Talk:Naruto Uzumaki

How old is Naruto?
The latest Chapter 643 states that the Naruto World is currently on the night before Naruto's birthday, which is October 9th. Doing the math, Naruto's age right now should be 16 years and a few months. Or was he never 15 in the first place? Should we make Naruto's age 15-17 now?
 * We're not changing his age. The manga says that, in-universe, his birthday is the next day (tomorrow). He's only 16 right now. Everything stays the same until it changes days in the manga. ~ Ten Tailed Fox Yamagakure Symbol.svg 03:40, August 21, 2013 (UTC)

Two tabs for long character articles
Sorry for bringing this up again, but I just think we can have two tabs ('Introduction', 'Plot') for long character articles (those that have over 75,000 bytes, more or less), since the plot section on certain characters keeps on growing. This way, we can still use the table of contents. KazeKitsune (talk) 05:23, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to be honest, I've seen this done before on a wiki I'm apart of, as well as over on the Bleach wiki and it just doesn't look good. I know, we're not really shooting for looks here, but, trust me, its really doesn't look good anywhere I've seen it. Aside from the visual appearance, its a bit of a hassle for editors, and can get confusing as for what to add where. Let's add to that the fact that its unnecessary. Yes, being the titular character, Naruto has a very long article, but I can load it in less than two seconds on a speedy connection and under a minute on a slow one, like the one I have at college or on my phone's Wi-Fi. I honestly don't think its necessary. ~ Ten Tailed Fox Yamagakure Symbol.svg 05:31, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh well then, at least I got to say what I want to say. KazeKitsune (talk) 06:03, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * I've seen it done on One piece and honestly I would have no problem splitting someone like Naruto or Sasuke's arcs from the appearance abilities and especially personality.--Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 07:36, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * As another idea related to this, why not do something like Naruto_Uzumaki/Background and Naruto_Uzumaki/Appearance and load them into the page using ? --Speysider Talk Page 08:34, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * If absolutely necessary, I would prefer Speysider's solution since that seems more consistent with our current design of articles (we use it for Relationships, etc on Naruto's page already). ~ Ultimate  Supreme  10:32, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still against it, but, if its is absolutely necessary that we start splitting up articles (we'll have to the same for Obito and Madara soon enough if we start with Naruto and Sasuke), then I too would vote for Speysider's route. ~ Ten Tailed Fox Yamagakure Symbol.svg 17:40, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

What is Speysider's route? But TheUltimate3 would prefer it if we had to move the plot off article, because it would be weird to move background, abilities and personality off page.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 17:42, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * You just looooooove referring to yourself in third person, don't you >.> Anyways, if I understand Speysider correctly, and I think I do, he suggest move, say, the plot section (as you advised) to "Naruto Uzumaki/Plot", then, on the main article (this one), in the Plot section, we just use so that it will give a short blurb on the article, while leaving a "main" link to the new article. That way we don't make the article look tacky with three different tabs hovering at the top like on One Piece Wiki, which, I have to disagree with Cerez on - it looks hideous. ~ Ten Tailed Fox Yamagakure Symbol.svg 17:49, October 6, 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes as of now I do find that enjoyable. And yes that sounds fine. If someone can whip up a sandbox to see what it looks like, that'll be cool.--TheUltimate3 Allied Shinobi Forces Symbol.svg (talk) 17:56, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Tabs are a short term solution. Because this article is a mound of garbage large enough to eclipse the sun. To break down its size: Naruto's article is never going to be short, but it can be proportioned better than it currently is. ~SnapperTo 18:20, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if this is what's being suggested, but we could do it like they do in the Avatar Wiki. For the really big pages, usually main characters, articles are split per season. We could simply make sub pages for Part I and Part II, and then put an abridged version of the events in the section of the main article, with a link to the sub-page. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 18:38, October 6, 2013 (UTC)

So in essence it's look kinda like Jacce's request page? @Snapper easier said than done. I've personally tried to Marshall the content that people put into articles for Naruto and others like him and no matter what we do sometimes it gets thrown out of proportion by over zealous fan editors then stuff sneaks up on you or else is repeated half a dozen times. I'd be all for cutting some of these enormous articles down to size it's just that at times it's nothing short of a Herculean task.--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 06:32, October 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the rub. I'd always tell myself that I could shorten X article/section, but then I'd need to do it again at a later date. Like showering; why bother?
 * That's why I don't do either anymore.
 * Although, I wonder if maybe the problem was trying to prune the hedge that others had grown when the real solution was to burn the hedge down and plant a new one.
 * Quandaries... ~SnapperTo 07:07, October 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * User:Speysider/Naruto_Uzumaki. Created this by just including the Abilities section from the page (I copied the whole contents of the Abilities heading into a subpage of this sandbox page called /Abilities). Thoughts ? --Speysider Talk Page 07:13, October 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * As I've already stated, I would rather things like abilities stay on page. But to be quite honest, that can be solved by just having a nonfanboyish approach to his ability section.
 * Because honestly, the boy does in total Shadow Clones, Nine-Tails chakra, Rasengan, Sage Tech, say what you want but Taijutsu is minor.
 * Instead of having an ability section bigger than most articles that section itself could just be trimmed (and when I say trimmed, I mean gutted.).--TheUltimate3 Allied Shinobi Forces Symbol.svg (talk) 11:48, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * well if we do this we can attack other articles like these. More than enough of us seem willing to take a hatchet to some of these articles. Gentlemen, to the sandbox? --Cerez 365 ™Hyūga Symbol.svg(talk) 16:28, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * @TU3 That was just an example of what would be getting done, I just picked a random section that was fairly long to use to demonstrate it.
 * @Cerez I agree, there are probably quite a few "large" article that can have similar done to it (Sasuke, Sakura, Kakashi, Tsunade, Obito etc) --Speysider Talk Page 16:30, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Either way, well done because that just highlighted how stupid long his ability section has become.--TheUltimate3 Allied Shinobi Forces Symbol.svg (talk) 16:38, October 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think cutting all this will do good for the information. The Taijutsu section has became bare bones, doesn't mention the speed and strength increases he has nor does it mention that he's became faster than A, or even any of his taijutsu feats. I get that you're cutting the fat of the article, but it seems like you're purposely cutting the article to make him look weaker or something.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 03:15, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * "Strength" really loses its meaning when everything is made to seem like an accomplishment. Does Naruto use taijutsu reasonably often? Sure. Is he competent with it? Yes. Is he Rock Lee? Absolutely not. And yet, to read the previous version, he eats rocks for breakfast because he's just that omigosh strong.
 * My main issue with the previous version of that section was that almost all of the examples came from when Naruto used senjutsu or some percentage of Kurama. Put another way: there was very little of base-Naruto, which that section should ideally focus on.
 * That's not to say that everything that was cut was bad. The current version is pretty general and would benefit from some examples of Naruto's feats (which could also just be put into refs). I emphasize some examples, because there do not need to be literally eleven examples of how fast Naruto is. I really can't overstate how ridiculous that is, and in fact want to itemize it:
 * Naruto is fast because he saved Sakura.
 * Naruto is fast because he restrained Kakashi.
 * Naruto is fast because he intercepted Asura Path.
 * Naruto is fast because he dodged Third Raikage.
 * Naruto is fast because he was thought to use Body Flicker Technique.
 * Naruto is fast because he surpassed A.
 * Naruto is fast because he moved around a map.
 * Naruto is fast because he "blitzed" Third Raikage.
 * Naruto is fast because he reacted before Minato.
 * Naruto is fast because he outmaneuvered Tailed Beast Balls.
 * Naruto is fast because he something with Wood Dragon.
 * Use the absolute fastest example and no others. ~SnapperTo 05:56, October 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * While trimming could help, it still doesn't change the fact the article is long. It can be solved just by employing the use of the template and subpages with LST. --Speysider Talk Page 18:43, October 8, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Snapper. If we start listing abilities, not just here, but the whole site around, by the best known example of that particular skill set, instead of listing every single, minute detail, of every single action that these characters make, the articles would shrink by quite a bit, while retaining the importance of the most significant actions. Most of us are pretty conservative when it comes to adding mentions of abilities, but then there are others that think that every sneeze a character makes needs to be added to their Abilities section, and this just isn't so.

Like I said to begin with, the page's length isn't really a concern. The series is almost over, he's the main character, its going to be long. The page still loads in under a minute, sometimes within mere seconds, and my connection is pretty crappy, so I know its okay for those of you with higher internet speeds. There really isn't any true need to split this article up. There just isn't. So, while if we have to do this, I prefer a combination of trimming the fat (all the extra references/examples where they're not needed) and Speysider's method of things, I really think a simple trimming of unneeded or redundant information is the better solution of it all. ~ Ten Tailed Fox 21:53, October 8, 2013 (UTC)