Talk:One Piece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One Piece article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	One Piece is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of anime and manga. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page (Talk). See our portal to learn more.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Dial article 2 question 3 Problems at the Wikia website 4 Should we include that 4kids stopped dubbing One Piece? 5 Characters 6 Number of episodes issue 7 Too fanish 8 Techniques 9 New Templates 10 Vandal 11 question 12 Templates - Old Vs. New 13 Cross epoch 14 Japanese Staff 15 Few factual questions 16 Using Two Different Templates 17 Where are the attacks 18 Culling unneeded info 19 Reglaur Vandal note 20 A couple of things... 21 Just Wondering 22 Plot Overview 23 WRONG Harry Potter Book 24 IP 71.160.53.122 25 Loss of article 26 moria pirates 27 Merge/expand?

[edit] Dial article

Someone should really make an article for all the dials like Impact,Ax or Jet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.218.200 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

The terms page is enough. Angel Emfrbl 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] question

How do you know some of Sanji attacks names if he doesn't say some of them in the anime?Shirleybiscuit

Because he either did the same move later and called the name out then, he did it in the manga, or the version that you are refering to is the now defunct 4Kids dub; where many things were edited out. (Justyn 06:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Problems at the Wikia website

Okay the 4 most active Editors got blocked at Wikia...

• I was blocked for being a DBZ hater
• The others were blocked for adding stuff without premission.

OMG! The DBZ thing... Esp... OMG... This is stupid. O.o'

Yeah this is just to say we're having problems at the Wikia site right now everyone. Angel Emfrbl 07:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I, angel and 2 other heavy contributors were banned. Angel for "being a DBZ hater" which if someone doesn't like Dragon Ball Z it's their personal opinion. The other 3, including me, were banned for "adding info to the site without permission" so basically the person who requested the Wiki feels it's his job to grant permission for every edit. He is basically sitting on the site for his own private use now, since the others arn't very active, coming on a few times a month. Anyone concerned should contact Wikia using their form, telling them how us 4 were ufnairly banned, and the guy is trying to control the entire site, utterly removing the point of it being a Wiki and more like a place to sign up for and contribute if you want to get banned. Battlefranky and Joekido were just as active as us, and we all got banned for the most stupid reasons ever. Pyrgus 09:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC) AKA Cody2526

Odd thing in my case is I wasn't preaching DBZ hate nor did I let my opinion rule my judgment. I've defended a DBZ article here on wikipedia when I don't even touch those pages otherwise. Hell I even supported a DB page on the wikia when it was up for banment and tried to help keep it. Angel Emfrbl 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay I just logged onto Wikia and found... Everyone is unbanned. ^-^ Angel Emfrbl 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should we include that 4kids stopped dubbing One Piece?

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2006-12-06/4kids-cancels-one-piece-production

4Kids Cancels One Piece Production posted on 2006-12-06 11:06 EST 4Kids Marketing Director Roz Nowicki has confirmed that the company will not adapt additional episodes of One Piece. 4Kids has dubbed 104 episodes of the series into English, 78 of which have aired in the United States. Thanks, Daikun, Starks, and Mark Barbour.

We have, that's why pages are starting to say "defunct dub". (Justyn 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC))

A forum post isn't a reliable source though, has anybody considered this?--69.141.190.230 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and Wikipedia is not for original research like that. We should just say it's a possibility. Matty-chan 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

There are new episodes in the US... Odd if 4Kids dropped it huh? Angel Emfrbl 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There the ones that had not aired yet in America after that there shouldn't be anymore unless the raitings are really good.

[edit] Characters

? Where's the character info page? There's no Table of Contents heading for it, nor is there a easily found link anywhere. Mongoose22 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the template at the bottom of the page. If it just looks like an orange bar, you have to click the little "show" link in the right hand corner though. There are numerous character pages, so that's the easiest way to see them all. --tjstrf talk 11:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why it does that. But here it is, if you do what Tjstrk said you'll see how its suppose to look:

I would love to know why it refuses to stay like this. Angel Emfrbl 14:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The answer is simple. If there are more than 3 instances of the <div class="NavContent"> on a page then they will all automatically hide themselves. This is true on the One Piece page, there are two in the infobox and the third is the One Piece general template. It is also true on this talk page at the moment. The WikiProject Anime and manga has one and there are two others included in the talk. Have a look at MediaWiki:Common.js and find the variable called NavigationBarShowDefault. It is set to 3. (Some people put multiple instances of <div class="NavContent"> on a page to force it to be hidden.)--Squilibob 09:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have made changes to the anime and manga infobox and to the anime and manga wikiproject notice so that this no longer happens. The template should always show at the bottom of the page now. --Squilibob 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of episodes issue

This topic doubtless won't be relevant for more than a few weeks, but the issue is this: episodes 291 and 292 (numbered as such in the broadcast) do not actually contain any current *plot* (filler or otherwise) in the series. Rather, they make up the year-end special for 2006. 291 has already aired, and 292 is coming up soon. Now, I believe Geg has been changing the number of episodes back to 290 since this past Sunday. My personal feeling is that since the episodes are numbered, they should be included in the official count regardless of their relevance to the series plot, but I wanted to make sure there were no objections before I changed the number of episodes back to 291. --Julian Grybowski 04:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just say over' X number of episodes rather then use an exact noumber... It would mean less arguments overall. Angel Emfrbl 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too fanish

Okay its been bugging me for eht last couple of months. We're slowly moving towards too much access information. Okay its useful - but we're not a fan site. We set up the Wikia for such access amounts of detailed info. Someone NEEDS to really go round and simplfy everything. Someone used to do it until several months back, can't remember who now... But their absence is beginning to notice.

Basically, everyone is entering details that are not needed to be entered. Saying Luffy has the power of the Devil Fruit is fine, going into detail about gears is fine... But when I look at Luffy's page I see whole text book style enteries on each gear. Its about time we got someone back in to replace the guy who was simplfying everything. A lot of the text book info contains hidden spoilers, which are harder to notice in hugh blocks of text. Generally, its beginning to notice how difficult the infomation is getting to handle - people keep entering repeated info. Huge text is also harder for a non-One Piece fan to understand... If they really want to know more, they can look it up elsewhere. But encyclopedias are usually aimed at giving you a rough idea on a subject matter so you can look it up futher can we all remember that... Our pages are getting less encyclopedic as days go by inccidently.

So yeah. Everyone's thoughts are welcomed on this matter. But generally, lets remember this isn't a fan website and try to cut the info down. Its not as bad as the picture overload we've had recently, but its not far from it. Angel Emfrbl 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. People add way too much information, every week they come in and every single detail of what happened in the latest chapter, which adds up pretty severely after a while. I used to shorten things up sometimes, I'll try and do some more. - STAREYe 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Techniques

With the ability article along with the abilities on character articles deleted, we have no scource of abilities other than Franky's ablities and Santōryū articles. We need the the ability article back. SoundPound500000 January 3, 2007 12:47 p.m.

Apparently we can have a page explaining how someone works but we cannot have techniques. We are also allowed to get away with describing CP9's fighting style and how it works as well as par with that... But an article that lists just techniques or having them on the page is no-no. There is a lot more to say, but I don't want to explain it all. If you read the One Piece talk pages you'll eventually find out whats going on. Angel Emfrbl 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Templates

I'm not against new templates being put into place on the One Pice pages... REALLY I'm not. But where is the discussion for such changes? I don't see it here! When the One Piece general template was created, I opened up a discussion on this very page and got everyone involved. Everyone eventually was happy with the end result. Discussing things is a lot better.

I would love a template that is smaller then we have... Trouble is splitting up all the characters, arcs and so forth brings about too many problems. It is harder to watch the pages (which is one reason for One Piece general existing) and harder to find the pages. Instead of one step - find the page you want its - find one page- then the next - maybe another - then find the page you want. Its just dam so much eaiser.

I've reverted back to general, if you want it changed back, please open up a discussion so everyone can voice their opinions here. This isn't Reckless's wikipedia, its everyone's wikipedia. Everyone should be involved right? There are ways to do things on wikipedia that makes everyone happy and ways that annoys people. 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

User:RecklessFire is attempting to implement the character template of the divided One Piece template set that the Template:One Piece general currently holds all the information from. There are 4 such templates in all.

Template:One Piece characters

Template:One Piece Factions

Template:One Piece Related Articles

Template:One Piece (actually story arcs)

While the organization will need improvement and there is definitely still a place for One Piece General, I highly support an adoption of at least some of these shorter split templates on One Piece articles, because the current One Piece General template is huge, messy, and unnavigable. The specifics of which templates apply where can be worked out, but there is no need to link from every character article to every story arc, every story arc to every organization, every organization to every episode guide page, and every episode guide to every character. I personally suggest we split out the characters and organizations into their own template (many organization articles also contain characters), leave the rest as One Piece general, and use each template only on their relevant articles. The two article groups will still easily be accessible if we make a One Piece characters page that is a part of both groups and bears both templates. --tjstrf talk 08:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the current template... Why not simply try to alter that first and go from there? As I said up there, no discussion has taken place beforehand to make sure everyone is fine with it. And as I said before, we had it like that once - we had navigation problems. Angel Emfrbl 08:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I point to this template in particulaur: Mortal Kombat (series) found on this page. Ours was orginally based on the old version of this one... Why not inprove on it like they did? Theirs is just fine and it has as much info (just better oraginsed) then ours? They have the SAME problem we do with navigation at times (considering they have more articles then we do its not a suprise). But they took time to change a horrible template into one that wikipedia isn't too mad at them for having. Angel Emfrbl 09:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Because any alterations to the general template would effect every article holding it. I only wish to effect the subcategories of those templates. The navigation problems are caused by the odd page hierarchy system here, in which we have articles that would normally be subordinate to another page but that higher order page does not exist.

The Mortal Kombat template is a mess as well. It may be reduced to a smaller size, but it still bears far too much text and links together far too many articles for easy navigation. Navboxes are not supposed to be a substitute for interwiki links. --tjstrf talk 09:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion then - lets organise the pages BEFORE we alter the template then? It would be a lot better. We've been told in the past we have too many articles, why not take the time to reorganise everything and then when were happy, change templates.

And its not that messy looking... There are plenty of other pages using simulair templates to that... Doom anyone? Though I admit no template is perfect, (compare to Doom's one MK one is better -_-'). Angel Emfrbl 09:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay how about one suggestion - remove ALL characters off the template and just have the organisation they belong to? Link to them from those pages not the template. Angel Emfrbl 09:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

That would be helpful, yes. --tjstrf talk 09:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See... One hour after discussion and two members reach argreements!

anyway I'm waiting to see if Recklessfire puts a point of view across right now. This is why I don't like changes without discussion. We have no explainations to go on as to why things are... We can't help Reckless either with any work until he speaks to everyone on a general level. Thats why I'm making a fuss about it. It can put a rench in the works.

I'm actually happy someone else is trying to improve the pages on tamplate navigation level. I was beginning to feel like everyone was getting lazy (its about 4 months old anyway) and just went with what we had. I never liked what I ended up with in the first place, but couldn't come up with any alternatives myself. Angel Emfrbl 09:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

W-wow, I didn't expect this much discussion on this so quickly. Either way, the Templates I have set up are, in my opinion, acceptable. I do agree that they have room for improvement. I came up with this Template arrangement on a spur-of-the-moment basis. I'm not that experienced with this and I used someone elses Template design as a foundation for them. Anyway, I'm sorry that I didn't discuss this first with others. I'm open to others editing the templates,(I suppose you could do it with or without my permission) but that's beside the point. If you do edit the templates, I would appreciate being notified of it. On a side note, please explain what issues, if any, you have with the new design, As I can be kinda slow sometimes and won't pick up on subtle hints regarding changes people may want.RecklessFire 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the point to having a Template that has links in it to other pages. It should have everything it needs inside of it. I also don't see how the old one was hard to navigate. It listed all the main links that are connected to One Piece. Say you needed to look up Eneru. First you looked to see the Characters title, then the Enemies tab, and then Eneru was listed. It was quiet simple and easy to use. If anything , just add a button that hides all that info and can be un-hidden by a click of the [show] button. It's a hassle to link to other pages that has too much info to sift through. It doesn't even make sense to link to another page when you're trying to get to a particular page in the first place. That's like saying "I want to get to George W. Bush's wiki page, so I'll first go to List of U.S. president's wiki page and find him on there." You want a direct link, not another page. Another thing, already mentioned, was editing of the pages; that'll be a problem on it's own. It's so much easier to just keep a general Template that links to the most important related pages. My final point is to look at other featured articles or GA animes. They have Templates that are similar to one we used to have and don't have links to other pages. I don't care what happens either way, since I already have everything on OP bookmark'd, but new users will most likely find it confusing or annoying. I've said my piece, do with it what you will.

[edit] Vandal

This IP address: 80.202.20.40

You'll know his kind of edit anyway from style, he basically goes around and adds :

• Rankyaku Gomu Shot
• Shigan Jet Shot
• Tekkai Giga Shot
• Geppou Gomu Shot
• Soru Jet Shot
• Kami-e Giga Shot

note: he is found alternating the last part of the attack list to suit each character, this one came from Luffy's page... He has also done Spandams and Doflamingo's info.

I know we have a vandel proceedure on Wikipedia, but I'm alerting asking everyone to keep an eye out for him. He has been warned a couple of times. Basically keep an eye on that IP adress... The first person to spot him doing this again, report him before you fix the edit. Read wikipedia's pages on vandlism, give him the ness ban or report him for perminate ban if need be for repeating vandalising even after given warning. Angel Emfrbl 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] question

When one piece got a anime version from the manga how did they get the manga storyline to the anime to match for the episodes certain minutes ?Shirleybiscuit

Answer: They didn't. Some eps contain several chapters, others just one... Listen ShirleyBuscuit, you need to stop asking these questions on wikipedia. Forums are the place to ask them, not here. More people will listen to your questions too.  ;) Angel Emfrbl 15:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Templates - Old Vs. New

Its time to ask it... Who here likes the new templates. I admit I'm ticked off about navigation problems, I've been going from page to page Via my watchlist rather then the template. But my view is just one... Others have many.

So after being up for a couple of weeks, is the old way better or the new way?

Everyone's opinions - needed! Angel Emfrbl 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The old way was better. I'm not sure if the new way was done as intended, though. Template talk:One Piece characters talks about respective pages, but Template:One Piece characters isn't ready for prime time. It links to template pages. What is it supposed to link too? Was there a discussion? - Peregrine Fisher 02:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The old was Good. The new tried to get Better, but only did Worse. So, as once I said "Better is Enemy to Good" (Il Meglio è Nemico del Bene). So, let's return to the Good (old) one. Cuttyflam 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I say go back to the old template, this was just an attempt to fix that which was not broken. (Justyn 11:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Lets leave it until Sunday, give everyone a few more days to vote... Then on Monday if things are how they are, we revert back. I'm gonna make one adjustment to the orginal template - take the character pages off the selection bit so we have them linked via the factions page. That will be another experiment. I'll say this much though, the lack of easy access to the other One Piece pages is starting to really bug me. Angel Emfrbl 12:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Bleach series has got a template for general purpose and another one only for character. Cuttyflam 12:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Well currently no one has asked the new one to stay so... We can now revert back and change things on Monday. So yeah, lets put the old template back and try again with the templates. Angel Emfrbl 13:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay the revett back to the old has been done. We can either keep the old template for characters or create a new one... Or just make do without that. The characters are gone from it to make it smaller. We need to check the factions pages to make sure all links to main character pages are present. Angel Emfrbl 13:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too difficult to get to the "One Piece characters" template now. Now I have to click on a faction related to one of the main characters, find and click on a link on that page to the main character's bio, and scroll down to the bottom of the screen just to view it!

[edit] Cross epoch

I'm surprised to see that the article doesn't mention the One Piece/Dragon Ball Z crossover by Oda and Akira Toriyama. Could someone show me where it is linked to here as I may have overlooked it? Heck, I'm no expert at editing One Piece related articles myself because this isn't exactly my field of expertise, so I wouldn't know what to add/edit here. Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I thibk the page is not needed. Cross Epoch should go on One Piece Dragon Ball Media, or in the page of the authors. Cuttyflam 23:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Staff

Wouldn't this be better on the Anime or Manga pages? Its more relevent to them and takes this list off the main page. Angel Emfrbl 23:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Few factual questions

Hi, I had a few questions regarding some facts in the article. One is the line:

To date, only a handful of episodes have been released in unedited form on DVD in the US. - As far as I know none of the episodes have been released on DVD in the U.S. without some degree of cutting. Secondly the line:

One Piece is the fourth highest selling manga in the history of Weekly Shonen Jump[1], and is currently Japan's most popular and all-time third-best-selling Shōnen Jump title. sounds kind of contradictory to me (it sounds like One Piece is both the third and fourth highest selling Shonen Jump manga). Am I just reading these incorrectly? Justin Hirsh 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

okay the first bit is really strange... I don't recll any ep dbeing released uncut because 4Kids are not intereasted. The second one is a plunder, one of those should be just "Japans" not "Shonens" best X ranked selling title. Angel Emfrbl 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Using Two Different Templates

I think that would be good using a General Template for General Page of OP, such as Location, Arcs, Media... and another, existing, for Characters Organization and Crew, Template:One Piece characters, such in Bleach pages. What do you think? Cuttyflam 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Its already in place. Did it Sunday. At the end of this week, I'll be asking for opinions on whether this try worked over the last one. This is our fourth attempt at template making for the OP pages. The only difference is I left factions (including crew) on general. Angel Emfrbl 13:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Where are the attacks

The Character attacks page is gone, and wouldn't y know it, I need it for something. Any chance it's backed up anywhere? 71.145.142.206 08:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

^ Gune in diguise?

Yes it was backed up here. Angel Emfrbl 09:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Culling unneeded info

Listen guys... Info is good, but seriously its stupid to go into huge amounts of info. When I sorted out Luffy's personnelity it was written 3 times (in one form of another) about his intelligence being simple... And it was all over the place, first we talked about his intelligence, then strength then back to intelligence then strength (or something like this layout). The pages are all a mess, we adding info without checking the info that is there. That is bad.

Okay next week I'm going to go around and cull the info on the pages. Seriously, ther eis no need to say Luffy is strong and then list just about every example of his strength... In fact you just have to say he beat X character, their strength is written on their page, there is no need to repeat it on Luffy's page. I was going to do it all tonight, but there is a lot more work to be done then I first thought. I can't do it all in one hit.

Helpers are wanted (badly) in doing this. This poor organisation of info is bringing all the pages down in quality and making them unencyclopedic... Its time to change that. I know we're all eager to added huge amounts of detail and info to the pages but before you do ask these question:

1. Has it been been said already once? (don't repeat info)
2. Is this the simplest form I can write it down? (E.g. don't explain their strength through excessive info, just list a couple of things to back it up and leave it at that... You might not even need to do that)
3. Am I adding it in the right place? (so we don't have talk on intelligence... Strength... Feats... Then Intelligence again... Then something else... You get the idea).

Just ask them to yourselfve...Angel Emfrbl 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to point out:

• Paulie's appearance is similar to that of Cid Highwind from Final Fantasy VII, evidenced by his sporting of goggles, smoking, and light beard.

The above phrase... Its speculations... Seriously, you can sit through every anime and just about every character will remind you of another from another series. If anyone sees this kind of thing just remove it... That goes for the whole "Brook looks like Jack Skeleton". You can't note a simulair appearance if Oda hasn't said he based it on them, so lets not let this stuff keep slipping onto the articles.

• His mastery of ropes may be a reference to Scorpion from the Mortal Kombat series. One of Scorpions signature moves is to shoot a piece of rope with a spear edge on it, to drag his opponent nearer himself.

Speculations again "Maybe" kinda gives it away. If we're comparing moves, then all of Luffy's moves might be compared to Mr. Fantasic of the fantastic 4 oe DC's Plastic Man. And Ace's move compare to just about every fir user in the fictional world. His firball move, well Kai from Beyblade even used a simulair move in season 3. See what I mean?

The is the kind of thing I'll also be trying to get rid of from the articles. Its pure speculations and "Fancruft". Plus it makes the pages unencyclopedic (known facts only). Angel Emfrbl 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Although there are many references in One Piece that, while unconfirmed, are pretty obvious (Usopp/Pinocchio, Blackbeard, etc.) that have been accepted. How do we determine the line between this and the "zomg they both use ropes they must be based off each other" theories? For example, I think its pretty obvious Lafitte is based on Alex from A Clockwork Orange, but can we say that in an article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by STAREYe (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

No we can't. If someone asks if Zoro is based on a certain pirate and Oda says "yes", guess what - we can post it. Otherwise everything (including saying chopper is based on a famous reindeer) is speculation obivous or not. Angel Emfrbl 07:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reglaur Vandal note

Just informing everyone to look out for this IP adress:

204.72.116.44

He has been vandaling Nami's page for some while now, replace "Breasts" with "Boobs(HaHa boobs)". If anyone sees him, like up wikipedia's vandal rules and take further action. He has been doing this for a while now. I don't know what else he is doing on wikipedia, all I know this is now becominng apparent he is aiming to vandalise and we can't ignore him. Message being repeated on Main Page and Nami page. Angel Emfrbl 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A couple of things...

Okay I better write this here (here we go again with this subject), someone added this to Yonkou and Shanks' page - that they haven't used Devil Fruits so far. There is no need to mention that so far there has been no signs the Yonkou have Devil Fruits... Or they lack them. Really. If they have a Devil Fruit, mention it, otherwise don't bother. We're just adding useless and uneeded info and filling up a page with junk statements.

Also I keep seeing this same dam phrase repeated in just about every article sooner or later thats been bugging me for a while. Its this phrase: "It should be noted..." Why should it be noted? Why can't it just be stated as a fact? "Shanks doesn't have a Devil Fruit", instead of "It should be noted Shanks' doesn't have a Devil Fruit". Come on everyone, surely between us all we can come up with a more orginal line then this one? The phrase is also boring to read and seems unprofessional. Angel Emfrbl 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Just Wondering

Just wondering what happened to all the pages for the different sagas (East Bue, Skypies, etc). Considering that there are pages for each individual movie and for some pretty minor charactors - e.g. temple priests - don't the main arcs deserve their own pages. Othe long running anime series such as DBZ and Yu Yu Hakusho have pages for their major sagas. e.g. Dark Tournament Saga, Perfect Cell Saga. At least shouldn't the current page be expanded t be more informative, with a more appealing layout? Guest9999

The greater wikipedia community decided we didn't need them. So we lost them... See story arcs page for the simplified version. Apparently they don't think we need them. Angel Emfrbl 07:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plot Overview

I noticed that this article is missing a plot overview, is there any reason for that? Blu Shu0 04:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Don't know. Its a show about a pirate searching for One Piece. We don't know the other major plots right now. Its best to say there is too much loose ends to write in full confidence the plot down. But as I said, the majority of it is Luffy searching for One Piece to become Pirate King. Angel Emfrbl 08:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

If someone were to read this article, I would assme that they want a plot overview or maybe even a synopsis of the story. A condensed version can be included, and I belive will help the overall article. Blu Shu0 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WRONG Harry Potter Book

Somebody will have to change it because it is supposed to say "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.175.18 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

All our figures for the front page are probaberly wrong by now anyway. Angel Emfrbl 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IP 71.160.53.122

He is the guy who keeps vandalising everywhere. If he vandalises ONE MORE TIME, report him here if I have not done so already: Wikipedia:Abuse_reports. I want to catch him because he is making a mess of things right now. See our straw hats page, devil fruit list, and many others. So if ANYONE sees him doing it again, report him, he has had his last warning and can now be banned. Angel Emfrbl 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Loss of article

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece terms

This article is due for deletation. Note this page contains a lot of supporting info and saves dozens of stub pages and info on pages of little relevance. Its up for being a "list/fancruft" page, as well as a "dumping ground" for access info which we know at least the latter it is not suppose to be. Its either save this page or do a lot of linking to the wikia to save dozens of One Piece stubs (which wikipedians in general don't like for in-universe stuff) or ultimately have the info repeated DOZENS of times over just about every article. -_-' Angel Emfrbl 09:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] moria pirates

Now that we know all this information about them I think we should make a page fo r the Moria pirates.--71.248.163.93 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think one more chapter and thats it. Most of the other pirates had their articles created after their respective arcs had finished. Long after. CP9 was created as soon as mentioned and same with Yonkou. In the case of the Yonkou, we have a serious lack of info there so I wouldn't want to see yet another page like that this soon. To top it off we have the weak "3 Powers" page.

If they are created, also move the info from the Creatures page to it... Seriously, most of jumbled animals slapped together. Do they really count as "native" species? Most seems as one offs. Angel Emfrbl 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Done... I've put it under the name "Thriller Bark" though, as I have no evidence in front of me to the name "Moria Pirates" but plenty to just label it under that name. I created it now because, once I test out how it would look with everything from the scattered pages in Minor and Animals I felt it was strong enough now, unlike the previous mention articles Yonkou and 3 powers. It needs cleaning up though, much cleaning up, but its ready for editing.

If anyone sees any of Thriller Barks stuff leaking back onto pages, remove them as they now have a home. In the meantime, feel free to adjust my rubbish set up to the page... Lol. XD Angel Emfrbl 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good grief... Speedy delete already? Its sorted never mind. ^-^'

Okay everyone needs to contribute to that page pronto, otherwise we'll get the next stage of deletation thrown on us. I'm amazed at how Wikipedia can really bring you down sometimes. Esp. when a page is still being worked on. Angel Emfrbl 20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge/expand?

I may be a noob to wikipidia, so this might be harder than I think, But should't we take a hint from the Avatar: The Last Airbender article, a featured article, and merge some stuff into the main OP article? I mean things like, the various main characters, the history of OP's creation, including Romance Dawn, some bounties,pictures, etc, while of course, keeping the original articles intact. sorry if this was already reccomended before ^_^;; Tirkaro 11:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We tried that once... However, it didn't work due to the vast amount of info here. It was split up just to handle. While one or two articles can be merged, the only article that could warrent merging with this page right now is the english adaptations page. Everything else didn't work out when they were part of the main page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angel Emfrbl (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC).