Talk:Nika

Gender
Nika was never stated to be male. It is just Who's-Who's depiction of them. The official translation means nothing, we know they have many mistranslations (Zolo), and even in 1018 they used "thousand" instead of two thousand, even thou the numbers doesn't add up. Even if the raw uses male pronouns, we shouldn't have an article based on a character perspective, at most it can be a trivia note about Who's-Who believing Nika to be male. Rhavkin (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Nika clearly has a male figure.
 * I don't specifically know what the raws say, but I've read multiple translations of this chapter and all of them, including the official one, refer to Nika as male.
 * "Zolo" is not a mistranslation.
 * The CP0 stuff was not mistranslation either, they are talking in general terms and not keeping an exact count of casualties.
 * There is no indication that anything about Nika was purely made up by Who's-Who's imagination. He heard the legend from a guard and I see no reason to think why his visualization of Nika wasn't in line with what the guard told him. We have no grounds to say that Who's-Who was incorrect about anything regarding the legend as there is nothing to contradict him. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In Who's-Who's mind. Look at Kanjuro "appearance" as a child or his initial silhouette, or Kiku's figure, What we saw regarding Nika should count as actual appearance in any way.
 * Even if raw uses male pronouns, it is still in Who's-Who's mind. I do not want to bring the issue with Yamato here, but pronouns were shown times and again, especially during this arc, to not indicate gender.
 * Whatever. The point is time and time again it was proven we can't take the official translation too seriously.
 * A miscounting of a thousand isn't "not being exact" its being wrong.
 * Do you know what hearsay is? The article is about the figure, and Who's-Who's depiction is just that, a depiction. We've had wrong depictions before (Noland the Liar) and personalize depiction of stories (Vito and Sora comics).

As I said before, Who's-Who's depiction should be mentioned, but the article can't be based on it. Rhavkin (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing about Nika was indicated to have been made up by Who's-Who. Please show me evidence indicating that Who's-Who's understanding of the legend is incorrect. If you don't have any, then you can't speculate that he is offering up some false idea of who Nika is. We don't assume that statements in the series are lies unless we have evidence to support it. That would be blatant speculation.

If we only had "Liar Noland" as a source for Noland's character, then we would use it as the basis for his article until we learn the truth because it's not our job to be one step ahead of Oda and his twists. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)