Talk:Shibi Aburame

Image
Not to be a bother. But, perhaps my image could be used instead of the current one. It's a full head shot that goes down a little past the shoulders. So, it's a lot better than an up close head shot. Other than the image being named oddly. Nightrose (talk) 14:24, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Your image has no fair use or licensing and it's also of lower quality to the one that's there now. Also, I don't like how his hair looks in it. --Cerez (talk) 14:30, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Gen?
Is there some reason why he is called Gen in chapter 534?--Deva 27 19:57, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * This has been up in the article for a while: Shibi Aburame (油女シビ, Aburame Shibi; "Gen" in some pieces of English Naruto media) is the father of Shino Aburame.Ryne 91 (talk) 20:00, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * But should we change it? Kishimoto-sensei wrote the manga, so shouldn't we rename the article according to the recent manga?-- Ninja Sheik  20:39, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * It might just be a nickname. Regardless, he was named Shibi in the past, so it's not like changing it is even an option.Ryne 91 (talk) 20:45, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Where was his name "Shibi" ever mentioned in the manga? I think by using the name "Gen", Kishimoto-sensei chose the main name for Shino's father.-- Ninja Sheik  20:48, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * His name was Shibi in the Second Databook on page 21.Ryne 91 (talk) 20:52, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I still think we should change it from "Shibi" to "Gen". Personally, I like the name Shibi, but if Kishimoto-sensei used it, well...wouldn't that overrule from what the second databook says? How many months has it been, even years, since the databook have been released?
 * The only other thing we can assume it could be a nickname, or even a error.-- Ninja Sheik  20:56, April 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * It is my personal belief that we should wait until we receive new information on the matter. If we change it, then we are speculating. Iruka calling him "Gen" doesn't exactly overrule the "word of god" that was delivered in a databook. Let's just hold off until we receive clarification on everything. It wouldn't do for us to make such a big assumption and edit our articles to match it, after all.Ryne 91 (talk) 21:01, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * That's fine.-- Ninja Sheik  21:10, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Assuming it isn't a translation error, it should at least go in the trivia section. ~SnapperTo 21:28, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * I can tell you it's not a translation error, but I wouldn't be so quick to 'fix' it. Manga are rushed and typesetting is an error-prone job not usually done by the author himself. Databooks get far more attention, at least when it comes to text, and names in particular. —ShounenSuki (talk 22:24, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Do "Gen" and "Shibi" appear similar enough in Japanese for the mistake to be that simple?
 * On a related note, does anyone know if "Gamatora" was corrected in the tankobon? ~SnapperTo 05:35, April 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * They shouldn't look similar enough: シビ vs ゲン. However, perhaps with bad handwriting, not enough time to read properly, and the name Gen already implanted in one's mind...
 * Also, if I'm not mistaken, the name Gamatora was not fixed in the tankōbon. Can't wait for the next databook to come out now... —ShounenSuki (talk 09:36, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Jutsu
In his listed jutsu, why does it have Destruction Bug Host Technique twice? The only difference between the two is that one is tagged as anime only and the other as manga only.--68.203.201.111 (talk) 02:10, April 7, 2011 (UTC)Biaku13

Shibi's First Appearance.
Info is wrong on this first appearance. He made a cameo appearance in episode #59 when Shino was sitting by the water. He was in the background.
 * I don't think that shadow counts.--Cerez365™ Hyūga Symbol.svg 16:22, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't a shadow, you could clearly see it was him. But I suppose you are right. *sigh*

As brief as his appearance was, his appearance in #59 was very much real and the current information is as such erroneous. 75.102.217.171 (talk) 01:04, February 15, 2013 (UTC)

Age
Is the age of the box for part I? He also makes an appearance in part II... He must be 42 years old... Could you separate the Age information for the 2 parts? The same goes for Choza, Inoichi and some others, too...
 * It's his age in part I. We don't simply make calculations on ages for part II because despite knowing that two and half years have passed, we have no knowledge of when in the year plot events actually take place. Two and a half years could have passed, but due to birth-date differences, a character's age could have a difference of three years, for example. Besides, we only list ages for when the character actually appears, so if they show up only very late in Part II, like Shibi did, we wouldn't count his age in the beginning of part II. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 22:18, November 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your reasoning, but you could add in parentheses (Part I) in the age. The reason I tell this is because people can be confused about the age of a character in part II...
 * Those are usually added automatically by the infobox when another value is added for the part II age field, but since we don't have an official value, those aren't being added. I think it's possible to add that manually, though it would look a bit ugly. It should, however, be noticed that the only source for his data comes from the second databook, as seen in the references section, meaning those are from part I. It's just not as explicit. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 22:57, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Actually is more than 3 years already since part 1. It was 2,5 when Naruto returned. We don't know what month it is in manga right now, so calculations would not be correct. --Elveonora (talk) 15:49, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Seels newtimeline solved all this. Also why is his databox gone when you click "edit" on it? ItachiWasAHero (talk) 21:39, September 6, 2014 (UTC)

Nickname
Should "Pride of Aburame" be put as a nickname? --Youngjusticeplayer007 (talk) 13:28, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

no... that's not even a nick name Munchvtec (talk) 13:51, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

no... that's not even a nick name Munchvtec (talk) 13:51, November 21, 2014 (UTC)