Talk:List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Titles

How accurate has the website from where the titles were retrieved generally been in the past? Can we assume that these are definitely the correct titles? Kakashi Gaiden does not seem to be involved in any way. Retlor 21:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Always accurate. The Splendiferous Gegiford 21:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So we can assume that there will be no animated KG for the time being then? Retlor 21:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

For the time being, yeah. They may end up animating it eventually, but we don't really know. The Splendiferous Gegiford 18:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

It could be possible, that they could be releasing it as special or include it in the movie. Verde830 17:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That would be the most logical answer. That or an OVA. Yagikaru 14:47, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Gaara Dies! Is the incorrect title for episode 17. In reality it is Gaara's Death! The proof of this can be seen at the end of episode 16. It is written out in both Japanese and English at the end of the next episode preview. - UnknownToaster 14:00, 07 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you realize that was Dattebayo's translation. It wasn't there in the non-fansubbed version. "Dies" is a more accurate translation. The Splendiferous Gegiford 23:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Complainin' on TV.com not enough for you, UnknownToaster? Got to complain here, too? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Nihongo vs Nihongo-title

Thought this was the best place to start it, as Shippuden begins a new article. I'm oppsoed to using the nihongo-title template, prefering the more universalized and standardized Nihongo template. Nihongo-title seems to be almost a poor copy, resulting in the same features with a less than efficient lay out. Floria L 01:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No episode on march 8th?

Is there no episode on the 8th? Retlor 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

(I'm from it.wiki) from now there'll be probably only an episode every two weeks.. :( fortunately, there'll be also a two-episode special 29th march ;)

--82.88.213.144 17:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no episode on the 8th or the 22nd. The Splendiferous Gegiford 17:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Theres a 1 hour special on the 29th, after that its 2 weeks until the next 1 hour special.You Are Ooglay 02:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Next episode

It's already been confirmed that the next episode of Naruto is a 1 hour special entitled "Art is a Blast!" to air March 29, 2007. Episode 5 "As the Kazekage" has already been leaked and subtitled via Dattebayo Fansubs and has confirmed the next episode/air dat.

That isn't the real title; it's just the title of the special. The episode titles for 6 and 7 haven't been released yet. The Splendiferous Gegiford 02:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode titles

What is the source for the titles for episodes 6 and 7? As of now neither are on the given website.Retlor 08:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

TV Tokyo's website, http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/anime/naruto/ The Splendiferous Gegiford 14:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode 6/7 dates

The episode preview for the one-hour special said March 22 at 7:27 PM, not the 29th. graphitesmoothie ^{(talk | contributions)} 08:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Scratch that. graphitesmoothie ^{(talk | contributions)} 08:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

how did u put a line thru it? just curious  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.88.154 (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC) 

Couple of changes needed

The float over text on episode one indicates that Tsunade is the kazekage, she is the hokage. Also, the page is still semi-protected (hence I can't make the hokage change myself), however we seem to have lost the semi-protected template. Celain 19:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC) == Tsunade is Godaime which translate is "go" 5 "damine" ruler, lord, hokage the fifth hokage

Episode 8 title?

April 12, カカシ班出動！NARUTO疾風伝スペシャル, Kakashi group move! ???? http://cal.syoboi.jp/tid/1106/time

--66.50.91.166 00:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It's the title of the episode 8-9 special, not the actual episode. The Splendiferous Gegiford 01:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Episodes 8 and 9 will also be a one-hour special? Are you sure? Moonwalkerwiz 07:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Image selection guidelines

I think we should decide on some general guidelines for selecting episode images. Here is my proposition:

1. If possible, an image should be selected if they can also be used to replace pre-existing manga scans. For example, in the coming episode, we are likely going to to Sakura use poison extraction jutsu so a good candidate for an episode image would replace Image:(Poison Extraction Technique).PNG.
2. If nothing new is seen in the episode, screenshots should be selected to depict the most significant plot events.

The general idea is to promote reuse of images. Having an image only used in this article and the corresponding episode's article should be avoided whenever possible. –Gunslinger47 18:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, also. PNG and GIF should be avoided unless the uploader knows what they're doing. Used inappropriately, the file sizes of lossless formats can quickly get out of control. –Gunslinger47 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

As a concrete example, I've replaced Image:Naruto Shippūden Ep 2 Naruto and Sakura vs Kakashi.png with Image:Gaara2.JPG. Gaara2.JPG is from episode 2 and is already being used under Gaara to demonstrate his new appearance. Deleting Naruto....Kakashi.png will save Wikipedia 378 KB.

Before I continue making similar changes, does anyone object? –Gunslinger47 20:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all. Just don't go haywire with it =p Sephiroth BCR 07:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge separate articles

Participate in the discussion here. --Sandtiger 23:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Obvious mistake

Episode 6 summary contains the phrase "leaves him open to a sudden attack sudden attack". This is obviously a typo and should be corrected. I don't have the rights to edit this page (not registered and don't care to). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.89.167.118 (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

I fixed it for you. Sometimes obvious mistakes aren't so obvious. We apologize. By the way registration takes 5 seconds, and all you need is a login name. You don't even need an email address.— Sandtiger 00:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You can still edit articles as an unregistered user, unless your afraid to reveal your IP address, that is. --Putmalk 20:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is currently semi-protected. –Gunslinger47 22:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Why were the images removed?

What happened to all of the images on the page?
-Sinthesis- 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It was decided that images used on lists just to make them pretty could not qualify for fair-use under the Wikipedia:Non-free content policies. It's sad because the list was really looking nice. I suppose I understand the reason they had to go, however. –Gunslinger47 21:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Who the hell thought it was a good idea to remove all the images??? Seriously, keep the images as they were, now this article looks horrible. --Putmalk 21:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone

I'm not sure if this was a prank (despite the article is protected) to remove the images or if it was a decision from the admins.

If so let us know, to be honest I liked images posted before, they did depict the main plot of the episode in my opinion.

Peace.

--~~SGTEdwards~~

I also agree that the images were useful for finding the articles at a glance. In an episode sceenshot can remind me exactly what happened in the episode. The consensus on Wikipedia, for the moment, appears to be that this isn't adequate justification according to Wikipedia:Non-free content guidelines. –Gunslinger47 22:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This latest bout of copyright paranoia is making me lose interest in wikipedia. The list of episodes was already a concession to prevent the creation of a separate article for each episode. Now they want to take out all the images completely? We're already using the minimum of 1 image per episode. How is this different from having 200+ separate articles with 1 image each? — Sandtiger 10:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This new policy of no images sucks! Once again, who's idea was it to take down the images? This make no sense. DAMNIT! Put those pictures back at once. I'd say it's vandalism to take them down. Just imagine how much trouble went into uploading them! --Putmalk 22:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you say is irrelevant. If policy is decided, then policy is followed. If you want to change the policy, then attempt to do it through discussion, not that you would have much success in that regard. Sephiroth BCR 22:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the current mindset is that if something isn't important enough to get its own article, it isn't important enough to need it own fair use image. ~SnapperTo 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Understanding Image upload/removal [Wikipedia:Non-free content]

Hello again everyone

I still don’t understand well the reason that the images do not qualify on the article, as Gunslinger47 stated they not fallow Wikipedia:Non-free content. As I read the Wikipedia:Non-free content, uploading a lower resolution (copyrighted) TV screenshot image is allowed, wich a (352x240 pixel) Jpeg/PNG image should qualify on the episode list.

Correct me if I’m wrong.

Peace

--SGTEdwards ~~Thursday, May 3 2007, 5:11 GMT-8~~

Hello once again everyone.

I haven’t got a clear answer on the episode screenshot issue, nor on my (Understanding Image upload/removal [Wikipedia:Non-free content]) that I posted.

Now this only leaves me this question: Will there be any screenshot in the article?

I also have the episodes, I will be more than happy set it on the article (fallowing the [Wikipedia:Non-free content] specifications), but then again, I wont upload them if I don’t get green light by the Admins.

Please let me know about this issue.

Peace.

--SGTEdwards~~ Tuesday, May 8, 4:00 pm GMT-8 ~~

No. Can't have them. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia:Non-free content page,

under Examples of Acceptable Use of images: Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television.

and under Examples of Unacceptable Use: 9. An image found on the Internet where the original source is unknown or not verifiable.

It would seem that a. there isn't enough critical commentary / discussion of the shippuuden episodes, and b. were the images being attributed to Dattebayo? or TVTokyo? Who "owns" them?

Wikipedia is probably not interested in getting itself embroiled in the quagmire of Dattebayo's copyright status and whether the images are liscensed.

Cpflames 21:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC) Cpflames -- Tuesday, June 5, 2007, 3:00 pm GMT-8 ~~

Arcs

Is it necessary to label the first two episodes as Reintroduction Arc? eZio 20:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I think just Reintroduction is better. graphitesmoothie ^{(talk | contributions)} 23:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

revisit on comment reguarding shippuden plot

I earlier on gave advice concerning what to do with shippuden plot page and labeling each arc and I have to say that the details on it should have been kept but separated. I think that intergrating the episode details and with the main plot was not a wise method because of the gap between episodes and manga. I don't think this will cause confusion but could you take the old info and revise it or make a separate page for the details of the manga. I'm simply that the page that was deleted should have been simply divided but everything still there.

July 08, 2007

More Feedback

• Holy smokes, I can't believe the Plot page is gone. Clearly it kept getting vandalized and I'll take a long shot and say that's one reason why it got support to be blown away. So much for providing good value to the stateside non-japenese reading Naruto fans. It's certainly too late to support the comment on June 25 that makes the point 'Deleting so many months of work is a plain waste.' Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_24#Plot_of_Naruto
  • For those who say spoilers are bad, take a look at it like; watching porn and getting laid in real-life. It's two totally different things. The plot summaries are porn, generally in the end they just make you want to go make nice with your significant other.

69.242.184.178 07:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not Wikipedia's place to offer a (pornographic?) substitute for reading the source material. Including plot details indiscriminately violates our policies and infringes upon copyright. WP:NOT#PLOT. The amount of work that went into the article is irrelevant to a deletion debate. It's harsh, but true.

As for my advice to Naruto fans who don't read the scanlations, but come here wanting to read indepth summaries of the scanlations... Read the scanlations. It's not hard. Your eyes get used to the right-to-left motion rather easily. –Gunslinger47 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I was devastated when i saw it was gone. If there's anyway to get around the copyright thing, I voulunter to write a new one. ... how do i sart an article? 88.110.40.110 17:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Me again... would writing a battle summary violate copyright? 88.110.40.110 17:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

naruto shippuden manga

hi.. ive been following the naruto shippuden manga summaries here in the wikipedia. However, I can't seem to find them anymore. Were they deleted? Im not sure if this will be read or be deleted. Thanks.

This is reason why those were deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Plot_of_Naruto:_Shippūden_(2nd_nomination) Pahajoki 07:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Episode 24 Summary

I believe the end summary of episode 24 contains some speculation and not fact. "Somehow immune to the effects of the poison, Sakura destroys his puppet with a single punch at the last second." It is not clear if Sakura is actually hit by the attack and poisoned, she could have easily cut herself to make it appear like she was hit with the metal spikes to aid in the deception. We will not know this until Episode 25.

The poison dosen't take effect imidiatly. Kankuro was able to fight for a few minutes after being poisoned. Anyway, 25 is out and we see she was immune to the effects of the poison because of her antidote. 88.110.40.110 17:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Episode 25 Summary

This should really be edited for style: "Sasori is still attacking with his Flamethrowers. While Sakura and Chiyo are still behind the rocks he switches to his water hoses and sprays at them causing them to have to fight and defend and dodge rocks and Sasori's attacks. Then with 15 seconds left till the antidote wears,off Sasori attacks Sakura with the metal spikes and goes to attack Chiyo but Sakura keeps pulling on the slack till there is none left and then pulls him to her and punches him,breaking him into pieces. All of a sudden Sasori reforms himself together and Chiyo pulls out her elite 10 puppets while Sasori pulls out his elite 100. Chiyo tells Sakura not to fight but Sakura says that she should know her personality and that Sakura fights to win but after she finally beats Sasori. Sasori's heart goes into another puppet which then goes behind Chiyo and attacks but Sakura gets back to get in the way of his attack and gets stabbed in the abdominal area with a sword covered in his poison. "

suggest: "Naruto and Kakashi continue to pursue Deidara while Sakura and Chiyo continue the battle with Sasori. Sakura manages to shatter Sasori's puppet body, but he reforms. Chiyo summons the "10 puppets of Chikamatsu". Sasori, remarking on Chiyo's ability to control so many puppets, summons a puppet army and the final battle commences. Sakura and Chiyo defeat Sasori but, under cover of the battle, Sasori has transferred himself to another puppet and attacks Chiyo from behind. Sakura intercedes, taking the sword thrust meant for Chiyo."

- Y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.246.175.87 (talk) 16:29, August 25, 2007 (UTC) - Signing with new alias

Now Really, why would someone want to write all that down and spoil people? Come on now. The way it was summerize on Wikipedia is just perfect: not much spoilers, not much details, and not so much words to read about. . . Which can be such a pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShippudenMaster1992 (talk • contribs) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Season 2

there was no source, or discussion of the split, so i changed it back. if you can provide a source for it to prove it, then you can make that splitRauJ16 14:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

New season usually changes at start of October. It should be also noted that unlike Naruto, Naruto Shippuuden is released by arcs, not by seasons (stages). I think it was based by guess since season is usually thought to be 26 episodes, which is not correct Pahajoki 16:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at how all the other articles are done. The Splendiferous Gegiford 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't still count as a source for naruto shippuuden season 2 start date, besides even Naruto seasons are wrong.

集英社「週刊少年ジャンプ」誌で連載中の看板コミックのアニメ化「NARUTO-ナルト-」が5th ステージ突入、DVD第1巻リリース!! 第180話「秘術 孔雀妙法の代償」、第181話「星影 葬り去られた真実」、第182話「再会残された時間」、第183話「星は輝きを増して」の4話収録。 4th STAGE総集編DVD「スーパーダイジェスト3」付き豪華2枚組!!

from http://www.neowing.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=ANSB-1870

which translates as

First DVD release from the fifth season of hit anime series "NARUTO" includes episodes 180 through 183. Also includes a bonus a DVD with a condenced digest version of season 4.

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Naruto_episodes lists it as Seaason 8 and starting at 183.

If it's officially released by arcs how you are to provide source? I have no problem being it like this as long as it's correct. I have also no time to correct Narutos season which isn't correct. Seasons are not strictly around 26. As there is no need to since in Japan series airs mostly without any larger breaks.

Also officially Shippuuden continues numbering from Naruto Pahajoki 18:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Everything on Wiki is based on precedence. If you change it here you'd have to go through and change it on all the other Naruto episode list articles. It's done the same way on all of those, so there's no reason for this one to be any different. Production companies typically list their seasons in increments of 26 episodes, even if there's no break or special event taking place at that 26th episode. Also, that DVD text says "Stage" which is simply what they call the DVD releases. 12 volumes, one year for each Stage. It has nothing to do with seasons. Here's a full DVD guide if you want to see more [1] The Splendiferous Gegiford 18:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not contain information that is unsourced or incorrect. There is no officials seasons in Naruto because it is running without breaks whole year. I'm still for splitting shippuuden by arcs because it's the way it's OFFICIALLY RELEASED. Is there need to add "seasons" if it's something that page editors have decided? Pahajoki 19:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Why does Geg keep spliting the season, he should bring it to the talk page, that way we can end this edit war before it escalates. RauJ16 21:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If you want to change it so that it doesn't split every 26 episodes you should bring it up on the main Naruto talk page. Leaving this page like this makes the articles inconsistent. The Splendiferous Gegiford 21:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be brought up there, it does not concern that article, it concerns this one. and just because it wil make the articles inconsistent does not qualify the edit, however an official, or reliable source that season one finished, does. RauJ16 21:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it doesn't just concern this article, but all the Naruto episode list articles. A broad subject should be brought up in a broader, more all-inclusive area. The Splendiferous Gegiford 21:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

This does not concern the other Naruto episode list, only this one. RauJ16 21:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides that, if you look on the individual Naruto episode lists by season, the episodes are divided up by arc. And using your own reasoning, this means that all the Naruto episode lists should be made to conform with all other anime episode lists, which should be made to conform with all television show episode lists. It's pretty obvious that this wouldn't work. --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 06:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

maybe we should divide both pages by arc, that would make finding the episode you want easier. 71.206.136.69 18:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

English release for the Naruto Shippuden movie

Considering that at the current rate, it will be several years before the English version of Naruto will end (and thus the English version of Naruto Shippuden will begin), and the release of the movie will almost certainly not occur until after that time, is it really necessary to have an "English release date" column for the movie? Some ongoing series don't even have this column for seasons that haven't started airing yet (see e.g. List of Blood+ episodes#Third_Quarter-Season_2006_2ndQ), so why should it be there for a movie from a series whose start is still several years off? --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 06:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this would make sense, however, i think its more for conformity, i think that the other Naruto movies have the English section. and there is some debate as to whether it will be two years or seven months befoer we get to shippuden, because i think that the large sat of fillers wont be aired as part of the regular show. 71.206.136.69 18:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get into conformity, then the English column should either be removed from the movie section to conform with the series section, or it should be added to the series section to conform with the movie section. I think that's actually the main reason I brought this up in the first place. Also, you wouldn't happen to have a link for the debate you mentioned, would you? --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 16:59, 5 September(UTC)

no, im sorry, i dont remember the site, but i think that it should be removed, simply because it'll match the style for the page, so if its still there, i personally dont mind you removing it, if someone else does, you will see it in the reverts. Rau J16 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, someone else beat me to the punch. The column has been gone for a few days now. --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 21:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Raven:well i know it will take a while for the movie and episodes to come but what i want them to do is to get to the main point.i was watching naruto episodes and they were just missions after missions.....and the naruto episodes should not be 200 episodes because sasuke is gone and they should do something else instead of trying t0o tell us what is the point of each episode.in the first episodes they were telling the life of naruto.then thats when i started to hate the show with sasuke's life ending episodes.so just read the manga or watch the episodes somewhere else like google because after sasuke leaves the village there is nothing else but boring naruto missions episodes. 3/10/08

Page protection

This page seems to be pretty popular with anonymous vandals. Looking at the top post on this talk page, it used to be protected against anonymous edits, so when and why was that protection lifted, and would anyone object to reinstating it for now? --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 16:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well? Any thoughts at all? --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 18:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it; otherwise, each summary becomes an edit war....Yonagi (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I went ahead and posted it on WP:RPP awhile back, and it was semi-protected for a few weeks; since the protection was lifted, anon vandalism and bad good-faith edits haven't been nearly so numerous (IMHO). --Dinoguy1000 ^Talk 20:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)I have pure information that Naruto Shippuuden movie is released in english subs in April. so it is possible that it would come out on the internet in about a few weeks

The name of episode 31 is wrong....

Its suppose to be called "The Next Generation" and not "The New Inheritor". And if you think Im making this up, check this link out: http://saiyanisland.com/naruto/?n=1/AirDatesShippuuden or even http://youtube.com/watch?v=wdZXMS5JWqw on 1:54. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.111.84.151 (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

DB's the ones who got it wrong. The Splendiferous Gegiford 02:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode Titles

Why dont we use Dattebayo, when was it decided that they were wrong? and since we do not use them, who or what do we use? Rau J16 06:23, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

the title from the episodes O_o--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 10:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, haha, but where do we get the translations. Rau J16 04:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I just said it, The title from the episodes--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 05:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The raw's have translations on them? Rau J16 05:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No. It's translation. Pahajoki (talk) 10:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused O.o nvm. Rau J16 11:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, he was talking about the title on each of the Episode which has been translated . . . Just thought you should know. ShippudenMaster1992 (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

i think they were doing it to me on purpose, where exactly does the translation for the episode title come from. Rau J16 04:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

no we wernt >_< its just hard to say, it comes from the episode and is translated to english--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 05:29, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

So you do not yank your hair out in frustration, I will clarify. DB is not the only group in the world that can read and translate Japanese. There are Wikipedia editors who can do it, too. This is where the titles come from. They are no more incorrect than DB's, insofar as I understand it, just an alternate take on the meaning of the words used. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, ok, see thats all you had to say. Rau J16 09:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We tried explaining that to you, but guess he's a better explainer. . . ShippudenMaster1992 (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Corresponding manga chapters

i was wondering if we could add Corresponding manga chapters to each episode like ichigo 100%? Arttic00 (talk) 01:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necassary Pahajoki (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

appearing on Cartoon Network??

are the Shippūden episodes gonna appear on Cartoon Network? If they are,when are they gonna appear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.136.22.90 (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia is not a forum--The Last Uchiha 03:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Not for several months, at least – CN still has to work through the last 80 or so episodes of Naruto. And The Last Uchiha, please don't bite the newcomers. —Dinoguy1000 18:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

i didnt give the dude a warning did i? i was just stating a rule--The Last Uchiha 09:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

This page in a nutshell: Do not be hostile toward newcomers. Remember to assume good faith first and approach them in a polite manner.

— WP:BITE

You were not wrong in the rule you stated, it was how you stated it – to put it bluntly, you sounded rude and condescending, even if that was not your intent. —Dinoguy1000 20:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

im sorry i didnt mean to come off so badly, i was trying to say it in a nice way--The Last Uchiha 21:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Episodes

Someone keeps adding random episodes to the Sasuke and Sai arc. There is no episode called nightmare as such and there wont be any more damn episodes on the sasuke and sai arc. Besides, Its the Hidan and Kakuzu arc next anyway. Jeesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.121 (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that, too. Even though the episode entitled "Nightmare" is under the Hidan and Kakuzu arc now, there is still no episode labeled that on either the ANN or the Japanese episode list page. Akatsuki.sousui (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No one just has updated ANN or Japanese wikipedia? Title came from WebTheTelevision Pahajoki (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Probably not until next year, first the english manga has to get and stay ahead, so they won't show anything untill probably 4-5 volumes have been put out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.22.251 (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Filler

This upcoming season is going to be a filler, so the name should be changed from "Hidan & Kakuzu Arc" to "Current Arc." Flaming Mustang (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any proof? Rau's Speak Page 23:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The new opening introduces five new characters that didn't appear in the manga, and Hidan and Kakuzu are only shown in a single Akatsuki group shot. However, they're mixing the filler in with the original story, specifically Naruto's training. I'd guess these new characters, which appear to be priests from some other ninja village (Moonlight, or something?), are probably to provide further exposition for Asuma and/or Hidan and Kakuzu. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I was about to ask that. Are these characters somehow related to second shippuden movie or they are just mixing a filler arc within the original arc? --Fotte (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they're related to the second movie; as far as the filler, it's been added to make the story more interesting (if you read the manga, you know that Naruto's training gets very boring after 30 chapters). Hidan & Kakuzu will most likely not be featured for many episodes to come, and if they do appear it will be minor. That's why I suggested the section be changed to 'Current Arc,' because it seems this story won't reflect on Hidan/Kakuzu. Flaming Mustang (talk) 20:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the Heck is there filler anyway?--71.123.249.135 (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Pocket

Often, anime shows have filler episodes to allow the manga-ka to put some distance between the manga and the anime. This can be quite important for long-running series like Naruto and Bleach, since adopting a manga to anime format moves much faster than writing the manga in the first place. —Dinoguy1000 15:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

But why would they do that now since the Japanese Manga is almost done? --71.123.249.135 (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)Pocket

Where has it been said that the manga is almost done? I'm confused as much as anyone as to why they're adding filler and skipping around the arc, but I don't know where it's been said that the series is almost finished.Akatsuki.sousui (talk) 09:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

dear god, more fillers -.- just keep it like it is for now--The Last Uchiha 10:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no source that it is almost done, it just feels that way because of all of the plot threads coming to a close. And it seems like they are just padding out the arc with filler, but not a filler arc. Rau's Speak Page 21:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

You can't have filler in a manga, although you can have padding. Everything happens for a reason...well, except for Mizu and Gouzu, they didn't really serve a purpose except to make Gato mad...but that's neither here nor there. In comparison, I see Bleach ending before Naruto, but I feel that they'll last at least until next year.Akatsuki.sousui (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, the second episode in this "Current Arc" is out and it's sticking to the manga, but this upcoming "Squirm" episode is definitely NOT manga, and IS filler. So it seems like they're mixing manga and filler at the same time, ("watering it down", if you will,) to extend the arc, OR trying to make the whole "Naruto Training arc" more interesting. Probably both. In any case, this should be added somewhere after the next episode airs, just to be sure. Spehizle (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a possibility that Hidan and Kakuzu showing up in " New Enemy"?

They didn't. --Goobergunch|? 04:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The person who made the terrain in episodes 58-60... is that a man or woman?(Remember Haku? She-male) Fatin '08! (talk) 04:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The one who drew it was a woman, the one who summoned it was a man. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:03, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. It was scaring me, 'cause it looked like a woman, but sounded like a man. Fatin '08! (talk) 16:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Seasons And Page Move

Where did that decision come from. Rau's Speak Page 21:29, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind. Rau's Speak Page 21:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

naruto+clones = naruto?

ok, this is a somewhat philosophical point, but ppl are reverting some text distinguishing naruto from his clones. i contend that naruto+clones != naruto because as soon as he creates a clone, their experiences diverge until the clone is dispersed. hypothetically, if naruto were to create a clone that he never dispersed, it would technically be a twin b/c their experiences would never reintegrate and they could live completely different lives until death. the text which is getting reverted specifically deals with divergence of experience and its eventual reintegration. i think the text should reflect that a clone's experience is different from naruto's own experience as long as the clone is active and that the clone isn't naruto. i won't revert anything as i don't know what ppl think about this issue, but i did want to put my thoughts out here. --Wongba (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

That is a very interesting theory. And the difference should be noted, but no more than that. Anything else is OR. Rau's Speak Page 02:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

if u agree w/ me, take a look at my last revert to the article and see if u agree w/ the old wording vs the new one. and yeah, i wouldn't put any of this in the text. i just feel there's a difference. --Wongba (talk) 06:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think a mixture of the two should be placed. Kakashi never suggested that Naruto send a clone, he came up with that nugget on his own. And continual mention of the clone fact gets irritating to read. In all respects at that time and place the clone is still Naruto, not much difference between the clone and the real one yet. Rau's Speak Page 10:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I was the second person to revert that, and at the time, I was only following the lead of the first revert. I'm not actually opinionated on the issue, and could go either way with it. —Dinoguy1000 16:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

List by arcs or seasons

Shouldn't it be listed by Arcs instead of seasons? Mussav (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Nope. See this discussion on the Naruto talk page for some explanation. —Dinoguy1000 23:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Aha Okay, Thanks for the info... so is the same thing goes with Bleach and One Piece? Mussav (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

One Piece, yes. Bleach, however, has official arcs, so they're staying. —Dinoguy1000 16:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Naruto Shippuuden has official names for arcs too. Pahajoki (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, really? Okay, I din't know that. In that case, it would probably be smart to add a reference concerning that (unless there already is one, and I'm too lazy to look ^_^;; ). —Dinoguy1000 20:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did people change it, it was good with the arcs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.170.19 (talk) 07:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

This page is protected from anons for whatever reason (vandals? fake episode names?), so would someone please fix the "stronger then" which should be "stronger than" in the Episode 28 description? Because I can't. As far as I'm concerned, you can remove this comment afterwards, too.

72.1.186.174 17:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

on a similair note, can someone tidy up the description for episode 70. i think my eyes bled a little from reading that garbage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.65.21 (talk) 05:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Episode 64-65

Episodes 64 and 65 were aired in Japan at 3th july, not 5th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EllsworthSK (talk • contribs) 17:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I agree, they were released on the 3rd in Japan. The Dattebayo fansub (the only(?) fansub) is delayed. I'm gonna go ahead and make that edit, ok? Damnedcracken (talk) 01:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

names of the episodes

hi =) i've a question: from which site do you get the names of the currently japanese episodes? i need the name of this site for the german naruto-fanwiki. thank you for answers ^^ 84.135.181.105 (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The names are taken from the links in the references section. The English names are just translations done by the Japanese-capable among us. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

So wait, those names are no more official than the ones Dattebayo uses? Rau's Speak Page 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they're just translations. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Then I don't see why whenever DB's are added they are removed under the pretense of being "wrong". Rau's Speak Page 00:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

The ones being used are more accurate translations. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

According to who? Rau's Speak Page 00:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Geg does some, Pahajoki others, they seem pretty competent to me. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

What does Dattebayo mean? I've tried to look it up on webistes, such as Denshi Jisho, but I cannot seem to figure that out. Fatin '08! (talk) 02:20, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it means. The english version has replaced it to that so that must be the translation, or english replacement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.27.128.251 (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Dattebayo is pretty much a verbal exclamation mark. They couldn't translate something that only works in Japanese, so they just replaced it with "believe it!", but that sounded stupid so they stopped doin that altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.71.201 (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the 2nd Movie

I've read the manga up to the point where Sasuke decides to bring down Konoha, now if he wants to do that, wouldn't the movie be contradictory? Is that why they're making so many fillers now? So the movie would come out before it got to the point when Sasuke decides to take down Konoha? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.192.23 (talk) 02:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Things don't always make sense. From what I know, I'm supposing the movie is just a spinoff with no clear relation to Shippuden. IceUnshattered (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Like the vast majority of anime movies based on a manga or anime series? =) —Dinoguy1000 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

From Naruto Shippuden episode 70's ending, Orochimaru is alive in the movie. My take would be that "Bonds" takes place before Sasuke rebels against Orochimaru and forms "Snake". But someone would have to watch the movie to verify exactly.

What is snake? If u are referring to the team he forms after he absorbs orochimaru, then i think u mean hawk, or falcon, im not sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.198.128 (talk) 01:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

At first, he names the group snake, but changes it when he discovers that Itachi was Ordered to kill his family let alone Sasuke.

Filler Recognition

I've noticed that the most recent filler arc has started dipping into the original source material. Can someone please recognise the filler episodes so viewers know what they're watching? Or at least break up where the filler arc ends and the source episodes begin. It's confusing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.71.201 (talk) 05:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

No. We do not mark individual episodes as filler. It is an non-neutral, fan-based label that is not a notable aspect of the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you should rethink this policy. As a fan and a viewer I want to watch canon-stuff only or know what is filler. At the very least, can anyone tell me if/where the filler has ended? OUChevelleSS (talk) 00:13, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It has been rethought many times and always upheld. It isn't encyclopedic, but something primarily only fans are interested in. I'm sure the Naruto wiki/wikia or any other fansite would have the information you seek. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Music table

why am i discussing this

The way it is now, the paragraph telling about the theme music is a big block of artist/song names, kanji, random numbers, etc. It's dizzying at first glance. Putting the information into a table is much cleaner and makes it easier to utilize. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For consistency, let's keep the discussion together since this list should reflect the current list, and in the end it is a similar issue. This list probably needs division like the main list as well, which would move the info to the respective lists and break up the big block of text, negating the issue. Existing discussion on having a singular table instead of prose across lists at Talk:List of Naruto episodes#A singular music listing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Season breakdown

What is the source for validation of the season breakdown of the tv series? According to typical anime sites, there are no "season's", it's all 1. Thanks Dclarkaz (talk) 03:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Dennyc, 9/16/08

See Talk:List of Naruto episodes. Apparently Naruto does have some kind of season break down in Japan, but a different on here done by Funimation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

76-77: Akatsuki vs Team Asuma WILL be aired on the 25th

Some wikipedians (whom I won't directly name) have thrown the term Wikipedia:Reliable sources around an awful lot as an excuse to make all sorts of edits and revisions (including one instance that I've seen, reverting / undoing somebody's good faith efort to remove text that was NOT written from a neutral point of view, as such the reversion ended up restoring text with a writing style that was not generally considered apropriate on wikipedia). RAWR! Today I came across an outright trend with reversions that defy logic: Why do people keep reverting any attempts to post info regarding one or more episodes slated to air on the 25th ... Specifically, there will be a two-part episode with the title "Akatsuki vs Team Asuma" ... I'm badly wanting to use weasel words describing the reverts / removals of such a consensus that is simple enough to "verify" ... when I "asked google" anyway: Naruto Shippuuden 76 "September 25" 2008 --Kuzetsa (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source, then give it with the additions. Otherwise, yes, they will be removed. You can dislike it all you want, but WP:V is a core Wikipedia policy, and considering the issues with people making up episodes, asking for a source for a future episode is not at all unreasonable. What is unreasonable is throwing a rant on the talk page with thinly veiled insults claiming there are "tons of sources" instead of just adding the episode with an actual reliable source the first time it was asked for. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Also note that special titles are different from episode titles. With specials magizines such as Animedia and Newtype doesn't have episode titles, so they can't be added. See these sites which has correct titles [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] pahajoki (talk) 08:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

If one of those is the source for your adding in the episodes, can you please add it to the article so people will not run around changing it to one of the 2 or 3 other titles seen so far? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Episode 76 and 82

Episode 76 (titled "The Next Step" "Tsuginaru suteppu" (次なる段階) according to us) doesn't translate well. To me, it should be "The Next Stage." There's nothing in there that says "suteppu" since that should be written as "ステップ". I'm just saying that the romaji is wrong in this case. Also, on 82, isn't "Squad 10" supposed to be "Juuhan" or "Daijuuhan" (for "the 10th squad")? Also also, where are some of these titles coming from? The "official" Japanese list goes up to 79, so where do 80-82 come from? Akatsuki.sousui (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You're right about 76, fixed. As for 82, I think it doesn't really matter. Those titles came from TVTokyo. Nightmare017 (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

You say its fixed but it is still "Next step"!?--Fotte (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

76 was written with ステップ over it as furigana, meaning that's how it was meant to be pronounced Like how 55 is spelled 旋風 (senpū) but pronounced "kaze". As for Team 10, Daijippan is the pronunciation given in the manga and the way it's pronounced in the anime. I'm not sure about the 80 title but I know 81-82 came from a Japanese magazine of some kind. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Episode 76

In the summary it is said so that yondaime had wind based chakra. As far as i know, we dont know what kindda element he had.--Fotte (talk) 16:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The naruto shippuden anime series has been following the manga closely; to confirm / satisfy your concern I suppose you could refer to some naruto manga *shrugs* Personally I wasn't paying enough attention to the akatsuki arks to notice. --Kuzetsa (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC) ... Strike that, I just checked the ep76 summary, what / who on earth are you talking about? I didn't see that mentioned --Kuzetsa (talk) 04:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Episode 78 opening theme

Actually, the song is not "Long Kiss Goodbye" by HALCALI. It's different. I was surprised when I saw it. Really surprised. --Jonica c (talk) 05:17, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

"Long Kiss Good Bye" by HALCALI is the ending theme. "CLOSER" by Inoue Joe is the new opening theme. Akatsuki.sousui (talk) 19:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC) hi

Why isn't it it's own article?

Why isn't Naruto: Shippūden its own article?--Sevvvy (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Seasons

There is something that has been concerning me. By what are seasons divided? According to the article season 1 is made of 26 episodes, while the first DVDs season is composed of 32. Is there a source for those divisions?Tintor2 (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

There is some vandalization in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.92.234.79 (talk) 06:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Viz media's online streaming of Shippūden episodes

What countries this will be available should be added (If Viz Media has disclosed this information). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.157.26 (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a forum. Please take discussion elsewhere. And please sign your posts by typing for tildes (~~~~). moocows rule 05:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Image?

Does this image appear for anyone else? On my browser it just says "The cover of the first DVD compilation released by Studio Pierrot.", and the image doesn't show up. I removed it but evidently my edit got reverted. moocows rule 08:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Move

I suggest we move the page to List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes since the official U.S. title doesn't include the macron? official site (Moon) and (Sunrise) 02:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

DEV PARADE

They have an official website, and their name appears to be a reference to debu (Japanese for "fat") parade (They write their name "デブパレード" Debu Parēdo). ムーカオズルール^{(Talk to Moo)} 20:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Filler" episodes

Could we mark the episodes that are not based on the manga, in other words are anime-only or so called "filler" episodes? --Mika1h (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

We didn't do that on the original series. モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 22:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know, but could we add them to both lists? --Mika1h (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Because it's not really that important. This article is about the anime, and the main article is about the manga. モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 21:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We're not adding any sort of marking or otherwise. It can be mentioned in the lead (of the specific season article) and that's it. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I encountered some fellas who were really disappointed when they found what they had been watching were filler episodes. So I support marking suggestion. --Fotte (talk) 09:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

There's no need to call it 'filler' or 'non-filler'. Just indicate to which Manga chapters individual anime episodes corrospond. -anonymous, 18 March 2009, 22:04 PDT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.103.164 (talk) 05:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Majority of the people coming to this page want to know what episodes are filler. Filler is a self defined term with in the anime watching community, and episodes that fit that definition should be labeled as such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filler_(media)#Anime_series —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.74.66.92 (talk) 04:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I also support labeling, or otherwise making it apparent which episodes don't have corresponding manga chapters. Myalternatelife (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I already tagged the filler episodes from episode 57 to 71, if i'm missing some filler episode please let me know so after checking the info i can label them. --Starlingmaximilian (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I had to add the tagg on the filler episodes again... i added caps 90 to 105 as fillers as well, please if you see the filler apisodes are not tagged do it yourself, the filler episodes so far are 57 to 71 and 90 to 105 so far, if someone wants to erase my tags please write here your reasons for doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlingmaximilian (talk • contribs) 20:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been discussed plenty of times in the past and the Anime and Manga Portal have said eahc timre it is not to be done as per the reasons of the user above (Moocowsrule)--Andrewcrawford (talk) Also see [[8]]21:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, just give my a link of "the reasons" you talk, or you could just simply tell what reasons are those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlingmaximilian (talk • contribs) 21:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

YOuy will have to ask the anime and manga portal not me i am not a membver i am just enforcing there rules--Andrewcrawford (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

It is the consensus of the anime/manga project that tagging episodes as "filler" or "not filler" violates Wikipedia guidelines regarding original research and WP:NOT. This has been discussed ad nauseum on this, and several other article talk pages, and is very unlikely to be changed. This is also consistent with List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes, which is a related list, and its sublists (several of which are featured lists), Also, note that edit warring against consensus purely because you don't understand or agree with it does not aid your view at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, tell me exactly what point of WIKIPEDIA IS NOT i'm violating labeling the filler episodes, and tell me why do you think that i'm doing original research (when i'm not doing so), also keep in mind that the "anime and manga portal" is not a higher instance, this portal can't violate the terms of wikipedia itself, the filler episode information is very important for the readers and it should be added.--Starlingmaximilian (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep its original research. These season even has content from the manga, so it is technically not filler. Please stop adding FILLER to the article until reaching consensus.Tintor2 (talk) 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, the fact that the user points out filler is a self derivevd term pretty much says it all. Fillers are not an official labelling by any means, and have no place. Wikipedia is not the place for fan opinion Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, instead of erasing all my labels you should erase the wrong one, the one you say has manga content, because i know that in the middle of a filler episode we can see itachi killing (or so) a two tailed bijuu, but thats all, the part when sasuke fights 100 man is from the manga as well, but these cases are 1 minute of animation in the whole chapter, and this happens only twice on this season, besides i realized that off course that this is original research, we the editors watched the anime and read the manga so we know perfectly wich episode is a filler or not, but we have to help the users to know wich chapter is a filler or no, i'm not violating any wikipedia guideline, and as i said before, original research is not bad in this case, is even the only way, wich other way do you know to make this article?--Starlingmaximilian (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

ALL of your labels are wrong. "Filler" is purely a fan label, and has no place is an encyclopedic article, which is what this is. This is a list of the episodes of the anime series, period. You have already had it explained to you by multiple editors that this is wrong. You yourself acknowledge that this is WP:OR. And yes, you ARE violating Wikipedia policies (not just guidelines), and are knowingly adding your personal opinions to this article. Yes, it is bad in this case and in ALL cases. The article is made, it doesn't "need" filler labels. It is already in good shape. This isn't a place for fan-oriented trivia.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Suggestion Why not have a next to all the ones featured in the anime but not the manga, with a footnote at the end? That'd make everyone happy wouldn't it? Dream Focus 01:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Its tantamount to the same thing - it's still original research/trivia. It's bad enough doing it in the body, doing it as a cite note is even worse. None of our featured lists have it (including Naruto lists), and they wouldn't pass with it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The only way I see this would be resolved with noting filler somehow if a reviewer happened to mention it was filler. (AKA this. By the way, that's for plain Naruto.) ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 01:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I retract what i said, i saw the WP:OR and i'm not doing original research, cause im not adding "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position" besides the term "filler" is a valid one, but if the community doesn't agree i'm willing to use the "original anime episode" or "episode not existing on the manga" even i'm wiling to add at the side of every episode name the number of their respective manga chapter ,thus the ones that hasn't a chapter number are obviosly fillers. even saying this i have to say that the term filler is a valid one.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 02:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

IMO, that's more WP:OR than noting whether the episode material is in the manga or not. And it is OR because it is an unpublished idea and unpublished synthesis of published material ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 02:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it's OR, it's applying a fan opinion and term to official content. Please do not add chapter numbers, it's completely innapropriate. As previously said, this is an anime list, and should reflect the anime. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't help your case when you continually edit war over the labels. But I've already explained at WT:ANIME#Fillers why the label are bad anyways. --Farix (Talk) 02:22, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but the term "filler" is not an opinion, and is a term that is well known among everyone, itzjustdrama just gave a link from a reviewer using this term, and we all know what it is.

I have to say that i don't think is inapropiate to put the manga episode number at the side of every anime episode name. this anime is an adaptation from a manga, so it is apropiate.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 02:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Reviewers give their opinions when writing reviews, thats just basic. It's a term created by fans, used by fans. Wikipedia is not a fansite, it's an encylopedia. Being adapted from a manga is no reason to add chapter numbers. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Dandy Sephy above. It's a list about the anime and should deal with the anime. It should not compare the content with the source material. The source material should only be mentioned to note the sourcew material. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 02:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

the filler episodes must be added because is very important information for the anime fans, i know this is a enciclopedia but who do you think that read this article??? art colectionists?? the ones that enter this article are fans!! and the fans want to know wich chapters are fillers!! is this so hard to understand? this article is for fans! and you are denying information that is very important for them, can't you see that?Starlingmaximilian (talk) 02:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm a fan of the series thanks, and I don't care either way about which ep is filler and which isn't - so please don't get upset while trying to prove your point because it won't affect my judgement as a editor. Please stop trying to base your edits on what you believe fans want, when we are not a fan orientated site. It won't convince anyone Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What about the Random article button? We are not here to guess who will read this article. What if I were a non-anime fan who, on the advice of my anime fan friend, wanted to watch Naruto: Shippuden and wanted to know how many episodes. I wouldn't care if the episodes were from the manga or not. On the other hand, I might. In addition, who are you to decide "which are filler episodes" is very important information for anime fans. I'm an anime fan and simply do not care. That's making it more important than it is (WP:UNDUE?) As I said on WT:ANIME, if they want to know which are filler, they should compare to the corresponding chapter list, which is linked in the See also section. Or they can go to a site that is actually fan oriented. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 02:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way, if they just want to see the manga animated, then I assume they read the manga. Therefore, they would know which is original to the anime just by reading the article. The episode summaries are done well enough to tell. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 03:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Is a fact that is important information, many people come here looking for the filler episode labels, you can google naruto and you will see most of the fans complaining about the fillers, but i'm nobody to tell the people if these episodes are great or are lame, but you and the other editors are denying information and that is horrible. label the episodes and let the people decide if the episode is good or bad, adding this information does not goes against an encyclopedia, remember that the term "filler" is not necesary, we can use another term.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 03:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I still believe it's not important information on an article dealing with the anime adaption. As I see it, the manga adaption could never exist and the article would barely change. So there's no point in making it deal even more with the manga series. Technically, they're separate series. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 03:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

maybe is not important to you but it is important for a lot of people visiting this article right now. It is important besides because the anime fillers has (most of the times) plot inconcistencies, i agree that the term filler is a bad one, and i don't really mind using another one, but the thing here is that labeling the anime only episodes we are adding important information for a lot of people, and the people that doesn't mind about the filler episodes will not see any harm if we label those episodes. besides if we found a proper term instead of filler we are not violating any of the wikipedia policies.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 03:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

None of these "inconsistencies" are addressed by the article (and doing so is outside the scope of the article, so that won't change), so where is the benefit in pointing this out? Additionally, Naruto is mixing "filler" with "non-filler" more and more as it goes on, how do you propose addressing this? Labelling as "filler" would be incorrect, but so would be calling them "non-filler". You are just introducing issues that don't need addressing. I'm yet to see a convincing arguement for keeping the expected page quality and staying within policy and guidelines, as well as concensus that also adds this information. You should build a convincing arguement for why this information should be added that complys with quality and standards, rather then looking for alternative terms or trying to convince us the information is useful. Information should be useful to everyone, asking people to ignore information they aren't interested in is rather questionable. In contrast, adding information that only fans would be interested in is also questionable. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

• Tried to post this earlier, but my internet went out. That isn't original research, its common sense, just like plot summaries are. You can look at the summary of manga chapters even, and do a quick comparison, to see where the group of anime only episodes come in. List_of_Gantz_episodes has a note up top indicating which episodes are anime only. No reason not to give a brief mention here, for those interested. Dream Focus 03:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I still don't see how that warrants its inclusion on an article dealing only with the anime adaptation. That reasoning would warrant the reverse: note whether the manga material shows up in the anime adaption on the chapter list. As List of Naruto chapters (Part II) deals only with the manga, this article deals only with the anime. No comparisons added. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 03:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Its about the episodes, so mentioning an important fact about them, that they were based on a manga except for certain ones, is an important fact to have. Dream Focus 03:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Theres nothing wrong with stating a reliable third party source (not a fansite) that says some episodes were not based on the manga. In fact, such a sentance should probably be in the lead anyway, providing it's backed up by a decent reference (hard to come by). It's not important or necessary to give specific episodes - at least, not in the current list (in individual season lists it may be more suitable) Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe "based on" implies the directors took liberties and the series is not a carbon copy of the manga. Then again, it only implies. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break

• It current reads "They are based on Part II of the Naruto manga series by Masashi Kishimoto". Is that information accurate? How close are the story lines for the series? Does everything that happens in Episode 1, happen in issue one of the manga? They don't always use every single line that is in the manga, but do they ever add anything, or make any real changes? Are there any reasonable objections, towards adding a sentence which states that episodes 1 through whatever, closely follow the manga, while episodes whatever to whatever, are anime only? Dream Focus 03:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as it stands it's original research. Still. No matter how many arguements about who wants what, it still fails this key point. As Original research is suitable for deletion (unverifiable through reliable sources, andWP:V is policy after all), there is no point adding it - it'll just get deleted. On a fairly high profile article like this, usually not long after it's added. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Translation: Because you and the rest of the regular Anime and manga delitionists crew, have decided something should be certain way, and are camped out here, anything someone tries to add you don't like will get reverted, so don't bother trying. Disgusting. I see the same familiar names everywhere, bullying other editors, determined to enforce what they decided on their own must be the proper way of things. If the consensus is that it isn't original research but COMMON FUCKING SENSE, then that fact can be added and kept. Its up to the interpretation of everyone, not just a handful of people who make a thousand edits a day, and spend every waking moment on the wikipedia. Dream Focus 04:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

You making bad faith generalizations does not help the matter. My interpretation is that it is original research because it relies on combining information from more than one reference. And it seems that consensus is that it is OR. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 04:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I wonder just who is the real bully here. After all, to be a bully requires the editor to be uncivil towards other. Disagreeing with another editor and countering their points is in no way, shape, or form bullying. It is what we normal people call debate. --Farix (Talk) 11:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is accurate. They have the same bare bones plot. Uses the same main characters. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 04:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Do you think is accurate just because the manga and the anime uses the same main characters? saying that is like saying that the "iron maiden" comic of evangelion and the evangelion anime has the same plot... are you really serious? do you even know what are you saying? besides is not original research if we just put a term like "non manga chapter" or something like that.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 04:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I said based because it has the same plot in addition to having the same main characters. I'm sorry if I was unclear. And yes, it is OR until referenced. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 04:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The fillers just have the same characters but not the same plot.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

So therefore it is not based on the manga (one of the points of this discussion, no?). My point was based mainly due to the same plot supported by having the same characters. I can rename and redesign every character and the fact will be: the series is based on the manga. Therefore, the sentence is accurate. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 04:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Evangelion analogy is hugely flawed. Naruto's anime is an adaption of the manga. The plot is mostly the same. Iron maiden is an alternate universe story. The characters are the same, but it doesn't follow the same plot. All you've said is that an apple is different from an orange (very different), when you mean to say that a Golden Delicious apple is different to a Granny Smith apple (almost identical, but with minor differences). Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

that analogy was flawed on purpose to make a point, i'm sorry you didn't catch it.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 04:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

"Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." - WP:OR

What we really have here are two different issues; first, whether you can state if an episode follows the manga plot without violating policy. Second, whether it is particularly relevant to the average reader. Policy-wise, common sense reasoning should tell you that unless you have a reliable source stating this information, including the information would be original research. If you find reliable sources that states this information, then we can talk about its suitability in this article. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I dont need any "reliable source" because i'm using the manga and the anime, i'm using the source itself, the sybthesis rule is for articles, not sources, please understand that rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlingmaximilian (talk • contribs) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

But such source never says its filler.Tintor2 (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If you want to go down tha tline you will need to label ever episode as filler because each episode that is repesenting the manga has stuff in it that was not in the manga to fill the epsiode otu more, if oyu can provide a realible source that states these are fillers then AMP might reconsider labeling them--Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Saying that an episode is filler is a point of view, since it's a word with negative connotations. This violates WP:NPOV, since "filler" is not neutral.

As for reliable sources, the anime, if it calls itself filler, is a reliable source. Otherwise, by comparing manga and anime and drawing a conclusion, you are conducting synthesis, which is original research.

And Andrewcrawford, sarcasm isn't helping. --Raijinili (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

How was i being sarcastic? because i can assur eyou i was not i was only making a point--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

First forget about the term filler, i agree it has negative connotations,we can use another term like "original anime plot episode" or something like that.

Second, we don't need the anime to call itself a filler, i'm using two sources to make a comparison, the rule of the synthesis apllies only with referenced articles, but this is not the case because i'm using the source itself. this also is not "advancing a point" because i'm not giving a conclusion, i'm just citing a fact, and please this is very important, making a conclusion would be original research, but in this case is about making a comparison.Starlingmaximilian (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

To make a comparison you need to eventually make a conclusion. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 21:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Read that quote again, unless the manga or the anime explicitly state that an episode is filler or that its an original story, then stating that is original synthesis. And no, the policy on original research applies to all articles on Wikipedia, lists included. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Section break 2

This is what I was able to gather from the discussion above -

• It seems that most people agree that an episode being a filler or not is an important pice of information
• Filler episodes haven't been officially mentioned by the makers or there isn't a reliable source, so it's being claimed as OR

Have I been able to follow the discussion properly so far? Or have I missed something? eZio (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that most people agree that labeling an episode as filler or not is important. All of the discussion here and at WT:ANIME says the exact opposite. --Farix (Talk) 11:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I missed the discussion at WT:ANIME. I agree, the tagging each episode with a tag will cause a lot of clutter. Although like you've already mentioned we should briefly mention the fact some of epsiodes/arcs (and which) are not based on the manga in the introduction. eZio (talk) 11:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, what about mentioning on the begining of the article wich episodes are "fillers"?Starlingmaximilian (talk) 16:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Still OR. The only important thing is to mention is that Naruto Shippuden is based on the Naruto manga.Tintor2 (talk) 19:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we can safely say that what you just said is the consensus, we can mention that its based on the Manga because its highly likely that we'll find a source saying that. Anything else, we'll need sources before we can even talk about whether or not it should be included. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please explain to me why Movie pages can have lengthy descriptions about the difference between the movie and the book on which it was based, but then with anime, we have to draw a strict line between the show/movie and the graphic-book on which it was based? You either have to allow a written description on the Season pages outlining which material was directly from the manga/ what wasn't, or you have to go to the 1000s of Movie pages and remove those descriptions. Otherwise, Wikipedia's policies are contradicting each other and are to some extent discriminatory. -- Whoa2000 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Naruto Shippuden Episodes in America

Has there been any information on whether America will make dubbed versions of Naruto Shippuden episodes on Cartoon Network? I was just wondering because there is no information on that in the article and if they do have plans on making dubbed versions I think that information should be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.31.87.211 (talk) 13:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Ask that question somewhere else. (Moon) and (Sunrise) 14:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't treating it like a fourm. I was just asking an important question that could become very useful to the article.

The way you asked the question made it seem like you were wanting to know personally, rather than to incorporate it into the article. The information is located here. モーモー^?_{talk to moo} 21:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Splitting soon?

I think this article will need to be split soon, seeing as how it's about to hit 100kb. DragonZero (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Done for first two series. The pages could use some work, but the split has been done and works Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

English volume 1

According to hulu site where episode 1 sub is below the video it says narutop shippedun volume 1 out 29/9/2009

see link for more informaTION http://www.hulu.com/watch/49599/naruto-shippuden-homecoming

remove the addition i done if no other soruce cna be found jsut thought it be best to start it since there some sor tof confirmation now--Andy Chat c 15:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hulu isn't WP:RS. I think it's telling that the major news sites aren't talking about this dvd. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

True that why i removed it, but it certainyl is weird why they owuld advertise it, it is quite possible they have been told by viz to advertise it but viz have offically annouced it yet it also would sort tie in with when the final boxs of naruto part 1 would finish, but it be interesting to see if anyoen can find a realible source for it--Andy Chat c 09:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Marking Filler vs. Not Marking Filler

I wrote this on a different (now archived) thread but received no response and would like one: " Can someone please explain to me why Movie pages can have lengthy descriptions about the difference between the movie and the book on which it was based, but then with anime, we have to draw a strict line between the show/movie and the graphic-book on which it was based? You either have to allow a written description on the Season pages outlining which material was directly from the manga/ what wasn't, or you have to go to the 1000s of Movie pages and remove those descriptions. Otherwise, Wikipedia's policies are contradicting each other and are to some extent discriminatory. -- Whoa2000 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)" -- Whoa2000 (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Find reliable sources, then we can talk about it. As no one seems capable of doing this across many different requests on many different series, dragging the discussion back up yet again isn't likely to interest anyone unless you can. And please excuse us if we get irritated about it, because there are only so many times we can say the same thing without getting irritated. Aside from ther term 'filler' being inappropriate, theres nothing wrong with saying that something was not adapted direct from the manga (in the article lead), but it needs a reliable source to do so (i.e. not random fansites). No exceptions. If it's not supported by reliable sources it shouldn't be in the article anyway. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but you ignored my main question. What about the 1000s of American movies with articles on this site that include sections about the differences between their content and the books on which they were based. From what I can tell, most of those descriptions have no 3rd party source beyond the content of the book/movie. Do those relevant sections need to be deleted? --Whoa2000 (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

If they are not sourced to reliable, third-party sources yes. Otherwise it is purely WP:OR and against Wikipedia guidelines and policies. None of the articles are quality articles, and many articles are imperfect, so yes, "other stuff exists, but that isn't a valid reason to continue perpetuating errors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely they can be cited to the book/manga/comic and movie/tv epsiode? i have used the cite episode at least not for that but for showing wher ethe information abotu certain thing have came from. maybe that the way to sort this type of thing? this is not me suggesting adding a filler tag, just a way that maybe how to give a sources to this type of thing.--Andy (talk - contrib) 13:15, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they can not be, as you are basically making a comparison between them to draw a conclusion, which is considered synthesis. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough :) i would have thought that since you are saying wher ethe informaiton comes from then you are just making point of differences between them, not neccessarily making conculusions that would be up to the end user.--Andy (talk - contrib) 15:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Theres also the derogatory nature of the term, which would cause POV issues. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

True that why i said i dnt want to see them marked as filler but i was more suggesting something in the lead which explains the differences between the manga and anime adpation, using the manga and episode as citation points, but only breifly meantion it, and was just wondering if that idea of the manga and epsiode ciation might solve some of the other articles that do simialr thigns as meantion above. (granted i never suggested above how to put it in just was wondering about the ciation as far as i can tell they would be reaible the episode and the manga)--Andy (talk - contrib) 16:16, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

After Episode Specials

How do you call those small mini specials that are often there after the episodes. We also see them in between in one hour episodes. How are those called? Can there be a list of them?

Thank You. 99.199.239.46 (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Are they omake? No, a list of them isn't necessary, just a brief mention in the lead would be all that is needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Method

Is there another way to do or modify the plot/arc description since this is a rediculous way to keep it,I know restoring it back to the way it was is unexceptable to many others, but there has got to be another way to put this together. Is there anyone who has the time and creative ability to add or make a new arc area? If not a new area but try to modify the current one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.171 (talk) 06:48, August 4, 2007 (UTC)

Vandalist!

IP adress: 76.117.82.166

Please deal this problem quickly. Thank you! (I already repaired the damage done by reversing to the newest correct version of the page)

(I apologize but I do not know how to mark this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nice piano player (talk • contribs) 15:49, November 4, 2008 (UTC)

Episodie 132 - Title

Since in Japanese, the episode is called "Pein Rikudō, kenzan", instead of "Meeting the Six Paths of Pain" wouldn't "The Six Paths of Pain, meeting" or "The six paths of Pain, encounter" be more faithful translations?

Geodefender (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We should use whatever the official viz/crunchyroll streams will use when it airs. No point worrying about such a minor detail now. Dandy Sephy (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, because "The Six Paths of Pain, Meeting" makes no sense in English. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 14:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, we'll wait for it to air then. Thanks.

Geodefender (talk) 18:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources for English dates

It seems this happens with almost all the anime that air in North America. The English dates of the episodes are needing a reliable source. The Viz site only shows the episodes titles and not the dates.Tintor2 (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

toonzone schedules has them lsited--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sei wa Sarutobi, Na wa Konohamaru

Why is the translation backwards? seems totally wikipedia....can't one thing be correct on the site please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.176.244.208 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Season 9?

Could someone please clarify on what grounds was a season 9 created? What's the source for episodes 176 onward being a new season? -- Geodefender (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2010 (UTC) kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

If the split is unsourced it should be reverted. Anyone? -- Geodefender (talk) 10:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Agree. There's no sources that proves the existence of a season 9. We already had the same problem with Bleach.Tintor2 (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2010 (UTC)kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Yes, I remember (we were the ones who discussed it at the time, BTW). Could someone please take care of the necessary corrections? -- Geodefender (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

Just pattern recognition, basically. The start of a new arc is generally when the DVD titles change, and ending with 175 would make the total amount of episodes in season 8 be divisible by 4, meaning it would fit at the end of a DVD. But you're right, there's no real source for it yet; this is just the first time anyone has ever brought the issue up. If you want the two articles to be combined again, that's fine. Geg (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)fsedbfhbeskjdbfkhgweskhebfjgeshbhfgshghse

I understand. Since we have no real source for establishing if season 9 starts with episode 176, 180 or another, I've combined the two articles and made the necessary changes (removed season 9 from the template and from the main article, moved ep. 176-180 to season 8 and turned season 9 into a redirect). If I've overlooked something or made any mistakes, please go ahead and fix them. Until the DVDs come out let's leave it at that. -- Geodefender (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

and just throwing it out there, it should be noted that this is the most boring and shi**iest arc or season ever. lol jk i know you cant put that.

but still am i the only who thinks that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.235.82 (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You are not. What's the count on Kekashi's Bells flashbacks? Over 9000. 72.193.68.184 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

English air date updation

Guys I know we are all interested in the Japanese version of the show but we gotta update the English air dates I guess they have already aired till episode 112. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultrasigma63 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. According to this source, the list mainly is okay. There is no other reliable source that says another thing.Tintor2 (talk) 15:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But if they have only aired till 97th episode how come sites have till 112th ep that are English dub. Like this one[User:Ultrasigma63|Ultrasigma63] (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)]

Removed link per copyright violations. The episodes are released earlier in DVDs.Tintor2 (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok.But if they are released then they should be mentioned in the article Ultrasigma63 (talk) 17:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

they are meantion look at the dvd section it meantiosn what hsa been released on dvd uncut which aint wha ton tv--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

i guess now's the time to update them[[[User:Ultrasigma63|Ultrasigma63]] (talk) 18:53, 19 November 2011(UTC)]

GUYS NOW ITS 2012 AND THE NARUTO SHIPPUDEN HAS UP TO 150 EPISODE IN ENGLISH DUBBED NOW WE JUST NEED TO WAIT 3 MORE YEARS FOR ALL TO COME OUT ON ENGLISH DUBBED PLUS I CANT WAIT FOR THAT TO HAPPEN AND IF YOU LIKE NARUTO STAR WATCHING FROM EPISODE 150 ITS AWESOME OR START FROM 40 OR 41 UP OKAY GUYS TILL NEXT TIME POSTED 8/28/12 I REALLY WANT NARUTO TO COME OUT IN ENGLISH DUBBED BECAUSE I CAN'T STAND JAPANEAES LANGUAGE

no because they have not aired, the dvd section meantiosn what episodes are on the dvd box sets that all that is required--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 19:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Moreover, adding dates without reliable source is just original research.Tintor2 (talk) 02:22, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

English dubbed

Can some one tell me where to find naruto shippuden episodes in English dubbed cause I haven't watch any since the first season I notice one this page that there are English air dates but yet I can't find any......??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emj918 (talk • contribs) 02:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

The "New Episodes" were revealed for July 2013, but I believe them to be fake. First of all, why would the episode be called "Uchiha Madara". Viz Media would definitely call it "Madara Uchiha." Second, there are no citations, so there is no proof that these episodes actually exist. They could be real, but I doubt it. July 2013 MAY have a couple canon episodes, but it's not likely. That is all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kuzer1000 (talk • contribs) 13:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User Mrdonsalvatore does nothing but to vandalize articles. Can someone block him/her? 179.210.50.238 (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the titles Mrdonsalvatore added were all fake. By sheer coincidence though, the new canon episode titles were posted on 2ch today: [9] [10] [11] Geg (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Just saw it. I just find it very childish to vandalize articles over something like that. If that user acts like a child, it should be treated as a child, and promptly punished. 179.210.50.238 (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Seasons 14 & 15

Seasons 14 & 15 are the same, unsure how to fix or undo. I'm just notifying there is a mistake.

Richie — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaliphV3` (talk • contribs) 19:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

sources of seasons and episodes

what is the source this page has been using for the future names and airdates of the episodes as well as which seasons contain which episodes?For death and glory (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

UNDO EDIT?

Can someone undo edit on https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/705299754

Adziruki (talk) 19:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Adziruki, in the future, you can undo an edit like that yourself! See WP:UNDO. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 19:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Episode names

Could someone confirm that every episode name provided on the page (the english translation) is the correct and accurate translation of the episode titles? --81.129.238.248 (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The translations came from Viz Media via Crunchyroll's simulcast. —Farix (t | c) 20:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Does that mean that the translations provided on the article are 100% official and correct? --81.129.238.248 (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

It means that they are reliable translations. —Farix (t | c) 01:59, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --86.139.67.148 (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Season 20 table missing

The season 20 table has disappeared from this page, despite nothing being changed on the main article itself. The table is still there in source, but it doesn't appear. --194.35.219.95 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Correction: It appears to have loaded itself under the Movies heading. --194.35.219.95 (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing the Naruto pages.

I just had to spend an hour undoing alot of damage to the Naruto Episodes pages. I will be monitoring this daily to ensure that everything stays the way it should. People shouldn't have false info shoved at them

I was asked to explain the issue. Well here it is. I have relied on this site to let me know when the next set of episodes come out for Naruto Shippuden english dubbed. So I have visited this page a lot. They release ten to twelve episodes every ten weeks, which started January of 2016. Today, when I visited this site to confirm that July 4th was my next day to watch the next set, I noticed that all the dates on the episodes, starting with the episodes that aired on January 26, 2016 had been changed. They were now listed in week intervals, which wasn't accurate at all, because I caught each set the day they were released. So I spent an hour, using my secondary source and memory to get all the episodes back to the dates they are supposed to be. I beg that this page, and every season page of Naruto are made protected except for a few that monitior the series and can make sure the next dates get added when they are announced. LordShozin (talk) 03:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordShozin (talk • contribs) 01:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC) 

Please explain the issue and the fellow editors might come to help LordShozin. We could request for this page to be protected if it is often vandalized. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@LordShozin: What are the sources for the air dates? No dates after November 5, 2011 have been cited to a reliable source and are therefore subject to challenge. If you want to assert that your dates are correct, then you need to provide a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 03:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The Source is Fandom, Naruto Wikia. I know it sounds fishy, but that site has its Naruto pages monitored 24 hours a day to make sure bad changes do not happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordShozin (talk • contribs) 03:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

These would not qualify as reliable sources. If reliable sources are not cited, then all air dates after November 5, 2011 may be removed. —Farix (t | c) 03:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

So apparently, everything after September 26, 2015 is a DVD release. We don't count DVD releases as air dates nor include them in the episode lists. (1, 2, 3) Therefore, I will be stripping the DVD release dates from the episode lists. —Farix (t | c) 11:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Then I will have to just change the pages to list DVD Release instead of Air Date. LordShozin (talk) 23:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Please don't. We don't treat DVD release dates as if they are air dates. We don't do this with any other television series, and there is no reason for this list to be an exception. Besides, there is already a section that includes the DVD releases on the list. —Farix (t | c) 23:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we get English Dub release dates back please. Otherwise, this page is incomplete. - Everyone.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2018

Please change the box set edit, Volume 34 will be released on May 1st, 2018 on USA, and those from Australia were released on December last year and March of this year. Sinedd (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

|- ! scope="row" | 32 | December 6, 2017 || 2 || 388–401 || |} |- ! scope="row" | 33 | March 7, 2018 || 2 || 416–430 || |}

References

Updating the Episode Listing Chart

Add the English release dates up through episode 458. All English release dates up to 458 are easily found on Viz Media’s website. No reason this chart should have been left without updates for almost two years. Even the DVD box set section has the English releases listed through 458.

M0283d (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to air dates or release dates? All DVD release dates are listed in the home video section. All air dates for both Japanese and English broadcasts are listed on the episode tables. I'll note that episode 312 was the last episode aired in English at this time. That is why there are no English air dates listed after that episode. —Farix (t | c) 19:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)