Should we keep the name or change it to Super Beast Imitating Drawing: Lion-Dogs?--Rinnegan 4th Six Paths (talk) 09:56, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

How about NOT rushing things and actually searching official Japanese names and not translating from English to Japanese with Card Game techniques? For Pete's sake, you're as bad as Paladin was...
Also, no, I don't think we should rename this. --JouXIII (talk) 10:17, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
The name I got was from here by Omnibender. Look under Ultimate Ninja 5. By the way, your attitude towards me is not helping at all.--Rinnegan 4th Six Paths (talk) 10:37, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
Since there's multiple dogs rather than just 1, i support the name change. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 10:47, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
This is yet another instance of users equating a game technique to anime/manga techniques. Really wish that would stop. --Sajuuk 10:50, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
This is so stupid. Why this many random jutsu were made, again? It's literally the same as us making "Shadow Clone: 1 Clone", "Shadow Clone: 2 Clones" jutsu, etc. Call it a "Flapping Chidori Theory" if you will...--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 10:55, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that another user (4th Six Paths) has gone around the wiki and turned all the techniques that appear just in the video games into techniques that he "claims" are the same as those in the anime/manga. This is basically him making loads of pages "fanon" and the pages should be reverted to before his edits. The pages should stay though, since they will probably have some difference between the game and anime/manga. --Sajuuk 11:10, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
The problem is: Most of the pages he created aren't even from the video games; They're from the card game. The source of the kanji is a mystery and the jutsu have literally nothing to differentiate themselves from the original jutsu, for them to have their own separate page.--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 11:12, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
If the pages are sourced from TCG, then I agree in their deletion. Especially as he probably can't even confirm any of the data on them. I'm surprised nobody caught this sooner, but at least it's getting sorted now... --Sajuuk 11:14, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
^^. And before someone comes up with an excuse by comparing it to Coercion Sharingan; At least that jutsu has a different approach to it. Sai's jutsu and Deidara's jutsu have literally nothing different than Super Beast Imitating Drawing and C1...--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 11:15, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
So you're saying there's no differences, but you tagged multiple articles like Ink fish which is immune to water, unlike it's parent technique. That's a pretty noticeable difference. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 11:18, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
Water-resistant ink is a thing. Either ways, that can easily be mentioned in the trivia, which it was before the articles were created.--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 11:28, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
Neh. Can easily be mention on the new articles. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 11:36, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
So we're going to ignore the facts that the names are without a source when it comes to kanji and the attacks are literally the same in both function and aesthetics, aside from some using different ink than others? Please tell me I'm having a nightmare... :/--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 11:48, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
[1],[2],[3],[4]. Well ink fish/snake/dragon/bat are stronger than it's parent technique in terms of what they are weak against, and there're possibly made from a different source than it's parent technique. Ink Theory>Flapping Chidori Theory --Sarutobii2 (talk) 11:59, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

@Omo, why add deletion tags? Anyways, these techniques have different names which make them different :p Your shadow clone example is crap since they were never named as Shadow Clone:1,2,3,4 etc. Munchvtec (talk) 16:35, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

I support the rename only if the jutsu actually looks the same, since the Lion-Dog name came first. Of course, we'd still keep the Wild Lion name from UNS2 in the infobox as alternative name. Omnibender - Talk - Contributions 17:17, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
@Munch: I was speaking metaphorically... What names? I thought that it was decided ages ago that we would limit the use of card game information; Otherwise, we might as well add everything provided in them to our articles <-- sarcasm. The waterproof ink is, at best, trivia worthy, everything else is too much alike for us to have articles for... So let's say like this: Super Beast Imitating Drawing can create any sort of creature using ink, but Ink Leech can only create an ink leech. How is that relevant to have its own page when the exact functions for them are literally the same? The idea of making video game techniques canon has gone overboard and I wish Elve would step in since he was so against that the first time this started...--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 18:56, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
How would Elve stepping in change anything Berserk? --Rai 水 (talk) 19:02, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
Decisions can change and elve stepping in would change nothing. Munchvtec (talk) 19:05, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
'Cause I'm too lazy to deal with this, and it's clearly becoming an issue.. We went from "No Game into canon" to "Exact game into canon" into "Similar into canon". What's next? "Sounds about right into canon"?--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 19:05, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
We should probably start keeping track and adding info from the card game. When you look up Narutopedia it says we have info on action figures, collectables etc. Do we? Munchvtec (talk) 19:08, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm all for deleting the page Ink Leech as it doesn't provide any significant info. --Rai 水 (talk) 19:18, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

None of them do. How different is C1 from Explosive Clay: Twin Birds. One creates a bird, and the other *gasp* Two birds *gasp*... Geez...--BerserkerPhantom (talk) 19:27, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
C1 is the technique overall. I mean the Super God Imitating Drawing gets a page and it still comes from the parent technique, does it not? As for the Flapping Chidori arguement I couod've gotten its own page, among other things. People just wanted to lessen the amount of pages for variants apparently. --Rai 水 (talk) 19:30, April 10, 2016 (UTC)
The way it is currently, is a lot more informative than how it was before with restricting information into just a image description. Also agree with Rachin about Ink Leech. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 02:22, April 11, 2016 (UTC)