Talk:Gold Dust Manipulation

Necessity
Is it really necessary to spread the details of how the Fourth Kazekage's Gold Dust is used over so many separate and unnamed technique articles, for the sake of adding just one sentence per page that hasn't already been dealt with in the main tool article, especially when they can be added just as easily and far more appropriately there in the first place. Blackstar1 (talk) 19:17, July 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see the reason why it's unnecessary. --Ilnarutoanime 19:21, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

None of these technique articles actually add any more information than what is already present within the Gold Dust page itself, quite literally there is only about one sentence different in each and when you consider that all of these techniques are unnamed, is it truly necessary to separate them in such a way. Blackstar1 (talk) 19:28, July 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't see a need to have so many unnamed jutsu articles when they can easily be mentioned in one.--Deva 27 19:29, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Every one here is likely forgeting the fact that the Fourth uses his Gold Dust the same way Gaara uses his sand and Gaara has a large amount of techniques based solely in his use of sand. The fact that the Fourth techniques are not named doesn't mean they can just be pilled up in one thing. Darksusanoo (talk) 19:36, July 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, in fact, I was well aware that someone may present such an issue. However, unlike the Fourth, the majority of Gaara's techniques are in fact named and he has demonstrated far more diversity in the way that he manipulates these, due largely to the fact that he has been within the series a lot longer and thus, they have been expanded upon numerous times. It is for these reasons that we have enough information to actually warrant the separation of his abilities into individual articles, whereas with the Fourth we are lacking such details, which in my opinion makes it unnecessary to divide them in such a manner. Blackstar1 (talk) 19:48, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for this article either.--Cerez365™ 19:54, July 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine this article may be unecessary(It may be all placed in the Gold Dust itself) but the Fourth has shown a more diversed use of this then just a wave...at least the wall version should be kept. Darksusanoo (talk) 19:58, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Again, I would have to ask why it would be even necessary to retain the wall version, as the details in the article don't really amount to much. Blackstar1 (talk) 20:01, July 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it's the Fourth's way of defence like Gaara's shield of sand. you can't do one without the other. It was a wall, a defence, a different use. Darksusanoo (talk) 20:04, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it was a different use of the tool, at least in comparison to the wave, but why must it be mentioned separately, when it can just as easily be highlighted within the actual Gold Dust article itself. Blackstar1 (talk) 20:06, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the Gold Dust is a tool while it's uses are jutsu-related. Darksusanoo (talk) 20:09, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

It's true that he has used it diversely, no one's disputing that, I just don't see the necessity of this "segue" article. If it means that much as to create other techniques for him then I suppose that's fine as wellCerez365™ 20:18, July 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * how bout you just keep gold dust as a tool and keep gold dust manipulation as the jutsu and just put down seperate paragraphs for its uses on that page. will that do?

Why not just add it all to the Gold Dust article and instead just describe how the tool is used there, like we do with basically every other tool in the series. Blackstar1 (talk) 20:27, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the gold dust is the same as Gaara's sand, and the Fourth uses it the same as Gaara. The only difference here is the lack of names. Darksusanoo (talk) 20:35, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Besides, the dust and the sand are used almost the same...so fine take down this page but keep the Gold Dust Wall. You can't just cram it up in one page, On is for the tool, the others are for the jutsus used from it Darksusanoo (talk) 20:40, July 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes but the lack of names, contributes towards the overall lack of information that these so called techniques possess, which means that I currently fail to see the actual benefit in these separate articles, something which you have yet to clearly explain. Also, I don't plan to just cram the information in but at this point maybe it's easier for me to just make the appropriate edit to the Gold Dust article, so you can clearly see my intentions. Blackstar1 (talk) 20:45, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

The fourth style and use of gold dust is almost identical to Gaara's at least in defence and offense...and most techniques of new characters only get one expose most times...so keep the wall and wave. Darksusanoo (talk) 20:50, July 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand that and I have now made my intended changes to the Gold Dust article so, other than the images, could you please identify what information now appears on the separate articles that isn't already described on the main one, and thus warrants the need for the individual technique pages. Blackstar1 (talk) 20:55, July 22, 2011 (UTC)
 * I've read the page (very nice btw) and now you can take down this page for all i care...now the pages of the Gold Dust Wave and Wall stay because those are his jutsu apllication of it...Like Gaara's Quicksand Waterfall Flow and Shield of Sand because it's almost the same jutsus with different resources...Darksusanoo (talk) 21:31, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks and although I don't dispute that they are the application of his tool, they still currently lack sufficient information to warrant them being placed on individual articles in my opinion. Now I'm well aware that they don't possess names but as I have stated before, my argument extends beyond this, as all the information that is present on the technique pages (which isn't much) is already mentioned in an appropriate place elsewhere on the site and you have still yet to indicate why the presence of the articles would actually provide any worth or benefit to other readers. Blackstar1 (talk) 21:44, July 22, 2011 (UTC)