Jump to content

Talk:List of One Piece characters/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Reducing article size (I)

I read parts of the archive for: specific split discussions [1] [2] [3], a thread on organizing characters, and another on splitting, and as far as I can tell many characters were kept (and are still being added) due to personal opinion of who is and is not important. I may be ahead of myself in saying this, but I see that a large majority of the current list lacks notability, and even characters entirely unimportant (no real-world refs, nor plot relation) have recently been included. Can we discuss a definite line on what is really necessary here and carry the article with that? Spindori (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

List entries don't need to have notability. What we need to do is to aim at a reasonable article size, while giving due weight to each character: major characters get a whole section; secondary characters are mentioned; minor characters are left out. Back in the days, when I still found time to care for this article, I think we got fairly far. (Take a look at my last revision of the list.) Goodraise 07:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Real problems noted. Should we then decide which characters are major, to be mentioned, and then cut the details on the others? I wouldn't imagine that to take long. Spindori (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
In response to Spindori's question, yes. I suggest that we hold a discussion on which minor characters and secondary characters listed here to be deleted, kept or merged. In this discussion, please state if the character should be kept, deleted, or merged into another article/section. Also, please provide a detailed reason for why you believe this should happen. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Also note that the recent discussion is now archived here. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I would also like to mention that rather than deleting many of the one-arc only characters outright, their info, if anything relevant, should be moved to the relevant episode/chapter lists.Jinnai 16:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

If most of the character lists weren't merged pointlessly then this wouldn't even be a issue Gune (talk) 03:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd have 2-3 bloated character lists instead of one to deal with. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean none at all since it was fine how it was before. Gune (talk) 19:58, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Just as an idea, what about showing the straw hats, and any characters not part of or not shown only as part of any particular group or syndicate, on this page, and making new pages, then linking to seperate pages for other groups, like cp-9 or baroque works, listing them in this page, but also mentioning briefly various characters that were former members (nico robin for example, in baroque works). For example:

straw hat crew monkey d. luffy: blahblahblah roronoa zolo : blahblahblah nami: blahblahblah etc.

characters not in any organization: sir croc: blahblahblah bon clay: blahblahblah crocus: blahblahblah gol d. roger: blahblahblah etc.

labeled link to page for cp-9 labeled link to baroque works etc.

Jds500 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:SS infact suggests organizing information that way. However, pages that don't make considerable use of third-party sources tend to have fairly short lifespans on Wikipedia. Way back, we had dozens of articles dealing with nothing but One Piece characters. They're gone now, and without third-party sources, they won't return. Goodraise 03:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

ahhh well.... why not use the sources from this article? they should work right? Jds500 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Target size

Discussing how much space should be used for which character is pretty pointless, unless we first get to a consensus on how big this page should be. Based on WP:SIZERULE, I'd say we should aim for a size of 80 to 90 kilobyte. Would that be acceptable? Goodraise 00:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no objections to this limit. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
I am without much feel for how large kilobytes are, but near half the current 246 kb of text should be gone after dealing with characters. I planned to do necessary trimming after that excess was dealt with so maybe 10 kb more will be rid after that. I will agree with anything less than 110 kb, but I do not project the list to be much smaller than that. Spindori (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

Mr. 4

Resolved
 – To be mentioned in the Baroque Works section.

Mr. 5

Resolved
 – To be mentioned in the Baroque Works section.

Mr. 7

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of his own.

Mr. 9

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of his own.

Mr. 11

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of his own.

Mr. 13

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of his own.

Aisa

Resolved
 – To be removed from the list.

Akainu

Resolved
 – To be covered in a section of his own.

Alvida

Resolved
 – To be mentioned among Buggy's followers.

Amazon

Resolved
 – To be removed from the list.

Aokiji

Resolved
 – To be covered in a section of his own.

Scratchman Apoo

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Scratchman Apoo does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Aswa

Resolved
 – Aswa should not have her section

Van Auger

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Blackbeard

Jean Bart

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Jean Bart does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Ben Beckman

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Shanks

Capone Bege

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Capone Bege does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Bepo

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Bepo does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Blamenco

Resolved
 – Blamenco deleted.

Blueno

Resolved
 – Blueno's section is to be merged into CP9 section.

Jewelry Bonney

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Jewelry Bonney does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Braham

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Braham does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Big Bun

Resolved
 – Big Bun should not have his section

Bunchi

Resolved
 – Bunchi should not be included in this section, and should be deleted

Jesus Burgess

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Blackbeard

Butchie

Resolved
 – Butchie deleted and merged into Kuro's section
To answer your question, Goodraise, his importances is an extremely minor background character who is not notable in the series itself and only appears in a few stories in a single arc. Therefore, his character is unimportant to the storyline. Hope this clears everything up and I apologize if I have caused any confusion. I understand your words, Goodraise. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Cabaji

Resolved
 – Cabaji merged into Buggy's section

Camie

Resolved
 – Camie merged into Hatchan's section

Capote

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Capote does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Chaka

Resolved
 – Chaka is to be deleted

Chess

Resolved
 – Chess should not have his section, and is to be deleted.

Choo

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Arlong

Nefertari Cobra

Resolved
 – Nefertari Cobra deleted with appropriate mentions in Vivi's section

Coby

Resolved
 – Should be covered in a section of his own.

Conis

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of her own.

Crocus

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Crocus does not meet requirements for his section, and is to be deleted

Catalina Devon

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Blackbeard

Doberman

Resolved
 – Consensus is to remove less important character from article

Miss Doublefinger

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish character within Baroque Works section

Monkey D. Dragon

Resolved
 – Dragon should be mentioned, but he should not be covered in a section of his own just yet.

X. Drake

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that X. Drake does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Eneru

Resolved
 – Consensus is that Eneru should have his section, and should be kept

Miss Father's Day

Resolved
 – Consensus is that Miss Father's Day does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Miss Friday

Resolved
 – Miss Friday should not be kept, and is to be deleted

Fukuro

Resolved
 – Fukuro merged into CP9

Fullbody

Resolved
 – Fullbody deleted with appropriate mentions in Jango's section.

Gan Fall

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of his own.

Gedatsu

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Eneru

Genbo

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Genbo does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Ghin

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of his own.

Miss Golden Week

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Hamburg

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Hannyabal

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish character within Impel Down section

Hatchan

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Hatchan should have his section, and is to be kept

Basil Hawkins

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Basil Hawkins does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Helmeppo

Resolved
 – Helmeppo is to be kept as a section.

Hina

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Hina should not have her section, and is to be deleted.

Igaram

Resolved
 – Igaram is to be deleted and merged into the Alabasta section.

Inazuma

Resolved
 – Inazuma should be merged with either the section of Ivankov or the section of the Revolutionary Army.

Ivankov

Resolved
 – Should be mentioned in the Revolutionaries' section.

Jabra

Resolved
 – Jabra merged into CP9

Kaido

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Kaido is not notable enough to have his section, and is to be deleted.

Kaku

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under CP9

Kalifa

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under CP9

Kamakiri

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Kamakiri does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Karoo

Resolved
 – Karoo merged into Vivi's section

Eustass Kid

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Eustass Kid does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Killer

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Killer does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Kizaru

Resolved
 – Kizaru should have his section, and should be kept

Koza

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of his own.

Kumadori

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under CP9

Kuro

Resolved
 – Kuro should be kept as a section.

He's only as important as Kreig (89.126.59.159 (talk) 16:10, 22 June 2011 (UTC))

Kuromarimo

Resolved
 – Kuromarino should not have his section, and is to be deleted.

Kuroobi

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Arlong

Lafitte

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Blackbeard

Laki

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Laki does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Lasso

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Trafalgar Law

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Trafalgar Law does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Rob Lucci

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under CP9

Magellan

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish character within Impel Down section

Marco

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Whitebeard

McKinley

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Miss Merry Christmas

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish character within Baroque Works section

Mohji

Resolved
 – Mohji merged into Buggy's section

Momoo

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Miss Monday

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Miss Monday should not have her section, and is to be deleted

Nezumi

Resolved
 – Consensus has determined that Nezumi should not have his section, and is to be deleted

Ohm

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Eneru

Onigumo

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Pagaya

Resolved
 – Pagaya is too minor a character to be given his own section.

Pandaman

Resolved
 – Pandaman need not be mentioned.

Pappagu

Resolved
 – Pappagu merged into Hatchan's section

Pearl

Resolved
 – Pearl should be mentioned as one of Krieg's followers.

Pell

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of his own.

Pickles

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Abalo Pizarro

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Blackbeard

Porche

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Purinpurin

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Doc Q

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Blackbeard

Richie

Resolved
 – Richie merged into Buggy's section

Robson

Resolved
 – Consensus has been established that Robson does not meet requirements to have his section, and is to be deleted

Rockstar

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of his own.

Lucky Roux

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of his own.

Sadie

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish character within Impel Down section

Saldeath

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish character within Impel Down section

San Juan Wolf

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Blackbeard

Sarquiss

Resolved
 – Sarquiss deleted and merged into Doflamingo's section

Satori

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Eneru

Sengoku

Resolved
 – Sengoku should have his section, and should be kept

Sentomaru

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Shiryu

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Blackbeard

Vasco Shot

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Blackbeard

Shu

Resolved
 – Shu does not meet requirements to have his section

Shura

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Eneru

Siam

Resolved
 – Should not be covered in a section of his own.

Smoker

Resolved
 – Consensus is that Smoker should have his section, and should be kept

Spandam

Resolved
 – Spandam merged into CP9

Strawberry

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Stronger

Resolved
 – Consensus is that Stronger should be merged with Doc Q in Blackbeard's section

Tashigi

Resolved
 – Consensus is to mention under Smoker, given a detailed character description
  • Merge, she can be mentioned in Smoker's section. She has relevance only to him. Spindori (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge per above. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm somewhat on the fence with her. Simply mentioning her would be too little, because she's more than just another cannon fodder character without depth tagging along her captain. She should be covered in a few sentences at least and I'm not sure that it's appropriate to discuss a character in such detail in the section of another character. If she can be covered in Smoker's section without cutting too much prose and without slanting his section toward her, then I'm all for it. Or perhaps the resulting section could be made to cover both equally, as was the case with Camie and Pappagu at one time. Goodraise 16:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I wish to echo Goodraise's comments here. It is likely, like Smoker, her role will only increase in importance as the story advances.Jinnai 16:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep -- She is one of the stronger marines. She deserves her own section. Rico70
  • Keep She is an important character. --Dylandh (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

T-Bone

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the unnecessary character should be removed

Terracotta

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Terracotta should not keep her section

Thatch

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the character is unnecessary and should be removed
  • Delete, Minor character who is only involved in one story arc. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove him from the list or perhaps mention him in White- and/or Blackbeard's sections. He's the guy Blackbeard killed and that's it. Very minor character. Goodraise 04:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep -- He was the fourth division commander of the Whitebeard Pirates. He deserves his own section. Rico70 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep He plays a major role as part of Blackbeard's past, and when he was killed, it was the whole reason Ace tried to get revenge against Blackbeard. Ace hunted for Blackbeard for about 200 episodes for that reason. --Dylandh (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Blackbeard stayed low and on Whitebeards ship in the hopes of finding the Yami Yami no Mi. Thatch found it. Blackbeard killed him, stole it, and ran off. That's Blackbeard's past. All of it. Thatch is the guy who got killed. And that he got killed (which is something he didn't do, it's something Blackbeard did) is in fact the reason for something Ace has been doing for some amount of time. Though I don't know how you came up with those 200 episodes, because for the grand majority of that time, Ace was—and I can't help but find that important to note—offscreen. Goodraise 00:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Because in the manga, preceeding each chapter, the author usually has a picture involving various characters doing various things, but often the pictures make up a sub story. Ace's search for blackbeard starts in volume 29 in chapter 272, i think... 65.71.126.153 (talk) 00:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Toto

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Toto should not be included in this article, and this section is to be deleted

Urouge

Resolved
 – Consensus has been determined that Urouge does not meet requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

Miss Valentine

Resolved
 – Miss Valentine is to be merged into the Baroque Works section.

Very Good

Resolved
 – Very Good does not meet requirements, and is to be deleted

Vista

Resolved
 – Consensus is that the character is unnecessary and should be removed

Whitebeard Allies

Resolved
 – Consensus is to remove less important sublist from article
  • Mention under Whitebeard with the other allies, or remove them altogether. The aliies are too numerous to go into any detail with them. Spindori (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Mention -- Under "The Whitebeard Pirates", or Remove them. Rico70
  • Merge can be mentioned in Whitebeard's section. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove that section. With small crews, I don't mind going for completeness and listing every member. WB's following, however, is just way too huge to do that. Being an ally of an important character doesn't make that ally important. So, if the characters listed here don't qualify for inclusion in any other way (and right now I don't see any of them doing that), then I'll have to advocate removal. Goodraise 16:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Mention, or Remove them. I agree with Spindori. --Dylandh (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

World Nobles

Resolved
 – World Nobles merged into the World Government section

Wyper

Resolved
 – Wyper should not be covered in a section of his own.

Yama

Resolved
 – Consensus is to remove unnecessary character

Yamakaji

Resolved
 – Yamakaji should not keep his section, and is to be deleted

Yasopp

Resolved
 – Consensus is to establish mention of character under Shanks

This Note

Somebody is going to have to explain this and possibly reword it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_One_Piece_characters#cite_note-40

The original artwork when the word is spelled out is ALWAYS spelled as Marine/Marines. Oda has never used the word Navy when spelling it out. Gune (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I think I found the pertinent change, made by LlywelynII (talk · contribs), here. I've also made a partial revert and reword here for the following reasons. Firstly, in German, case matters: "Marine" is a different word from "marine". Secondly, the artwork, as opposed to text in bubbles, always uses "MARINE" (in all caps), nothing else, not even "MARINES" or "海軍" (kaigun). And lastly, I don't see how the Navy could be considered an amphibious assault force, when they don't have any amphibious vehicles. Goodraise 04:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why it matters what language it translates to in this case. Since when the word is spelled out it says Marine/Marines. So even if Oda admitted to using the German word it would still be Marine. For example Espada from Bleach isn't called Sword. Shouldn't we only mention what it says in English since this is the English wiki? Gune (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, it's not "spelling out". Wherever the organization is referred to in the speech bubbles, Oda uses the kanji "海軍" which he "spells out" using Ruby characters as "かいぐん". The Hepburn romanization of that is "kaigun" and it translates into English as "navy". Secondly: Show me where in the Japanese manga it says "Marines". You can't. Thirdly, the lettering on the sails and other places aren't English. They can't be English because the English noun "marine" has no sense that would apply here. See for yourself: [4] You might, of course, argue that the organization has a proper name that doesn't change from language to language, like in your Bleach example, except that Oda doesn't treat the term that way himself. Goodraise 09:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The letters are where it's spelled out. It's ignorant to claim it can't be in English when even the United States has a military group called Marines. The point was that Marines is the actual name of the group and we should really only focus on the English spelling of the word. While obviously that doesn't matter on Wikipedia since only official English spellings are used. On that note Funimation has changed. They use to use Marine for everything but changed it later for their dub. Gune (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Explain something to me. If "Marines" (spelled with an "s") is the name of the organization, then why does it say "MARINE" (spelled without an "s" or "S") on the sails? And why don't Oda's characters ever call it that? Goodraise 05:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Marine soldier. Marines is just the plural of Marine. Gune (talk) 05:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

So why would they write the singular form of the name of their organization onto their sails instead of its actual name? Did they run out of paint? Goodraise 07:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't even know what your argument is anymore. The point is that it is also an English word and we should focus on the English word since this is an English encyclopedia. Navy will always be a mistake due to actually being spelled out. Gune (talk) 06:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm still trying to figure out what you think is the correct name of the organization. Do you think it's "Marine", or do you think it's "Marines"? Or do you think it's both? Goodraise 18:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

It's both. Marine is singular while Marines is plural. Gune (talk) 08:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay, assuming that to be true, how do you figure that calling the organization the "Navy" in English is wrong? There is in fact an organization the official name of which is "Marine", but in English that organization is referred to as the "German Navy". Are you saying that's wrong? Goodraise 22:59, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I said it was wrong since this is the English wiki. Also United States Marine Corps When people are talking in English talking about a military organization then that will be 100% what they will think you are talking about when you say "Marine". Gune (talk) 10:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll grant you that if you tell something to a random person in a random city in the United States about a military organization called "the Marine" (without an "s") that that person will probably assume that you are talking about the United States Marine Corps, which may also be referred to as "the Marines" (with an "s"), but only under the assumption that you simply don't know any better. That people would understand what you mean does not imply that what you are saying is correct. I'd imagine a marine who calls the corps "the Marine" (without an "s") would quickly find herself shouted at by a superior and ordered to do ten push-ups or something. Even if it were correct to refer to the USMC as "the Marine", that wouldn't help your case because the organization in the One Piece world obviously isn't a marine corps. It has warships. Marine corps don't; navies do. Its flag officers are admirals, as is normal for navies, but not for marine corps. The question remains, why should it be considered incorrect to call the organization described in this article "the Navy" at the same time as it is considered okay to call the organization described in that article "the German Navy" if "Marine" is the name of both organizations, both organizations have warships, and both organizations have admirals for flag officers? Goodraise 07:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Nobody would say "the Marine". They would say the Marines or Marine. The point being that it is also an English word and since this is the English Wikipedia it doesn't matter what the word means in other languages. Even if Oda was using it to mean a German word or whatever else it still wouldn't matter since he actually spells it out as Marine and not Navy. Gune (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

How do you even come up with the rule that "since this is the English Wikipedia it doesn't matter what the word means in other languages"? I don't see that rule in the guidelines or policies, and English language practice, inside of Wikipedia as well as outside, indicates that the opposite is true, with this being a prime example. Goodraise 12:25, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You missed the point again. It will always be Marine since that's how Oda himself spells it. Gune (talk) 20:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not missing the point, I'm just not convinced of it yet, because when I assume that it's correct to refer to the organization as "Navy" in English, then everything makes perfect sense, but not when I assume the opposite. That's why I'm asking all these questions, so you can explain to me, where I got it wrong. Unfortunately, since you're not expressing yourself all that clearly and keep ignoring my questions, it is hard to even figure out what your opinion is, let alone the entirety of your argument. But perhaps I'm simply going too fast. Taking a step back, I would say that the organization we are talking about is clearly a navy (with a lower case "n"). Are we in agreement about that? Goodraise 01:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a navy but the point is the name of that particular navy is called the Marines according to Oda himself. Gune (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so you say that "Marine" is one of this navy's names, and that "Marines" is another name it has. What about "海軍" (kaigun)? Is that one of its names too? Goodraise 17:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

No I said Marines was the plural form of Marine. Kaigun is just the non translated form which would be translated to navy. But that doesn't matter since Oda himself spells it as Marines. Another example would be Funimation using Bon Clay or Viz using Zolo when Oda uses Bon Kurei and Zoro. Gune (talk) 05:17, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Another example of what? "Bon Clay" and "Zolo" are perfectly adequate romanizations of names these companies stuck with even after Oda revealed romanizations of his own. On the other hand, "Marine" isn't a romanization of "海軍" (kaigun) at all.
Anyway, your answer to my question confuses me even more. How many names do you think the navy has? One or more than one? And if it is only one, which one is it? Goodraise 21:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Navy is just what kaigun literally translates to but that isn't what Oda uses. If he intended it on being "Navy" he would have spelled it like that at least once. Also neither are valid since Oda himself uses otherwise. "Zolo" is especially bad because Viz only started using it due to 4Kids using Zolo which is a stupid reason to use any name. They originally used Zoro like Oda. Gune (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it puzzling that you won't answer my questions. Just to make sure we're on the same page, would you please tell me, in your own words, what you think is the difference between a translation and a romanization? Goodraise 01:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have answered your questions multiple times. It isn't my fault if you don't understand it. A translation is a translation simple as that. Kaigun to navy is a translation but Oda has romanized it spelled out as Marines which means the correct version would be Marines. Gune (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You think "Marines" is a romanization of the Japanese "海軍" (kaigun)? Goodraise 08:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok I get it now. You're just trolling. Carry on then. Gune (talk) 22:37, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Well it's still the navy until Viz media decides to reprint it to marine or marines. Whether it's a capital N navy depends on the Viz editor's notes (outside the bubble lettering which is all caps anyway) and whether they have a proper noun title for the group. If you're wanting to add that on all the artwork lettering on their caps, regardless of manga/anime and translation says "MARINE", that's fine. I don't see the problem with the existing notes trying to explain how it is printed in the Japanese manga 海軍, pronounced kaigun in the anime, and that Funimation is calling them the Marines throughout their dub. If Navy is outright wrong, take it up with Viz. It's not at the level of Zolo for exceptions. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 00:49, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Oda could have used a more literal wording in the speech bubbles, like マリン (Marin). But he used 海軍 instead. And Viz changed it to Navy. Are you seeing blog posts where he dislikes that the Viz English version keeps calling them the Navy? Or does he not really care? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to give you (Gune) opportunity to go back on what you said, because all it takes to figure out that it's wrong is to read the lead section of our article on romanization. Simply put, translation is concerned with what things mean, while romanization is concerned with how things sound. To the Japanese "海軍", "navy" is a translation into English, "Marine" is a translation into German, and "kaigun" is a romanization. Even if you can't read Japanese, you can listen to the anime in its original. They don't say "marine" or "marinu" or anything of the sort, but "kaigun". Of course that doesn't mean that the name of this navy isn't "Marine". It's merely a matter of basic terminology. If we can't agree on what the words that we use mean, then we can't have a productive discussion. But if you'd rather label me a troll and be done with it, then that's fine with me. Goodraise 05:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Creating Articles for Straw Hat Pirates

Since One Piece is the best selling manga of all time, it is odd that only three character pages exist, compared to the amount of character pages for second-place Dragon Ball. I would recommend creating pages for all members of the Straw Hat Pirates. Plumber (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I can tell you exactly why that is, DBZ was huge in America and other English language countries, while One Piece is bigger in it's native country of Japan. There are far more English language sources and interest from editors to make DB articles on English language wikipedia. Even if I don't doubt for a second that every single one of the main characters is notable, the vast majority of the sources to support that will be in Japansese, which most fans here can't read or even find. If I could read Japansese I would do nothing on this website but fix up OP articles for about three years.★Trekker (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Vinsmokes

Pulled this from the article as it was spamming the Supporting characters list and was unsourced:

  • Vinsmoke Ichiji (ヴィンスモーク・イチジ, Vinsumōku Ichiji) also known as Sparking Red (スパーキングレッド, Supākingu Reddo) is Sanji's elder brother. He is voiced by Noriaki Sugiyama.
  • Vinsmoke Judge (ヴィンスモーク・ジャッジ, Vinsumōku Jajji) also known as Garuda (ガルーダ, Garūda) is the king of Germa.He is voiced by Hideyuki Hori.
  • Vinsmoke Niji (ヴィンスモーク・ニジ, Vinsumōku Niji) also known as Electric Blue (デンゲキブルー, Dengeki Burū) is Sanji's elder brother. He is voiced by Atsushi Miyauchi.
  • Vinsmoke Reiju (ヴィンスモーク・レイジュ, Vinsumōku Reiju) also known as Poison Pink (ポイズンピンク, Poizun Pinku) is Sanji's elder sister. She is voiced by Michiko Neya.
  • Vinsmoke Sora (ヴィンスモーク・ソラ, Vinsumōku Sora) is Sanji's mother. She is voiced by Yuriko Yamamoto.
  • Vinsmoke Yonji (ヴィンスモーク・ヨンジ, Vinsumōku Yonji) also known as Winch Green (ウインチグリーン, Uinchi Gurīn) is Sanji's younger brother. He is voiced by Kenjiro Tsuda.

Are these notable characters? Should they be mentioned in the article as a group? AngusWOOF (barksniff) 23:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of One Piece characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Editing Article

I've been thinking. Maybe we should restructure this page. I bring this up because I feel the organization feels too bloated and doesn't really give an indication which characters or groups are allies to the Straw Hat Pirates or antagonists. I think anyone not familiar with One Piece or trying to getting into it would likely be overwhelmed --ExplorerX19 (talk) 23:15, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Look at the chacters tab for the One Piece TV Tropes page as an expample. I was thinking something similiar I want the character wikipedia page to One Piece. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Characters/OnePiece --ExplorerX19 (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, TV Tropes is not considered a reliable source. We may need to have a new discussion on how we can restructure this with other members of the project. I've already notified the WT:ANIME WikiProject about this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
You can look at the One Piece Wikia. It has articles that are cited. https://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/One_Piece_Wiki --ExplorerX19 (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Request.

200.80.247.35 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 17:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Could you please change the picture into this one?: https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/onepiece/images/0/09/Chapter_863.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/1000?cb=20170424163639 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.247.35 (talk) 15:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Why should we? At least provide a reason. Sk8erPrince (talk) 16:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Using the {{Voiced by}} template

Guess it's an edit worth discussing since it was reverted twice.

The {{Voiced by}} template is used on alot of anime/anime character pages as a means to efficiently and uniformly list VAs under their roles...

as seen on all these pages: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Voiced by

using the template will make the voice roles uniform and easier to navigate (without losing any information), while also saving 4,662 bytes (in my last edit) of page space

for example, just in the main characters alone, they present the same information with almost all different wording:

Luffy is voiced by Mayumi Tanaka In the 4Kids Entertainment English adaptation, he is voiced by Erica Schroeder In the Funimation Entertainment English adaptation, his voice is supplied by Colleen Clinkenbeard
In the anime television series, his voice actor is Kazuya Nakai In the 4Kids English adaptation, his name is spelled Roronoa Zolo, and he is voiced by Marc Diraison In the Funimation English adaptation, his voice is supplied by Christopher Sabat
In the anime television series, Nami is voiced by Akemi Okamura In the 4Kids English adaptation, she is voiced by Kerry Williams In the Funimation English adaptation, her voice is provided by Luci Christian
In the anime series, his voice actor is Kappei Yamaguchi Jason Griffith and Sonny Strait provide his voice in the 4Kids and Funimation English adaptations, respectively
In the Japanese anime television series, he is voiced by Hiroaki Hirata In the 4Kids English adaptation, he is voiced by David Moo In the Funimation English adaptation, his voice is supplied by Eric Vale
His voice actress is Ikue Ōtani, Kazue Ikura voiced Tony Tony Chopper for episodes 254-263 In the 4Kids and Funimation English adaptations, his voice is supplied by Lisa Ortiz and Brina Palencia, respectively
In the anime television series, Robin's voice actress is Yuriko Yamaguchi In the 4Kids English adaptation, her Baroque Works codename was changed to Miss Sunday and she is voiced by Veronica Taylor In the Funimation English adaptation, her voice is supplied by Stephanie Young
In the anime television series, his voice actor is Kazuki Yao Patrick Seitz provides his voice in the Funimation English adaptation
He is voiced by He is voiced by Chō Ian Sinclair provides his voice in the Funimation English adaptation
In the Japanese anime television series, Jinbe is initially voiced by Daisuke Gōri, later by Katsuhisa Hōki In the Funimation English adaptation, his voice is supplied by Daniel Baugh

when it can just be simplified to:

Voiced by: Mayumi Tanaka (Japanese) Erica Schroeder (4Kids) Colleen Clinkenbeard (Funimation) (English)
Voiced by: Kazuya Nakai (Japanese) Marc Diraison (4Kids) Christopher Sabat (Funimation) (English)
Voiced by: Akemi Okamura (Japanese) Kerry Williams (4Kids) Luci Christian (Funimation) (English)
Voiced by: Kappei Yamaguchi (Japanese) Jason Griffith (4Kids) Sonny Strait (Funimation) (English)
Voiced by: Hiroaki Hirata (Japanese) David Moo (4Kids) Eric Vale (Funimation) (English)
Voiced by: Ikue Ōtani, Kazue Ikura (Episodes 254-263) (Japanese) Lisa Ortiz (4Kids) Brina Palencia (Funimation) (English)
Voiced by: Yuriko Yamaguchi (Japanese) Veronica Taylor (4Kids) Stephanie Young (Funimation) (English)
Voiced by: Kazuki Yao (Japanese) Patrick Seitz (Funimation) (English)
Voiced by: Chō (Japanese) Ian Sinclair (Funimation) (English)
Voiced by: Daisuke Gōri, later by Katsuhisa Hōki (Japanese) Daniel Baugh (Funimation) (English)

and having the localized name changes under the character paragraph, like it's done on List of Crayon Shin-chan characters

example for Roronoa Zoro:

Voiced by: Kazuya Nakai (Japanese); Marc Diraison (4Kids), Christopher Sabat (Funimation) (English)
(character paragraph)
His name is spelled Roronoa Zolo in the 4Kids dubs.


(I don't know whether this would require a separate discussion, if it does please let me know)

Also, why are the other listed characters lower than the groups and organisations? Since the page is about the characters, I think that it should prioritize individuals over groups

I propose swapping the Other groups and organizations & Other characters sections around

Weebasenji (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

3 weeks with no responses, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ hopefully this edit will bump up some discussion. Per WP:SILENT I wouldn't want to assume that it's fine... but without clarified opposition, I can't determine why this edit would negatively impact the article. Weebasenji (talk) 01:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll ping WT:ANIME as I don't think silence means approval on this. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
See Talk:List_of_One_Piece_characters/Archive_3#Names_in_English_adaptations_and_voice_actor_wording where it went with the sentence format. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 02:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I guess my biggest gripe is with how all the sentences are structured differently, like what's the difference between in the anime television series, in the anime series, in the Japanese anime television series, and just is voiced by? what's with Luffy's Japanese voice actor in the character paragraph on the previous line? why are the English voice actors for Usopp and Tony Tony Chopper combined? and very minor variations like voice is supplied by, voice is provided by, is voiced by? The inconsistency is a bit distracting.
Since it's a list article, I think that the variance might be a bit confusing with trying to find concise information... whereas with the template (/same formatting found on lots of other anime character lists), it's all uniform and easier to determine (with no lost information from a previous version of the page)
If the sentence structure wants to be kept, maybe a variation of {{Voiced by2}} that allows for multiple dub parameters and localized names could be made. Weebasenji (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't really save data WP:NOTPAPER. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 16:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Celestial dragons

User:Reciprocater has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of the banned user User:It's gonna be awesome. Now, go edit somewhere else. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Here

@Sjones23:, I would have to respectfully disagree with you on the point regarding your removal of certain content that truly meets Wikipedia:Core_content_policies. Please note that Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Enforcement_by_reverting: Editors who subsequently reinstate edits originally made by a blocked editor take complete responsibility for the content.

Regards


--Reciprocater (Talk) 05:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I first removed it as a block evasion maneuver and all edits by banned editors, good or bad, will be reverted, immune to WP:3RR. Anyway, regarding the celestial dragons, I don't think we should include it in the article because I couldn't find any source regarding Eiichiro Oda making similarities with the real-life ones in Taiwan. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
You first removed it was actually as "Removing unnecessary detail" --Reciprocater (Talk) 07:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I did, because it was also unnecessary to be included. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Then why you told me I first removed it as a block evasion maneuver and all edits by banned editors, good or bad, will be reverted, immune to WP:3RR. beforehand? --Reciprocater (Talk) 07:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia:Consensus#FORUMSHOP: Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) (Reference)

--Reciprocater (Talk) 07:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

As per WP:BANNED, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule. This does not mean that edits must be reverted just because they were made by a banned editor (obviously helpful changes, such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism, can be allowed to stand), but the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert." I've already asked AngusWOOF (talk · contribs), an uninvolved user, for his thoughts on the matter, and see what can be done to resolve the situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Sjones23, Labeling others as a sock puppet during a content dispute in order to win is not appropriate. Reciprocater (Talk) 07:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I was getting a little suspicious of the potential disruption and sock-puppetry (and I've been here for 13 years, so I know all of the rules here). Anyway, I'll ask at WT:ANIME to see if we can resolve this situation. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Section break

What does Taipei have to do with One Piece's Celestial Dragons? Where's the article that says the Taipei ones are connected to One Piece? It's not something apparent as with Four Symbols and they start using Dragon, Tortoise, Bird, Tiger AngusWOOF (barksniff) 08:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it has anything to do with One Piece, so I think we should leave it out. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

As for reverting sockpuppet ban evasion edits, yes, editors can revert regardless of whether or not a sock made a good faith edit. Sometimes they put in a small good edit, but most of the time it is the same crap that got them banned in the first place like Cow Cleaner's shonen jump vandalism, One Piece Vol. 1 cover requestor. If the edits took place while the person was still legit, prior to being banned, then that's not an auto revert unless the edit was disruptive. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 08:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Okay, according to that article [5], someone called Taipei a "Kingdom of Celestial Dragons" because of the city's response to some local issue "in the controversy over a temporary home for sick children." That would be a neologism. There needs to be more articles to show the widespread use of the phrase. That might be the same as someone saying, "You're such a Sanji when it comes to women." or that person probably ate a "dum-dum fruit" or "that politician's going to be King of the Pirates". AngusWOOF (barksniff) 09:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

  • How about the addition of this source 王盈淳 (2014-01-01). "天龍人蓋高尚?台北人主觀社會地位初探 [Do "TIAN-LONG" People Feel Superior? Subjective Social Status of Taipei Residents]". 臺北大學社會學系學位論文 [National University of Taipei] (in Chinese): 1–44. Archived from the original on 2019-12-26. Retrieved 2019-12-26. ? Thanks for your time. --Reciprocater (Talk) 09:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
That might not work. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
It's secondary source per WP:RS. Could you share me your reasons of disapproval? Thank you. --Reciprocater (Talk) 09:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
That's the same problematic restored edit reference on North-South article that got the other account banned. Any other articles? I saw this: [6] but it is a blog. Need more news sources. 09:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
the other account banned I politely ask you stopping labeling me and WP:personal attack. This is not helpful to buid WP:consensus. That source is published by National University of Taipei, there is no ground to compare it to a blog post and calling it "same problematic restored". Thank you. --Reciprocater (Talk) 09:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
How am I personally attacking you? I know nothing about you, what you look like, where you ilve, your real name or any of that. You've attempted to restore an edit made by a banned user and then you are calling a reference that was added by the same banned user. That could be a news magazine put out by NTU, but it refers to pages 1-40 so 40 pages and it shows that term, or is it on page "1-40"? The blog I was referring to was from popula.com not your NTU reference. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 09:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
WP:LISTEN, the source is a secondary source published by National Taipei University as opposed to a news magazine. University is not a commercial publisher. --Reciprocater (Talk) 10:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Stop throwing up random WP rule verbiage. That only makes you look more and more like the sockpuppets that were banned. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 09:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I am not throwing up WP rule. Wikipedia is not a forum or non-government state. Wikipedia:Consensus: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.. --Reciprocater (Talk) 09:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Back to the subject at hand. This could be added as a brief sentence in the Reception section saying how people have began referring to Taipei as Tienlongguo (天龍國, Celestial Dragon Country), because of their residents' apparent nobility or aloofness.(taipei times ref, NTU ref) But I would be rather add a more mainstream newspaper and not a student publication. Wikipedia doesn't like sourcing student newspapers. Then again, this could be a journal piece complete with abstract. That's really long. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 10:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2022

Add Yamato to the SH pirates, pls 2601:40:3:1FA:8929:8F16:EFC0:9EC9 (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
https://otakusnotes.com/one-piece-chapter-1051-yamato-officially-joins-straw-hat-pirates/
https://screenrant.com/one-piece-1051-yamato-straw-hat-pirates/
https://www.epicdope.com/yamato-aka-oden-final-member-of-luffys-crew-confirmed/
https://www.animesenpai.net/one-piece-11th-member-of-luffys-pirate-crew-announced/
These 4 sites all confirmed that Yamato is the new SH member 2601:40:3:C0A:1CB7:64D3:B3D4:753A (talk) 01:48, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I reverted the addition. I placed my reasoning in my edit summary, but will place it here as well. Yamato's addition has not been made official yet, despite the links you posted. The fact is, we have one chapter of Yamato inviting themselves onto the crew, but even the manga itself basically clarifies "it's the captain who decides, not you". Will Yamato be joining? Yes, very likely. However, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and we can't be jumping the gun out of excitement for a new crewmate. Within the next few chapter releases, the arc will end, and we'll know for certain whether Yamato's addition is official or not. TLDR: just wait. Wani (talk) 00:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
To add on, three of your four sources aren't remotely reliable (they read more like personal blog posts), and Screen Rant is only considered "marginally reliable". Even the One Piece fan wiki doesn't consider the addition official yet. Wani (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2022 (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:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Adding Vivi in StrawHats.

This official Wikia says Vivi is part of the Strawhats.

https://onepiece.fandom.com/wiki/Straw_Hat_Pirates

Why isn’t Vivi part of Strawhats

71.185.54.35 (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Higuma the Bear has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 2 § Higuma the Bear until a consensus is reached. lettherebedarklight晚安 12:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)