Talk:List of One Piece episodes (seasons 1–8)

List organization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Consensus was to reorganize the list by the season divisions of the Japanese release.

The "arcs" and "Saga" names here appear to be fan-created splits, and not actual official titles. This is not a valid way to split the list at all. The think the episodes need to be reorganized and resplit, preferably along simpler lines. Funimation is releasing the series in season sets, suggesting it does have official seasons. As such, I propose the list here be split like such:

• Season 1 (episodes 1-26)
• Season 2 (episodes 27-52)
• Season 3 (episodes 53-78)
• Season 4 (episodes 79-104)
• Season 5 (episodes 105-130)
• Season 6 (episodes 131-156)
• Season 7 (episodes 157-182)
• Season 8 (episodes 183-208)
• Season 9 (episodes 209-234)
• Season 10 (episodes 235-260)
• Season 11 (episodes 261-286)
• Season 12 (episodes 287-312)
• Season 13 (episodes 313-338)

And then two seasons can be combined into a single subpage, mimicking List of Naruto episodes.

Alternatively, we can split along the changing in opening themes:

• Episodes 1-47
• Episodes 48-116
• Episodes 117-168
• Episodes 169-206
• Episodes 207-263
• Episodes 264-279
• Episodes 279-283
• Episodes 284-325
• Episodes 326-

I believe organizing it around either of these methods will produce a cleaner, easier to navigate list and remove some of the most visible WP:OR on the page. Thoughts? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We could also follow the Japanese releases, which did start breaking it down into chunks after a while - that does leave a very long first season, and might be a bit harder to verify, but it is closer to the story based arcs currently being used. Doceirias (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Collectonian, List of Naruto episodes seems like a fine precedent. Copy-paste the layout, then write over it. I'll help fill in any details if needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been conflicted for a long time on what the proper organizational tool is for separating into "seasons." List of Naruto episodes goes every 26 episodes, but I don't know whether that arbitrary number is a season, or the opening themes designate a season (which seems more logical, given that opening themes tend to characterize the content they're covering). However, if we went by opening seasons for the Naruto episodes, then we would be doing every 25 episodes per season, not every 26 episodes. The Bleach episodes at List of Bleach episodes go by this route, although they have the benefit of named and defined story arcs that double as seasons, similar to List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. That said, IGN defines one Naruto season as 26 episodes (see here for an example), so I guess that's official. And the DVD set boxes each house 13 episodes, so two boxes cover a season, so I guess it makes sense that way too. What makes this odd is that the Bleach episodes go by opening themes that clearly define story arcs (that are officially named), so I guess it's just a difference between series.

And to stop a similar thing from occurring here, I've also been irked for a while how the Naruto episodes were arbitrarily put into double season lists (List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2), List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3-4), etc.), and I have really big misgivings about fixing up and bringing List of Naruto episodes (seasons 5-6) to WP:FLC for a tougher crowd than the first two went through when it's subject to such an arbitrary split. I suggested a couple months ago that they could be split, but that discussion never really got off the ground. As such, I think we should consider splitting the respective episode lists into individual season pages (List of Naruto episodes (season 1), List of Naruto episodes (season 2), etc.). We'll lose two FLs, but they can be brought back to WP:FLC and passed with a small bit of cleanup and little fuss (and we'll end up with 4 FLs over two anyway :p). My main point in this rant is to avoid something similar happening here, and to make sure that individual season articles get created. I might start a discussion at Talk:List of Naruto episodes over this in a bit. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at the discussion at Talk:List of Naruto episodes#Breaking the season lists, round two. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with individual season lists as well. I only suggested doubles because of Naruto :P (though sometimes I wish I'd done doubles with the Lassie episode list, and its 19 seasons LOL -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in just like this, but I really disagree with this part. It is okay in the sense that arcs or sagas are not the official lists in the sense that they have not been presented officially, but in this way we should deny the idea of listing by opening-theme changes. Listing by arcs or themes is the same case, because the arcs are clearly set, their starting episodes brings up new challenges, and their ending episodes are often catarctic, after defeating their enemy or enemies. The arcs are loosely or not even connected to each other, in most of the cases, the starting episode of a new arc just suggests that some time passed. If we think about the usability of the list, now it is not very useful. I would choose the scheme like the Bleach's listings in this case. It is much more easy to use and it is logically edited... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.122.70 (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 05:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It has already been denied. It is listed by actual official season. The arcs are not official and can not be used. Bleach's episode list isn't really a good model to use, as they need clean up as well. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So, any final thoughts here? If we go by season, should we go with Funimation's season divisions, or the theme change divisions? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Theme change divisions were every bit as random as anything; I'd go with Funimation's. Doceirias (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, lets start redoing the list into the seasons noted, so we can then get the US list merged in. Anyone want to join in the fun? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Toei has an Official "Season" List. It's on the Official Japanese R2 DVDs. It's also Collected in the "One Piece: Rainbow" Animation Guide. According to Rainbow and the DVD Releases, these are the Seasons, and the Titles Given to them:

• 1st Season: [Untitled] - 1 ~ 62
• 2nd Season: Entering The Grand Line Chapter - 63 ~ 77
• 3rd Season: Enter Chopper at the Winter Island Chapter - 78 ~ 92
• 4th Season: Arrival At Alabasta Chapter - 93 ~ 110
• 4th Season: Alabasta Kingdom Chapter - 111 ~ 130
• 5th Season: Rainbow's Edge Chapter - 131 ~ 143
• 6th Season: Sky Island ~ Skypiea Chapter - 144 ~ 172
• 6th Season: Sky Island ~ The Golden Bell Chapter - 173 ~ 195
• 7th Season: Escape! The Naval Fortress & The Foxy Pirate Crew Chapter - 196 ~ 228
• 8th Season: Water Seven Chapter - 229 ~ 263
• 9th Season: Enies Lobby Chapter - 264 ~ 278
• 9th Season: Special Chapter – Straw-Hat Theatre and The Straw-Hat Pirate Crew - 279 ~ 283
• 9th Season: Enies Lobby Chapter - 284 ~ 325
• 10th Season: Ice Hunters & Thriller Bark Chapter 326 ~ Present

Since the seasons are designated by Toei's DVD release, and Season 9 hadn't Started yet on DVD when Rainbow came out. I got the Season 9 info from CD Japan and their Cover Scans. Also, the Japanese DVD Release doesn't include the Straw-Hat Flashback eps with the Straw-Hat Theater shorts at the end with the 9th Season. While it says their 9th Season, the volume they come in is specially named, and doesn't count towards the numbering with the rest of the 9th Season DVDs. So S9 Volume 5 ends with Episode 278, and Volume 6 Picks up with 284. And since the DVDs aren't out of Enies Lobby yet, we don't know Exactly where the 10th season begins. however, the rest of the seasons seem to follow the Major story arcs, so it's a safe bet that Ice Hunters and Thriller Bark are Season 10. If anyone needs links, or References, CD Japan has all these DVDs, just look up "One Piece" in the DVD Category there. I can also Scan Rainbow if anyone needs that. I also think it's worthy to Note that FUNimation has yet to say how long they're going to run their "Seasons" for. So "Season 1" could have 2 "Voyages", or it could have 6. So until we know more in that area, we should Stick with Toei's Numbering. User:DemonRin 03:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll check the CD Japan page, however we usually do go with the English seasonal divisions where there are some. It seems Funimation already plans to redo the seasons, since Season 1 has 26 episodes from the first two box sets. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before though. We don't know Where FUNimation's DVD Sets will designate the Seasons. Like, when/where did they say the First season would only have 2 "Voyages" (Parts)? Until we know that, we should go with Toei's Numbering. it's the only confirmed Numbering system we have!! It's like, this "26-Episodes Per season" Idea was just someone Assuming things rather than fact.

Plus, Toei's "Season" listings Follow the Major Story arcs. Who's To say FUNimation won't do that too? That's what they're doing with Dragon Ball Z! User:DemonRin 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming they will do the same with One Piece that they did with Dragon Ball Z is not any better than saying its an assumption that Funimation will do 26 episodes per season. I think its an acceptable compromise, as the only source for the claimed seasonal divisions by Toei is the listings at CD Japan. The One Piece site itself does not mention series, while Funimation hasn't finished the site to note such divisions. Do you have a more official source, or some other confirmable sources for the Toei divisions? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming that's what they'd do. I just said that's what they could do, so we don't know yet. Taking that into account, The Toei list is the only official one we have. And yes, I do have a more verifiable source. I have the One Piece: Rainbow Databook. I can scan it Scratch that, I can't scan it well without tearing out the Pages. I can find scans online though. Give me a moment, and I'll post just the few relevant pages here. (Or I can scan mine if you don't mind Gutter Shadow) And here are the Relevant Pages: Page 01 Page 02 Page 03 Page 04 Page 05 Page 06 Page 07 Page 08 and All of the Season "Titles" I listed above are here too, my List above was translated by me. User:DemonRin 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Leave me alone sinbot, I DID Sign...

Alrighty. In the absence of an official season list from Funimation, I have regrouped the list around the Toei seasonal numbers (names were left out, as they aren't particularly necessary and would make the headers extremely long). Can you give me the ISBN of the databook so I can put it in as the source on the number of seasons?-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/c|contribs]]) 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to Find it on the book itself, but the book's listing at Sasuga has it. Here User:DemonRin 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The author of this section says that the arcs are "fan-created splits". I find this entirely false. The One Piece official website makes no mention of seasons and the only mention of official splits os from the publisher or tv companies. Therefore the splits these companies made must be completely arbitrary. Can you tell me why this page is based around these arbitrary splits and not the naturally occurring ones within the series, as the makers intended. Not meaning to be rude, but collectionan, i don't think you really understand what this page is for, its for providing information in the most relevant and accessible way, not as an simply an archive of officially verified information. In this case I think common sense should be used, since by watching the series you would understand that these "fan-created splits" are actually intended by the creators, even though the publishers don't recognize them. But i do understand where you are coming from, i think we need to find a way to include both somehow?82.69.83.28 (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't false. You admitted it yourself that you have to just "see it" and sory, but you are the one who doesn't understand what this page is for. Fan-created splits that the publishers don't recognized are, in fact, not intended by the creators, but are what you just said "fan-created" and they have no place here. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. They do not belong here, period. The season splits here are what Toei lists as the individual seasons. Whether the company split them arbitrarily or not is irrelevant, it is how they chose to split it and that is what we will use. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point entirely. I was saying that the splits are NOT "fan-created" they are in fact put there by the makers intentionally, and just because the publisher doesn't recognize them, because they have to fit in with dvd sizes and tv schedules, doesn't mean that this information should be censored. And when i said you just have to "see it", thats the point, because the splits are so obvious in the series it makes sense to organize this page in a way that makes individual episodes easy to find, not in a way that ensures you need to either know the number of the episode or check every single episode description to find the one you want. This page is for the easy access of information, not for obsessive people to organize it in a way that means that no-one can find the information they want making the whole page redundant. I do see the need for seasons to be included, but can't you find a way to have both? Im sorry for being a bit rude there, but really, you took everything i said and turned it around.Richard Eales (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss your point at all. Being obvious is irrelevant. You're already said it yourself, the arcs are NOT recognized by the creators so irregardless of what fans think, they are not official and not verifiable or sourcable. Its fancruft and O that has absolutely no place here. The only people who would search for arcs are fans who are so well versed in the series to have visited fansites and know about them. The majority of readers don't know anything about those arcs and they are not anymore helpful in finding a specific episode. Your argument that the arcs are somehow more helpful does not hold any water at all. People still need to know the episode number or name to find a specific one, irregardless of how this page is organized. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"The only people who would search for arcs are fans who are so well versed in the series to have visited fansites and know about them" what basis to you have to say this? "People still need to know the episode number or name to find a specific one, irregardless of how this page is organized", "The majority of readers don't know anything about those arcs and they are not anymore helpful in finding a specific episode" - absolute rubbish, now it takes about 30 seconds to find an episode, whereas before it would take closer to 5. Who do you consider the majority of readers? People who have never watched one piece before? I doubt a single person who has never watched the series has visited this page. This page's 'majority of readers' are in fact people just starting to watch the series and want more information. it is far easier for these people to navigate using arcs rather than series, for long term fans the series listings are fine because they are so well versed in the episodes they can quickly find the one they want. What you are doing is making this into a page only fans of the anime can access, leaving it virtually unreadable to beginners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Eales (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: no, the page is not somehow unreadable now, it is perfectly accessable, follows Wikipedia's guidelines, and is well conformed to our MoS. No, it is not more easy for new viewers to navigate using arcs. They haven't seen the series, how the hell would they know what the arcs? Again, your argument is only for hardcore fans, not new viewers. The list is properly organized and will remain that way. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. How are the seasons any more relevant to all audiences that the story arcs. if anything the arcs are MORE useful to all audiences than the season listings, which are irrelevant to all apart from the TV executives. It is verifiable and encyclopedic and one of the joys of wikipedia is that there is information that no other encyclopedia has, and whether this information should be included should be decided by consensus, not by one or two ultra experienced editors, who do do a great job and I'm glad you're trying to clear this page up, but i think in this case you are approaching it the wrong way. can we please have a vote or something?Richard Eales (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not work by voting. Consensus already agreed that the list would be organized by seasons, an organization method based on verifiable, reliably sourceable divisions. The arcs are not verifiable by any RELIABLE source and, as such, are not a valid option at all. Those wanting to use fan-based methods of organization should go to the One Piece wikia, as we don't use that here. It isn't going to happen, no matter how many IPs and new users complain, because it isn't valid.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (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.

Anime Only ("Filler")

When an anime is made from a manga, the anime is produced faster and therefore the plot of the anime quickly catches up to the manga. It is therefore neccassary to pad the anime with extra plot so that the manga can catch up. This is called "filler". Its not that hard to read a manga and then watch an anime and realize that some of the stuff that's in the anime is not in the manga.

This is useful information. For example, me and my friends are currently watching the entire One Piece Series and we've agreed to skip over the filler. We use the valuable information on Wikipedia to help us decide which episodes are worth watching. Since this information has been repeatedly deleted from Wikipedia we are forced to use http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Episodes .

If you insist that filler is a subjective term, then let us use the term "Anime Only" or "Not in the Manga" or "Original for the Anime". But this is verifiable information, its not something that fans just made up.

32.97.110.142 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No. This is a list of the ANIME episodes. They are all "anime only." I'm glad you've turned to the wikia. A fansite like that is an appropriate location for such labeling, not here. Now please stop trying to add the labels back, as they are subjective and do not belong here at all, nor do any other substitute labels. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Even on the wikia we'd only allow them in the form of "category". I'll admit foremost that they are indeed not appropreate here and not worth mentioning. If you really want a list of fillers, any forum will happily supply you with it if you just ask the members nicely. ¬_¬' Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain exactly why this label is not allowed? As I've explained, some episodes are based on content from the manga and some aren't. If you actually watched these animes you might realize that. You haven't demostrated to me that this is in any way subjective. If you can point me to a wikipedia style guide that specifically says that this is inappropriate, fine. But otherwise, stop being obsesive. Its not like it costs wikipedia money to have this useful information availible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.32.149 (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Its trivia and fancruft and it does not belong per project consensus and the episode list guidelines. Its not anything that belongs here, period. Check any of our featured anime lists. At best, we may mention that a season is a filler season when it can be properly sourced to a reliable source (which does not include you saying so, any fansites, nor a wikia). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For those willingly to bother looking it up... Supply the Jump Magazine issue refs (for those who actually know what these things are -_-' ) and they can go. Now I know the Ice hunter arc WAS mentioned in J.Mag but I'm not going to hunt this crazy thing down because I haven't the time to do this sort of thing anymore. Also I don't have a clue when the issue was out, but it was around about mid-Thriller Bark arc (manga wise).

If anyone knows which issue it is, but needs a quick lesson in how to write refs because I'm a gullible fool who has nothing better to do with the time I do have spare because it benefits wikipedia overall. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, having a source does NOT mean a label can be added to every last episode as "filler" or "anime only" or any other such label. A source can be used to note in the lead that this season of episodes are filler episodes. That's the limit of filler labelling. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah if anyone really needs to be spoon fed on where to put it... That note usually goes somewhere at the top or the bottom of the page (but not in a trivia section, heaven forbid don't add a trivia section to a page after our crusade a few months back to get rid of them). Or just under the contents it involves if there is room for it there, its preferred. I shouldn't have to write this down though. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I meant as part of the lead prose, same as with the Naruto episode lists. A single sentence. Nothing more, worked into the lead. Nothing in the table, or beyond. :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I don't go to the Naruto pages, but I do visit other pages. Most of the ones I visited have it in other places, so I presumed this is alright. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Collectonian, but the original poster of this "Discussion" is right on. There is absolutely no need to discard the 'filler' or 'anime only' tags. Many people view these lists EXPLICITLY for that reason. Calling it 'subjective' and claiming it needs a 'source' is completely unnecessary, and quite frankly, redundant. Please stop removing the filler tags. -- [[::User:Devin3m|Devin3m]] ([[::User talk:Devin3m|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Devin3m|contribs]]) 01:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devin3m (talk • contribs)

No reason except the clear consensus established by the majority of editors on Wikipedia. If you want that info, go to the Wikia. It does not belong here. Doceirias (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the tags do not belong. As Doceirias already noted, consensus by the whole of Wikipedia is that it does not. Its trivial fancruft that is better suited for the One Piece Wikia. Go there to find the filler/non-filler. We do not use such tags here. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Strickly speaking, that information is illrelevent sinc emost OP fans these days know whats filler and whats not. You really don't have to mention it at all. When I first came to wikipedia that wasn't the case and a lot still didn't. To mention it now days, its like dumbing it down. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely! Once you become a fan, you automatically memorize all the information about the series. I applaud you on you insight. Why would a fan need Wikipedia to provide useful information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is suppose to be an quick read on any one subject, its not asking to be a expert on the subject at hand. Anyone should be able to log onto ANY page and get a quick answer on things like "What is a Tiger". If your intereasted, your suppose to take wikipedia as a starting point - there are things elsewhere that can tell you more in-depth on the subject. In our case I can tell you that the main OP site Arlong Park, the OP Wikia and "Save One Piece" pretty much cover all the details on the show between them that a fan would really want to know with "Save One Piece" just catching all the loose bits on the 4Kids show that Arlong PArk and the OP Wikia doesn't have. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to give a line here. The term filler episode has certain negative connotations to it, so including that term is a NPOV violation, rather than something less important as fancruft.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative to way to say which episode is filler

There's a debate here on whether a "filler" tag be added to episodes which are not based in the manga. Personally, I believe that including such a tag does not violate any "rules" wikipedia have. Yes, filler might be a term that is not official (not intended by producers to be called that way), but it is descriptive. And descriptive aspects are what Wikipedia is looking for. The real thing that should be debated is whether the "filler" term is known to most readers of this article or not. If it is not, then why not wiki-link the first "filler" tag to filler (media)? And as a final note to all who argue against the inclusion of filler tags: filler may be a fan term but our language is so dynamic that it can generate new words out of different sources. Who knows, the "filler" tag might have a Webster entry in the future.

Well, too much for my own arguments. Here is my alternative: Why not create a new column in the table which tells which manga chapters a certain episode is covering? If an episode is a filler, then we can just leave some note for that episode in that column. eStaRapapax ^{xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!} 06:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, no, we do not mark any episodes as fillers, nor do we tie the manga chapters to episode lists. It violates the anime and manga MoS and the project's established consensus for the formatting and content of episode lists. Filler is a subjective term and a fan term that has no relevance here. It is not a notable aspect of the episodes. Again, that sort of information belongs in the Wikias, not Wikipedia. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One thing you can do is to say in the lead "episodes ?-? are not based in any manga chapter and were made by the anime staff".--Tintor2 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Even that can only be said if it is actually sourcable to a reliable source(s). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur: This information is best said in the lead, if and only if it is attributable to a reliable source. G.A.S 05:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any source more reliable than the manga itself? Surely episodes marked as original anime stories or whatever could just be referenced to the volume of the manga in which the events depicted do not happen.

As an aside, the 'original' Bond films (by which I mean the story was written especially for the film, as opposed to an adaption) do not apparently need a reference to state that they are not adaptions - see octopussy - and I am not clear on why noting this quite important fact for episodes of an animated series is any more 'fancruft' than it is in the case of a blockbuster film. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

That is incorrect. The statement is sourced in Octopussy in the production section, and in that case, its to note that while the film is technically based on a single book, it uses little in from the book. It is not a serial work, and thus a poor comparison. The One Piece anime series, as a whole, is based on the One Piece manga series. Minute details about changes, including adding new stories, is unnecessary and excessive detail, and unsourced. Note the film article you pointed to does NOT give a scene by scene breakdown of changes, it only gives a general overview. That's all that belongs here, and then only if its sourceable. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. I take back my aside then, with no regrets. Nevertheless, my actual statement regarding the fact that original anime material can be cross referenced with the volumes in which it would take place if, of course, it did take place still stands. It is not subjective nor original research to state that, say, the events of episode 57 did not take place in the work being adapted, as it is verifiable. In volume 12 of the One Piece manga, directly after leaving Logue Town the main characters move to the Reverse Mountain. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

Maybe not, but it's also not notable, and unlikely to be sourceable (how many reliable sources actually take the time to document every little filler episode in a given series?). Even if it can be sourced, individual filler episodes don't merit mention as such. It's only when an entire arc spanning several episodes (or a whole season) is original to the anime that it might merit mention - once again, only if it can be sourced. —Dinoguy1000 20:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As stated, it is in fact sourceable to the volumes of the manga itself. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

No, it isn't. See below. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit cnflict) It would still be inappropriate and excessive. It also isn't being neutral. Some people feel that episodes that are not directly based on something in the manga is "filler" and such a label implies it is also inferior. However, ALL of the One Piece anime episodes are, in fact, based on the manga. They use the characters, storylines, etc from the manga. Even those that are not directly based on a manga chapter, are in fact based on the manga base material irregardless of whether a specific story is. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that the word 'filler' should be used because it is not neutral language (as you say it implies inferiority) and a fan-term so therefore inappropriate language for wikipedia, but a (unbolded) note that the episode is 'original anime material' or similar would much more tastefully express that information. You said that other works that have been adapted from source materials do not note specific changes but there are many in fact that do: The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Fellowship_of_the_Ring (and the rest of the lord of the rings film trilogy), Harry_Potter_and_the_Goblet_of_Fire_(film) (and the other Harry Potters), Hannibal_Rising_(film) etc. These can perhaps be taken as precedents. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

You making bad attempts at comparison by pointing to film articles based on a single book, which is not a valid comparison. This is an episode list, not a single article. Films have a different MoS and different content guidelines. As an aside, however, note that all three of those articles comparison sections are NOT sourced to the film nor the book, but on reliable third party sources and documentaries about the film. The only one that doesn't is the last, and it doesn't meet the Film MoS and is a low end Start class article.

Let's actually look at real comparables. List of Trinity Blood episodes - featured list based on novels; does not note rearranging of chapters nor changes. List of Bleach episodes (season 1), another featured list, no "filler" tags, just notes briefly in the lead that the set of episodes covers the first eight episodes. Ditto List of Bleach episodes (season 2). List of Gunslinger Girl episodes, again a featured list, no noting of filler/changes, only based on. And the ones most comparable to One Piece, List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2) and List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3-4). Note only the later notes anything about filler at all, and it does so very briefly with no tags on individual episodes. Differences between adaptations are covered solely in the primary article, not in this episode list. "original anime material" does not more tastefully express the information, it has the same negative connotations and is an obvious reword of "filler." Every last episode is "original anime material" regardless of specific scenes being from the anime. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened with this? It used to be organized according to arc, which was much easier to navigate. It would be extremely helpful to tell us which ones are filler episodes. Also, all the bigwig 'editors' here need to think about the information that users want, and whether an arc/episode is filler or not is definitely one of them. Don't continue in this bad direction. Charlespeirce11 (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The arc organization was not reliable, nor do we mark filler episodes. Read above. We don't organized information by the desires of a handful of fans, but following Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and only using verifiable methods. It is not a bad direction, it is the proper formatting and organization of an anime episode list. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just want to mention towards the people that are saying that a label of "filler" has non-neutral and negative connotations. I noticed that the page also lists that 4kids released the original English dub of the episodes. Anyone that knows the quality of 4kids' work will agree that this statement also has negative connotations, because such a label implies that the dub is inferior to the work of other companies. It may be a fact, but it too has negative connotations like the word "filler". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.43 (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How so? It is factual and sourcable that 4Kids released a dubbed version of the series in English, and it was the first North America release of the series. That isn't non-neutral to mention it. Non-neutral would be to add the implications and commentary saying that 4Kids work was inferior, rather than simply stating "the first English version was the 4Kids dub." It is also necessary to indicate which English titles are being given in the headers, as there are now two dubbed versions of the series, the original 4Kids one and the later Funimation. The language has been made extremely neutral, with no complaints about the 4Kids version allowed, except where neutrally expressed and very well sourced. Noting who released the series in English is not a negative connotation, is it a necessary and relevant part of any anime/manga article. Noting something is "filler" when the term is extremely subjective, non-neutral, and primarily used only by fans is not even close to be comparable to providing verifiable, fact based notes on who released the series. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As has been said before, and why I didn't bother to mention it in my response, filler is not subjective. If the plot and story is in the manga, it is not filler. If the plot is not in the manga, it is filler. The source? The manga. You can cite everything in the manga as being in the manga; what's left is filler. It may be non-neutral, but it's still a fact. Call it anime only if you want - that's the exact same definition without these negative connotations of facts you seem to dislike. My point was that in the same way that if you tell a person "this episode is filler" they'll be more likely to dislike it, if you tell someone "4kids was the company in charge of the English dub of One Piece" they'll be more likely to dislike it. Both statements are probably true: they aren't "neutral" in the sense that they do inspire certain feelings. But both statements are also indisputable facts and in the same way that you tell people that 4kids did the dub, you should tell people what is from the manga and what is not. The article on filler on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filler_(media)#Anime_series) [EDIT: never mind. I see you "fixed" that too. I tried to find another site that defines it, but the only one I could is blacklisted and I can't post it. You're on your own for sources, I guess.] explains why it's not a subjective definition, despite the negative connotations. Filler is story that does not come out of the manga; it's that simple. Just because the word also implies other things doesn't change the factual nature of it. As an analogy, if I'm writing a story about a convict, and I say "He was in prison", I've stated a fact. Describing someone as "being in prison" has negative connotations, but it is nevertheless a fact about that person. If I were to say "He is a bad person", *then* I've made a subjective comment and not a factual one, but the prison statement is still just a fact despite what it may or may not imply. Long post, sorry, but I want to be clear and detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.43 (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely and totally subjective. The manga is not a valid source for declaring something is "anime only" or "filler" as it is a subjective decision that applies a false term. There is no verifiable nor reliable source defining filler, nor declaring any episodes filler. Again, these labels do NOT belong in episode lists and will not be added back. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you even read what you write? "The manga is not a valid source for declaring something that is "anime only"". Do we need to look at that again, a bit more closely? How is the manga not a source for this? You LOOK at the manga, and if the story is IN THE MANGA, then it is NOT anime only. The manga is a primary source here - there's nothing any MORE valid or accuarate. You can correlate each episode with the equivalent chapter(s) in the manga, UNLESS it is filler/anime only, because then it has NO chapter equivalent. How is the existence of something subjective? This is not a radical concept, nor is it confusing or subjective to anyone. However, as you're far more dedicated to being the minion of Wikipedia rather than aware of reality than I am or ever will be, you're right. They won't be added back. At least you stopped calling them non-neutral facts, at last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.43 (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ye, I do, and watch the tone. They are non-neutral labels, and no, you can't fully look at the manga and say "well this story is an anime only story" because you don't know the source of the story. It could have been a discard chapter from the writer, or a new concept based on the same chapter. To just declare something "anime only" implies that it has nothing to do with the manga, which is a false comment. To look at another series, lets look at the first two episodes of Chrono Crusade versus the manga. Now, only the second episode was really in the manga, however the first episode uses some elements from the first manga chapter, then basically adds in a new first case instead of starting with the one from the manga. Some might decide the first episode is an "anime only" event, however it was clearly based on the manga and inspired by a few scenes from the first chapter. So where are the verifiable sources to show that every episode people wish to call "filler" was not inspired by a single panel, remark, etc in the manga? At what point does it have no tie to th emanga? It is completely, and wholly subjective. Heck, ask on any well populated anime forum and you'll certainly see that people have varying ideas on what constitutes filler and the meaning of the term. It is a confusing, subjective, and useless label that adds little to no value or understanding of the series to the average person, which is who articles are written for, not the fans who nit pick over such minor details. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See, now that's the kind of example that makes your position make sense. I've never seen dispute over filler (always seemed pretty cut and dry to me), and you kept claiming it like it was the most obvious fact ever. I wouldn't have responded as I did if your tone was not so supercilious that you had to be right before providing this example. I still disagree with you, but now I see your reasoning at least; all you needed to do was give an example like that rather than proclaiming that it was subjective repeatedly. Thanks for doing that and I'm sorry for my tone from before. Anyway, now that you've explained stuff, I'm done - that's what I wanted knowing that you weren't going to change your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.43 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of the site a little here. Though the term "filler" may have a negative connotation, it is definitely worthwile to include information on each episode's basis in the manga. I used this list to navigate the series when I began watching. Information on the different arcs and which episodes were manga-based was very useful to me. As this list is now, it is much less so. Remember, at its core, the purpose of this site is to provide viewers with useful information. It would be a shame to ignore that just so we can make the list look more formal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk • contribs) 11:00, July 4, 2008 (UTC)

No, we aren't missing the point of the site at all, you are. This, again, is not the One Piece fansite. The purpose of the site it is to provide verifiable, encyclopedic information to all audiences, not have stuff to feed fan desires irregardless of actual encyclopedic value. We also aim to have similar pages in a consistent format as it aids readers. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's up to you to decide what has "encyclopedic value." My point here is that the information you removed does have value, and that you have lessened the value of the page by removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It only has value to a handful of fans, not the vast majority of readers. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, to the vast majority of people who visit this page, this information has value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

its so hard to use now

Why do we have to divide it into seasons? it was easier to find everything when it was divided into seperate arcs...and why did we combine the usa broadcast version with it? now its just...Really hard and weird to use.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.130.66 (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The US broadcast is being merged in due to an AfD and in keeping with the MoS guidelines which does NOT separate the various languages into single episode lists. As for seasons, because it is a more accurate division. The arc names are fan creations not supported by any verifiable source. Regular television series use season articles, so using the same here does not somehow make it more difficult to use for the vast majority of readers who may have little to no knowledge of the series. Only die hard fans would even have a clue about arc names, so the season divisions is a far more useful and intuitive division for the vast majority of English readers. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, this is an organisation thing and not a 'filler' thing and isn't really in the right place. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

It was my understanding that they anime didn't have "seasons" (or series as we call them in the UK) in Japan. Who decided how to split it up into seasons? eyeball226 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See above. The series does have official seasons/series in Japan. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "season" provides no useful information here. Some "seasons" are separated by less than a week. The creation of these divisions seems completely arbitrary. By forcing this organization on One Piece, you've only made the list much more difficult to navigate. Anime series of this length must be organized by arc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk • contribs) 11:00, July 4, 2008 (UTC)

No, they don't "must" be anything. The arcs are fan creations, while the season divisions are the OFFICIAL seasons are declared by Toei. There isn't anything arbitrary about them. If you disagree with the seasons being useful, go complain to the company that made the series. Until the Funimation release is completed, we will use the official seasons. After that, we will revisit to see if the Funi seasons would be more appropriate to use. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point here. You're substituting a useful organizational method for one that isn't simply because it's official. This shouldn't be about the way Toei sells their DVDs, but about which would be most helpful to people visiting this page. The arc system is much more helpful because the Toei system is rather arbitrary. It's based on nothing more than how many episodes have passed since the last cutoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The arc system is only helpful to a small number of fans who even have a clue such arcs exist and have names. Seasons are a standard way of organizing television episode lists, and in the case of an anime series, where we do have seasons, it is the most neutral and verifiable method. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

When I first came to this page, I was not a fan of One Piece, but I found the arc system to be an easy to understand and effective way of organizing the episodes. I don't have a problem with keeping the information about the different seasons. I simply believe that the information about the different arcs should be included as well. I think all relevant information should be available to those viewing the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We shall just have to agree to disagree, and the page will organized properly by seasons. Feel free to use the One Piece wikia page the old version was transwikied too, if you don't like this one anymore. Either way, please learn to sign your own posts. :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this new season order is absolutely useless. I much more preferred the arc order although I'm not a "die hard" anime fan. There are in fact no seasons in animes, no matter what's written on some DVD boxes. The arc divisions may be unofficial but they are still way more useful than this confusing season system. There's no point in sticking to an official order just because it's official. The fact that it's official doesn't make it better or more correct in any way. I just get the feeling that this whole revision thing of the article has been done by someone in order to get some attention and that's all to it. Why can't you just let things be as they are when there's no problem with it? It's the same thing now with the opening/ending lists. Why in haven's name should it be changed to prose when the table's obviously much more comfortable to use.--Jeythor (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You do realize the season divisions line up with the arcs? I agree that the opening and ending songs, given the sheer quantity of them, should not be changed to prose. Question: Since the source of these season divisions actually does name the later seasons, why are we disregarding the names of those seasons? Those are just as official as the divisions, and would placate some of the objections to the new organization. Doceirias (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It would make the headers too long, and violate the guidelines regarding section header lengths. A compromise could be to add ":x-y" beside each to indicate which episodes are in each. This was done with some of the DB lists. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something to look at once we get this broken up. Episode numbers might help a little, but if there's a way to include the names on the main page of the episode guide, to tell you which of the multiple pages you need to go to, that would help with navigation. Doceirias (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A vote?

I would like to suggest that we take a vote on whether 'original anime material' is noted (and sourced to the one piece manga) or not. As I am not an editor, I cannot personally begin the vote as I am not sure of the protocol, but it is clear from looking at these comments that a variety of users appear to be arguing one point of view while just one argues the other (lots). If it is widely agreed by users that Collectonian is correct but no-one has felt the need to step up because Collectonian is arguing so well on her own, then perhaps that's okay, but otherwise it appears that she is in the minority despite strong argument. A vote, then? 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

There's no need for a vote, since Collectonian is *not* in the minority. She has the support of policy, guidelines, precedent, and project concensus, but don't expect every project member to step in and leave a word of support for her just to prove a point to you - if we did that, we'd never get any work done. ;) Read her above comment, in it she clearly states, with an example, just how problematic it can be identifying what is filler/original anime material (pick your preferred term) and why we don't bother doing so. —Dinoguy1000 16:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, we don't work by voting, but by consensus. The project is well aware of this discussion, so if I were arguing something that was unsupported, believe me they would say so. :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has seen consensuses in wikipedia reached by vote I hope you can understand my confusion on the matter. As I stated, I am not aware of the protocol. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

Generally, it shouldn't be a vote in the traditional sense, but weighing each argument to come to a conclusin. WP:CONSENSUS probably explains it better than I have. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

author

The episodes that appear in the manga are written by Eiichiro Oda, whilst the 'filler' or 'anime only' episodes are written by someone completely different. Is this not reason enough to include at least some reference to anime only episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Eales (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because that is false. None of the episodes are written by Oda and filler is a fancentric term that has no actual relevance here. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

i sorry but that is a complete lie. the storylines for the non fillers WERE written by Oda even if the script wasn't, whilst the storylines for the anime only were written by someone else. You dont have to start arguing about the term filler again, its been argued above, the term anime only isnt fancentric, we could use that if thats the main reason you dont want to label fillers, which it obviously isnt. can we argue about the real point, not get weighed down by pointlessness. the storylines were devised by different people, why is this not relevant to this list? thats the point im trying to makeRichard Eales (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they weren't. The episodes were written by someone else, adapted from Oda's writings. It has already been agreed that filler nor any other similar label will be used here or in another list. It is not a relevant label, nor accurate. Its totally subjective and OR and will not be added. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You just did it again, completely twisted what i said. i agreed that the episodes were written by someone else adapted from his manga, but surely this in itself is relevant? that some were adapted from his own storylines and some wern't. You could put a * by the episodes that were directly adapted from the manga script and put a tiny note at the bottom saying that the episodes with a * were directly adapted from the manga script, this way you would be singling out those episodes from the manga without putting any negative connotations on the rest.Richard Eales (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, no. Its unnecessary. The lead notes that the series is based on the manga. That is all that is necessary. There will be no individual episode marks anywhere claiming some as filler and some as not. Again, it isn't verifiable and such declarations are pure WP:OR as you don't know what was based on what, you are only making educated guesses. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you say its unnecessary? If its verifiable information which people would be interested to know, doesnt take up much space (it would only take up one line and some *s) and wouldnt get in the way of the other information then surly it should be included? You also said it wasn't verifiable which it clearly is, that some episodes are directly based on the storyline released in the manga and some were indirectly. Im trying to come up with a compromise here and i feel like youre being a bit unreasonable. Without resorting to things about verifiability, makes the information harder to read, takes up too much space etc. can you give me some good arguments why it shouldnt be. im open to being convinced here, because you obviously edit here alot, so please can you treat this seriously instead of treating us like people who just dont understand wikipedia and properly try to convince me why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.83.28 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is a pretty significant reason not to include such information, further reasoning really isn't necessary. That being said, project consensus is that marking episodes in this manner is unnecessary and unwanted. —Dinoguy1000 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The argument here is about whether this goes against WP:OR, and as long a a reliable source can be found then by those rules it is fine. Nevertheless it clearly states under WP:IAR that it should be included "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way." and this clearly improves the page for the vast majority of people visiting the page, without impinging on others. Hypothetically I think that if surveyed the visitors to this page then a large majority would say they did want the labeling and nearly all the rest would say they didnt mind either way, I cant see why you think it is unwanted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.83.28 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is held to a higher standard that other sites. People liking something is not a justification for including something without a reliable source. Doceirias (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize that, the source would need to be reliable but in the guidelines it says ----- "Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."----- so if a source which fits this description is found then it should be allowed. Also i think that if the information is relevant and important to most people reading the page then that is a good reason to include it regardless.82.69.83.28 (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also There's this ---" An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online."----I think this counts as one of those cases?82.69.83.28 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We have enough reliable sources that there is no excuse to use fansites, personal sites. For forums, only AoD's forums meet those, and only posts by those identified as company reps. And, for the purposes of adding content that the project has already reached consensus to declare has no place here, it doesn't matter. Consensus says no, and I doubt you'll find verification for EVERY episode people want to mark as filler within the acceptable sources. (also, please be more careful with your posts...you accidentally removed the entire thread below this) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How is this consensus reached?Is there a discussion anywhere as to whether it can be changed? I consider it valid analysis of the anime in relation to the manga which is valuable information, and if a source can be found it should be included82.69.83.28 (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Over a great deal of time and discussion. The tide is very much against it now, and, honestly, there's little change of it reversing at this point. The feeling is that declaring content as filler is inherently biased and fanboyish, and not suiting the tone of Wikipedia. I suggest you head to a fansite or Wikia for that sort of information. Doceirias (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I kind of agree about the episode splits now, but with this one I really think you're loosing some valuable reliable information. Clearly wikipedia isnt the bastion of all knowledge it used to be.82.69.83.28 (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never been a bastion of all knowledge. 66.116.22.178 (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Why has this page been ruined?

Im sorry for not putting this in one of the other topics but i don't really use this discussion thing much and I'm not sure about how it works. FILLER is not a derogatory word, it is simply a word used to denote variation from the original manga, everyone who watches anime knows this and treats the word as such. If it helped you could colour code the fillers and put a label at the bottom. The label may not even include the word filler, just an explanation of the differences. It just needs to be immediately obvious when looking through the list which ones are which, because in my experience the main reason people browse this page is to check which episodes are fillers

Also why is it arranged in seasons and not arcs? Seasons are irrelevant for a series this length, and it makes it really hard to navigate, it makes the ENTIRE page nearly USELESS. Im sorry for such strong language but that is in effect what has happened. Luckily I have finished watching this series, but my friends who have just started watching one piece have been forced onto other pages because this one is so useless. Doesn't that defeat the object of wikipedia? Could a button be included in the page to change it from season view to arc view? This would solve all the problems if it were possible. I understand the need for seasons with dvds and stuff coming out, but both are necessary so you need to find some way to display both, otherwise you might as well just delete the whole page.82.69.83.28 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no such button, filler is a derogatory term in many circles, we will not explain differences which is OR, and it will use seasons the same as the publisher and any other television series. Its already been said a hundred times before above and in the archived messages, the arcs are fan creations, not official series splits, and will not be used here. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, you said earlier that this page is run by consensus. Lately, I don't think you understand the meaning of that word at all (maybe you should check the wikipedia article about it) Clearly, the MASSIVE majority of people want to have some indication of episodes that are 'anime-only'. About 30 people have argued for that here, think of the amount of people who feel the same way yet can't be bothered to write here. Use the same logic as complaints boards do - 1 bad complaint means about 200 people are dissatisfied (okay that changes all the time but here i really think its true.) Imagine the hundreds upon hundreds of people who want this. And against them stands you and one or two others, certainly there have been VERY few people posting here who take your side. It has been you against the masses and that is VERY OBVIOUS. Now, go check in the dictionary, look up the word 'consensus' and realise how hypocritical you are. Then leave wikipedia forever =]Stylishman (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally someone has said it! I completely agree with you stylishman! Im not gonna resort to namecalling like the people on the one piece encyclopedia who are calling collectonian a "Nazi" though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.130.66 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the word well, and thanks for the personal attack. I guess because you can't back up your argument with any real validity, you must resort to such silly, immature attacks. A bunch of new editors, whose only edits are to complain here after the discussion is done or to vandalize other articles (oh, like you), is not consensus, particularly when their view is not backed by policy or guideline. As has already been note, multiple times, this reformat has the consensus of the anime and manga project. That outnumbers the handful of people here. It was also already note that most people in the project are not bothering to post because they know its pointless to try to get y'all to understand Wikipedia guidelines, but I'm a masochist like that. To quote the above note regarding that: "There's no need for a vote, since Collectonian is *not* in the minority. She has the support of policy, guidelines, precedent, and project consensus, but don't expect every project member to step in and leave a word of support for her just to prove a point to you - if we did that, we'd never get any work done. ;)" The consensus was validly reached and is enforced when other project members also revert all attempts to return the list to its old format. The list format will remain as it is. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)