Talk:Monkey D. Luffy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monkey D. Luffy article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.


Contents

[edit] Possible relation to Blackbeard

I took out a line mentioning a possible family link between Luffy and Teach, based on the D initial. It seemed like pointless speculation, and is mentioned in the Will of D article. Ark 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Height

Um... 5'7" isn't 180 cm. 180cm is 5'11". 5'7" is 170cm. I don't know which value was the "official" one, but I'll assume its centimeters as Japan is a metric country, and the Imperial mesurement was in error. Duly edited Anthr4x 06:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Its wrong... I've changed it back. Some idiot came in here and altered it to the incorrect info. It was meant to say 170cm.... I've spent the last 10 mins checking through to find all his vandalism, he did a lot it seems. ¬_¬' Angel Emfrbl 09:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Money

The currency is referred to as a few different things in this article, berries, beli, bells, etc. Is there one we can all agree on and make the article uniform?

Its pronouced 'Bell-Lee' usually spelt Beli. I don't know, most or the time on wikipedia I see it as Beli or berrie, most people (from what I seen on the bounties page) prefer 'beli'. I've never seen the spelling 'bell' used before. I think this is a first. Point me to where its spelt like that if it has. Angel Emfrbl 07:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That's just the english translation. The official reading of it in japanese is Be-Ri. There wasn't any official english spelling given yet by oda, so i guess anything decent goes. Beli, Beri, Berrie, Belli. --153.20.95.69 04:38, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Actually yes there has... You've missed such discussions though that took place a while ago. Angel Emfrbl 07:48, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attack List

Why was the Gears section moved into attack list? The two have nothing to do with each other, Gears are a defining characteristic of Luffy that no other character has. Do we put the fact that he has Gomu Gomu powers under attack as well?

Please revert it to the way it was immediately.

If you read the title of the page it says it all. Basically, it's the one piece abilties page... It not just a 'attack list' its a 'abilties list'. (yeah I querry the name of the page too). Angel Emfrbl 08:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone put the gears back, however this time their explained a lot better but I'm still not sure they belong here... Thos images are too huge, I need to adjust them. Angel Emfrbl 20:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
They're explained a lot better? If by better you mean full of speculation and false data then yes it's better. The section is filled with incorrect data as it is right now. Thanks for taking my section which took me hours to write and turning it into a dumbed down incorrect description of what gears are Tinibash 14:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
If you actually know sports, specifically bodily enhancing methods like nitric oxide and warming up prior to events like pumping iron, you'd immediately understand the whole logic behind gear 2. It's not speculation, lucchi already gave a short summary of how luffy's powers worked, and it fully agrees with the increased blood flow thing. Just because you don't know sports and how the human body works, it doesn't mean such things are speculation. I fully agree with the explanations given here. Even gear 3 is well explained. Very well done imho --153.20.95.70 04:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW i'm the one who rewrote the entire gears thing months back. i apologise for doing it without consulting the discussion board. anyway my hypotiesis seems like a very good explanation doesn't it. As long as it makes sense to the people.. Hyper megaman 16:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

GEARS: Who keeps changing the gear 3 time to 1 minute?! Luffy stated himself that 'since i spent about 1 minute in gear 3 form, i'll be like that(shrunken) for about 1 minute'. In case this mysterious person didn't notice, Luffy turned back to big form in a few seconds after using gear 3 to bash down the iron door, using approximately the same time(how much time do u need to hit a door?). gear 3's side-effect timing should be equivalent to the duration it was used--Hyper megaman 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) p.s. sorry for the frequent pic edit. trying to integrate it properly

Caption1
I don't know who changes it and as far as abilities go I usually leave that to you other guys to keep an eye on the details... But here is a good piece of advice - Reference that time so we can find it and compare it.
If you don't know how to reference, go through the chapters here on this site: http://groups.msn.com/onepiecemangav-2/chapter300lq.msnw?action=ShowPhoto&PhotoID=7218 , post it here and I'll do the referencing on your behalf. Once the thing is referenced we will know (fullstop) what is the correct time. Angel Emfrbl 14:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyway it's been identified. it's always TTN who's doing it. is there any way to get his attention or stop him from doing so?--Hyper megaman 15:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Post that on his user talk page, as evidience and ask him not to keep posting it. State which chapter you got that from though, so he can check himself. Its good you've posted it up too here, now it only need be referenced on the article page.  ;) Angel Emfrbl 15:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't really think descriptions of all Luffy's attacks are really nessisary. I wasn't even sure about listing the attacks in the fist place. Anyone with me on this? - STAREYe 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually did a minor edit on the attack list. I added Gum Gum Kamehameha. I hope that's alright.- unknown
Who deleted it??????? - unknown
Luffy has gained extraordinary stretching powers from eating a legendary artifact called the Gomu-Gomu Fruit (Gum-Gum Fruit in the English version)... ARTIFACT?¿?¿?¿ - unknown
I don't think that you need a description for the simple ones but some are different.but i'm with ya.-diggydog

I think I read in the manga something about Ger second shorting Luffy's Life span whenever he uses it, Is it true? I am not too sure. --200.77.62.141 05:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


"Gears refer to the shifting of car gears. In Luffy's case, he uses his rubber powers in different ways to unlock new forms. They are most likely based on the grades of Super Saiyan, in the anime and manga Dragon Ball Z." I disagree with this. Dragonball is based on the Chi theory with brute pushing of chi powers during SSJ transformations. Luffy's transformations are more based on real-world likelinesses like a souped-up nitric oxide usage. the only thing to do with his powers is that he can forcefully increase blood flow. it may have similar effects as dbz's ssj like increased speed and strength, i still feel it's a totally different class. will remove this until further discussion, since it was added without discussion/consent--Hyper megaman 09:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed the line and some further lousily added gear 2nd and gear 3rd attacks. seemed pretty good an idea so i rewrote instead, and now rearranged the whole gears section. any comments? --Hyper megaman 10:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No shanks?

We have no refs to Shanks now. Disappointment it was removed as its the real reason Luffy is a pirate. There must be SOMETHING here on Shanks, even if its just a ref. to the promise on his straw hat Luffy made.

[edit] No one calls him monkey?

Pretty pointless listing how his family + names works... But something I do just want to say. Zoro and Sanji DID call him Monkey once, but as a joke. When they meet Masira for the first time, he asks them if he looks like a Monkey, which they replied 'Yes, you look more like a Monkey then Monkey (referring to Luffy) does'. They played this joke out for a few pages. Its not worth listing as it was a joke, but... Yeah I just wanted to point that out.

Well in Japan the last name (or in this case, names) come before the given name. So if One Piece was in America, Luffy's name would be Luffy D. Monkey. It's the same for other characters too.
Dragon D. Monkey
Garp D. Monkey
Ace D. Portgas
Robin Nico
Zolo Roronoa
Saulo D. Jaguar
Unfortunately, it gets lost in translation and we are stuck with the Japanese pronunciations.
It's not quite that simple, since his name is some sort of butchered attempt at foreign name order to begin with, what with the D pseudo-surname. --tjstrf talk 19:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
We don't know what the D is there for... which is half the trouble. We'ce recently had someone write "Ace D. Portgas" on his page (annoyingly). Angel Emfrbl 08:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost family information

Okay a small bit of info that was pointless was removed from this page... But other info on his family has also been removed. Angel Emfrbl 13:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

And by saying this you attempt to suggest that..? Just re-add it without the pointless part you are talking about. (Kurigiri 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC))
You know what... You have a point... well, if no one fixes it by tomarrow I'll fix it. Right now I'm watching over another Wikipedia page to see if anyone does something stupid to mess it up again. Angel Emfrbl 15:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images...

I think this page could use more images, especially a full body shot.

Someone posted Gears images, however I had to remove them since I have no idea what the copywrite is on them... Plus I wasn't sure if Wikipedia's copyright policy cover whole page scans. Can someone put them back up... this time using one frame to represent each Gear? Angel Emfrbl 20:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Better yet, why not grab a anime screenshot and put that up (when they catch up that is). Angel Emfrbl 21:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Why do you people always have to use images that make Luffy look like such a meanie!!!
Gary Germeil 20:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm sure Luffy enters his gears to give flowers to the girls and kiss little babies on their foreheads
Hyper megaman 12:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there are about 4 or three pictures on this page, that not enough. Can we also change his current picture?

Thats enough for Wikipedia... Anymore and people can question our reason for use of so many free images. Angel Emfrbl 07:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

We seem to need a new profile picture. Edit: Here'd be a good one, if it survives the Pic Purge: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Monkey_D._Luffy.gif

[edit] Source your information!

Okay, just pointing out this page (and many other One Piece pages) has a source reference section on it. BEFORE posting information can everyone PLEASE write the manga chapter/anime episode, they got the info from. If we DON'T reference everything how can we possibly say everything is 100% valid? This has been the one thing missing from every One Piece page, which other anime related pages like Naruto on wikipedia contain. Angel Emfrbl 20:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The Naruto articles don't show no refs. at all. the Bleach articles does. I'll make the notes tommorow. (Kurigiri 21:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC))
Some do some don't... But not in the same way I'm doing anyway. Angel Emfrbl 21:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I check about ten to 15 naruto articles. none had refs.
Someone always has to prove you wrong. Lol. Never mind. I must have remembered the wrong pages in the first place. Angel Emfrbl 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if you want to source the info, atleast wikify it. Kurigiri 21:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I was trying to get the related manga, anime eps and sbs question up for now. I was going to do that starting from Monday (read main One Piece page). This is just a set up guide and all. If anyone wants to start their welcome, but I'm only intereasted in grabbing the episodes the info on this page is pulled from. Angel Emfrbl 22:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Inccidently, this is how I'm looking to remodell it as: Red-Haired Shanks. Done that to four pages so far, but these are just experiments. The others are: The Will of D, Seven Warlords of the Sea and One Piece minor characters. Angel Emfrbl 09:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I had a choice between being "busy" and helping out cleaning up a dirty kitchen. So I got the refs I had listed done today. I'm off to be more "busy" before I'm discovered. Angel Emfrbl 15:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of defeated foes

I agree with Kurigiri, this is a useless list. Why do we need to know all that? Its not very encyclpedic (note: sorry about the spelling error) information. Angel Emfrbl 06:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pointless redirect

Afro Luffy redirects here, but there is not a single comment on it. --Zeno McDohl (talk) 21:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it has something to do with Afro Luffy on this page: One Piece Grand Battle!. Angel Emfrbl 21:27, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I just readded it to the page. Nemu 21:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Gomu and Gum

Okay, will the people who insist on using Gum stop doing that. The correct word is Gomu. It is the direct Japanese word for Rubber. If you want proper English, use Rubber instead of Gum. Gum is just a mistranslation. In Japan, certain words are pronounced with an extra "u" at the end. Examples include Bomb = Bomu, Candle = Kanderu, and Usopp = Usoppu. Gum thus came about because someone obviously thought it also followed that style. Thus they ommited the "u" and made it like that. If you can't see it that way then at least stop changing the Jet and Gigant attacks. We don't even know if 4kids and Viz will use those naming conventions.CalicoD.Sparrow 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please give a strong arguement as to why the Jet and Gigant attacks to be renamed Gum Gum. Those, as well as the other attacks during and after Skypiea, have no 4kids source and even less from Viz.CalicoD.Sparrow 16:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Since I've already made it clear I'm supporting you on this I might as well copy+ paste this from your discussion page:

Things like 'Gumo Gumo Jet Gattling Gun' won't retain their orginal names in the 4Kids dub because the lesser move 'Gumo Gumo Gattling gun' is now 'Gum-Gum Rapid Fire'. Since the Jet one is a upgrade it will most likely be rename 'Gum Gum jet rapid fire'. So strictly speaking, 'Gum Gum Jet Gattling Gun' is incorrect anyway and shouldn't be on the wikipedia page for that reason (no incorrect or false information is allowed on wikipedia).
Also I should point out I'm just assuming this will be its name. 4Kids are not up to that point in the series so we cannot supply the english name at any rate. Bottom line, there is not source for Gum Gum jet Gattling Gun, but there IS one for Gumo Gumo Jet Gattling Gun. Therefore the ONLY name we can go by is the Japanese one for now... Inconsistant or not... Its the only thing we have to go by. Hell 4Kids might give it a different name altogether!
Finally, there are a lot of mistakes made by the translating team of 4Kids... Such as the usage of Mermen instead of Fish-Men along with many rewrites in the series. So our could be considered the incorrect translation of the Japanese name and wrong reguardless whether it is offical, copywrited or not.

In the case of moves, I'm for the use of the Japanese name strickly speaking because this is the primary verison. The 4Kids anime dub choice of names often conflicts with other verisons that have been translated such as the Viz verison which simply use 'rocket' and names like that.Angel Emfrbl 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Let's face it, One Piece is a giant mess terminology-wise. If the translators insist on arbitrarily effing around with the names, and we insist on using their terms, we really cannot effectively write about characters, places, etc. until they are revealed in the english version. Which means half the series will be inconsistent with the other half.

Personally, I'm all for policy, but in this case your insistance on "Use English" is getting in the way of writing an encyclopedia. I hate to do this, but let's WP:IAR Use English. Consistency is far more important than following a second-rate translation, and the inconsistencies have basically resulted in an endemic edit war over the terms for the last year. --tjstrf 18:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think we need somewhere a list of common usage words to avoid confusion... Such as Bellies, Berries, Beli for the currencey (which in my opinion is the biggest edit conflict caused on the One Piece Wikipedia pages)... Gum Gum Vs Gumo Gumo for Luffy's attacks... Zoro' vs Zolo names. I think it needs to go at the top of the discussions on the One Piece Main page... Or somewhere on the One Piece terms page, just as a guideline for all editors to go by. It would be benefitical, but thats another discusion altogether. I prefer not to use fan based terms(except Marines, but I've stop doing that on wikipedia since that discussion was held), I understand where you are going with everything and all with it... But some things have led to incorrectness Vs inconsistancey on this particlaur page. Angel Emfrbl 18:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One major incorrectness within this page and other pages relating Luffy's attacks and etc. that I don't want to bother everyone again but must sincerly point out is that it is constantly but horribly assumed that Gum Gum is the direct translation of Gomu Gomu. I am told to use English like in the Naruto ability pages however Gum Gum is not like them. Those pages as far I am concern at the moment, use direct and literal English translations of their names. Gum Gum however is not the direct translation of Gomu Gomu. It is a English Version. If we are going to use literal English terms, we should use Rubber Rubber. It says so up there in the box thingy with Luffy's name.CalicoD.Sparrow 17:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

At this point... Can I just say... lets just have a vote... for and against with whatever reasons. Give it a week to see what results crop up or something then make one name offical over the other. How does that sound. Angel Emfrbl 18:18, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay sounds fair. This applies to other Devil Fruits, right?
Anyway, I vote for Gomu Gomu because it appears to be the most common term on other sites. Gum Gum is not purely an English term but an adaptation as I have said before. Wikipedia is not based on dubs and etc. but it will appear to based around around them with this adaptation hanging around.CalicoD.Sparrow 08:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I too vote for "Gomu". It is my personal preference based on Oda's writing. Also: Et Cetera does not abreviate, it's a latin term that roughly means "And things like it". (Justyn 08:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC))
For the sake of undubbed names... I choose Gomu Gomu. As I pointed out, there is a dub conflict through one of the mentioned moves on this page. Angel Emfrbl 21:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
I have greatly expanded/worked on the Luffy's Attacks section, and created a section for "Gears 2 and 3 Attacks." I am using "Gomu Gomu no" for the attacks. But, at the end, I say "Is referred to as 'Gum Gum *blank*" at the end of the attack descriptions. If anyone objects, tell why.--SmartSpriter 22:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Should be noted that upon looking up the definition, Gum doesn't always refer to the candy you can chew and blow bubbles with, but rather also identifies it as RUBBER. So Gum Gum DOES work in place of "Gomu Gomu."

And THAT is your own logic. Wikipedia tries to be the most accurate, working with canon sources only. That means, either the japanese original or the OFFICIAL english translation(which is, actually, very very debatable, meaning the most accurate would be to just follow the japanese original version). If we followed just ANYONE's logic, hell it could even be translated to "Latex Latex Desert Eagle". no way, we only write what has been officially shown. assumptions and self translations/thesaureses are not recommended.--Hyper megaman 16:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Well calico considering the word "gomu" came from the english "gum", this topic should not be here in the first place.

canonically, oda has never stated the direct translation for the word 'gomu'. no matter what your theories and how much it seems true, oda never said it, it isn't proven. so we use 'gomu' until oda calls it 'gum' or 'gumbo' or 'guacamole'. Information is "always a wildcard until proven right", so let's not get overinflated with our egos and think we're the authority.
want examples? luffy was called Rufi at the start. bartholomew was basoromyuu (バーソロミュー). we all already knew for sure he was modelled after bartholomew roberts, but we couldn't assume! we had to use basoromyu, until oda stated it in a data book, showing his official name! because it's not proven until it's from the head decision-maker himself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hyper megaman (talk • contribs) 13:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 4Kids poll

I noticed in the last few weeks its changed about 3 times... Now I'm presuming this is a ongoing poll, otherwise why the hell would this thing change so much? It didn't change for over a month until now.

I vote we ditch putting the 4Kids poll up on characters pages.

BTW, where exactly does one find the result for this 'offical' poll? I've not seen it, I've seen the Japanese poll, but not one for 4Kids. Angel Emfrbl 08:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New page layout

Okay, trying something different. In all our edits to this page, this is the one thing we have not done. So I'm gonna be bold here and try this as an experiment, its not perfect we can modify it. We're making silly mistakes on this page which is why I've done it, I hope this is clearer to use. Also, Luffy's gears and abilities have their own page. Angel Emfrbl 15:28, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It really doesn't look very good. It's cluttered, it doesn't have a good appearence, and it has way too many sections. It sould be reverted to how it previously was while adding what ever good changes you've made (haven't bothered to check). His abilities don't need their own page. This page isn't even long with it there. It's pointless until they reach the size of Superman(whose ability page is longer than Luffy's full page).
Hmmm... Well I'm still working on it. I'm waiting for others peoples opinions first on it. As I said, I'm still expeerimenting with it and playing around with things. The abilties were given their own page in the accordence with our plans to expand on attacks for characters without going into a massive 'One Piece Attacks' page again. Angel Emfrbl 15:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd also like to expand on those smaller sub sections we have now and buff them up a little. For example, we have that 'relationships' section and yet there is no ref to 'Shanks + Luffy'. Angel Emfrbl 15:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
Another thing... A rewrite oh his history section. The past bit is okay, the recent characters too... Its the bit based on the in between history which is weak. Angel Emfrbl 16:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
It'll probably be deleted as cruft again. We really don't need every attack. It's fine to mention some signature attacks(such as Gatling), but we don't need to go into every sigle one. It would just be fine to leave on this page. Nemu 15:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
We're not going to. As I said, we're working on getting a page WITHOUT mimicking the 'One Piece' attacks page. We also don't want it to be pure 'fancruft' either. Its a difficult page to work with. Angel Emfrbl 15:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
What's the point of it then? It's not going to get much larger, and it fits fine on this page. It's just being made for the sake of making a page. We might as well create "Luffy's history", "Luffy's personality", ect... Nemu 15:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no point to those pages at all... Look, we've discussed this before. I don't want to reopen the discussion, this is how everyone (all the major One Piece Wikipedia editors) agreed we should approuch it in light of the Attacks page being deleted. I'm sorry you've missed the discussion, but I'm not going into detail want we discussed since it already has been. Angel Emfrbl 16:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Can anyone think of better names then 'Luffy's Character Build' and 'Misc. Infomation'? I've set them up as working names, but I don't think their the greatest things in the world and they most certainly can't stay as title names. Angel Emfrbl 15:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be trying out a new format for the character pages on the wikia, so if it works perhaps a dumbed down version could be applied here. Sigmasonic X 18:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For the benefit of Everyone

See the main One Piece discussion page for more details on this... But I'm gonna ask nicely can everyone reframe from posting the exciting and tempting news from Arlong Park on this page about Luffy's family before Wednesday/Thursday... Its against Arlong Park's rules and it could get members in trouble. Got it. Wait one day! Angel Emfrbl 21:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now we are going to follow Arlong Parks rules for Wikipedia. Wow. Did Arlong Park bought up Wikipedia? I must have missed the memo. I see the spoiler sprouting up all over the place. You can't just come in and start asking people to hold off for 1 day. The Internet doesn't follow one site's rules for god sakes. I understand you frustration, but even that you can't just shove other people's rule in other people's home. Don't be offended. I am also an Along Park member and I follow the rules, but I can't help but mention this, because other place I go, there are similiar threads about this spoiler. And besides, Wikipedia has it own freaking rules and it doesn't say you can't post spoilers, you need to properly handle it with disclaimers and warnings. Kljs 06:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
OK. I removed all Garp references. It is spoiler, and it belongs to the recent chapter area!--200.153.151.84 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Popular characters

Hello, I was wondering if anyone had any knowledge as to where this 'recent Japanese fan poll' of One Piece is located. I am interested through the fact that I cannot find it on google, and it could be a rather interesting research result. I thank anyone who could show me this.

Thanks,

--Darin Fidika (Oct-27)

Results of 1st poll is announced in volume 7 chapter 60 of the manga, 2nd is in vol 24 chap 226, 3rd is in vol 43 chap 419. Viz' version of vol 7 also contains the Japanese poll result. - Tekoteko 12:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suspicion about Gear Basis?

Should it be noted that the Gears appear to be based on the different Grades of a level 1 Super Saiyan? Gear 1(Normal Luffy) is like basic Super Saiyan(after eating a devil fruit) Gear 2, like a second grade Super Saiyan, or Ascended Saiyan(often mistkaen for Super Saiyan 2), gives the user much more strength as well as tremendous boost in speed. Gear Three, like Third Grade Super Saiyan slows the user down greatly, but gives them incredible strength. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.152.178.119 (talk) 03:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC).

No. Don't bothere as this is speculation. PURE speculation. Angel Emfrbl 08:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Agree with angel emfrbl(weird name, dude) here. it's clear that dragonball makes the transformations up to be brute pushings of qi, and super saiyan 1 form third to be pushing qi levels towards muscular strength while using less qi for emission attacks. that's their basis, mythical internal energy sources, their manipulation and their control
luffy's skills are based on another logic, with gear 2 being increased blood flow(nitric oxide, sportspeople should understand) and gear 3rd being using his harder bones to compress so much air he is able to use his limbs like he were holding a hammer/mace(integrated weapon, sort of). there is no qi manipulation or shiet here, they aren't even associated with one another.
superman has to absorb more sunlight to be faster and stronger. if you're saying gears is based on ssj, why not say it's based on kryptonian physiology? both achieve sort-of, somewhere there, somewhat similar results, but come on i wouldn't say either is based on the other. just because the sun is round and the moon is round too, it doesn't mean the moon was created based on the sun. my bucket has water, but it sure as hell wasn't filled with it based on some ocean.
associations/bases are done on the author's part, we have NO idea whether he did it with ssj transformations in mind. we can't assume to know.
p.s. even if it WERE, it'd be more of just a tribute. oda has no need to pick scraps off dbz's table--Hyper megaman 16:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is pure speculation and not even very good speculation. One could name dozens of anime characters who transform into more powerful forms and say that One Piece is copying off them.

[edit] Luffy's Powers

Let's put everything in Luffy's Powers into this page. - Peregrinefisher 08:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

No, that's pointless. The only way that page would be brought back is if the section somehow became the size of Powers and abilities of Superman. Nemu 16:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] We have a vandal

80.202.20.40

this ip has been vandalising all the one piece pages recently

should anyone detect any changes made by him, please feel free to help wikipedia revert them back

If u are unsure about anything, u could place the info in the discussion section and have everyone go over it before restoring it to the article. whatever changes he mades, undo them first, discuss later.--Hyper megaman 11:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've already announced his IP adress on the Main Page. One Piece Angel Emfrbl 12:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] gear 3 image issue

--quote-- Image copyright problem with Image:Chibiluffy.jpg Thank you for uploading Image:Chibiluffy.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 21:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC) --quote end--

i got this, so.. can anyone help me with this?--Hyper megaman 12:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

aye i wasn't very sure, so i took the copyright template off the 'arm of a giant' image, thanks to whoever did that. i hope u dun mind me using ur template--Hyper megaman 12:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
When you submit an image, you select it from the drop down menu on the info page... You can find out more info on Wikipedia's help pages to save you getting into this situation in future.  ;) Angel Emfrbl 15:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit spree

Lancaster D Mistletoe

he's been having an edit spree with his assumptions and changing the logic accepted by wiki for his own

I've taken care of the gear second and third sections, but i'm not familiar with other sections. can everyone help me look through his changes in the sections each of you are most familiar with? thanks. --Hyper megaman 19:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

i tried looking at the history section and changing it. should be done now, and i've placed some words in his talk page. keep a sharp e ye out for any errors on mine or his part, and please keep an eye out for further edits all, thanks a lot :D--Hyper megaman 19:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
btw as a reference for lancaster, gear second is act of increasing blood flow and metabolism through active pumping of blood on luffy's part. soru is the act of kicking the ground more than 10 times before the force takes effect. gear second just enables luffy to use soru with ease by granting him huge amounts of strength and energy to be able to kick the ground that fast with ease. gear second isn't another soru. just like taking nitric oxide to increase blood flow, making sure i can bench some weights with ease, doesn't mean nitric oxide is 'my version of bench pressing'.
one is just a physical power up, the other is a movement technique to make one speed beyond human sight limits. --Hyper megaman 19:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Page Has Been Vandilized

[edit] Eh?

"A popular rumor has erupted lately among fans of One Piece. People have started to believe that Zoro might have a secret affair with the captain,Monkey D. Luffy. As both seem to randomly dissapear from various scenes in both the manga and animé and come back totally oblivious, totally missing out on the experiences and happenings of the main group. One can also notice that Zoro frequently seems to grin when talking about.reffering to Luffy and he is also often seen as the one to rekindle someones fate in Luffy when they start to doubt him. ( As is seen in episode 101 when chopper begins to doubt luffy as a captain. ) when asked why he follows Luffy blindly, he usually responds with "I dont know" which could indicate that its love, seeing Zoro never experienced love in his life."

Sounds like shipping to me. Shipping and cruft. RSBlaylock 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would happen. The comic is geared towards teenaged boys for pete's sakes. If anything they would probably have Luffy and Nami have a romantic relationship.

Well for starters there is more evidience for a Sanji x Nami relationship then Luffy x Nami. But thats another thing. The most important thing is there is NO CONFIRMED relatinships in One Piece. As Oda says "They are in love - with adventure", which is why the first chapter is called "Romance Dawn", the whole story is about the romance of an story, not a relationship. Angel Emfrbl 08:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I can find at least 40 instances in One Piece itself for Luffy x Nami, and Sanji is a closet perv, which turns Nami off right off the back. But I did say, "If anything..." implying that it would be a last resort.

Sanji has no real feelings for Nami. Otherwise he'd not try to woo every single female character in the series. And Luffy saved Nami's home village pretty much by himself. (Granted, he also saved Robin, but the other Straw Hats had much more influence in that one.) Nami will pick Luffy, case closed.

But this is all just some unofficial shipping crap, I agree.

Yeah well I KNOW some of those instances! They are mild hints that are not worthy of being called evidence. Luffy x Nami is Fan speculation, there is no hard evidence whats so ever and until you get that you can't even put that on the page.
I don't mean to sound rude but this is wikipedia - not fanfiction.com or Arlong Park or... Whatever site and we shouldn't even be having this sort of discussion on here. The day Nami says "I love you Luffy" or or "I love you Sanji" or Zoro says "I love you Sanji!" or whatver we can put it on here. Everything until then is shipping. Reguardless of fan piarings. Oda words sum it up and I'll repeat them: "They are in love - with adventure". If you want to know where that came from, read the SBS section in the manga bit at the Arlong Park site. Someone asked Oda if there was any romance, Oda said just that. Angel Emfrbl 16:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I never said that it would happen. I am just making a case. I know Oda said that they are in love-with adventure. But that doesn't mean he won't pair Luffy and Nami at the very end. He'll do it maybe a few arcs before they find One Piece, so it doesn't sound all mushy gushy. And to my unidentifiable answerer above Angel, I must ask you if Luffy trusts all of his friends, then why is Nami the only one he has trusted with his hat? His beloved hat. We know what Oda is doing. He's playing dumb until the end. He's gonna do it. And Angel,Athe topic is about possible love between the Straw Hats (even if some couples do sound kinda farfetched). It is definitely appropriate to the discussion

Reguardless, What I'm trying to say is until it happens there is nothing more to discuss. The kind of convo you are putting over here is for forums. Wikipedia is not a place for these discussions. Page concerns, not fan concerns are what discussion pages are for. You seem to fail to acknowledge this. Lets not go on about this anymore okay? If the fan-pairing ever becomes offical, we can talk then. Until then we risk slipping into a forum discussion by talking about it. Angel Emfrbl 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Then why is this discussion page here Angel. Honestly, unless I am making fun of you, you have no right to tell me when to stop discussing this. I mean, seriously, I'm not making any edits about it on the main page. I don't know where you live Angel, but where I am from, one of the first rights is freedom of speech, and Wikipedia set up these discussion pages for a reason. For talking.
This I am aware and I am not trying you to stop discussing, only trying to detour you from this topic for a good reason. There a difference in knowing when and what to discuss on wikipedia. The discussion pages are are to discuss issues with the pages and the info on them. We should not be doing fan-related discussions that, as I said, are really for a forum which any unconfirmed relationship is. Whether it will happen or will not happen that Nami x Luffy occurs, we can neither put that on the page nor go into great detail on the dicussion page about it. That is not what the wikipedia discussion pages are for.
Now if it was the sitution about Nami x Luffy and it was an offical relationship Oda had declared and there was a error in the details were had to discuss, then by all means that is when the wikipedia discussion pages could be used to sort it out and discuss what the correct info really is. Angel Emfrbl 06:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
May I also point to the "register" option on wikipedia so you can register with wikipedia... Experienced registered users have more pull in discussions then unknown IP adresses... It will also help you build an identity on wikipedia rather be known only as a unknown editor.
And also can you put ~~~~ at the end of your messages please so you can leave a signature identifying you in the discussion. Some wikipedians consider it somewhat rude not to sign and while I am not one of them, it is somewhat annoying not being able to identfy someone in a discussion. Angel Emfrbl 06:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Angel you need to stop picking on the poor guy. I agree with him on a lot of levels and for you to flat out tell him what to do is like having his Internet freedoms crush. Like whoever this person is has said, he or she isn't saying anything to offend anybody or altering the main article, SO they can say anything they want to. THey might get criticized, but you have no right to tell them to shut up.JakeTheImpaler 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Another mistakes my intentions... *sigh*. -_-' Angel Emfrbl 08:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
What intentions? You are demanding that I sign in and reveal my IP address.
I'm ASKING not DEMANDING and as for leaving a sig on a message is standard politness on Wikipedia, registration is up to you to decide. But for now, your a complete stranger. Reguardless... That matter can led to something else... 23:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well time to wake up dear boy, if u don't sign in, we see YOUR IP instead of your username. If u dont want us to see your ip, then sign up and log in to a username. what you're doing is exactly opposite of what you WANT to be doing, Mr. Washington-DC-boy.
Oh and for the record, this is wikipedia, not 'fan-discussions and analyses'. Any information included directly or indirectly in a wikipedia page is to be backed up by proof by the poster to the best of his intents; in the case of this, which is a storybook, it must be canonically and literally stated before it is taken as absolute truth, failing which makes it nothing more than assumption in every sense of the word. I don't care how you see the storyline is going to go, u can be from the future for all I care, but as long as oda hasn't stated it in black and white in any form of media from trustworthy sources, it's not fact, not canon, and not wikipedia material.--Hyper megaman 13:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Chapters

Am I the only one who thinks this section is becoming too long? If noone objects, I'll clean it up and remove some of the old info tomorrow. Ark 00:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

who are you?
what do u mean 'this section'? the talk page or the main page itself?
what do u feel is redundant and is it breaking any rules in wikipedia?--Hyper megaman 13:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Gee, I don't know, maybe the "Recent Chapters" section. I figured the title would give it away, but clearly not. The section may not be breaking any specific rules, but it was cluttering the entire article and making it look like garbage, so I cleaned it up. Check out the history and I'm sure you'll reach the same conclusion. Ark 14:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gear 3.JPG

Image:Gear 3.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 08:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ShrunkenLuffy.jpg

Image:ShrunkenLuffy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:ShrunkenLuffy.jpg

Image:ShrunkenLuffy.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Luffy in Gear Second.jpg

Image:Luffy in Gear Second.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancies

This article suffers from a lot of redundant quotes. For example, the amounts of Luffy's bounties (and how he got them) are repeated at least three times, often in the wrong places (such as in the abilities section.) This seems to be due to incomplete editings. The article is also too long. It needs to be proofreaded and shortened (without editing out important facts.) I can do it myself but I want to see what the reaction is first, this is a popular Wikiarticle and I don't want to run into too much resistance. -Wilfredo Martinez (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Gear 3.JPG

Image:Gear 3.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] New layout

This is the new layout of the article. Barring a few rewrites to make it more readable, this is how it should remain. We DO NOT NEED ten paragraphs about Luffy and Shanks, or a whole section dedicated to what happened in the manga last week. That's what fan-sites are for. If you have a problem with it, then that's unfortunate, because the articles either improve or they get deleted. Ark (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bounties and power

Should we include his previous bounties? They are significant to the characters growth and key points in the story. 30,000,000 when he enters the grandline, 100,000,000 when he defeats a shichibukai and now 300,000,000 after enies lobby. Also the article says he has two forms gear 2nd and 3rd, but he can also use them at the same time. -23 Jan 2008

Why bother with past bounties, we're going to go into things too deeply if we're not careful. Lets focus only on current affairs (beyond background stories if we include them).Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Angel here, if you can fit it in without making it seem irrelevant, then O.K. I would rather not fill the page with unnecessary plot points though. Ark (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand, but isn't the point of the article to provide information and background about a character? I'm not talking about going into the plot that would be too tedious and not help the article. But it seems that if you put only one bounty then it seems that was his bounty since he became a pirate. Bounties are a key point to One Piece and shows the relative strength of the character during the story without going into the details of the plot.14:51, 23 Jan 2008
Note: Bounties = threat not strength level.
It doesn't matter anyway, we're not here to give all the details away. A character's background = their history and origins. As stated before, the articles are here as a quick-snap on the character and/or series; not a fansite. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 21:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Technically, mentioning bounties at all is probably too in-universe, which is something we should stay away from for the time being. Once we get the articles properly referenced with the required real-world info, and write a GOOD plot summary, then the deletionists will be off our backs and we can discuss expanding the plot summaries and including things like trivia sections and/or bounties. Ark (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletionists will NEVER be off our backs: they will rewrite guidelines and than go on deletion crusades looking for any article that does not meet thier revisions. And once they are done, they edit the guidelines again, and go on another deletion crusade. The only way to stop them is to either kill them all (not an option outside of my imagination) or kick them off Wikipedia (agian, not a real option). We just need to get TTN to shut the fuck up; but, he want to merge the pages, absolutely nothing we can do or say will change his mind. (Justyn (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC))
Since TTN (nor any other deletionist) has absolutely nothing granting him the authority to force a merge, I'm not too worried about what he's going to do. If he merges against consensus, I go tattle on him and revert the changes. With that said I'd still like to make a few merges just for the sake of organizing the articles better. Ark (talk) 12:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've said it before, I'll say it again: I'm fine with merging. But, merging is not and should not be the first option in a case like this, I someone decided to break Dr Blackbeard off into an entire page with what is there (forget the fact that he is a character that is likely to have nothing more given on him) than merger is the obvious answer. But, attempt to fix first: than merge if and only if the page cannot be fixed.
And yes, deletionists have absolutely no actual authority in their deletions and merges; you try to tell one of them that. They'll spout some rhetoric. But ultimately? Like TTN, they will talk a lot without really saying anything at all. They rely on a hyper-strict adherence to rules, that rapes the spirit of said rules. (Justyn (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Fact or Fiction

Just sorting this out for confirmations sake... I'll crimm it all here from now on:

[edit] Luffy Swimming?

Luffy could never swim... Those who say he could have only seen the 4Kids dub - ignore them. I'm suprised to see this contining to appear on the page, this is something that usually only appears once every 6 six months. O.o' Angel Emfrbl (talk) 06:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gears Vs Zoro

I'll repost what I wrote on the zoro page so there is more chance of it being seen by anyone who may insist this:

After several discussions between fans, who stated that Zoro is equal in fighting strength with Luffy or even stronger, Oda finally gave his statement to the fans and said that he created Gear 2 and Gear 3 for Luffy to make him clearly the strongest amongst the Strawhat Pirates and to make his fighting style content more interesting. When Luffy doesn't activate one of the Gears he and Zoro are almost equal

As far as I'm aware, as of logging in right now, Oda has never said this... This is purely fan spectulation. If it IS true, the information has come out since yesturday - that was the date I last checked the fandom for any information that has been supplied to the fandom. Feel free anyone to correct me on that note. If not, this is a case of someone trying to put off fiction as fact, which is very against the rules of wikipedia. ^_- Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Missing categories?

I'm a bit puzzled as to why Category:Fictional shapeshifters and Category:Japanese superheroes are not here. How come? Luffy's shape-changing ability has some closeness functions to Mister Fantastic's and since Son Goku is [somewhat] the character's base, he should as well be labeled a Japanese superhero. Therefore, I'd like to add these categories. Any thoughts or suggestions before I do so? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... Do it with a Don! Angel Emfrbl (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I beg your pardon? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Its a statement derived from one of the catchpharses used by one of the more important charcaters in One Pice. Basically she's saying yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.204.7 (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm no big fan of One Piece but I know enough when it comes to categories. What do you say regarding my proposal? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the article (slow discussion). Any issues should be taken up here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)