Forum:Former Shichibukai Gallery order

Recently, around Donflamingo's exit from the Shichibukai, the former Shichibukai section of Template:Shichibukai Gallery has been reordered to reflect when the characters were first introduced, rather then when they left the Shichibukai and were introduced as "former Shichibukai", as had predominantly been the case for at least the past two years. While I had tried to return the template to its previous order, SeaTerror took objection. Although we discussed it on the talk page, I was unable to convince him (and he me). Wanting to avoid an edit war, I thought it best to raise the issue here.

The crux of my argument is this: The former Shichibukai are a separate subset of the Shichibukai, which they are already categorized as now, and should therefore be organized by when they were shown to be part of that subset, much like how Buggy and Law were introduced before other current members, yet are ordered by when they are shown to be Shichibukai. I also believe that organizing them as such would be helpful, in that a visitor could view the gallery and see the order they left, rather than have to scroll through the article or go to the individual members' articles to see when they left. In addition, I think Template:Shichibukai Members should be changed to reflect this as well, as it was, until recently, organized by when the members left too . Memnarc (talk) 22:53, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

The order doesn't really matter. 20:46, April 5, 2013 (UTC)

The order does matter when there isn't really a section where it simply says when a pirate left the Shichibukai, other than the history section of the Shichibukai page. Even then, the history section is a lot to read through. I agree with Memnarc's point that there should be an order for former Shichibukai. - Racht  06:25, April 24, 2013 (UTC)

Bumping this thread. I still think I'm right about this. Can we get some more opinions please? Memnarc (talk) 03:45, June 7, 2013 (UTC)

It seems like my complaint has been resolved by Oda of all people! I guess I can drop this issue...for now. Memnarc (talk) 04:20, June 13, 2013 (UTC)