Ad blocker interference detected!
Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers
Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.
This Forum has been archivedVisit the new Forums
|Forums: Index → Narutopedia Discussion → Unnamed jutsu||Post|
Note: This topic has been unedited for 756 days. It is considered archived - the discussion is over. Do not add to unless it really needs a response.
There are quite a number of jutsu that have never been officially named. Right now, many of these are listed under fan-created names. Wouldn't it be handy if there was some sort of naming convention for these jutsu?
- Chiming in. So far, if a technique doesn't have a name, we take what we see it do and simply name the article it with the necessary (unnamed) in the Name: section, such as Kakashi's Lightning Hound. Personally some sort of major convention would be far to confusing when a simple observance would suffice--TheUltimate3 14:06, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I just wanted it cleared up a bit. Right now, there are unnamed techniques with entirely fan-made names, both English and Japanese. I thought that, to avoid confusion, a convention would be in order.
- Example 1: the jutsu should be listed under an English name that describes in a way what the jutsu does. In the "name" section of the article, it should be noted that the jutsu doesn't have an official name. The temporary English name should not be translated into Japanese to avoid confusion.
- Article title: Lightning Hound Name: Unnamed
- Example 2: the jutsu should be listed under [user]'s unnamed [simple description] jutsu.
- Article title: Kakashi's unnamed Lightning Release jutsu Name: Unnamed
- --ShounenSuki 15:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- Which makes sense. If we don't know the name no Japanese or English name should be given. "Kakashi's unnamed Lighting Release Technique" is to be honest, overly long when the much shorter "Lighting Hound" would suffice. In the article, in the Name section as I said would be along the lines of Unnamed. When someone makes a name out of their ass thats reason enough to question it. But if we can determine what a technique is by looking at it, like again, Lighting Hound. EDIT: I've been awake to long...
- If you don't want to read what I just typed TL;DR version of it is: The first Example you used, is the way we've been doing it forever, and it has worked. When people make up names with no source to back it up, then we usually turned it back to Example 1.--16:16, 9 January 2009 (UTC)