Talk:Dressrosa Saga

Are these info reliable?

I agree. We need footnotes. If this is not reliable, we should expect to change the name of this article depending on what the saga focuses on much like how the Whitebeard War Saga was originally refered as the Red Line Saga. (68.36.166.78 00:09, October 7, 2010 (UTC))

It will obviously change, since when they entered the Grand Line, it wasn't the Grand Line Saga. GMTails 21:26, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think we should keep it at New World Saga for now and see how things play out, then we can forge a new name. (68.36.166.78 11:14, November 2, 2010 (UTC))

Red Line Saga?
This name seems way more fitting then New World Saga, since the story occurs around the Red Line and if it was named NWS, it would be less fitting since everything happening in the New World would be part of this particular saga. I call Red Line saga~!

If you might think voting is neccesary, lets do so:

Yountoryuu 12:33, May 16, 2011 (UTC)

Why are there 5 choices and 3 are blank?

Anyways, I'll put up a list of my ideas and put in pros and cons

Fishman Island Saga: 

Pros: Similar what we did with Skypiea

Cons: A little early to say the WHOLE thing will take place at Fishman Island

Straw Hat's Return Saga: 

Pros: So far, shows their prgression

Cons: A little early to say the WHOLE thing

Red Line Saga:

Pros: Sabaody Archipelao, Fishman Island, and where ever they're going to go after if it's the same adventure, are on/ near the Red Line.

Cons: Same as before

74.105.224.17 00:10, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the name should be changed, since there would be several hundred chapters in one saga in that case. Red Line doesn't really work, unless they go to Mariejois right after FI. I think we should wait for the next arc to determine the proper course of action. For all we know, Fishman Island might last long enough to be considered its own saga. 00:17, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's New World Saga; take a look at the end of Oda's message on SBS 61. 00:45, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if Oda was refering to saga the way we do. If that's so, then there are about 150 chapters of One Piece once they arrive at the New World, and he said it is half over. Let's wait and see. 01:01, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Oda stated chapter 1-597 is Rookie Saga and 598- is New World Saga. --Klobis 11:10, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but those two "sagas" are actually maxi-sagas, basically the two halves of One Piece, but we don't treat chapter 1-597 as one saga, so the name "New World Saga" is a bit too "big" since we will have other sagas after this one still taking place in the new world. It's like naming the baroque works saga "grand line saga". I personally like better something like "Entering of the New World Saga" or something along those lines.

We decided to wait and a bit longer and see how things pan out in this forum. My opinion is that it would be best to wait until j-onepiece.com (the official Japanese site) has an entry for the newest saga, since they basically correspond to ours (with the exception that Thriller Bark is designated a separate saga to the rest of the war, which is probably a more sensible approach anyway). 16:38, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

Name
Are you sure this name is good?


 * See previous section and the ongoing discussion Forum:"New_World"_Saga_an_Unfitting_Name. sff9 (talk) 08:11, May 27, 2011 (UTC)

Name change
So is the name gonna be changed or not?

I believe the saga should remain as the New World Saga, because its not just about the Straw Hats entering into the New World, but also refering to how the world has changed over the last two years, becoming a "new world". i suspect that it will stay as the New World Saga anyways, but that's what i'm thinking.

It is just a tentative title until we get the overarching plot beyond Punk Hazard. Once we know that, we'll change it appropriately. 20:49, October 29, 2012 (UTC)

At this point, the name of the saga should definitely be "Pirate Alliance" saga. We're two years into the saga, and this is the best bet we've got on what's going on. It's better than just leaving this "conjectural" article. 15:40, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

I think Oda previously said New World Saga, but I agree. After the newest chapter, Law's speech pretty much yells "Pirate Alliance". 15:49, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

That was just Oda naming the two halfs of the series. It said the first half was Super Rookies Saga, and then from then on New World Saga. It's not the same way we classify it. 16:07, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

It should remain named has New World Saga it sounds the best and where did you guys get this "Super Rookie Saga" name from i mean if its just because of Law's speech just rly. User:X-RAPTOR 22:34, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

If we left it as "New World Saga", then the entire second half of the series would be this one saga. The saga is obviously about an alliance between pirates, and therefore is a suitable name. 22:35, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well yeah..but shouldnt we wait before this,theres prbly bigger and more important stuff up ahead we dont know what comes up in the next arcs,so lets wait since there is no problem with it being named New World Saga. User:X-RAPTOR 22:41, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

We know that an alliance has been formed between the supernovas. Therefore Pirate Alliance saga is a better name than Second half of the ocean saga. 22:45, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Can't we call it "New World Entrance Saga" or "New World Challenge Saga" as reference to the first anime season of GL (Grand Line Entrance Saga) or to the One Piece Green sagas suddivision (Grand Line Challenge Saga)? Rayleigh92 (talk) 22:49, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Well they're already in the New World, and those other two names sound like they'd last the whole second half as well. Pirate Alliance is honestly the best option. I'd also like to throw out how I believe Return and FI are a saga of their own. The goal of those two arcs is getting to and dealing with the conflict at FI, while the PH arc is suggesting new things altogether. 22:56, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should try and separate PH from Return to Sabaody and F.Island and make Return to Sabaody and FI a saga itself then we could  prupose the Super Rookie Saga for PH and the coming arc.User:X-RAPTOR 22:58, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

X... The Super Rookies Saga is what oda called the first 597 chapters. That name is not related to this saga at all. 23:01, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Pirate Alliance sounds good. (also fuck you gal c:) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) (talk) 23:04, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

Since this has to do with an organization, I say we wait until we know a bit more about Doflamingo's operation, particularly its name, and then call it that. It's like what we did for the CP9 Saga. 23:35, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, as a newcomer or outsider of this community, I say that Return to Sabaody & FI definitely is written in the same style as Jaya & Skypiea, so im voting that to be excluded from the current saga and it's own "Fishman Island Saga", both in terms of chapters and (anime) episodes, it's long enough to stand on its own.

We know way too little about the current saga to properly name it. It seems like Oda's doing a Arabasta style saga with many smaller arcs leading up to the big boss (in this case probably Doflamingo). So let's wait before we know what Dressrosa is all about. (Dressrosa Saga might actually be what it ends up being called, but who knows, right?). leave it like it is for now is my vote... .... edit: woops, forgot to sign in. huhuh

/ plato Widsoal (talk) 03:19, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

"Smaller arcs". Yeah ok. Fishman Island is the fourth longest arc in the manga to date. I agree with the AWC. FI and Return should be their own saga and then we call PH forward the "tentative" New World Saga. 03:43, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Punk Hazard, not Fishman Island as a shorter arc. But yeah, it seems like you agree with what I said. Widsoal (talk) 04:06, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

This isn't a bad idea. Fishman Island doesn't really fit under New World, since it's under the Red Line, and since it is certainly long enough, we could do it. 04:11, December 5, 2012 (UTC)

Anybody want to add to this? 11:20, December 9, 2012 (UTC)

I wish I could, I'm not comfortable enough with how everything works here to do something as major as this. Templates and tables and what-not. Someone with more experience should do it. I'm merely a think-tank for now.

sorry Widsoal (talk) 17:33, December 12, 2012 (UTC)

Bump. 20:05, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Ahmagad. My dream come true. So many people think like I do here. I can fix the Fishman Island saga article since many seems to agree on that point? Also, we shouldn't name PH-> just yet, it's still lots of mysteries unsolved. Like what Doflamingo actually does, what his organizations are, his true power, what yonko the alliance are going to kill etc. etc. Just leave it like this for now.

Go ahead m8, no-one has complained so far, so it's probably a sign of "go!" Widsoal (talk) 15:20, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

Me and gal already fixed it yesterday.

Don't jump the gun yet, Sewil. It's too early to assume that Return to Sabaody and Fishman Island are their own separate saga. Fishman Island still has a lot of ties to this current saga (Jinbe, Big Mom, Tamago and Pekoms, Caribou). I changed everything back. For now, let's wait and see how the next chain of events set up. 99.106.137.51 00:23, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

It was decided to be this. There have been no complaints on it, and it's useless to wait for it to happen. Nobody complained. If you didn't like this, you should have said something. You're probably right. I actually agree with you, Fishman Island might link to Punk Hazard in the same saga. But we don't know this yet. It's tentative anyways, so we might as well go with the one we agree on. We might change it later. 00:28, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then. But I do still think it's best to wait a while longer. Sorry for the hassle. 99.106.137.51 00:45, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

No worries. We'll change it if the connection becomes big, but for now, we'll just settle on one arc being complete. 06:14, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

Divide the 2 Parts
Since it has been anounced the One Piece is divided into 2 halfs and Oda said the first was called Super Rookies and that the 2nd was called The Sea of Survival i think they should have pages, the series as a whole is divided into 2 parts, each part is divided into sagas and each saga is divided into story arcs Adriano1995 (talk) 00:58, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

New Name Change
With the Straw Hats now going to Dressrosa (I'd say it's safe to call the next arc the Dressrosa arc for the time being unless they end up sidetracked), it's apparent that, like CP9 and Baroque Works, these arcs will have an overarching thread: shutting down Smile production. Therefore, I believe calling the saga the "Smile Saga" would make for more sense, and would be more specific than "New World Saga". The Pope 19:10, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Saga should be called the Pirate Alliance saga. It's obvious enough. 21:20, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think they're both awesome enough, however how do we decide it? Do we open forum for users to vote or what? So that the rest of the community can give away their own opinion's. WonderfulUnicorn (talk) 21:25, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Nah. This is mainly a talk page thing. If nobody strongly objects, it gets changed. 21:37, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

I think we should all take a chill-pill and wait for at least one more arc. We shouldn't be so hasty. So far all we've gotten are hints and we could be using a much better name in the next 50 chapters, who knows, right now, I don't think "Pirate Alliance Saga" is that relative to the situation, I mean yes, Law's and Luffy's goals are indeed to defeat the Yonko, but it seems like something much more relevant will happen soon which will give us the proper name for this saga (Like, the troubles of Kin'emon and mysteries of Wano Country), let's just wait.
 * Ok, fine with me WonderfulUnicorn (talk) 21:43, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

The saga is obviously revolving around the alliance. That is the MAIN IDEA. 21:59, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

Why are you in such a hurry… Wait and see.


 * Whatever the case, "New World Saga" is a bad name. Might as well call everything from Baroque Works to Marineford the "Grand Line" saga. They're going to be in the New World for the rest of the series; calling this the "New World Saga" is, well, dumb. Either "Smile Saga" or "Pirate Alliance Saga" is fine with me. The Pope 22:43, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing to wait for. We know the alliance is happening, therefore the saga name should reflect it. 22:48, February 5, 2013 (UTC)

So...we going to do this or not? The Pope 15:33, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Even if it turns out "Pirate Alliance Arc" is an unfit name, we can just change it again. Why is keeping it as "New World" better than keeping it as "Pirate Alliance"? 15:42, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

What should the name of the current Saga be? New World Saga Smile Saga SAD Saga Pirate Alliance Saga Any of the above except New World Saga Something Else Any of the above (I don't care)

There. Try to get as many people on here to vote as possible, and let' settle this. The Pope 15:48, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Terrible poll format. With this, we can't determine who votes and who doesn't. Some random anon could walk in and vote, not to mention people with multiple accounts. 16:04, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Point taken.

All right, how about this then? I'm going to put down each of the options, and each of us will sign under whichever names we favor (you can sign as many names as you want). If you have a new name, feel free to also submit it in the same form that the others are in.The Pope 16:09, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

The poll should probably have it so that you can only vote once or twice. 17:20, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Poll
The poll is now closed. The name will be changed to Pirate Alliance Saga.

New World Saga Smile Saga SAD Saga Pirate Alliance Saga
 * 1)   Apoelpaoole APO 19:16, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The Pope 23:54, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Besty17 (talk) 17:21, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The Pope 23:54, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The Pope 23:54, February 8, 2013 (UTC)
 * 2)  17:19, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 3)  17:28, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Staw-Hat Luffy (talk) 18:35, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 5)  20:05, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 21:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 21:08, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 21:25, February 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * 00:58, February 9, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Memnarc (talk) 02:34, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Memnarc (talk) 02:34, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Poll Discussion
Two weeks on the poll? That's a bit much, isn't it? The Pope 17:47, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

My opinion is 1 week max, since the people who is voting has probably all voted in a week's time, and then we just have to wait an extra week for nothing... WonderfulUnicorn (talk) 17:51, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Poll is too soon. Wait a bit like what was already mentioned. SeaTerror (talk) 18:31, February 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * "Too soon"? We're already like a year into the damn thing. The Pope 19:59, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Just ignore ST. 21:06, February 7, 2013 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I think 2-3 days max is all we need on this; the final result is looking to be pretty clear. The Pope 21:11, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

You can change it. Polls don't have a set length on talk pages. 21:13, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Just drop it to a week. That should be more than enough. 21:14, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Ignore Galaxy. He's still the only one that thinks poll rules only apply to forums. SeaTerror (talk) 21:15, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

If that were the case, Forum:Poll Rules wouldn't exist. Please learn to comprehend basic ideas. 21:20, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah DP, a week would be fine. 21:21, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

Umm, why has "The Pope" voted thrice? 21:25, February 7, 2013 (UTC)

I removed his votes so he can revote. 17:26, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

Uh, I stated from the start that you could vote as many times as you wanted. The Pope 23:53, February 8, 2013 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that Pirate Alliance Saga is a more fitting name than New World Saga at this point. In the past, sagas have usually been named for a location (i.e. Skypeia, Fishman Island, East Blue) or the primary antagonists (i.e. CP9 or Baroque Works). While the Whitebeard War Saga is an exception to this, as it does not take place in one definieable area, nor does it have a single antagonist group. Personally, I believe that the central antagonists will probably be Donflamingo and/or Kaido and that we may need to reexamine the name further on. That being said, New World Saga, while it might be a good name for the second half of One Piece overall, clearly doesn't apply anymore. Memnarc (talk) 02:42, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Then what about calling it Underworld Saga or Broker Saga in that case, because everyone of the "main" antagonists so far in the Saga are all underworld brokers, and it's mostly from there the "big" people do their business and stuff, and the most important of investigation between Kaido and Doflamingo happens there. Not that I have something against the names you guys have come up with anyway, it's just another view of the case, and that as far as I have seen it all of the guys who have made themselves a name in the New World at least have a connection through that black market. Again this is only my personal thought and if Pirate Alliance Saga or Smile Saga is chosen it's all totally fine with me :P WonderfulUnicorn (talk) 08:52, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

There's no need at all to name it after a villain. The saga is definitely focusing on this alliance to take down Kaido at this point. 08:55, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

The outcome is already decided but we have to wait four more days for the poll to close. 09:05, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

As I said before, this is just my personal opinion, and I think that such a name as Underworld Saga would fit perfectly, because nearly everything from the Saga so far has some kind of connection to the underworld and to the brokers whom is a part of it, except as you/Gal pointed out about the most important thing in my opinion, which is the pirate alliance, and i agree with you on that. WonderfulUnicorn (talk) 09:26, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I know it's up to the vote, but I really don't think we should call this saga the "Pirate Alliance Saga". As Law said in the beginning of chapter 697, both he and Luffy want to bit all of the four Yonko, not just Kaido, and I belive that it will take more then one arc, possibly until the end of the series. We still don't know if the alliance will last for one saga, two sagas or more, so it's not a good name to call the first saga in the alliance "Pirate Alliance Saga", because that name might even apply to the entire series. I know it's up to the vote and as I see it now "Pirate Alliance Saga" will be chosen, but I think you should reconsider because I think you are making a mistake. Strawhat1 (talk) 14:17, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I think we can call this saga "Kaido of the Beasts Saga", but right now we don't really know where this saga is going to or if they will actually fight Kaido. So I think we shouldn't give this saga a name just yet... Strawhat1 (talk) 14:22, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

We should name it Pirate aliance saga for now and if it takes more than one saga,we can change the name again. -- 14:27, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Why don't you vote SH1? 14:29, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

"Pirate Alliance Saga"? Isn't that a little too early to make this decision? The alliance has only just begun and who knows if it'll even hold for long. Therefore, I don't believe it's an appropriate name to give the Saga, definitely not now at least (same goes with "Smile/SAD Saga"). "New World Saga" is the only name that currently seems to fit even though it seems rather plain and simple. 22:03, February 11, 2013 (UTC)

As I said before we can change the name later. 14:40, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we should name it "Pirate Alliance Saga" after Law clearly said that this alliance will last for more then one saga. We already have a tentative name for this saga, I don't think we need another one... I didn't vote just yet because I don't like the name "New World Saga" from the same reasons I don't like the name "Pirate Alliance Saga". As for the Smile and the SAD Saga, I think those names are a bit too dull to be the names of a saga. I think we should name this saga "Kaido of the Beasts Saga", but then again we still don't know if they will be fighting him in this saga. So, because it's too earlly to tell, I don't think we should name this saga just yet, and even if "Pirate Alliance Saga" is only a tentative name for now, I think it's a mistake to name it this way. I don't think we should change the name all the time when it's too early for all of them. We should just wait, and name it when we know what this saga is about. Strawhat1 (talk) 14:46, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I believe we should name it Pirate aliance saga for now because I don't think the other names are suitable: So this is the best choise we can make right now. 16:42, February 10, 2013 (UTC)
 * Smile Saga: The saga is not focused there.Morover If we name this saga smile saga,we have to name the Baroque works saga to Dance powder saga
 * Sad Saga: same as above
 * New World saga: Many sagas will take place in New world

What about my options then? "Underworld Saga" or "Brokers Saga"? For me, they both seem to fit in everything in the Saga so far, except for the whole "alliance-thing". WonderfulUnicorn (talk) 16:49, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

Well calling the saga brokers saga sounds good and i find it suitable for this saga,but unfortunately the poll will decide. 17:10, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I would like to jump into this conversation, if you don't mind. First off, I have been monitoring this conversation for awhile now and I would like to put my two cents into this conversation, if you don't mind. I'm going to break down all possibilities:
 * New World Saga: This is an obvious name for the saga because the Straw Hats are sailing through it. There will be many sagas just like with the Rookie Saga.
 * Smile Saga: We have to look at this like the Whitebeard War Saga. The arcs complied into there lead to the war. The current arc is leading to the destruction of the Smile.
 * SAD Saga: Same deal as above.
 * Pirate Alliance Saga: This seems like a likely saga name because of the nature of how One Piece functions. BUt in all honesty, I think this is also the less likely as the "alliance" between Law and the Straw Hats could go sour at any moment and Law could go rouge.

I just wanted to throw in my two cents. --KiumaruHamachi (talk) 17:51, February 10, 2013 (UTC)KiumaruHamachi

Well I don't relly prefer the name pirate aliance saga but i think this is the best option.Also I believe that this saga doesn't lead to the destruction of the smiles but to kaido's defeat.However,there might occure other events that have nothing to do with kaido's defeat.An exemple is whitebeard war saga that seemed to end with the strawhats entering the new world but the events of sabaody lead to arcs that were inconcivable for us at the beggining of the saga.So i suggest we name the saga pirate aliance saga and if something happens,we rename it. 18:01, February 10, 2013 (UTC)


 * Still not convinced but I guess, for now, we will have to go with Pirate Alliance Saga. --KiumaruHamachi (talk) 19:13, February 10, 2013 (UTC)KiumaruHamachi

I believe we've reached a consensus. The Pope 20:50, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Poll closes in 1h30 and the result is obvious,great 14:41, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

So, we good? The Pope 15:33, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'm trying to help with the name
Just talking, but i think the name should be "Kaido Takedown Saga", as that's the main point of it. Just a suggestion. 201.70.126.65 03:50, January 6, 2014 (UTC)

Saga Split
I believe once the Zou arc ends, we may need to split the Saga, else it may be too large. Perhaps making Punk Hazard Arc and Dressrosa Arc into the Donquixote Pirates Saga, with Zou and the following arc into a different one, especially, if Luffy splits from the crew at the end, like it's indicating. (Shadoguardian (talk) 08:51, February 16, 2016 (UTC))

We may very well have to, but let's wait for now and see how things play out. Maybe his crew will go with him. You never know. 09:31, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

I feel we should make Punk Hazard and Dressrosa the "Joker Saga" or "Donquixote Saga" or something like that. Sure, there are many elements that have strong connections to future arcs, but Doflamingo is what nicely ties both of them, and Zou truly feels like a beginning of a new chapter involiving the fight with yonko. 89.68.209.194 12:39, March 28, 2016 (UTC)hippo

New Saga "Vs. Yonko" announced on Shonen Jump
This: http://orojackson.com/attachments/vsfouremperors-jpg.12152/

The "Vs. Yonko" Saga begins with Chapter 821, literally in the middle of the Zou Arc.

Good Luck figuring this mess out.

P.S.: I think making Punk Hazard-Dressrosa as a Donquixote Saga is absolutely necessary at this point.

83.63.155.253 13:33, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and some translations quote this as a "New Arc" and not a new Saga.

Yep. Good luck.

83.63.155.253 13:37, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't say arc/saga anywhere on that page (I have the big version). And you need to look at context - the next issue is out on 4/4/2016, so the theme is '4', which is just being represented by the big four enemies Luffy is facing in the future.

Doesn't mean it shouldn't be the saga name eventually, just wait for a proper source/story development. 107.6.117.181 13:55, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I can't find the Kanji for Arc/Saga on the page. Do you have a translation of what's on it anywhere?

83.63.155.253 14:16, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

Yep, pretty much confirmed that it was all a hoax/mistranslation from animenewsnetwork. The page simply hypes up the upcoming Yonko fights and unrelated One Piece announcements.

Guess the curse of mangapanda never dies

83.63.155.253 14:34, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

Actually (it's me/107.6.117.181 again), seems like it was referring to this page:

https://imgur.com/c7jK9XX

which actually does say VS Yonko Arc/Saga (VS四皇編) on the right side. 167.160.116.58 14:40, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

Wait, so is an actual VS yonko saga coming up????

Is this genuinely a new saga?

83.63.155.253 15:04, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not the name of the current saga? The most recent saga names aren't actually accurate, right? (Shadoguardian (talk) 15:50, March 28, 2016 (UTC))

The column says "They finally clash! This is the start of the "VS. Yonkou Saga"!! Don't miss out the curtain's rise of a new legend!!"

"start" means that it's the new one

However we need to keep in mind:

1. This is an announcement by Shonen Jump, not Oda. They've done stuff like "Luffy Vs. Doflamingo. The final fight ensues!" several times

2. Their sagas is not the same as our sagas. Saga could simple be used loosely and mean "the upcoming events in the story". There is no confirmation that this follows the so-called "Pirate Alliance Saga"

83.63.155.253 16:03, March 28, 2016 (UTC)

Guys, guys. Just because an official source has given us a title doesn't mean we need to freak out. I think you should probably read my crash course on arcs and sagas to put things into perspective. I wrote it a month ago, but it's never been more relevant. 04:22, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Just ignore it unless Oda himself uses the title. SeaTerror (talk) 07:04, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Waiting's fine but don't delude yourself; Oda has nothing to do with any of the arc/saga titles. Shueisha/editor is the usual practice. VS Yonko Saga should be the first choice for everything Zou onwards unless something better comes along, rather than another shitty title created by a random user who's definitely not Oda. 104.238.32.67 08:35, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Well it appears to be a saga name and not an arc. Still lets wait and see before we change 'Pirate Alliance Saga' to 'VS. Four Emperors Saga'. And if its that serious a poll might be created (not by me fyi). Dragonquiz (talk) 12:24, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

I agree to wait and see how the story turns out especially since it appears right now the Zou Arc is almost over due to the fact the group is preparing to leave Zou right now even if it still might take more than one week. At least keeping that page for the Vs. Yonko saga from being created right now is the best solution until more proof is confirmed (ex. new chapters leaning towards it, or unless if a retraction article is presented confirming it is a hoax). -Adv193 (talk) 13:39, March 29, 2016 (UTC)
 * On another note I would recommend putting the Story Arcs page under protection to avoid any unnecessary edit conflicts until this mess is sorted out. -Adv193 (talk) 13:45, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Same for me, the "sagas" as we know them are completely different from Oda's "sagas". Really, in the end a saga is simply a unit of measure used by the fans to archive the story.

I personally think that the "VS. Yonko Saga" is simply something made up by a Shonen Jump editor. Basically it would mean something like "Soon our heroes will fight the Yonko in a saga of adventures!", with "saga" being simply a way to refer to the upcoming installments of One Piece.

I say to ignore this for now, however I would still insist on closing the "Pirate Alliance Saga" (and renaming it "Donquixote Saga" or something like that) and starting a new Saga on Zou. Zou has taken a massive turn of different events and it doesn't even look like Kaido's up next.

Oh, and like it's been said, both Saga and Arc share the same kanji (編), so it could be any of the two.

83.50.158.254 14:24, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

None of those should ever be taken serious anyway. They also called Thriller Bark arc and Fishman Island arc sagas which is ridiculous. SeaTerror (talk) 19:53, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

Thriller Bark and Fishman Island are both considered sagas by a) this wiki, b) Oda, c) Shueisha, and d) Toei. I can't actually find a source anywhere that include them as smaller arcs. I think that's just a you thing, ST. 21:08, March 29, 2016 (UTC)

The wiki voted on it and only because Shueisha did it. Oda never did that. SeaTerror (talk) 23:17, March 29, 2016 (UTC)