Talk:List of One Piece characters/Archive 2

Devil Fruit
while i do see the chaos and probelms here, there is no devil fruit article or somewhere to about it a saw somewhere its that it should be in description of character witch is nice for character however say you want to know more about devil fruit which is an important part of one piece while the list of each fruit maybe too much having nothing that tells about different fruits Paramecia, logia, and zoan is extreme lack of infomation for one piece —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.140.190 (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The devil fruits in general have a paragraph in One Piece and the main article, on the subject of that section, World of One Piece offers a place, where more information could be added. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Kuma in Sabaody
The Kuma that confronts Kidd and Law is NOT the real. It doesn't have a Bible in its hands, so is another copy, maybe PX-2 or PX-3. So, the article about this Shichibukai is wrong. You can check the chapters 505 and 506, and also the 512 to see that the real Kuma does have his Bible with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.155.104.22 (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Villains part 2
umm why dont you guys try to group the villains? ppl like mihawk, croc, gecko, and kuma should be grouped into shichibukai, pirates like buggy and kuro into "pirates" and marine and world government villains into another group. ppl like enel could be in other villains or something.--74.237.120.11 (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They were grouped like that and it was plain chaos, as allegiances of the characters change over the course of the story or a character is supposed to be in mutliple groups. They are now sorted in order of appearance. That makes sense even for the non-hardcore fans. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * i guess but i just suggested it so the article looks more organized. but i think we should focus more on cleanning up the article.--Sanji_1990 (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Minor characters
Overall, the minor character list is unnecessary. The grand majority of the characters can just be forgotten, while a few important to the plot can be moved here. I would say Silvers, Crocus and Laboon (under one section), Vegapunk, Dragon, and minor plot characters under the relevant characters sections(i.e. Kureha and Hiruluk under Chopper's section, Zeff under Sanji's section, Kuina under Zoro, ect) can be moved over. If the Supernovas make it past the current arc, they can be added as well. The rest can just be trashed.TTN (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree. If a character is not minor, move it here. If the list contains nothing notable, put it up for AfD. Don't try to delete massive articles through the backdoor under the pretense of merging them. It's just cheap. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The filler character list isn't being merged, so it is fine for that to go to AfD, but the minor list needs to be around in order for the history to be kept. Any articles that are merged need to retain the history in some form to appease the GFDL. TTN (talk) 19:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * You make it sound as if it had already been decided to merge them here. I don't think any of the characters listed there deserve a place on this list. Though of course you're right about the history, in case any of them are merged here, the page can't be deleted. It must have slipped my mind, as seeing a 60kb article simply being turned into a redirect, had me startled there for a moment. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While none of the information has crossed paths with this article, the old screwed up set of articles definitely managed to mix and match the information over time. Even if none of those are included here, the history still needs to exist for other stuff (Brook's article for example). TTN (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Guess you're right. In that case I suggest turning that page into a redirect . (Ironic, isn't it? :) Though that will certainly raise a lot of eyebrows. I am curious how this will turn out. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Changed my mind. Let's keep it. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The article is good enough on its own. There is no real reason that it should be merged or just redirected. Gune (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My opinion... well, I don't really have an opinion on the filler character article, but I say the minor character should stay. I'd say those characters are notable enough given their impact on the story, and mergining it would be to long. Matty-chan (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Improving the Straw Hat's Articles.....
I'm trying to start work on each one of the straw hat pirates articles so it's all referenced and such. I've been working on Zoro and Chopper recently, using what information I can find and also slowly improving "Personality & "Appearances in other Media." However, Reception is slowly been leaked with the new Funimation DVD releases, so we should be fine. If anyone would love to help me, that will be great. RedEyesMetal (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been working on those articles for the past few days. So you're not alone. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I hope I don't mean to argue, but when it comes to "other media" the movies should count. Look closely at Naruto Uzumaki and Son Goku. Both CLEARLY list the feature films as OTHER media, so if you don't mind I'll be putting them back. RedEyesMetal (talk) 08:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * To argue means to "have an argument." And an argument is a "process of reasoning." The talk pages are no place for idle chit-chat. Argueing is exactly what you're supposed to do here...


 * You're right. Though there is room for interpretation, if the movies (produced by the same company, done by the same artits and voice actors) are part of the anime, it seems my assessment, of them being not, does not have consensus. So go ahead and add it back (not that you needed my approval). -- Goodraise (talk) 09:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Devil Fruit names in character descriptions
Devil Fruit names should be added to characters. No reason not to leave them out. Goodraise just loves to delete things for no reason Gune (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can give and when asked always have given, a reasoning for my changes. While you on the other hand, if you said anything at all, only used WP:ILIKEIT. As for this case: If an article is long, we should leave less important things outside to make room. The fact, that the Devil Fruit, that allows to manipulate, control, create and to transform into apples is called the Apple Apple Fruit, isn't helping anyone, which makes it irrelevant. Introducing those names also gives the false impression, that the reader would have to remember those names, in order to understand the rest of the article. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The devil fruits are part of the characters themselves. You cannot deny that. You just delete because you can and just make a bunch of pointless edits. Gune (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "The devil fruits are part of the characters themselves." Yes they are. "You cannot deny that." I never did. "You just delete because you can". I am constantly rubbing my reasoning under your nose, because you ask for it, but you deny its existence, reminiscent of little children, covering their ears and making loud noises, so they don't have to hear, what they don't want to. "[You] just make a bunch of pointless edits." Care to show how they are pointless? You could do so by showing that my reasoning is flawed. But no, you don't. Instead you only state your opposition on the grounds of WP:ILIKEIT and revert as many of my edits as you can, until some other editor eventually comes to my aid. I am tired of your disruptive edits and I am tired of explaining to you, why I did what. As you never said anything to why you act this way, I'll make an educated guess, based on your past edits and discussions with me, as well as on your and other peoples talk pages: You want to keep as much information about One Piece, because you are a fan of it. But you know that on Wikipedia as a whole so much and so detailed information is not welcome, and that if you engage into a real discussion, be it technical (meaning about Wikipedia's policies) or about a specific matter, you wouldn't have your way anyways. Is that about right? Or am I wrong? Please tell me. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't care so much about most of the pages that got merged. The fact though is that devil fruits are part of the characters and is notable enough to be mentioned under the characters. Also the bulleted list for Voice Actors is much more organized than a sentence at the end. Not to mention the fact that you complain and say its too long when in fact that sentence about who the voice actors are make it longer than a bulleted list. If anybody is disruptive its you for your edits when in fact you're the only one who wants it that specific way. Gune (talk) 22:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "I didn't care so much about most of the pages that got merged." Good, one issue less. "The fact though is that devil fruits are part of the characters". Yes, that is a fact. "[Devil Fruits are] notable enough to be mentioned under the characters." That is not a fact, but a groundless claim on your part. "Also the bulleted list for Voice Actors is much more organized than a sentence at the end." Yes, but consensus says: "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs." In case you wonder where I got that from, check out WP:MOS. "Not to mention the fact that you complain and say its too long when in fact that sentence about who the voice actors are make it longer than a bulleted list." Though I am not complaining, but doing something about it, (I only mentioned it, because you asked) this very example you just gave, proves once again, that opposed to what you (not for the first time) claim me to be doing, I am not doing only what I want, but abide by the will of the consensus, in this case namely WP:MOS. "If anybody is disruptive its you for your edits when in fact you're the only one who wants it that specific way." That I just proved to be wrong, but there is more. TTN started to turn them to prose, which with me makes two already, meaning more than "only" me. (I wonder how often you claimed me to be alone with something and turned out to be wrong with it by now...) And then there are other character lists, like that in the featured article Serial Experiments Lain and the List of Naruto characters, (on which you are currently edit warring as well) which both use prose (what a surprise). -- Goodraise (talk) 22:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll leave the other stuff alone but your claim that my claim the devil fruits are notable is groundless is not true. You have no proof that they are not notable. Gune (talk) 23:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First of all, it's nice to see, that you admit, that it is not a fact, but a claim. About the "groundless" part: You have yet to give a reasoning, why the names of the Fruits should be included. By saying, that it isn't groundless, you implicitly state, that you have something to "ground" the claim upon. As long as you don't tell the rest of the community, what that ground is, the claim will correctly be considered "groundless". And as to weather the names are "notable": I didn't claim they were not. (Though I don't think they are. And if you were to read WP:N you'd have to agree.) I am saying, that they are not worth mentioning. My reasoning thereto did I give in my first reply. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Goodraise, I am the one that made the edits to the page adding the names of the characters' Devil Fruits. My reasoning for this was that the names of the fruits, although not as important as the list itself (that's not saying very much), the are vital parts of the characters and in my opinion should at least have their names listed; as for my favoritism of the Japanese over English names, it stems from my experience that the Japanese names are heavily favored over the English names by the fan community.

On to actually improving the article; would adding sources for the names of the Devil Fruits make the names acceptable to keep? All in all, a little prose isn't bad, per se; it's when it starts turning purple that it really becomes an issue.


 * You are saying, that the names (not the fruits themselves, but their names) are "vital parts of the characters". How so? Does the average reader get a better idea of the character by knowing the name of the fruit (s)he ate? I am sorry, but I don't see your point. As for the Japanese terms (see related discussion here): You can emphasize "heavily" all you want, It doesn't change the anime and manga project guideline that says otherwise, nor the Wikipedia guidelines it is based upon. Though I understand your position. I never watched a single episode dubbed or subbed by 4kids or Funimation, nor did I read a single officialy translated chapter. (I don't even speak English natively.) I'm a One Piece fan and I heavily favor the Japanese terms over the English ones. But to quote myself: "Saying this as a One Piece fan: Wikipedia is not for us, it's for everyone else." (Taken from Talk:World of One Piece on a not unrelated matter.)


 * On to the sources; every information that comes directly from the manga (or the anime, or the SBS) can and should be sourced at some point, if this list is supposed to reach FL status some day. But, as I just said, everything from these (primary) sources can be referenced. And if that would make it worth including, then really everything in them would be worth including. It is the secondary sources that are interessting, because their existence proves real world importance of the terms.


 * "All in all, a little prose isn't bad, per se; it's when it starts turning purple that it really becomes an issue." Did you switch the topic here? Are you refering to the voice actor bullets now? Sorry, I have no idea what you are talking about. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The only reason I would be for the inclusion of the fruit names is to have the sentences flow better. It looks better than saying "He has the power of a Devil Fruit" in every single section. Other than that, I'll leave it up to you. Does anyone know what the Funimation dub calls them? If it sticks with "Cursed", we'll need to switch over to that. TTN (talk) 17:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, lots of things to deal with, so I'll take them one at a time:


 * First, TTN, the reason that they are called devil fruit are because the manga is the original format, and the last time I checked, the English manga uses "devil fruit". In addition, a quick Google search shows that "Devil Fruit" gives around five times the results that "Cursed Fruit" does, and the Manual of Style dictates that the most used for is the one to be used on Wikipedia; and while a Google search may not be a source, it should enough to show the existence of a trend. And "use English" does not mean "ignore the original version"; And yes, I am aware that the "use most well known name" comes from the character section, I am extrapolating baseed on the fact that there are no set rules dealing with the names of objects (that I know of).


 * Goodraise, by "prose", I meant how the article is presented: I prefer writing things so that they are easier for someone just reading the page to understand, rather than a cold dry clinical article that only someone with training is the subject in which the article deals would be able to understand; what is the point of writing something if nobody can understand it or it is written so badly that nobody can get through it?


 * What I meant by "vital parts of the character" is that it is rather difficult to discuss the character fully without discussing the abilities given to them by the fruits. Unless you are actively avoiding talking about them.


 * As for the emphasis on heavily, it was based on the fact that there tends to be backlash in One Piece related forums whenever anyone uses terminology from the English versions. Either way, the fruits with no official English name should use the Japanese name rather than translating the meaning, because the names are proper nouns. I think that should cover everything; but for now, I should go back to painting my Terminators. {Justyn (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)}


 * You may not have imagined it possible, but I actually clicked on and read the lead section of behind the link you gave above. What I don't understand, is not what you are saying, but in respect to which part of the article you are saying it. (If you comment on the weather, it won't do me any good, if I don't know, in what part of the world you're living.) I seriously have no idea what you are refering to.


 * About the "vital part": I'll repeat myself. It's not like I oppose any mention of Devil Fruit abilities. I only oppose the mentioning of the names of the fruits, as the names as such are most definately not vital to the characters. Or let me rephrase that: Why should we bombard a casual reader with fruit names, which (s)he will not encounter anywere else?


 * As for including the names to make the article sound better. The few crude attempts at discussing the abilities without mentioning the names of the fruits, that I made, do not constitute the apex of my wording abilty. (No pun intended.) And they most certainly don't constitute that of the community as a whole. On the other edge of the sword, phrases like "Sand Sand Fruit, which allows him to create, manipulate, absorb, and transform into sand" just make me shiver. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Because not giving names at all, especially in the way it is done here, can give the false impression that the fruits do not have names at all.


 * My reference to prose was not really about anything in particular: I was stating that simply having the Devil Fruits' names is nothing inherently bad in and of itself. And if you are really concerned about the quality I can write things up so that they are easier to read:


 * "By eating the Suna Suna no Mi, Crocodile has become a being of living sand, able to control and transform into it at will; the Devil Fruit also gives him the ability to sap the moisture out of anything or anyone."


 * That better? {Justyn (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)}


 * "Because not giving names at all, especially in the way it is done here, can give the false impression that the fruits do not have names at all." Assuming you're right about this. That is beside the point, as I was arguing, that the names don't matter. If names don't matter in general, then so don't individual fruit names or the fact, that fruits are generally named.


 * About the quality: I am not the one, who was concerned about the quality. In fact, I am the one who argued, that not mentioning the names, would not reduce the prose's quality.


 * And about it being easier to read: That was never my concern either. (In fact it was you, who brought up the purple prose.) I think it is easy enough to understand either way.


 * What you apparently don't understand, is that I have different concerns about using either the Japanese or English terms. Using English terms will often lead to the use of the same word three times in one sentence, (as demonstrated above) which sounds horrible, to say the least. My concern with the Japanese terms is, that the average reader will have even less of those terms than of the English ones. The average reader does not speak Japanese and is not a fan of One Piece. To such a reader, terms like "Suna Suna no Mi" are plain alien, while to us (as fans) they are familiar and sound normal.


 * Neither the English, nor the Japanese terms do the reader any good. I have given some reasons to remove them. Can you give a reason to keep them, or can you not? -- Goodraise (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing the names does a greater disservice than just letting them be. Wikipedia's job is to provide information as best it is able, not to coddle idiots; look at the page on Deconstructionism if you don't believe me. If there are people that don't speak Japanese, doesn't mean we should coddle them by removing it, especially with proper nouns: if we were, then the page on the Yamata no Orochi would be titled something "Eight-Branched Giant Snake", or something to that effect. Justyn (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Removing the names does a greater disservice than just letting them be." Could you be more specific about that? "Wikipedia's job is to provide information as best it is able, not to coddle idiots". And I thought you were concerned about giving everyone a chance of understanding it, or why did you point us to purple prose? "look at the page on Deconstructionism if you don't believe me." Are you kidding me? That page is tagged with


 * and therefore (among other reasons) hardly constitutes what Wikipedia's "job" is. (Not to mention, that it's an article on a philosophical ... whatever it is, while we discuss a list of characters from a boys comic.) "If there are people that don't speak Japanese, doesn't mean we should coddle them by removing it, especially with proper nouns". I never said any of that, I don't even care about the English versus Japanese argument. I want neither. My argument to remove them, isn't that the existence of Japanese terms could confuse them. It is, that the Devil Fruits are not even important enough to have their English names mentioned. 'if we were, then the page on the Yamata no Orochi would be titled something "Eight-Branched Giant Snake", or something to that effect.' There you go again, trying to use a bad (rated "start" twice, and twice "???") article to argue about how an equally bad article should be. Use guidelines, featured articles, or even good articles for all I care, but not that junk.


 * Summing it up: You want to keep the names, but don't (can't?) give a specific reason why. First you want articles to be understandable, later you want the opposite, depending on weather it furthers your goal. And the articles you give as examples are in even worse shape than this one. - (I apologize to anyone taking offense at my amateur like attempt at deconstructing that comment.) -- Goodraise (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This entire conversation gives me a headache, so I'm going to remind people to read the project guidelines: you must use the official English names, preferably those in the manga, since that is the original work. I can't see any reason why you wouldn't mention the names, nor any reason why you would need to. Use whichever you feel makes for a readable, accessible article; no need to be systematic about it. Doceirias (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict), since I was basically going to say the same thing, I'll just go ditto, if the names are kept, all One Piece articles should be using the official English names per project guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is only: If we disagree, on what makes a "readable, accessible article", then we only have two possible ways of dealing with it. We can either hold each others hands and talk about how we "feel" about it or we can go at it in a "systematic" way. And as you might have noticed, I tend to choose the later. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to chime in on something. About Fruit names, I'm not sure at all what should be done about the names themselves (Gomu Gomu, Suna Suna, Hito Hito, Yami Yami, etc) but, why is the "No Mi" part left in Japanese?  There is no logical reason for that other than fanboys wanting things to stay "Japanesey".  "Mi" Means fruit.  "Gomu Gomu no Mi" is "Gomu Gomu Fruit".  Plain and simple.  ALL FOUR of the official English translations use that (Viz, 4kids, FUNimation, Odex) so Either way the rest of the debate goes, I think THAT part at least should be Translated, I see no reason for it not to be. (User DemonRin) 14:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * "Gomu Gomu no Mi" and "Gum Gum Fruit" are proper nouns. Translating only half of it is the worst possible thing to do. That would be like translating "Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Kōen-mae Hashutsujo" to "Kochira Katsushika-ku Kameari Park in Katsushika Ward" instead of "This Is the Police Station in Front of Kameari Park in Katsushika Ward". -- Goodraise (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 4kids and FUNimation didn't seem to have a problem doing that to Robin and her "Hana Hana Fruit". Putting "Fruit" would at least tell the casual reader what it is.  Calling something a "Gomu Gomu Fruit" is far easier to tell what you're talking about than "Gomu Gomu No Mi". (User DemonRin) 14:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * 4kids and FUNimation can translate it to whatever they want. Their translations are official. Ours are not. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not just keep the English names of the fruits and pu the Japanese names in parenthesis. That'll make everyone happy. DJCruithne (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Some problems with arrangement
There are several problems with how you have been arranging your characters. The Shichibukai, for example, are just scattered around parts of the article rather than a single section that is easy for the reader. Here is a suggestion:


 * Protagonists (Straw Hat Piates)
 * Antagonists
 * Pirates
 * Morgan
 * Buggy the Clown
 * Kuma
 * Don Krieg
 * Arlong
 * Wapol
 * Bellamy
 * Foxy
 * Navy
 * Koby
 * Helmeppo
 * Jango
 * Smoker
 * Tashigi
 * Aokiji
 * Monkey D. Garp
 * Kizaru
 * Shichibukai
 * Dracule Mihawk
 * Sir Crocodile
 * Donquixote Domingo
 * Bartholomew Kuma
 * Blackbeard
 * Gecko Moria
 * Boa Hancock
 * Jimbei
 * Other
 * World Government
 * Enel
 * Cipher Pol No. 9
 * Other characters
 * Yonkou
 * "Red-Haired" Shanks
 * Whitebeard
 * Other
 * Gold D. Roger
 * Hatchan
 * Nefertari Vivi
 * Portgas D. Ace
 * Mr. 2 Bon Clay

Yonkou goes under Other characters because they aren't technically antagonists yet. The Navy are enemies of the Straw Hats, so therefore even Navy officers friendly to them are villains. Gold Roger should be changed to Gol D. Roger. I don't care about what people say about "spoilers", in Wikipedia spoilers are not considered to be important, only presenting factual information. This arrangement can also be rearranged in case the status of the One Piece series is altered (like the Shichibukai breaking from the World Government, or something) or if characters are deemed too unimportant. 174.130.15.245 (talk) 22:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * First off: The manual of style for anime and manga topics wants us to use the most common name. If you count the occurences of "Gold Roger" (google: 113.000; yahoo: 151.000) and "Gol D. Roger" (google: 61.900; yahoo: 56.100) inside or outside of the manga/anime, what will be more often, even if you don't count every time he is named in the intros?


 * About the sorting: That's essentially the way it was before the merges. 1st problem: Characters change allegiances over the course of the story. For example: Putting Jango only under Navy (or Pirates) is wrong from a real-world perspective. 2nd problem: A section like Shichibukai would suggest that all of the members get an entry. But although all of them are certainly imporant in the World of One Piece, Jimbei for example is not major a character enough to be on this list.


 * All that sorting leads no where. It will always be provisional. Let me point out some flaws in your (or for that matter any) way of sorting them by in-universe criteria. The Yonkou, Gold Roger, Portgas D. Ace, Hatchan are pirates but not antagonists; CP9 belong to the goverment, as does the Navy; Koby, Helmeppo and Garp are not definete antagonists... I could go on and on an on. But I don't want to argue about minor details. The point is, that we could (and if we tried to sort it by in-universe criteria, we would) argue in that way.


 * And lastly, about your initial concern: The average reader does not come to this article to read about the Shichibukai, wondering why they are not all in one place. (S)he comes here expecting to find information about the most important characters (of One Piece as a fictional work), not about characters who don't even appear. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * People do come in to read about the Shicibukai. No one minds it being scattered. The yonkou have not properly appeared therefore its okay to merge them. It was fine before this, please don't screw Wiki up by merging all the articles, the content now is so minimal its not even worth reading. If you don't wanna read it, others do. (Bijiao (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC))


 * See my reply in the "Who's idea..." section at 06:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC). -- Goodraise (talk) 06:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * okay, I came to this article looking for information on the shichibukai, and found it extremely irritating that they are not organized by groups. While I could just be some schmoe who doesn't even have a wikipedia account and may or may not represent the majority of the people that come to this article, but I think the organization of this article is seriously flawed. Between this article and the one about world of one piece, there isn't a place that simply lists who comprise this group that is of significant importance in the universe of the manga.


 * As goodraise pointed out earlier, there are problems of shifting allegiances in the mange universe and not all fall cleanly into the pro/antagonists paradigm, well that points the problem at the existing organization. Characters are often more than one dimensional and can not be neatly folded into whether "they are with us or against us" mentality.


 * Certainly Straw Hat crew are the protagonists of the series, that doesn't mean they are a hammer, and the rest of the characters are the anvil for them to beat. What was wrong with heres the main characters, here's everyone else by their specific organization. All it would take is one or two sentence clarifying whether they crossed paths with the straw hats, their subsequent change in attitude if any.


 * This way at a glance people will get a glimpse of the structure/organization inside the fictional world. Jimbei is not important an character? Fine, just drop one line under his name in Shichibiukai, that is a member and no enough other information, fact he is part of one the three most important organizations in one piece means his character has considerably relevance, whether or not that has been explicitly fleshed out doesn't change the fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.183.129 (talk) 14:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Except that this isn't an article about 'important characters in the fictional world of One Piece', it is an article about 'important characters in the One Piece manga'. If this were the former, then you'd be right. Jinbei would be here. But about 70% of the ch aracters on this list wouldn't be mentioned at all, the Strawhats would be a minor mention as an upstart pirate crew, and most of the article would be about characters like Sengoku and Whitebeard.


 * The fact is that being important in the fictional world isn't enough. Jinbei has never even shown up. What could possibly be said? That he's a Shichibukai and Arlong's former Captain? All of that is already mentioned in Arlong's bio, and in the Shicibukai section on the World of One Piece page. And it's not like anyone is really going to be searching for info on him. Hardcore fans know that all already, and casual fans have no reason to be looking for info on a character that hasn't even appeared. Once Jinbei shows up and plays a role in the story, there will certainly be reason for him to be on this list. But until that moment, he has less qualification for being on this list than characters like the Usopp Pirates, Captain John, Woop Slap, and plenty of other obscure characters. He hasn't even appeared in a single panel.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 07:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Can we unmerge this mess?
A split discussion was held, the result was no split --Kraftlos (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I think 'number of annoyed people' in and of itself qualifies as a good reason to split out again any character who does not properly belong in the list of minor characters.

However, since Goodraise apparently insists that long pages with information content reduced primarily to trivia, here's a really good reason: consistency with other long-running series on Wikipedia. I would note the Buffy section, for example, has the major characters with their own pages...and unlike here, one can actually locate the information about lesser-characters on the list of characters page. There's a list with links, something noticeably lacking here.

Personally, I'm inclined to undo everything I can and then try to get the articles locked, on the basis that the only person who seems to really want this is Goodraise, and one person is not a majority. -- 71.76.237.208 (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "'number of annoyed people' in and of itself qualifies as a good reason to split out again" It does not. Wikipedia is not a democracy.


 * "I would note the Buffy section, for example, has the major characters with their own pages...and unlike here, one can actually locate the information about lesser-characters on the list of characters page. There's a list with links, something noticeably lacking here." Perhaps you might want to look at the table of contents on List of minor One Piece characters.


 * "Goodraise apparently insists that long pages with information content reduced primarily to trivia" So the current content of this article is "primarily [...] trivia"? If that is so, then please go ahead. Restore all articles to the way they were. Remove most of the information currently on this page (and World of One Piece) from them. And then try to get the pages protected. Hahaha, good luck.


 * "the only person who seems to really want this is Goodraise" Don't fool yourself. The fact that I am the only editor who sticked around after the merge and continues to defend it on this talk page (despite hearing and replying to the same arguments over and over again, as well as listening to a certain other editor's content-free babbleing) does not mean, that I'm alone. Restore the pages and hardcore deletionists like TNN and Collectian will come back. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Wikiproject's consensus has generally been toward merging minor character lists into the main list and simply trimming out "trivia". These lists dont need to exaustively explain the character's role in the show, it just needs to adequately explain as a general overview.  And I agree, no splt is needed.  --Kraftlos (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No split required. I would like to focus your attention on this thread. Instead of splitting, this page should be cleaned up, as it is indeed possible to upgrade lists of characters – with some work – to FL class. Generally, this is not possible with individual articles for two reasons:
 * They are not notable, and due to the lack of third party coverage, the coverage is as such only limited to plot detail and trivia. List's coverage need not go into minute details; but can provide a general overview, and attain FL status.
 * For the same reason, they are sent to WP:AFD, which usually ends as a "merge and redirect" decision. Hence, we are back where we started.
 * On the other point (Buffy), without proper, out-of-universe information, and external coverage, these articles will also be cleaned up and merged to a list.
 * Regards, G.A.S talk 05:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it unreasonable, then, to suggest that the editor(s) who advocated the merge be the ones to clean it up? Given especially the fact that, as there is no list of characters at the top, the merge-and-redirect's result is a very long page that you must scroll through...assuming you don't simply decide that you don't care that much.
 * While the goal of reducing trivia is admirable, shouldn't the goal of making it possible to quickly find the desired information also be considered? When redirected somewhere, it ought to be readily apparent that you were redirected to the correct page; otherwise, as far as the inquirer is concerned, he or she has been presented with an entire page's worth of trivia (overall irrelevent information) which may contain the information he or she is seeking.
 * Moreover, the lack of the ability to link directly to characters' entries means that it is impossible to update links in other locations in order to get them to point accurately at the information. If a character is not important enough to merit even a 'FL' entry, then why not list them under the group they belong to so those links can be altered to get them at least somewhat closer than the top of what is a very long list.  (Anybody bother looking at that scroll bar?  It ought to be possible to get some more order than we have now.)
 * Those who advocate a merge ought to take responsibility for getting the resulting merged page fully merged, not merely defending the decision they campaigned for in the talk page but doing something to win over people who found themselves suddenly confronted by what might even be merely two articles combined onto a single page, instead of a single, well-organized article. -- 71.76.228.230 (talk) 14:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me sort out what you're demanding be fixed:
 * Table of contents should show names of characters.
 * Restored it to the way it was before someone not involved in the merge had changed it. I totally agree on that part. In fact it was I who set up the TOC that way in the first place.
 * Redirects should lead to the correct section of the list.
 * All redirects that I could find, I put into the Category:One Piece character redirects to lists and made sure their targets are correct. If I missed any (and I am fairly certain that I did), then please name them, so that I may treat them the same. Bye the way: Links on other pages should never use the format Name of character . Instead, they should link to the redirects. That way, when characters are moved around pages, the links don't need to be updated. And this also allows to use the "What links here" tool (from the toolbox on the left) to be used on characters without their own page.
 * Lastly comes the point where I have to disagree with you. You claim this list to be less organized then the number of articles there were before. That may be so, considering that those articles were short enough to find what you were searching for even by simply skimming through the pages, as opposed to using the article's structure. But once again, as fans of One Piece, we have a different perspective than Wikipedia's "broad audience". We might come seeking information on a specific character, even those competely unknown to anyone aside One Piece viewers/readers. The casual reader on the other hand comes to the One Piece article, as the manga or anime caugth his/her attention in whatever way and without knowing anything about it. (S)he then reads the characters section and decides to follow the link to this page, as it offers more in depth information on, well, the characters of One Piece. That was not possible before. The way it was, that reader would have been confronted with an insane amount of pages (up to 38 (March 31, 2008, couting only the ones in the template plus the Straw Hat's pages) or 64 (August 20, 2008, counting here)), and with no place to start.


 * If Wikipedia was a page "by the fans, for the fans", like Arlong Park and the One Piece wiki, then sorting in the way it was, might be better. Yet, Wikipedia is not that kind of page. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

fullbody
he is not on this page nor is he on minor characters page, and if django is on this page then fullbody should be too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.140.190 (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a directory. --Kraftlos (talk) 10:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

How many people are editting this page?
Just asking cause it seems like this page as well as other One Piece articles are being handled exclusively, if not selfishly, by one single editor based on their sole preferences regardless others' input on the matter.

On a related matter, when can the One Piece articles start expanding again? The major overwhole of the pages was in order to make the information more easier to organize. Now that the information is now much more organized and overly condensed to an extent, when can others be able to add more? The overewhole has done its task but continuing to presist in it seems to be lessening any additional significant information from being added. One example is the Devil Fruit names. While the names may not be important to an average joe, the author specifically writes them down and presents them to the audience as a way to differentiate different abilities. Not stating them would be like saying, "Ash Ketchum has a mouse pokemon" instead of saying "Ash Ketchum has a pokemon called Pikachu". Since there is more than one mouse type pokemon, stating Ash has simply a mouse type pokemon would be confusing even with added words such as "Electric type" and "Electricity generating yellow". The same goes for Devil Fruits as some Devil Fruits have similar abilities to a certain degree such as Buggy who can split his body into several pieces and a Marine Captain who can split his body into sevral ball shaped pieces.

So with this in mind, can more people give more research to the One Piece articles to a larger extent or should it all be handled majorly by at least a single person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.138 (talk) 14:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Anyone can edit this page; it is not protected. You think you can do something to improve the article? Go ahead and do it.


 * About your comparasion I can only say that it is flawed. Lets take the best known Devil Fruit, the Gomu Gomu no Mi or Gum Gum Fruit. It has no own article and no real world relevance. (Well I think it was once mentioned in some Japanese TV show, but that's not enough for notability.) The Pikatchu article has (by my count) over 20 third-party sources containing such names as New York Times and even Nature (journal).


 * Adding to that, that the protagonists fruits are discussed at length on their separate pages, the fruits are covered in sufficient detail. Less naming of low-importance characters' fruits gives us more space for relevant information. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Who are the low importance characters here cause most seem like high importance considering this list is not about minor characters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.177.74.138 (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a simple matter of comparison. Compared to the Straw Hats, every character is of low importance. Or would you disagree? -- Goodraise (talk) 15:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

List of minor One Piece characters
I saw attempted to redirect the page without any kind of discussion, and  claimed that it ran against consensus and undid it. I'm unable to find any previous discussion other than a brief mention here.

The very premise of the List of minor One Piece characters seems to run contrary to WP:N. minor characters don't really seem to be a notable topic at all. I would like to propose a very selective merge of that page into this one, deleting most the non-notable characters and only preserving a select few (if any) to merge into this page. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a piece of outdated discussion here. It's not relevant anymore, as the very landscape of One Piece articles has drastically changed since then. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't really see a lot of the characters on that page as minor, per se. One Piece has a very large cast, and attempting to put all the important/notable characters on one page would result in a bloated page that needed to be split off, anyways. I would be in favor of trying to improve the minor character page instead. If it's an issue with the 'minor' part, maybe a name change is in order?kuwabaratheman (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You don't see them as minor? Ok then, let me suggest a guideline (meant to be bendably applied of course). I'd say a character is minor, as in not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, if its purpose is mostly to explain another character (Bellemere, Zeff, Hiruluk, ...) or only appears in one logical part of the story (all those local characters). Or the other way around: A character is fit for inclusing in the main list (as in deserves more coverage than just one sentence), if it's a protagonists, a main antagonist or has a non trivial role in at least two logical parts of the story or is very likely to meet one of these criteria in upcoming chapters. - This is of course only a suggestion.


 * As for moving the page: The contents does not change with renaming of a books cover. The list as it is now contains minor characters, no matter what the page is named.


 * And lastly about the "it's gonna be too huge a list" argument. If pages get merged and properly ordered, then logical spin-offs become obvious. Lets take the One Piece page for example. It's structured and has sub-articles which go into more detail of a certain aspect of itself. The current relation of the two articles here is different. They are on the same topic "One Piece characters". The minor list simply holds all the information that would be "bloat" if the pages were one. Reasonable sub-pages of List of One Piece characters would be List of One Piece antagonists, List of One Piece protagonists and perhaps even List of One Piece support characters. But even those would have to meat the notability criteria. We have hardly enough third-party references (SBS is not one of these) for one list. Keep in mind: Depth of coverage is based on real world importance (demonstrated by news, scientific research papers, and the like) not by the number of characters.


 * -- Goodraise (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. These characters have little importance to the series, and thus very little real-world coverage in primary and independant sources.  I think the selective merge should look at the characters information that might have relevance to the main list and that the rest should be scrapped.  It doesnt meet the criteria for inclusion in wikipedia. --Kraftlos (talk) 03:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Some are minor characters, but others don't seem that far off from characters on this list. You say that the Supernova have yet to show notability, but we have Kizaru on this list. What's the difference? The Supernova have actually been around longer. I'd argue that Law and Kidd, at the very least, have shown greater significance Kizaru in the story. And if you want out of universe perspective, Law came in 10th on the popularity poll that just came out (ahead of Usopp and Franky), and Kidd came in 15th. I'd say those characters are all perfectly notable. Wiper, Kohza, Dalton and several other characters may have been one arc characters, but they played vital roles in those arcs. Paulie not only did that, but due to how long his arc went on, he's been in the series more than a lot of other characters on this list. Can you really say that characters like Morgan, Hina, Bellamy, Helmeppo and Caimie are more significant than Paulie and Wiper? And what makes the CP9 agents as a whole more notable than the Skypiea priests, or some other notable subordinates? Obviously some of the characters on that list are beyond minor, but some of them are pretty notable within the series.kuwabaratheman (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Every edit is merely a suggestion. Removing the characters (leaving aside those which I already copied to the main list) currently on the minor list is but my personal oppinion. Oppinions (at least in my case) can and do change with time and reasonable arguments. (Note that I'm not responding to your arguemnts concerning individual characters, because I think it's beyond the scope of this discussion.) What's important to this topic is not which characters deserve a place on the main list, but that List of minor One Piece characters does not deserve a place on Wikipedia. Let us discuss what characters are to be included in the main list if and after consensus is determined to be to merge the list. (Not that there was any chance of that not happening.)


 * To say it in one sentence: It's not the character descriptions I object to, but the place they are stored in. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue I would raise is that if we try and merge the lists together, even after cutting out obviously unnotable/minor characters, we'll be left with a pretty long page. And one that will only be getting longer as more major characters get introduced. I think that there would have to be some sort of split up happening, to keep this page from being absurdly long.kuwabaratheman (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * One more time: How notable a topic (in this case a character or a list of characters) is, is not determined by in-universe importance. But by the number of reliable third-party sources. List of minor One Piece characters is a page on the same topic as this one: "One Piece characters". Together their article size would be 55kb+66kb=121kb, which is too long. What happens with pages that are too long? They are either split or cut down. Which of these happens depends on - Guessed right! - "the number of reliable third-party sources". In this case they are only these two:
 * Watanabe, Roy. "Interview with Eiichiro Oda". COMICKERS (October 1998).
 * "Shōnen Jump Manga Circulation Numbers". ComiPress.com (2007-05-06). Retrieved on 2007-07-25.
 * And the second isn't even about the characters, but about than the manga - or more precisely - the circulation numbers of the magazine serializing it. This would mean that there is no justification to split. The page would be cut down. Which brings us back on topic... -- Goodraise (talk) 04:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that we need more third party sources. However, it is also true that when an article becomes long, that is when sections get split off into separate articles, as per WP:Summary style. Each individual character on a list doesn't need to prove their notability with third party sources. What is important is proving that the characters as a whole are notable. Individual notability comes into play when we have articles on specific characters. We should not be deleting characters who are important to the plot for spacial concerns. That is just silly. Nor should we be removing individual characters on the basis of not being notable in third party sources. If the characters as a whole are, that is the important factor. I am not saying that we should list every single character, but that we should list those who are important to the series. The concern here should be to create a list of characters significant to One Piece, and to back that up with third party sources proving their notability. And if that leads us to having a list too long for one article, the proper thing to do is to split it off. I do not oppose a merge, and I acknowledge that the current state of these articles leaves a lot to be desired. But I do firmly believe that ultimately the process will lead us back to needing to create a secondary list again in the future.kuwabaratheman (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We appear to be in agreement. In fact, I don't disagree with anything you explicitly said in this post. However, a few things I think you might be implying and a few things I think I should comment remain.
 * "We should not be deleting characters who are important to the plot for spacial concerns."
 * Nobody wants to delete an important character. The question is: What characters are so unimportant, that we can delete them for spacial conerns?
 * "Nor should we be removing individual characters on the basis of not being notable in third party sources. If the characters as a whole are, that is the important factor."
 * "One Piece characters" is a notable topic. A notable topic deserves 1 page and any number of sub-pages on topics which are notable by themselves. Of course the characters on List of One Piece characters don't need to prove their notablity. If they were notable, they could have their own pages. My point being, if the list gets too long and we can't find a sub-topic with sufficient notability to deserve a page of it's own, then we will have to cut the least important characters and/or reduce the detail on the remaining characters. (Believe it or not: If by that time there exists such a sub-topic, then - being a One Piece fan myself - I'll be the first to suggest a split.) -- Goodraise (talk) 06:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair points. I would agree with what you're saying. I would hope that a sub-topic (such as pirates specifically), could be proven notable, but I think that would be secondary to just improving the quality of this article right now, while taking care to make sure important information isn't lost.kuwabaratheman (talk) 06:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet again I say it should be kept unmerged. Quit merging things without an actual concensus Goodraise. You're supposed to wait until more people actually say something without forcing your OWN ideals onto people. Gune (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the merge wasn't even performed the way I proposed. You need to wait at least 3-4 days to ensure people have time to get involved in the discussion.  I proposed this less than 24-hours ago... that's not nearly enough time to have a reasonable consensus.  Also, I proposed a selective merge, not simply wiping the page and putting up a redirect, you skipped a few steps.  --Kraftlos (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, lets wait. But in the end it's only technicalities. The only real opposition to this merge comes from Gune. And having dealt with him on multiple occasion, I could have easily predicted the comment he gave above. It sums up to: "I'm against it" and "stop what you're doing". More won't come from him. - As for the way the merge is performed: "Merge then Remove" vs. "Remove then Merge" - I don't care the least, as long as that page gets lost, either way is fine with me. Whatever, lets give that page a three days' grace. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't achieve a consensus, didn't pick out any material from the page to merge, you didn't archive the talk page, and you didn't change the anime project banner. It wasn't a matter of order.  If we aren't going to merge any information from the page, then we need to go through a formal deletion process, which is often much less successful than merge discussions.  I'm going to try to bring in a few more people who have been involved in this article just to see if we can't get a stronger consensus on this.  --Kraftlos (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really matter, as I already agreed to wait, but I'll comment anyways. Just don't take this post the wrong way. I really appreciate you doing this - that way I don't have to. And I don't regard any of the statements I'm commenting on in this post as offensive. I'm just trying put my own actions into the right light.
 * "you didn't achieve a consensus"
 * Well, by that time we were three people agreeing on a merge. (Notice that I don't count Gune, as he has never ever - no, not even once, not a single time - responded to me on such a matter with anything that doesn't sum up as either "I'm against it", "stop what you're doing", or "get a consensus" (which I always managed to achieve).) As far as I know there is no set minimum time limit, as how long it takes for a consensus to come into existence. Therefore, whether I had a consensus or not, is a matter of interpretation.
 * No, but if you don't wait for enough time for people to respond, someone will come back and revert it. If you want the page to stick, we need to wait.  --Kraftlos (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My personal experience says otherwise (meaning in more than 50% of the cases, the redirects would remain - which is enough for me). But as I said, it's kind of a special case of me ignoring a particular editor. Had anyone else (even an IP) reverted my edit, I would have acted differently. No point argueing about this... -- Goodraise (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "[you] didn't pick out any material from the page to merge"
 * That's simply not true. No offense, but you've come to this page only recently. I've done hundreds - if someone counted, it would probably be thousands - of edits on articles related to One Piece characters. I've been moving characters back and forth between the minor and major lists for month. And just before I first redirected the page I moved the ones I thought might be worth mentioning over to this page. Yet you make it sound like, from one day to the next, I picked a 60k article and turned it into a 20b redirect.
 * Ok, I just haven't seen any content migrate over to the other page. You might have done so in the past, but I'm just trying to cover all the bases; we should at least bring something over to call it a merge. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "you didn't archive the talk page, and you didn't change the anime project banner."
 * That's pure bureaucracy. If you want to do things that way, be my guest. There's just one page left after all. If I had done it that way from the beginning, the main list would still look like this and I would have gone insane. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, It's not bureaucratic. If people don't do this, we get lots of redirect pages that are rated as articles, then someone (like me) has to dig through and untag all these pages.  Right now I'd estimate there are a good 500 pages like that.  It's just a matter of accuracy and organization; 5 seconds of extra procedure saves people a lot of time down the line.  --Kraftlos (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, that is the most hideous character list I've ever seen! --Kraftlos (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "A [...] procedural error [...] is not grounds for invalidating [...]." (from WP:BURO) Updating project tags and so on was not what I meant with bureaucracy - holding my not doing so against me (as well as holding this lengthy discussion) is. But who cares. It's just my way of doing things. What I try is to create pages that follow guidelines - not editing in accordance to some handbook. If there is any way to get around following "proper procedure" or conducting things in "official mode[s]", then I'll take it. However, from now on I'll try to remember updating project tags when redirecting. :) -- Goodraise (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I say keep it unmerged too. I mean, there's a difference between major and minor characters. But if you must merge it, I say do something different with the Straw Hats and make the "characters" article just for them and everyone else a minor character (or just keep the SH pirates on the main One Piece page).

But before you do this, hold an official discussion and wait for, like, a moderator to say something about it. Matty-chan (talk) 04:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is actually the official mode of discussion for merging articles, it will be decided here. Merges are performed by users after a discussion has resulted in a merge consensus.  As far as your proposal, I don't think any of the characters on the list of minor characters have enough coverage in reliable third-party sources to justify keeping them, so it doesn't really matter how important they are to the world of One Piece, it really doesn't justify its inclusion on Wikipedia.  --Kraftlos (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I've contacted some people that were involved in the article in the first year of it's life and I've listed the discussion on the Wikiproject. Hopefully we can get a strong consensus and put this page behind us. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Section Break
Gune, Matty-chan, why do you think that the contents of List of minor One Piece characters meet Wikipedia's notability policy and should remain as it's own article? Can you be a little more specific? --Kraftlos (talk) 05:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, like I said before, if it's not that notable, then I say just make a Straw Hats article and call everyone else minor. Example: Sailor Senshi and List of minor Sailor Moon characters. Matty-chan (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * (Note that the following post contains a lot of piped links to make it more readable and that within it the words "page" and "topic" are used to refer to different things.)
 * I think the main argument against pages like List of minor Some Manga characters has not yet been made clear enough in this discussion. It's not so much about what's in those lists, as about how the information is structured. It's explained in detail at Summary style. But let me try to illustrate this here. What you suggest, combined with what we have at the moment, would look like this:
 * One Piece
 * Plot
 * Straw Hat Pirates
 * Minor characters
 * Setting
 * Production
 * Media
 * Manga
 * Original Video Animation
 * Anime
 * The problem with this structure is the following. Straw Hat Pirates and Minor characters are not direct sub-topics of One Piece. Characters on the other hand is a direct sub-topic of One Piece and a direct super-topic of Straw Hat Pirates and Minor characters (though in case we decide on this structure, I'd like to call them Other characters).
 * The way I interpret Summary style, we should structure the information like this:
 * One Piece
 * Plot
 * Characters
 * Protagonists (This would be the same, as Straw Hat Pirates. As I said, the page names are irrelevant at this point of the discussion.)
 * Antagonists
 * Other characters
 * Setting
 * Production
 * Media
 * Manga
 * Original Video Animation
 * Anime
 * Once the information is structured like this (from an out-of-universe perspective), we could simply determine how deep down the tree to go with actual pages by looking at the amount of reliable third-party sources on the individual sub-topics. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, what gets kept (and eventually expanded) is dependent on what third-party material we have available. I do not think a straw hat article would meet the notability requirements, there really isn't significant coverage of this group.  The issue isn't who gets called minor, rather the issue is should wikipedia have this much in-universe coverage of trivial aspects of One Piece....I think not.  --Kraftlos (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Once the information is structured like this (from an out-of-universe perspective), we could simply determine how deep down the tree to go with actual pages by looking at the amount of reliable third-party sources on the individual sub-topics. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, what gets kept (and eventually expanded) is dependent on what third-party material we have available. I do not think a straw hat article would meet the notability requirements, there really isn't significant coverage of this group.  The issue isn't who gets called minor, rather the issue is should wikipedia have this much in-universe coverage of trivial aspects of One Piece....I think not.  --Kraftlos (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Once the information is structured like this (from an out-of-universe perspective), we could simply determine how deep down the tree to go with actual pages by looking at the amount of reliable third-party sources on the individual sub-topics. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, what gets kept (and eventually expanded) is dependent on what third-party material we have available. I do not think a straw hat article would meet the notability requirements, there really isn't significant coverage of this group.  The issue isn't who gets called minor, rather the issue is should wikipedia have this much in-universe coverage of trivial aspects of One Piece....I think not.  --Kraftlos (talk) 07:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge vote
This section is to gauge the general opinion regarding the merger in a clear and easy to read poll (keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a democracy). The first section is a voting section, if you oppose the merge write Oppose --~ and if you support the merge write Support --~. Please do not include any explaination or argument in this section, I have included a discussion section below to accommodate the discussion, address the votes there, not in the voting section. Thanks --Kraftlos (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Votes

 * Support --Kraftlos (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- Goodraise (talk) 02:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support -- kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Discuss votes

 * Oppose -- Just look at the Yu-Gi-Oh! articles. There's a List of Yu-Gi-Oh! main characters, List of Yu-Gi-Oh! anime and manga characters, and a List of Yu-Gi-Oh! anime, manga or movie only characters. If Yu-Gi-Oh! gets three character articles, why can't One Piece? One Piece is aimed at an older age demographic, and those are the kinds of people who look things up more. So I say keep the One Piece articles like this too, or edit the Yu-Gi-Oh! ones.

And by the way, I have nothing against Yu-Gi-Oh!, just pointing that out. Matty-chan (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the existence of bad articles a reason to make more/keep others alive? I think not.
 * And who actually looks into an encyclopedia (or at part of it) should not influence how it is written. To quote the criteria for B-class articles: We should write Wikipedia "with as broad an audience in mind as possible." Though you might say that I am putting that quote out of context, I don't think so. We should neither exclude the majority of people from understanding an article, nor should we fill up articles with information only interesting for a total minority. More than 99.9% of all people wouldn't even think about reading an article on a topic such as "Minor One Piece characters". Read that out loud for once, it sounds hilarious. But of course, the handful of editors coming to these pages every week to transcribe the newest scanlated chapter into the various plot summary sections, nicknamed "character descriptions", think it's all very important information. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

To summarize what I'm seeing here, we have myself, Goodraise, and kuwabaratheman supporting the proposed action. Plus the silence of 4-5 interested editors who are currently active (according to their contributions log) but chose not to dissent in the last 3-4 days since they've been contacted.

On the other side we have Matty-chan and Gune, who argue that the page should stay as it is (though it does not conform to Wikipedia policy) and as far as I have seen, have not offered any viable alternatives. In what way does it benefit Wikipedia to list every character in One Piece and offer play-by-play plot descriptions? This is not the place for that sort of thing and policy explicitly states that subjects should be treated from a real-world perspective. Unless you can come up with some alternative that doesn't violate WP:N, I think we pretty much have a consensus here. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thing is, I don't really support deletionists, and I say even if you merge it, all the current info should stay the way it is. Just make one big article if you can. But if this merge is successful, I'll see what I can do about the Yu-Gi-Oh! articles. Matty-chan (talk) 15:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, back when the first merge was done a few days ago, I grabbed most of the important characters from the minor characters page and merged them in here. At this point, I really don't see how much info is being lost with this merge. It'd be one thing if we were talking about extremely well written and informative character descriptions, but that's not really the case here. The subject of splitting the character page can always come up again in the future if the need arises.kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

What kind of an article is that the main protaganists(The Straw Hats) can not get there own page without getting merged with every other character in One Piece? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddog892 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Later on, it can be decided to split off individual character articles if it can be found to have significant third-party coverage in real-world terms. It's not a problem to have lots of good information, but I think junk information actually does more harm that good.  That's why I'm a deletionist.  It's really easy to generate information in a wiki setting, it's really hard to refine it.  Anyway, I think you can go ahead with the merge Goodraise.  --Kraftlos (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Too big and too ugly
Page is too big and too ugly. I can't even find Sengoku or any other character easily. It doesn't provide anything that could be anything that can't be found anywhere else. It looks like something a unexperienced grade school programmer would make. The ranking on top states its C but it looks more like an F. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.28.215.21 (talk) 08:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * As a fan site article it is indeed an F. As an encyclopedic article it is a C. The less it resmbles a fan site, the higher that rating will go. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange this looks more like a poorely made fansite article than a encyclopedia one. It also doesn't look like it encourages others to contribute due to its sloppy nature and the way its contribution history looks like. Too much space occupied, nothing that can't be found in a fansite or anywhere else, no appearance. Might as well delete it since One Piece is such a non-Notable manga/anime series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.9.65.41 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Finaly someone with a sense of humor. :) However, I will treat this comment as a serious one.
 * "Strange this looks more like a poorely made fansite article than a encyclopedia one. [...] Too much space occupied, nothing that can't be found in a fansite or anywhere else".
 * I totally agree. You should have seen all the fancruft I already removed. I spent at least 2000 edits doing nothing else.
 * "It also doesn't look like it encourages others to contribute due to its sloppy nature and the way its contribution history looks like."
 * This one however I don't understand. The history is full of random names and IPs. The edit buttons on the sections and top of the page look just as inviting to me as on every other Wikipedia page. Opposed to many other pages, this one isn't even protected. And about the sloppy nature, where would be the point of editing, if the page was perfect already?
 * "no appearance"
 * Ye, this page is pretty crappy indeed. Luckily for us, there is still a lot of equally crappy sub-pages (see thread above) we can cannibalize to improve this one. I'll get to that, as soon as the merge is decided by consensus. Sadly, we'll have to wait for that.
 * "Might as well delete it since One Piece is such a non-Notable manga/anime series."
 * Well, if a page does not establish a topic as being notable (as is currently the case with this one), then the proper course of action is to merge-in its sub-pages, until sufficient reliable independent sources (the things actually establishing notability) are present. And that - as mentioned before - is what we're currently doing. Join in and help! :)
 * -- Goodraise (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Splitting and Cleanup
A split discussion was held, the result was no split --Kraftlos (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Reguarldess of the above merger or cleanup, this article has become to long for a list of characters. The article is in need of general cleanup, yes, but the major groups (Straw Hat Crew, important Marines, 7 warlords, etc) should be split apart. Some of this is already partly done, albeit in a not anything that conforms to WP:MOS-AM. The latter is an example of this. A short paragraph about the 7 Warlords with links to important ones (those who Luffy has fought, FE) would be better way (assuming enough info can be found). Those he hasn't fought or met (for long) shouldn't need their separate section. Similarly, a seperate page for List of Straw Hat Pirates would be appropriate for the main crew with a brief overview of Luffy and the crew. Move the individual characters to such a page. The ships could or could not be dealt with here. Either way, this list has become unweildy and is too longJinnai (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I support this idea, and I am willing to help execute the split, under the following conditions: This page (before and after the split) and the created sub-pages (all of them) must comply with the notability guideline. Every page has to do that anyways. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... A split seems premature.  I think this page can be cut down by at least 1/3 through summarization and limiting extraneous plot detail.  We had this exact conversation last month and we agreed to focus on this article first before we look at splitting anything off.  --Kraftlos (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Even if you reduced it by 1/3, it would still be long enough to warrant a serious look at splitting up at I think even then it would still be beyond wikipedia's suggested page length. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jinnai (talk • contribs) 01:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently it is 68 kilobytes. Reduced by 1/3 it would be 46 kilobytes. Both are acceptable according to Article size. The very good example of a character list you gave above, List of Naruto characters (a featured list), is even 89 kilobytes long. I for one will not look seriously at splitting this article. It's not necessary. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well we'll see. If the merge happens with all the main characters, that'll push it beyond that level, even if you cut the current article by 1/3 and remove redundancies from merging.Jinnai (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's s common misconception about merges. Most of the time, people don't opt for the Full-content paste merger or the text dump merger which move most or all of an article's content into the target article; usually (at least with character articles) most the content is unverified and is dropped in the merge (this is the selective merge.  In my experience the reason articles like these are selected for merging is because the actual verifiable content can be boiled down to a paragraph or less, as is the case with these articles.  This list isn't going to get that big.  --Kraftlos (talk) 05:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That may be so, but not every line of text needs to be verifiable, only stuff which would a normal user would question the validity on. Also some of those pages do have a decent amount of verifiable info on them, like Sanji and Zoro, whereas Nami has nothing.Jinnai (talk) 05:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're mistaken again. Every line of text needs to be verifiable. Just not every statement needs to be referenced. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you're wrong. "The sky looks blue during the day." does not need to be referenced because it's common knowledge. In this case stuff like "One Piece is an anime." would be the equivalent.Jinnai (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". If "The sky looks blue during the day." is a quote, then it may be put on pages, where it is relevant, and if it can be referenced. If it is not a quote, then it still needs to be verifiable. Where does that information come from? It does not matter, that where I live, most of the days, the sky is not blue at all. The only thing that matters is, "who?", "when?", and "where?" it was said. And "One Piece is an anime." is very much verifiable, it just doesn't need to be referenced. - I don't know where you get your ideas, about how things are done on Wikipedia, but I refer to the guidelines. I suggest you start reading them, before making any more claims. - I apologize, if I offended you with my tone in this or previous comments. In my culture the threshold of where offense begins is a lot lower than in most english speaking cultures. But I will not apologize for exposing any false statements about Wikipedia policy, as what they are. Go and read WP:N and WP:V. It will not hurt. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue here rests on this quote. "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Taken straight from WP:V. All information should be verifiable, but not all information needs to be verified, unless it is 'challenged or likely to be challenged'. Information like "Zoro is a character in One Piece" doesn't really need anyone to verify it, for example. I believe this is what Jinnai was getting at. As far as these articles go, I don't see much in the way of 'unverifiable information' on them. There may not be verification given for every single statement in them, but verification is possible for just about every statement I see in those articles.kuwabaratheman (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You people are confusing the terms "references", "referencing", "verifying", and "verifiability". They all mean different things. And if you use them as if they were interchangeable, you end up saying something wrong. And if it's on this talk page, and I notice it, then I'll correct it.
 * "not all information needs to be verified"
 * This is correct, but what you meant, is probably this:
 * "not all information needs to be referenced"
 * But back on the topic: Kraftlos said above:
 * "In my experience the reason articles like these are selected for merging is because the actual verifiable content can be boiled down to a paragraph or less,"
 * That's when this verifiability discussion spawned. However, he was referring to fictional character merges in general, not these in specific. If you check the histories of the pages I suggested to be merged, then you'll realize, that I'm not just some deletionist passing by, suggesting everything to be merged. I gave these articles structure, removed trivial fancruft, [unverifiable] original research and speculation, did clean-up and copy-editing. I even fixed up all the sloppily placed references. That's why these pages hardly contain anything unverifiable. The reason, they still need more condensing for is the following excerpt from Fict (emphasize not mine): "Depth of coverage [of in-universe information] within an article should be guided by the amount of real-world information which can be sourced."
 * If we use all the manga, we can easily come up with 500 kilobyte of verifiable information only on Luffy. But that doesn't matter. It's in-universe information. And having so much of it is a violation of policy. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In-universe is fine for personality section and background, but most of those characters, with the exception of Tony Tony Chopper have decently sized personality sections. As for out-of-universe stuff, about 1/2 have cited information about popularity and creation concept, although the latter is lacking on all but Luffy. However, none of the characters on this page have any creation info on them, unlike the more in-depth articles.Jinnai (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "In-universe is fine for personality section and background, but most of those characters, with the exception of Tony Tony Chopper have decently sized personality sections."
 * How large the personality section is, does not matter. A section is a section, not content. And if 95% of the information on a page is in-universe information, then that is a violation of WP:Fict. You only excluded Chopper, so I picked the next best with Franky. I cleaned it up a bit (refer to the history as to what I did and why) and what do we have there now? Two big sections, abilities and plot overview. The real-world information sums up to 1 sentence, mentioning that he [surprisingly] appears in 2 of the newer One Piece games. If you look at Sasuke Uchiha, an article with Good Article status, then you'll find a ratio of roughly three parts of in-universe information to two parts real-world information. And this ratio is not shifting in favor of in-universe information, if we look at featured articles, like Palpatine for example. It's by the way an excellent article, I just read it and can only suggest to you, to do the same. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:39, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not saying Franky or any of them are sourced enough (but it's why they're not listed as GA classed articles), however Sasuke's in-universe information seems to be far to heavily cited compared to someone like Belldandy where not every line, or every-other line is sourced[, especially her abilities]]. However, you are correct that the level of citation for all of them is currently lacking; just some more than others.
 * EDIT: It's possible, with the exception of Luffy, Zoro and maybe Sanji, those three could shrunk as a seperate page of List of Straw Hat Pirates. As a seperate section with the amount of verifiable information it would still be long of a section in an article that os likely to long.Jinnai (talk) 17:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is not too long. Article size is, as the name suggests, just a rule of thumb. As long as List of Naruto characters, a list on a similar topic, is a featured list and longer than this one, this whole discussion is completely pointless. You're free to nominate the Naruto character list for removal at Featured list removal candidates on the grounds of it being too long. And something else: We cannot split off characters from this list, which have not even been merged into this page. If you want to suggest, that those characters should be merged into List of Straw Hat Pirates, then please do so at the proper place - the merge discussion thread higher up on this page.
 * Concerning the first paragraph of your post: While Good Articles can be named as examples to improve articles of lower rank, their inadequacies can't be used to justify articles that are even worse. A Good Article has only made it half-way to featured status. And featured status needs exactly the kind of referencing you seem to think of as being too much.
 * Trying to get back on topic: "Reguarldess of the above merger or cleanup, this article has become to long for a list of characters", your opening statement of this thread, has been shown to be wrong. I'm going to remove the too-long tag from the article and to consider this discussion as closed. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --Kraftlos (talk) 00:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
In the ongoing merge discussion (see above) two editors (Jinnai and Kuwabaratheman) have voiced concerns about the current state of this list. They argued, that it would be best to belay any merges until this list be properly cleaned up (read: made compliant with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages). In order to address their (and any other editor's) concerns I created this thread, as to give them a place to be voiced. Mirroring the process of Featured list candidates, I declare, that I think, that List of One Piece characters fulfills Featured list criteria number 5: "Style. It complies with the Manual of Style and its supplementary pages" and my intention to swiftly fix any MoS violations, any editor can still find. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * True, however it is lacking in several other places. The lead is in major need of expansion, the quality of the prose is both lacking, and also widely inconsistent in not only quality, but style and format, from character to character. It is also in need of more sources. I feel that this article is in need of a major overhaul focusing on those areas that can't begin until any merge concepts are finished (either by merging, keeping, or putting on hold).kuwabaratheman (talk) 00:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * As you apperently agree, to this article being properly cleaned-up, I'll answer your comment in a new section. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Other issues
Analogues to the two threads above. This thread is meant to be a place to discuss not layout-related and not cleanup-related issues, that might need to be dealt with, before further merging. In this opening post, I'll deal with issues brought up by Kuwabaratheman in the Cleanup section. Additional issues should be brought up here or in separate new sections. I completely agree with theses issues. But I fail to see, how any of them can't be dealt with while a merge is going on. Wikipedia is constant work in progress, with countless individuals editing to their hearts content. And the six of us can't cope with eleven paragraphs being replaced by slightly larger ones? Please answer the following questions: What precisely is more urgent than merging, that can't be done while merging? And why can't it be done while merging? - If I were to merge in all the articles right now - with a bit of clean up afterwards, just as I always do - then no-one would notice a decrease in overall article quality (even leaving the improvements due to higher content qualtiy aside). -- Goodraise (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "The lead is in major need of expansion,"
 * "the quality of the prose is both lacking, and also widely inconsistent in not only quality, but style and format, from character to character."
 * "It is also in need of more sources."
 * What is more important is constancy. This is a high-traffic article, so any merging needs to be done in a way that is least-disruptive in for the shortest period of time.Jinnai (talk) 05:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's new to me. It essentially means: Be Afraid! - We are Wikipedians. We are not afraid! We are BOLD! - Constancy is NOT more important than notability, period. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The issues can be dealt with at the same time. I wouldn't dispute that it's possible. I would simply personally favor tackling individual issues one at a time. In my mind, it would make more sense to cleanup the article, and then perform the merges, at which point the article would be in much better shape. We can do it either way, I just think that holding off on the merges while we work on tackling the above issues. But if enough people feel that it makes more sense to do things the other way, then so be it.kuwabaratheman (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We are being bold by doing a major cleanup and possible merger. That doesn't me we should be reckless about it.Jinnai (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not doing a major cleanup, because nobody has brought up any issues in the Cleanup section - not a single one. The discussion of restructuring the information is still in its infancy, as the initiator (you) has yet to come up with a proposal specific enough to be discussed. So far we only have a vague description of what you would like to change. In contrast to that, the merge discussion is almost finished. (The amount of text generated by it has decreased immensely.) Not to mention, that a merger is in no way bold, it is nothing but routine. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Prelim idea is up.Jinnai (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is Boa Hancock an antagonist?
Should Hancock still be considered an antagonist? She is helping out Luffy... Kaylahawk 04:24 14 November 2008
 * "Boa Hancock entry"


 * I took the liberty of moving this comment into a new section. The very way of sorting characters on this page is currently in question. Individual characters should - for the moment - stay where they are, until we can agree on a way of sorting. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Gan Fall
can you(goodraise) put him in with other characters 24.152.140.190 (talk) 00:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can, but I will not. There's around two hundred characters not mentioned on this page. And that is so for a reason. As Kraftlos pointed out above: "Wikipedia is not a directory." Gan Fall has no importance outside of the Skypea arc, let alone outside of One Piece. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Neither does Paulie, and a few other characters on the page. Most characters have little to no importance out side of the arc they originally were apart of.


 * That's right. But I didn't put them there... -- Goodraise (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Layout
Analogous to the thread above, at least one editor (Jinnai) has voiced concerns about the inadequacies of the current way of sorting the characters. I claim the current way to be the most encyclopedic and hence best way for Wikipedia to sort them. And I challenge any editor, who agrees with the mentioned concerns to propose a better way of sorting the characters in this thread. If a better way is indeed found, I will (if no-one beats me to it of course) personally restructure the list to meet with those specifications. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's nothing wrong with the overall layout. However, with the implementation, many changes need to be made. It seems to me that the idea was to list characters in order of their first appearance. However, if that's the case, many changes need to be made, mostly in the others section. Beyond that, there's the ambiguous nature of 'Antagonist' versus 'Other'. Smoker, Tashigi and Mr. 2 are all characters who have worked both with and against the Straw Hats. Why are Smoker and Tasighi villains, while Mr. 2 is 'other'? Further more, why is Django, a character who has worked for two 'antagonists', in 'other'? Boa Hancock is now looking like a Hatchan-esque character who works to help Luffy after initially being a villain.
 * Essentially, we need to better define the terms. What makes a character put in the 'antagonist' list, and what makes them put in the 'other' list? We need to aim for consistency between the lists in order to get the quality in the highest area.kuwabaratheman (talk) 00:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't explicitly name this to be in the way of merging. Yet, as you did not provide any kind of solution, I got to ask you: Can't we do this while we are merging-in? And if you think we can't, why can't we do it while merging-in? -- Goodraise (talk) 01:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest we change the list to "Main" or an equilateral for the Straw Hat Pirates and anyone else we deem worthy, "Supporting" or equivalent for reoccurring characters or major arc antagonist and "minor" characters". Under each we could then have, if necessary, antagonist/protagonist/other. I'm not sure their is a good literary word for someone who can be seen as both the antagonist or protagonist at times, except in some cases, rival, but i don't think that's appropriate for all of those.Jinnai (talk) 05:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good, that's a step forward. What we need next, is an example. It should be easy to create one. You can simply copy/paste the table of contents and change the way the characters are arranged. I'm eager to see your proposal. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Before we do that, should we decide who should be moved around first, or create the new template and then move them around later?Jinnai (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The layout of the information presented is a matter completely unrelated to the creation of pages or even templates. A new page is split off, if a section of an existing page, which already satisfies wp:n, grows to the point of causing its article to exceed an acceptable size, and the page created would itself satisfy wp:n. If you want to suggest a new layout, you can do so by copying the code of the template following this post and adjusting it to whatever way of sorting you think would be best. That is simple, easy, and we can discuss the changes before making them. (We would have to discuss them anyway, as the issue is already controversial.) -- Goodraise (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I am unfamiliar with some of the minor characters, so their placement could be off. They may be a few that could be moved to supporting characters, but not many. For Helmeppo I made a judgement call here because his character starts out as an obvious antagonist, but later on, he has made almost a 180.


 * OK, that's a start. The current system might not be perfect, but neither is this. On first sight, I see the following general problems (without lamenting over an individual character's position).
 * You split the Protagonists in [Current] and Former. That is writing from an in-universe perspective. If a character at any point in the story is part of a[n in-universe] group, then that character remains part of that group - from our perspective - no matter what happens later or earlier in the story.
 * As far as I can tell, none of the characters you placed under 1.2.1 belong there, as they are not supporting characters. Though I would agree, that the characters under 1.2.2 are supporting characters.
 * Naming a section "Minor characters" seems to me like telling the reader: "It's OK. You can stop reading now. The following characters are not important." If a character really is minor, then (s)he should not be in a minor section, (s)he should be removed altogether, because Wikipedia is not a directory.
 * But even more in general. I do not see an improvement over the current system. I don't even see what's so wrong with the current one... Could you point out how your system is better?
 * The layout we use at the moment is essentially the same as that of List of Naruto characters. And perhaps I should mention, that List of Naruto characters is not only a featured list, but the only featured character list on all of Wikipedia. It's the only one! Why should we not follow a good example? Before we make any changes, we should have a solid reason. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First off, the number of major reoccurring villains in Naruto is the same. Naruto has constant underlying villians that we have seen. For One Piece those "higher ups" are only mentioned. The World Government and Marines are atagonistic organizations, not invidisuals Akatsuki where we know a lot of the higher-up members.
 * Furthermore, Naruto uses a lot of sub-groupings for those related. One Piece only has one such group, Cipher Pol No. 9, despite the fact that many of them are linked together.
 * Lastly, there is no clear distinction for ones like Smoker, Mr. 2, Shanks, etc which are clearly not in the same league, even when first met, as the other antagoists, but clearly not friendly.
 * Bottom line is, One Piece isn't Naruto. Trying to force Naruto's structure lock-stock-and-barrel on One Piece shouldn't be done because they have subtle, but different, storytelling methods which make them different, especially when it comes to antagonists and quasi-antagonist/rival characters.Jinnai (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, lets say we count those differences as a solid reason to change. What should we change to? -- Goodraise (talk) 03:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, we should take and group together related antagonists like Cipher Pol No. 9. Indivisual members from such groups could be listed. FE: Grouping the major antagonists in the Arabasta Arc.
 * That brings up a major issue though:
 * "That is writing from an in-universe perspective. If a character at any point in the story is part of a[n in-universe] group, then that character remains part of that group - from our perspective - no matter what happens later or earlier in the story."
 * Nico Robin would fall under that category, even though she is a Straw Hat Pirate, because she was first introduced as a central figure to that storyline arc. Thus already we are using in-universe references in the article to move around where characters are placed when their roles change substantially, thus Helmeppo could also qualify if Nico Robin would. Anyway, that's the first thing I'd start with, ie groupings.Jinnai (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Grouping antagonists by location doesn't sound so bad. But isn't that we are currently doing? The number agents are listed under Sir Crocodile. The priests are listed under Enel. And many less important crew members are listed under their captains. (Personally, I've held back on a lot of editing to this page since I proposed the merge. If I hadn't, I would have already stuffed Tashigi and Hina into Smokers section, among other changes.) The reason we put all the CP9 members under a section named "Cipher Pol No. 9" instead of "Rob Lucci" or "Spandam" was because there was disagreement on which of them was the main antagonist, and we had more pressing things to take care of.
 * As for the in-universe writing: It's not so much about where a character is listed, but the use of the word "former". Gold Roger is the former Pirate King, even from our perspective, because he died in the past of the story. Nico Robin serving as Miss All Sunday on the other hand happens during the story's present. When you're following and creating articles about a story as it is written, it is a common mistake to confuse the most recent chapter/episode with the story's present. Words like "former" and "currently" should only be used very carefully. Mentioning her position in Baroque Works in Crocodile's section is not a problem, as long as Robin has her own article/section higer up in the list, where she is discussed in more detail. -- Goodraise (talk) 17:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Mr. 2 Bon Clay is nowhere near Crocodile. A casual reader unfamiliar with One Piece would not see that. Furthermore, the layout is such that with the exception of character detail, a casual reader could assume that all of the antagonists are related. Crocodile isn't separated in any key way from Arlong and yet they have nothing together. Django and Kuro would not be associated by a casual reader. Yes, they are linked, but that's not how Naruto or any other group does it. Even if we want to keep the list of presenting the villians in order of appearance, they should be listed in by group in order of appearance with special notes, for those like Nico Robin or "Hawk-Eye" Mihawk, Shanks, etc. who are either are shown much earlier outside most of their group or move around.
 * My first thing by looking at the table of contents is that, Going Merry is, FE, a person rather than a ship. All of the antagonists must be related somehow, beyond fighting the protagonists, Mr. 2 Bon Clay has nothing to do with the Baroque Works, Koza was just as important as Gold D. Roger and anyone under 'Other' wasn't an antagonist.Jinnai (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems we are talking past each other. All this time I've refered to the general layout of the page, meaning the division into Protagonists, Antagonists, and Other. While - so it would seem - you only keep naming single characters placed sub-optimally. But for the sake of the argument, let me address all of those concerns.
 * "anyone under 'Other' wasn't an antagonist"
 * So what? Move them up and everything is fine.
 * "Mr. 2 Bon Clay is nowhere near Crocodile. A casual reader unfamiliar with One Piece would not see that."
 * A casual reader would not see that Bon-chan's name is in blue?
 * "beyond fighting the protagonists, Mr. 2 Bon Clay has nothing to do with the Baroque Works"
 * "Mr. 2 Bon Clay (Mr. 2 ボン・クレー Misutā Tsū Bon Kurē?), who first appears in Arabasta,[26] is a member of Baroque Works" is the first sentence of his section...
 * "Django and Kuro would not be associated by a casual reader. Yes, they are linked, but that's not how Naruto or any other group does it."
 * You said it yourself, One Piece isn't Naruto. While Naruto characters are divied largely into teams consisting of more or less equally important members, here - most of the time - we have a single outstanding individual and a handful of less important subordinates.
 * "Furthermore, the layout is such that with the exception of character detail, a casual reader could assume that all of the antagonists are related."
 * "My first thing by looking at the table of contents is that, Going Merry is, FE, a person rather than a ship."
 * "All of the antagonists must be related somehow"
 * "Koza was just as important as Gold D. Roger"
 * Any reader - casual ones in particular - can be expected to actually read the list - and not just the TOC. Irregularities can be clarified in the individual sections. General things - like preventing readers from groundlessly assuming inter-character relationships - can be taken care of in the lead. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary Break
Anyway, we should have a way to separate members like Shanks, Smoker, etc from Crocodile, Arlong, etc as a general grouping and also separate them from characters like Koza, Kobe, etc. Right now, even in the most broadest sense, the article can't support that, thus at a minimum at least 1 new section should be done for those type of characters. Perhaps make Antagonist to Villians and put the other in antagonist? Villian implies a more sinister feel than antagonist. Other ide is to make a section called Rivals.Jinnai (talk) 22:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, lets assume consensus agrees on that statement. What would you suggest we do? Are you still in favor of your previous suggestion or would you care to revise it? -- Goodraise (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd revise it somewhat. Basically:

[...] [..]
 * 1) Straw Hat Pirates
 * 2) - characters go here
 * 3) - List of ships here
 * 4) Rivals *
 * 5) - characters go here
 * 6) Antagonists
 * 7) - list go here
 * 8) - major groups like Baroque Works should be sub-divided
 * 9) Other Notable Characters
 * 10) - List go here
 * That should do for the moment. Rivals section might one day need to have a subsection, most likely at this point i forsee Red Haired Pirates being the most likely. Rivals might have a better name but I can't figure out one.Jinnai (talk) 03:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, that looks a lot better already. But what characters would go into Rivals at this point in time? I can only think of three: Mihawk, Coby, and Hellmeppo. The ships I'd rather incorporate into Usopp and Franky's sections, once they're merged. And as for the sub-divisions of antagonists, I'd like to see a draft of that. The current approach of listing the minor antagonists under their bosses seems to me to give due weight to the characters' importance. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That really depends on how we would define rivals though. Smoker could be said to be Luffy's rival since he's determined that only he should be the one to take him down, and Luffy seems friendly terms. Tashigi could be portrayed as Zoro's rival given the similarities in her personality to his childhood friend and her determination to take Zoro's swords. Shanks might also be as well for Luffy. Of course, they could be notable other characters as well depending upon how you look at them.Jinnai (talk) 06:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Smoker a rival? Do you realize, that he wants to capture Luffy, so he can be EXECUTED? I don't know how you wanna redefine "rivals", but to me Smoker is clearly an antagonist. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well antagonistic rival defiantly, but at the same time, he also doesn't treat him the same. Since meeting Luffy, Smoker no longer goes after other pirates. His sole goal is to capture Luffy. When Fire Fist Ace appeared before him, he didn't seriously try to capture him. Also both him and Luffy have come to an understanding that they aren't as bad as the others after his crew helped him in Arabasta and he didn't try to capture him and in fact helped them out.
 * A rival does not mean they are a friend. In this case I am using the definitions "a person or thing that is considered the equal of another" and "a person or group that competes with another for the same object or in the same field" Tashigi for Zoro. However given that, Gold Roger would also be considered a rival of Luffy.Jinnai (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know. The idea of splitting characters by such an undefinite criteria is hard to get used to. - Too bad we're having this discussion alone. Once things change, they'll come complaining... -- Goodraise (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't the Supernova all go under Rivals, too? They're not really antagonists, but they're clearly rivals. Smoker and Tashigi fit as rivals, too. They're not really antagonists, in the strictest sense. If we view an antagonist as 'a character whose primary purpose is to thwart the protagonists', and a rival as 'a character who opposes the protagonist(s), but also helps them, depending on the situation', then Smoker and Tashigi clearly fit the latter definition. If we put Shanks, Mihawk, Smoker, Tashigi, and the Supernova all under the Rivals section, then that would make the section pretty substantial, and well defined.kuwabaratheman (talk) 03:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * From Wiktionary: A rival is someone "who is competing against another for the same objective; a competitor" or someone "with similar claims of quality or distinction as another." Both definitions would make Shanks, Buggy, Krieg, Moria, etc. all rivals of Luffy, because they all want to be Pirate King. And an antagonist is defined there as "An opponent or enemy" or as "One who antagonizes or stirs." Considering these definitions I'd say Smoker and Tashigi are much more antagonists than they are rivals. You guys should also realize, that as encyclopedists, we can't simply make up new definitions for common terms like "rival" so that it fits our needs. We are bound by the way others use the terms. If we name a section in a certain way, we gotta stick to that name. What characters we put in there won't make it defined better or worse, we'd just be applying the term more or less correctly. - Protagonists and antagonists are exclusive. A character can't be both (at least not at the same time (unless they suffer from dissociative identity disorder (or they ate some funny looking fruit (or some mad scientist tinkered with their bodies (...))))). "Rivals" would be somewhere in between, with half the characters tending more or less to either side. I think, it would look artificial. Not to mention that, personally, I still don't see sufficient reason to divide the characters into more sections... -- Goodraise (talk) 04:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess that would make Smoker an antagonist, but Tashigi is clearly a rival of Zoro. She is clearly after Zoro to claim his swords, something he doesn't want to give up. That fits the definition perfectly and they are suppose to be last seen as being near equal in power (that may have changed since they last met, but that would be pure speculation which is beyond the scope of Wikipedia). As for Smoker, I suggest he put then with "Other Notable Characters". However, I do feel that there is enough to warrant not just slapping everyone as an "antagonist" and thus by association saying they are similar. The way something is structured also gives connotations to a reader just as titiles. Putting Shanks with Arlong says that they share the general trait of being not only something Luffy and the others must overcome, but that they are villianous without redeeming qualities because one of, if not the most common, synonym used for antagonist is villian which carrying a heavy weight with it.Jinnai (talk) 05:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * So, if Tashigi were to defeat Zoro and take his swords, then she would let him go afterwards? - Antagonist, clearly. Putting characters in the same section suggests that they are similar? Yes, of course it does! They are all antagonists, but why would anyone assume, just from the fact that they are in the same section, that they had more in common? I'm already surprised that a single person comes to such a conclusion. And as for "villain" being a synonym for "antagonist": Wiktionary does not list them as such in either direction. Some villains are antagonists, but not all of them. Some antagonists are villains, but again, not all of them. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that's how human brains function; we try to find patterns and make them up if we need to. By grouping them with Antagonist people have a good chance of associating more than is necessary with them. As for the association, wikipedia does, Thesaurus.com does not list villain, but lists close words to it like "bad person" and "bandit". Also, what Tashigi would do after she would hypocritically defeat Zoro and take his swords (which she has said she wants to do) is purely speculation on our part.Jinnai (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Rival' is probably too unspecified a term, thinking on it. We can keep the current listings, but I'm still no sold on Smoker and Tashigi as antagonists. They function at times as antagonists, but at other times they've assisted the protagonists. Antagonists, by their very nature, don't assist protagonists. I would say that if we move Smoker, Tashigi and Hancock to 'Other characters' (which might make more sense as 'Supporting characters'), and move Django to antagonists (he's always been an antagonist in the story). After that, the main issue would just be arranging all the characters within the categories. It would probably make the most sense to arrange by first appearance, perhaps with a couple of subcategories (like one for Pirates).kuwabaratheman (talk) 06:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The moves sound reasonable. But subcategories may be problematic. Where would Jango go? Pirates or Marines? ...to name only one. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I think antagonists is fine as is, but the other characters section would be in more use of it. The only characters in that section I can think of that might be confusing are Hatchi and Rayleigh, who are no longer pirates. It doesn't have to be done, it was just an idea for how to better organize the characters. With the characters under 'Pirates' as characters who main function in the story is as pirates (just like we don't list Hatchi as an antagonist because it's no longer his main function in the series). Something like:
 * #Protagonists (list as currently)
 * #Antagonists (list as currently, but with the above changes)
 * #Other/Supporting characters (list in order of first appearance)
 * ##Other Pirates (list in order of appearances, but with characters on the same crews together)
 * How would that be?kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Supporting characters would be better. "Other" might be okay if we had 3-4, but with the number we're having. I would also subdivide that with Pirates, as you have, and marines since there are enough marines to warrant a listing as well and the Marines are an important group in the One Piece universe.Jinnai (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nicknames
I noticed someone went and added a bunch of character nicknames, are these really worth including? I doesn't seem encyclopedic to me. --Kraftlos (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. Nobody would look up the characters under those names. I would have removed them already, but I'm kind of trying to keep a low profile on this article until all those open issues are settled... -- Goodraise (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Who's idea...
Who's bright idea was it to merge all the One Piece articles together like this? What was wrong with having them all seperate? No, really? Why do it? I just don't understand. - Smashman202 (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If you really want to know who's idea it was, check the history, for who put up the merge tags and read the talk page, including archive. As to what was wrong with the separate articles: For one, none of these articles were notable from a real-world perspective (the perspective wikipedia is supposed to be written from). For example, nobody who doesn't know about One Piece, would ever search for the Black Cat Pirates, as they have no real-world relevance.


 * As for the individual character descriptions (as I suspect that's the next question), almoast all did, and many still do, read like this: "Has XX million bounty. Looks like that. (S)he did this, then did that. [...] Then did this again, and was defeated by Luffy, with his Gomu Gomu no Something." If you know the series, you know these things already and have no gain from reading such plot iterations. If you intend to read the series, you are getting spoiled, with no gain of useful knowledge, what so ever. But most importantly, if you're not particluarily interested in the story of One Piece, and those people are (or should be) the target of this article, as they are the broad audience, every article should have in mind. Instead of plot iterations a character description should, for example, contain information on its design, character traits, its history (as far as it influenced the charater), and so on.


 * And no, (as I have been accused numerous times, to only do what I want) this isn't just my oppinion. It is consensus on wikipedia and documented (not made) among other places here. Also, take a look at List of Naruto characters for a featured list on a similar topic. There is no reason, why One Piece should not be able to have a featured list of characters, instead of small list-like articles, under titles unfamiliar to anyone, who doesn't know about One Piece, that are filled with irrelevant information, just to make them longer. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No one reads bout the Black Cat pirates but people do read about the admirals and the shicibukai. There were lots of extra content about the Shicibukai's names as in which former pirate they resembled and where they appeared previously. One Piece is really long, its really useful for a reminder. Who's gonna read all these dodgy articles now? You? (Bijiao (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC))


 * "One Piece is really long, its really useful for a reminder." So what you want is a guide to the series story? I can understand that. But I can also understand the following: "Depth of coverage within an article should be guided by the amount of real-world information which can be sourced." And if you look at the "Creation and conception", "Merchandise", and "Reception" sections, then you will find them virtually empty. And you won't find much "real-world information" in the character specific sections either. If you want deeper coverage, maybe you should try out the One Piece wikia. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we drastically reduce the information for the main characters, especially backstories and plot summaries, and then refer to the Wikia as a sort of "Further Reading" section for people who want more than wikipedia is supposed to have? I actually wish we could have a page for each straw hat, but the wall of text that came out of this merge is awful to read.  I think less might be more in this case. Ban Bridges (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sadly the Wikia apparently uses too much copyrighted material at the moment to satisfy Wikipedia's external linking guidelines. - If you want to reduce the information, go ahead, nobody is stopping you. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Protip: A real encyclopedia has as much information about the subject as possible; put the One Piece articles back to the way they were. Also, you can't really justify having all the articles together as being better when most are written in very poor English. Have you even read them? Look at Sentomaru's brief description, it sounds like a five year old wrote it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.88.10 (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * So, you're a professional, huh? I don't know about "real" encyclopedias, but Wikipedia does not want to have "as much information [...] as possible". "Sentomaru's brief description [...] sounds like a five year old wrote it." That's probably because a five year-old did write it. Anyone can edit Wikipedia. And since you're a professional, perhaps you could rewrite it? I also don't get, what the quality of the short descriptions has to do with them being in one place, rather than scattered around. "Have you even" thought this through before writing it? -- Goodraise (talk) 21:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I did think it through, but in hindsight it seems like the time it took to type it was wasted on you. I should have realized that you would say anything to make it look like I'm wrong, when anyone can see how many others are also angry. Are you a moderator? That would explain why you act like the god of One Piece articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.37.126 (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the time you invested into writing that was surely wasted, as it contains no solid arguments. Same goes for your second post by the way. I'd say anything? Like resolving to personal attacks? I say what I mean and I mean what I say. Am I acting high and mighty, condescending and arrogant? In this case it is intentional. I only picked up the attitude you started with. Now, if you want to get back on the subject, please do so. But if you'd rather continue exchanging pleasantries, feel free to come to my talk page. There is no need to fill this one with our petty bickering. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've decided you're not worth it. I'll just go to the One Piece wiki or Japanese wikipedia. Everyone else should do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.37.126 (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This page has been a lost cause since its creation, and although I'd really like for the One Piece articles to be put back the way they were, I'd say the chances for that happening are slim to none. Probably closer to none. Just don't bother arguing. It will get you nowhere. But to be honest... it really is a shame having great articles butchered like this nonetheless. First, it was the One Piece episodes article (of which many people enjoyed the chart-based layout) and now the characters articles has become a sloppy mess. What's next? The One Piece article itself? Here, I'll give you the link so you can conveniently destroy it at your own pleasure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.232.176 (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Gee, thanks! Now that I know where that article was hidden, I'll be able to get my destruction plans back on schedule! -- Goodraise (talk) 08:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has gone the drain thanks to bozos that believe that a "real-world" perspective is equal to stacking up tons and tons of information as if piling up a pile of doo doo, might as well lump gold, silver, along with all other gemstones into an ORE Super-article. Frankly, the reasoning that a person doesn't know x, so he/she won't search about it is perhaps one of the most idiotic excuses ever. If one person doesn't know about a subject that is somewhere referenced, what do you think the person will do? Sit around banging his face against the screen because he/she is too incompetent to simply click the "link" for the answer to his query? Please, Wikipedia as an encyplodia THAT EXISTS ONLINE, not a 500 page TOME, where you NEED to jump from tome to tome when searching some things telling you to please "look for yadda yadda", makes searching seamless and accessible to everyone. Jesus. Or what, because this encyclopedia makes use of the internet to inform about REAL-LIFE issues, INCLUDING POP CULTURE, suddenly makes it not "real" enough and somehow subject to the immersing us into the delirious perspective of some hallucinating schizophreniac? Bottom line, is that Wikipedia had been using the medium, of the interne, to perfectly do what it was aimed to do: "1. a book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject." (READ: BEING an ENCYCLOPEDIA), but without the painstaking inconvenience of having 20+ tomes accumulating dirt and being cannibalized by bookworms as they sit ontop of a bookshelf. Truthfully, those who are so darn eager to demolish Wikipedia's foundation, and go on and merge EVERYTHING into one eye-gouging SUPER-ARTICLE, should simply step up and CONFESS that the ONLY reason why every single topic is being merged, is because it is a way to PROMOTE WIKIA. Or what? Wikia is ssooo out there that the Average Joe, who may not know squat about Dragonball Z (but may have heard it around his perimeter?) or what a Genki Dama is, has NO WAY WHATSOEVER of finding the DBZ Wikia and deprived of any sort of curiosity to go on and click the link to King Kay and see how one and the other are related? Is WIKIA so "unreal" that ONLY hordes of otaku drooling fanboys have any way and capacity to access it, because only THEM are attuned to the plane of existence where all the good and gracious Wikipedia's ex-articles are going once they are severed from their coils by those trigger-happy merging heathens? Yes, people, the truth is out. You may not know what the Straw Hat pirates are, and may never know using Wikipedia, because it was deemed unecessary and un-encyclopedic, or god-forbid... *gasp* NOT NOTABLE ENOUGH for it to have an article, its very own article! But WAIT, what is this, there is a thing called Wikia, where you CAN FIND ARTICLES THAT YOU WERE ONCE ABLE TO SEARCH FOR IN WIKIPEDIA when it was still on its Golden Age! THEY WERE SIMPLY MOVED, WORD BY WORD! I sincerely hope that this directive, by the tyrants controlling this despicable merging-frenzy, is nulled, terminated and reveresed as soon as possible, to make the Wikipedia yet again, the one-stop place to gather any single bit of information that one could possible imagine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.177.245 (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * At first I thought you were arguing for Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, but I realized that you aren't. The only thing preventing a Straw Hats Pirates article from being created is that no one has detailed an argument demonstrating that it has received significant coverage in reliable independent sources, per WP:N.  That is Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion not my own personal rule; otherwise the subject has to be covered to a lesser extent on this list.  The ball is in your court.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The one piece links need serious changes...
People say that one piece links should be reduced to minimal because its not real and all... How about the simpsons? They have a link for dozens of characters and they have a page for each of the 423 episodes! And I seriously think that one piece is widely known enough to have just as many links... They even tried to put all the straw hats in to this page (luffy, zoro etc.)

So for the people who's plan is to reduce the whole one piece package into a nice tiny one page stub, DON'T I seriously can't find the benefit of doing that...Bcmin12 (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * When Wikipedia articles are written by fans for fans, then they turn out the way many of the Simpson articles are now: filled with information only relevant to fans, such as lenghty plot summaries, and horrible to read for everyone else. Which is also the way almost every One Piece article was, before 90% of the pages got merged/deleted. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Horribly to read to everyone else? Do you always make up crap, Goodraise? Gune (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, Gune. I always make up crap. Always. -- Goodraise (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes because using sarcasm when you're wrong is the best thing to do. Gune (talk) 06:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I answered your question. Other editors would have simply removed it as a personal attack. I am tired of writing essays to demonstrate how empty of meaning your comments are, when everyone with an IQ of over 5 can plainly see it anyways. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong. There is no evidence that having a lot of information turns people away. It is yet another thing you made up. Gune (talk) 17:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * (Dear reader, if you're not Gune, then please note that reading the following post is almost certainly a waste of your time.)


 * "Wrong. There is no evidence that having a lot of information turns people away." I never said there was evidence. And I never said that "a lot of information turns people away". Feel free to quote me.


 * I suspect though, that you mean this: "horrible to read for everyone else". Let me clarify what I meant with that. Say, someone wants to read an encyclopedic article on a fictional character. But 95% (about as much as was removed from the One Piece articles so far) of the information on the page is only relevant for a very minor part of the readers (don't mistake the crowd of outraged fans posting on this page for the majority (in fact even if 99% of the people who come to this page wanted the kind of information you're adding, it would not change anything, as we're not supposed to write for the majority, but for "a broad audience")), which makes the information nothing but noise, then the reader will have a hard time searching for the few bits of relevant information. Such articles are as "horrible to read" as searching a hay stack for a needle is a "horrible" piece of work.


 * Also, I am not argueing about this here. I am merely explaining what has already been decided by the Wikipedia community in various guidelines and policies (like the Manual of Style for writing about fiction). The next higher authority for this kind of article is the Wikiproject for Anime and Manga (for links see the template on the top of this page). If you want to have any chance of this article (and the ones merged into it) being returned to it's (their) former state, you'll have to change the project consensus first.


 * Oh right, I almoast forgot to mention the fact, that you made me start a discussion on this very talk page (now somewhere in the archive) which ended with you being the only one opposing the merge. (A fact that you happily ignored.)


 * So, here you are. Once again I wrote an essay (to think that you called me "lazy" on more than one occasion...) to do nothing but point out the obvious. Your comments and the kind of replies you apperantly demand to them are just like the kind of information you want in the articles, nothing but noise.


 * And while we're at it. It is good to know, that whenever I choose my words less carefully (for example: to be done with it faster; to waste less of my fellow editors time; or simply because I give people enough credit to at least try and understand what I mean to say), that you will be close by and try... Well, I actually don't know what you're trying to do here. Waste my time? Try and keep me from merging more articles? Whatever. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to inform you, Goodraise, but I am not a fan of One Piece, and didn't know who the hell Vaan of FFXII was, not until I saw those items in commercials or mentioned by a third party did I become curious enough to search for them. And I did search them, on Wikipedia, back in the day were you could search for a MOTHER ARTICLE (FFXI) and be linked to several children articles providing subjects with a greater depth of information (those links integrated into the text or referenced below the articles, in such a way that it made articles less convoluted than what they are now). Now, thanks to the procedure mentioned before, I am much better versed at those 2 subjects. There was absolutely no impediment for me whatsoever in surfing through Wikipedia before, and the additional information relative to my initial search was a bonus, the more extensive, the better. But now, the thing is different, the information is scant, hard to read as it is stacked up and compacted into a single "list", thanks to actions of those such as yourself that believe that this "broad-audience" you seem to be the official mouthpiece of, is both as stagnant a human being as to lack any degree of curiosity, and possessing the attention-span of a 6 year old hyperactive kid on a sugar rush at a video-game convention, that impedes them to read through and article and extend their lecture by clicking on links that will lead them to a self-contained article that would provide them with additional information to a potential new query, if they so choose to seek it-- which by the way, did I mention that those articles used to be easily navigatable and accessible?. I really do wonder if you are on Wikia's pay-roll to sabotage Wikipedia by draining away all the information that was once found here and transferring it to Wikia? Because if you aren't, it is a shame, because you are doing one heckuva job.

LET US FACE IT  WIKIA IS WHAT WIKIPEDIA USED TO BE-- even the articles are the same, just a little bit more manicured

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.201.177.245 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Merge-in protagonists
I am nominating the following articles to be merged into this list: Monkey D. Luffy, Roronoa Zoro, Nami (One Piece), Usopp, Sanji, Tony Tony Chopper, Nico Robin, Franky (One Piece), Brook (One Piece), Going Merry, and Thousand Sunny. I do not think that they satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guideline. I think, that they violate WP:PLOT and WP:WAF (WP:WAF in particular). They all (perhaps with the exception of Luffy) lack a decent number of reliable third-party sources and are incapable of reaching good article status. Please leave your thoughts in the individual sections or in the "General" section below. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Monkey D. Luffy
A merge discussion was held, the result was do not merge. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 23:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Article asserts notability, and has information on the characters creation. No need to merge at all.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Article seems to have sufficient real-world focus (though it could use more) and is fairly well referenced. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on merging Luffy
This is the only article, where the question of whether it establishes notability (the article as it is now, as opposed to the theoretical possibility of establishing notability for the topic) is actually controversial. Because of that and because of the fact, that Luffy is the overall main character of One Piece and it is therefore hardly thinkable to let him not have an own article while another Straw Hat keeps his/her article, I suggest suspending discussion on merging Luffy until discussions on the other articles have ended. If at least one of the other articles is kept, Luffy should be presumed as notable as well. If no other character keeps his/her article, then discussion on merging Luffy should be resumed. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me --Kraftlos (Talk)(Contrib) 07:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, looking at the page again, I'll change my position from merge to neutral. That leaves only one voice for the page to be merged. So I guess we can close this as do not merge. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Roronoa Zoro
A merge discussion was held, the result was merge into List of One Piece characters -- Goodraise (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Has some creation information, and more notability should be able to be found.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: Unlike Luffy, this page lacks a real-world focus. The info about the name could be merged to the list. The Character outline, though sourced from the manga, appears to be original synthesis.  Observations in this section don't appear to be stated in an outside source; appearances in other media are really trivia, it doesn't hurt to have it, but it doesn't a constitute real-world focus.  Merge this one!  --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on merging Zoro
With this article it is essentially the same as with Franky (see here). However, the article already contains information, which combined with additional information could provide sufficient notability for a stand-alone article. Therefore I suggest the same procedure as with Franky, with the exception of giving the article another a full week to show improvement. In case of such improvement happening, the article should be re-evaluated here. If not, it should be merged. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Nami (One Piece)
A merge discussion was held, the result was merge into List of One Piece characters -- Goodraise (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Should be possible to get more notability on her through reviews and such.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: Has no notability, no references; nothing but in-universe observations. Any proper reviews should be used to boost the section on the list, rather than trying to salvage this page.  --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on merging Nami
With this article it is the same as with Franky (see here). Therefore I suggest the same procedure as with him: Give the article another four days to show improvement. In case of such improvement happening, the article should be re-evaluated here. If not, it should be merged. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Usopp
A merge discussion was held, the result was merge into List of One Piece characters -- Goodraise (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Same reason as above.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: No notability, no third-party references. Nothing but plot summary.  --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on merging Usopp
With this article it is the same as with Franky (see here). Therefore I suggest the same procedure as with him: Give the article another four days to show improvement. In case of such improvement happening, the article should be re-evaluated here. If not, it should be merged. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sanji
A merge discussion was held, the result was merge into List of One Piece characters -- Goodraise (talk) 22:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Once again, reviews and various other sources can probably be found to bring up third party sources on notability.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: No notability, no third-party references. Nothing but plot summary.  --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on merging Sanji
With this article it is the same as with Franky (see here). Therefore I suggest the same procedure as with him: Give the article another four days to show improvement. In case of such improvement happening, the article should be re-evaluated here. If not, it should be merged. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I am still concerned about the removable information regarding his censorship by Funimation before it was moved to a larger article.Jinnai (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What information? What censorship? -- Goodraise (talk) 00:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The removal of his cigarette by 4kids and Funimation.Jinnai (talk) 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that. Well, it's not really part of the character. Someone commented (was that you?) it might fit on the main page. The problem with that is, that we could easily fill a whole page with examples of 4Kids' (not Funimation's, they only adapted part of it) editing (it's not censorship, nobody forced them to do it), and the last time these kind of things were mentioned on the main page, it led every bypasser to add their personal bias against 4Kids. I don't think putting that information anywhere is a good idea. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is relevant and notable. That people put their own opinions on it does not detract from the fact it is a noteworthy piece of information. The section doesn't have to be very long. A paragraph is enough. If there is trouble again to the point that people add their own opinions, those people can be warned and the page semi-locked. In fact, you could even ask for a prelim semi-lock (though it might not be granted). This won't stop every comment, but those that do can have action taken against them for vandalism.
 * Potential vandalism is no excuse to not do something, else Wikipedia would not have far more contriversial subjects like Adolph Hitler.
 * EDIT - Also on classification of censorship, whether one does it voluntarily or not does not determine whether it is censorship. A newspaper that decides not to tone down an article that deals with criticizing a politician because they could do something to harm them in retaliation still counts as censorship, even though no one forced them to.Jinnai (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Disregarding everything said, this is the wrong place to discuss it. If you think One Piece should have a paragraph about it, write one or bring it up at Talk:One Piece. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony Tony Chopper
A merge discussion was held, the result was merge into List of One Piece characters -- Goodraise (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Similar logic here, plus Chopper has had a ridiculous amount of merchandise made of him that can be mentioned in the article, too.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merchandise would have to have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources to be useful here. --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: No notability, no third-party references. Nothing but plot summary.  --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on merging Chopper
With this article it is the same as with Franky (see here). The only difference is the additional amount of merchandise, which - as Kraftlos pointed out - does not provide notability. Therefore I suggest the same procedure as with Franky: Give the article another four days to show improvement. In case of such improvement happening, the article should be re-evaluated here. If not, it should be merged. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Nico Robin
A merge discussion was held, the result was merge into List of One Piece characters -- Goodraise (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Might be a little more difficult to find some third party sources on her, but it might be possible. If not, I suppose I would support a merge.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: No notability, no third-party references. Nothing but plot summary.  --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on merging Robin
With this article it is the same as with Franky (see here). Therefore I suggest the same procedure as with him: Give the article another four days to show improvement. In case of such improvement happening, the article should be re-evaluated here. If not, it should be merged. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Franky (One Piece)
A merge discussion was held, the result was merge into List of One Piece characters -- Goodraise (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose: Article already has some creation information, so the main issue is just finding some sources on notability. If that turns up something, the article should be kept.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: No notability, no third-party references. Nothing but plot summary.  Character creation consists of one sentence and would go great on the list!  --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on merging Franky
Essentially the same as with Brook (see here). The only difference is, that another editor (Kuwabaratheman) voiced the opinion, that information providing notability might be found. Considering, that this discussion is already going on for a week, while no information providing any kind of notability has been added, I suggest giving the article another four days to show improvement. In case of such improvement happening, the article should be re-evaluated here. If not, it should be merged. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Brook (One Piece)
A merge discussion was held, the result was merge into List of One Piece characters -- Goodraise (talk) 23:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: Sad as it is to say, he's too new a character for it to be possible to find any real sources on notability. Article might be able to be recreated in the future, but for now I don't think it's possible to prove notability.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: No notability, no third-party references. Nothing but plot summary.  --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support:Maybe he can be brought back eventually, but hes simply too new to have one. His name should still be on the list of protagonists at the bottom with the others however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.87.69.48 (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion on merging Brook
As the ships (Going Merry and Thousand Sunny) seem to be a closed case, I suggest we continue our discussion with the next least controversial page. I'll try to summarize the discussion on Brook (including comments in the General section) so far: Nobody denied that the article currently provides no notability. The only two editors (Matty-chan and Gune) who were favoring to keep the page, did so under the false assumption, notability could be established with non-independent sources. Therefore I consider merging the page to be consensus and suggest the merge to be performed roughly three days from now (a reasonable time, considering how long this discussion has been open), unless an editor comes up with a viable way to satisfy notability on the page in question. -- Goodraise (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. At this time, there's not really much material to work with when it comes to Brook. As I've already voiced my support above, I have no opposition to this, unless someone can come up with some third party source in the next couple of days (something I consider virtually impossible at this point in time).kuwabaratheman (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Going Merry
A merge discussion was held, the result was merge into List of One Piece characters -- Goodraise (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: It's a ship, and not one with a lot of out of universe notability.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: No notability, no third-party references. If some good information about the real-life replica could be found, the article could be re-established.  --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone oppose merging this article or can we take care of this now? --Kraftlos (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been almoast a week, and no-one even hinted opposition. Go ahead and merge it. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Would these be merged to the character list, the World of One Piece, or the main One Piece article? --Kraftlos (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary defines a character as a "being involved in the action of a story." That would make the Merry a character, if the Klabautermann in the story is an incarnation of the ship and not just some long time passanger. Same goes for Sunny, under the assumption, that she has such an avatar as well. *sigh* If they were even important characters... Most of the time, they're just big chunks of wood. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Thousand Sunny
A merge discussion was held, the result was merge into List of One Piece characters -- Goodraise (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support: The Going Merry at least was around for 400 chapters and got character development. There's absolutely nothing here to merit an article.kuwabaratheman (talk) 08:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support: No notability, no third-party references. (Since when does appearance in a one piece movie or game constitute "other media"?)  --Kraftlos (talk) 11:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Does anyone oppose merging this article or can we take care of this now? --Kraftlos (talk) 05:09, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's been almoast a week, and no-one even hinted opposition. Go ahead and merge it. -- Goodraise (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

General

 * Support the ships, they don't need their own articles, merge them if you want. Oppose all the characters. I mean, One Piece is a big show, and I feel all the characters deserve their own articles - I say they're all notable enough, just the main ones. I mean, Tenjho Tenge characters get their own articles. Have any of you even heard of Tenjho Tenge? Probably not. And if Winx Club characters deserve their own articles, then definitely One Piece does too, because Winx Club is an obscure Italian cartoon aimed at very young girls. And btw, I am not being biased. I have nothing against Tenjho Tenge or Winx Club.


 * However, I think they just need to be rewritten if you must, because now that I look at the Shin Natsume article, I understand why Tenjho Tenge characters have articles. That's pretty well written. I understand Brook can't have that much info because he's new (I only watch the dub anyway so I wouldn't know much), but that doesn't mean he will never have enough, so maybe a temporary merge on that if you can't do enough. So I say, keep all the characters, rewrite if necessary, merge the ships. Matty-chan (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to clarify the definition of notability. According to the policy "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has recieved significant coverage from reliable independant sources."  -WP:N  Notability is distinctly different from popularity (or how many seasons an anime has run).  Individual topics must meet this criteria to have a separate article.  This is policy and is not negotiable.    --Kraftlos (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, looking at the Shin Natsume article, it is very well written with a lot of info, but it only seems to source the manga itself. Most of these One Piece character articles also seem to source that, or could source it, as well as Oda's SBS and stuff. So yeah, I think they have a lot of potential notability if the manga itself is considered a "reliable source", as it seems to be with Tenjho Tenge characters. The Winx Club articles barely seem to source anything, and only talk about 4Kids in the footnotes. However, I believe that can be touched up on too because I remember some official sources for that. So, in the case of One Piece, I say... just gather more sources of where the info came from, whether it be the manga, Oda's SBS, something by Viz, etc. If nothing like that is available, then the info was just made up and should be deleted. If all the info that was definitely made up makes up the majority of an article, then I say merge it. And actually, with that in mind, I'm reconsidering the ships, seeing how much info there can be on them. Matty-chan (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The manga is cited to satisfy verifiability, not notability. Don't confuse them. The key word is independent sources. That excludes all material published by Viz Media, 4Kids Entertainment, Funimation Entertainment, Toei, and Shueisha. Same goes for Weekly Shōnen Jump and Shonen Jump (magazine) (not lastly because Shonen Jump belongs to Viz). As far as I am concerned, that excludes interviews with the author (in independent sources) as well. But even counting those, Luffy only makes it to 4 independent sources, 2 interviews and 2 movie reviews. Adding to that, all of these 4 are about One Piece or a portion of it, not about Luffy. Nothing on Monkey D. Luffy or one of it's sources suggests that he has notability separate of One Piece. He is merely mentioned. There is no way to speak of any of those sources as significant coverage (let alone significant coverage of Luffy). Carrying this argument on to the other characters. Zoro has a popular culture appearance in a two-panel web comic (again, not alone but in the context of One Piece). He is mentioned in a review of One Piece. He is explained in an anime guide to One Piece. And his popularity is measured by a poll on One Piece. Separate notability, where are you? Did you turn invisible? Even counting all of these, it's still only 4. Usopp has 1, and it's the same fan poll used in Zoro's article. How very sparate... Chopper is mentioned in a review - of One Piece. He also has a lot of merchandise, OK, but the references all lead to the same source, making the count go for 2. Brook is mentioned in the same Oda interview as Luffy, raising the count to 1. Sunny, Merry, Nami, Franky, Robin, and Sanji all have 0 (zero) reliable independent sources. And even though my comments are not, the count is very benevolent. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't be in the habit of refering to other random anime pages, the rules apply even if someone has broken them on another page. If you're going to refer to other articles for examples, at least use articles rated as good articles or the List of Naruto characters as these are good examples. --Kraftlos (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not just random stuff, I was thinking of stuff that is significantly less popular and less notable than One Piece. Naruto is a very popular series and a lot of people know of it and its characters, and there is a lot of info about it out there. Tenjho Tenge and Winx Club don't have that. And by the way, Winx Club is not an anime. It was made in Italy, not Japan. I picked it because it's just a mediocre kids cartoon. But as for One Piece, maybe once FUNimation finishes their site, perhaps these characters could keep their own articles, or... are there any bios on the DVDs? Maybe snapping those... Matty-chan (talk) 21:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Funimation wouldn't be an independent source, so no information from their site could be used to establish notability. Though it could be used to add content to a page after it was shown to be notable through third-party sources.  It's true that because naruto is popular that it is easier to find resources to improve those pages, but just because a show is less-popular doesn't mean that we can lower the bar.  Be in the habit of checking the rating on the page's talkpage before using it as an example.  We have a number of good people constantly updating these ratings, they're very accurate.  --Kraftlos (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge all of them. They don't establish any sort of notability (unless you believe that two comments from minor anime fansites sites establish notability), so they do not need to be separate. TTN (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Same as Matty Support the ships though maybe transfer the real Going Merry picture. Oppose all the characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gune (talk • contribs) 01:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The pictures of the real Going Merry are free. They don't need a fair-use rational. They won't be deleted. And they can be used wherever wanted and as much as wanted. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Support merging the ships. Oppose merging the characters, especially Luffy who you've even admitted by your own remarks could pass WP:N. Neutral on Brook as he has just been added and thus at this time might not qualify for his own article, but in the future probably would.
 * Instead of merging, you should look for sources. The anime is out there. There are reviews of it and characters. Because it's a pop culture the sources don't have to come from academic or journalistic sources, though that is preferable. According to WP:N "Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines


 * EDIT: A better idea of what to consdier than the examples used by Matty-chan is List of Naruto Characters and List of Bleach Characters."Jinnai (talk) 18:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "especially Luffy who you've even admitted by your own remarks could pass WP:N."
 * Sounds like you think, you caught me with my hands in the cookie jar. - This is how you rewarded me for being fair?
 * "Instead of merging, you should look for sources."
 * I love this argument. I really do. Because in its generality it sanctions this.
 * "you should look for sources."
 * Yes, I should look for sources... I mainly proposed the merge, because I think, that there is plenty of them. (Sarcasm ends here.) You may disagree with me on wether these characters are notable or not. You may disagree with me on my way of choice to improve Wikipedia. You may even disagree with me on wether I'm actually doing that. But, none of this is the issue here. Articles need to establish notability on their topic. If they don't, they should be merged or deleted.
 * You name a lot of things, which could establish notability. Where are they? The articles are free of them.


 * On a more general note: I do not understand, why people want every minor character to have their own articles. What does a separate article provide, that a place in a list does not? The only thing I see it does, is giving an invitation to write lengthy plot summaries and similar easy-to-produce low quality content. Why can't Franky be placed in a section of this page until that section accumulates enough content referenced to reliable independent sources to justify a page of its own? I don't get it. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Take it easy with the line-by-line commentary! :P  --Kraftlos (talk) 21:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "On a more general note: I do not understand, why people want every minor character to have their own articles."
 * You obviously do not understand the difference between a main character, supporting character and minor character/cameo characters if you are calling all of the crew members minor.Jinnai (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The character's role in the anime/manga is not particularly relevant to this discussion. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually that's not true. Main characters and important supporting characters are generally given seperate pages when an article becomes too lengthy and the info meets WP:V and the article itself already conforms to WP:Manual_of_Style_(anime-_and_manga-related_articles) formating. That alone makes their role of at least nominal importance.Jinnai (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's not true. It should read: "Any character is given a seperate page when an article becomes too lengthy and the info meets WP:N and the article itself already conforms to WP:N." -- Goodraise (talk) 23:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why I say it's not relevant. The fact that a character is a "main" character doesnt have anything to do with whether and article is split.  WP:N is the determining factor.  --Kraftlos (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And I'm saying that, even by your standards, Luffy would meet WP:N. It therefore, even if the others don't make that, Luffy would be your own admission. Just because other characters are merged, does not mean we go and just do a wholesale merge. This is why, FE, there's not really been any opposition to merging the ships. I'll do a check over the other articles though, just to make certain.Jinnai (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * These are all individual merge discussions, I think Luffy has enough context and has established notability; I'm not saying that we should keep him because he's the main character. There's no rule that favors splitting off main protagonists and leaving lesser characters on the list.  It's all about coverage, not the character's role in the plot of a given series.  --Kraftlos (talk) 05:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The argument for splitting the main characters into their own section might not be viable, but by merging the content of even just the currently verifiable content and cleanup you would still have an article approaching 60kb. Thus we would be back to repeating those pages back again. This article needs cleanup first before merging any new content into it[, except perhaps the ships which have had universal acceptance].
 * After it's been cleaned up, then we should talk about merging.Jinnai (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the fact, that the determining factor for a topic deserving it's own page is notability and not verifiability, I do not see what on this page is currently so immensely unclean, that it would prevent anything from being merged-in (every page in question even has a summary style section within this article). I assume, you mean its size. If that is the case, then I can assure you, that I could cut down this page to a reasonable size, without removing any real-world information, in no time at all. If it is anything else, then please name it, so that we can discuss or fix it. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:04, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Size and layout. The layout is very poorly done for a list of this size and importance according to WP:MOS-AM. As merging would impact both of those, cleanup should come first; merging should follow.Jinnai (talk) 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The size is not an issue, as I explained above. And I simply can't see what's wrong with this list's layout. You'll have to be more specific. As far as I can tell, this list is just as much - No, strike that. - way more suitable for merging-in now, than it was, when I merged-in dozens of other pages. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The size is possibly an issue. Just because 1 Feature article does it, does not mean it becomes policy. It's not at all good. There is no distinction from grouped characters other than the Straw Hat crew. Crocodile is listed along with Smoker, despite being completely different, wheras, FE, Mr. 2 Bon Clay is listed as "other". And minor characters like Koza are treated as equal in importance to someone like Whitebeard.Jinnai (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Featured articles and lists are the pinnacle of quality among Wikipedia's pages. Nothing is closer to policy and guideline, than FAs and FLs, except for policies and guidelines themselves. If a page is close to featured status and editors decide, that not following a featured list's of article's example is the best thing to do, then it probably is. But this list is no way near featured. And about the structure: That issue has been discussed multiple times. The last time, if I recall correctly, was here: Talk:List of One Piece characters/Archive 2. But let me pick up your examples. Crocodile and Smoker are both antagonists, are they not? Bon-chan is an other character, what's wrong about that? And lastly, what makes Whitebeard so much more important than Koza? (I mean, if I had my way, then Koza wouldn't even be on this list, but whatever...) They are sorted from a real-world perspective, just like they should be. -- Goodraise (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Point by point: Crocodile and Smoker are indeed atagonists, however Smoker also is supportive at time, however, I'm willing to concede that point because that is only under certain circumstances. Bon-chan is an antagoinst. He is a servant of Croccodile, if we list Smoker as one who, Bon-Clay certainly meets that level and moreso because he actually fights Sanji in a serious battle, unlike Smoker who had a brief clash with Luffy. Third, Whitebeard is far more intrical to the storyline being a continually mentioned and as the story progresses more prominant member as one of the 4 Emperors. Koka well, as you said, really isn't much. He is a minor character in one arc, albeit the first long arc. However, he is at best a minor character of note only is passing reference. Vivi, who was also in the same arc, had much more promince and imporatance as being a crew member for a time for comparison. The best way to distinquish him (if he were to remain) would be to make section just of minor characters of note. No need in this section to link every name to also distinquish their relative unimportance.Jinnai (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You only name a lot of points you don't agree with. What you don't do is explain why these little inaccuracies you see are in any way stopping us from merging-in more characters. Until you do that, I refuse to argue these points in this thread, because it is off topic. - My opinion is unchanged: This page is perfectly suited to be merged-in to. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Because some of the character pages mergers are disputed. Cleanup of the existing article doesn't seem to be.Jinnai (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, hypothetically, action A and action B can be done in either way, first A, or first B. But because action A has a stronger consensus behind it, action B has to wait, until action A is done? That is complete non-sense. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignoring everything else, a key issue is that this article needs massive improvements made in quality. I think that cleanup should take priority over merges, because merging everything in will only create more work to be done. If we close off the merge discussion for now (aside from the ships, which everyone agrees in merging), then it would make more sense to improve this article, and revisit the merges in a month's time. I think that course of action would make the most sense.kuwabaratheman (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no need to wait a month. I have opened threads for both issues (cleanup and layout) and await more detailed complaints there. Please don't continue this discussion in this thread. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Auto archive
This page seems to get a lot of discussion. Would it be alright if I signed it up for auto-archiving? --Kraftlos (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Good idea.Jinnai (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you sign it up yet? It seems the page just keeps getting longer and longer. -- Goodraise (talk) 09:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears to be active for discussions older than 30 days, but people keep adding to older discussions, so the bot thinks the conversations are still active. I could temporary set it to archive more frequently just to get it cleaned up.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Much better. ^_^ --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Zoro and data/guide books debate

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Zoro's power is not second to Luffy's...

Zoro in the article was stated as second to Luffy in strenght, but he isn't... They are equal and it's shown in the manga... Check out the fight at Wiskey Peak... Their powers were perfectly balanced... And, also, Oda wrote the Encyclopedia RED on One Piece and revealed the values of strenght of the crew characters: Luffy and Zoro are stated as equal in strenght, they both have 6 as value, while Sanji has 5... So Luffy and Zoro are the strongest of the crew and Sanji has the second place... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.8.126.150 (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

I know this might be speculating and opinionated, but i think zoro is probebly stronger then  luffy, not in pure strength but in terms of fighting. Zoro is as strong in terms of physical strength but it way more skilled and probebly faster. Also luffy's "Gum Gum" attacks leave him open and for a combatent like zoro i think he'd b able to defeat luffy. The other major factor (especially in one piece and in these two charecters) is determination, both these charecters has tons of it but that'll sway the course of the battle dramatically... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.240.207 (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about you stop there. Now Speculations are not allowed on wikipedia, a place only for facts.  Reflect on this.  Angel Emfrbl 17:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place for facts, indeed... And if we consider facts we can't say that Luffy is stroger than Zoro or Zoro is stronger than Luffy, it's mere speculation... The only thing we have proofs for is that Luffy and Zoro are equal because every time they fought or are conpared they ended to be equal, so the only thing we can say is that they are even! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.163.248 (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can't even say that because most of the fighting is non-canon and the only real fight they had was interupted by Nami. Plus a fight doesn't prove the strength, as agilty, luck, wits may also come into play (or not, as in the wits part).  The best we can do is mention Zoro is in the top three fighters of the crew (the others being Luffy and Sanji) and leave it as "Zoro is one of the top three fighters with incredible strength that makes him one of the SHs strongest members" or something like that.  We can prove the top three fighters are those three, we can't prove the strengths.  Unless Oda depicts the SHs doing a strength test at some point any claims can be taken only as speculation.  Angel Emfrbl 23:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with what you said. When I talked about the confrontation between Luffy and Zoro I didn't only mean to talk about the Wiskey Peak fight, and I know that Memory Loss filler battle is not in the manga, but we also have the equal level of power stated by RED Encyclopedia and also the similar loss against Rob Lucci they both had at Water Seven... But as you said, it's only suggested that Luffy and Zoro may be equal but there are not absolute proofs expecially related to the recent chapters... So I agree with the definition "one of the top three fighters and maybe suggested to be on par with Luffy", It's a good way to put the matter... I think that we can say similar things for Luffy, Zoro and Sanji too... For Luffy: "He is one of the top three fighters of the SH and he is considered to be the strongest one with a power maybe matched only by Zoro" (because it's suggested to be), for Zoro: "He is one of the top three fighters and maybe is suggested to be on par with Luffy" and for Sanji: "He is one of the top three fighters probably second only to Luffy and Zoro". I would leave all as it is now, it's the best way to explain it because it's fact that they are the top three fighters while it's suggestion that Luffy and Zoro might be equal and Sanji second to them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsaint13 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if someone wants to look up the ref for the top three fighters, it was mentioned by the spider monkey. Same with data book thingy. The SM specifically stated they wer ethe top three, so there you go. I'd prefer not to mention strengths at all, but thats me.  I also am aware of the data books, so pretty much raw strength can agree... What was their lvl. 6?  Something like that.  6 is 6 and both Zoro and Luffy were given it so, yeah I can agree they must be about equal there. Angel Emfrbl 01:02, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I've the Italian edition of the Data Book Encyclopedia RED and it gives the strenght values... It's 6 for Luffy and Zoro, 5 for Sanji... I like instead to discuss on the power levels, not only in One Piece, but in any manga... ^_^ As for Luffy and Zoro levels of power, I think we can consider them as equals, but Zoro is coditioned by his swords, he is on par with Luffy only if he has 3 swords of good quality and in good conditions, and they must be swords he is trained to handle... Luffy's power is always the same, Zoro's power depends also on the swords... If he couldn't use Santooryu (3 swords style) for some reasons he wouldn't be able to equal Luffy in battle... For example I heard that in the recent chapters he obtained the new sword Shuusui from Ryuuma, but because it's new to him he is not yet able to handle his full power and so he can't show his true skills... Or just go back to Capitain Kuro saga... Zoro with only one sword was able to barely stand against Kuro's minions Buchi and Shiam, but with all 3 swords and using Santooryu he easily defeated them and would have been able to fight Kuro himself (just like Luffy did)... As I said, Zoro is able to fight at the best of his skills only with 3 good swords, Luffy has a strenght equal to the best of Zoro's but it's regardless of everything... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsaint13 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Can I add that Luffy and Zoro are suggested to be equal? I think it's right to add it because since the Wiskey Peak battle they are always shown as the two strongest of the crew and probably equal... Or I can edit that Zoro and Luffy are the two top fighters of the crew taking out Sanji that is second to them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsaint13 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * No you can't (well you can't but someone will add it again) as the manga itself says those three of the top fighters... Sanji is up there with them so you can't do that and as for Whiskey Peek, that was about 300 chapters ago...  I think its now clearly out dated which means everything is now speculation.  Speculations are not allowed on wikipedia.  If we can't decide on this it can't go on the page.  Simple as that. Angel Emfrbl 13:05, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I think you're right. So I may add about Zoro: "He used to be equal to Luffy in the early arcs but it's unknown if they are still even right now or not..." It's fact, not speculation. Do you think it could be ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsaint13 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed and that text right there is just fine. ;) Angel Emfrbl 17:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Good! So I'm adding it. I hope it will be left and not changed over and over by people... :p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsaint13 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 1 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats fine. Leave the comment I put in on the comparisons as your statement is the limits of which you can take the argument.  If anyone tries to add more then that we'll loose it again. I'll make sure it stays there.   Angel Emfrbl 17:46, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I undid the change without reading the talk page, so after I checked here I put it back, albeit worded differently. Ark 23:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

With what i saw in the fight of Straw hat crew vs Oz, i cannot be sure that the difference between luffy and Zoro is very big. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.11.180.161 (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Infact there is probably no difference between them as it was in the early arcs when they were even. We're not sure if they still are, but it's probably... Now Zoro is going to fight Kuma and it'll show something more about his power... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goldsaint13 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Further Discussion
I am posting this because according to the new [proposed] policy on WP:FICT such sources should [would] be usable. It specifically lists guidebooks as a source for works of fiction.Jinnai (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually read that one-year-old discussion, which you pulled out from I-don't-know-where, but I still have no idea what you want. Your post isn't only missing a link to the previous discussion (without the page history the text in the box you posted is meaningless), but more importantly a proposal to approve/oppose/discuss. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this was the wrong article. Another article had been saying data- and guide-books shouldn't be used as citable references. Looks like that wasn't the issue here and I messed up with the wrong place (i had 10 tabs open at the time). じん    ない   10:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this is just beating a dead horse, but I just noticed this thread. I think if a guidebook is officially licensed, it probably would be citable as a primary source, but this couldn't be used to establish notability. An unofficial or independent guide probably wouldn't be citable unless a reliable publication was publishing it.  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 05:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Order may need to be revised to comply with WP:Lists Guidelines
Sorry, forgot to post this the other day. Anyway, according to Wikipedia's List Guidelines: Organization fails because several members (Nico Robin, Franky, Smoker, Tashigi, etc) may be placed in more than one category in the current system. As the original system of listing by occurrence was made early on before a lot of these characters were switched (permanently or temporarily) sides, the listing should be reconsidered accordingly to the guidelines to see if another method is better. じん    ない   18:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you propose? -- Goodraise (talk) 19:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well in this case, association by type of primary affiliation is imo best, where it is further sub-listed by rank and then alphabetical listing. In the case of general pirates, their affiliation would be with piracy (or whatever term is used). The current system of listing by order of appearance is fine when you just have 1 group, or 2 at most. We had 3 before the reorganization and now 4, which really dilutes the idea of order-by-appearance. Compounded with that is, as mentioned before, Nico Robin, for example, could legitimatly be listed as an antgonist because that is her first appearance. I am however open for suggestions, but we really need to have a better system considering the size and complexity the manga has developed. じん    ない   21:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Baroque Works isn't a crew of pirates. So, even in your system, Robin could be placed in at least two different categories. I don't see how your system is better. And as far as I understand it, we'd also have to give up on the real-world oriented categorization by antagonists, protagonists, ... No, I don't like this idea. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My association is "Primary" as the show is, Nico Robin is "primarily seen" as working with the Straw Hats. This is shown by even when she has worked with the others, she has done her best to undermine them, plus she is listed as a member of the crew by Luffy. Also the current use of "in order of appearance" is highly diluted with the number of sub-sections and the fact many characters move around to different sections. じん    ない   02:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The criteria for categorization must be clear and consistent." I don't think that fact that some characters change alliance makes the organization ineffective. It is kind of unusual to have characters changing around like that, but it doesn't make it any easier to list them multiple times.  Their in-universe affiliation isn't really important here, it's their role in the work of fiction; so protagonist/antagonist is more appropriate (and the going consensus on articles like this).  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but their role when it could be classed as both an antagonist, protagonist and/or major ally is enough to make it inconsistent and somewhat unclear. じん    ない   04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As pointed out before, the way you proposed isn't perfect in that respect either. If you want to change the list's organization based on that guideline, then you should propose a way of sorting that's free of such issues, like "appearance by chapter", "appearance by episode", "first mention of name by chapter", or "first mention of name by episode". But in these four cases we'd only have one section. And I doubt you'd like that any better. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Which is why, in this case, some in-universe perspective is needed considering the length of the list. That said, primary affiliation as primary breakdown and then appearance or last primary of affiliation by chapter would be best. じん    ない   06:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * "Which is why, [...]"
 * What are you refering to?
 * If an out-of-universe approach (antagonists/protagonists/...) yields equally bad results as an in-universe approach (pirates/marines/...) then we take the in-universe approach? I fail to see the logic in this. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * First, yes, nothing is perfect here sadly. However, in-universe approach yields less ambiguities for most characters. Characters like Mr. 2 Bon Clay, who could be listed as an atagonist as he did fight against Sanji and the others and is instead listed on the opposite end of as a major ally. By using in-universe criteria basing it off his primary affilition then it would clearly be "Baroque Works", without exception. The protagonists would largely be unchanged, except a possible namechange and/or the addition of Vivi, who could be placed as a former member. In fact, on that list only Vivi would be the only one with a problem of where to place if anyone would contest the above placement. Everyone else could be squarely placed in one group. Even Nico Robin as her primary affiliation with the Straw Hat Pirates. Wapol and Enel would be placed on other notable characters being the only unaffiliated. じん    ない   07:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Under the current organization scheme don't characters that primarily play an antagonistic role get placed in the antagonist (and vice versa)? Why to they need to be organized to their specific fictional groups?  How would an in-universe organization improve wikipedia's coverage of this topic from a real-world perspective?  I'm not seeing the problem. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 08:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, the coverage does not need to be improved per real-world perspective, just be encyclopedic and contain WP:RS to show some level of notability in the real-world. That is a false assumption you're under. Second, there are still more characters whom have contentious issues as to their role under the current proposal that would be cleaned up. That the article could be improved with less ambiguity where someone is placed under Wikipedia's List organization is enough to warrant a serious review of the current policy. Other character lists tend to have fairly straight-forward characters with at most 1 or 2 characters who might be hard to place under a protagonist/antagonist set. One Piece is not like that and as the show continues, it has become increasingly clear that trying to use such artificial real-world constructs only hurts the article's presentation for both real-world and in-universe presentation. じん    ない   21:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, the one under a false impression is you. Per WP:WAF, we are to "write from a real-world perspective". It nowhere says, "once basic notability is established, make the article as fansite-ish as you like". The current system is not perfect, but replacing it with an in-universe approach (even if it were perfect, which your suggestion isn't) is out of the question. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Another idea i had the other day while editing another character article was to divide it into primary, secondary and tertiary notable characters. This keeps the real-world perspective and simplifies the classification because even if a character switches sides, they are unlikely to change their priority on the scale unless they become a member of the Straw Hat Pirates or the mangika or anime decides to make a little-known/used character more important. Thus there would be more long-term stability in the classification rank of the characters because that is far more rare in this manga than characters switching sides. じん    ない   05:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea. I'm not saying that I endorse the idea, but I could see it working.  Could you expand on that a bit more?  --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 06:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well let's put it this way. First of all, we can say that the protagonists would by default of their status be primary or principal characters because the story follows their adventure (with a few select exceptions, such as some Buggy the Clown episodes in the anime). Thus their relative air-time as a whole is going to be proportiantly larger than the rest. It is unlikely, but not impossible, that anyone else would be listed here unless their becomes an ongoing known primary antagonist, or group of antagonists. One notable exception might be Vivi due to her role as a crew member during multiple arcs. Secondary, or supporting, characters would constitute mostly the main antagonists for each longer arcs, in some cases some of the secondary ones like Tashigi or Mr. 2 Bon Clay, etc as well as major allies and a lot of reoccuring notable characters like Shanks. Tertiary, or other notable characters (specifically avoiding minor because of it's conotation) would be lesser antagonists that are still might be notable, characters that are brought back now and again throughout the story like Monkey D. Garp, or arc-specific notable characters like Hatchan. じん    ない   02:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)