Talk:Boruto: Naruto Next Generations

Image
Shall we use the image from the announcement page for the article? Norleon (talk) 11:39, December 19, 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not? But I prefer the issue cover of WSJ that will contain the first chapter of this series (if released of course). Until that time, we can use this image. — Shakhmoot Nadeshiko Village Symbol.svg (Talk) 13:44, December 19, 2015 (UTC)

Chapter references
Okay. So at one point, a few users felt there was no need to specify the name of the manga we were referencing, because at the time, it was blatantly obvious that we were referring to the Naruto manga, as there weren't multiple manga series to document at the time. However, with this new Boruto manga, I would guess that the need to specify which manga series we are referencing is indeed important now, right? None of us anticipated there would be another series that continued the Naruto manga. Over a year ago, I had edited hundreds of articles to make the change. I am willing to change those back (or request the usage of a bot, whichever is wanted, though the bot does not get everything) for the upcoming monthly manga series. I would think using "Chapter 0, page 0" and "Boruto chapter 0, page 0" would be confusing without using "Naruto chapter 0, page 0" to specify the former. But I must ask first: Does anyone think this change is necessary for the upcoming series? Or no? 23:14, March 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * It would make sense to do this. Munchvtec (talk) 23:17, March 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * I was discussing that very thing with a few users on chat. Which is also why I stooped making redirects for the Naruto manga as I najed them "Chapter ?" because like you said. We didn't anticipate a new manga series. Of course I'll need to rename them "Naruto chapter ?". To answer your concern, I agree that referencing pages "Boruto chapter ?" and "Naruto chapter ?" is what we should do. However, I don't think a bot is necessary. There are plenty of users to helo out on this change. --Rai 水 (talk) 23:24, March 21, 2016 (UTC)
 * Seeing how this discussion is now in the forum, it makes this one redundant. Makes things inconvenient for me, but whatever. Do as you please. 06:59, March 22, 2016 (UTC)