Talk:One Piece novel A

Canon
Apparently User:Klobis believe it to be non-canon, Since I don't remember Klobis being a vandelist, he might have a reason and i think this is the best place to talk about it. Rhavkin (talk) 12:58, September 4, 2017 (UTC)

Biggest strike against it is that it wasn't written by Oda. It also falls under Novels, which the rules consider non-canon. Dragonus Nesha (talk) 15:47, September 4, 2017 (UTC)

The novel was said to be "official" and was supervised by Oda, all the characters that appear were created by Oda and the Spade Pirates have appeared in the manga as well. So I would put this at same canonicity as Databook information, meaning it's canon unless contradicted in the manga/SBS. We talked about this on Discord too and the consensus was to consider it canon. 16:05, September 4, 2017 (UTC)

I am with Kage. Until the manga or an SBS contradicts, we should consider it canon. Also, while other projects (Strong World, Film Z) were overseen by Oda, they did not receive the "official" confirmation. Plus, the OP Mag is official, which seems like a second layer of confirmation to me. 16:22, September 4, 2017 (UTC)

It's canon, so I agree with Kage Meshack (talk) 18:02, September 4, 2017 (UTC)

I consider it as canon as well since it was supervised by Oda 18:46, September 4, 2017 (UTC)

Unless Klobis has a legit reason for it to be non-canon, it wouldn't matter since the story is canon, we're treating this as canon. Meshack (talk) 20:27, September 4, 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? I think it is groundless. --Klobis (talk) 00:08, September 8, 2017 (UTC)
 * The novel was said to be "official", the OP Mag is official: Where is the source? What is the meaning?
 * The novel was supervised by Oda: Where is the source? And the non-canon films were supervised by Oda too.
 * all the characters that appear were created by Oda: There are many "Non-Canon Characters Designed by Oda".
 * the Spade Pirates have appeared in the manga as well: The Straw Hats appeared many non-canon stories.
 * the story is canon: The story was written by Hinata, not Oda.

So there is no source of Oda's "supervision" or the "official confirmation"? The novel must be non-canon. --Klobis (talk) 12:44, September 11, 2017 (UTC)

Both statements were reported by sandman, a japanese One Piece fan who posts translations and summaries of a lot of information on forums and twitter. On the "official" statement, there's at least the term 公式小説 (apparently means "official novel"), which is used to describe the novel in several instances (one example). On Oda's supervision, Oda's editor talks about them consulting Oda many times in an interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1485&v=lC20LxA-f2I). Noland is also contacting sandman to ask about the sources and whether this is elaborated more somewhere. Regarding the arguments that "X is also Y but non-canon", the point was that the novel check rather than just one or two. 21:16, September 13, 2017 (UTC)

What are all the boxes? Like the 3 films, even if there is Oda's participation, it is non canon. What I want to say is that "Oda approved the story" does not mean the story is canon. --Klobis (talk) 05:34, September 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * The anime series is an official anime. The novel is official of course. But just like the anime, it is not Oda's work.
 * There were many elements in the anime, movies, games that the creators got Oda's permission. Like non canon Devil fruits.

If what you're saying is that unless Oda says "It's canon" nothing will convince you, I think that this is a rather pointless one-sided discussion. Rhavkin (talk) 06:20, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

We've got one translator saying that it's official, but no source for that. Oda has approved various things like movies before without making them canon. All Klobis is saying is that we've got literally one source for most of this - and Noland is trying to contact that source to clarify the situation. So why not just wait until Noland hears back?

12:24, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps I misunderstood Klobis' comment. I read it as "Even if the source confirmed it's 'official' or 'Oda supervised' it still doesn't make it canon". So I have to ask: Klobis, what would convince you that this is canon? Otherwise we can just poll this now. Rhavkin (talk) 12:43, September 14, 2017 (UTC)

If Oda makes the novel into a manga, or he states the events in the novel occurred in the manga as well. --Klobis (talk) 06:47, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

So pretty much what I said before nova's comment. Rhavkin (talk) 07:03, September 17, 2017 (UTC)

What's the difference between the novel and the previous anime, films, games? If you consider the novel canon, all anime, films, games are also canon. --Klobis (talk) 23:50, September 18, 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner, I have been very busy with life.

The sources that Sandman linked me to were actually the same ones as Kage's. But I want to make some of my own arguments.


 * 1) . Klobis is the only person against considering this novel canon. That includes another translator with equal credibility (if not more considering the greater OP fan community), multiple admins, and veteran editors. Wiki rules are decisions by a simple majority, so the page and plot will be considered canon whether we convince Klobis or not.
 * 2) . Klobis makes the argument that the novel is the same as anime, films and video games. First of all, not all of those things are considered "official." As for "official" sources, we consider databooks and the like as canon, but there is a hierarchy of sources. In my opinion, this novel falls in the same rank as databooks; if we see Ace's past in the manga, that will override what we see in this novel.
 * 3) . Unlike some of the other controversial sources (i.e. Film Z, Strong World, and Film Gold), this novel fits within the timeline of the manga. You can't consider Film canon because it came out after the Straw Hats and Swirly Hats were split up. There is no possible way the group would be together for the events to occur. Novel A conflicts with nothing else in the current OP canon timeline. If something from the manga were to occur that conflicts with this, we would consider these events non-canon (granted, if it was from the manga, it would override anyway per my second argument).

Either way, this is over. We can close it, because, like I stated above, everyone but Klobis agrees. Sorry, but rules are rules. For the time being, Novel A will be considered canon. 04:09, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

--Klobis (talk) 05:01, September 19, 2017 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, this novel falls in the same rank as databooks Why is that? What evidence do you have?
 * Nami's past in Film Gold fits within the timeline of the manga, but it is non canon. Also Luffy's past with Naguri in the anime. Your comment is groundless.

Let's not compare the entire magazine. As for the fitting thing, the first movie fits the anime at that point and most filler arcs fit the anime at those times. The point is, as Noland said though misnumbered, two person say non canon with six saying canon. Wiki rules are Wiki rules. Rhavkin (talk) 16:05, September 19, 2017 (UTC)

Klobis, why is only the manga considered canon? What if there was a movie made that was canon? Is it not canon because it's a movie? Does everything have to be drawn by Oda for it to be considered canon? Oda drew Special Episode Luff, so is it canon? We use SBS info and databooks as canon but Oda probably didn't put some stuff in the manga, so are databooks not canon? Meshack (talk) 12:55, September 20, 2017 (UTC)

The discussion isn't about what is considered canon, but rather if this specifically is canon. Pointing out other ambiguous think we categorize as canon isn't gonna get us anywhere if Klobis still insists on "Oda confirmed it" only. Like said above, the majority in this discussion say canon so this should be enough unless someone has new, relevant arguments. Rhavkin (talk) 15:23, September 20, 2017 (UTC)

Majority can do anything without proper evidence? The problem is there seems to be no evidence for your opinion. --Klobis (talk) 08:33, September 22, 2017 (UTC)

Evidences to what? To whether or not consider "Oda supervised" as canon? It a question of wiki guidelines and was majority voted for "yes" in this discussion. Rhavkin (talk) 09:23, September 22, 2017 (UTC)

After all, why is the novel canon? What makes the novel not non-canon? --Klobis (talk) 10:11, September 22, 2017 (UTC)

Official source (OPM) and Oda approved. What else do you need? Rhavkin (talk) 10:29, September 22, 2017 (UTC)

Majority agreement for considering canon. 22:51, September 30, 2017 (UTC)

Name
The title on the full novel is "Novel Ace". Should we changed the name? Rhavkin (talk) 15:54, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

It's Novel A, but the A is read as "Ace". Look at the cover, the title has a red 'A' and then furigana giving it the reading Ēsu. 16:50, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

I saw the red A, and the spade inside of it by-the-way, but I didn't knew which was the right way to read it. Thank you. Rhavkin (talk) 17:11, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

No point in making an entirely new section so adding it here. The word novel needs to be capitalized since that's how titles work. Also this is a book, not a chapter or episode article so it does need references. SeaTerror (talk) 17:31, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

Unless there's something about the title I'm missing, novel is written all lowercase. We have song titles (like THE SAND BLUES) written in all caps because that's the way they're written - it doesn't matter how titles "work".

Also, what do we need to reference? The book? Might as well reference chapter and episode articles then Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 17:35, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

References are needed because this is a book, like Databooks which also have references of release date. Here could also include the announcement. Rhavkin (talk) 17:42, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Books are like databooks like Rhavkin said. It isn't a chapter or episode. SeaTerror (talk) 18:07, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

I believe it should be "One Piece novel Ace" since "A" should be read as "Ace". It's no different than Gear 2 being read as Gear Second. We don't use "Gear 2" because of it. I vote for One Piece novel Ace. Meshack (talk) 19:26, March 6, 2018 (UTC)

The Gears are another discussion. We don't call Germa 66 Germa Double Six. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 20:51, March 6, 2018 (UTC)

Was it ever written as "Ace" in latin characters? I get that it was supposed to be read as "Ace", but as long it is written as A we should do the same. One Piece Film: Z comes to mind as well.

Actually the gears are a good comparison because in chapter 895 it was written phonetically like the novel. Rhavkin (talk) 22:48, March 6, 2018 (UTC)

Furigana give the reading of a word, not its meaning. So the written title is "One Piece Novel A", but the meaning is "One Piece Novel Ace". It's comparable to numbers, you write them as 123, but read them as one-two-three. • Seelentau 愛 議 06:35, March 7, 2018 (UTC)

Chapter 664: M・シーザー・クラウン   is translated as "Master Caesar Clown". Film Z is different because furigana is equivalent to Zetto, i.e. the letter 'Z' is the same as the pronunciation (would be different if furigana was equivalent to Zephyr). Also, for a whole bunch of Charlotte's lately the names have been written as C [first name] (with Charlotte in furigana) - their last names aren't C. It should be novel Ace. 45.56.153.169 10:30, March 7, 2018 (UTC)

X Drake. Master is spelled out in full on the volume character introduction page and 'C' is just an initial used to denote the full name Charlotte, which has been spelled out in full both in Japanese and English several times. So no, it shouldn't. 10:56, March 7, 2018 (UTC)

This discussion is basically about whether or not a name is determined by how it is spelled or who it is pronounce. I think there should be a general ruling for the example presented here. Rhavkin (talk) 15:53, March 7, 2018 (UTC)

What about the references? SeaTerror (talk) 17:38, March 7, 2018 (UTC)

A book is a book is a book, so references should be included. Kaido was the only one who objected so it was majority either way. Rhavkin (talk) 18:14, March 7, 2018 (UTC)

Agreed about references. And as this is a case of direct romanization, guidelines support the naming 'novel A'. Other instances should be addressed on their respective pages. Closing the discussion. 22:46, March 11, 2018 (UTC)

I know this is "over" but just wanted to bring up the point that Sandman uses novel Ace and not novel A. Meshack (talk) 06:04, March 14, 2018 (UTC)

Volumes
Seeing as we'll have more than one book, and since the magazine and the first book are the same plot, I think we should remove all the magazine info from this page. It can be mentioned on the Publication History or Trivia but keeping is as is and splitting it by volumes is gonna be confusing with the full books volumes. Rhavkin (talk) 06:22, April 26, 2018 (UTC)

Canon 2
What the wiki decides does not make something canon. By Rhavkin's logic we should just add Joy Boy theories to pages as "facts" since that's as official as the wiki is. SeaTerror (talk) 21:39, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

ST, give some context. Not everyone has seen the edit war. State both sides of the argument and the side you stand on. We'll go from there.

22:22, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

ST had edited two trivia points, which Rhavkin disputed. He edited the point about the novel canonizing some anime scenes, which was wrong since that point was correct. He also removed the point about this being the only canon novel, and I would agree that this doesn't really belong in a trivia section. We only consider novel A canon because we discussed it and the majority supported it. Otherwise, there's no real official difference between this and the other novels. And I don't really know what Rhavkin meant when undoing me, because this doesn't have anything to do with including information from the novel (which would be the official source in that case), it's talking about the status of the novel itself and right now there is no official source confirming it to be canon afaik. We make it clear that novel A is canon in our Canon policy page, but I don't think something stemming purely from wiki discussion and policy belongs on a mainspace page Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 22:58, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

The other edit was not wrong since only the wiki considers it canon. My edit there just removed the word canon SeaTerror (talk) 23:01, October 17, 2018 (UTC)

It's not like I edited the official One Piece website according to the wiki decision, this is a wiki page and information about it should and shouldn't be included depending on the wiki. The wiki decide it's canon, so the wiki page should about should note that. Given this fact, and the trivia guidelines, I think it should be noted that this is the first canon novel.

Kaido, my edit summary was cut. What I was saying in cases where a databook (like Vivre Card) reveal something (like a character's name English spelling, age, abilities and\or history) and we include it he wiki, knowing that databooks aren't 100% reliable, yet we include on the character page. If the wiki decide something it is legitimate to act upon that decision in the wiki. Rhavkin (talk) 05:02, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

Then start posting Youtube theories as "fact" in trivia sections since the wiki is as official as those people. SeaTerror (talk) 18:08, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

There is a difference between theory videos and wiki decision. Rhavkin (talk) 19:58, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

There literally is no difference when neither are official sources. SeaTerror (talk) 20:46, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

Did you even read to previews discussion? Rhavkin (talk) 20:55, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

The fact that we decided it to be canon doesn't mean it's correct and 100% veridic. So it doesn't have to be put in the article. Pau D. Seven (talk) 21:00, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

We decided that based on facts. Please read the previews discussion. Rhavkin (talk) 21:30, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

The actual facts are the wiki is not an official source. Not a single official source said the novel is canon. SeaTerror (talk) 22:55, October 18, 2018 (UTC)

Did you saw Awaikage's and Noland's second comments? Rhavkin (talk) 04:26, October 19, 2018 (UTC)

It is simple. Like the "official" anime, the "official" novel is not canon. --Klobis (talk) 04:22, October 24, 2018 (UTC)

The wiki considers it canon. The trivia isn't valid unless Oda himself says the novel is canon. SeaTerror (talk) 19:51, October 28, 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works and you know this. What the wiki decide is legitimate throughout the entire wiki, including page's trivia section, unless Oda says otherwise. Just like any naming issue or anything the anime show with Oda's approval. Rhavkin (talk) 20:33, October 28, 2018 (UTC)

No it isn't. That's what you yourself decided and only you. SeaTerror (talk) 21:13, October 28, 2018 (UTC)

You've got some nerve claiming someone else is following their own rules and not the wiki. You're just pissed that the decision was made without you, and I do not want this to became personal, nor do I want to repeat what was said in the previous discussion, so I'll try another way.

According to wiki rules, a closed discussion mustn't be reopened unless new information is given. Since no new information about the canonity on this novel, or lack there of, this discussion should be closed.

As for the trivia, and as I said previously, under the presumption that this novel is canon, this would make it the first canon novel, and according to trivia rules, should be noted.

Do Not re-open this discussion unless: or
 * New information about the canonity of this novel is given.
 * You don't think the fact that this is the first canon novel should be noted in the trivia.

Rhavkin (talk) 21:34, October 28, 2018 (UTC)

That's a fact since that trivia is claiming it like it's official. Also that isn't true since old discussions can be reopened after a period of time. This isn't an old discussion anyway. If it was then I would have just commented on the old talk. This is about something completely different. The wiki is not official therefore it doesn't decide what is officially canon. You keep ignoring video examples but it applies because the wiki is as valid as any fan theory officially. SeaTerror (talk) 22:15, October 28, 2018 (UTC)

It's been more than a week since the last comment and everybody but Rhavkin agrees that since it's not officially canon (no, it's not, we can't decide over Oda) it cannot be put in the trivia. Pau D. Seven (talk) 16:00, November 6, 2018 (UTC)

That's not how it works. No new information since the previous discussion has been revealed, and basically no one from that discussion say they changed their minds. Considering both discussions, there's still a majority for canon. Rhavkin (talk) 16:13, November 6, 2018 (UTC)

Read my previous comment. SeaTerror (talk) 16:17, November 6, 2018 (UTC)

Canon Ultimatum
For context, I am starting this discussion in light of an edit war in which SeaTerror believes we cannot refer to novel A's events as canon.

I feel like we need to settle this once and for all. We cannot have something that is "half canon" or "unofficially canon" where we treat its content like canon but can't officially say it is. That is illogical. Either this novel is canon, or it is not. If we cannot say explicitly that something is canon, we cannot say implicitly that it is. By implicitly, I mean the likes of identifying the events in the novel as canon via categories, template placement, lack of non-canon tags, etc.

When I gave my support in the previous discussion for removing the trivia point about its canonicity, I did not intend to support any effort to eliminate the treatment of its information as canon. I just did not simply consider its canonicity trivia worthy.

The wiki decided back in 2017 that novel A's canonicity is on par with the databooks' canonicity. Unless there is something that officially disproves that, then novel A's canonicity IS official. As a wiki, we try to stick as close to official sources as possible, but there are times when official sources don't say everything. A perfect example would be Story Arcs. Most Story Arc names and lengths were created by us because official sources are shaky when it comes to officially defining arcs. But just because we were the ones who defined the story arcs does not mean editors can play loosey goosey with what's in an arc. Plenty of people consider Water 7, Enies Lobby, and Post-Enies Lobby to be all one arc, but you can't go around changing their structure on random pages with the justification that "only the wiki decided to split them up". While that might be true, for the sake of consistency and organization we have to decide on something and stick to it when official sources aren't committing one way or another.

So we need to put our foot down. Either this is canon, or it isn't. If there is no official source going one way or the other, then this wiki needs to make the official statement. Other sites are free to disregard us if they wish, but when it comes to wiki content we need to put our foot down about our declarations - otherwise, there is no real way to enforce consistency here. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 22:40, June 26, 2019 (UTC)