Talk:Naruto Uzumaki's Relationships

Needed?
Why was this page even created? Anyone who watches the anime or more importantly reads the manga knows the relation of every character with another, any special behaviour/attitude gets noted on their personality section why should this page exist? 119.154.23.198 (talk) 13:25, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * We've discussed that these types of pages causes shipping wars and even worse is just not needed. --KiumaruHamachi (talk) 13:47, March 29, 2012 (UTC)KiumaruHamachi
 * @Anon: This is better than putting it everything on Naruto's article. But for the beginners this will be helpful. Bleach wiki used this style before and it helped me when I'm starting to watch Bleach. --Ilnarutoanime -NejiLoverr- 14:06, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * It just cramps the style of this wiki and thats no excuse that the Bleach wiki started doing it. 119.154.23.198 (talk) 14:08, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well that's your opinion. Who told you I'm using Bleach wiki as excuse? I'm just USING IT as AN EXAMPLE, not an excuse. --Ilnarutoanime -NejiLoverr- 14:10, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with this page's existence. I don't see any real problems with it. It could help cut down the length of Naruto's article a bit. Skitts (talk) 14:40, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for shipping pages like this?! And if this would be much easier than write them to the character's profile, why didn't you made to ALL characters?

This page should be deleted, before somebody would belive this wikia page is only just a group of shipping fanservice gays.


 * What are "Shipping Wars"?Man-o-Vertigo (talk) 14:55, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

@Mangekyo22: I don't see any reason at all to delete this article. If the admins don't want it, they will delete the article. IMO, this will help in reducing Naruto's article because it takes about a minute to load all the content on it. --Speysider (Talk Page) 14:57, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Why, aren't you an admin? Back to this unnesecary page, if you just don't want to make Naruto's profile making long, then delete all the unnesecary things!

And as I said, if you do this to one character, do to ALL characters! That's how it should work!
 * @Mangekyo22 Please remember to sign your posts by adding four of these ~ after your post. Anyway, There's no need to delete a ton of stuff from Naruto's page when moving the information here is a seemly better alternative. I believe the page is fine, but I suppose the admins have the final say.
 * Edit: If this article stays, I think we should limit it to some of the more important relationships, as the article currently does. Also, Mangekyo22, you do not delete page content like that. Skitts (talk) 15:10, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason is simple. Naruto's personality section was long. Very very long. Most of the information in it did not pertain to his personality, but his relationship with various people. Instead of cutting all that info completely, it was simply moved to a more suitable place.
 * The article is NOT ment to be some sort of shipping article. I must admit, I probably thought way to highly of people in this day and age, but I assumed people were logical enough to know "relationship" does not mean "romance".--TheUltimate3 ~Keeper of Lore~ 15:13, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * What he said. ^^ --Ilnarutoanime -NejiLoverr- 15:21, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the reason why the all that even has to be on the personality article of his. If people need help of any special sort, they can read the Chapter and Episode guides that have been made. People have before asked the help of this wikia's users to elaborate the story for example: []. We can alter the personality article to shorten it. 119.154.23.198 (talk) 15:53, March 29, 2012 (UTC)
 * Not all people read the guide, and I'm one of them. That forum you're talking about, as far as I know, violated the policies. We are an encyclopedia. Forums are made to DISCUSS articles for improvement, not for stuffs like that. --Ilnarutoanime 16:07, March 29, 2012 (UTC)


 * That isn't a good reason as to why we should create a new one just so that you don't have to search for it or watch/read it. I used that forum to explain that people do ask stuff about relations, jutsu, etc like that look at the article and user talk pages. Instead I suggest instead of creating articles like these we shorten the Naruto page by removing anime-only arcs on character pages that would save a lot of space just like how the Adventures at Sea Arc was dealt with. Articles like these make way for all sorts of edit wars. Raymond Phoenix (talk) 16:22, March 29, 2012 (UTC)

Uhm. I tagged the article for deletion before I saw this. Nonetheless, I've always liked this wikia's stance against "relationship" (sections) for the simple reason that there's no need [in my opinion at least] to actually mention them. With the exception of [budding] romances and how they help to shape a person (like Hinata for example — which I think is unavoidable and possible Naruto's relationship with her to show his resolve and strength of character) Otherwise stuff outside of that I believe should be removed about who liking whom and who possibly likes whom not have articles created for it.--Cerez365™ 00:33, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * @Cerez Hopefully I didn't misread your post. This article isn't about relationships in the vein of shipping characters together, but Naruto's noteworthy relationship with characters and the progression in those relationships I believe. Skitts (talk) 00:51, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * I meant all of those. I don't think it's necessary to be pointing out people's relationship in an article. People naturally grow and progress with people around them. If this were a soap opera or a manga more centric on something like that, then I suppose it'd be fine but for me at least, I don't think it's necessary for "Naruto".--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 01:13, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

Why is this page needed? 119.154.20.214 (talk) 06:01, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Read the whole page above your post. It answers your question. Joshbl56  06:10, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * @Cerez, this page has TWO advantages at least.
 * First, it will shorten Naruto's personality page.
 * Second, it explains special relationships between characters.
 * At least I agree with Skitts. We should only put characters Naruto has as special friendship, and at least those who believe at him, ex. Itachi Uchiha.
 * --IndxcvNovelist (Talk to Me) 10:05, March 30, 2012 (UTC) [Ilnarutoanime]


 * With Naruto being the title character, his page is expected to be long and there are other ways to deal with that. Collapsible sections and the pruning of the page of unnecessary stuff like that. Just browsing through the first part of this article that whole section about his parent can be found in their articles and the relevant pieces in his own.
 * I've already refuted the need for the relationships between characters having to be defined in articles or sections unless they affect the persons character or such directly.
 * There's probably going to be a myriad of articles to follow this one mentioning every person's that has ever talked to someone else.--Cerez365™Hyūga Symbol.svg 10:37, March 30, 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know that it's really expected. I believe we won't do it in other characters, or just in Naruto's case. Naruto is the main character and we should always make sure to improve and emphasize his page.
 * For me this should be only done on Naruto's page.
 * --IndxcvNovelist (Talk to Me) 10:44, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

As I explained, the page was made because as it currently is, Naruto's page was just to long. I'm sure it's just my university's ass internet, but both Naruto and Sasuke's page takes a good minute or so of loading before even reaching the page. So, in my opinion, the page needed to be shortened. Then the question comes, what to do with the information. It's not wrong, and it's all relevant to Naruto's character, but titans he couldn't stay in his personality section. Thus, a page specifically for his relationships. Also using your reasoning Cerez, his interactions with other people do affect the himself and others directly, what with his whole "unique charisma" and "Talk no Jutsu" going on. If you are worried about extra work being involved because of this addition, I will gladly become the Relationship Specialist (giving myself another title) and monitor whatever relationship page happens to pop up in the future on my own.--TheUltimate3 ~Keeper of Lore~ 11:49, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know this page existed. --109.93.8.59 (talk) 14:59, March 30, 2012 (UTC)
 * @TheUltimate3: our internet also load it very long. I agree with you.
 * --IndxcvNovelist (Talk to Me) 20:22, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

So, has it been decided whether or not this page is staying? Skitts (talk) 02:17, March 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * What about other people who Naruto changed thanks to his "unique charisma", such as Tsunade, Chiyo and Sai? We can't really list those as relationships, but if this page covers "Talk no Jutsu", should they be mentioned somehow? --kiadony --talk to me-- 06:07, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

yeah. They must be mentioned Salil dabholkar (talk) 06:13, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * @Skitts: For me this page must stay here. There is nothing wrong with the information here.
 * @Kiadony: I think Naruto's relationship with Sai is noteworthy, but not Tsunade and Chiyo. He just changed their point of views, respectively.

"--IndxcvNovelist (Talk to Me) 07:30, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Kakashi Hatake Section
I was just wondering ,why doesn't Kakashi also have a paragraph in this section? I think he and Naurto's relationship is very important to the series ,namely because he sees Naruto as Minato's successor. I dunno maybe I'm reading too much into that.--Hordy4040 (talk) 02:46, April 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah you're right. I never noticed it probably I removed it. He and Kakashi has a close relationship as well and Naruto regards Kakashi as one of the people who acknowledged him.
 * --IndxcvNovelist (Talk to Me) 20:30, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Other's who could added.
Out of curiosity, shouldn't we be adding Killer Bee, Choji, Ino, as well Temari and Kankuro since he made a connection to them through Gaara?--Hockey Machete (talk) 16:16, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

these connections are too small and unimportant to be made. Naruto has made connections with almost everyone. So this list will be never ending. Salil dabholkar (talk) 16:20, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Killer B
Just a question. But shouldn't Killer B be listed too? NarutoAnime (talk) 18:09, April 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't think so. Not yet anyway. I think we should only have his more outstanding relationships on the article. Skitts (talk) 19:26, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Zabuza and Haku
What about these two? even i they didnt have enough appearance in the series it was thanks to them that Naruto follows his current path --Haseo55 (talk) 03:47, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Slow down
C'mon people, just because it's a page listing his relationships, it doesn't mean we need to list every person he has ever talked to. For example, he has never had important or relevant talks with Ino, Chōji, Tenten and Guy, yet someone added section headings for those people. Keep it down to big and relevant relationships, people who changed him and people who were changed by him. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 16:39, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Shikamaru
Shouldn't we include how Sikamaru said that whenever he's with Naruto, there's something that makes him want to follow him? I forgot what episode it was on, but it's when shikamaru comes home and he talks to his father about Naruto. It was in the Invasion of Pain Arc when Inoichi asks Shikaku why he let Naruto go on his own to meet Nagato, and Shikaku has a flashback of the moment he was talking to Shikamaru who was talking to him about Naruto.

///Filipinoboy97 (p.s. btw I'm not logged on that's y it says this page was edited by "a wikia contributor")
 * Well they somewhat have a close relationship. So I think it should. :D --IndxcvNovelist (Talk to Me) 04:54, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Ok but I really don't know how to word it into the paragraph.. Haha //Filipinoboy97
 * Isn't that just pointing out Naruto unique brand of charisma? Alexdhamp (talk) 19:34, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

konoha 11
i understand that naruto hasnt had much relations with choji ino etc. but dont you think we should add them? i saw the "konoha 11" area and its not really konoha 11 its more of konoha 5. i just think we should include them cause thay are in fact part of kkonoha 11. Tris0928 (talk) 04:47, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Choji seemed better to be added than Ino, though. ~_- --IndxcvNovelist (Talk to Me) 04:55, April 10, 2012 (UTC)

Antagonist
can anyone remove itachi from antagonist section and put it back on top...?
 * no.Tris0928 (talk) 09:20, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Naruto hardly spoke something with (good) itachi. All major connections were with (bad)Itachi Salil2212™Uchiha Symbol.svg 09:33, April 9, 2012 (UTC)
 * Naruto had, what, like one connection to the "bad" Itachi, and that was when he placed the crow inside of him. He's had a few with the true Itachi, during and after the fight with Nagato. Skitts (talk) 13:42, April 10, 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bad" Itachi also tried to capture him in Part I. Then there's the fight with the 30% clone, too. Alexdhamp (talk) 19:32, April 24, 2012 (UTC)

NOT a Shipping Article
Am I the only one here who sees the mindblowing biasness on this article, specifically on Hinata(which is even longer than Sasuke's) and to a lesser extent Sakura's? Can't people try and not put their pairing preferences into it? I say this because not too long ago, I added more on Sakura's page(due to it being terribly short), talking about how close Naruto and Sakura are, as well as Naruto's love for her which was all stated in canon and yet it got erased. Why? This isn't supposed to be a shipping article and I'm more than a little annoyed that people keep distorting this page. This page should be deleted if this continues since people can't keep their preferences to themselves. Romance Girl (talk) 05:15, April 28, 2012 (UTC)Romance Girl

Protection or Removal ?
There is non-stop vandalism to this page and it's starting to disrupt the wiki. Should the page be indefinitely protected to sysop editing only or just get removed ? --Speysider (Talk Page) 13:20, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality of this Article
Speysider and TheUltimate3: Why have this article if you two refuse to keep it neutral? Why consider any attempts to keep it neutral, vandalism? You two insist on making Sakura the only one to have Filler information included, which is CLEAR BIAS. If you believe filler to be canon, then have the decency to apply that to every other character in this article. Otherwise, it comes off as a shipping article does it not?

Others have attempted to tell TheUltimate3 before that no other character here has filler info included, but he/she has insisted of keeping the article biased, and any attempts at proper neutrality is now considered vandalism.

So explain to me why such obvious bias is preferred here over neutrality, as was supposed to be a standard? 50.89.109.110 (talk) 13:24, May 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with something, you use the talkpage. You don't just remove information because you don't like it. There is no bias here. --Speysider (Talk Page) 13:25, May 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * The Bias is quite obvious. To say there is no bias is utterly ridiculous. The bias is the fact that Sakura is the only one to include filler episode summaries while every other character here doesn't. Explain how that is not bias? Especially considering the nature of the information chosen to be considered vandalism if removed? Every time someone has attempted to keep it neutral by specifically removing the filler episode summary and reference, he/she has chosen to put it back, but only for that specific edit. If filler information is indeed canon, and necessary for this article then please edit every character and add relevant filler information. Also, it would be nice if you address my criticism rather than ignore it. I would like to know your reasoning behind having one character to be the only one to have filler info?50.89.109.110 (talk) 13:29, May 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * This wiki chronicles all information, from fillers to canon and OVA's. We don't just leave stuff out because we think "Oh, that info came from a filler so nobody wants that". Everything is referenced so issues like this don't come up. It clearly has a reference tag that states the information comes from an anime only episode. I don't see what problem there is with the information, it's just that Sakura was the only character the anime directors decided to give filler info on. --Speysider (Talk Page) 13:34, May 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of filler episodes that have included Naruto with Neji, Rock Lee, Hinata, Konohamaru and others, so I find it odd that such a thing is only done for Sakura. The reference isn't the issue. It's the fact that I haven't seen any information outside of the manga added to any of the other characters other than Sakura. If you honestly believe Sakura to be the only one to have noteworthy information from a filler/ova/movie then I can't argue with that belief, but I believe it to be debatable. Shouldn't it be considered, especially considering the continuous editing on that specific line by TheUltimate3 and others?--50.89.109.110 (talk) 13:38, May 6, 2012 (UTC)

You see Ulti ( '-') this is why I said it. Relationship stuff are too intricate and always breeds stuff like this, that's why it should be suppressed and forgotten e_e lol. Any way, I can't have much of a say here because I haven't been monitoring this page. From that limited point of view I suppose filler stuff can be added to their sections granted that it doesn't conflict with manga information and is cited outright as anime info. Also, is it a case where filler information that could go on this article is available? or are you just arguing that Sakura is only only one with filler information? If so could you cite the information that could be added to whatever article here so it can be seen. One more thing, information from OVAs, movies and stuff like that, count as nothing as the information there isn't reflected in articles at all.--Cerez 365 ™(talk) 14:01, May 6, 2012 (UTC)