Talk:Torune Aburame

Regarding 475
Page should be moved to Torune Aburame when the chapter is regarded as released. Teamrocketspy621 (talk) 21:33, December 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * I point out that "Torune" is probably a codename. "Torune Aburame" is about as accurate as "Yondaime Namikaze". ~SnapperTo 17:42, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but even if it's a codename, "Torune" is actually a name. "Yondaime," on the other hand is known only as a title. I think it's a little like Konohamaru: he went by only that name until he revealed that his full name was Konohamaru Sarutobi. For most of the series up until then, we knew he was Hiruzen Sarutobi's grandson, but we couldn't say he was Konohamaru Sarutobi until it was explicitly stated that he was from the Sarutobi clan. Fu and Torune should be no exception, since Madara specifically said that they are from the Yamanaka and Aburame clans - especially Torune, whose father, who would've passed his surname on to any son he had, was mentioned. Teamrocketspy621 (talk) 19:05, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * However, it could be just like with Kimimaro and Tsunade; belonging to a clan but not using the clans name as last name. I say, until they are called Fū Yamanaka and Torune Aburame, we call them Fū and Torune. Jacce | Talk 19:15, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * The Konohamaru thing doesn't hold much water. Because we don't (still don't) know how many kids the Third had. For all we know, the Third had a daughter she got married, took up the husbands last name and voala. Konohamaru could have easily been Konohamaru Ticha.--TheUltimate3 (talk) 19:25, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that "Torune" and "Fu" are not their first names. Aburame have names that start with Shi- (シ) and Yamanaka have names that start with Ino- (いの). Adding what is presumably their last name to what is not their first names produces a full name that is wrong. Consider "Tobi Uchiha" if you want a better example. ~SnapperTo 22:28, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Well i think their names are Torune and Fu. I think it symbolizes how since there part of Root there not technically loyal to there clan. Another way this is symbolized is by how Torune's upper face is covered n his eyes r visible while Aburames have their lower face n eyes covered--Moiz1224 (talk) 06:44, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

His eyes are visible, yeah, in the first chapter in which he appears (455), but in the latest chapters, they are just white. I'm 100% sure that Torune and Fū are codenames, besides, we'll probably never learn their real names (we don't know Sai's, right?). By the way, does 'Torune' mean anything? I only know a little Japanese. --Kiadony (talk) 13:14, December 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Old, I know, but no, Torune (トルネ) isn't Japanese, and Fū(フー) and Dajimu (ダジム) aren't either, for that matter, and none of them are names (at least not Japanese names). Further evidence that they're just codenames. FF-Suzaku (talk) 23:21, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that, but if you write them with Kanji, they can have a meaning, right? On Fū the jinchūriki's page there's a trivia note about it ('Fū can mean "seal" (封) or "method", "style", or "wind" (風). Fū is also the Japanese name for the Chinese sweetgum (楓, Liquidambar formosana)'). Same goes for some other characters. --Kiadony (talk) 11:07, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Eyes Trivia
The trivia says: "Although Aburame members are known for having their lower face and eyes covered, Torune instead has his upper face covered and eyes uncovered." However, Torune's eyes aren't actually visible. Can it really be said that they are uncovered? --ShounenSuki (talk 16:57, March 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he wears white lenses while the other Aburame clam members wear black ones. Also, like I said above, his eyes are, for some reason, visible in chapter 455. Can we assume that he put the lenses in later? --Kiadony (talk) 17:18, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * His eyes aren't visible in chapter 455. --ShounenSuki (talk 17:43, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

--Kiadony (talk) 17:46, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously that was a mistake that has since been corrected. ~SnapperTo 17:48, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah okay. --Kiadony (talk) 18:01, April 2, 2010 (UTC)