Board Thread:Wiki Discussions and Support/@comment-5407586-20141206094948/@comment-1207741-20141209232456

Ten Tailed Fox wrote: Are you forgetting it is this wiki's problem, in the first place, that it chose to ignore the arcs when they began being named? Do you really expect me to pity the overhaul that has to be done when it could have been fixed right from the beginning? To an extent I think you're overstating the historical "problem"; the third databook gave the names of four arcs. The two less esoteric of these names was implemented ( and ). With everything else we've been more or less winging it because we've had to. (I realize the anime provides arc names, but I'm ignoring those.)

Ten Tailed Fox wrote: I used the example of chapters earlier, so let me make that clearer. Chapters are simply a way of organizing the content of a story, yes? Well, what if, in my infinite wisdom as a "fan not paid by Kishimoto", I decided that the Obito flashback chapters should be mashed into one big chapter, because that'd be better than Kishimoto splitting them up among three or four separate chapters? In a sense we do this with Kakashi Gaiden, which Retsu no Sho (as far as I can tell) does not list as an "arc".

Ten Tailed Fox wrote: we're here to document the Naruto series as Kishimoto has written it. Minor nitpicking from me:
 * 1) We document Naruto in all its forms, not just Kishimoto's. Hence the anime, movies, video games, etc.
 * 2) We document it, we do no always act on it. Where there are issues of internal consistency or contradictory information, we make subjective choices about what, if anything, we regard as "fact" and what we merely mention.
 * In the same way, the third databook lists Itachi Pursuit as one arc and this most recent book lists it as three. We can pick between the two with less guilt.

Ten Tailed Fox wrote: I actually understand the logic behind the numbering of the anime episodes. Naruto and Naruto: Shippuden are two separate anime and, while they do use the numbering as if it was continued from the original anime, it is also correct to say that episode 1 of Shippuden is #1 because it is the first episode of that separate anime. It was marketed that way, but the official parties never fully committed to that mindset for their own numbering. Part II of the manga was also marketed as new - albeit less so - but that isn't a numbering we reset. So we're inconsistent to suit our own whims.

Ten Tailed Fox wrote: it is an issue where we got literally almost everything about the arcs wrong and we're choosing not to do anything about it Again, I think you're overstating the problem. Prior to Itachi Pursuit, all of our arcs are exactly the same as Kishimoto's, titles notwithstanding. The differences, several of them minor, don't happen until after that. They are:
 * Itachi Pursuit - Kishimoto makes this into three arcs and extends the third into the middle of our Invasion of Pain.
 * Invasion of Pain - Kishimoto adds early portions of the senjutsu training to the final Itachi Pursuit segment and, in exchange, Pain's Assault gets the first couple summons to the Kage Summit tacked on.
 * Kage Summit - Kishimoto begins this in the middle of characters traveling to the Iron Country and ends it in the middle of the Team 7 reunion.
 * Jinchuriki Confinement - Kishimoto starts in medias res of Team 7's domestic disturbance and ends where we do.
 * everything after that - the differences are more pronounced, but that's not so surprising. We've got the same number of arcs (four) but they start and end quite differently.

To tally the results: In all, I think we've done quite well. We certainly do not have "everything" wrong.
 * 9 of our arcs are exactly the same.
 * 3 of our arcs differ by only a handful of chapters, and the differences are not at all in Kishimoto's favor, in my opinion.
 * 1 of our arcs is three arcs, according to Kishimoto-2014. This same arc is accurate, according to Kishimoto-2008.
 * 4 of our arcs are far off the mark.