Talk:Itachi Uchiha/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Second merge continuation

To roughly summarize the discussion so far, the current viewpoints are as follows:

• Merge because he can be merged: 3
• Merge because he's not a major character (at the moment): 2
• Keep because he's important: 6
• Keep because he's been active in the series lately: 1
• Keep because an article is more informative: 1
• Keep because more people want him to have an article: 1
• Keep because of the last discussion: 1

As can be seen, people who want to keep the article have the majority. In my opinion, the "Keep because an article is more informative" stance, while not the best of reasons, is considerably better than all the others so far. Anyway, as you were. ~SnapperTo 22:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I clap for your patients to go through all jabber to get the tally jambo User:TheUltimate3|TheUltimate3]] 01:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I also thank snapper2 for going through this mess. While I would like to see it merged, its clear that more wants the article to stay. -ScotchMB 01:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yay for Snapper2! That must have taken a while. Jazz Band Member 11:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been going on for awhile. Sam on the blue sand, I think you lost for now. Try and fix up your proposed 'new' article and try for a third merge attempt. If Itachi becomes more active and more information is revealed about him, don't try as he will have suffice information to have his own article. Omghgomg 12:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

First off my name is Sam, second off Wikipedia is not a majority, and just because they want him to stay they still haven't given reason besides "he's important" and other pretty reasons.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 23:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does however work off of consensus,and so far the general consensus for Itachi's page is keep.Lastbetrayal 23:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And nothing seems to be changing, so is there really a need to keep this discussion going? Jazz Band Member 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If its not a majority then what the hell is the point of this page. You can't ust do whatever you want. Back to the issue why do we need to take away yet another well formed article and reduce it to a few paragraphs. The real question should be why take the article away not why keep it. How is this article's existance as independent negativly effecting the quality of Wikipedia? If you go on Answers, which I think is an inferior site you'll see almost every character has their own article and as a result their is a good three tiems the information available. That alone shouls spur a drive to expand into more articles not delete what few remain. JayLupin38 08:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes but they haven't given any other eason besides "he's important" so you're basing consensus off of fanboys? If that's what wikipedia is about then how did Plot of Naruto Shippuden not make it?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 00:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

True, this discussion was driven by fans and opinions. -ScotchMB 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just blowing steam (heh heh heh....steam. Family Guy humor...X0) but who would be the ones editting entertainment specific articles? That being said, the editors have spoken. Not that you'll stop or atleast wait, but they have spoken.--TheUltimate3 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Plot of Naruto Shippuden was not even liked by fans. Sure I liked it, but it wasn't needed. And, of course fans would be the only ones driving this discussion... who else would be on this page? Jazz Band Member 11:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you azz Band Member and TheUltimate3 who else but a Fanboy is going to give this article or any naruto article for that matter a second look. JayLupin38 09:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.3.31 (talk)

I thought Artist Formerly Known As Whocares already proved he was a major character, oh well. Anyway, in controversial merges supermajority is used to decide the outcome, and thanks to Snapper2 we can run the numbers. out of 13 total acceptable votes only 4 chose merge which means only 30.7% agree with you which is far from 60%-80% needed. Try again later, pending that he still hasn't done anything.--Kaoskaix 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't good reasons. So you're telling me if I got 10 people in here to say merge then i'll win? That is not Wikipedia where disscussions are won by how many friends you have.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 20:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

How many friends you have? Sam the only friends I have that contributated in anyway to this disucssion was Snap and Artist, and the former is rocky at best.TheUltimate3 20:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider anyone here my friend because I kinda just recently decided to get an account after nearly 5 years of using wikipedia. And check the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_vs._supermajority as Supermajority is wikipedia's policy reguarding controversial deletions and mergers. Also I think that we should delete the "problems?" and "Itachi gets a penis and Deidara doesn't" sections (or depending on if your really obssesive and pissed, contact an admin)as they have been horribly vandalized. If you take Naruto too seriously I wouldn't advise reading those sections as you would be pissed. Kaoskaix 21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow 5 years. I've looked you up you have no past disscussions nor have you filled out your user space now sure that's nothing but I did take into acount you were talking about being an IP but your IP-ship has nothing amazing for you to talk down to me like you did. the whole friend thing was just me showing you guys what that's equivlent to: saying that if concensus isn't reahed then it goes to majority and the friend thing was an example of that meaning that if I did have a dozen of my friends to create accounts and vote merge here then by the rules I win? Amazing how wikipedia has deformed itself into a competition of how many friends one has.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you just skim our posts? I said I've been using wikipedia for 5 years not editing and talking for 5 years. Do try to read the entire post thoroughly and understand where I'm coming from wether or not you agree with me. I was talking down to you I simply pointed out the facts, and if you see anything I don't see then please do point it out so I don't make that mistake again. Like I said something should be done about the "problems?" and "Itachi gets a penis and Deidara doesn't" sections. I'd do it, but I literally just registered recently and I have no idea what to do in this case. Also it appears some immature vandal has edited the Article itself and I'll fix that.Kaoskaix 21:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been on for a while, but I'll say this as quick as possible. Thank you, Snapper2, for going to the trouble of searching the posts for reasons and votes, and thank you, TheUltimate3, that was really nice. ^_^ Also, Sam, mabye reading all of this in a single day made me angry, but right now I just want destroy you limb from limb (You don't cross me when I'm angry ^_^). Why? Because you're willfully flouting away several policies and yet you comment on how the others are ignoring or violating the same policies, and most of the times so far they aren't. My suggestion for you is that you should try your best to take other members' opinions more seriously rather than a random attempt to disagree with you, which you have been doing. And to correct Snapper2, I NEVER said to add a plot section, but mention how his actions did affect the plot, like the Uchiha massacre. Now for why to keep him: Notability: No question. Besides Naruto, Hokages 1 and 4, and mabye 3 and Sasuke, Itachi is the most important character in the series. Every action he does is important in one way or another. Affecting other characters: Whether or not most of his actions affect others or not is not a reason for a merge. Information: His article is fairly large enough to keep, as few other characters could reach this length. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Good to have you back, i'm guessing school was in your way, me too that and my job. But anyway that was a personal attack, like the third you've given me since I've ever spoken to you and all three I've ignored. Nice to see people ignoring my question: if I brought a dozen of my friends here and they created accounts and each came here and said merge then by the rules I would win, correct? And if school was the reason why you haven't been here in a while then I can only say one thing: school's a bitch. ^_^ Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 23:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The same way you haven't answered mine huh. Essentially, yes, were you to tell 12 friends to get on and do it you could win, but we now have proof that you don't like the article if you are willing to go to the length to tell someone to deny their beliefs and do a favor for you to have your way. On contrary I could do the same with my friends or even siblings, or even make hundreds of accounts at the library and do the same. I'd never do that though because that would be making a mockery of Wikipedia, and I personally love Wikipedia and do not want to see it dragged through the mud by one user who hates this article. Also you should spend less time on responding to post, especially when you latest posts aren't even pointing out anything important and new about the merger, and more about re-grouping maybe updating and rewriting you Bye Bye Itachi. This proposed merger should be archived as it has already been shot done. I'm sure you will try a third time, Sam.Kaoskaix 00:01, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So just cause some freakin fanboys come in and say keep even though i may have had a better reason they did that automaticaly forces me into defeat? Wow how freakin amazing how wikipedia is revolved around fanboys. Nah keep it up for another day cause I got more I wan to say and more others might want to say.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 00:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fanboys? What about fangirls? Had to put that. Anyway, it is clear we all have different opinions on whether or not a reason is good or not. Jazz Band Member 00:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(Sigh)This has been going on for almost two weeks.Sam,at least 'try' to assume good faith,that not everyone who comes to this page and disagrees with the merge is a fanboy.On a side note the fact that you seem to become more erratic the more people disagree with you,and how you seem to express intrest in getting friends to create accounts to alter consensus is a bit worrying.Lastbetrayal 01:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok fangirls too. And no the whole me getting my friends over here was to prove how stupid that sounds, but if a dozen people came in here and said merge I guess I'd be screwed huh? ^_^ i don't see why i have to say the same thing over and over when all they're going to say is the same thing they just said a minute before. look when someone comes in here an repeatitly says things or have said things like I like him or he's cooler than every one else then my brain comes up with one word in mind, fanboy or fangirl.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Listen, Sam your kind of exploding here. Just take this as experience and make sure next time you try that you cover the basic reasons so that next time in about a week or so more of us will agree. For me all it needs is to be updated, properly arranged, and have some more about his family history and I'll say Merge(If you can fit it all which I'm not sure it's possible to fit all that I would consider acceptable)(Info boxes please) --Kaoskaix 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But his history can be summed up in 2 paragraphs it doesn't have to be an essay like this is. Keep it for the weekend as i have one more thing up my selve (so to speak). And I'm not exploding, trust me when I explode I start cussing like no tommorrow, I know you can't tell but that last post of mine was full of humor.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's 73 kilo's long now, common! Just start a third attempt and bring all your friends to it. The one thing it didn't have that would have taken up more space was the part where his dad paid little attention to Sasuke. At first I didn't think it belonged and then I read that Itachi told their father to do it. I believe it shows some of his emotions towards his brother or at least a point that he wanted him to get better faster. Either way it does need to be in there. --Kaoskaix 01:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

So,what exactly do you have up the proverbial sleeve?Lastbetrayal 02:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

And all 73 kilos can be archived. And as for what's up my sleeve just something so all those nice things you guys promissed you'd do will get done, i just need the weekend to fix it up.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 04:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's the weekend. What did you do, Sam? Jazz Band Member 11:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah nothing yet cause i said I needed the weekend.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 16:15, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes. Any hints of what you are doing/will be doing? Jazz Band Member 16:47, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey,Sam.Could you sit on the merge proposal for a bit?At least until the deletion for the Akatsuki members page is sorted out?Cuz if this gets merged,and the members page gets deleted,then we lose just about everything on every member.Lastbetrayal 17:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

To return to the issue of importance, being important within the series does not entitle a character to having an article. As Artist has suggested, the First, Third, and Fourth Hokages are all of greater importance than Itachi. How many of them have articles? If you said "none", you are correct. So, it would seem, how a character has impacted the universe he or she lives in means nothing in terms of article-worthiness. And I have still yet to see anything that is in this article that can not be found in the proposed merge, minor details and plot points aside. ~SnapperTo 18:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes they were all important.But do you know why they don't have articles?Lack of information.

• First Hokage-He founded Konoha.At some point he battled Madara Uchiha(supposedly)and Kakuzu.
• Third Hokage-If you will recall,he used to have an article.However as he died some time ago,and very little information about him has been shown about him since,it was decided that he no longer have an article.
• Fourth Hokage-Same deal as the first.We know almost nothing about him except for a couple of his past exploits,and that he is apparantly Naruto's father.

Itachi unlike them is still alive and has enough information for an article.Lastbetrayal 01:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And that echoes the fact that being important does not automatically allow a character an article, which gives those five "keep because he's important" viewpoints less weight. ~SnapperTo 01:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly are you using an opinion to fuel your arguement. One persons opinion cannot be used as a base for an arguement especially when it's not yours. I might say he is of more importance than those 3. Maybe that he is more important than Tsunade or one rung below Naruto in importance. Is my opinion wrong, is his right? Who is qualified to judge that? Are you, is he? Your arguement has no base. Kaoskaix 00:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is qualified to judge that. The entire point of this discussion is to present opinions for consideration by the community. As I've stated before, he doesn't deserve an article under WP:FICT's guidelines. Heck, even the main characters are on shaky grounds due to the same reasons, and are kept because they cannot conceivably be put into a list. As for Itachi, there is no information present to satisfy WP:FICT, and saying that he will be important in the future does not qualify (WP:CRYSTAL). Snapper's current merge (see User:Snapper2/Sandbox) covers all the relevant information from his article without the substantial amount of extended detail and unnecessary information. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If I am to not use my opinion, I'm afraid there will be no progress in any direction. That Itachi is important is an opinion. That being important means he should get an article is an opinion. I am pointing out that this particular opinion is likely to conflict with the "norm", if you will, and that a character's importance because of the number of things they have impacted does not always equate to getting an article.</opinion> ~SnapperTo 01:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, shouldn't he get his own article if only because he was an important character in the story(or at least Sasuke's part of the story) long before the Akatsuki were even introduced? He also has much more of a backstory than the other Akatsuki members. - The Norse 22:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Merger Tag

Since the discussion was archived should the tags be removed or something?Or a new discussion be made?I'm not sure how it works,so could someone please inform me or take whatever actions are appropriate?Lastbetrayal 11:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason I archived the discussion was that firstly the talk page was getting too long (90 kilobytes) and secondly, the merge was unresolved as it continued for more than 2 weeks without a definite concensous. The tag will remain if people still want to hold another merge attempt. Hope that helps. Omghgomg 12:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Itachi's association with birds?

Yeah, I probably shouldn't ask if this should be put into the article while in the middle of a merging thing, but... Should we mention Itachi's association with birds? He seems to be able to make clones out of birds outside of Genjutsu. He uses them while in a genjutsu with Naruto twice, and while fighting against Sasuke recently. I'm not sure if this should be in the article or not, but, yeah. I believe it's mentionable. DarkRyan75 15:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Untill they have solid proof that his association with birds is outside of his genjutsu than it's not worth mentioning. I say that because he doesn't make any hand signs and he makes direct eye contact before he turns into birds so that might still be his sharingons dueing. Yxgtree 21:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Hold the merge

I suggest that we wait to furhter discuss the merger discussion until after the Akatsuki one is finished, as if that is deleted than there would be no proper place to put him. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah yah there would it's a little article called Akatsuki (Naruto), every heard of it?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:52, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Under WP:SIZE it is said that an article in the 60,000 bytes-ish area up is suggested to be seperated if possible, and that is exactly what would happen again, which would lead to the members page being deleted again. In other words, neither organization nor members will work. Minor villians is for ones only in one-arc or completely minor (like the Rain team), which is not Itachi. He's not an ally, a Konoha ninja or a member of a major Konoha team, a Sand or Sound ninja, or summon, or a tailed beast. Shortly, if the members is deleted there would be no place to put him. Let's just deal with the members article first then get back to this, the members debate far surpasses this. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 22:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I take it you don't pay much attention to Akatsuki (Naruto)'s talk page? ~SnapperTo 22:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeh edit war. >_< i was just about to say that and besides as what Artsist just said I think other akatsuki members go under that description too. Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a question... do admins pay attention to people's opinions? Like, if there was a supermajority, would they care? Jazz Band Member 23:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

No they do not. They don't have to. Just like we don't have to. Because technically admins are just normal members with superior power. That said, there is also an difference in communitiy. If us normal members without superior power were to ignore the majority then we would have a problem, edit wars, things like that but if a normal member with superior power (I.E. Admin) does the same thing but is backed up by what they know more than anything (I.E. Policy) then supermajority be damned.--TheUltimate3 23:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If you guys want to be babies then go here and rant.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty much they change anything that makes them not have their way. I can't wait until they change their mind and say every article needs to be split and that articles need every single pic possible. Of course that would mean that the people would be happy, and they would never allow that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.184.207 (talk) 01:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Problem Solved

• Now that the Admins deleted the Lit of Akatsuki members they will probably lay off for a while. It was pretty childish but they got their way. -- JayStream12 21:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave the admins alnoe they're just doing their job as wikipedians.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 21:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

yes but they ignored supermajority! 24.229.191.54 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn -- JayStream12 23:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I pray that last sentence wasn't bait.--TheUltimate3 23:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounded like it didn't? Only goignt o say one thing, my name is Sam.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright it was but now that the new Akatsuki page has had several images taken I have something new to complain about -- JayStream12 03:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The admins didn't do their job at all, and chose to take the easy way out and delete the page rather than attempt to solve the problem or even wait for it to get solved, as it was not enough time for that to be possible. Chess Pieces (MÄR) was once like LOAM (List of Akatsuki members), but it settled down after the proper amount of time was given, the same could have happened to LOAM too. And wow, Sam, a few weeks ago you were anxious to call the admins, now it seems you don't want any contact with them at all. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 20:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you acussing me of all this? Nice job assuming good faith. i don't know any of those admins i've only met Durin once before he prabaly doesn't even remember me.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 20:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

No Sam, I think he was merely commenting on how we were all once on opposing sides of contacting admins and whatnot and how recent events seem to have brought all together in one big "Admin Pwned" family.--TheUltimate3 20:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that may be the case but he shouldn't have said that anyway as it does sound like he's saying I told them to delete eevrything.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 22:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I know you didn't tell them to delete everything, Sam. And I don't think that is what he meant. Also, I just naturally am against admins because they have higher power... that's how it works with me... I don't like people with a lot of power... no offence to the admins. Jazz Band Member 23:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The admins are just using there power to bully us around and get there own way--Blue-Eyes White Dragon 05:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Enough. They are performing the duties required of one who has the sysop tools. They are not "higher" than any other editor; they are an editor with additional tools, as noted and emphasized by Jimbo Wales. There is no conspiracy, plan, or cabal that exists that is working against you. Please assume good faith with editors. If I see another personal attack or civility issue, then I'll request an administrator come to sort out this mess. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

they are not performing there duties and they are "higher" then us. and i don't see any personal attacks and don't threaten us--Blue-Eyes Gold Dragon 09:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they were personal attacks... we weren't singling out just one admin, we were talking about them in general. Jazz Band Member 11:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, how is calling in an admin to sort out current user angst against admins helping both sides?--TheUltimate3 12:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not a matter of admins vs. regular users. This is about two sides with different interpretations of the rules clashing, and it just so happens that one side had admin backup. Bear in mind that they also had non-administrator support; Durin himself was not an administrator. Using administrators as a skapegoat is no more helpful than calling one in to sort things out.

That said, this discussion is irrelevant to Itachi's article, it is getting nowhere quickly, and it is, as Sephiroth pointed out, growing out of hand in terms of civility issues. It would be best to close this discussion now by deleting the topic, but I'll leave that for you to decide. Regards, You Can't Review Me!!! 16:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that I want this, but if you do contact an admin, Sephiroth, I suggest you contact one who had absolutely nothing to do which the members page controversy. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ask Neil, he's a nice guy.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 16:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, Artist. Jazz Band Member 00:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Come On! Enough With the Merging Already!!

They're still considering merging Itachi into the Akatsuki article? Are you serious? He is too much of an important character to be merged in there, and despite being a member, that reason alone is not enough to just cut and paste him in there. Out of all of the Akatsuki, he's the most important for several reasons. Example: Mass murderer who killed all members of the Uchiha Clan save for Sasuke, his sharigan, and his background. To cut and merge him will severely limit the description of his attributes and such, anyone with me on this?--User:ZeroGiga 14:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The only one truly committed to him being merged is Sam, who has yet to state a reason not on Wikipedia's list of arguments to avoid during deletion discussion (I don't know the exact link, so I'll just like to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which is on the list). Unless he presents a reason, then discussing it would be pointless. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 19:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Accusing Sam of using arguments to avoid makes little sense when every opinion to keep Itachi can be summed up as WP:ILIKEIT. Sam, as have others, have given reasons to merge Itachi that have oh-so-politely been ignored to maintain the notion that "Itachi is important". ~SnapperTo 20:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on! Can we at least go a week with a merge tag on the page? A 4th time is probably not going to change anything... and "Itachi is important" isn't the only reason people have given. Jazz Band Member 00:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right; "I like it" is a common option too. That's about as diverse as the reasoning gets, however. ~SnapperTo 00:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You'd call it acussing to avoid, I call it brilliant thinking. Now the Akatsuki Member page was deleted, Itachi info remains intact, and if need be can be moved to Akatsuki page if this holds more water than the last two tries.--TheUltimate3 01:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What about "he has enough info for an artical"? Hmm? And if we would merge, we would lose a lot of valuable info. Jazz Band Member 02:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Every character has enough info for an article if you try hard enough; in the case of some characters you just need to fill it with crap in order to get there. In any event, valuable information of this nature is better suited for a specialized wiki, with everything of necessity already being present at Akatsuki (Naruto)#Itachi Uchiha. ~SnapperTo 03:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll start with the positive. Sam is at least fighting for what he believes. I respect that, however, He has often avoided entire arguements by summing them into WP:ILIKEIT even when they were explicatly stated as not that, and other times he just out right avoided the entire arguement. I believe that we even had proof that his motive was that he didn't like it, though if we did it was deleted. Furthermore, if the arguement "He's important" and "He has enough info" doesn't convince then nothing will. Those two alone are as equal to "it can be merged" and "he is a minor character", however, unlike those two others when "He's important" and "He has enough info" come together they actually mean something. 172.136.6.141 04:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the relevant argument is WP:FICT, which practically no one has been able to refute as of yet. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

But Itachi is important and he has enough info. Jazz Band Member 11:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Keeping it short: Notability - No question. Information - Enough. More information in article than merge - Agreed. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 17:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability: obviously you are only taking the dictionary definition of the term into consideration, ignoring the definition set forth by WP:FICT. Information: means nothing; I can write an article on the Shadow Clone Technique that has "enough information", but that doesn't make it worthy of an article. More information in article than merge: means nothing; this has more information than this, but you merged it anyway. I wonder why you are so determined to keep Itachi's article when you have supported the mergings of so many other similar characters... ~SnapperTo 18:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking to Artist about the other merges? Because I only heard of Bleach once or twice. And that has nothing to do with the situation we have here. Jazz Band Member 18:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Could be argued as much though. The character Ganju could be considered just as important as Itachi in some circles, thats where the debate lies.--TheUltimate3 18:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Artist supported the mergings of Kabuto, the Third Hokage, Yamato, and so on, so obviously he has no qualms with merging "important" characters and losing information in the process. Bleach articles are merely merges he has performed himself. ~SnapperTo 18:55, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I supported the merges of the 3rd and others (I didn't really care about Kabuto), I just didn't take place in the discussion. They hardly had any info though. Jazz Band Member 19:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

They had "Information - Enough" and "More information in article than merge", which is being used as reasoning to keep Itachi's article. ~SnapperTo 19:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw those page's, and they hardly had anything. Kabuto's had a bit more, but the others, like the 3rd's, had way less that Itachi's page does now. Jazz Band Member 21:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Itachi's article is of comparable length to the articles of the Third, Kabuto, and Sasori. The only difference is that Itachi's is perhaps longer by a paragraph, though that's not very significant. ~SnapperTo 23:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you know why these debates are going off topic all the time? From what I can tell, there are two major reasons for the lack of progress made in this debate.

Reason 1: The biggest reason is that people continue to use decisions, arguments, and actions made in discussions from other articles to support or oppose this merge. What became of the Sasori article or what happened with Bleach articles is not relevant to why Itachi's article should or should not be merged. What was said or done in another debate/discussion is of little meaning here, so why is it constantly brought up? Should Itachi be merged because it does not follow WP:FICT or because the Third Hokage was merged?

Reason 2: The second reason is quite simple and obvious to everyone here I think. Many of you are attacking other people, playing the blame game, and holding grudges. I can't tell you how many times I have seen people blame Sam for this or that, nor can I tell you how many times in the last # merge attempts that I have seen arguments that consist mainly of actual arguing rather than making a point.

The merge attempts won't end if this continues. Please just stay focused on the main reason this current discussion is here: Should Itachi be merged or not? --Superneoking 03:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm back i was busy with real life. Thanks for saying what i wanted to say Snapper. I ingored some people because they said the exact same thing as another person said and to the first people I answered. So why should I answer something i've said dozens of times? Snapper, thankyou for pointing out the bleach disscussions i haven't paid attention to bleach articles latley so i had no clue. So what changed Artsist between then and now?Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 01:36, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reusing points and arguments goes both ways. Both sides have continued to bring up points made earlier in the discussion. Relevant or irrelevant, if you ignore other arguments, new or old, then how can you make your point?

If you are going to oppose the merge, don't tell us the article should stay because Itachi is important or his article is long. Seeing as how WP:FICT continues to be ignored or left unchallenged, then I think this article indeed needs to be merged. Focus on that policy rather than going off topic or telling us that this article is important. --Superneoking 03:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I finally really looked at WP:FICT. Most of the things in Defining Notablility for Fiction (which, in my opinion, is an opinion on their part) are probably not available... like cultural impact. But we do have "critical and popular reception"... the Shonen Jump character poll. Jazz Band Member 11:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Technacaly everything on Wikipedia is an opinion so saying WP:FICT is an opinion isn't much of a rebuntle on your part. Having the Shoen Jump character polls as a real world info isn't all that helpful considering some other akatsuki have better polls than itachi and they don't have an article, the third hokage had a higher poll than itachi and look where he is now.Sam ov the blue sand, Editor Review 15:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

A single popularity poll is irrelevant, especially considering that it was published with the manga, and it does not satisfy WP:FICT. If your argument allowed for articles, then Deidara would have an article right now, but this is not the case. In any case, until someone brings up information that was satisfy the inclusion of this article under WP:FICT, then it should be merged. I'll wait a bit, and then I'll be bold and merge it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 17:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't saying that because of the poll results he should be kept, but that putting the results on there is "popular and critical reception". Jazz Band Member 23:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's "popular and critical reception" from a primary source, and it's not enough to satisfy WP:FICT. Since no one has really presented anything significant, I'm going to merge this. Bring up comments on my talk page, don't revert. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete the history page. We could use the info for later.--TheUltimate3 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a deletion if that's what you mean. Mergers still have their original history for everyone's perusal. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh. ALright thats good. How do you find said history cause I've been trying for weeks to no avail.--TheUltimate3 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ta dah. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 23:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

w00t!--TheUltimate3 23:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You guys are crazy. Do you really think that a merger was the right idea?? Itachi did more for the storyline than any of those other guys and had more of a background than those other guys. Let me ask you this, did Deidara, Sasori, Pein, or any of those people besides Itachi kill their clan and make their little brother so thirsty for revenge that he would seek out Orochimaru?? NO!!!! Please revert, Sephitoth. If you are not sephiroth however, let's not anger him by reverting ourselves. Let's wait first.ItachiUchihaArticleForTheWin 01:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(Re-indenting) Itachi just simply doesn't have enough secondarily-sourced information and out-of-universe information to make a stand-alone article of good quality. As such, he was placed into a list of characters, which is common practice on Wikipedia. It's not to say Itachi didn't do enough in the series, just that he didn't do enough to have a real-world person write or comment about him in a published source.

Also, your username leads me to believe that you created your account solely for this cause. While I admire your dedication, that may not have been the wisest idea, as you can easily be accused of being a sockpuppet of one of the opposers of the merge, a meatpuppet, or otherwise. Might I recommend you to WP:CHU if you wish to change your username for that purpose or if you simply want to change your name down the line? You Can't Review Me!!! 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't appear that a resolve took place, there are still several editors against the merger. I'm one of those people, see my point here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Is this still going on? Itachi doesn't belong in the Akatsuki page simply because he's significant as so much more than an Akatsuki member. He's the driving force behind Sasuke's story in the events leading up to the Sasuke Retrieval arc in part 1, second in significance there only to Orochimaru (maybe), and in part 2 he's become more active in vendettas outside of Akatsuki, namely, his up and coming fight with Sasuke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muramasa itachi (talk • contribs) 01:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I CANT BELIEVE I STARTED THIS WHOLE ARGUMENT ABOUT ITACHI....YAAAHHO! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naruto Beier (talk • contribs) 13:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And we're back. Again.

Namely because 1, 2, 3, and 4, placing fairly high in one of the Shonen Jump polls if I recall correctly, and having a tad bit of merchandise, all meaning that I can write a half-decent reception section. So yeah, if Snapper and Tintor write up the in-universe parts, I can write up the reception section. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree.Tintor2 (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose that would be an improvement over the inadequacies of his Antagonists section. And since he's dead, it wouldn't be nearly as difficult to maintain his article this time around. The only hurdle would be how and where to address the differences between what is revealed before and after his death. ~SnapperTo 18:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it would make the background longer than the plot overview.Tintor2 (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Most sections would be longer than usual. Background would be the explanation given for most of the series + what Madara reveals. Personality would be how he acts for most of the series + how all of that was a sham. Plot overview would be what he does + his real reasons for doing so. Abilities would be about the same, just noting that his reason for not fighting switches from being uninterested to being a pacifist. ~SnapperTo 18:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Fin. If someone would like to perhaps par down the information, I can go through and ref it later. Also, that this article now exists needs to trickle down into other articles (ie. [[List of Naruto antagonists#Itachi Uchiha|Itachi Uchiha]] → [[Itachi Uchiha]]). ~SnapperTo 20:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Abilities section: EMS

In the Abilities section, it is not necessary to add "something he pretended to want in order to get Sasuke to kill him." on the end of the explanation of how to get Eternal Mangekyo Sharingan. As I've already pointed out twice, it really shouldn't go in the abilties section as desire to do it doesn't affect the process and the personality section already notes that he may have been faking it so there's no need to repeat it in the abilities section.

It's not a matter of doubting his intentions. Ono-sama (talk) 23:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It was added because "Only by taking Sasuke's eyes can he restore his vision" is only true, not relevant, without it. The desire for Sasuke's eyes, real or otherwise, is a key aspect of Itachi's death/personality. ~SnapperTo 03:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying. Yes, it's a key aspect of his death/personality, but the fact that replacing his eyes with those of Sasuke will restore his vision is not affected(effected?) by his motives for doing so. May as well say "He can only activate the Susanoo jutsu when he's about to get hit by an attack he doesn't want to dodge". Expand the Personality Section to 50 pages dissecting Itachi's motives for wanting/pretending to want Sasuke's eyes, but as the abilities themselves are what matter in the Ability Section and as Itachi's motives have no effect on the process of obtaining the EMS, they shouldn't be listed there. Ono-sama (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Itachi's death...

I wonder why it isn't listed in the article? It's listed in the Naruto Wiki article for Itachi.
~~LDEJRuff~~ ^{(see what I've contributed)} 14:30, 19 July 2009 (EDT)

It is shown in almost every section of the article.Tintor2 (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Itachi's "ghost" cameoed in Sasuke's battle with Danzo (courtesy of Sasuke's Tsukyomi technique). I know it's not mention-worthy in the main article, but still, an appearance is an appearance. Look at Naruto's dad. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 18:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That appearance was confirmed to be an illusion in the next chapter, and is unimportant for his character. Then why add it? In Minato's section we don't have all his appearances.Tintor2 (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Clone

The Itachi that appeared in the beginning of Part II was a clone created by Pain and controlled by the real Itachi, not Itachi himself. Sure, Itachi made an appearance after the clone died, but he himself didn't interfere with their search, his clone did. 75.157.110.77 (talk) 13:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)