Talk:One Piece/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 One Piece Wikia 2 ENOUGH ALREADY!!! 2.1 Since When Wikipedia follows other rules other than it's own defined set of rules? 2.2 We come to read spoilers 2.3 Discussion is over 3 SBS questions 4 Current arc developments and reformats here 5 "Navy" 6 Character images 7 Spoilers (again) 8 Help for List of One Piece episodes 9 Picture overboard 10 Concerning Overall Spoilers 11 Unsolved issue 12 Merry Go 13 Manga/Anime Differences 14 Character Attacks 15 One Piece media and release information 16 Use of the word "nakama" 17 Other language refs 18 Crackdown on popular fan names 19 Overall article review 20 Idea for attack box

[edit] One Piece Wikia

As you may have realized, the attack list has been moved to a seperate One Piece Wikia(I'm not linking to the main page, since it looks like, well, crap right now XD). I'm thinking that this wikia can solve many problems people have been having. Think about it, here we can greatly expand on the attack descriptions (when they were used, who they were used on, deeper analizing, etc.) like many users have wanted, we can clean up several articles by moving the information here, we can offer episode summaries, and more! The possibilities are limitless! The problem arrives, however, in what belongs there and what should stay on Wikipedia, or whether we should even pay attention to this. For example, the character pages would pretty much be the same as what is on the main Wikipedia pages. The way I see it, the following information should be restricted to the wikia:

• Episode and chapter lists, with brief summaries of each. Volume lists would have longer summaries, but would still be listed on the wikia.
• Attack lists
• Information about characters that some may consider "cruft". Not sure what would constitute as this, but whatever.
• Story arc synopses. The way I see it, the One Piece Story Arc page should feature more detailed summaries of the arcs, while what is currently in the pages for the arcs (like Enies Lobby arc) would be moved to the wikia.

I'll see if I can think of some more uses later. Sigmasonic X 00:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say now that, although I think having this other wiki is a great idea, I don't think it should be linked like it is. We should get it to a decent quality ASAP, remove the attack link from the OP template, and then simply link to the entire wiki from this page here. I think it taseems a lot more professional that way...

And I agree that it shouldn't just be copy-paste stuff, like it seems to be now. XD I looked and saw... Rob Lucci (a copy-paste of his Galley-La and CP9 sections), rokushiki (a copy-paste of the rokushiki section of the CP9 page), Luffy (again, a copy-paste), and then... Zoro was, essentially, crap, and then... that's it, really. :/ So, yeah. Do something different with it, more detailed lists, more info on characters, more trivia/speculations, fansub groups, something. Just... not the same info as here. If that's all it is, then what's the point, other than having the attack page?

That's just my two cents. ^^ Murasaki Seiko 08:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From the 1st Jan everyone is going to be working towards making it different. Just look round it, you will see there is much talk about it. Its slowly already becoming far less a copy and paste site then anything. Our progress is slow due to lack of editors, we're getting there even with half of dozen editors only. Angel Emfrbl 07:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Bounties page... Will of D... Story Arcs... Individual characters pages (really we can get away with one page of very brief summeries of who is who on each crew if we tried). All I can think should go somewhere safer. Animals, term, Devil Fruits, timeline are supporting articles to the main one. Those can stay for now to be moved later if threatened. Angel Emfrbl 19:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm working on adding the arc list to the wikia. Once I'm done, I'm planning on changing the page here to a series of summaries of the arcs without any seperate pages for the arcs themselves, instead offering a link to the wikia Arc List for further details. Of course, I won't do that until others agree with that idea. Sigmasonic X 05:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's fine, as long as it's simply a link at the bottom of the page. Murasaki Seiko 07:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, this is the format I have in mind: User:Sigmasonic X/Arcs, except with all of the arcs included. Along with a plot summary, it also gives a more "out-of-universe" perspective. Sigmasonic X 07:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be for the best for all discussions concerning the wikia to move to the wikia talk page? Sigmasonic X 07:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ENOUGH ALREADY!!!

Several of us here belong to Arlong Park... Its against their rules to post spoilers outside their spoiler topic! Now I'm gonna give everyone here the warning because I don't want it to result in any of us being banned from there, don't post spoilers BEFORE Wednesday/Thursday. When the scanalations and so forth hit the net, THEN its safe to post them, as Arlong Park's rules don't cover them.

From now on, if I see anyone stepping over this dangerous line, its a instant revert... I expect everyone to do the same. Its not to hard to wait until Wednesday when scanalations and translations come out and its no longer a 'Arlong Park' spoiler.

Got it? Angel Emfrbl 21:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking through your edit history, it seems you're referring to them as "Arlong Park spoilers"... wtf? One forum's rules do not apply to the whole internet. If you think it's because it first appeared on Arlong Park, you're wrong. Most of the spoilers tend to originate at www.mangahelpers.com and spread out from there. I originally found out these spoilers via the Narutofan forums. Sorry, but Arlong Park's forum rules do not control the internet. The Splendiferous Gegiford 22:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You can't do a simple thing as wait one day so we know its correct? Thats stupid. That why I'm mainyl posting this note everywhere. I know where the info comes from... *sigh* It seems its above everyone to wait one day.

Wikipedia is for spoilers anyway. That's why we have the spoiler tag. Also - as Geg said, Wikipedia is governed by its own rules. WhisperToMe 22:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't care, I just said 'Arlong Park' for genealisation... Its also to avoid some of us getting into trouble... We are not a spoiler site, we are an encyclopedia, we don't know if the info is correct yet, its too early. We aim for correctness right? I've asked everyone to wait one day, if its too much to ask for, then seriously, you need help. Wednesday, got it everyone? Its tempting but don't do it. Angel Emfrbl 22:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If the information can be proved (i.e. if the episode is visible, floating around), then it's okay to post. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. I don't see a reason why Wikipedia should follow this Wednesday rule. WhisperToMe 22:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We know the info is correct. When The Touch posts something on mangahelpers, it's correct. Hell, last week a huge spoiler in the Naruto manga got out early Wednesday morning, and was added to Wikipedia right after that. The Splendiferous Gegiford 22:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I'm siding with Geg. WhisperToMe 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I asked... I pleaded... I get nothing back. It seems my plea has fallen on two sets of deaf ears. Look, I'm not going to go into a long argument here. I've tried to stop this thing, I get slashed for doing it it seems. Its in everyone's good intereasts... Yet I get problems. Angel Emfrbl 22:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Correction... Three sets of deaf ears. Aye... I really didn't expect this hassle from you guys and everyone else. It really seems we can't wait until the correct info is out and we want to post info that may be incorrect. Angel Emfrbl 22:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We have:

1. Information given by The Touch, who provides accurate spoiler info for One Piece, Naruto, and others week after week.
2. A spoiler picture with Dragon on it.
3. From reading the katakana, I can personally verify that the picture does in fact say "Monkey D. Dragon" on it, as well as the kanji for "Father".

The spoiler isn't incorrect. The Splendiferous Gegiford 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

We're not going to "get in trouble" for posting spoilers. Arlong Park forums or whatever have no jurisdiction over Wikipedia. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay... Do what ever you all want... I'm past caring now... Out of all the months I've been editing on wikipedia, this is my most disappointing. Okay I do know the info is correct too, I've been to mangahelpers (hell I visit there everyday) I'm a member on Arlong Park. I just wanted everyone this time to think about dropping spoilers in on Wikipedia so early... Never mind, forget it. You guys don't seem to care. Which disappoints me the biggest thing of all. Its all against me when I'm trying to avoid some incorectness... I can see where it is going.

*sigh* Angel Emfrbl 22:45, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I can sympathize with the wish to be accurate, however, Wikipedia contains spoilers. You can argue against predictions of unpublished content, but once the spoilers are out it counts as being published in my book, at least enough for a basic outlining of the info. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 22:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers are not reliable information. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

"Spoilers are not reliable information. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 23:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)" - One word: Huh? WhisperToMe 23:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Naughty Whisp. Behave. Lol. I don't see why everyone is making the fuss over this. I guess I never will. Wow this is a populaur discussion, I can't even get what I want to say in as everyone is editing this page. I opened up a can of worms and let them loose somewhat. :O Angel Emfrbl

I couldn't understand Griswold's reasoning behind his post, so I replied the way I did. WhisperToMe 23:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as they contain some sort of confirmation other than just the spoilers(picture, ect.), they're fine. Nemu 23:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since When Wikipedia follows other rules other than it's own defined set of rules?

Since when Wikipedia has to follow other people's rules regarding spoilers? I know it's frustrating for some people, but they need to learn to read where there is a tag stating Spoiler in the articles. Stop blaming other people other than yourself if you get spoiled. If you don't want to be spoiled, then go out with your gf, family, relatives and come back when the spoiler becomes not-spoiler. It's frustrating when you are at other place (Wikipedia), then other people starts coming in and shouting "This is against the rules!", and already defined by Wikipedia, there are a set of rules that are different from the other places. For god sakes, there are a tons of similiar spoilers that came out, and it did not came from Arlong Park only. There are other forums, blog, website out there with said similiar spoilers. Kljs 06:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We come to read spoilers

Almost all the people who watch the subs from Kaizoku Fansubs come here, to Wikipedia, to get the spoilers. Wiki is one of the only places that we can get almost 100% correct spoiler info, since so many people post it. People who come here to read about one piece shouldn't be looking so far ahead if they don't want spoilers, it's not our fault, or the people who edit in the spoilers. Honestly, if people really care THAT much, then just put a disclamer (small one) at the top of the main [One Piece] page saying "contains all spoilers". It's that simple. If people complain saying they only go to the character page, they know that wiki has a spoiler alert anyway. BTW in case anyone doesn't know about Kaizoku, it's a channel of 700+ people.

[edit] Discussion is over

Why do I see two other replies when the discussion is over?  :

• I've had Arlong Park on the brain yesturday it seems.
• I live in the UK... It was past 11 O'clock, I wasn't thinking right. It was late. I've woken up this morning and remember when a dumb thing I did last night. (Hell, I don't drink or take drugs otherwise I'd blame it on that).
• I've been outnumbered and proven wrong on this and to be honest... I don't even though what I was getting at anymore.
• I used Arlong Park when I was meant to be generalising it seems anyway.
• I guess I was shocked how fast it went up, normally we wait until Wednesday, which is the day we all get confirmation we aren't being duped. We did it last week, why didn't we do it this week? Probably due to excitement.

So give it a rest everyone and get back to normal. No more discussing it. i think for everyone's benefit (well mine because I can't figure out why I made a fuss) if we leave it as it is. Angel Emfrbl 06:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SBS questions

I'm just wondering, but it'd be really awesome and convieniet if someone could put all the SBS questions into one page. Just list each questions by chapter and then anwsers under them. Only questions that have been mentioned in Wiki is fine by me, feel free to add more if you want. I just think it'd be a good idea to put all the questions into one page instead of individually looking for them.

Well its more or less fancruft. I think if its up on the One Piece wikia its okay... But here. We have enough pages that are close to 'fancruft'. Angel Emfrbl 06:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current arc developments and reformats here

A few things to bring up. In light of the more recent chapters, especially with the big revelation in chapter 432 (you can look up spoilers on any big forum), do you think it's safe to say that the Enies Lobby arc, as well as the current main saga, ended with chapter 430? Also, I think the World Government Saga should be renamed to something more fitting like the CP9 arc. It's very obvious that the World Government is going to have more roles later on in the story. If we are going to call these more recent chapters a new arc, the best thing to do is to just refer to it as the Current arc and the Current saga (similarly to what Naruto is doing now) until a definitive plot is revealed. The Splendiferous Gegiford 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded for the current arc/saga thing, but generaly the Grandline arcs are named after the islands, with the East Blue arcs being named after the antagonist (with the exeption of the Loguetown and Baratie arcs, with followed the Grandline arc naming pattern) so the ending/ending arc would be the Enies Lobby arc. (Justyn 06:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC))

Oops, I meant to say changing the name of the saga to "CP9 Saga", not "CP9 arc". Like I said, it's obvious the World Government is going to have more to do with the story in the future. The Splendiferous Gegiford 22:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

K then, I went ahead and did it. I started a new section here so it can be expanded upon later. The Splendiferous Gegiford 23:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Navy"

Who does this article continue to refer to the "Navy" when they're called marines in the original? (as can be seen in the English word on their uniforms) Ken Arromdee

Kaigun = Navy in Japanese - They are called the "Kaigun", NOT "Marines" in the Japanese version. See Navy (One Piece) WhisperToMe 21:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to mention, Marines is some countries way of saying 'Navy'. Which is why Oda is using it. Its just not our way of saying 'Navy'. Angel Emfrbl 09:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character images

Every time I visit the One Piece pages on wikipedia the screenshots of the main characters on their pages have been changed again. Is there a reason we can't just find a good screenshot of each of them, and leave them that way? I don't know, it just seems sometimes some of them just aren't very good pictures, or they'll have have pictures that sort of "match" (i.e. came from the same theme song or something like that) but then someone will change half of them for no reason at all. - STAREYe 17:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoilers (again)

I'm trying to work out what I said last time about spoilers... As I said, last time I posted late at night so I don't even understand what I was stating. But whatever it was seems to be coming true from what I'm gathering. I know you guys are gonna lecture me like last time, but we REALLY need to discuss this probabely and not just say 'yeah sure whatever' this time.

1. • The spoilers for 434 are in deed out but their very early translations with a on-line translator... They are not confirmed.
   • People last week jumped the gun when that fake spoiler was out, several of us had to go around and removed/change them.

I'm gonna bring this up again, but unlike the last time (I really don't know why I was like that last time O.o' That wasn';t really me at all), I've removed them but I'm not gonna complain too much. But I'm gonna say this though, we need to be careful about some of the spoilers coming out from mangahelpers, people are jumping at the early translations way too fast.

For those of you that don't know how mangahelpers work:

• somepoint between tuesday or wednesday (sometimes even as early as Monday) photoshots and a short summery come out (this is usually when the fake spoilers appears also).
• Wednesday/Thursday proper scans and script come up.
• By Friday the correct translation is up. Usually its up on thursday.

On wikipedia anyone can add them... But we should all keep an eye out on the new spoilers, there isn't anything confirmed true right now so we need to wait until the confirmed stuff comes out. Remove any spoilers for now, or change them when the real stuff comes up.

This is beginning to become a serious problem, if not now then in the future. I know what the spoilers standards on wikipedia are, but things are beginning to lean in the direction of just plain stupid. Angel Emfrbl 21:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Some good news about the lastest spoiler... Its *seems* to be real this time, however everyone should still be cautious about it. Angel Emfrbl 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have seen articles like mihawk can cut elements and lucky roux being the fastest man, people claiming they are from the red data book... You really believe that hoax?!

I don't since I've seen people on forums point out they aren't in it. Who added them anyway? they should be referenced. Angel Emfrbl 22:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

ahhh i don't know .. the lucky roux fastest thingy was removed. But mihawk can cut through element is certainly not in the data book, he cant or rather it isnt mentioned, thats why people are speculating whether his sword has seastone embedded in it.

[edit] Help for List of One Piece episodes

List of One Piece episodes needs your help. Thanks, Peregrinefisher 07:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture overboard

Okay I agree there should be pictures on pages... But recently we've go completely overboard! Now every picture is registered as 'free usage' on wikipedia in one copywrite format or another. It looks bad to have 30+ 'free' images on any wikipedia page. There shouldn't be more then 6 or so pictures on a page, unless they are supporting something. While in some cases it was unavoidable and a picture needed to backup a set of text (The devil fruit page for example), some of the character pictures really are not needed.

Pages are just getting clogged up... Take the minor characters page, we have pictures for characters that have 2 lines of text. We are not a fansite, we're a encyclopedia site, we don't need a picture for every character. Things were better before we crammed so many pictures on that page. Same with the navy/marines page... Other pages such as pirate crews, well there is only about 6 pictures at the most so we can get away with it there. And all the pictures such as flag + ship support the page.

Lets consider a things in future reguarding pictures:

• Does this character really need a picture at all? (1 or 2 paragraph characters don't really need them).
• Pictures should be used to support the text really.
• Is it gonna cause a layout problem with other pictures on the page + result in overlapping pictures?
• Are there already too many pictures on the page?

Lets act smart here and seriously consider things through before we submit pictures... I like pictures too, but some of us aren't thinking before they submit. Angel Emfrbl 14:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I see where you're coming from, this isn't a print encyclopedia where space is precious, it's an online encyclopedia where space is quite cheap. As far as I've read the rules, there is nothing against having lots of pics, it just recommends against cramming the article with them (this goes towards those 1/2 liners with pics). In these cases, either better spacing, or moving the image to the talk page is recommended until such time as enough text is available to support the image. Now, if you see image with improper sourcing and such, then those need to go (or be properly sourced), but as is I don't really see this as being a serious issue. Derekloffin 22:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but I've seen pages get in the past on wikipedia pointed at for having so many pictures and its been one of the factors for the pages deletation. Seriously, I know its not a print encyclopedia, and sourcing and all... But we really don't need that many pictures on a page.

Why I'm worried because suddenly *boom* we have several pages where the pictures are all over them. Why do we need these many pictures anyway? Angel Emfrbl 22:51, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning Overall Spoilers

There's a topic about early chapter spoilers, but this is about what I think is a more important issue--spoilers for people who haven't read/watched One Piece or have just started. How do you think people are going to react when they have just reached the part when the crew enters the Grand Line and when coming to this page to find out whether or not Apis was filler, scrolls down to the table at the bottom to find a link to an arc overview, and BAM, finds out that Dragon and Garp are related to Luffy and that both Robin and Franky join the crew. I really think something should be done about this, but I'm not sure what. The thing with Dragon and Garp is easily solvable by simply renaming their articles on the table as "Garp" and "Dragon", but the situation with the Straw Hats is more difficult. Could it be possible to make it to that the links to Robin and Franky's (and maybe Chopper's) pages aren't visible until a "show Grand Line crewmembers" or whatever button is clicked? Or perhaps make it so that you would have to highlight their names in order to clearly see them? Sigmasonic X 03:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I would say that we shouldn't need to go that far to protect people. One of the main disclaimers is that the site contains spoilers. I guess renaming Garp or Dragon would be fine, but to censor the Straw Hat members is pretty pointless. Nemu 03:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree, a spoiler template is enough, so long as its on the page then its the fault of the reader for reading the page if they are spoilt.

Is a awful lot of work to protect people from spoilers, do you have time to set this up Sigmasonic X? I know I don't right now. Its the thought that counts and I'm glad someone else is noting the dangers of spoilers instead of just me for once. Though... I suppose we could do this sort of thing for 'recent chapters' info... That wouldn't be a such a big problem I think as only a few of the many One Piece pages will be touched on. Angel Emfrbl 07:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolved issue

Okay its been up for I think about 2 months now... Can we solve the suggestion that the Anime adaptions Anime/Manga sections should be merged together into one article?

Also another problem, our minor characters page is 'oversized again'. Anyone got any ideas on how to reduce that done in size once more? I have none myself. Angel Emfrbl 08:10, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, yes! let's split the characters by arcs: Zeff and the cooks, Skypiea people and so on!Cuttyflam 21:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Or by alphabetic pages.(Justyn 21:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Merry Go

Hey, kids! I found out that contested moves MUST go through Wikipedia:Requested_moves, so I decided to move the article back. Of course, those of you who want it at Going Merry MUST file a request for move at Wikipedia:Requested_moves. WhisperToMe 19:14, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out orginally it was the Going Merry... It got changed to Merry Go... And back again... And back once more. Angel Emfrbl 21:00, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

The first time it went from Going Merry to Merry Go, it was unopposed, though. Either way, we should file a move request to determine where the article is :) WhisperToMe 21:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I really don't mean to sound rude... This is stupid, just leave it were it was. Look at the logs, you'll see it orginally was Going Merry. Why was it changed in the first place I ask? This is almost as bad as Zoro/Zolo. Back and forth, back and forth. We don't need to keep doing things like this its a COMPLETE waste of time when we could be doing other stuff. Besides that, theres little chance of getting a discussion these days as most editors are non-registered IP users.

Lets just keep it Going Merry and leave it at that, screw requests as it should never have been changed in that case from Going Merry to Merry Go! Besides, Going Merry is the more epopualur of the two names. Angel Emfrbl 21:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay slight error there... Merry Go was the orginal name... But still we have Japanese names for everything else, why not here? Angel Emfrbl 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In case anyone is intereasted:

(You have a very intereasting history with this page whisper...)

Merry Go log:

• 20:13, 23 November 2006 WhisperToMe (Talk | contribs) restored "Merry Go" (119 revisions restored)
• 20:12, 23 November 2006 WhisperToMe (Talk | contribs) deleted "Merry Go" (deleted to make way for move)
• 06:15, 31 August 2006 Hydragon (Talk | contribs) moved Merry Go to Going Merry over redirect (Most other One Piece-related articles use the original Japanese name. The others ought to be changed too.) (revert)
• 05:16, 26 August 2006 WhisperToMe (Talk | contribs) restored "Merry Go" (90 revisions restored)
• 05:16, 26 August 2006 WhisperToMe (Talk | contribs) deleted "Merry Go" (Deleted to make way for move.)
• 06:03, 27 February 2006 WhisperToMe (Talk | contribs) restored "Merry Go"
• 06:03, 27 February 2006 WhisperToMe (Talk | contribs) deleted "Merry Go" (Deleted to make way for move.)

Going Merry:

• 20:12, 23 November 2006 WhisperToMe (Talk | contribs) moved Going Merry to Merry Go (This was moved without a move request, so I am moving it back. If you wish for this to be moved, please use Wikipedia:Requested_moves and request the move) (revert)
• 05:40, 6 September 2006 Geg (Talk | contribs) moved Going Merry to Merry Go over redirect (the only "Japanese name" article is Zoro, and that was only done because of whiny fanboys) (revert)
• 05:16, 26 August 2006 WhisperToMe (Talk | contribs) moved Going Merry to Merry Go (Who is doing this?) (revert)
• 06:03, 27 February 2006 WhisperToMe (Talk | contribs) moved Going Merry to Merry Go (revert)

Yeah support my statement: its like a yo-yo. So are we heading down another Zolo/Zoro like dispute or what? Keep it as Going Merry, it just makes life easier! Angel Emfrbl 21:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is never easy ;) - It's not that hard to file a move request, though.

BTW, A LOT of the moves were against newly-registered and unknown users, etc. WhisperToMe 21:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol. I can see that the logs are very intereasting for this page. Its amazing the things that page has gone through!  ;)

It would cut our job in half if the IP users all signed up and got some experienced editing in. They'd have a lot more pull in a discussion and experience of editing behind them. As well as a *feel* of just how fustrating Wikipedia can be. After only being here for a handful of months, I'm suprised if we get one day without a vandal or stupid edit here.

I must admit... I didn't know about the move request thing until today. Thats embarressing since I thought by now I had grasped everything about wikipedia (I spent a lot of time reading thorugh their rules and help pages). Angel Emfrbl 21:50, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, all the IP users can't simply get accounts en masse just for this debate and try to influence the decision - It would be seen as votestacking and/or sockpuppetry. WhisperToMe 08:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that can be a good and bad thing. Its not that difficult though to sign up and then get in some wikipedia editing experience. Once they do that, there is nothing against them doing anything on wikipedia. And at least we can get to know them as a 'Wikipedia face' instead of just a random IP number. Angel Emfrbl 08:19, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Now, if someone was going to go around telling people about the dispute, he or she should try to tell ALL interested OP editors, since only telling people on one side of the issue may look like vote stacking. WhisperToMe 08:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I think our last page that was deleted suffered partly from that... We had people who had nothing to do with One Piece fandom putting up requests who weren't willing to talk abotu why the attacks page existed... I can see where they were coming from and they had every right to have their say... But none of them would listen to us, none of them knew much about One Piece, and most of all that debate went on for so much longer then needed. We got seriously ganged up in the end because it went on for so long more and more people just kept coming in from outside the One Piece wikipedia pages scope.

It was like watching two trains speeding towards each other seeing the number of other people around wikipedia replying... Quite off putting and frightening in some sense too. I hadn't experienced such a big debate over a page until then. And it was all one sides - delete it all the way to hell. O.o'

One the one hand, having just us debating gets a closed discussion... But at least we knew what we were trying to do with that page. And worst the other wikipedians replying didn't even want to let us attempt to inprove that page, as a few pleaded to them. They just wanted to see it go. Angel Emfrbl 17:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, though, is that the page states that contested moves should go to that move request place. If it's UNCONTESTED, that's a different matter. WhisperToMe 22:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Manga/Anime Differences

Should there be an article for the differences between the manga and anime? In case there are people who've only seen one of the versions. Conanfan1412 02:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly, that counts as our own obsevations. Apparently we can't do that sort of thing. I know from trying it out once. We can however link to sites that supply it. Angel Emfrbl 08:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, what links are there? I don't know any websites that provide those links. Conanfan1412 14:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Character Attacks

Do we really need them? I mean, they don't contribute to anything. They were moved into an article of their own in wikibooks, got back to the character articles, got their own own article on wikipedia, and it got deleted, so they got back to the character articles. It's just basic trivia, meaning it's trivial. Can't we just delete it and get it over with? Kurigiri 17:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Some pages are now over the recommended size since they went in. They were removed orginally due to the size of them. We really don't need them... We've already lost them twice (once on character pages, once on their own attack page). We set up this site to house such things:

http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

They simply have no place on wikipedia. I'm gonna removed them (again) tomorrow if someone else doesn't! Its stupid putting back on a page something that was removed 4 months ago. They supply no usefulness whats so ever to the pages they are on. Angel Emfrbl 17:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll wait until tommorrow as well. If there won't be any reasonable objections until then, I'll help delete it, Angel Emfrbl. 17:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe I deleted all of it. If you find anything still there, as minor as it can get, please delete it. Took me about an hour to "travel" all of the character article. Kurigiri 09:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

We've had that discussion before. Stop reverting the attacks in, Belgium EO! If you want the attacks to stay, then state your point clearly: Why should it stay?! Kurigiri 06:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Because, my dear colleagues, we are here to cover the essential elements of One Piece. Attacks are used in almost every episode, thus, they are essential. And sorry for treating this like a battlefield. I must admit that was definitely uncalled for. I will be re-adding the attacks. Comments? Questions? Death threats? Add them here. Belgium EO 15:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you are truly sorry for creating a battlefield, then why are you readding them? If you were truthly sorry, you'd listen to us and not try to create a warzone on wikipedia by leaving things alone. There are several editors against this and so far just you for it. If we were to enter a formal discussion right here, right now, you'd loose. Most of wikipedia itself is apposed to this kind fo thing as a general rule. There are places, as we've pointed out, for this kind of thing, but not here. Please stop wasting time, stop reverting to the attacks! Angel Emfrbl 16:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

These are very unneeded. We should be describing the characters' general fighting styles. Any really notable attacks can be mentioned in text. Otherwise, the attacks should be saved for a specialized wiki(I think they were moved to a One Piece one) as they are generally cruft. Nemu 16:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

We're not covering the essential elements, as you described it, of One Piece. We are writing an encyclopedic value of the series and it's related. Since the attacks used in the series cannot be written in any other way then pure trivia (meaning, as I said before, trivial), it can and should be deleted. Again, as said before, the only place it has on the wikimedia project is Wikibooks (but surely not on wikipedia). We tried that and it got deleted again.

Also, could you please not do anything until this discussion is settelled? It's insulting. Kurigiri 16:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine, fine. But would it hurt to allow a link to the One Piece wiki page or is that too "trival"? Retro7

I don't think that these pieces of chracter information are "trivial" as you put it. And, from what I remember from conversations (this happened before I joined), the attacks were all moved onto one page in order to have them in one place and to reduce space used on the individual chacacters' pages. This was one of the "crufters" victories, it was not deleted because of triviality, but by lack of sources. I vote to have the attacks put in the pages, but in a box that can be hidden when the page is first opened, and has to be opened manualy... how do you make it so the box starts off as hidden? Or incorperate all the text below it into the box? (Justyn 01:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)) (see botom of page for my idea... or someone can fix it, and move it here.)

You people have nothing better to do than deleting VALID AND REAL information about One Pice? If you don't want to all the attacks have their own page, fine, but they can't be in aniway in Wikipedia just because some people doesn't care? Until you came, no one was complaining. I am sorry if I sounded too agressive, but I USED to check pretty frecuenly the attacks list page, until it was delete it --200.77.66.122 22:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

Thats not the problem, the problem is wikipedia won't allow attacks on the pages. We get so many problems from others if we have them. Which is why we set up the Wikia to house them instead (how many times are we going to say all this?). They are valid, they are real, but their not for Wikipedia. Angel Emfrbl 08:13, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Naruto can have its own jutsu list but One Piece can't have an attacks page? Where's the logic in that? Gune 00:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Will people stop comparing these pages to the Naruto ones! Listen, the Naruto pages often break rules (like have speculations on their pages) and therefore none of us should be even thinking about using them as examples.

Lets go over the situation yet again with attacks shall we? We *HAD* an attacks page which was lost when thte greater wikipedia community decided we didn't need it. Most characters in One Piece use an attack once and then its never used again. We end up with lots of "fancruft" (as other wikipedians put it) on the pages. The attacks we did have were moved to the Wikia: here

In a nutshell, there should be no attacks on a wikipedia page period. Exceptions are made to things like Pokemon, but then again most pokemon have attacks that are set in stone and used often enough to say that its okay to have them uncontested. Generally One Piece attacks are once seen and forgotten making them different to the pokemon ones. Angel Emfrbl 07:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The biggest difference between the cases is that in One Piece the only attacks with any storyline importance are the special forms like Diable Jambe or Gear 2 and the general information on the devil fruits. For Naruto, a strong case can be made that without the attack pages you couldn't make sense out of the other pages. For One Piece... well, it really doesn't matter if Zoro used a 72 pound cannon or a 36 pound cannon or a 985.43 poundo hou.--tjstrf talk 09:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

They should have their own page because it gives an idea of who the character is and their own strengths. A lot of attacks Luffy uses are used more than one like Pistol and Bazooka. If the attacks were organized and had a little neat description next to them there would be no harm in having that page.Gune 23:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No! I do not want to see the repeatation of the past happening again. When we lost that page before it made everyone feel uneasy. Please stop going on about it Gune, we've explain now several times we can't have it, there is nothing left to discuss. Wikipedia won't allow it... Hell if Wikipedia can call up Dragonball attacks pages (which I've also seen put up for deletetion) and barely win when thats has a stronger following, then what chance do we have of trying to keep it? If it wasn't for its strong following, it wouldn't have won. We don't have that kind of follwing on wikipedia, as we've learnt from the past. Angel Emfrbl 07:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no harm in having the page. There is no point to deleting it. Like I said it gives an idea about the characters strengths and abilities. Why would Wikipedia delete those pages? All the Naruto jutsu pages would have been deleted by now if it truly mattered.Gune 22:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Enough asking. How many times are we going to tell you? NO! We've had them before, they were put for deleteation, we lost them and we can't have them back. Stop asking. Its simple - we're not allowed them. They are unencyclopedic. I didn't say we couldn't have them - the greater wikipedia community doesn't like them, no matter what we want we can't have them. 'End of discussion. Now lets hear no more about it, you've been told why we can't have them by several people now Gune. Angel Emfrbl 08:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece media and release information

It's not even rated. Which is a shame, because it's a great list. But that's not the point. I just thought that we could re-design it, like List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes (a featured article). As I said in that talkpage, the idea is basiclly the same, only diffrence being the air date. With a little work, we could make another FA for the Anime and Manga Project (which only has 4 FAs)! Opinions? Kurigiri 19:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, forget I even said anything. Kurigiri 20:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the word "nakama"

I'm noticing a lot of use of this Japanese word in One Piece-related articles, which might confuse someone who doesn't know what it means (ie. someone who hasn't seen fansubs). I think something should be done about that. Danny Lilithborne 03:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a meaning to it on the One Piece terms page once, however it was removed due someone (and I agree to some levels) thinking it was uneeded. But I see your point for someone doesn't know its meaning it is confusing, nakama itself has many meanings even at that. Its being used in One Piece to mean 'crew' more or less. If we really want to keep that word, we either need to put it in the One Piece terms page and link every instance of nakama to it so someone can find out what it means... Or just remove it and write 'crewmate'. Angel Emfrbl 07:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

'Nakama' is used in One Piece to a far deeper meaning than 'crew'. The word means something like "member of a 'fellowship'" and One Piece heavily emphasises the word as meaning a close relationship (ie. one which is not a business relationship) between a group of people - this is a meaning which far surpasses the word 'crew'. Even as a literal translation, 'crew' isn't an adequate explanation (not even sure 'crew' is one of the literal meanings). Therian 05:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other language refs

Okay we all should know by now we are only dealing with the English and Japanese verisons of the series. I forgot to mention this a few days ago when it happened, but its something that isn't uncommon and slips in every now and again....

... So I'm going to mention it.

Okay we are dealing with only those two languages right? Why is it things like "Miss Valetine's days' name is Miss Halloween in the german dub" keep slipping into the articles every so often. My view is they can't stay:

• They are not from either the English nor Japanese dub which are the only dubs we should concern ourselves with
• If we allow one other dubs info on the pages we might as well put the other 30+ other dubs there too.
• It is useless to the articles content anyway
• Only someone who speaks or knows german can confirm it so the vast majority of fans can't confirm the info.

My German is much more advanced then my Japanese to the point where I can read german and understand much of the info being blasted at me... So I COULD confirm this for us... But I don't think its worth it because the other 3 points raised here. Can we all keep an eye out, the BAroque Works agents have had other dub names inserted in a few times since July. Its not a major problem but it does happen.

Another common one that gets put back in every so often is the Don Krieg thing about the german dub changing his name. While its probably true we only need to know his names meaning. As I said, I can confirm the German stuff for us including that too, but I don't think its worth it... Besides, how do we know thats why his name was changed? I hope everyone agrees with me. Angel Emfrbl 08:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Is once slipped onto the pages... Here it is again (twice now)...

Miss All-Sunday = Miss Bloody Sunday in the german dub.

We really don't need this info on the pages! Man I've removed this once already. Angel Emfrbl 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crackdown on popular fan names

Hey, guys. When someone moved Hawkeye Mihawk to Juraquille Mihawk, I just KNEW I had to move it back.

AFAIK, Oda never uses Juraquille (In Roman text), and Juraquille is just a popular fan name for the character. See Wikipedia:Google test

"Further judgment: the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness. For example, a search for the incorrect Charles Windsor gives 10 times more results than the correct Charles Mountbatten-Windsor."

We use correct names. "Juraquille" is Engrish or is otherwise inaccurate. Now, if someone proves to me that Oda intended his name to be Juraquille (spelled EXACTLY THAT WAY in Roman characters), I may withdraw my case... albiet...

With the exception of Zoro, NONE of the One Piece-related moves were supported by formal move requests and polls. WhisperToMe 05:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't his name Dracule? No opposition to this move, Juraquille is just as engrishy as the hated Zolo. --tjstrf talk 05:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I know that he's Dracule in the English-language versions. The katakana for his name is Jurakyūru Mihōku - But that doesn't mean Oda intended for his name to be "Juraquille"... After all, katakana is dependent on pronunciation, NOT spelling. Zolo was chosen probably because "Zoro" looked/sounded too much like "Zorro" WhisperToMe 06:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"There is some dispute as to Mihawk's name. His name has never been spelled in English by Eiichiro Oda, and Japanese phonetics make it difficult to determine whether his name is "Dracule" or "Juraquille". Most fans prefer "Juraquille", partially because they feel "Dracule" sounds awkward, and partially because of the way Mihawk pronounces it (ju-ra-kyu-ru). However both VIZ and 4Kids chose to use Dracule for his name."

Don't use Juraquille guys - It's unofficial. WhisperToMe 06:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, 99% of the names that have yet to appear in the english version are "unofficial" as well. And, how do we know that Oda intended for the name to be "Dracule" instead of "Juraquille"? (Justyn 07:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

• We don't. But while he doesn't say, VIZ Media and 4Kids do specify; both use "Dracule" - You could also look at local French/German/etc. adaptations and see what they use WhisperToMe 07:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Translators can use any words that they want, for instance, the english version calls the Shichibukai the "Seven Warlords of the Sea" and the German version calls them the "Seven Samurai"; and, the German version changed Hatchan into a female. (Justyn 07:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

• "How do we know that Oda intended for the name to be 'Dracule'"

Vampire character theme, sleeps in a coffin. There is no question whatsoever of the authorial intent here. Like Arukard/Alucard, it simply comes down to whether we recognize the author's intent in the reference, or insist on using Engrish to be "more Japanese" about it when it was an error in the first place. --tjstrf talk 07:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you explain how "Juraquille" is Engrish? (Justyn 10:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

I might as well say it here...

... Listen we have no solid visual evidience for one verison of the name, but PLENTY for Dracule. Without evidence to back up the so-called 'fan version' of the name, it can't stand. So whether we like it or not, Dracule is the onyl name we can use until we get our wish and see what spelling Oda uses. Angel Emfrbl 14:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, can I ask what it is? (Justyn 18:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

The solid visual evidience? That would be the 4Kids version. As I said, we have nothing outside of that, not even from Oda. Until we get it, we can only go by what we have. Angel Emfrbl 20:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

VIZ also uses "Dracule," BTW. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WhisperToMe (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

http://www.bandaigames.channel.or.jp/list/ps2_one_rush/chara.html = Off topic, but apparently this spells Bon Clay as "Bon Cray"... WhisperToMe 17:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

And Oda himself has clearly spelled it as "Bon Kurei" but "Bon Clay" is used here... wait... why is "Bon Clay" used here? (Justyn 18:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

That's a good question in No. 2's case. As for solid visual evidence, I already pointed out that his character is vampire modeled. As I said, using Juraquille instead of Dracule for his name is like calling Alucard Arukardo. For something closer to home, would you refer to Doflamingo as "Dofuramingo"? --tjstrf talk 20:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between the Doflamingo/Alucard thing and using a different, more widely exepted, version of his name. Both versions are written with the katakana "ジュラキュール", therefor making them both correct. And the things with Alucard and Doflamingo, those are closer to just using the romaji, but they are technicaly "correct" as they would use the proper katakana: "アーカード, Ākādo" for Alucard, and "ドフラミンゴ, Dofuramingo" for Doflamingo. And I never cought the vampire thing with Mihawk, I just though that is was a gothic design. (Justyn 23:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC))

The only way that I will ever be convinced that it is okay to keep "Juraquille" is if the One Piece Grand Battle or any other canon source spells his name that way. WhisperToMe 00:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overall article review

We have alot of articles. I mean, a few months back we had.. 10? So I'd like to do an overall, quick review. But let's just keep on the "related" articles, not the characters or anything else.

One Piece minor characters - could use some re-styling. looks awful, but it only looks awful.
One Piece filler characters - same idea, only worse.
List of One Piece animals - major expansion and styling is needed.
List of One Piece locations - this one too.
One Piece timeline - Although I'm not sure if wikipedia is the place for this, the article needs some expansion on styling aswell.
The Grand Line - is okay, no major changes needed, as far as I can see.
now get ready for the worst..
One Piece terms - looks amazingly crappy. Major restyling needed.
Swords in One Piece - practicly has no informations. article is extremly not viewer-friendly, and could be mixed with existing articles easily.

Those are the bad articles. Some are okay, some aren't.
The good articles are great, though.
List of One Piece bounties - been a long time since I've opened that list, and it came a long way. not anything thanks to me, though. lol.
Devil Fruit - I've been thinking of nominating it to a GA. Great article, period.
The Will of D - Same thing, but I don't think it's ready for GA yet. Devil Fruit is.
One Piece media and release information - Could get some work, but it's a very good list. maybe a table.
List of One Piece episodes - came a long way aswell, could get some work, but it's on it's way to re-class. if anyone works on it.

Of course it's nowhere near all of our articles, but just showing the main idea. I think we should focus on re-classing Devil Fruit and One Piece media and release information, then take care of the "not so good" articles. Opinions? Kurigiri 22:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... On theTimeline... Well I've SEEN other articles use a timeline, Mortal Kombat has a stand alone too, but its text not list based, we COULD go into deeper info like that one... [p[War of the worlds]] lumped its timeline for events of the landing in its main article, however there is onyl a couple of dates to record there. Just a few examples... I can't remember the others I've seen around. War of the Worlds also listed plot holes, but our storyline is on going so likely those might be filled in in our case. Angel Emfrbl 22:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

OP doesn't "use" time that much in the story. We don't even know how long have they been sailing, we just know what already happened prior to the story. Maybe, in the near(?)-future, when we'll discover what happened to that ancient kingdoms with the poneglyphs, but it isn't very useful as it is, and I can't think of a way of improving it.

Also, I meant "what do you think about re-classing Devil Fruit and One Piece media and release information". Didn't get an answer on that one, Angel. Kurigiri 12:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping the others would say something first then give an opinion on the reclass. But alas they have not... My mind is blank on the matter. I really have no comments on it, other then 'go for it'. Angel Emfrbl 15:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for attack box

Post in the original section, all text will be incorperated into this box if it is typed below it... (Justyn 01:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC))

|}