Talk:Baratie

I believe there is certain order for a seperate page to be made for the "Tiny Fish No. 1", the small attack paddle boat that detatches from the Baratie's mouth. As of the exact translation I am not sure, I have read it as the Tiny Fish and Mackeral No. 1

Sabagashira, also please sign with four tildes ( ~ ).Mugiwara Franky 14:19, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

SS. Sanjiface and Dessert Submarine
Should the two new upgrades after the timeskip get their own articals? We could easy join them to the Baratie. After all, they are part of the Baratie resturaunt. Ryuzakiforever 16:25, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

But they're also their own ships with names, so they should have their own articles. If they were just named something like "dessert restaurant" and "other place", then yeah, but they have proper names. 16:44, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how name dictates anything. If an unnamed character does something important, he barely gets a mention. George Black is a name written with no role, but he gets an artical. Please, there are extras with more significance than George Black. So, if these are just a seperate part of the baratie, I don't think a name justifies it's own artical. Ryuzakiforever 01:53, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

If they have names and can stand on their own, they can get their own articles. If the title was something conjectural, then it will most likely be merged. Prime examples of this are Sabo's parents. "Sabo's Mother" and "Sabo's Father" used to have their own pages, until they were merged with Sabo. There are sections on Baratie's page that talk about the restaurants as well as link to them. 02:24, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'm failing to see your point. Sabo's Father plays a much bigger role than both these ship combined. You're telling me right now that a name is worthy of it's own article, but not a role. Name beats significance. Why the crap would we do that? Isn't that making articles for the sake of making articles, but ignoring articles for simplicity? I know I can't win both fights. People ignored my request to remove George Black, so I'm going to fight for this one. Ryuzakiforever 03:09, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

It's to avoid having too many conjectural titles for articles. Sometimes role merits an article, like Sabo's parents for the time they had their own articles. If we start making conjectural articles it would spin out of control. Let me give you an example. Someone makes a page called "Mjosgard's Father", they fill it with the correct information. Then someone might get the idea to make a "Fishman Who Almost Shot Mjosgard" page, and that leads to the creation of more pages without actual names. Then they have to get fit on templates and categorized, and before you know it we have a ton of articles about a bunch of randoms who had roles of varying significance but no name. We don't have a pirate who shot Otohime page, and he killed a major political figure. It's for organizational purposes. Going back to the pages in question, they have names, and mainly have their own pages for categorization purposes. It's name over role when it comes to whether or not something gets its own article. 03:36, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

But that's not a problem with names? It can't get "out of control" as long as the article has a good title? I can't buy that. Because, again, the article George Black supports me. He has literally no role in the story whatsoever. It's just a random extra name at this point. He get's his on article. He's earned it? Having a title? But Sabo's father gets merged because his title might get out of hand? If you want stop things without names from getting articles, fine. I support you. But I cannot support things with names getting articles no matter how small. I want those two ships merged with the baratie. I want George Black deleted. Hell, I don't want to see anyone only named in Databooks getting articles. They simply don't deserve it. Do you see my point at all? Ryuzakiforever 03:49, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

The point here is that we give separate articles to virtually everything that gets an official name, but for certain things like Foods and Beverages and Dials, they do get merged. It all depends on how general the articles are, we merge them. Every named ship, however, gets its own page, no matter how stubby, otherwise, we'd be merging the Shark Submerge III, Mini Merry II and Shiro Mokuba I into Thousand Sunny. 04:18, June 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is, we can expand the information about the Baratie sister ships. 04:20, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Then let's do that. I'll get started on Sister Anko. 04:45, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Not to cause more fuss, but what's the problem with merging Shark Submerge, Mini Merry, and Shiro Mokuba to the Thousand Sunny? Seems fit to me. Ryuzakiforever 20:15, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

Thousand Sunny's page is long enough as it is. To add three more articles too it seems like a bit much. Also, it would be hard to categorize them if they were merged. If you want to discuss this further, go to Thousand Sunny. 20:20, June 6, 2011 (UTC)

VALATIE
i'm watching the OP opening share the world and look what i have discovered look closely and read sanji's backgroung so is it official now?Rainelz 10:25, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this is really...amazing, got so used to Baratie, but its amazing to how you found it...I mean...written there? on an opening...amazing, I think its official now

Anime is inaccurate when compared to the original manga by Oda. 11:42, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

It's also contraddictory.

http://manga.animea.net/one-piece-chapter-43-page-3.html

manga>>>>>anime /discussion 12:58, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

No need to talk about it...


 * I added a reference for the official romanization.


 * Im very truly sorry about that! SORRY111.235.94.156 14:01, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Oda's Workplace
So where can we find anything reliable to back up that trivia? We can't trust any of the links that were put up. SeaTerror (talk) 17:49, July 15, 2016 (UTC)