Talk:List of One Piece characters

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)

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)

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)

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. {{Justyn (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2008 (UTC)}}

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#Devil Fruits 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. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|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)

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)

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)

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."[1] And an argument is a "process of reasoning."[2] 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)

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)