Forum:Manual of Style

I think it's about time we create a Manual of Style. We've been here long enough without one.

So breaking this down into sections. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jan 13, 2008 @ 09:14 (UTC)

Section order
We need an order for our sections to be put in.

Here's what I'm thinking:
 * (main) - The beginning section with general intro. This is the one without a section name.
 * Background - Historical and background information on the character.
 * Personality - Information on the character's personality.
 * Abilities - Information on the characters special abilities and techniques.
 * Other info - Things like Naruto's history with the Demon fox should be placed in this area. Or perhaps made as a subsection of an appropriate section.
 * Part in the story - Section container, the characters actions within the story would be here.
 * Part I
 * Some arc
 * Part II
 * Some other arc
 * Trivia - Trivia items. Organized in list format using * at the start of the line (Stylistically a space after that * would be nice.)
 * Sources - A special section for general sources such as the various data books which info comes from.
 * References - Just the ==References== section with a tag below it. To collect the tag info in the page. Individual bits of info should be tagged with specific citation other than just the general sources section.
 * Quotes - Character quotes. The character shouting out a Jutsu name shouldn't be considered a jutsu though. Organized in the same way as Trivia. If there are multiple language forms to a character quote, it should link to an article like Dattebayo and Believe it!.

My main points on this are:
 * Abilities should be above the part in the story as the pits (>.< lol), can get quite long and the Abilities should be grouped with the other stuff that's about the character.
 * Trivia and Quotes should still remain at the bottom of the page as they have very little notability.
 * The Part I and Part II sections should be inside of a proper ==Part in the story== section instead of just thrown into their own sections.
 * ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jan 13, 2008 @ 09:14 (UTC)
 * Quotes are not very necessary, I've moved them to the bottom. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Nov 20, 2008 @ 03:39 (UTC)
 * Just another note. Going with proper casing, please use "... arc" not "... Arc". ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Nov 22, 2008 @ 07:41 (UTC)

Other points

 * "Articles should be written in past-tense, not present or future tense." ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jan 13, 2008 @ 09:14 (UTC)
 * "Articles should be written in an in-universe style, and not refer to the reader or viewer when talking about events." ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jan 13, 2008 @ 09:14 (UTC)

Article size
Many of the articles in this wiki are too small, the articles such as Jonin should be conglomerated into larger articles, or if these pages already exist, should have the areas expanded. Small articles look bad if a wiki wants to look credible. Also, change the css stylesheet, it looks horrible with the orange on white. Whinge over, now I might start doing some contributions StijnX 20:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The Narutopedia plans to incorporate the use of Semantic MediaWiki when it is installed on Wikia. If articles are grouped together, then we lose the ability to do that. Semantic Attributes is what is going to allow us to easily generate the large lists automatically, and also allow users to search for things like, all the Female Ninja, who are part of Konohagakure. But what we can do is use DPL to create articles which include a summary from the other articles into the more general page. As for the stylesheet, feel free to come up with a better one, but this one was created to have some relevance to Naruto. We're not going to just wipe it out and go back to horrid white on white, :/ on white... The way to fix a stylesheet, is not to complain, but to point out ways to improve it, then you might actually change something. Otherwise people will ignore your complaints. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jan 20, 2008 @ 09:14 (UTC)

Site augmentation
I appreciate that you guys were motivated enough to create a Naruto Wikipedia, which is actually pretty cool, but unfortunately I think that there's a slight problem. The original Wikipedia had ALL of the Jutsu's arranged alphabetically beneath their respective category (of course, this was before they were all deleted). I found out that when I click on a Jutsu, it has it's OWN category, which kind of confused me. So, if it's not a problem, could you guys do this? It saves me, and many readers of this website a load of trouble.


 * Just a first note, it's Narutopedia or Naruto Wiki, not Naruto Wikipedia... Wikipedia is a name for the Wikipedia encyclopedia and is trademarked by the Wikimedia Foundation. The Narutopedia is a wiki, not a Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is also a wiki.
 * Off that, which categories are you referring to? The jutsus being in the Ninjutsu, Taijutsu, Genjutsu, and Kekkei Genkai categories. Or them being all listed in the Jutsu category. We separate the jutsu into the three later ones to avoid making the Jutsu category extremely large. But we're actually going to be using a Jutsu infobox later on, so it'll make it far more easier to categories things however we want. Just wait till the Jutsu infobox is finished and used on all the Jutsu articles, at that point the Jutsu will become much easier to search through. Also, when Semantic MediaWiki is installed we probably won't be using the Jutsu categories... Using SMW the Jutsu, Ninjutsu, Taijutsu, Genjutsu, and Kekkei Genkai pages will actually function much like the categories and the jutsu will actually be assigned to those pages rather than the categories. The browse, ask, and other features of SMW will make Jutsu much easier to search for. You can actually combine things together, and search for say... All Ninjutsu which are Kinjutsu and are S-Rank and come up with a nice list of them. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jan 30, 2008 @ 16:35 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. My example of this might be...the article titled "List of Taijutsu(2). I simply liked how organized Wikipedia was with the Jutsu's is all.  Y'see, this didn't make sense at first, but I just noticed that article was "Rescused" from Wikipedia.  Wikipedia had a cool way of categorizing the Jutsu.
 * Oh, you're referring to them all on the same page. Ya, when the Infobox is created, we can also put section tags inside the jutsu articles and have a long page with summaries on the jutsu automatically transclude those small sections. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Feb 1, 2008 @ 05:44 (UTC)


 * However, wouldn't that shorten our wiki? --Kakashi Namikaze Talk, Contribs 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If removing duplicate content from your wiki and replacing that with includes severely shortens your wiki, you don't have a valid source of information, you have a pile of shit repeated all over the place. List pages honestly don't matter for wiki size. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion May 29, 2008 @ 20:05 (UTC)

Well what about.
For quotes, lets say it is a character specific jutsu or combo. Naruto's Uzamaki Rendan. Since no one else says it or uses it shouldn't it be counted?


 * Not really, all they're doing is shouting a jutsu name. That is hardly a quote with any point for the article. Just cruft. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jun 25, 2008 @ 00:26 (UTC)

Images
Here are some of the implicit policies that seam to be know by some editors:
 * In articles images tagged with a proper fair use rationale will always be preferred over use of an image without a rationale and such is tagged for deletion (This is especially true for infobox images)
 * Never overwrite an existing image with another one. There is no valid reason for overwriting an image unless you are doing some tweaks to clean up the image itself. Any better image should be uploaded with a different filename. (Overwriting images skews stuff in pages, and also makes edit history for licenses and stuff on the image page confusing; Overwriting of an image is almost always the case of someone trying to overwrite the image in an infobox with a different one, and that invalidates the fair use tagging for the image and screws up the page)
 * Infobox images should be of the character near their first appearance. So in other words, the infobox of characters like Naruto should be of them in Part I, not their Part II look. And characters like Tobi who are really someone else first show up in the series with their mask/alias and so an image of them like that should be used. For Sasori his big puppet would be used, not his body turned puppet.
 * Leafninja images are bad, they're poor quality and as such are always tagged with which is in a way a later deletion tag.
 * ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Jul 18, 2008 @ 23:05 (UTC)

Romanisation, language issues
I think there should be a clear guideline on how to romanise the many Japanese names and terms used. Wikipedia uses Revised Hepburn, which would be the most professional. However, it does bring with it the problem of macrons. It's traditional to forego the use of macrons, because of the technical difficulties of typing them. This would mean, however, that there should be a guideline for when to use them and when not.

There's also the problem of when to use Japanese terms and when to use English terms.

Then there's the problem of pluralising Japanese terms. I believe it's common not to pluralise them (one ninja, two ninja; one jutsu, two jutsu), since Japanese doesn't have a plural itself.

Finally, I'd like to ask which version of English should be used. I've seen both British and American English used. --ShounenSuki 12:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't call macrons an issue. For the guideline of when to use them or when to not.
 * Use macrons when referring to a name in a special location outside of content text where you will use it allot. (The first name occurrence in it's article where you use the template; Infoboxes, and the page title)
 * Don't use macrons inside of big content where you are going to use the name a fair bit.
 * Don't use macrons on English versions of a name.
 * We've got a good informal guide so far for Japanese and English terms.
 * English names are preferred for most cases.
 * Don't use an English name for something unless it has actually shown up in one of the official English series. (Don't assume by translating or using a scanalation or fansub name)
 * Justu however use the literal English translation of the jutsu's name. Not what shows up in the English series, or the name in the Japanese series.
 * This is because there are to many jutsu. If we used Japanese, it would be hard for people to find the Jutsu. If we used official English then most of the Jutsu wouldn't have a translation and things would be inconsistent. So we use the literal translation.
 * There is still discussion on whether to transliterate words like Technique into Jutsu, and how to deal with special move names like Rasengan and Chidori.
 * For special names like Kunoichi, Shinobi, etc... If the English series disagrees with itself and uses both the English name (Female Ninja, Ninja, etc...) then use the Japanese inspired term (Kunoichi, Shinobi, etc...) since it is a agreed on by both the Japanese and English series.
 * As for English, I believe we're catering to the North American audience. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Aug 12, 2008 @ 16:52 (UTC)
 * How about plurals? and if an English word is used in the Japanese version, would we use the English word (if there is no reasonable doubt it actually is an English word) or would we use the transliteration of the Japanese katakana? --ShounenSuki 17:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Base for Dates and Times
I noticed that Temporally Ambiguous phrase's have been used frequently in pages on this site, For Example here is a quote from the headline text of the Page on Konohagakure No Sato "...Although Konoha, much like the country in which it resides, has been peaceful for the past sixteen years and has grown accustomed to that peace..." as you can see it states that the village has experienced Peace for Sixteen. What I would like to know is "sixteen Years past what?". Now I assume that this means sixteen years before the start of the series, but before I act on that assumption I just wanted to ask if this is going to be the standard date that is being referred to when writing things like "sixteen years past" or something similar. SilverSword 18:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I belive that was the Third Great Shinobi War, or maybe that was when Kyubii attacked Kohona, and Naruto is now 16. That is just my speculation however. NaruHina  Talk 01:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Commentary from a Not-So-Active User
First off, I would like to say thank you for attempting to make a MoS, I may actually be able to contribute now. Secondly I have some suggestions. (They may be out of order) That is my rant. If you respond, please post on my Discussion page, I don't usually check things that I write on other pedias NaruHina  Talk 01:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Never overwrite an existing image with another one." If it is a better version of the image then that should be allowed, its the same picture. One may be blurry and this one pristine and if they don't overwrite it then they have to go page by page changing the coding so that the image is shown, while simply overwriting does the process automaticly in about five minutes.
 * "Infobox images should be of the character near their first appearance." Why? They don't look like that anymore, the image should be the most updated image Wikipedia:What is consensus?possible.
 * I think "Trivia" should have a different title, it means that the info is unimportant.
 * The part in the story section should be under "Biography" and should be first, right after the intro to the character.
 * The list of the character's jutsu, I think, could just be put into the ability section rather than a hang-down addendum to the infobox, or at least the jutsu should have its own actual field in the infobox.
 * There should be an appearance section, a list of the comics/anime/other media in the Naruto universe inwhich that character has appeared. (Yes this will be long but it gives you something new to research, maybe learn something new about the character as well:))
 * Quotes section, not sure if that is nessisary but it should have more structure or a limit to the number it can have, it shouldn't just have fifty "Believe it!"s.
 * Possibly a bit off topic but you need an upload field for book covers as well. NaruHina  Talk 01:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Never overwrite an existing image with another one." If it is a better version of the image then that should be allowed, its the same picture. One may be blurry and this one pristine and if they don't overwrite it then they have to go page by page changing the coding so that the image is shown, while simply overwriting does the process automaticly in about five minutes.
 * We've got a new Narutopedia:Image policy that I think I made state it better. But yes, uploading a better image of the same image is ok, but it's stated to discourage people from overriding images with images that are not the same. Doing that breaks the history and makes it hard to determine if a fair use rationale is actually valid.


 * Accepted. Though that should be updated here. NaruHina  Talk 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "Infobox images should be of the character near their first appearance." Why? They don't look like that anymore, the image should be the most updated image possible.
 * We are not a "live" resource, we are an "aggregated" resource. What we write is meant to be relevant to the reader no matter how much of the series they have seen. In fact, we are not' targeting the people who are so far into the series they already know about Shippūden, we are targeting the people who know little or nothing about the series.
 * The most relevant image is the one of the character's appearance as it is the first part of the story they appear. We can go into more details in the article. In fact take a look at most of the characters, the Part II section of the page normally includes an image with their new appearance.


 * You may be an aggregated source, but so is wikipedia, it has the most recent photo, as are most other wikis, anyway its not about the education of people who want to get into the series, it is providing updated information for reference, and therefore the infobox image should be recent, it would be the same for any real person which is how characters should be treated. As long as peole don't start jumping through trees like that or stabbing each other with kunai knives. NaruHina  Talk 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * However to the reader who has no knowledge of the series, and wants to know about the character, the more relevant image is the one as the character starts out. The Part II image is only relevant to the person who has already seen what the character looked like originally, while the original appearance is relevant to both.
 * To a reader who has no knowledge of the series, they should pick up a book or watch Cartoon Network. You can't just write articles for those who do not know, a wiki is for general reference of everybody. It is an encyclopedia and would you rather see a baby picture of Carmen Elektra or what she looks like now. And on that note, their earliest appearance in the show for Naruto is when he is a baby and for Hinata she is 3, that doesn't help the article either. NaruHina  Talk 05:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * NaruHina, I just would like to point out that Naruto shouldn't necessarily be compared to that of Wikipedia or Wookieepedia or some other wikis. It's different. I don't really know how to explain this, but the I personally agree that it is best to have images of the Part I versions than the Part II because that is the original Naruto... I really don't know how to describe this so you'll understand. But when people think Naruto people seem to think of the Part I not the Part II. Or maybe this is just my experience, but in any case, the Part I always seemed the most important in a sense. I mean, Part II somewhat feels like an expansion. I really don't know how to say this, so I'll just end here. Cyfiero (talk) 04:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The part in the story section should be under "Biography" and should be first, right after the intro to the character.
 * No, the part in the story section should be at the bottom, only above notes like sources, trivia, and quotes. The part in the story section can get to be extremely long. Placing this section above anything non-trivial like appearance, personality, and such will make that information harder to find.

~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 7, 2008 @ 02:05 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you dissapprove of this cross-wiki reference as I understand they are not the same MoS, but check out most Featured Articles on Wookieepedia, they are all at least 1000 words long, many such as Corran Horn (look him up as he is a great example of my point) are longer than that. There are links at the top of the page that are automatically placed and updated if the article go longer than a certain umber of sections, it does not make it harder to find thee info if it is at the bottom of the pages. NaruHina  Talk 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and PS, I don't come to this wiki much because it doesn't have an official MoS yet so I can't contribute until I know what you guys want written and watching pages doesn't work cross wiki so I can't check it if I'm iin the middle of editing Wookieepedia. NaruHina  Talk 02:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes I know about the ToS, but it is still best to keep the small aggregated sections together rather than shoving a huge section in between them. Basically going "summary, aggregate, long story, notes and references". While the ToS does help find info, it serves someone actually just reading an article better if the aggregated sections are up top, instead of split by a long story. For the person only wanting to read about the character, not read their entire story involvement, placing the story in between aggregated sections can make them think that there are no more. Not everyone actually looks at the ToS, in fact I almost never look at the ToS, much less read it, when I go to read a Wikipedia article.
 * Watchlist works cross-wiki if you use it right. Just make use of either e-mail or rss, and it doesn't matter where you are. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) current discussion Dec 7, 2008 @ 03:35 (UTC)
 * If a person does not want to read spoilers of their story involvement, they shouldn't come to a wiki, they can also easily read the secions and say to themselves "Oh no, spoilers" and skip the section to read about their personality. And it does not matter what you personally do, it is about what we want the reader to do, wee want them to read it or at least have the option to reference it for a link to a section of the article, especially if they don't know what to look for in the story. And the summary is not aggregated, it is an introduction to the character that needs to be updated regularly with the most major plot points, not a place to say "This is what the name means" that is for the Trivia section, which I still hope gets renamed. Such as in the case of Naruto, it should read "Naruto was a genin from the leaf villiage. He was part of Team 7. Sasuke betrayed him. After time-skip he is the last genin of the Konoha 11. And other broad relative info from Shippuden, keeping it abourt 3-4 paragraphs long. It should go Intro, Bio, Personality, Abilities, Appearances, N+R, then Quotes (If you must have quotes in a seperate section of the article, I think it makes it look cluttered but thats just me). NaruHina  Talk 04:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I said nothing about spoilers. I said that a user looking for aggregated information (Bio, Abilities, Personality), is looking for that information together, not looking for one or two aggregated section, the entire involvement of the character in the plot, and then one or two more aggregated sections after that. And I never said the summary/intro was aggregated, that was at the start of my list separate from the aggregated stuff. I don't get what you are going on about anyways, the listed order is already (...intro..., Background, Personality, Abilities, Part in the Story, ...notes...)
 * Quotes however is a completely different topic. I believe it was Forum:Quotes that it was being discussed in. To be honest some random anon started that trend and it's just grown. I'm of the honest opinion of either deleting all those quotes sections, or strictly regulating what kind of quotes can actually be used. Right now their a huge mess of pointless statements, and things that are potentially fanmade quotes, not real notable character quotes. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 7, 2008 @ 04:48 (UTC)
 * If the intro section is not aggrigated then there is no reason why this should't be changed. All of the aggregated info would be last, and there would be ways to skip the plot and go directly to them. As for the quote thing, that is what a MoS is for, to lay down the law on that sort of thing. Also, a MoS needs to be put to a vote, by section which means you must break it down. You can't just impose it, not that I'm accusing you of that. NaruHina  Talk 05:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why should the aggregated stuff be last? Just because you can skip the characters involvement in the plot to get to the more useful parts of the article doesn't mean you should have to. The most useful info is the Intro, then the aggregated information actually about the character, then the full story the character has been in, and then random bits of information and article metadata bring up the rear. Putting less useful information at the top and more useful information at the bottom is disorganized. Intro is not aggregated nor a full story, it's just an intro. A simple few paragraphs to start the reader off with an idea of what the topic of the article is.
 * This is a MoS discussion, not a MoS. The section order was started off from a reasonable common order articles were using awhile ago. It's been here for a fair bit of time, and open to discussion. And it's not a Vote that decides things, it's consensus. Voting is not consensus. And consensus here never closes, if someone has a new issue with consensus they are always welcome to re-open the discussion with new points and that discussion's end a new consensus may be reached to replace the old one.
 * The community here has always had an issue getting together to create formally written policies. More or less all the policies are just floating consensus. A discussion on something happens, the community reaches consensus on that. The consensus gets remembered by some of the admins and active users, then ends up being passed on to others when they unknowingly step over the consensus. If someone has an issue, then that gets repeated and another discussion starts up, either a new consensus is created, or the community debunks the issue and keeps the old consensus.
 * In a way, you could say the job of an admin here, is to remember relevant consensus on topics, pass tips on when someone steps over that, and help create and remember new consensus when someone has an issue. It's all loosely defined, however despite that, the actual reasons the policies were created are passed on, which does help in a way. Even Wikipedia's policies are about the spirit of the policy, not the words. Keeping policies as consensus and reforming them when someone has a new point does help avoid wikilaywering.
 * To be honest, if I took a fair bit of time, I might be able to write up some policies which the community could agree with or reform to fit. But then they would probably get stale, and people would end up citing them as rules, like the overly generic and depreciated Narutopedia:Rules page. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 7, 2008 @ 05:51 (UTC)
 * OK, really. Really Three things. One. The most important part of the article is ver debateable but my opinion is that what happened to the characters is the most important thing, not some personality profile taht was put together based on observations of what happened. (So in essence, the Personality is dependant on what happened anyway)
 * Two. It is a discussion but you will never have a consensus unless you have a vote open to everyone. Every registered user. What is the point of this gabbing if nothing will come about it. I say we vote, and if you want to discuss that, fine. I'll start a new Forum and we'll vote on that.
 * And three. You are the only admin and apparently one of two people to attain the second highest rank. By saying that it is your job to remember all of this stuff and pass it on to new users is ludicrous. There is no way to regulate it. You could say it is to be written however you want. These things must be written and linked so that they are readily available to everyone. And they shouldcite the darn rules, thats why they are there. And anyway, if you can magically remember all of these things, it should be your job to write them down, I'm glad you volunteered.
 * And by the way, voting is a consensus. The only places where it is not are places like Cuba, Russia, Nazi Germany, and Saddam's Iraq. It is the votes of the people who care. Without votes and you being the only one debating issues, Narutopedia becomes one of those dictatorships. A dictatorship under you. I'm glad we could have this chat Jetzt haben einen schönen Tag, Führer NaruHina  Talk 10:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:Wikipedia:What is consensus? is a good read to understanding what consensus is about, at least on wiki or here. It's not about voting, it's about reasoning things out. If things were up to votes, then a poorly reasoned result could be used just because the people properly reasoning things out were the minority in the group at that point in time. Lets, see, a good naruto analogy might go something like... "Think of a discussion on whether Hinata and Naruto were a couple in the series. A small discussion happens, and people reason out that nothing has directly been stated as such, there's no citation for it, and it's complete speculation. However, when it comes down to a vote, even though there is no backing it up 3/4 of the group doing the voting are NaruHina shipping fans, and vote that they are." Consensus is about putting reasoning together, discussing those reasons, and forming something that can be agreed on by the group, and takes old reasons in similar discussions into account.
 * But it would be nice if you could keep your replies cooler. A heated response just spins a discussion out of control, and when you make one, it's hard for someone else to respond to that reply with a cool response.
 * I'm also not the only admin, TheUltimate3 is admining as well. And policy discussions are far from decided by me alone. ShounenSuki is fairly active, Jace as well. But not just them, active users come and go, when something big is discussed there are a good deal of points brought up by the active members, and even some not-so active users chime in on the discussions.
 * Anyway, a back and forth argument isn't going to get this discussion anywhere. The absolute best remedy for a hot discussion between two people is time. This discussion has only gone on for a few hours, even if it were 12 hours, in the time of a wiki discussion that isn't much. Good discussions are spread out over days. It gives participants time to cool down, and actually think about their response, to keep it civil and on track. As well, it lets the other members of the community actually participate in the discussion and point out reasoning that neither of the participants can think of, or help one participant explain a big reasoning he can't put into words well. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 7, 2008 @ 11:12 (UTC)
 * Voting is a consensus, it is the consensus of people who care and the desision can always be discussed and challenged again. If you let this forum sit for a month with voting for each section, also one for the order, and elaborate on each section then whatever happens happens. This is a wiki, is not about being politically correct, it is about doing what the majority of Narutopedians want to do. If the majority of Narutopedians want to include NaruHina in the article, as long as it fits within NPOV, it should be, and I believe is, allowed. This forum is for discussion and decision making. It should be put up for a vote before it is imposed. Every wiki that I have visited has voting
 * In addition, my response was as cool as possible and you need to update your rank pages. As well, those users may be active but they still should not make all the descisions, not that I'm saying they do. You also need to advertize these things better, not just posting them on the front page but you need to try and get more people involved, contact other admins from other wikis and get ideas from them on how to make this MoS and other things more comprehensive and how to describe the sections in detail and whatnot. NaruHina  Talk 22:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Update rank pages, in what way?
 * The MoS discussion was listed in the announcements, shows up in the community portal, I believe I poked some users back when I started the discussion, and the MoS discussion as well as policy discussion was listed inside of the sitenotice for Five Whole Months! These discussions were in no way under-advertised, It's just that unfortunately most of the community doesn't seam to care about getting into discussions for creating policies. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 7, 2008 @ 23:00 (UTC)
 * Actually list who the people of that rank are, for Admins, Kages, Jonin, T[Whatever] Jonin, and Chunin so that people will know where to ask questions, yes I am aware of the list of them but it should be on the page. I believe the attempt was made on the admin pag but TU3 did not post on it.
 * That may be so, but this is an important issue. I suggest finding people who have shown civility and knowledge of what should happen and invite them on their talk pages. Or maybe go down the list of Chunin, Jonin, and T Jonin and invite them to speak, Ask them to RSVP. It is your job as an admin to get them involved. NaruHina  Talk 23:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I spotted my name somewhere...up there so I guess this really is important (I kid I kid...) but seriously what exactly are you two talking about? Kinda confused over here.--TheUltimate3 23:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It started out as a discussion of wheter the Bio of the character should go first or the Personality sections. I think it should go Intro, Bio, Personality, Appearances, then References. He thinks it should go Intro, Pesonality, Bio, Refs. Then it sort of shifted to Narutopedia needs to have voting on these policies that are put in place on the site like this. Though he says that a community vote would not be a consensus, I think it would because that is the point of voting. (I simpathize as the discussion is quite long) NaruHina  Talk 01:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Huh, no. I said that it should go Intro, Aggregated sections (ie: history, personality, appearance), Part in Story, Notes and Refs. And I noted Wikipedia:Wikipedia:What is consensus? which explains Wikipedia's definition of consensus which is what we have been using on the wiki since the beginning, which is not about voting, it's about reasoning. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 8, 2008 @ 01:57 (UTC)
 * Oh hm. Uh...hm...I lean more Intro, Background, Personality, if I had my way there would be no appearance section I mean thats what pictures are for but whatever, I could honestly go either way with the Part in Story/Biography really I've grown far to used to both (Being a user of Star Wars wiki which uses Biographies, and this place which uses Part in Story), Abilities are the tricky thing for me. I always thought they were better at the bottom as they tend to be spoiler-estic, followed by Quotes then References (and my reasoning here is that References just seemed to need to be at the bottom. /shrug)--TheUltimate3 02:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Quotes or references could go at the bottom. Currently Quotes is a junk section people put random crap in, so for now since no-one's responded to ideas for standardization of the quotes sections, I proposed moving it to the bottom out of the way. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 8, 2008 @ 02:24 (UTC)
 * Oh, about the spoiler-esque stuff. Abilities is aggregated but with spoilers. Part in the Story is a full story with spoilers. Why not put the Abilities at the bottom of the Aggregated stuff right above the Part in the Story? ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 8, 2008 @ 02:28 (UTC)

Eh. /shrug I dunno. I think its something I carried from Wikipedia. THey had the Ability section after the Biography section so I guess I'm biased. As for the quotes, I have been trying to normalize it. I removed jutsu calling, Removed the useless one liners, and tried to keep what I thought made the characters who they were. Of course due to my wavering attention span and my busy sechudel(lolspelling) it has proven some what difficult.--TheUltimate3 02:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I clumped together background info and Personality by saying Personality. Not an Appearance section. Appearances. A list of the Episodes, Manga chapters, video games, etc. that that character appeared in, I said this in the initial section. As well to the Quotes section, I suggest rooting out profanity as well. I still hold the stance that voting should be used to set rules. A flat out "This is what the rule is" at least as the discussion can be interpereted differently by different people. NaruHina  Talk 04:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know about pulling out cussing, no point in censorship. Not that it matters much though, there is little factual cussing in the series. To be honest Hidan never actually cusses, a good explanation of what I mean is in Talk:Hidan. As for voting vs. consensus (as Wikipedia defines it), it's not as simple as a discussion as what you might think. Basically the idea is to discuss things, root out reasons and rationales, examine those rationales, collectively decide the importance of various rationales, and pick the most reasonable result.
 * For example a few of the rationales here (I don't know if I can pick out them all):
 * Aggregate before Part in the Story
 * The primary content of an article is the aggregated sections, so they should be put up top.
 * Abilities section further down in the article
 * The abilities section often contains heavy spoilers, it's good to keep spoilers farther from the top of the article
 * Not the best list, I can't pick out all the rationales here that well. But generally one of the ideas of discussion is that as things are discussed the rationales that most people agree on start to stick out, and the people arguing against them alone tend to start reusing the same poor rationales even after good reasons why those rationales are bad have been explained. Round that time the bad rationales start getting ignored and things move on. At the end of a discussion there's normally a short recap on reasons and basically a bit of summing up what people agree on. They aren't the best ones, but the decisions on what naming scheme to use here were quite extensive. Forum:Names was the original from ages ago, Forum:Character and Jutsu Names was a later community discussion from a different generation of the community, Forum:Name Changes was one point in time when a new user came in and decided he wanted us to start using the romanizations, it wasn't as civil coming from him, but it was still discussed.
 * Oh, it looks like I didn't notice a reply that was shoved inline into one of my previous comments. People who don't know about naruto are still readers, we shouldn't be excluding them and saying they should pick up a book or watch an episode instead of coming to the wiki for information. The most relevant image to all readers is that of the character in their earliest appearance. But, please understand what I mean by earliest appearance. I'm not talking chronologically, I'm talking about story time, ie: arc order. The earliest appearance is basically the appearance that they are introduced into the actual story with, the one that sticks with them for the majority of the initial part of the story that they are in. Take a look at Naruto Uzumaki and Hinata Hyuga's articles, those are Part I images, the kind of images that I'm talking about.
 * Oh, also, Forum:Policies, Narutopedia and Wikia ACG was the other policy discussion. ^_^ Looking over the forums again I found one or two interesting ones. Forum:Community Project, Narutopedia in the News was from a whole year ago, and Forum:A visual history of the Narutopedia was from back in the summer. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 8, 2008 @ 05:14 (UTC)
 * I think the primary content of the article is the story and I said I'd like the Abilities section moved with the rest of the article sections, even the Personality and background has spoilers in it.
 * Please understand, I meant that we shouldn't write the articles just because people new to the series don't want to read spoilers, there is a spoiler warning on the main page. We shouldn't write it completelly for theem either, it is an encyclopedia and What happened tto the person is paramount to things that people say he/she acts like. I'm not saying to exclude them I just say don't write the article so they won't have to read spoilers and as I have said, it is easy to click on the ToC or notice the Part in the Story section and skip them.
 * And I completely understood what you mean before by "First appearance" I was merely illustrating that things that are not explicitly stated have different meanings depending on viewpoint. NaruHina  Talk 12:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ^_^ If something is badly worded, please feel free to propose a better term at any point. Discussion can still go on if the people discussing know what it means. When it comes to creating an actual MoS page, there's nothing stopping us from explaining terminology or finding other longer ways to express what we actually mean. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Dec 8, 2008 @ 17:37 (UTC)

Shippuden
Why "Part II' and not "Shipuden"? --Nara Shikamaru (talk) 23:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Was never really discussed, "Part II" was just a convention adopted. There are points to it that make sense though. ~ NOTASTAFF Daniel Friesen (DanTMan, Nadir Seen Fire) (talk) Apr 21, 2009 @ 01:44 (UTC)


 * Because that would logically result in changing "Part I" → "Naruto". And how does one differentiate between "Naruto", the entire series, and "Naruto", the first part of the series? ~SnapperTo 22:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)