# Talk:List of One Piece characters/Archive 1

## Merger

It is time to change the way One Piece is organized on this site. There is no doubt that One Piece is notable, but the various subtopics are not as lucky. With the characters, they do not pass our fiction guidelines (WP:FICT and WP:WAF), or our other content guidelines (WP:V, WP:N. WP:RS, WP:NOT, ect). That is why the various character articles will be merged to this one, concise list. The rest of the information will be available over at the One Piece wiki, which is a very good place for this information. I know people won't like this, but it is the best thing to do. Please remember that this is a discussion, and not a vote, so numbers do not rule.

Not all of the characters will be covered here, though. Many are too minor to really need any sort of mention here. They will be summed up by their crew or island of origin if it it is large enough. In depth information, again, can be found over at the One Piece Wiki. TTN (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep the core pirate crew article and put the rest in appropriate lists as needed for WP:Summary Style. We just need someone who can read japanese and write english for out of universe information. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oda only release bits of information in a Q&A format, which are all translated by various people. These provide little tidbits, but they are not enough to establish notability. Anyways, most of the characters do not need coverage, so there is no need for separate lists. TTN (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Japan has numerous magazines dedicated to the world of anime and manga, but of course they're written in Japanese. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said, like most manga authors, he does not provide a lot of information. If you think that's wrong, you're going to have to show a case where magazines actually provide real world information then. In every single discussion dealing with anime and manga characters, people go on and on about how information can be found, yet nobody ever gets any. With a good number of Japanese speaking users, there is no excuse as to why this information has not been found besides the explanation that there isn't any. TTN (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Will you move the articles over to wikia? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
The One Piece wiki linked up above has everything covered. They transfered over everything a long time ago, so they should have everything here and much more. TTN (talk) 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
In general it would be a good thing, though. Want to start doing that for pages that haven't already been moved? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
If you can point out any articles that they do not have (note that some will not have the same exact names as these), sure. But the site should already have everything here, as the main user that moved everything over is still a fairly active editor of these articles. TTN (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) I guess I mean with all articles that are redirected, not just One Piece, which has exceptional editors. Basically, if you would transwiki everything you redirect and give some lee-way to articles that do have some out of universe information in them, I might even be able to support what you're doing. I don't know if you're using scripts or whatever to make editing easier, but if not, there's probably one that will do the transwiki with a minimum of clicks. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Okey dokey, I call bullshit. Anyone can say anything; now, explain exactly how these pages do not meet those guidelines. No weasel words. No double talk. No circular logic. And keep on point. (Justyn (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

The One Piece character articles do not live up to our standards. They have no chance of living up to them at this point. These standards are non-negotiable, and they are found in our policies and guidelines. That is the reason that the characters belong over at the OP wiki. TTN (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
NO WAY! If your going to merge the One Piece character articles, then AT LEAST do the Naruto and BLEACH character artciles as well! - Smashman202 (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Everything will have its turn. TTN (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Where did you answer my question? You can't say "doesn't meet the standards", you have to booping explane HOW they don't. An argument only carries as much weight as its evidence; and you have put in absolutely no evidence in any form outside of your interpetation some rules. Well guess what?
I can interpret them too! And my interpretation says that not only are these articles sourced, but they are notible. And therefor, they can have pages! (Justyn (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC))
I'm going to go over this once. If you don't get it or you just don't care, don't bother to respond. All articles on this site have to establish notability. To establish notability, they must have information from reliable sources that shows that the topic is important in the real world. Again, this is for all topics. Fictional topics establish notability by including real world information, such as creation and reception information from the creators and reviewers. These do not have that information, so they do not belong here. TTN (talk) 22:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, you talk a lot, but you say little. All you did was rehash Wikipedia policy, you never gave even the smallest reason as to why these pages should be merged.
I asked for something beyond a rehash of policy with no context of how it relates to this situation other than: "These do not have that information, so they do not belong here". Also, how conviniently you skip over the part were the policies say that time should be given to allow for sources to be found before the article goes to merge or delete. Maybe you don't like the parts that slow down your deletion-fest; but, I'm not you, so I don't know what you really think. But I can tell what it looks like you are doing, however.
And on top of that, you call yourself the end-all be-all of what counts as a source; so, where, prey tell, did you gain this omnipotence? Or do you just see yourself as a better than the rest of us mindless peons? (Justyn (talk) 01:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC))
They do not have an appropriate amount of real world information (How is that not specific enough?), and these articles have existed for a long enough time. You need expansive real world information in order to keep these, not a random mention in a comic that counts as trivia. TTN 20:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Let the Pirate pages stay. It'll keep the One Piece characters page from getting too long. Rtkat3 5:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Most of the minor pirates not going to be covered in detail, so it won't matter. TTN 22:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Reseting line: I just read over your so called "case". These pages already meet the criteria. I will say this once: YOUR CASE HOLDS NO WATER. It is obvious that your only hope for getting your way is to not shut up untill we all give up and let you have it. Well guess what? You just met someone that is willing to be petty enough to put a stop to people like you once and for all.

These are pages that do fufill the criteria THAT YOU CITE. But you don't care, just as long as you get to delete pages.(Justyn 02:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

Uh, if any of these established notability, they would at least resemble Harry Potter, Dante (Devil May Cry), Nicole (Dead or Alive), Ned Flanders, Sarlacc or any of the other good character articles. They look nothing like them, and they fail WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:OR, and a few others. TTN 02:31, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

They DO pass, just not as strongly as those ones. And your whole reasing is that four people can't FIND magazine sources written in another language, therefore they don't exist and the pages should not exist.

Now, define how they fail at them. NOW. I will not stop HOUNDING you to do this.

SP:N requires just two sources. These have them.

WP:OR HOW exactly is this original research?

WP:FICT Once again, how does this break that rule?

WP:NOT#FICT See those other two above this.

(Justyn 03:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

No, they do not. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable sources. These have absolutely none. Indiscriminate comics and in-universe information backed by reliable sources have nothing to do with this. WP:FICT expands on this by requiring development and reception information. These have none. All they have are overly long plot summaries and descriptions (NOT#PLOT) and an original synthesis of information from the chapters and episodes to form other sections (WP:OR).
First, if it is original information, delete said information, or, maybe for once you can actualy do as the policies say and rewrite it rather than dele... no, you just nuke things, sorry. And how is a notible webcomic directly referencing, and focused on the characer, exactly, indescriminate? (Justyn 04:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

TTN 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

And no, the sources do not exist in Japanese. That is just a cop out argument used in every manga and anime debate. TTN 03:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
And you know that, how? Where did you gain the ability to prove a negative? And if you can, WHY are you not in the news? I mean, either you have some increadibly intricate logic, or you are just a giant... no, you must be a genius.

And alright, I'll admit, I have never, ever seen one of these articles personally (I remember seeing an english one reveiwing the Arlong and Davy Back Fight arcs in an American magazine, though I don't remember the name). But saying that they definitively don't exist is like saying Bigfoot, UFOs, or Nessie don't and can't exist just because you have never seen them. (Justyn 04:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC))

I forgot to post here, but as a long time wikipedia editor to the One Piece pages I'd like to point out a few things:

I point to the wikia, which we have now well established (having over 1,800+ pages) when I asked us to please seriously consider, as editors, not One Piece fans, on whether or not we should merge articles. I'm talking about cutting out ALL the individaul pages for characters. Its something I've supported for a while now. To raise the issue I have several points I like to make:

1. Once upon a time I went to a lot og hassle adding references to all the characters pages... Now only a few survive. Without references, a page is hard to check up on. A good example of such a page, is Brainiac 5, look on it and tell me what where are the references to that character? I recently wanted to check up on the information on that page (I do look at other non-One Piece related pages) and found it very difficult to do so and I resulted in reading twenty comics to find the single issue with the correct information in it. This is what happens when you don't reference things.
2. NONE of our character article have real life links which are important to wikipedia.
3. A lack of editors is restricting the workload we can make to the pages. With fewer and fewer editors to do quality checks on the pages, there is now too much work load. With the episode and chapters pages its just a case of pulling up information off somewhere else and placing/correcting whats there. With character pages you have to sit through enter episodes/chapters, thus there is much too much of "Own research" which is disreguarded on wikipedia.
4. The wikia is now at a good quality and can fully replace the pages here on wikipedia. Its easier to monitor, updated daily and (almost) every edit is error checked.
5. Fanism is hitting the pages hard right now. We have information made by fans, for fans. We should be writing for any reader, not just OP fans.
6. Plot points... They are not suppose to be on wikipedia at all, but every character page has a "story" section. Huge amounts of detailing is added as each new chapter comes out without summerising it nor compacting and removing old info.
7. Information overload. Okay, some argue the OP characters have more information on them then say a series like... Outlaw Star. Fine... But if we compare it to a character that does deserve a page, for want of a better example, Superman you'll find this makes One Piece pages look like mere stubs. Seriously, compare that page with any one of ours and you'll find the Superman article is well sourced/referenced.

And there are several other points which have slipped my mind right now. But the main fact is, we have the wikia. We can also strengthen the wikia by merging the wikipedia pages, pointing others to the wikia to learn more information, wikipedia is just a quick guide and information on series. There are about 300 pages on the wikia for characters, against our 12-20 or so pages... In comparison, everything we have on wikipedia is dwarfed in quality by its wikia counterpart. Their not perfect, they are still works in process but their a dam sight better then here. I've watched these pages for many months, they are as bad now (if not worst) then they were then. I'm not prepared to do the entire list of One Piece pages by myself, if others help I'll spend the time bringing the pages up to quality, but I'm mostly editing the wikia these days and barely have time for that let alone wikipedia.

Neverless, its time to question whether or not we continue on, breaking many of wikipedias guidelines in the process or make life easier and don't. A good example of a page that broke the guidelines and was put up for deletation was One Piece Timeline... Except. Its not there anymore! Angel Emfrbl 10:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

• Very well put. Fundamentally, there is little point for individual vexation based on content issues which run counter to core wikipedia policies, when wikias exist for allowing precisely such content to flourish. Eusebeus 15:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Here's actually reached Bleach, you know. I actually support over half of the Bleach characters getting merged, but the main 7, Byakuya, Kenpachi, Aizen, Gin, Kon, and Toshiro shouldn't. Notably, the last two have out-of-universe info. You might go "Wy don't you just get it then?", but if you think it's so easy, why haven't you ever tried it? And I suggest you ignore Naruto, TTN, we're on the works of doing it ourselves and moving at impressive speed. You'd only get in the way unless you follow the directions being set up. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 16:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
In terms of real world context, when it comes to in-universe things thats where your covered by the media.
Interviews, documentries and reviews are the support here... Yet I see none of those on the OP pages either. I know OP has been in a few Japanese documentries, but alas in that text we also reveal the major problem with that at the same time. Oda has done many interviews, if you search you'll find them on the web + translated. Reviews only come from magazines and offical/legit sources... New Type magazine seems to love reporting on OP and I did add a ref to that somewhere (don't know if its still there or not). Get the article covered by these kinds of real world context things and you've got a page that can't be easily knocked down on wikipedia.
This isn't too difficult to do, all you need to do is look for things. SBSs will hit the spot, but not hard enough on their own I also point out. Angel Emfrbl 17:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a few refs for the main characters: [1], [2], [3], [4] - Peregrine Fisher 18:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

TTN, please think for a moment. Yes, Bleach and One Piece should be shortened down like Naruto has been doing to their articles (it's been removing unmentionable characters and is merging little by little. Baby steps ^_^). But think about it, is it really wise to stuff every character who is notable (and thus have a lot of info) into a single page? No, it'll reach 100,000 bytes in no time. Make other ones, like List of One Piece villains or List of major One Piece characters. The Straw Hats Pirates should be merged to the Straw Hat Pirates article if they do get merged, not with almost every other character. You're being to rash and not thinking, which isn't a good thing. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I don't see this getting past 40kb if I can keep out the fan cruft. Luffy should probably have about three paragraphs. The rest of the SHs can probably have two. Most of the villains and secondary characters probably only need one, with the exception of the ones like Ace, Vivi, ect, who probably need two. Most of the other minor characters will be described in a general island/crew section if they are to be covered at all (i.e. ones like Krieg probably won't even be mentioned). TTN 20:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay,are you even listening to what your saying?The series has been going out every week for over 10 years.How in the name of hell do you wana put up an equivalent of 40 years of monthly publication into 3 paragraphs?Did you ever check other,non anime/manga character bios?By your logic we could merge Bruce Wayne into "List of Batman characters" or merge every damn superman page.You are just not geting that AMERICAN and western fiction should get the same treatment as NON AMERICAN fiction.Plus,you seem to just bend your rules into what you desire and Im prety sure your absolutely in NO POSITION to put up a mega merger of 40 plus articles into one.You want Real Wolrd information-well this may be news to you-but this is FICTION.If you wana find all those "tidbits" ,go to Arlongpark.net which have profesionaly translated all the SBS per volume.Also you can easily find and link an Oda interview if youre only wiling to.Just looking on a page and deciding to delete it,instead of requesting theese to be linked if you are not capable of finding it yourself-that is weak and egotistical.I mean,I could bend the rules as well and say,that fer instance Oxford fails on notability and should be cut and put on "List of British Universities".Crash Bandicoot has no real life info.But hes got his own page.Cortex has too. Yet theire both characters with NO information from real life,at least with 40 times less then OP has.This is why I have quit wikipedia-cause people like you come over and decide to destroy months of work,cause they CAN.Why,by your standarts,our entiere OP coverage would be "One Piece is a japaneese manga/anime series" on the back of a lengthy and anoyingly non informative "List of Shohen Jump Series".I will do everything in my power to stop you. User:New Babylon —Preceding unsigned comment added by New Babylon 2 (talkcontribs) 11:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
And please don't just assume that this or anything else is just off the top of my head. I've gone over how this is going to work quite a bit, and anything like random AfDs are for when people are not doing their job like in the case of Bleach. I'm pretty sure that I have mentioned in the past that the Naruto group is doing fine, while you're acting like I'm some sort of blind kamikaze bomber. TTN 20:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

KK I'm gonna go ahead and call a lot of things here, and later I'll hit the Naruto pages with a few of these too:

• Unnecessity and bullshit seeing as these changes are not called for like they were on the Naruto pages.
• Referring to and using the One piece wiki as a base for the template, which basically uses wikipedia as the new host for One Piece wiki (against the rules)
• Claiming superiority, ignoring, and ganging the one who opposed this instead of searching for a real consensus. Elitism has absolutely no place on wikipedia. At all. Also, you've been putting down the other wikipedia pages - especially Bleach - for what they are at the moment. However, that's much for useful to the common wiki user than what you have planning for One Piece.
• And most importantly, forgetting that the rules should never get in the way of improving an article. What you plan to do to the One Piece articles is completely uncalled for and will only degrade the quality / usefulness of the article. What use is there even having an article if it's basically a lengenthed stub? I lol'd at your idea that Don Krieg - the first real villain in One Piece - should be removed from the One Piece pages altogether.

Sincerely, AnimeNikkaJamal 22:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay lets look at all the previous comments here. A lot of editors here are commenting on how the pages should be kept. This is what, the 4th time Mergers have been mentioned? I got ranted at for merging articles myself after I had to do something to control a previous mess we had. The anti-merging campain was a wasted effort! Funny thing was, I got it down, everything worked out brilliantly in the end, but at the time I had murder being screamed out me (not literally, metaphoically speaking). But though and behold, once I stop merging articles... I find that all those that screamed murder disappeared, which is what made me take the stance I have now with them (I won't do anything unless someone else is prepared to aid).

All I'm saying, is what is the point of commenting to save a page if we have to go through this process in 6 months time when no one hasn't done a thing to mend the problem. I even tried to set up a project page for them to help things along, but I didn't get the support I needed to establish this so it got as far as the draft set-up. I even got accused of trying to own the pages when all I wanted to do was get something done about them when I was just doing what a wikipedian is suppose to. And lets face it... At the end of the day, if the works not done, there is no point is allowing a page to continue spiralling out of control.

I'll say it again; We need to decide now once and for all what to do. The best two outcomes I'd like to see from this discussion are (and I fully support both of these):

1. The articles are merged to prevent fanism from cropping on the pages, make life easier for everyone since there are fewer editors editing. Finally also allow the wikia to completely break away from wikipedia completely once and for all and at the same time allow the wikipedia pages to take a step in a direction of their own.
2. The editors who supported the keep actually get off their high horses and help me (and anyone else who cares) to improve the pages so in 6 months time we don't have to (for the 5th time) reconsider the state of the pages. That means a complete tidy up, references go back on the pages, someone tracks down every interview and enter information where needed, someone checks up our pictures aren't vilolating copyright rules on wikipedia and that all the unness. fanism is taken off the pages. Oh and the pages themselves recieve a complete overhaul so they can be generally tidied up.

As it happens, the Straw Hat Pirates page actually covers all the information needed for each of the Straw Hats, therefore we don't actually need any single page for them. We might not need to merge at all, but just redirect them there. Once done, we can also reference that entire page to avoid further possible deletetions of any page. Its tiring going through the same routines every time we have to take a look at the pages... Its true, we're not as bad as the Naruto pages were, but we certainly are no position to brag about them either.

Also, its hard to do anything right now while we're waiting to see how this turns out. Angel Emfrbl 15:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah,id like to help referencing and I always write it down when I know from witch chapter/episode it is.I just have to endorse AnimeNikkaJamal 's point, what use would the OP pages have if we would just have a stub page with no but the most basic info that realy wouldnt be helpfull altogether.I mean, no one ASKED you to do this,YOU dont need it be done and most importnantly the ARTICLE doesnt need it done,nor do the users.Your the only one who suports this,dont you get that if everyone else says "No" then its not a good idea and that if you enforce it by simply repeating your non-existent arguments and bedning the rules to your own whims OVER and OVER again so long until everyone will get tired and stop talking to you,so you can do it in ,is damn dumb.
New Babylon 2 16:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to quote you Angel:

AnimeNikkaJamal 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that this is not a fansite. Without real world info, the most a series like this requires are the basic details of the most important characters to supplement the main article. Anything else is fan content, which can be found over at the One Piece wiki. You can try to work around the policies and guidelines all you want, but unless you can provide significant real world information, one list will suffice. TTN 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

TTN! One Piece Wikia is not a fan site ethier!

Before you ask, you probley wonder who I'am; I'm Edwardadrian the guy who motived fans to come and bring effort in One Piece Wikipedia and it's been a really long time since I last edit here. I'am one of the major editors in the One Piece Encyclopedia under the username of Joekido and I came tell you that the whole merging plan is really an insult to an injury to One Piece. I'am thankful for your support for One Piece Wikia but your merging plan is not good for both this Wikipedia and One Piece Encyclopedia.

We want One Piece Encyclopedia to be a place where people who are fans or not can read and write about One Piece and expand the information much as Wikipedia can offer and not just say "Okay, we have One Piece Wikia so everything here is transfered over there so I'm going to merge everything here so people can say 'golly gee, the information here is bad so let's go to One Piece Encyclopedia where they have bigger balls then here!' " which is a bad idea.

• This action can result at making OP Wikia a laughstock of other Wikia commutity
• This action would bring fanism to OP Wikia which would ruin that site's reputation and make that site a dump site
• Look at Wookiepedia, it's enjoyable to both non-fans and fans because it does not subject itself to fanism and we want One Piece Encyclopedia to be on the same level of enjoyament as Wookiepedia.

Now while I understand you want to support One Piece Encyclopedia but OPE is differant from Wikipedia and you don't need to merge everything to make people go to OPE. Please TTN, think of other people and don't try to merge anything here.

Edwardadrian 00:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine, we'll call it a specialty encyclopedia for right now. Anyways, this merger has nothing to do with it. This is to conform to this site's policies and guidelines, while still allowing access to this information in another venue. Articles on this site needs to be covered in reliable sources to exist. For fiction, the information from these sources must pertain to creation, reception, and similar information. The One Piece characters do not have this, so they need to be condensed. One list is all that is necessary so far. You'll see that there are three featured Star Wars characters at this point, so they deserve coverage here and over there. TTN 01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not really a big editor, but I am a long time Wikipedia user, so I know what I'm talking about when I say that giant lists are not good. I know that they are subject to a bit of fanatisism, but these are not so overly crowded. Sure, some minor characters shouldn't have their own pages (not like many do) but the StrawHats and other major pirate crews, along with other things deserve to keep their own pages. And, it seems to me that it's pretty much only one person who's wants to do this to these pages. What would be the point? since Wikipedia is to inform people, and this is exactly what it does. I say we fix the pages up a bit, but overall they are pretty good. Why change what works? Pikachu150 5:51, December 4th 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 01:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to suport this opinion.I mean,TTN,NO ONE ELSE WANTS IT DONE BUT YOU,and if EVERYONES AGAINST IT,aint enforcing it by sheer REPETETIVNES a bit dumb?
New Babylon 2 12:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Woah woah. Things are getting out of control here. Another outbreak an I'll have to ask an admin to get involved to help solve this. Bot sides need to learn lessons, however. TTN, you have been ignoring and breaking many rules here in such little time. You have no superiority to send merges to every One Piece article and to gang up on those who oppose this. You have been uncivil, acted superior, and other things. As soon as I am done with this message I am reporting you. One Piece editors, you will have to realize that eventually you'll have to merge articles together. Naruto did it because of the threat of multiple deletions, Bleach and Marchen Awakens Romance and others are doing it so it won't happen to them. One Piece will eventually be targeted at this rate, and you'll have to deal with it. Simply trim down articles, remove all minor and unmentionable characters (Dr. Blackbeard is the best example to come to mind of most unmentionable), and merge a few like Ace or Enel or Vivi. Not just characters, either, but other articles. However, if you find out-of-universe info, then put it in there quickly to save the article. Procrastinate no longer. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing against general mergers,but first of all minor characters are stil notable-Dr. Blackbeard is the starter of Ace's Cover Arc.But leaving that aside,merges of crews,yes.Merges of characters and triming down information beyond comon level-RESOLUTE NO.I didnt quite understand if you actualy proposed merging Vivi with Ace, that would make about as much sense as merging Joker and Gordon in one article,just cause they had met.New Babylon 2 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Psst... Actually D.Blackbeard isn't the start of the cover arc and he appears all of about 2x in the cover story, Ace starts by just looking for BB and never finding him. I'll have to agree on that one, you have to draw a line somewhere. He didn't even appear in the anime.
Moving along, Vivi and Ace can still be cut down to 3 paragraphs though NB. If you cut it down they can be merged and thats the problem. And we still would have two pages with in-universe stuff on. Which brings us back to square one of the debate (again).  :/Angel Emfrbl (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

### Sub-section one for length

Got too lengthy there. Anyway, you do need to realize not every character should be mentioned. Just because they have a name doesn't mean you absolutely must mention them. Such minor characters are for Wikias. Only characters who are impossible to not mention, like Dragon, Dr. Kureha, Dr. Hiriluk, and Dorry & Broggy, should be mentioned. Ones who have no real affect at all should be ignored and left only in the wikia, like Dr. Blackbeard and Igaaram's wife. If you don't realize this, I will be forced to removed them myself on the account of fan cruft. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

And where do you get that crock of shit? (Justyn (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC))
The current plan will be to merge to one page, and split if real world info is found, or it is just impossible to cover the characters in one list. Real world information would probably mean the Straw Hats having an article, and too large will mean major and minor character articles. This will allow for perspective, and it will keep the cruft down. TTN (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I was actualy speaking about the whole "no minor characters that did not have a huge impact on the plot, period" matter. But I still disagree with your idea, and that is your plan, not the end all be all of what will happen. Remember, Wikipedia has actual policies reguarding what happens when stuff would happen that would actualy be detromental to Wikipedia. You seem to quite easily forget it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyn (talkcontribs) 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
IAR is not for content disputes. TTN (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Actualy, yes, it is. IAR stands for ignore ALL rules, not "ignore all rules, exept for the ones the deletionist uses for nuking articles". For the love of Pete! WP:IAR states flat out: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it."(Justyn (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC))
It's completely subjective, so you cannot invoke IAR just to one up someone. See Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means. TTN (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I can when you are the one that started wikilawyering. All I'm doing is saying that if you can ignore the rules to just so you can fuel your agenda that next to noone agrees with here; I can ignore rules to actualy make Wikipedia a better place. And I really hate it when people make me say this but: cruft is not even a guideline, let alone a policy; and IT says that being cruft is not a reason for deletion.(Justyn (talk) 02:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC))
Hey, hey. No offence TTN and Justyn, but your beginning to mudsling here and are apparently attacking each other. This won't solve the problem at hand now will it? While your ranting and raving over rules here, we've still got a dozen articles that aren't following wikipedias guidelines... Would two be so kind as to get back to the decussion because while the rest of us are watching your egos clash, no one can possibly discuss the matter without fear of being caught up. Can I advise you argue over these things on your talk pages? Your hardy ignoring the rules that prevent an article progressing forward if y ou yourselves are the ones prevent it going forward. ^_- Angel Emfrbl (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I fail to see how correcting someone trying to use IAR as a trump card is anything but that. Whatever the case, I'm certainly not fighting with him. TTN (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
On the Contray, while its a good thing to do, unless it helps brings the discussion to a closure its hardly worth it. My response in in general since you two started off the discussion with this kinda of argument. Discussing the rules and what applies is nice, but its not got us anywhere. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I have a way to solve this once and for all.Lets just people say if they support the merger,as YOU (meaning TTN) propose it AT THIS POINT in its ENTIERITY.Then youll see if its needed/worth it or not. User:New Babylon 2 —Preceding comment was added at 12:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is not a vote. Arguments come before numbers. My arguments are based in policy, and yours come from the standpoint of a fan. If you want to keep some of these, find real world information. You can also jusy make use of the One Piece wiki. On that point, what is wrong with going over there? Is there some sort of benefit you receive by reading less detailed versions of the articles over there? Do you think that if they don't have articles here, the world will end or something? TTN (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep the articles ... One Piece is a very notable manga and thus the core characters should be kept as they are ... 77.46.206.10 (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah! You see that is not a very useful response. We need plans, reasons and suggestions. Would you care to expand on this response to make it a bit more helpful? Perhaps it is time for us to start weighing up the options, suggestions and things that are being discussed? I'm not saying finalise the discussion yet, just start putting solutions rather then endless rules and leding into an argument on the rules then the subject of the discussion? Angel Emfrbl (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that it is good as it is and I don't think that there is a problem with any of the articles ... Maybe a bit of cleaning up will do the trick ... And I agree that some very unimportant characters should be left out or just referenced ... SSJ 5 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, I'll agree with that. Lets see if I can make a few things a bit clearer at this stage. The discussion have had a sub-line, but it could have done with a summery report of some sort when it was cut. Lets see if I can speed it up by highlighting points so far.... This has worked in the "Zolo/Zoro" argument and another, lets see if its 3rd time a charm again. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that merging the pirate groups is a good idea, but I feel each straw-hat does deserve their own article. We can clean up the articles so the straw hats have all facts in them, but yeah I see that some of the minor characters are taking up too much space. It might have to come down to a vote, because both sides are pushing for a merger vote. WanderingHero (talk) 8:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope we should not. 69.202.119.212 (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Fuck no....One piece needs all these articles to go in depth into there charecters but what I would like would that all the seperate Brook articles to be merged into one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.103.14 (talk) 16:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is only one brook section... Its on the minor characters page. ^_- Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is a good idea 99.235.30.138 (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I DON'T WANT IT TO END UP LIKE THE NARUTO ARTICLES. I LIKE EVERYTHING THE WAY IT IS. PLEASE DONT CHANGE IT. THANK YOU. Snickjames55 (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

May I remind everyone that it is useless screaming "Don't do it" unless something is done to fix the problem... And can we please put our comments in the right place when we reply here. There is an order to everything. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

## Discussion

Okay I’m going to write up what we’ve discussed so far because a couple of people are ending up not helping at all.

##### Reasons For
1. Articles fail rules: WP:FICT, WP:WAF, (WP:V, WP:N. WP:RS, WP:NOT. The most important thing is they are fall WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:OR.
2. One Piece wiki – We have this now which can take over the things. Articles were already moved in Oct 2006. The wikia is fully funicational as a good quality replacement, without fear of using wikipedia as a template at all.
3. Only needs to be in appropriate lists as needed for WP:Summary Style.
4. Oda only release bits of information in a Q&A format, which are all translated by various people. These provide little tidbits, but they are not enough to establish notability. In other words, articles must have information from reliable sources that shows that the topic is important in the real world. Fictional topics establish notability by including real world information, such as creation and reception information from the creators and reviewers. TTN pointed out they don’t exist, having been around the fandom for a while I can ensure EVERYONE they do exist… But no one has ever put them up.
5. All articles on this site have to establish notability.
6. A lack of editors is slowing up the progress with bringing articles up to snuff. There is no wikipedia project to support the OP pages and make sure everyone is organised.
7. Fandom is slipping in, with information going on the pages that only a fan of the series would need to know, not a general reader. Goes back to point 4 of this list about the “in-Universe stuff”.
8. We only need 2-3 paragraphs on each character.
9. Wikipedia is not a fan site.
##### Reasons Against
1. Supported by a number of fans and editors who don’t like the changes.
2. No logic in a mass unneeded merger.
3. Other articles mentioned in worst state or given as examples for one reason for another.
4. No greater explanation as to how they fail the rules.
5. SP:N requires two sources… Pages
6. WP:OR, one argument is that the pages do not fail this point because they are not original research. If the sources are established as common facts they do not fall into this.
7. There is a lot of information on each character in comparison to other shows.
8. One massive page full of information.
##### Notes
1. Much information which is lost because it only comes out in Japanese – No excuse for this even still.
2. In the Against Merger boat, no. 5 is indeed correct but the sources for the most part are not up to scratch. Even on pages with refs, where is the ISBN no. to the volumes of the chapters the information came from? Interviews need a link to a translation at the very least…
3. Reasons Again no.4 there is a lot to be said here… Too little time to fully explain it.  :/
4. Against point no. 7. Define “A lot” is something which bothers me slightly on that statement.
5. On this point… This is great if it’s a quick discussion to say, but it is seeming to be used here (which bothers me) to have the final say in the matter at hand. Your arguing over this rule/guideline… Yet by doing so are completely going against the point of the rule which is not to let the rules and guidelines get in the way of the discussion. Or this point.

### Proposal

Several Proposed approaches have now been put forward for us to discuss that some or no one supports. There are other ways of doing this:

1. Merging all characters into one page.
2. Second version same as above but main characters are kept.
3. Merging all characters into their crew pages.
4. Again same as above but main characters keep their pages.
5. Leave as it is and do improvements to the pages to above this in future.
6. Make major and minor lists and merge there, and merge the Straw Hats to something like List of Straw Hat Pirates, where, except Luffy, the max. should be 3 paragraphs, the standard for merged characters.

That’s 5 solutions here. I think I’ve summed up everything. I think an admin will have to be called on this soon by the little we’ve achieved so far in bringing this to a close.  :/

Added another suggestion. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got anything to add to this? Angel Emfrbl (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

All I really have to say is that we should start at #5 for each and every page; than we work our way down the list until all the pages are either reasonably satisfactory to all parties, or all merged. (Justyn (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

If you feel that they can be improved, please do so. There has been plenty of time, especially since the last merge discussion, so there is no need to leave the articles around indefinitely for it to happen. If they're merged before they can be improved, either work on them in a sandbox, or gather the sources and apply them immediately after bringing them back. TTN (talk) 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
1. 4 makes the most sense to me, applied only to major crews. Minor crews and their characters don't qualify for their own page and should be subject to #1, as I stated before. AnimeNikkaJamal (talk) 07:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
2. 4 also makes the most sense to me. I provided a few refs above. TTN can say move it to a sandbox and only bring them back after improvement, but that's his opinion and isn't backed up by our guidelines. It's just one particular editor's opinion. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree ... No. 4 or No. 5 make the most sense ... Improve the pages and leave some unimportant out or just reference them in minor characters page. SSJ 5 (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

May I remind everyone no.5 is pointless unless there are people willing to do just that. As for me, I have no preference I'm just here to check editors aren't putting bad info on the page. The only thing I don't support is no.5 going ahead with no one to help with it. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I support a sixth suggestion: Make major and minor lists and merge there, and merge the Straw Hats to something like List of Straw Hat Pirates, where, except Luffy, the max. should be 3 paragraphs, the standard for merged characters. Ships excluded, moved to Straw Hat Pirates instead. Also, please note major is someone like Ace, Vivi, or Shanks. Minor allies like Dorry & Broggy and Dr. Kureha should be put in the minor list, and major allies, major major enemies (not Morgan!!!!!), and some like Mihawk and Dragon, who will be important in the future, should be put in the major list. Really Minor' characters whose only real importance is having a name should be mentioned only in the Wikia, like Dr. Blackbeard or Conis' father. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
As I said up there, two or more lists can come after the one list is finished. If it is just impossible to cover them all in the one, it will be split accordingly. Anyways, minor allies like Dorry & Broggy and Dr. Kureha will be summed up in prose (i.e. Kureha may just be covered in Copper's section or in a general section about that island), so I don't really know if we'll need a specific minor list if the main list becomes too long anyways. It will probably just be the Straw Hats and this list if there is any sort of split. Also, two paragraphs will be the max for any character besides Luffy, who could stand up to three. Remember that that this is not a fansite, so intricate details are unneeded. TTN (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
You know what? Why should there even be Wikipedia pages on these characters? The Wikia pages already exist, why not just turn every One Piece page into a redirect to a wikia? And why stop at One Piece? Naruto? Bleach? Dragon Ball? Star Trek? Star Wars? All of them have wikias, so why not just redirect every page in all of those into their respective wikias too? And why stop at fiction? There's a camera/photography wiki, we can redirect everything that has to do with cameras. There's a wiki for Webcomics, anything and everything webcomic related can go there; and hell, a wikia can be made on ANYTHING, so really, what use is Wikipedia? Before ANYONE asks: yes, this is satire.(Justyn (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC))
I don't think that is helping anyone Justyn... You might want to reconsider your choice of words and actions.
A page can exist so long as there is appropriate material on them to support. Again I point to the page Superman. When our pages look like that, we can say none of this should go ahead. Also please take note of this very useful guideline: WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Listing off examples randomly to support the keep of articles or even using them in an argument in any way isn't going to help us nro you at all. Seriously Justyn, think before you type. I would to keep all the pages as they are myself, but I admitted long ago this is too much for the support and editors we have around at the moment. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
First: satire. Second, I was poking at his "I don't care, they should not even be mentioned" policy but mostly the "well the wikia is there, so why should we have these pages" attitude by taking it to its logical extreme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyn (talkcontribs) 11:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out; most of the "reasons for merging" are baseless bull spouted out by TTN. When you really boil it down, there is no reason to merge these pages. It is stated explicitly that the series' author or creator CAN be used as a secondary source; so those three or four SBS quotes can and do count as secondary sources. And for some reason, there are no rules on what makes a character notible enough to be seperated from a list: so I would have to say, sources maybe? So, the pages, at worst, only violate a guideline; and can anyone tell me how they even do that? (Justyn (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC))

Notes from the creator can help, but they are practically useless bits of trivia at this point. Which animal they resemble or smell like is hardly even real world information as it stands. You need creation and reception information from varying sources to build fairly large sections in order to have them become anything more than fan articles. Right now, you at least need to establish notability with a few of them. Please read the policies and guidelines that you're trying to cite before using them in an argument. TTN (talk) 13:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and can you answer these questions: Why is is so important that the characters are covered in-depth here, when you have a resource that clearly has better articles, rules, and anything else that would make it easier for One Piece fans? Do you believe that because the characters have been cut down that the main article is suddenly not going to be notable? TTN (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I largely disapprove No. 6 ... I'd like No. 5, and that all of us pitch in to help make 'em better. SSJ 5 (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Numbers 4 or 5 sound like the best options to me. There is no need to merge every single character from a decade-long series into a single article and cut down on the information given. Merging all characters into their crew pages wouldn't work well either, because there are some characters (i.e. Shanks, Blackbeard, and Smoker) that are extremely significant to the plot, but not members of the Straw Hat Pirates. For merging it into a single article: even Naruto, a series that is one hundred chapters shorter than One Piece, has many characters that have their own articles! There is no need to limit the major characters of a series that is almost five hundred chapters in length down to three paragraphs! (Megadoomer16) 15:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To be dead fucking honest, TTN, I just don't like what Deletionism has become, and what the Deletionists are doing to Wikipedia. I honestly think that WP:N and all of its intruction creeped brood are nothing short of worthless. If something can be sourced properly, why the hell should it not have an article? Now, I'm going to start working on improving the articles, if no one wants to help me: I'll just do it myself.(Justyn (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC))

Justyn, you should be aware of how WP works. A few user can control WP:N and use it to control all pages. You can go and try to change it, but bring at least ten super dedicated editors with you, otherwise you'll be shot down. Other than that, your opinion doesn't really matter. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 11:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I am aware of how Wikipedia "works", the Deletionists just abuse rules to make plowshares into swords, whine, or just not shut up to get their way; for an example, look at what TTN is doing: completely ignoring concensus and even policy to a degree to conform to a guideline (and note that guidelines themselves say that you should ignore them if they defy common sence in an issue). And to top it all off? TTN is ignoring the parts of the guidelines that he cites for merging these pages that say that he should first try to fix the pages before nuking them. (Justyn (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC))

My only other comments on no.5 (everyone's favoured choice) is that if we choose that path... Someone has to set up a project page to make sure this sort of thing is avoidable. If anyone is interested, let me know as I set up a lot of info once upon a time and I'll point to where it is for you. If we go with 5 and things continue as they are its rather difficult to make sure that this doesn't keep happening otherwise. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, so I think it is getting to the point where we should start merging (It still probably won't be for a few days). People are still free to try to assert notability if they wish, but there is nothing to keep the articles up at this point. The current plan is to merge to one list, and split if its necessary. I remind all of the opposers that you have the One Piece wiki, which contains this info, and much, much more, so please make use of that (Nobody ever did answer the question of why the info needs to be in such great detail here). TTN (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Why does ANY information need to be in great detail here? I mean it's not as if there is no limit on space or anything, no, that can't be it. And as I said before, you just want to merge and delete pages, seemingly for fun, so nothing we do will ever satisfy notablity in your book. And that is the whole problem with it: far too subjective, anyone can say "does not prove notabilty" even if the article has fifty sources from Time magazine, dozens of newspaper ones. And noone ever questions the Inner Party... I mean Deletionists because they're like locusts, for every one you discredit, there are five more waiting to spout the EXACT SAME BULLSHIT.
Now, all this boils down to is "are the sources we have good enough to satisfy the deliberately vague worded and subjective guideline". And we can argue like cartoon characters 'till the cows come home about how they do or do not. Or we can just ask "How does deleting loads of information and then merging it all into one obcenely long and unwieldy list make Wikipedia any better?" (Justyn (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
Note that Not Paper specifically states "This policy is not a free pass for inclusion", so it is best to refrain from citing it until these actually do fit our policies and guidelines. Anyways, I am not interested in discussing your view my actions, so please stop trying to bring it up (though, this would be "mergism" if you really need to apply a tag to it). If you find and add non-trivial information to the articles, they can be brought back. Look at some of our good and featured articles for what you need. You'll see that it is nothing like what you have tried to add. And again, ask on IAR talk page, and they will tell you that it is not for content disputes. TTN (talk) 00:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
So they went and changed the definition of "all" did they? It does not matter what you say about it, the title of this policy is "Ignore All Rules", and where in the actual policy does it say "this does not aply to X", last time I checked it, all it said was that if the rules are more of a problem in a situation, to just ignore them. Also, this is not just a content debate, this is about merging dozens of articles into one gargantuan list. But of course, really, when you just get down to it, point to just one debate on Wikipedia that is not about some form of content. (Justyn (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
Ignoring Justyn's rant about IAR (though you may be right, Justyn, your focus is too narrow), current consensus favors number 4, not merging to a single list. Please don't ignore the opinions of the other editors to favor your preferred outcome. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 08:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That rant was brought on by TTN's elitist "the plan is" attitude. And Mergism is just merging the pages together; what makes TTN's plan Deletionism is that he plans to get rid of all the information in the pages. And all I was saying is that the guidelines do not need to be followed with a blind all or nothing viewpoint; IAR exemplifies my point flat out. (Justyn (talk) 12:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC))
Seeing option four still leaves us with the same exact problem, minus like five articles, the part about local consensus not ruling from WP:CON applies here. There will either be one or two lists. That will be all that is necessary to understand the series. TTN (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Justyn, I understand that you're angry about this for whatever reason, but you need to understand that this is an encyclopedia that works off of combining information from reliable sources and some primary sources. The information within these articles is purely primary, with a few having a some trivial secondary bits. Please just use the One Piece wiki. TTN (talk) 19:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Second that sentiment. Why has this stuff not been merged? I don't see anyone here at WP:FICT making the case to change consensus, and since consensus is global not local, objections here are not relevant. Eusebeus (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
WP:FICT is disputed, so that thread flies right out the window, and if you have no intention of listening to the opinions of others in this merger, there is no reason for anyone to listen to yours, either. Consensus is not static and is sure as hell isn't set at the moment, so instead of trying to bully your way into getting what you want, why not take the novel approach and actually work with other editors? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I knew that tag was going to be annoying. The only things being discussed are the heavy bias toward AfDs, and some minor wording aspects of it. The core of it is based upon WP:N, so there is no potential for a complete change of pace for it. If we have to ignore FICT, N gives the same exact remedy as it. Editors have to be willing to actually work on this. If this were like the Naruto group, I would have no problem with a slow, but steady decline in articles. This isn't the Naruto group, though, as only one user would like to take that route. TTN (talk) 23:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Just because you're working with a different group doesn't mean you can't take the effort to compromise. It will not kill you or the encyclopedia to have 7-12 (something like that) lists instead of one, and in either case you will get your wish of merging the smaller characters. There's no reason to shove the genie back in the bottle all at once. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Why exactly should I be the one to work with people completely unwilling to do anything at all? Don't be fooled by the "Let's improve these!" comments. Out of the committed fans, only AE wants to actually bring them up to our standards, while others do not care or only want to "satisfy" the guideline to a certain extent. Again, if this group started actively working to make these better like the editors working on Naruto, it would be fine to say "Oh, I'll go away for now.", but that is not the case. In any case, they have the One Piece wiki, which contains everything here and more, so there is no real excuse not to go the encyclopedic route (provide enough information to supplement the main article). TTN (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
To add to that... Not only do I want them improved... I actually want to see signs of editors working to do just that. Obivously the former isn't going to happen unless the latter occurs. So at this point, as said before, I don't ness. want what TTN is preposing, but I'm n ot about to object to it either. If TTN was to retract his preposal here, would you try and improve within the guidelines anyone or let them continue to fall further and further into the vagueness of barely being suitable for wikipedia? Would anyone be willing to take on the responiblitiy of setting up the OP project that gets us organised (heck I did the research, I just didn't have the support)? Or would everyone go back into their corner of wikipedia once again until the NEXT big event where nothing ends up happening? The first two would ensure this never happens, the third wouldn't make me suprised at this stage.
Bottom line folks, your defending these articles against any form of change for the most part, but in the end... Even the slightest excuse for deletetion is enough on wikipedia to loose an article, trust me, I've seen it a dozen times... I don't think half of you fully understand the rules nor the position the articles in so I suggest most of you take the time to read whats already been said and pointed out... There is a greater wikipedia community out there who don't care about One Piece nor anime for that matter who wouldn't think twice about deleting our articles (half do it for the sake of it).
For the most part, if you guys hate TTN for what he is doing, look around wikipedia more... Their greater evils out there then what TTN does and at least he is doing something that will have (hopefully) a productive output. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm only saying that, aside from Justyn and a few others, most of the reasonable ones here are going for a less excessive merge. The one page merge is far too excessive, at least all at once. Merge down into the crew pages first and work your way from there. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as the one or two lists are inevitable without some sort of active push, I would rather skip the three or four repeats of this discussion. If we get down to the crew lists, the next steps will be main a main Navy article, a main pirate crew article, ect. After that, it will likely be another step. Repeat that once or twice more, and we'll be at the level I'm going for. Seeing as that would not really help anything, there really is no point in it. As I have been saying, if the editors were to adopt AE's plan up there, I would be fine with that route. The most likely case is that they do not want to do that, and they will fight this every step of the way, so the best thing to do is to just skip that completely. TTN (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem with that train of thought is that you think it has to happen when it does not. You decided well before ever proposing this merge how you wanted it to end, and now you're pushing relentlessly to achieve that. I say again: compromise. Try one to three lists pirates, one list navy, and one list for the remainder or something like that. You do not have to smash it down into the absolutely smallest thing possible. You just want to. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can convince these editors that this is a good thing, and make sure that they know that those lists will be merged sometime afterwards, I don't mind. But I am not going through this for a third time. In case you didn't know, some characters were also merged into the lists a while back to get on the right path. TTN (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll find it'll be a much easier task when you're not proposing something so drastic. I see three lists working much better than just one. Proposal #6 actually seems to cover that, so I'll go with 6. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I doubt it. The only limited plan these guys seem to want to go for is merging a couple of characters. We'll see what we need when I can get around to editing without being reverted. TTN (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay, like I said last time I posted. TTN is just unwilling to compromise. He doesn't care about anything that anyone says. He simply wants to delete all of this information for his own pleasure. I really see no point in destroying all of the editor's hard work. Sure, some articles need editing, and some characters can be scaled down, but it is good. Compromises should be made, ones where articles can only be improved and not deleted. And TTN, I think you should simply shut up already and let this disscusion die. It's obvious that you are the only one who keeps insisitng on deleting everything in one big merger. He provides very vague reasons as to delete them, most of which have been countered. Let the editors fix them (I know I'll help as best as I can) since it is good. The articles do have sources (just not as easy to find) and stop using Wiki as an excuse. Just because it exists doesn't mean that we shouldn't have some information here as well. Fix up the articles a little, that's what I recommend. And TTN, either learn to play nice with others or shut up already. Pikachu150 (T | C) 6:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That whole rant is part of the reason he's become so unwilling. If you want to get somewhere, meet in the middle. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't been reasonable the entire time. Look back to when he first proposed the merger. He wouldn't lsiten to anyone and only used certain rules to prove his point. And I'm sorry, but I can't take him anymore. I've been reading this disscussion, and it just leads into dead ends. Whenever a compromise can be reached, he ruins it by saying that we should just have a big merger and that opens the whole wound again. Just let this go already, please. Pikachu150 (T | C) 6:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. TTN you ain't goin anywhere with this ... So, as i was saying ... There are many ppl (including me) who are obviously willing to contribute to One Piece characters articles ... So let's just get to it SSJ 5 (talk) 08:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You're willing to contribute by editing as if you were on the One Piece wiki. You value the information currently present in the articles, which is only a good philosophy over at the One Piece wiki. If you're willing to edit them encyclopedically, please explain what kind of information that you plan on adding and removing. I would just suggest that you use that wiki for in-depth Once Piece information, and use this site for encyclopedic information. TTN (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm willing to contribute by editing in any way possible. Removing the unnecessary references and different character add-on parts of the pages. Keeping the info about who they are and what are their abilities SSJ 5 (talk) 22:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Personnelly I don't get what half the fuss is about here. TTN isn't suggesting anything that won't make the OP wikipedia pages any different to others. LOTS of programs only have a single, or at the most 3, lists of characters with summeries. Some are from things larger then OP. The trick is to just drop all the fanish comments on the pages... Personnelity. Storyline. Trivia. Keep the basics. You'll get a page that doesn't give a lot of info, but is easier to manage, organise and check. Seriously, TTN has made many valid points time and time again. A single page of information that doesn't have a lot but has everything sourced is far more useful on wikipedia then a huge page without sources.
This is going around in a circle, so this is the LAST time I give this example: Brainiac 5, I recently used this page to check out something and found there was not a single reference to aid me. It took me 3 hours of reading (I was actually looking for the issue with V.4 of the characters history in it) to find the source for the information I wanted. Our pages aren't much better... None of our refs have ISBN nos and 95% of the information is unsourced. Inccidently, when I get time I'm going to correct that page myself and add the missing refs. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Has a draft of what the page will look like if all the chrcters are merged been made?! Is merging some chrcters to seperete and certain lists the issue, or is it merging all to one the issue. Are real life replicas of the strawhat's boats and chopperman merchandise real world information. Is thre any othr excuse than the wikia avaliable. Will ths page be tagged for deletion for lacking real world info or exceding page limit. Will it cause editing prblems to those who want to edit it. Will the proposer contribute to the page's structure if merged or will he leave it as is without doing anything else. Why is smoker a villain. Will people change Zoro to Zolo because they no longer find debate on it. Why no one asks this questions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.6.174.251 (talk) 17:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

This is deletionist nonsense. Compare some of the minor villains that we never see again like the priests, to Enel. Enel unlike the others, has his own backstory, reappears, is free-standing, and is a major character. I vote that first make a list of One Piece villains, which yes Enel/Eneru is a part of. Second, list of specific villain crews such as the Foxy pirates or even the Navy leaders. Third, characters which are notable enough to warrant their own explanation get their own article. Okay, here's an instance where a merge is done- this one article talked about Japanese succession, and they mentioned cloister rule (exact same information). Here's another- Ashido from Bleach I wrote an article, it was merged into list of Bleach shinigami. And rightly so, you know why? Because he appeared for a lousy 3-4 episodes. Take a look at Enel, and Foxy after him. Both used up several episodes (Foxy because he recurred), Enel taking about 30+ if I remember correctly. Further, this tells almost everything about Enel. Have you ever looked at one of those list of characters pages? You'd be lucky to hear that "Enel uses lightning" and not much else. As a rule of thumb, I'd say any anime villain in a leadership position, which isn't a puppet ruler is probably notable enough to warrant their own page. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Ingo yeah agrees!

Okay, I just got a look at the poor excuse for an article that it was suggested to be merged into. It's just a list of links. I don't care how long the Enel is, it's at least a full article, and from what I've seen does not need (much) cleanup. When there is alot of the same info on the characters list, then maybe merging into makes sense. But this list has NO information. Not just that, most of the One Piece stuff has, at the bottom of the page, a list of One Piece characters, crews, villains, etc, etc, etc.[1] If you want something to do, why not consider either improving that pag of deleting it entirely. In fact, as something to discuss, I'll consider giving a long deadline to that article to cleanup. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
But then also Sir Crocodile should have his own article ... I mean he is the longest running villain. SSJ 5 (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Do NOT merge Luffy into this! Luffy has a HUGE page & it wouldn't fit. I think I have made my point. Ingo yeah (Sorry if I didn't get the format correct, I'm kind of new here. Tee hee!)Hades, God Of The Underclass 21:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Seriously... We can make the info only 3 paragraphs for each character... Its not that difficult... Just cut the fancrap out. Let the wikia handle the rest. -_-' Angel Emfrbl (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
WHY? Why does the information need to be limited just because the One Piece encyclopedia exists?
Colleen Clinkenbeard. That's all I need to say. Anyone who decides to go randomly deleting articles because they "don't fit format" think about the broken link impact when Monkey D Luffy no longer registers. Instead of whining about not fitting format, you can (A)ask WikiPedia to change the rule, or (B) create pages for EACH character (even the minor ones) and make them all fit format. Oh yes, and the reason people are being "unreasonable" and not wanting to switch to 3 paragraphs, is because you really can't tell much about a character in 3 paragraphs when they have been around for 100+ episodes. Heck, Beet for Beet the Vandel Buster takes roughly 5 paragraphs, and he's only around for 77 episodes. You can tell 3 paragraphs of trivial facts, or you can make it a personal page which actually tells the details. If you did that with each character on the page, it would be 60 pages long and SLOOOOW loading. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 05:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Because this is wikipedia, an encyclopedia. There doesn't have to be heaps of input on a page here, thats why Wikias exist in the first place. If the change effects pages, fine, I will be the one to go around and fix the problem. It doesn't have to be trivia at all, the facts. In fact the input on the Straw Hat Pirates page pretty much sums up ALL anyone needs to know on the characters. If you want more info, read the manga, watch the series, thats what their there for. If you don't want to do either, read the wikia because thats whats thats there for. You are making it seem like a big deal having just 3-5 paragraphs of input.
Cut the personnelity out, cut the trivia out, cut any uneeded plot points out which shouldn't even be on the page (you can make the history only one paragraph long at the most, even Robin's can be made to fit that). Make the abilities section limited. Seriously, if other series bigger then ours (both anime and non-anime) can manage it, then why can't we? What makes OP so special it has to be different? The answer; nothing. When the OP pages resemble Superman page, I'll take back what I've said here. But they don't, so as far as I'm concerned, your whole response there is pretty weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel Emfrbl (talkcontribs) 11:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This is wikipedia... Not the OP Wikia. On the wikia, this kind of thing wouldn't be an issue, on wikipedia, it is. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 11:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Now, it is obvious that this arguement has pretty much boiled down to: these articles are not sourced and referenced correctly. If that is not a case for WP:BURO to come in and say "stfu", we might as well just get rid of that policy entirely. {Justyn (talk) 07:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC))

Justyn, its more then that, stop pretending its not. You've completely ignored most of whats been said, paying attention to only one thing CONSTANTLY throughout this discussion. If it was just that reason alone, would I support TTN, whose methods I don't alway agree on? Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying that the status quo should stay as is; these pages need to be fixed up, desperately. But that should not be done by obliterating all the information because it is sourced improperly occourding to guidelines A and B, and Policy C. As I stated: Wikipedia is not a burocracy. We do not need to stamp each and every letter five times with the official stamp. I have had bad direct and indirect dealings with Deletionists that have left me cynical on the matter: I won't go into heavy detail on the matter, but let me say that I can understand why many people in the Webcomics community are up in arms about Wikipedia right now.
Now, I think that unless we want to have an accurate metaphore for this cleanup to be "like herding cats", I think that a One Piece workgroup should be made (should have stated tthis one a little earlier). Unless you like herding cats, that is; if you want to go around herding cats, be my guest.
I am a little stressed out on this whole matter, top that out with a whole load of real life shit, and I would assume that I'm constantly sitting at just below boiling. (Justyn (talk) 09:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC))
...It seems that this won't ever get anywhere. Fine, I'm taking action myself if that's the case. I support Someguy's decision to takes things one step at a time, first merge to crew articles, then continue from there little by little. I have just put merge suggestions for all of the non-Straw Hats except Vivi and Roger, because I'm not sure if there is a place for them besides the minor list, and the two ships. Hopefully we can merge these articles, rather than keep them as they are, without merging them in a sloppy manner. Objections? Comments? Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 18:40, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Only that you've got the right idea. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

## Character List Merge

Why has all this stuff not been merged yet per our guidelines? I propose carrying these to AfD since a merge has not been worked out here. Eusebeus (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on some of the central contributers talkpages, asking for a compromise. I still hope that this can be worked out here.—Cronholm144 20:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well I wonder, it's not like there is no consensus or anything; or maybe it's because the notability guidelines themselves are not only under constant debate over whether they should, you know, EXIST, but because they have never truly reached a real consensus on Notability (note that I don't consider a bunch of your deletionist buddies whining until you get our way as "consensus"); or maybe it's because the guidelines say that if they conflict with common sense among other things, they should be ignored. (Justyn (talk) 23:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC))
Because you aren't the be-all-end-all of Wikipedia policy, no matter how hard you wish it. I agree some merges are in order, but merging everything into one list, or even two, will weaken this series' encyclopedic presence. That, in turn, weakens Wikipedia as a whole. Ark (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey that's kind of similar to the idea I counter proposed on TTN's during the discussion. Everything into their crew pages. Everyone seems fine with that or leaving things as they are. Which I dread happening once again. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 21:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Justyn, I am not a deletionist or an inclusionist. Furthermore, having an attitude of "us" vs. "them" does not facilitate a compromise, which is all I was asking you to consider. Would you consider the "crew pages" compromise? If TTN agrees as well then I think we could call this resolved. Angel has generously agreed to draft some sub-page example articles. Let's wait for that and see if we can all agree that it is better than the current set up.
Ark, less/fewer information/articles on a topic ${\displaystyle \neq }$ weakened encyclopedia (there are a variety of policies and guidelines WP:WAF,WP:IINFO that govern how information should be dealt with, but I think that has already been enough policy bashing on this page), though I agree that a single list merger would be rather problematic. —Cronholm144 00:17, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I call foul against what you did up there, Cronholm: you reordered the posts and made what I wrote look like a personal attack on you. What you did there was wrong. My post was responding to the first poster: Eusebeus' clear and unabashed deletionism and placing a guideline above policy, NOT TO YOU. I posted after you, but I was not responding to you. There is a difference there; a large one.
Now, if we were to start merging pages: I think that we should go over each and every single one with a fine tooth comb and try and find sources and try to get them up to par: what can be fixed will get to stay as an individual article; what does not, gets merged with a larger list page. But, merging all the articles onto one massive page while getting rid of all the information and most, if not ALL the minor characters is simply an awful idea. (Justyn (talk) 01:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

<<If you mean this diff, all I did was add a colon in front some comments so it would be easier to read, this is not a reordering. I am sorry (struck through, see above) if I missed who your comment was meant for; it was hard to tell since your statement was undirected. I am going to reserve further comment about the merger until Angel is done. However, I would like to hear your opinion on the crew idea. Are you opposed to that as well? Finally, and I know this is anal, all caps are considered by many (including myself) to be a form of "Internet shouting" and are not typically conducive to a collegial environment (no one likes to be shouted at, no?). —Cronholm144 02:53, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not write "to X" in front of the comment, but I set it so that it could be infered to whom it was directed. I suppose that I overreacted a bit; I apologise for the overreaction; I too have stricken that part out.
Now, I am not opposed to merger, per se;; but starting with merging is a bad idea: I already stated that my opinion is to try and fix any of the articles that can be fixed, then merging everything that can cannot be fixed. But starting out by merging everything and obliterating all of that information is just a terrible idea. (Justyn (talk) 03:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC))
No problem. As I see it, there are three overarching problems with manga and anime articles in general here at the 'pedia, excessive detail, speculation, and in-universe style to the point of incomprehensibility. One Piece articles are certainly not an exception. It seems to me that a merger would actually improve the the quality of the content that we already have. In that, if the writers are forced to be concise, most of the unwarranted speculation and detail get left out.
Examples from Portgas D. Ace (bold parentheses are me...) "Before that, Ace was briefly seen on Drum Island.[3]. It should be noted (...why?) that his hat, instead of red, was black and he was wearing a black jacket, clothing he usually is not seen wearing, though this can be attributed to the two islands different climates." and "However, in his most recent appearance, Ace seems to have ditched Buggy. (unnecessary)" "This is a similar situation Luffy was in when fighting Don Krieg, and Blackbeard is in by sailing on his raft (assuming that he still does sail on a raft), even without his Devil Fruit powers." (What does this even mean?)).
I appreciate your sentiment (and it works in theory), but I am afraid that the fine tooth comb will never actually get around to cleaning up all the articles (in my experience, big changes force improvements, article clean up drives wither and die on the vine). I would prefer to have a character that might deserve his own article on a list, rather than an undeserving character with an article. I think this is where we differ most. —Cronholm144 05:35, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I am about to say something that might come as a shock to you: I completely agree with your final statement. If an article does not deserve an article they damn well won't get one. just because a character might deserve an article, does not mean that they actualy do. A case can be made (not a very strong one, mind you) for any part of a list to have their own article, this, however, does not mean that they actualy do. Characters that have their own articles for no reason whatsoever, should not have them. Brooke was given his own page right off the bat; this was, without any doubt, a bad idea. Why was he given this honor? Because the character had accepted an invitation to join the Straw Hats. He later retracted his acceptance. This was pointless, becuase: he was not even in the series for five pages when he was given a page! Fan issues aside, there is no upwards limit on information; so why limit the information by merging hundreds' of characters into one über list? Of course, what is that raving Naughtymancer's solution? Delete all minor and filler characters.
Here's the thing about the One Piece character pages: there are 19 of them. Several are on the hinge of getting merged even in my book. If I need to write it one million times in massive, italisized, bolded font in all caps to get my point across on this, I will: I am fine with characters that do not deserve their own pages not having them, I vehemently oppose merging every character into one giant list and getting rid of almost all the information. (Justyn (talk) 09:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Well reguardless of everyone's opinions, its time to show some workings. I have one idea sizzling over: User talk:Angel Emfrbl/Test page: One Piece Characters. If the characters need a bigger section, then we can link to a seperate page (like they do/did with the Avatar characters).

Note: This is a rush job, so don't expect anything close to resembling the final outcome.

Anyone can make alterations as they feel like it. Just don't mess things up too much. The explainations of whats what are on the discussion page. mostly its just a rework of the old page with bits altered. All that missing is refs... But its more or less acceptable now. The "about" section I will buff up to 4 paragraphs if its acceptable. I'd do more, but today I'm very ill... Angel Emfrbl (talk) 11:01, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

All I want to say on the merger is: can we try colaberating on fixing the pages (as opposed to multiple editors just running around like headless chickens, making edits willy nilly) before gutting most of the information?

Aang, the main character from Avatar, is nothing but plot and character information. That's it. It's a B-ranked article.

There is only one little tidbit on something that the creators wanted the character to be able to do, nothing else like that: the abilities of the character, and his place in the plot of the series. The page is B-ranked.

The page is written in an out of universe manner, it goes into excruciating depth in a few places. It has thrirty three references, all but one are primary sources; the other is from an interview with the series creators. The page is B-ranked.

Avatar started in 2005, One Piece started in 1997: Avatar has twenty thirty minute episodes a year for nearly three years. One Piece has been being having 19-21 page chapters published almost weekly for over ten years, with 30-minute anime epsodes for the last seven years.

Merging the main character pages in simply a horrendus idea that will have no good outcomes. The pages need to be cleaned up, no questions there. But do they need to be gutted and shrunken down to nothing, and then merged into lists so that they will never get inhanced? HELL NO!

We should be trying to make all the One Piece articles look more like the articles on Aang, Naruto Uzumaki, or Ichigo Kurosaki, they are all B-ranked articles.

No offence Angel, but the last thing we should do is bow down to the deletionists, all it does in encourege them! We should be doing everything we can do deny TTN the joy of seeing his abomination of a list come to fruition! I can start looking for interviews with Oda, and I can put links to them up in my userspace. (Justyn (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC))

Okay... Enough is enough Justyn, now you get a piece of my mind!
You sit all this time giving great pretty speeches and laying down guidelines... Meanwhile 18 pages sit on the verge of wikipedias acceptance. This is where we differ, I want something done and I'm prepared to do something, wipe the slate clean and rethink how we do things...
YOU give a ton of speeches about us doing NOTHING and yet... Don't lift a finger. I'm saying it now Justyn; sit down shut up and be quiet until the day YOU try and repair the sloppiness of the pages. There is a guideline about owning pages, this is the impression you give me right now. I'm not giving in to deletionists, I just want pages that are acceptable. So whether your like it or not at this stage Justyn, I'm just going to ignore your comments and try to fix the problem at hand - like it or lump it.
My patience is now at the end with you Justyn, show some respect towards everyone, admit we have a problem and get off that dam high horse of yours and help get something done. This is what wikipedia is about... A community trying to create a encyclopedia to share information. Do we understand each other at this stage? Because after rereading all your comments... I don't think you understand things at all. Be the problem solver... Not THE PROBLEM! Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I just don't have the time to rewrite entire pages at the moment, but I have been doing some research, and I have found several interviews with Oda, and I will start trying to find ISBN numbers. But I just don't have the time for the next few days to rewrite entire pages. I will likely have some better time a little after new years.
I know that I have been talking more than I have been editing: is this not one of the things that we are supposed to do? Discuss gargantuan edits like this before making them? And one big problem that WE all have (all the One Piece sections editors, not just any one of us, I have these problems too), is that we don't coordinate our work with each other; we each go around making the edits we want to rather than all deciding as a group what to edit, and then doing it. We could do far better if we all decide: "we work on bringing Vivi's page up to snuff this week." If we don't bother fixing the pages we might as well just gut everything and put it all into TTN's monster of a list; the pages either adapt and get fixed if they can, or they die and get merged. (Justyn (talk) 00:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
I'm willing to team up on a page. How about Zoro? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Not my personal first pick, but a starting point is a starting point. I'm definately in. (Justyn (talk) 05:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
Okay, started a thread on the talk page so that we can discuss the cleanup there rather than here. (Justyn (talk) 06:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC))
This is what I wanted to see happen, talking that reaches some conclusion at last! I've wrote some starting things up on the page about what we can do. I'll be helping on Boxing day and onwards (I'm committed to the x-mas preparations in my family today and tomorrow). ISBN no. are already on the manga guide page. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 10:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out something. A good argument was that the One Piece wiki could replace these articles. By that logic, articles like Mario, Zelda, and Master Chief should be merged too. in fact by reading the whole page, which took a good hour, the only conclusion I seem to draw is that articles about fictional characters should not exist. It is so hard to find references to fictional characters when compared to real people who have books and television specials written about them. Now, while I agree that several articles could be merged. At least the main crew should be added. And for references, why not just say that "all information taken from One Piece manga chapters, SBS, and anime episodes"? 69.136.232.147 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this? I make a bare minimum explanation of each character/crew, and we take down the stupid merge-to order. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Tried it, quit midway though after concluding that no amount could really improve the page to the point where it would actually justify replacing all those files with one half-baked page. I'm going to decide that it might be a senseless redirect and open it for slow deletion (discuss) somehow. Um, not sure if I did it right. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

## Delete?

Considering this redirect has been considered a sort of vandalism, I added both the option to merge as normal, in addition to just deleting the list as a useless page. Still not sure if I did this right, because it's usually left to the professionals (that and the fact that most merge pages are not supposed to also have delete notices). But, considering this page is miles long, and no resolution seemed to be reached, I felt it best to give another option by giving what I believe is the lowest delete warning. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm completely fine with deleting this page, and unfornuately, there are professional deleters. They are called Deletionists. We just need to make sure that this talk page gets preserved in some manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justyn (talkcontribs) 12:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Keep the page... The subject of the article hasn't been resolved and won't be until we get the other pages sorted so we're in a position where the need to keep the page is not important anymore. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 14:53, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think this is just a useless wall of text without any ilustrative picture,that wont let anyone realy understand a thing 81.91.217.80(User New Babylon 2) 15:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Seconded ... This page lost all its sense long time ago in the ongoing fight between fans/other members and deletionists and will never do any good for anyone ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by SSJ 5 (talkcontribs) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect to another article (probably minor characters list) so we can save the discussions but rid this horrific attempt to solve the problem. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, well the option I think is open for second nomination of AfD if anyone wants it, but I won't nominate again. (Looks at some of the pages) Weird, now there actually two merge notices. For instance, Thousand Sunny has merge-to|List of OP characters and merge-to|Straw Hats. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
IMO the best we can do now is add sources to the articles and end this once and for all ... SSJ 5 (talk) 08:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Certain articles, like Navy(One Piece) were mistakenly put on this list. The Navy article is NOT a list of characters (for which reason I removed the merge link). The correct link is List of One Piece Marines. Please double check other such organization links, because this merge should ONLY apply to actual lists of characters. Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 02:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WELL-god I have to say,I hate deleting.And I would change the articles needed myself,if not beign afraid to have my efforts deleted/redirected cause of UNRESOLVED Notability issues.I quit wikipedia, cause people here dont care about hard article work.They only care about making 2 and a half miles long discusion pages,throwing links named like VOD,DEF,WDW and the like,arguing,insulting, acussing,not having anything done till some of the more radical peoples simply DO IT.

I MUST ask-TTN-WHAT do you know of One Piece?If nothing,then how can you even propose such a radical change,without consulting it first (and no, you didnt consult,you comented like "X GUIDELINE -MEANS IM RITE!") with people who actualy KNOW whats notable?I mean,for the sake of the Lord,WHY do YOU DO IT?NO ONE asked or ASINGED you to do it,WHY DO YOU BOTHER?

New Babylon 2 (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

## Merger

OK, I have archived that mess, so that we can start off fresh. I don't know who's still following this, but hopefully we can get this sorted out. By looking at the state of Roronoa Zoro, I think that we can agree that all the single articles can be merged at this point. We can work out the number of lists later. Does that work for everyone? TTN (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You know my view on this TTN. I'll agree with whatever works. Looking at the Zoro, nothings happened to it. A deadline should have been put on it before we moved on. The will of the anti-anychange league (you know who you are) will not like it, thats your only fear here. But the problem is still not fixed.
Sadly I'm occupied with the wiki trying to clear a little bit of a back log of things that weren't done at the start of it that now need doing. So thats where my internet time is going right now. Besides, as I said before; when I see others working on the articles, so do I, I'm not here to do everything on wikipedia... Been there, done that before! So yeah... I won't oppose anything thats done to the pages. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Edit; saying that, the Zoro article has had quite a number of added refs today. :) Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are enough refs that Zoro meets NOTE as an article. I've noted the refs in the archived discussion. Not sure why you think now is the time that you've "won" the argument and it is now OK to redirect the Zoro article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. To tell you the truth, I still disagree with the merger. - ZeroGiga (Contact) 09:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Uh, Zoro has three primary bits of real world information, and what was brought up in the earlier part of the discussion was not that relevant if I remember correctly. While it may work with episodes, scrounging for sources will not work here. You either need fully relevant info, or the article will not stand. TTN (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Taking a look at the sources that you provided, you have:an IGN article (they aren't really known for their expertise in anime, so any comments really aren't that relevant), and a fun, but not reliable article analyzing how unrealistic the series appears. Even if those both provided two sentences of information, it could still be merged. Now, how can anyone be against a merge when all that is necessary is to trim it slightly? TTN (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Comipress has an editorial staff, and the info is an article, not a forum so it is reliable. The US Shonen Jump also has an article that discusses him in detail. I'm not saying it couldn't be merged, anything can, I'm saying it meets NOTE and shouldn't be merged. Obviously no consensus to merge. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The fact that they have an editorial staff doesn't make the article a reliable source (the article is translated from some Japanese site or blog anyways). It's just a fun little article that doesn't provide any actual context. Unless the article in Jump provides some really "juicy" information, it also doesn't do much. Again, this is not an episode, so it doesn't barely pass our notability requirements with just a couple of sources. TTN (talk) 21:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noted how freakin hard it is to get real world references for anime characters! In fact, that seems to be the argument for the rampant merging of fictional characters started by people like TTN. What, are 30+ volumes of manga and 200+ episodes of anime not enough for the Wikipedia admins. And then there's this talk about using the wiki. If that's the case, then characters like Naruto Uzumaki, Master Chief, Mario, and Ash Ketchum should all be merged, because they all have wiki's. What do you say to that? BioYu-Gi! (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Mostly, the characters of a show don't really deserve articles at all, just the series does. Its anime fans who expand on things like that. For a character to own a page, it needs to carry a HUGE self weight that can maintain its self and carrying the same page value as the page on its series. Again: my fav. example will always be Superman, but thats not an anime page at all. But I always view; why do animes on wikipedia seem to ask for them to deserve special treatment? They are still bound by the same guidelines as everywhere else on wikipedia. (Thats why although I am an anime fan, I don't really support the anime project, but thats another issue). At this point to resolve this all I can say is maybe we need an admin or weigh out the arguments perhaps? Angel Emfrbl (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
First, administrators do not intrinsically want to merge or delete pages. It just so happens that administrators have a much greater grasp of policy than most, and in the end, much of the stuff they do merge or delete should be merged or deleted. Next, your examples are fallacious. Naruto Uzumaki has already demonstrated its notability, Master Chief is an FA for heaven's sake, Mario is the universal icon of video games and has more evidence of notability than there is cruft here, and Ash Ketchum is similarly notable. Next, if the character has been present for that long in print and on air, then provide sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). All of the material on the Roronoa Zoro article as of now could be merged and concisely summarized in the character list without any loss of comprehension of what the material is saying. Unless the subject of the article is subject to critical commentary from reliable, verifiable secondary sources, then it shouldn't have an article. Simple as that. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, Sephiroth hit the bull's eye. Admins, while I do agree they can be a bit rash at times, have greater senses of policies and such than most members, and they are given the duty of only allowing notable fictional characters with out-of-universe info to still exist. (Why Star Wars, which has given just about every character an article, hasn't been hit yet, I don't know.) Naruto, Master Chief, Mario, and Ash are universally iconic characters in their own right, and (at least the first three, haven't checked out Ash's article yet) have out-of-universe information. None of the articles here, however, do have out-of-universe information. While I do agree TTN went too far as suggesting to merge everything in one page at the same time, One Piece should slowly and slowly merge the characters together until you reach the limit. For example, I'm sure half of all the characters in this series don't even need to be mentioned (Dr. Blackbeard is the best example). Once you get your articles looking like Naruto's does (which has interviews, reception, and info from Kishimoto, and in the future will expand to include more), you have reason to keep them. Right now, however, a merge is the best sollution. Not all in one page, however. Do things step by step. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify things, though, I would have received the same exact reaction had I decided to propose five lists instead of one. While some may have been willing to merge a few (four at most), they mostly just used that argument as yet another way to disagree with it. TTN (talk) 17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that TTN's reasons for mergin keep changing. At first, he said there wasn't enough real life info, and now that people ARE in fact fixing it, he says that they don't count. I don't understand how that could be. And still the way I see it, he just wants to merge the articles. I agree that some articles should be merged (the very small ones or minor characters) but the big pages, like main characters or major enemies, should remain in tact, though fixed up a bit. And as for the wikia, simply because it exist doesn't mean that we should merge all these pages. Mergin isn't the answer to everything. Pikachu150 5:05 PM January 14th, 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 01:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

And at last, TTN shows his true face: not someone that wants to fix wikipedia, but a Deletionist that just gets off to obliterating people's hard work. TTN is not adhiring to any rules but his own: simply deleting pages for the sake of deleting pages, placing guidelines, that themselves say that they don't have to be followed to the letter, or at all, above policy. This is Deletionism at its rotten core; stripped of its propaganda about how it betters Wikipedia. THIS is what Deletionists truely are: elitists that flaunt their burocratic red tape when anyone wants to do anything, but, that same burocracy changes or even disappears so that the deletionsts can do as they please.

And they have the gall to say that they are bettering Wikipedia. (Justyn (talk) 03:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

First, administrators do not intrinsically want to merge or delete pages. It just so happens that administrators have a much greater grasp of policy than most, and in the end, much of the stuff they do merge or delete should be merged or deleted. Next, your examples are fallacious. Naruto Uzumaki has already demonstrated its notability, Master Chief is an FA for heaven's sake, Mario is the universal icon of video games and has more evidence of notability than there is cruft here, and Ash Ketchum is similarly notable. Next, if the character has been present for that long in print and on air, then provide sources to pass Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). All of the material on the Roronoa Zoro article as of now could be merged and concisely summarized in the character list without any loss of comprehension of what the material is saying. Unless the subject of the article is subject to critical commentary from reliable, verifiable secondary sources, then it shouldn't have an article. Simple as that. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

1) Have you READ the article that you are saying should be merged? There are secondary sources, the SBS citations are not directly from the actual manga story itself, (I.E.: primary sources) and that means that they are secondary sources. There is next to nothing in that page that is not sourced.

2) Critical commentary. Where is it said in any guideline or policy, hell, an essay that says that an article needs critical commentary from secondary sources. Can you find any? Seriously, can you find this information that are claiming is an integral part of Wikipedia?

3) The sources themselves don't need to meet WP:V, they need only meet WP:RS.

4) What is so hard to grasp about guidelines not needing to be followed so anal retentively? Guidelines are ADVISORIES (I can't stress that word strongly enough), not hard and fast unbreakable tenants, advisories. Nothing more, nothing less.

These are the four things I saw it that single post that just buigged me. TTN's are too many and repetitious to note; and too... insulting to my intelligence to think about. And don't let damned logic get in his way. (Justyn (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

Justyn hit the nail on the head. Almost all the information in the Zoro article is sourced, and the rest of the One Piece articles will follow suit. The people pushing for mergers have no real guideline to back them up, especially considering the fact that I can ignore your rules if I think they stand in the way of me writing a good article. To TTN, I'll put this as politely as I can; go away. We're doing our best to improve the articles, and if in six months they slip back to the decrepit state they're in now, I'll be the first person to get in line behind you and push for a merge. Ark (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much satisfied with those article now. Maybe delay a merger and see how these pages develope over the next 6 months. But we can't throw the merge idea out the window yet, not while we have other articles in state of disarray. I'll be around this weekend to help. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Justyn is quite wrong, though I won't bother discussing why in order to avoid another conflict with him. Though Zoro now has some sources, only two of them assert notability (character poll and the original design). Those two are not enough to hold a page or assert further improvement. How about you guys take two weeks of true, true searching, and then we can discuss merging again? Remember that we're just merging the single articles to the lists at this point. Merging the lists can take place afterwards. TTN (talk) 00:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
wasn't one of the arguments previously TTN, that SP:N or whatever it was called said you just needed two legit sources... Then isn't this page, to say, "safe"? I believe Justyn pointed that out, its in the archieves of the previous stuff that was said. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know where anyone got that idea, but by just by looking at the nutshell of WP:N, you can see that it's wrong. Each topic needs a good amount to hold an article. TTN (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
That's even more subjective, TTN. I honestly think that your demands are simply an excuse to get us past the point of fed up so we will leave and you can do as you please.
I try to debate you: you ridicule me. I have tried to negotiate: you ignore me. You abuse the system and flaunt it. TTN, you are starting to get the point where I have no choices but to call in an admin; or something more extreme. (Justyn (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC))
Take a look at any good character article besides the Sailor Moon ones. You'll see the difference between these and one of those fairly quickly. It's hardly subjective. Please don't try to say that I'm impossible when you're just as bad as you think I am (I'm not delicate little flower, but you have to give me more credit than you are). Any admin that has a grasp of notability will suggest merging these along with any of our failed dispute resolution processes. Arbitration is not for content disputes, so good luck there. TTN (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because an article isn't a Good article, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be an article or does not assert notability: it just means that of the roughly four frequent editors, none of whom are fluent in the language that the series is originaly published in or have the money to buy dozens of magazines or even the time to look through each and every page of each and every issue of said magazines to look for an article that may or may not exist.
But you're right on one thing: arbitration is not for content disputes. But where did I say that that is the reason that I said that I would request it? I was refering to your actions through out this discussion: complete lack of concern and blatent ignoration for established policies and guidelines, refusal to consider anything less than total merger, unabashed elitism. I have been obvious in my dislike for you; from my dealing with you, I can say that I have the impresstion that you are not an easy or pleasant person person to work with.
I will say this as many times as I need to: I am not against the process of merging, I am against deletionist driven agendas that just bulldose over every article that does not meet the deletionist's absurdly high standards. Rob Balder summed up the oppinion that I have nicely; albeit from a different context. (Justyn (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC))
I didn't say that these have to become good articles at this point. The point was to compare information that does establish notability to information that doesn't, as explained in the section that I created below this one. If the information exists, it needs to be shown; speculation gets us no where. Arbitration is also not for personal disputes or grudges. Right now, I am aiming to just get all of the article merged to lists; we can decide how many lists we need later. TTN (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
You won't bother, or you don't actually have any way to dispute what he claims? The article has seen massive improvement, and will continue to get better with time. How about this: give me some examples of what you think needs to be added to establish notability. Things I'm looking for at the moment include toy sales figures, VA interviews, and character commentaries, but if you think that won't be enough, please enlighten me with what would. I'm not just giving you a hard time because I'm a fan, I really want these articles to stand up to scrutiny, as I've put in a significant amount of work. Ark (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I have plenty of ways, but as a very obsessive person, he cannot really discuss and respond very well in a discussion. The article has improved in terms of being condensed, but it has not really done anything regarding notability. Toys are filler information unless something that relates to the character happens. While a recall is fine to mention in a section, it does not really add to notability unless it has some impact on the show or the character. While not a toy, something compared to Electric Soldier Porygon killing the Pokemon anime for a little while would be relevant. If you can find significant real world information on the character from interviews and the like, then that will be a different story. TTN (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Is this all some giant game to you? WIKIPEDIA IS SERIOUS BUSINESS!!!
Seriously now, we should all lighten up a bit.(Justyn (talk) 07:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC))
I've had enough, TTN: stop gaming the system. You cherrypick which parts of guidelines to follow obesessively while simultaneously ignoring entire policies and parts of the same guidelines you cite to push your agenda. You have said all but that nothing we can ever do, no amount of sources of any type will ever convince you to give up your crusade to merge these pages. You say I am wrong, but refuse to give a reason.
TTN, you have been going beyond all reason in this: please stop this nonsence. I have shown that am willing to fix these pages; you have shown flat out that you are unwilling to do anything but merge every character page here into one giant list. You habe been completely unwilling to comprimise, and have effectively said as much. Your demands have been unreasonable because, as best I can tell, you have already decided what you want to happen: and come hell or high water, you are going to do what it takes to get what you want. We can come to a solution to this, but you need to make some concessions and actualy state, definitively, what you want. (Justyn (talk) 03:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC))
TTN, I completley disagree with you. All most of all of the One Piece characters are getting updated, espeacilly from the recent chapters. You'll also be merging Monkey D. Luffy, who has the same amount of importance as Naruto Uzamaki and Ichigo Kurosaki, so that means you should merge them is well. There is a lot more characters in One Piece, we already have a huge list of minor characters. I think you just don't like One Piece, since you made some random thing when someone said Naruto. Luffy, has been in a lot more episodes then Naruto has. Not to mention almost every anime character page is sourced. Now Nefatari Vivi and Ace should be merged but I still disagree, Vivi has a lot information and was treated like a Straw Hat pirate. I'll only accept this if you merge Naruto and Shippuden. You also said Ajoki and Smoker were villans that is completley false. You shall never merge this until you know more about One Piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.221.103.104 (talk) 10:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
You'll have to find a better argument then that. Read this.... This discussion is becoing difficult to per take in. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the article is good the way it was written(or typed), because if the articles have 2,3, or more subject in it I think it should stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.157.41 (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

### Establishing notability

As everyone seems to be on different pages with notability, I'm going to try to clarify it. For a character to establish notability, it needs to have a good amount of creation and reception information. Let's use Zoro as an example.

For a creation section, it should have something like the following fake examples (this isn't how the actual information should be presented; it would flow better): Roronoa Zoro's design was based off of - a design Oda created as a child or a combination of x, y, and z. Oda felt that one and two swords were "cliché and boring", so he decided to give Zoro three. Zoro, while originally meant to be a temporary character that would later become a villain, stayed as one of the Straw Hats because the editors decided that it wasn't a good idea. Anything like that is good. The family name and originally being with Buggy's crew do help, but without support from other information, they cannot hold a page.

Reception would include notable awards, cultural influences, and stuff like that. Placing high a primary character poll and having a toy recalled without having any real impact on the character or series don't do anything. TTN (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well Zoro does have something like that:
According to Eiichiro Oda, Zoro resembles a shark. Oda uses the color green to represent Zoro, and he smells of steel. Oda has also said that Zoro's favorite foods are white rice, sea monster meat, and "stuff that goes with ale" . His family name, Roronoa, comes from the real-life French pirate François l'Ollonais.
and
Eiichiro Oda stated that he originally created Zoro as a bodyguard of Buggy the Clown in earlier versions of the story.
and that's probably all you're going to get for him and other characters. Most manga-ka don't like interviews and things like that. BioYu-Gi! (talk) 15:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to make a merge-or-keep comment on Zoro, but I will say that the creation of any character, whether they be main or minor, deserves mentioning. This includes how Zoro came to be, fromm Buggy's crew to the Straw Hat's swordsman. You will, however, need more than that to justify keeping him. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we're going to have to work around the guideline here for the most part. The Zoro article has every shred of information I can find at this point, and for anyone to say that the character isn't notable due to a lack of information is just silly. The manga has been in print for ten years, and is the most popular manga in Japan. The characters are obviously noteworthy, regardless of how much information is available. Ark (talk) 02:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The character is noteworthy, but why does that require an article? After condensing the articles just a little more, they fit directly on a list pretty easily. The existence of articles doesn't really matter at this point. TTN (talk) 02:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
WP works on consensus, and when given the choice between a list and an article, the editors in this discussion prefer a list. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not found in a small discussion between fans when the articles are like this. When they have actual information, then it'll matter. TTN (talk) 15:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is not determined by a single editor either. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Albert Einstein is notable, why does he require an article? There is no concern over space on Wikipedia, and the articles are decently written and well-sourced, so you have no argument to merge them. You can't fall back on a guideline, because it's just that, and a vague one to boot. There are a number of Good Articles that have tons more plot summary with as much or little more "real world" information. You don't decide whether or not an article stays, especially since we've put in so much effort to accommodate you and reach a compromise. I will concede the point that MANY of the One Piece articles should probably be merged, and we've already begun doing just that. The main characters have enough information to stand on their own, and I've been adding more as I find it. So the question is, are we going to work together to actually improve Wikipedia, or is this whole fiasco going to devolve into an edit war? Ark (talk) 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You keep talking about how the articles have already established notability. Where is that shown? Zoro only has two applicable primary production notes (name and origin), which do not establish an independent notability. Anything else presented provides absolutely nothing towards notability. You need what I describe above and an actual reception section in order to have these establish notability. Tough, feel free to show me our GAs and FAs with no real world information. TTN (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sailor Mercury has four pieces of "real world info" and some fan poll information and has reached good article status. The article contains far more plot summary than the One Piece articles do. Basing our pages off of this example, we are easily within the guideline for establishing notability. How do primary production notes not establish notability? Are you saying that the information is more reliable if it comes from a different source than if it comes from Oda? That's preposterous. You have no leg to stand on, the main character articles stay, regardless of your opinions on how to interpret the guideline. Ark (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The Sailor moon articles became good without actually having any real world in them. The reviewer just used "well written" to define his listings. The information was added more recently, so they would have to go under a review to see if they're really up to snuff. Anyways, even then, these articles do not have even close to the amount of information those have. Those notes help with notability, but you need a substantial amount in order to hold an article. It's not "I have a source, so the article is good"; it's "I have good information from multiple sources that clearly show that this needs an article". TTN (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
You aren't making any sense. Ninety percent of the information in that article is plot or character summary. There are four pieces of information regarding the character's creation, and multiple fan polls referenced. And if you're saying that the information was recently added, then that just supports my point even further. You need to apply common sense here; the information we have provided covers creation and reception, we have merchandise information (sales figures are mentioned nowhere in the note guidleline), and the plot summary is miniscule compared to what it could be. I'll add more as it's found, but I think the articles can stand as they are. Ark (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The amount of plot information needs to be trimmed down, but that's irrelevant to this (as long as it's balanced, plot doesn't matter). The information in those is decent, but it probably isn't GA material. That's what I was pointing out. These articles still do not even meet that point of information. The small amount of production info is good, but it does not warrant an article. Primary character polls do not help towards notability (note the expansion tag on the Sailor Moon ones). Merchandise needs to be significant. The fact that a piece of merchendice featuring the character exists or was recalled does not help the character because that applies to the overall series. You would need something like only a figure existing for one character or the recall affecting something.
You need to start by adding two sections ("Concept and creation" and "Reception"), and filling them out. TTN (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
O.K. take a look at the Monkey D. Luffy article. This is closer to what I want all of the articles to end up like, there are a few more reception notes I have to source before I can add them and I'd like to rewrite the 'conception' section so it flows better, but I think the article can stand well against scrutiny. Ark (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The conception section works, but without good reception, the article isn't really that great on its own. Though, it'll be fine to leave it around for a while to actually get up to snuff. The rest of the characters will at least that much to stand. TTN (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

## Book

Anyone got this? One Piece Adventurer Unofficial Guide SC. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go look for it tomorrow after work, nice find. Ark (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

## Merge proposal

I think the Yonkou, World Goverment and Shichibukai articles should be merged with the Three Great Powers article, since it's incredibly stupid how many articles cover these same subjects right now. Navy, List of Marines, and World Government can be merged into a single article if the fancruft is trimmed out, then depending on size we'll either incorporate it into the Three Powers article or link to it from said article. I already cut up the Shichibukai article, I'll be moving on to the WG crap shortly. Ark (talk) 16:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Navy and Marines - work together but not the same group. It would be pointless to merge that page with the Marines. You can merge it into the 3 powers page, but I'd put them on a top, just to highlight how they work to keep the world and the 3 powers balanced. Then list the three great powers after them.
I'd just like to say though; your merging ideas are more extreme then TTN's... See everyone, TTN may have been a pain, but really he was the lesser of the evils on wikipedia. ^-^' Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
=O Evil!? How dare you!. Whereas some people want to merge pages for the sake of merging them, I'm trying to make them more navigable and bring up the quality of One Piece articles as a whole. We currently have Yonkou, Red-Haired Pirate Crew, Whitebeard Pirates, The Three Great Powers, World Government, List of One Piece Marines, Navy, Shichibukai, Buster Call and God knows what else. MUCH of the information presented in these articles is redundant, i.e. you can read the exact same thing in each one. It makes too much sense to merge most of this info into one or two articles. I propose the main article will be 'The Three Powers', with a heading for the Shichibukai, Yonkou and WG. WG will have a brief description of the government's role in One Piece, as well as mention the Gorosei and link to the list of marines and cipher pol articles. We can merge the Shichibukai article into The Three Power without losing any information, same thing for the Whitebeard and Red Hair pirates. Having all those articles separate is just silly, we could have a much stronger article if we collected the information. Ark (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Scratch everything where I said WG in the Three Powers article, I meant Marines. Ark (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Aw... Playful jokes never work on the net. Sorry for that. Never meant "evil", more like "some ideas are more extreme then others" sort of thing... Oh wells. :( Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I got the joke, I just didn't make my playful response obvious enough. I think my proposal for merges is far less extreme then Señor TTN's, who has expressed a desire to put all OP characters on one list. Since noone really offered a viable alternative I took it upon myself to prevent the horrible fiasco that would result from a single list. Ark (talk) 12:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, none of the deletionists can complain about the pages (for a while at least anyway). So heres to the next 4 months... When the next deletionist like TTN comes round. ^-^' Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm hardly a deletionist. Encyclopedic information should be covered. It's just that we don't need more than one or two articles to cover it. I still expect that all of the characters beside Luffy will eventually be merged to their relevant lists at this point. And then Luffy and any others that can obtain that much production information can be given more time to develop (though, they are not guaranteed articles without proper reception). TTN (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
That's where our opinions differ. I believe we need several articles to properly cover all of the characters. Merging everyone into a single list either becomes extremely ugly, or results in a loss of information. I'm not aiming to make Wikipedia host to a One Piece fan site, I just don't think it's very informative to have a list that basically gives the character's name and nothing else. Ark (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I prefer to see articles saved rather then lost. I'll accept a merger because at the very least it gives an re-organisation chance. (If it fails one way, do it another has always been my P.O.V.). Angel Emfrbl (talk) 06:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at our character template... I think its time to retire that. I have to go to work experience (that seems so lame to type) today. If no one has removed it when I get back... In... I think 8 hours or so time, I'll remove it. Most of the content is now defunct and the ones left are the SHs, which are linked via their crew page (or should be...).

BTW, Ark, can you write up a character page for Brook? You're the best at creating wikipedia-friendly pages around here and we need one ready for when he joins because someone is bound to either just cut + paste off the minor characters page, or revert Brooke (One Piece) page instead, or copy off the wikia (its happened before with the Goring Merry page). It needs to go onto the correct page once the chapter has been released, the correct page should be Brook (One Piece). We'll all have to watch no one redirects it to that Brook with a "e" on it page... Man thats annoying, it happened before. -_-' Angel Emfrbl (talk) 06:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to drop the Character template, I've seen templates that link far fewer pages together. Wikipedia does not have an upper limit on the information contained within it, so the template just makes things easier. And before we dicide which page we put Brooke's information on, we should find out what the most popular spelling is among the fandom and which is the official we're able; I did a quick Google search, and 'Brook "One Piece"' gives around two to five times as many results as 'Brooke "One Piece"', depending on how you put it into the search engine. So just based on that... (Justyn (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC))
Forget about populaur spelling... If Brook is the correct name... Then so be it! Besides if we choose "Brooke" it would led to inconsistances within our naming scheme here, I would only quote the populaur name spelling if it is proven that one spelling is correct over the other anyhow. Luckily here, your example shows it does otherwise we're not sticking to one of our claims about the names we made a year and quater ago during the Zoro argument break down... Which I could remember where + what that was when Brook first appeared but I can't now... O.o' Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

## Brook

Brook's article is on one of my test pages, I even snagged a screen capture from one of the episodes that makes the whole thing look rather snazzy. No doubt if he joins, someone else will beat us to the punch in regards to putting up his article and filling it with stupid garbage, so when it happens whoever notices it first can just overlay it with the prototype I have, making whatever changes they feel are necessary. Ark (talk) 02:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images are not allowed in user space. You have to wait until it's a regular page before adding images with copyright owners like OP has. Nice page though. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I was unaware of that rule. Thanks. Ark (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Since I don't upload images (well haven't since my newbies days)... Can you create your own dummy image to put in place on the page: I.e. a white box with the words "To be filled" on it? Just out of curiousity that is all... Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
You can use anything from commons just like it was uploaded to WP. A search for white iund mostly snow http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/White - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you! Not quite the news I was expecting but at least my curiousity is now statisfied. ^-^ Angel Emfrbl (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You can create your own image that says "To be filled" and upload it too. I'm sure commons has something like this already, but I couldn't find it and forgot to mention that you can make one yourself if you also can't find it. Doesn't hurt to have more than one, the new one may be better. You can also just upload it to WP, saving yourself the trouble of creating a commons account if you don't have one. Commons is good because then all of the languages WP comes in can use it, but if the text is in english it's probably just as useful to upload it to WP (the english WP). Use a template likw {{pd-self|date=November 2008}} on the page, and no one will delete it. It adds this

|date=November 2007}}

Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the article, and it looks like Brook will be joining, so I hope this becomes a regular page soon. However, in your introductory sentence, you state that Brook is the eighth crew member to join the Strawhats. This is true, since Luffy is not counted as a crew member, but all the other character pages do not stay consistent with this notion. Franky's page states that he is the eighth crew member... so, you may either want to look into shifting the convention the other articles have been using, or just changing yours to "ninth" to avoid confusion.Kosenki (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

## And so it begins...

I've had to revert the Shichibukai and Baroque Works pages 2 or 3 times now because this same guy keeps changing them. He keeps making them resemble their pre-tidy up version. I've left a note this time on his user page, but he is an unknown IP adress so it could result in diddy-squwart being done. Also, the last few days, we've had several "influences" added that aren't exactly brilliant to add. Yeah its about that time when everyone gets the idea its time a huge massive overload of useless input was added. It seems to happen evey 2-5 perioderoically (yeah I can't spell, I know).

Anyway... I'm thinking we may have to drop the influences section once again. Its always been a nice section to have (hey, pages like Mortal Kombat talk about Big trouble in little china town which is its influence) on any page... But ours is hard to keep down nonsense with, that is all. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, it's a real pain in the ass to go through a dozen edits just to figure out which ones are garbage. I've taken to just reverting the articles to whatever revision I know as good, and then checking the history from there to decide what useful info got taken off. It's gonna be horrible when Brook joins and the page gets the fancruft treatment a hundred times a day. Ark (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, been busy, starting college tomorrow. Anyhow, I think that when Brook joins, and the Fancruft starts pouring in; we let it.
And, a week or so after, once the cruft additions die down, then the repairs begin. Attempting to fix the page during the cruft-tsunami would be akin to repairing a house in the middle of a hurricane. (Justyn (talk) 02:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
Its logical... Saves time and work in the long run. Aside from minor cleanups for obivous wikipedia related reasons (i.e. vandalism) I seconded that thought. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Ha, that'll be a little difficult for me, as you may have noticed I'm a bit of a fascist when it comes to the OP articles. But yea, that makes a lot more sense than trying to revert edits over and over. Ark (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Your doing well... I admire you for being very bold and brave to attempt the feat of aiding with the OP pages. O.o'
Speaking of which... The edits done to certain pages in the last 72 are so stupid they make my brain hurt! We have the same person revertinh everything on the Shichibukai page which I've just 5 mins ago reverted - again... (think its the same guy who has been doing it as before, need to check the IP adress). With the latest OP spoilers cames a flood of speculation. Okay everyone, for the record; Brook still hasn't entered the ranks of the SH crew from what has been announced... But he is in a position where its obivous he will leave. All we need is him to say both "yes" and sail away with the crew. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 01:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Are you leaving these helpful users vandalism warnings? If it's the same people over and over, then we can take care of the problem for a short while. If I catch it I'll report them, you seem to be beating me to it as of late. Great job keeping an eye on the articles, I know it's frustrating as hell. Ark (talk) 02:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't the same IP adress so I presume it wasn't the same guy... Unless... He edited it from elsewhere because the same input went on the page. I'm guessing he is either getting his info from the history of the page or the wikia. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

## Concerning The MAJOR characters...

I've just been through the past week or two, and noticing how everything involving One Piece articles has been trimmed down, and some merged. Also, how major, important characters like Smoker, Aokiji, Vivi, Shanks & Blackbeard have been merged. I know Wiki has the guidelines, but I really think this is out of hand. Please establish what you consider Major, I consider it a character who has been around for a long time, and has helped the protagonists. At this moment, I think the only character articles that should stay are:

• Luffy
• Zoro
• Sanji
• Usopp
• Nami
• Chopper
• Robin
• Smoker
• Shanks
• Gol D. Roger
• Vivi
• Sir Crocodile (This should be restored. Crocodile has plently of Out-of-universe information that can be dug up.)

In addition, each article I believe should have this guide:

• Concept & Creation
• Personality & Character
• History
• Story Role (This can only be something like 2-3 Paragraphs, short and sweet)
• Powers/Abillities/Skills
• Other Media Information

With enough details, and references, we can have each of these character pages looking like Naruto Uzumaki, Son Goku and Ichigo Kurosaki If you don't like this idea, why don't we vote on who should stay or not? It worked for the Bleach section...

Also whoever had the dumb idea of trying to condense everything involving the factions (World Government, 7 Warlords, The 4 Powers) into one page must be out of their mind. We CAN'T. There's the information from almost 500 chapters of manga, plus the Databooks and interviews with Oda and other sources. So, there's my two cents on the situation. If you want to rant on this, reply or go to my talk page.

RedEyesMetal (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

What's dumb is having a Yonkou article, along with seperate articles for the WB pirates and the Red Hair pirates, and another article for The Three Great Powers, and every one of them says the same thing. Those articles were all merged because the information needs to be consolidated and easier to find. The only characters who have enough reception and creation information info to justify separate articles are the Straw Hats, and they make it just barely. If you can find adequate information regarding the other characters, please do so. Some of those characters on your list simply aren't that important outside of the story, which is what some of you don't seem to understand. Ark (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The articles are fine as they are... Though the question as to why does Buggy still have article pages is still a need we should adress. All the characters are fictional so in wikipedias context, they do not exist therefore don't have an encyclopedic history because they carry all in-universe information. Wikipedia doesn't like in-universe stuf. These things you list belong on the One Piece. You've entered things late as it is, perhaps you should reread what has been said on this page and its archieve page? You'll find everything is explained.
In short... Why screw up the pages now when we have them at a desirable level? The stuff you suggest is only going to bring the articles down again and make wikipedians like TTN came calling again. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As much as wikipedia apparently hates this kind of stuff, and wikipedians like TTN disagree with them and stereotype most of the contributors as frantic fanboys and fangirls, when exactly is the issue concerning this page's entirety going to be concluded. People have contributed to the other pages greatly so now they are at least of acceptable value. However, why is that this issue still persists and why does it seem that when everyone agrees to do something about the pages, this issue is once again brought up. This issue may have started in good faith however it is starting to become counterproductive. It now appears that articles have to be created with the prerequisite that wikipedians like TTN won't go bashing everyone around, instead of the original goal of researching. This action of merging maybe of good faith, however since it has become too long, time consuming, and apparently going around in circles, it starting to become annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.228.6 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Their at a level everyone agreed on... Those that are countering it now either following all or some of the some approaches:
1. Want it to be fanised again because their fans and they can't resist adding that little bit more then needed... From experience of both being a fan and witnessing other fans I can say full well fans of shows make lousey wikipedians
2. Haven't read the discussions that have taken place so haven't got a clue as to whats going on in the first place or why things are now as they are
3. Don't know the rules of wikipedia and how our pages were breaking the guidelines
4. Don't know the basis of what wikipedias about
5. Don't want to discuss it anyways... Defeating the point of wikipedia being a community
The articles have long been unacceptable, remember this, we don't have articles like "One Piece Timeline" anymore because they failed the guidelines nor "One Piece story arcs". Loosing articles is a VERY serious problem, TTN is just doing what he does best on wikipedia... You can't blame him for that. He created a huge argument, but we got something done here for once. the articles are meant to be a quick reference guide, not a fansite anyway. Incidently, though I stand corrected on calling TTN a deletionist, the people who deleted a few of our pages were very much deletionists. You look on the discussion pages (if their still there) on the discussion on deleting them, there is 6-10 people screaming "instant delete" and only one or two trying to convince someone hopelessly their worth keeping.
As for going round in circles... Its been what, 3 weeks now since the mergers... Its about time for someone to suggest things were better as they are by now. The only article that may be in question now is Will of D. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Looks like that "Will of D" article got blown up. I'm gonna work on the Yonkou/List of Marines tomorrow, maybe move all of the Headquarters Marines to the Yonkou page and leave the rest on the list. That might end up looking really stupid though, so we'll see. I've been somewhat preoccupied with pre-Smash Bros hype, so I've been avoiding Wiki and the giant pain in the butt it usually is. Ark (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't I made a mistake!  :o
Gasp! The Will of D is what I meant to write! Angel Emfrbl (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Why doesn't Enel/Eneru have his own page as per this list? From what I read, he does show up again (at least in the manga), and he pretty much had an entire chapter effectively devoted only to him (since the Priests only made minor character status, as tough as they were). Also, despite the fact that Luffy turned out to be completely immune to his lighting, he put up an amazingly good fight. Instead he gets shafted under Skypiea's Priests. He's not a Priest, he's God! Doesn't that count for something you editors?!? Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

## The Will of D

The Will of D. Its a page of speculation, it invites speculation and I'm tired of reverting it. May I suggest it is redirected to One Piece or deleted? Opinions every on this, its a thing I don't really want to discuss but it serves little purpose and is just sitting there waiting for the first deletionist to find it. Mind you, the universal greeting for Transformers the movie had its own page... Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I havn't really read the page in a while, but if it's really mostly speculation, then just delete the speculation and/or merge the page back with where it came from based on if there are any sources to be found and how much of it is really speculation.. (Justyn (talk) 11:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
Very well, I'll merge with the terms page. I'll cut + paste the intro there. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 13:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

## Crocodile/Blackbeard Organizing

Ok I brought this up in the Three Great Powers discussion. Crocodile is listed under Shichibukai [which he is no longer a part of] and Barouqes Works. Also Blackbeard is listed under BB Pirates, Shichibukai and WB Pirates. I suggested that we removed Crocodile from the Shichibukai section and merge it with the Barouges works, while leaving a link on BB entry to link to the page. Then do the same for BB on the WB Pirates page, linking the BB Pirates page to Ace's section. It probably sounds confusing the way I explained it but its all really simple.

The reason I brought this up, is Crocodile doesn't belong in the Shichibukai and he's been officially removed from their ranks. The same is true about BB and the WB pirates. I'll wait a few day to see what anybody else says. If no one objects I'll reorganize it then. Ditch88 (talk) 22:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but don't forget to leave notes about their leaving and links to where the info about them is currently under a "former members" section. (Justyn (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
I believe someone said not to put a former section, just worry about current members. Trouble is, I've been rattling my brains trying to remeber as to why they said it. :/ Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Just because someone said something, does not mean that it is nessisary to do as that person says. (Justyn (talk) 11:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC))
That is true. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
This is on the Shichibukai talk, but I'll post it here too. Blackbeard is on the WB pirates page because he was a former member, and it's an important fact about the character. It already links back to the BB pirates page, so there's no need to change it. I'm fine with Croc going to BW, or Shichibukai, or wherever everyone agrees that he should be. It doesn't really matter one way or the other. As far as style goes, he probably should be on the BW page since that's the biggest part of his character. But then that opens up the argument for putting Moria on the TB page (which should be bombed anyway, but that's a whole nother argument) so, just be aware of that. We don't have a "former members" section on the Shichibukai page because there's no such thing as a former member when you're writing in an out-of-universe perspective. It's a fictional history, so we don't want to refer to any of the events as being in the past, this brings down the over-all quality of the article. From the manual of style; By convention, these synopses should be written in the present tense, as this is the way that the story is experienced as it is read or viewed. At any particular point in the story there is a 'past' and a 'future', but whether something is 'past' or 'future' changes as the story progresses. It is simplest to recount the entire description as continuous 'present'. I think that says it more effectively than I can. Ark (talk) 13:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah! Thats right! It was you who said we have no need for a former section! Thanks Arc for that I forgot what you had said previously about it... Was it in the comments bit of the edit section though? I couldn't find it on a page... :( Angel Emfrbl (talk) 21:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Your saying being part of the WB pirates is an important fact about BB and his character history. Wouldn't it just be simpler to remove him from the WB page and add that part of his history under his section in the BB page? Ditch88 (talk) 17:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
That seems perfectly fine, and in fact it would probably make more sense. Ark (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I only think that there should be a former members section that should only note that the character was once a member of the group, and a link to where the character's information is now; maybe something on why the character left, too. And I just want to say again, just to make sure that everyone remembers: guidelines need not be followed to the letter, or at all if they become detromental to a situation, and have no inherent value beyond what we give them. (Justyn (talk) 02:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC))
I whole-heartedly agree with that statement, however, this particular guideline isn't getting in the way of writing an informative article, and in fact following it would contribute greatly to the quality of all of our articles. I think as long as we make prominent mention of the fact that Croc lost his status, in his section, then we won't have to list him as a former member. I'd rather not push the rules too much when it comes to the Three Powers article, because it isn't exactly heavy on referenced information right now. On an unrelated note, I think we can start slipping some more plot information into the Straw Hat articles, as long as we don't let it get out of hand. Both Sasuke Uchiha and Sakura Haruno recently made GA status, and the size difference of those articles compared to ours' is pretty noticeable. As long as we source the hell out of everything we'll be OK. Ark (talk) 01:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone fails to grasp the entire matter. Any Naruto characters that make GA status (say any because others seem just around the corner) made it because they have out-of-universe information that is given reliable, third-party sources. Compared to the Naruto task force and their work, One Piece is Wikipedia's anime and manga hell as things currently are. Characters should only be given articles based on the length of out-of-universe there is that has reliable, third-party sources, and only out-of-universe info relevent to the character (how they smell doesn't matter, does it?). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you give those articles a read. They have plenty of OOU info, but just as much plot summary. Ark (talk) 21:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

## One Piece factions

I suggest that several articles, such as The Three Great Powers and several pirate article get merged together into One Piece factions. The article will discuss the major powers of the One Piece world: the powerful pirate crews (Whitebeard, Straw Hats), the Three Great Powers, and other organizations (World Government, Cipher Pol, Baroque Works) that influence One Piece. This should only include the major powers, so minor powers like the cat-themed crew from early in the story don't get in and flood the page. The Skypeia characters, Franky Family, and Galley-La Company, because they don't influence the entire world of One Piece, don't get there either, and should be listed somewhere else. The ones with too much info for the page, like the Straw Hats, keep their own article and only get linked. All in all, the set up should be something like:

• Pirates
• Blackbeard Pirates(linked to Blackbeard in Shichibukai)
• Red Haired Pirate Crew(linked to Shanks in Yonkou)
• Straw Hat Pirates (linked to article)
• Whitebeard Pirates
• Members (Whitebeard(in Yonkou) and Ace)
• The Three Great Powers
• Yonkou
• Members
• Shichibukai
• Members
• Other factions
• World Government
• Cipher Pol
• Baroque Works

For those that don't have a members subpage, then it means only one member is notable enough to be mentioned. Blackbeard Pirates, Blackbeard; Red Haired, Shanks; World Government, Gorosei. Cipher Pol and Baroque Works don't need to have characters mentioned, just the organizations. As for Thriller Bark, simply mention that it is the ship and crew under Moria.

So, what do you think? It does seem drastic, very much, but in the end, it is agreeable to all those with basic knowledge of how Wikipedia works. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 00:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Red Haired and Whitebeard pirates should probably go under the Yonkou header, otherwise there isn't much point in even having it. I don't really see a problem with listing the characters in Cipher Pol or the pirate crews, as long as we keep the descriptions short, which I've already taken care of for the most part. I'm all for consolidating the information, as it makes it much easier to find, but cutting out all mentions of the characters or their roles in the story pretty much makes the article worthless. So, I say yes to merge, with a few tweaks as far as formatting. I doubt you'll get much more support than mine. Ark (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
And you would be correct at least with me: shortening up characters is one thing, but not even mentioning them is complete idiocy. I have "basic" knowledge of how Wikipedia works, this is just a stupid idea that is nothing but deletionism with the serial numbers filed off, just like TTN's list. I am fine, and indeed agree with merging of pages that are simply redundant is a decent idea that deserves consideration; but, getting rid of dozens of characters for no reason whatsoever, is a moronic idea. (Justyn (talk) 03:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
You're right for no reason whatsoever, Justyn. However, do any of those characters you want to keep really have any notability besides being a member of that crew/organization? Besides Shanks, no one in his crew has any notability whatsoever. Blackbeard's crew is in the same position. Just because they have a name and take up space doesn't mean you have to mention them (Naruto, Bleach (manga), Marchen Awakens Romance, and YuYu Hakusho, for example, don't mention every character, only the major ones). The thing is, One Piece probably has five hundred characters, but out of those five hundred, how many really play a notable role in the series besides being there? Only about 50 of them do, which is only 10% of all the characters. Why should space be wasted on a character whose only role is being there, while major characters lose room for them to be spoken about? Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Note: Theres about 200 is you count only the human characters... That doesn't include animals, fishmen, giants and merfolk, which add anoth 20-60. That has not importance whats so ever I know... I just felt like posting that. I have no idea why. O.o' Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no upwards limit on information; therefor, we don't need to get rid of minor characters to save space for more important characters. Technically, there is absolutely no intrinsic need to mention anything on Wikipedia. And I'm not saying that we need to mention characters that get next to no mention, lines, or ones that don't even appear on screen (Dr. Blackbeard for example, should probably only be mentioned on the Wikia); but minor characters deserve as much to be mentioned on Wikipedia as George W. Bush, Adolf Hitler, Stonehenge, Tokyo, blankets, Grass: in that NOTHING has an intrinsic need to be on Wikipedia. All I'm saying is that skipping over almost every character just so that most of them can be merged into one page along with loads of information, is just as bad as what TTN proposed. I will not oppose the merging of redundant pages, as long as you split the characters from the redundant information, but just leave the character sub-pages alone, there is no need to merge them (There is also no need to keep them, I'd just rather keep than delete). (Justyn (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC))

Under fictional notability, however, only major characters, creatures, items, locations, etc. in stories are considered noteworthy. For example, is there any reason to mention Dr. Blackbeard? We aren't even mentioning Ace's hunt for Blackbeard miniseries under his section. Why should characters most people in the world has never even heard of on an encyclopedia of noteworthy information from an out-of-universe perspective? This not only goes for Dr. Blackbeard, but many other characters that do little besides be there (except Crocodile and Robin, most of Baroque Works isn't mentionworthy. All that comes to mind to keep anymore is Mr.'s 1, 2, 3). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

A) That guideline is proposed, it's not even an actual guideline yet. I think that we should wait until it concensus is gathered and the page stablises before we attempt to adhear to it; and if it starts causing more problems than is solves, we have a very simple way to deal with that.
B) Yeah, the Wikipedia articles should have a point of minority where the character is not even mentioned beyond passing in another character's page: Dr. Blackbeard should only be mentioned in passing on Ace's page, and probably on the Wikia too; heck, most of the Cover story-only character should probably only be mentioned in the one character's page. Most of the characters on the Minor characters and Filler characters pages are fine as is (unsourcable crufty stuff can be trimmed a little, but that's not the point here). Basically: Minor character are called that for a reason, most of the chacters are rather minor, but deserve more than a passing mention. Some charaters are literally just there (Dr Blackbeard, Garp's attendant, that guy that got executed instead of Kuro), they deserve a passing mention in another chacter's page, if that. Some characters do not even deserve mentioning, there are very few of them. (Justyn (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC))
A) Adding content and improving Wikipedia are too different things. Do you REALLY think that adding in-universe fan cruft about character most people don't know or care about really does improve Wikipedia? I could just as easily spam up an FA-article as place in-universe stuff here, but would the spam count as improving the article just because it adds more?
B) No, they shouldn't even get mentioned. Using Naruto as an example, which, I should mention, has GA-ARTICLES!!!!!, not every character should be mentioned because they have a name. I'm sure most of the ones that were removed there, if they were in this series, would be kept by this series' task force because they have a name and do something. This not only goes for the ones that do absolutely nothing (Dr. Blackbeard), but many other characters the task force finds "notable" (most of Baroque Works, the Skypeian saga characters, all of the Cipher Pol except Lucci and Spandam, all the pirate crew members except the captains, etc.) aren't even worth mentioning. Characters should only be worth mentioning if there is absolutely no way to not mention them, which means they are also of major importance to other characters in the series (Mr. 1 to Zoro, for example). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 17:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Basically, the whole motivation behind this is that these characters have no notability, so they don't even deserve a mention in an article? The rest of Cipher Pol, Skypeian Arc characters, etc. should at least have some sort of list at the end of a related article. For example, Pirate crew members don't need anything other than a name mention at the end of a Captain's article, and all the members of Cipher Pol can just be merged and mentioned in a Cipher Pol article, which is what the page currently is like. Furthermore, you seemed to have changed your mind, Artist. "I'm not going to make a merge-or-keep comment on Zoro, but I will say that the creation of any character, whether they be main or minor, deserves mentioning. This includes how Zoro came to be, fromm Buggy's crew to the Straw Hat's swordsman."
It's true that there are a lot of characters in the current selection of One Piece articles that don't do much or really aren't important, but they should at least be mentioned ifthey play an important part in a story arc. Further, rather than simply base arguments on Notability, why not create new guidelines for fictional characters and series? Otherwise, why keep entries on novels like Deltora Quest and the Hungry City Chronicles? They lack notability references as well, yet no one talks about them being relegated to being just an entry on the List of fantasy novels.
Perhaps what we need are a new set of guidelines for fictional characters, universes, stories, etc. The current guidelines are all well and good for real-world articles; the Face of Round Top doesn't have any notability and rightly doesn't deserve an article, whereas George Lucas does; but should Wikipedia simply confine itself to the real-world? If we do that, then it would be little different from Encarta or World Book. It might have more total articles, but large sections of human knowledge and achievement concerning the arts would simply be dropped, because they lack "notability." Wikipedia would basically become the domain of elitists that can say "Oh, an author interview isn't notable enough. It needs X number of reviews, X number of products for Y markets, and a doctoral thesis on it." Hyperbole, yes, but that is essentially the argument of people like TTN. I don't think TTN is being elitist on purpose; he's simply citing and following the guidelines, but those guidelines don't work for articles on fictional topics. We need a new set of guidelines.Redlar (talk) 05:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
When fictional things are concerned interviews, magazines and ISBN are your friends as sources and references. I keep saying; these things count, its goes for everything on wikipedia. Watch a documentry on a dinosaur? Thats counts as a source! Read an article on Steam trains, thats a source. Got a website, thats a source (only in the right context though). Angel Emfrbl (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

## Change to project page

Plaese change this page to a project page fror One Piece. Very few people are talking about the format of the page itself and more on the format of the other pages. The merge to this page tags are also startin to become annoying especially on the good pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.164.187 (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Been there, tried to set that up... Failed. Talk:One Piece#Project proposal, I was trying to get a point across then about there were urgent mergers that had to happen and never did. Perhaps since the mergers are over and done with now (finaly) since then, someone would care to pick up where I left things? Every note I made is there to read if anyone is intereasted. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't try and start a project. There doesn't seem to be enough editors for that. I'm a mildly interested editor, and I keep track by having this page on my watchlist. If there are other pages that I should watch, I would be happy to add them. As far as projects go, you really need a lot of editors to justify them. I helped create a Canadian TV Shows wikiproject once, and although I thought there would be enough editors to justify it, there wasn't. We created a bunch of project pages, but all it did was take time away from editing Canadian TV show articles. We were succesful in hammering out a few issues, but we could have done it at the general TV wikiproject without all the paperwork. Sad but true. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If you read the later parts, tat is why the project never took off. Only about 3 people were intereasted. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

## Stop Everything!

If I have read correctly, under a temporary decision, all article related to television series are no longer to be merged, redirected, or deleted until furhter notice. Additionally, no former articles are to be unmerged, unredirected, or undeleted as well. Just thought it should be mentioned. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 18:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't that apply only to the people involved with the arbitration case? Ark (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, better safe than sorry. (Justyn (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC))
O.K. I re-read it and all the injunction says is "blah blah blah television episodes/characters". One Piece is a manga, so the injunction doesn't apply to our articles. Not that I would really care if it did, but this way I'm covered. Ark (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, not clear then, but... can we at least get assurance that Straw Hat Crew doesn't get merged, vandalized, or otherwise tampered with? Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
One Piece is also an anime, which fits under television. So merging is a no for now. If Naruto has to go through these rules, I see no reason why other anime and manga articles shouldn't. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's closed now, so we should be able to go about things normally. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

## The order in which the crew joined

I think this needs to be cleared up, since there seems to be some confusion as to the order. I don't know who is responsible for the changes, but the order was wrong so I fixed them. Zoro is first, chapter 6 title. Nami is second, chapter 94 title. Usopp is third, chapter 439 title. Sanji is fourth, chapter 68 title. After that it's pretty obvious what order they come in. So just keep a heads up, because the order will no doubt get screwed up again. Ark (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Although what you say sounds as easy like saying a stone is hard, but Nami never actually joined the crew after Buggy. She stated more as a coorperation then actually being their navigator. She even left Baratie without any notice, kicked Zoro's aniki's from the ship and stated several times that she wanted them to leave. The betrayel of Arlong, feelings for her village and the warspirit of the inhabitans (she knew they would die, but couldn't stop them) made her realize that she has to trust Luffy. With her flashback's and eventually the defeat of Arlong gave her the step to move onwards and free of the shackle's of Arlong. Just my thoughts, I don't mind either way. Ge4ce (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The crew actaully has an order, which Oda signals via a number chapter. Its why Usopp didn't get his the number "3" on top of him until he joined alongside Franky at the end of Water 7. For those that are not aware of it, the nos are:
1. Zoro
2. Nami
3. Usopp
4. Sanji
5. Chopper (yet to recieve his no.5 chapter I note)
6. Robin (likewise)
7. Franky
8. Brook
Chopper and Robin may never get their number chapters, but theres the crew no. wise. Incidently, Luffy is not counted as he created the crew - he didn't join it. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

## Villians

I was wondering if Aokiji and Smoker should be on the Villians list, i mean they just don't give off a villian feel like the other ones on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.252.83 (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of how you feel about the character, they are antagonist, against the main protagonist. Both have fought the main character,s and the later wants to capture them. Wither or not later in the series they switch to the protagonist side, or aid them, we can change their pages then. But at the moment they are the enemies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Discobird05 (talkcontribs) 16:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

## Crocodile's "training myth"

I removed the sentence regarding Crocodile's supposed training being the source of his reflexive logia defenses. He makes no mention of this at all, he only explains that he trained his powers to perfection. If you disagree, look it up; chapter 178. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.28.35 (talk) 02:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

## Star Merge - Episode IV: A New Hope

Ok, I don't know how may times this has been brought up, but here I go again. Nobody can be expected to read that miles long disscussion in the archive, about proposals that aren't even viable anymore. I've started mergeing pages, to see how far I'd get without meeting resistance. (Not so far, otherwise I wouldn't be writing this.) So, I'll lay out my plan (or rather the end product I wish to reach) here:

Individual pages for: Luffy, Zoro, Nami, Usopp, Sanji, Chopper, Robin, Franky and Brook (lets leave Merry and Sunny outside of the discussion for the time being, it's hard enough to get somewhere with this.)

A list for other rather important characters and groups. (That would be this page.)

A list for minor characters.

And an article World of One Piece that contains anything in-universe, that's not a character or less important group.

To make this more specific: Shichibukai, Yonkou, Marine Headquarters, Baroque Works, World Government, Navy would be merged into World of One Piece. Just not the characters on those pages, those would be merged into this page. The less important groups obviously need less space and should be merged in here completely. Then we'd have the list of animals (non-character animals) those would go into World of One Piece as well.

In fact the biggest advantage of this structure would be the creation of that "world of" article, as it would create a space for things like dials, phone snails, log pose/eternal pose, devil fruits, and so on. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Go for it. Seems like a decent plan. Doceirias (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Individual character pages should be left alone. They don't need to be merged at all. The Chopper page however needs to be expanded a bit but I'm not sure what to add to it. Also Baroque Works and The Three Great Powers should have an individual page. Gune (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
"Also Baroque Works and The Three Great Powers should have an individual page." That's where we disagree. Could you explain why these two, of all the articles, should remain seperate? -- Goodraise (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
For one you put characters in wrong sections such as Donquixote Doflamingo and Jimbei. They were not former crewmates of Bellamy or Arlong. It was the other way around and putting it like that is highly inaccurate. If you look at this page now you can see just how long it is. By merging EVERYTHING into here it will be far too long. Those two articles are fine how they are. Gune (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, if they don't belong on those pages, they'll be "other characters". That these two articles were fine, while the rest of the One Piece related articles are in a state of chaos, is by no means a valid argument against my plan. And that this page is getting too long, is because the individual character descriptions are too long (meaning bloated with fancruft and story details, which don't descripe the charates as such). -- Goodraise (talk) 12:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You just do what you want. You're the only one who is doing it and just think you are right for the fact that I'm the only one who opposes it. Gune (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right, you are the only one who opposes it. And that is all you do. You give no reasoning. All you say is that you're against it. And in case you didn't notice, Doceirias agreed with me and Geg reverted a few of your reverts of my merging. That makes it 2-3 to 1 against you. You wanted me to ask other's oppinions on the talk page of Talk:The Three Great Powers and now that I did, and people agree with me, you can't accept that? -- Goodraise (talk) 17:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I too support Goodraise's view, so count me in ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 22:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Straw Hat Pirates should not be merged. Its notable by itself and should be left alone. Gune (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It has been tagged for merging since November 2007 and as being unreferenced since May of the same year. If you want to establish notability, go ahead and add references, as that is how it's done. As for the matter, of weather this particular merge has been agreed upon: "Individual pages for: Luffy, Zoro, Nami, Usopp, Sanji, Chopper, Robin, Franky and Brook" and "A list for other rather important characters and groups." cover merging Straw Hat Pirates just fine. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
You always ask for references yet you never provide them. Maybe you should actually do some of the work for once? Gune (talk) 19:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I am not the one who said it was notable. I think it isn't. That's why I proposed merging it here. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually every article you did that. If you think they need references then you should actually do work and find them. Instead of doing any work yourself you want others to do it. You would make a great politician one day. Gune (talk) 20:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't want you (or anyone for that matter) to do anything. And I don't think those articles need references. I think they need merging, because they don't have references. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

## My God

This page is so chaotic... Not trying to be a prick, but it really is disorganized. I mean come on, the categories are just all smashed together in a mess. I really do think we should just keep the list of Pirate Crews on here and have a separate page for the Three Great Powers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.29.81 (talk) 10:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The page is currently going through a major overhaul, so be patient. ;) -- Goodraise (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay goodraise. I'm looking forward to the end result.
Are you actually going to merge the entire minor character list into this page? Gune (talk) 17:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I answered that question in my proposal, in the topic above. You demanded, that I write it. You disagreed with it. And now you demonstrate that you didn't even read it. I don't know what to say... -- Goodraise (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I did read it. You started merging characters from that list into this list. Gune (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I only moved a few characters back and forth. I put Jimbei on the minor list, as you didn't want him among Arlongs crew. And I brought Vivi and Gold Roger onto this page, as they are a lot more important than most characters that are currently on this list. No harm done. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

## Merger

There was discussion a few months ago to merge all of the One Piece character articles into the list, with proper trimming, of course. The consensus seemed to be to go for it, but then it stalled out with the injunction. After the injunction was over, though, no one got started...so, anyone want to jump in now to get it going? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm unable to actually merge and redirect the articles, but I can certainly do some basic trimming and reformatting once they're here. TTN (talk) 22:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I could tell, it was discussed and then the discussion just died because it was basically just a never ending circle between two people repeating the same things... No one else knew what was going on, no one else could have a say.
That is why it hasn't been done. Right now, no one is opposing it. I guess we're on "do what you want quickly before anyone notices!" routine. And if you guys want to do it, seriously don't leave it long, because I don't want to see another "Wikipedia rules Vs Fandom" fight again. I really hate those type of discussions, TTN knows why. I get a lot of guilt when there is a lot of fans trying to save a page and sympathy kills the wikipedian.
If there isn't any work done, tomorrow I'll help (midnight where I live), its too late for me. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The consensus was to not make a single ugly list and cram every notable One Piece character onto it. It "stalled out" after the injunction because TTN was the only person pushing to delete all of the articles and condense everything, and he's not allowed to do it. At this point, I would rather see fewer articles here, if only for the fact that it would make it much easier to revert vandalism(of which there is plenty). I'm willing to contribute, but I want to know what we're working towards before I begin. Ark (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
So basically you just want to remove peoples work because you're too lazy to do more yourself? Yeah, no. Just leave it the hell alone. The pages don't need to be merged, they're fine as they are. Scratch J (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The merger is necessary to comply with WP:FICT as most, if not all, of the One Piece characters fail all requirements for existing. Option to is sending every last one up for deletion and have nothing at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
A single character list would be appropriate, or perhaps a couple. You said there was no consensus to make one, but didn't clarify what you felt the consensus was or offer any alternatives. You also didn't mention if there were any specific characters you felt notability could be established for? TTN isn't the only one who was supporting a merge, but yes, he can't do it now. As for what we're working towards, a list that at least has a chance at being a featured character list, such as List of Naruto characters (notice, this is a comparable size series with one list, and only a few main character articles) and List of Fruits Basket characters. Both of those are being prepped for FLC and are in the peer review phase now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. FICT has no consensus per its talk page as well. There is no "complying" with a failed guideline. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
It is not a "failed guideline" and the lack of consensus on the wording does not nullify it. However, for the picky folks who like to throw that around as it if is some sort of salvation, the individual character articles all fail WP:N, WP:V, WP:PLOT, and WP:NOTGUIDE. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, cause sucking the life out of Wikipedia is apparently fashionable. Does it make you happy that you piss off the majority of editors you encounter Colle? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Does it make me happy? I quite frankly don't care. Never have. Like me or not, your choice and nothing that bothers me one way or another. I'm not here to socialize. Long as people stay civil and follow the rules and guidelines, they are free to hate me if it makes it easier to blame me for problems rather than blame the problems themselves. As a note, though, while I may piss off some fans and the like who like to think of Wikipedia as their personal playground, I have plenty of others who have offered encouraging words and support. Whether you like it or not, the work I (and many others) are doing, is in-line withe guidelines and policies. If people don't like following the guidelines and policies, there are plenty of other wikis and wikias where their contributions would be welcome additions. I believe One Piece has a wikia and that it was mentioned it was sorely in need of such fan oriented content. That isn't Wikipedia's purpose. Oh, and the individual character articles also fail the Anime and manga MoS, as well as the TV MoS.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
From what I've seen of you, Colle, is that you aren't here to work collegiately, you're here to say "My way or the highway" and bash people with WP:WEAPONOFCHOICE. You make Wikipedia a battleground by simply demanding changes be made your way and when people disagree with you, you leap to attack with so called policies and guidelines born of instruction creep. Not every article must be "featured". We're not paper. We should not be dusty and lifeless like paper encyclopedias. But hey, every minute you spend here is one less you can spend ruining the few articles that WP:ANIME does have on the FA and GA lists. How many have you removed Colle? Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
I work collectively just fine, when people aren't trying to use the "its not paper" excuse to bloat an ENCYCLOPEDIA with a bunch of fancruft. You can call it ruining if you want, your opinion and really not one that matters. How many FAs have I removed from anime? None that I can think of because we don't really have any (which really should tell you something, but, you of course don't care about featured articles anyway). For ones I've helped get in shape for coming FA runs? At least 3-4 off the top of my head. GAs? 4 or 5, because people didn't want to make the effort to fix them. Of those, at least one has since been overhauled, the issues I noted were addressed, and it is back at GA. Of course, got another half dozen working on GA runs there. And plenty of FLs done and in the wings as well. Ah, but "not everything has to be featured" so what do you care? Anyway, getting off topic and this sort of discussion has nothing to do with the article so lets end it here.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
You work collectively with your minimist pals to remove anything you opine to be "fancruft" from the encyclopedia. You claim you wish to make this featured, but in reality, you remove featured and good status from articles regularly. You canvass, such as your position taking post on WP:ANIME, for like minded faces to come to articles you label as "fancruft" and reduce the coverage of fiction from the encyclopedia. Do you wish to BUILD wikipedia or do you wish to build another dusty, unused, overly vanilla wannabe brittanica? Our coverage should be BROAD, we're not paper, do should not unnecessarily limit our coverage of topics for simply beaurocratic reasons. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so the anime and manga project are my "minimalist pals" and its canvassing to follow the dispute resolution process and ask the overseeing project to come to the discussion? Interesting. Andyes, I not only wish to build Wikipedia, but I am. Sorry you think Wikipedia means fanguide instead of encyclopedia. Broad doesn't mean excessive. You want to argue the "beaurocratic" [sic] reasons, go ahead, but this isn't the talk page for it. There are lots of policies and guidelines talk pages you can try to argue at, but its been shown time and again that the vast majority, not the minority usually seen on these pages, agree that excessive fictional detail isn't desired nor part of the Wikipedia goal. 15:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it's canvassing to call in someone who has worked on the pages you are trying to delete and merge, then it's canvassing to call in people that have never once made an edit to these pages to get your desired effect; you being a Deletionist does not make what you are doing any different. And making more rules will not change the fact that there are more people coming here to write and read about Neon Genesis Evangelion than Electromagnetics.(Justyn (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC))

Not really an One Piece person, but since I'm in the progress of dealing with character articles in another large series, my line is all characters that have no practical possibility of getting extra-universal notability in the near future should be merged.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

For the most part, what you just stated is what has been happeningon these pages, but because One Piece has so many characters, it is imposible to merge them all into one page unless you do something like summing up multiple non-major villains or main chacters up in the same sentence. (Justyn (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC))

O.K., first off the character articles pass PLOT and NOTAGUIDE. I generally ignore VERIFIABILITY and NOTABILITY because I don't agree with most of the guidelines there and because I can. With that said, I'm all for merging the character articles, because it makes things much cleaner and easier to maintain. The number of pointless One Piece articles is amazing, and really just silly. Do the Flying Fish Riders really need an article of their own? I think not. At the most, I think the Straw Hats might get their own article, because of the amount of information we can produce, and probably Luffy as well, depending on how much more dirt I can dig up. Everyone else will be fine in the single list, with some minor format changes. I'll be clowning around with the list until we reach consensus. People are going to complain, but the OPWiki is there for a reason. Use it. Ark (talk) 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Some pages should be merged into one list or another (I'm looking at you, Flying Fish Riders), but the main character pages should not, especialy for an asinine reason like making them easier to keep clean; that is laziness, not an actual reason to merge. I'll admit that all of the main characters' pages are can be stronger, but just because something is not as strong as it could be, does not mean it should be destroyed. (Justyn (talk) 23:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC))
Well, I think that we can follow Japanese Wikipedia (see ja:Template:ONE PIECE) and merge most pirate crews into List of One Piece pirate crews, except Straw Hat Pirates, Red Haired Pirate Crew, Whitebeard Pirates and Blackbeard pirates, since the Japanese edition is too long and should be splitted. Skypiea's Priests and Shandian Tribe should be merged into Skypiea. Galley-La Company and Franky Family should be merged into Water 7. And List of One Piece minor characters should be merged into List of One Piece characters, and others can follow the way Japanese Wikipedia does. --RekishiEJ (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Of corese you merge all the other pages I liked. Smurai Cerberus 12:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

1. ^ see Devil Fruit article for instance