Jump to content

Talk:One Piece/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Dial article

Someone should really make an article for all the dials like Impact,Ax or Jet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.218.200 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

The terms page is enough. Angel Emfrbl 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

question

How do you know some of Sanji attacks names if he doesn't say some of them in the anime?Shirleybiscuit

Because he either did the same move later and called the name out then, he did it in the manga, or the version that you are refering to is the now defunct 4Kids dub; where many things were edited out. (Justyn 06:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC))


Problems at the Wikia website

Okay the 4 most active Editors got blocked at Wikia...

  • I was blocked for being a DBZ hater
  • The others were blocked for adding stuff without premission.

OMG! The DBZ thing... Esp... OMG... This is stupid. O.o'

Yeah this is just to say we're having problems at the Wikia site right now everyone. Angel Emfrbl 07:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I, angel and 2 other heavy contributors were banned. Angel for "being a DBZ hater" which if someone doesn't like Dragon Ball Z it's their personal opinion. The other 3, including me, were banned for "adding info to the site without permission" so basically the person who requested the Wiki feels it's his job to grant permission for every edit. He is basically sitting on the site for his own private use now, since the others arn't very active, coming on a few times a month. Anyone concerned should contact Wikia using their form, telling them how us 4 were ufnairly banned, and the guy is trying to control the entire site, utterly removing the point of it being a Wiki and more like a place to sign up for and contribute if you want to get banned. Battlefranky and Joekido were just as active as us, and we all got banned for the most stupid reasons ever. Pyrgus 09:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC) AKA Cody2526
Odd thing in my case is I wasn't preaching DBZ hate nor did I let my opinion rule my judgment. I've defended a DBZ article here on wikipedia when I don't even touch those pages otherwise. Hell I even supported a DB page on the wikia when it was up for banment and tried to help keep it. Angel Emfrbl 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay I just logged onto Wikia and found... Everyone is unbanned. ^-^ Angel Emfrbl 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


Should we include that 4kids stopped dubbing One Piece?

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2006-12-06/4kids-cancels-one-piece-production

4Kids Cancels One Piece Production posted on 2006-12-06 11:06 EST 4Kids Marketing Director Roz Nowicki has confirmed that the company will not adapt additional episodes of One Piece. 4Kids has dubbed 104 episodes of the series into English, 78 of which have aired in the United States. Thanks, Daikun, Starks, and Mark Barbour.

We have, that's why pages are starting to say "defunct dub". (Justyn 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC))
A forum post isn't a reliable source though, has anybody considered this?--69.141.190.230 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, and Wikipedia is not for original research like that. We should just say it's a possibility. Matty-chan 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
There are new episodes in the US... Odd if 4Kids dropped it huh? Angel Emfrbl 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

There the ones that had not aired yet in America after that there shouldn't be anymore unless the raitings are really good.

Characters

? Where's the character info page? There's no Table of Contents heading for it, nor is there a easily found link anywhere. Mongoose22 11:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Check the template at the bottom of the page. If it just looks like an orange bar, you have to click the little "show" link in the right hand corner though. There are numerous character pages, so that's the easiest way to see them all. --tjstrf talk 11:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea why it does that. But here it is, if you do what Tjstrk said you'll see how its suppose to look:
I would love to know why it refuses to stay like this. Angel Emfrbl 14:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
The answer is simple. If there are more than 3 instances of the <div class="NavContent"> on a page then they will all automatically hide themselves. This is true on the One Piece page, there are two in the infobox and the third is the One Piece general template. It is also true on this talk page at the moment. The WikiProject Anime and manga has one and there are two others included in the talk. Have a look at MediaWiki:Common.js and find the variable called NavigationBarShowDefault. It is set to 3. (Some people put multiple instances of <div class="NavContent"> on a page to force it to be hidden.)--Squilibob 09:58, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I have made changes to the anime and manga infobox and to the anime and manga wikiproject notice so that this no longer happens. The template should always show at the bottom of the page now. --Squilibob 22:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of episodes issue

This topic doubtless won't be relevant for more than a few weeks, but the issue is this: episodes 291 and 292 (numbered as such in the broadcast) do not actually contain any current *plot* (filler or otherwise) in the series. Rather, they make up the year-end special for 2006. 291 has already aired, and 292 is coming up soon. Now, I believe Geg has been changing the number of episodes back to 290 since this past Sunday. My personal feeling is that since the episodes are numbered, they should be included in the official count regardless of their relevance to the series plot, but I wanted to make sure there were no objections before I changed the number of episodes back to 291. --Julian Grybowski 04:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why not just say over' X number of episodes rather then use an exact noumber... It would mean less arguments overall. Angel Emfrbl 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Too fanish

Okay its been bugging me for eht last couple of months. We're slowly moving towards too much access information. Okay its useful - but we're not a fan site. We set up the Wikia for such access amounts of detailed info. Someone NEEDS to really go round and simplfy everything. Someone used to do it until several months back, can't remember who now... But their absence is beginning to notice.

Basically, everyone is entering details that are not needed to be entered. Saying Luffy has the power of the Devil Fruit is fine, going into detail about gears is fine... But when I look at Luffy's page I see whole text book style enteries on each gear. Its about time we got someone back in to replace the guy who was simplfying everything. A lot of the text book info contains hidden spoilers, which are harder to notice in hugh blocks of text. Generally, its beginning to notice how difficult the infomation is getting to handle - people keep entering repeated info. Huge text is also harder for a non-One Piece fan to understand... If they really want to know more, they can look it up elsewhere. But encyclopedias are usually aimed at giving you a rough idea on a subject matter so you can look it up futher can we all remember that... Our pages are getting less encyclopedic as days go by inccidently.

So yeah. Everyone's thoughts are welcomed on this matter. But generally, lets remember this isn't a fan website and try to cut the info down. Its not as bad as the picture overload we've had recently, but its not far from it. Angel Emfrbl 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. People add way too much information, every week they come in and every single detail of what happened in the latest chapter, which adds up pretty severely after a while. I used to shorten things up sometimes, I'll try and do some more. - STAREYe 22:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Techniques

With the ability article along with the abilities on character articles deleted, we have no scource of abilities other than Franky's ablities and Santōryū articles. We need the the ability article back. SoundPound500000 January 3, 2007 12:47 p.m.

Apparently we can have a page explaining how someone works but we cannot have techniques. We are also allowed to get away with describing CP9's fighting style and how it works as well as par with that... But an article that lists just techniques or having them on the page is no-no. There is a lot more to say, but I don't want to explain it all. If you read the One Piece talk pages you'll eventually find out whats going on. Angel Emfrbl 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

New Templates

I'm not against new templates being put into place on the One Pice pages... REALLY I'm not. But where is the discussion for such changes? I don't see it here! When the One Piece general template was created, I opened up a discussion on this very page and got everyone involved. Everyone eventually was happy with the end result. Discussing things is a lot better.

I would love a template that is smaller then we have... Trouble is splitting up all the characters, arcs and so forth brings about too many problems. It is harder to watch the pages (which is one reason for One Piece general existing) and harder to find the pages. Instead of one step - find the page you want its - find one page- then the next - maybe another - then find the page you want. Its just dam so much eaiser.

I've reverted back to general, if you want it changed back, please open up a discussion so everyone can voice their opinions here. This isn't Reckless's wikipedia, its everyone's wikipedia. Everyone should be involved right? There are ways to do things on wikipedia that makes everyone happy and ways that annoys people. 08:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


User:RecklessFire is attempting to implement the character template of the divided One Piece template set that the Template:One Piece general currently holds all the information from. There are 4 such templates in all.
Template:One Piece characters
Template:One Piece Factions
Template:One Piece Related Articles
Template:One Piece (actually story arcs)
While the organization will need improvement and there is definitely still a place for One Piece General, I highly support an adoption of at least some of these shorter split templates on One Piece articles, because the current One Piece General template is huge, messy, and unnavigable. The specifics of which templates apply where can be worked out, but there is no need to link from every character article to every story arc, every story arc to every organization, every organization to every episode guide page, and every episode guide to every character. I personally suggest we split out the characters and organizations into their own template (many organization articles also contain characters), leave the rest as One Piece general, and use each template only on their relevant articles. The two article groups will still easily be accessible if we make a One Piece characters page that is a part of both groups and bears both templates. --tjstrf talk 08:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like the current template... Why not simply try to alter that first and go from there? As I said up there, no discussion has taken place beforehand to make sure everyone is fine with it. And as I said before, we had it like that once - we had navigation problems. Angel Emfrbl 08:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I point to this template in particulaur: Mortal Kombat (series) found on this page. Ours was orginally based on the old version of this one... Why not inprove on it like they did? Theirs is just fine and it has as much info (just better oraginsed) then ours? They have the SAME problem we do with navigation at times (considering they have more articles then we do its not a suprise). But they took time to change a horrible template into one that wikipedia isn't too mad at them for having. Angel Emfrbl 09:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Because any alterations to the general template would effect every article holding it. I only wish to effect the subcategories of those templates. The navigation problems are caused by the odd page hierarchy system here, in which we have articles that would normally be subordinate to another page but that higher order page does not exist.
The Mortal Kombat template is a mess as well. It may be reduced to a smaller size, but it still bears far too much text and links together far too many articles for easy navigation. Navboxes are not supposed to be a substitute for interwiki links. --tjstrf talk 09:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
May I make a suggestion then - lets organise the pages BEFORE we alter the template then? It would be a lot better. We've been told in the past we have too many articles, why not take the time to reorganise everything and then when were happy, change templates.
And its not that messy looking... There are plenty of other pages using simulair templates to that... Doom anyone? Though I admit no template is perfect, (compare to Doom's one MK one is better -_-'). Angel Emfrbl 09:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay how about one suggestion - remove ALL characters off the template and just have the organisation they belong to? Link to them from those pages not the template. Angel Emfrbl 09:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
That would be helpful, yes. --tjstrf talk 09:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

See... One hour after discussion and two members reach argreements!

anyway I'm waiting to see if Recklessfire puts a point of view across right now. This is why I don't like changes without discussion. We have no explainations to go on as to why things are... We can't help Reckless either with any work until he speaks to everyone on a general level. Thats why I'm making a fuss about it. It can put a rench in the works.

I'm actually happy someone else is trying to improve the pages on tamplate navigation level. I was beginning to feel like everyone was getting lazy (its about 4 months old anyway) and just went with what we had. I never liked what I ended up with in the first place, but couldn't come up with any alternatives myself. Angel Emfrbl 09:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

W-wow, I didn't expect this much discussion on this so quickly. Either way, the Templates I have set up are, in my opinion, acceptable. I do agree that they have room for improvement. I came up with this Template arrangement on a spur-of-the-moment basis. I'm not that experienced with this and I used someone elses Template design as a foundation for them. Anyway, I'm sorry that I didn't discuss this first with others. I'm open to others editing the templates,(I suppose you could do it with or without my permission) but that's beside the point. If you do edit the templates, I would appreciate being notified of it. On a side note, please explain what issues, if any, you have with the new design, As I can be kinda slow sometimes and won't pick up on subtle hints regarding changes people may want.RecklessFire 01:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the point to having a Template that has links in it to other pages. It should have everything it needs inside of it. I also don't see how the old one was hard to navigate. It listed all the main links that are connected to One Piece. Say you needed to look up Eneru. First you looked to see the Characters title, then the Enemies tab, and then Eneru was listed. It was quiet simple and easy to use. If anything , just add a button that hides all that info and can be un-hidden by a click of the [show] button. It's a hassle to link to other pages that has too much info to sift through. It doesn't even make sense to link to another page when you're trying to get to a particular page in the first place. That's like saying "I want to get to George W. Bush's wiki page, so I'll first go to List of U.S. president's wiki page and find him on there." You want a direct link, not another page. Another thing, already mentioned, was editing of the pages; that'll be a problem on it's own. It's so much easier to just keep a general Template that links to the most important related pages. My final point is to look at other featured articles or GA animes. They have Templates that are similar to one we used to have and don't have links to other pages. I don't care what happens either way, since I already have everything on OP bookmark'd, but new users will most likely find it confusing or annoying. I've said my piece, do with it what you will.

Vandal

This IP address: 80.202.20.40

You'll know his kind of edit anyway from style, he basically goes around and adds :

  • Rankyaku Gomu Shot
  • Shigan Jet Shot
  • Tekkai Giga Shot
  • Geppou Gomu Shot
  • Soru Jet Shot
  • Kami-e Giga Shot

note: he is found alternating the last part of the attack list to suit each character, this one came from Luffy's page... He has also done Spandams and Doflamingo's info.

I know we have a vandel proceedure on Wikipedia, but I'm alerting asking everyone to keep an eye out for him. He has been warned a couple of times. Basically keep an eye on that IP adress... The first person to spot him doing this again, report him before you fix the edit. Read wikipedia's pages on vandlism, give him the ness ban or report him for perminate ban if need be for repeating vandalising even after given warning. Angel Emfrbl 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

question

When one piece got a anime version from the manga how did they get the manga storyline to the anime to match for the episodes certain minutes ?Shirleybiscuit

Answer: They didn't. Some eps contain several chapters, others just one... Listen ShirleyBuscuit, you need to stop asking these questions on wikipedia. Forums are the place to ask them, not here. More people will listen to your questions too.  ;) Angel Emfrbl 15:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Templates - Old Vs. New

Its time to ask it... Who here likes the new templates. I admit I'm ticked off about navigation problems, I've been going from page to page Via my watchlist rather then the template. But my view is just one... Others have many.

So after being up for a couple of weeks, is the old way better or the new way?

Everyone's opinions - needed! Angel Emfrbl 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The old way was better. I'm not sure if the new way was done as intended, though. Template talk:One Piece characters talks about respective pages, but Template:One Piece characters isn't ready for prime time. It links to template pages. What is it supposed to link too? Was there a discussion? - Peregrine Fisher 02:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
The old was Good. The new tried to get Better, but only did Worse. So, as once I said "Better is Enemy to Good" (Il Meglio è Nemico del Bene). So, let's return to the Good (old) one. Cuttyflam 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I say go back to the old template, this was just an attempt to fix that which was not broken. (Justyn 11:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC))

Lets leave it until Sunday, give everyone a few more days to vote... Then on Monday if things are how they are, we revert back. I'm gonna make one adjustment to the orginal template - take the character pages off the selection bit so we have them linked via the factions page. That will be another experiment. I'll say this much though, the lack of easy access to the other One Piece pages is starting to really bug me. Angel Emfrbl 12:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. Bleach series has got a template for general purpose and another one only for character. Cuttyflam 12:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well currently no one has asked the new one to stay so... We can now revert back and change things on Monday. So yeah, lets put the old template back and try again with the templates. Angel Emfrbl 13:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay the revett back to the old has been done. We can either keep the old template for characters or create a new one... Or just make do without that. The characters are gone from it to make it smaller. We need to check the factions pages to make sure all links to main character pages are present. Angel Emfrbl 13:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's too difficult to get to the "One Piece characters" template now. Now I have to click on a faction related to one of the main characters, find and click on a link on that page to the main character's bio, and scroll down to the bottom of the screen just to view it!

Cross epoch

I'm surprised to see that the article doesn't mention the One Piece/Dragon Ball Z crossover by Oda and Akira Toriyama. Could someone show me where it is linked to here as I may have overlooked it? Heck, I'm no expert at editing One Piece related articles myself because this isn't exactly my field of expertise, so I wouldn't know what to add/edit here. Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I thibk the page is not needed. Cross Epoch should go on One Piece Dragon Ball Media, or in the page of the authors. Cuttyflam 23:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Japanese Staff

Wouldn't this be better on the Anime or Manga pages? Its more relevent to them and takes this list off the main page. Angel Emfrbl 23:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Few factual questions

Hi, I had a few questions regarding some facts in the article. One is the line:

To date, only a handful of episodes have been released in unedited form on DVD in the US. - As far as I know none of the episodes have been released on DVD in the U.S. without some degree of cutting. Secondly the line:

One Piece is the fourth highest selling manga in the history of Weekly Shonen Jump[1], and is currently Japan's most popular and all-time third-best-selling Shōnen Jump title. sounds kind of contradictory to me (it sounds like One Piece is both the third and fourth highest selling Shonen Jump manga). Am I just reading these incorrectly? Justin Hirsh 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

okay the first bit is really strange... I don't recll any ep dbeing released uncut because 4Kids are not intereasted. The second one is a plunder, one of those should be just "Japans" not "Shonens" best X ranked selling title. Angel Emfrbl 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Using Two Different Templates

I think that would be good using a General Template for General Page of OP, such as Location, Arcs, Media... and another, existing, for Characters Organization and Crew, Template:One Piece characters, such in Bleach pages. What do you think? Cuttyflam 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Its already in place. Did it Sunday. At the end of this week, I'll be asking for opinions on whether this try worked over the last one. This is our fourth attempt at template making for the OP pages. The only difference is I left factions (including crew) on general. Angel Emfrbl 13:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Where are the attacks

The Character attacks page is gone, and wouldn't y know it, I need it for something. Any chance it's backed up anywhere? 71.145.142.206 08:27, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

^ Gune in diguise?
Yes it was backed up here. Angel Emfrbl 09:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Culling unneeded info

Listen guys... Info is good, but seriously its stupid to go into huge amounts of info. When I sorted out Luffy's personnelity it was written 3 times (in one form of another) about his intelligence being simple... And it was all over the place, first we talked about his intelligence, then strength then back to intelligence then strength (or something like this layout). The pages are all a mess, we adding info without checking the info that is there. That is bad.

Okay next week I'm going to go around and cull the info on the pages. Seriously, ther eis no need to say Luffy is strong and then list just about every example of his strength... In fact you just have to say he beat X character, their strength is written on their page, there is no need to repeat it on Luffy's page. I was going to do it all tonight, but there is a lot more work to be done then I first thought. I can't do it all in one hit.

Helpers are wanted (badly) in doing this. This poor organisation of info is bringing all the pages down in quality and making them unencyclopedic... Its time to change that. I know we're all eager to added huge amounts of detail and info to the pages but before you do ask these question:

  1. Has it been been said already once? (don't repeat info)
  2. Is this the simplest form I can write it down? (E.g. don't explain their strength through excessive info, just list a couple of things to back it up and leave it at that... You might not even need to do that)
  3. Am I adding it in the right place? (so we don't have talk on intelligence... Strength... Feats... Then Intelligence again... Then something else... You get the idea).

Just ask them to yourselfve...Angel Emfrbl 20:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another thing to point out:
The above phrase... Its speculations... Seriously, you can sit through every anime and just about every character will remind you of another from another series. If anyone sees this kind of thing just remove it... That goes for the whole "Brook looks like Jack Skeleton". You can't note a simulair appearance if Oda hasn't said he based it on them, so lets not let this stuff keep slipping onto the articles.
  • His mastery of ropes may be a reference to Scorpion from the Mortal Kombat series. One of Scorpions signature moves is to shoot a piece of rope with a spear edge on it, to drag his opponent nearer himself.
Speculations again "Maybe" kinda gives it away. If we're comparing moves, then all of Luffy's moves might be compared to Mr. Fantasic of the fantastic 4 oe DC's Plastic Man. And Ace's move compare to just about every fir user in the fictional world. His firball move, well Kai from Beyblade even used a simulair move in season 3. See what I mean?
The is the kind of thing I'll also be trying to get rid of from the articles. Its pure speculations and "Fancruft". Plus it makes the pages unencyclopedic (known facts only). Angel Emfrbl 22:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Although there are many references in One Piece that, while unconfirmed, are pretty obvious (Usopp/Pinocchio, Blackbeard, etc.) that have been accepted. How do we determine the line between this and the "zomg they both use ropes they must be based off each other" theories? For example, I think its pretty obvious Lafitte is based on Alex from A Clockwork Orange, but can we say that in an article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by STAREYe (talk • contribs) 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
No we can't. If someone asks if Zoro is based on a certain pirate and Oda says "yes", guess what - we can post it. Otherwise everything (including saying chopper is based on a famous reindeer) is speculation obivous or not. Angel Emfrbl 07:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Reglaur Vandal note

Just informing everyone to look out for this IP adress:

204.72.116.44

He has been vandaling Nami's page for some while now, replace "Breasts" with "Boobs(HaHa boobs)". If anyone sees him, like up wikipedia's vandal rules and take further action. He has been doing this for a while now. I don't know what else he is doing on wikipedia, all I know this is now becominng apparent he is aiming to vandalise and we can't ignore him. Message being repeated on Main Page and Nami page. Angel Emfrbl 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things...

Okay I better write this here (here we go again with this subject), someone added this to Yonkou and Shanks' page - that they haven't used Devil Fruits so far. There is no need to mention that so far there has been no signs the Yonkou have Devil Fruits... Or they lack them. Really. If they have a Devil Fruit, mention it, otherwise don't bother. We're just adding useless and uneeded info and filling up a page with junk statements.

Also I keep seeing this same dam phrase repeated in just about every article sooner or later thats been bugging me for a while. Its this phrase: "It should be noted..." Why should it be noted? Why can't it just be stated as a fact? "Shanks doesn't have a Devil Fruit", instead of "It should be noted Shanks' doesn't have a Devil Fruit". Come on everyone, surely between us all we can come up with a more orginal line then this one? The phrase is also boring to read and seems unprofessional. Angel Emfrbl 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Just Wondering

Just wondering what happened to all the pages for the different sagas (East Bue, Skypies, etc). Considering that there are pages for each individual movie and for some pretty minor charactors - e.g. temple priests - don't the main arcs deserve their own pages. Othe long running anime series such as DBZ and Yu Yu Hakusho have pages for their major sagas. e.g. Dark Tournament Saga, Perfect Cell Saga. At least shouldn't the current page be expanded t be more informative, with a more appealing layout? Guest9999

The greater wikipedia community decided we didn't need them. So we lost them... See story arcs page for the simplified version. Apparently they don't think we need them. Angel Emfrbl 07:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Plot Overview

I noticed that this article is missing a plot overview, is there any reason for that? Blu Shu0 04:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... Don't know. Its a show about a pirate searching for One Piece. We don't know the other major plots right now. Its best to say there is too much loose ends to write in full confidence the plot down. But as I said, the majority of it is Luffy searching for One Piece to become Pirate King. Angel Emfrbl 08:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
If someone were to read this article, I would assme that they want a plot overview or maybe even a synopsis of the story. A condensed version can be included, and I belive will help the overall article. Blu Shu0 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

WRONG Harry Potter Book

Somebody will have to change it because it is supposed to say "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.175.18 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC).

All our figures for the front page are probaberly wrong by now anyway. Angel Emfrbl 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

IP 71.160.53.122

He is the guy who keeps vandalising everywhere. If he vandalises ONE MORE TIME, report him here if I have not done so already: Wikipedia:Abuse_reports. I want to catch him because he is making a mess of things right now. See our straw hats page, devil fruit list, and many others. So if ANYONE sees him doing it again, report him, he has had his last warning and can now be banned. Angel Emfrbl 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Loss of article

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece terms

This article is due for deletation. Note this page contains a lot of supporting info and saves dozens of stub pages and info on pages of little relevance. Its up for being a "list/fancruft" page, as well as a "dumping ground" for access info which we know at least the latter it is not suppose to be. Its either save this page or do a lot of linking to the wikia to save dozens of One Piece stubs (which wikipedians in general don't like for in-universe stuff) or ultimately have the info repeated DOZENS of times over just about every article. -_-' Angel Emfrbl 09:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

moria pirates

Now that we know all this information about them I think we should make a page fo r the Moria pirates.--71.248.163.93 19:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think one more chapter and thats it. Most of the other pirates had their articles created after their respective arcs had finished. Long after. CP9 was created as soon as mentioned and same with Yonkou. In the case of the Yonkou, we have a serious lack of info there so I wouldn't want to see yet another page like that this soon. To top it off we have the weak "3 Powers" page.
If they are created, also move the info from the Creatures page to it... Seriously, most of jumbled animals slapped together. Do they really count as "native" species? Most seems as one offs. Angel Emfrbl 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Done... I've put it under the name "Thriller Bark" though, as I have no evidence in front of me to the name "Moria Pirates" but plenty to just label it under that name. I created it now because, once I test out how it would look with everything from the scattered pages in Minor and Animals I felt it was strong enough now, unlike the previous mention articles Yonkou and 3 powers. It needs cleaning up though, much cleaning up, but its ready for editing.
If anyone sees any of Thriller Barks stuff leaking back onto pages, remove them as they now have a home. In the meantime, feel free to adjust my rubbish set up to the page... Lol. XD Angel Emfrbl 20:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Good grief... Speedy delete already? Its sorted never mind. ^-^'
Okay everyone needs to contribute to that page pronto, otherwise we'll get the next stage of deletation thrown on us. I'm amazed at how Wikipedia can really bring you down sometimes. Esp. when a page is still being worked on. Angel Emfrbl 20:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge/expand?

I may be a noob to wikipidia, so this might be harder than I think, But should't we take a hint from the Avatar: The Last Airbender article, a featured article, and merge some stuff into the main OP article? I mean things like, the various main characters, the history of OP's creation, including Romance Dawn, some bounties,pictures, etc, while of course, keeping the original articles intact. sorry if this was already reccomended before ^_^;; Tirkaro 11:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

We tried that once... However, it didn't work due to the vast amount of info here. It was split up just to handle. While one or two articles can be merged, the only article that could warrent merging with this page right now is the english adaptations page. Everything else didn't work out when they were part of the main page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angel Emfrbl (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC).

FUNimation

Funimation now holds the One Piece license and are beginning to dub at Jaya, episode 144. They will also be releasing uncut DVDs, but apparently 4Kids is refusing to offer their version uncut. I think they are sore they lost the license to someone who will do a superior job. Pyrgus 09:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

WEWT! I heard this too, from www.saveonepiece.com, citing the ANN art. Maybe if we get an offical source, we can make a small section about the controversy, the outcry, and the resoulution. Quatreryukami 15:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, its offical. Arlong Park has it up too on their news site. I'm thrilled myself because as far as I'm concerned, they can't do any worst then what 4Kids said. And by the looks of things, there will be less editing.
Hmm... LEts not discuss this too much, keep opinions to ourselves on this matter. This isn't a forum, this is wikipedia guys. So any of your suggestions are not allowed due to the point of view being of non-neutral stance. When funimation take over, the English Adaptations section will be expanded to have a "FUNimation English Dub" section. Thats how we've one it so far and I can't see it happening any other way.
As for 4Kids stuff... The reason in one of the mags given for need for an uncut was that the series was heavy edited for TV usage, which also seems to be the reason for an absence of uncut also. 4Kids also doesn't think the uncut will sell due to the increase in price, this was reported on one of the sites somewhere... Can't remember which. Angel Emfrbl 16:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Uhm, I believe my comment was very NPOV, I said nothing about my personal opinion, other that WEWT! The crit section I spoke of would use news sources and others to make a NPOV art. Of course, keeping it that way would be hard *dang vandals* Quatreryukami 16:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually that wasn't aimed at anyone in particulaur, just a reminder not to slip down that path too much. If I am aiming on anyone, I'll state so. Angel Emfrbl 16:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

http://animeonline.com/index.php?page=news_featured&ent_id=101234 describes everything, dudes! WhisperToMe 22:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Just Wondering

Just wondering what anybody thought about restoring all the pages for the individual sagas and story arcs - I used to find the information really useful. Currently I don't think there are even summaries of the sagas. Around Wikipedia there are many examples of pages for the story arcs of major anime series such as Yu Yu Hakusho and Dragon Ball Z so I don't see why the same shouldn't be true for One Piece. Popular American TV shows such as Scrubs and Friends have pages for individual episodes so I don't think the pages for sagas and arcs would be unreasonable. Even pages for just the sagas with a general summery and then summaries of the arcs within the page would be better than the current situation where very little information on the content of the series is available. [[Guest9999 19:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)]]

We got out voted... So now their gone... But they exist elsewhere still. somewhere not so far away... Angel Emfrbl 20:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank's for the tip - still it's a bit disapointing. [[Guest9999 22:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)]]

If we had a lot more people, we could argue for such things with a LOT more strength like what happens with the Dragonball related articles. But because there are only ever a few major editors we are 9/10 of the time out voted. If you see an article survive on wikipedia - we've been lucky and we've won by default due to a lack of strength of an argument against us. Angel Emfrbl 12:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tyranny of the majority I suppose. Maybe with better English versions on DVD, more people will be interested and some of the articles could be reinstated. Not that hopeful though. [[Guest9999 16:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)]]

True, true. I'm actually hoping that, but I won't be completely dissatisfied if we can't. We have the Wikia at least, which is more then wikipedia have. A place to keep things safe... Nice and safe. But I'd like to see a few pages attempted keep some point... Say December time if we have enough peeps.
Except attacks... I'm glad they are not in wikipedia anymore, they made life as difficult as hell and they were often badly kept. We are handling much better on the Wikia, it seems to be a cosey place to keep them. Besides wikipedia REALLY doesn't like us having them here. ^-^' Angel Emfrbl 17:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

www.saveonepiece.com

This site has been around since the begining of the...ahem....dub. It posts news from different sources and has info about the series itself. Would someone with a better knowlege of policy please look over it and see if its good enough to add to the page? Quatreryukami 15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I recall it was on here once before... But got removed because its not neutral, its very much propreganda against one company. We can make exceptions for that comparison between orginal and 4Kids site on the English Adaptions page (see bottoms of page) because its mostly neutral and its mostly commentry. Angel Emfrbl 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger's Pirates

No given name for the crew (which means we'll have to use a presumed name like Roger pirates), but I was thinking we might need them in the future... We have an article on the Wikia but not here. My notion is that the Gold Roger page isn't linked to anything whereas al but Dragon's page is.

It would be a case of just asembling the info after that. Angel Emfrbl 12:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Oda may have the original spelling of Django/Jango's name in Drum Island Chapter 5

In the "Django's Dance Paradise, Vol. 9: Ah! The Navy! (the cover picture of Drum Island Chapter 5: A Man Named Dalton) - The English version reads "Django" - BUT I wonder what the Japanese version reads.

That can determine Oda's original spelling of Django/Jango's name. WhisperToMe 02:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the one for chapter 135: "A Man Named Dalton"
This is the one for chapter 136 "Adventure in an Unknown Country". It's nearly illegable, but there is no "D" on Jango's wanted poster; or even the room for it. In fact, it almost looks like there are two "O"s... Weeeeeird... (Justyn 22:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
#2 was the picture I had in mind, and this proves that Jango was the Japanese spelling of his name :) - Now, I would advise the owner of that site to take down the One Piece chapters, as VIZ could get him in deep trouble for hosting copyrighted material (Yes, I know it is not exactly VIZ' version, but VIZ may still not like seeing it hosted on a website like that). Perhaps the owner should find a host in some country with lax copyright enforcement. WhisperToMe 01:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Project proposal

I apologise if I do mistakes here (I have never done this before). I’m keen to get it started. Partly because everyone misunderstands a lot of regular editors here (myself included) and it will hopefully help everyone in the long term. One Piece is one of the biggest manga related universes, there is a lot to talk about. I wasn't going to start this up until next week and after the review was up... but due to the Croc debate... Its coming forward just so I can see the end of that blasted argument that is going around in circles now. I've done half the research for us here on this at least give me that much peace about this. The Merger review is now being made part of this, so we have a starting point (orginally I was going to make them seperate).

Okay, this is something we really should have set up months ago when we had a decent set of editors who were willing and not ticked off with wikipedia. I’ve only stay because I was last to leave out of the group and went for a week and saw things well tits up during that week. Because there was none of the old set of editors left to monitor them.

Okay I’ve been reading up on rules and guidelines since Monday 21st May, when I started writing this out. This concerns the Mergers mostly, they were mostly misunderstood because: A) only three people got involved with the debate b) the last time we discussed mergers was months ago and nothing happened so everyone has forgotten or doesn’t know about them c) people didn’t bother to read whats going on and jump in. Now if a discussion has taken place, with a conclusion drawn (which in the recent merger happened did have one – some of our pages needed to be merged) they are going to happen and should not be mistaken for vandalism and should not be reverted without further discussion (this is important, it defeats the point of the community side of wikipedia).

Merger Review

Before we begin…

Firstly, we have to get this mattered sorted, as I read up on Monday I found out with this issue hanging its going to be tough to be started. If you want to enter the review, I suggest you “Watch” the talk page so you know whenever a comment has been posted. Now this was more serious then I realise it when I agreed with TTN this should be considered… And I don’t want a 3-man discussion this time round with TTN, Justyn and myself only talking. People seem to care about the One Piece pages, they don’t express it unless something dramatic happens, but if they don’t discuss things then the same will happen again. And this time… Please no whining guys… Lets act like mature wikipedians and accept it happened. Remember - things can be reviewed and reconsidered any point. The only thing we can’t do is redo a deleted page.

As we may be aware of the pages merged… It’s a bit more then I wanted to personally see myself get proposed and I didn’t merge all. So the point we are at is deciding to keep some mergers or make some more. Before we start, lets get a point across: The current state of ALL our One Piece pages is summed up in two words “Their crap!”. We need to fix this and 3 options are in front of when dealing with every single page:

  1. Fix any problems related to the page.
  2. Merge a page and cut down the info on it, using it to strengthen another page.
  3. Delete the page

Firstly, as stated our pages don’t shine with the golden rays of summer – they pour down with wet winter rain. There are a number of reason for this… Firstly we have no direction to our pages. Prior to December last year we started getting things done but stopped. Now I want things done, but left in a position where someone else can pick them up again – a Project. This goes in line with our first option – improve the pages. Now this is the EASIEST option and one that doesn’t upset people. But if we go forward with this, we’ve got to do a serious page overhaul. We can’t leave them like they are.

The second, but rather unpopular option here is merger. Merge because the alterative is “delete” in a few cases. Now because our pages are in poor condition I know what happens when on single page goes up here for deletation– more end up being put up. So I’d rather see a merge then a delete. Now a merger isn’t as bad as others made out to be with Croc. It has its advantages. We don’t have a dozen pages to deal with, the info supports itself and we don’t end up with uness. number of pages. Wikipedia doesn’t like so many in-universe pages. It’s been a reoccurring problem with wikipedians who don’t care about One Piece pages –they just want to see a lot of the pages disappear. We’ll discuss what the advantages are to merging and disadvantages so I won’t list them here. I know half the people at least in support of keeping pages rather then merging them won’t even help bring them up to snuff if they stay.

There are of course always other options, and if anyone finds one, dam well speak up and don’t be quiet about it.

Notes Beforehand

‘’Note: Please at least read these, it avoids a lot of problems, there is nothing to stop you reading other stuff…Just at least read them because they are important.’’

Some topics of interest here people have raised is: WP:FICT, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS (note: referring to a bad page is completely the wrong argument to save another equally bad page). WP:WAX (again, good example of how not to save an artile). Now you shouldn’t even go down this line: WP:PTEST so read to avoid this. WP:WAF, WP:N. Wikipedia:Deletion policy (note: this is a must-read page for those who don’t like the merger… As this is the third option if no one is bothered to do the first or supports the second).

This pretty much sums up the reading text from our merger debate. There isn’t much else to read about from what I can tell outside: Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga .

So with all this considering, lets get on with the major important task – sorting out pages. If you want a page saved, really look at it deeply, back up your agument with a SOLID reason, either extract it from one of the above mentioned pages, or somewhere else on wikipedia.

An example of what I don’t want to see:

  • “Crocodile should have his own page because he is the longest running main villian who played a major role in Alabasta…”

Why? Because this is a biased fan based reaction, not a wikipedian reaction, you may win support from fans, but you won’t win support from wikipedians. This is what I’ve trying to make people avoid because this is the kind of thing bringing down the pages. Its leding up to fancruft (yes – I dare to use this word) appearing and reasons for keeping pages only to satisfy fans, no one outside of the fandom.

An example of what I want to see:

  • “Croc should have a page based on the WP:FICT policy and guideline that states…”

It doesn’t sound like some random biased fan rants, its more towards the wikipedia style debating. This sounds more like the kind of debate that should happen on wikipedia, even if this doesn’t led to a conclusion, its raises points we can work on and consider further. Its about time quite a number of our editors learnt to do this. Equally, I just don’t want to see the final outcome of all this being based on people supporting a page on the basis of “Croc needs a page just because he does” or we’ll be back where we started. Or after its finished the whiners saying things like: “if you don’t revert it I’ll mass everyone against you!” or “I quit!”.

And if you miss this debate – don’t complain. We can review this at a later debate. It’s not the end of the world. Or wikipedia. Or One Piece.

The system we use to debate here is one that worked well with our age-old Zoro/Zolo debate a while back. Its easy, everyone can see both points of the argument and keeps the points of debate separate from the mass augmenting in the “comments” sections, which tends to swallow up the facts of both sides and confuse people and go inc circles.

If no conclusion is drawn between us ourselves without the aid of an admin or whatnot, then we’ll have to do a more serious debate. This means getting the official wikipedia templates out and allowing a lot of strangers to get involved with something they don’t care two hoots about. I know where they would head… The guys against the mergers problem wouldn’t stand a chance (half of wikipedian view it as anything outside of the main One Piece page shouldn’t be there, judging from past delete debates, you have them to blame for the absence of some our articles)… And we also risk attracting that “delete-happy” person who see the state of the page and just wants “delete”. Such debates can go wild and unpredictable.

Page changes

List all the pages proposed for changing.

  • One Piece (English adaptation) – merged with Main article One Piece. I’m against that, there is so much info to talk about here, but it’s a merger that has never been discussed, but raised several times. The reason for splitting in the first place (orginally, it was indeed part of the Main page) was due to sloppiness of the main page at the time. Now its been brought up to snuff, it might be best if everything on that page was summed up and merged. There is a alternative approach though to having a main page: Mortal Kombat, however this is rather difficult to pull off with One Piece to be honest…
  • Okay ruled out that because we can do a main directary page, I've thought about it. Okay, AMONGST the merger I preposal some reorganising of our pages. Instead of main page for One Piece do what other animes (and other non-anime things) do. Have One Piece (manga), One Piece (anime), etc... We can put the english adaptations details on each page and do the episodes/chapter lists linked to them. We can also retire our main One Piece page and create a directory page between them. A lot of hard work but with some huge advantages. The directory would list all the Video Games and other media there too. Essentially there gives us room to add other things to each section. We could be more daring and further seperate it into One Piece (4Kids adaption) and so forth but we need some solid researching to add a LOT of missing info on the show. So this depends on that. Angel Emfrbl 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Sir Crocodile. he was merged with Baroque Works. That was my idea because his page sucked. If we keep a page for him, this time we've got to bring it up to standards (badly) as weel as other character pages. But the idea was when I did it was to remove all the repeated info on his page that was on the Baroque Works page. Later I split the info onto the Shichibukai page also, that way there was Croc's actions as a Shichibukai and a Mr.0, much like the Galley-Le foreman who turned out to be Cipher Pol. A lot of people got upset about this action. Currently, as it stands there are more reasons for supporting a merge then against him, this is important to remember. He must be sorted out because he is really the only one people are asking to be changed back.
  • Arlong. Is considered for Merger on the basis he was done and completed a good couple of hundred chapters ago. Again, like Croc his page is in a state of urgent attention. He is considered to be merged with his pirate crew page. We *may* see references back to him in Fishman Island arc expected after Thriller Bark is done.
  • Enel merged with God's Enforecers. Same as Croc. Note worth taking - Enel is rather flat compared to Croc. He is more along the lines of Morgan, just over a much longer period of time. Again the page is in a urgent stat of repair. One note is he has a mini-series going on (but not much happening on it).
  • Hawkeye Mihawk Redirect to Shichibukai page. That page does the job just fine already listing what you need for wikipedia. Readded because there is a small quiery on this.
  • Nefertari Vivi to the Straw Hat Pirates or the minor character list. There doesn't seem to be a good place for her. For the most part, this one is a hanging choice.
  • Whitebeard. a few contested about him. He is the biggest force in OP so why not have a page? Well the problem is simulair to all character pages. And we have less info on him right now then a lot of other characters, even some of our minor ones. Most of the info we know is on his crew, not himself. So this one is a good enough situation to leave him merged with his crew until more info is there for him.
  • Gold Roger to somewhere. Difficult to handle this one.
  • All other character pages not listed have no requested mergers. If anyone thinks otherwise add them.

Arguments For changes

Why they should be changed. This is to list what already has been raised in support for mergers.

Arguments Against changes

Why not change things. This is to list what already has been raised in support against mergers.

Vivi and Roger, leave them as is. Vivi has only a the most brief of plot overviews, and Roger has next to none!
Also, I think that we should link directly to the main villians that were merged on the template rather than forcing the readers to sift through other pages to get to the character.(Justyn 21:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
Somewhat disappointed, there response for this is null. Now people care about the pages, so where are they to defend them? I'm closing this on the last day of the month, previous mention discussion mergers will happen unless a good amount of people come in and stop. And to be honest... There door is open to stop them until then, so no one can seriously complain can they? I mean this is longer then I orginally was going to open them for.
My biggest disappoint comes from the project preposels... Some people said they'd help to make it work, but like always, I'm the only one who seems serious about what they've stated.  :( Angel Emfrbl 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I said I would help when school got out, so now that it is out I can probably do more. I have been working on other articles, but I'll get started with One Piece. --Superneoking 02:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Please sign all comments. Yeah keep the main arguments here. Point’s raise not transferred to the above sections will be transferred as they are spotted.

Okay.

Other things

Okay a list of things that will need to go on a wiki-project page once this is sorted, everyone should think about this:

  1. To-Do-List – What we haven’t done.
  2. Scope
  3. Project style guide
  4. Goals – Ours is to bring all the pages to wikipedia standards and FINALLY have decent pages.
  5. Criteria for inclusion and Canon: What goes in the articles? A ‘’’MUST’’’ because half our problems start from here. I suggest we get this sorted first. This will also help with slowing down those happy to create a dozen unwikified new pages without considerations in mind.
  6. Stubs – we should probaberly create one of these stub templates for One Piece pages.
  7. Parentage -Ours is the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. Once we established the project main page, we can actually rtemove the Anime and Manga wikiprojects templates and replace them with our own, because our project guidelines will be built around theirs anyway.
  8. Set of Pages being discussed in the cummunity such as deletations, or list of needed pages, recent additions and so forth.
  9. Pictures – reoccuring problem is the over use of pictures and also the missing summeries on the info of a picture leding to them being deleted… And no standard format/quality control on them. We should have a set of text we can copy + paste onto any picture summery I think.

When its done, this should put us on per with getting sorted if anything. We’re actually behind because several other animes already set up something like this elsewhere.

May I also remind everyone we have this place: here

This is our “fan” wikia, its contains all the heavy detailed stuff (or will do when done) that fans can relate to instead of the average wikipedian. And we can get away with things there we can’t here, keep that in mind.

May I remind everyone (and make others aware of this who don’t know) before we continue further that One Piece attacks have failed to make it past the greater wikipedia communities interests. Most One Piece attacks occur only once and disappear never to be referenced again. We’re not alone in this matter, the Bobobo-bo Bo-bobo pages also suffer from this (though not linked to attacks, but forms and other stuff like this). We once had an attacks page but it was lost last year due to just some of the problems we face with dealing with the wikipedia One Piece pages. They were moved to the Wikia instead Recently on the Wikia, due to uncontrolled and unreferenced info going on with them (pretty much a reflection of here to be honest), I split them up to allow them to grow there. The closet we can get to attacks on wikipedia is this way: Powers and abilities of Franky (One Piece). So its not ENTIRELY impossible to get them on wikipedia again – its just bloody dam hard. They also need heavy referencing, something we also lack on our pages overall and consult referencing back to out of inuniverse stuff, in most cases imposssible… People love having them here, I’m aware of this… But we’re not pokemon. >_<’

For more info on projects on wikipedia: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide

We may also review our template… We’ve tried having many separate templates, this one was the one the majority stuck to for convience. The characters template was kept to track all the separate character pages. Orginally we had characters on the main nagivation template, however this made it too large. We’re on the limit of allowance now, we can’t make it any larger without scrapping it and starting again. It might be best to retire the character one, but lets leave that to last, it’s the least of our worries.

Once we’ve finished with the merger review, I’ll move this to its own Project page and we'll begin setting this up, unless someone else wants the honour of that. For this to work, we need it sorted rather quickly and not left hanging. There is a lot of reading and considerations to go on here, but if other projects can do it – so can we. The merger review… I’m going to give that plenty of time to sizzle on. Say 3 weeks (the fact its opened a week earlier has been considered as it would have been a 2 week discussion)? Angel Emfrbl 07:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Preposal Feedback

  • Clapclapclapclapclap* WOW: I hereby award you the Mighty Wall of Text award.

I've cooled down mostly, and I must say that I probably overracted, but it's not like I was outnumbered or anything. I'll help some obvious things, and I will do just about anything within reason to help. (Justyn 22:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Sounds fair enough. I don't think I will be much help until finals week is over at my school, but I'll still try to help out. --Superneoking 23:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah when the merger review is over and stuff we'll get it set up. I ws up until 2 am in the morning writing yesturday. Sesh I can't believe how much I wrote! I ran out of time before uni when it came to listing all the pages to be considered for merging. I'll add them (if no one else does) tomorrow. At least this gives us a starting ground. Lets get the prob with Mergers sorted and we'll begin with the project. We have a lot to consider (I went through things throughly).
I'm glad your back Justyn! :D Angel Emfrbl 23:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
You should head for a task force instead of a project. Single shows really don't have a wide enough scope for one. TTN 23:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I checked up on the Task Force too. I'll consider that too when the time comes. Naruto has that I believe. I'll do more research closer to the end of the Merger debate. We can do a project if people make more research into all things related to it (I'm looking at our video games list, there are also a couple of novels relatd to OP I'm aware of). If there isn't anyone willing to do more then the show, the Task force is differently the alternative. Angel Emfrbl 23:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't really think Roger needs merging yet. We constantly learn several things about him in just about every notable arc. (The Davy Black Fight was barely an arc itself) Vivi, if she is merged, should be put in the Straw Hats Page. She isn't a minor character in any means, and she is techniqually a Straw Hat. Being a Straw Hat, though, I'd prefer if she had an article, but her role has pretty mcuh ended for all we know.Artist Formerlu Known As Whocares 20:13 (Eastern Standard Time); 25 May, 2007.
Are the North Blue, South Blue, East Blue, and West Blue pages needed? They don't have much information, and what they do have is already mention on the locations page. The Grand Line article seems better than the other four, but the information on the article still seems like a repeat of the locations page. --Superneoking 02:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Well the reason THEY exist is because they were created first... Then the Locations was created afterwards. I guess they are long redundant, since they are already highlighted elsewhere I don't think we need a discussion about redirecting them to that page really. The info's already elsewhere, to be honest I had forgotten we had them... Which was stupid of me, as I created them in the first place. XD Angel Emfrbl 07:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, the pages have been redirected. --Superneoking 23:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I recently made a proposal to reformat the List of One Piece pirate crews article, but so far, only one person has replied. Since the article is not regularly edited or worked on, I thought it would be fair to mention this here before the final decision is made in case someone who did not know about it wishes to comment. So if you can, please check it out when you get a chance. Thanks. ^_^
Out of curiosity, has a WikiProject or task force been created for One Piece? --Superneoking 19:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Not yet, I put this up for feedback. This Monday (or Tuesday) I will still looking into this more again. Watch this space for more updates on Monday (or Tuesday). Angel Emfrbl 10:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay quick explaination here as to whats going on: I've lost intereast and faith in the project. The response is limited, and currently we're swammed by unregistered IP adresses who keep leaving splashes of errors in their wake. Maybe in a two months time if no one has picked it up... But thats then. If anyone wants to pick this up, its now offically open for you to do so. I'm through with this. Angel Emfrbl 23:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural References

Okay added this section, mainly as a experiment to see how it goes.There is also another reason, to teach some One Piece wikipedian fans something important; to add "it is unconfirmed" whenever you make certain comparisons that are not given by Oda! Otherwise... Its nothing but fan speculation, which means it has to come off the page; no matter how much you whine and cry. Some obivous ones (who can deny who Jango is based on) don't need this. Its ones like saying Thriller Bark is based on his song "Thriller" that need it. Angel Emfrbl 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This is also because it strengthens the page (if I've hopefully set this up right... ^-^') and highlights were the sources of everything is coming from, One Piece gives me the impression of flatness whenever I read the page... Plus, other anime pages also have this. Angel Emfrbl 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
The cultral Refs section got flagged as a "Trivia" section? Okay enlighten me here someone... Other anime pages have this and live quite fine with it. Why did we get flagged? O.o'


I, for one, think we should reference his talking about Nostradomus' prediction in Volume 9. This might take a little research, though. LoganTheGeshrat 13:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheGeshrat (talk • contribs)

If you can tell my what the prediction was... But we shouldn't be doing our own research just remember that. Angel Emfrbl 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Oda said the prediction was that in the seventh month of 1999, this "King Anglemois" would destroy the world. That's it, but Nostradomus has a lot of predictions, if this is actually one of them it would take a while to find but I guess I could try.--LoganTheGeshrat 21:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thats not worth mentioning on the article... I mean its got to be in the story... And please supply proof Oda said that as I cannot find it. Prove me wrong please and show me its there. Angel Emfrbl 22:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to find an image, but if you're ever at a bookstore just look into Volume 9. It's right when you open the cover. LoganTheGeshrat 12:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganTheGeshrat (talk • contribs)

misunderstanding

in norway the name the manga one piece. the 'o' at the start and the 'e' on the end wass thougth to be decoration, then giving one piece an new name "nepiec"

Little relievence to the English translation. Perhaps you can upload that onto the OP encyclopedia. http://onepiece.wikia.com/ Angel Emfrbl 17:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One Piece Pirate Crews

Sorry that it took so long, but I finally reformatted the List of One Piece pirate crews article. When I originally planned to do this, there were many more pirate flag images. I can't find most of them, so I assume they were taken down. If someone can upload the flags needed for the article I would really appreciate it. --Superneoking 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Characters

Right now, the minor character page is at 87 kilobytes. For a while now I have been looking at the minor characters list, and I have been thinking that maybe we could change it. Rather than a minor characters list, we chould have a character list that has all of the characters on it. If a character is listed elsewhere, then we can write a little bit about them and then link to the characters other location (this would include characters like Luffy who have their own page and characters like Cabaji who are located on a pirate or marine article). Then, instead of one character list, we can have four pages with characters sorted into the article it belongs alphabetically: (A-F), (G-L), (M-R), (S-Z)

This might seem pointless or redundant, but I think it would help people find characters faster/easier. In addition, we will be able to add onto the current minor characters and add ones that are missing without having to worry about the articles being too long. I have seen other articles using this style and I think it would work well here as well. --Superneoking 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Organsiation=

Okay due the poor maintance being done on ALL pages, to aid us in our large maintance problem here on wikipedia *some* pages are going to be merged:

  • All Straw Hats... We don't need to list their histories, and the recent chapters bits are getting a mess. Merged with Straw Hats page, each section will have a minium info bit, basically saying some rough stuff about them without going to deep into things. Think on par with how Grand Battle wrote their profiles.
  • Other character pages - same thing, ditching all characters pages. A short profile elsewhere can sum everything up about the character.

Yeah I can see the screams, but look around, no one is keeping these on check so what else can I do. No one wants to take over the OP Project so no one is getting us organised. We're loosing pictures on pages left, right and centre and no one is fixing this. You got a mess, even the simplest of soultions is better then none.

On th a brighter note... I'm going to split the minor characters page into:

  • Primary Minor Character (Vivi, Genzo, Brooke, Pell, Zeff). These are minor characters who played a role in the storyline.
  • Secondary (Igaram's wife, Pandaman, Rika). These are the characters who were on the most part just *there* and din't do much for the storyline and appeared in several episodes without contributing much interaction.

All this will be happening next weekend. I'm trying to find a way to fix a mess that is continuing to get worst. Even if its only temporay, it gives some breathing room while the pages can be rethinked, if you feel the mergers are completely wrong, please put in some input on solving the problem. There are not going to be undone, unles we get some community talking going on. This time I'm putting my foot down on the topic of mergers and I'm NOT going to be put off but a bunch of whines. This time I'm being VERY serious because in the... What is it... 1... 2 months? Whatever, nothing has been done to fix the pages.

We're not a fansite!Angel Emfrbl 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I really am against merging all of the character pages. You previously merged other character pages because they weren't important or didn't play a big enough role in the series anymore, so why now are we merging characters that are important and do play a role in the series. Maybe the articles are messy, but merging them doesn't seem like it fixes the problem. If you throw everything from three messy rooms into one clean room, does the clean room still qualify as clean, or does the junk added in make a bigger mess? (lousy example, I know)
As for splitting minor character pages, I partially agree. I think it should be split a different way, but I do think it needs to be split. If we do split it by importance, then one article will still be too long (primary) while the other will be really short (secondary). If we absolutely must merge the articles of important major characters of the series, then I suppose my suggestion earlier would make more sense then it did when I first suggested it. --Superneoking 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: Temporary solution is written up here. As I said, until something comes up thats better. I've actually had a sleep on the problem. Okay how do I explain this... It isn't so much as "merge" but allowing breathing space, let me explain further.
The pages need rewriting and all the "crap" taken out of them. The Straw Hats are getting a mini-profile on their crew page which will have links to a larger profile. Several other animes handle the main characters this way. I already set that up on that page, it just needs to be sorted. This essentially what I mean by "merge", the pages will be scrapped so they can be rewritten. We need to take the fandom out of the pages. I'm thinking dropping the section "recent chapters" on all the pages because this is a source of much choas. We need a short set of lines explaining the backgrounds of the characters, not a detailed description.
We have another problem with lack of refs... Instead of writing "In chapter XXX..." we should be writing <ref name="inserthere"> ''One Piece manga'' - [[Chapter xxx]], Usopp does the hokey pokey dance. </ref> ... Now adding Refs is not easy, they take a couple of days to track them all down. This is why I say "breathing space" and desire a temporay merge while its sorted. 450+ chapters take a WHILE to sort through. -_-'
Hope this clears things up. Angel Emfrbl 06:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing things up. My view on the Straw Hat suggestion has changed, so I agree with you on that. However, I still am not so keen on the method for separating minor characters. I know that it is a temporary thing, but I still think the minor characters should be separated alphabetically. That has worked well on other articles.
I also think the "recent chapters" thing needs to go. It makes people feel the need to add every single new detail whenever a new chapter is released, regardless of how important something is. They had a Recent Chapters thing on the Naruto character pages as well, but when they removed it and simply had a plot overview section, things seemed much neater and more controlled. --Superneoking 21:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
As much as I hate Naruto and its related pages, that isn't a bad idea to scrap the current chapter. I'm not sure on the minor characters... The main argument has, and always will be, with primary and secondary lists, is that arguments as to WHO is what. Clear Nojinko is primary... But then you get someone like, Crocus, who is on the margine line. Angel Emfrbl 21:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
So maybe we shouldn't split it that way? Are we organizing crew members on other pirate crews the way it is now in the Straw Hat Pirates crew article? --Superneoking 22:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I'm unifying the page to match others. Tempted to delete "traveling companions" and "allies" because we get queries over Vivi and others. But I won't for now.
This is arkward while we have that other problem going on... I which I could find the page about "is it (insert word it used) or vandalism" page for that delete happy guy you can throw at someone for certain edits/deletation nominations. Can't remember the title to look for it.  :/ Angel Emfrbl 23:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I think a good job was already being doing here. If we are trying to get rid of articles, why not go to the Bleach section? This part have, only for individual characters, 52 articles!!! And is kinda impossible to remove any of them, because people there think that any character that, in a remote future can get some relevance, deserves they articles now.
Editing: Sry, now I saw Angel is not a mod, just an active member of the One Piece area XP. - 201.79.152.182 00:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
If I was a mod I wouldn't really need to ask. From my experience of wikipedia, mods don't need to discuss the problem, they step in and just do things because if they didn't act tough they wouldn't be able to enforce the rules.
Yeah I known about the Bleach problem, I visit other animes reglaurly. If I knew about them more I'd edit there, but I don't watch Bleach. But I did feel the same about Arlong, however, sooner or later you've got to draw the line and accept that unless you make sacrifices you won't get anywhere. Initally, if you can pull 5 articles about 5 characters from the same organisation into one you have potential to create a stronger article because the 5 people support each other together and cover each other. Also, there is no need after that to have 5 copies of the storyline, organisation info, etc, etc on five 5 pages. Its also easier to manage having them in one place. Angel Emfrbl 07:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

funimation dub

does anyone know when the funimation dub airs on toonami?

I heard the new voices and let me say....FUNIMATION RUINED ONE PIECE! They don't even sound like the old crew from 4Kids nor do they even act like their old selves! What was FUNimation thinking changing the voice cast?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicmaster1223 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The whole point of the new dub was to sound better than 4Kids cast and yet completely different from the original Japanese cast. The new dub aired last night on Cartoon Network's Toonami. --66.66.98.133 10:12, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please limit your discussion to the article, not the article's subject. Matty-chan 11:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to add that the editing done to the Funimation dub isn't all Funi's fault. Mike Mcfarland has said that Cartoon Network is requiring the edits. The article may need an edit or two. (Here's my Source: http://apforums.net/showpost.php?p=679167&postcount=3724)Brian 5:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So long as you can write the source refs, you can add no probs. Angel Emfrbl 23:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

questions on voice actors

why are many male characters in animes voiced by females?

Not the place to ask forum based questions... Did you look up on wikipedia itself? ^_-
But to answer: Remember a boy's voice breaks, a girl's doesn't. Young boys can only play young men therefore up until the age of about 12-14. Not a lot of use if you plan to have a character running for many years at the same age. Easier solution: Get a girl (whose voice won't change so much) to voice a the part, she doesn't have to worry about a sudden change as she gets older. Most guys do VAing at a slightly later age of 16+ once their voice has broken. There is nothing worst then a actor's voice breaking halfway through something and you having to use filters and have not to fix the problem.
Also, boys have higher pitched voices then men, better get a female to voice act a young male because females have high pitched voices anyway. They normally get a voice actor to continue the voice over to older age for the sake of changing voice actors, so a character might have the same VA throughout the series despite age. For one, it keeps it easy since the VA is used to the character and for the second part it saves confusion from the audience when VA change. This isn't always true though I add.
And BTW, Chuckie from Rugrats was played by a girl... Its not just anime that does this trick. Even Disney will use this! Angel Emfrbl 08:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Characters List Proposal

I'll try suggesting this again. The List of minor characters in One Piece article is currently too large (currently at 89 Kilobytes), so in order to shorten the length as well as have room to expand and improve the character entries, I think it is time to split the article. I propose splitting the article up into three articles:



With three separate articles, we can add more information concerning each character as well as add more characters to the list as the series progresses without worrying about the size of the article. In addition to splitting the articles up, I think we should list all characters in these articles instead of just minor characters (which is why the example links do not mention minor characters, just characters). While I don't think we should move the pirate/navy/faction characters or characters with their own articles to the character list, I do think we should link to them from the list. For example, we would add Monkey D. Luffy to the list, but underneath him there would be a "See Monkey D. Luffy" link followed by a brief paragraph about him.

Changing it to a character list will help readers find the articles of characters they are looking for with little effort instead of having to go through several faction articles searching for a character. I have seen articles with this kind of format, and it seems to work quite well. I think we should at least try this and then decide whether or not to keep it or revert it. --Superneoking 22:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Matty-chan 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. Best idea I've seen for minor characters. I keep meaning to touch that page and alter it.
However, we need not bother adding more info on each character, that part is fine as it is. The more info you add, the more fanish a wikipedia page becomes. Better to keep the info simple. Besides you have to have to spend time adding the references to the info. We don't have enough for what info we have as it is! Angel Emfrbl 06:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
You mean just like the Pokemon articles and the former List of ninjutsu in Naruto articles, Superneoking? I like this diea, support. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggest a new achieve

This page is gigantic! Half of it is a single discussion that's no longer active! I suggest all of the character article proposals and stuff and all discussions prior or during them that are not active anymore get put into an achieve. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

FUNimation section getting bulky?

I don't want this to happen again, should we go back to how it originally was? Matty-chan 23:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't have much info. A max of two paragraphs worth. Too much info soon spreads into fanism laking into the article. Keep it as simple as possible to avoid this. Angel Emfrbl 08:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

About Navy/Marine change

In the original One Piece Navy was translated right, but 4kids changed all instances of Marine on ships, etc. How you say it is supposed said as Navy not Marine. The fansubs did not translate it right. Proof: http://www.apforums.net/showpost.php?p=678687&postcount=3664

Also, one reason I think that it says Marine on ships, etc. because it most countries in Europe have Marine and Navy mean the same thing, so that's why Oda might have put Marine on the soldiers, etc. 65.79.1.34 23:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah... What I can make out of that...
Okay, Marine is on the sails because the latin text is saying Navy in another language. Its hard for English fans to grasp this concept because they only see the word as its English meaning and not of other possiblities. They say "Navy" in Japanese test anyhow, but most fansubs insist on "Marine" as they argue its Oda's intention as as "Zoro" is Oda's intention instead of "Zolo" (and their correct in this instance).
And after all that... What do you want exactly? Wikipedia insists on direct translations, since both the Japanese text and word "Marine" are trying to both mean "Navy", we have to use Navy. The only place we can get away with it is on the Marines list because "Navymen" sounds bad. And so far... No complaints about that either. :D Angel Emfrbl 00:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It was about the 4kids changes box on the One Piece page. I fixed it to say that instances of Marine on ships, etc. was changed to Navy. Then someone else changed and then I changed it back and then I posted this here it to explain why it was changed. That's why I made this topic.

Also, I think there should be some type of explanation text posted in the Navy section on why it is Navy not Marine so it won't confuse some people on what it is supposed to be called. 65.79.1.34 00:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately we can't directly write anything onto the page like that, unless its hidden like... Its the only way we can get round the problem at hand. And even then others can ignore it. Angel Emfrbl 23:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Characters of One Piece

Why is there not a section on the characters of One Piece, in this article? -- AvatarMN 08:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Two reasons: first is we have them listed in groups below... On the template... Second is that the page is getting clattered up enough. I realise other anime pages have them, but the series is huge and we don't have the room to list even the Straw Hats (most animes have a main character cast of only half the size so you can write a short Bio alongside them). And the crew is growing still. Angel Emfrbl 11:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I also point out many other animes/shows (generally) are moving their character lists off their main pages onto character list pages (which we already have done). Angel Emfrbl 11:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, but that character list page isn't linked in this article. There seriously needs to be at least a header "Characters" with the line "Main article: One Piece characters". Is there even one of those? There ought to be a "One Piece characters" article, not template, that lists every article for a One Piece character or list of One Piece characters. They're scattershot all over the place, and really need to be easier to find, and a comprehensive reference to all of them need to be linked from the main article. The template is nice, but I think most users stop looking at an article when they hit the references and external links, something as vital to the show as it's characters should not only be found way down there. -- AvatarMN 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
If you can make it work, I'll agree to anything. Angel Emfrbl 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

funimation dub

i heard that mike mcfarland confirmed that they will gradually loosen up on the edits of the toonami airing of their dub. the reason for leaving in zolos blood on his wanted poster and crickets cigarette apperently was no accident. should this be added to the funimation segment of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.83.111 (talk) 03:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hearsay? No, never. See our WP:V policy.
Anyway, most details of FUNimation's edits have been removed from the article recently. The general consensus being that it's indiscriminate information that doesn't add anything significant to the article. –Gunslinger47 03:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Mergers

I am touching that button again. Okay, its been well over a year since I became a registered editor and when I did, there were a number editors who reglaurly edited wikipedia. Since then all but a few (myself include) are left to be called reglaur.

I point to the wikia, which we have now well established (having over 1,800+ pages) when I asked us to please seriously consider, as editors, not One Piece fans, on whether or not we should merge articles. I'm talking about cutting out ALL the individaul pages for characters. Now I seriously don't want to hear a round of whinning and complaints about that word being merged. Its something I've supported for a while now.

To raise the issue I have several points I like to make:

  1. Once upon a time I went to the hassle of adding references to all the characters pages... Now only a few survive. Without references, a page is hard to check up on. A good example of such a page, is Brainiac 5, look on it and tell me what where are the references to that character? I recently wanted to check up on the information on that page (I do look at other non-One Piece related pages) and found it very difficult to do so. This is what happens when you don't reference things.
  2. NONE of our character article have real life links which are important to wikipedia.
  3. A lack of editors is restricting the workload we can make to the pages. With fewer and fewer editors to do quality checks on the pages, there is now too much work load. With the episode and chapters pages its just a case of pulling up information off somewhere else and placing/correcting whats there. With character pages, there is much too much of "Own research" is disreguarded on wikipedia.
  4. The wikia as I have said, is now at a good quality and can fully replace the pages here on wikipedia. Its easier to monitor, updated daily and every edit is error checked.
  5. Fanism is hitting the pages hard right now. We have information made by fans, for fans. We should be writing for any reader, not just OP fans.
  6. Plot points... They are not suppose to be on wikipedia at all, but every character page has a "story" section.
  7. Information overload. Okay, some argue the characters have more information on them. Fine... But if we compare it to a character that does deserve a page, for want of a better example, Superman you'll find this makes our pages look like stubs. Seriously, compare that page with any one of ours.

And there are several other points which have slipped my mind right now. But the main fact is, we have the wikia. We can also strengthen the wikia by merging the wikipedia pages, pointing others to the wikia to learn more information, wikipedia is just a quick guide and information on series. There are about 300 pages on the wikia for characters, against our 12-20 or so pages... In comparison, every day we have on wikipedia is dwarfed in quality by its wikia counterpart. Their not perfect, they are still works in process but their a dam sight better then here. And may I remind everyone I said the wikipedia pages need to be brought up to speed + quality in my last mergers topic? I've watched these pages for many months, they are as bad now (if not worst) then they were then.

Neverless, its time to question whether or not we continue on, breaking many of wikipedias guidelines in the process or make life easier and don't. A good example of a page that broke the guidelines and was put up for deletation was One Piece Timeline...

Oh wait...

I forgot, we lost it because it broke the guidlines and was voted by the greater wikipedia community to be axed! Angel Emfrbl (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Different terms being used

Now, I just became quite interested in One Piece...and I have been browsing quite a few articles.

I've known about the Buster Call before, but I wanted to read up on it again. In the beginning, the term 'Blank Century' is used...but later on, it becomes 'Void Century'.

Another one seems to be "Rogue and Louge" forgive me if I didn't get it right, I'm new to One Piece. I know the whole L R situation...and 4Kids...but I saw Rougetown in one article and Louge in another.

Do what you want with this situation, but bringing it to your attention is a start 'buku. -Sukecchi (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought we already made everything read "Logue Town" since we're sticking to the orginal Japanese names.  :/
I actually don't know which we're using Blank/Void century... Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Allusions Section Clean-up

Hello. I am see a bit of back and forth editing in the allusions section. The section primarily consists of unconfirmed un-sourced statements "Zoro appears to be an allusion to the masked swordsman Zorro. Although unconfirmed.." and "...These references however remain unconfirmed by the creator." and "While most character design origins are questionable, there are two that remain obivous but unconfirmed by Oda. Other parts of the written section are speculative, such as "A possible reference to Full Metal Alchemist was made" Parodies of notable fictional characters (Zorro) or performers (Michael Jackson) could be noted, but the section as a whole should be reworked to be less speculative, and provide sources. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. It should be noted that Zoro's name does not come from Zorro. His complete name "Roronoa Zoro" is from "Frances L'ollonais" according to this website: Volume 4 SBS. The site is a translation of the fan questions sections in the One Piece Manga in Japan and might be useful for filling out other facts for these Wiki pages. GoonersWCCF (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2008 (GMT)

Hey, hey people... No comparisons between x Character and X character without providing evidence. The only exception: When there is no other character it could be based upon. I.e. Chopper and Jango. While stating Brook looks like Jack Skellington is nice and all... EVERY skeleton looks the same... Boney and dead! We need a little more evidence here on that note. I also agree with the above claim on Zoro = Zorro since at one point (in the anime at least) Zoro did Zorro's famous "Z" cut. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Stylistics

According to my genre-related edits, is there anything that is politically incorrect? Per Wikipedia:MOS-AM#Content, I tried to get the best three categories which belong to this particular series. Any thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

References

Found a good article with some info you might want to include. [1] I may add some of it myself, but I'm feeling to lazy right now. It has a bit of interesting publication numbers and comments on the style of the Japanese version of the manga and its audience. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks a lot, I'll farm it for information tomorrow (day off, yay) unless someone beats me to it. Ark (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cancelled?

Aparrently, Cartoon Network is going to pull One Piece off the air at the end of March, after two 4Kids reruns, and replace it with Blue Dragon and Bakugan reruns.

This could spell trouble for the dub production. the DVD release might suffer as well, and worst of all, toei might decide to once again pull the liscence, and maybe for good this time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.206.69.158 (talk) 03:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That looks WP:ORIGINAL. Do you have a reliable citation? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Not a place to discuss this... But it could be on a break. You may see the rest of it later. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, with the Cartoon Network's been running things lately, you can never tell what it might mean.
We see what you mean, just not what the T.V. producers are thinking. MKguy42192 (talk) 04:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Since a lot of shows that aired on Toonami and went on hiatus never seemed to return on air after a long time, that's probably what's irking him so much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.67.39.128 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I know from my CN, they pull the plug a show off the air to put something else on instead. Gives one show a break to catch up and another a chance to shine. It most likely won't be back for months I note, as with the habbits of my CN. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure a lot of the viewers will still be interested by the time it returns, when or if it ever does. They probably just stuck by because the Funimation dub followed immidiately after the 4Kids era ended, but with a hiatus they might not be as patient to stick by this time around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.65.50 (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay folks, lets end this end, we're getting off into a forum-like discussion now. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree and just to shoot down these OR remarks to demonstrate that using initial reports are not always 100% true, Go to the official CN schedule on their website at [2] and it will prove that on March 22 there will be NO 4KIDS RERUNS. Also no speculation on if it will return or not without a reliable source and to Angel Emfrbl this post is not intended as a forum topic but just to state that some this information can now be proven as untrue. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 06:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

We're slightly going into the realms of speculation. We need facts to confirm or not confirm the truth. If we speculate, we are having a forum type discussion. For example, your post is not forum type talk. But the comment above me asking everyone to stop is. My posts for example, are asking people not to jump to conclusions because of CNs habbits. This is not speculation, but rather asking everyone to be cautious until facts are givien forward. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I found out yesterday on CN's official site and my digital cable schedule that the above information on the 4Kids reruns are now proven false, but like you said a more reliable source is needed to prove that One Piece is not cancelled. That is why I avoided updating this page of that information because I don't want to cause any issues. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_Piece/Archive_3&oldid=1131534488"