Talk:Itachi Uchiha/Archive 1

Fixing

I have rephrased several sentences throughout the article to make it seem cleaner. However, I still don't feel that there is enough information to warrant an article on Itachi. Most of his article, I believe, is already explained in the Sasuke, Sharingan, and Orochimaru pages. Granted that with the current arc, more developments should lead to the expansion of an Itachi article. But until then, I feel that it would be more beneficial for his profile to remain on the Akatsuki page.He shouldn't have an article without any other akatsuki he should syay with the akatsuki page.

With the article reconstruction going on, Itachi's article fits right in. It's no longer plot-dependent; now it depends on his character, background, and abilities. Heck... He's already shown more character, background, and abilities than has Tenten, and she gets her own page for being a semi-regular. You Can't See Me! 05:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Though maybe you could add a little about what he has done in the manga/anime, because most pages have that. 24.229.191.54 19:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont think that's gonna happen. We've been moving away from plot summaries in Naruto character articles, with the reasoning that all that can be found in the Plot articles. Most of the articles that still have pllot summaries are pretty bloated. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 22:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a few fixes are needed though like, Viz's translations for jutsus aren't needed. Good job though makes me want to write another article now (haven't done much of anything lately becuase of my girlfriend).Sam ov the blue sand 22:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the plot summary part that was there because apparently we're going away from doing that. I also am going to put back the Mangekyo Sharingan picture, because of both every Mangekyo Sharingan is unique, and because it is the basis from which his most powerful techniques are used and increases his other techniques' power. Artist formerly Known As Whocares 10:09 (Eastern Standard Time); 30 May, 2007.

I also feel that Itachi should not get his own article, seeing as several other characters should get their own articles as well, I mean Kisame, Deidara and Sasori all have just as much information as Itachi, so shoulnt they too get their own articles? TwistedMarionette 21:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot Overview

Can you please stop putting plot overviews on Itachi's article? We've already agreed not to use any more plot summaries for articles and just leave that for the Naruto and Shippuden Plot articles. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 15:05 (Eastern Standard Time); 31 May, 2007.

Is it really hurting anyone though? And I think they meant detailing every little thing they do. Plot overviews make the artical more... informative? 24.229.191.54 19:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We decided that a section on plot could exist so long as it a) didn't become most of the article, b) didn't go into deep detail, and c) only dealt with the long-running plots. Itachi's plot overview has got all three going for him. ~SnapperTo 19:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I didn't know as such. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:36 (Eastern Standard Time); 31 May, 2007.

Not that it matters, but why exactly was the Plot of Naruto: Shippuden taken down? I mean even though it was just a summary it helped those of us with crappy computers that won't download the danged chapters. Only thing there is thats left is the chapter list, but there isn't a plot listing for the latest chapters. {{Tfd-inline|Unsigned3}}—The preceding comment is by 172.165.158.11 (talk • contribs) 172.165.158.11: Please sign your posts!

Problems?

He is categorized as a mass murderer and murderer? Interesting, his case is similar to that of Zabuza and Sasori, which ended in removing their mass cats. Also, would Itachi be notable enough to be categorized in Category:Fictional characters who can duplicate themselves? Lord Sesshomaru

Not as notable as Naruto and Kakashi, are they included?

Went and checked. As they're included I'd say, yes, along with any other major characters who use kage bunshin. Cherries Jubilee 12:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Kage bunshin"? What the hell is that? Is Itachi a murderer or mass murderer? He should not have both cats. Lord Sesshomaru

"Kage Bunshin" = "Shadow Clone" in Japanese. And I removed one of the categories the other day; thought you would have noticed. ~SnapperTo 02:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, I wasn't looking at the article correctly this time. And the clone cat. should be placed there too you think? Lord Sesshomaru

I have no strong opinion when it comes to the fictional abilities categories. Most characters are able to duplicate themselves in some way, so Itachi's ability to do so is hardly unique. ~SnapperTo 02:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the way he does it is rather unique — he can make his clone blow-up, which in turn can kill the opponent. Would you object still if I placed it? Lord Sesshomaru

I had no intention of objecting in the first place. Do as you wish. ~SnapperTo 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

About the category change[1], is it even implied that he is a mass murderer in the series? More so than any other Naruto character? Lord Sesshomaru

A mass murderer is someone who murders multiple people in a short period of time. Itachi killed all but one member of the Uchiha clan in a single night for no real reason. Other characters lack the same number of kills in a single instance, or they lack the qualifier of "murder". ~SnapperTo 00:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Understandable. So Itachi killed more people than Zabuza. Lord Sesshomaru

... at once... that we know of. Yes. Besides, Zabuza's already categorized as an assassin. ~SnapperTo 00:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Zabuza killed the entire academy at/after his Genin exam, could be mistaken though. - Alex 'phoenix' Wing 14:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

it is also widely assumed itachi is the strongest charecter to date DuKeOfMiLfOrD

My thing is, there would have been more students in the acadamy than in the Uchiha Clan. So wouldn't that give Zabuza a high head count? And though Itachi is strong, I don't think he is the Strongest character, thats the first time I have herd that statement.FairyFabulous 19:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Itachi is probably the srongest character he and Kisame fought against 4 jounin and Naruto was no match for him then and probably no match now, however one of the legendary sannin might be able to defeat him who knows, and as for who is a bigger mass murder Itachi or Zabuza the answer is Zabuza he killed more people then Itachi ever did before he died and since hes an assasin probably many more before that. AndrejP 22:28, 17 August 2007

Picture of younger Itachi

I think a younger picture of Itachi is a good idea. I mean, what if someone new to Naruto can't figure out who it is (though I doubt that will happen). And he doesn't look exactly the same, he has longer hair now (I think) and he wears the Akatsuki cloak when he used to wear the ANBU clothes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zeyh-chan (talk • contribs) 22:16, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

If it isn't too much to ask, can we add a picture of Itachi from around the time he killed the Uchiha Clan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.3.226 (talk)

It's not really necessary, and he looks no different. ~SnapperTo 21:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

yeah he just looks like how he looks now but...shorter...yeah....--go akatsuki! 19:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

if itachi get his own artical sasori,kisame,and deidara should 2.74.71.109.253 15:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Itachi get an article and Deidara dosent?

Deidara has done at least twice as much as Itachi has pluse with the newest chapters he is like a majoy chareter now

24.176.161.51 00:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Put that on the Akatsuki page. I tried to get him an artical. Didn't work. 24.229.191.54 11:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

It is true that Deidara has done more than Itachi, but Itachi has conflict between two of the main characters, both Naruto and Sasuke, and appeared ealier in the show. I'm sure deidara will get a article sooner or later. AndrejP 21:52, 17 August 2007

Deidara should get his own article. Itachi is hardly even a main character and is rarely seen. I don't think Itachi even disserved his own article.

Wrong, think of it this way, if Itachi didn't kill Uchiha, Sasuke would be normal, we would not have devoted his life to revenge, so Naruto wouldn't be so crazy over him. I'd go to far to say that Itachi is the most important character that isn't in Team 7. MasqueradeOfLies 10:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Itachi is a major antagonist. He deserves a separate article as much as Orochimaru. --Omega Said 21:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Age at Shisui's death.

To answer Snapper2's question in the edit history, it is never explicitly stated how old Itachi was when Shisui died. However, er know it was half a year after Sasuke entered the Academy (he had just received his rapport card for his first semester) and we know Sasuke entered the Academy half a year after Itachi became a chuunin.
We know Itachi became a chuunin at age 10, so this would make his age at Shisui's death 10 + 0,5 + 0,5 = 11 years.
--JadziaLover 19:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

So his age is never explicitly stated? Then where did the age of 13 come from? ~SnapperTo 01:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Kakashi said that Itachi became a squad leader in the ANBU at 13. --JadziaLover 12:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was looking in the wrong battle then. So, since it's true, how to fit it into the article? ~SnapperTo 18:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

But Itachi was already an ANBU captain, as just a few weeks after the incident with those three Ychiha members Sasuke asked about the Mangekyo Sharingan, and that was the very day Itachi killed the Uchiha Clan. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:22 (Eastern Standard Time), 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Itachi's Age

Itachi is 19 in the first part.If you do the math, Sasuke was 7 when Itachi was 13.(Sasuke said he was the same age as Itachi was when he graduated) So that leaves them 6 years apart. Sasuke was 13 in part 2. 13+6+19. So Itachi would be 19 wouldn't he?Beefburger98 14:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That is completely wrong. Sasuke was 12 in part 1, 8 when Itachi was 13 and 1/2and kill the clan. So its 12 + 5.5 = 17 1/2 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.125.165.192 (talk) 15:56, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

We just go by what the data book says. 24.229.191.54

Actually, Sasuke's birthday is two month's after Itachi's, so apparently the Uchiha massacre was during that 2 month difference. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:19 (Eastern Standard Time), 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Personality

I've added some personality about him. Let's try and keep the majority of this topic not his backround, so it looks alot better. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:00 (Eastern Standard Time), 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Can we please stop changing the picture back and forth? The original one was fine enough, although it could be better, all the ones everyone is downloading give him a strange look on his face, especially the one right now. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 21:32 (Eastern Standard Time), 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree fully and completely, Itachi's bishiness isn't showing in the current picture! (100% serious statement; do not follow my example and laugh at it.) 81.228.148.164 09:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Error

I found this Sasuke attempted to win his father's attention by somehow outdoing (Sasuke)

Shouldn't that be Itachi? just wondering. - Alex 'phoenix' Wing 14:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging

The following was a discussion over whether this article should be merged to List of Akatsuki members or retain itself. The resulting decision was no consensus.

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm suggesting a merge of this page into List of Akatsuki members. The final product would look something like this. My final product would be 46 kilo-bytes and according to WP:SIZE anything within 40 to 50 kilo-bytes doesn't have to be split off into multiple articles like it is now. And according to WP:FICT main characters with enough information are allowed articles, although Itachi is not a minor character he is not a main character either and doesn't have sufficient information an and therefore he does not warrant his own article and should be merged into the other.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 16:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC) I object, I say KEEP. You apparently misunderstood FICT a bit. It's main reason is to say that a minor character like Anko or Ukon shouldn't get an article, but major and main characters that appear in more than a single arc and have importance throughout the whole series, which is what Itachi is. And didn't you want the other Akatsuki members to have articles too, which in fact your objecting to something you want (ironically). And who says Itachi isn't a main character? Main characters are not just the ones that appear in almost every notable arc like Team 7, Shikamaru, or Gaara, but a character who constantly recurrs throughout the series and has importance to the series. Few characters in any series could be called main characters (in Naruto, only Team 7 and Shikamaru can be considered main characters, and possibly Gaara too), so comprimises must be made between minor and main, such as major characters (Itachi, Neji, Jiraiya) and average characters (Kiba, Choji, Kakuzu). If you say only main characters should have articles, then merge every artile there is besides Naruto, Sasuke, Sakura, Kakashi, Shikamaru, and Gaara, because according to your logic only they should have articles. Also, it says major characters, not main characters, and Itachi is a major character. And your attempt at a merge is so bad it shouldn't be considered as it currently is, all it is is a list of his abilities. If you are serious about merging him, both provide a reason besides WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and actually attempt to make a well-written merge, otherwise your suggestion won't be taken seriously by others. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares, 13:01 (Eastern Standard Time), 20 July 2007 (UTC) KEEP mainly on the grounds that 1) Because the actions of his character in universe pretty much shape the entire Shippuuden arc, that makes him important, 2) In an out of universe content, he has more than enough info the warrant an article as opposed to some others. Rather busy in the real world I will return later. TheUltimate3 20:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC) KEEP We know a lot about his background, and he has played a part in the series, especially in flashbacks. He has enough info. 24.229.191.54 20:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC) KEEPHe has played a large enough role, and is the only Akatsuki member who is significant for doing something other than being in Akatsuki.86.154.124.225 22:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC) KEEP His role is large enough to be a seperate article, we have plenty of information on his abilities, history, personal information, etc. If we merge, the article will be too long. Omghgomg 03:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Because I only explained why your attempt at a merge sucks and your misunderstanding of FICT (it seems they're going to rewrite it so the difference between minor and major is more clear, anyways), I'm going to state why he should keep his article. Itachi is far more a character than an Akatsuki, the only one significant for doing anything besides being an Akatsuki, and the only one who cannot properly be put on a list, as both his history and his techniques are far too large to simply be merged. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares, 12:00 (Eastern Standard Time), 22 July 2007 (UTC) History does not have to be an essay worth of information it can be summed up in two paragraphs, itachi has done nothing except be in flashbacks and use Mangenko to PWN people. The article will not be too long the only reason its long now is becuase the people who merged sasori, ect articles did a poor job in doing so. So when fixes are done we could be looking at 45 kilos.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 22:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC) Comment: It would be unencyclopedic and uninformative, it is a good idea to not merge. And the majority of the people want it to stay. 24.229.191.54 11:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC) You still haven't noticed that we lost no important information in the merges, have you? Sam, please read over every one of the merges and see if any important information is lost. If you shorten it any more than it already is, removing things you god-modingly say isn't needed would ruin the quality of the article. Itachi's history is necesary to him, leaving it out makes merging impossible. And as I have said, quality beets quantity. All the other members do nothing except be members, Itachi's importance is far above that level. And just so you know, just because the main role a fictional character did was before the main course of the series doesn't make them unimportant, what makes them important is the role they played throughout ALL of the series (even flashbacks and history), and out of all the Akatsuki only Itachi is on that level, not even Deidara, who is another of Pein's pawns in reality. And also, if you think having their main role in the past forbids them from having articles, think again. There are many articles about fictional people whose role was mainly in the past in their series, even ones who died before the series began (Gol D. Roger and Red Haired Shanks from One Piece, for example), and if you're excluding Itachi just because he's from a different series, than having this debate anymore would be meaningless. And to be honest, your attempt at a merge..... sucks, very badly. You can't just limit half the article to one sentence, if you do that then a merge is unconsiderable. You have to take every aspect of information and judge over which is needed and which isn't carefully, the exact opposite of what you have done. Every previous attempt at a merge for Itachi sucked, all it was was a large explanation of his histroy (attempt before this article was made) or a list of his abilities (your attempt). And 24.229.191.54 is right, if the majority of the people want it to stay, then it stays. If you think this is wrong, than complain to the ones who made Wikipedia, as they allow votings for what should and shouldn't be merged. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares, 17:28 (Eastern Standard Time), 23 July 2007 (UTC) I didn't say that was the final product I even said it needed work so please don't diss something that isn't even finished yet. The whole first paragraph is about sasuke's past not itachi, itachi may have been apart of that but the whole thing is about Sasuke's need for attention. 24.229.191.54 is an IP and most of the other people who have commented here are IP's and their opinions don't matter as much as yours and mine becuase they don't have an account so unless they get an ancount their opinions don't matter. And stop dissing every one of my reasonings becuase quite frankly your reasoning are based on opinions and you never mention any Wiki policies in your comments that prove what you're saying to be true.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Okay: 1) WP:FICT, under FICT Itachi is a major character (not main, but major). Itachi has turned many events in the series' past around that has shaped the series into what it currently is, he has been major inspiration for Sasuke's decisions, the most wellknown member of Akatsuki, and is playing an important role in this current arc, so there's no question on his major importance in the series. 2)WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is on the list of reasons to try NOT to use in a deletion argument. That is your main argument for why Itachi shouldn't have this article, so half of your argument can be sent down the drain quickly. 3) WP:WAF, under it all information that is relevant to the fictional whatever you're writing about should be included, and Itachi's histroy is relevant to him. 4) WP:CON shows that deletion discussions are done by consensus. Even without the unregistered members the consensus shows people are against merging him and have presented reasons that are not on Arguments to avoid. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares, 21:02 (Eastern Standard Time), 23 July 2007 (UTC) KEEP per character's notability. The article itself isn't that cruddy either, just needs some correcting. Lord Sesshomaru The IP thing shouldn't matter... some people's parents won't let them sign up, so it's not fair to say they don't matter. And Itachi has a big effect on the series. 24.229.191.54 11:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Perhaps we should wait for more information to crop up before deciding this issue? And seeing as Sasuke's revenge plot is more noticable now than ever, it can be safe to say that we'll see a lot more of Itachi in up coming chapters. Maelstromm 11:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Ummmm, this isn't like a regular forums, so you don't need to reveal your email address or any important information, all you need to do is just create a username and a password, then click register. And he's right, just because they aren't registered doesn't mean you can shove them off for your own gain. And even without the unregistered members most people are against a merge. User:Artist Formerly Known As Whocares, 16:12 (Eastern Standard Time), 24 July 2007 (UTC) He does nothing except the following: Motivates Sasuke. Kills clan. Why? In essence, "to prove I'm leet". Pwns Kakashi, pwns Sasuke, pwns everyone. Hardly telling of his character. And personaly I find all IP's should get registered, like what Artist said you don't have to give any personal information unless you want to. And I don't trust IP's seeing how many of them vandalize articles more than registered users.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 23:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Try to assume good faith with IPs. The majority in the end do make constructive edits, although most vandalism does come from IPs unfortunately. As for this, this really could be summarized briefly at the List of Akatsuki members article without stretching it through an entire article. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, hence future importance is speculating, and not a reason for keeping an article. However, I'm willing to let this run its course for the moment. Time will reveal everything. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC) KEEP since Itachi is the most important, most seen, and mostly related to Konoha (which is the central village in Naruto) member of Akatsuki.Knewkreation 21:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC) I personally believe he should keep his own article because of his continuing significance in this story. KEEP, Itachi is a significant enough character to warrant his own page, and there is sufficient information to warrant his own page if given in reasonable detail. He's a primary antagonist with ties to all the main characters and main villains. More than likely his importance will only increase.Rayfire 04:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC) KEEP, Need I need to say more? K^ aka Fooly-Dooly-00000 10:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC) Yes you do.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 22:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC) KEEP - Itachi essentially single-handedly motivates the entire series' ultimate plotline (unless you count Naruto's "one-day-I'll-be-the-hokage"). Without Itachi, Sasuke would have no quest for power and no reason to defect, and Naruto would consist of nothing but a set of loosely-related ninja side-stories. He plays a far greater role than just being a member of Akatsuki, regardless of whether anyone thinks they can easily summarise his page. 206.248.157.22 22:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC) No itachi just said get stronger he didn't say to defect, sasuke made all those choices, not itachi.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC) And that seemingly unimportant statement got most of the series in motion.TheUltimate3 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC) KEEP - Itachi has very importent roll in the naruto series, nearly as much as sasuke --Mhart54com 04:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ability speed

During the first battle with Kakashi, Asuma, and Kurenai in Part I, Itachi appeared to have great speed when forming seals - or at least that was the impression I got. Due to the heavy use of genjutsu and clones in that fight, plus the fact that Kakashi could not detect the formation of seals even with his own sharingan, it could be that his "speed" was an illusion as well (although this is admittedly supposition). This is somewhat backed up by the fact that the shape-shifted version of him from the fight in Part II was forming seals at a normal rate. Do you suppose that there ought to be some mention of his speed in the abilities section? There used to be, although it was later combined with some other information and then deleted altogether. ApokalypseCow 13:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

It is mentioned, in the last sentence. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, so it is - my bad. I still wonder if this speed isn't merely an illusion or some clone trickery, but that's just speculation. Perhaps the anime or one of the data books will be more forthcoming about this in the future. ApokalypseCow 18:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Second merge attempt

I'm suggesting a merge of this page into List of Akatsuki members. The final product would look something like this. My final product would be in the 40's in terms of kilo-bytes and according to WP:SIZE anything within 40 to 50 kilo-bytes doesn't have to be split off into multiple articles like it is now. And according to WP:FICT main characters with enough information are allowed articles, although Itachi is not a minor character he is not a main character either and doesn't have sufficient information an and therefore he does not warrant his own article and should be merged into the other.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 00:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your final product is the same thing you proposed a few weeks ago, and it's still god awful. Take the focus away from his abilities and you might find people agreeing with you. As it is now, you're just going to end up with the same result as the above discussion. ~SnapperTo 01:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No i've come with new information i'm withholding for now I'll fix the page now.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

There I made it up to standards still needs minor fixes but I have my best man on it.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Much better. It could use some fine-tuning, but it's a much more admirable proposal. ~SnapperTo 03:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

KEEP he is a very important character not just a supporting one {{Tfd-inline|Unsigned3}}—The preceding comment is by Mhart54com (talk • contribs) Mhart54com: Please sign your posts!

Please read WP:JNN and come back later.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 02:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're determined. Honestly, this discussion happened last week, do you really think the results will be different? I suggest this discussion be closed until August 20th, where we'll pick it up from where we are now. I rather talk about the pathetic articles of Guy, Kabuto, Sai, the Third, and Yamato before we get to Itachi. Don't worry, he'll still be discussed, just after thw worst of the worst are already discussed. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 14:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we're not going close it, it's called multitasking and every human being is capleable of doing it. And Yes I do believe the outcome will be different becuase I got some new stuff and now I have time becuase I'm not reviewing anything for the next few weeks.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy keep We've been over this before. Page is well-referenced, there is needless plot information that may have to be removed per WP:FAN and it needs some real world information. Itachi is a recurring character in the series, I think second to Orochimaru. Lord Sesshomaru 17:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because we've been over it before doesn't mean we can't do it again since as said some plot info can be removed it will fit nicely into the otehr article and just because he's recurring doesn't mean he needs an article Konohamaro is a recurring character and he doesn't have an article. As much as you want this to end quickly unless you can bring better reasonings the result will be merge.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

KEEP.He is one of the larger driving forces in the plot,and has enough information,background or otherwise,to warrant an article.Lastbetrayal 21:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

And even with all that information he can still fit nicely into the other article.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 22:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Still say keep.Just one question though:If it is decided that Itachi keeps his article this time,are you going to try for the merge a third time?Lastbetrayal 22:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

First i'd find a better case then yes if this fails i'll try again.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 22:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep for all the reasons I said last time which I don't feel like typing them again, and because wanting an article merged just to satisfy your own ambitions for your own enjoyment shouldn't be a reason to put an article up for deletion. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 23:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to merge because of my own personal enjoyment I'm doing this because he can fit nicely into the main article. And there's this thing called "copy and paste" try using it sometime.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You do realize how many reasons I had, right? That would make a REALLY long comment, so I rather just not go through the trouble of sorting it out and making a comment only a few people will bother reading out of several. And part of the reason you ARE doing this is for your own satisfaction, whether you realize it or not. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 00:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sam ov the blue sand, perhaps you should read WP:OWN. Least of all we're giving a reason, you on the other hand insist we utilise your unreferenced section. Don't enforce others to say something better in their comments just because you disagree with them. Also you shouldn't bother setting up a third merge attempt if the page is kept, you'll waste your time on it, like now. Lord Sesshomaru 03:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are assuming bad faith, which is highly improper. In any case, my opinion is detailed below. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:AAGF before you begin pointing fingers at the wrong people. Where in my statement was I acting rude in particular is what I would like to know. Lord Sesshomaru 06:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reviewed this, and really, he should be merged. We're not here to speculate on his future importance to the series or what he has done as of now, read WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. Too much of the opposing side of this argument has been nothing more than an attachment of I like it to most arguments, and the improper use of WP:FICT to define Itachi's inclusion as a "main character." He is not a major character, as he does very little directly in the series. Yes, he instigates many of the events in the series, but that is less relevant to Itachi as it is to other characters. He is not used as a major antagonist, and is minor. Really, Naruto has no one person that falls solidly into that role, save Orochimaru in a limited fashion. As he cannot really be counted as such, he is not a major character, and as per WP:FICT, which everyone on the opposing side has been graciously using, he is liable to be merged into a list of characters. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that if this [article] has enough content and sources (ie footnotes, references, external links, etc.), it should not under any circumstances be merged or redirected. This one is no exception, sorry Sephiroth but your response to me shows that you don't like it from your point of view. What needs to be referenced is Itachi's introductory paragraph and background section. There is no harm in keeping it, then again, is there any in getting rid of it? Once more, there is no consensus reached; what needs to be placed on the Itachi page instead of another merge tag is {{In-universe/Anime and manga}}, and when the in-universe and out-of-universe information is settled there won't be another proposed merger, will there? Give it time, it's only been officially around since January, I'll be bold and start placing some maintenance tags on needed sections. Lord Sesshomaru 06:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Or you could be even bolder by skipping the tagging step and simply fixing the problem. Itachi is easily mergeable and nothing of significance is lost in transferring him to the Akatsuki list. Having references does not suddenly entitle him to having an article; having development and reception information does. Unless someone can track down documentation of Kishimoto detailing the conception of the character that is Itachi, there is little necessity in giving him an article. ~SnapperTo 07:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try that later. Shouldn't be too hard to find. Lord Sesshomaru 08:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok you guys, I found a card game hosting Itachi, see here. The rest is just clothing and apparel, things I don't find worth referencing. Does anyone have the first / second databook scans on their computer where there are character designs for Uchiha Itachi / perhaps commentary included by Kishimoto? I was looking for something like Zolo's profile; the closest that I was able to find now was Tenten's databook scans, though I remember seeing Gaara's not so long ago at mangahelpers (not sure if it was that website, BTW). It would be great if there is a scan w/ statements by Kishimoto of course, oh and there's this. Lord Sesshomaru 16:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

First off thankyou Snapper and BCR for helping me out while I was not here to answer comment and rudeness. i don't know how many times I have to say it but I'll say it agian: my version is not a final copy, it doesn't even have tobi as madara I was getting to adding refs but I still have to be here to tell you fanboys why he doesn't warrant his own article. i'm not doing this for some sick satisfaction I get, I'm doing this as an editor of Wikipedia and to right a wrong that several editors have admitted was the wrong choice and how this ever got to be I don't know how a fancruft article managed to weasle its way into Naruto's very fine articles when it was perfectly fine where it was. and it doing no harm is something to be avoided, not a reason to keep it, and stop with "it's not going to be as good at the members page" and read WP:BHTT. You need to say more in your comments because just saying "he's notable" or "I like him" won't cut it, those are half ass comments and give no reason as to why this article matters and should be kept.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 18:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope that comment wasn't directed at me, I didn't imply this time by saying "he's notable" or "I like him" if that's what you're thinking. Listen Sam, why don't you attempt work on the Itachi article rather than insist on its merger? Just a hunch, but ever since your painless efforts to keep your "precious" Deidara article failed, [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], just looks pointless, you want this page merged just because your page got merged, but that's just from my point of view. It appears that some bad faith is behind all this. Read my last reply before this one, if those sources can't ever be found, then we'll talk merger. Lord Sesshomaru 19:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm against this merger for several reasons. First and foremost, I believe Itachi has developed as a character enough to warrant his own paged. He's not only played an impact on several characters (Namely Sasuke, but to a minor degree, Naruto also), he's a recurring antagonist throughout the series. Future role or not, I think he's done enough to warrant his own page. He's played a large role in more than one story arc, developed storyline, detailed abilities, makes him a major character, similar to that of Orochimaru or Gaara. Lionheart08 18:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll just quote BCR since he explained it best.

• I've reviewed this, and really, he should be merged. We're not here to speculate on his future importance to the series or what he has done as of now, read WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. Too much of the opposing side of this argument has been nothing more than an attachment of I like it to most arguments, and the improper use of WP:FICT to define Itachi's inclusion as a "main character." He is not a major character, as he does very little directly in the series. Yes, he instigates many of the events in the series, but that is less relevant to Itachi as it is to other characters. He is not used as a major antagonist, and is minor. Really, Naruto has no one person that falls solidly into that role, save Orochimaru in a limited fashion. As he cannot really be counted as such, he is not a major character, and as per WP:FICT, which everyone on the opposing side has been graciously using, he is liable to be merged into a list of characters. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 19:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll just quote Snapper2's last sentence in his comment if you insist on pushing it:

"Unless someone can track down documentation of Kishimoto detailing the conception of the character that is Itachi, there is little necessity in giving him an article. ~SnapperTo 07:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)"

Keywords, someone can track down documentation of Kishimoto detailing the conception of the character that is Itachi. Lord Sesshomaru 19:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

All you're doing is trying to stall. And please assume good faith before making innacurate assumptions about me and try looking up what could have happened between the war and this, alot can happen. you're the only one here not assuming good faith.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 19:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And what would that do give him another reference? Whoopie freakin do. The facts still remain: It's a crufty article that can fit into the main page without a problem.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're one to talk, your motives for a merge (specifically this one) are questionable to me. I did do some research on you before expressing my thoughts, I re-discovered that Deidara edit warring which I warned you for long ago and do not accuse me of stalling without having hard evidence. No need for your "And what would that do give him another reference? Whoopie freakin do. The facts still remain: It's a crufty article that can fit into the main page without a problem." — This is not a fact, its an opinion, just like I'm giving you my opinion. Please read our policy on civility before you make another comment like that. It's obvious that you don't like it having a page. Lord Sesshomaru 20:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't mess with me i know all the policies I think anyone who's been here for a year should know them by heart. Just like how you accuse me of not liking it I'm now accussing you of likeing it. You still are not assuming good faith, you haven't seen what i've done since that war I had time to think about my edits and realised that just because you like it or you made it doesn't give reason for the article to exist if it goes against policy, like this one does. So why don't we start over Sesshomaru. Hi am Sam.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I truthfully can't tell whether you're getting smart with me or attempting to be friendly. Please stop telling me to assume good faith when you yourself won't abide. This article does not go against any policy I'm aware of, I don't know where you get your sources, the page just acquires cleanup. Enough of this arguing and speculation on your side, I am willing to end this conversation so long as you end your part. Can we get back to discussing improvements to Itachi Uchiha? A nonchalant merger may be neccessary only if we're unable to get more refs, real world information, and sourced words by Kishimoto himself. Lord Sesshomaru 20:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to be friendly with you but you're pushing me away. The only problem with that is no one cares they like the article how it is and the way it is is unacceptable but if it goes into the main article then all the cruft will be removed and then maybe when he dies if he dies I myself will put it back. I do hope we can be friends after this but I'm not backing down from this.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 20:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your compassion, but is there such an abundance of WP:CRUFT and in what piece? I see rewording desired, I see that certain sections yearn for perfection, I see that it needs more time overall worked upon. According to the page history, the complete article has existed since January of this year. Ask yourself Sam, does it call for a merger that badly? All I request for you is to please wait a couple more months and see how it becomes. Bygones be bygones? Lord Sesshomaru 21:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As you just said it's been here since january that's 7 months ago! And with all these people who have voted keep should help to fix but they necer do that people will say anything when backed into a corner the same thing happened in Plot of naruto shippuden the first AFD ended because everyone said they'd fix it and move the info else where, two months later nothing happened. it's the same thing here, you say you're going to do soemthing but in the end the article will stay the same. I still want to be friends but I'm not backing down.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to use the best of my ability to clean it aren't I? But there's seriously no rush in merging. Try an WP:AFD next time if you're still demanding the merger. But don't be surprised if that doesn't end as [you] planned. I'm still looking at the glass half full, and seven months ago isn't a year. Everyone gave their reasons, sure few may have been bogus as you claim, the important thing is they at least gave legitimate ones. Lord Sesshomaru 21:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To disprove what you said for my case, ALL of the references added were from me, the backround part was shortened from being a simple explanation of his history by me, the references that will be able to be put here when the October issue of US Shonen Jumpis released will more-likely-than-not be put there by me, and the article was written by me. Yep, I have done nothing for this article at all. >_< But seriously, all you are actually doing is what you complain the others do: do nothing for the article. You've done nothing but whine about its quality, despite being relatively new ("not new" would be about a year old, we're a little over half that), and just go "Merge merge merge!" without trying one bit to help. The article needs alot of work, and so do most of the other character articles, but it is FAR from the fan-cruft article as you think it is. Unless you actually at least try and help, then I see no reason to pay attention to your jibber-jabber. And what Lord says is true, all you've done is complain because an article you liked was merged and want this one merged just because that was merged, which violates both WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. By the way, Lord is linking to all those guidelines because you're willfully ignoring them throughout this argument and the last, and the last merge for Itachi (not yours, but the actual one) sucked, it was nothing but history. To tell you the truth, you aren't doing anything to help your case, you're only making it worse by constantly violating Wikipedia rules and guidelines so you can have your own "perfect little universe" and objecting to everything the disagrees with what you want just to try and delay the inevitable truth: You're making a fool of yourself. I suggest you actually try to help the article and try and get TRUE Wikipedia guidelines to back up what you say, rather than things listed on "Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" and other "reasons you shouldn't use" lists like you've been doing the entire time, before you continue with this deletion frenzy. And you might say I'm being mean or trolling or whatever, but what I'm saying is the truth with my opinion squeezed in in the cracks. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't know me. That whole little spass attack right there is a personal attack. I didn't ignore him I've read those guidlines before I've been here longer than you so through experiance I know all the gidelines. Read WP:OWN because that spass attack had that in there too, and that was trolling you're looking for a fight. What you've made here is Fancruft. You may have made the article but you did a half ass job doing it. The first time I looked at this article back when the other members had their article I hoped it could be made into a great article but nothing has changed except for a few refs. Drop the whole Deidara thing becuase if that was the case I would have said that. try to assume good faith before you spass agian.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 22:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I said nothing about Deidara in that comment. Sure, it may have not been the perfect comment, but I'm new to Wikipedia on your standards, Sam, so it's understandable. I was merely pointing out that I created the article (which does count as helping the article), I'm not saying "I own it, only I can make the decisions blah blah blah." like other people have done. Unless you want me, and a significant amount of others, to take you seriously, then try and help the articles and do more than say "It sucks. Merge it. I disagree with you." as you've been doing in both attempts. I'm not looking for a fight, despite my love of true debates, but I could easily say you're the one looking for one, and what you're saying can easily be called trolling, as you've been insulting anyone disagreeing with you, including me, any chance you get. And don't say you haven't, "You may have made the article but you did a half ass job doing it" isn't exactly complimentary. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

"all you've done is complain because an article you liked was merged and want this one merged just because that was merged" taht pretty much is about Deidara isn't it? Why would edit something I want to merge(?), that's kinda going against what I'm trying to do here. So you say all I've I been saying is "It sucks. Merge it. I disagree with you." well I think all you're saying is "he's notable. I like him. My article." Stay of the eprsonal attacks and give your reasonings as to why you believe this article doesn't have to be merged.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 22:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're one to talk. But so you can understand what I'm saying further, I'll have to be alot meaner in this comment: "he's notable." - Hell Yeah! He's the driving point of the entire series, and is more than the one-arc character you make him out to be. "I like him." - I never did say that, now did I? Quit trying to make mountains out of molehills for your own gain. "My article." - Excluding now, only once did I mention that, and I referenced to saying that too; and I never used that for a reason to keep this article, did I? Nope.

In short, although the first can be considered differently on each person's point of view, you're making mountains out of molehills. And I did give my reasonings last time and told people to go back there if they want to know my reasons, I won't make a large comment (copy and paste or not) just so most of the readers will ignore it. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 23:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're not going to state your opinion then I don't have to waste time for you and your personal attacks.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 23:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, what I say might not be the nicest things on earth, but they aren't personal attacks. A personal attack would be saying "I hate you." or directly insulting you right in your face, which I haven't done and have refrained from doing. And I have stated them, and I have stated why I won't make another comment for them: only a few would read it. And you know what my reasons are, it wasn't that long since we last discussed this. To tell the truth, Sam, I am beginning to think about complaining about your behavior, something I would like to restrain myself from doing, more than I can put in words. If I would have to, though, it is because I want you to stop the behavior you are currently showing. Please try and help this article before judging "no one will help it" and/or "it can't be helped" (the first of which is what you're doing yourself), and please do more than cast every decision that disagrees with your own willfully away and taking even the slightest comment about your behavior as a personal attack. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 23:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with my behavior that you don't like? And could you put that on my review?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 23:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest this terribly interesting squabble about who does and does not have good intentions be taken elsewhere. And as a minor correction about what I skimmed from the "discussion", Itachi has had an article since late May, not January. ~SnapperTo 23:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was about to look that up because I knew january was wrong. Why ddin't you stop this when it frist started taht would have saved me alot of time. Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 23:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't be online all day to prevent every needless discussion. In any event, I'd like to know what is in this article that cannot be found here? If the answer is some variation of "nothing", then what is the harm in adding him to the Akatsuki list? ~SnapperTo 00:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we just end this now? I had hoped this discussion was over by the time I got back, looks ongoing. Does anyone have Itachi's bio, art, etc., in the databook(s) computer scan along with something by the series creator? Lord Sesshomaru 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

No we can't end this now. And I don't think Itachi has one or I would have known about it because i've got all the other ones but I've never seen one for him.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 00:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Artist Formerly Known As Whocares might have that stuff.Itachi's mission stats and registration # were there earlier citing the databooks as reference.And he's the one who put them up.Lastbetrayal 00:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds great, but we're needing a design section, possibly a description of his popularity in Japan could help benefit it. Lord Sesshomaru 00:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Design section?Lastbetrayal 00:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

See the design section at Naruto Uzumaki's page. Lord Sesshomaru 02:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What's this databook ref going to do if it realy does exist all it's going to is add another ref you never did answer Snapper's question: "I'd like to know what is in this article that cannot be found here? If the answer is some variation of "nothing", then what is the harm in adding him to the Akatsuki list?".Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

KEEP because he has enough info for a good artical. Jazz Band Member 02:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

care to say more than that?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 04:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, this whole thing has gotten out of hand. It seems similar to the merger of the Clash of Ninja and Ultimate Ninja pages. All it needs is some time to get all the necessary things to be complete. Just be patient for a while. If it still isn't good enough, we can bring it up again, but for now, calm down.Darth G 04:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think it was necissary to repeat what other people had said... that would be boring, repetitive, and useless. Jazz Band Member 11:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't count on a design section here dude.Naruto's really the only one who has a section detailing that.Lastbetrayal 11:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactaly I don't get what they're trying to accomplish by ading another ref, it does nothing for their case. And yes according to wikipedia policies if you don't have anything different to say then don't say anything as this is not a vote.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 13:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

KEEP the article has a lot of info merging would destroy a it, it is very informative about the character, so i would say to keep it the way it is--Mhart54com 14:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't lose any information it's just going to a different place. {{Tfd-inline|Unsigned3}}—The preceding comment is by Sam ov the blue sand (talk • contribs) Sam ov the blue sand: Please sign your posts!

Sasuke and Sakura also have some design info, but it isn't as much as Naruto. Just saying. And Itachi's article has potential, and it's new. We shouldn't just downright say it should be merge at this point, just give it more time and new info will both be found and added, while that gives us enough time to try and find any dirt Kishimoto-sensei has left on Itachi. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 15:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

even if you find design info (which i still think doesn't exist but if it does I need to get it) taht can still be added nicley into the main page.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 15:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just like to add that Kakashi Hatake doesn't share a design section yet he has a main page. Then again, he makes a hell of a lot more appearances than Itachi, though we shouldn't judge who appears more in this case. It's all about consistency with most main Naruto characters, I believe. Lord Sesshomaru 16:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's so nice to see my question going unanswered... ~SnapperTo 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

yeh I agree why won't they answer your question? Only one quote comes to mind: "thou who fears something tends to stay away from the thing that inspires fear in them" or some variation of that.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 04:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

KEEP Uchiha Itachi is one of the more prominent members of Akatsuki and has a wealth of information concerning him that's suited for his own article rather than being condensed into the roster page. I'm not suggesting he still can't have a section on the member page but his main article should be retained. In addition, this discussion has spawned in the past and it's unnecessary considering Itachi's role in the series now. Suppose this issue came up way back when Itachi first appeared in the Tsunade arc, I'd definitely agree there would be no need for his own article but as they say that was then, this is now. Navex 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If Itachi gets his own article than it is only fair that Deidara gets one too. He has been elaborated on as much if not more than Itachi, and is arguably a more popular character. {{Tfd-inline|Unsigned3}}—The preceding comment is by 214.13.209.200 (talk • contribs) 214.13.209.200: Please sign your posts!

Things do not really work like that on Wikipedia, and no, Itachi is more heard of when it comes to Naruto. Lord Sesshomaru 13:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer the question... people like more information when they research things. Articals are more detailed that merged articals. Oh, and I don't really think Deidara could really have an artical... he hardly has any background. But, you never know. Jazz Band Member 11:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There's your answer Snapper2. Lord Sesshomaru 13:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And what information have I lost in my merge?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 16:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that was full of Wikipedian policies, Sam. @_@ Unless you have actual policies to use, and you link to them, I see little reason to pay attention to you anymore, but rather Snapper2 or Someguy, who are presenting actual cases of interest besdies "My merge is good blah blah lbah I disagree with anything you say just because I can.". And your merge still needs ALOT of work, everything is all jumbled up randomly, and you're still limiting the amount of information you put in the merge. It doesn't tell anything about his personality that is not jumbled up somehwere else where it doesn't belong, it doesn't list anything he's done for the plot of the series, the entire Akatsuki history is cut in half (and you're wrong, recent evidence shows he joined before killing the clan, researchers need to know that), and it is very poorly written. It's a start, of course, but it needs major work to even be considered a merge. And read WP:FICT. It says major characters should get articles, and Itachi, being the current main villian, is a mjaor character. And you might disagree, but main villian does not mean you appear in every arc and do something, no matter how minor it is, but it means you have made an enemy out of every character in the series that is not on your side, you have influenced the course of the series to what it has become, and you are the one thing that is the target of every main and major character. That descirbes Itachi, he has made an enemy of everyone notable besides Zabuza and Haku (who probably don't know he exists), and he is the driving point of the series, as without his it would be just a bunch of random adventures like InuYasha is. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 17:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet you seem to have no problems with other characters seeing equal treatment in merges. The personality section that is in this article is a mere attempt to make the article longer. It has no meaningful content and is simply a jumble of things he has done that substitute his lack of an actual personality. As for plot, what plot summary do you see in the other, non-dead, members of Akatsuki sections? None, so you're being picky there. And I'll thank you to not call my writing "poor", regardless of whether or not you are aware of it. Again, you are finding petty reasons to keep Itachi when you have supported the equally thorough merges of several other characters. Be consistent with something. ~SnapperTo 20:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Just like you, I don't feel like repeating myself every time. I'll add that stuff tommorrow but right now I'm stuck in real life. And realy there's no wiki policy that says I can't answer people.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 19:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is gonna be bad. I can already see it. after this or the third try it will get murged and we'll have tons of other arguements to put it back and they'll win and it will keep going until he finally does the one thing that will make people think he is worthy, like killing an entire family or being a major driving force behind the plot.

I say we should keep it because, well, every single reason used before to keep it and every single rreason used before to make it. and its not just because i like itachi, its because 1. all the akatsuki should get one when/if they have enough information from the story. that should include evrything from thehistory of their world. 2. I think Deidara should have one too and i really don't like deidara, this alone disproves my bias, not that my bias matters. {{Tfd-inline|Unsigned3}}—The preceding comment is by 172.165.158.11 (talk • contribs) 172.165.158.11: Please sign your posts!

It's not about whats here and whats not there, its about what the majority of the people want. sure its good to argue your point to get people to believe you, but the majority stands with keeping this article and not merging, and few people have change their views through all this. ~~guest <This comment was slashed because it was actually signed by 172.165.158.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)> ^{172.165.158.11: Please sign your posts using ~~~~} Lord Sesshomaru 00:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:DEMOCRACY.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 23:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly Wikipedia is not a democracy, but this is a controversal merge. the way to settle a controversal merge is for you to get 60%-80% of the people to agree with you. Please read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority 172.165.158.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

I agree. Also, if Itachi does get merged, there will just be another arguement on the List of Akatsuki Members Discussion page. Jazz Band Member 11:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What you fail to see is that your opinions are not considered when they are nothing beyond I like it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 16:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge Well at least merge until Itachi becomes a bigger part of the series. And when I mean bigger part, I mean there's an incredibly long flashback and a fight with him last more than a volume. Other than that, he doesn't have enough info on him for an article. -ScotchMB 13:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And it's not most of the people it's who brings up the best point.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 16:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This also was probably mentioned before but most of the current Itachi's history/plot can be found on other character's article such as Sasuke/Naruto/Kisame. If Itachi's flashback is shown such as why he did all the things he did, or a little more personal information was revealed then I would think Itachi can have his own article. -ScotchMB 03:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because he affects all of those characters. Jazz Band Member 11:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because he affects them doesn't mean he can't affect them on the other page.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 15:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll add just for the hell of it now. But I say KEEP because Itachi has (like I said before) importance in the show beyond the scope of Akatsuki. If you want to see my thoughts click on the archive of the first attempt. TheUltimate3 17:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a very pretty reason Kakuzu had other stuff besides Akatsuki stuff he was a bounty hunter, Sasori collected puupets and had a good amount of backround info, Deidara wanted to kill itachi and had a little backround info. Hidan's the only one with no backround or other hobbies. So now I guess saying that he has "importance" doesn't cut it anymore.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 19:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you mean petty? And almost everything that can be said was said for both sides. People aren't going to change their opinions. Jazz Band Member 11:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No I meant pretty. I know people aren't going to change their opinions but the the winners will be who ever brings up the best point.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 15:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

But how do you what's the best point? What one person may think is the best point may be different from what another person thinks. Jazz Band Member 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if everyone is done talking then an admin should be contacted.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So in the end, if the article stays the admins have to be contacted, and if its merged we'll get told to stop bitching...interesting.TheUltimate3 21:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Or we could just try to get it unmerged a week later! Jazz Band Member 11:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Or you could stop your meaningless chitter chatter and say something that matters.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 18:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

True. But I have already voiced my opinion, so there's not much more for me to say on that matter. Jazz Band Member 18:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The reason I don't wan it merged is not because I like it, which I do, but more that It looks better and has more correctly ordered information. When people come to wikipedia they want to know everything about the thing they look up. I don't want to have to go to the List of Akatsuki Members page, then to Sasuke's, then to the List of Naruto Chapters just to find out about Itachi or to find out because the latest chapters aren't order into the format that I have to wait to know about the latest info. How does that make any sense? Also, the List of Akatsuki Members page looks unorganized and just all around bad to me since before the separation from the Akatsuki page. It's not separated by time or even a border, it's just a list of details about the character followed by a little history then some abilities then plot involment and finally more abilities. User:172.165.158.11

Ok first off, WP:ILIKEIT, secondly you're telling me that people actualy turn this stuff in for reports in school? if so then i should have had an A on my English project two years ago. And the list isn't unorgaised it gives you every thing you want to know and if you want to know more than that then read the manga, it comes out every friday.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 20:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First off, WP:ILIKEIT doesn't apply to his comment, he made that clear. Second, lists for the most part don't always tell you everything you want to know. The article however does. And if people want to look someone/thing up in an encyclopedia, telling them to stop and read another book isn't a very good point. Doubt you'd care with my point but meh.TheUltimate3 23:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

ingoring that comment. Is every one ok with someone contacting an admin?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 23:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You would ignore it. Anyway I really don't see any REAL reason to bother the admins with something like this. Hell we have an entire wiki that says this one is filled with Liberal bias. How about we contact the admins with stuff that actually matters to the outside world, and leave this as a thing that fans (who are the only real editors of things like this) handle this.TheUltimate3 23:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So you admit that this doesn't have any out of universe information and you admit that this article is a fan-crufty piece of crap?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you, high? Where on Earth did you get all of that? I said Admins should NOT be contacted about stuff that is not really important when there are a million things more important. If something can be delt with within the community that is working on it, like this, why bother the admins. Is that your true motive Sam? TheUltimate3 00:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I say no to bothering the admins. Jazz Band Member 11:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Amazing how you think admins are above all others. I have friends who are admins. And admins are not all that different from us they just have extra abilities. I think I'll contact an admin (not a friend of mine if it makes you feel better).Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 15:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

And I have an uneasy feeling that whatever and admin says goes no questions and no arguing am I correct? Thats enough to put anyone above another. TheUltimate3 16:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's what it sounds like to me.... Jazz Band Member 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine just contact an admin. No matter what they say I can garuntee that Itachi will end up with his own article before the series ends, and in the mean time we can fix that other crappy article. User:172.165.158.11

This discussion is practically a moot point now, considering that Itachi is facing off against Sasuke at the end of 366. We're about to get more information on him, which further necessitates this article.Ikani87 08:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Jazz Band Member 12:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No Wikipedia's not a crystal ball so unless you can prove itachi's about to do something amazing then we go on what we have.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 15:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree Itachi will get his own article but not now. Currently he should be merged because all he does is influence other characters to do stuff. -ScotchMB 01:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how "influencing other characters to do stuff" qualifies as a reason for merging the article. --Superneoking 04:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have been more detailed. As of right now, no personal information was revealed about Itachi such as his real reasons of killing his clan or his reason to join Akatsuki. All he does was making Sasuke chase after him which can be found in the Sasuke article and tried to capture Naruto unsuccessfully in the past. If information relating only to Itachi was revealed, then he could get his own article. That's my opinion. -ScotchMB 20:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Itachi should keep his own article. It's pretty big.

He doesn't just "influence the characters to do stuff", he pretty much helps define the plotline itself. if Itachi hadn't killed the Uchiha clan then he wouldn't be in Akatsuki, Orochimaru might have stayed in the organization longer, Sasuke wouldn't be out for revenge and would probably be weaker, and Naruto would be weaker since he always strives to beat Sasuke. While all these are "what ifs" the point is clear that without that one simple act the story would be much different.--Kaoskaix 14:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly my point. Did you see any information relating to Itachi alone? Everything he does, it relates to other characters which can be found on the other character's page. If you read the 2nd last sentence of my last comment, you would realize that I was saying Itachi would become more important to the storyline and plot if something about him can't be found on the other character's page. During the entire Naruto plot, he is pretty much an unseen character. I think its gonna change though and some new stuff might be revealed. Until then, he should belong to the akatsuki page because that's all hes doing right now. Helping Akatsuki. Please tell me if there is any flaw in my thoughts. -ScotchMB 14:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why should we go to all the other characters articles to find out about Itachi when we can type in Itachi and read it here? --Kaoskaix 14:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you guys stressing on that when we merge it we will not lose any informtion. And please read WP:BHTT.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 15:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't know about that, yet, but its less than better here than there and more of better here than there, and there, and there, and there ...--Kaoskaix 16:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

And if something's wrong with it then you can always edit it to make it better.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Itachi and Orochimaru

Got a question. I heard that Orochimaru left Akatsuki 7 years before the start of the series. Itachi destroyed the Uchiha Clan 5 years before the start of the series right? And sometime after that, he joins Akatsuki. Orochimaru only left because of Itachi. So did I hear wrong? Could someone please answer this question for me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.181.58.44 (talk)

you heard correctly as far as i know....--71.187.151.215 20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

We don't know for Sure but it might be the Creators Mistake or the Translators mistake or something really did happen like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.127.32 (talk) 14:27, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

SLIGHT SUGGESTION

I PERSONALLY DON'T WANT IT TO BE MERGED BUT IF IT DOES SAVE THE CURRENT ARTICLE AND UPDATE IT WHEN IT CAN BE SEPARATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.145.229.171 (talk) 01:59, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

No need to type in all caps. Also, each article has an edit history; as long as the article is simply merged and isn't deleted, we'll have the current format "saved" there and it can be reverted back if and when necessary. // DecaimientoPoético 02:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

This is going to seem like a bit of a rant but why is it that most of the independent character articles for Naruto have been merged with larger lists. They go from well-developed articles with pictures and allot of information to about three paragraphs and no picture. Unless their is some clear reason for this the person who took the time to do that is just stupid because all it does is retract from the articles. Not long ago almost every member of the Konoha 11 had their own article now only Naruto, Shikamaru. Neji, Sakura, and Sasuke have one, not to mention all of the other character who have been reduced to a paragraph on a list i.e. Asuma, Kabuto ect. What was the point of that? - peeved Naruto fan (added 10:22 08/24/07) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.3.31 (talk) 02:23, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally pleasantly shocked that this article is back up. Most of the characters in teh series at this point except maybe Tenten and Temari and a few others have enough information to warrant a well written article. WITH pictures. Itachi especially. As a primary antagonist with like four or five episodes dedicated to his background I would think that he warranted his own article. Especially considering the length of the one that has been written.Rayfire 05:50, 25 August 2007 (UTC)