Narutopedia
Advertisement

Hmm, add Samehada to user list..? or kisame (Samehada)? Simant (talk) 18:20, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Zetsu be added too? He can use the Spore Technique to absorb someone's chakra and transfer it to another person. MangekyouFreak96 (talk) 02:50, October 16, 2009 (UTC)MangekyouFreak96

Chiyo

I think Chiyo used this on Naruto to use his chakra to finish her technique. Jules R. J. Blake (talk) 01:46, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Can you use the chakra you absorb? Just checking . . . cause you would think that different types of people produce different types of chakra, and mixing them would be hazardous/deadly. I think you can, but I want to know if theres any information in later volumes backing up my theory

ShieldmaidenI live by honor and die like a warrior 13:55, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

Databook

Is there a databook reference for this? How do we know it's Hiden? Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 23:58, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

That's a very good question. This technique has never even been given an article in the databooks. It seems to be a mere special ability, not even an actual technique or kekkei genkai. --ShounenSuki (talk | contribs | translations) 00:07, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Jutsu type

Since the list of jutsu that absorb chakra keeps growing, it might be a good idea to convert this page to the format of a Category:Jutsu Type. SimAnt 20:22, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. ~SnapperTo 20:48, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Does this mean we're going to have to call this chakra kyūin jutsu to fit in with the other jutsu types? Because I think using jikūkan ninjutsu is already pushing the limits of understandability...
Perhaps we can alter our naming policy a bit. Call primary and secondary jutsu types by their Japanese names (e.g. ninjutsu, hiden) and call tertiary types by their translations (e.g. space-time ninjutsu). —ShounenSuki (talk | contribs | translations) 20:58, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Tensei ninjutsu too. ~SnapperTo 21:01, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

See Also

I think there are too many links in the See Also section. The links are as long as the article itself. -- Fmakck - Talk - Contributions 21:03, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

don't really think there's anything to that if the articles are related. It's kind of a way for people to have quick links to similar articles me thinks --Cerez365 (talk) 21:04, January 2, 2011 (UTC)
Advertisement