Talk:One Piece

Romance Dawn

I'd like to recommend that Romance Dawn is restored since it's a movie on this year's Jump Super Anime Tour and there's no trace of the notable information in this article. --Defchris (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Declined. The old page had no notable information either, just plot summaries. If there is some specific information from there you think was missed in the merge or that you feel is missing regarding Romance Dawn, feel free to suggest that specific info be added (along with sources, of course). Romance Dawn on its own is not notable. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I though Wikipedia was a place where everybody's opinion count - seems as if the English language version is going to take over the very bad habits of the German's. Merging information, merging articles will always lead into unprecise and so really unnotable information. If a reader wants to know sth. about Romance Dawn and is lead to One Piece where almost nothing of Romance Dawn is even mentionned (but two sentences) I guess it'd be very confusing. Okay then do what you want - I keep on working on the German article, until someone arrives and wants to play "deletion request". -- Defchris (talk) 20:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Merged pages

So why was everything merged when there was no consensus to do so? Gune (talk) 22:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be more specific? -- Goodraise (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Movie pages for example. Gune (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I merged the movie pages, because they didn't meet WP:FICT. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of objection to the mere after it was tagged for an appropriate time = silent consensus. The merges have all been appropriate as the film's fail WP:N and the film notability guidelines.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

To put it in a less robotic tone, there wasn't really any information on the movie pages besides a large summary of the plot so not much was lost in merging them to here. For bigger summaries on the movies and etc, the One Piece Wikia is good for that. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Romance Dawn Again (When were they published?)

I am a little confused right now. In Wanted! on page 202, Oda states, that the version of Romance Dawn in Wanted! is the second one, whlile the first was not yet published. The article on the other hand currently states, that both were first printed in 1996's Jump special. Can anyone clear things up for me? -- Goodraise (talk) 03:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The ANN source says both were published in WSJ, with the first also published in the Red Data book, and the second in Wanted!. The earlier version said the same thing, I just reworded it some. Alas, no one seems to have WSJ in our magazine library, so hopefully someone else can help clarify if ANN misstated or not. Also, please stop changing the article. The ANN source says BOTH were published in the special summer issue. If you disagree, find another reliable source (or two) to oppose ANN's statements, but until then please stop changing it.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me clear the whole situation up for you. From http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2008-07-10/one-piece-prototype-romance-dawn-to-be-animated you put into the article the statement, that the two one-shots were first published in 1996. That confused me, because it seems to be a contradiction to what Oda said in Wanted! on page 202 (see above). THAT is where your misunderstanding begins. You stated in your reply (first part of it, see version history of this talk page): "The ANN source says both were published in WSJ, with the first also published in the Red Data book, and the second in Wanted!. The earlier version said the same thing, I just reworded it some." The mistake on your part, which I was trying to point out, was not disagreeing with me, but as I stated in the edit summary, as I first reverted it, a "rewording mistake". From there, you didn't even consider the possibility of being wrong and instead assumed, that I, without a source, had simply decided, that my opinion was worth more than that of ANN. In order to clear things up right there, I stated in the summary of my second revert, that it's about a different matter, than the one I brought up in this very topic. Furthermore, I added to the edit summary the following quote: "Weekly Shonen Jump's Summer Special issue and 41st issue of 1996", from the very source you keep talking about (in your two reverts; both parts of you comment above this one; and on my talk page). This very quote, is what you "reworded" into "the 1996 summer special issue of Weekly Shōnen Jump." Obviously, the only thing you read of that edit summary was: "you made a mistake".

Now, once again, leaving all the edit history aside: "Weekly Shonen Jump's Summer Special issue and 41st issue of 1996" does NOT reword to "the 1996 summer special issue of Weekly Shōnen Jump", unless "Weekly Shonen Jump's Summer Special issue [...] of 1996" and "Weekly Shonen Jump's [...] 41st issue of 1996" are one and the same (in which case I apologize in advance for the following paragraph).

Conclusion: You don't read the sources you reword and you don't read the summaries of the edits you revert either. No wonder you have +30.000 edits... I realize, that I am close to a personal attack here, and I'm not happy to be. But this seems to be the only way to catch your attention, as I don't wage edit wars. Which is also why I'll "stop changing it". I will leave that to you. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no "close" about it. That was a personal attack and a completely inappropriate and unfounded one. I used the ANN article to source the whole paragraph, which I rewrote. "da drew Romance Dawn as two separate pirate stories that ran in Weekly Shonen Jump's Summer Special issue and 41st issue of 1996" can be taken both ways. I took it one, you obviously took it another. You could have simply noted that they are different issues when I left the message on your talk. The nastiness was totally unnecessary. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I said why it appeared neccesary to me, to resort to these kind of words, namely to at least get you to read, what I have to say. I even gave examples, of where you did these things (weather or not I was right about these, doesn't matter in this context), so it was not unfounded. If you used the article to source a statement, a parapraph or the whole section has nothing to do with anything, unless (and I'll assume this isn't the case) you still don't understand that the matter, I brought up in the first post of this topic, is a seperate one. Pointing out, that the quote can be understood in two seperate ways, is exactly what I did in the edit summary. That I didn't say, that the WSJ issues are different ones, is because I didn't (and still don't) know if they are. My version simply maintains the ambiguity of the ANN article's wording, while your version does not, making it a "rewording mistake".

I may be stepping over the line, by directly saying things as I see them, but this isn't about personal attacks (in the sense of attacking a person instead of argueing against that person's proposal/idea) or about wordings, it's about you, treating others as if they only have half a brain, because this behaviour of yours (broadly laid out above) left me little choice. It's about your selfrighteousness, arroganz, disrespect towards others and complete lack of the ability to admit mistakes. Or to put it in your language, you constantly, to some extent, violate WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND (yes, I do realize that this very post is in violation of it). If you without halt throw stones in every direction, some will return to you.

I could understand you becoming impatient and unnerved with the crowd of fancruft advocates in this project over the past three years, but treating everyone, even those sharing your oppinions on rules and guidelines, like myself, in this manner, is not acceptable. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

You gave no explanation at all, just called it a "rewording" mistake without bothering to ask about it, and then presumed I was changing because of this topic - which I do fully realize were two different questions. But, anyway, I won't bother with this anymore. You apparently just wanted an excuse to launch two lengthy personal attacks when my messages to you about this were perfectly polite and civil, as were my edit summaries. You are the only one being disrespectful here. I hope it makes you happy. You beat me all up. Thanks. Glad I made your day. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"You gave no explanation at all" is plain wrong. Here is the edit summary: "Undid revision 233673049 by Collectonian matter unrelated to issue on talk page; you made a mistake, unless "Weekly Shonen Jump's Summer Special issue and 41st issue of 1996" are one and the same..." If it's lengthy you don't like it. If it's short, you don't read it. But don't worry, I am finished bothering with it too (ironic thing to say, isn't it?). -- Goodraise (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Which didn't explain anything. It did not explain that you felt the ANN report was ambiguous. Instead, I took it to mean you felt the original wording, which that replicated, was correct despite the ANN report. You could have simply left a short note to explain what you meant. But ah well. Glad you got to vent and get it all out of your system. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:03, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My copy of Red is buried too deep to dig out - I would bet it actually means Akamaru Jump. Then the second version was in the main magazine, leading to a serial - a standard progression that many manga have followed. Doceirias (talk) 22:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Fruit" vs. "No Mi"

I'm sorry, but why does every One Piece related article call the Devil Fruits "____ ____ No Mi" instead of "____ ____ Fruit"? "No Mi" MEANS Fruit, leaving it untranslated is simply Fanboy Nonsense. I move that all pages have that changed to "Fruit" (User DemonRin) 10:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.122.110 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Any specific examples? All of the articles should be using the English names. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

All of them I believe. I know Luffy's does, it also used to say "Nakama" before I just now changed it. Blackbeard's entry in the minor characters section did... Let me see how many more I can find, but I think it's every article,

Luffy's does, Robin's Does, Brook's Does, Chopper's Does NOT (Surprizingly) it lists "Hito Hito no mi" in Parenthasis though, and it seems EVERY Devil's fruit mentioned on the "List of One Piece characters" Page also uses "No Mi" (User DemonRin) 10:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...any other editors to the One Piece articles want to chime in on why this was done, and how we go about fixing it? These should all be using the official English names for these items, not the romanji. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

May I point out: the issue was first brought up by TTN here; a short but related discussion happened here; and currently there is an ongoing debate on weather English names, Japanese names, or no names at all should be used here. To avoid edit warring, I suggest participating in the later discussion, before making any more changes. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I haven't edited anything yet, but that debate seems to be about including the Fruits Period, not the Odd Idea of leaving it in Japanese. (User DemonRin) 11:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If you want the names changed to English, say it there. It's the right place, believe me. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I recall an older discussion on One Piece terminology which concluded that most should be left in Japanese for the sake of consistency. It was mostly focused on attack names for the episode summaries, but the same principle may apply here: The series isn't all published in English, and the English names are rarely literal translations. Therefore, since we don't know what the correct English terms are going to be, it's simpler to keep them in Japanese. You may or may not find the logic compelling, but I think it's worth pointing out. --erachima talk 19:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A link to that discussion might be useful, though it's probably overruled by project guideline anyways. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a link to that discussion would be nice. And I'm not talking about the Names of the Fruits, just turning "No Mi" to "Fruit". IE, Gomu Gomu no Mi would be put as "Gomu Gomu Fruit" (User DemonRin) 14:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.38.223.226 (talk)

Thats a load of crap! Either translated the WHOLE name or keep it to the Japanese, to use an inbetween is insulting to ALL editors fans and non-fans! Now ages ago, the eidtors decided that sticking to an all "Japanese" naming system was best because of universial issues between the our english versions (4Kids, Odex, FUNimation and Viz) without taking into the direct Japanese -> English translation. Stick to what was agreed, do not turn out pure insultinghalf-translations like THAT.92.232.91.192 (talk) 18:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Age of characters

I think the age stuff stated in this article must be removed. that's because the sources used as references for their ages were published at different volumes. the first is volume 4 which I believe was published in 1998. next is volume 7 published in 1999. Then volume 19, published in 2001. Then, it is volume 44 published in 2006. The story progresses as time goes on, so their ages too. Luffy, Zoro, Nami, Ussop and Sanji at the start of the series were 17, 19, 18, 17 and 19 respectively. The ages of chopper, robin, franky and brooke were stated in sources published much later. So this means that the ages the crew have in this article are not of the same OP world time. The latest chapters are already years ahead from the very beginning. There's no way, in my opinion, of giving the correct number of years that has already passed and that's why I suggest the ages be removed and not be updated. eStaRapapax ^{xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!} 10:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

In Manga/SBS/24/218, Oda says that "every year is his [meaning Luffy's] 17th birthday." Not even Oda takes that question seriously. And I feel kinda silly attempting to do so. You think it's original research to say their ages stay the same over the main storyline (leaving flashbacks aside) then by all means remove them. I will stand by and shake my head in disbelief. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)