Talk:List of One Piece characters/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: And where do you get that crock of shit? (Justyn (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk • contribs) 00:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IAR is not for content disputes. TTN (talk) 00:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 (talk • contribs) 07:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Delete? 

message: :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)
thread_title: Please Do Not Merge

message: Anyone got this? One Piece Adventurer Unofficial Guide SC. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll go look for it tomorrow after work, nice find. Ark (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Book 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  The Will of D 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That is true.  Angel Emfrbl (talk) 12:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: That seems perfectly fine, and in fact it would probably make more sense. Ark (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Crocodile/Blackbeard Organizing 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change to project page 

message: 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)
replies: text: Doesn't that apply only to the people involved with the arbitration case? Ark (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, better safe than sorry. (Justyn (talk) 06:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Stop Everything! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Villians 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Crocodile's "training myth" 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go for it. Seems like a decent plan. Doceirias (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I too support Goodraise's view, so count me in ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Straw Hat Pirates should not be merged. Its notable by itself and should be left alone. Gune (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Star Merge - Episode IV: A New Hope