 43) It means it spans from the first page of Volume 28 to the last page of Volume 43.

So with this finding it can be determined that to be precise Narut's and all the other ages given for the characters in Databook 3 are the ages they were in the first page of Volume 28 all the way up to the last page of Volume 43. So Naruto was never 15 in the story and neither was the rest of the group, none of the shippuden people's given ages were a year younger than the ages given in Databook 3, and we all know the Databooks are written and supervised by Kishimoto himself. So the wiki needs to take fix their profiles. Also it mean by the first page of Volume 44 everyone is older, example: Naruto and Sasuke are 17 by Volume 44. ItachiWasAHero (talk) 06:34, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a WSJ insert/extra from early in the Part II run that gives a couple of the characters' age as 15.
 * In addition, the characters are not 17 yet; Naruto's birth is still said to have occurred 16 years ago. ~SnapperTo 07:06, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you sure? Remember that 2 months passed after Sasuke left Konoha then naruto left and part one ended, and they turned 13 in the middle of the chunin exams, so 2 1/2 years later makes them 16, and the wsj insert/coverage, was it explicitly done by Kishimoto? If not its invalid, and what chapter after Volume 43 does it state narutos birth was 16 years ago? Not being an ass, I just need proof, thanks for the input.
 * Also Hinata and Naruto are the latest of the group being born October and December, so if they were the ones given as 15 then thats kind of understandable ItachiWasAHero (talk) 07:14, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * The whole Nine-Tails flashback segment occurred 16 years earlier, the night of Naruto's birth.
 * Ages aren't the series' strong point; there is almost no chance of all the characters being the same age at the same time. So trying to figure ages based on when a character was born and how many months have passed is not going to work. You are also assigning the ages incorrectly. Naruto is not 12 in chapter 117 and then suddenly 13 in chapter 118. Rather, we are to believe that he and the rest of his age group all turned 13 by chapter 238. There is also no saying whether or not Kishimoto will want them to be 17 by the time of the next databook.
 * And I have not seen the insert, but I have no reason to doubt its validity. It's the anime that deviates from mangaka's intent, not the manga publishers. ~SnapperTo 07:33, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * From what I just read up on, he never has them the same age in the main Databooks, there always a year apart in number age in one series, like part 1's databooks and why would it list those volumes as what it covers? Unless your correct and Naruto and all of his class is 12 by the end of volume 13. That means that they were 13 by the end of volume 27 and 16 by the end of volume 43. Which means He was 11 in the beginning of part 1 and 15 in the beginning of part 2. Does that sound right?? and when he meets Minato is that the first proof he was 16? So its indefinite he was 15 before chapter 43? and all the characters always grow at least 1cm between each number age.
 * Check this timeline out and tell em if you see anything wrong and proven a fact to be wrong
 * I think we need to add a timeline to the wiki, and this is the one, it needs to be corrected and filled in all the way as much as possible. ItachiWasAHero (talk) 07:51, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I meant it is improbable that Naruto, Sasuke, Sakura, Shikamaru, Choji, Ino, Kiba, Shino, Hinata, and Gaara are all the same age at the same time. It seems that all characters born in the same year share the same age at any given time.
 * Again, new databooks do not indicate that a year has passed since the previous databook. Naruto and company were 12 when they graduated from the Academy, which happens in chapter 1.
 * As for the Nine-Tails' attack, that was established as 16 years ago as early as chapter 386 (Itachi's explanation of Madara), and possibly even sooner than that.
 * That timeline - which I have removed because it is needlessly long - has little basis in facts. All of the months are supposition and it is otherwise horribly out-of-date. And in case you ask: there is no official timeline. ~SnapperTo 08:26, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

I do know It is almost 6 months after Naruto re-meets sasuke that sasuke absorbs orochimaru, and its about a month or 2 between naruto's return and his encounter with sasuke. So its about 7-8 months since the begining of shippuden all the way to sasukes betryal of orochimaru? Your helping me a lot, thanks. ItachiWasAHero (talk) 08:41, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * You're signing your posts wrong, the tildes go after your post, not before. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 15:06, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Omnibender, I'm new to this. 108.28.14.25 (talk) 20:19, April 30, 2011 (UTC)

Oops I forgot to sign in on that comment. ItachiWasAHero (talk) 20:20, April 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I read the Transated Databook 3 Entry for Naruto, It starts out saying "Over 2 years have passed, and Naruto is back to Konoha." That clearly states that it's been less than three years so two and a half at most. Naruto was stated as 16 as early as chapter 386 from what I can remember, and thats volume 42, So Databook 3 is not listing them as 16 at the end of volume 43, but instead clearly insinuates they were 16 from the first chapter of shippuden onwards. They were never 15, and there is no proof of it, the anime is wrong and I could not find ANY WSJ insert/extra stating him as 15. So His age as 15 at the beginning of shippuden is wrong. There is no proof he was ever 15 in shippuden, Bu there is proof he is 16, very clearly, in Databook 3. So as the facts go. The age's in their profiles are wrong and need to be corrected. Bring proof from Kishimoto, The Databook, or the Manga itself showing the ages as you have them. The age's as given by Kishimoto's Databook's are 12 and 13 in Naruto Part 1, and 16 in Naruto Part 2. Which would mean they wear all 16 at the first chapter of Naruto Shippuden. So with the facts and logic, The time skip is around 2-2.5 years which means they were around 13.5yrs old when Part 1 ended. Kishimoto's facts not mine. Whatever he says goes for his manga. ItachiWasAHero (talk) 02:28, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * The proof is in a little extra that came with chapter 247 or so. It's officially called the, but it's ususally just called the Herobook. It covers the first few chapters of Part II and lists the ages of Naruto, Gaara, Shikamaru, and Sakura as 15, Kankurō's age as 17, and Kakashi's age as 29. —ShounenSuki (talk 12:03, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Is there any scans an/or translations I can see and read of the Weekly Shōnen Jump Second Great Herobook: Naruto [Secret: Scroll of Flying] Official Character Databook Mini? And how far does the Book cover? All the way up to Sasuke's Shippuden Debut meaning they were 15 up to that time? ItachiWasAHero (talk) 19:55, May 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * The Herobook features images taken from chapter 250 and before, so that's probably about the cut-off point. Also, as I said before, the ages from the databooks are not a precise indication of the ages in the manga. The third databook says Naruto is 16, but actually covers everything from the very beginning of Part II until about volume 43. It's obvious Naruto wasn't 16 during that entire period of time. All the databook ages tell us is that at the beginning of Part II, Naruto and his classmates were all about 15 and at around the time of volume 43, they were all about 16.
 * As for the scans or translations, I cannot really help you with that. I'm rather certain the Herobook was never fully translated and I don't know of any current raw scans available for download right now. —ShounenSuki (talk 20:17, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

So considering the time skip between part 1 and part 2 is 2.5 years, and about 6 months after they meet Sasuke again is when Sasuke will fight off Orochimaru, and they were all a number age year younger up until the period of time Orochimaru try's to take Sasuke's body, then They were all about 13 years or 13 years and 2-3 months when part 1 ended, meaning 2.5 years later they are about 15 generally in number age, all the way up to Sasuke's fight with Orochimaru. So they are 15 and 16 in Naruto Shippuden. Ok this makes it clear now. Thank god. ItachiWasAHero (talk) 20:31, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

I have noticed a problem.
Kids and such, have been posting archives and articles they make whenever they please, and have been posting pictures of themselves and doujin pictures of ino for example. I think edits, additions, photos and articles should be approved before allowed to be posted to the main pages. ItachiWasAHero (talk) 08:49, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Or do what we've been doing for a long time: Delete said article/image and block the user. And I think it would be nearly impossible fir a group of 7 people to constantly approve all edits, images, and article creation.  ~ Fmakck©  (Images 11:27, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Once I am fully understanding of the workings of this site, I will go around and delete and block. Thank you. ItachiWasAHero (talk) 20:47, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Only sysops can delete and block friend. But I suppose you'll learn that soon enough.--Cerez365™☺ 20:50, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes like he's pointing me that I'm the one who did the nonsense articles! You need to work hard to be a sysop. --Ilnarutoanime (Talk-Contribs.-Images) 01:34, May 3, 2011 (UTC)

Image
hey guys, I'm from the german Narutopedia and I wanted to ask you, if it wouldn't be better to put the pictures of the shinobi from shippuuden and not from naruto where they were young because this isn't topical for manga and anime, too.°Aizen° (Dissi) 14:30, May 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're being too vague friend. What image/ article are you talking about?--Cerez365™ Hyūga Symbol.svg 14:35, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

I mean all the younger shinobis like Shikamaru, Ino, Chouji, Neji, Tenten, Gaara and so on. They've all got these pictures where they were young and I asked why you just don't put the topical pictures from them.°Aizen° (Dissi) 14:59, May 17, 2011 (UTC)