Talk:One Piece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the One Piece article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3
Archive 4


Contents

[edit] Plot

Could the One Piece fans put together a plot that summarises the anime? Would be very helpful to those who don't know anything about it! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.149.17 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It focuses on a ragtag crew of heroic pirates called the Straw Hats, formed and led by Monkey D. Luffy. Luffy's greatest ambition is to obtain the world's ultimate treasure, One Piece, and become Pirate King.
Pretty much sums up the storyline. If we say anymore then that we're spoliering everyone. We're here to tell you what the show is about, not retell the story. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that's a real good summary. MKguy42192 (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. If you compare with the pages on, say, Bleach and Naruto, the One Piece summary is much shorter. It seems that a balance could be struck between spoiling the entire manga and be so general as to make the manga sound so blend; that is, between 'telling what the show is about' in sufficient details that a reader can get inspired to read and 'retelling the story' in such a way that one does not need to read it at all. In any case, Wikipedia often does not shy away from spoiling the plots, as many descriptions of TV shows, movies, etc illustrate. It seems that most people are happy with a 'Spoiler Warning' sign. Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.151.233 (talk) 8:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, understood... But a lot of pages have been noted on their giving away of unness spoilering info... And its actaully a sign of bad input. We're here to tell you what the show is about - not give away the details. Still, some places its unavoidable, like on character pages you're bound to give away a little bit of story info. But on the main page, its a different story. Bleach and other pages, that give away too much plot, are actually overstepping a line on the guidelines for doing what they do. They're lucky they haven't been pulled up for this.
But I also agree, there is a little less detail, perhaps a paragraph rather then 2 sentances would be better. If anyone can pull it off without retelling the story, they are free to do so and dammit, I'm not going to step in the way of them doing it. Just be careful with it okay?  :-/ Angel Emfrbl (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
As a warning, I'm new here and this is my first attempt at discussion contribution, so if I do or say something wrong please feel free to notify me. I agree with a number of the comments made, both that the plot MUST be expanded upon and that spoilers must be kept to a minimum. I however place priority on an expanded plot. To my understanding, plot sections are quite varied with some being fairly short (e.g. Death Note, a "good" article) to quite a few paragraphs (e.g. Serial Experiments Lain, a "featured" article). However, they are usually longer than one or two sentences. Considering the length of the One Piece manga, this hardly seems balanced. Additionally, different manga plot sections focus on different things, some discussing themes and others just summarizing the story. I'd like to know what you all think would be most appropriate for the One Piece article. I lean toward a mixture of both: (1) Broadly summarizing the story and characters and (2) briefly identifying the major themes of One Piece (e.g. attainment of dreams, etc.). I realize these are pretty vague ideas, but I just thought I'd mention them. If I'm feeling particularly ambitious, I may add to the plot myself. Chrono.Psych (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You definitely sound like you have the right idea. We do not actually need to worry about spoilers; but we do need to worry about excessive detail. Right now the summary does not give much sense of the book's actual story. Thematic discussion is also a good thing to add, but remember that you must have sources for any statements like that; base it on interviews or reviews that meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines WP:RS. Doceirias (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] anime localization

I don't see any info on the North American localization in the infobox for One Piece. There is a brief mention about 4kids in the article, but nothing on Funimation.Jinnai (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

There's an entire section on FUNimation. One Piece#FUNimation English version. –Gunslinger47 06:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] April Fools Joke

After checking the forums on TV.com I found out that there is a video on Youtube that has false information claiming that One Piece will return in May. Since this is false information I wanted to give people the heads up on this. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I always hate it when stuff like that comes up and dashes our hopes in an instant.
Same here, that information stinks. Why do they do that stuff? MKguy42192 (talk) 04:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It only adds salt to the fact that the show has been cancelled for good, and not even the DVD release can save it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.76.32.52 (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Last I heard it was on a break. ^_- Angel Emfrbl (talk) 23:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Last I checked, I discovered that Toonami Infolink has information that the show will return during the summer but due to it being a fansite I will wait until a more official source and airdate are present before I bring up the subject in a seperate forum topic on this page and my plans to deal with it. One other thing is this news bit was posted in early May. But anyway if I see anyone post this supposed news tip prior to the discovery of a more reliable site then it I will be happy to help remove it. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Infoboxes

Are so many infoboxes really necessary? Can't we just keep the anime/manga infoboxes and keep the others to their respective articles? -- Tenks (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Books and TV

I believe that one piece the television show and books should be separate articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? I see no reason at all to split the manga from the anime, and doing so would violate the MoS unless they are significantly different (i.e. different characters, totally different story, etc). This article needs cleaning, not splitting. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree there's no reason to split, and articles like this never are. The split proposal wasn't old though - probably shouldn't have taken it off until there was at least a nominal discussion. On the other hand, Dwanyewest shouldn't have split the page without any discussion taking place, so we're pretty much even here. Collectonian's right, Dwanye - WP:MOS-AM states that there is no need for separate pages without significant differences. Doceirias (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I figured it was old that someone went ahead and made the attempt at it. The split off page is being deleted, while I've done some very rough and quick clean up of the article to remove a TON of unsourced OR, get stuff in order and sectioned per the MoS, and tagged or issues. Much of the anime section needs rewritten for neutrality and brevity. Lots more clean up needed, but hopefully this gets it to a better start, unless someone hates all the edits and reverts them. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...why is the production there? Makes the article feel anime focused - isn't that section usually under the media? Doceirias (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No, its usually plot, characters, production. Production should include production of the original work, as well as its adaption, per the MoS. The article had no sourced/factual production on the manga to include in the section, though there were hints that some exists in the volumes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the article? So much has been altered without discussion. I'm not cribbing, my duty here is just to keep vandalism/stupid edits off the page and not to make huge changes myself, but can we have a explaination writtn for changes that occured and why. This was so big that when I came on today (I'm the reglaur editior here) I was like a deer in the head light. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Glance back through the history - basically, just some rather rough reworking to fit the guidelines and polices of Wikipedia and the anime and manga project. This kind of clean up work is happening on a lot of the anime pages, which have a tendency to get edited by enthusiastic fans who mean well, but aren't well versed in what the article should look like. Sometimes the best way to start getting an article back on track is to tear a lot of it down. Check the WP:MOS-AM page for some suggestions. Doceirias (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I just wanted to know what happen. ;-) Angel Emfrbl (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)