This is an archive of past discussions about One Piece. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Are there really One Piece manga in different languages? This is obvious 'cause there was also an English version. But this is the first article that mentions anything about languages! Heh, if there really was a Vietnamese version, I'd better bring it to my mom! Slapmeorelse (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know the full extent, but Oda did once list many of them in one of his SBS sessions. Some of the languages have been in print longer then the English one. I can only list China, Korea, France, German, Dutch, Greece off the top of my head as places it has been on sale (in respected language of that country of course). Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any info on the North American localization in the infobox for One Piece. There is a brief mention about 4kids in the article, but nothing on Funimation.Jinnai (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
After checking the forums on TV.com I found out that there is a video on Youtube that has false information claiming that One Piece will return in May. Since this is false information I wanted to give people the heads up on this. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I always hate it when stuff like that comes up and dashes our hopes in an instant.
It only adds salt to the fact that the show has been cancelled for good, and not even the DVD release can save it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.76.32.52 (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Last I checked, I discovered that Toonami Infolink has information that the show will return during the summer but due to it being a fansite I will wait until a more official source and airdate are present before I bring up the subject in a seperate forum topic on this page and my plans to deal with it. One other thing is this news bit was posted in early May. But anyway if I see anyone post this supposed news tip prior to the discovery of a more reliable site then it I will be happy to help remove it. -71.59.237.110 (talk) 06:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Plot
Could the One Piece fans put together a plot that summarises the anime?
Would be very helpful to those who don't know anything about it!
Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.149.17 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It focuses on a ragtag crew of heroic pirates called the Straw Hats, formed and led by Monkey D. Luffy. Luffy's greatest ambition is to obtain the world's ultimate treasure, One Piece, and become Pirate King.
Pretty much sums up the storyline. If we say anymore then that we're spoliering everyone. We're here to tell you what the show is about, not retell the story. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Interesting. If you compare with the pages on, say, Bleach and Naruto, the One Piece summary is much shorter. It seems that a balance could be struck between spoiling the entire manga and be so general as to make the manga sound so blend; that is, between 'telling what the show is about' in sufficient details that a reader can get inspired to read and 'retelling the story' in such a way that one does not need to read it at all. In any case, Wikipedia often does not shy away from spoiling the plots, as many descriptions of TV shows, movies, etc illustrate. It seems that most people are happy with a 'Spoiler Warning' sign. Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.151.233 (talk) 8:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, understood... But a lot of pages have been noted on their giving away of unness spoilering info... And its actaully a sign of bad input. We're here to tell you what the show is about - not give away the details. Still, some places its unavoidable, like on character pages you're bound to give away a little bit of story info. But on the main page, its a different story. Bleach and other pages, that give away too much plot, are actually overstepping a line on the guidelines for doing what they do. They're lucky they haven't been pulled up for this.
But I also agree, there is a little less detail, perhaps a paragraph rather then 2 sentances would be better. If anyone can pull it off without retelling the story, they are free to do so and dammit, I'm not going to step in the way of them doing it. Just be careful with it okay? :-/ Angel Emfrbl (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
As a warning, I'm new here and this is my first attempt at discussion contribution, so if I do or say something wrong please feel free to notify me. I agree with a number of the comments made, both that the plot MUST be expanded upon and that spoilers must be kept to a minimum. I however place priority on an expanded plot. To my understanding, plot sections are quite varied with some being fairly short (e.g. Death Note, a "good" article) to quite a few paragraphs (e.g. Serial Experiments Lain, a "featured" article). However, they are usually longer than one or two sentences. Considering the length of the One Piece manga, this hardly seems balanced. Additionally, different manga plot sections focus on different things, some discussing themes and others just summarizing the story. I'd like to know what you all think would be most appropriate for the One Piece article. I lean toward a mixture of both: (1) Broadly summarizing the story and characters and (2) briefly identifying the major themes of One Piece (e.g. attainment of dreams, etc.). I realize these are pretty vague ideas, but I just thought I'd mention them. If I'm feeling particularly ambitious, I may add to the plot myself. Chrono.Psych (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You definitely sound like you have the right idea. We do not actually need to worry about spoilers; but we do need to worry about excessive detail. Right now the summary does not give much sense of the book's actual story. Thematic discussion is also a good thing to add, but remember that you must have sources for any statements like that; base it on interviews or reviews that meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines WP:RS. Doceirias (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree. What is there, is not much, but it's quality. Also, in comparasion to other mangas, like previously mentioned Death Note, One Piece is far less focused on it's meta plot, then on it's rather independent story arcs. There could be more detail, but it's not required. I'd say there is consensus so far. So I'll remove the tag. --Goodraise (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Are so many infoboxes really necessary? Can't we just keep the anime/manga infoboxes and keep the others to their respective articles? -- Tenks (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This article is supposed to be about the One Piece manga and Anime series. I say we put links to the seperate articles for the movies, artbooks, ect., ect. into the article, but not have infoboxes or sections specificly about those topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.147.37 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
No. That would not be appropriate. The infoboxes provide an over view of the series, including its movies etc. The article only has three now, one for the manga, one for the anime, and one for all the movies. That is quite appropriate and just fine length wise. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Why? I see no reason at all to split the manga from the anime, and doing so would violate the MoS unless they are significantly different (i.e. different characters, totally different story, etc). This article needs cleaning, not splitting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree there's no reason to split, and articles like this never are. The split proposal wasn't old though - probably shouldn't have taken it off until there was at least a nominal discussion. On the other hand, Dwanyewest shouldn't have split the page without any discussion taking place, so we're pretty much even here. AnmaFinotera's right, Dwanye - WP:MOS-AM states that there is no need for separate pages without significant differences. Doceirias (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, I figured it was old that someone went ahead and made the attempt at it. The split off page is being deleted, while I've done some very rough and quick clean up of the article to remove a TON of unsourced OR, get stuff in order and sectioned per the MoS, and tagged or issues. Much of the anime section needs rewritten for neutrality and brevity. Lots more clean up needed, but hopefully this gets it to a better start, unless someone hates all the edits and reverts them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...why is the production there? Makes the article feel anime focused - isn't that section usually under the media? Doceirias (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No, its usually plot, characters, production. Production should include production of the original work, as well as its adaption, per the MoS. The article had no sourced/factual production on the manga to include in the section, though there were hints that some exists in the volumes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 04:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the article? So much has been altered without discussion. I'm not cribbing, my duty here is just to keep vandalism/stupid edits off the page and not to make huge changes myself, but can we have a explaination writtn for changes that occured and why. This was so big that when I came on today (I'm the reglaur editior here) I was like a deer in the head light. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Glance back through the history - basically, just some rather rough reworking to fit the guidelines and polices of Wikipedia and the anime and manga project. This kind of clean up work is happening on a lot of the anime pages, which have a tendency to get edited by enthusiastic fans who mean well, but aren't well versed in what the article should look like. Sometimes the best way to start getting an article back on track is to tear a lot of it down. Check the WP:MOS-AM page for some suggestions. Doceirias (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
While I don't think the main article should be split between manga and anime, there is undoubtedly too much material for a single article. Between Story Arcs, Characters, Devil Fruit Powers, Manga, TV Episodes, Movies, and other information, the article would be huge. Making a single "One Piece" article, with multiple sub-articles for detailed subsections seems to me to be the best approach. Considering the suggestion that all indivudual movies' articles be combined into the main one, I think combining them into a single "Movies" (sub-)article (stub?) is a better idea. 72.94.81.135 (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)Tsu-na-mi
No one is suggesting every last One Piece article be merged here. You are correct, that would be huge. What would be appropriate is this as the main article, a list of chapters for the manga, a list of episodes for the anime, a list of characters, and possibly a list of movies due to the number of them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Production
The development of the anime has also influenced the progression of the manga in a number of ways. Manga artist Eiichiro Oda did not initially intend to make Tony Tony Chopper the kind of "cute mascot" he became for the series, but the anime's use of voice actress Ikue Ohtani for the role influenced the character's design substantially.
In the opposite vein, the author wrote the character of Franky with the voice of Kazuki Yao (who had previously voiced Jango and Mr. 2 Bon Clay) in mind.
Eiichiro Oda, December 22nd 2007 at the annual JUMP Festa One Piece Stage Event, also used in the article on Franky, is likely to be the only source and it's hardly verifiable, therefore I suggest removing the whole paragraph.
One Piece: Defeat The Pirate Ganzak! featured original character designs by Eiichiro Oda himself, a collaboration that has defined the television show in many ways as well. In contrast with many serialized manga-to-anime adaptations, author Eiichiro Oda works closely with the producers of the anime, providing ideas and feedback for original characters and scenarios added to the TV show, as well as keeping the producers abreast of future plot developments, to cut down on internal contradictions, such as the use of a non-existent naval rank and Zoro's cutting of steel during the Warship Island arc, in filler material.
I couldn't find anything to support this on the web as well, so I'll remove it from the article.
Some of this has been covered in the letters columns in the manga volumes, particularly the bits about him doing designs for anime original characters. Doceirias (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
What Happened?
I can't find the list of cursed/devil's fruit anymore whered it go, and why did the person take it off.--Amp99 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they were. It was the consensus of the project that it did not meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a series guide, but a summation of relevant information. Those seeking such minute fictional details are best served looking for fansites. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
No. It was properly and fairly deleted via AfD. Attempts to put it back up will result in a CSD for recreating deleted material. It has no place here, as consensus overwhelmingly agreed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Long time no see.
Hey, I used to be a small wikipedian a while back - and mainly a regular editor of the One Piece articles. About a year ago, I stopped reading One Piece in order to create a gap from where I last read and the latest chapter, in order to marathon-read through it again and enjoy alot of chapters I haven't read yet. My aim was to get as far away from One Piece, my addiction, as possible so that I won't be as tempted to go back and read it. This past week I've re-read to entire 505 chapters, and decided to come back and have look at the articles I left long ago.
I was very disappointed with what I saw - when I left here, there were One Piece articles on any small detail which could be included on wikipedia. One example was on this discussion page, about the former List of Devil Fruits. After deleting the list from wikipedia, there is no information about the Devil Fruits on wikipedia whatsoever, thus people new to the anime will only be left scratching their heads.
Important information such as explantion about the Devil Fruits, such as the main characters' detailed history, such as basic story-arc information or about the world of One Piece - all of those were deleted. Minor characters and important, yet not main characters such as Red-Haired Shanks or Whitebeard are left conjoined in half-baked articles. There are no more pictures left in the articles.
About two years ago, the One Piece article was huge, extremly heavy B-classed article. We divided it because it was so large. The divided articles were removed, and One Piece became a stand-alone Start-classed article. It is definately not my place to complain, but what was the cause for so much deletes? Kurigiri (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Because Wikipedia is not the place for in-depth plot guides to a series. The list and the separate devil fruit articles were both deleted by consensus through the AfD process as not being appropriate articles per Wikipedia's guidelines. They failed WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT, and WP:WAF. Detailed character histories, multiple plot regurgitations, etc are also inappropriate and do not belng. One Piece wasn't a B class article two years ago, someone just gave it that class without really weighing it against the criteria. It has since been properly classes, the fancruft and excessive plot removed, and it is now being reworked to focus on what it should be focusing on: the real-world aspects, and to properly follow the manual of style for anime and manga articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 09:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place for in-depth plot guides, but it is for basic information with encyclopedic value. The List of Devil Fruits had no encyclopedic value whatsoever, and if any, should be directed to WikiBooks. The article containing information on what are the Devil Fruits, the curse, main users (not an entire list but prominent examples), types of Devil Fruits, the weakness of the Fruits, etc. An article about the Devil Fruits is like The Force is to Star Wars. The same thing could be said about Luke Skywalker in comparison to Monkey D. Luffy, Tatooine to the Grand Line and several other examples. Multiple plot reguritations are not required, but basic plot devices and storyline should be addresed, or it will not be helpful for people new to the subject of the article and only helpful to readers who already basic knowledge of the fictional universe, information that wikipedia is supposed to supply.
Although it wasn't evaluated against the criteria, an article who passes suggested page-length is already not a start-classed article according to the definition start-classed articles - a start-slass needs to expand, not clean-up, which mainly used for B-class. Kurigiri (talk) 12:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, its not B class at all, as it does not meet the B criteria. It was still Start class by all project criteria, though now it would be considered C class :-P (oh, they things they do while you are away LOL) The article on what Devil Fruits was had no encyclopedic value. There was no significant coverage of the topic in reliable, third-party sources. The Force has been the subject of research papers, books, etc. Devil Fruits have not. Ditto Luke Skywalker. He has extensive, significant coverage in a huge range of reliable, third party sources and is a cultural icon. Monkey and the others do not. That is the criteria for a fictional topic having an article: significant coverage in reliable third party sources (i.e, not just the manga and anime). -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 16:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
For reference, here is this article from two years ago: [1]
I came to this page a lot. And now it's been rendered completely useless. I don't know what general consensus was reached or who reached it, but it was wrong. You say that Wikipedia shouldn't be a series guide, but why shouldn't it? Every other series uses it as such and is a very valuable guide to people catching up on any series. Rzoro06 (talk)
To bring the articles in line with Wikipedia guidelines and policies, as has been mentioned above multiple times. This isn't a fansite nor an "anything and everything you might never want to know about a series" place. Fictional topics are written from a real world perspective, with an emphasis on its actual real-world aspects, such as production, reception, etc, not tons of plot summary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 14:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I came here to find out which episodes of the anime series is filler or not filler, but apparently the link to the details of the series' plot has either become incredibly difficult to find or the page is gone, I'm guessing the latter. It's sad that oftentimes a touted virtue of Wikipedia is that it costs nothing to add more information, but it's sad to see busybody bureaucrats neuter the availability of information in order to satisfy counterproductive protocols. But hey, the only way to learn from mistakes is to first allow people to make them. --Peter Twieg (talk) 15:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Should the animated version of Romance Dawn be included in One Piece page or a separate page by itself? It won't be out until Jump Festival '08 but it's still good to decide first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.216.217.239 (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
I used to watch One Piece, but they stopped airing it here in Ireland before the last episode, so I never found out about One Piece (tresure). Now on the wikipedia article for "MacGuffin" it said the One Piece was a MacGuffin? Could someone please explain?
--Cokeandpoprocks (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The nature of the One Piece treasure has never been discussed in the series. There has been no final episode of this series, and the treasure in question has not yet been discovered by anyone in the series. –Gunslinger4718:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks... I was worrying I'd missed out on something ... or that there was no reasure, but like ... it was all about he adventure or something
--Cokeandpoprocks (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Franchise Value
It would be interesting to know the value of this franchise. This is currently probably the most popular currently running
manga/anime series in Japan right now. Its sold 140 million volumes which means that its gross worth has been in the billions alone.
128.189.169.23 (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Its the third highest selling overall. It hasn't yet gotten to the level Dragon Ball once did, but seems likely as its still on going. For "value of franchise" though, that would be really subjective, and most Japanese companies (and even the American licensors) rarely talk dollars in reporting sales, but rather number of volumes moved. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 08:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Cursed/Devil Fruits
I see mentions of them here in this article along with many various sub-articles and they seem to be a notable part of the series, but there's nothing here that explains what they are. This should prbably be fixed.- Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
The article and list on Devil Fruits were both deleted per consensus as they are not notable in the real world. At best, in those places where they are mentioned, the first mention should give a brief 2-3 word summation of what they are. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Nifty. I think it would be more useful to first-time readers of the subject if basic information on the item were stated in the main article though. Or rather, a basic setting/themes section/article be created to contain information on these items and other bits and pieces of relevant information that seem to exist in a dozen other OP articles. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
If depends. A themes section must be fully sourced to third-party reliable sources. There is some work underway to make a precedent for some of these uber-long series that hit a lot of places to work on a single appropriate spin out article to cover stuff like that, but its still very much a WIP so no example to really look at. For settings, that could be appropriate, as long as it is kept brief and is properly sourced. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Right, basically, if something is confusing or poorly defined, feel free to clarify; saying what devil fruits are is something that should be in the article, but a list of all devil fruits should not be. Doceirias (talk) 23:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I was thinking of something along the lines of what World of Naruto is attempting to do, which is cover just about every important aspect the series' universe pretty concisely. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It looks like that article only has three sources, sometimes it's kinda good to think about the aftermath before you make an article. I can imagine the people who created that page are pretty screwed right about now in that sort of area. Why make an article, put so much hard work into it, and have to scrap the whole thing. : ( Definatly not worth it.... – J U M PG U R U@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia23:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
As it has been commented in a discussion World of Naruto should be merged with Jutsu since they are not able to pass notability by themselves. However, the merge still has not been made.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the World of Naruto is still very much a WIP and in need of a lot of work to make it notable and avoid an AfD. I knew one of the big series was getting started on it in a more serious way though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 00:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
From the lead: "One Piece follows the adventures of Monkey D. Luffy, a 17 year old boy, who gained supernatural abilities by eating a magical fruit, and his ragtag crew of heroic pirates, named the Straw Hats." and from the characters section: "By accidentally eating a Devil Fruit, his body gained the properties of rubber." Isn't that enough for the average reader to understand what it is? Further more, I am keeping an eye on virtually all sub-articles, and let me tell you: They are without exception of lower quality than this one. Just because those articles give more information, doesn't mean, that this one should too. (If at all - it's the other way around.) -- Goodraise (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
More from the characters section: "gained human properties by eating a Devil Fruit"; "ate a Devil Fruit and gained the ability to create copies of any part of her body on surfaces in her proximity"; "resurrected by means of a Devil Fruit". Perhaps you should read the article, before you start complaining about it. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Back on the subject of the "World of One Piece" idea, are there currently any decent articles on fictional universes to use as a good basis for it? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't find anything, but if you're intend to try this, I'd suggest starting from Grand Line. Though it's not a good article, it seems reasonable to begin from One Piece's main setting. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I like how that article along with East Blue and North Blue aren't even anywhere in the big table template thing at the bottom of the main page. This series of articles really does need a bit of a rehaul. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Stating with a merge of those three would seem to be a good place to start. Maybe leave a note with User:Sephiroth BCR as I believe he has been working on the World of style articles, so he might be able to offer some good suggestions if one (or both) of y'all would like to take on that task. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like a very good article. No sources, lots of pointless info, etc. If that were an anime-based article it would probably be deleted right now, but since Monkey Island is really awesome it's given more leniency by the Wikipedia elite. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
"Pointless info" is exactly the point (no pun intended). The only reason to make articles like "World of XYZ" is to cram together enough "pointless" material, as to make it less likely to be deleted, easier to maintain, and so forth... And whatever would go into World of One Piece, would with all likelyhood be the "pointless" material from all those random One Piece articles. For example, you might wanna take a look at the histories of the 9 movie articles I merged in here. I cut them down to around 1%. The rest were "pointless" infos like plot iteration and triva. - Don't get me wrong, if you wanna make that article, go ahead. It won't turn out worse than what we have now. But don't fool yourself. What you'll end up with, won't be better than World of Monkey Island. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
A world of article that is nothing but unsourced, pointless info will end up at AfD. A good world of article, well sourced, sticking to out-of-universe writing, with third party sourcing, not just primary sourcing, and keeping things brief, might survive. Anything else that's just an obvious dumping ground for "fancruft" (for lack of a better world), will go up for deletion pretty quick. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the devil fruits should be mentioned, but just the basics like the paramecia, zoan, logia, the seastone negating their powers, and how they can't swim in water. As for the users, just like how spiderman, superman, even the flash have their abilities in detail, i feel their abilities like luffy and robins should be in more detail, but not their attacks, we don't need another attack list. As for the types i think we should have some pictures to show how drastic these fruits can be. Paramecia should have buggy's pic with his body chopped up, zoan you can have choppers forms, maybe even the rumble ball forms, and logia should have crocodile using the sand fruit. Sanji_1990 (talk) 22:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to recommend that Romance Dawn is restored since it's a movie on this year's Jump Super Anime Tour and there's no trace of the notable information in this article. --Defchris (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Declined. The old page had no notable information either, just plot summaries. If there is some specific information from there you think was missed in the merge or that you feel is missing regarding Romance Dawn, feel free to suggest that specific info be added (along with sources, of course). Romance Dawn on its own is not notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 14:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I though Wikipedia was a place where everybody's opinion count - seems as if the English language version is going to take over the very bad habits of the German's. Merging information, merging articles will always lead into unprecise and so really unnotable information. If a reader wants to know sth. about Romance Dawn and is lead to One Piece where almost nothing of Romance Dawn is even mentionned (but two sentences) I guess it'd be very confusing. Okay then do what you want - I keep on working on the German article, until someone arrives and wants to play "deletion request". -- Defchris (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Lack of objection to the mere after it was tagged for an appropriate time = silent consensus. The merges have all been appropriate as the film's fail WP:N and the film notability guidelines.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 01:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
To put it in a less robotic tone, there wasn't really any information on the movie pages besides a large summary of the plot so not much was lost in merging them to here. For bigger summaries on the movies and etc, the One Piece Wikia is good for that. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Romance Dawn Again (When were they published?)
I am a little confused right now. In Wanted! on page 202, Oda states, that the version of Romance Dawn in Wanted! is the second one, whlile the first was not yet published. The article on the other hand currently states, that both were first printed in 1996's Jump special. Can anyone clear things up for me? -- Goodraise (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The ANN source says both were published in WSJ, with the first also published in the Red Data book, and the second in Wanted!. The earlier version said the same thing, I just reworded it some. Alas, no one seems to have WSJ in our magazine library, so hopefully someone else can help clarify if ANN misstated or not. Also, please stop changing the article. The ANN source says BOTH were published in the special summer issue. If you disagree, find another reliable source (or two) to oppose ANN's statements, but until then please stop changing it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 03:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me clear the whole situation up for you. From http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-07-10/one-piece-prototype-romance-dawn-to-be-animated you put into the article the statement, that the two one-shots were first published in 1996. That confused me, because it seems to be a contradiction to what Oda said in Wanted! on page 202 (see above). THAT is where your misunderstanding begins. You stated in your reply (first part of it, see version history of this talk page): "The ANN source says both were published in WSJ, with the first also published in the Red Data book, and the second in Wanted!. The earlier version said the same thing, I just reworded it some." The mistake on your part, which I was trying to point out, was not disagreeing with me, but as I stated in the edit summary, as I first reverted it, a "rewording mistake". From there, you didn't even consider the possibility of being wrong and instead assumed, that I, without a source, had simply decided, that my opinion was worth more than that of ANN. In order to clear things up right there, I stated in the summary of my second revert, that it's about a different matter, than the one I brought up in this very topic. Furthermore, I added to the edit summary the following quote: "Weekly Shonen Jump's Summer Special issue and 41st issue of 1996", from the very source you keep talking about (in your two reverts; both parts of you comment above this one; and on my talk page). This very quote, is what you "reworded" into "the 1996 summer special issue of Weekly Shōnen Jump." Obviously, the only thing you read of that edit summary was: "you made a mistake".
Now, once again, leaving all the edit history aside: "Weekly Shonen Jump's Summer Special issue and 41st issue of 1996" does NOT reword to "the 1996 summer special issue of Weekly Shōnen Jump", unless "Weekly Shonen Jump's Summer Special issue [...] of 1996" and "Weekly Shonen Jump's [...] 41st issue of 1996" are one and the same (in which case I apologize in advance for the following paragraph).
Conclusion: You don't read the sources you reword and you don't read the summaries of the edits you revert either. No wonder you have +30.000 edits... I realize, that I am close to a personal attack here, and I'm not happy to be. But this seems to be the only way to catch your attention, as I don't wage edit wars. Which is also why I'll "stop changing it". I will leave that to you. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
There was no "close" about it. That was a personal attack and a completely inappropriate and unfounded one. I used the ANN article to source the whole paragraph, which I rewrote. "da drew Romance Dawn as two separate pirate stories that ran in Weekly Shonen Jump's Summer Special issue and 41st issue of 1996" can be taken both ways. I took it one, you obviously took it another. You could have simply noted that they are different issues when I left the message on your talk. The nastiness was totally unnecessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 06:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I said why it appeared neccesary to me, to resort to these kind of words, namely to at least get you to read, what I have to say. I even gave examples, of where you did these things (weather or not I was right about these, doesn't matter in this context), so it was not unfounded. If you used the article to source a statement, a parapraph or the whole section has nothing to do with anything, unless (and I'll assume this isn't the case) you still don't understand that the matter, I brought up in the first post of this topic, is a seperate one. Pointing out, that the quote can be understood in two seperate ways, is exactly what I did in the edit summary. That I didn't say, that the WSJ issues are different ones, is because I didn't (and still don't) know if they are. My version simply maintains the ambiguity of the ANN article's wording, while your version does not, making it a "rewording mistake".
I may be stepping over the line, by directly saying things as I see them, but this isn't about personal attacks (in the sense of attacking a person instead of argueing against that person's proposal/idea) or about wordings, it's about you, treating others as if they only have half a brain, because this behaviour of yours (broadly laid out above) left me little choice. It's about your selfrighteousness, arroganz, disrespect towards others and complete lack of the ability to admit mistakes. Or to put it in your language, you constantly, to some extent, violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND (yes, I do realize that this very post is in violation of it). If you without halt throw stones in every direction, some will return to you.
I could understand you becoming impatient and unnerved with the crowd of fancruft advocates in this project over the past three years, but treating everyone, even those sharing your oppinions on rules and guidelines, like myself, in this manner, is not acceptable. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You gave no explanation at all, just called it a "rewording" mistake without bothering to ask about it, and then presumed I was changing because of this topic - which I do fully realize were two different questions. But, anyway, I won't bother with this anymore. You apparently just wanted an excuse to launch two lengthy personal attacks when my messages to you about this were perfectly polite and civil, as were my edit summaries. You are the only one being disrespectful here. I hope it makes you happy. You beat me all up. Thanks. Glad I made your day. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"You gave no explanation at all" is plain wrong. Here is the edit summary: "Undid revision 233673049 by AnmaFinotera matter unrelated to issue on talk page; you made a mistake, unless "Weekly Shonen Jump's Summer Special issue and 41st issue of 1996" are one and the same..." If it's lengthy you don't like it. If it's short, you don't read it. But don't worry, I am finished bothering with it too (ironic thing to say, isn't it?). -- Goodraise (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Which didn't explain anything. It did not explain that you felt the ANN report was ambiguous. Instead, I took it to mean you felt the original wording, which that replicated, was correct despite the ANN report. You could have simply left a short note to explain what you meant. But ah well. Glad you got to vent and get it all out of your system. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
My copy of Red is buried too deep to dig out - I would bet it actually means Akamaru Jump. Then the second version was in the main magazine, leading to a serial - a standard progression that many manga have followed. Doceirias (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
"Fruit" vs. "No Mi"
I'm sorry, but why does every One Piece related article call the Devil Fruits "____ ____ No Mi" instead of "____ ____ Fruit"?
"No Mi" MEANS Fruit, leaving it untranslated is simply Fanboy Nonsense. I move that all pages have that changed to "Fruit"
(User DemonRin) 10:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.122.110 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
All of them I believe. I know Luffy's does, it also used to say "Nakama" before I just now changed it. Blackbeard's entry in the minor characters section did... Let me see how many more I can find, but I think it's every article,
Luffy's does, Robin's Does, Brook's Does, Chopper's Does NOT (Surprizingly) it lists "Hito Hito no mi" in Parenthasis though, and it seems EVERY Devil's fruit mentioned on the "List of One Piece characters" Page also uses "No Mi" (User DemonRin) 10:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...any other editors to the One Piece articles want to chime in on why this was done, and how we go about fixing it? These should all be using the official English names for these items, not the romanji. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 17:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
May I point out: the issue was first brought up by TTN here; a short but related discussion happened here; and currently there is an ongoing debate on weather English names, Japanese names, or no names at all should be used here. To avoid edit warring, I suggest participating in the later discussion, before making any more changes. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I haven't edited anything yet, but that debate seems to be about including the Fruits Period, not the Odd Idea of leaving it in Japanese. (User DemonRin) 11:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I recall an older discussion on One Piece terminology which concluded that most should be left in Japanese for the sake of consistency. It was mostly focused on attack names for the episode summaries, but the same principle may apply here: The series isn't all published in English, and the English names are rarely literal translations. Therefore, since we don't know what the correct English terms are going to be, it's simpler to keep them in Japanese. You may or may not find the logic compelling, but I think it's worth pointing out. --erachimatalk19:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a link to that discussion would be nice. And I'm not talking about the Names of the Fruits, just turning "No Mi" to "Fruit". IE, Gomu Gomu no Mi would be put as "Gomu Gomu Fruit" (User DemonRin) 14:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.226 (talk)
Thats a load of crap! Either translated the WHOLE name or keep it to the Japanese, to use an inbetween is insulting to ALL editors fans and non-fans! Now ages ago, the eidtors decided that sticking to an all "Japanese" naming system was best because of universial issues between the four english versions (4Kids, Odex, FUNimation and Viz) without taking into the direct Japanese -> English translation. It wsd to save ARGUMENTS over which English name to use. Stick to what was agreed, do not turn out pure insultinghalf-translations like THAT.92.232.91.192 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Look at it through another's eyes. If your a fan of the english version or a casual reader and then come on this site to look information, and you see "Chopper ate the Hito Hito no Mi" you would be confused to what it is. Granted "Hito Hito Fruit" won't explain what the fruit is called, but it keeps the Japanese name, while allowing the casual reader know that its a fruit. I also find it ironic that we're not trying to change the term Devil Fruit to its Japanese counterpart. I don't understand why its too hard to do something like, "Luffy at the Gum Gum Fruit(Gomu Gomu no Mi, Kanji; In the Odex English Dub it was known as Rubber Rubber Fruit.)"
Also becasue FUNimation is redoing the episodes that Odex and 4kids, as well as getting all the terms from Toei Animation themselves, shouldn't what they translate be consider the official (animation) terms? Also due to it being on going and there won't be official English terms of the newer terms, it wouldn't hurt putting up rough translations of the terms, though most of the newer characters and terms are doing this based off Fan Translations.
In this thread we only discussed the possibility of changing only the "no mi" part to "Fruit". To sum it up: We don't do that because the fruits' names are proper nouns. We don't just translate half of it. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Considering you have direct Japanese to English translation (which cannot always be translated accurately), Odex, Viz, FUNimation and 4Kids. Thats 5 English versions. And as someone pointed out, keeping to the Japanese is best for universal reasons, not just concerning the English version, but as the series as a whole. Translating to only half of the trnalsation, again the premention "Hito Hito Fruit" instead of "Hito Hito no Mi" is an insult to everyone. The english versions (Viz, 4Kids and Funi) that translate the name put it as "human human fruit" HOWEVER "hito" doesn't directly translate to "human" but rather it directly translates to "person". In short the choice shouldn't be "no Mi" to "fruit" but rather "Japanese" over "Enlgish". Trouble with that will always be "which English version?", considering even if you take out Odex and 4Kids, your still left with FUNi, Viz or a direction translation which is still 3 translations (note; there are still a few odd differences between FUNi and Viz).
May I point out this was previously discussed before but it was pointed out that the anime project does not order us to use English, but rather the most common name used. However, thats difficult considering there is no accurate method other then "google hits" to get that info with. 92.232.91.192 (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, what it says summs up to "use the most common official translation". Also, project consensus is said to be, that in doubt the English manga names should be used, though I've yet to find and read that discussion myself. Be that as it may. I would have brought up the name issue here at some point anyways, I just wanted to wait until I had a little fewer One Piece related balls in the air. But whatever, here I go. In a more or less related discussion at Talk:List of One Piece episodesDemonRin (talk·contribs) mentioned that Viz adopted 4Kids' terms at some point. So in essence, Viz' translation isn't uniform, and in a way, they gave up their position as the primary source. The second thing that made me doubt, if it is the right thing to do to follow the manga's names is the following line from Eiichiro Oda: "According to Mike McFarland on the commentary track for episode 17 of One Piece, Eiichiro Oda himself has given his solemn approval of FUNimation's uncut dub of the series" added by Armageddon1994 (talk·contribs). Adding to that the fact, that the English manga is way behind Funimation's dub (the dub is past episode 170, while the manga is roughly at episode 110), it might be a good idea to go with Funimation's terms. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
FUNimation's terms seem like the most accurate version to use, and the one that most fans will accept. You already mentioned that Viz isn't Trustworthy since in Volume 4 they abruptly changed the way they translated a lot of things, Zoro's Name being the most prominent example, and Since 4kids' Version and Odex's Version have both been canceled and no more production is happening there, then those are out too as the Ultimate goal here will be total uniformity, and that's simply impossible with a dub that skipped things (4kids) and ones that got canceled (both).
Now the only question is Uniformity, and with the current existing FUNimation DVDs, that's impossible. But I suggest following a simple Translation Guideline Tree:
1: Uncut FUNimation Dub (DVDs)
2: Uncut FUNi TV Airing (Australia Airing)
3: Unlimited Adventure
4: Oda actually Writing it in English in the Manga
5: Japanese Merchandise Written in English
6: Literal Translation of the Japanese (Using an Online Dictionary like Anime Lab)
This works in a Simple way, if you wonder what to put for something, consult the sources in order. "Has this been said in the DVDs Yet? No? Has it been said on the Uncut Australia Airing? No? Was it in Unlimited Adventure?" Etc, Etc. The Idea behind the 6th option, Literal Translation, is that most online Dictionaries and Translators are terrible for doing whole sentences, but can translate Single words or Phrases quite Accurately. Follow that. I could offer to translate anything too, but Nobody would probabily go for that
But Between the Uncut DVDs, the Uncut Australia Airing, and Unlimited Adventure, we actually have a VAST MAJORITY of the Terms translated by FUNi already, so why not use those?(User talk:DemonRin) 2:40, 02 December 2008 (UTC)
"Oda actually Writing it in English in the Manga"
This point is problematic. He writes certain things in latin letters. But who is to say what language it's supposed to be? Just to give an example: Morgan has the word "Möve" on his metal jaw. That's definitely not English, but German. And what about "Marine"? Incidentally, "Marine" is the German word for "Navy". Your steps 4 and 5 should be skipped altogether. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Most things wouldn't even get to that point, as FUNi has covered most of the things that would be Discussed. But if Oda wrote it one way in Latin Letters, I'd assume that's the way he intended it. But this would mostly be for untranslatable things like Character names. Before FUNi started doing Skypiea, we had no Idea what Enel's name was, then there was a Jump cover that said "LUFFY VS ENEL" and that was the spelling everybody went with from there on out. Stuff like that mostly.
As for Navy Vs Marines, FUNi seems to use "Marines" for that from what I can see. but If I'm not mistaken, they used "Navy" in the Movie did they not? I think the best explanation for that is that the organization as a whole is called the "Navy" and the Grunts are the "Naval Marines", but that part is just my speculation DemonRin (talk) 11:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Well ok, Perhaps then we use my Tree just removing Numbers 4 and 5 then? Does that sound good to everyone or is there another Idea someone has out there? (and now we wait for people to chime in) DemonRin (talk) 23:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, it's been almost a Month now Since I asked that and nobody has chimed in. Does that mean we've finally agreed on something? Should we Follow FUNimation (using something like my Tree Minus 4 and 5)? DemonRin (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess we have. Go ahead. I can't help though, as I don't know what terms the official English adaptations use. (I'm not a native speaker of English...) Consider using something like "per [[Talk:One Piece#"Fruit" vs. "No Mi"]]" as edit summary, when you make such a change. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
So on the character list, Portgas is listed as having the "Flame Flame Fruit (メラメラの実, Mera Mera no Mi, Flare Flare Fruit in 4kids dub)". I've been scolded on other lists for leaving more than one english version of the name. I know this applies to names of people, but it seems redundant to list off all the different names. I suggest this text instead: Flame Flame Fruit {{nihongo|メラメラの実|Mera Mera no Mi}}. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib)11:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, listing the fruit names is a waste of space. I once removed all of them, but that was at the time I stuffed dozens of articles into that list. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on that. All the average reader really needs to know is that the character has powers and possibly what the power is. If they want the names of the fruit, they can read One Piece (or go to the wikia site). --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib)20:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Age of characters
I think the age stuff stated in this article must be removed. that's because the sources used as references for their ages were published at different volumes. the first is volume 4 which I believe was published in 1998. next is volume 7 published in 1999. Then volume 19, published in 2001. Then, it is volume 44 published in 2006. The story progresses as time goes on, so their ages too. Luffy, Zoro, Nami, Ussop and Sanji at the start of the series were 17, 19, 18, 17 and 19 respectively. The ages of chopper, robin, franky and brooke were stated in sources published much later. So this means that the ages the crew have in this article are not of the same OP world time. The latest chapters are already years ahead from the very beginning. There's no way, in my opinion, of giving the correct number of years that has already passed and that's why I suggest the ages be removed and not be updated. eStaRapapaxxapaparatse!exsatpaarpa!10:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
In Manga/SBS/24/218, Oda says that "every year is his [meaning Luffy's] 17th birthday." Not even Oda takes that question seriously. And I feel kinda silly attempting to do so. You think it's original research to say their ages stay the same over the main storyline (leaving flashbacks aside) then by all means remove them. I will stand by and shake my head in disbelief. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, its silly but he was making a joke out of the obivous. Nami too has also been pointed out before in regards to her growing breasts, which Oda pointed out she was still young enough to have some growth room, though I note that means she was a rather late maturer if Oda's words are correct then. Can't find that SBS, but its somewhere. Again Oda made a joke out of it because the truth was he made her more robust as his styleof art changed and you can see it if you look through the manga. 92.232.91.192 (talk) 00:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Censorhip
The recent merge of Sanji brought to my attention the lack of any information about the censorship with One Piece done by 4kids, and to a lesser extent Funimation (not sure about the manga). Because of the wide-ranging affect 4kids alterations had and the changes it does some characters which in some cases are continued by Funimation, it is a notable subject to warrant under reception or similar subcategory.
I have been told in the past, this has lead to a lot of people making their comments on how they think of 4kids. My counterpoint is that wikipedia does not use that as an excuse not to put stuff up. We have an article on Adolph Hitler and I'm sure that is far more prone to being attacked. If we get a lot of ipvandalism, we can always request a page lock, even permenenat if it's continuous, but leaving it out because of vandalism should not be done.
If it was removed because it lacked verifiability, someone obviously didn't just want to take the at most 5 minutes it would take to find a source and write a inline citation. If someone thought it didn't warrant notability, well then I'd like to see why when the censorhip has been covered by news organizations.Jinnai (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
As long as every addition is attributed to a reliable and idependent source, nothing could be said to remove it. I've already added two examples. But I'm very much against turning part of this article into an enumeration of edits. I'm also against calling it censorship. No definition of censorship that I've read so far would apply in this case. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
When dealing with 4Kids edits, much like other things, we generally stick to a well sourced summary (see Tokyo Mew Mew, another of their victims), rather than getting into excessive details. We may also mention more specific stuff in places like the character list when we point out details, such as for CCS where we note that in the Cardcaptors adaptation, Meilin is no longer Li's cousin, or something like that, again sourced. The main thing is that their editing/changes/censorship be very well sourced. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 23:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
As for the definition of [censoring] (which censorship links to) is ": to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news> ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>". It's quite clear that in many cases the removale was for "objectionable" material, such as Sanji's cigarette.Jinnai (talk) 04:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
That applies to the article(s) information, not to the definition of censorship. That would fall under common knowledge. Nevermind, that was an essay. Anyway, my point standss though. This isn't about verifying censorhip (which I've given a reliable source for anyway, more than you've give, but about what One Piece information we can verify.Jinnai (talk) 14:28, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What is it you want me to give you a reliable source for? And what point stands? As it stands, we can't write it into the article as censorship. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, it is censorship by the commonly used definition that is accepted by most English-speaking people because as I've said, it is shown in the dictionary to be so. As of yet, I fail to see how it's not except for your opinion claiming it's not.Jinnai (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
1: a person who supervises conduct and morals: as a: an official who examines materials (as publications or films) for objectionable matter b: an official (as in time of war) who reads communications (as letters) and deletes material considered sensitive or harmful
2: one of two magistrates of early Rome acting as census takers, assessors, and inspectors of morals and conduct
3: a hypothetical psychic agency that represses unacceptable notions before they reach consciousness
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>' ; also ': to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>
With the exception of those talking about Rome or times of war, nothing here indicates that it needs to be from a newspaper or government organization.じんない00:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
You say what they did was to "delete as objectionable". There's a lot of reasons they could have removed the content for. I don't know why they did it. That's why I don't call it censorship. --Goodraise (talk) 02:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Jinnai there is a big difference between them actually censoring the information because they found it objectionable, versus 4Kids doing their usual, and very well publicized "Americanization" of a series because they think American kids wouldn't want to see a series with Japanese references and the like. They rather proudly declare this erroneous point of view, but without a reliable source stating otherwise, we can not claim this is actually censorship rather than Americanization and editing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 02:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is also not suppose to be beholden to what the their (or other companies) public relations put out. The transformation of Whitebeard's swastika to the cross clearly doesn't have anything to do with what kids wouldn't want to watch. Yes, it was later changed by the mangika himself, but doing so beforehand is censorship on their part because it has been used as a form of censorship in the past and is still common practice to do so.じんない08:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
That's no different that stating that you don't believe it's censorship. It's just your opinion there backed up only by what the corperation(s) have said, which is not WP:V either since they are primary sources and wikipedia does not use primary sources.じんない10:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
In this case, 4Kids would be a non-independent source (obviously it's not independent of itself). But that doesn't matter. WP:V demands reliable sources, not idependent ones. You're confusing WP:V with WP:N. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
It's being used as an example in Editing of anime in American distribution, which was a former feature article candidate. While the article was tagged, it was not for that [or similar] reason, but because of neutrality and worldwide view (though i'm not sure why the later matters given the name).じんない10:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Obviously you're trying to apply policy differently than they are then which means that either you have to bring it up there or else the fact that the article can site references of what censorship in anime is is good enough for a redirect to it as being censorship.じんない11:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The article you want to change is this one. The discussion is here. I won't even look at that article, as it is irrelevant. There's a lot of articles violating policy. Not wanting to allow this article to do so as well, is not obliging me to fix the entire Wikipedia. You want it to be called censorship, then find a source doing so. -- Goodraise (talk) 11:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Here on Whitebeard's Symbol. Scott Sharkey is a staff member of 1up and the site is considered as a reliable independant source by wikipeida standards for news coverage.じんない13:00, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
That link leads to a page on an external Wiki, not to 1up. Scott Sharkey is merely quoted at the top of the page. And even in that quote, he's not calling anything censorship. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I see what you say about that site. Anywway, Lost in Translation: Anime, Moral Right and Market Failure does cite this. It does address this first, by listing some of the edits done to One Piece. On page 710 it lists some of the stuff edited in One Piece. Further along in the book, it lists what why, which specifically defines why such edits are done, ie because censors force them to do so. They specifically use the word censors on page 721 when refering to the regulatory agencies. The excert can be found on google scholar.じんない13:37, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Directly no. It does not literally says "4kids censored One Piece." It does say the edited it for content. It then goes on to describe what the content they edited was. Further down the line it goes into what the FCC "censors" would deem inappropriate for showing during and for the intended audience, which lists some of those items removed.じんない14:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
The only thing I wanted to do was clarify that at least some of their edits were because of censorship. Not unnecessarily all of them.じんない19:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree with the use of the word censorship, here. I feel the word is too strong, and it makes the article feel biased. However upset fans might be, this is simply a case of a company making an unpopular business decision, and the article should refrain from taking sides on the issue. Doceirias (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
My point is that it should be changed to use the word censorship as that is what it is. This is not my opinion, but those reported through academic research. Not doing so is like Doceirias's using his opinion not to, just as i was told to find information to back up my claim because I was told to change it was just my opinion otherwise.じんない02:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Assuming, that book is a reliable source and actually calls at least some of 4Kids edits censorship, then that's still not enough to say that "that is what it is", because not all reliable sources agree on the term. We have to stay neutral and give due weight. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I have seen no reviews that say the book is biased. In addition, I have yet to see any verifiable claims, beyond the company's statement (which in such situations are considered to close to be considered unbiased) saying that it isn't censorship. Thus without anything to the contrary the isn't a primary source, and without a review citing the book as biased, then at continueing to not call it censorship would be biased on our part. That said, as I just recently brought up this issue, there may not have been enough time to collect opposing information, so I will give some time to refute it. I will also look for another reliable source as well.じんない18:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You're missing the point. We're not to decide on what is biased and what is not. We have to give all opinions due weight. And a source being independent or not is only relevant for notability, not for veryfiability. I'm also still in doubt about wether this book actually calls the edits censorship. Perhaps you could give a us the relevant quotation? -- Goodraise (talk) 19:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but you seem then to want to ignore that there are a significant number of fans of the series, as well as non-fans who would call it censorship, whatever the case may be. Wikipedia must also take those points into consideration according to due weight. As for the section of it, i will have to due it in 2 quotes, because as said, the book does not directly say "4kids censored One Piece," but rather it goes about it by defining what they did and then defining what is censorship, according to the FCC standards.じんない21:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
"you seem then to want to ignore that there are a significant number of fans of the series, as well as non-fans who would call it censorship"
"When 4Kids released its English language adaptation of One Piece[...], 4Kids heavily edited the series in the process of adapting it for Western children’s consumption.4 Japanese cultural references, such as the use of Japanese writing, were eliminated.5 The appearance of blood or bruising – which one would expect to be quite common in a story about the adventures of pirates – was erased.6 4Kids digitally altered all firearms to appear relatively innocuous or reminiscent of a child’s toy gun.7 The company also transformed cigarettes into lollipops or erased them without explanation.8 [...] In addition to these and other edits, 4Kids eliminated a significant number of episodes, including whole story arcs, and often smashed the events of multiple episodes into one.10"
III. MARKET FAILURE:WHY JAPANESE CREATORS SELL THEIR INTEGRITY
(RIGHTS)
B. Bargaining Power and Negotiation Dynamics
Paragraph 3 (Starts on page 721)
"The legal, regulatory, and market-based constraints under which the U.S. dub companies operate constitute a second source of bargaining power. Japanese anime series generally tend to incorporate content that an American audience might find objectionable, such as depictions of blood, violence, harsh language, and sexual themes or innuendo.73 At the same time, the dub companies that wish to broadcast the dub on television, or exhibit it via cable or satellite transmission,74 must operate within a complex legal and regulatory framework under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”). This regulatory framework censors what the FCC deems to be inappropriate content, using heavy fines to punish violators.75 Specifically, the FCC has taken a relatively strict position against the broadcast or transmission of content which features vulgar language,76 nudity or sexual themes,77 and, to a lesser degree, violence.78"
Paragraph 4 (Pg 723) (this talks about non-censorship type editing)
"Other, relatively unobjectionable content may be quite difficult to market to an American audience for different reasons. For example, American viewers may be generally unfamiliar with the many Japanese cultural references inhabiting the typical anime television series, and may be confused by the presence of foreign foods, like onigiri,81 or figures from Japanese myth or folklore, such as the kirin82 or tanuki.83 It may be impossible for the dub companies to fully explain these unfamiliar cultural references in the course of the regular broadcast by incorporating the explanation into the characters’ dialogue. The possibility of viewer confusion raises the related concern that the viewers’ understanding and enjoyment of the series may be significantly diminished. As a result, there is a danger that viewers will be more put off than intrigued by these unfamiliar features and may turn to more familiar programming."
Paragraph 5 (Pg723) (again talks about regulatory items as well as market reasons)
"Because of the legal, regulatory and practical constraints on the dub
companies’ ability to air certain content on American broadcast and cable television, the dub companies might claim their hands are tied with respect to editing rights, and that objectionable or unmarketable content must be edited in order to suitably adapt the series to American tastes and sensibilities. [...] Unless the Japanese creators are willing to forego the U.S. cable and television broadcast market by releasing their work directly to the home video market,84 it is less likely the creators will be able to find a dub company who would be willing to produce a dub without the ability to edit the series to conform to the demands of the law and the market."
C. Externalities, Paragraph 1 (pg 724)
"The most likely reason why licensing negotiations turn out the way they do for series like One Piece is that there are unaccounted for externalities that distort the incentives of the contracting parties.[...]"
Ignoring, whether the author of Lost in Translation actually calls any of the edits made by 4Kids "censorship" -- of which I'm not yet convinced -- I've started digging myself. Here's a reliable source calling even the edited Funimation dub "censored". Having found this with the first websearch and after only clicking on a single result, I'll assume there's more sources out there using that word. Having the WP:RS issue resolved, there's still the more serious issue: WP:NPOV. It is my oppinion, that the use of the word "censorship" is not neutral. The other extreme would be to use the word 4Kids is using in reference to their edits: "americanization". Neither should be used here. We should stick with the neutral term: "editing". -- Goodraise (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
My point is that censorship is a clearly defined term - the removal or altering of a work for the purposes of appeasing a group or individual. Every definition you'll see in any dictionary (except those referring to the antiquated Roman censors) says something along that line. It is also clear that Funimation did some of the same things 4kids did and it is called censorship as well. Was everything done with this in mind? I highly doubt that. However, the removal of cigarettes has been documented as forms of censorship in other media. To say that something like that is not, is doubletalk.じんない04:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
2007 Mark II (BMW) Mini Cooper See that image? BMW may call it an "innovative vehicle of the future". GM may call it a "crammed pile of junk". We should call it a "small car". It's not doubletalk. It's writing from a neutral point of view. "Censorship" may be as clearly defined as the number 2. Whether any of 4Kids edits are censorship, is being disagreed upon. Some call it censorship. 4Kids themselves call it "americanization". As encyclopedists, it's not our place to pick a side, so we won't be accused of doubletalk. It's our place to choose a term that's neutral. In this case, that's "editing". -- Goodraise (talk) 05:03, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Not quite. "Editing" and "Heavy editing" favors the fact that those pieces that were removed were likely non-controversial as we edit out bloopers in a TV show. "Americanization" and "Censorship" both are contriversial words and the use of "editing" while just listing what they edited removed the context; that many see the edits as alerting the artistic nature of the work, whether it is for better or worse. The way it was phrased before the edits an average person unware of the contriversy would think "oh they did some heavy edits, but there must not be any problem with them" because edit is, as you say, neutral.じんない05:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
"many see the edits as alerting the artistic nature of the work" -- Now, that's an interesting statement. (I mean it. I know, I have a tendency for sarcasm, but I'm serious here.) If this "many" would translate to "many reliable sources", then I can imagine a great section about this topic. But I don't really see that coming. -- For the rest of your reasoning, I can only say, you're once again assuming, that the reader can't use a dictionary. "[T]o edit" means "[t]o change a text, or a document." There's nothing there but a very neutral word. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
No I'm not assuming the reader can't use a dictionary or understand the words. However, not every individual in as versed in the reasoning behind why items are edited and that is what using the term does, remove context.
As for my other point, no I doubt I could find them specifically for One Piece, your right. However even that online journal does give the argument for the broader sense, but that would not be useful here; perhaps in an article about editing anime for foreign consumption in general.じんない06:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
They are databooks and not guidebooks. The point that Goodraise said about the Naruto books being guidebooks is completely false. Only one book was released under that name and it was different from the Japanese books. Gune (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary has an entry for guidebook, but none for databook, same goes for Wikipedia. And anyways, using the talk page instead of edit warring is a step forward, but you'll have to say something more than "I'm right and you're all wrong". Who calls them "databooks" or "data books"? -- Goodraise (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
The entire anime/manga community. Those are about cities not The official Japanese titles are databooks. Nobody but you call them guidebooks. In fact that article has nothing to do with the databooks. Its about tourism. Gune (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Wiktionary calls a guide book (or guidebook) "A book that provides guidance, but especially one designed for travellers which provides local tourist information about a particular country or area." These books provide guidance to One Piece. So the term fits. As for the Japanese titles: "ONE PIECE RED GRAND CHARACTERS", "ONE PIECE BLUE GRAND DATA FILE", and "ONE PIECE BLUE GRAND DATA FILE". I don't see the term "databook" there. The Naruto guidebooks actually have "Data Book" in their name, but that doesn't make them "databooks", but guidebooks called "Data Books", if anything. We also don't follow the lead of fan communities. On Wikipedia we follow reliable sources. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, lets for the moment assume you were right about that: Where is the reliable source of someone calling them "databooks" (or "data books" for that matter)? -- Goodraise (talk) 09:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
How about the official titles of the Naruto databooks? That is what they are called so that means that is what they are. Gune (talk) 20:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, the first one's title is Naruto Hiden Mono no Sho: Character Official Data Book, the second is One Piece Red Grand Characters, the third is One Piece Blue Grand Data File, and the fourth is One Piece Yellow Grand Elements. So, "data book" (or databook, depending on how you romanize it) is used in one of them, but not in any of the others. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe02:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, we knew that already. The problem is, that he wants them to be refered to as "databooks" or "data books" while that's not part of their titles. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
These things are usually refered to as guides, whether they're for a video game, an anime, or Star Trek; of course the publisher may choose a catchier title. I suspect in Naruto, it's called a data book to make you feel as if you're getting intelligence data or something to that effect. --Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib)08:15, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
