Talk:Charlotte Decuplets

Delete
There's no reason why this article exists if no other multibirth ones do. SeaTerror (talk) 22:12, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

They were introduced as a group in an infobox so the group should have a page just like any other group. If another multiple birth is introduced as a group, they will have a page as well. Rhavkin (talk) 22:17, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

They were given an infobox with a group name. I don't see why this should be deleted. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 22:36, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

What Kaido and Rhavkin said. It should stay. 23:47, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Roranoa, Kaido, and Rhavkin. Until each of these eighteen year olds get individual identities, which may or may not happen, this is the best we have.Observer Supreme 23:54, February 8, 2018 (UTC)

Keep it. They were introduced under that name. Could we eventually get their real names in a databook or sbs? Sure, but we'd never make separate pages for them or make the title a list of all their individual names. 01:21, February 9, 2018 (UTC)

If we do keep it, it should be "Dectuplets". It's spelled wrong as is. 06:27, February 11, 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure about the spelling, DP? Merriam-Webster has an entry for "decuplet", but not "dectuplet".
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 06:42, February 11, 2018 (UTC)

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&filter=dictionary&query=Dectuplets Not a real word apparently. SeaTerror (talk) 15:42, February 11, 2018 (UTC)

No, decuplet isn't a word that's entered the lexicon, but that's more because no woman in real life has given birth to ten living babies at once. It is still the word that's used when referring to such a situation. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 18:40, February 11, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the deletion, "decuplet" is no group name, no more then "twins" or "triplets". I don't understand why did you think that it was a group just because it was written in a box... If we see a box saying "twins" or "triplets" with the names under it, we wouldn't create the group, would we? So why this case is different? It's obvious to ne that Oda didn't add the names for a lack of space... In fact in another box in the same page there was written "etc".

I meant DP's spelling, Kaido. SeaTerror (talk) 19:51, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Decuplets is a unique group name though because there's only one set of them in the Charlotte Family, unlike twins or triplets. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 20:12, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

But that's only a coincidence... if we follow this kind of reasoning, then we should create the group of "sons" and the one of "daughters", since they are obviously unique to the family too. My point is, that we are trying to pass a common name for a proper name as if it was an association or a rank. The only reason we are discussing this is because we don't know their individual names. The moment we will, then this page will also serve no purpose.

I'm not so sure this page would be split if we ever get these names. They are only really distinguishable in their appearance, personality, and actions if you split them by gender. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 20:46, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Maybe not even then. We have group pages, and pages for group members, and they are identified as a group, so even if we do get individuals names, there is no reason to delete a group page that has been identified as a group in an infobox. Rhavkin (talk) 21:03, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Keep the page. Even if they're named, I doubt we could do individual pages and having 10 names in the page title would be insane. Charlotte Decuplets works. 21:20, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

Even if we do get their names, there's no need for 10 separate pages if their differences could be explained in a few short sentences. I doubt we'll get much more than that. Isn't this similar the Medaka Mermaid Quintuplets?
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 22:55, February 12, 2018 (UTC)

It all comes down how do we want to deal with merged topics then. Iirc we had a discussion about that a while ago, but I cannot remember it.

We decided that pages can only be split if they have different enough sections, like History or Abilities and Powers (refer to the Four Wise Men from Movie 5), or different categories (like Abdullah and Jeet and Mummy Mee and Daddy Dee). However, those require separate names. In this case, despite having different categories, Male Characters and Female Characters, this group has only one name so far and would likely never be split due to such little deviation in sections, like the Medaka Quintuplets mentioned earlier. I split a few pages after the last discussions, so I can answer any questions y'all have on that. 18:01, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

That's a good precedent, Kaizoku-Hime. I forgot about those mermaids. This is essentially the same situation then. 18:17, February 13, 2018 (UTC)

Except that they don't have a common history, have different categories, appearance and I bet once we will see more of them we will see little differences in personality and powers too.

If they deviate THAT much, then yeah, we'll split. But let's not make assumptions just yet. Yes, half are male and half are female, and one of the guys is taller and more muscular. However, the discussion for now is not whether or not to split the page. We don't have names, and we haven't gotten most of what you're talking about, Levi. The issue is about the page staying or not, and with the precedent established by the Medaka Quintuplets, I say keep it. 02:40, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

So this discussion comes down to if we get separates names. and if there is difference in personalities, but at the end of the day, they still got a group infobox. Appearance wise, the boys different color hats are only in the anime, and the girls hair might be like Mozu and Kiwi, who still have one page. Even if we do get the names and they have different personalities, why should this page be deleted and remain like other group pages? Rhavkin (talk) 06:52, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

I still think that this is not a group at all because that's not what the infobox was trying to say (and I wouldn't mind to separate and delete the medaka page either if we want to be consistent), but since it seems I'm in the minority, that's fine. However if the criteria to separate is having different sections, then this page has to be separeted eventually, because the are bound to be differences for every section and just imagine listing this differences for 10 different characters each character. Last chapter was also literally the first time we saw them together, so the history is already very different.

Levi is right about that actually. It was not an infobox introduction. SeaTerror (talk) 17:21, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

How about we just wait until we get something on them before separating this article. It probably wouldn't be much different from differentiating Joscarpone from Mascarpone, or something, right?Observer Supreme 17:42, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

In order to separate the characters, we first need their names anyway hence we will probably have to wait a while, probably a sbs or even a databook. The only thing we can decide now is if we should keep it, which it seems it's what the majority wants.

Clear majority to keep the page Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 21:02, February 14, 2018 (UTC)

Real colors?
https://boards.fireden.net/a/thread/178014147/#178042051

Does anyone know anything about this image, or the other ones posted right before it? The poster claims "Oda played a game with his editor and drew these" but I've never seen them anywhere else. Has anyone ever seen them up on Twitter or APForums or elsewhere? 66.87.125.157 22:45, September 30, 2018 (UTC)

They were created by a twitter user, not Oda. They're formatted as letters to the SBS. 12:49, October 1, 2018 (UTC)