Talk:Seven Warlords of the Sea

Former section termination?
Should I terminate the "former Shichibukai" section? And mayby the "Replacement" section where we can have one simple section? Any thoughts?

(Joekido 02:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC))


 * Personnely, I would prefer "Dismissed Members" rather then Former... But if one quits on his own accords that would be the wrong word to use. I say leave it alone for now Joekido. It seems fine to me right now. One-Winged Hawk 08:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll leave it that way. It's not my wikia anyway.

(Joekido 09:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Last edit
I have deleted this paragraph:


 * "How a member is chosen to become a memeber is unknown, although a pirates bounty is apparently not huge factor in the choosing as the bounty range with the memebers is huge, ranging from no bounty at all to the highest yet displayed in the series. Also losing a fight with another pirate is not cause for a memeber to lose there position, both Moria and Crocodile lost to Luffy, yet Moria is allowed to keep is position in order to keep the world balance, Crocodile lost his position do his attempted Coup d'état of Alabasta and threating the balance."

It has been already shown how a member is chosen, both during Marejois reunin or recent events about Blackbeard. In Sengoku (or some marine, it was not clear) words "must sacry another pirates". And even, if a pirate must be feared, either the bounty ammount or losing a fight are influences.

00:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that was text left over from wikipedia days. Sorry for the slow reply... I guess though we're still finding the wikipedia problems even now though. --One-Winged Hawk 09:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Revamping the page again
Trying to make this page flow better.

Opinions? :-/ --One-Winged Hawk 09:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

New and final Shichibukai member? Or is it too early yet?
I think we should list the new and last Shichubukai member I don't think that having one day is all that long considering that it's on the eve of the chapter revealing it.


 * Resist the temptation me friend.


 * It should be out within the next 12 hours! ;-) --One-Winged Hawk 05:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fix Boas picture
Please fix the Boa Hancock picture in the Shichibukai picture roster at the bottom. It looks terrible and it needs to be fixed right away.


 * ~Daniel

Not all members have crossed the straw hat crew yet
Jinbei hasn't and doesn't even know about them. And when did Doflamingo ever meet a crew member from that crew? I don't remember him ever seeing any of them. So Doflamingo and Jinbei haven't yet. That needs to be changed.


 * ~Daniel


 * That's why I said "or indirectly", they doesn't really meet each other, but their actions does influence Straw Hats (Jimbei leaving his crew and meeting Doflamingo captain under command Bellamy).


 * ~Ilovefoxes


 * It doesn't matter, the history bit was meant to be written differenty... IT kinda got written wrong. I've corrected it now but it needs references on it. --One-Winged Hawk 16:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Yosaku's Depiction
Do we really need to keep that picture of the Shichibukai from when Yosaku introduced them? We've learnt by now that isn't what they look like. I know there isn't a picture showing all seven at once but it just seems pointless.203.206.245.123 06:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Its the best + most fitting image we have of them that desrcibes the portrayal of them in the OP world, and besides you said it yourself there isn't another picture of the seven. One-Winged Hawk 09:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well,we have an image of FIVE --New Babylon 07:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Trivia removasls
Okay:removed the "enourmous" stature (Crocodile seems fairly normal,plus Hancock and Mihawk dont exactely cut it.It's not exactely so that people cant see it for themselves anyway) bit and "asuming Doflamingo has" (asumptions-we could do the same for Miss Goldenweek before we got an explanation) ,as well as modified the "devil fruit" number part to be more..... comprehensive. --New Babylon 07:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Moria's theme
please stop putting his theme is a bat, other than the one attack name nothing else says that his theme could be bat, it just called that to go with the horror theme of thriller bark--Swg66 00:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of things that point towards Moria's theme being bat. First of all his Brick Bat technique as mentioned, second his collar is reminiscent of bat wings, his teeth are long and pointed (something wich is uncommon in One Piece) just like Vampire Bats, whereas Gecko teeth are so small you can hardly see them. His overal appearance is a nod towards vampires who are associated with Bats. I have just mentioned a couple of things to strenghten my arguement that his theme is bat. What I'd like to hear is what proves his theme is Gecko. His name isn't really a strong arguement as it could point as easily to "Gekkou" wich as stated in the article means moonlight. --Caraccidential


 * The main discussion about Moria's theme is in here. That being said, its not just his name. His Shadow Asgard form looks very reptilian. His neck is more reptilian than mammal. His collar also looks more like a lizard frill than bat wings.Mugiwara Franky 11:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Well it's one thing saying it because of his name but we already went over it before. His Shadow Asgard does not look reptilian AT ALL. Even Stevie Wonder could see that. Drunk Samurai 17:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In response to the name issue: The Gekkou/Moonlight thing is probably just a bit of added punning by Oda. He's always doing that kind of thing. Plus, every Warlod's animal the is in their name except Blackbeard. Mihawk, Doflamingo, Kuma, Crocodile, Boa Hancock, Jimbei. So unless "Moria" refers to some kind of animal then, regardless of how reptilian or not he looks, odds are the gecko is the intended theme. For all we know, it could be nothing more than Oda thought of Gecko first, and horror-themes later.--Sgamer82 23:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Koumori is the Japanese word for "bat". It is in his name.67.168.115.137 06:38, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Seven deadly sins
Boa Hancock = Lust Jimbei = Gluttony Cocodrile = Greed Moria = Sloth Tyrant, Kuma = Wrath Donquixote = Envy Mihawk = Pride --Thenewjericho 00:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah been noted and sho down before. How can Jimbei be greed when aside from his largeness, he has't done much except talk and be punished. One-Winged Hawk 01:17, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It might just be coincidence that some of those fit. There's no other evidence to point to any correlation between Shichibukai and the more western concept of the seven deadly sins, and Donquixote being Envy and Mihawk being pride seem more to be opinion than to be based off of truth. Sephirona 01:42, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No. Just no. Why do idiots always come up with something stupid and try to pass it off as fact? Drunk Samurai

Well, to Oone-winged, LOL and Jimbei is kind of overweight, in one piece there's no coincidences, but maybe you're right Sephirona, Donquixote..I can't tell that because is just speculation, but mihawk fit well in pride.--Thenewjericho 06:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, some sins fits pretty well, but it is a Primary source (see here). It was in the Wikipedia entry on Shichibukai but was removed due to this fact. Greetings 08:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Jinbei's Shichibukai Status
Should we put Jinbei's status as Shichibukai as "former" or something alike? He has now officially forfeited his position, Impel Down guards tried to kill him, and the Marines tried to sink him while he helped three other prisoners to board a ship. Yatanogarasu 17:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant that since Jinbei has now refused to fight Whitebeard and forfeited his Shichibukai position, he is now an enemy to the World Government, and as he opposed the Marines, they retaliate. Therefore, should we classify Jinbei as a "former" Shichibukai, as he is no longer their ally? Also, is the message below meant to be a response for my request? Because I can't seem to connect it to my question. Yatanogarasu 23:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I didn't put my question in its own topic properly, but it was fixed. What I think about Jinbei's Shichibukai status is, though he has now openly rebelled against Impel Down and said he would throw away his title, the removal of his title has not ben official yet. When Jinbei and Crocodile were released, Inazuma said only one was a former Shichibukai (Crocodile) and even the Impel Down Guards on Level 4 called Jinbei a Shichibukai instead of a former Shichibukai like they did with Crocodile. That's just what I think, though. NANLIT 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * His position hasn't yet been officially renounced by a higher authority. A Shichibukai battling against Marines or any similar persons doesn't necessarily instantly mean that their position is forfeited. Take Moria, a good number of his victims were Marines however his position was not forfeited despite the number of eyewitness. In fact, Jinbei had already defied the WG before Impel Down when the war was first announced and his position wasn't officially forfeited then. In any case, Jinbei is still referred in the manga as still being officially a part of the Shichibukai. His membership is just not revoked yet.Mugiwara Franky 15:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As of the latest chapter, Jimbei's pretty much assuming they've stripped him of his title by this point.--Sgamer82 22:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"They are only allowed to attack other pirates."?
Are you sure about this? I mean to me, it seems like the Shichibukai can attack Marines as well. Crocodile tried to kill Smoker and there was no indication that that could cause him to lose his title, a Marine was shown to have had his shadow stolen by Moria, and Hancock petrified Momonga's men and Momonga made no indication that her title was in danger because of that. Not to mention that Kuma said that the Shichibukai do not have to cooperate with the Marines if the World Government is not involved. Like I said earlier, there does not seem to be any indication that the Shichibukai are forbidden to attack Marines. So should the wording there be changed? NANLIT 05:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that as long as it's easy to cover up, they can do just about anything. The only reason Crocodile was banned was because his coup in Arabasta couldn't be. Losing a member would upset the balance of the 3 Powers, so the government would do anything to prevent it, even deception. Kaizoku-Hime 06:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Crocodile and Hancock aren't really good examples for this. At the time, neither Hancock nor Crocodile cared about their title. Crocodile was less than a day or so away from fulfilling his Ultimate Plan by which point he would have lost his title no matter what happened. Hancock was a spoiled brat who acted without being concerned for the consequences. Plus in Hancock's case the situation was dire enough that they would have forgiven anything short of outright betrayal (Like Jimbei and Blackbeard). Hancock's barely-a-whim attack hardly constitutes betrayal, even if it is technically treason. Also, while Kuma's statement that Warlords need not cooperate with the Marines may be true, note he never actually attacked Kizaru or Sentomaru himself. In fact, far as anybody present at the time knew, Kuma was aiding them. --Sgamer82 22:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Blackbeard
Blackbeard was under the command of the 4th division commander of the Whitebeard pirates (Thatch). Not the second division (Ace)


 * Here, here, and here are a few instances where Blackbeard is pointed out to be under Ace.Mugiwara Franky 15:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Size Issue

 * "Of the seven human Shichibukai, four are of normal size (if not roughly): Doflamingo, Hancock, Mihawk, and Crocodile."

There's a slight problem with the above statement. This is what I gather...
 * Average: Mihawk & Hancock
 * In-Between: Crocodile, Doflamingo, Blackbeard,
 * Giantism: Kuma & Moria

...Some people are fighting over whether or not Doflamingo should be in there. From the 524 war-meeting and the 532 color-spread, I'd say he and Blackbeard are about the same size (probably taller if he wasn't bow-legged), but no one's adding Teach. To avoid any edit wars, should we just say that "two are of abnormal size: Moria and Kuma."?
 * Kaizoku-Hime 21:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Careful with the use of 'Giants' as thats not what hether of those two are. They are indeed large sized thugh. I'd go for leaving the size issue off trhe page. One-Winged Hawk 22:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

About Gecko Moria being a non-human Shichibukai.
I saw that a person undid the Trivia fact about Jinbei being a non-human Shichibukai and it honestly made me wonder if Moria is a non-human Shichibukai as well? I know this not a forum and I respect that, I was just wondering if anyone knows if Moria is a non-human Shichibukai based on actual fact or proof. The only reason I bring this up is because I saw his picture (Gecko Moria) and it really looks as if he is not a "normal" human, but I'm not saying he is though. Thoughts and opinions are welcomed. Thanks JonTheMan 04:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not a forum. On that note, while Moria may look like he maybe of another race, there has been nothing so far that says he's not human. He's just one of those guys that look weird like Kaku, Yama, Wanze, Iva, and everybody else that Oda's given a weird design.Mugiwara Franky 12:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think what's throwing him off most are the horns . --New Babylon 17:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with New Babylon. Kaku, Yama, Wanze and Iva looks like humans - just very exaggerated humans. All of their physical traits and body parts are the same as real-life humans, and if these traits just were toned much down, they would look nearly as normal as Law, Hancock and such persons. It's possible that Moria's pointed ears and teeth and size is just exaggerated parts as well, but how do you explain his horns? No humans has horns and Moria's unlike Hannyabal whose horns is just an exaggerated brow ridge. 89.249.0.170 19:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * He's probably just someone like Absalom and the cyborgs (Kuma and Franky): humans with modified body parts. Until it's stated otherwise, he'll be classified as 'human'.
 * Kaizoku-Hime 19:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Former Shichibukai
Look at this link at the bonus moment [http://mangahelpers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51956. We need to put some info that there was a schichbukai that got accepted 3 years ago. --138.88.38.228 19:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We know there was an opening but nothing else. Lets wait this one out a little while I guess. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 20:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Shichibukai introduction chapter
My paragraph on that subject has been deleted, may I know the reason ? I found that usefull, since I often make that kind of research and it seems the correct article to put it.

Trivia too much
Can we knock out 50% of the trivia here? Its getting silly long. One-Winged Hawk 13:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right, the section is a bit much, especially for 'trivial' information. We should probably just keep the ones that concern more than one member. Ones that only deal with a single individual (such as Jinbei being the only non-human and Mihawk being the only one with an unknown bounty) should be kept to the said individual's article.
 * Kaizoku-Hime 19:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The Impel Down ones can also be removed; moved to the Impel Down page. At this rate, the trivia will be longer then the rest of the page if we don't hault this madness. One-Winged Hawk 16:14, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Combined Former Bounties
Now that Jinbei has officially become a former Shichibuki, shouldn't the combined former bounties of the Shichibukai be changed from at least 1,286,000,000 to at least 1,036,000,000? 205.152.94.130 18:03, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Main Ship: None
Is there any purpose to have that in the main box? NANLIT 19:46, September 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Not really. In fact, the infobox is more suited for a pirate crew than a group of pirates.Mugiwara Franky 06:58, September 18, 2009 (UTC)

Warlords replacing Shichibukai
Is it correct the change for Warlords? I mean their title is Shichibukai... I was about to revert but I had to ask. Greetings! --Omartron 16:32, September 28, 2009 (UTC) 05:22, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted. Incidentally, the missing images on the "Warlord" version are now available again!--Omartron 16:32, September 28, 2009 (UTC) 05:25, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

It was some douchebag vandal who changed everything. Warlord is never correct. Drunk Samurai 07:53, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Not ness a vandal, there are some who simply love the dub disregarding the Japanese useage and/or don't read rules. One-Winged Hawk 08:43, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

Ok then, it was a good idea revert those editions... By the way, I fixed the link on my sig, that's why you see two dates when you read my posts. --Omartron 16:32, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

They will always be a vandal to me for using English terms for no reason. Reminds me of the Naruto wikia which is absolute crap. Drunk Samurai 16:51, September 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Everyone, quick, get the crosses and torch lights out, DS said the "N" word!


 * (don't take this seriously, 3 weeks of illness and being stuck at home has gotten to me...) One-Winged Hawk 20:15, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Shichibukai numbers

 * 1) Mihawk - title still standing
 * 2) Jinbei - defected to Whitebeard and Luffy, personally quit his title
 * 3) Crocodile - title officially revoked via Tashigi
 * 4) Doflamingo - title still standing
 * 5) Kuma - title still standing
 * 6) Moria - title unofficialy revoked via doflamingo114.72.197.208 07:23, December 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * 7) Hancock - protected Luffy, title not officially revoked yet
 * 8) Teach - invaded Impel Down, title not officially revoked yet as WG is busy

Basic listing of Shichibukai status due to edit war by Buh and other editor. Jinbei personally stated his resignation to Sengoku. Hancock protected Luffy however her status has not been officially been revoked. It may not be revoked depending on how the rest of the arc will play out. Teach's status for sure is in jeopardy, however like Hancock has not yet been officially revoked.Mugiwara Franky 11:44, October 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no disagreements with this, this seems all logical to me anyway. Their not offically sacked until they or the gov. say they are. This sort of dispute has happened "sort of" once with Moria and look, there he is still a Shichibukai. One-Winged Hawk 11:52, October 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because they haven't had their title revoked doesn't mean that they aren't defecting. In the cases of Crocodile and Moria, their actions that caused (or almost caused in Moria's case) revocation of their title was being defeated, not willingly turning against the World Government. In the cases of Jinbei, Blackbeard, and Hancock, though, while their titles may not have been revoked as of yet, they have most definitely defected from the Shichibukai. Whether they keep their title is yet to be seen, but that doesn't change the fact that they made the conscious decision to turn against the Shichibukai. Buh6173 04:43, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * We had a simulair argument with Franky joining and Usopp rejoining the SH crew. Listen, until it happens, it shouldn't be on the page. For two weeks prior their joining we had edit wars over people putting them back in. Until it happens, its incorrect. This is all I'm going to say further on the matter. One-Winged Hawk 08:10, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with having no statement that they have left the Shichibukai. However, like I said, even if they haven't left the Shichibukai, the fact stands that they defected. Buh6173 13:13, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no argument that some of them have indeed been doing actions that merit defection. However, in this time of epic war, anything can happen. From what I've been seeing in some places, affiliations go ring around with the characters. In any case, only two Shichibukai are in trouble of being called defectors. Jinbei, who has outright stated it, and Teach, who we have no idea of his master plans.Mugiwara Franky 15:23, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

Just stop it, your the only one who wants this way, jinbei and crocdile are the only ones who have lost there titil. Hancock and Blackbeard have't lost there titles, None of them re really Loyal to begin with Moria and Hancock attacked a bunch of marines and they weren't considered traitors, your just jumping the gun don't put that there no longer memebers until it's offically confirmed--Swg66 21:24, October 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, Swg66, you're making yourself look like an idiot. But that's aside the point. Making marines attack each other and joining the opposing force of the marines are two completely different things. Now if it was just Hancock attacking some marines, that'd be one thing, but she has stated outright that she will not let anyone hurt Luffy and that she'll protect him. Defecting just means taking action against the World Government and refusing to live up to their title of Shichibukai, which entails what Teach and Hancock have done. It has yet to be seen if they will get their titles revoked, but they defected, that's that, so stop reverting it. Buh6173 05:52, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Look, I've been watching this page getting changed again and again. We have to settle this once and for all. Do we have to start locking this page due to editing war or ban users for stubbornness? No offense meant, by the way. Yatanogarasu 23:06, October 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * First, Hancock may have declared her love for Luffy, but the WG did NOT officially revoked her position, nor did she officially resign.
 * Blackbeard also did not resign (Laffitte even mentioned that Blackbeard finally got his desired position in Chapter 544 page 3, so it is highly unlikely he would consider, let alone officially, resigned). The WG also did not officially revoke him.
 * Until it is official (e.g., Smoker says Hancock is out of the group, like Tashigi did with Crocodile), PLEASE don't say they are FORMER members or that they defected or whatnot. I mean, Jinbei was not recorded to be revoked nor resigned until he made his official announcement to Sengoku.
 * Notice the official. If it is not official, we shouldn't say so!
 * Oh, by the way, Buh6173, you shouldn't call Swg66 an idiot in the comment above.

How do i look like the idiot here? on the point at hand to defect means "to abandon a position or association, often to join an opposing group" sense they haven't actully abandoned there position as shichibukai they haven't even defected--Swg66 06:23, October 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I wasn't the one who called you the idiot; Buh6173 did. But glad to see you support the fact that Hancock and Blackbeard are not FORMER members. Yatanogarasu 23:37, October 5, 2009 (UTC)

I know it was ment to be addressed at Buh6173, sorry for the confusion--Swg66 06:45, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Okay this is crazy, Buh, don't call others idiot. You can playfully get away with "silly" so long as its not in a hurtful context, but insulting someone goes against the rules. Please can we at least show respect for our fellow editors no matter what our differences of opinions are. One-Winged Hawk 07:46, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, can we end the edit war TODAY and not have one FOR A WEEK. In your efforts to get one over each other regarding this, you failed to notice the categories got deleted. When the page suffers more then just a cycle of edit and undo, then its gone too far! One-Winged Hawk 08:04, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

The terms revocation and defection here are seriously being confused depending on the interpretation.


 * Revocation: This refers to the Shichibukai title. Depending on the situation, the title of a Shichibukai can be officially revoked or not. For Crocodile, his title was revoked because he was causing a major war in a country. For Jinbei, his title was revoked personally by himself. Revocation in this sense, depends on the actions the Shichibukai do. The problem is the degree of the action and how it is viewed. Hancock and Moria have been beating on Marines way long before the war even began. Their stoning and shadow stealing are pretty much just as sever as Croc's and Jinbei's, yet they kept their status then. That being said, Hancock's and Teach's actions are definite candidates for revocation, however no one so far has yet taken away their titles.


 * Defection: This refers to the Shichibukai affiliation. Depending on the situation, the actions a Shichibukai does can be seen as defection or not. For Jinbei, he outright stated his defection. For the others, its a bit harder depending on how the WG and the Marines see their actions. Teach for sure is defecting while Hancock technically unofficially defected the moment the love bug hit her. The problem is that defection based on current events can be viewed as a heinous crime to the WG. Technically defecting in this case would mean your instantly revoking your title. Its unofficial but its still revoking.

Based on current events, its probably best to just simply state whether a Shichibukai has a title or not. Switching sides and defection apparently can be heavily misinterpreted here.Mugiwara Franky 08:23, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly. Not once was the page ever edited to say "Hancock and Blackbeard lost their titles"; it just says that they defected from the Shichibukai. Will they get to keep their titles? Maybe, maybe not. But the fact stands that, at the moment, they are not currently loyal to the World Government. Like I stated above, there's a huge difference between stoning some Marines and reviving them later (mind you that, had she not come with Momonga and revived them, she was bound to get her position revoked) and stealing Marine shadows to fight pirates, and joining the opposing side and fighting against the Marines. I'm not saying that the page should say "they have lost their titles", but it should say that they have defected from the Shichibukai, which they have. Buh6173 14:15, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem however is that the term "defecting" can be misinterpreted here as being synonymous with "revocation" depending on how one views it.Mugiwara Franky 14:48, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

The only one who's really observed Hancock's traitorous actions so far is Smoker, plus if she's enough use elsewhere in the battle they might overlook it, so I could even see her retaining her title fairly easily despite her 'defection'. It's not that she turned against the government, it's that she's protecting one and only one pirate.

Going by the official WG call is the only way to go. ZeroSD 12:46, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Buh6173 go by your interpretaion of defection then Hancock and Blackbeard are still shichibukai, then why do you keep putting it n the picture capation that there no longer in the group? saying that was the group before there defection, from what you say there still in the group so that's inaccurate to your point of view--Swg66 18:10, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Here is the definintion of defction " conscious abandonment of allegiance or duty (ax. to a person, cause, or doctrine) : desertion"--Swg66 18:57, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, best to leave out whether they defected or not due to edit war being caused by it. Swg's definition is technically correct going by grammar common sense.Mugiwara Franky 03:06, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

EDIT WAR ALERT!! This has gone too far! I think we should just lock this page until we can see the actual truth! Yatanogarasu 20:17, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're getting her defecting and her giving up her title confused. It didn't say anywhere on there that they gave up their titles; it just says that they defected, turning against their organization, which they did.

And can you please unlock the page? Keeping it locked that long is downright ridiculous. Buh6173 03:19, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * There is confusion due to basic common sense of how a common person can interpret the definition of "defection". Having it lock that long is enough considering the edit war apparently looked like it lasted just as long.Mugiwara Franky 03:22, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * If you unlock it, I have a solution that I think will appease everyone. Buh6173 03:23, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * State your solution first since unlocking it will just restart the whole process again.Mugiwara Franky 03:25, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just leaving it at Jinbei defecting and stating that it is unknown if Hancock will keep her title. Buh6173 03:26, October 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * No thats still speculation, so is the whole blackbeard "maybe defected" Jinbei defected because he left the Shichibukai to join luffy, Hancock and Blackbeard have not defected beacuse they haven't left there orginization, there behaving no different than the shichibukai normally do, disregarding the maines and just doing what they want, Hancock attacked marines before the war started, Moria was taking there shadows on thriller bark, There just doing what the've been doing the whole time, To defect they need to say there abandoning there titles, so far there just going aganist the marines wishes--Swg66 03:54, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, that's not speculation. Saying "Hancock will probably quit" is speculation. Saying something is unknown is not. And again, if you read any of this page for even a second, you would see that "defect" does not mean leaving the organization; it just means acting against it. And please...please try not to have horrendous spelling. That's one of my worst pet peeves. Buh6173 04:02, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * unfortunalty for you defection does not mean wrking against it means to leave and orginization or group, it usally refers to leaving a country but can be applied to anything considered to be a group or orginization, i'm ot the one who needs to read you are, i've actully provided a dictionary defintion for you but you still refuse to see your mistakes,


 * oh and on my spelling problems, i don't care what or pet peeves are, but for your information i have a form of dyslexia so back the fuck off, when you start aking shots at at me about somthing i can't entirly control thats stepping over the line--Swg66 04:52, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sigh, if you're gonna play it that way...


 * "Defection: desertion: withdrawing support or help despite allegiance or responsibility"


 * I'd say that describes what they've done rather well, don't you? Buh6173 05:03, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

Settle down, you two. I know that we all have troubles here and there, so why not we vote or something? Wait, when did it say that Hancock and Blackbeard actually defected (regardless of the definition on the word "Defection")? Blackbeard did not defect yet, and even though Hancock is protecting Luffy, she did not say: "I'm leaving the Shichibukai" etc. (and remember: no speculations allowed about Hancock would defect until she actually says so). So stop putting them as defectors!! I'm being polite here, but if you people keep this edit war going on, then I may have to start using swear words, and I can tell you, I am very good at them. I mean, don't you have patience to wait for Hancock to make her declaration? Sheesh! We all waited up to Chapter 559 to come out, surely we can wait for future chapters for confirmation. Sheesh!! Yatanogarasu 22:07, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

Even if we go by the desertion defintion over the defection one it shouldn't matter, Jinbei was helping luffy for 20 chapters before he gave up his title and the most it said was he might lose his title, and that's becasue he said so himself, and no i wouldn't say that's what there doing Buh becasue they haven't done withdrawn there support yet, they being insubordinat and proably pissing people off but thats pretty much what all the shichibukai do, there not doing anything differntly than from when the group was introduced--Swg66 05:26, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

People are too quick to add their own interpretations or to say things are "unknown". Say that Hancock attacked Smoker and that Blackbeard broke into Impel Down, then leave it at that. Readers can make their own conclusions. 69.239.101.129 05:31, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

i agree with both of you(Yatanogarasu and 69.239.101.129) thats why i was getting rid if the defection stuff because it's not stated, and it's speculation--Swg66 05:38, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

For the Shichibukai member box, how about we just return the word "former" being put in parentheses and leave out "revoked" or "defected" since people are debating over definitions. There's no debating over the definition of "former" is there? NANLIT 06:12, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm against Buh here, now I likened it to the SHs incident earlier where we had people saying Franky and Usopp were on the crew 2 weeks before Franky joined and Uspp rejoined. Yes, its obivous some Shichibukai have conflicts... But and I stress BUT we cannot forget Moria has since lost once and been spared loss of his title. The Gov. WILL cover up the Shichibukai's actions if need be. To date, the only one they can't is Jinbei's for obivous reasons. If the Shichibukai moves against the Marines BUT the truth of events can be hidden they will. Right now the only lack of faith we have in this is the broadcast in SA, if it appears on screen what the Shichibukai are doing then the whole world will know. One-Winged Hawk 06:52, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

I've been willing to compromise for a while now; I'm just waiting for Mugiwara Franky to unlock the page. Buh6173 15:21, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering how defection can be used, consider this hypothetical situation not based in the One Piece world.


 * During a moment in the cold war, a Russian jumps over the Berlin Wall to the democratic side. He goes to the Americans and starts telling them stuff that would otherwise jeopardize Mother Russia. His status with the Americans is probably no better than his status in his home country. He is nonetheless fully seen collaborating with the Americans. His country calls him a traitor, a betrayer, a democratic pig. People from both sides note down that the Russian has defected to the USA.


 * Because of his defection, certain privileges he had in his home country have become null and void. If he was high ranking soldier, his rank is no longer officially recognized. People may still call him General but he is General only in name. If he had supporters, they most likely abandoned him if his actions go against their ideals. He is no longer seen as an ally but an enemy among his former peers. If he had accounts, they were probably blocked since the government would not like him using the money to fund their enemy. Essentially, his identity that he had in his home country has become a memory.


 * As for unlocking the page, so far there doesn't seem yet to be a consesus.Mugiwara Franky 15:30, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I already said about 10 edits ago that I wasn't going to use the term "defection" in regards to Hancock and Blackbeard until they actually give up their title. I don't know why we're still having this argument. Buh6173 15:43, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Probably because most of the comments before hand looks more like swinging fisticuffs rather than a discussion. Anyone reading it would see it that way.Mugiwara Franky 15:48, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * All right.


 * Though now we're clear with each other.


 * So...can you unlock the page Buh6173 15:49, October 7, 2009 (UTC)?


 * Depends on the rest of the community. If some of the participants, if not all, agree that ample discussion has been achieved. Unlocking the page without at least an agreement to an understanding will only heat things up again.Mugiwara Franky 15:57, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * So...is everyone else okay with this getting unlocked? Buh6173 19:39, October 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * Still waitin... The Pope 18:44, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

it's proably best to keep it locked for now--Swg66 19:21, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Why? I believe we've come to an agreement on what to leave it as. The Pope 20:03, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

what gave you that idea? don't make a habit of assuming that an agreement has been reached--Swg66 22:07, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * As stated above, it will stick as stating that Jinbei has defected, and leave Hancock and Blackbeard for now. I don't know why we're still arguing about this. The Pope 22:09, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Mihawk's image
Shouldn't Mihawk have a better picture in the "Shichibukai Members" gallery? With the other seven you can see the front of their face, but Mihawk's is in profile.--24.255.171.220 16:58, October 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * 3/4 is the best view. I'm not going to argue over it, we take the best suited picture, so if another is uploaded thats fine. One-Winged Hawk 20:08, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Anime or manga version?
For the ones who watched Episode 459, you saw that their pose was diferent from the manga. So wich one would you rather have have? This anime version, or the manga version? GMTails 19:35, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I prefer the manga version but it seems the anime one is more descriptive wrt the heigth. I believe they have done this because Oda revealed them in the SBS :-) Kdom 20:21, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

In my honest opinion I believe that it would look better if we used the anime version, not only we can clearly their heights but they don't look cramped together like in the manga version! MasterDeva 20:58, July 19, 2010 (UTC)

I like seeing thier full bodies clearly and the height comparison, overall I think the anime version is more informative. So, I think we should go with that. --YazzyDream 21:16, July 19, 2010 (UTC) i prefer the anime

Oh wow. What were the animators smoking when they did that? They didn't even try to make it similar to Oda's. Also sign your posts. SeaTerror 18:30, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Page Ruined
Somebody trashed this page, is there any way to revert it back? Evilpuppy123 00:24, August 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * History -> select the version you want -> "undo" -> Tadaa! One-Winged Hawk 12:01, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Former Bounties
What will we do later on if say Oda reveals that Crocodile's or Jimbei's bounty is raised? Will we keep it the same or will we change it to what their current one is? I figured it would be better to address this now instead of waiting in case there are any problems. SeaTerror 02:33, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Truth or assumption
what basis do you have that the age of 31 years is Boa Hancock?


 * She's 29 to begin with (from SBS), and this 2-years timeskip means 29+2 = 31. Yatanogarasu 20:06, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Add Yes I know the question is more how you came to the conclusion that she is 29, type in the manga she does not speak to her age, and when she tells her past she was 12 when a slave, then she goes to the island of the Amazons, when there is the story of it for Luffy was already 11 years that she was empress of course that was not counted the time it arrived on the island until she became Empress. More the question is how do you know their age, even in the manga does not say, I sought other sources, but only thought of you, do not say what is wrong, I not only more, plus several friends have this curiosity, is very specific and very well made content, thank you and excuse anything.
 * Add Yes I know the question is more how you came to the conclusion that she is 29, type in the manga she does not speak to her age, and when she tells her past she was 12 when a slave, then she goes to the island of the Amazons, when there is the story of it for Luffy was already 11 years that she was empress of course that was not counted the time it arrived on the island until she became Empress. More the question is how do you know their age, even in the manga does not say, I sought other sources, but only thought of you, do not say what is wrong, I not only more, plus several friends have this curiosity, is very specific and very well made content, thank you and excuse anything.

The ages and heights of all the shichibukai, both current and former, were revealed in SBS of volume 58. Also, please sign your posts.DancePowderer 01:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why we are talking about a time skip when it doesn't occured yet. The ages shall be modified when that happen. We don't know if next chapter will be in 2 years or if we will see a bit of the training. All the time skip ages shall be removed. Kdom 05:35, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed~  YazzyDream  05:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Seconded, since I myself always prefer waiting... Remember how often Oda's caught his own fandom out? Ace being Dragon's son is one. One-Winged Hawk 12:00, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Organizational malevolence?
"Crocodile and Moria seemed to have gone unsupervised for an extremely long period of time, as both created large, malevolent organizations and the government seemed to be completely unaware."

Crocodile's organization was actually aimed at toppling a member Kingdom of the world government, but Moria's was not, it simply preyed upon whoever came upon it, but especially targeted pirates as is a Shichibukai's job. Furthermore, Kuma knew Thriller Bark's exact location, suggesting the government did know what he was up to, and I'll point out the only marine who we saw with a stolen shadow was a low-rank nobody. It seems to me that unlike with Baroque Works, the government seems to know and tolerated Triller Bark despite it's abductions. At the very least they were not 'completely unaware' unlike BW. ZeroSD 14:13, September 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed the text to mention only Crocodile. Thanks for your help and well put observation. MasterDeva 14:41, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't be a good idea to add anime and manga differences to the Shichibukai index?
Would not It be a good idea to add anime and manga differences to the indexes? Thekindwellmeaningone 01:52, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Kuma x revolutionary x pirate
I did not understand the statement on the article. Why does is it a "mistake" that Shichibukais are said to be formed pirate captains, and Kuma was a revoluionary?

Is there any rule that a pirate can't be a revoluionary (and vice-verse) at the same time? The revolutionaries even use ships, it's no surprise to have pirates along with them.

Also the dude was almost 50 years old, there is enough time for him to had been a lot of things in a lot of different times. Not to say that it's possible that he was already a Shichibukai 10 years ago... he acted in favor of Dragon even in the current time.

23:15, October 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * We have no physical proof that Kuma was ever a pirate. Even though his epithet of "Tyrant" suggests that he might have been a pirate, there is still no solid evidence of that. We do know, however, that he was and still might be a revolutionary. As for the article saying that it is a mistake to think all of the shichibukai are pirates. It was assumed since every shichibukai up until then was shown to be a pirate, that Kuma was also a pirate by extension, just one with an unclear past. Since he was revealed to be a revolutionary with no portrayal of him as a pirate, we put that it is a mistake to think that all shichibukai are pirates, since the only known deviance from Kuma's past stems from being a revolutionary.DancePowderer 23:41, October 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you ask me, one possibility is Kuma forging a reputation as a "Tyrant" pirate and may be part of the Revolutionaries' plan to get Kuma into the Shichibukai in the first place. Yeah, this isn't a forum, but I'm just pointing out a possibility, which may prevent us from changing the fact in multiple edit wars. Yatanogarasu 23:45, October 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Umm, it's been constantly said that they are pirates that allied with the World Government since Yosaku's explanation of them. It's even been answered by Oda in SBS Volume 28 that they are based on real life privateers, pirates who legally work for established governments. Kuma being a revolutionary and a pirate doesn't exactly conflict with one another. Both occupations are generally anti-government in essence. The real mystery however is the revolutionary and working for the government part.Mugiwara Franky 03:42, October 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't see any point in seeing he was not a pirate. The Shichibukai are pirates by definition.


 * There is nothing that contradicts that in the fact that Kuma worked for the revolutionaries. Robin stayed with the Revolutionaries for a while as well, that means she is not a member of the Strawhat Pirates?


 * 04:19, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Overhaul - Change in Name
Ok, with the Release of One Piece Green, it appears everyone is going around and correcting names that we now have official, Databook spellings of. and Dracule Mihawk being prime examples. The book also includes Official translations of most organizations. for example, it actually calls the "Kaigun" the "Marines". We finally have confirmation that wasn't a mistake on Oda's part, he MEANT it to be "Marines". Most of the terms on here are what we already use here, for example;
 * Marines
 * Supernovas
 * Straw Hat Pirates
 * Blackbeard Pirates
 * The World Government
 * The Revolutionary Army
 * The Red Hair Pirates (was "Red-Haired" but was still in English, not Japanese)

Now, Among the same pages as these names, the Book also includes an official translation for "Shichibukai". According to Green, they are officially known as the "Seven Worlds of the Sea". Now, "Worlds" doesn't make much sense, however, the word does appear right where the page separation is. It's possible this was a bit of Engrish, and they intended to put "Warlords", because that would line up with... everything, including the translation of the Japanese... but regardless, we now Have an official English Term from Oda for "Shichibukai".

This makes "Shichibukai" One of the only terms on this wiki to be left in Japanese, and certainly the ONLY name of an organization That does have a name in this Databook that is still left in Japanese. Now with the release of Green, there is no reason for that to continue. I move we do one of the following:
 * 1: Move "Shichibukai" to "The Seven Worlds of The Sea", directly translating what appears in the book.
 * 2: Correct the Engrish and move them to "The Seven Warlords of The Sea", thus making the wikia line up with the translation of the Japanese, the clear intent of the book, as well as every single English version. (Making it all nice and consistent)
 * 3: We move the ENTIRE wikia to a "Japanese-only" listing for EVERYTHING. "Marines" Becomes "Kaigun" every time the word appears on the wiki. The "World Government" becomes the "Sekai Seifu" EVERY time the organization is mentioned. The Pirate crews become the "Mugiwara/Shirohige/Kurohige/Akagimi Kaizokudan" EVERY time a pirate crew is mentioned. The Supernovas become the "Choushinsei", EVERY time they are mentioned. And the Revolutionaries are referred to as the "Kakumeigun", EVERY time they are mentioned. Not to mention that "Monkey D. Luffy" would now have to become "Monki Dii Rufi", "Pootogasu Dii Eesu", "Maashaaru Dii Tiichi", "Edowaado Nyuugeeto", etc etc.

We now HAVE to follow, ONE of these tenants, or the Wiki becomes inconsistent within itself. Either The Wiki Must:
 * 1: Follow English terms and direct translations of the Japanese terms COMPLETELY. (The way normal Wikipedia does it)
 * 2: Follow English terms Oda has given us in the Manga and Databook COMPLETELY, only using Japanese when we have no Oda-given English term to follow. (What the Wiki claims to do now) Or
 * 3: Follow Japanese terms COMPLETELY, as in "Monki Dii Rufi", "Maashaaru Dii Tiichi", Etc etc.

We cannot just pick and choose whatever terms we want to leave in Japanese, and quite frankly, if this page is allowed to stay as "Shichibukai", but Luffy's page is allowed to stay as "Monkey D. Luffy", that would be exactly what you are doing.

The ONLY reason at this point to adhere to "Shichibukai" over "Seven Worlds/Warlords" would be adherence to the Fansubs and Scanlations for the sake of adhering to the Fansubs and Scanlations. And that is blatantly wrong.

My vote would be to either go with "Seven Worlds" or to correct the Engrish and go with "Seven Warlords", but since I have a reputation for preferring official English releases' spellings, and thus a clear bias, I won't pick a side to back here. (I think you all know I would prefer "Warlords") I don't care about which is used, because that isn't what is at debate here. My vote is for EITHER of those two terms to be used here. I leave it up to everyone ELSE to talk about which one.DemonRin 02:52, November 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, it's been almost a week now and nobody has commented. If this goes on for too much longer, I'll assume nobody is contesting this and will move the thread over. If you object, someone please chime in.DemonRin 22:45, November 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, they kept "Yonkou" instead of "Four Emperors", "Nakama" over "Comrade". Keep the Japanese. Yatanogarasu 23:38, November 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is already an ongoing debate on &quot;Nakama&quot; that's been open for a while. But that's not the debate here at all. The fact of the matter is that, This Wikia's current policy is to use Official English terms as-written in the Raw Japanese Manga and Databooks. That's why when Green came out, we saw Gekko Moriah and Dracule Mihawk's pages change. Because an official, Oda-approved English spelling of their names was printed in Green. Up until now, we have had no such thing for the Warlords, now we do. Green lists them as the "Seven Worlds of the Sea" (Engrish, just as it named the "Usopp Pirate Groop", and "Pirates 'are' [Supposed to be "Of"] the New World"). The Four Emperors' title is not translated in Green, so they still do not have an official Oda-approved name.
 * This Wikia MUST stay consistent with its own system. We call Luffy "Monkey D. Luffy" instead of "Monki Dii Rufi" because that's what the Manga and Databooks call him. We call Mihawk "Dracule Mihawk" instead of "Jurakyuuru Mihooku" because that's what was written in Green. We Translate "Seikai Seifu" as "The World Government" instead of leaving it in Japanese because it's written "The World Government" in the databooks, including Green.
 * We Now have the same precedent for the Warlords. They are listed in a Japanese Databook with an English name. For the sake of consistency with this Wiki's own policies, this must be upheld and we need to list them as either the "Seven Worlds of the Sea" or we need to correct the Engrish and list them as the "Seven Warlords of the Sea". The only other option is to switch the wiki over to using Exclusively Japanese names. That means that Luffy must become "Monki Dii Rufi", Usopp must become "Usoppu", Franky Must become "Furanki". Otherwise, this becomes nothing but fan-preference for "what the Fansubs do" dictating the Wikia, and that's not what the aim of the Wikia should be.
 * "Keep the Japanese" is not an option here at all. We have only 3 Options
 * 1: Go with what Green says and call them the "Seven Worlds of the Sea".
 * 2: Correct the Engrish and call them the "Seven Warlords of the Sea".
 * 3: Stick with the Japanese, but for EVERY term in the entire Wiki. The "Strawhat Pirates" have to become the "Mugiwara Kaizokudan". The Whitebeard Pirates have to become the "Shirohige Kaizokudan". The "World Government" has to become the "Sekai Seifu". The Marines have to become the "Kaigun". This has to be done for EVERY term in the wiki.
 * The simplest, is to go with number 1. But I don't care whether it's 1 or 2, but I vote for one of those.DemonRin 00:59, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I say we go with 2 and use Warlords instead of Worlds. Using exclusively Japanese to me is out of the question. I agree that it could have been an Engrish thing since world and warlord do sound alike in that sense. 01:38, November 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I say 2 as well, but this would also lead to "Yonkou" becoming "Four Emperors", etc. Consistency is necessary to make this Wikia nice. Also, "ou" etc becomes "ō". Yatanogarasu 01:44, November 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * It would not be inconsistent because the Databook doesn't translate "Yonkou". It was a term that book, and any other book left in Japanese and never provided a translation for. If the book said "Four Emperors", then yes, for consistency we would have to change that, but it did not. If consistency in-and-of itself is what you're worried about, this ENTIRE Wikia is already inconsistent. Why do we translate "Sekai Seifu" and "Kaigun" to "World Government" and "Marines" respectively? Conversely, why do we leave "Yonkou" and "Shichibukai" in Japanese? The answer is, because "World Government" and "Marines" are written in the manga and Databooks as such, so we actually have official word from Oda, in the Japanese versions of these books, that he intended those to be the translations of those names. He has never done such a thing for "Yonkou", but with the Release of the Green databook, we DO have full confirmation of an English name for the Warlords in an Oda endorsed book. So currently, "Shichibukai" is the ONLY term that has an official romanization in the Japanese manga and/or Databooks that does not use that term here. I am arguing FOR consistency, not against.
 * As I said, for consistencies sake, we need to chose to either stick to the current system and use "Seven World/Warlords Of the Sea" now that we have an official term from Oda, or we need to make EVERYTHING Japanese. We need to be consistant. Either we use All English terms, we use Oda's English terms wen available with untranslated Japanese when we don't. Or we leave EVERYTHING in Untranslated Japanese. We can't have it half-and-half. That being said, it appears we have three votes for "Seven Warlords of The Sea".DemonRin 03:27, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, just to be clear, we would change shichibukai to seven warlords but we'd leave yonkou as is, aside from the spelling issue. Meaning the title, for now, would still read Yonkou, right?DancePowderer 07:49, November 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * So, just to be clear, we would change shichibukai to seven warlords but we'd leave yonkou as is, aside from the spelling issue. Meaning the title, for now, would still read Yonkou, right?DancePowderer 07:49, November 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Until/unless a manga chapter or Databook is released in Japanese that has an Oda-approved translation listing them as something like "The Four Emperors" or something, then yes, it stays "Yonkou". Like I said, we use the names the Manga and Databooks put. "Green" had nothing for the Emperors, so there is nothing to base anything off of, unlike the Warlords.DemonRin 10:08, November 14, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, it's been more than a month now since we've last talked about this, and everyone who has chimed in so far seems to agree on "Seven Warlords of the Sea". Do we implement it now?DemonRin 21:06, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Might as well, since everyone agrees it should be changed. Just hold off on moving the Yonkou page, and other pages that could fall under the Shichibukai/Seven Warlord category of controversy.DancePowderer 21:16, December 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Like I said several times before, there's no reason to change "Yonkou" to anything yet because we don't have an official Japanese manga or databook term for it yet. Green had nothing listed for the Yonkou, so they have no official Oda-approved name. Unlike the Warlords. But ok, should I move it now or should someone else?DemonRin 17:51, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Right, I forgot we already discussed the Yonkou issue, sorry. You can move the page now, I see no reason why you should wait.DancePowderer 18:03, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

What a load of shit. Shichibukai is the better term and will always be the better term. I can't believe ANYBODY supported this bullshit move. SeaTerror 21:47, December 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Please give a reason WHY it's the "Better term" then. You thinking it's a "Load of Shit" doesn't amount to anything. Also note, "It's what the Fansubs use" isn't a valid reason. Our reasoning for switching over is to adhere to what the Raw Japanese manga and Databooks say.DemonRin 21:50, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the raw Japanese manga says 王下七武海 and not Seven Warlords of the Sea. Also not everybody said it should be moved. Only 2 people did. You and DancePowderer. Apparently 2 people is everybody. This wikia's guidelines also states to use Japanese translations for names and groups. SeaTerror


 * Then tell me, if "Japanese Translations for the Names and Groups" is what we're supposed to be using, why does this wiki use "Marines" over ”海軍” (Kaigun)? Why do we use "World Government"　Over ”世界政府” (Sekai Seifu)? Why do we use "Monkey D. Luffy" instead of　"モンキ・D・ルフィ" (Monki D Rufi)?DemonRin 22:38, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Those were all the original names. Shichibukai is completely different. In fact Oda was probably just trying to make it like what the English versions use. Actually possibly not. Most databooks aren't even written by the mangaka themselves and are written by other people. Also I'm pretty sure the other databooks had them listed as Shichibukai SeaTerror 22:43, December 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * That just sounds like a lot of you doubling back and trying to rationalize your own preference for fansub terms. And WHY Oda or the Databook said that isn't the issue. It says that, and it's the official databook as signed off by Oda. It's the reason Gecko Moria is now called Gekko Moriah. It's the reason Juracule Mihawk is now called Dracule Mihawk. To cast doubt on one name in the book because that's the one name you think is "Bullshit" is moronic beyond belief. That's called "Selectively picking and choosing" based on what YOU want. Which, from past experiences, seems to be "Whatever the fansubs told me was right". But regardless, this discussion has been here for a Month. Where have you been during that time?DemonRin 22:53, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Dracule Mihawk was already called Dracule Mihawk before the article was moved for no reason. Also the changes were made when only 2 people agreed on it. A TOTAL of 4 people posted in this discussion with 2 agreeing and the other disagreeing before I commented. I never noticed it because I am not on this site as much as I use to be. It was bullshit to say the majority agreed to the name change when only 2 people commented. SeaTerror 23:02, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Mihawk's page wasn't moved without reason. Dracule was only a redirect. Juracule became Dracule because the Databook stated that his English name was Dracule. Shit like this doesn't happen out of the blue, there is logic behind it. If we kept mihawk at Juracule, then we should have kept Luffy at Rufy, Straw Hat Pirates at Mugiwara Kaizoku-dan. Once there is an official English name for something, the page is moved to suit that.DancePowderer 23:18, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

'''DO NOT CHANGE PAGES LIKE THIS WITHOUT PREMISSION OR DISCUSSION FIRST! '''

FYI - this was picked out at the beginning for many reasons - its staying unless a vote is held. even if green is correct, this isn't like a correction on Mihawk's name and such, this is a mass site overhaul and takes place over hundreds of pages. At least some warning first. I'm tired of this, yeah green revealed many names - but for those who didn't READ green, we're in the dark and don't know why the names are changing - you must let everyone know first! One-Winged Hawk 00:02, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * ALSO; Forum:Translation - this converstion SHOULD have been held here, not on this talk page so it was easier to find. Thats part of why that section exists. Please move it where it should be. It exists to help find topics like this, yeah you've held this for a while now - but no one saw the conversation. If someone comes here once a week, for example, and they don't see anything related pop up, their in the dark as to why such a large amount of the wikia suddenly changed. One-Winged Hawk 00:13, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to undo the edits i made in regard to this. Does anyone object for whatever reason? I kept a thorough list so I won't miss anything.DancePowderer 00:19, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm only annoyed because I knew green was causing name changes all over the wikia, and no one is reporting them at all. This whole thing needs to be shifted to the forums. I'm in the middle of something right now, I only popped in to say "Merry X-mas". I'll be around more next year.


 * I wouldn't rush, if the name is changing to Warlords, just get done properly so everyone knows there is a change occuring! If there are folks left in the dark, it doesn't help the wikia. Its not nice. I've had my moan about it not being done right, even with the discussion in place, simple things like putting a conversation in the right place on the wikia just make life easier. :-3 One-Winged Hawk 00:23, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, int he case of Mihawk and Moria and other names, we just don't know the proper translation sometimes and so pick the most suitable choice at the time we're presented with. Its a bit harder with larger problems because even with the name in place, everyone has their perfence. Why do we chose "Marines" over "Navy" with the name is actually suppose to be fully translated as "Navy"? Its because it was voted for RIGHT at the start. In these cases, another vote MUST take place in order to shudder the first vote. With names, also, they usually only effect a few hundred, but with groups, they can effect a lot more pages... Such a change on a large scale needs to be held with a lot more awareness then how this discussion has gone on.


 * If the conversation is left in the dark, and only happens between 3 or 4 people, has the wikia really discussed the change at all? One-Winged Hawk 00:34, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

So is that a yes or no to reverting?DancePowderer 00:29, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Suggestion; leave this as it is, get a discussion and a vote going to smash or enforce that previous vote. Note, at the time of the vote (I have no idea if it still exists and it was between just a handful of people and theres no longer just a handful of people I note). I think, you might be able to make this come out in favor of the change anyway, theres a lot of support, I'm just kicking up a stink here about how the handlings been done here (again). though for a reason - it saves a lot of time in the long run if you just get it over and done with because you can then show anyone changing the name back the supporting votes. -_-' One-Winged Hawk 00:34, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

I already reverted the Kuma and World Government pages. Are you saying I should stop there and leave the others saying Seven Warlords and not Shichibukai?DancePowderer 00:42, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * On the old vote, take note, it wnt along the lines of;
 * Person A; suggested we use "shichibukai" because we were angry at wikipedia insistance of 4Kids names and we were kicked off wikipedia pretty much
 * Person B; agreed
 * the other 4 members supported.


 * Best vote eva! (Not really, yeah, hence why I want to smash this old vote we held then and get rid of it so we can say we did it proprely this time)


 * Pffft! The vote for Marines was even better, we had a 20% turn out for that - I asked what name we wanted, someone else instructed I seconded for the same reasons as the Shichibukai and all was settled. Yeah, theres another revote for another day! XD 


 * The fact these votes happened causes a pain now, we were serious about enforcing them then because we had a lot of grudges against wikipedia then. *Ahem* lets resolve this okay? If theres evidence the membership can't really vote against it because its supporting incorrectness. The votes just to wipe out that all vote we did in our "who needs wikipedia!" days! XD


 * Just wait until this issue is settled, its enforced by one of the older rules somewhere. Thats the trouble and its that causing the vote to stand. ^_^' One-Winged Hawk 00:55, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, I was about to sign off and I realise theres an easier way out; since the orginal is based on user perferences, the vote doesn't hold ground and on the grounds of its based on user perference only, the easier way to get rid of that old vote... Just ask MF to weigh up the decision, or anyone else with that power level, and ask them to just agree the old vote isn't able to stand anymore. Its what happened with images. The old vote conflicts with some other guidelines anyway since its preventing name correction so its easily resolved.


 * This method avoids a vote all together and lets Shichibukai becomes 7 warlords without hasle so long as there is supporting evidence for the change put up, which I can't remember as I type out if it has or hasn't. But yeah, easy way out of this scenario! All MF has to do is post one stated; the previous vote is void. Bob's your uncle, name change problem gone. ;-D One-Winged Hawk 01:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

I was talking about when the the Mihawk page was changed from Dracule Mihawk to Juracule Mihawk originally. If you say the old vote doesn't count then neither can this new vote because there was hardly any discussion and a total of 3 people commented before I did. SeaTerror 03:42, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

The name that was presented in Green was Seven Worlds of the Sea not Seven Warlords at all. These presents itself a unique problem that in itself is different to the other translations found within the site. Considering that "Worlds" gives a somewhat more confusing idea than the Japanese world itself, it begs the question whether it really should be used over what people already understand what the term Shichibukai refers to. It should be mentioned in the article but if used throughout the site, it really could confuse some people.

For "Warlords" of the Sea, the term is really not found in Green nor is there evidence that says it's what Oda's English equivalent to his unique Japanese term. Just because some names turn out to be the same as what the English versions like Funi use, such as Norland is really Noland, that does not necessarily mean that other English version names would follow suit as being what Oda intends. I mean as evident with names like Jinbe, it really shows that the English versions do not always hit the mark. One could say that the term "Warlords" is probably what Oda was aiming for, however unless there is evidence that says that it was what he was aiming for, all we can say is that it is speculation.

For moving the page, that really wasn't proper procedure DemonRin. Just because there was a lack of response to your original post, does not instantly mean that people are in full agreement with you. At least, it can mean that not alot of people are aware of the discussion. If we move pages based on whether people respond or not, it can be quite troublesome. I mean for example, a guy wanted to change Going Merry to Merry Go due to lack of knowledge or whatever. He discusses it in a talk page and doesn't get a response or a opposing response. Does that give him the right to move the page? No. The same goes for any other page especially big ones.

As for the lack of discussion for one month thing, it goes together with what I've stated above. The most probable cause of this is that not many people are aware that a discussion is going on. If more responses are needed then it would probably be best to ask for such responses from the users themselves.Mugiwara Franky 08:39, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * At least discussion has started about the topic now. If we can't go with "Warlords" then we HAVE to go with "Worlds" or this wiki becomes inconsistent within itself and we are doing nothing but relying on fanboy bias.
 * We go with what Oda Puts in the Manga and Databooks. That's what I said in my first post, we use either "Worlds" or "Warlords" and I didn't care which as long as one of them gets used.
 * I move that either we use "Seven Worlds of the Sea", or, we change "Marines" to "Kaigun", "World Government" to "Sekai Seifu", "Strawhat Pirates" to "Mugiwara Kaizokudan", "Monkey D. Luffy" to "Monki Dii Rufi", "Usopp" to "Usoppu", "Edward Newgate" to "Eduuaado Nyuugetto", "Porgtas D. Ace" to "Pootogasu Dii Eesu", etc, etc.
 * Consistency is the bottom line. We use "Marines" over "Kaigun" because that's what Oda wrote. We use "World Government" over "Sekai Seifu" because that's what the WG flag says (World Gvt.) and that's what The Databooks say. We do the same for the Pirate crews, the Revolutionary Army, and the Supernovas because THAT'S what the Databooks say. We leave "Yonkou" as such because there is no Databook entry for them. To leave this as "Shichibukai" would be motivated by nothing more than "Shichibukai is what we're used to from the Fansubs/Scanlations, so that's what we like best". And that's wrongDemonRin 22:51, January 4, 2011 (UTC)

What episode did...
Question: what episode did five of the Shichibukai had that meeting at Mariejois?
 * 151 if i'm not mistaken.GMTails 20:11, December 30, 2010 (UTC)

Who protected this page so neither registered users are allowed to change it? PS I'd like to add a trivia: all the shichibukai use their hands to use their DF's powers or their ability. Examples:
 * Doflamingo, Hancock, Moriah and Kuma for their specific powers (if Doflamingo has)
 * Crocodile and Teach to absorbe things (water and powers respectively)
 * Jinbe and Mihawk for their particular fighting skills

Do you think it's an interesting trivia? --Meganoide 22:20, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, you should add it.DancePowderer 22:33, January 1, 2011 (UTC)

Kuma's Shichibukai Status
Given the fact that the World Government moved so quickly to replace Crocodile after he was defeated, I believe that it's reasonable to assume that since Kuma was unable to fulfill his duties for two years that his status as a shichibukai is no longer valid, or at the very least should be noted in this article as being suspect and not concrete. Memnarc 11:38, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Mhm, it would make sense. However (big however), we know that Kuma had an agreement with Vegapunk about his last "mission". Vegapunk works directly for the world government/marines, so it is possible that they allowed him to stay away for the 2 years - in exchange for his full transformation (would be a nice deal, they basically own him now).

But anyway, we know to liitle about Vegapunk, the world governments doing & Kuma to jump on conclusions. The same goes for him being no shichibukai anymore. Jinbe 11:49, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

The Shichibukai ignore orders all the time. Remember that not every Shichibukai goes to the meetings. SeaTerror 15:10, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I was so focused on the crocodile argument (which isn't bad) that I ignored the fact that they indeed do what they want... good point SeaTerror. --Jinbe 15:21, February 18, 2011 (UTC)

Blackbeard's bounty
On member's profile Blackbeard's former bounty is set to 'None'..Should we change it to 'Unknown'.??--  LuffyPirateKing ::   Talk      11:29, February 27, 2011 (UTC)

Seven deadly sins again
I just read the Trivia section and there is again the assumption about the seven deadly sins... I have been away for a while but I checked and is still considered primary source... I didn't removed that though, I figured the most appropriate way would be ask first. Greetings Omartron 09:30, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. It seems more like a fan-made theory that kind of fits than anything intentionally done by Oda. Some of the entries are very vague as to why they fit too (Doflamingo, Kuma, and there isn't even one for Jinbe). We should take it out.Panda 09:38, April 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Removed, I left a hidden note not to add it. It was made when only 4 of the 7 were known and (then) it fit with the known Shichibukai. One-Winged Hawk 09:56, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Mentioning of ex-members
Okay, the ex members are no long shichibukai. This is the same thing as mention Blackbeard's bounty was 0. You must understand the concept of something not being what something else. If they leave the group, they no longer need to be mentioned as their not part of it anymore. They can be mentioned if their involved with another Shichibukai, but there is no need to mention if they are not a memeber otherwise.

Its the same for any group within the One Piece world.

Also, offically Jinbe was a member up until he told the Marines he resigned at Marineford, so the whole of the Impel Down arc is pretty safe to member ex-members from because he was involved. After the Whitebeard Vs Marine war, he is not a member and needs no further mention. One-Winged Hawk 10:03, April 15, 2011 (UTC)

Then by all means remove the points after the dismissal/resignation (i.e. Crocodile from the Impel Down breakout and Marineford Arc), but we may have to debate whether or not with other editors. Yatanogarasu 05:57, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * We don't mention Nami in the Arlong Pirates page once she left the crew, thats all I note here, but its the same scenario. One-Winged Hawk 08:04, April 16, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you've read that article at all if you think she isn't mentioned. She's even in the template. The former Shichibukai should not be removed all. SeaTerror 06:20, April 27, 2011 (UTC)

Organizing the main pieces. Lets take a page from Luffys page.
This page is too, too big. Just a thought, but we should break up each area like Luffy's and make each one smaller. The lists of who they are and what their powers are alone should be reason enough.

Dantheman 2:01AM 5/15/11

Shojo and candidate Shichibukai
Shouldn't we add something about pirates aiming to become a shichibukai. Like Shojo whom saw himself fit to replace Sir Crocodile. Not only Shojo intended to become one, at the Shichibukai meeting other pirates were discussed. The most famous candidate was Marshall D. Teach because of his navigator's proposal. To me it seems worth to add. CapoDiLoco

Why Blackbeard former bounty is "unknown"?
Hi everybody! I'm a very little contributor but I had in the past created in this page (while being an unknown contributor) the old section "Shichibukai status". I have a question for you all: in the box called "Members profile", there is an "unknown" under Blackbeard former bounty. In my opinion this is wrong because when he entered Schichibukai it was stated by Kuma (when he was talking to Moria at Thriller Bark during his visit) that before he gained the title he had no bounty at all! His bounty ammount was 0! So he can't have a former bounty when he had no bounty to start with! I written several times 0 under the amount of his former bounty but it was always deleated and replaced by "unknown". Why it is wrong for you to write under the former bounty section of this page 0 as his former bounty ammount? In my opinion we could at least write "none" but not "unknown" because is also pretty much confusing! I mean, Blackbeard bounty is not like Mihawk's former bounty! Alterlife 13:48, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, it should be written 0 there

What? No.. Unknown is better and right..

0 means that he doesnt have one.. We dont know. Maybe he got one after Marineford. But of course he got one. So unknown.

I got it, but... Blackbeard left the Shichibukai in the very same moment as he arrived at Marineford, so I think that the section should be referred to his bounty BEFORE he entered Shichibukai not AFTER he left the organisation: when Kuma arrived at Thriller Bark tells to Moria that Blackbeard former bounty was 0 because HE was an unknown pirate, so that "unknown" was referred to Blackbeard as a pirate and not to his bounty... In addiction now Jimbei's new bounty amount is over 400,000,000, so we should write (according to your opinion) this amount and not the former one when he was about to enter the organisation (250,000,000)... Alterlife 14:11, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

If the bounty changed then its fine to have the old one too.. But if the old doesnt exist why to write 0? Every character started from 0... We dont write it.. And Im pretty sure Teach has one now. Its all unknown.

It would make more sense to write the bounties they had when they joined, since half of them left and their bounties are going to change. The article should then just note that the bounties aren't the newest ones. 84.59.63.113 20:52, August 18, 2011 (UTC)

The page is about the Shichibukai group. What's relevant in the profile table is the bounty each member had when he joined (hence 0 for Teach). The current bounty of those who left does not belong to the table in my opinion.

Sff is right! either 0 or N/A or simply None! how can a non-existant bounty of which we know be "Unknown"?!

I'd like to thank you: Thank you "84.59.63.113", "sff9" and "Ricizubi"! That's because what you write is exactly what I wanted to mean with my posts! Alterlife 12:16, August 19, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, 'unknown' is incorrect, 0 or None is better. ZeroSD 00:09, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

Then which one? 0 or None? Because "none" means "no bounty", "0" means a bounty of "0". It's true that Teach didn't have a bounty, but it's also true that being a pirate is a wanted man to begin with. For example a civilian can't have a bounty of "0" because it means he would still be a wanted man, but it has more sense to use "0" for Teach since he is (and was) a wanted man simply because he raised a pirate flag. On the other hand "none" is the bounty he had, but it doesn't remark the fact he is (was) a pirate/wanted man.

Well, being a pirate, he is a wanted man, so 0 would fit. We could just put none for former and unknown for the currnt one. 15:40, August 22, 2011 (UTC)

Jinbe's Bounty
Much like Blackbeard not having acquired the Gura Gura no Mi while he was a Shichibukai, I don't think that Jinbe's new bounty should be displayed here, as he did not have it while he was a Shichibukai. Memnarc 01:21, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I kinda agree with you, we only post bounties pre-Shichibukai right? Its the same with the Blackbeard issue above, it doesn't really matter what his bounty was post-Shichibukai here.  Pacifista15 | Talk | 1:29 22/Sep/2011 UTC

Actually, I am going to change it right now. On that table, the title of the column is "former bounty".  Pacifista15 | Talk | 1:31 22/Sep/2011 UTC

Do we need a history?
I can see how we could use a history section to keep track of the members, or if we mention instances where members were involved, but most of this is just an overwhelming amount of unnecessary detailed accounts of events that you can read about in the pages of the characters that were involved. Right now, half the page is made up of that one section and I really don't think it's necessary. 84.59.39.185 08:54, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

It might not be necessary, but if its so much of the page, someone worked on it, so why waste that person's work? Its ok to keep it, it doesn't kill anyone, does it disturb the page in any way? I can't see it.

Just ignore it. An IP said it. History sections are always important and necessary. SeaTerror 22:16, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping it, but could we at least section it off into a tab? This article is extremely long. Memnarc (talk) 11:22, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

History: Two Years Later: Jinbe on Fishman Island
What's the justification for having all of the Jinbe's history in relation to the Fishman Island arc on this page? By this point, he has clearly resigned his position, and his only link with the Shichibukai is the fact that he was a former member. Most of the section is a copy-paste of the history section on Jinbe's own page, with the only differences coming from people subsequently editing one page and not the other.

The section would flow better if only Shichibukai-related matters are mentioned, such as the fact that Jinbe was offered the position in the flashback (and the reasons why he accepted). Zodiaque 06:19, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

You sir, make an excellent point! Consider it gone! 06:23, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Zodiaque & KuroAshi98. Wasn't there a note that said "DO NOT to mention former members unless they get involved with current ones again"? Jinbei resigned at Marineford, so he wasn't a Shichibukai during the Fishman Island arc (it's the main reason he had to leave the island) and there weren't any current members there.
 * 海賊☠姫 06:56, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, apparently someone ignored that. 07:53, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Blackbeard = Hippo & Trafalgar = Tiger?
I saw these added to the animal theme part of the page. What are these based on? Did they come from

a SBS that I haven't read or has somebody just made these up?

I think they came from the figures from zeroarts, but I think Law would be better as something else, since there's a tiger based on Zoro.--OhJay (talk) 00:54, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Law's Trafalgar theme is due to Trafalgar being Tiger.

That's why luffy refers to him as Trafal-guy aka Tiger-Guy. 00:56, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

Then, tiger for law but no hippo for teach, due to Zoro being tiger too in the same figures series. Rayleigh92 (talk) 00:58, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

The only Shichibukai with a clear animal theme were the original seven, and considering the contention over whether Moria's theme is a bat or a lizard, even that isn't entirely clear. But "hippo" and "tiger"? Blackbeard is supposed to look like a pirate, not any sort of animal, and nothing about Law's design says "tiger".

The Battle of Trafalgar was a famous naval battle that took place in 1805 off Cape Trafalgar. It has absolutely nothing to do with tigers, despite the phonetic "トラ" in his name sounding like the Japanese word for "tiger". -cg

They were given animal themes to coincide with the rest of the merchandise and old theme. It's not worth arguing over. No need to make a big deal out of it just because you don't get it. 05:34, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

I "get it", I just don't see the Zeroarts figures as relevant to canon considering that "hippo" or "tiger" weren't part of the characters' themes when they were designed, and Blackbeard and Law weren't named after animals.

Moria's animal motif is bats, not geckos.

67.168.115.137 06:35, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

The Unromanizable has Fallen.
According to a page in One Piece Ten (sorry the link is a bit slow), Trafalgar Law is now part of the "Seven Warlords of the Sea". This part of the book is not fan-translated, it's legitimate romanization. I propose we rename this page "Warlords of the Sea" and finally end the Shichibukai debate once and for all. 22:20, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

It is translated. It lists the Japanese above it and it shows what the English translation is which every official source uses. That isn't a romanization. SeaTerror (talk) 22:22, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

But it's still an official source prinited in Japan, is it not? 22:26, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

It isn't a romanization is the point. They are directly translating the text from above with some minor tweaks to use what the official English companies use. SeaTerror (talk) 22:30, January 30, 2013 (UTC)

We don't know if the translation is biased in that regard. We know it came directly from a primary source, unedited. Instead of Warlords of the Sea, I think we should move it to Seven Warlords of the Sea, the official name. 01:42, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Also, looking at it, it calls Law's Devil Fruit the Ope Ope Fruit when Viz uses Op Op Fruit. If it were really skewed the way SeaTerror is suggesting, then wouldn't they have said Op Op Fruit? 01:46, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't make sense to name it Warlords of the Sea anyway. This is more of a translation anyway as you can see there's no Engrish anywhere shown. Remember the issues with other names like that? I remember the Databook said Seven Worlds of the Sea before which was obviously a mistake. SeaTerror (talk) 02:22, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

So, because there's no Engrish, it can't be right? Even if it's translated, it's the one they chose to go with, instead of Seven Gods of Pirate or whatever. Also, if you read the whole thing, you can see it's not written entirely well. There's a lot of grammar and syntax errors. 02:26, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

I see absolutely no errors. They probably just used somebody like Greg to translate since he works for Shounen Jump and lives in Japan. The issue is there are no obvious errors like we have had multiple times with romanizations. I am saying this seems more like translations to go alongside what the English versions use. SeaTerror (talk) 02:33, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

It says Caesar.Clown, Trafalgar.Law, and a there's a comma right after a period. Even if it was translated, it appeared in official One Piece media, and it's speculative to assume they decided to parallel the English version. 02:40, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Those would be incredibly minor errors. Each sentence makes perfect grammatical sense. It is far likely more a translation than a romanization and I don't see how it can be called speculation. We've seen romanization before directly from the manga and other sources. They are all handwritten instead of typed in a translated section of a book. Using a translation as a source for something isn't a good idea no matter what the source is. SeaTerror (talk) 02:55, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Even if it's a translation, it came from an official source, someone had to approve it before it was published. 02:59, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

And? What about the databooks with issues like Big Mom vs Big Mam? Just because it got approved doesn't mean anything. We've seen many errors where Oda himself had romanized it himself directly in the manga. SeaTerror (talk) 03:01, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

But this isn't the manga, and it's a complete translation compared to a spelling error Big Mam. The only thing romanized it could go up against is Seven Worlds, which is clearly wrong. 03:05, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Now you just said it was a translation. The point is this is most likely NOT a romanization and just a translation. If it got approved that still doesn't mean anything. SeaTerror (talk) 03:11, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Of course it means something. If it were wrong information, it wouldn't be allowed to be published. Since the exposition is supposed to be about One Piece, they want to make sure that their stuff is accurate. You don't read that King Tut drove a Chevy Malibu because people check it to make sure it's accurate. Why would they publish false data? 03:17, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

You mean like the databooks? There were many errors in them that were later corrected in the manga or a SBS. Just because it is listed in the book does not make it right. The point is these are far more likely to be translations than romanizations due to how the entire passages are using great English and isn't handwritten. SeaTerror (talk) 04:30, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

You can call this a direct translation. It's not localized by an English company, because it was translated and published in Japan. When it comes to databooks, we often treat them as "True until proven false". Otherwise, we wouldn't treat Sabo as a dead character. Even if it's a translation, it's a translation FROM Japan. It's still as official as any other special book for One Piece. This isn't a Viz translation, it's a translation in Japan. 04:57, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

There's no middle man in this, meaning there is much less probability or room for error. 05:30, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Just ask Klobis for confirmation. 08:02, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a direct translation either since that isn't what Shichibukai literally translates to. The point is that it is far more likely a translation than an actual romanization which means it shouldn't treated as the truth which is what you and DP are implying. Galaxy I don't see what Klobis could be confirming here since it's about translation vs romanization. SeaTerror (talk) 18:49, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

Since no English company is afilliated with this book, it probably was translated by the same company who wrote the Japanese translation itself. It doesn't need to be "literally" translated. This translation came from the same place as RAW. This itself is RAW. Why should we disregard it just because it's in English? 19:18, January 31, 2013 (UTC)

If we disregard this, we should also contemplate changing Caesar Clown back to Caesar Crown, since that was translated in the raw from his name, written right beside the Japanese. The point is, they translated it, it went through no filters to get to us, even if it's not the traditional way. Oda has done the same with Marine and Kaigun. He explained in a databook that even though Kaigun translates to navy, the organization is supposed to be called the Marines. Same idea, different source. 18:56, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense at all DP. Caesar Clown was romanized directly in the manga and not a book which One Piece Ten is. Ignorant people still say that "Marines" isn't an English word when Oda uses it. Plus Oda had already used it in the manga so it always was Marine/Marines. The point is that in this case it is far more likely just translated than romanized. We could use it but it makes more sense to just treat it as a translation. SeaTerror (talk) 20:52, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it, if it came directly from the source, who also put it to English, that would seem like a romanization to me. Even if it was translated, it was translated by someone other than Viz or a scanlator, so it would be official regardless of whether or not it was a romanization. 21:09, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

Well according to the article, it literally means "Royal Seven Military Seas". I'm not incredibly knowledgable in romanizations, etc., but since "Royal Seven Military Seas" does not mean the same thing as "Warlords of the Sea." To me, unless the translation can be made differently, this would be a translation and not a romanization. So the question is "would we ever put an official translation on a page, as opposed to a romanization?" 05:42, February 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * "Royal Seven Military Seas" is a literal translation, that is, it's just the meaning of all kanjis jammed together, to get the overall feeling. Applying the same treatment to "Straw Hat Crew" would yield "Straw Hat Sea Thief Group" or something.
 * Anyway, yeah, "Warlords of the Sea" is a translation, not a romanization. But that's not relevant to the discussion, since we use translations when possible (Sun Pirates, Whitebeard, etc.).
 * The real question is, what's the source worth? We ignored "Seven Worlds of the Sea" in a databook, should we take this source into consideration when it's not even a databook?
 * In my opinion, either choice is OK.

Everybody is talking about "romanizations", but a "romanization" is the representation with the Latin script of a word that uses a different writing system. For example, a romanization of モンキー･D･ルフィ is "Monkey D. Rufy", but the official one is "Monkey D. Luffy" simply because Oda wrote モンキー･D･ルフィ that way. The name of this organization will always be 七武海 which we romanizated as "shichibukai", "Warlords of the Sea" or whatever is not a romanization but a translation. So, in my opinion, the question is if we want to use the original word or the translation. In the first case we have to romanize it someway, I don't know if it's official or not, but I don't think anybody has a problem with "shichibukai". In the second case, we have to translate in English, but what source do you want to use? We can literally translate it ourselves, we can use the official viz name (since it's the company which distributes One Piece in English) or we can use a translation used by some Japanese company, but keep in mind that this translation is probably used once, why they should care about a consistent English translation after all? Like sff9, I don't mind either choices, but if you go along with the translation I think it's kinda weird to use a translation coming from a Japanese book which is not even a "standard" (data)book... so I rather prefer choosing ourself the best translation or using whatever Viz uses.

It is a translation which is what I've been saying. We shouldn't use our own translation but keep on using Shichibukai. SeaTerror (talk) 18:40, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

The source can be trusted. We've already taken information from the exhibition itself, like Ace and Bepo's bounties, some romanizations, etc, and the book is basically just a photo album of the exhibition. There's nothing to suggest that the translation is illegitimate since it was printed in a book whose release is intended to stay within Japan, so I don't know why they would change it to appeal to English speakers who would never get a chance to read it, which tells me they didn't change it to fit the Viz translation and Warlords is the correct name. What we could do to put an end to this is try and find out if the book gives any acknowledgements to Viz translators. If they don't, then I think we are 100% safe to proceed with renaming. 22:28, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this is what English translators made out of what Oda said; if it doesn't come from his lips, then it ain't official. "Shichibukai" it remains. The Pope 03:24, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't Viz Buh, it was a japanese book. 03:25, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

The content on those pages went through no filters between the time it was published and the time it got to us online. It is the raw, as it were. 03:33, February 3, 2013 (UTC)


 * I never said it was Viz. My point is that if Oda didn't write that by his own hand (at least the English section), then somebody else translated it (as in, whoever edited the books or the exhibit or whatever), meaning that it can't be taken as, as it were, Word of God. The Pope 21:33, February 4, 2013 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then all databooks are null and void. Databooks are usually written and compiled by assistants, and then Oda signs off on them after reviewing the information. This is the same case. Oda might not have written the book, but he had to give his final approval. Meaning if he did or didn't want it to be 7 Warlords, he could have said so. 21:46, February 4, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. 22:54, February 18, 2013 (UTC)

I still believe that your misunderstanding something: "Seven Warlords of the Sea" is not a romanization, it's a translation of 七武海. The group is still called 七武海 (shichibukai). I'm ok with using a translation, but the correct "order of thoughts" should be: let's use a translation → which one we use? → there is one from OP ten, let's use it - and not: at OPten they have translated shichibukai → it's official → let's rename the page. "Seven Warlords of the Sea" is not a romanization.

Romanization means English letters. When Oda wrote Bon Kurei on the bounty page that was a romanization and not a translation. In this case it is far more likely to just be a translation which is why I said that it would be better to leave it untranslated. SeaTerror (talk) 00:23, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Even if it isn't a romanization, what's wrong with using a translation? It's not like there are any English companies that westernized these names. This is apparently how the Japanese want it to be written in English. This was most likely published by Shueisha themselves, or at least it had to go through their approval since they distribute the series, and own copyright on it. So if Shueisha is fine with "Warlords", why aren't we? 00:38, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

So let's do what Levi said, same destination, different path. 05:01, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but wasn't there a reason why we didn't use a translation in the first place?

Because we never had one from a source like this before. All we had before this were sub and dub translations. 17:20, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Because we use romanizations and original names. SeaTerror (talk) 18:28, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

And this is the first time a translation's source justifies using it. Broaden your mind a little. 20:27, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

No. We only use translations on certain things. We shouldn't use that translation because it isn't counted as an official romanization which is how we get most names. SeaTerror (talk) 20:41, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

And yet you just said we use translations for certain things. This might be a rare and exceptional occurence for hwo we get stuff, but it's still a viable one. 20:48, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

It may be useful to write a list of what we use the translation of...

The only two that I can think of offhand are "World Government" and "Marines", but we have romanizations for both of those. 21:04, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Straw Hat Pirates. Without it, it translates to "Strawhat Sea Thief Group". 21:12, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

World Nobles. Or we'd be calling them heavenly dragon folk. 21:16, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

We would be calling them Tenryubito. SeaTerror (talk) 22:09, February 19, 2013 (UTC)

Bumping again. Here's what it comes down to: It's a translation, yes, but it came from an official source, so it is an official translation. It may be the first of its kind, but that doesn't mean its wrong. Moving it is the right thing to do. 00:43, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

The translation isn't technically wrong, so there's no problem. Let's move. 00:50, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Why is moving it the right thing to do? We could just leave it untranslated like it's always been until its been officially romanized. SeaTerror (talk) 09:28, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Because it's officially translated. 18:23, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it should be moved, but I can't effectively articulate why I think that right now.

But if does get moved, we should be aware that we would have to personally correct every use of the term "Shichibukai" on the entire wiki because a bot could not correctly do it and leave things grammatically correct. So if it does get moved, we should be prepared and have a team of people who can correct it ready to go and make consistent changes everywhere. 19:30, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Bon Kurei was officially translated to Bon Clay by Funimation yet we use Bon Kurei since it was actually romanized by Oda. SeaTerror (talk) 19:40, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

This wasn't done by FUNimation, or by Viz, or by any company that's not in Japan. 19:41, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

You missed the point. Its a translation and not a romanization. SeaTerror (talk) 19:57, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

And you miss the point that it came from an official source. Just because we haven't used translations doesn't mean we never should, especially when we have a legit and official source for it. 23:46, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

The translator is not Oda. And there is also "Seven Worlds of the Sea" (databook Yellow and Green). --Klobis (talk) 10:29, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Which was something we chose to ignore due to the fact it seemed like a mistake. SeaTerror (talk) 18:35, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't Oda who translated it, he still had to approve it. 23:19, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Klobis is right. Also, the toei site uses "Seven Worlds of the Sea". 23:26, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

What does Toei have to do with this? 23:44, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

2 databooks and the anime don't have it as seven warlords of the sea. Oda had to approve of the databook translation. Now I say we just leave it as it is, because of the different translations from official sources. 00:11, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Technically Oda had to approve the "One Piece Ten" book, too. He has to give approval of any book that's published under the One Piece franchise. 00:31, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

You got a source for that, or are you just speaking out of nothing. The fact that he has approved various translations means we should leave it as Shichibukai, because obviously he hasn't decided on an actual one. 00:37, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Former Shichibukai Histories
I say we should keep the members post history in with the rest. Since they were Shichibukai doesn't mean they should be ignored completely. This page should cover the grounds of all characters. Genocyber (talk) 23:36, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

If they're not Shichibukai anymore, they shouldn't be covered. This page is about Shichibukai, not regular pirates. 23:43, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Crocodile's actions during Marineford and Impel Down are mentioned here for some reason. I suggest somebody fix it. 00:37, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Since Jinbe didn't actually resign until they got to Marineford, technically he's still a Warlord during the time in Impel Down, so I think it's safe to mention that Crocodile happened to be there at those parts, as long as we keep him in the "former Warlord" thing. Plus, most of Crocodile's actions in Marineford were against other Warlords. But the parts that only concerns him, like when he tried getting Whitebeard, should be out. I'mma do it. 00:46, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Just fixed it, but some parts had to stay in because they actually involved a Warlord in one way or another. Like Crocodile's quarrel with Jozu, Doflamingo stepped in. Jinbe had the most excluded, ironically. 00:56, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Tabs?
Given this article's length, I think it might be prudent to section it off into tabs, at the very least for the history portion. Sectioning off the history alone would shorten the article by at least two thirds and make it much more presentable, in my opinion. For that matter, I think tabbing some of the longer character pages might also be a good idea. Memnarc (talk) 09:47, March 4, 2013 (UTC)