Talk:List of One Piece characters/Archive 3

Size

I had said this might be an issue, and now that the merge is complete, the article is 107k, over the maximum size where "the article should almost certainly be split" and thus now the reason to keep it this length needs to be justified, which I don't think it can be. That said, I do believe reorganization should come first, but now we either need to start thinking about removing characters from this list or making another split for at least one of the groups. I have suggested one in the past.Jinnai (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have suggested a split in the past. What is your current suggestion? -- Goodraise (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion was to move all of the crew to List of Straw Hat Pirates. Link Luffy's main article from there (as he is a member of the crew). On the current page give a short blurb about the Crew, ie it's members, any important info about them, such as their abilities or trademarks (Zoro and 3 swords, Sanji fighting with only his legs), and a list of the main goal, to reach the end of the Grand Line and find the One Piece so Luffy can become the Pirate King.じんない 23:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Instructions on suggesting a split can be found at Wikipedia:Splitting. (You can skip the be bold part, because the split will be controversial.) -- Goodraise (talk) 12:02, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Added the section template and modified the top template as well to reflect this.

As for the naming, I believe as this would be a sub-list, the use of Straw Hat Pirates is fine, rather than the more generic protagonist.じんない 13:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this suggestion. Right now we have one list that barely satisfies notability. Splitting of the section would leave this list with close to no reliable independent sources at all. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Then how do you suggest we get it under the 100k? That is key because at this length some browsers won't show anything. Since your wanting to not move this, I'd like to hear your ideas how to remedy that problem.じんない 14:44, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Same thing we did last time: trimming. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Well what do you propose trimming because in order to remove at least 8k there will have to be substantial trimming that would need to be further discussed.じんない 19:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The trimming process has already started and so far reduced the article by 23 kilobytes. As trimming is usually a process of many small changes, I suggest applying Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle instead of discussing here beforehand. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:36, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Size has never really been a major problem; and like it has been said before, that list is just a rule of thumb. If this article had been stable for some time and it didn't show any signs of shrinking, then yes, such a proposal would be in order. However we are not in that situation. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:20, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm still keeping the tag on there for both size and move because article is still long enough to become unwieldy. The only articles really exempt from the size issue are list-class articles, which this isn't. That said, if it gets reduced enough it's fine. It's not heading to a feature level anytime soon.じんない 02:30, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Naruto characters (the only featured anime character list) is currently at 89kb. This article is 88kb. This article is not really out of control at this point. It's certainly not "unwieldy"; it's just where it needs to be. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I support the split of SH pirates section ... They are the most notable characters of the series. Much material has been released, and a good article could be made. 93.86.4.15 (talk) 01:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Then were is that material? It's not in the section, that was proposed to be split off. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The material is laying around ... It just needs to be collected. BTW that was me up there, just forgot to log in. SSJ 5 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is it laying? -- Goodraise (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, on the internet, in the manga, interviews and other material ... I'd be glad to help with that. SSJ 5 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep, but it never appeared in the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree about that, but it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. SSJ 5 (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to help find it. However, until it is found with WP:RS material, there isn't enough to justify splitting it. Mostly what is needed is real-world impact beyond popularity; their relative popularity is already covered, though popularity in respect to other notable non-One Piece characters could be added. That would still not be enough. The section could be split if we could find some general real-world information on the protagonists as well. it does not need to be individual-based.じんない 16:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Category: One Piece Characters

I have nominated this in as a CfD due to it having only 2 items and better to be moved to the main list of Category:One Piece as because of the merge, it's unlikely to get much, if any, larger anytime soon.じんない 06:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Luffy only separate article?

Question! Luffy alone so far consitutes as a separate character article. The rest are all huddled up for whatever reason. Are there are other series besides One Piece with such an awkward setting? A setting where only one single character out of a hundred gets a page. If there are any in wikipedia, can they be listed. It's weird cause if everyone is stock on one page, why should Luffy get his own page since the citations and refs can easily just be stated on one page along with the rest. If there are other series with this setting like One Piece, then its okay. If not, then its really weird. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.215.142 (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Luffy happens to be the only character who meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Nico Robin

Okay. There seems to be confusion as to when exactly did Robin join. Robin was not asked, she invited herself, and therefore accepted right after Luffy agreed. Therefore, she should be counted as the sixth to join, as she was already on the crew before Franky joined, before Enies Lobby (although Enies Lobby did help to improve her relations with the crew), since she was there to...err...persuade Franky to join. --ruby.red.roses 20:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

yes you seem confused alright becuase she joined after they sir crocodile, but before then Luffy asked and she refused the offer (like brook), and by this time period Tony Tony Chopper already joined the crew, which would make Nico Robin officialy 7th member of the crew. =^-^= (P.S. I am a major one piece otaku) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

This has already been discussed at Talk:List of One Piece characters/Archive 1#The order in which the crew joined. By Oda's count, Franky is seventh and Sanji is fourth. That makes Robin the sixth. By the way, Luffy never asked Robin to join. Perhaps, you should read volume 13 again. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:19, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

well I believe he asked her in the anime but that could be wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

He did not. (Well, maybe he did in the 4Kids dub...) - By the way, please sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) and don't mark them as minor edits. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Set sail for fail

I could tolerate everything up to now, but merging the Straw Hat members' articles in as well? I can understand maybe Brook or the ships being merged, but this is just nonsense. This whole thing has become plain ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.66.217.78 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 27 November 2008

Thanks. That was helpful. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib)

I sort of agree. How does Naruto characters satisfy guidelines, being a much less popular anime than One Piece. All the One Piece characters are so well developed that its hard to justify them by giving them only a crappy section that happened in the so called "merge". And since the articles were created before already, why is it that we have to discuss it over and over again about merging? Why not improve on whats there? I am most likely to be ignored, and frankly, I know enough about the characters to not care what people who spend time even trying to discuss about these things think. I just think this whole thing is a little stupid and probably done by stupid Naruto fans. Illusion13 (talk) 09:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what your point is, but if you think you can help improve this page, please by all means do so. But we're not going to be able to discuss any kind of a split proposal without evidence of notability. The only reason this article isn't a featured list is because it's still in progress. People poured a lot of time and effort into List of Naruto characters and it shows; this list hasn't received the same kind of attention. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading your contributor page a bit closely, it seems like you're not a Narutard with the sole intention of putting down One Piece. Thus my question goes to you: How does merging really improve anything? If you know anything about the manga, you would know and understand that each main character is very well developed, and even alot of the villains are very heavily developed. Having them in one convoluted list simply does not justify, when each Kamen Rider gets his own page, and many other anime/manga characters get their own page. A merge does not improve the quality, and for sure does not up the "notability" of such character. I really cant associate this work with good intentions. And no, I will never do anything about this because it will just get deleted anyways. Illusion13 (talk) 06:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not about popularity. It's about notability. (I wonder how often I've linked to that guideline from this talk page...) -- Goodraise (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well I guess Americans just dont give a shit about One Piece to make good quality articles about it after what 4Kids did. I am also appalled at the fact that there is not enough "evidence of notability" for this subject. Ok I totally understand whats going on now. Bye.Illusion13 (talk) 06:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I am not an American.
2. I am not a Naruto fan.
3. You do not understand, as is evident by your statement below: "[T]he manga itself is not a valid source [...]."

-- Goodraise (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me then, if the manga itself is a valid source, then why is it not valid to make One Piece character pages notable? Oh wait you're ignoring me. If you can't explain this that means your arguments are no longer valid. If you do explain this then it means you've violated your vow to ignore me from now on. Choose. Illusion13 (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't vow anything. I formulated a conditional sentence. You might want to re-read it to understand it. But let me answer your question: All content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. The One Piece manga is a reliable source it can be used to do that. To establish notability, more is needed than reliable sources. To establish a topic as notable, it has to have "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The manga is no such source, as the people making it (and more importantly, selling it) have an interest in making the topic known more widely. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to go in circles with you, since I've stated my point below regarding Naruto. I dont know what was lost in the deletions and I am pretty sure no one will ever find out, but I simply cannot place my finger on the reasoning with the non-existance of such sources regarding One Piece. Now, your claim of "good faith" I am simply going to call bullshit, as this decision has made it worse for everyone I speak for. You seem to be taking this pretty personally, I dont know if you personally made the edits, and I am not going to care if you did. I am not going to apologize if I offended you, since you should be offended if this piece of shit list came by your hands. Now let me raise some important points: One Piece was utterly destroyed by 4Kids Animation when they did the horrible dub job. It is very likely that no one in the Americas care enough to have any coverage regarding it. Has anyone TRIED going to Japanese sources? European? I simply do not believe that there is not enough coverage for evidence of notability, heck such a claim is so much bullshit in itself that I feel ashamed being in part of this discussion. Consider these my last words. At least you wont have to deal with me trying to make edits. Illusion13 (talk) 09:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

1. I am European.
2. My native language is not English.
3. I never watched a single episode or read a single chapter of Naruto.
4. I never watched a single One Piece episode dubbed in English, let alone dubbed by 4Kids.
5. You can find out what was lost by looking at the page histories, for example the one of Zoro's page.
6. I am not offended one bit, you just wish I were.
7. I made most of the edits you are so unhappy about "and I am mighty proud of it." *DON*

-- Goodraise (talk) 09:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Heh so after glanced at a few Naruto character pages, it seems like the manga itself is used as a source 80% of the time. Now I heard that the manga itself is not a valid source and not an evidence of "notability". I wonder if anyone even bothered looking for sources for One Piece, because I refuse to believe that One Piece has less sources than Naruto. I am certainly not going to attempt to do so myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Illusion13 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Just so I understand you correctly: You have no intention of doing anything? You only came here to accuse people of editing in bad faith, throw around personal attacks, and rant about how bad the articles are? If that is so, then I hope you don't mind being ignore by me from now on. Have a nice life. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes you understand me correctly. I have no intention of doing anything to help, but to simply raise the idea that this merge was of malicious intent, that you people are douche bags with no life, and that this list sucks. Dont like me, go ahead and delete my posts, since I am sure you can. I am however not sure if such a "faithful" wikier like yourself would feel morally justified in abusing the backspace =) Illusion13 (talk) 07:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You know, it helps to read those little blue links. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Where the hell?

What the fuck happened? It seems like 80% of the characters were eliminated. And I may be extremely lat on this but the merger is bullshit. They characters are now thrown in that jumbled mess of a list in such a bizzare order that I can't make sense of it. It's just so fucked up. What they hell is so wrong with the Main characters each having their own page? So many other fictional characters have their own pages. And at least a seperate section for the Shickibukai. And some more stuff I can't really think of, it's just so messed up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.163.0.130 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 6 December 2008

Stand-alone pages need to satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you want more pages for One Piece characters, start reading there. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. By the way anon user, be more civil, and read the discussions from above before creating a section to talk about the same subject. This talk page may need to be tagged to avoid the repeteated discussions.Tintor2 (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for in-depth character plot-summaries, I advise you to visit [the One Piece wiki.] Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a plot summary site. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 18:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter. Even if people are against the merges they will merge anyway. Thats what scum do. Gune (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If you have problem with policy, go and make your complaints heard in the appropriate locations. I would suggest, if you do, to not use words like "scum" if you hope to be taken seriously at all.じんない 04:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

And "being against" is really the problem. Wikipedia is not a democracy, you have to make a persuasive argument to sway consensus. Simply stating that you disagree isn't enough. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It was just you and Goodraise against at least 3 people. Your so called consensus fails because even when there were more people against it you did it anyway. Gune (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Number of users does not matter in consensus. What it matters is the reason the user gives.Tintor2 (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

They made BS lies up that the merges were supported by consensus. Only they actually supported it. So when I undid the edits they redid them again and decided to lie again about the consensus. It just shows how deletionists work. They just want to delete everything and make up lies. Gune (talk) 06:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead and find these sources you claim exist. If you can find them, and they are reliable then there is much better argument to separate them rather than keep them merged.じんない 06:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I want to delete everything and make up lies... that's news to me. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I was surprised to come here and see the articles of the main crew merged into this giant list. I'm generally not a fan of deletionism, and the merge does just that--deletes information. Someone for the merge mentioned signal-to-noise ratio. Pinning down what a good SNR is is difficult. Signal for some is noise for others--it really depends on what a person is looking for. Separate articles help people find what they're looking for. If they're looking for general information about the character, then they can just read the portion above the article's table of contents. If they're looking for more specific information, they can look at the ToC and see what the article has to offer. With the merge, we do not have the benefits of separated articles. Now we simply have huge blocks of text for each character, with no headings. For comparison, look at List_of_Naruto_characters. The main characters have short, to-the-point descriptions, not large blobs of text. If a person wants more information, they can go to that character's article. --98.244.101.157 (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The articles on the individual Naruto characters satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Most of them have achived Good Article status. The information, that was lost in the merge here, was 99% plot related. And Wikipedia is not a plot summary site. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Well its true Kraflos. Both you and Goodraise made up the BS that you had a consensus. Only you and him agreed to it. Gune (talk) 05:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You obviously didn't even read the discussion. Not that it's surprising in any way. Here is a third explicit agreement to the merges. Also, if you were to read the discussion, you would realize, that most (if not all) arguments against a merge were shown to be grounded on false assumptions or misinterpretations of relevant guidelines. In case of your opposition, that wasn't possible of course, because you didn't give a reasoning. The only thing you did was casting a vote. Imagine this: Consensus isn't made by counting votes. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

All the minute details of the discussion on merging seems to have been lost in transition amongst everyone due to it being too large for everything to be taken. Not everyone it seems is able see the decision and consesous made by it. Everyone is going left and right in this discussion because not everyone can see a unified point. How ironic as this jumbled mess of confusion and misunderstanding is a reflection of the large article.

Maybe it should have been decided at a slower pace with more varied group of people, if not in a different direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.52.20 (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change. If you think there's a consensus, that a topic covered in this page should have its own, then you're free to suggest a split. However, if the to be created page would not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines, the outcome of such a discussion would most likely be not to split. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

notability for the momment seems to be the major and repeated roadblock for the justification for any Op article in wikipedia, even ones that would help lighten the load like a list for Straw Hats. constant repetition of the use of the ruling to justify things maybe okay in the begining but in the long run it seems like it creates conflicts than progression. Evidence of this, is the number of times people have expressed their hate for this page without contributing anything but argument. If progression for any coverage of OP characters is to happen beyond a cramped up page, leniency in following the rule to the letter might have to be done, if not the rule needing to be ignored completely —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.65.2 (talk) 08:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I would not have to mention WP:N so often, if people would read this talk page instead of asking the same questions over and over again. And contrary to your apparent believe, Wikipedia's guidelines do not lose weight by overuse. (In fact, on a larger scale than this talk page it's quite the opposite. The more a guideline is used the stronger it gets.) -- Goodraise (talk) 14:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering also lists are exempt form article size limits then that should place more emphasis on notability. That said, since when I first made the motion to split off the protagonists there has been a lot more cites added for both verifiability and notability and I think the original claim that removing the straw hats as a whole would leave the rest of the article without notability needs to be relooked at by a 3rd party.じんない 15:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

Let us take a look at the sources. The manga doesn't provide notability. Same goes for voice actor information and merchandise. That leaves us with the following sources:

• "Interview with Eiichiro Oda". Shonen Jump (Viz Media) (unknown issue).
• "スピンアウト企画、予想ランキング1位　『デスノート』のL（エル）" (in Japanese). Oricon (2007-01-05). Retrieved on 2008-11-09.
• "DVD Talk Review: One Piece - Season 1, First Voyage". DVD Talk (2008-05-25). Retrieved on 2008-11-08.
• "Meet the REAL Pirate King!". Shonen Jump. August 2007.
• Sparrow, A.E. (2008-04-18). "IGN: One Piece - Volume 17 Review". IGN. Retrieved on 2008-11-08.
• "Interview with Eiichiro Oda" (in Japanese). manganohi.jp. Archived from the original on 2008-02-04. Retrieved on 2008-11-06.

Then we remove the non-independent ones and get:

1. "スピンアウト企画、予想ランキング1位　『デスノート』のL（エル）" (in Japanese). Oricon (2007-01-05). Retrieved on 2008-11-09.
2. "DVD Talk Review: One Piece - Season 1, First Voyage". DVD Talk (2008-05-25). Retrieved on 2008-11-08.
3. Sparrow, A.E. (2008-04-18). "IGN: One Piece - Volume 17 Review". IGN. Retrieved on 2008-11-08.
4. "Interview with Eiichiro Oda" (in Japanese). manganohi.jp. Archived from the original on 2008-02-04. Retrieved on 2008-11-06.

The first only provides comparasion of character popularity among each other. The last is an Interview with the author. Only the second and third are helping towards providing notability. All four of them would be moved to List of One Piece protagonists. That would leave this page with the following list of notability providing references:

• (empty)

If it will make you happy, go and get a third party to evaluate it. Make sure that party can count to zero. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

So Straw Hats get no article cause if they are moved, this page no longer counts as notable??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.215.142 (talk) 17:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

1. "Interview with Eiichiro Oda" (in Japanese). manganohi.jp. Archived from the original on 2008-02-04. Retrieved on 2008-11-06.

That one would still help toward notability as it is a semi-independent source which for fictional subjects is almost considered equal to independent sources for the same level of commentary and superior to lesser commentary from independent sources.じんない 17:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is a semi-independent source an independent source? No, it's a non-independent source. Would it stay on List of One Piece characters after a split? No, it would be moved to List of One Piece protagonists. And "semi-independent source[s are] [...] for fictional subjects [...] almost considered equal to independent sources [...]", you say? I fail to find that in WP:N. Where did you get it? Are you sure, you're not confusing WP:N and WP:V again? -- Goodraise (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That is what general consensus on WP:FICT is. While it is still a proposal, it is based around WP:CONSENSUS& WP:V and the fact WP:N was never designed to cover fictional work.じんない 19:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

"it is still a proposal". Nothing else needs to be said. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

And WP:N is the general notability guideline, so it does apply to fiction; the specific notability guidelines supplement the general guideline, they don't supplant it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys, you should just give up. Goodraise has an answer for everything, which makes him correct. Important information is something we just don't need; he's doing us a service by cramming all the characters on to one page. If only someone would tell those jerks at the One Piece wiki to summarize all of the information they have into a single page...that would be so much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.37.126 (talk) 08:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think its interesting that you wont respond to his arguments, but just complain that he has an answer for everything. Nothing has been crammed, the only thing that has been removed was the plot summary which was about 80% of the articles. Wikipedia covers its subjects from a real-world perspective using reliable independent sources. In order to propose a split, it would need to be demonstrated that the subject has received significant coverage from reliable independent sources; until this has been demonstrated, these characters can only receive partial coverage as part of a larger notable topic. This is Wikipedia policy. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that you people that are arguing for a separate Straw Hat Pirates article entirely understand what the rules are. Simply because it doesn't look nice having a big long page isn't a good enough reason to split an article that I think took a lot of time and effort to trim down to this relatively slimmer article that is finally somewhat closer to a good encyclopedic article. If people want huge details on every aspect of the characters, they can go to the One Piece wiki. There are simply no other sources for this so-called important information of yours, and Wikipedia is about facts that can be proved with reliable sources. Reliable sources do not include the actual manga/anime or any affiliated sources. Think about it, I could write a huge book right now with tons and tons of characters and it could be hugely popular but somehow no newspapers or anything ever write about the characters themselves (probably because they do not think that it constitutes a good news story), so I couldn't write an entire series of Wikipedia articles on every single one of the characters because there are no sources other than the book itself, which doesn't count. Same philosophy applies here. Unless you're going to go and complain to Wikipedia about their policy, or articles on the Straw Hats miraculously appear, there is simply no way this could work. I apologize for the text wall. --ruby.red.roses 18:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Aw don't be like that. I was agreeing with you guys. I think everyone should follow my example and agree with you too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.37.126 (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't pick up on that. Sorry if I came across too harsh. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretty sure he was being sarcastic...Learn 2 sarcasm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.37.126 (talk) 02:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty well known that sarcasm doesn't come across well in text, so its not really my fault. I assumed good faith. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Does the condensation of the One Piece character pages remind anyone else of this? http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Piece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.37.126 (talk) 13:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep this up. The individual characters are not notable and almost all the content that was removed was plot summary. Neither are appropriate for Wikipedia, that's all there is to it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Antagonists my ass

Characters like Smoker I would hardly call antagonists. When I hear that word I think the big bad boss that luffy fights at the end of a story arc. Characters like Smoker, Tashigi, Blackbeard, Bartholomew Kuma, and Aokiji are not antagonists if we follow my definition; at least, they aren't antagonists yet. I would like to move those characters to an others section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.108.255 (talk) 22:56, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

What is your definition of antagonist? We're really operating off of a dictionary definition, which means not necessarily evil or a villan, they just have to oppose the protagonists. Keep in mind also that a lot of these characters are difficult to categorize, it's never going to be perfect. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well simply put a story arc primary villain. Aokiji both opposes and supports the Straw Hat crew, so if you want to go with your definition, then he could also be an ally? Luffy has never actually had any real reason to fight Blackbeard so far, but clearly Blackbeard is going to become one.

Its just more of an understood definition than a definition, but I will give it a try. An antagonist is an enemy which Luffy himself fights and defeats at the end of a story arc who has been manipulating the events that caused the story arc in the first place. Only after the main protagonist of the story defeats this enemy would he be a candidate for antagonist, which would eliminate characters like Aokiji who really don't oppose the straw hats, just work for an opposing group which has declared the straw hats as enemies. 24.84.108.255 (talk) 02:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I know Goodraise has some rationale on this, so I'd like to hear his opinion, however it seems like we'd solve a lot of problems by creating some sort of ambiguous category that indicates a stronger role than "other characters" but is more ambigious than antagonist or protagonist. I'll look around and see if any other fictional character lists do something like this. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the idea to use a term like 'antagonist' outside its dictionary definition. But if the section name would be changed to "Main antagonists", I'd be fine dividing the characters like that. In fact, that's how I structured the list some time back. The current structure was made by other editors. I'm only opposed to sorting the characters by in-universe criteria (like pirates, marines, ...). -- Goodraise (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Right. It just seems silly to me that if a character is introduced as an antagonist then later become less-antagonistic, that they somehow don't belong in the antagonist category. It seems pretty difficult to pin down some of these characters, they gotta go somewhere. So if we go with the "main antagonist" scheme, will there be another category for one-time antagonists or non-main antagonists? What did you do before? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What I had back then wasn't better than what we have now. If it was, I would have argued to keep it. - Concerning non-main antagonists who currently have a section are only, as said by the thread creator, Smoker, Tashigi, Blackbeard, Aokiji, and Bartholomew Kuma. The only one-time of them is Aokiji, while most, but not all, of the remaining antagonists are one-time only. You see, the sections overlap. And come to think of it, we can hardly agree on which characters are allies/antagonists/other. Maybe we shouldn't try splitting up the antagonists just yet. - I don't know. But coming up with a flawless way of sorting the characters would definitely be worth a Template:What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The other problem is the application of "antagonist" seems entirely subjective. Nico Robin, Franky, Mr. 2 Bon Clay, Blackbeard, etc. are all listed not as antagonists even though every one started as one; Blackbeard is listed as one even though he has never met any of the crew; Smoker and Aokiji are listed as antagonists even though they do not always act in an antagonistic manner.

This is why I suggested dividing the lines up along Main, Supporting and lists of other nortable characters without references to being a protagonist or antagonist.じんない 18:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Smoker and Aokiji are antagonists by virtue of affiliation (Marines), just as Franky and Robin are protagonists by virtue of affiliation (Straw Hats). The Shichibukai are more of a gray area, but Blackbeard is decidedly antagonistic (tries to collect bounty on Luffy, enemy of Ace, so on). If you look solely at what organization a character belongs to its easier to rationalize assigning them a specific alignment. ~SnapperTo 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That also fails. Mr. 2 Bon Clay would be considered an antagonist because of his association with Baroque Works then. Monkey D. Garp would be an antagonist as well. Boa Hancock also would be as the Seven Warlords are part of the world government. Affiliation is also full of holes. The only true easy solution is a division of their importance to the story. The only time you should then have any types of movements would be upward in importance such as when Blackbeard becomes more important than he is now. Franky and Nico Robin are also affiliated with antagonistic groups; especially Nico Robin.じんない 20:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Importance is subjective, because I have no idea what makes Bon Clay important enough to even get his own entry. More to the point, he should be considered an antagonist since he's an enemy of the Straw Hats for more of his appearances than he is an ally (a couple volumes vs. a couple chapters). Affiliation isn't nearly as open to interpretation. Are the Marines antagonists? Yes. Is Garp a Marine? Yes. Is Garp thus an antagonist? Not by his choosing, but yes. So you get: ==Antagonists== → ===Marines=== → ====Monkey D. Garp====. Is it perfect? No, but it's a mode of organization that's more widely accessible to readers. ~SnapperTo 05:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

That is still subjective because you have characters like Boa Hancock who clearly help the protagonists, yet her affiliation as one of the Seven Warlords makes her an antagonist, just as being a marine does. That's the problem with using affiliations. For importance within the work it's quite easy. Main characters will always be the primary protagonists: the Straw Hat Pirates. There is no primary antagonist as a person. The secondary/supporting characters are those who major arcs have revolved around. Arc are determined by seasons (since that's the most objective division we have). Anyone else who played a major part in the arc, but wasn't central to it, would be listed as a other notable characters. That is a clear, objective, way of deciding it.じんない 14:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledged that the Shichibukai are a gray area, or to put it another way a neutral party. They do what they want until given direct orders by the World Government and in the meantime they may or may not oppose the Straw Hats. Mihawk almost kills Zoro but decides against it at the last minute. Kuma tries to kill Luffy because he was ordered to do so, but then spares him and subsequently saves the whole crew from Kizaru. Hancock tries to kill Luffy for being a man that invaded her island, and then falls in love and helps him out. They could all suitably be placed under an "Other" heading. If assigning such terms as "antagonist" bothers you so much it could be removed, with a prose description of how the Marines regularly oppose the Straw Hats for whatever reason and individually may or may not take pity on the lot of them.

Divvying things up based on whether or not a character is central enough to an arc creates the same navigational problem of organizations (like the Shichibukai) being split amongst several sections with no explanation of what that organization actually is. Readers need to go to World of One Piece to find out what the Seven Warlords of the Sea are, and then come back here and use ctrl+F to find the other members. That's impractical. Unless your proposed method of organization somehow ends up with all like-minded characters conveniently in the same section. Is there a diff/sandbox that would indicate if I'm arguing pointlessly? ~SnapperTo 21:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Straw Hat Pirates

Okay, I understand that for some people it's easier to say, "there's not enough info to have an individual page" because hardly anyone that I know really looks at this, but here's a simple fact: there's a lot more info than is listed.

The Straw Hat (Mugiwara) Pirates article alone should be separate for at least two reasons: One, the pirates have much more to there character than is there and there are few (if any) links to individual pages, and Two, the Crew have a lot of story line together that would be missed by individual pages alone without making the article far too long. This means that anyone trying to look into the series without reading and/or watching it would miss much about it or start reading it for a different reason and end up dropping it through disappointment. I hope this sheds some light, as I was looking for the chapters when we first meet Franky and when he actually joins, only now coming across the new character that I won't get to meet for a while, though I don't even know when. If you actually read this, thanks because hardly anyone has ever actually listened to me through these things before. ^^ Hope this helps! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.93.211.240 (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, lemme address this point by point.

1. This is simply in-universe detail that you're talking about. We can't build an article entirely out of information from the manga or anime; it has to have significant reliable independent coverage from a magazine or reputable web site to firmly ground the article in a real-world frame as is required by Wikipedia policy. And lack of individual character articles isn't a justification for having more.
2. Again it sounds like you are trying to talk about plot summaries. Dispite the fact that many anime pages contain them, character articles aren't supposed to be built on plot summary, it supposed to discuss real world elements like reception, character creation, design, etc.

And while we're on the idea of a separate article, I'd like to clarify something. It's been established that removing the bulk of the detail from the straw hats characters would remove all the reliable independent references from this article. Several users have complained about this being used as a reason not to split, but what this really means is this article is mainly about the straw hats. If there is a good amount of third-party coverage about the straw hats as a group we should be looking to add a paragraph or two about the crew here, not in a separate article. Keep in mind that we really don't need any more plot details or other extraneous information; what we really need here is more real-world commentary from reliable independent sources. Sorry if that was a bit long-winded. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It would seem that quite a lot of people are against this merge then. But most of which argue for almost emotional reasons. I don't think it's fair that Goodraise and Kraftlos should bee antagonized because they supported the merger, and the discussion should be an adult one. However, I also feel that there some major flaws in merging all of the One Piece articles into a list, with the exception of Monkey D. Luffy. For example, the argument is that the only character who meets Wikipedia guidelines is Luffy. This would have have been granted if it were in fact true. The fact that some of the One Piece characters which are now merged into a massive list of characters ignores that they have indeed been recognized by the outside world, in terms of Shonen Jump character lists (and I think that does count), merchandise and reviews from anime websites (By that I don't mean message boards). Perhaps it's the neglect of utilizing this information is from all our parts, neglected. Which is a bit of a shame. I also find amazing that List of Naruto antagonists had received a featured article, but that also has do with the reviews and the fandom, even on said antagonists. Finding some for One Piece with the expection of Luffy is admittedly, rare. However, that is not to say they do not exist. Basically, I think that the Merging of the Straw Hats' separate articles was rushed, especially for an ongoing manga series, and there should be a separate list of One Piece antagonists. If I (or anyone else who argues among similar lines) cannot find any outside references to the characters within One Piece, then I'll accept things the way they are. I hope youl agree with this.Uglyguy2006 (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find that information, especially for some non-Straw Hat Pirates, that would go a long way to being able for the article to show notability outside the protagonists.じんない 09:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't take this post personally. But I've gotten into the habbit of correcting clearly wrong statements on this talk page. I'll continue to do so, whether the person corrected agrees with me or not:

• WP:N demands independent sources. "Shonen Jump character lists", as in "a list of characters published in the same magazine that publishes the manga" are certainly not indepenent and therefore provide zero notability. The same goes for merchandise.
• List of Naruto characters is a featured list. List of Naruto antagonists never was a featured list and in the words of featured lists expert Sephiroth BCR (talk · contribs): "that list gaining FL status is practically impossible".[1]

*kringe* I made this exact same mistake of misreading the rating system when I was a newer editor... --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side note: You say, "the Merging of the Straw Hats' separate articles was rushed". With that you probably mean, that if the articles had remained separate, eventually relevant sources would have been added. Perhaps, but the article had already existed for over three years and nothing had happened. I don't want to know how long we discussed the merge. It was at least a month, but nothing happened. Whether such sources exist or not, having a separate article doesn't cause poeple to add them. And nothing is keeping any editor from adding that kind of information to this list instead of a stand-alone article. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What still needs to be verified

A lot of the stuff I still see is plot related that needs verification (not notability for the real-world impact). Does that mean we should be slapping {{cite book}} or {{cite video}} on stuff because that's the most appropriate way to show verification showing appropriate page number(s)/timeframe as appropriate (which for some elements it's not) or what?じんない 15:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've already done it with some sections. Given enough time, I'll do it with all of them. (What's the point of this thread?) -- Goodraise (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I was just verifying that that was why you undid my tag removal or if it was another reason that needs work others could help with.じんない 08:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I see. No, as far as I can see, there currently is no content that needs to be referenced to non-primary sources. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

lol so why is this one article?

One Piece has more recurring characters than Naruto and Bleach combined, and yet both of those series get two or more perfectly valid character lists. There really should be an actual discussion about splitting this that involves more users than Kraftlos and Goodraise. Someone go make a RfC or something so this page can get some fresh opinions. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of the page. We have this conversation like four times a month. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 22:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I did, and also through all the archives linked through there. They're all basically the same thing: a bunch of people complaining about the merger while two or three of the same users regurgitate policy at them whether it's relevant or not. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Policy is always relevant. No one made an argument that was worthy for not merging all the articles, beyond Luffy (and part of that was due to sheer recognizably due to the series being on par in Japan (popularity-wise) with the likes of Dragonball and quite popular in the English-speaking world and beyond) and the fact there was some more real-world information on him. None of the others had that and, as the policies stand now, they cannot meet them. Some might if and when WP:FICT becomes policy, but it's not currently and even then not all of them would. Nor was anyone able to make a convincing case why we should ignore the rules since all the relevant information per the guidelines at this time can be shown on this page.

If you don't like policy or guidelines, try to change it by discussing your complaints on the relevant pages, not article pages.じんない 00:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Content policy is what dictates what is and is not on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. If you don't want to read the policy, then you really can't make any kind of a case for creating new articles. We are forced to repeat the policy over and over because people fail to read it, or choose to ignore it. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well if people choose to ignore it maybe it's a bad policy. Repeating it over and over doesn't turn it into a good policy. --Pixelface (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well then by all means, make your voice heard at the various relevant boards which dictate policy. Griping here won't change it.じんない 22:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I have made my voice heard. And I'm not griping here. Thanks though. --Pixelface (talk) 22:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd hate to see a Wikipedia without any inclusion criteria, that would be a horrid mess. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

If and when FICT becomes policy? Thanks, I needed a good laugh. --Pixelface (talk) 20:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetition, Repetition. Needs more speakers from both sides. More intellectual speakers on one side so they don't sound like complainers, and more speakers on the other so they don't sound like a grumpy conservative select few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.201.94 (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The policy repeated because its repeatedly ignored. If the people on the other side were capable of making an argument from the policy, then we could actually talk about this. Instead we're left with I LIKE IT arguments, which we really can't do anything with. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetition is right, man. In this discussion, like all the others, policy is being sloppily quoted without any relevance to the matter at hand. I never said anything about unmerging individual characters and the like, I'm talking about separate lists because this one's badly organized and overly crammed. It's more of a MoS issue than a notability one. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Lists are exempt from size limit guidelines specifically. More than that no one has shown, including myself (though i did search), anything form a WP:RS that could denote notability of anyone other than the Straw Hat Pirates.じんない 04:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because you can shove it all into one list doesn't necessarily make it the best idea. I don't see why we can't work towards something like Bleach has, where there's a main list/summarization of all the major and recurring characters and then two branch articles to cover the two major factions. Also note the lack of slapping WP:OR good guy/bad guy labels on the lists. When applied to here, we would have this list, and then List of One Piece pirates and List of One Piece government characters. This really should be worked on with some leniency in the third-party sourcing department, considering how the show is apparently one of the most popular things in Japan right no and because of it's botched localization in the Western world you don't have a lot of sites like IGN talking about it. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:46, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Stating that someone is an antagonist or a protagonist is not necessarily original research. As far as "policy is being sloppily quoted", it's only quoted in blanket statements because you weren't clear that you were proposing separate lists until just now. Nevertheless, whether your splitting off a sub-list or a sub-article, you aren't going to get very far without reliable independent sources. Main character lists are generally treated as direct sub-topic of a main article, more like a section within the main article that has grown too big to remain there; whereas it becomes a lot harder to justify the existence of sub-sub-lists and sub-articles without some really good sources (and a pressing reason to split).

As far as those bleach lists, the fact that they exist doesn't necessarily mean that other lists like them should exist; Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. As you'll notice, List of Soul Reapers in Bleach has 40+ references including some strong independent sources. It covers real world topics such as Creation and conception and Reception. While, in the case of One Piece, we've only scratched the surface of attempting a real-world frame and many of the characters are still just thinly-veiled plot summaries. Keep in mind also that Bleach is notorious for its huge cast of characters; one piece has its fair share of characters too, but many of them are non-recurring characters. With our main article sub-article in this shape, we have no business even considering a sub-sub article. Besides, we're not really pressed for space, and this article is easy enough to navigate. I think people should stop wasting their effort trying to break up this article and start trying to improve it; a subject's importance doesn't rest in the number of articles it has on Wikipedia. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone requested outsiders views ?

Stuff the turkey !

That only true possibility : more information, more sources, more references.

If the article can cope with it then no need to split if not you can spin-out from a stronghold ending with a way more solid child-article as references and sources would likely fellow in the spin-out process.

I view articles as fortresses to be besieged, how long you can stand & how you can break those sieges depends heavily of the information & the references you put in it.

Splitting now would result with one average main list and a bunch a weaks settlements articles ready to be raided, i mean going to Afd. So defensive stance is for now the best prospect bearing in mind that could change.

People must not forget what is the main objective here it is not a pissing contest with the manga franchise have the most articles winning. Our goal is give a clear detailed & objective picture of a given manga or anime to article readers and nothing else. If phallus length contest is your objective, there are plenty of other places in the web for that.--KrebMarkt 11:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Naruto has two lists, the first List of Naruto characters, an FL level list, and the second, a hold out from 2005 which has already been discussed for merging into the fuller character list because it can not meet WP:N on its own. In fact, it does have consensus for a merge, but because the first is an FL, its being copyedited and brought up to standards for merging. So, no, Naruto does not "get multiple lists" it just temporarily has two. As for Bleach, if when all of those are FL lists, then one can argue it as an exampe of the ideal character lists and acceptability of having multiples (and merges have been discussed and done there already...more are likely as work progresses on the series articles). As for the actual issue here, no, this list should not be split. There is no valid reason to do so. Size isn't an issue and considering the list itself is still in need of serious copyediting, has no reception info, only a brief "Creation and conception" and needs lead work, I see no reason to at all to make two problems instead of one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

external link

Hello :) I added an external link to this page, but it was very smoothly and quickly edited out again and I don't understand why. The link is to my site and there's nothing inappropriate on it as far as I can tell. It's about the friendship of Sanji and Zoro, but seeing as how they don't have separate pages, I don't know where else to put it. Can someone tell me how I'm supposed to add a link here? There was no External links category btw so I tried adding one and it worked, only I found my efforts quickly negated. It's just like the IMDB, you take the time to improve a page and as a token of gratitude, people just delete what you worked on without a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nidieuxnimaitres (talk • contribs) 21:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well you've already started out on bad footing here since it is your site. Wikipedia does not really embrace posting stuff you've published yourself except under specific circumstances, which also includes links. This is because it can be self-serving. You have to show how the site enhances the value of the article without violating any external linking guideline for what not to link to. Specifically in your case it would be a direct violation of #4 and possible violation of #1 and #11 (Fansite). I also fail to see how the site would add anything to the page that would cause me, or anyone else to ignore those problems.じんない 22:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to explain what I did wrong. I made a mistake because I didn't know the guidelines. Also, I apologize for being somewhat hostile in my last post, it's just it reminded me too much of my bad experience with that other monolith, the IMDB. I forgot how frustrating it is for editors of such a huge site, when people create situations just because they can't be bothered to read the guidelines first, and then get upset even, like me. It would have been nice if you'd assumed good faith though rather than say I started out on bad footing. I know, I should have realized fan sites aren't suitable for an encyclopedia, having no objective, verifiable content to offer. My view was too simplistic and it caused unnecessary, extra work, but I didn't mean any harm. I just got a little carried away because I'm proud of the work I put in my site and I only want people to enjoy it. That's why, even though you're very correct, your last comment kind of smarts." Nidieuxnimaitres (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to apologize. Wikipedia has more policies and guidelines than some smaller countries. New users are not expected to read them before editing. Accepting them once pointed to them is enough. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We need to be careful not to bite the newcomers. I hope this experience hasn't scared you away from editing. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 12:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain two things?

1. How is this one masive list any good idea? Do you know how long the page loaded for me and stil was not lodead?

2. How exactely do you need third party sources for the characters so far as the characters go? Is an own volume question and answer column from the author is not enough to verify whatever you need ? And sorry, but when you do an article about an anime/manga/whatever, the series in itself is good enough reference for most things in my book. We are truly trying to make things overly complicated, aren't we?

Also, sub note. I realy love how this page is about as informative as absolutely nothing. Missing major characters and protagonist images aside, aply these same criteria to an america related series article like, I dunno, Superman and see where that gets you .

--New Babylon 2 (talk) 22:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

So what's your suggestion?

I've been thinking that maybe a table of some sort is required; like with List of Star Trek characters, only a bit better than that ;)

In case you weren't aware (you made no reference to it) splitting up has been raised before, there's a note at the top of this page stating: Splitting off articles was proposed here and here.

--Wex Viator (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Having done a bit of searching the best list of characters I've found on Wiki is List of supporting characters in ER it has structure and plenty of whitespace to break up the blot of text. In my opinion the one thing that a lot of the lists are missing, including the ER one, is mugshots of the characters.

Considering why someone might want to look up a character on Wikipedia (after all; that's why we're writing it) I figure one popular reason could be 'I only know what they look like and want to know their name'. In which case; mugshots should be a high requirement for any bio.

-- Wex 01:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Currently, the best character lists on Wikipedia are List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow and List of Naruto characters. And we don't include mugshots because that is deemed copyright violation. The compromise between perfectly usuable (mugshots) and perfectly Free (no non-free images) is to use a few, carefully chosen group pictures. Regards, -- Goodraise (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

There are exceptional uses for mugshots, such as the character being a major character of importance to understanding and the lack of any group shot that could adequately show them. However, that is extremely rare and I cannot see it happening with One Piece. It usually happens more so with video games or novels.じんない 16:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting anybody doesn't already know the stuff I'm about to raise... just that not everybody does (I didn't).

In reference to the Non-free content criteria point 8 states: 'Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.' This is clearly open to a fair amount of personal opinion; but I feel that an understanding of a visual medium requires a visual aid (Common Sense?).

However. Further reading about Non-free content brings us to the section on Non-free image use in list articles; (if you're participating in this discussion, knowledge of this section is probably essential) which states 'It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section.' I personally still contest that in the situation of a character list as what an Anime/Manga character looks like is very much a part of their description, possibly more-so than an in-world biography.

I realise this is more my thoughts & feelings than direct solutions to the One Piece situation, but wouldn't mind further discussion on the matter.

-- Wex 00:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: I just found this: Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria/Archive_1#Fair_Use_images which is most likely relevant. Though there's a lot to read so I'll be a while absorbing it all ;).

-- Wex 00:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay; it didn't take that long. The discussions/debates held previously all appear to concentrate on Episode Lists. In that respect I would be against having an image for each episode (my theory for this is based on the idea that an episode is simply the actions of characters; and actions can easily be described in text) staying on-topic though, I'm still very much for character mugshots.

And I'm going to stop replying to myself now.

-- Wex 00:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't have to reply to yourself, if you'd start a discussion at WT:NFCC. Regards, -- Goodraise (talk) 01:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry the page took a long time to load, the article is currently 101kb and if you aren't using a broadband connection, it might take a while. Also sometimes wikipedia lags and it helps to refresh if it does this rather than waiting with a blank screen for 2-3 min. BTW, which major characters are missing?

To answer the OP's questions, The reason one big list is a good idea is that we had a lot of redundant plot summary on the individual character lists which isn't really appropriate in encyclopedic coverage of a work. The reason third party sources are required is because this is the requirement for creating any article on Wikipedia (see WP:N). If a topic doesn't have this kind of sourcing, than the only kind of verifiable facts that you can find will likely revolve around in-universe detail from primary sources (such as: the Manga itself), whereas an encyclopedia demands a real-world point of view (see WP:PLOT and WP:INUNIVERSE).

I suspect that most the editors involved here would prefer to have some split-off articles, however right now all the characters (except Luffy) don't have the sources to justify inclusion as a stand-alone article. In the meantime, there is a lot of work to be done with the content that is here; and like Wex said, we put a note at the top explaining the mergers if you're curious. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I actualy dont find there is a reason for this being in oine gigantic page. Separating into SH's article, (or included on a Major/recuring) and Minor characters lists would not only solve the problem of this just being one gigantic mess with litle in it, but would actualy not take seventy five hours to load on computers with slower conections, like mine. I generaly believe that your policy to have almost no information on given characters is wrong, but seeing you will just requote a guideline , lets just pretend I did not mention it, okay? --New Babylon 2 (talk) 14:33, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't operate on personal preference, but on those guidelines and policies (formed by group consensus) that you don't seem to want to hear. We cannot build a page on plot summary or original research. Articles aren't split off because a majority of editors voted to do so; articles can only be split of there is sufficient verifiable real-world information. If that means that there is very little verifiable information, then that's how it has to be. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. Keep in mind that this article is rated at C-class, so the content on the page is far from perfect.

I realize that you are exaggerating, but on a 56k modem this page should take about 14 seconds to load (up to 24 seconds if you don't have any images cached already). Even on the slowest 9.6k connection, this page couldn't take more than 2 1/2 min to load. If its actually talking hours to load, then there is something wrong with your computer, not the connection, and certainly not the layout of this page. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Going Merry/Merry Go

I have a friend who would like to suggest a change... "The real name of the ship is Merry Go, not Going Merry." I have changed it for him; seeing as I have no knowlege of this subject, I trust his. Please leave a comment on my talk page if this is incorrect... Comfortably numb55 (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I think its called by both names, depending on what translation you're using. I think in general we try to go with whatever seems to be the most common name. Sorry if that's confusing. >.> --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:44, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Basically, in Japanese it's called Going Merry-go, the "-go" is a suffix similar to -san or -kun, but is for ships. Its really translated name is supose to be "The Going Merry" the crew refer to it as "Merry" sometimes as well. In the Viz and 4kids Translations it was translated to Merry Go. 4kids did as a pun on "Merry Go Rounds", and Viz did the translation to be more close to the Anime dub at the time. Zoro's name was change to Zolo for similar reasons. But the current Anime Dub by FUNimation is going with the "Going Merry" Translation. Also many fan subbing and translation groups go with "Going Merry". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.85.73 (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

4Kids voice actor of Wapol

Who is the 4Kids voice actor of Wapol? Is it Matt Hoverman or Sean Schemmel or perhaps even both? The various user-editable websites disagree on who it is. The credits should be in the dub episode #48 "Saving Nami", which first aired August 27, 2005 and was released on the DVD "Volume 11: Tony Tony Chopper" on October 30, 2007. Would be great if anyone could look this up. Thanks, -- Goodraise (talk) 23:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sanji Info

I dunno if this would help any, but in the commentary for One Piece: Season 1 3rd Voyage Eric Vale had this to say about Sanji;

When thinking about Sanji's voice he thinks about how angry Sanji is from his past. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.85.73 (talk) 00:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The article states that Sanji fights exclusively with his feet, but is it not true that he used kitchen knifes in one fight as a means to defeat a man made of noodles? (He willingly did this as he was "practically fighting food" so it wouldn't be 'misuse' of kitchen applicances.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.105.58 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

yeah that world government lacky was actually using the noodles more as a suit of armor as they were fighting in the train's kitchen and becuase of that it was an exception to his rule--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nero

Isn't Nero a member of CP9? See chapter 369, page 3. It clearly states that the 3rd car holds CP9 member "Sea Weasel, 'Nero'" (page 17) and it's stated in chapter 373 that he's the new-guy who knows four forms and is invited by 'Corgi'. Ge4ce (talk) 13:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I suppose he is. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Straw Hat Pirates section

"...and they finally and officially join the crew, which is marked by Oda through a chapter title paged devoted to that character." Ignoring the typo, not all of the Strawhat Pirates have their first title page in the chapter which they join. Nami's first title page is on Chapter 10, in which she still hasn't made an alliance with Luffy. She doesn't do that until Chapter 14, but it's title page is devoted to Luffy, and she doesn't officially join his crew until chapter 94. Between those chapters, she is still on many title pages. (Sorry if I don't have citations for proof of this.) I think that the latter part of the quote should be removed. Spandumb (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

B-Class Review

• Criteria 1 - This article has more than enough references. Good job!
• Criteria 2 - The article covers all major topics and has a solid real-world section to compliment the character summaries. There's one section that might need to be expanded, however B-Class allows for this.
• Criteria 3 - Definitely has a defined structure and appears to be in-line with WP:MOS-AM.
• Criteria 4 - I've been watching this page, and most the text is very clearly written now.
• Criteria 5 - It has enough illustrations to be useful to describing the subject, but doesn't over-use fair-use images. Again, Pass!
• Criteria 6 - Because Goodraise and other editors have been strict with which names, and which terms can be used in this list; I think we have successfully made this both accurate to the work and at the same time accessible to the average reader (for example, we're not bogged down with 2-3 different spellings of each name).

For the reasons above, I give this article a pass to B-Class. I must disclose that I was involved in major merges last year, however I really haven't been involved much with the content of this page aside from watching it. I think Goodraise and a good number of other contributors have done a good job with this page. This puts the article in the top 2% of Anime articles on Wikipedia. Onward and Upward! --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 03:33, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbei's name

According to the One Piece wikia, Viz's manga uses the spelling Jimbei. Is that not true, and if it is shouldn't that be the name used in the article? The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 23:38, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

How can Viz have any spelling for Jimbei when they're still doing the Alabasta arc? He doesn't make an appearance for many arcs after. Did the One Piece wikia give any referance? Unless the source is 100% unquestionable, I don't see it being true. Spindori (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

They can mention him in press-release information. However, the wikia is not what should be used to determine this, but those actual e-documents.陣内_Jinnai 00:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jimbei was first mentioned in chapter 69, while Luffy was sailing to Arlong Park. So yeah, they would have written his name there. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 05:08, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

eleven supernovas

why arent the 11 supernovas on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.214.19 (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

most likely becuase there isn't enough iformation to state on each pirate crew =^-^=--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

One Piece character Tattoos?

I love the unique variety and mythos of the many tattoos found in the One Piece world. I would like to see the character pages include a section for their tattoo(s) and the stories behind them (if known), such as Nami's, or the Fishmen pirates.

68.98.200.163 (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Monkey D. Dragon

Why isn't Monkey D. Dragon given a spot in the character list? Indigo child 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

He is currently mentioned in this section. He doesn't have his own section, because he simply isn't important enough (yet). Importance in this context means importance to the story, not importance in the story. He may be the leader of the great revolutionary army, but he has only appeard in a couple of panels so far. Goodraise 01:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok, I didn't see the "revolutionaries" section. But I still think dragon should be given his own section, or at least his name could appear on the heading of the revolutionaries section (i.e. "Dragon and his revolutionaries" rather than just "Revolutionaries"). Here's why: if someone comes to this article looking for a biography on dragon, they will likely use ctrl+f (find)to scan the article so they can quickly find his name. If they dont see his name on one of the headings it might confuse them (this happened to me). I hope that made (some) made sense. Indigo child 03:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If you type "Monkey D. Dragon" into the search field on the left, it will bring you to the correct section of this article. That should be enough. We are supposed to give every character due weight and I simply do not see him warranting a section of his own. Goodraise 04:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your right! Sorry for bothering you. (I meant, sorry for being stupid ^^!!!) Indigo child 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me for being so dumb back then ^^;; Anyways, I finally learned how to change my signature :D! Indigo child 02:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Mr. 3

Mr. 3 doesn't have his Japanese name anywhere that he's mentioned in this list? Is there any particular reason why? -Sukecchi (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no particular reason. This article simply is nowhere near complete. Mr. 3 (Galdino) should probably be covered more extensively, perhaps even get his own section, seeing as his role has grown a lot recently. Goodraise 14:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Other characters

Shouldn't all the groups be sub-scetions of "other characters" per standard wikipiedia format?陣内_Jinnai 19:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodraise has been gone for a while and I haven't been watching this article like I should. Someone has gone and monkeyed with the organization from where it was at the B-Class] review. Now we have a mixed system of protagonists/antagonist and something else. It might be worth reverting then adding back in any updated information that has been added between now and July 5th. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it was

1. Protagonist
2. Antagonist
3. Allies
4. Other

I think there probably should be probably a new category as a few don't fall into the first 3 but are also clearly central to the storyline, like Whitebeard. I also believe the 11 Supernovas should recieve their own article. Maybe:

1. Protagonist
2. Antagonist
3. Allies
4. Other major supporting characters
5. Other secondary supporting characters.

Or something like that.陣内_Jinnai 05:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This looks more like we had originally intended. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"I also believe the 11 Supernovas should recieve their own article." Not unless they have received significant coverage by third party reliable sources. Active Banana (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

About Impel Down personnel

Why both Sadie-chan and Saldeath Chief Guard? Sadie-chan is gokusotsuchou (獄卒長) and gokusotsu means torturer so shouldn't she be Chief Torturer? Saldeath is roubanchou (牢番長), rouban means prison guard so I think Chief Guard is allright. And Domino, she is fukukanshuchou (副看守長). She should be Vice Chief Jailer, not a normal guard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.59.40.85 (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that section was written by an anonymous editor. Since they have no watchlist, it is unlikely that they will reply here. If you can improve the section, please be bold and do so. Goodraise 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It is confirmed in Shonen Jump Monthly that Sadie-chan is Chief Torturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.43.102 (talk) 00:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

To cite the magazine, we need more information than that. What issue of the magazine are you referring to? What is the publication date? What is the title of the article? What page is the information on? Could you quote the passage? Goodraise 06:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about the 2nd issue this year, i can't provide any more info, sorry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Specifically Vague (talk • contribs) 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

R.I.P.

• SPOILER ALERT

It should be added the Portgas D. Ace has died —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.174.108 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for plot summaries, thus no spoliers should be given. But does ace really die? I think you're mistaken. Indigo child 06:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, limited amounts of plot are acceptable, even necessary. We give plot information as we see fit. What we don't give are spoiler warnings. (See WP:PLOT and WP:SPOILER.) Goodraise 07:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Too answer your question Indigochild, sadly yes, he dies at the end of chapter 574 :'( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.152.174.108 (talk) 01:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Split proposal

Okay guys , the fact of the matter is this page is just to damn big . I would propose , just like in the case of Naruto charatcers list , to split this article at least into Characters and Villians/Antagonists . I'm sure you will quote a lot of acronyms instead of an answer , but it's a simple fact this page is both out of date , disorganised and overly long . --New Babylon 2 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Since we've had this proposed more than once already, may I ask what makes you believe that this discussion will have a different outcome than its predecessors? From what I can tell, the situation is basically still the same. Goodraise 22:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Simply because it is needed . I don't think anyone should feel intimidated by a previous neutral consensus when one feels one has to do something . --New Babylon 2 (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the notice at the top of the page before you started this discussion? We're not going to quote "acyronyms" but you will have to follow those instructions at the top of the page for this split proposal to have any teeth. Otherwise you simply aren't addressing the reasons these pages were merged in the first place. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 20:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

If it is indeed "too big", one of the first things that should be done is to remove the original research and primary source based content. Bringing the article down to content identified as important edited to add where the analysis and interpretation is conducted by end of edit by third party sources will be a positive move on many fronts including size issues. Active Banana (talk) 21:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

@Active Banana: You may want to read WP:NNC. Goodraise 23:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Notability itself applies only to articles as a whole, however third party sources are still required for all interpretation and analysis which is not the case in this article where much commentary is sourced directly to the show itself. Active Banana (talk) 17:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Eneru's Mantra

Logically speaking, if Eneru can detect electricity, he should be able to predict people's movements through "reading" their brain waves, since those are just miniscule amounts of electricity. Does anyone else agree? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.43.102 (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, do not use Wikipedia pages as discussion forums. Thank you. Goodraise 06:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol please go easier on newbie users! (jk jk... >.<) Indigochild 03:50, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

about Ivankov

I was wondering why there was no mention of a similarity toThe Rocky Horror Picture Show's Dr. Frank-N-Furter --69.232.189.175 (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nefertari Vivi's age

I'm of the opinion that Nefertari Vivi is about 16-17, for a couple of reasons. 1, Dr. Kureha is supposed to be 139, coming on 140 in the present, but in the flashback, she's 133, six years younger. 2, in a conversation between Dalton, Kuromarimo, and Chess, Dalton refers to Nefertari Vivi as "a ten year old girl" while talking about how then-king Wapol (and their boss) had treated Nefertari Vivi. I found Dr. Kureha's age-in flashback and Dalton's conversation in OnePiece volume 16, and I think her age at present can be found in one of the two preceding volumes.

Does anyone agree with me? Jds500 (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree, although it's also possible oda might have made somewhat of a mistake ^^ Indigochild 03:52, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Whitebeard's allies

The crew allied with him were 43, not 42. See here: http://www. onemanga.com/One_Piece/551/12-13/.AndreaFox2 (talk) 12:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

roronoa zolo

it's "zolo" not "zoro" right? that's what I find in the english shonen jump manga, if you don't believe me, check it yourself. also, if there's a japanese spelling of "zolo" (not that there necessarily is), then shouldn't that be in the japanese article (if any) not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jds500 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps reading this discussion will answer your questions. Goodraise 00:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's my opinion. I buy and read the English manga (which is translated by Viz Media), and I buy and watch the English DVDs (which is dubbed by FUNimation). Viz Media translates his name as "Zolo", but FUNimation translates his name as "Zoro". The "List of One Piece characters" article goes by the FUNimation translations. Therefore, his name should remain as "Zoro". I respect Jds500's opinion, but the entire article goes by the English FUNimation translations. Rico70 (talk) 09:13, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okeydokey, I think I'm sold. it looks like "zoro" is used more, but it might be helpful to make sure that it's mentioned that "zoro" is the funimation (and/or anything else that also uses "zoro") translation and is used more worldwide, but to also mention "zolo" is used in english manga, but isn't used as much so it's mentioned, but not used in the article. That way, other people (you're not the only ones using "zoro" and I'm not the only one using "zolo") should be happy: you use the (apparently) more correct name, but you acknowledge that "zolo" is used, instead of having everybody fight over names so virtually everybody(you can never please EVERYBODY) should be happy.

Basically, keep using "zoro", just make sure you mention that it's one of two translations, and apparently more correct than the other so you use it here, as well as mentioning the "zolo" translation as being less used, etc. making sure you mention it's the english manga version of his name, and I'll be good. Jds500 (talk) 15:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

SH top three fighters

in the archive that goodraise linked to, there was a argument about the relative strengths of luffy, zoro/zolo, and sanji, did that get resolved? i was wondering because i saw the arguement, but nothing about relative strengths in the list of characters Jds500 (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not included, because we don't include the opinions of random fans in our articles. (See WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV.) Goodraise 23:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Editing

Hi, I just finished (phew) going through the characters and fixing any grammar and wording errors, and attempting to get rid of redundancy within character bios. Tell me if I screwed anything up... especially if I messed up the information, so we can discuss it... Jds500 (talk) 22:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

kizaru. nicknamed "Yellow Monkey" (黄色人種, Ōshoku Jinshu).

nicknamed "Yellow Monkey" (黄色人種, Ōshoku Jinshu).

Such nickname doesn't exist in a Japanese version. The cartoon is stolen from Japan. And, the content is falsified by a malignant translator. 60.39.41.134 (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

sanji's diable jamble

ummm, his "diamble jamble" doesn't put his foot on fire, it mkes it red hot. 70.241.16.91 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Revote for Don Krieg and Wapol

I would like to request that we do a revote for both Don Krieg and Wapol's sections. Only two people put down votes and it was already declared over. I think they need more time to get more votes especially since I think they deserve to be their own sections since they were both main antagonists of arcs. - SuperTiencha (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The above sections are re-marked as unresolved. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Contrary to appearance, what's happening up there is no formal process. All decisions made there can be challenged at any time by any user. Just re-mark the section in question as unresolved or simply remove the resolved tag to reopen discussion. Goodraise 23:30, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

new fishman pirates section?

shouldn't there be a section for the newfishman pirates (hody/hodi, darumake, vander decken, etc.)? Thornydevil ^Munchies? 03:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

What's stopping you from writing one? Goodraise 04:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The New Fishman Pirates section has now been added. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Revote for Momonga

He's had the most panel time of the Vice Admirals and for plot significance he was one of the leaders of the Buster Call on Enies Lobby, transported Luffy to Impel Down, and after the timeskip he sent Sentomaru and the Pacifistas after the Strawhats. I believe that he deserves a seperate section.174.3.181.136 (talk) 22:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Marked as unresolved. Please discuss here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm supposed to discuss it on the Straw poll page?174.3.181.136 (talk) 23:13, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

No. What I meant was: all decisions made above can be challenged at any time by any user. Just re-mark the section in question as unresolved or simply remove the resolved tag to reopen discussion. Then, you can vote on whether to keep, delete or merge this section. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Your "here" link leads to Straw poll#Momonga. I think that's what confused the IP-editor. You meant to link to Talk:List of One Piece characters#Momonga, didn't you? Goodraise 02:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Correct Character's Names

Eiichiro Oda have the great pleasure of releasing databooks that shows names of ships, characters and other stuffs that are not shown in the manga. But what it matters here is the correct characters' names that was showed in those databooks and now, wikipedia needs to have the accurate info about every article, this must be changed:

• Van Auger to Van Augur
• Shiryu to Shilliew
• San Juan Wolf to Sanjuan Wolf
• Big Mum to Mig Mam
• Sadie to Sadie-chan (that's her name even with the -chan)
• Jimbei to Jinbe
• Gecko Moria to Gekko Moriah
• Bon Clay to Bon Kurei
• Daz Bonez to Daz Bones
• Don Quixote Doflamingo to Donquixote Doflamingo
• Eneru to Enel

I tried twice to change to the right way but the user Sjones23 undo the changes that I did by no reason. Can you consider to change them?. Thanks DragonNJMB (talk) 07:37, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I undid these edits for a reason. Wikipedia guidelines dictate that we must use the names that are well-known per the guidelines at Wikipedia:Article titles#Common names. Also, the Anime-and-manga manual of style states that the characters "should be identified by the names used in the official English releases of the series" and if there are multiple English releases, such as both a manga and anime, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world. As such, we should use the official English titles used in the article. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

How the Sun Pirates were created due to Fisher Tiger's escape

Fisher Tiger was once a slave to the World Nobles and freed other fishmen/mermen/Boa and her two sisters. With that, the Sun Pirates were created their own insignia to cover the Celestial Dragon slave brand. Fishiesnap (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fishiesnap (talk • contribs) 04:41, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Unmerge Zoro and Nami?

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: Sections about the characters Zoro and Nami are to be split off into new articles.

---

A lot has happened since they've been merged. Funimation's DVD releases and Viz' accelerated publishing schedule have resulted in a whole new wave of reviews. It shows in the sections of these two characters. Back then, I was a strong proponent of these two merges. Now I'm on the fence and curious what others think. Is it time to unmerge theses two? Goodraise 04:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with the concerns by Goodraise, The DVD release and manga publishing schedule has made more reviews to appear for those characters. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks very good so I support it.Tintor2 (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Both of their sections have a lot of reception and reviews included in it so I think its about time they get their own articles. - SuperTiencha (talk) 03:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• I Support the idea of Nami and Zoro getting their own articles. - Watermaiden15 (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

• I support --68.43.152.51 (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

As a note, I have created a sandbox for Nami here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:01, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion closed at 03:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC) by Goodraise.

Names in the various versions

The last time this was discussed, 4Kids had stopped dubbing, Funimation had only just begun dubbing and subbing, and Viz wasn't too far with their English adaptation of the manga either. That made it difficult to decide which names to use primarily. Since I don't read/watch any of these versions, my native language being German, I don't really care which is used, but I think we should decide on one and stick with it throughout this article at the very least. I assume Funimation's dub and sub don't differ. That leaves the choice between them and Viz' manga. Last time, if I recall correctly, we more or less decided on using Funimation's subs, since they had just started doing new episodes, thus providing us with the only available non-fan-made terminology for a lot of characters. Seeing as Viz will eventually overtake Funimation when it catches up to the Japanese manga, and because the manga is the primary medium (we don't cover filler characters in this list either), I think we should consider switching to Viz' names. Opinions? Goodraise 14:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree on using the English manga names. Besides, Viz has already published 58 volumes and none of these episodes were released by Funimation. However, a note of names in other English dubs should still be kept.Tintor2 (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I also support the use of the English manga names, with the exception of Zoro's name. However, we also must note the use of the Japanese official romanizations of each character as well if necessary. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

If you use the english manga names for most characters, you should use them for all. Right? why just single out Roronoa Zolo/Zoro anyway? Heck froze over (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Would it be worth considering listing each character in their little section as

English manga name (if that's what is used primarily)/second version/third version. ? Heck froze over (talk) 21:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Reducing article size (II)

I read parts of the archive for: specific split discussions [2] [3] [4], a thread on organizing characters, and another on splitting, and as far as I can tell many characters were kept (and are still being added) due to personal opinion of who is and is not important. I may be ahead of myself in saying this, but I see that a large majority of the current list lacks notability, and even characters entirely unimportant (no real-world refs, nor plot relation) have recently been included. Can we discuss a definite line on what is really necessary here and carry the article with that? Spindori (talk) 14:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

List entries don't need to have notability. What we need to do is to aim at a reasonable article size, while giving due weight to each character: major characters get a whole section; secondary characters are mentioned; minor characters are left out. Back in the days, when I still found time to care for this article, I think we got fairly far. (Take a look at my last revision of the list.) Goodraise 07:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Real problems noted. Should we then decide which characters are major, to be mentioned, and then cut the details on the others? I wouldn't imagine that to take long. Spindori (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

In response to Spindori's question, yes. I suggest that we hold a discussion on which minor characters and secondary characters listed here to be deleted, kept or merged. In this discussion, please state if the character should be kept, deleted, or merged into another article/section. Also, please provide a detailed reason for why you believe this should happen. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Also note that the recent discussion is now archived here. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that rather than deleting many of the one-arc only characters outright, their info, if anything relevant, should be moved to the relevant episode/chapter lists.陣内_Jinnai 16:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Target size

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

I have no objections to this limit. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:21, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

I am without much feel for how large kilobytes are, but near half the current 246 kb of text should be gone after dealing with characters. I planned to do necessary trimming after that excess was dealt with so maybe 10 kb more will be rid after that. I will agree with anything less than 110 kb, but I do not project the list to be much smaller than that. Spindori (talk) 14:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Straw poll

Bellamy

Unresolved

• Mention perhaps under Doflamingo. I never understood how he fractioned out in the Jaya arc, but I think he was part of Doflamingo's crew. Spindori (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep -- He was the captain of the Bellamy Pirates, and the main antagonist of the "Jaya arc". He deserves his own section. Rico70
• Delete with appropriate metnions in Doflamingo's section - an unimportant character who has appeared in only one arc. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• Mention him in Doflamingo's section. Granted, he is the main antagonist of a story arc, but it's a very small arc and his role in it isn't that big either. Then there's the fighting. One Piece is a manga with lots of fighting, which is why this article is doing good at spending lots of space on describing characters' fighting abilities. But back to Bellamy. How long did his fight with Luffy last? One punch. Goodraise 13:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Remove him from the list. The series keeps getting longer and characters who don't make new appearances just get less and less important. Also, mentioning him in Doflamingo's section feels awkward, considering we only ever see them together when Doflamingo decides to kick him out. Goodraise 00:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Keep Same reason as Rico70. --Dylandh (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Mention - That one sentence mentioning him in Don Quixote Doflamingo's section is perfectly fine the way it is and there is no need to remove it. Since he was a main antagonist to a minor story arc and is even mentioned to have been named after a real pirate in the Concept and Creation section. - SuperTiencha (talk) 03:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Big Mom

• Mention in Four Emperors section. Nothing more until she actually makes an appearance. Goodraise 21:41, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
• Merge into the Four Emperors section per the concerns by Goodraise. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:42, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Jango

Unresolved

• Delete, Minor character who is not notable to have his section. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep -- He is one of the stronger marines. He deserves his own section. Rico70 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Same reason as Rico70. --Dylandh (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep, He has gone through being part of the black cat pirates too being a marine and befriending Fullbody. A series of chapter covers was dedicated to him and he even had the Jango's Dance Carnival Special. He is notable enough to stay. - SuperTiencha (talk) 21:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge somewhere. Considering the size of the series and its cast, Jango is just a minor character. He certainly does not merit a section of his own. Goodraise 00:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Jozu

Unresolved

• Delete, Minor character who is only involved in one story arc. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep -- He is the third division commander of the Whitebeard Pirates. He deserves his own section. Rico70 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Same reason as Rico70. --Dylandh (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. I went ahead and approved Jozu out of rush. Feel free to contest this. Spindori (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Mention among Whitebeard's followers. No significance on his own. Goodraise 21:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Don Krieg

Unresolved

• Remove him from this list as a short-time villian used to introduce another villian and an ally. It's guys like him who are skipped over in the long run, as should we do. Spindori (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per Spindori's nomination. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
  • On second thought, change vote to Keep. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, He was the main antagonist to the Baratie arc as well as appears in alot of the video games. - SuperTiencha (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. The main antagonist of an arc stretching two full and two half volumes (about 1/21 or 5% of the whole series). Admittedly, as the series grows longer, his importance keeps declining, but at this time he still deserves mentioning at the very least. Goodraise 21:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Mentioning him should suffice. Goodraise 22:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Momonga

Unresolved

• Merge, more notable with Onigumo, a section on the Vice Admirals can be created. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep -- He is one of the powerful Vice Admirals of the marines, and he and four other Vice Admirals led the Buster Call on Enies Lobby. He deserves his own section. Rico70 (talk) 04:49, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
• Keep Same reason as Rico70. --Dylandh (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
• Mention or remove from the list. He's a minor character thus far. Goodraise 22:15, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
• Mention in a list of Vice Admirals. The character is only slightly important in a small section of the story. Heck froze over (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Wapol

Unresolved

• Remove him as he is a short-time villian on par with Don Krieg. Only an "Oh, yeah!" character here. Spindori (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per Spindori's nomination. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
• Keep, he was the main antagonist to the Drum Island arc. Not having him is like ignoring the existence of the Drum Island arc. I would also like to add that he has appeared in a few video games and even had his own mini-series on the covers of chapters. - SuperTiencha (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. Main antagonist of a multi volume arc and the retelling thereof in form of a (113 minutes) feature film. The same can be said only of Crocodile. Goodraise 23:21, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

• Briefly Mention. A short discription would probably be good as, while he is important in a section of the story, is not overall. Heck froze over (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Use present tense!

Just a reminder. We're supposed to write from the perspective of the reader, not from the perspective of the characters. (See WP:INUNIVERSE.)

• Crocodile is a former member of the Seven Warlords of the Sea.
• Buggy ate the Bara Bara no Mi.
• Robin became an archaeologist.

These are all examples of what not to write. Cheers, Goodraise 22:06, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

What about background events? They are in the past in the perspective from the reader.Tintor2 (talk) 22:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I used to use past tense for these things, but WP:INUNIVERSE is quite clear in describing "Using past tense when discussing the plot or any of its elements" as a "Problem". When writing the plot summary for a flashback episode, we wouldn't do it in past tense either. While reading a flashback, the flashback's present is the present for the reader.

Shanks losing his arm. Present or past? In the anime it's a flashback. In the manga it isn't. It's difficult for me as a reader to not think of the Ohara Incident as an event of the past, but that's what we have to do when writing about it. Goodraise 22:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I would find confusing at some times. For example, "Usopp's father, Yasopp, left his family to become a pirate with Shanks' crew when Usopp was still very young" in present tense would be "Usopp's father, Yasopp, leaves his family to become a pirate with Shanks' crew when Usopp is still very young" or Zoro's "To fulfill a promise he made to his childhood friend and rival, Kuina".Tintor2 (talk) 00:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Of course it will sound awkward at times, if sentences intended to be in past tense are simply switched to present tense. More needs to be done in those cases. Looking at your examples: How about "During Usopp's early childhood, his father, Yasopp, leaves him and his mother to join the Red-Haired Pirates"? And "To fulfill a promise to his childhood friend and rival, Kuina"? Goodraise 03:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

would it make sense for flashbacks be denoted as:

in a flashback: blahblah does this and that,

back in the present: blahblah does this and that,

Also, how should the two year time skip be handled? Heck froze over (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't make sense. There is no present. There is no past and no future. One Piece, like many other works of fiction, tries very hard to make the reader feel like they're experiencing the story with the characters, making it appear to them as if there was such a thing as a present. But there is not. We can write in what order things occur, but we can't treat any point in the series' timeline as "the present". Goodraise 03:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

So in other words, it doesn't matter whether an event occurred in the past, recalled in a flashback, or is occurring at the moment, there is no difference or mention in notation? Heck froze over (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

There is no events "occurring at the moment". Right now the Straw Hats are on Fishman Island, right? Wrong! Right now the Straw Hats are a group of fictional characters who in some story visit a place called Fishman Island. They are that just as much as they are a group of fictional characters who in some story visit a place called Enies Lobby. I realize this is a difficult concept. It makes writing a good Wikipedia article about a fictional subject much more difficult than one on some dedicated wiki, where past tense is typically used. Try thinking of it this way: In front of every sentence it says something like "In chapter 23 foo does" or "In chapter 39 it is shown that". Just that these bits aren't written out and instead placed at the end of the sentence in form of citations, looking like.^this Goodraise 05:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I didn't explain myself properly. If you pick any given point in the story, the story would be in the present tense. Right? What I'm saying is, if the given point is in a flashback, would it make sense to label it as such, while keeping it in the same tense as the rest of the plot? The "flashback" is really happening at the momment in the story when the character has the flashback. Heck froze over (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This page is about characters, not chapters or episodes. We can write things like "In chapter X, during a flashback, foo does bar." But why would we mention that it happens in a flashback? It's irrelevant. Goodraise 23:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Maybe saying "before the series' start", "before the joining Straw Hats", etc. there is no need to use past tense.Tintor2 (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Mugiwara Pirate's independent pages

Note: This discussion is only about Usopp, Sanji, Robin, Chopper, Franky and Brook. That Luffy, Nami and Zoro should be covered in separate articles has already been decided. Goodraise 13:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Each Strawhat Pirate should have its page.--ToonsFan (talk) 10:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Straw Poll

Note: Content decisions on Wikipedia are not reached by counting votes. Unreasoned comments/votes will have no bearing on the outcome of this discussion. Goodraise 14:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Spinning out sections containing little or no content of independent origin would not be in the encyclopedia's best interest. It would only serve to spread the plot creep. Goodraise 12:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

• Weak Oppose - Nami and Zoro are the only ones that should be made into seperate articles, the other members don't have enough reception yet to be independent. - SuperTiencha (talk) 06:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I think every member should have their page, or if not, only Zoro, Nami and Usopp. But each member has its history, habilities, and miscellaneous. So every Straw Hat Pirate should have your page--HeinzDoofenshmirtz (talk) 12:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - I agree, each crew member should have its own page. I agree with the user HeinzDoofenshmirtz.--Quasmodo03 (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support - Each Straw Hat Pirate should have its own page. Unlike the other characters in the series, the crew has more history, powers and abilities, and their own dreams.--BertSampson (talk) 11:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Response to the three preceding comments: There's a place for articles like that. Here on Wikipedia, our demands are a little bit higher. Our articles need to be more than plot regurgitation. That's policy and to get around that it will take a whole lot more than a few votes of support, because Wikipedia is not a democracy. Anyone really interested in making separate articles for these characters happen will stop wasting everyone's time in pointless discussions here and start looking for independent sources discussing those characters. Goodraise 14:06, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Support. If primary characters in other series, like Naruto, can have their own pages, I see no reason why the primary characters for this series should be any different. If sources/citations are a problem, couldn't you just use the ones currently used for the current character list, but just including more info? Heck froze over (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

It ends up being only a half step, to go from having a page for the main, main character in the series, to having only some of the main characters with pages, as opposed to having all the main charcters with their own pages. I don't think Zolo/Zoro and Nami really stand out from the rest of the crew except that they signed on a little earlier. Heck froze over (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, if "X exists, so Y should be allowed to exist too" was a valid argument, nothing would be removed from Wikipedia, ever. As for the difference between Luffy, Nami, Zoro and the rest of the characters, the key word here is "independent". Separate articles need independent sources. Not just any sources will do. They have to be independent. (See WP:V and WP:GNG for why they are required and Wikipedia:Independent sources for what they are.) Goodraise 00:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I know the sources would have to be independent, but wouldn't it make sense to just use the sources for this page, but just include more information about each character than on this one? Heck froze over (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. You are not expressing yourself too clearly. It would be great if there was more information in the independent sources on this page about the other main characters. Then we could use the sources to write adequate articles about those characters. Unfortunately, it's much easier suggesting things like that than actually doing them. Be my guest and try it. Goodraise 22:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be easier to just make stub articles first for each of the remaining 6 crew members, because then there's a more obvious place to discuss material, and no-one has to collect enough info at any one time to make a good article. Maybe start with the sources for this article but not pare down the information initially? Heck froze over (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't what be easier? None of the people who come here every other month to complain about the lack of individual character pages have the slightest interest in writing articles that measure up to even Wikipedia's lowest quality standards. We don't need a place to discuss material we don't have. In fact, the necessary sources for such articles accumulated in the sections for Nami and Zoro on this page just fine. Goodraise 06:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

How about just creating character pages when there is enough info to make a decent article? ("decent" and "enough" would need to be defined. Also, was it ever decided what version of the character's names would be used? The discussion above didn't seem to have concluded yet. Heck froze over (talk) 22:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't need to define it. That has already been done. For the third time, here it is: WP:GNG. Please, read it already. As for the names, no, we (as a group) apparently haven't made up our minds about that yet. Goodraise 02:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. Agree with the concerns by SuperTiencha and Goodraise, we need to find sources containing more independent origin and will only serve as a plot creep. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support I think that they are known and there is enough information about them Akai Goth (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

We have been having this kind of discussion every few month for years. There is always someone who is absolutely certain that the information is out there. Curiously, none of that information ever shows up here. Goodraise 22:14, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Further discussion

I have made a big mistake and I apologize. I should have known better. By preceding my initial response to the proposal with a bolded summary of my position (see my comment from 12:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)), I derailed this discussion. I suppose I got into the habit after the straw poll a few sections up turned out to be such a productive tool for reaching consensus regarding all those supporting characters. However, content decisions on Wikipedia are not reached by counting votes. Editors can cast votes on this page as much as they like, but it won't decide the outcome of this discussion, because that's what we are having here, a discussion. (See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.) I hope I'll be able to fix my mistake by adding section headers and notes. Anyway, what will decide the outcome of this discussion is the quality of arguments brought forward. So, if anyone has valid arguments for creating pages for each Straw Hat, here (right below this comment) is the place. Thus far, I've heard none. Goodraise 14:23, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Porposing some conventions

I think this article would benefit if we decided on a few conventions to follow. Feel free to attach your own proposals to this thread. Goodraise 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Whatever you guys end up using for the naming conventions, use that one primarily and mention other variations of that name from other versions of the series. Heck froze over (talk) 21:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Voice actors only for characters with sections of their own

I suggest we provide voice actor information only for characters with a section of their own. If we try to give that information for all characters currently mentioned, we'll end up doubling the page size. We have to draw the line somewhere. Goodraise 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that. If not section will focus more on voice actors rather than characters groups.Tintor2 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I also support this convention. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree.∞陣内Jinnai 21:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Devil Fruit names not for all characters

I suggest we limit providing the names of Devil Fruits a character has eaten to characters who don't necessarily have a section of their own, but are discussed in several sentences. It seems rather silly to me when more words are spent listing all the names of a character and his or her Devil Fruit in the various versions than on the character him- or herself. Goodraise 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree also there. It depends on the in-universe importance of the Devil Fruit.Tintor2 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I also agree with the convention. It all depends on the in-universe importance of the Devil Fruits. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Agree.∞陣内Jinnai 21:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Gold Roger vs. Gol D. Roger

I think he should be referred to as Gold Roger. If there was a whole article about him, it would be located at Gold Roger per WP:COMMONNAME. It's enough to note his "real" name in the first sentence of his section. Goodraise 20:03, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, he was referred as Gol D. Roger few times in contrast to Gold Roger which is mentioned in some openings from the anime series.Tintor2 (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe its best to wait here. I think the assertion that more sources use Gold Roger vs Gold. D. Roger could be similar to Zolo/Zoro case where it may be a matter of which media is reviewed and more recent ones use different names. There's no need to rush with this.∞陣内Jinnai 21:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Buggy Indipendent Article

I've noticed a significant amount of reception for the character. If I can bring enough references, would anyone be opposed to the character receiving his own article? Redbird 41 (talk) 17:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I will Support this idea if more reception is added. I definitely see Buggy as the most notable character outside of the Strawhats because of his few appearances in other media. - SuperTiencha (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There's always going to be someone opposed to everything. What matters is the GNG. If you can find enough reception to satisfy it (one big paragraph or two small ones, written from several sources), then an article for him (or any other character) is warranted. Goodraise 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

So far I've found four references. How many should I get? Redbird 41 (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The GNG is kept intentionally ambiguous. It depends on how much reception you can get out of those sources and on the caliber of the sources. A paragraph in an article of The New York Times is better than a sentence in some guy's blog. That's why I can't give you a number without knowing what kind of sources you've found. With deep coverage in totally independent and perfectly reliable sources, two of them would be enough. The less so your sources are, the more of them you'll need to satisfy the GNG in practice. Goodraise 01:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:STFX1046190/sandbox Redbird 41 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's not exactly much, but it may be enough. Add it to Buggy's section with citations (if you can using {{cite web}}, but URLs at least) and then we can start talking about a separate article for him. Goodraise 23:46, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Sabo

There should be a section of Sabo? Is an important character in the series.--ToonsFan (talk) 16:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

For the moment, he is only a flashback character. We don't even know whether he's still alive. Mentioning him somewhere, perhaps in Luffy's section, should be enough. Goodraise 21:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge Skypiea and Angel Island

Both Angel Island and Skypiea have small sections and its not very necessary to have them seperated. The information from both sections should be put together as one since Angel Island alone isn't significant enough to be its own section. - SuperTiencha (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

• Support per SuperTiencha's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
• Support per above. Goodraise 17:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

section for Water 7

There should be a Water 7 section on this list mentioning all of the major characters that were in the Water 7 and Enies Lobby arc. Iceburg, Kokoro, the Galley-La workers and the Frankey Brothers were all characters that were present during that whole major story arc of the series which lasted for around 100 episodes. We already have a section for Alabasta and Skypiea residents and those arcs were not as long. - SuperTiencha (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support per SuperTiencha's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
• Support per above. Goodraise 17:25, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Giving due weight to voice actors

The One Piece anime is already over 500 episodes long. Mentioning every voice actor of every character in every version is out of the question for reasons of article size alone. We need to decide which of them to name based on considerations of due weight. To that end, I'd like to make the following proposals. Please discuss and add additional or alternate proposals below. Goodraise 23:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't mention short term substitutes

When an actor voices a character for hundreds of episodes and is substituted for only a handful of episodes by another voice actor, that other voice actor should not be mentioned. As it stands, some voice actors are mentioned who only contributed to a handful of episodes, while those of almost major characters like Rob Lucci and Magellan are not. The way I see it, that's a violation of WP:DUE. Goodraise 23:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support per Goodraise's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Child voice actors

Same as with short term substitutes, these should not be mentioned. Goodraise 23:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Agree with the concerns by Goodraise, these should never be mentioned. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:40, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. From what I've seen of the series, there aren't many characters that have long story arcs spanning when they were kids for tens of episodes, not like Dragonball Z where you can have kid and teen Goku, Gohan, Trunks, and Dende. AngusWOOF (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Only name the Japanese voice actors

There is two English adaptations of the anime (three if we count Odex' dub). Considering that One Piece is primarily a manga, the anime being but an adaptation, I think we're skewing the article by going into so much detail on voice actors. We're not including anime only characters for basically the same reason. Goodraise 23:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. The anime is big enough that anime-only characters can be included if they span a significant story line. And the voice acting on the English side seems important enough that the Japanese production company participated in the auditioning of the voice actors for the Funimation dub. Although out of the first 100 episodes, I've only noticed Apis but her story arc was maybe 10 episodes at most.AngusWOOF (talk) 05:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Names in English adaptations and voice actor wording

There's lots of Japanese names and terms with their equivalents in the various English adaptations on this page. It's going too far. In that regard, I'd like to propose the following conventions. Goodraise 19:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Provide only manga terminology for everything that isn't a character

I propose we provide only the terms and names used in Viz Media's English manga adaptation (plus kanji and romaji) for everything that isn't the name of a character. This list is about characters, not devil fruits, islands, groups, abilities, etc. It's not supposed to be an index of terminology used in the various versions. Goodraise 19:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support - Agree with Goodraise's concerns. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Provide names used in English anime adaptations only for characters discussed in a section of their own

Each character should be given due weight. For some characters that's a whole section. For some it's a few sentences. For some it's mentioning them. For some it's not mentioning them at all. I think it would only be consistent to limit mentioning name variations to characters with sections of their own. Goodraise 19:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Take List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters (FL) as example for voice actor wording

Tokyo Mew Mew has, just like One Piece, received the 4Kids "americanization" treatment. List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters is, I think, treating the issue sensibly by mentioning name changes along with naming the voice actors. That has several advantages.

• It gives due weight to adaptations (less weight to the Japanese anime adaptation than to the original manga and even less weight to English adaptations thereof).
• It reduces redundancy: 4Kids/Funimation need to be mentioned only once per section, at the end and not at the beginning and at the end.
• It makes the text easier to read by reducing the amount of information provided inside parentheses.

Therefore, I think we should imitate that list's wording in regard to voice actor information and use it wherever possible. Specifically, I think we should use the following variations (and only those wherever circumstances don't make it impossible).

For Japanese voice actors

• In the anime adaptation, her/his/its voice actress/actor is ____.
• In the anime series, her/his/its voice actress/actor is ____.
• She/He/It is voiced by ____.
• ____ provides her/his/its voice in the anime.
• His/Her/Its voice actor/actress is ____.
• In the original Japanese series, he/she/it is voiced by ____.

For English voice actors

• In the ____ English adaptation, her/his/its name is changed to ____ and she/he/it is voiced by ____.
• In the ____ English adaptation, her/his/its name is changed to ____ and her/his/its voice is supplied by ____.

Goodraise 19:47, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That'll work. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Differentiate between outright name changes and spelling differences

Recommend for English voice actors whose names are a spelling difference and not something major like Captain Smoker to Captain Chaser.

• In the ____ English adaptation, her/his/its name is spelled ____ and she/he/it is voiced by ____.
• In the ____ English adaptation, her/his/its name is spelled ____ and her/his/its voice is supplied by ____.

Also might mention the manga where appropriate as they still use Zolo and some of the 4Kids spellings on their volumes. I haven't gotten to the part where they might have switched over. AngusWOOF (talk) 17:26, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say if the difference is just a matter of spelling, we don't need to mention it at all. Changes like Nefeltari Vivi to Vivi Nefertari should be noted, but Marshall D. Teech to Marshall D. Teach should not. Goodraise 01:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's still useful when the character name is the category (Blackbeard would qualify but Marshall D. Teech nobody cares) So Vivi, Gold Roger, and of course, Zoro, if only to not have it debated endlessly in comments. AngusWOOF (talk) 02:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Labeling characters as antagonists

Should some of the characters be labeled as antagonists, as can be seen here? What speaks for it, what against it? Goodraise 06:47, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Various of these characters are antagonists for a story arc and then become neutral or supporting like Buggy so it could be hard to mark them as antagonists.Tintor2 (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with the concerns by Tintor2. Various antagonistic characters become neutralized or reduced to supporting characters, so it is hard to make them antagonists. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Usopp article

What happened to the Usopp article why was it taken down? The page had a quite a few sources and reception so their shouldn't have been any reason for it to be taken down. I think it should be brought back. - SuperTiencha (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Here. Laughably puny reception section. Remember, the Shōnen Jump popularity polls don't help in regard to WP:N because the source isn't independent. Goodraise 09:56, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Reevaluate some characters' importance

As the series gets longer, characters previously not prominent enough to merit a section may eventually do so. Likewise, characters who were important enough in the past, may no longer be. I think we should reevaluate the status of the following characters. Feel free to bring up other characters as well. Goodraise 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Trafalgar Law

He continues to show up. First at Sabaody, then at Marine Ford, and now again as a Warlord in the New World. I think it's time for him to get a section of his own. Goodraise 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Re-add per Goodraise's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Jango

Jango was a major character back in East Blue (when the series was still very short), during the Grand Line part he became somewhat recurring, but now his last significant appearance is a long while back. Devoting a whole section to him seems too much, especially considering that Don Krieg, Wapol, Magellan, and even Rob Lucci (all primary antagonists in their respective story lines) are discussed in less detail. Goodraise 20:00, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Merge per Goodraise's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

During the Alabasta arc, Jango gets a large number of the Chapter covers like Buggy used to. AngusWOOF (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Those chapter covers don't amount to much. Only one panel per page and little to no text. Goodraise 01:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Jango is a character that has appeared in multiple arcs and has been associated with more than one faction. Jango has been prominently featured on a chapter title page story consisting of 37 parts and was also the main focus of the Jango's Dance Carnival short film. On top of that he is the most prominent in appearances among Fullbody or Hina who he is currently working with. By getting rid of Jango you also get rid of this list acknowledging those characters as well. - SuperTiencha (talk) 05:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Arlong

• Merge - Sure he was the main antagonist of the Arlong arc but he does nothing after his arc and is only appears in flashback stories afterwards. He is no different than Kuro, Don Krieg and Wapol who are all merged to their organizations. I think Arlong should be merged into the Arlong pirates section as he is hasn't done anything major since the East Blue Saga which was in the series first year. - SuperTiencha (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
• Merge per SuperTiencha's reasoning. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Caesar Clown

Caesar Clown is a recent major antagonist of the Straw Hat Pirates when they arrive at Punk Hazard and was working for Vegapunk. I think a section devoted to him should be added. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I suppose the question is whether all major antagonists should get a section of their own. Should Wapol, Don Krieg, Magellan, Rob Lucci, Kuro, etc. all get sections of their own? I'd rather create a section discussing Doflamingo's organization, of which Ceasar appears to be a member. Goodraise 23:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I believe that he should be put into a section for all of the Punk Hazard inhabitants. Though his arc is still going right now, he is for now a single arc character and he probably will be like Wapol, Don Krieg, Magellan, Rob Lucci, Kuro, etc. - SuperTiencha (talk) 00:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Robin's Ability

In robin's summary it says she needs to be able to see what she is sprouting her limbs from, but you can see several times throughout One Piece that she has been looking away from the surface or has had her eyes closed while sprouting her limbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.86.239 (talk) 06:38, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Seems you're right. Better now? Goodraise 09:33, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The Eleven Supernovas

It should create a section of The Eleven Supernovas?--HeinzDoofenshmirtz (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

No. The fan community went wild over this group, but its impact on the story so far has been minimal. In fact, it isn't even a group in the same way as the Four Emperors or the Seven Warlords of the Sea. A supernova is merely a rookie pirate with a bounty of 100 million or more. And the "Eleven Supernovas" are just eleven supernovas who happened to arrive at the Sabaody Archipelago at the same time. Goodraise 18:06, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

What images should be used?

Should we use the depiction of the Straw Hats from the 2009 or from the 2012 calendar or both (similar to List of Naruto characters)? Both can currently be seen at File:Main characters of One Piece.png. Goodraise 22:19, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

They're both good. In the huddled circle one, you can can list the Main characters clockwise from Monkey. Also is it based on the manga or the anime drawings, or does that even matter? AngusWOOF (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

The 2009 and 2012 characters are significantly visually different - this may justify a separate file for the 2012 image. In either case, the images should be less than 160K pixels absolute maximum, and are quite visually useful at 120K pixels, per WP:NFCC. --Lexein (talk) 10:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Chuck Powers

Chuck was the voice of Luffy and Usopp in only season 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.147.56.74 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Where does your information come from? We require reliable sources. Goodraise 21:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

ToC Limit

Correct me if I am wrong, but a few weeks ago or so, the ToC Limit was removed from the article. There is some concern that the ToC is much easier to navigate with sections. But rather than getting involved in an edit war, I am taking the WP:BRD route and decided to open a discussion here. Should we include the ToC limit template in the article or not? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Recently added characters

What are other editors thoughts on the characters that were recently added by HeinzDoofenshmirtz (talk · contribs), the Bellamy Pirates, Sabo, Caesar Clown and Dressrosa? I still think Bellamy, Sabo, Caesar Clown and some the Dressrosa characters are notable enough on its own as major characters, but some of the other characters are not notable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

FLC?

I have been thinking about nominating this as an FLC for some time now. The obvious issues that need to be fixed are to find some sources for the creation and conception section. If anyone else has suggestions on this, please let me know. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you serious? If I was reviewing this article at FLC, I'd tear it to shreds. It's not ready, not by a long shot. Goodraise 06:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm dead serious about taking this list to FLC. List of Naruto characters, a FL, is a good example to use. Since that list is not ready yet, is there anything that needs to be done before we take this to FLC? If there are (which I no doubt think), I think it's best if we should work on this article together. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, if you want to invest the work and time necessary... Keep in mind though that the Naruto list was promoted in 2008, at a time when getting the FL-star was about as easy as taking candy from a baby. Anyway, first order or business, as you have already pointed out, is beefing up the creation and conception section, which won't be easy because the place where that kind of information is typically found—between chapters in the manga volumes—is filled by Oda mostly with silliness. Next on my personal list is getting rid of those stupid merchandise sections. The main problem, of course, is giving due weight to each of the hundreds of members the series' ever-expanding cast with their constantly changing levels of prominence. It would be great if we could draw a straight line between secondary and tertiary characters, and simply ignore the latter, but it just isn't that easy with One Piece. Goodraise 19:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend it anytime soon; there are lots of maintenance tags around. Tezero (talk) 14:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Creating the page for the other six main characters

I think we should create a page for Usopp, Sanji, Tony Tony Chopper, Nico Robin, Franky, and Brook since I did see the rest of the Main Characters from Shōnen Jump's Dragon Ball series, Naruto series, and Bleach have theirs pages in Wikipedia, but, I think they should deserves to have their own page in Wikipedia and plus, that they also appeared in alot of large role in One Piece series.DigiPen92 (talk) 05:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

A few years back, we had a consensus to merge in the other articles a while back. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have reliable, third-party sources that demonstrates significant coverage that is independent of the series to establish notability? Just because there are articles on one set of characters doesn't mean that there should be articles for these characters. —Farix (t | c) 20:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Like Farix says, the articles need to pass wp:notability. In short, they need reception sections such as Monkey D. Luffy#Reception where critics praise and/or criticize the characters.Tintor2 (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Ace's name.

I take it that Viz's names have been used for romanization when in doubt, but Oda actually wrote Ace's name, not in katakana but the Latin script in chapter 590 and it was "Portgas D. Ace", surely how the author spells it trumps how a company trying to localize it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FamAD123 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Uhhh, no. See Talk:List_of_One_Piece_characters/Archive_3#Names_in_the_various_versions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

That didn't really answer my question, if the author himself wrote it one way, why is the website using another?FamAD123 (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Consistency. If we use the English manga's spellings of the names in one area, then we need to use the English manga's spellings for all names. Mix and matching spellings form different sources will confuse the reader. There is also the issue of which spellings are likely to be more likely to be recognized by English language readers. —Farix (t | c) 17:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

This may also be a case where in the Japanese volume, someone drew a Romanized spelling of the name (Example: In Tenchi Muyo, Ayeka on a computer screen is shown as Aeka). You would have to check how Viz treats this chapter in Volume 60 and whether they changed their minds on the overall spelling of the character in the profiles before considering it as an alternate spelling. -AngusWOOF (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's the spelling from the free preview on Viz: [5] At least by the character profiles it's still with the z. I'd have to look at the volume 60 itself to confirm further whether they left the s or tweaked it. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the English spellings of names even if they are wrong. Though the argument that more people would recognize a Viz spelling is stupid due to the amount of people reading illegally online. Gune (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with it, complain to Viz and see if they'll retroactively change the spelling. -AngusWOOF (talk) 20:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Viz wouldn't listen. It isn't just Viz anyway. Funimation does it too. Besides, it still doesn't solve the which version they would know more issue. Gune (talk) 18:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I just checked Viz Volume 60 where they show "PORTGAZ-D-ACE" and "EDWARD-NEWGATE", so yes, they tweaked the picture to be consistent with their spelling. -AngusWOOF (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Another example of why Viz isn't a good company then. Gune (talk) 00:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Protagonists vs. main characters

In the One Piece series, there are several protagonists (nine in fact), though only one (Luffy) is the primary one. Several articles that have main characters or protagonists have been debated for some time now. The main character link redirects to the protagonist link. In Super Sentai for example, there are protagonist groups and we refer to them as the protagonists of each series. Since the Straw Hats are a group which equally share the role of the protagonist as with Luffy, I think we should refer to them as the protagonists. Thoughts or objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There are subtle differences in definition where main characters include both protagonists and main antagonists. But for One Piece, the Straw Hats serve as both the protagonists and the main characters that last for the bulk of the series, either definition would be fine. Since you're grouping Antagonists separate from the Supporting/Other characters, the header works better with Protagonists, whereas if your main subsections are Secondary/Supporting characters would group with Main characters. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC), updated 15:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The definition of protagonist means a main character. Luffy is the lead character and everybody else in the Straw Hats crew are main characters as well. I said this many times. A protagonist ISN'T a group of characters. It should be reverted back to the way I wrote it. JoesphBarbaro (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

But even though the main character is the protagonist, there are groups of main characters which serve as protagonists, not just one (as is the case with the Straw Hats, which they share equally as both main characters and protagonists for most of the series, not just Luffy). Antagonists can also be main characters and that is a major difference (for example in the Dragon Ball character list) but we are grouping these seperately under other characters and organisations as such. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a work of fiction can have multiple protagonists, and the article on protagonists that you linked to does support that point. "In fiction, the story of the protagonist can be told from the perspective of a different character (who may also but not necessarily, be the narrator). An example would be a narrator who relates the fate of several protagonists - perhaps as prominent figures recalled in a biographical perspective." However, the question is, what is the best out-of-universe method of organizing the characters? You should not be mixing protagonists/antagonists with main/supporting characters. Choose one or the other and stick with it. —Farix (t | c) 19:43, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

We're all basically on the same wavelength. The terms Main characters and Protagonists should not be used interchangeably. Generally speaking, Protagonists is a subset of Main characters much like Antagonists is. I think a good example would be to take the Naruto characters for instance. Sasuke becomes a full-fledged antagonist by the time of Part II but he is still a Main character, and hence cant be called a Protagonist because by the definition of an Antagonist he "represents the opposition against which the protagonist" which in this case is Naruto.

The problem here is really how we should be dealing with groups of Main characters and the solution should be that in cases like One Piece, we should use their in-universe names—in this case it would be fitting to use "Straw Hat Pirates". The same was done for the List of Fairy Tail characters where the Protagonists - Natsu and Lucy were grouped with the other Main characters under "Fairy Tail". A similar thing was done over at the List of Log Horizon characters by grouping the main trio of Protagonists under "Log Horizon". —KirtZ^Message 21:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

this page is horrible

1. It is WATER LAW. You need to be an idiot to not realise that it is supposed to be "Water", since his name is a reference to Waterloo. Watel doesnt make any sense

2. Why delete the section for Bartolomeo? He is a notable character for multiple reasons, and he contributed to the plot. Less relevant characters have sections.--109.166.130.162 (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I've corrected the typos for Law's name. Also, Bartolomeo and Sabao were originally added without proper WP:CONSENSUS in doing so. We need a new consensus on these additions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

3. Why doesn't Koala have her own section? She is only mentioned in the section on the revolutionary army but there is more relevant information about her that isn't written there. As I don't know where in the page to post this I am writing it here. Please tell me where this should really be for any future suggestions. Ximoquim (talk) 01:26, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

There is too many characters to discuss all of them in detail on this page. We have to summarize regarding some and completely omit many. If you want to make the case that Koala doesn't get her fair share of attention (see WP:DUE), you can always start a new section on this talk page. There should be a helpful link at the top labeled "New section" to help you with that. Or you can be bold and edit the page directly. Goodraise 22:13, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC: Straw Hat Pirates as Main characters or Protagonists?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we mention the Straw Hat Pirates as main characters or protagonists? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Poll

• Protagonist - A work of fiction can have more than one protagonist, as is the case with One Piece (where not just Luffy is the protagonist, but all of the Straw Hats are as a group). Protagonists are a subset of main characters and we should not be mixing those two words interchangeably. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Straw Hat Pirates - Per my comments in the above discussion. Using a line to mention that they are the protagonists is enough. —KirtZ^Message 19:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Straw Hat Pirates - Echoing KirtZ on this. Using their in-universe name is the easiest solution to this issue, and putting them first - along with a line describing their role as protagonists - is more than enough to demonstrate their role to wiki readers. ↢ RemorA ↣ 17:20, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
• Protagonist or Main character I have no strong feeling either way. If a vote needs to be cast, protagonist then. As for Straw Hat Pirates, there was some rule against using in-universe headings, especially on such a high sublevel. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Character additions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think it's time to incude Sabo and Bartolomeo in the article but we still need a consensus to add them. It was originally added without consensus, but I am opening a discusion here to see if we can include the article. Please state whether you would support, oppose or remain neutral on these inclusions.

Sabo

• Support - Sabo was once a background character, but has since became relevant in the Dressrosa arc. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I agree. Since his return in the Dressrosa arc and that he has inherited Ace's Devil Fruit abilities he has played a major role in the plot that should be noted 73.190.124.47 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Also I should note that Sabo is representing the type of character that will play an important role in the later storyline. -73.190.124.47 (talk) 22:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Bartolomeo

• Support - Bartolomeo appears as a major character who has been influenced by Luffy in the current storyline. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Not as important to note for inclusion yet. -73.190.124.47 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose (Pending More Information) - Barty is a relatively minor supporting character even in the current arc (while influenced by Luffy, he has less relevance to the story than even King Riku and Rebecca so far), and we don't know how much relevance he will have on the overarching story yet. If he appears in another arc or his actions start rippling in later events, he should be added. In any case, we need to wait to see what Oda does with him. ↢ RemorA ↣ 17:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Pandaman

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One Piece: Yellow about Whitebeard

From the article:

Several characters have been stated to be based on actual people, such as Whitebeard being based on the owner of a bar where Oda used to go.

Looking for a source for this, I found that several websites attribute this or similar claims to One Piece: Yellow, but none ever provide a page number or ISBN, which makes me a bit suspicious. Can anyone confirm that this is actually in the source, and not a case of "all the fansites trusting each other"? Goodraise 02:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Obviously fake. It isn't even on the One Piece wiki. Gune (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it is. Goodraise 00:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)