Talk:Fukaboshi

Family Article?
Should we create an article of the Neptune Family? (68.36.166.78 20:46, December 27, 2010 (UTC))

Full Name?
Since they are the Neptune brothers, wouldn't that mean that Neptune is in their name? Meaning Fukaboshi would be Neptune Fukaboshi, or Fukaboshi Neptune. If true, then the same would go for Ryuboshi and Manboshi as well. What should be done, if anything?DancePowderer 02:48, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Fukaboshi next in line after his father's demise
Its about the first paragraph on his ability section:

"As the first son of the royal family, he is the heir apparent to the throne Ryugu Kingdom's throne should the current king, his father Neptune, die or otherwise abdicate his duties. As a prince, he has a great deal of authority in the country."

Where was that stated? We don't know if the title is passed down like that = speculation. Else I would really like a proper reference, thanks! 11:36, May 29, 2011 (UTC)

Before another says "thats how royalty works" I recommend reading this wikipedia article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_succession 00:49, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the parts under monarchs point to Fukaboshi as next in line. 01:06, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, even if we apply any of the known ways, it is still real life logic. This is fiction, we simply don't know how the successor is chosen = speculation. 01:07, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we do. Look at Wapol. His father left the throne and he was made in charge. 01:12, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Other countries, other rules. This is simply not enough to state it as a fact and I kinda don't understand the need to speculate on it to begin with? If it isn't confirmed it is speculation.

I love this kind of info on trivia pages, but it has no place on the serious parts of an article. 01:20, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

You're looking at it too much as fiction where the rules are up in the air and not what it is, a monarchy with actual monarchical structure to it. 01:58, June 2, 2011 (UTC)

Species
I've been researching this, and I'm pretty sure Fukaboshi is mackerel shark. His tail is the same as Madame Shirley's (both sort of look like a crescent wrench), which would make him a mako shark. But since it is unclear if he is a shortfin or longfin mako shark, he could still be called a mackerel shark which is what both species of mako fall under. I'm not sure if it would be speculation to put the species like this, so I wanted to check before I do. 23:07, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Agree. But also believe that he can be a tiger shark. 23:22, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

I thought about that, but a tiger shark's tale has a more definitive angle in its tail fin, while a mackerel shark's is slightly more curved. 23:27, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

True, but mackerel sharks tail is like a boomerang like tiger sharks, while Fukaboshi's like the moon. It has to be a compination between two types. Can we just put it as a 'mako shark'? 23:39, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

Mackerel shark might be better, because (according to wikipedia) certain species of tiger sharks fall under the class of mackerel shark. Here's the page. So, I figure since we aren't certain, it would be better to be too broad than too specific. 23:43, July 7, 2011 (UTC)

I think Fukaboshi is a salmon shark (ネズミザメ, nezumizame) since it said that he's a "fukazame" (フカザメ), and another Japanese name for salmon shark is "mafukazame" (マフカザメ).
 * 海賊-姫 06:30, July 8, 2011 (UTC)

stop using anime pictures as the character portraits, even without color any manga page is better. I don't want to see the rendition of a character some team of undergrad animators made, I wanna see Oda's, this probably will not be addressed, but if someone cares about presenting Oda's work, maybe we should present Oda's work.

Cool story, bro. SeaTerror 19:04, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Color Walk 6
Oda said in color walk 6 that Fukaboshi's design was inspired by Tsujimura’s figures. Since there are still no scans available, can we trust this piece of information and add it to the trivia?

Yes, it's a trustworthy source. Add it. 18:15, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say its trustworthy enough to be added. 18:24, January 17, 2014 (UTC)

Seems fine to me. 17:33, January 18, 2014 (UTC)