Talk:Naruto Uzumaki

Real life statue

@1989: @Flowerpiep: Apparently, Tetsuya Nishio's design inspired a life size statue of Naruto in his Part II form. Anybody thinks this is worth encyclopedic material? Source is here. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:47, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Deserves a mention in Naruto Uzumaki#Popularity for sure IMO Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 06:37, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Unnecessary details

While this article is pretty good, it contains many statements that sounds like trivias, out of context, unrelated to previous sentences or speech, and irrilevant.This is especially serious in Creation and conception; the section has to talk about, well, the creation and the conception of Naruto character, that's all. It must not go into unnecessary details on what the author's opinion is, if it has no place in the paragraph and relevance for the production.

1. "Although Yahagi was not Kishimoto's editor for the entire serialization, he knew how the story was planned to show Naruto's coming-of-age through multiple fights and looked forward to seeing the conclusion". Not so bad, but the last part is quite superflous.
2. "Kishimoto's first editor, Kosuke Yahagi, praised the author for the way he handled Naruto's parents and his heritage". Does it matter?
3. "By 2013 when the series was reaching its climax, Kishimoto told the readers to look forward to the final fight between the two characters".
4. "Out of all the student-teacher relationships Kishimoto has created in the Naruto series, the bond between Naruto and Jiraiya is his favorite, noting that it makes drawing them "worthwhile"."
5. "Instead of having the protagonist kill the enemy he hates as happens in other series, Kishimoto found the idea of the two characters interacting and settling their differences more challenging"
6. "Of all his series' characters, Kishimoto most identified with Naruto". Meh.

In Design the sentence "Kishimoto apologized to the anime staff for Naruto's design, as he considered it too difficult to animate" must be a little reworded or deleted, since it's not so essential. Not so serious, through; you can rewrite it better.

1. "Nine years after first voicing the character, while still finding it tough to voice Naruto, Takeuchi's opinion of him changed with her feeling he was "a very reliable young man. She admired his ability to prioritize and calmly make important decisions, and believes these traits will inspire viewers worldwide". Is this info, especially the last sentence, encyclopedic? Does it matter, too?

The most critic section is "Critical reception".

1. "Naruto's character was analyzed by GameSpot's Joe Dodson who noted that despite having an "ideal" life, he still suffered from severe isolation"
2. "A study which looked at if readers could predict character types based on physical cues regarded Naruto as an ENFP (Myers-Briggs) character type, impulsive and spontaneous, finding a foil in the ISTJ-type Sasuke."
3. "Writing for Popular Culture in Counseling, Psychotherapy, and Play-Based Interventions, Lawrence Rubin states that while Naruto has an optimistic and hyperactive personality,….the type who accidentally becomes better during a series and is able to build or restore peace".
4. "Christopher A. Born, writing for DOAJ journal ASIANetwork Exchange, regards Naruto as a complex post-modern hero, ...and that Naruto himself unsettles harmony in society"
5. "Amy Plumb, a PhD candidate at Macquarie University, states that Kishimoto used the mythology of the kitsune for Naruto's development … Plumb describes the Kyuubi (Demon) seal on Naruto's stomach as a catalyst for how he develops". (BTW: quite obvious and apodictic)
6. "Franziska Ehmcke, professor of Japanese studies at Cologne University, theorized that Naruto was named after whirlpools of the sea landscape of the Awa no Naruto, and compared his behavior to that natural feature, as both figures have uncontrollable energy within them". Uhm?

These long, very long sentences do not speak of Reception. Reception is reception; analyses are analyses. They must be moved to a new section, something like Characterizations and themes. Are the files on the maelstrom and the information on the spirals really encyclopedic or informative, anyway? --TeenAngels1234 (talk) 10:49, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

@1989: Pinging. I don't know about this. Some of these comments from the early posts you made are mentioned again like how Naruto and Sasuke's final battle ends with two suffering major wounds while interacting something like Kishimoto stated it was done in the same way as how Naruto confronted Nagato's ideals. The mention of Kishimoto's editors make sense since they are never mentioned again but the analysis is something that has been asked ever since the FA review in order to provide further commentary on the character. Nevertheless, I tried rewriting some parts based on your comments TeenAngels1234Tintor2 (talk) 01:07, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234: It's been so long since I've seen these sources that I don't remember them. The part about Naruto's heritage (I think) it involves how the designs were altered to make Naruto look like his mother in facial expressions while he had his father's hair. The thing with Naruto's ideals is that it involves his pacifism when dealing with his master's wishes involving how war affected his close people so it could reworded the other way. I really don't know the scholars sources since I didn't add them but I believe it was a bit rushed as it was one of the first articles from the anime and manga project to be FA. Naruto and Sasuske's final fight was written from the beginning apparently as the author aimed for them just to punch each other for dozens of pages like the famous boxing series Ashita no Joe and the wounds they is an exaggerated way to make their bloods connect each other rather than make contact.

Feel free to rearrange anything since 1989 has been absent for a while. Recently I've searching too for Boruto's analysis from scholars and there were two from different universes who studied the handling of the adult Naruto that could be added here. I haven't edited characters articles in a while but when I created Thorfinn (Vinland Saga) I tried separating the author's comments from third party sources in order to establish well the notability in the reception section. The previous attempt of combining sources in characterization and themes almost led to Syaoran (Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle) being deleted so I had to rearrange the sources there. Same with X (Mega Man) which you reviewed. Chers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2021

Naruto was added to Fortnite Battle Royale in November of 2021, as an item shop outfit. 24.38.215.44 (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Somebody already added the Fortnite information in other media. Don't know if we should be more specific in regards to what he does it would count as wp:fancrut.Tintor2 (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2021

Please change the less descriptive alt on the infobox to this:

"There are three Naruto Uzumakis, each differentiated by age wearing an orange jumpsuit while the adult design also wears a white cape with red flames at the bottom of it. For the Part I design, Naruto is smiling doing his signature clone hand seal by making a ‘plus' sign using the index and middle finger on each hand. For the Part II design, Naruto is leaning on top of young Narutos head with both arms while smiling and winking. For adult, Naruto has his hands on his teens self shoulders while smiling." 2603:301D:22B2:4000:BD0E:67B7:BEB6:9CC6 (talk) 22:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

That sounds way too detailed. How about "The three incarnations of the character Naruto Uzumaki together. They include the child at the bottom, the teenager in the middle, and the adult at the top"?Tintor2 (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I guess that's fine. Also, on "manga and anime franchise Naruto", Naruto is supposed to be in italics. --2603:301D:22B2:4000:BD0E:67B7:BEB6:9CC6 (talk) 00:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I have internet issues. We'll have to leave to another editor. Also, since the primary media is the manga, the anime mention must be removed since Kishimoto didn't create it.Tintor2 (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 10:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 13:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Naruto's Powers, Skills, and Abilities

Hey guys, should we put some descriptions of Naruto's abilities, not just only him, but also for other characters from Naruto? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aaeliaba (talk • contribs) 17:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Why would we list off other characters abilities on the Naruto character article? Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Pre-Far note

At the reception, we have a combat sub-section that talks about combat and the final fight, but in the cultural impact, it also has a final fight content? + All "ANN" should be spelled out into "Anime News Network"" + The prose that is written for citation 160 is inscrutable + The cultural impact sections need to be checked since there are some contents that are completely irrelevant and/or are not reception at all + There are a lot of websites from citations doesn't have an author + Ref 26 is poorly sourced + Usage of unreliable sources + I would also make sure to italicize game and film titles in the citation titles per MOS:CONFORMTITLE. It might also be disappointing in the future if this article isn't FA anymore. This article is now listed at Wikipedia:Featured article review/notices given. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I went bold and cut most reviews. I know the Resident Evil articles you made FA don't rely that much on third party sources but I'm afraid of removing more since there are lots of comments from scholars about the character. Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether deleting it completely improves Tintor. I didn't say that you should eliminate it; rather, I said that it should be consistent in where all of the battle and final fight discussions are placed. Additionally, the article is mostly cited with primary sources rn. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Ref 58, 61, 182, 183, 184 seems to be unreliable. Is ref 118 is a thing? + The ref 143 (The Washington) doesn't have article? +The article is relying mostly at primary sources rn and prose at the reception section isn't FA quality. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

In what way is Pitchfork an unreliable source? Numerous music articles including FAs reference them all the time. 1989 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably mistaken it a different source, strucked it. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

BTW, when talking about the creative process, if there isn’t much translated secondary sources, as keep in mind, the origins of the series is Japanese, primary sources that are translated officially are going to be used. That should not be our fault. 1989 (talk) 15:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, if you can maybe spot other sources; you can use it instead of primary. At the end, the prose matters either way. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Why is 61 considered unreliable? It’s a podcast interview with the Naruto and Boruto voice actors of the characters. 1989 (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Tbh, some fac reviewers pointed that kind of source as unreliable to other fac nominations when we're using random website or youtube as a source, even though it is a podcast interview; they see it as unreliable. But for now, let it stay as is. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 15:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I switched the source in 182 to a more reliable one. 1989 (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

The Kidzworld source has been removed, and 143 has been fixed. 184 was present when it first became FA and it was never brought up during the nomination, and looking at the source, I see nothing wrong. 1989 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

There are still some game or film titles that aren't italicized yet + some citations doesn't have authors + ref 128 is unreliable + replace the source of ref 125 and 129 + some websites from citation aren't italicized yet, and possibly more. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 16:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

125 and 128 were also present back then, however I added another source to the latter to for more support. 129 is fixed, resolving formatting and missing author issues are a work in progress. 1989 (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)