Talk:List of One Piece chapters (1–186)

Re-design

I just thought that in order to raise the article on the assesment scale, we could arreange it the same as List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, which is a Featured article. The table is basiclly the same, except for the air date (since it wasn't aired). I'm going to try and make an article with that idea in mind on my sandbox (create.. all I have to do is insert the info). Opinions? Kurigiri 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, forget I even said anything. Kurigiri 20:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chapter 437

WAS this chapter already published,or not? New Babylon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by New Babylon (talk • contribs) 13:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Information on the chapter typically is revealed by subscribers as soon as they receive it, which tends to be the week before the magazine goes on sale at newsstands. So even though it isn't "officially" out according to its street date, it's still out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Julian Grybowski (talk • contribs) 14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

441. Darkness!

I asked something similar before,but is this a subscribers info or not?Looked on One Piece Manga Online version 2 & 3 ,plus done a general search on Google for "One Piece Chapter 441" and it didnt spit out anything.

New Babylon 15:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No Chapters this week

For those of you who dont know,its golden week in Japan,so there will be no One Piece chapters-just to avoid fake "chapters" sneaking in like it hapened with "441. Darkness!".

New Babylon 20:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

re-design (part 2)

Maybe it should be done in the same way as List of Naruto Chapters. Its much easier to understand it and it has the cover of the volumes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.124.13.23 (talk • contribs)

So, something like this?

Cover	Title		Volume	Release date
	English	Japanese		Japan	US
Volume 1 Japanese Cover	Romance Dawn	ROMANCE DAWN —冒険の夜明け—	1	24 December 1997	June 2003
	Chapters 001. Romance Dawn (ROMANCE DAWN —冒険の夜明け—, Romance Dawn: Bōken no Yoake, lit. "Romance Dawn: Dawn of Adventure") 002. They Call Him "Straw Hat Luffy" (その男「麦わらのルフィ」, Sono Otoko "Mugiwara no Rufi", lit. "That Man, 'Straw Hat Luffy'") 003. Enter Zolo: Pirate Hunter (海賊狩りロロノア・ゾロ」登場, "Kaizoku-Gari Roronoa Zoro" Tōjō) 004. The Great Captain Morgan (海軍大佐「斧手のモーガン」, Kaigun Taisa "Onote no Mōgan", lit. "Navy Captain 'Axe-Hand Morgan'") 005. The King of the Pirates and the Master Swordsman (海賊王と大剣豪, Kaizoku Ō to Daikengō) 006. Number One (一人目, Hitorime, lit. "The First Person") 007. Friends (友達, Tomodachi) 008. Nami (ナミ登場, Nami Tōjō, lit. "Enter Nami")			ISBN (JP) ISBN 4-08-872509-3 (US) ISBN 1-56931-901-4 Cover character(s) Monkey D. Luffy Roronoa Zoro Nami

The only problem I can foresee is that, as with the template for anime episodes, the images might be judged unnecessary and eliminated from the format altogether. —Julian Grybowski 22:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes This is exactly what I meant. I think that this format if more creative and seems better.68.206.73.46 18:13, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image removal

I have removed all or a majority of the fair use images on this page as their use was not in line with our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria policy (likely in that the use is not minimal (3.a.) and it is in a list or a gallery (8.)) or our Wikipedia:Non-free content guideline that states that cover images may only be used for critical commentary on the cover itself, not just identification. Please do not re-add them without discussion. Kotepho 09:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that a page of information of volumes where it is explained what characters are in the cover is really stupid (sorry). The info that people are searching is the cover itself, and it may be a photo, but it is info. The fact to not show the photo of the cover makes the page non enough informative, and people will use other pages instead of wiki to get the info. I will understand what you say in a book... but in a comic, the cover is very important, and it is visible to all the public. Anonym 05:11 29 June 2007 (+1:00)

Blah tags

If no one else is working on adding the required references (sources for ISBN I'm assuming), I'll begin working on it tomorrow. This is one of the few OP articles I feel is necessary on Wikipedia. Ark (talk) 19:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The main thing needing sourcing are the prose sections. See some of the FL chapter lists for what the lead should contain, and what needs sourcing. For the table itself, I've fixed the ELs to put them properly as general references. They have the ISBNs and release dates for the individual Japanese volumes. Viz's page, however, does not have release dates, so individual references are needed for all of those. Also all the prose in the uncollected chapters section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and done the intro rewrite, and axed out the prose in the uncollected chapters (OR/PO that doesn't belong anyway). If you'd like to work on adding refs for statements in the intro, that'd be cool, and for the individual English release dates, that would be cool. If not, I'll work on the lead refs later today. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Viz gives release dates for all but the first four volumes. A trip to Amazon should fill that gap. ~SnapperTo 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good to know! I just checked the first volume. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Chapter 502

Hey, I have a problem with the portion of the translation of the Chapter 502 title of 天竜人 as "Celestial Dragon". By translating it as such, I believe it does not take into account the 人 aspect of the group of kanji, which qualifies it as a person. Anyone reading this title would assume that it is actually referring to a "dragon." I believe it should be left intact as an untranslatable "Tenryuubito," or changed to something altogether different. Any suggestions or comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainjustin (talk • contribs) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Similar term is used in Dragon Quest VIII, so a good choice would be to use the same translation used for the game, Dragovians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.7.248.6 (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

pilot

Should a sentence be added about the pilot, i read it recently and thought it might be worth mentioning?82.69.83.28 (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Straw Hat Theater

That section seems out of place down there. How about moving it to the main article? If so, should we put it under Data books or give its own sub-section within the Media section? -- Goodraise (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be fine. It was just shoved here because of a merge discussion. I think just mentioning it with the databooks would be sufficient as they have no actual impact on the story itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Numbering of chapters within the volumes

I am not sure if this is the right place, but as it's not technically part of the template, so I'm posting this here. I suggested a change in the way the chapters are numbered. Here's an example with my suggestion. And here's the same version of the page, just with the classical numbering. The advantages I see are as follows:

• Uses less space in most cases.
• Uses less source code in most cases.
• Doesn't use the bulletin thing you see at the beginning of this line.
• Omits the leading zeros.

And the most important advantage:

• If lines are broken, the text starts again under the beginning of the title, as opposed to under the number.

Of course you won't notice that advantage if your screen/text-size/resolution/browser combination doesn't require lines to break, but aren't we supposed to keep pages small so that Wikipedia can be used without broadband internet? I think the same applies here, analogous. Pages should look good for everyone, not just those with large monitors. However, in the end this is mostly a question of aesthetics. I think my way looks better. What do others think? -- Goodraise (talk) 14:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that change (of course as I reverted it :P). The current format was heavily discussed and is the preferred format per project consensus. I see absolutely no valid reason to go against that for this single list, and the size savings is pretty negligible at this point. A far better handling of the size would be looking to see if the list could be split somewhere, similar to List of Naruto manga volumes. Note that its sublists, such as List of Naruto chapters (Part I), as FL and use the standard format. I disagree that the bulleted version looks better. The existing version follows the Wikipedia general MoS and the Anime and Manga MoS. The leading zeros were added deliberately so the numbers are all the same length. They could very easily be removed if someone chose too, but from looking at other featured lists, its considered appropriate and visually pleasing (and I can see why). Your version uses a bad mix of HTML code that will be far too confusing for many newer (and even older) editors. It would be good to notify the project of this discussion, as well, rather than just having it between us (cause I don't think this page gets lots of viewers). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• "The current format was heavily discussed and is the preferred format per project consensus."

You happen to know where the current format was discussed?

• "I see absolutely no valid reason to go against that for this single list,"

I never meant this change to be made on this list as an exception. I meant it to be made because I think it's better in general, with the possibility of other lists adapting the change.

• "the size savings is pretty negligible at this point"

Of course they are only marginal improvements. Nothing that could replace a page split... (Which will become more and more likely as I'm expanding/adding volume summaries.)

• "Note that its sublists, such as List of Naruto chapters (Part I), as FL and use the standard format."

I am very much aware of all the featured chapter lists. And orientating oneself at featured lists or articles on a similar topic is always helpful. However, quality standards are continuously rising (for good reason, if they didn't, people could argue like "if that list is featured, this one should be too"). What I am saying is, taking inspiration from good pages is good, improving upon them is better. We should not let the status quo of existing featured lists stop us from creating lists of even higher quality.

• "I disagree that the bulleted version looks better."

You mean the non-bulleted version, right?

• "The existing version follows the Wikipedia general MoS and the Anime and Manga MoS."

Sorry, but I don't see where my suggestion violates any of those.

• "Your version uses a bad mix of HTML code that will be far too confusing for many newer (and even older) editors."

That's a valid argument, but I think you overestimate that problem, the code is really not that complicated. Also, if the aim is featured list status, such concerns should not hold us back. (This point obviously involves weighing the two subjective values of improvement vs confusion.)

• "It would be good to notify the project of this discussion, as well, rather than just having it between us (cause I don't think this page gets lots of viewers)."

Yeah, I only started it here, because the template's discussion page didn't seem the right place and I fell back to this position, as the matter is definitely relevant here. Feel free to advertise this discussion wherever you deem it appropriate. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

It took place when the graphic novel template was created earlier this year. I can't remember off hand if the discussion started at the MoS page or the project page though. I would strongly disagree with this change being the new standard. I don't see this as an improvement, but going backwards. And I meant I disagree that your version with the numbered bullets over bullets with numbers looks better. And I don't think I overestimate the problem at all. I am a web developer by trade so I know exactly how hard people who are not exposed to HTML have with even the most basic of concepts like a simple BR tag, much less ordered lists. Your version also completely discounts the many series where the chapters are not numbered at all (re, Tokyo Mew Mew and Blood+ ), are untitled so they are just listed simply like Marmalade Boy or have special names which are reflected in the list (such as Wolf's Rain's gropes, Chrono Crusade's Acts, and Vampire Knight's nights). It also would render the template completely useless for light novels, which rarely have straight numbered chapters. That is another reason we went with the current format, its more flexible for such purposes rather than just forcing a straight, standard numbering system. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• "It also would render the template completely useless for light novels"

I don't see how it would render the template useless. I am not proposing a change in the template. The only change is within the summary fields on the actual lists where this format were to be applied. That alone would have no effect on the lists you named. More explicitly, I wouldn't want to change the format on those lists, much less force it. I'd only suggest changing on lists with exclusively numbered and named chapters. (This by the way is another point, where two subjective values have to be weighed, the improvement on the individual page vs. the reduced conformity among other lists. But of course, if you don't see the change as an improvement in the first place, the outcome of this weighing is predetermined.) -- Goodraise (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• This particular was never discussed when we created the template; we only used the ul format in examples because our current lists did so.
• Why are we reflecting series-specific chapter counter words in the lists? This seems at odds with how we represent series-specific episode counter words in episode lists—that is, we don't.
• Reflecting on an earlier comment, the reason we use leading zeroes in ul lists is to line up the periods, but the use of ol does this automatically, so there's no reason to discount it on the lack of leading zeroes. —tan³ tx 20:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support this. The proposed version looks much better, imho, and it does save space in the long run. Given that it looks better and saves space, I don't see any real reason to be against this.kuwabaratheman (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. Even though the amount of space saved is negligible, the outcome looks clearer than the old format. It wouldn't work for every series as mentioned above, but I see no reason why this couldn't be implemented where possible if so desired. I also agree that the article is going to need some kind of split sometime soon; five summaries in and it's already 88kb. ~SnapperTo 18:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this. I can second Collectonian's comment on the difficulty of even the most basic HTML to those who are unfamiliar with it (and your experiences on Wikipedia with new users and MediaWiki's pseudo-HTML should confirm it as well), and I believe that the attribute this system would rely on is deprecated anyways, isn't it? Aside from that, I might support this if the developers added a bit of wikimagic to automate the process of writing broken ordered lists, as well as a mechanism for inserting leading zeros (I'm not sure if this is even possible with standard (X)HTML and CSS). Getting rid of the leading bullet and preventing the titles from wrapping to the start of the number would definitely be nice, but they aren't enough to garner my support. BTW, for those series which have special names for their chapters, I'm in the habit of noting it in the lead, similar to when the exact same cover characters appear on every cover. —Dinoguy1000 20:10, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

re leading zeroes: "list-style-type: decimal-leading-zero".

re deprecated: so what? It's not pure HTML anyway, and the "counter" CSS properties are a clunky waste of time for something like this. —tan³ tx 20:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the CSS, I'll have to keep that in mind. As for the deprecated bit, that would be because I'm an XHTML/CSS Nazi. =) —Dinoguy1000 21:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Arguing for stricter standards support is all well and good, but in cases like this, we cannot simply ignore IE (7-, not sure about 8), which has no support for generated content; since the counter properties rely on generated content to display correctly, it's either using ol with "start" or ul with manual numbering. —tan³ tx 21:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Split

As a byproduct of the discussion above, it seems we have a consensus to split this page up into smaller pieces. But not unlike the episode list, this one could be split in several ways, one worse than the other. Sadly and unlike Naruto, One Piece isn't divided by the author, other than in chapters and volumes of course. That leaves the choice with us. The options I can think of right now are as follows:

• Pick a natural number N and make a cut every N volumes.
• Make cuts at dividing plot positions, like for example "entering the Grand Line/New World".
• Go by story arcs, like "East Blue, Crocodile, Skypia, CP9, ...", to generate rather similar sized chunks.

Personally, I am leaning towards picking a number. Naruto makes the cut at 27, IIRC. We could split 25/25/2+. So, here's my question: If we split, where should we do it?

BTW, I whipped up a basic List of One Piece manga volumes in my user-space using List of Naruto manga volumes as the basis. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pick a number. List of One Piece chapters (1–186) (first twenty volumes) for instance. 40-60K is generally fine for one of these pages. Anything below and you're too small, and anything above and it's probably too big. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 17:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You could split along the same lines as the guide books. That's as official a divider as you're going to find. ~SnapperTo 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That sounds promising. How do the guidebooks divide them? (I don't own the guidebooks. And even if I did, I don't speak Japanese...) -- Goodraise (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Like the Naruto and Bleach data books, it's open to interpretation. The first One Piece guide book (Red) shows the abilities of Baroque Works' officer agents, but has nothing on Mr. 7 and Miss Father's Day. Based on that I'd say it covers volumes 1 through either 21 or 22. Once I've had a better chance to look at it and the other books I'll have a more certain answer. If this dividing scheme were to be used, you could title the articles something like List of One Piece chapters (Red). ~SnapperTo 21:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, that looks weird. Even if you're using the data books as a dividing line, I would still have the tile as List of One Piece chapters (#–#) for clarity's sake. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well whatever the choice, the most recent event I see in Red is the defeat of Mr. 1, which is right at the end of volume 21. The most recent event in Yellow is the end of Blackbeard vs. Ace. Even though that bleeds into the start of 46, stopping at 45 should suffice as a cut off point. As for Blue, I have no idea what Blue is; its structure and content are completely different from Red and Yellow, and it ends only a few volumes after Red (Bellamy territory [volume 24]). I'm going to ignore it. So that would be List of One Piece chapters (1–21), List of One Piece chapters (22–45), and the leftovers should be dumped at List of One Piece volumes until a proper article scope can be defined. Unless anyone likes the idea of List of One Piece chapters (46+)? ~SnapperTo 04:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you would use the chapter numbers, not the volume numbers. Whatever dividing line you guys agree on is fine as far as I'm concerned. As for the new chapters, putting them in a List of One Piece manga volumes sounds good. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, so good. I guess I'll give it a shot. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I tried to incorporate this guidebook idea into the lead, but it looks weird and I'm already haunted by nightmares over having to justify that "open to interpretation" thing at FLC. I'm gonna change the divisions to twenty volume chunks and see if anyone reverts it. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Roanoa Zolo

I don't have enough time to make the changes myself, but I thought I should mention that it's supposed to be "Zolo" instead of "Zoro", unless there's a different character called "Zoro", that I mysteriously keep missing, checking inside my OnePiece volume. Thanks! Jds500 (talk) 17:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Strawhat crew jolly roger.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Strawhat crew jolly roger.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)