Talk:Monkey D. Luffy/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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 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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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))

Fact or Fiction

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

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)

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)

Luffy is stronger then Zolo. It's just Zolo can do things Luffy can't and they sort of balance each other out. But Luffy is twice or three times as strong as Zolo(or Zoro).

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)

Luffy's New Look

Hey doesn't Luffy have like a new look? I thought he had black shorts and he has some kind of

jewel wristband on his left arm near the shoulder. But I don't see him in black shorts anymore.

Maybe ther should be a section on Luffy's looks and it should be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carbonox (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

what happened to the other listings of luffys powers

there where other forms of luffy that he only used once but it should still be listed such as water luffy when he faced croc. and afro luffy. then demon luffy. and the attack he used on the don. that was not in the manga-1,000,000'c bazooka. they might have only been used once but there luffy's abilitys and should be listed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.212.189.244 (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Abilities

Shouldn't the gears be breifly described, like gear second increases his attacks and allows him to use soru, an ability that lets him move super fast or something, and gear third increases his bone mass to increase his strength at the cost of speed and shrinks him for a while when deactivated or something.--Sanji_1990 (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The Monkey Name

Is luffy named after Garp and Dragon? Monkey D. Garp, Monkey D. Dragon, Monkey D. Luffy. If he is I think we should mention that somewhere in the article.Any Anime Luver (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Monkey is Luffy's last name and thus Dragon's and Garp's. It's like Turanga Leela. In Japan and other Eastern cultures, family names are first with personal names afterwards.Uglyguy2006 (talk) 15:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Appearances in other media suggestion

I saw an advertisment for a Gintama movie that made references to One Piece (along with Bleach and DBZ). It had the characters fighting in Alabasta and two characters dressed as Axe Hand Morgan and Crocodile, and the main character stretches her arm out and attacks the Crocodile Character screaming "Gomu Gomu!" Is it worth mentioning in the media appearence section?202.173.150.106 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, it was from Gintama Episode 50. Here's the Clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4FBY86UTGs I Think it SHOULD be included, this is a BLATANT parody, they even used part of the One Piece Logo, Totally unaltered other than the color. (User DemonRin) 12:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Haki

In luffy's abilites it says that only he, silvers raliegh, and shanks have been shown using it but didnt white beard use it when he and shanks fought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.201.204.45 (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly, we don't know A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G about This "Ambition Power" that's being talked about now (Or, as it's commonly left untranslated, Haki) it shouldn't be included here as though the writer knew everything about it. The Article even says "Haki, it turns out, is the same thing Enel, and all the inhabitants of Sky Island were using to predict moves, and "hear the voices" of other people." When was this Confirmed? This is like going into Captain Kuro's section and going "his Shakushi technique was later revealed to really be called 'Soru', which means he's somehow a Marine". If Properly translated, Haki is'nt even presented as a Fighting Technique, they're simply saying the person has Ambition, and that Luffy has the Ambition of a King. So until we get more Solid information that This thing is REALLY a fighting technique and wasn't literally just people imposing their will on people, it should simply be omitted or at least talked about in a more speculative manner (IE, one sentence, something akin to "Luffy is possibly learning a new Technique called "Ambition" or "Haki" right now, but not much is known about it, other than it apparently has the power to stun Enemies, and that Shanks and Rayleigh have been seen using it.") Also, the article seems to present "King Colored Disposition" twice, once Translated and once left untranslated as "Haoshoku Haki" and presents them as though they were 2 separate things, probably because scanlators decided not to translate this bubble at all (not even translation notes) and people are getting confused. (EDIT: HOW COME I KEEP SIGNING MY COMMENTS BUT THEY STILL GET AUTOSIGNED?!?!)(User DemonRin) 05:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.238.44 (talk)

That is exactly what I thought. It really doesn't make much sense on a Wikipedia article to go on a tangent of speculation you'd find on a anime forum. I'll remove it immidiately since the person in question hasn't done it yet.Uglyguy2006 (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I edited it Lightly so it sounds a BIT More speculative, and The "King-Colored Ambition" thing is presented more accurately (they don't call it a "King's Disposition" they call it "King-Colored" Haki or Ambition.) Does anyone Object to the Change I made? (User DemonRin) 05:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

From the translation I read, it said "The Haki of the King's Disposition". That why the title of the chapter is called "The King's Disposition". Get it? I don't really care what you call it, as long as it goes along similar lines, or just leave it untranslated altogether and translate "haoshoku" and "haki" separately. It can be translated to different words in English. I wouldn't even worry about it. Uglyguy2006 (talk) 08:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What I have written there now Is correct. the TITLE of the Chapter is "Ou no Shishitsu" or "Qualities of a King". and the bubble in Question says he has "Haoshoku no Haki" or "Supreme King-Colored Ambition". The title and that bubble use completely different words. I'm not going off of any 3rd party translations, I'm reading the raw straight. What we have there now is probably what's best, so yeah, don't worry about it. (User DemonRin) 18:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the title is "Qualities of a King". It roughly translates to that anyway. Sorry, I must have used that to try and translate "haoushoku no haki". I still think it can it can translated to "the king's disposition" since "haki" is translated to "ambition", "spirit" etc. so it could alternatively mean Luffy's temperament is like that of a king. I had no intention of changing it anyway. I don't she why anyone should change it. Your reading seems the best Uglyguy2006 (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

On a related note doesn't Margaret of the Amazon Lily island tell Luffy that the arrows of the warriors are imbued with Haki and hence they are stronger than normal arrows (page 6 of chapter 516)? If so, then the use of the Haki would not be only a shout would it? Im editing the section to include this also.chaosprophet 11:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

About "Ambition" (known to some as "Haki") There are a few things we need to get straight about it.

1: We know Next to nothing about it

2: This is not the "Haki" Page, this is Luffy's Entry

3: As far as I can tell, we don't even know if it's really an ability so much as it's just someone imposing their will upon someone

Until we know more, the Information on it should remain VERY Scarce, and anything we DO put here should be relevant to LUFFY as this is HIS page. Being able to put the will of one's ambition into a weapon is fine and dandy, but as Luffy uses no weapons, and can't do this "Ambition" Thing yet besides the one time he did it COMPLETELY by accident, Almost none of these random Facts about it seem to belong here. DemonRin (talk) 03:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Add to Concept; Attack Names

I think it's worthy to note that majority of Luffy's attacks, all of the punches are named after Firearms. Examples would be "Gum Gum Pistol" a stretched punch, "Gum Gum Rifle" a twisted punch, "Gum Gum Bazooka" a two arm'd punch, "Gum Gum Rocket" a attacked used to launch himself, etc. I don't know if this is worthy enough to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.246.129 (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Category: One Piece Characters

I have nominated this in as a CfD due to it having only 2 items and better to be moved to the main list of Category:One Piece as because of the merge, it's unlikely to get much, if any, larger anytime soon.じんない 06:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Voice Actor Interview

Volume 52 has a interview with the Japanese voice actor for Luffy; This is a post by Greg from Arlongpark.net's forums.

Okay, so the VA interview. It's actually the second-most interesting piece of info from the SBS section. Even though I'm nothing less than furious over the continued violent decline of quality in the SBS, his answer about what he draws and why was very interesting. I wonder if he realized that himself.

Someone asks if the cast has drinking parties together or not. She says they gather in her rec room and make takoyaki. They always prepare a sleepy-time blanket for Yamaguchi.

Someone snottily tells her she can just go along doing Luffy's voice. She says the reader can do it if they want. She'll do Zoro.

Someone asks if when she gets sales calls if she ever uses Luffy's voice or something. She says usually when she just speaks NORMALLY they say, "Could you put your mother on the phone?"

Someone Negative Hollows her, she replies in turn...

Someone asks if she really eats something during the scenes where Luffy is eating and talking. She says she strives for reality so they actually prepare what Luffy is eating for her and she eats it while doing lines.

Someone asks if she picks her nose during scenes when Luffy picks his nose and talks. She reconfirms, she's an actress that strives for reality.

Someone asks if her lines where Luffy screams physically exhaust her. She says that in ten years of doing the animation her height has shrunk from 175cm to 147.5cm.

Someone asks for her to become their mom. She says ok but she'll turn into a dad with a crewcut from time to time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discobird (talk • contribs) 07:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

archive?

The talk page is getting a bit unwieldy from the length and maybe we should archive some of the older thread.じんない 02:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Done! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ambition" ("Haki" in Japanese)

Ok seriously, I have a few things to say about it that people need to start realizing before they make edits to this page.

• 1: STOP CHANGING "AMBITION" TO "HAKI OR HAOSHIOKU"!! We already came to a consensus (per Talk:One Piece#"Fruit" vs. "No Mi") to keep everything in ENGLISH!!
• 2: We Know NEXT TO NOTHING about this "Ability" or "Trait", in fact, we don't even know what it IS!! Stop saying things like "It's mantra" or Things like that.
• 3: This is LUFFY'S ARTICLE!! the information there should remain very scarce and should pertain only to Luffy!DemonRin (talk) 11:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"No, it's not a character name, it's speculated to be an Attack" --DemonRin[1]

It doesn't matter what the whatever-it's-called is. In this case, "覇気" is the name of something. Names are not translated. They are romanized. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, it's a name... of an attack. No, we don't know what it is exactly but we know what it's not, it's not a character's name, and the other terms in One Piece aren't given the same care, so what makes Haki different? Because it's written in Kanji? Just because it was written in Kanji doesn't somehow make it any different than any other attack or Term. Shichibukai is written in Kanji, most of Zoro's attacks are written in Kanji, there are other attack names that are written in Kanji and the current consensus is to translate them. Fans have for some reason flooded around this Ambition thing as though it were the holy thing that somehow explains everything in One Piece, and thusly have come to the conclusion that it must not be translated. But the fact of the matter is, whatever this is, it's not a character name, it's a term just like the Shichibukai (the Warlords), Yonkou (4 Emperors), Kaigun (Navy), Akuma no mi (Devil Fruits), Nakama (Crewmates), etc. So what makes it different than those?DemonRin (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

"Shichibukai is written in Kanji, most of Zoro's attacks are written in Kanji, there are other attack names that are written in Kanji and the current consensus is to translate them." - I know of no such consensus.

It doesn't matter if it's the name of a character, an attack, a group, or whatever. It also doesn't matter whether its written in Kanji, latin characters, or cuneiform script. Names are names. And we don't replace official names with non-official names. If a name happens to be translatable, then we can note its meaning, but that's it. Mind you, we are not a fansub group.

• "Shichibukai", "Kaigun", and "Akuma no mi" are the names of a group, an organization, and a fruit in the original version. These names have been changed in official English adaptations. These name-changes are in some cases literal translations. In some cases they are no translations at all. - These should be introduced like this: "Seven Warlords of the Sea (七武海 Shichibukai, lit. Seven Armed Seas)".
• "Yonkou" is the name of a group in the original version without an official English name. - These should be introduced like this: "Yonkō (四皇, lit. Four Emperors)".
• "Nakama", I've never heard. But if you mean "nakama", then it's just a Japanese word to be translated.

Thus are the differences.

Oh, and by the way: You might want to stop insulting people. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Wait, where am I insulting people?

And we came to a consensus in the One Piece page, you were involved. it was to use Official English terms, and when they aren't available to use the literal translation. To do anything else would make the whole thing inconsistent with itself. And "Seven Warlords of the Sea" is a perfectly accurate translation of Shichibukai, the Idea that it's not is weird. The Literal Translation aside, what Oda Obviously meant was "Seven Military Powers On the Sea" as that Middle Kanji, read as Bu is a general character that is used in compound with the words for soldier, and warrior, and what have you, so I fail to see how that's "Not a Translation at all" The Word "Seven" is in there,a word pertaining to a military power is in there, and the Word "Sea" is in there. I'd call that perfectly accurate.

And no, we aren't fansubbers, their policy is to leave Everything untranslated, this is an Encyclopedia. This term isn't untranslatable at all, in fact, nothing but character names are. it means Ambition. Stephen has no problem translating it in his manga scripts, and the Fansubbers and scanlators had no problem translating it back when one of Whitebeard's crew members made a remark about it when Shanks met with Whitebeard, it's only now that it's become a fan term like Nakama that people are doing this untranslated thing.DemonRin (talk) 11:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• "Weaboo" and "Wapanese" are both condescending terms.
• An example of "not a translation at all": "ミス・メリークリスマス" -> "Ms. Groundhog's Day"

I just re-read the discussion at Talk:One Piece/Archive 4#"Fruit" vs. "No Mi". That discussion went on for weeks with us two being the only participants (at least in the relevant passage). I should have carefully re-read it back then too. If I had, I would have never agreed to "6: Literal Translation of the Japanese (Using an Online Dictionary like Anime Lab)". I said it today. I said it before the discussion there. And I'll say it again now: We should not replace official names with non-official names. Because that is either original research and forbidden by policy or completely wrong.

I don't know who Stephen is, nor do I care. But you obviously missed my point in regard to us not being fansubbers. Fansubbers can do whatever they want, from leaving 90% (or more) untranslated to things as absurd as translating "Nami" to "Wave". This is an encyclopedia, not a fansub script. Meaning: this is not a page to publish our translations. "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought."

As for what is an accurate translation and what isn't. It doesn't matter. We can only use official terms. Our own translations have to take a backseat after the "lit.". -- Goodraise (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Anime Episode 151 - 100 Million Man! World's greatest power and the Pirate Blackbeard! Corresponds to Manga Volume 25, Page 163, First Panel

Blackbeard: Ano HAKI de sanzenman wa neeto ochittaga kokomade toha

Translation: I thought 30 million was too low for a kid with that much ambition

FUNimation has already done that one, they went with Ambition if I remember right, I'm going to bed right now, I'll pull up the FUNi dub of that episode tomorrow when I have time.DemonRin (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you want to miss the point? In that sentence, "haki" isn't used as a name for something. It's just a Japanese word. Whereas in our case, it refers to something called "Haki". It's a fundamental difference: one is a name, the other is not. (Of course, there is the possibility that Blackbeard already noticed that ability/whatever in Luffy. But isn't that a bit far-fetched? I guess we'll know once the subbed version is out.) Anyways, I don't want to debate in-universe stuff here. My issue is simple: The article contains the word "Ambition", with captial 'A'. It's a fan-translation and can't be let standing. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Bumping this talk page for new information. FUNimation is now streaming brand new episodes of One Piece, with OFFICIAL English subs on the One Piece official site. [2] They're starting with episode 391 right now, and by May 30th, the news report says they will be caught up with the Japanese broadcast, and will then be streaming the episodes an hour after they air. What this means is, in a very short period of time, FUNimation will have done an episode dealing with "Ambition" or "Haki". So, when the time comes, and we know what FUNi's official translation of "Haki" is, I will be changing this section to conform. DemonRin (talk) 04:18, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

"manliness"?

There's a problem with this sentence:

Oda has said that when he was creating Luffy, he was thinking about "manliness", because Dragon Ball had already done all the things that a child could possibly be happy about.

"Interview with Eiichiro Oda and Akira Toriyama". One Piece Color Walk 1 (in Japanese). Shueisha. ISBN 978-4088592176.

The reference says the quotation comes from the Japanese version. I doubt Oda used the English word "manliness" there. He propably said 健気 (kenage) or something. Before this is moved back into the article, someone needs to look it up in the Japanese version. Alternatively the English version could be used as well, though the Japanese original is preferred. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

We could also use a note here to describe that "manliness" in Japan is not the same as other English-speaking nations in some respects.じんない 01:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Since when is Japan an English-speaking nation? No, it's a quotation problem. If the English word "manliness" is not the one he used, then it can't stand in quotation marks. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No, but if it's been officially translated as such which would need to be cited by a reliable source (such as an SJ One Piece manga) that's what I mean.じんない 03:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Assuming I understand what you're saying, then I believe that's what I said above. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but with the caviot that we made need a notation about what the word means in Japan exactly if it is translated.じんない 06:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But how are we supposed to do that without knowing the Japanese word he used originally? If he said "danseiteki", then it means simply "manly" or "manliness". But if he used "kenage", then it can mean "brave", "gallant", "couragous", "manly", "heroic", "praiseworthy", "industrious", "pure", or even "lovable". (All of which apply to Luffy...) -- Goodraise (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Which means we'd need to cite both. Either way, yes the original is needed. However, my point is that if he used "danseiteki" we may still need a notation about the cultural differences of "manliness" in Japanese society as opposed to the English-speaking world.じんない 06:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Skypiea arc missing?

Just curious, but isn't the Skypiea arc missing from this article? Between the paragraphs After entering the Grand Line, he agrees to bring... and After returning to the surface... there should be a full section about that, right? Jonesybunny (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's missing. It was removed here. A rather radical edit, if I may say so. Unfortunately, I don't have the time right now to give this article the amount of love it so desperately needs, but to answer your question: No. Individual arcs should not get their own sections. Wikipedia is not a fan-wiki. Everything Luffy ever did should be covered in a single section of reasonable length in comparasion to the other sections of the article. Goodraise 18:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It does seem like a radical edit indeed. Perhaps if I have some time I may write that paragraph in myself, but things move fast here on Wikipedia. :) And I meant paragraph, rather than section. Wrong word there! English is not my primary language, so despite daily use I do tend to get a word wrong now and then. Jonesybunny (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Current Events.

It seems like it's a bit fool-hardy to constantly update the character page for each and every chapter, every week; save that stuff for the One Piece specific wikis. Either type something general (i.e. "current events place Luffy in the middle of an extended battle between the Whitebeard Pirates and the Marines") or omit the current plot arc from the article all-together (adding the arc when it finishes).

Just a thought. 204.101.117.74 (talk) 06:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) MoaM.

I agree with you on that; we get a lot of editors that think these articles should contain a blow-by-blow plot summary. It's heavily discouraged by policy and borders on copyright infringement. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:50, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Men's non no

Luffy made into the cover of Shueisha's Men's non no fashion magazine. see: [3][4][5]

It's certainly some coverage but that still a Shueisha publication even if not in the manga field. --KrebMarkt 17:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the popular culture section.Tintor2 (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, i'm clearly too busy putting ref here and there my bad i'm sorry. --KrebMarkt 17:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

what about other characters from one piece??

look at nearly every popular anime or manga series and you'll see that almost very main protagonist has their own page. I'm sure its not too much work to put together separate character pages instead of a huge compilation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roronoa_Zoro#Roronoa_Zoro) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.247.61.155 (talk) 03:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

They all had pages, but they didn't contain enough real world information to stand on their own. Trying to revive them will be more of a headache than it's worth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.111.18.124 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

They all had pages but some people merged them for no good reason. Gune (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be good to put previus Luffy´s bounties on his page,as well for other characters.

"the powers of rubber."

Really? "The powers of rubber"? exactly what are the powers of rubber? My tires are made of rubber and most of the time just sit there. So does he have the ability just sit around and on occasion roll? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bofum (talk • contribs) 04:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Luffy based on Son Goku?

"Oda partially based Luffy on Son Goku, the main protagonist of the Dragon Ball series created by Akira Toriyama.(Oda, Eiichiro. "Interview with Eiichiro Oda and Akira Toriyama". One Piece Color Walk. One Piece (in Japanese). Vol. 1. ISBN 978-4088592176. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |month= (help))"[6]

Can somebody verify this? Perhaps quote the passage in question? I also wonder whether the title is really in English. Thanks. Goodraise 17:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, he and his personality (hell, his name) are obviously based on Sun Wukong who was also the inspiration for Goku, but the article needs reliable sourcing from someone who's written in an official forum to avoid pointing that out falling under OR. — LlywelynII 12:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

What we think is obvious is irrelevant. The question is whether this claim is backed by the source given or not. Goodraise 16:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

List of Luffy's notable relatives

I'm sure that this has been argued about before, hence the disclaimer (that just shows up in editing the page; not in the actual finished product of the article) saying not to include relatives beyond immediate family, but please bear with me.

The way it stands, it lists, under Notable relatives, Monkey D. Dragon (Father) and Portgas D. Ace (Adopted brother---or maybe it's adoptive but whatever).

Now, just from that, the general interpration (I, and probably most people, get) is something like "Dragon is Luffy's biological father; he raised Luffy and [somewhere along the way] adopted Ace." But, anyone actually familiar enough with One Piece would know that this far from the truth. This is actually how it went: Luffy was raised by his biological paternal grandfather, Monkey D. Garp, who also raised Portgaz D. Ace (but who, himself, has no biological ties to either of them). Monkey D. Dragon is Luffy's bioligical father, but he wasn't involved in Luffy's raising (and I'm almost certain Luffy's not even aware Dragon is his biological father).

I think that listing Ace and his description of how he is related to Luffy is fine; I think that listing Dragon is fine. I would like to discuss Dragon's description and if Garp should be listed, and, if so, what his description should be. Becuase, as it stands, and the general interpretation gotten from it (standing alone), it isn't sufficient or right.

Now, again, I know that about the disclaimer---the one that can be seen in the editing page (but not in the actual finshed product of the article) saying not to include relatives beyond immediate family members, implying this has already been discussed at length, and, I know a lot of people, hence, are wondering something like "Why are you bringing up the possibility of including Garp, then?" Well, Garp is Luffy's grandfather (i.e., a non-immediate family member) only in a biological sense; Garp, who was involving in raising Luffy, is, in practical terms, probably the closest thing to a father Luffy has.

Now, also, I know a response to this might be that there is no really good way to resolve this, and that it should remain the way it is on the basis that, "If you know anything about One Piece,..." Well, maybe you don't know much, if anything, about One Piece; I mean, that's what the article is for; to inform (potentially unknowledgeable) people. Some might say "well, those people need to read the article [or research] further." Maybe those people don't have time; maybe they don't care enough; or maybe they just want to read the sidebar and introduction to get the gist of it.

Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.156.14 (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I get that you're not happy with the way things are, but what changes do you propose? Goodraise 16:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, as I stated before, I really don't think the way it is now is sufficient or right, but I think this is a tough one. But, I know I need to get specific. If I had to say (which I know I do), I think that, under Notable relatives (in the sidebar), it should first list Portgaz D. Ace (adoptive brother), then Monkey D. Garp (biological paternal grandfather; adoptive father), and, finally, Monkey D. Dragon (biological father). [I chose the order because, whenever I see sidebars that list "Relatives" or "Notable relatives" or whatever, they start with the closest relatives first, going down in order of closeness, which makes sense; now, any other time, in Wikipedia articles, it'll go in order of biological closeness, but, considering how haphazard Luffy's "immediate family (or at least the idea of it/the closest thing to it)" is, I think that this is a special case, and I went in order of closeness in terms of actual relationship level]. I know that some people might slightly disagree with the "apoptive father" part on Garp, but 1. it's not far off and 2. without telling Luffy's life story in the mere sidebar (which would be inappropriate in itself), I think my proposition sounds a lot better than the way it is now. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.156.14 (talk) 08:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In order to avoid getting reverted again...

I recently edited a lot of the intro, but was reverted. The reason was becuase I used "excessive detail," which I partially agree with. But I edited it again, just changing things that had to be changed, which I'm going to explain now.

1. "Straw Hat Luffy" to "Straw Hat" Luffy. In formal English, when someone is called something, part of it isn't officially part of the person's name and part of it is, the part that isn't should be in quotes, like "Red Haired" Shanks or "Weird Al" Yankovic.

2. "Rubber powers?" What does that even mean? As someone else pointed out on this talk page, car tires are made of rubber, but all they do is sit there and occasionally roll; is that the powers Luffy possess? No. I changed it to "...possesses the power to make his body stretch like rubbers."

3. The way it stood, it read, "possesses powers...from eating a devil fruit called the Gum-Gum Fruit and superhuman strength." That makes it out as if the name of the devil fruit iss the "Gum-Gum Fruit and superhuman strength." I changed it to "...Fruit, which also gave him superhuman strenghth."

4. It originally read "One Piece revolves around his exploits in searching for the fabled treasure." Now, I knew what was meant, as I'm sure a lot did, but I guarantee that anyone not familiar with One Piece would be thinking "What fabled treasure?" Also, One Piece really, if anything, revolves around Luffy's quest to become the next pirate king. It's like, if you know anything about the different Dragon Ball anime, you'll know that, despite what one might might think, searching for, collecting, and gathering the dragon balls isn't that much of an important plot line in those anime. I changed it to "The search for the fabled treasure known as "one Piece [for which the media franchise is named]" is one of the main, general plot lines of One Piece."--99.124.128.157 (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

People will revert anything these days. Its because they feel a sense of "ownership" over the article and don't want to see it critiqued or changed in any way. Well done for fixing such massive and glaring clerical errors, and that being said, please go join the One Piece Wiki where your edits are appreciated and not automatically treated as vandalism, and your expertise will genuinely aid people in search of content on everything on the great manga and series that is One Piece.

Speeditor (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Request.

Could someone please change the picture into the very first appearance of the character, which is at the cover of the first volume? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.247.35 (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2019 (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) 10:56, 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)

Snakeman and Boundman images

The images for Luffy's Snakeman and Boundman forms currently use fanart rather than official images from the manga, is this okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wscyberman (talk • contribs) 21:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Protection from vandalism

Vandals using unconfirmed to update the page. Protection for page required until Sunday, when the next chapter of the story releases 2409:4042:E0D:B69C:2505:9977:FE13:CAC6 (talk) 17:19, 22 March 2022 (UTC)