Template talk:Seven Warlords of the Sea Gallery

Former Shichibukai members
It seems odd to me to organize the former members by when they were first shown, rather then by when they stopped being members of the Shichibukai. The current members I get because no Shichibukai is more prominent in rank than another, unlike the Marines or many pirate crews. Plus it seems like a good way for someone to quickly look at all the members and be able to see what order they left in, rather than scroll through the article, which is enormous. Memnarc (talk) 23:12, March 17, 2013 (UTC)
 * Another thing I want to point out is that the current members of the Shichibukai are organized by when we were aware that they were Shichibukai, which is why Buggy is not before Mihawk and Law is not before Hancock. Therefore, does it not make sense that their former members by arranged by when they stopped being members? Memnarc (talk) 07:09, March 19, 2013 (UTC)

We have always done it this way. Templates are done by when a character is first seen. SeaTerror (talk) 20:43, March 22, 2013 (UTC)


 * That's rather debatable. The Thriller Bark Zombies, several pirate crews I could mention, a few Marines, and numerous civilian groups are not organized by when they were introduced. Not to mention the fact that former Shichibukai were organized by when they left until recently. Let me boil down my argument: The members of the Shichibukai are organized according to when they were shown to be Shichibukai yes? All I'm asking for is that the former members be given the same treatment: by putting them in the order which they were shown to be former Shichibukai. Memnarc (talk) 10:35, March 24, 2013 (UTC)

"Not to mention the fact that former Shichibukai were organized by when they left until recently." That is complete BS. The template has never been organized by when they left. The order is already organized to how they were first shown. The only thing with Buggy being different is because he was shown as a Shichibukai AFTER he was first introduced. The others like Crocodile were shown BEFORE they were stripped of their status. SeaTerror (talk) 02:15, March 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * Oh really? Never? Because from at least February 20, 2011 to February 20, 2013, the former Shichibukai were predominantly organized by the order they left. Or was the wikia itself "complete BS" for two years? And it looks like back in April of last year, you wanted to organize the template alphabetically. So please, climb down off your high horse and let's discuss this civilly. My argument is that the former Shichibukai are a separate subset of the Shichibukai, which they're already categorized as now.  Is it so irrational to arrange them in the order that they were shown to be part of that subset? Memnarc (talk) 22:01, March 25, 2013 (UTC)


 * The order doesn't really matter.If you want to change something,change it. 22:13, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

He already changed it and I undid it because I disagreed with the change. SeaTerror (talk) 22:22, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

So which is the correct order? 17:33, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I've made my position clear. Unless there are any further objections, I'm going to change it back. Memnarc (talk) 05:18, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Then I will just undo it again. SeaTerror (talk) 05:50, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Well, either refute my opinion or let's open this up to the forum, because I have no interest in an edit war. Memnarc (talk) 08:09, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

I already did. Take it to the forum. SeaTerror (talk) 07:14, April 2, 2013 (UTC)

Given the recent chapter it would appear that our disagreement has resolved itself. For the moment....Memnarc (talk) 04:17, June 13, 2013 (UTC)

Former Members' Portraits
The template should be consistent with the article. & since the article only talks about the former members up until their removal from the group, their portraits here should only be of them during their tenures as official members.

(Their last arcs as members are: Crocodile=Alabasta; Jinbe & Blackbeard=Impel-Down; Doflamingo=Punk Hazard)
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 04:55, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. 05:00, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

That's 1 vote. Can I get more opinions on this before I start making File:Shichibukai ex-member's name.PNGs?
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 07:57, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Makes sense. And does anyone want to weigh in on the Former Shichibukai order debate between SeaTerror and I? I brought it up in March and it's been practically two months. I don't like leaving things up in the air that long. The forum thread I started is here: or you could just use the talk section above. Memnarc (talk) 08:43, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, do it. 09:54, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, there seems to be some disagreements on which version of the avatar to use here. I think the one I picked is fine, since its been used for the longest time and its a recent picture. The artwork is improved and the lighting isn't so faded and grainy. Also the Moria picture I added shows a clear frontal of his face with crisp quality. His appearance hasn't changed so for now stick with the ones I've added please. Genocyber (talk) 20:50, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

With Moriah, either Thriller Bark or Marineford is fine since he was a member during both arcs.

But with Crocodile, he was only seen as a a member during the Alabasta arc. If possible, character images should be in daytime lighting. The one you want for Croc is in the lower lighting of Impel Down. You say the Alabasta one looks washed-out, but Crocodile naturally has washed-out-looking skin. Just look at his Marineford images!

If you could find good images from with the time-frames of their memberships, by all means upload them.
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 21:23, May 1, 2013 (UTC)

Moria and Blackbeard's images were while they were already Warlords, wasn't it? 03:36, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Their main portraits are of them during their membership (Marineford & earlier) because their last appearance after their removal can't be used (Moriah was beaten up by Doflamingo & the island Blackbeard was on had a reddish discoloration). But their main portraits will be updated once they make their post time-skip appearances.
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 04:05, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

One Image Per Member
I am really getting sick of this double image war going on. It's retarded, and is causing too much problems. Keep one avatar per shichibukai. Even the former ones. All of them. Keep their looks updated and use whatever is the best recent mugshot to keep things up to date and looking good. This new rule now that we have to keep their appearance from when they were elected is stupid. Why? Who's idea was that, because its not a very good one. For a good few years we kept things normal here using updated images of all characters. Let's keep it that way, with ONE avatar per member. Genocyber (talk) 17:54, May 2, 2013 (UTC)

Other organization templates use images of characters from when they were still members.
 * 1) All of the Straw Hats' known hometowns use their pre-ts images (Ohara has Kid Robin)
 * 2) Baratie = Luffy & Sanji pre-ts
 * 3) Dadan Family = Luffy & Ace as kids
 * 4) Enel's Warriors = McKinley pre-ts
 * 5) Franky Family = Franky pre-ts
 * 6) Galley-La = Lucci, Kaku, & Kalifa undercover
 * 7) Rumbar Pirates = Brook still alive
 * 8) Roger Pirates = Young Rayleigh & Crocus, Kid Shanks & Buggy
 * 9) Impel Down = mugshots, Ace & Crocodile locked up, & Arlong from the FI flashback
 * 10) Sun Pirates = Jinbe & the others from said flashback
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 19:45, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well you don't need a new image for everything. There's no point in having a different image for Moria at Thriller Bark and then another one at Marineford. SeaTerror (talk) 20:56, May 4, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Geno. It's stupid how we have two or three portraits for a single character. 06:47, June 13, 2013 (UTC)


 * It would look weird to have adult Robin on the Ohara template, or adults Luffy and Ace on the Dadan Family template. So I'm against using one single portrait everywhere.
 * However, I agree with ST about Moriah.

Doflamingo's Arrest
Is it at least worth nothing Doflamingo's arrest in this info box, like it is for the King one? I'd do it myself but it's locked.108.4.77.98 06:02, August 10, 2015 (UTC)

Order
This is dumb. The proper order is first introduction. Even the note says so. SeaTerror (talk) 05:50, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

The note says to list them not be order of introduction chapter, but as introduction as part of the group. Ans the former section shouldn't be different, listing them as order of departure from the group, not introduction chapter. Rhavkin (talk) 06:04, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

Like I said you clearly haven't read the note. SeaTerror (talk) 18:33, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

This is not the first you make a statement without explaining yourself. If you won't provide one, I'll just ignore you because you didn't really said anything. Rhavkin (talk) 18:48, March 31, 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Rhavkin. No need to put Buggy first just because he was present for 700 chapters before becoming a Shichibukai. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 01:45, April 14, 2018 (UTC)

Speaking about order we should remove the sections for current and former and let the legends status do the talking.--Rgilbert27 (talk) 02:16, April 14, 2018 (UTC)

Buggy has never been first. Rhavkin is putting the order incorrectly since this is about when they were first shown as a Shichibukai. SeaTerror (talk) 03:10, April 14, 2018 (UTC)

@SeaTerror: Oh, I misunderstood the argument. But I still agree with Rhavkin; if we're going to order the current Shichibukai by when they were first introduced as such, then it makes sense to order the former ones by when they left the group.

@Rgilbert: It's better to have the sections when a considerable percentage of the members are former. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 20:05, April 22, 2018 (UTC)

That is why we should use the status to tell not just how they are former but what saga/order they left.--Rgilbert27 (talk) 20:17, April 22, 2018 (UTC)

The message says nothing about former which is why the order should always be when they were first introduced as one. SeaTerror (talk) 05:12, April 23, 2018 (UTC)

It really doesn't make any sense to structure the former section by when the characters debuted as Shichibukai. If Buggy is where he is because he joined the Shichibukai at a certain point in the story, then why shouldn't, say, Doflamingo's placement be based off of when he lost his status? Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 03:46, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

Because that's not how we do any template. It's always supposed to be first appearance. SeaTerror (talk) 03:55, June 20, 2018 (UTC)

If it's "first appearance" then Buggy should be first in the current section. The point when they join/leave is also a factor. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 01:54, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

"ORDER IS THE CHAPTER WE FIRST SAW THEM AS A MEMBER OF SHICHIBUKAI" That's why Buggy is there instead. SeaTerror (talk) 02:26, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

...What, exactly, is the basis for that? None of the discussions on here had a conclusive majority, nor did the forum about it that was linked here. It seems this is still completely open for discussion. It makes no sense to order the current Shichibukai by their join date but not the former Shichibukai by the time at which they left. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 03:27, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

They should all be in order of when joined and when left. ST, there may be a precedent for how we handle these galleries, but former situations amd decisions may not be applicable or make much sense in this context. 04:08, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

If you do that then the order wouldn't be by first appearance anymore. SeaTerror (talk) 08:33, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

That's the point. Rhavkin (talk) 09:23, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

I would not consider Buggy the first Shichibukai encountered in the series since he was not one in his debut. It should be in order of when they joined and when they left. 14:12, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

We don't want them in first appearance. We want them in order of joined/left. Do you order the Charlotte Family/Big Mom Pirates in order of appearance? No. We've broken your appearance order rule before, so let's do it here too.

Right now, ST, you are the only one against the order change. If no one has anything to add, we can change the order by rule of majority. 16:52, June 23, 2018 (UTC)

I think order of joining/leaving is best to avoid confusion. 14:55, June 24, 2018 (UTC)