Forum:Site Problems

Layout?
I've looked through the layout guide but I'm still confused. How do you add in charts and tables? And if this isn't the right place to post this sorry, I'm new. Goddess6 18:55, October 19, 2009 (UTC)Goddess6


 * Oh that section of the wikia is dated. Like... Since the beginning of the Wikia. For beginners, you can practice Copy + paste charts and tables and practice editing by creating your own sandbox page like this: User:Goddess6/Sandbox, just add that link anywhere on your user page. Also, [] explains a lot of the coding, though you need to really sit down and read + play with it before you understand it. One-Winged Hawk 21:03, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Spoilers Actions
Lately, we've been getting plenty of spoilers, where people are posting information about chapters that have yet to actually appear (such as Whitebeard's Gura Gura no Mi before Chapter 552 came out). We should put a warning in the Main Page stating "No Spoilers" until the Chapter is officially out. Also, we should make it that if anyone dare to break this rule, their user account would be temporarily banned/disabled until the actual Chapter comes out. Please think about this rule and post any thoughts about it in my user page. Yatanogarasu 20:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure what types of spoilers I am trying to say, another example here is: Someone keeps posting that Marco possesses some Devil Fruit abilities that produces/becomes blue flames, and Jozu can turn his body into diamonds. These are possibly information about Chapter 553, which has yet to officially come out. Yatanogarasu 20:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * okay guys for us to have a peace in mind i have created a new wikia which is "One Piece spoiler wikia" here we could add spoilers and forums about spoilers so that no one could end up putting spoiler here in the main wikia every week spoilers will be cleaned up and we could put another spoiler here. here is the address:[]

Rainelz...


 * Yeah, some people would just ignore this address and still post spoilers on this site. We should think about the rule I suggested. Yatanogarasu 22:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm goign to rework the links template we have on a few sites, its time to open it up even more.


 * As for spoiler rules, I've been calling for answer to this for weeks and my pleas have gone unheard. We're wasting time reverting spoilers. Last week there was part of the spoiler a note the two admirals had stopped one of two incoming waves and the other killed 50k marines. Correct me if I'm wrong but THAT never happened (and had I time I'd add it to Mythbusters under fake spoilers but I'm getting ready to go out now). Spoilers aren't always correct, we should not jump on the bandwagon every time they get released and those that do should be warned. One-Winged Hawk 07:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Considering the size of what is happening currently in the manga, its expected that these things would happen.


 * Banning people, especially anon ips, for simply writing in spoilers is a bad idea as some of these people may not know the rules of the site.


 * Blocking pages simply to stop spoilers is also a bad idea as there maybe editors who want to correct or add something that isn't in the spoilers.


 * The best we can do is hold up the fort the best as we can until the storm is over. We just have hold tight as we hold tight on correcting stuff like vandalism.Mugiwara Franky 07:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The spoiler wikia Rainelz is kinda of a good attempt to help this wikia I guess, however I'm not sure if it would survive in the long run. Considering that the only content that would be in it is content that will sooner or later be released, its only gonna have a few to no pages.Mugiwara Franky 07:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * okay last try to stop spoiler we could make this site editable for members only and for those who put spoilers would be ban even their accounts.{sorry for my english}Rainelz 10:31, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Topic fmoved to forum. One-Winged Hawk 09:34, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Section Request
Why don't you make an "Outfits" section that shows all the characters outfits? I searched all over the Internet and it exists only in this German wiki, but I'm sure it will be useful here too, for the wiki and for cosplaying!

Hoping this was a good suggestion, an Italian OP fan "vfede".

Has anyone made this section yet? If not, I'd be happy to. Please let me know! EDIT: I see no one has, so I've started it but I've never made a page before and the layout is really irritating me! >.< Any help available? Goddess6 17:55, October 18, 2009 (UTC)Goddess6


 * Nami has too many outfits... One-Winged Hawk 09:08, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Episode Page Discussion
Ok, we need to settle this. I offer my time to work in every single episode page and the format I offer is the template with the basic information as seen in Episode 001. It offers the information of the Japanese name and airdate plus the DVD that includes it from the Funimation dub version and the music that opens and closes the episode. I also offer a collage, to meet the demands of the other users, so that instead of just the title card we can have another 3 images that tell the most important plot points of that episodes, however I get to choose those images and since it's opinion based I can't say that every user will agree for each to be the best choice.

What I was thinking is to rename the pages as "Episode 000 - Funimation title". At least that way we can have a concrete base as to how to name them all. And have the following redirect to that, which can include:


 * Episode 0 (For chapters 1-9)
 * Episode 00 (For chapters 1-99
 * Episode 000 (For chapters 1-ending)
 * Japanese title from translation
 * English title from 4Kids
 * English title from Funimation

Talking for myself, the way that I have accessed Episode pages is from either using the episode # or using the Episode Guide, I have never used the title of the episode translated because I don't feel the need of learning it or wondering if that version of translation was the one that some other user used to create it's article here.

About the issue of One Piece going over 1000 chapters, my opinion is that it won't get to that many, it's already stated that Oda is a little past it's middle like 25 episodes ago, so at the most I expect around 940. I know it's a guess, but it's as valid as saying that the count will go over 1000 and both have the same probability of being true.

I can't work on adding 4Kids information because I don't have access to that version of the show other than what it's stated here or in Wikipedia, so I just can offer not to remove that. I have tried to understand it but it gets really confusing.

One of the users that wrote in my discussion page said something about an Episode Guideline page. However I really can't find it. If someone can redirect me to it we can add it to the template so that every one interested in helping the episode pages can read it beforehand.

This is all the work I offer to do. The templates, look after and correct any possible redirect that can go into them (they are redirects, they work exactly to redirect to the content, doesn't matter the page's name!) and unify the format for each and every episode page. I'll try to go with Funimation's rhythm so to keep everything with a good quality standard.

These are the changes I can offer. I know some users will disagree with me so this is the time to resolve that differences in opinion and before I waste more hours of my life working in something that could be potentially reverted I need to know what else I'm missing or if I can continue. Thanks everyone! TheMario 00:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Just some notes.


 * Despite Funimation's efforts, there are still a lot of episodes without an English equivalent. This means no English title pic and no Voyage listing.
 * At some point of the Enies Lobby arc, Ending songs were dropped for a longer opening song. It's been that way so far.
 * Pics in the collage may need to be the same size to optimize balance.
 * A lot of 4kids episodes are combined episodes and the listing is different from the original Japanese. This means redirecting maybe a hassle but not really a problem.


 * Mugiwara Franky 01:57, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi MF! I'll answer to these: Of course that Funimation has many episodes still to unrelease, but going at their peace will help me do it better and less boring. About the music, I'm thinking about doing that an "if" clause when we get there so don't worry about that. Pics of the first collage were an example, I'll take them myself the sme way I took the title cards so don't worry about that. And about the 4Kids thing, I wrote in User:Mario/Discussions that maybe a good alternative is to make each 4Kids episode a separate article, or maybe just for those that were merged together. TheMario 05:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Funimation's pacing is indeed good at the very least. However considering they've only done about 100 something episodes of a 400 episode and ongoing series, some consideration may have to be taken at some point.


 * Making articles for 4kids episodes maybe going a bit too far. Not solely because of personal preferences, but because it may add more workload and lost pages to the wikia. Redirecting the majority of them is good enough. For those that are combined episodes, just mentioning in certain articles maybe enough.


 * Another thing, the title pic maybe indeed redundant. There's already information about the title elsewhere and an English version of the title pic isn't possible for the majority of the episodes.Mugiwara Franky 17:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My 2 cents;

Regardless of someone's opinion of what will and won't happen, can we not put ourselves in the position of that SHOULD it reach 1000 chapters/episode that we have to go back and change 999 episode names. I completely object to this idea entirely as I would not put this burden on ANY editor. One-Winged Hawk 06:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Secondly, I notice we are sticking with FUNimation names... So now our Guidelines mean nothing???. If we continue with this naming scheme, this guidelines is officially broken, so what do we do with this? Do we go against our fundamental rule that we set up when we first came here or what? This is what the founders of this wikia, of which I myself was one, all agreed on right back at the start and I simply refuse to see it abandon now. This is like surrendering to those idiots at wikipedia and accepting that they were right, since they were the ones who insisted we stick to the dub names.


 * So either we squash the guideline, or we fix the titles. If we squash the guideline, I wash my hands of the wikia officially and forever, because I refuse to let this one go. This one guidelines means more to me then any OTHER guideline we have. One-Winged Hawk 07:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You do know that the base of a law system is that said laws must apply as long as they are usefull for those that live under said law? If a law is just not working it has to be reformed so it applies to the new community, communities change and if you hope that everything has to continue the same way you'll just be swimming against a current, and I'm not just talking about a current here but almost everywhere. You have to understand also that there is a flood of new people discovering what really is One Piece as it originally was meant to be but in their own language. The Funi version is trying to be what is primarily available to viewers in America.


 * Now, I know that the changes to episode might scare you a bit for the HUGE amount of work that it seems, but that's a load that I'm risking to take and finish it, at a good pace however. As I have seen in your contribution list it's been a while since you edited an episode, many many episodes contain only statistics and a navigation template! They are very abandoned and they are an important part of what One Piece is about and I have some fun writing about them. So please, please, breath deeply and try to accept change. It's always scary to accept change but give it a chance and don't take it personally ok? TheMario 07:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reframe this guideline? NO WAY! This is the guideline that mattered to us right at the beginning, to the founders at the time, this was like laying down the American constitution (which I can't spell), and if we simply abandon it, it means we might as well abandon the whole dam wikia. This wikia isn't JUST for fans, its for ANIME fans also, of which everyone was when we first came in. FUNimation is miles behind the Japanese. And while it may change, they still have that gap and will always have it. If you abandon this now, things like Keimi mean nothing anymore and are open to become Camie again, this ties all names into the very least the Japanese translation and not an English dub. This is why its important, this is one of our CORE guidelines at stake here.


 * As for the episodes, I was focused on simply the chapters, I linked to the episodes because I had to do a chart for the arcs. And I pleaded for help to tackle this a LONG time ago; no one bothered so I stopped. 380+ episodes and 450+ chapters done by 1 person? Thats a bit much don't you think???? And besides I don't watch the anime, I stick to the manga. I'm there editing things when I have time and when I don't, I'm not. Like any editor here, I'm not committed to this as a job, I do this of my own free will and time. Though I consider it low you'd pick my faults in editing here when your the one actually going against the guidelines not I. One-Winged Hawk 07:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying that even the Constitution has made amendments. Of course it's not abandoning it! It's the exact opposite. It's making changes that give new opportunities without falling in anarchy! For example, you say that the wikia is for anime fans. Imagine that you are an anime fan that just discovered One Piece and let's say that he saw a random episode. Of course he or she won't remember the title! If he looks for it in the Wikia he knows the number of the episode, which is the same for any sub version and now for Funi. About the Keimi issue, we all know that a rose by other name smells the same, that's what redirects are for since the mermaid will be the mermaid and the article talking about the mermaid remains even if the title is a version that some know and some others don't. And STILL the name Camie exists in that page as an "English name" so it's noted that you can't ignore that at the end the people who most edit this wiki has more knowledge in the English language than the Japanese language.


 * About the other thing, sorry, I didn't meant to point out anything other than the fact that I think you write incredibly good bio articles, and about the editing a a job, I make it for fun too, but I think that by offering so many changes to the way things are now in what I think is the best visual and content way, the very least I could do is to honor my word and get that to the end. Once again I ask from you to calm a bit and see things in other eyes, I wouldn't be very proud of myself if this community loses a valuable member like you because of me. TheMario 07:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the Japanese lack of understanding of the English Language has NOTHING to do with the matter at hand, thats a pretty poor excuse in fact. Oda has always stuck to the spelling of Zoro, and he has access to quite a variety of resources. We can only take Oda's word for it when he spells something out. To dismiss say a thing would be to call the Japanese stupid for attempting a language they don't normally master. Should an English person never attempt the Japanese language? These kind of arguments are two way.


 * I'm mad, but only because this issue at hand is one I take to heart. I was there when the fights over Zolo and Zoro took place on wikipedia. We choose to write this guidelines with that in mind, better to have the Japanese and avoid argument then to argue over the dub. People took 4Kids translation too much to heart and expected us to yield to their requests; even though we were at the W7 arc and 4Kids had only just started the BW arc. In the end it took a loop hole to get what we wanted. Then the next problem happened; HOURS AND HOURS upon HOURS of work deleted as it was deemed "worthless". And the icing on the cake was someone coming onto wikipedia and simply claiming we'd stolen their site; bang a whole page of needed terminology GONE.


 * For the founders, particular those like me who spent hours arguing with wikipedians, this sort of thing was heart breaking. Even those of us that are left, I'm about the only one who endured it all from start to finish from when most of it began to the end of things. Some of it had to change, but the core elements are unchanged since day 1. But tell me this; How EXACTLY would you change those important guidelines??? You haven't even told me that much, you've declared that we need to change it, time to adapt, but you've not made a single suggestion so far. How can we comparison a "all or nothing" guideline??? The only time the Japanese, in the entire history of the wikia, could not be used was for Grand Adventure and thats only because there is NO Japanese version of that game. One-Winged Hawk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If the issue is about what titles to use for episode articles, why not just simply use Episode #. Somewhat of a compromise I guess since there can be multiple translations for an episode depending on who's translating, whether it be subber or dubber. Funi has only dubbed at least 100+ at the moment and it would be a bit broken for a list to have one part using Funi titles and the rest using Japanese translated titles.

Also there might be a chance that, heaven forbid, Funi will get tired of dubbing episodes. If that happens and if another company picks up One Piece and decides to start all over again, then there would be a massive confusion on what to name things. Best to keep things simple and not a hassle for everyone.Mugiwara Franky 10:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mf, thats... What we had before... ^_^'


 * There is still no 4Kids version of the English titles on the templates, I see the FUNimation, but not that. Also, don't forget Odex? Theres a kettle of worms I hoped we don't have ti hunt down. Fior the Odex, I can hunt that down at the weekend. We've never really tackled the Odex version before. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 18:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Using 001-whatever is a horrible idea. Nobody uses a format like that. Also nobody honestly cares what Funimation uses. I say they should all be moved back to the titles we had before. If we go like this then soon enough somebody will try to change all chapter names to Viz names. Everybody knows Viz is a crappy company. Drunk Samurai 18:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Using 001 is not necessarily a bad idea since it helps identifies episodes. The way the episodes were titled back then doesn't exactly help some people in easily telling right away what episode was which without going back a page. The idea however comes into conflict with some issues so using simply using Episode # is a fair enough compromise.


 * Some people care about what Funimation uses as they are considerably a better dub than 4kids. Viz has some faults what with using 4kids terms and all. It however has its ups like with it speeding up its release of One Piece chapters. Mugiwara Franky 19:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * But the bottom line here is MF, we choose to stick to the closet Japanese translation we could find, that is our aim. Not using a the most preferred name; but using the none that seems correct. As far as I'm concern when it comes to dubs, we cannot pick and choose over which one to use. May I also point out we had a "no anti-4Kids" thing going on, so making a dozen editors happy that are 4Kids haters isn't now going against that policy? I prefer they be treated equally on par with each other, and when it comes down to it, Odex was the most accurate of the dubs produced so far, even on top of FUNimation's dub. One-Winged Hawk 23:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

001 is a bad idea. What you said makes no sense. Episode 1 is episode 1. Adding an extra 0 does nothing but make no sense. K-F is still what we should use. There is nothing wrong with their translations. If TheMario wants official English translations on a wikia then he should go join the Naruto wikia where they use all the crappy and wrong names. Also when has Viz ever sped up releases of One Piece? All they did was release 3 volumes of Naruto for like 3 months and One Piece got like 1 every 6 months. Drunk Samurai 18:18, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The only reason you'd use Episode 001 instead of Episode 1 is as Wikis can't properly organise the latter in numerical order (So it'd end up placing Episode 20 before Episode 3 or something like that). As far as the naming goes it's probably best just to stick with the original method, making what seems to be such a controversial move only causes hassle and prevents other, likely more important tasks, from being completed. Galrauch 20:02, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The normal method of handling shows is SX EXX (Season: no. Episode: no.) even OP could fit into that method, but it would make life harder for us and everyone by that system. One-Winged Hawk 23:05, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I say we move everything back to how it was. He hasn't even been on since the 16th anyway. There is no point to the format he moved everything to. Without a consensus I might add. Drunk Samurai 02:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Users can't be expected to edit the wikia on a daily basis as they have lives as seen here.


 * Having any number of 0's before a # works if there is a known number of things. If there are a 100 to 999 things then two 0's help organize things. If there are a 1000 to 999 things then three 00's help organize things. This however only works if there is a known total number of things. Since it is unknown how many episodes of One Piece there will be, the 0's don't work.


 * The titles of most of the Episodes as far as I can remember were originally simply the translations of the Japanese titles. While there were the closest, they however are a bit of a hassle when arranging things especially in the category parts of the wikia.


 * As for Viz, I'm not exactly sure of the details but according to somewhere here, they're planning to sped up One Piece.Mugiwara Franky 04:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

About the whole "Viz speeding up the release of One Piece" thing, they're actually doing it much faster than they did with Naruto: 5 volumes per month between January and June of 2010 = 30 volumes in just 6 months! You can read about it on their official website.
 * Kaizoku-Hime 05:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The point is we should be using the names that we have been using and not Funimation's. Like I said he did it without a consensus. Also that doesn't make me think any higher of Viz. Though that discussion should be taken to my talk page. Drunk Samurai 05:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now MF, you once had a few words with me on supporting a new editor who came in and wanted changes made to the Luffy page, at that time you backed the notion a new editor can't simply come in and demand changes. Now the take is reversed, your the one supporting a new editor that comes in and makes huge changes and all. So does things change to suit you now MF, or this Wikia? I hate to say it, but I'm beginning to get annoyed at this, as DS has so rightly pointed out, (and myself), this SHOULD have been discussed BEFORE the changes.


 * As for the editor who made the changes, TheMario may have left us because of my previous comments. As I said to him, at the end of the day, TheMario broke guidelines, and did things without discussion; while his intentions were good ones and he helped A LOT he left us with problems and he still broke the guidelines. I also had also said to TheMario and I'll say it to you MF, before we can go ahead with this staying, that guideline I pointed out to him NEEDS to be amended. We should either:


 * knock this discussion on the head until we've discussed that guidelines changing,
 * delete that guideline on vote,
 * or simply all agree this breaks the guidelines and come to a conclusion fast regarding this matter.


 * Yeah... I've still not forgiven Viz for messing up badly with Beyblade translations, so theres my stance on Viz. If we had to make a stand on Viz, I would be in that discussion. I have hot blood regarding them. One-Winged Hawk 08:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't necessarily support all of TheMario's proposals on this. At the very least, I don't support his initial choice of formatting the episode titles to follow Funi's titles as it breaks the list. I prefer it to however it to be a compromise with just the Episode number in order to balance issues between two sides of a coin.


 * True, TheMario did change the episode titles however from what I gather he did after starting a discussion. The problem was it started abit slow and badly with too few people talking. He's not exactly a new editor per say as he's been around for some time. So far, he's edits have been helpful. It's just now that everyone's taking notice. He's also hasn't left as seen in his contributions. He's not just a random IP or editor who comes in out of the blue and demands something. Mugiwara Franky 08:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since I rarely see any of TheMario's edits, I had gathered looking at his contributions he a) wasn't a regular or b) a recent editor as such. Maybe its because I'm used to having the crowd thats been hear for more a year around. Either way, if no one was involved with the discussion, word should have been put around on it to the other editors. One-Winged Hawk 19:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * About breaking the guidelines, to tell you the truth the only guideline that I could find in the site where the Image and Spoilers guidelines. It's true that I never read the Naming guidelines and that ignorance of the rules is never an excuse not to follow them. However, the episode pages needed a lot of work and someone that can look after 400+ pages while trying to keep them correct, informative and standardized. However, having the episode page's name as [Fansub translation] makes the name of the page inaccurate and difficult to find for readers and potential editors. I also want to note that if Toei rectified their decision to give the license to Funimation, and that Funimation is doing their best to keep the true spirit of One Piece then their version of translation of at least the phrases that give the name to the episode can be taken as the most "accurate" version of the title in English that Toei themselves can offer us.


 * OK, after reading everything that we have discussed here I think we can all settle with the following:


 * The article names should have the following set up: [Episode X - Funimation Title]. In other words, no zeros if the episode is 1 or 2 digits. This will settle the discussion of whether One Piece will have less than 999 or more than 1000 episodes. About episodes without Funimation Title, only [Episode XXX] should be used while the released of the episode in DVD happens.
 * The Template inside of Episode page should use the heroes so that as Galrauch correctly pointed out the wiki categories can be ordered neatly and by order.
 * I'll rewrite the Episode Info template so that if no Funimation release exists yet then the Template won't display Season/Voyage. I'll also condition it to whether the episode has an Ending or not.
 * I'll re-redirect all redirects. (Heh, that rolls funny in the tongue.) to the correct page. I'll also try to maintain my rhythm of 1 episode every day, maybe 2 if I have time. I'll also offer myself to continue with the photo collages, any complaint that maybe an image is not good enough or any suggestions of an specific photo can be made to my user discussion page.

TheMario 08:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there's still a bit of disagreement between people an no consensus yet. The main argument so far is having all of the episodes using translated titles or just having a few with Funi titles. As I've been saying, simply having [Episode X] regardless whether it has a Funi equivalent or not would be better as it is a compromise.


 * For the guideline, I believe this is it. While Funi may be doing a better job and all, its still on equal grounds with 4kids and Odex. Due to having more than one English dubbing company, its best to be neutral and just follow the original Japanese version.Mugiwara Franky 09:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank You MF, I actually had a mind blank when I wrote my previous comments and forgot I already mentioned it on the page. Thats the guideline that would need to be fixed in order to allow the FUNimation naming scheme to go on. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 19:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No. Episode X fansub title. I will say no to any suggestions to using Funimation's titles. I meant to bring that up before but I forgot. My original suggestion was going to recommend all episodes be like how the chapters are numbered. Drunk Samurai 09:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fansub titles also provide a problem to a degree as the question is which Fansub to use. Some Fansubs use fan based names, some use their own names, and some even use Funi names. Though following like how the chapter titles are named is not a bad idea as it provides consistency throughout the site. The only problem would be which names to use.Mugiwara Franky

We should just use K-F until what they have then so on with the other groups until K-F finishes. I'll be willing to edit the templates until they are done. Drunk Samurai 19:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * K-F is rated as the most accurate of the regular subbers, however even they make mistakes. Just watch for any possible mistakes in their either works like "merman" instead of "fishman". One-Winged Hawk 19:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No. Just no. How can you leave something so important in the hands of a bunch of people that as you say "make mistakes" in the way they label the episodes. I vote that if we are not going to use the Funimation title then we leave it as Mugiwara Franky suggested, as [Episode X] and that's all. TheMario 05:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PD: If what you want is consistency I also nominate that all the Chapter pages be called [Chapter X]. Without fan translated title.


 * Actually thats what we had originally for chapters and I still recon was the best option. I've been arguing over having any names in chapter titles at all for the same reason. Episode 5 is much easier to work around then Episode 5 - "Insert whatever name it is". One-Winged Hawk 05:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nooo, actually what you originally had was [Fansub Title] and like 70% of them redirected by an [Episode X] page. If we can settle with the [Episode/Chapter X] I'll stop arguing. I still think we should standardize it to 3 digits, but if it isn't possible then fine with me. TheMario 05:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about chapters there not episodes... But Yes, ORIGINALLY we had them all without a title (You've not checked out the full history of redirects here). One-Winged Hawk 05:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if they make mistakes. They hardly make any mistakes at all. Use the fansubbed titles instead of numbers. It was much better that way. Chapters should remain the same format also. Drunk Samurai 09:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The same can be said for Funimation by a Funimation supporter. Since Funimation is doing a better job than 4kids, a supporter can say, "We should use Funimation titles cause they hardly make any noticeable bull like 4kids. I don't care if they use 4kids terms or any other mistake.".


 * Having the Episodes and Chapters as Episode x and Chapter x respectively is not a bad idea. It would at most make navigating easier for the general public and not the select few.Mugiwara Franky 14:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I still say use the fansub titles. This whole disagreement is only because one Funimation fanboy was mad about the Wikia using fansub titles. This is not Wikipedia where they use official English titles 100% of the time no matter what. Having only episode numbers will have made me fixing the templates and making the redirects completely pointless. Drunk Samurai 10:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't exactly think that TheMario is mad at all about the Wikia using fansub titles. It seems more like he wants to help the wikia out in a completely ignored section.


 * Just some side notes, Drunk Samurai. If you are gonna be angry about this change because all of your work is gonna be made pointless, then that's kinda being a wee bit selfish. The wikia is free for everyone to edit and not just a select few. Changing your edits won't make them pointless, they'll just be changed. They certainly weren't pointless back then when redirects were needed. This type of re-editing and stuff is just part of wikia development.


 * If you are gonna be angry because its a super big change, then that's not progress. Everyone once in awhile a big change is needed to better the wikia. I mean you did a big change in the wikia likewise in the past. One of your first edits was taking out all the spoiler warnings in all the current events sections in all the articles, a decision not discussed forehand with the rest of the community and an action that kinda made some other's edits pointless. It however was pretty much overlooked and accepted one way or another.


 * If you are gonna be angry because of preference, then that's just close mindedness and a bit too selfish. The Episode and Chapter articles require development in a big way and someone is willing to help. If you are not gonna allow them to help the articles progress because you like the way they are now, then they're never gonna progress.Mugiwara Franky 13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The change to the episodes and chapters is pointless and not needed. He is editing without an actual consensus. Of course he ignores these comments because he knows that I am right about it being pointless and him not having a consensus. The change he wants has no reason at all. It is only because he does not like anything except "official" English versions. I bet he is Goodraise or one of those people from Wikipedia. Drunk Samurai 18:04, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not really going to argue with you, but I'll say this: There IS a consensus, the consensus is to name episode and chapters by number and nothing else. You calling me a Funimation fanboy does nothing but remark that you are defending the fansubs like a fanboy yourself. What I have gather from your talk page is that you want things done your way and you have even been banned for being stubborn. If I were as stubborn as you I would still be pushing for adding the Funimation titles but I'm not, mostly because I have accepted both the view of others and the voice of an administrator. So please direct your personal attacks somewhere else and let me work in what I enjoy working. TheMario 19:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. 2 people thinking something is a good idea does not = a consensus. Not to mention your were even working on it before without even paying attention to this. You're edits will get keep on getting reverted until you actually listen to people and stop pretending there is a consensus. Drunk Samurai 20:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, cool the arguing a little. Its been decided at least we'll stick to episode and chapter no.s only from now. We have an English translation of names argument that will never likely be resolved. On the one hand the rules of the guideline ask for the closet translation, its been pointed out its not possible to declare what is the most accurate for sure and no dub name can be used without altering this guideline.


 * So we go back to our ORIGINAL format of episode titles (I screamed when we first changed from "episode x" and "Chapter X" it was a mistake) to save an argument. If we are to move back away from it, we've either got to decide on 1 accurate translation or change a guideline it seems its now boiled down to.


 * A small note on implementing problem that may be heading our way from reading your posts. If there are edits wars, please remember MF may step in any any point to end them, as Edit Wars are against the rules and are vandalism or at least post productive. Take note, if an edit is reverted by two people more then twice, it may be considered the start of an edit war I suppose. DS, please, please, you've been in those before; I suggest if TheMario and you get into this situation you seek out MF. Your a good editor, please don't edit these silly wars thats not your best points. Also TheMario, if MF has made a discussion and there is no new discussion pointers, I suggest you think this over for a few days and come up with something new. If you want your ideas to stick, a cool off period to rethink your proposal might do you wonders; consider it if you don't like what we're suggesting. A lot of people do leave a conversation if they don't get their way in a hump, but few are prepared to rethink things through and come back with a better idea. ^_- One-Winged Hawk 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just gonna list this down since it maybe getting a little confusing for some.


 * TheMario has suggested a change in episode titles
 * Angel prefers not to use Funi titles due to it breaking guidelines
 * DrunkSamurai prefers not to use Funi titles but prefers Fansub titles
 * I, Mugiwara Franky, suggested to just use Episode X as a compromise
 * Angel and TheMario agree to this compromise
 * For consistency sake Chapters are suggested to be also Chapter X
 * Drunk Samurai doesn't agree to this compromise because of various reasons against TheMario


 * So I'm gonna ask is there or is there no consensus among most of the editors. Please state your final verdict as to whether to change the Episodes and Chapters or not. I really can't help out until things are cleared up.


 * Personally, I think that 3 editors have come to a consensus and 1 just wants to do things his way and not helping to resolve the matter with his comments. Mugiwara Franky 03:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree there is. One-Winged Hawk 06:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with changing them too. TheMario 07:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with making the change. Kaizoku-Hime 07:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I Disagree with the change. Also that makes no sense easier to navigate? That's why the redirects were created. Besides even if you change the Episode numbers you still have to change the content too. Gum Gum? No way. Original Japanese 100% no matter what. Drunk Samurai 08:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Only the titles will be changed, the contents will not be changed. The episode and chapter titles will follow the original numbering they were given in Japanese.Mugiwara Franky 12:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Look at what I had to edit. TheMario put Gum Gum instead of Gomu Gomu. In fact he even took out a plot synopsis for no reason. Drunk Samurai 18:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Long Spaces
I'm sure some of you may have notice this already but for those who haven't I bring them up to speed to this problem. There seems to be some editors who have been placing long spaces between templates, most notably the navigation ones at the bottom. Since it seems to be abit too widespread to be just a single editor, I decided to try editing the wikia through a different computer. To my surprise, it seems the spaces are apparently caused by something in site. I'm not exactly sure what is the cause but at least it proves that there isn't some kind of prankster doing this. Mugiwara Franky 14:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems to only affect anons, probably some new users as well. Really don't fully understand what is going on. Mugiwara Franky 14:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We could try reporting the problem... I had something simulair with the main page, it does this from time to time, it adds things to tables while in Rich Text mode. I wouldn't be sure, but Rich text MAY be what causes the anons to get spaces. If it causes oddities in one thing, maybe it causes them in another? :-/ One-Winged Hawk 16:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I kinda think so too cause when I edited as an anon when testing it out, this Rich Text thing popped out. What is this Rich Text thing anyway? I don't know too much about due to my preference setting in viewing the wikia. Mugiwara Franky 16:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There are two ways to edit: Rich text or Source.


 * Rich text is an "easy" editing system that acts as you would expect from say, M.Word. Source is the typical coding where you enter things manually, its what we started from the beginning using. You now:, , [[Image:whatever.PNG]] all this coding stuff we should be familair with. You CAN switch between the two, but once you save in Rich text format, thats when you get probs. Rich Text adds oddities, I saw this happen once in another similar site, which is why I made a fuss and a half about Rich text coming here. Also, Rich text comes up by default usually which ticks me off.


 * If I knew how to make source dominate I'd set my profile to edit that way preferably. Both you, me and several others have been here long enough to have only to worry with Source Text anyway, Rich Text to us is pretty useless; its for noobs mostly. One-Winged Hawk 16:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I see. Though I'm an admin, I have no idea how to set this Lazy Text off. If I find out how, I think I'll turn it off so that it'll stop causing problems for the site. Mugiwara Franky 16:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay so far as I understand seen here, it's something that's more of a preference setting than something a wikia admin can change. I'll try to ask help from the main wiki for this matter. Mugiwara Franky 16:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thw site calls source text "wikitext"... For some odd reason. I'll note that much. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 17:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Chapter appearances by character
Just made an account today, but I've been visiting this wiki for a couple months now. Today I noticed that most of the chapter pages list the characters that appear in them. I was thinking it might be useful to create a page listing all the characters and what chapters they appear in and/or including it on each character's page for quick reference purposes. I am fully up to taking on this task, though it will take some time for me to complete it. I mostly wanted to make sure a) no one was already doing this, b) that it a page like this didn't already exist and I just hadn't managed to find it, and c) if anyone possibly wanted to help with it. It might be silly to do this for the Straw Hats since they're in most every chapter after they join the crew; but for all the other characters, especially the recurring ones, it could prove useful. Lils 15:21, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I'd protest but there exists list pages for other things so... Yeah go on. A page for all characters. Regarding the SHs, since they don't appear in all the chapters, (even Luffy's had a break or two I recall) they can be included too. But save them for last. One-Winged Hawk 21:54, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if you should or shouldn't include Pandaman... Leave joke characters for now. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 21:55, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * I realized awhile ago, but didn't come back to edit it, that I forgot I can make each character's section collapse-able so you wouldn't have to look at 500+ links for Luffy unless you wanted to. I've got a good idea in mind for formatting it so that it'll be easy and unobtrusive to c&p to the bottom of individual character pages as well. Lils 22:05, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if your up for it, sandbox some ideas. One-Winged Hawk 22:29, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Have done so. Lils 01:13, November 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have an excel table which contain the reapparition of main characters (well I don't promise it is exhaustive), are you interested ? However, it contains only the chapter after the arc where the character is introduced.
 * For example if we take Buggy, I have something like
 * buggy reapparition:::*buggy cover story:::*Luffy's execution : 99
 * Buggy and Ace : 233
 * Shanks Whitebeard II flashback : 434-05
 * Impel down : 526-18 (I don't put the chapters after this one, since he is then a recurring character)


 * Also Tipota has made a table in List of canon characters article which give the first apparition chapter and episode of every characters (it is currently updated). I'm not sure it is necessary to have more info for characters who sometime appear only once in the manga. Kdom 00:15, November 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think its ness. to go in deeper then first appearances, character reappearances are normally listed on the chapter page itself. So chapter 32 lists all the characters that show up, chapter 52 does the same, or in theory thats whats suppose to be there. Character get their chapters linked via the "history" section when referenced. This creates a two way link between character and chapter, something a lot of our list pages are struggling with as of late. One-Winged Hawk 00:35, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Whoa...
I've looked at the Spoiler Rules page and checked over the history page... You know I don't even recognise my own edits there? I'm reading it and it totally doesn't hit me I wrote some of that text until I read the history page and see, yes I did in deed write that. I get this a lot on the wikia, a lot of the pages just don't seem like me at all. Weird. O.o' One-Winged Hawk 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

..... Well since this was dated to 2007, I guess just you edit way to much in the Wikia that you'll end up forgetting

Joekido 10:35, November 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * My edits got a little lazy over time when I wrote that message thats why I was surprised. Lol, I still do this every so often, look back on what I wrote and think "I wrote that?" because it doesn't sound like a normal edit to me. One-Winged Hawk 11:42, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Your VERY OWN Picture-Guy
Hello. As you have noticed,I have uploaded over 50 images. Regard me as you semi-official picture uploader. If there is a pic missing, then tell me and I'll try and find it-most of them are on the wikipedia, but for those that aren't I go to the Simple Gallery, or a german anime screenshot page. However, I have problems, because I have not been able to find any pages with the screencaps of episode 151 and for the current episodes- which is not SO bad, but it only means I'll have to get the screenshot from the manga. I WILL but you will have to understand that at times the images may be a bit low quality, depending on the scan.

To get back to the point-report a missing image/pic/flag and I'm on my way. Just put it into my talk page with the title "Picture Request 1(and following numbers)".

User:New Babylon

Pirate Terms
I think they are getting silly. We've got pages popping up now that don't have links to and fro and are sloppily being put up. I'm not saying we shouln't have them, what I'm saying is we don't need all of them. Some of them appearing on the pirate terms template have almost nothing to do with pirates and have been stuffed there simply because their a term; not a pirate related term. I think its time we replaced some with links to wikipedia, because this is simply getting out of hand. One-Winged Hawk 09:36, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I kinda have to agree on some I guess. Articles like Straw Hat maybe included to a certain degree since Luffy wears one and thus a significant subject. Articles like Poison however maybe abit much since it only appears from time to time and isn't a significant subject.Mugiwara Franky 09:51, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Articles like posion don't really deserve a article. On straw hat though; be honest is that REALLY a pirate term? And "bible"? How about "demon"? None of those three should be on that template. One-Winged Hawk 09:54, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess you kinda have a point since they're abit far from true pirate terms.Mugiwara Franky 10:01, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Breaks in long sequences of paragraphs in History sections
Can we have a discussion on the use of sections within sections of the History section. I'm asking this because of a somewhat irritating dilemma brought about Buh. The problem is that he wants to have the Straw Hats to have completely uniformed history sections. There is nothing wrong with that except the sequence of paragraphs per some sections for some characters can get really long.Some Straw Hats may get little to no action in some arcs and have very little paragraphs. Some Straw Hats may get lots of action and have so many paragraphs that they may require some divisions.

For the divisions, think of the basic ruling of a paragraph structure, a paragraph requires four to six sentences so that people won't get lost. The same can apply to divisions to very long sections. A section that has a set number of paragraphs is not only easier to read but also easier to navigate and edit.Mugiwara Franky 14:24, November 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I can't deny the pointlessness of really short sub sections with one paragraph and that I want to express the oppposite direction of being too long is not a problem for me to handle... But I don't mind so long as there are: 1) only the actions of that straw hat written there and no one else 2) Paragraphs to begin with so we can read it 3) references, which are struggling to be added again. I wish I could be more useful, but rereading old chapters is something I have little time for at the moment, so I'm not editing history sections right now. One-Winged Hawk 19:22, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

I would support shorting them up because I happen to agree that long titles are overly silly

Joekido 10:37, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

===Whats wrong with long titles, long titles are fun and productive and show how much we love talking abut nothing, yes their great, that is long sentences with no full stops to end, oh look a flying cow, and a two headed deer... lalalala...=== Sorry... I couldn't resist a joke. I'm freezing my butt off in a cold home and on top of that I'm bored. @.@ One-Winged Hawk 11:30, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Buh boy loves long title and can't shut up

Joekido 11:33, November 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * My joke wasn't directed at Buh, it was a general moment of insanity due to cold hands and boredom. But it does prove a little point in the process. I prefer short, snappy, eye catching ones like I wrote "bloody and murderous" or something for BB's page. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 11:38, November 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ridiculously long title aren't really the main issue but they however are somewhat part of the problem. Due to the length of ridiculously long sections, they sometimes require ridiculously long titles as a short title might not be enough to describe the situation. An example would be Sabaody. With just one arc section, it appears the section requires somewhat a long winded title called An Incident on Sabaody Archipelago and the Destruction of the Straw Hat Crew to describe the section. However if you split the entire arc section into smaller sections, like splitting the first part of the arc involving Keimi getting kidnapped twice and the second part where the Straw Hats get separated, you get at three titles that are somewhat shorter in essence. Main arc title: "At Sabody", 1st section: "Slavery and Bubbles", 2nd section: "Legendary First Mate and Separation" for examples. Mugiwara Franky 12:10, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Some of the titles need to be shortened but there really is nothing wrong with having them. Drunk Samurai 16:45, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Length Vs Efficiency
This is a bit off-topic, but the discussion about length vs efficiency make me think about it. I already made a warning (without much success) : The Arc pages are becoming ridiculously detailed. If I want to know everything that happen in the manga, it's easier to read directly the original than reading these articles. Is it possible to decide of a logic about them (and apply it)? Kdom 11:39, November 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with keeping it short and sweet. I've complained MANY times about the length of the history sectin on Luffy's page. Worst is when others' fall prey to writing EVERY event in an arc including bits not to do with a character.


 * And while that thought is up, "Sandersonia's Sister" was used a dozen times on her page. She was there at the events so its all right to use "Boa Hancock". Using it a dozen times felt repeatable and like we don't even know her name. It actually got on my nerves to read. One-Winged Hawk 16:50, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Main article
SOMEBODY UPDATE THE MAIN ARTICLE Coldhandzz 12:35, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Note
Rather saying "not a forum" can we from now on move such discussions to our forum and leave a link to the page its been moved to. That is all thank you and good night. :-3 One-Winged Hawk 10:55, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Foxy Arc
This arc and all its characters seem neglected. I know its one of the weaker and unpopular arcs, but we need to get something done with the characters and events. There are pages that have hardly been touched since day 1 of the wikia. One-Winged Hawk 11:13, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * I've kinda worked on Foxy and his Devil Fruit a bit.:-/Mugiwara Franky 12:36, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been working on the races as of late. Still not satisfied 100% even now. I don't know what else to do with them though, halted until I can wrap my brain around them again. Not helpful today I've kinda tired. One-Winged Hawk 15:26, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Editing Comments of Others
{| width="100%" align=center|- The following is a documented discussion over editing other's comments. The general consensus is as follows: 
 * style="margin: 1px; background-color: lightblue; border: 1px solid #009E60; " valign=top |


 * 1) Should we allow editors to correct the spelling in the following conditions: 


 * 1) *User talk page: No 
 * 2) *Page Talk page: Yes 
 * 3) *Documentations: No 
 * 4) Also, should we be allowed to undo spelling corrections even if its not our own within the allowed editing rights or just our own? Just our own..

Please do not edit or add any further comments to this particular section as it is documented.

Okay an argument with DS, MD and myself. Basically, MD edits and corrects the spellings of others and DS argues that no one should edit others' comments. My view; so long as its not meant to be insulting, or is altered to say something entirely different from its original meaning it should be okay to correct spelling mistakes. When I was at wikipedia it was perfectly fine to do this as it made life a lot easier for everyone.

So opinions, what are everyone's overall views? I agree that a user talk page is under almost full control of the said user. So long as your not altering comments or just deleting when things don't go your way, or running a campaign against something theres no queries with how you set up your user page. Its our other pages that are in question here. On the one hand, their open for the entire wikia community to edit freely, but WHERE does that freedom end? One-Winged Hawk 14:42, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Angel Emfrbl's on this matter. As long the editing is strictly spelling correction and not alteration to the point that it reflects someone's else opinion or it's insulting to the user it should be okay to be edited. After all, the reason most comments are often kept in archives and aren't deleted from the page itself is because they are left to be seen by people because they carry information about resolved issues, problems in need of attention and argumentations on something controversial. Not all users that come to this wiki speak English nor it's their primary language. Some people could very well get confused if in a word a letter is missing or it's in the wrong order. Especially people who are using site translators. Drunk Samurai is partially right about editing other people's comments because it could lead to a series of problems like the above mentioned and I can understand his concern about the issue BUT arguing just for the sake of arguing is childish and won't lead to anywhere. That's my opinion and my thoughts on this, I'd like to hear the opinions of others too. MasterDeva 15:27, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * *Actually can't stop laughing since I made 3 spellings mistakes that needed to be corrected apparently!*


 * Lol. X-D One-Winged Hawk 16:46, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * XD MasterDeva 16:51, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly Drunk Samurai is clearly too integrist on this point. After all he is undoing some part that does not belong to himself. Technically he is contradicting himself. If you want your spelling mistake corrected you can't do it in the current status. As for me, since I'm not fluent in English, I'm always glad when someone corrects me. Kdom 20:00, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support Kdom. I'm glad to know that I can help and be of assistance. By the way, your vote would be appreciated here it's about the Eneru/Enel issue. MasterDeva 20:29, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Kdom has a point (psst, you didn't sign your comment with ~ Kdom) and actually I'm jealous since I didn't think of that point (darn it!). One-Winged Hawk 20:32, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Damn, I thought about it, but I always forgot in the end, I should right it first :-( Kdom 20:45, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't sweat it, better late than never as they say! ;-) MasterDeva 20:56, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

The comments only belong to the person who created them. They do not belong to anybody else and only the person who created them has any right to edit them. Drunk Samurai 22:15, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Repeating the same thing over and over again like a parrot and acting like a problem child doesn't make your point any stronger! MasterDeva 22:37, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hate to say it but a point has been raised, undoing the edit of another is likewise yourself commented the same act, whether you like it or not. If you truly believe that the edits belong to only that person, then it means you cannot undo the edits made to anyone else's comments but your own. And under what rule do we place it under? Its hardly vandalism. We have no rule to cover editing of comments, and until now its been largely an unwritten rule that only the deleting and altering of others comments was a bad thing. Hence the discussion here was opened.


 * In your court, you say we can't alter anyone's edits, but not the full "why". On our court we say its okay so long as its not an attempt to mock and humilate the person, and the other things I've said I'm not going to repeat. At the moment, there is a greater reason not to be concerned unless the serious stuff kicks off.


 * Still, lets get word around and make this more formal shall we. Theres only the opinions of 4 people here thats hardly enough of the wikia. One-Winged Hawk 22:46, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Editing other's comments simply for spelling errors is indeed okay to a point as long as the overall content is not change. However there are some exceptions I think.


 * 1) If someones notices the spelling error and points it out in discussion and the original author decides not to edit his comment, correcting the spelling error might make any further discussion strange.
 * 2) If the spelling error is documented along with other comments as a record of a particular discussion then correcting it maybe a violation of the documentation.
 * 3) If the spelling error was intended as a insult or compliment, correcting it might change its original effect.

That's all I can think of know. Mugiwara Franky 05:05, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Exactly Mugiwara Franky, you nailed it straight to the point. So far I tried to be careful not to correct any mistakes in phrases that seemed intentional, jokes or ones that are referred to further later because it would make the whole discussion strange. If I'm in doubt I'll leave it as it is, there are sometimes though I can't even understand what they're trying to say! 0_0' LOL!! MasterDeva 09:25, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Would the removal or correction of redlinks be considered a spelling edit as well? I ask this because for me, it would be the main reason to edit the coomments of another user. El Chupacabra 14:04, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

I think that when it comes to spelling and grammatical mistakes on the official articles, it only makes sense that someone with better skills is allowed to fix them. The point of a wikia page is, after all, to provide information to the reader, and not to stroke the ego of the person who wrote it. I've come across several articles where the writing was either child-like or illegible, and I don't mean to offend any writers when I say this. As long as the information is kept constant, no one should complain. We should strive to have the clearest information, and not be fighting over smaller issues.

A person's own user page should be entirely up to them, though. Sephirona 16:16, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't be looking at talk page comments to correct them in the first place. They do not belong to you and never will. Editing them proves you think they are yours. Also this isn't about article pages Sephirona. It is about talk page comments. Drunk Samurai 17:07, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh, if we don't look... How are we suppose to communticate? One-Winged Hawk 17:08, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

You're supposed to read them. You're not supposed to read them just to edit them. Drunk Samurai 17:15, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake. For a moment I thought we were talking about actual articles, not the discussion pages of those articles. In that case, I've personally never corrected anybody's comments. It's entirely up to them to type with proper grammar, though it's best they choose to do so as to avoid miscommunication. For purposes of documentation, I'd think it's actually best that another person's comments aren't changed - readers should be concerned with the results of that discussion as editted on the official article, and not what's on the discussion page. Seems like a waste of my time and energy to go around editting how a person chooses to speak on his/her own time, imo. Sephirona 17:28, November 24, 2009 (UTC) Sephirona 17:28, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

How many times do I have to say it Drunk Samurai that I never claimed or thought that I own any user's comments besides my own!? Stop making things up because that's not the case and you will end up exposed in the end!! To the second point you made I don't read them just to edit them rather I edit them for other people's sake so they can read them AND comprehend them.

The same principle we follow to make articles comprehensible applies almost(spelling check only!) to the talk pages were various issues about the articles are discussed and resolved. One of the reasons that these discussions are kept, (then later moved to archives), is that in case a similar problem arises the whole process that lead to the solution won't have to be repeated again.

As I have said already, this is all about the people who don't have English as their primary language and small problems like spelling or grammar keep them away from not understanding the context of a sentence that's been written incorrectly, it all comes down to that. MasterDeva 18:57, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Honnestly I'm not sure it is necessary to add some rules. A bit of common sense allows to judge between vandalism and typo correction. If a user doesn't want his typo corrected, he can undo the edit by himself. In anycase, he is the only one to decide. Kdom 21:04, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Indeed, a written rule isn't exactly a solution to this problem. Simply careful weighing whether the editing of another's comment is spelling correcting or vandalism is needed. Although leaving comments just as they are regardless of spelling in some cases is also kinda a good idea as it won't create problems in the first place.Mugiwara Franky 23:14, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

If you didn't read them just to edit them then you wouldn't be editing them at all. They do not belong to you so you have no right to edit them for any reason. By editing other's talk page comments you claim to own them. It is as simple as that. Drunk Samurai 23:03, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Masterdeva is not claiming ownership. He was just correcting spelling errors in good faith. If he had changed a word like "four" into "fuck" then it would be a problem. What he did was changing words like "fpur" into "four".Mugiwara Franky 23:14, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Editting someone else's comments doesn't constitute a claim of ownership. When you get your papers peer reviewed or corrected by a teacher, they aren't saying "I changed this paper now, so it's partly mine." The text belongs to the original writer, as stated by Creative Commons laws on the internet for intellectual property. There's no need to go around accusing people of claiming something is theirs when they obviously had no intention of doing so.
 * In any case, a better way to correct a passage for documentation, I think, would be to leave the original comment intact, but with a reply next to it that includes all the necessary typo fixes. Just for reference, since an open Wikia can be changed by anyone, drafts of the original content should be made available. Sephirona 23:17, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * So, what's the result of the discussion? Is it now allowed to do minor edits in the comments or not? El Chupacabra 15:44, December 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * Give me some time to think how to run a poll then... I've got more then one issue brought up here. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 17:43, December 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, according to the poll closing date the voting's over. What's the result? El Chupacabra 15:30, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

The One Rule to Rule them All
Don't add comments here, I'm just separating this for reading purposes. Here, thats the only thing that we have within our rules to speak of this sort of thing. One-Winged Hawk 22:59, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Voting Time!!
Please vote on the following issues (each one must be adressed):


 * 1) Should we allow editors to correct the spelling in the following conditions:
 * 2) *User talk page:
 * 3) *Page Talk page:
 * 4) *Documentations:
 * 5) Also, should we be allowed to undo spelling corrections even if its not our own within the allowed editing rights or just our own?

This is how I want us to reply to this, this is both my vote and an example:

Vote 1: User: One-Winged Hawk 17:52, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) * No
 * 2) * Yes
 * 3) * No
 * 4) Just our own

Vote 2: User: MasterDeva 22:02, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) * Yes
 * 2) * Yes
 * 3) * No
 * 4) Just our own

Vote 3: User:Mugiwara Franky 23:04, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) * No
 * 2) * Yes
 * 3) * No
 * 4) Just our own

Vote 4: Drunk Samurai 23:49, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) * No
 * 2) * No
 * 3) * No
 * 4) Yes

Vote 5: User:Kaizoku-Hime 23:55, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) * No
 * 2) * Yes
 * 3) * No
 * 4) Just our own

Vote 6: User: Sephirona 01:44, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) * No
 * 2) * Yes
 * 3) * No
 * 4) Just our own

Vote 7: Coldhandzz 05:06, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) * Yes
 * 2) * Yes
 * 3) * No
 * 4) Our Own

Vote 8: El Chupacabra 13:21, December 4, 2009 (UTC) Poll closing date; 10th December.
 * 1) *Yes
 * 2) *Yes
 * 3) *Yes
 * 4) Just our own

Okay someone's pointed out the dates passed, so I'll be summing things up in a mo and counting. One-Winged Hawk 16:42, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

FINAL RESULTS:


 * 1) Should we allow editors to correct the spelling in the following conditions:
 * 2) *User talk page: No
 * 3) *Page Talk page: Yes
 * 4) *Documentations: No
 * 5) Also, should we be allowed to undo spelling corrections even if its not our own within the allowed editing rights or just our own? Just our own.

So in other words from now on, you can only correct the spelling on page talk pages and can only undo your own and no one elses'. This should now be documented, I'll properly write up a guideline around this tomorrow, but at the very base level the issue has been resolved. I must admit, part of me thought when it came to vote, well a talk page is the users to control within a reasonable limit, so I'm glad it came out against allowing others' to alter the spellings. One-Winged Hawk 16:50, December 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * }

Archive
What is with the Archive pages, like the Vote for deletion archives, which are "responsible" for most of redlinks? I would like to remove the links to deleted pages. El Chupacabra 12:30, December 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Example me since I checked on "Wanted Pages" and found nothing? One-Winged Hawk 16:44, December 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh wait, I get what your on about! Never mind. I figured out what your on about here (sorta), but can you clear this up a little. The links the red ones provide either need removing or creating. But on some pages, they were removed and I "guess" they remain as proof they got removed. I'd just remove the "" and "" bits though, and have normal black text. We need really a method to clear up whats happened on these pages. One-Winged Hawk 16:48, December 12, 2009 (UTC)

No. Those are archived for a reason. Redlinks should ONLY be removed if they are on article pages. Drunk Samurai 17:56, December 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * The Special:WantedPages makes no distinction between articles and internal pages. El Chupacabra 14:38, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

British Vs American
Long story short; its an unwritten rule up until that it doesn't matter, so apparently now it does... Discuss. One-Winged Hawk 19:02, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

It's pretty much just about one word: honor vs. honour. Everywhere else on the Wiki it says honor; it shouldn't be otherwise on Crocodile's page.

Though now it's getting ridiculous, since I have a feeling that the person doing it and the mystery IP are one in the same. New unlogged users rarely just happen to go onto someone's talk page. The Pope 19:08, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * MF could confirm IPs. I think its silly. It never mattered on wikipedia and I don't expect it to matter here. Getting into edit wars over this is also silly. Such time wasted when we could be doing more serious edits. I'm British myself (I think that guy didn't get that hint) and I think its nonsense. Then again... I'm also dyslexic and prone to misspellings. O_o One-Winged Hawk 19:14, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention now he's saying that he's refusing to go on the forum; I think that shows his level of cooperation. The Pope 19:12, November 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thats his own choice, not ours, but nothing on issues like this can be resolved on his talk page. One-Winged Hawk 19:14, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what spelling is used. The only time I ever intentionally changed it was from colour to color on the Color Trap page so it would be consistent. Drunk Samurai 19:33, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I'm ****ed off since this guy's accused my nationality of not being what I say it is... MF can check it, its not like I can hide which county my computers currently stationed in. My IP and bitty things like that point out my ID. One-Winged Hawk 19:35, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Drunk Samurai is right on this one, it doesn't really matter which spelling we use as long as its consistent to the rest of the article. Now to the other problem, who is this new "fellow" who is causing trouble!? MasterDeva 19:58, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

End of discussion, problem is originally caused by a editor who is identified now as a troll.'

His a troll, just wait for MF to deal with him. This ends things there and pretend they never started. That includes leaving his User talk page alone for now. I'm quite sick of the jerk to be frank now. One-Winged Hawk 20:03, November 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't be upset Emfrbl, everyone here knows who you are and there in no need to prove to this ("add insult here") anything. His opinion is of no importance and he can't touch you. He is not very bright either, he couldn't understand anything even if you spelled it out for him. ;P A simple message to the mods is enough to for the likes of him! MasterDeva 20:19, November 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't had this kind of thing in 2 years, and it was coming from across the water having a go at me for being British, and believe me, it was COLD what THAT guy said. This guy's nothing compared to the New York dude who took nationalism to a whole new level. Makes me mad that I'd thought I'd seen the last of this 2 years ago, now it comes back in a whole new level of stupidity. Still, I can laugh at the whole ideal. Lol. X-D One-Winged Hawk 20:25, November 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * Laugh it off like a bad joke that turned... bad... XD MasterDeva 20:34, November 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol, well being told multicultalism on the net is one thing, but if he is preching one thing and demanding the opposite he is a hypocrit, all things aside. Well, we've had our fun out of it anyway. ^_^ One-Winged Hawk 21:06, November 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't know you had a national identity debate in England too :-)). Kdom 23:43, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't really matter that much, should it? We don't need to be THAT nit-picky. I'm a New Yorker, but I love British culture so...personally, I don't mind either. From the looks of the situation here, it's too bad there isn't some easier way to deal with immature people who have nothing better to do than start petty edit wars. :/ Sephirona 09:37, November 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * For me it's unimportant which spelling is used. Since this wikia has both British and American users (as well as other nationalities), both spellings should be allowed. El Chupacabra 14:41, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Another caller
http://apforums.net/showpost.php?p=1377904&postcount=902

I don't get it... If there is a problem why don't they just call us up on it and we'll take actions to ensure it doesn't happen again. Heck I don't even know whats here thats been stolen from Greg's site. I presume images since text gets edited all the time. I speak only for myself on this; I've never copied from his site and I hope no one else has. I think half our problem is just how we're set up. Baised? If they care to come here and argue with us, we're only human and we're only a handful of people monitoring 3,000+ pages.

Anyway, anyone got any ideas what was "stolen" from greg's site since I don't even know the URL? One-Winged Hawk 11:29, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * Some text that looks like it's from his site cause afterwards someone was complaining. His site is here and I even linked to a part of his site from the Straw Hats page at the start of the wikia as a way of giving credit so to speak.Mugiwara Franky 11:39, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * I've said it before, theres only so many ways you can write the same facts down. But so long as we don't direct copy (i.e. we write it in our own words) theres not a problem. To be honest, my experience of the anger and crit that comes from AP these days is cluelessness because they don't wiki themselves. So they lack the understanding and the effort we put into each article and the time we spend, etc, etc. It takes more effort to run a wikia despite the number of editors sometimes then an ordinary fan site. >_<' One-Winged Hawk 12:49, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

They call us baised, to be honest their baised towards wiki editing a lot of them anyway. And judging by Greg's reactions at AP, we're never going to solve "What has been copied from your site" here. As far as his concerned, its our job to check up on it, not his. So at this point... I don't know what to expect. I replied that stating the obivous that I don't have time to do investigating AND editing at the same time. To be honest, I've wasted time with the AP scenerio as it is today and I've just about run out of time for editing as it is for today. I only replied in response to someone else there because I was accused of being a tool for the wikia. I edit here... Thats the difference.

And to be honest... Aside from editing the races and checking up on images submitting, vandalism, etc, etc, etc I haven't done much editiing to be a "tool" myself. I think some of them are trying to start an argument with us and nothing more. None of them are prepared to come here and actaully engage talk with us but they'll certainly talk about us on forums. I think half the reason is purely backing, on forums they have 5,000+ other haters behind them and here they don't. One-Winged Hawk 13:41, December 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * I also note, they've always called us out first on issues, we're never said anything about another site without that site doing something first, be it wikipedia, AP, etc, etc and I don't know why everyone wants to stir up trouble with us. If they know how wikias work they shouldn't care and just leave us be to get on with what we do in peace. We've GOT rules and guidelines, we're inforcing them when we see the problems, what more do they want form us? -_-' One-Winged Hawk 13:54, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Haha wow. How did I miss this before? Who cares what any of them say? They are all idiots. Drunk Samurai 16:50, December 3, 2009 (UTC)


 * Naive, yes, idiots no. ITs hard to make people understand that the purposes of wikia is a starting point and a community joint effort. If the community is putting crap in, I can think of a Sonic the Hedgehog wikia doing just that I add, that the wikia comes out crap. [[User:Angel Emfrbl/Wikia Vs Fansite|My article on such matters]. Still, Greg has a respected website and half of his hate towards us is simply because we don't grab everything. While I did explain to Greg, we're allowed to have the same information on our site as his, we're not allowed to copy his site and sadly, some folks have. Greg's hate for the wikia is mostly this, and we're "biased" and the baisedness is purely name based.


 * He quotes "Oz" and I explained to him, we were sitting on the name, waiting for the proper translation. Oz and Odz were the most common and to be fair... Even experienced translators didn't get "Oars". We simply had to pick a name to make do with, Oz was it. The argument is the same with Enel/Eneru, Mihawk is the same. Names are a problem and we've got to pick what we something in the end. Oz was the first translated name the translators produced, even I acknowledge I was wrong and used it on Arlong Park awaiting the proper name. I get the idea it was me using it that sparked off half of this though since I'm one of the more picked out APers associated with this wikia. I have a sig with a wikia ad in it for starters.


 * The only thing I don't like about the complainers is how I was described with as a "tool" this time, I'm on AP because I'm a fan... That and my dragon cave eggs need their Unique Views to grow up... AP is the best forum for gettign a fair amount of views fast without killing them and I post mostly whenever I got an egg or two with need of views. But a tool for the wikia I'm not. Heck, unless someone raises the wikia up, I don't even mention us outside of the sig. One-Winged Hawk 21:12, December 14, 2009 (UTC)

Whitespaces
Getting worst folks. Now you simply have to be on the non-wikitext thing (name has slipped my mind) and its keeping white spaces as I'm finding out. It seems to be effecting tables, paragraphs and just about everything now. Why they heck did they introduce this crappy system anyway??? One-Winged Hawk 21:12, December 14, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that the answer to this is question is; TO MAKE US SUFFER!!! :@

Page not directly related to One Piece
After Drunk Samurai candidate Demon page for deletion, One-Winged Hawk and myself are questioning about the real interest to keep such pages in the wiki (Cf Talk:Demon. Ãlso what about the Terminology category, shouldn't we put a limit on it (for myself I would only keep words related to pirate and to Manga/japonese). Kdom 23:16, December 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe some pages really should be outed as they could be covered more easily in Wikipedia or in another site. Some however do belong here as they contribute to the culture that One Piece is based on.Mugiwara Franky 23:31, December 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Bible is the one I always pull up, its on the pirate template but has nothing to do with pirates.... And besides Kuma holding one nothing to do with OP. One-Winged Hawk 00:07, December 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that pages like "Demon" should cover the relation of their subject to One Piece and provide a link to wikipedia for more general information. El Chupacabra 15:34, December 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Doesn't the majority of these pages do already? The reason their being pulled up is their significant lack of links to OP, and apart from appearances thats it. Plus if we ever get a character called "Demon" we've got probs. I think we also may or may not have a page called  Angel . One-Winged Hawk 17:19, December 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * A good test to see the pertinence of an article, is to see how many pages link to it. It's blatant in the case of  Angel (4 pages including Demon, and this one). The problem are for the ones which are in Template:Pirates.  Bible is linked to all the pages who share this template so it is difficult to decide. As I said already this template should be modified (beside Jolly Roger, Bounties, Treasure, eventually Rum, I would suppress all the others which are not really related to pirates). Then if the number of links to the pages is ridiculous, I wouldn't complain if they are deleted Kdom 19:03, December 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well try removing the word from the template and go to "What links here" and see whats left. Trivial pages with less then 4 links should be considered for deleting. One-Winged Hawk 19:22, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, below is a selection of some Trivia Pages and the number of links towards those pages. For the logic I have taken to select these pages Cf Kdom Trivia.

Kdom 17:26, December 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * For those who have less than 4 links, I think we can agree to a removal (except for the Person pages which may deserve a discussion). For the ones related to Japanese or Media Culture, the Wikipedia page is easily found (except maybe for Easter Egg)
 * For those with 5 links, I don't think that Bar, Kanji or Onigiri are necessary
 * For those with more than 5, I'm not sure Ghost Ship deserve a place here (especially since all the links refers to Thriller Bark)


 * My opinions. One-Winged Hawk 20:41, December 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Changed my mind on El Dorado, it should be on the locations template, which is why its not done much since made. One-Winged Hawk 20:49, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

P.S. when the articles will be deleted, we should also remove all links to them, othrewise some newbies or anons might create them again. El Chupacabra 15:55, December 21, 2009 (UTC)

The Cloning of Other Sites
Okay guys, SBS 4 and so forth; loose these pages their a direct clone of APs website. The list we have is fine, the copycat pages are not. We even have the same pictures on the page! Okay thats unavoidable to a degree, but being a clone of another web page is completely avoidable. Can we do something about this. As it stands, we're liable to get in trouble for the direct cloning here. One-Winged Hawk 17:25, December 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Does the link to ArlongPark SBS still exists ? I have an old one which does not work anymore ([www.arlongpark.net/Manga/SBS]). And it is impossible to search for SBS in apforums. But I agree that it shall be clearly said, in the start of the article, where it comes from. Kdom 19:03, December 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * The main site is down at the moment, which is why I'm bringing this up now while they are doing whatever their doing with the site. I'd like us to move away from this problem we've had since day 1. I'll explain why we have more then the SBS page:


 * At the time Joekido came he he just got banned from Arlong Park's site, cutting out the fluff of story thats not relevent to this (since thats disrespectful towards Joekido), he pretty much here intent with making us a clone of AP because he was banned. It took us a lot of head banging before he accepted it (and has moved on from it to the benefit of everyone) was not practical. But the SBS pages seemed to have remained, and been expanded upon. Now supposedly we got permission from the site, but I never saw anything and the recent fuss from Greg makes me wonder if we actually ever did. Its not like with the Straw Hats Jolly rogers where I can instantly provide the evidence we have permission to use them, we're talking predated permission that never had evidence given to us to begin with.


 * If we keep them, I'd like us to find a way to at least stop them being identical in some way to the site. Direct copying is a "no no" and we're likely to get in trouble. Even on wikipedia you'd get a telling off for this. Plus outside of the template, they're about as dead link as they come. One-Winged Hawk 19:20, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

Again… you open the same discussion?

Just to remind you:
 * 1) I try and changed the articles layout at some point.
 * 2) Remove stupid questions like “hi Oda lets start SBS now “.
 * 3) APs website use Stephen translation
 * 4) Joekido already asks Stephen and takes permission to use his translation here. So any comparison to translation is unavoidable
 * 5) I am not copy/upload APforum pics.
 * 6) SBS 4 – 21 are not any more clone of AP website. And definitely not dead links.Tipota 20:05, December 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * To correct you on this, the SBS pages are the example, I am starting this as a discussion to find and change cloned pages. I can only do what I know, the SBS pages are all I know so far. I'm also trying to highlight problems here. As for if I have made a mistake here, well I've got a few complaints from AP, Greg's site complaint I've dealt with, now the SBSs are my current one. I can't resolve some issues outside AP because the job is too wide and too long. Still if its clarified I can strike this off the list and get back to the APer who complained. For now, theres nothing else major to resolve and I'm annoyed someone has wasted my time (it maybe because the site is down they complained, since I can't directly see the same page). This discussion will remain for any future problems.
 * SBS Volume 10 vs. webarchive - AP SBS Volume 10 from April 30, 2008. Tipota 14:01, December 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole "site copying" is getting to me now. Okay, excuse me but I'm going to have someone's head for supper now. As I explained to Greg, there are many OP sites out there and we can't track them all. One-Winged Hawk 18:44, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

What about episode pages and Episode Guide ‘’short summary‘’ section almost all are copy from Wikipedia episode list. Tipota 14:01, December 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of wikipedia, its seen as okay, we were originally a clone of the former wikipedia OP pages. The difference is that we managed to make the site different to wikipedia over time, thus we aren't a clone of the old OP pages anymore. I suspect that the pages will eventually become different, be it a little slowler then all our other pages. One-Winged Hawk 19:33, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Quitting the Wikia until After X-Mas
I'm sick of Arlong PArks coming to me for all their Wikia insulting needs and harassment. I've had it with Greg calling us baised and incorrect, sucky, etc. Why is he telling me this??? I'm not the God of this wikia? I'm not even the representative on the AP forums! I'm meant to be there as a fan, I'll support the incorrectness of others' views of us, thats about it. If the folks can't accept the wikias good and bad points, fine but don't keep coming to me to insult us at every moment, there are others' at AP from the wikia; not just I.

I can't even have a go at Greg for sending his "you suck" messages to me because his inbox is full. I don't want messages from him constantly telling me how the wikia sucks, I'm not at AP forums as an editor I go there to be a FAN.

So I figured I need a break, see you guys around Jan 1st. Oh and I'll pop in on X-mas day to say "merry x-mas". I must say you've seen me responding here to AP forums messages in the past. Why I've become our ambassador I don't know, I never asked to be. I'm actually getting quite upset that I can't be allowed to be a fan because of this whole "go between the wikia and AP". I'm not even editing that much, I've just done the races pages heavily and thats it. As I said, I don't know how I've ended up becoming Ambassador but I don't like it. One-Winged Hawk 12:38, December 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * You are very active on the wikia, that's why people think about you as some kind of "wikia offical". Even if Greg thinks that our wikia sucks, he has no right to offend you personaly. Tell him that he should throw a look on this talk page and read that he's a braindead idiot. I wish you a Merry X-Mas and a Happy New Year! We'll "see us" next year. El Chupacabra 15:46, December 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * He hasn't insulted me, its all directed at the wikia. I'm only here to grab my Deviantart account web address to show to something since its on my user page and I'm going for my X-mas break. I've got things to sort out for X-mas elsewhere, I'm just clarifying it before I leave. Lets not get in a fight with Greg here though folks. This argument isn't a fight worth getting into with that guy. There are other wikias out there who don't get half the stick we get, its just unfortunately we do. Half of me wonders if its not because our wikia isn't run by the forumers, but because we're all unknowns. When I look at the other wikias, many of the popular ones are run by the main "crew" of their fandoms. But in the OP fandom, the attentions divided mostly between AP, K-Fs and Greg's site.


 * All I know is, this isn't a fight we can win, I don't want us to attempt it. Lets just get on with it and let the other sites remain gathering their opinions of us, I've already seen what happens when one group of a fandom fights another too often the backlash is ugly from both sides and divides otherwise stable and clean communities. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 17:04, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

Character Polls
As much as I love them, they get dated quick. It might be best to adjust the character profile template and add "Polls", listing all the positions the character came in. Easier to reference overall.


 * Poll= 3rd, 2nd, 3rd

What does everything think on the character polls. The problem is new ones come out every so often and not everyone updates all of them. I'm trying to find an easier way of doing things. Kdom 16:50, January 4, 2010 (UTC)

Category Tree
The categories in the wiki are not very well organised, some of them like the Category:Trivia Pages or Category:One Piece Culture contained completely unrelated things, some other pages like One Piece International were really isolated so I thought the best way was to create a Category Tree architecture and maybe clarify some of the categories. It seems this can not be done without discussion so here is my proposal, please try not undo them until we agree on something. Maybe the result shall be displayed in the mother category for newcommers.

So I have chosen Category:One Piece Wiki as the mother category. It was almost empty beside This category is for all articles related to this wiki. which is quite good for what it is for.

One Piece Wiki
 * ---One Piece contains all the things related to One Piece in general
 * |---Manga all about the manga
 * |---Anime all about the anime
 * |---One Piece World all about the One piece universe (Characters, Devil Fruit...)
 * |---One Piece Culture well I didn't know what to do about this one, I put the Trivia and Terms categories
 * ---One Piece International Maybe has to be put in the Category:One Piece
 * ---Help Pages contains all the help pages, in particular the Category:One Piece Encyclopedia which contains most of the rules pages
 * ---Information : Contains all the informative articles
 * ---Templates : Contains all the templates
 * |---One Piece Culture well I didn't know what to do about this one, I put the Trivia and Terms categories
 * ---One Piece International Maybe has to be put in the Category:One Piece
 * ---Help Pages contains all the help pages, in particular the Category:One Piece Encyclopedia which contains most of the rules pages
 * ---Information : Contains all the informative articles
 * ---Templates : Contains all the templates
 * ---Information : Contains all the informative articles
 * ---Templates : Contains all the templates
 * ---Templates : Contains all the templates
 * ---Templates : Contains all the templates

Maybe we should also add a link to the Forum at the root or nearby. I think that the main categories which content are subject to discussion are Category:One Piece Culture, Category:One Piece Encyclopedia and Category:Internal Pages. The Category:Miscellaneous also need to be updated, I'm not sure it is good to have such a category. Kdom 16:50, January 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * This structure is quite useful. I agree with it in general but I think that the main category should be Category:One Piece Encyclopedia and not Category:One Piece Wiki. It's unlogical to keep both categories since Wiki and Encyclopedia are synonyms, and I would propose to keep the Encyclopedia category because it includes much more articles then the Wiki category. Category:Miscellaneous also seem to be dispensable, we could put all articles form there in other categories and delete it. El Chupacabra 15:56, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well like I said I choose an empty category because it is hard to work on a category which contains a lot of links since they are impossible to redirect. One Piece Encyclopedia contains all the rule pages which starts with One Piece Encyclopedia (like the FAQ, the community portal...) which does not need to be in the main category but in the help or information one. Since that means a lot of work I kept it like it is. Kdom 20:32, January 5, 2010 (UTC)

Template problems
I don't know if it is my computer or something but when I go to certain pages it looks like the template is out of sync such as at the Enies Lobby arc. I think the source of the problem is too many template links are merging together in an unstable way which may be the way how the page was designed with text and all, but I am not sure how to correct it. -Adv193 04:31, January 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * There are now numerous character pages that have unstable templates at the site navigation headers and I am finding as long as they are one space below the Navigation header as well as if the entire page is previewed then it will be fine. -Adv193 18:22, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you lick edit anywhere on the page and save it seems to fix it. I think the ref template is causing it somehow but I'm not sure. One-Winged Hawk 18:38, January 8, 2010 (UTC)

FOUND IT!!!!

I found the problem!

The template: template had had a "help" section added to it... But not correctly. Hence forth it seems that it was causing problems for every template on the wikia. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 18:48, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you also check why the templates Will of the D. and Impel Down can't collapse on Luffy's page!? There are other pages too that have the same problem with templates. MasterDeva 18:54, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong with them, not on my browser. Screenshot please? One-Winged Hawk 18:57, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * They are not collapsible meaning that the cross button doesn't appear at all. MasterDeva 19:15, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but for  ME  I can see itm the + sign is there. If I can't see the problem I need to know what it is your seeing. As I said, its working fine for me, the only thing I can say is "are your cookies dated"? :-/ One-Winged Hawk 19:45, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh wait! I found a page doing it for me! I can see what you mean now. Let me investigate this, I'm about to have my evening meal. Be on it in a while. :-P One-Winged Hawk 19:47, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand the problem, I have made no modification to the template, everything I have added is between a section. Also, I have created a Template:Sandbox Template and made a copy paste of my help version and use it in my Sandbox and it works fine. I'm using Firefox 3.5 what type of navigator are you using ? I also remember that when I had categories to the templates last wek end, I had a weird behaviour on some templates too, what I suspected was that the special template Template:! shall not be modified since, when I put it back to the old version, everything was back to normal and it has been modified since then. I noticed that topic and wanted to tell you but since I have no problems anymore, I supposed I was wrong
 * The Will of D and Impel Down templates shall be collapsible since they are based on the Template:Template which is collapsible (if you go to Saul page, it's collapsed), this is really weird Kdom 19:54, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I'm using the same as you are right now and my browser is doing the same. But it does seem to be limited to just those templates, but it *may* be certain templates have a coding that conflicts with template template. Not all the pages do the missing + thing so there must be a loose coding somewhere. One-Winged Hawk 20:06, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you revert the Template:! too and see if there is still the problem ? I had to reload the pages several times before it goes back to normal last time Kdom 20:15, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * What I meant is that after a certain number of templates in a page the last ones don't work well, I'm not talking only about the two aforementioned ones. I too am using the latest version of Firefox. MasterDeva 20:34, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Point me to a broken template/page with templates, and I'll fix it. Simant 22:15, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * For starters check Luffy's page I don't think though that the templates are broken because they work perfectly in other pages... MasterDeva 23:40, January 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Could you be less ambiguous? There are about 9 templates, on the the largest page you have. I need a little bit of pointing and being told how it is suppose to look/operate. Simant 00:12, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not ambiguous at all just read the comments above! The last two templates on Luffy's page (Will of the D. and Impel Down) aren't shown as collapsible on his page (there is no plus button on the right) but seem to operate normally on other pages that have less templates!! MasterDeva 00:28, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Problem = Template:Early OP Simant 00:37, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice, can you fix it!? MasterDeva 00:39, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not familiar with Template:Template. Gotta read it first. Simant 00:43, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think instead I'll rewrite/simplify. Template:Template, So its easier for me to read... Simant 00:52, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that is why I added an help page, since that template is not what we can call instinctive. Can you make the modification from my version instead ? Since I'm not sure I have the out of sync problem, I cannot do it, at least mines looks normal, thanks Kdom 08:49, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok I think I have corrected the bug on the Template:Template, there was some lines missing in the 4th section. Maybe Simant can check my modification to be sure. Otherwise, can someone tell me if the User:Kdom/Sandbox is behaving fine now ? Because I really think my help section in Template:Template was useful (cf Simant post above) Kdom 10:51, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * For someone who couldn't locate the problem you were the first to fix it, efficient as always Kdom!!! XD


 * Thanks, (but most of the job has been done by cygdrive and gvim :-), does it mean I can put back the help section? Kdom 12:07, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * You have the OK from me, yeah you can put it back and if any problem appears we'll deal with it. MasterDeva 12:27, January 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * So long as the problems fixed, there is no worries. Half of the problem originally was caused by that section, if you've fixed it then it goes without saying that it can be reentered. ;-) One-Winged Hawk 12:40, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

The Ice Hunter Arc template doesn't work at all. The plus sign (+) doesn't appear nor the episodes are shown. The same with Spa Island Arc template too. Could someone check it out!? MasterDeva 18:02, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Problem; After punishment?
Okay been brought to attention in the Users to be Banned that we have a punishment system but not a "Plea" system or "mercy" or... Whatever. Okay I doubt this is going to effect DS, so lets not bring him up here too much. Basically we have NOTHING to aid others who have been banned explain themselves or ask for one more chance. While they can edit their own userpage, I've noted with DS's case people ignore him anyway. Maybe its experience with dealing with him, but it does give raise to a question; How does one who is banned plea for mercy? We have no guidelines for anything like this, where the person wants a "final" chance to prove they can behave. Our guidelines cover everything up to banning, but leaving almost nothing once the user is banned. So what are people's thoughts for this?

As I said with DS, such a case as he, I myself would only allow him back under strict agreement of "behave or else". Most of you won't like to even think about this, but its worth noting. Permabans however should be just that and thats half the problem with thinking on this. But even still, even a one month banner might need such a guidelines to talk and explain themselves so it might be worth thinking about this a little. I'd rather get the wikia community involved on the issue, instead of going in and straight away writing guidelines that others should just note disagreements on the talk page. This is a very sensitive issue afterall. One-Winged Hawk 12:29, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * A plea system would be helpful for banned members indeed. A guy that was given a perma ban could be given some mercy if he convinces enough people on how sorry he is. However, it can't work at certain times with certain offenders. A guy that was given a month long ban could convince people how sorry he is, only to reveal once the ban is lifted, he really didn't learn anything or wasn't sincerely sorry. Mugiwara Franky 14:05, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * My opinion is, that everybody banned permanently for the first time should be allowed to make a plea. I think that people can learn form their punishments and change. If they claim to have changed and promise to behave well, we should assume that they are honest and lift the ban. However, if a user who's permanent ban has been lifted once will continue the actions for which he's been banned, he should be banned permanently for a second time, now without any right to make such a plea, because somebody who has abused our thrust once can't be trusted again, and we should assume that he'll never change and will only lie to us. Therefore he will never get any new chance. El Chupacabra 15:04, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * People who have been banned permanently have earned it with their "value" otherwise they wouldn't been banned in the first place. It means that they have crossed the final line and in other words they were not banned for fun but they have caused some serious trouble.


 * On the other hand people with smaller penalties should indeed have some kind of "plea" system followed by our guidelines (which should be completed/updated some time) so they can communicate with the community and talk it through. Even though a sentence has been carried out, for example a month, and the person comes back daily to help the wikia or point things out to fix stuff then why not!? Most communities have a system like that and I was surprised that we don't, bravo Chupacabra for pointing that out! ;D MasterDeva 17:57, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Can't disagree with MD there on that much, regarding smaller bans. Permabans are a divided subject here it seems, lets leave that issue alone then for a moment and focus on the minor bans as a start. Any suggestions on how to tackle this problem? One-Winged Hawk 18:44, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe have an editor talk with temporarily banned people about certain issues that think the person can help with his opinion. See how he responds (his behaviour during the ban is checked and evaluated) and if he has changed ways and regretted about what he has done.


 * To start a trial period of time that changes accordingly to the extent of time the person is banned for or something like that. It begins after the person has been banned and is extended or increased accordingly. This is just an idea I don't have a clear image on this, sorry if can't be any more helpful. MasterDeva 19:18, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Allow them to edit their own userpages and user talk pages. Or create a special forum page for them. El Chupacabra 13:48, January 12, 2010 (UTC)

Wikia Ads
Are we being promoted through the wikia site ads or have we in the past? As far as I can figure out, aside from the fact we're the first thing to come up on google, my old sig at AP which I can't be bothered to change... We don't really advertise ourselves. Perhaps its time someone looked up how wikias get advertised through the wikias site ads? One-Winged Hawk 16:56, January 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you want to start a promotion campaign? o_O El Chupacabra 13:48, January 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * No its just I'm sick of not seeing us come up on other wikias. Naruto had ads come up for a long while.... -_-' One-Winged Hawk 19:35, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

HATE the new Rich Text
So they fixed the white lines problem with rich text but now they create a new problem:

Undo an edit and go to -> Source (previously Wiki text).

What a mess! >:-( One-Winged Hawk 19:35, January 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * well is there a way to configure it off by default :-) ? Kdom 20:20, January 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Pass, though I'd love to know. T_T One-Winged Hawk 12:38, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

More mergers?

 * What One Piece Wikia is and not • Concerning the Fandom
 * Japanese Vs English names • Name Spellings • Other Languages
 * Canon policy • Speculations • Canon • Filler • Fanfiction

I think these pages should be merged together in their groups as I have listed them here, particularly I didn't notice it before but when is there a "Canon policy" AND a "canon" page? One-Winged Hawk 12:16, January 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the Internal Pages needs a more global discussion. In particular:*are they all usefull (Cf my deletion topic)
 * if yes, are they up to date (Community bulletin ?, lots of red link in the Community Portal or Privacy policy, Angel suggestion above)
 * how do we make the newbies read them (Cf Angel recent concerns) ?
 * Kdom 12:56, January 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Strictly speaking they should be linked to our forum, its a pity also that the bot we have set up doesn't link to at least a "core" page that interlinks these. Perhaps it needs adjustments? That thing is the first reply a person gets when they edit for the VERY first time. :-/ One-Winged Hawk 15:39, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

Suppressed redlinks
This is an answer to El Chupacabra question on my talk page.

According to Simant, this is a problem of cache (Cf w:Help:Bypass_your_cache). We had similar problems with the categories (Cf discussion here). I don't know if Mugiwara Franky did something because the categories are correct now. If no, I suppose that we have to wait. Kdom 18:58, January 21, 2010 (UTC) (completely unrelated, but by accident I discovered that User:Mugiwara Franky works and is nice shortcut to know :-)


 * I thought to drop by and leave a message to thank Kdom for the amazing job he is doing on removing those dreadful red links. That's nice mate, keep it up! ;D MasterDeva 22:49, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, if it is a problem of cache, I'll wait a while, but if it will stay the same for a long time, I'm going to report it as a problem. El Chupacabra 15:15, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

Categorized Redirects
I've noticed that after the recent mergers the redirects remained categorized, for exmple Law Enforcement or all the animals merged into the species article. Is this a new policy or just sloppy work? I think it's the second because it is completely useless and even confusing if the redirect and the target article are in the same category.. El Chupacabra 15:15, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * More like "Didn't notice" or "forgot to check"... :-O


 * "Guilty as charged" - will remember to check next time. One-Winged Hawk 15:21, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed law enforcements and police, my recent blunders, as for animals... I didn't do that and its going to take a little while to fix. I'll see if I can track them all down. One-Winged Hawk 15:24, January 22, 2010 (UTC)

This other Wikia did it this way...
I'd like to take a moment to say something here. JUST because one wikia does something doesn't mean we have to copy it. We can do it because we want to, not because its been done by someone else. Lately, half the mergers preposed are suggested it seems because the German wikia did it. Lets forget the german wikia can we please. As I said it once I'll say it again, what works for one wikia might not work for another. And while I can support mergers sometimes, but I get a little annoyed with is hearing a quote about another wikia, particular the German OP wikia.

Listen, the German wikia also "borrowed" some of our pictures without asking and never gave us credit in our early days. Its bad enough we struggle to get that sort of thing under control, but when you KNOW they are borrowing off another wikia and not crediting us, its also bad. We should already be doing this ourselves, but as I said we struggle to do it.

But the point is, wikias shouldn't be a replica of each other. Our goal is different in some aspects to the German, for example they allow spoilers (and translate them) and we don't allow spoilers. They allow it because they've got someone to translate, so they are the first (or one of the first) sources for German based spoilers. Whereas we don't allow it because theres nothing more annoying then bad translations copying up two days later or leaving ourselves open to fakes. Plus we don't have a translator on the team. I quote AP forums, even with reliable sources they still allow fakes in from time to time.

So there you go, my 2 British pennies (I don't use cents lol) on the matter. One-Winged Hawk 15:22, January 25, 2010 (UTC)

Emails
Usually, when a page I'm watching gets changed, I get emails around these lines.

Dear _______,

There has been an edit to a page you are watching on One Piece Encyclopedia.

See http://onepiece.wikia.com/index.php?title=Monkey_D._Luffy&s=wl for the current version.

To see all changes to this page since your last visit, click here: http://onepiece.wikia.com/index.php?title=Monkey_D._Luffy&s=wldiff&diff=0&oldid=174903

No edit summary was given

Please visit and edit often...

One Piece Encyclopedia

Normally both of those are links; however, lately, only the former has been showing up as a link, and the latter as a line of text.

Is this just me, or is anyone else having this problem? The Pope 22:22, January 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't get e-mails at all since I visit every day even if I don't edit. One-Winged Hawk 14:54, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't have the problem myself. I still have both links Kdom 18:44, January 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't exactly know how to solve this problem per say since I don't get emails either.Mugiwara Franky 06:41, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * really, did you make it on purpose ? Because I find that option very usefull. I understand more your concerns about the deletion talk now. Kdom 06:59, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think screen shots on some problems might be useful since half of us don't know about this.One-Winged Hawk 09:23, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's fine; I managed to fix the problem after tinkering with some HTML options in preferences. The Pope 14:45, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Mass Deletions
I really don't like the idea of mass deletions. For a small to medium group or so, it's okay I guess. However for a mass deletion that asks for 100+ articles that's seriously going overboard. It may have worked I guess for the starting years of the wikia, however it's no longer reasonable in later years.Mugiwara Franky 16:05, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh ones, the wikia staff have played with the editor set up again...


 * Anyway, can't agree more with MF on this one. For images, yes, for articles... A clean up of one or two articles is very different to a mass delete. If there are THAT many articles; merge them don't delete them. Or find a better way to handle them. One-Winged Hawk 17:13, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I had go for kdom accidentally because kdom put up a mass delete.  But it does bring into example of potential messes.  Long story short, someone didn't play by our rules when we set up the temporary portraits, so when kdom mass delete opted them it slipped past me what the true problem was.  Still theres another problem raised here; originally kdom put them up as "duplicates" when they were actually "redundant".  Consequences is that the misreason for delete has caused me a headache.


 * Though I maintain before doing anything on a mass scale, you should try to seek out confirmation for the reasons and had kdom done so kdom wouldn't have me snap at them while I wouldn't have misunderstood whats going on here. (I'm on 3 hours sleep anyway on top of this). Still its no big problem, but mass deletes are headaches causers at times.  Even the slightest detail means 100+ edits to correct this. One-Winged Hawk 21:13, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I kinda agree on you there. Based on the rate they were being put up and on the reasons for them being put up, something went horribly wrong. For a number of the images in this case, many of them should have been checked more closely rather on a simple glance on appearance. For others, they should indeed have been given clearer reasons rather than a generalized reason.


 * I generally have no qualm about deleting large number of images especially for housekeeping purposes however based on this, however in this situation, putting a whole lot of images up for deletion could have caused a problem in some areas. Heavens what would happen if I was feeling up to the task of cleaning out some candidates for deletions with some of those images grouped together.Mugiwara Franky 21:33, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok here is the historical, I'm categorising the images from the template galleries under Portraits. It happens that a lot of these portraits are in double, ok they are not exactly the same but they have the same purpose. When I encountered ones I replace one of them (especially when it was the non available image) and put the duplicate template, since there is no reason to have 2 thumb images of the same character (note that I have kept some when it worth it like File:Yokozunaportrait.png can still be different from File:Yokozunaprofile.png). I agreee I have made a mistake on marine filler ones but I correct it since then, but that is only a few of them and not many like you seems to imply. In all cases, the template gives a link toward the second file, if you disagree with the fact that they have the same purpose, you can delete it. Kdom 21:56, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

Special Pages
Does someone know why the special pages do not refresh since 1st of February ? Kdom 19:35, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * The pages usually update by themselves as far as I've known. At what intervals they update, I don't take note however. Maybe it's slight error or something. If the pages don't update by next week or so, maybe asking the main wiki for help might be appropriate.Mugiwara Franky 19:53, February 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * The uncategorized files used to update every morning so far (well in UTC time), and that was the same when I categorized the templates. That's a bit strange Kdom 21:35, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

New redirection template
Not so much as a "problem" as much as a contribution, but didn't really know where else to put it. I made a new template for redirecting pages,. For certain articles, instead of writing it out as, say, , it's better to mention what it redirected from, such as

Just thought I'd give the heads-up, in case there are any redirection conflicts that could use this. The Pope 05:28, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I forgot to answer your talk page on nightmare luffy, I think instead of a redirect, we can replace it by a disambiguation page like Monkey or Phoenix Kdom 06:58, February 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's more for if you have two or more major articles within the same vein, like two characters who might be called Phoenix or multiple people with the surname Monkey. In a case like this, though, a redirect works better. The Pope 14:50, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

Image resizing bug
There is sometime a bug in the image appearance, look at these 2 versions of John Giant page and. The only difference is that I have changed the image option 150px into 140px. There was a similar problem with Nico Olvia portrait. So if you find such a problem the workaround is to change the size.

The problem is that in the file history or in the category, the picture size is a default one and we can not change it. As a consequence they do not appear correctly. Is that a known problem, shall we ask the wikia ? Kdom 19:45, February 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if this is a problem experienced commonly by most of us. At least not from my end.


 * Unless this is the problem, you're talking about.Mugiwara Franky 18:56, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * exactly, I have fixed this problem on several images so far (Brogy in particular) and Tipota too. Also if you go to the file page you will that the last version in the history section does not match the current version of the file Kdom 23:50, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

A little category thing
Lately, I've been noticing kinda alot of categories taken out from some characters and images and being replaced for sub categories. Now, I know that this is in good faith but it's kinda going against how stuff are commonly organized especially within libraries or museums which the wikia is kind falls together with. In the normal library setup, an article or anything is categorized firstly within main category. It is then categorized within a sub category. However, when it is categorized into a smaller sub category, it does not mean it's entry within the main category should be taken out. If it's entry is then it's entry within the sub category is somewhat voided.

Now I know that the wikia is not a regular library or a museum but having Category:Pirates and it's sub category Category:Whitebeard Pirates together on a character that falls under such categories is not too much as such a character does fall under such a category. I'm not asking for a list of categories that go all the way to the top of the wikia in the category tree, just the essential ones and their sub categories.Mugiwara Franky 19:07, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I admit that I remove the One piece media category when I found it since I'm creating file categories more specific. This category did not have particular themes beside being a file and I found that not particulary usefull given the high number of files. But I have used your method for lower level ( cover images contain all the subcateries ones) Kdom 23:59, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Trivia
Well I've decided this issue needs to be resolved once and for all. I'm working on a list of things that we can and can't note. In particular we're getting a bit of "fanism" slipping in. Some current issues to resolve:


 * 1) A note of when a character does something the first time, is also a trivia note. But after that when do we stop, at character no. 132nd to do the same thing? Doing it once is worth mentioning, a second time you reword it to "one of only two", but after that...? I'm thinking "Will of D." introductions here. We've got 8, time to cut their numerical orders off the page, save Roger who was the first to be seen and Luffy who was the first to be named.
 * 2) Noting very minor details. Things that AREN'T even worth mentioning. Like this character is "ate a peanut" but not that bad.
 * 3) Baseless or observational trivia. Noting for instance Buggy and Luffy's devil fruits are "opposites" is such a thing. The problem I have with these is they are the most scrappy trivias you can add. Theres a difference between noting Chopper's similarities to a certain red-nosed reindeer and an all "Oh he wears goggles like..." if you know what I mean. This is what killed a lot of those observational similarities with Frank and Ace Venturer and Pop-eye early in the wikias life. I've allowed a few on myself, but its time to crack down on some of this.

I'll add the other problems when I find them. But a trivia section starts bringing up attention to itself as getting out of hand when it leaps to about 8-10 notes. And a number of articles are headed there. If there is that much trivia, we must remove some of it elsewhere to the page, create new sections for instance. Trivia with a large chunk of text SHOULD be in the article, as its hardly a "note" of trivia fact and more details reference.

I hope everyone understands what I'm getting at with some of this... One-Winged Hawk 23:00, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Categories and Subcategories
If a page is categorized in a subcategory it shouldn't be categorized in the more general category. For example a Logia Devil Fruit user should be categorized a in Category:Logia Devil Fruit users but not in the more general Category:Devil Fruit Users. Otherwise the subcategory become superfluous because it's unnecessary to have a subcategory which is completely covered by the main category. El Chupacabra 14:27, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I kinda stated my reason for doing so both above and in the Category talk for the Devil Fruit user. Listing down both the general Devil Fruit user category and the different type of Devil Fruit user does not make the sub category superfluous. In any library or museum setting, the proper way is to list down both the main category and the sub category. Listing an item in a main category, puts it in a broad list of similar items. Listing it down in a sub category, puts it in a list sub divided based on what is placed in the main list. One can put an item in a main category but no sub category especially if the item does not fit in any sub category. One cannot however place an item only in a sub category and not in the main category. It has to be in the main category i order for it to be in the sub category.


 * Take this for example, you are given a list of foods. You are asked to categorize the list by plants and meats. You divide them. Once you do so, do you give to your boss one half of the lists, two separated lists, or one list with the foods divided. To further make a point, you are also asked to categorize further the plant list by vegetables and fruits. You divide the plant list. After doing so, do you submit one list containing just the plants divided, or submit a list that not only divides the plants but also lists down the meats as well.Mugiwara Franky 15:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are some common definitions of Category and Subcategory as they form the basis of part of my understanding of the matter. Mugiwara Franky 15:53, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mugiwara Franky is right, there is no need to create something like Category:Logia Devil Fruit user or the like and drop the Category:Devil Fruit Users! It's more convenient the way it is right now actually!! MasterDeva 18:19, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between a library and a wiki. If a page is categorized in a sub-category it becomes indirectly categorized in the main category. The subcategory is just more precise then the more general category. However, if all pages in a subcategory are directly categorized in a category, there is no need for it. Your example above proves that you didn't understand what I intend. In your terms, categorizing pages both into the subcategory and the main category is the same as providing both the two lists of fruits and vegetables and the list of plants, which is the same as the two lists together. I think the categories Category:Devil Fruit Users and Category:Non-Canon should become umbrella categories similar to Category:Anime or Category:Characters. They should include only a number of subcategories. However, if you think that the subcategories are superfluous, we can alternatively delete them and keep just the main categories. They were created recently. Categorizing articles in both (as of now) is just stupid. El Chupacabra 14:48, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see the subcategories as superfluous however I do see the Devil Fruit user and Non Canon categories differently. I don't see them as super huge umbrella categories. I only see them as the middle man. A category that's called Characters is vastly broader than one that's called Marines. A category that's called Devil Fruit users however isn't that much broader than one called Logia Devil Fruit users. I mean it's just one small step from being the same thing. Mugiwara Franky 15:17, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

This is how I see the situation. The yellow shapes represent articles. The blue shapes represent sub categories. The red shapes represent categories. The green shapes represent super umbrella categories. The whole chart represents the wikia.

If you would want to categorize a certain red shape, you would mention the name of the green shape it is in. If you would want to categorize a certain blue shape, you would want to mention the red shape that it is in. If you want to categorize a certain yellow shape, you would have to mention the blue shape it is in.

Now in a typical library setting, if you are asked to locate a certain yellow shape and categorize it, you would have to mention it's location from the very top to the very bottom. This is a bit unnecessary to point for a place like the wikia since it goes a bit to far. The red shapes however are labeled differently so they are worth mentioning as they can help. The blue shapes next are also labeled differently so they are also mentioning as they can help more.

Now here is here is the problem, the labels for the blue shapes are only slightly different than the red labels they are in. True the labels are different in a sense, but they are so similar that you might just as well only mention the red label. However, because the yellow shapes are grouped differently, you have to mention the blue shape label as it can really help in location and categorization. So in order to help locate and categorize a yellow shape, it is best to mention it's unique red shape label first to help start the search and then mention the blue shape label next to narrow down the search. Mugiwara Franky 16:27, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * There's also a problem caused when you just mention a sub category. When I decided to do a major edit across several pages due to some slight mishap caused by another editor, I had to find a place where I can easily find all the affected pages in one go. The problem was, all the affected pages were mentioned in just sub categories and not in any main category. So in order to fix the problem, I had to jump from one sub category to another. Really tedious.


 * Now this maybe just a problem for me, but it does point out a flaw. If somebody wants to look for a more broader set of similar pages to maybe edit or something else, they would have to jump way too many times. Narrowing the category path helps, but it doesn't mean you should completely chop it up and take away the sections just for minor differences such as rank or type. Mugiwara Franky 16:35, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

We started out with it being listed as MF puts it, when did it change? I know I haven't been paying much attention to this as I let you guys get on with it but I'll agree with MF here. Its silly to have them in the sub-cats and not the main cats as well. And I hate to say it, we're basically a "library" these days (hardly "Encyclopedic at all anymore). One-Winged Hawk 19:33, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should write it somewhere, because I had the same discussion with MF not so long ago, so it seems like it can be a common misunderstanding Kdom 19:56, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not against subcategories in general, I just think that they should be used properly. The subcategories of Category:Non-Canon are an example of bad usage. All articles in subcategory categorized three times: e.g. as ships, as Non-Canon and as Non-Canon ships. However if an article is categorized i the last on, it becomes clear that it is a ship and that it's non-canon. There is no need for a categorizing the page in the other two categories as well. As to the Devil fruit users and the Devil Fruits, I have an idea how to re-organize these categories, so that the subcategories would become surerfluous. Articles in a category are ordered by the first letter. If we'll put an "L", "P" or "Z" in front of the article's name when categorizing them in this category then the articles in these categories will be divided in three groups. We would then see a complete list of fruits or users, divided in three groups by the kind of power. I think that this is better than having a main category and three subcategories. What do you think about this idea? El Chupacabra 14:09, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Having a L, Z or P in front of every Devil Fruit page title is a bad idea in my honest opinion. Just leave the categories/subcategories as they are now since there are no actual problems with this system. MasterDeva 14:31, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * The subcategories of Category:Non-Canon are kinda an example however their creation was at most in good faith by Kdom believe. From what I gather, he subdivided them in order to create a narrower list that shows certain differences.


 * For categories in general, it is kinda a main objective to categorize articles based on what available categories there are. It's kinda the organized way if not common sense. For articles that are Non-Canon ships, they would fall under the categories that are available for them to fall under. Since there is a Non-Canon category, they would fall under Non-Canon. Since there is a ship category, they would fall under ship also. Since there is a Non-Canon Ship category, they would fall under Non-Canon Ships lastly. While putting them in just the Non-Canon Ship category would be simpler since it is understood that they are Non-Canon ships, you are however not accounting that if you exclude them from the two other categories, you are making the two other categories incomplete. The Non-Canon category is meant to list all the Non-Canon things. The Ship category is meant to list all the ships. A Non-Canon ship falls under these two categories by simply being called Non-Canon Ships.


 * For the Devil Fruit user and their fruits rearrangement proposal, it's a bit of a hassle in a way especially when it kinda forces people to take note of the letter which is not something everybody who visits the wikia takes note of. While it would create three lists in the category page arranged by type, it's really no different than creating three separate sub categories. It's also rather an unorthodox way of arranging things in a category. The basics of any category based on most library settings and this wikia is that the articles categorized in it are arranged via alphabetically. If certain articles in the category are different from one another, they are given a sub category.


 * In light of this proposal, you have to also account for those Devil Fruits that can't be easily placed in this type of rearrangement at the moment. Take Sengoku, Tsuru, and those other Devil Fruit users who can't easily be identified. They would have no place in the new order of things. While you could make a fourth section to place them in, it's kinda just of a hassle as making the other three sections. Mugiwara Franky 14:41, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, if he wanted to narrow the Non-Canon category, then the stuff should be placed only in the more precise category. Putting every article in every category it can fit in is a bad idea, because then every single article would be categorized in Category:One Piece because they all are somehow related to One Piece. I order to keep categories narrow, it is the most appropriate to categorize an article in the most precise category. As in the chart above, where all yellow shapes are in the blue shapes. putting them into less precise category would mean that the would appear in the red and green shapes as well. If you think that it better to have a long but complete instead of a number of smaler lists in an umbrella category, then delete the subcategories. Anyway, I don't think that there are many users who want a complete list of Non-Canon ships. If there are some, they can still compare the list in category:Non-Canon with the one in category:Ships. As to the Devil Fruit categories: If you think that people doesn't care about the kind of devil fruits, why do you want to keep the subcategories? It would not be too confusing. The category would contain four lists of Fruits/users (the unknown fruits can get an "U" prefix), and in these lists pages would be arranged in alpahbetical order. El Chupacabra 15:17, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * For placing every article in the category of One Piece, that is where I draw the line because it is abit unnecessary as the the various articles contained in the wikia are very broad in topic. However for the smaller categories, you have to place the necessary articles in to the necessary categories as they are narrower in topic.


 * For the chart above, I made it to state a point. While the yellow shapes were placed in the blue shapes to show the point, it does not mean they are not part of the red shapes and green shapes their blue shapes belong to.


 * For the categories, a long complete list would be more sufficient, however a smaller sub list would be aid in searching. A Main Category helps people in searching for topics in a broad scope. Sub categories help people in searching for topics in narrower scope. Both scopes are helpful as they cater to the different styles of searching that people have.


 * The Non-Canon ship category kinda helps people in a way. It narrows down contents found in both the ship and the Non-Canon categories. While you can say that there aren't that many people who would want a list of Non-Canon ships, how sure can you back such a claim? There can be some people who looking at a long list of ships, would want to know which are Non-Canon right away. There can be some people who looking at a long list of Non-Canon stuff, would want to know which are ships right away. While making them compare two lists would be a solution, it is not a user friendly solution. Not everybody can easily point out in a common denominator in two large lists.


 * For the Devil Fruits, I don't think I said that I believe that people don't care about the type of fruit. I am for both a main category and sub categories as I believe that both styles would benefit different types of people. My biff however is the fact of not including the articles contained within subcategories into a main category when the difference of topic is not that broad


 * For the rearrangement, you really have to consider the common person. Throughout the wikia, the category system lists down articles via alphabetically, that is the only form of listing present in them. Based on this, when joe average thus categorizes an article for the first time, he gets that it is alphabetically arranged in the category automatically. However the style you are proposing for the Devil Fruits would kinda confuse joe. When joe categorizes a Devil Fruit into the category and sees a different type of listing, some questions would come to mind. If he does not know what L,P,Z, and U stand for, he will wonder why the category is arranged as thus. If he does know what the letters stand for but does not know how to list an article into the appropriate letter, he will wonder why he categorized an article like Lion Lion Fruit and it appears in the L section.Mugiwara Franky 16:16, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

El, from what I gather from the beginning, what you are asking for is a straight precise point of direction. You want the articles to be precisely pointed to one category but you are not taking into account of people who would want a broad point of direction.

You also want a different style of categorizing things in order to eliminate sub categories. You however are not taking into account that such an unorthodox use of the system is not something anybody can pick up on.Mugiwara Franky 16:22, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems that the only reason why the non-canon subcategories were created was to narrow the main Non-Canon category. However, the creator of these categories should confirm this. If this is true, then the existance of these categories is only justified when the articles categorized in them do not appear in the more general categories. And as to the devil fruit categories, we can expalain the system in the text at the top of the category. Joe would read the text and understand the system. New Devil Fruits and Users do not appear that often, so that we can monitor the category and correct the categorization if neccessary. After a short while all users should be aware of the system and I'm sure that they won't try to categorize the pages in a different way. El Chupacabra 16:30, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

You kinda don't need to have Kdom confirm the fact as it can be inferred by common sense. For the Devil Fruit categories, giving joe too many instructions when there is a simplier way of doing things is not helpful. Also you cannot speculate that on the rate how many of Devil Fruits and users appear often. Take what's happened since Sabaody, a ridiculous number of Devil Fruits have appeared in such a short time and we don't even have half of their names. As for people becoming aware of the system. Everybody here was aware of the current system since day one and yet you are trying to categorize the pages in a different way now. So how sure can you say that such a thing won't happen again.Mugiwara Franky 16:41, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just think that we should follow the categorization policy of wikipedia and other wikias, which says: Articles should be placed in the lowest level category possible. They do not need a category declaration toward every category that would logically contain it. A single, well targeted category declaration will place that article in a category which will itself be properly contained (subcategorized). Categorization. I proposed the modified way of categorizing the Devil Fruits because I took your opinion into account, I wanted to propose a compromise between your system. Since you don't like my proposal, let's just follow the wikipedia policy. El Chupacabra 16:44, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * We are not wikipedia and shouldn't always follow their ruling to the letter. The compromise you proposed may take into account of what I want and what you want, but it doesn't take into account of other people.


 * Here is another chart and it kinda best describes the state of the wikia. In this chart it is more dynamic. The green shape is the umbrella category. The red shapes are the main categories. The blue shapes are the sub categories. They are not labeled but can convey an idea.


 * Here are some questions and instructions that can be asked in regards to this chart.


 * What yellow shapes can be found in the red rectangle?
 * What yellow shapes can be found in the blue rectangle of the red rectangle?
 * Which yellow shape can found in the red rectangle and the red circle?
 * Pick a yellow shape and then name the location of the shape so that even though they are not labeled, a fellow person would be much closer to picking the same shape as the one you picked.


 * Mugiwara Franky 16:50, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I show this very elementary type of quiz as common sense seems to be lacking in regards to how these articles should be categorized.Mugiwara Franky


 * Of course we are not wikipedia, but we are based on them, and if they have a good policy, i see no reason why we shouldn't obey them. As to the other people: If there are some who have a third opinion, they should express it. I don't want to speculate about their thoughts. As to your second chart: I think that all yellow shapes that belong in the red rectangle should be placed there. However, since the blue rectangle itself is already placed in the red rectangle, none of the yellow shapes which were put in the blue rectangle should be placed directly in the red one. If a shape fits into the red circle and into the blue rectangle, it should be put into both. it is then indirectly put into the red rectangle, and doesn't need to be categorized there directly. If a yellow shape fits both in the blue rectangle and the blue square it should be categorized in both blue shapes but not in the red circle and the red rectangle. El Chupacabra 17:11, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * We maybe based on Wikipedia but we stray a lot from it in order to be a different site. Also a good policy there is not necessarily a good policy here. They have a good policy there about limiting fictional character histories there. Should we follow that as well.


 * For the chart, you have some points there however you did not answer part of the the questions properly. The first question is asking for what yellow shapes are found in the red rectangle. The blue rectangle is found in the red rectangle. But are you going to say that the yellow shapes found in the blue rectangle are not in the red rectangle also? Do the contents of the blue shape do not belong as well to red shape. Mugiwara Franky 17:33, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Here is another chart in regards to this. The box labeled blue is in the box labeled red and the question I ask is how many balls are in the box labeled red? Mugiwara Franky 17:44, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Ah... Guys... This is getting silly now. I tried to follow this but thus far without the aid of MF's diagrams this has reached the point of silliness for those of us who don't quite get whats being spoken about anymore. This issue needs to be resolved fast, its delaying things too far. I mean this out of respect, but if you can't resolve it quickly - vote on it and have done with it. One-Winged Hawk 17:50, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) El wants to have just articles with just the subcategory and not in the main category.
 * 2) I try explaining the need for them to be in both in the subcategory and the main category.
 * 3) In light of some my comments, El comes up with a very unorthodox method of categorizing the Devil Fruits and their users thus eliminating the sub categories altogether.
 * 4) I try explaining that it can't be done.
 * 5) El wants now to go back to just listing down the subcategory based on Wikipedia's rules.

Mugiwara Franky 18:00, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * One the one note, thanks for listing the debate that is fast pushing others out of the loop here. On the other, it still doesn't solve the problem of resolving the issue at hand. Wikpedia isn't always worth noting their categories tend to be "whatever one editor thinks they should be". One-Winged Hawk 18:16, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok about the non-canon subcategories, I created them after myself and Mugiwara Franky agreed on the procedure to categorize things (Cf here. However it's true, that both methods have their flaws. For example, when I wanted to make the List of non canon characters page in the similar way of the canon one, the non canon category was not really usefull because it contained a lot of thing that were not characters, that is why I created the Category:Non-Canon Characters. Concerning the Devil Fruit, I had the same concern as El Chupacabra, that is why I put the Devil Fruit template in the category. They are identified by type in it so there is no need to add letters prefix Kdom 22:36, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

The creation of the Non-Canon subcategories is a understandable one as it appeared that it was hard to identify which of the articles in the category were characters. The Devil Fruit template in the category is helpful I guess. A little different since it's supposed to be navigational template but helpful to a point. However putting it in kinda shows the need for there to be more than one type of search field of similarly grouped topics. Mugiwara Franky 02:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * The Template:Devil Fruits is really good. We should also create a similar one for the users. Then these templates will provide a full list of fruits/users divided by the type of devil fruit. They will be the place where everybody could see a full list of fruits/users. The subcategories would become obsolete then. El Chupacabra 14:36, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Defense for having more than one Category such as Main Category and Sub Category


 * Technically, the proper way of arranging things in a library setting
 * Gives users a broad search field of closely similar topics
 * Aids users in large actions such as mass searching or editing of similar topics
 * Gives users a search field that narrows down the broader search field by topics that differ ever so slightly from one another
 * Works very well especially in categories that have a lot of similar topics

These are my basic arguments summed up for having more than one category instead of just one precise category. Put here as a defense and for clearer understanding.Mugiwara Franky 02:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against having more than one Category.
 * Category sprawl, articles can become categorized into a large number of categories.
 * Pages become overloaded with categories. Too many categories are bad for site navigation.
 * Categories become overloaded with pages. Giant categories (200+ pages) appear more often.
 * The subcategories become less important and rarely visited/used.
 * The best way of giving users a well-arranged list are lead articles and templates, not categories.

Arguments for categorizing articles just into the most precise Category.
 * It's the way how wikipedia arranges pages and the most appropriate way of categorizing pages in a digital encyclopedia.
 * Technical aspects of a wiki should be similar to wikipedia and the other wikia, otherwise it will confuse people.
 * Helps to avoid giant, overloaded overloaded categories.
 * To whatch a few subcategories is not more difficult then watching a giant category.

P.S. I might expand this list if I'll find additional arguments. El Chupacabra 14:36, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a limit to how much one should delete categories. Putting a list in a category, could help and make the subcategories obsolete but it is kinda overly repetitive. It also creates a bigger problem. When a category reaches more than 200+ pages, it automatically separates into different pages. When there is just one list of 200+ pages, there is gonna be just only one page containing all the pages. Better for a category that has 200+ pages that are automatically separated than one page that lists 200+ links that is no different than a list page.


 * In regards to category sprawling, there is no harm for articles to belong in more than one category. More categories actually means more ways of searching. In fact, this happens in Wikipedia itself. Check the categories of Hitler, George Bush, George Washington, Titanic, United States, Jesus, Judea, Obama, and almost any other article in Wikipedia. These articles have ridiculous number of categories and their categories have ridiculous number of articles in them.Mugiwara Franky 16:27, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * In regards to using the precise categories and Wikipedia's way, there is a limit to how far we should follow Wikipedia. While the wikia is based on Wikipedia, it is however a different site. The advantage of any wikia is that it can make it's own rules and regulations that would otherwise be not allowed on Wikipedia. In one wikia, it give in-depth details of fictional characters. In another, it can include fanfiction and fandom. In yet another, it can include speculations. Wikipedia is the parent of all wikias, but not all wikias should be clones of it.Mugiwara Franky 16:35, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * The examples from wikipedia have a great number of categories because wikipedia is far bigger then this wiki and has much more categories. However, the pages you brought up as examples are categorized according to the wikipedia rule. E.G. George Bush is categorized in Category:American Aviators but not in Category:Avitors and Category:American people. If these pages were categorize in your way, they would have an even larger list of categories. I don't want to clone wikipedia, I just want to organize this encyclopedia in the most useful way. I think that following the wikipedia policies in the technical aspects is useful. Your example on fictional characters is wrong for two reasons: 1) I refer to a technical/organizational issue and you refer to content. 2) actually, we have a similar policy; we ignore the fanfictional ones. El Chupacabra 14:45, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * True they are categorized via Wikipedia's rules however I merely pointed them out because it seemed that from your arguments you are stating that overloading a page with too many categories is a bad thing and/or overloading a category with over 200+ articles is also a bad thing. Some parts of your arguments somewhat contradict each other. If we go with just main categories, it would overload the categories and provide a very hard way of finding articles of specific similarity. If we go with just sub categories, it would overload the category section a little bit and it would provide a very hard way of finding articles with a broader similarity. Using main categories and sub categories would overload in both cases but at least the searching for topics in either way would be accessible.


 * Wikipedia has a way of organizing things but it's not necessarily a way everyone would agree would be the most useful way. Wikias also have different ways of organizing things. Check out the Bioshock wikia, the God of War wikia, the Dragonball wikia, and the Bleach Wikia for starters. If look how their articles are categorized, they're clearly violating a Wikipedia. I'm not saying we should follow these other wikias, I am however pointing out that not all of Wikipedia's rules are followed over the wikias.Mugiwara Franky 15:16, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

The way I want it... If I click "female" I want ALL the female characters. If I click "pirate" I want all the pirates. If I click Logia, I want all the Logia, and so often. If anything prevents me from doing this, it becomes a problem in some cases. I use categories to check things are correct. Whatever happens, if none of us can do the job at the end of the day a bad system is as useless to us as a glass of water is to water a lily already in a pond. One-Winged Hawk 16:59, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * This kinda points out what I've been saying all along about having a complete category list, and including both main and sub categories.


 * As shown here, there are two people. People like Kdom who require sub categories in order to differentiate different topics, and people like Angel who require full main categories in order to manage things better. Also it must be taken into account what is discussed does not refer to only the Devil Fruit categories but to the whole wikia itself. Let's take the Pirates category into account since it's kinda prime example and a major part of wikia.


 * If we were to simply categorize all the pirates as pirates, then users like Kdom cannot differentiate which pirate belongs to which crew. Even if we were to create a list or template that would go into the category as a way to differentiate the pirates as proposed, differentiating would still be hard and would require more attention in the arrangement. If we were to simply categorize all the pirates by crews, then users like Angel would have a problem. Since there are pirates that don't belong to certain crews, they would be left in the main category and it would create a incomplete list that would not aid such users.


 * The best option to aid both users and any other type, is to have both main categories and sub categories. Besides it's not confusing of an arrangement for anyone to understand. As Angel said if a person clicks a category like pirates, they would expect to see a full list of pirates and so forth.Mugiwara Franky 06:01, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Personally, I don't see the problem with having 2 or 20 categories down the bottom, so long as everyone can do their job on the wikia it's fine. If we have to sacrifice for a little unsighting listing such as 100+ categories, then so be it. At the end of the day, we've all got work to do here, none of us has to do it and if theres a problem it puts people off doing it. Better to have a 100+ categories and be ugly and able then a few and be impractical and attractive. Categories and Subcategories, in the end we have things to do. One-Winged Hawk 08:51, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why do you say that my arguments contradict each other? putting a page in a subcategory and removing it from the main category lowers both the amount of pages in the category and the amount of categories on the page. A page categorized once as "Non-Canon Villain" will have one category instead of two categories "Non-Canon" and "Villains". All pages in both categories will be removed from them and included in the new category. This would reduce the number of articles directly categorized in both categories. Where is the contradiction? Now to the system. If some other wikia user other systems, it's their internal cause. However as to your examples, I can't see any fundamental differences to the wikipedia system in three of them, except the dragon ball wiki. None of them seems to categorize pages both in the subcategories and the main category, please give me some examples. And the Dragon Ball wiki puts a lot of stuff in category:Dragon Ball. Do you think we should put all our pages into category:One Piece? And how can you prevent somebody from doing this if we keep your system? As to the complete lists, tell me is watching the main category and some subcategories really much more difficult then watching a big category? of course you have to switch between the categories, but it doesn't take that much time. Honestly, do you really check the entire category every day? And how often is it necessary to have an edit on all pirate articles? And if yes why don't you request to put all character articles into Category:Characters? It's almost empty except for the subcategory. I think the category:Pirates should include only the ones who are not part of any of the crews that have an own subcategory. El Chupacabra 14:54, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * El, I say your arguments are a bit contradictory as some of it does sound contradictory. One of your arguments for example is asking for no overload of articles into a category. I interpreted as contradictory to another argument as one of your arguments is against sub categories. It's not directly against sub categories per say but considering that part you've been proposing is either main category or sub category but not both.


 * For the wikias, check them more carefully. For Bioshock, check Leadhead Splicer for example. For God of War, check Minotaur. For Kenpachi Zaraki. They are clearly violating Wikipedia's rules.


 * For the character category, I have explained that having it filled is a bit going to far. There is a limit for the system I am trying to argue for.


 * For the pirate category and any other huge main category, some people may not check it but some other do check it especially in cases such as mass editing. Tell me is it really easier to so mass editing going back and forth between lists.


 * Also, I'm not sure if it's intentional or not, but it almost seems like you are ignoring the posts of both Kdom and Angel. Users like Kdom need subcategories to locate specific topics. Users like Angel need main categories to locate topics in a broad subject.


 * You are asking for a pretty system like Wikipedia but just because it is there does not mean it should be a precedent for all the wikias. Mugiwara Franky 15:40, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is how I do my edits: first I click on "recent" every visit to check things are alright and no vandals are about. Then I pick a category and I look at the pages within that category and I to a page and from there I go to others via links and templates, when I reach a dead end, I go back to the category or another. For me I want access to everything within a subject at my fingertips. So as MF as rightly said, main categories are important to me for editing. If there are no main categories, then it becomes problematic. I don't mind sub categories I note, their just as handy, but I would not want to have to choose one or the other.


 * Also, while Wikipedia does the thing is does, may I remind you we came to the wikia originally to free us from the burden of doing thing the "wikipedia way". In fact the whole matter of us being more like wikipedia annoys me because it goes against the original intention of the site.  To create a wikia useful to fans and not have non-fans tell us what to do because they are "outsiders". Wikipedia never fitted our needs, so we should not make wikipedia fit ours. One-Winged Hawk 18:47, February 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, One-Winged Hawk, you check pages by category. I agree that it might be useful to have a complete list of pirates. However, I have an idea ho to re-arrange the pirates category: We can create a new category:Piracy as a subcategory of Category:Society and Culture and make Category:pirates and all the pirate crew crews categories subcategories of this new category. Including the crew categories into category:pirate is not very appropriate anyway since they might include ships and locations as well. It would be similar to the existing categories slavery and slaves. The only remaining subcategories in category:pirates would be pirate captains and real-world pirates. Does this solution sound good for you? Now to the other wikia. I've already said that the layout of wikia is their internal affair. However I think that we all should try to have similar standards in order to make it easier for users. Of course we are independent from wikipedia, but we didn't cut all ties to them. For example, we have hundreds of links to wikipedia pages form various pages here. I'm not a fan of wikipedia and dislike a lot on wikipedia. I don't promote their categorization policy because it's a wikipedia policy but because I believe that it's the best way of categorizing pages in an internet encyclopedia. El Chupacabra 14:57, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

A piracy category sounds a bit appropriate as it can include other facets of piracy covered here in the wikia. For the crews, they could still belong to pirates as a majority of what's in their categories are pirates per say.

For Wikipedia's way of categorizing things, it maybe the best way of categorizing things on Wikipedia and maybe some other similar internet encyclopedia but it may not be the best solution on other sites. Wikipedia is an extremely large site with millions of pages and millions of users. The One Piece wikia on the other hand is vastly smaller than Wikipedia in all areas that it pales in comparison.

In Wikipedia, they can afford to have such a system as they have lots of people to handle the workload and have various topics that are vastly broad in nature. It apparently doesn't matter if their system only helps out a minority of people in the workload. It's not expected from regular contributors there to handle the entire site just a small fraction at least that suits them. Wikipedia in short has a luxury of sorts.

In this wikia, we may not be able to afford to have such a system as we don't exactly have that many people and most of our topics aren't that much broad. It kinda matters whether if we have a system to help out a wide range of people or only a few. For most of the contributors here, it's expected that they would handle more facets of this site than in Wikipedia. For the more dedicated contributors, they would probably handle a relatively large fraction of the site, half the site at most. This wikia in short doesn't have the same luxury as Wikipedia has.

In essence, it kinda comes down to the values that each site have and can afford to have in regards to system I guess. In relation I guess, take the various laws and ideologies found in different countries. The structure of America can be said to be the most ideal in some people's minds. However in others' mind, it is flawed especially in countries that can't enjoy the same luxuries of America. A system maybe good in one area but it maybe not in another area. Mugiwara Franky 06:33, February 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, tell me why is it less useful for users to have pages categorized in the most precise category only. If a user checks a large category Devil Fruits, it takes just a few seconds less time then to check the three subcategories as well. I'm not talking about category:pirates because since you agrees that it would be useful to have a category piracy, I'm going to create it. And you still did not explain why you think that the library system is more appropriate to us then the wikipedia system. El Chupacabra 16:31, February 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I and I believe others also kinda have been explaining why it however just to repeat things over.


 * Doesn't aid people who wish to locate articles with broader topics if only put in sub categories
 * Doesn't aid people who wish to locate articles with narrower topics if only put in a main category
 * Makes certain categories incomplete.
 * The wikia doesn't have the same luxuries as Wikipedia to allow such a system


 * The Wikipedia way of categorizing things maybe a way but it is not the only way especially considering the circumstances. It kinda forces people to go one way instead of giving them choices. The library system on the other hand, takes into account of different people thus being a bit more user friendly and flexible. When dealing with people, sometimes variety can be a good thing as it will cater to different people. Not everybody would like to search articles in a category via the Wikipedia way. Think of it as like spaghetti sauce. Some people like it super chunky while some people like it smooth. If a company only sells one type, then they only get a tiny percentage of profit.


 * For the category of Devil Fruits, there is a very likely chance that the category will become really really large. By that time, it will become extremely hard for people to distinguish Devil Fruit is of which type even if you put a template at top. The only surefire way to help people in such a case are the subcategories. Mugiwara Franky 03:29, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think so too that the discussion is repeating itself, both Mugiwara Franky and Emfrbl have both provided reasonable explanations and have patiently talk this through more than necessary. It's about time this discussion came to an end already, El Chupacabra raised some good points but the Devil Fruit categories are fine the way they are now and more convenient to work with. The Piracy Category seems like a good idea though and I am waiting to see it completed! ;-) MasterDeva 11:10, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, as I said above, an umbrella category is not incomplete. It just has it's articles located in a few subcategories. It's not more difficult to watch a few subcategories. I will complete the category:piracy when this issue is solved. As to the devil fruits for a complete list of named devil fruit users you can use Template:DFUsers. It's based on Template:Devil Fruits, which can be used for the fruits. these templates should satisfy both groups of users. The system is not a "luxury" but a practical rule. In fact, categorising pages in as many categories as possible is a luxury. El Chupacabra 14:27, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why should I use a template to check the various Devil Fruti pages when there is a category made specifically for that job!? Of course that is not its only function but that's my main use for it in this argument now. Come on El Chupacabra this sounds like making excuses to support your point more than providing a reasonable answer.


 * Besides, the category even shows how many Devil Fruit pages exist in the wiki and the sub-categories can be used to narrow down the pages with a specific type of Devil Fruit (Logia, Zoan, etc). Also, using this doesn't help much either!!


 * You don't have to wait for the end result of this discussion to continue on with your Piracy category since from what I can gather there isn't a problem with it (correct me if I am wrong please) and I honestly think it's a great idea and I still wait for its completion!!! ;D MasterDeva 19:37, February 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think characters subcategories are important since Characters is one of the largest category. In the same way that Piracy is interesting wrt Pirate category, there shall be something similar wrt Marine category which help to differenciate marine characters from other marine related articles. Kdom 19:49, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

For watching a few different subcategories, it's indeed not that difficult. However it can be difficult when you have lots of subcategories. Due to the nature of some things, they can subcategorized in all sorts of ways depending on similarities. The pirate category, which kind of illustrates this to a point, has several sub categories. If it were two or three, it wouldn't be hard for a person who wanted to do mass searching and editing. But with around 20 subcategories, a single list of all the pirates would greatly be efficient for those who can't handle jumping 20 times to different pages.

For the Devil Fruit user template, apart from looking a bit rushed, such a template is meant to be navigational template. Navigational templates are meant to help people who find category jumping and searching hard for certain similar topics. Placing them in a category may help a little in differentiating articles but it's a bit repetitive and useless. It's no different than creating a chart in a category page that lists all the possible articles.

Wikipedia's system is indeed a rule. It's a rule that can be supported by a luxury. The idea of placing multiple categories in an article is indeed a luxury. It's a luxury as it helps people out. Luxuries can allow certain things to happen depending on what they are. Wikipedia has some luxuries so it can support a system that enforces a strict category system. In this wikia, we do not have such luxuries. In order to compensate for the lack of such luxuries, other forms of luxuries could be used to make it more user friendly.Mugiwara Franky 04:02, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * You just answered perfectly to everything that I had in my mind and wanted to say Mugiwara Franky, I can't add anything to make it this any more complete!! ;-) MasterDeva 10:15, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, MasterDeva if you prefer to use categories to check pages, do it this way. Still the template can be useful for others and should be added to every Devil Fruit user article, just like the Devil Fruits template is added to all Devil fruit articles. Now to the categories. As of now, the category:Devil Fruit Users shows all users, and each of the three subcategories show the users of each type. However, this means that there's no category showing only the users of unidentified Devil fruits, like Tsuru or Trafalgar Law. If the wikipedia rule will be adopted, all users of a known-type fruit would appear in their category only and the articles directly categorized in Category:Devil Fruit Users would be the users of unknown fruits. To check the category and three subcategories takes a few seconds. Try it out and answer me if it's significantly more difficult then checking a single category. For me it isn't. Now to the Category:Pirates and it's subcategories. As part of the rearrange I intend to remove all but two subcategories from this category. All the pirate crew categories doesn't really belong into this category because they include not only characters but also ships, events and locations. In some categories, like Category:Shichibukai or Category:Straw Hat Pirates these artilcles make a large part of the category. I think now, after the creation of the Category:Piracy as the central category for all piracy-related articles all these pages should be categorized in Category:Pirates Organizations only. However, I want to finish this discussion first before I will remove categories from any page again. a similar category for Marines is a good idea. In this case, all subcategories except for category:Non-Canon Marines could be removed from category marines. The rank categories can be included into category ranks as its subcategories. However, the problem is that if we don't follow the wikipedia policy, it's tecnically legal to categorize any page or category into almost every other category. That's one of the reasons why I think it's neccesary to adopt this policy. El Chupacabra 11:14, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not that difficult to check a few sub categories but it can be difficult to check several sub categories. There's also the fact that some people when going to a main category called Devil Fruit users, expect to find a complete category of Devil Fruit users.


 * For the pirates categories, it's that much of problem having the pirate crews listed under pirates as well as a majority of the pirate crews are of pirates. Also you have to take into account of the various individual pirates. If you keep all the individual pirates in the pirate category, you are going to need some sub categories to differentiate them. There are such sub categories, but it would be easier for users if they can locate such subcategories right away in the category page instead of jumping from one page to another. If you don't keep the individual pirates in the pirate category, then creates a bigger problem. You are gonna ask people to jump 20+ times to locate these pirates.


 * For having it legal to categorize into different categories, what's the problem with that? It provides the benefits I've saying over and over. As long as an article is properly placed in the appropriate category then there is no problem. Wikipedia's policies are wikipedia's policies. They were made with Wikipedia in mind. We should use and create policies that have our own site in mind.Mugiwara Franky 11:37, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there are also some people who expect to find a complete list of characters in Category:Characters. However, if they will visit an almost empty category with three subcategories entitle "(type) Devil fruit users" they will understand that they should check them as well. The pirates category would become smaller if all the articles and categories on crews would be moved into Category:Pirates Organizations, which should be a subcategory of Piracy along with Pirates. The pirates category should include only the individuals. additionally, the Pirate Captains, who make a large part of all the pirates should be categorized only in Category:Pirate Captains, not as pirates. Category:Pirates would include only the "common" pirates and have only two subcategories: Captains and real-life pirates. All pirates would be then categorized in pirates and his crew category, if they have an own category. the reason why these categories were included into category pirates was the fact that it was the main category for all piracy-related articles until I created Category:Piracy. Now it should become just a list of individuals involved in piracy, and the pirate crews should be listed in Category:Pirates Organizations. El Chupacabra 12:09, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we are really going around in circles here. I've said before and I'll say it again the Characters can be empty as it is much more broader category term considering it's title.


 * For the Devil Fruit category, people can understand that but it's not necessarily the most user friendly of ways of categorizing things. For one thing, it is not friendly to users like Angel.


 * For the pirates category, you are doing something but it's not necessarily the most user friendly of solutions. With your solution in mind: If person wants to be able to differentiate which pirate belongs to which crew, they would have to jump at least two pages instead of one to find the answer. If a person wants to know all the pirates there are in one page for mass searching and or editing, they won't as they have to jump several pages just to find the ones they missed.


 * The piracy category you made is a good idea as it can include the various pirate related topics found in the wikia. Since it's name is piracy, it's not necessary to place the individual pirates there as piracy is a broad term. However, just because a category like that exists, it doesn't mean the categories under pirates should be strictly rearranged in a way that forces people to find categories in a very rigid manner. For one thing, I'm personally abit confused as to the setup you want for these individuals. Instead of a clear picture, all I'm getting is a confusing maze-like map.Mugiwara Franky 12:33, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * If One-Winged Hawk or anybody else have real with problems with the arrange I proposed above, they should express it. As to the difficulty to differentiate which pirate belongs to which crew: The current system is not better. now he would have to jump from category to category anyway, because the list of pirates is arranged in alphabetical order. The place where he can see it is the Pirate guide. You argue that Category:characters or Category:Piracy can't be compared to ategory.Pirates because that are broader terms, but the problem is that we have no definition what is a "broader" term. Somebody may think that characters is not a baroader term and another that pirate is one. In fact, we have only two rules for categorization and I want to add a third one. It will make the system a bit more rigid, but alos more precise and clear. We talk alot about various examples, but i think that we should first adopt the system and discuss the various way of arranging pages within it. El Chupacabra 12:52, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * The automatic separation thing that categories have is just a device that makes things easier when categories have 200+ articles. It is however more easier than jumping from page to page just to find all the similar articles. For the Pirate Guide page, that's just one option for a person to find a complete list of pirates. It doesn't mean it should be the only option. Saying that if a person wants to find a complete list of pirates, they should just go here instead of category searching is not very user friendly. Besides, it's not even a complete list as it tells people to go to another page just to identify pirates belonging to Yokou and Shichibukai.


 * A broad term is like this. When you say character, it has a very broad meaning. It can mean a Marine, a Pirate, a Devil Fruit user, or anything else, no specific type of character comes into mind. When you say Piracy, it can refer to treasure hunting, pillaging, or anything else, pirates come into mind but because there are all sorts of pirates in One Piece, a huge number comes into mind and it is very broad. When you say Pirate, it can refer to a Pirate Captain, a Whitebeard Pirate, a real life Pirate, a Pirate crew, or anything else that falls in that matter.


 * For the system and policies you are asking for. They maybe clear and precise creating a single line of sorts but it is not user friendly. I don't know what Wikipedia is thinking why they don't give user friendliness in category matters but just because they don't doesn't mean we should be as well.Mugiwara Franky 13:22, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

A little thing I also noticed about the Devil Fruit users template that you El made. It kinda doesn't take into account that some Devil Fruit users are of unknown type. For it to be useful it has to take into account characters like Sengoku and Tsuru. For it to be useful, it has to list down all the Devil Fruit users since most of them have pages unlike the unknown fruits. It could work if there was section called unknown type but that section would be abit unstably fluctuating especially since some characters aren't that definite as Devil Fruit users.Mugiwara Franky 11:45, February 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've included a section for the unknown fruit users, but you're right, the rtemplate doesn't show this. This must be a bug. Can you fix this? El Chupacabra 12:09, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * No it's not a bug and it better to leave it as it is; the problematic main Template can’t handle more than four table heading. And already has enough bugs if you add the code for the fifth you will create problem to others templates. Tipota 15:09, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I think you're becoming a bit stubborn about this El Chupacabra! I only talked about the Devil Fruit Pages, not the Devil Fruit Users nor the Pirates category. I never said anything about the template of the Devil Fruit Users that you made, don't put words in my mouth. Using a template (just as Mugiwara Franky has said) is mainly for navigational purposes and a category for categorization purposes don't put these two together like this!!

It's not only me that thinks that the Devil Fruit category system we have (for their pages not their users) is working fine but Emfrbl too, in fact you're the only one who has had a problem so far, to my knowledge at least. Not to mention that the categories show the number of article pages that exist in the wiki for the said pages.

If someone wants to check all the Devil Fruit Users pages they can use a Devil Fruit Users category that lists all the Devil Fruit users including those we know have a Devil Fruit ability but we don't know it's name or type (Akainu at a time was both)!!! I hope I have made myself clear and answered to you to all the points that are my focus. MasterDeva 14:53, February 27, 2010 (UTC)

I read some random part of the above discussion and I really don’t understand your arguments EL. I have already read the Wikipedia categorization system and Devil Fruit category definitely doesn’t violate the categorization rules. You begin a discussion without first understand what is going on. And now you want to create templates instead of subcategories I don’t know what to say. If you write a real argument then maybe I will change my opinion now I am against Sub-Category--> Template idea or a category with subcategories only.

Your arguments: Tipota 15:09, February 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) About Wikipedia: read again the help article.
 * 2) overload: a big category with 1000+ pages it is the same with a category with 200 pages a good index will help to find quickly what you want.
 * 3) read again the Wikipedia help article. Sub-categories will help you to find what you want.


 * The advantage of categorizing in sub-categories only, is that it emphasize the article that are not subcategorized. If you look at the Characters category, the 5 pages that are in this category would be completely invisible if all characters were put in this category. If we do it with the Devil Fruit category, it will emphasize the fact that there is a Rumble Ball article, if we do it with the Devil Fruit Users category it will emphasize the characters which type is yet unknown ( also I'm dubitative about what is done on this, it is not because they are unnamed that their type are unknown, I think I will start a discussion on that here ). It is also an advantage for maintenance point of view, since we deal with shorter list (for example, it helps to notice that most of the Templates which are not subcategorized are not that usefull, this is due to the fact that they are not subcategorized and that the one that are usefull are not in the Template category). The drawback like Mugiwara Franky said is that it is less friendly since one needs to jump between the categories and that the user has to know the category tree very well in order to find easily the articles.
 * Since both solutions have their pros and cons it is not very wise to stick to one rule. For each category, one need to decide what is the best way (also it is what has been made so far in an empiric way). If the future Pirate category only contains characters and that all articles belonging to this category will be part of a subcategory, then the best solution is to put the article in both categories Pirates and the sub-category had hoc. In the same way, for the Devil Fruit, putting the * in front of the only 5 articles that are not devil fruit articles is sufficient to emphasize them and having a list of all the Devil fruit is usefull. For the Devil Fruit Users it depends on if we think it is important to emphasized the list of the user which devil fruit is yet unnamed or not, maybe creating a Category:Unnamed Devil Fruit Users sub-category is necessary. I don't think maintain it will be a problem since it will be corrected as soon as the info comes out :-). :One the contrary, I don't think that the Templates category needs to contain all the templates since it is mainly used by editors who have a good knowledge of the wiki and that the maintenance point of view has to be taken into account.
 * Kdom 10:33, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * For the characters category, it's kinda true that those articles would not be emphasized if all of the characters were included. Considering the extremely broad nature one could associate the term "characters" with also, it would be a bit too much. Making certain articles like them and lists more emphasized would be a good idea though.


 * For the templates, it's kinda necessary to include them in one category for quick indexing as stated. While they maybe used mostly by editors who have a good knowledge, there kinda needs to be something there in order to help newcomers and potential future good contributoes. There's also the fact that some of the editors who have a good knowledge of how the wikia works have different methods of checking things out as explained by Angel.


 * For subcategories on Unnamed Devil Fruit users and/or Unknown Devil Fruits, it maybe not a good idea to create them. One is that they're unnamed and unknown, factors that don't exactly warrant a page. It's not exactly a stable subcategory idea.Mugiwara Franky 12:57, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I did not speak of a Unknown Devil Fruit category but Unknown Devil Fruit Users, their page exists. If you want the list of Devil Fruit users which are unknown at the moment like for [|this discussion], you have to make diff between the main category and the subcategories, it's not very practical. In such a case, El Chupacabra categorization method would be more usefull ; the other solution is to create the sub-category. Well, it's just to give practical examples that none of the 2 method is perfect. Kdom 13:56, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * For users whose Devil Fruit types are unknown, it's probably okay for them to not be included in a subcategory that lists them down as users whose types are unknown. A subcategory like that would be a bit unstable considering there would be times that it would be completely empty. Their type would be revealed eventually.


 * In any categorization, there is sometimes one or more items that do not fit in any given subcategory due to uncertainties like inability to tell type. It's usually best to leave them in the main category rather than create another subcategory that's basically a "?" subcategory.Mugiwara Franky 14:10, February 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * MasterDeva, I didn't refer to Category:Devil Fruits because it's smaller and less complicatd then Pirates and even Devil fruits users. I thik Category:Devil fruits should be similar in appearance to Category:Devil fruit users, but the latter already includes the unidentified ones. Their fruits however, don't have own articles. What did you mean when you wrote that the current appearance doesn't violate the Wikipedia rules? Are you referring to the Non-diffusing subcategories? However, since all devil fruits belong to one of the three types there is no need to keep them in both a main category and the sub-category. I think the Category:Devil Fruit should include directly only a few articles like Devil Fruit and Rumble Ball and the three type subcategories which would include the fruits. Now One-Winged Hawk, please say me if this arrangement would be too dificult for you. As to the Category:Pirates, One reason why I want to remove all the organization from there, is the category is quite messy. It includes both individuals and crews, and I think that these things should be separated. As I said, a crew is not just a group of characters, it also includes their ships, related events and locations. Just like Category:Organizations is not a subcategory od Category:Characters the pirate organisations should not be mixed up with individuals. I think this would be the most logical and user-friendly way of categorizing them. El Chupacabra 15:04, March 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * For Tipota's interpretation of Wikipedia's policy in regards to our site, it kinda shows the flaw of wanting to use it in our site. You El interpret that the categories violate the policy. Tipota interprets that the categories don't violate the policy. For some of us, we can't make heads or tales of what it's really about. It's really best not to use it as basis for how we should do things when we can't even agree on how it works.


 * For the rest of your arguments, I kinda already stated my reasons against them above.Mugiwara Franky 02:52, March 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I have also stated my reasons above. However, not much seems to happen. The discussion at Category talk:Devil Fruit Users was quite useful, and I think that similar shoud be done with piracy/pirates. However, i'm still waiting for the answers to my previous comment. El Chupacabra 16:07, March 4, 2010 (UTC)

Actually stuff has happened based on the various comments within this discussion. It maybe presumptious but it maybe rather useless to keep demanding opinions from some as their comments can be somewhat clear as to what their opinion towards your general idea is.Mugiwara Franky 03:14, March 5, 2010 (UTC)

Category layouts
Let me expalain how I thik the categories devil Fruits and Piracy with their subcategories should look like:

Category:Devil Fruit:


 * Includes the main articles (Devil Fruit, Rumble Ball etc.)
 * The Template:Devil Fruits gives atthe top of the category gives a list of devil fruits arranged by type and canon/non canon
 * Has the "DF users" and "DF images" subcategories and the three type subcategories.
 * All devil Fruit articles are categorized in their type subcategory only. No other articles are included in these categories.
 * The articles Paramecia, Zoan and Logia are merged into the Devil Fruit article.

Category:Piracy:


 * Includes artilces related to piracy in general like Jolly Roger or Treasure.
 * Has piracy-related subcategories including Category:Pirates and Category:Pirates Organizations
 * The difference between these categories is simple: Articles on individuals and nuclear groups that are not organizations like Acrobatic Fuwas or Mizuuta Twins are included in the first and articles on organizations in the second one.
 * Category:Pirates includes all articles on individuals, except the captains and real pirates who have own subcategories within category:Pirates.
 * Category:Pirates Organizations includes (as article or subcategory) the various groups related to piracy.
 * If you think that it is useful to distinguish crew from organizations like the yonkou or the supernovas, they should keep their Category:Pirate Crews as a subcategory of "Pirates Organizations". Otherwise they are categorized directly.
 * Pirates who are members of an orgnization that has an own category like the Straw Hat Pirates are included both into this category and the category pirates.

I think this will make the structure of these categories very clear and easy to understand. It will help to narrow the category pirates and make a clear distinction between individuals and organizations. This is not given now.

Comment these layouts below. El Chupacabra 16:55, March 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I disagree with the merger of the Paramecia, Zoan and Logia for the sole reason that they're not stub pages and each page is a fully developed individual article! For reasons I stated above I am against the removal of the Devil Fruit category from the Devil Fruit pages and the inclusion of the Devil Fruit Users, together with anything else, put under the Devil Fruit category. You can't just throw everything into the mixer to produce a indistinguishable mass or rather you shouldn't; the way it is now is more convenient and user friendly to work with!!


 * On the other hand I find the Piracy category a really good idea and wish to see it completed. If any problems appear concerning the implementation of this idea, I'm sure that some "polishing" to it should be enough to work around them (unless I am mistaken of course) and solve some of the existing ones. MasterDeva 18:21, March 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Is this the only reason against the merger? We don't have a rule that only stub pages should be merged. Law Enforcement, Police and Bounty Hunters were all merged into Justice although they weren't stubs These articles would fit well into the Devil Fruit article. They could be easily integrated as sections. The merged article would be around 50 000 bytes long, siilar in size to Bounties. Both aspects are very important in the One Piece world and I think equally-sized articles would be appropriate. I don't propose to include Category:Devil Fruit Users into category:Devil fruits. Mugiwara Franky did this back in 2006. I wan to keep this there. I don't want to "throw everything into the mixer to produce a indistinguishable mass", I want the exact opposite. I want to make the Category:Devil fruit a central place for all articles on this topic and keep the fruit articles in the type categories. El Chupacabra 14:15, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * For the Devil Fruit category, there are some things are kinda wrong. The template placed at the top, while it shows the Devil Fruits, is actually not an idle replacement for directly categorizing the Devil Fruits in the category itself. It provides a nice useful decor but it's really meant for navigational purposes in articles. It's no better than writing down the articles on the category itself as if it were a "List of" page.


 * For the merging of the 3 main Devil Fruit type articles, that's a bit too much downsizing in a sort of way. While it would reduce the number of pages in the Devil Fruit category in your setup, El, from 5 to 2, it's really a bit too much.


 * For the pirates category, some points to note.
 * Some pirates like Brook were captains at one point of time. Where should they belong to? Should they be in only the pirates category or should they be only in the pirate captains category? It's a bit of a hassle that would be better left with the characters listed within both categories.
 * For pirate crews, the usual first idea when you say a pirate crew like the Straw Hat Pirates is that you think of the pirates themselves rather than their attachments like ships. There are also some pirate crew categories that contain nothing but their crewmembers I believe.Mugiwara Franky 03:08, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I said above, the articles wouldn't be downsized or reduced a lot. Their main parts would just become sections of Devil Fruit. For me it wouldn't be too much of work. As for the former pirate captains, I think they can be put in the captains category only, just like Crocodile ad Jinbei are still categorized as shichibukai although they were stripped off their titles. We could add a note into the top of Category:pirates that all pirates who ever commanded an own crew are in the pirate captains subcategory. Almost all pirate crew categories have at least one ship in their category. And remember that all the indiviguals who are part of a crew will remain in the category:Pirates. I see no need to categorize both all the members of a crew and the crew itself into category:pirates when we have a Category:pirates organizations for the latter. El Chupacabra 14:15, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * However, I would like to know what you think on Category:Pirate Crews, should we keep it or not? And what does One-Winged Hawk (or another user who has a similar way to check pages) think about my Category:Devil Fruit layout? Would this be apropriate for you or not? El Chupacabra 14:15, March 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Putting the 3 pages as sections into the Devil Fruit article actually may take some work. For starters, what constitutes as the main points of the pages. The pages have developed into being self sustaining and separate since day one. Their main points have expanded to be much more than simple sections in one page. Putting them all together would be indeed placing them into a big mass.


 * Parts of your arguments regarding the former pirate captains and pirate groups are somewhat contradictory especially with this line of yours: And remember that all the indiviguals who are part of a crew will remain in the category:Pirates. You are asking that captains of a crew should only be placed in a separate category. However, you are also asking that all the individual crewmembers should be placed in the pirate category. In order to achieve one, you have to disregard the other.


 * For the Category:Pirate Crews, it seems more or less useful as it easily identifies all the pirate crews.


 * For your demand for Angel's opinion, it's getting to a bit tiring. She kinda gave her opinions on the whole matter above. I'm not her but I'm guessing she's really tired of the matter. If you really really really want her to talk, ask her yourself directly cause demanding from here is going nowhere. Also there have been other users who use her style that have discussed here. There's me for starters, and there's apparently others like Tipota and Masterdeva.Mugiwara Franky 02:27, March 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * As to the amount of work, don't worry about this. I said that I'm ready to do this. They have NOT been "self sustaining and separate since day one", they were separated from Devil Fruit on January 1, 2008. Beside, a lot of page that existed for a longer time were deleted or merged during the large purge not a long ago. What main points do they have that requre the existance of separate articles? They all are similar in structure. They consist of sections describing the effects, strenghts and weaknesses of the type, a list of fruits and a few trivia. A merger would be similar to the merger of all the sword grade articles into Swords.


 * I see no contradiction. I want to place the captains into a subcategor of Category:pirates. They would be still categorized in Category:pirates, just not directly.


 * Yes, but there are around 50 of them. If we remove them, the amount of articles in category:pirates will sink below 200. And the layout would mirror the structure of the more general categories. Like Category:Organizations is not a subcategory of Category:Characters, the organization articles should not be mixed with the individuals. Why do you want to keep a "big mass" of articles in the category?


 * I just have the impression that a more precise discussion is better then the more general one we had above. I therefore want to know if the proposed layout would be OK for somebody who uses this way to check pages. That's why I ask everybody here to tell me their opinion. I would like to have as any responses as possible. El Chupacabra 16:11, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well we gave our opinion, but you continue to act as if we said nothing and get stuck on your opinion beside everybody else says otherwise. I, personnaly, kinda give up. Kdom 21:36, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

For the individual Devil Fruit type pages, while it is true that various other pages have been either merged or deleted in the past, they were only done so under different circumstances. The Devil Fruit types however are completely different especially compared to articles like sword grades. With sword grades, they are not an essential part of One Piece, just a small facet like the type of goggles Wanze wears. Devil Fruit types however are an essential part of One Piece. Considering how much Devil Fruits play throughout the story, they're not exactly throwaway one time subjects.

Aside from the preceding argument on the Devil Fruit types, the proposal is abit too unreasonable. It is at least a separate matter different than the category argument being discussed about here. Adding it to this proposal is asking too much.

For the pirates, Tipota has kinda explained this in quote: "overload: a big category with 1000+ pages it is the same with a category with 200 pages a good index will help to find quickly what you want.". Having a massive 200+ category is not a problem. It would be a problem if the site was ran by a single person who requires some more precise categorying but it is not a problem for a site ran by a community of people.

For the discussion itself, the precise one doesn't seem all the more different than the general one. It's discussing the same things and problems. Things are just being repeated. The only difference is that you are aiming only a set group of categories as opposed to all of them. The difference maybe fewer in number but it's just the same thing.

If you El, really really really want opinions on this precise discussion, you may really need to convince other people upfront to express their opinions here. Unless convinced, their opinions in the related general discussion kinda stand in this one as it's pretty much the same thing.Mugiwara Franky 08:34, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * The devil fruits in general are a more fundamental aspect then the types alone. Think about this, what is more important for the world, the presence of the Devil Fruits or the existance of certain types. If there were more or less fruit types, the world of One Piece would be more similar to what it is then if there were no Devil Fruits at all. It's somehow similar to Chapters and Volumes, there is one article and not two, although both things are very important. If you think that it shouldn't be discussed here, let's move the discussion to Talk:Devil Fruit.


 * Of courese big categories can't be avoided competely. However, I think that this should be done whenever it's possible. I see no reason why is it neccesary to keep the organizations in the Category pirates when there a separate category for them. Is there anybody who thinks that they have to stay among the individuals? If yes please give some reasons for this.


 * I statred this section after many examples were brought on how difficult it would be to fulfil my proposal. I had the impresson thatz some people have difficultioes to understand my intentions. I therefore presented them and wanted a response. I still want to continue the more general discussion after finishing the deal with the categories that were brought up as examples against my proposal above. Should I adress some users directly on their talk pages and introduce them to the discussion? El Chupacabra 15:13, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, you're talking like a Wikipedian if you view the different types of Devil Fruits as not important enough to warrant their own pages.


 * Second, chapters and volumes are a completely different matter. For them, all you have is a list. If you separate it into chapters and volumes, you get two small lists. With them combined, they compliment each other. With the Devil Fruits and their types, they all have descriptions that are more than a simple list. They could fit all together but that there isn't any reason why they should especially in the wikia. In Wikipedia, they would have to fit together regardless of the need for expansion. In this wikia, they can separated and given more freedom and detail to expand upon.


 * For article category sprawling and large category, what is your problem anyway? If an article or subcategory can be found in one category and then another, it means that is more accessible to a larger variety of users than it staying in a dead end. Trying to avoid large categories is a bit dumb even Wikipedia itself doesn't avoid it. Wikipedia may use a precise system but it certainly doesn't avoid categories that go over 200+. Besides what are listed in categories are just links, they don't require much loading and with automatic sorting system at hand, big categories are easy to maneuver.


 * For the discussion, regardless of whether it's a more precise discussion or a general one, you are still asking the same things and repeating the same arguments. For asking other users, I've been telling you should however I'm not sure if they're gonna be irritated or not. You've kinda disregarded all their previous opinions in the previous related discussion.Mugiwara Franky 23:15, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, not all wikipedians have the same opinion, see Deletionism and inclusionism in Wikipedia for more. However, when wikipedia merges articles, they are often shortened significantly. I don't want to cut them shorter. I don't think that an own page is always better then a separate section. it's not a matter of importance but a matter of usefulness. Sometimes some important and related aspects can be covered by a single article better then by a number of articles. I already explained thet the pages would fit well into the Devil Fruit article, like they did before 2008. I think that a merged article would be easier to read and to edit. Why do you think that can't they be expanded as a sections? The chapters and volumes was a reference to the size and importance of the article. In structure, it's indeed more similar to the sword types. They were merged into the Swords article, and the devil Fruit Types should be threated in a similar way.


 * It's indeed good when an article fits in many categories, but it's a bit stupid to have a subcategory that consists of articles from the top category. Besides, as I said, an article can theoretically fit into dozends of categories. If they are included among the individuals, thay could be put into categories charactes, organization, one piece and many otheres. You said that these categories are broader, but you still didn't explain what is a broad category and where we should draw the line between broad and narrow categories.


 * Don't forget the backstory of the pirates category. until I've created cetagory:Piracy, it was used as the central category for all piracy-related articles, and included articles like Jolly Roger, that are not about individual pirates. Now when we have a new central category for piracy, I want to remove all articles that do not treat individuals and nuclear groups from the Category pirates in order to make it's structure clearer. One category for the individuals, one for the organizations. You want to have one category for everybody and one for the organizations, but don't you think that a category for individual pirates is quite useful?


 * Wikipedia is by times bigger then this wikia, they simply can't avoid giant categories. I also don't want to avoid them completely, but in this case I see a possibility to avoid one without damage.


 * I started this discussion because seome users brought Category:Pirates and Category Devil Fruits as examples against my proposal. I want to show how these categories cold be rearranged in order to fit the proposed rule. That's why I want a wide response. You are wong when you say that I ignore the opinion of other users. I have reacted to many responses and changed my opinion in some points. Of course I still want to reach my original goal, but this is the point of our discussion. I see no reason to change my opinion in this point. However some of my arguments and questions were ingnored as well. Besides, only a few users were engaged in the discussion above, many others didn't express their opinion at all. I don't know if they had noticed this discussion. El Chupacabra 14:02, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

GIFs
Whenever I upload animated GIFs, they never seem to run in thumbs.

Take, for example, this newest one I uploaded, File:Horu Horu no Mi.gif.



Seems to work fine. However, when I thumb it...



It doesn't move. Or does it? Am I the only one having this problem? Is it my computer not letting me see it be animated, or am I uploading them wrong or something? I want to get this resolved for future reference. The Pope 05:15, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I kinda see your point in thumbnail format. Gif images apparently don't move unless given a size that allows them to move.




 * Maybe cropping the animated sequence to a smaller size might solve the problem a bit.Mugiwara Franky 15:20, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I fixed it now; it should be running properly on the Horu Horu no Mi page. The Pope 16:54, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Vague Dub References
At one point we were changing them all from "in the english dub" but we've either stopped or let a few more on. We can't even say "english translation" since we need to be more precise. Ithas to be "Odex Dub", "4Kids Dub", "Funimation Dub" or "Viz translation". :-/ One-Winged Hawk 19:01, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point.Mugiwara Franky 08:35, March 10, 2010 (UTC)