Talk:Supervibrato Lightning Release Swords

Technique/object
Since there is Raiton in the name, shouldnt this be considered as a technique rather than a object, similar to Sword of Kusanagi: Chidori Katana. I know there is no real hard proof since there is no databook info on this, but that is my believe. --Gojita (talk) 18:34, August 28, 2010 (UTC)Gojita


 * There might be a related technique, but the context in which "Super Vibrating Lightning Release Sword" is used indicates it's a weapon. ~SnapperTo 19:35, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * As i said, there is no real proof for my theori yet, and the way Sabo mentioned it, it did also sound like it refered to the blade itself, but i can't help but think that the name refere to the technique and not the blade, since Raiton is part of the name. I have no intention of changing the article yet, but before we conclude anyting i will as always like to have some more opinions. --Gojita (talk) 05:31, August 29, 2010 (UTC)Gojita


 * Second Opinion anyone, someone? --Gojita (talk) 19:13, September 8, 2010 (UTC)Gojita


 * It can work either way for me. I think that this way (as object) is more convenient, since if we list this as a technique, we would also have to list the pencil as a technique. If we treat them as objects, the technique itself is already described as a form of chakra flow. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 20:45, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well then i am convinced. Leaving it as an object is fine for me now. --Gojita (talk) 20:52, September 8, 2010 (UTC)Gojita


 * What's the difference between this sword and an ordinary sword?

Honestly i cannot see a single difference between these swords and regular swords...if they produced lightning naturally like the Kiba blades it would be fine...but since this is not the case this should be treated as a technique like the Chidori Katana and the swords to be treated as normal blades...Darksusanoo (talk) 23:35, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * But it was named. So far we know nothing of the swords, that doesn't mean that they aren't special. It's the same thing with the Kubikiribōchō- it was just a giant butcher's knife before we knew it could regenerate itself.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 23:38, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * If they had any kind of special properties they would likely have been shown by now...and if they had any kind of special properties they would not be replaceable as shown when Killer B had his blades lost or broken during his battles with Taka and Kisame and later got a new set...Darksusanoo (talk) 23:46, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * You're assuming they haven't been shown because they have not been spoken of, once again I reference the Kubikiribōchō which didn't have its ability revealed until Part II. There's also Kurosawa. Also, why wouldn't they be replaceable? For a nation that uses swords so heavily, I'm sure they have excellent Blacksmiths, for all we know there might be a specific person that makes the swords for B unless you're thinking that they possess supernatural abilities where I am thinking more along the lines of special made/metal type etc.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 23:50, December 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * What i wanna know is why was this treated differently from other cases. If i'm not mistaken it was B's rap sensei who first said the name during Kisame's fight but the way it was said was rather ambiguous. What was the reason of the different classification? Darksusanoo (talk) 00:04, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * You want to know why they have a name? Though whatever was said could have been a description of the swords, I'm not sure how it translates in Japanese- it's not uncommon for things to be given names (even generic ones) to name tools etc. Why is it such an issue with you though?--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 00:10, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not quite an issue...it's just that from what i read from the manga and from what i've been learning from writing here...this seems more like a jutsu name than the name of the blade and it appears to me that the decision of using this as a sword name rather than a technique, which is the more common choice was a bit arbitrary though i may be wrong. Darksusanoo (talk) 00:21, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the ambiguity in the phrases where the name is given, I have to agree with Cerez365, as currently there's no reason to exclude it just referring to the swords themselves. Also, even without special properties, at least to me the swords do appear to be more suited to B's style than the more commonly observed katana. The fact that they have two sharp edges, considerably increases they're cutting area despite their size, which would only make the addition of lightning release more advantageous. Combine this with their size, shape and lack of a guard, and then the swords are far more ideal for throwing than a katana, something we've seen B utilise time after time. If we do plan to keep the article as a tool, then maybe more details of the swords' use and design should be included? Blackstar1 (talk) 00:45, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh...i'll agree that the blades are different from the standart katana, maybe even customised (did i spell that right?) for B...but the name and parts of the article description appear to be more suited for the description of a chakra flow technique than a tool...but again i may be wrong...it's just that i keep reading this and when compared to other similar articles it just doesn't fit right...again i maybe wrong. Darksusanoo (talk) 00:57, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why I'm suggesting that more details, such as those concerning how the swords' design impacts on their use, should be included in the article. Doing so, would then keep it consistent with the other tool articles. Blackstar1 (talk) 01:02, December 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh...at any rate maybe if could get some more opinions would be a good idea...Darksusanoo (talk) 01:11, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Cerez and Blackstar1. Just the general shape/design of the sword-- how the blade tends diagonally to a point-- befits inflicting piercing damage on a target, which Raiton is also useful in. One reason that I could see for the name is that the swords are likely made of a metal that vibrates particularly well when influenced by electricity. Skitts (talk) 01:23, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Alteration
Just throwing it out there, I'm not sure when it comes to naming. But surely it would read and sound better with Lightning Release: Super Vibrating Sword? I know that Japanese language, the sentence structure is different to ours, which would explain the Lightning Relesae is further into the name then all the other jutsu names. SharinganMike (talk) 18:54, January 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * but that's a direct translation i believe if it's renamed then it's a completely different technique no? --Cerez365 (talk) 18:57, January 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot. It's from Manga. The anime name version of it doesn't exist yet. My bad. SharinganMike (talk) 19:05, January 5, 2011 (UTC)

plural
Shouldn't we change 'sword' to 'swords'? Although if I remember well, Sabu was talking about one of them then this name was used...--LeafShinobi (talk) 19:52, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Vivrato?
Doesn't the ビブラート (Biburāto) part translate to vivrato, as more of a unique part to this weapon's name, rather than just vibrating? --GoDai (talk) 05:27, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's vibrato, but you're right. —ShounenSuki (talk 07:51, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * So... We should rename this to Super Vibrato Lightning Release Sword or keep as is since the english TV seemed to get most of it right? Joshbl56  07:57, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * It should be changed to 'Supervibrato Lightning Release Swords' —ShounenSuki (talk 08:02, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * Now we wait for someone who can move the page to login.... Joshbl56  08:09, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * You mean like me ^^ —ShounenSuki (talk 10:21, November 25, 2011 (UTC)
 * So "Sword" or "Swords"?--LeafShinobi (talk) 20:39, November 25, 2011 (UTC)