Talk:One Piece/Archive 3

message: Someone should really make an article for all the dials like Impact,Ax or Jet —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.224.218.200 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The terms page is enough.  Angel Emfrbl 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dial article 

message: How do you know some of Sanji attacks names if he doesn't say some of them in the anime?Shirleybiscuit
:Because he either did the same move later and called the name out then, he did it in the manga, or the version that you are refering to is the now defunct 4Kids dub; where many things were edited out. (Justyn 06:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Okay the 4 most active Editors got blocked at Wikia...
*I was blocked for being a DBZ hater
*The others were blocked for adding stuff without premission.
OMG!  The DBZ thing... Esp... OMG... This is stupid.  O.o' 
Yeah this is just to say we're having problems at the Wikia site right now everyone.  Angel Emfrbl 07:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I, angel and 2 other heavy contributors were banned. Angel for "being a DBZ hater" which if someone doesn't like Dragon Ball Z it's their personal opinion. The other 3, including me, were banned for "adding info to the site without permission" so basically the person who requested the Wiki feels it's his job to grant permission for every edit. He is basically sitting on the site for his own private use now, since the others arn't very active, coming on a few times a month.  Anyone concerned should contact Wikia using their form, telling them how us 4 were ufnairly banned, and the guy is trying to control the entire site, utterly removing the point of it being a Wiki and more like a place to sign up for and contribute if you want to get banned. Battlefranky and Joekido were just as active as us, and we all got banned for the most stupid reasons ever. Pyrgus 09:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd thing in my case is I wasn't preaching DBZ hate nor did I let my opinion rule my judgment.  I've defended a DBZ article here on wikipedia when I don't even touch those pages otherwise.  Hell I even supported a DB page on the wikia when it was up for banment and tried to help keep it.  Angel Emfrbl 20:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay I just logged onto Wikia and found... Everyone is unbanned.  ^-^  Angel Emfrbl 20:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems at the Wikia website 

message: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2006-12-06/4kids-cancels-one-piece-production
4Kids Cancels One Piece Production
posted on 2006-12-06 11:06 EST
4Kids Marketing Director Roz Nowicki has confirmed that the company will not adapt additional episodes of One Piece. 4Kids has dubbed 104 episodes of the series into English, 78 of which have aired in the United States. Thanks, Daikun, Starks, and Mark Barbour.
:We have, that's why pages are starting to say "defunct dub". (Justyn 02:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A forum post isn't a reliable source though, has anybody considered this?--69.141.190.230 17:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and Wikipedia is not for original research like that. We should just say it's a possibility. Matty-chan 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are new episodes in the US... Odd if 4Kids dropped it huh? Angel Emfrbl 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we include that 4kids stopped dubbing One Piece? 

message: This topic doubtless won't be relevant for more than a few weeks, but the issue is this: episodes 291 and 292 (numbered as such in the broadcast) do not actually contain any current *plot* (filler or otherwise) in the series. Rather, they make up the year-end special for 2006. 291 has already aired, and 292 is coming up soon. Now, I believe Geg has been changing the number of episodes back to 290 since this past Sunday. My personal feeling is that since the episodes are numbered, they should be included in the official count regardless of their relevance to the series plot, but I wanted to make sure there were no objections before I changed the number of episodes back to 291. --Julian Grybowski 04:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just say over' X number of episodes rather then use an exact noumber... It would mean less arguments overall.  Angel Emfrbl 11:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of episodes issue 

message: Okay its been bugging me for eht last couple of months.  We're slowly moving towards too much access information.  Okay its useful - but we're not a fan site.  We set up the Wikia for such access amounts of detailed info.  Someone NEEDS to really go round and simplfy everything.  Someone used to do it until several months back, can't remember who now... But their absence is beginning to notice.  
Basically, everyone is entering details that are not needed to be entered.  Saying Luffy has the power of the Devil Fruit is fine, going into detail about gears is fine... But when I look at Luffy's page I see whole text book style enteries on each gear.  Its about time we got someone back in to replace the guy who was simplfying everything.  A lot of the text book info contains hidden spoilers, which are harder to notice in hugh blocks of text.  Generally, its beginning to notice how difficult the infomation is getting to handle - people keep entering repeated info.  Huge text is also harder for a non-One Piece fan to understand... If they really want to know more, they can look it up elsewhere.  But encyclopedias are usually aimed at giving you a rough idea on a subject matter so you can look it up futher can we all remember that... Our pages are getting less encyclopedic as days go by inccidently.  
So yeah.  Everyone's thoughts are welcomed on this matter.  But generally, lets remember this isn't a fan website and try to cut the info down.  Its not as bad as the picture overload we've had recently, but its not far from it.  Angel Emfrbl 00:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too fanish 

message: With the ability article along with the abilities on character articles deleted, we have no scource of abilities other than Franky's ablities and Santōryū articles. We need the the ability article back. SoundPound500000 January 3, 2007 12:47 p.m.
:Apparently we can have a page explaining how someone works but we cannot have techniques.   We are also allowed to get away with describing CP9's fighting style and how it works as well as par with that... But an article that lists just techniques or having them on the page is no-no.  There is a lot more to say, but I don't want to explain it all.  If you read the One Piece talk pages you'll eventually find out whats going on.  Angel Emfrbl 23:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Techniques 

message: This IP address: 80.202.20.40
You'll know his kind of edit anyway from style, he basically goes around and adds :
*Rankyaku Gomu Shot
*Shigan Jet Shot
*Tekkai Giga Shot
*Geppou Gomu Shot
*Soru Jet Shot
*Kami-e Giga Shot
note: he is found alternating the last part of the attack list to suit each character, this one came from Luffy's page... He has also done Spandams and Doflamingo's info. 
I know we have a vandel proceedure on Wikipedia, but I'm alerting asking everyone to keep an eye out for him.  He has been warned a couple of times.  Basically keep an eye on that IP adress... The first person to spot him doing this again, report him before you fix the edit. Read wikipedia's pages on vandlism, give him the ness ban or report him for perminate ban if need be for repeating vandalising even after given warning. Angel Emfrbl 22:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandal 

message: When one piece got a anime version from the manga how did they get the manga storyline to the anime to match for the episodes certain minutes ?Shirleybiscuit
:Answer: They didn't.  Some eps contain several chapters, others just one... Listen ShirleyBuscuit, you need to stop asking these questions on wikipedia.  Forums are the place to ask them, not here.  More people will listen to your questions too.  ;) Angel Emfrbl 15:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  question 

message: Its time to ask it... Who here likes the new templates.  I admit I'm ticked off about navigation problems, I've been going from page to page Via my watchlist rather then the template.  But my view is just one... Others have many.  
So after being up for a couple of weeks, is the old way better or the new way?  
Everyone's opinions - needed! Angel Emfrbl 11:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The old way was better.  I'm not sure if the new way was done as intended, though.  Template talk:One Piece characters talks about respective pages, but Template:One Piece characters isn't ready for prime time.  It links to template pages.  What is it supposed to link too?  Was there a discussion? - Peregrine Fisher 02:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The old was Good. The new tried to get Better, but only did Worse. So, as once I said "Better is Enemy to Good" (Il Meglio è Nemico del Bene). So, let's return to the Good (old) one. Cuttyflam 23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I say go back to the old template, this was just an attempt to fix that which was not broken. (Justyn 11:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it's a good idea. Bleach series has got a template for general purpose and another one only for character. Cuttyflam 12:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well currently no one has asked the new one to stay so... We can now revert back and change things on Monday.  So yeah, lets put the old template back and try again with the templates.  Angel Emfrbl 13:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates - Old Vs. New 

message: I'm surprised to see that the article doesn't mention the One Piece/Dragon Ball Z crossover by Oda and Akira Toriyama. Could someone show me where it is linked to here as I may have overlooked it? Heck, I'm no expert at editing One Piece related articles myself because this isn't exactly my field of expertise, so I wouldn't know what to add/edit here. Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thibk the page is not needed. Cross Epoch should go on One Piece Dragon Ball Media, or in the page of the authors. Cuttyflam 23:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cross epoch]] 

message: Wouldn't this be better on the Anime or Manga pages?  Its more relevent to them and takes this list off the main page.  Angel Emfrbl 23:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese Staff 

message: Hi, I had a few questions regarding some facts in the article. One is the line:
To date, only a handful of episodes have been released in unedited form on DVD in the US. - As far as I know none of the episodes have been released on DVD in the U.S. without some degree of cutting. Secondly the line:
One Piece is the fourth highest selling manga in the history of Weekly Shonen Jump[1], and is currently Japan's most popular and all-time third-best-selling Shōnen Jump title. 
sounds kind of contradictory to me (it sounds like One Piece is both the third and fourth highest selling Shonen Jump manga). Am I just reading these incorrectly? Justin Hirsh 21:09, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: okay the first bit is really strange... I don't recll any ep dbeing released uncut because 4Kids are not intereasted.  The second one is a plunder, one of those should be just "Japans" not "Shonens" best X ranked selling title. Angel Emfrbl 22:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Few factual questions 

message: I think that would be good using a General Template for General Page of OP, such as Location, Arcs, Media... and another, existing, for Characters Organization and Crew, Template:One Piece characters, such in Bleach pages. What do you think? Cuttyflam 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its already in place.  Did it Sunday.  At the end of this week, I'll be asking for opinions on whether this try worked over the last one.  This is our fourth attempt at template making for the OP pages.  The only difference is I left factions (including crew) on general.  Angel Emfrbl 13:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using Two Different Templates 

message: Just informing everyone to look out for this IP adress:
204.72.116.44
He has been vandaling Nami's page for some while now, replace "Breasts" with "Boobs(HaHa boobs)".  If anyone sees him, like up wikipedia's vandal rules and take further action.  He has been doing this for a while now.  I don't know what else he is doing on wikipedia, all I know this is now becominng apparent he is aiming to vandalise and we can't ignore him.  Message being repeated on Main Page and Nami page.  Angel Emfrbl 18:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reglaur Vandal note 

message: Okay I better write this here (here we go again with this subject), someone added this to Yonkou and Shanks' page - that they haven't used Devil Fruits so far.  There is no need to mention that so far there has been no signs the Yonkou have Devil Fruits... Or they lack them.  Really.  If they have a Devil Fruit, mention it, otherwise don't bother.  We're just adding useless and uneeded info and filling up a page with junk statements. 
Also I keep seeing this same dam phrase repeated in just about every article sooner or later thats been bugging me for a while.  Its this phrase: "It should be noted..." Why should it be noted?  Why can't it just be stated as a fact?    "Shanks doesn't have a Devil Fruit", instead of "It should be noted Shanks' doesn't have a Devil Fruit".  Come on everyone, surely between us all we can come up with a more orginal line then this one?  The phrase is also boring to read and seems unprofessional.  Angel Emfrbl 22:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of things... 

message: Just wondering what happened to all the pages for the different sagas (East Bue, Skypies, etc). Considering that there are pages for  each individual movie and for some pretty minor charactors - e.g. temple priests - don't the main arcs deserve their own pages. Othe long running anime series such as DBZ and Yu Yu Hakusho have pages for their major sagas. e.g. Dark Tournament Saga, Perfect Cell Saga. At least shouldn't the current page be expanded t be more informative, with a more appealing layout? Guest9999
:The greater wikipedia community decided we didn't need them.  So we lost them... See story arcs page for the simplified version. Apparently they don't think we need them.  Angel Emfrbl 07:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Wondering 

message: I noticed that this article is missing a plot overview, is there any reason for that? Blu Shu0 04:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm... Don't know.  Its a show about a pirate searching for One Piece.  We don't know the other major plots right now.  Its best to say there is too much loose ends to write in full confidence the plot down.  But as I said, the majority of it is Luffy searching for One Piece to become Pirate King.  Angel Emfrbl 08:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If someone were to read this article, I would assme that they want a plot overview or maybe even a synopsis of the story. A condensed version can be included, and I belive will help the overall article. Blu Shu0 00:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Overview 

message: Somebody will have to change it because it is supposed to say "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.242.175.18 (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All our figures for the front page are probaberly wrong by now anyway. Angel Emfrbl 08:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WRONG Harry Potter Book 

message: He is the guy who keeps vandalising everywhere.  If he vandalises ONE MORE TIME, report him here if I have not done so already: Wikipedia:Abuse_reports.  I want to catch him because he is making a mess of things right now.  See our straw hats page, devil fruit list, and many others.  So if ANYONE sees him doing it again, report him, he has had his last warning and can now be banned.  Angel Emfrbl 14:27, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IP 71.160.53.122 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One Piece terms
This article is due for deletation.  Note this page contains a lot of supporting info and saves dozens of stub pages and info on pages of little relevance.  Its up for being a "list/fancruft" page, as well as a "dumping ground" for access info which we know at least the latter it is not suppose to be.  Its either save this page or do a lot of linking to the wikia to save dozens of One Piece stubs (which wikipedians in general don't like for in-universe stuff) or ultimately have the info repeated DOZENS of times over just about every article.  -_-'  Angel Emfrbl 09:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loss of article 

message: I may be a noob to wikipidia, so this might be harder than I think, But should't we take a hint from the Avatar: The Last Airbender article, a featured article, and merge some stuff into the main OP article? I mean things like, the various main characters, the history of OP's creation, including Romance Dawn, some bounties,pictures, etc, while of course, keeping the original articles intact. sorry if this was already reccomended before ^_^;; Tirkaro 11:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We tried that once... However, it didn't work due to the vast amount of info here.  It was split up just to handle.  While one or two articles can be merged, the only article that could warrent merging with this page right now is the english adaptations page.  Everything else didn't work out when they were part of the main page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Angel Emfrbl (talk • contribs) 17:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge/expand? 

message: This site has been around since the begining of the...ahem....dub. It posts news from different sources and has info about the series itself. Would someone with a better knowlege of policy please look over it and see if its good enough to add to the page? Quatreryukami 15:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I recall it was on here once before... But got removed because its not neutral, its very much propreganda against one company.  We can make exceptions for that comparison between orginal and 4Kids site on the English Adaptions page (see bottoms of page) because its mostly neutral and its mostly commentry.  Angel Emfrbl 21:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.saveonepiece.com 

message: No given name for the crew (which means we'll have to use a presumed name like Roger pirates), but I was thinking we might need them in the future... We have an article on the Wikia but not here.  My notion is that the Gold Roger page isn't linked to anything whereas al but Dragon's page is.  
*Wikia page
It would be a case of just asembling the info after that.  Angel Emfrbl 12:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Roger's Pirates 

message: List all the pages proposed for changing.
*One Piece (English adaptation) – merged with Main article One Piece.  I’m against that, there is so much info to talk about here, but it’s a merger that has never been discussed, but raised several times.  The reason for splitting in the first place (orginally, it was indeed part of the Main page) was due to sloppiness  of the main page at the time.  Now its been brought up to snuff, it might be best if everything on that page was summed up and merged.  There is a alternative approach though to having a main page:  Mortal Kombat, however this is rather difficult to pull off with One Piece to be honest… 
*Okay ruled out that because we can do a main directary page, I've thought about it.  Okay, AMONGST the merger I preposal some reorganising of our pages.  Instead of main page for One Piece do what other animes (and other non-anime things) do.  Have One Piece (manga), One Piece (anime), etc... We can put the english adaptations details on each page and do the episodes/chapter lists linked to them.  We can also retire our main One Piece page and create a directory page between them.  A lot of hard work but with some huge advantages.  The directory would list all the Video Games and other media there too.  Essentially there gives us room to add other things to each section.  We could be more daring and further seperate it into One Piece (4Kids adaption) and so forth but we need some solid researching to add a LOT of missing info on the show.  So this depends on that.  Angel Emfrbl 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page changes

message: Okay added this section, mainly as a experiment to see how it goes.There is also another reason, to teach some One Piece wikipedian fans something important; to add "it is unconfirmed" whenever you make certain comparisons that are not given by Oda!  Otherwise... Its nothing but fan speculation, which means it has to come off the page; no matter how much you whine and cry.  Some obivous ones (who can deny who Jango is based on) don't need this.  Its ones like saying Thriller Bark is based on his song "Thriller" that need it.  Angel Emfrbl 19:35, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is also because it strengthens the page (if I've hopefully set this up right... ^-^') and highlights were the sources of everything is coming from, One Piece gives me the impression of flatness whenever I read the page... Plus, other anime pages also have this.  Angel Emfrbl 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The cultral Refs section got flagged as a "Trivia" section?  Okay enlighten me here someone... Other anime pages have this and live quite fine with it.  Why did we get flagged?  O.o'
I, for one, think we should reference his talking about Nostradomus' prediction in Volume 9. This might take a little research, though. LoganTheGeshrat 13:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If you can tell my what the prediction was... But we shouldn't be doing our own research just remember that.  Angel Emfrbl 20:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thats not worth mentioning on the article... I mean its got to be in the story... And please supply proof Oda said that as I cannot find it.  Prove me wrong please and show me its there. Angel Emfrbl 22:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural References 

message: in norway the name the manga one piece. the 'o' at the start and the 'e' on the end wass thougth to be decoration, then giving one piece an new name "nepiec"
:Little relievence to the English translation.  Perhaps you can upload that onto the OP encyclopedia. http://onepiece.wikia.com/ Angel Emfrbl 17:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  misunderstanding 

message: Sorry that it took so long, but I finally reformatted the List of One Piece pirate crews article. When I originally planned to do this, there were many more pirate flag images. I can't find most of them, so I assume they were taken down. If someone can upload the flags needed for the article I would really appreciate it. --Superneoking 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One Piece Pirate Crews 

message: Right now, the minor character page is at 87 kilobytes. For a while now I have been looking at the minor characters list, and I have been thinking that maybe we could change it. Rather than a minor characters list, we chould have a character list that has all of the characters on it. If a character is listed elsewhere, then we can write a little bit about them and then link to the characters other location (this would include characters like Luffy who have their own page and characters like Cabaji who are located on a pirate or marine article). Then, instead of one character list, we can have four pages with characters sorted into the article it belongs alphabetically: (A-F), (G-L), (M-R), (S-Z)
This might seem pointless or redundant, but I think it would help people find characters faster/easier. In addition, we will be able to add onto the current minor characters and add ones that are missing without having to worry about the articles being too long. I have seen other articles using this style and I think it would work well here as well. --Superneoking 01:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters 

message: does anyone know when the funimation dub airs on toonami?
I heard the new voices and let me say....FUNIMATION RUINED ONE PIECE! They don't even sound like the old crew from 4Kids nor do they even act like their old selves! What was FUNimation thinking changing the voice cast?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicmaster1223 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So long as you can write the source refs, you can add no probs. Angel Emfrbl 23:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  funimation dub 

message: why are many male characters in animes voiced by females?
:Not the place to ask forum based questions... Did you look up on wikipedia itself?  ^_-
:But to answer:  Remember a boy's voice breaks, a girl's doesn't.  Young boys can only play young men therefore up until the age of about 12-14.  Not a lot of use if you plan to have a character running for many years at the same age.  Easier solution:  Get a girl (whose voice won't change so much) to voice a the part, she doesn't have to worry about a sudden change as she gets older.  Most guys do VAing at a slightly later age of 16+ once their voice has broken.  There is nothing worst then a actor's voice breaking halfway through something and you having to use filters and have not to fix the problem.  
:Also, boys have higher pitched voices then men, better get a female to voice act a young male because females have high pitched voices anyway.  They normally get a voice actor to continue the voice over to older age for the sake of changing voice actors, so a character might have the same VA throughout the series despite age.  For one, it keeps it easy since the VA is used to the character and for the second part it saves confusion from the audience when VA change.  This isn't always true though I add.  
:And BTW, Chuckie from Rugrats was played by a girl... Its not just anime that does this trick.  Even Disney will use this! Angel Emfrbl 08:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  questions on voice actors 

message: This page is gigantic! Half of it is a single discussion that's no longer active! I suggest all of the character article proposals and stuff and all discussions prior or during them that are not active anymore get put into an achieve. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest a new achieve 

message: I don't want this to happen again, should we go back to how it originally was? Matty-chan 23:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FUNimation section getting bulky? 

message: Why is there not a section on the characters of One Piece, in this article?  -- AvatarMN 08:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Two reasons:  first is we have them listed in groups below... On the template... Second is that the page is getting clattered up enough.  I realise other anime pages have them, but the series is huge and we don't have the room to list even the Straw Hats (most animes have a main character cast of only half the size so you can write a short Bio alongside them).  And the crew is growing still.  Angel Emfrbl 11:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I also point out many other animes/shows (generally) are moving their character lists off their main pages onto character list pages (which we already have done).  Angel Emfrbl 11:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that character list page isn't linked in this article.  There seriously needs to be at least a header "Characters" with the line "Main article: One Piece characters".  Is there even one of those?  There ought to be a "One Piece characters" article, not template, that lists every article for a One Piece character or list of One Piece characters.  They're scattershot all over the place, and really need to be easier to find, and a comprehensive reference to all of them need to be linked from the main article.  The template is nice, but I think most users stop looking at an article when they hit the references and external links, something as vital to the show as it's characters should not only be found way down there.  -- AvatarMN 18:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can make it work, I'll agree to anything.  Angel Emfrbl 20:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Characters of One Piece 

message: I am touching that button again.  Okay, its been well over a year since I became a registered editor and when I did, there were a number editors who reglaurly edited wikipedia.  Since then all but a few (myself include) are left to be called reglaur.  
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.  Now I seriously don't want to hear a round of whinning and complaints about that word being merged.  Its something I've supported for a while now.  
To raise the issue I have several points I like to make: 
#Once upon a time I went to the hassle of 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. This is what happens when you don't reference things.  
#NONE of our character article have real life links which are important to wikipedia.  
#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, there is much too much of "Own research" is disreguarded on wikipedia.  
#The wikia as I have said, is now at a good quality and can fully replace the pages here on wikipedia.  Its easier to monitor, updated daily and every edit is error checked.  
#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.  
#Plot points... They are not suppose to be on wikipedia at all, but every character page has a "story" section.   
#Information overload.  Okay, some argue the characters have more information on them.  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 our pages look like stubs. Seriously, compare that page with any one of ours.   
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, every day 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.  And may I remind everyone I said the wikipedia pages need to be brought up to speed + quality in my last mergers topic?  I've watched these pages for many months, they are as bad now (if not worst) then they were then.  
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... 
Oh wait... 
I forgot, we lost it because it broke the guidlines and was voted by the greater wikipedia community to be axed! Angel Emfrbl (talk) 17:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mergers 

message: Hello. I am see a bit of back and forth editing in the allusions section. The section primarily consists of unconfirmed un-sourced statements "Zoro appears to be an allusion to the masked swordsman Zorro. Although unconfirmed.." and "...These references however remain unconfirmed by the creator." and "While most character design origins are questionable, there are two that remain obivous but unconfirmed by Oda. Other parts of the written section are speculative, such as "A possible reference to Full Metal Alchemist was made" Parodies of notable fictional characters (Zorro) or performers (Michael Jackson) could be noted, but the section as a whole should be reworked to be less speculative, and provide sources. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, hey people... No comparisons between x Character and X character without providing evidence.  The only exception:  When there is no other character it could be based upon.  I.e. Chopper and Jango.  While stating Brook looks like Jack Skellington is nice and all... EVERY skeleton looks the same... Boney and dead!  We need a little more evidence here on that note.  I also agree with the above claim on Zoro = Zorro since at one point (in the anime at least) Zoro did Zorro's famous "Z" cut.  Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:21, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allusions Section Clean-up 

message: According to my genre-related edits, is there anything that is politically incorrect? Per Wikipedia:MOS-AM#Content, I tried to get the best three categories which belong to this particular series. Any thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stylistics 

message: Found a good article with some info you might want to include.   I may add some of it myself, but I'm feeling to lazy right now.  It has a bit of interesting publication numbers and comments on the style of the Japanese version of the manga and its audience. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent. Thanks a lot, I'll farm it for information tomorrow (day off, yay) unless someone beats me to it. Ark (talk) 12:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References