Talk:One Piece

== He

adline text =

=

Plot

Could the One Piece fans put together a plot that summarises the anime? Would be very helpful to those who don't know anything about it! Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.149.17 (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It focuses on a ragtag crew of heroic pirates called the Straw Hats, formed and led by Monkey D. Luffy. Luffy's greatest ambition is to obtain the world's ultimate treasure, One Piece, and become Pirate King.

Pretty much sums up the storyline. If we say anymore then that we're spoliering everyone. We're here to tell you what the show is about, not retell the story. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's a real good summary. MKguy42192 (talk) 04:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. If you compare with the pages on, say, Bleach and Naruto, the One Piece summary is much shorter. It seems that a balance could be struck between spoiling the entire manga and be so general as to make the manga sound so blend; that is, between 'telling what the show is about' in sufficient details that a reader can get inspired to read and 'retelling the story' in such a way that one does not need to read it at all. In any case, Wikipedia often does not shy away from spoiling the plots, as many descriptions of TV shows, movies, etc illustrate. It seems that most people are happy with a 'Spoiler Warning' sign. Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.70.151.233 (talk) 8:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, understood... But a lot of pages have been noted on their giving away of unness spoilering info... And its actaully a sign of bad input. We're here to tell you what the show is about - not give away the details. Still, some places its unavoidable, like on character pages you're bound to give away a little bit of story info. But on the main page, its a different story. Bleach and other pages, that give away too much plot, are actually overstepping a line on the guidelines for doing what they do. They're lucky they haven't been pulled up for this.

But I also agree, there is a little less detail, perhaps a paragraph rather then 2 sentances would be better. If anyone can pull it off without retelling the story, they are free to do so and dammit, I'm not going to step in the way of them doing it. Just be careful with it okay?  :-/ Angel Emfrbl (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

As a warning, I'm new here and this is my first attempt at discussion contribution, so if I do or say something wrong please feel free to notify me. I agree with a number of the comments made, both that the plot MUST be expanded upon and that spoilers must be kept to a minimum. I however place priority on an expanded plot. To my understanding, plot sections are quite varied with some being fairly short (e.g. Death Note, a "good" article) to quite a few paragraphs (e.g. Serial Experiments Lain, a "featured" article). However, they are usually longer than one or two sentences. Considering the length of the One Piece manga, this hardly seems balanced. Additionally, different manga plot sections focus on different things, some discussing themes and others just summarizing the story. I'd like to know what you all think would be most appropriate for the One Piece article. I lean toward a mixture of both: (1) Broadly summarizing the story and characters and (2) briefly identifying the major themes of One Piece (e.g. attainment of dreams, etc.). I realize these are pretty vague ideas, but I just thought I'd mention them. If I'm feeling particularly ambitious, I may add to the plot myself. Chrono.Psych (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You definitely sound like you have the right idea. We do not actually need to worry about spoilers; but we do need to worry about excessive detail. Right now the summary does not give much sense of the book's actual story. Thematic discussion is also a good thing to add, but remember that you must have sources for any statements like that; base it on interviews or reviews that meet Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines WP:RS. Doceirias (talk) 04:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. What is there, is not much, but it's quality. Also, in comparasion to other mangas, like previously mentioned Death Note, One Piece is far less focused on it's meta plot, then on it's rather independent story arcs. There could be more detail, but it's not required. I'd say there is consensus so far. So I'll remove the tag. --Goodraise (talk) 00:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Remove what tag? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead section tag, as we've been talking about that. (Though the topic falsely says "== Plot ==") --Goodraise (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The lead tag will remain until the article has an adequate lead. Its lead is ridiculously short. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Are so many infoboxes really necessary? Can't we just keep the anime/manga infoboxes and keep the others to their respective articles? -- Tenks (talk) 01:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This article is supposed to be about the One Piece manga and Anime series. I say we put links to the seperate articles for the movies, artbooks, ect., ect. into the article, but not have infoboxes or sections specificly about those topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.147.37 (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

No. That would not be appropriate. The infoboxes provide an over view of the series, including its movies etc. The article only has three now, one for the manga, one for the anime, and one for all the movies. That is quite appropriate and just fine length wise. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Books and TV

I believe that one piece the television show and books should be separate articles. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why? I see no reason at all to split the manga from the anime, and doing so would violate the MoS unless they are significantly different (i.e. different characters, totally different story, etc). This article needs cleaning, not splitting. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree there's no reason to split, and articles like this never are. The split proposal wasn't old though - probably shouldn't have taken it off until there was at least a nominal discussion. On the other hand, Dwanyewest shouldn't have split the page without any discussion taking place, so we're pretty much even here. Collectonian's right, Dwanye - WP:MOS-AM states that there is no need for separate pages without significant differences. Doceirias (talk) 04:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I figured it was old that someone went ahead and made the attempt at it. The split off page is being deleted, while I've done some very rough and quick clean up of the article to remove a TON of unsourced OR, get stuff in order and sectioned per the MoS, and tagged or issues. Much of the anime section needs rewritten for neutrality and brevity. Lots more clean up needed, but hopefully this gets it to a better start, unless someone hates all the edits and reverts them. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...why is the production there? Makes the article feel anime focused - isn't that section usually under the media? Doceirias (talk) 04:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, its usually plot, characters, production. Production should include production of the original work, as well as its adaption, per the MoS. The article had no sourced/factual production on the manga to include in the section, though there were hints that some exists in the volumes. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the article? So much has been altered without discussion. I'm not cribbing, my duty here is just to keep vandalism/stupid edits off the page and not to make huge changes myself, but can we have a explaination writtn for changes that occured and why. This was so big that when I came on today (I'm the reglaur editior here) I was like a deer in the head light. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Glance back through the history - basically, just some rather rough reworking to fit the guidelines and polices of Wikipedia and the anime and manga project. This kind of clean up work is happening on a lot of the anime pages, which have a tendency to get edited by enthusiastic fans who mean well, but aren't well versed in what the article should look like. Sometimes the best way to start getting an article back on track is to tear a lot of it down. Check the WP:MOS-AM page for some suggestions. Doceirias (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I just wanted to know what happen. ;-) Angel Emfrbl (talk) 13:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What Happened?

I can't find the list of cursed/devil's fruit anymore whered it go, and why did the person take it off.--Amp99 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It was excessive plot detail that didn't belong and it was deleted. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

They weren't that excessive and besides people come to this page for information right?--Amp99 (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they were. It was the consensus of the project that it did not meet Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a series guide, but a summation of relevant information. Those seeking such minute fictional details are best served looking for fansites. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Production

The development of the anime has also influenced the progression of the manga in a number of ways. Manga artist Eiichiro Oda did not initially intend to make Tony Tony Chopper the kind of "cute mascot" he became for the series, but the anime's use of voice actress Ikue Ohtani for the role influenced the character's design substantially.

"Meet the REAL Pirate King!". US Shonen Jump, August 2007 seems to contradict this.

In the opposite vein, the author wrote the character of Franky with the voice of Kazuki Yao (who had previously voiced Jango and Mr. 2 Bon Clay) in mind.

Eiichiro Oda, December 22nd 2007 at the annual JUMP Festa One Piece Stage Event, also used in the article on Franky, is likely to be the only source and it's hardly verifiable, therefore I suggest removing the whole paragraph.

--Goodraise (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This one has been removed. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

One Piece: Defeat The Pirate Ganzak! featured original character designs by Eiichiro Oda himself, a collaboration that has defined the television show in many ways as well. In contrast with many serialized manga-to-anime adaptations, author Eiichiro Oda works closely with the producers of the anime, providing ideas and feedback for original characters and scenarios added to the TV show, as well as keeping the producers abreast of future plot developments, to cut down on internal contradictions, such as the use of a non-existent naval rank and Zoro's cutting of steel during the Warship Island arc, in filler material.

I couldn't find anything to support this on the web as well, so I'll remove it from the article.

--Goodraise (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of this has been covered in the letters columns in the manga volumes, particularly the bits about him doing designs for anime original characters. Doceirias (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Will of D article was removed!Why was it removed,and can someone put it back?