Talk:Susanoo

Complete Body Susanoo
Should Complete Body - Susanoo have its own article? After all, Databook 4 treated it as a separate technique to Susanoo. We'd still mention it here, but use all the pictures of CB-S on its own article, thus shortening this one substantially for a good trimming. What do you guys think?--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 19:59, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for the reasons you listed in this discussion.--KirinNOTKarin98 (talk) 21:17, June 9, 2016 (UTC)]
 * Be easier to find information on CBS so why not. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 21:18, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * When creating a discussion, don't create it in multiple places, since that breaks up the discussion needlessly. You made the topic on the talkpage, which was the correct location, so there is no need to have a thread on the forums, especially as the forums aren't a place for such a discussion either. --Sajuuk 21:21, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * I also find it a nice idea, at least to partially relieve the main Susanoo article. Ravenlot 27 (talk) 21:22, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm all for it as well. We already have a bunch of Rasengan variants that have their own articles, so this is a good suggestion.--SSJ2AJB (talk) 21:28, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll start making the new article! --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 21:34, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Way to wait a reasonable amount of time before making any changes. Just because the databook lists it a certain way, doesn't mean we do it exactly the same. Fourth databook listed a bunch of Rasengan and Rasenshuriken variants under the same entry, I highly doubt many would agree to merge those articles. I don't oppose this in principle, but it needs way more discussion, and the creation of the article was extremely premature. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 22:09, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed with Omnibender. Do not rush a decision just based on the support of a few users, that is not how you get a consensus. You need to wait at least a few more days for a longer discussion to be held. --Sajuuk 22:27, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting turnabout. Per Omnibender though. 23:57, June 9, 2016 (UTC)
 * The Databook also lists only Madara as a user of CB-S. Should we only list him and remove the others too? It's not a radically different technique, and was called Susanoo by multiple people. The old version was fine in my opinion. D.Phoenix (talk) 04:00, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the rationales given so far, I see none that justify the split. The Chidori/Lightning Cutter argument fails for me because there's a rank difference between those two moves. Not something that would ever work if those articles were merged. Highly similar Rasengan variants have been merged in the past, and I don't see enough difference in Susanoo stages to justify it. That would be like making different articles for different proficiency stages of Rasengan or Rasenshuriken. Like, Shadow Clone assisted Rasengan, regular Rasengan, throwable Rasenshuriken, non-throwable Rasenshuriken. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 18:33, June 10, 2016 (UTC)
 * Just in case it wasn't clear, if no discussion whatsoever takes place, I'm simply restoring the article and redirect as they were before, since there was no sort of procedural due process whatsoever. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 17:57, June 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * The technique looks nothing alike to its parrent technique and its usages/strengths are quite different. If that doesn't warrant a split, i don't know what will. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 18:10, June 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a developmental stage of the same jutsu, like I said, it would be like having different articles for melee Rasenshuriken, thrown Rasenshuriken, and chakra arm guided Rasenshuriken. Or even different articles for different developmental stages of Susanoo, like skeleton, full body, and armoured. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 18:39, June 11, 2016 (UTC)

While I would rather the Susanoo and CB-S articles be one page again (because CB-S is simply a higher form), I have to admit, the articles look and read better when they are separate. And the gap in power between CB-S and the rest of Susanoo's stages is incredible. D.Phoenix (talk) 19:43, June 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * At most it deserves a separate section, but not a separate article.--JOA2020:10, June 11, 2016 (UTC)
 * Seperate section sounds good to me. --JouXIII (talk) 20:38, June 11, 2016 (UTC)

Skeleton Form
Any particular reason the pictures of the incomplete skeletal Susanoo have been removed? I'd say the three we've seen look different enough to be worth including, and the image currently under Development could just be changed to a partially-formed Susanoo, like an arm or ribcage.--BeyondRed (talk) 02:00, July 22, 2016 (UTC)
 * They were removed during a clean up of the article a while ago. Due to redundancy and image overload apparently. Though, I'd have no problem with your idea, though. 02:11, July 22, 2016 (UTC)
 * Bumping this. Because I agree with adding the skeletal forms of Susanoo into the article again. 01:33, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I mind, nor do I find them particularly necessary. What I do feel unnecessary is the reintroduction of incomplete skeletal forms, before anyone suggests that. By that, I mean anything short of full skeleton, like just the rib-cage or arm. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 02:23, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
 * Same. I think just the skeletons will be just fine, rather than that and the ribcage.  02:26, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, having the ribcages and different-armed versions and so on was definitely overkill, but the full skeleton itself appears to be treated as a proper form of Susanoo. Sasuke's even had a distinct weapon that it only used in that form.--BeyondRed (talk) 05:28, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
 * Im fine with the proposed idea. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 06:16, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Just want to note: If we do all agree on this, I'll go back through the history of the page and restore the deleted skeleton images, just so it saves everyone the effort of re-uploading them. 15:57, July 25, 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with this too. Since Susanoo skeleton forms still have some individual features, which are distinctive for the particular users, I guess their images should be presented in the article. Ravenlot 27 (talk) 16:10, July 25, 2016 (UTC)