Talk:Haki

Crocodile's Haki knowledge
In chapter 199, when luffy striked crocodile with water, crocodile thought "could he have?" and he was afraid

it can be Haki ?

http: //www.mang apanda.com/103-2306-15/one-piece/chapter-199.html

SalamanccSalamancc (talk) 18:43, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I think he just was afraid luffy understood his weakness. Rayleigh92 (talk) 18:59, January 8, 2013 (UTC)

I think he knows about Haki indeed. Came here to check the more recent disucssion, but I think this phrase have gone out of the radar. K the AWC (talk) 19:39, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

Mantra target
Enel says something interesting in chapter 278: it seems that mantra works better if the target is known. Can someone double-check this? It can be a mistranslation... and what does that means anyway?

It means that it is easier for the user to sense someone they know, or if they know whom to look for. Think of it like the "Where's Waldo" books. It's a lot easier to find Waldo if you know what Waldo looks like. 01:26, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but does that concern us? I didn't read anything about that in the article... should we add it or is it obvious?

No, we should add it. It might seem obvious at first glance, but it really isn't. 18:58, January 20, 2013 (UTC)

Separate
I think we should separate the article in 3 pages and connect them with tabs.It will be much more convenient because right now,it takes too much time to reload the page. 19:06, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

The page isn't really that long. Plus, it's way better to have all this info in one place. The reason it takes too long to load is probably just the two GIFs. 19:09, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with JSD. Pages too short and it's too bothersome to look for the 3 hakis in 3 sepparate pages.

I must jump on the bandwagon here. I agree with JSD's and Rici's statements. WU out -  19:19, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

I still believe it would be better with tabs. 19:28, April 10, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with SHL, there's no need for 3 different tabs. 12:41, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with SHL, there's enough information to create 3 seperate pages.Salamancc (talk) 12:39, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Could we move/hide/spoiler the "Known Users" list? It's incredibly long and not as important as other information that is being stretched further down the page because of the list. Nexus32 (talk) 03:19, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. 03:38, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Make a gallery template. 03:40, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

What color is haki in general? 03:43, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe white text/black background (white is made up of all the colours of the spectrum, just has Haki is comprised of three separate colours). Haoshoku should be changed to purple to fit the kingly theme of the ability.

Can't. We already have that for CP9. I was thinking something like black because of busoshoku, but none of the others can be represented because they don't have physical augmentations. I was wondering if we could get some kind of translucent, sort of reflected glass look for the template. 06:23, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Just remove the list. It's not really important. 07:58, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Dragon's Busoshoku Haki?
Dragon has Busoshoku Haki because in Loguetown he grabbed Smoker, a Logia User. So we ought to put him as a Buso User. Alelucas (talk) 07:27, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Please add a new heading for every new topic and Dragon hasn't displayed haki cause he grabbed smoker's weapon thingy not him. 08:55, May 3, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, man! Alelucas (talk) 14:15, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Haki users
I thought it was known that all Vice-Admirals are supposed to know Haki. How come they are missing from the list?

94.59.8.137 16:47, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

We don't know which type of haki they can use, so not all of them are in the gallery templates. But they are in the main list. 19:45, July 22, 2013 (UTC)

Why isn't usopp included? He used observers haki to snipe sugar.Patrat46 (talk) 04:01, October 11, 2020 (UTC)

Ace uses Kenbunshoku Haki in Episode A manga, if its canon it should be on the list, if its not canon he can be on the non-canon kenbunshoku haki users list Marco 1907 (talk) 18:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Too Many Naviboxes
Is there anyone who actually likes having a million naviboxes at the bottom of the page for every group containing a person who uses haki? We don't do the same for Devil Fruits for obvious reasons, and as we go further into the New World it's just going to get worse. 09:06, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

The naviboxes are pretty good, the are very helpful for the readers. 09:18, July 28, 2013 (UTC)


 * Also something completely unrelated to the topic, this talk page needs an archive. 09:19, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying get rid of all of them. But the way they've been implemented isn't optimal, and there's too much clutter. The current system is to put a group navibox on the page when a single person in that group is proven to be able to use Haki (e.g. Roger Pirates for Rayleigh, Big Mom Pirates for Pekoms). But there's no indication of which member(s) can use Haki, so there isn't really much benefit - you would have to read the article to get that information anyway.

The article should only have two naviboxes: a fighting styles navibox (that lists things like Haki, Rokushiki, the swordfighting styles, martial arts styles, fishman fighting styles etc), and a Haki users Navibox that lists individual confirmed users by the colour of Haki they've displayed (similar to the Devil Fruit Users Navibox). 10:02, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

We don't need a navibox for haki users. We have gallery templates for that. I understand that the naviboxes make the page very long and it takes time to load. But the readers of the wiki find it pretty useful. Every single group that contains people who can use haki is listed here. This is very helpful for the readers of the wiki that don't know so many things about one piece. 10:08, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

We should just tab it like we do for the Straw Hats' pages, and add portrait galleries for each type like we are discussing below. That way we get working redirects, unlike with tabber extensions, and then we'll have more content for each subpage. 18:39, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Since this is still listed as an active discussion, I'm bumping this. I'd like to get opinions from people other than Staw, so it can be delisted if everyone else loves having the naviboxes as much as he does. But I did a quick test, and previewing the page in edit mode as it is now took me 12-15 seconds, whereas previewing it after removing the naviboxes took 5 seconds (feel free to test for yourself). Keeping in mind the likelihood that every single crew from this point forward in the series is likely to include at least one member who can use haki, is the "benefit" of these naviboxes really enough to justify more than doubling the load time of the page? 15:35, August 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes Yes Yes I always wanted to bring this topic up,remove those naviboxes(keep only a few,very few)--

I still think making a subpage for each Haki type is best rather than removing the naviboxes, as they have valuable info. 16:16, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

We have one list for every Haki user (including references for when each person was confirmed to have Haki). We have galleries for every Haki user. These are fine - these are specific. But I don't get what the valuable info is that's in the naviboxes. Take the Fishman Island navibox - out of those ~100 links one single person has displayed haki. Impel Down? That's just there for Luffy and Ace, each of whom have their own separate naviboxes. The same holds true for a number of the other naviboxes, which are only there for a single person. We could achieve the same result with much less clutter (and make the page easier to edit) by moving crew/organizations into the list (either one list for all Haki users, or separate lists based on type). We don't have twenty naviboxes on the sword or devil fruit pages to represent all the organizations that have a user of either of those, so I don't see the justification or benefit here. 16:31, August 24, 2013 (UTC)

I am completely retarded sometimes. This entire time, I was convinced we were talking about the infoboxes, not naviboxes! I have no idea why I thought that, but while I was preparing to move the pages, I was looking at the naviboxes and thought "There are way too many of these!" and then I realized the horrible mistake I've been making. Why can't we just make a Haki navibox and include only the important information on it? 00:39, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. 21:07, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Cause that's a bad idea. 21:29, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * What is? And how/why? 22:21, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

I will speak up for my own good, and if my opinion is invalid since I am not much of an article editor in here, then so be it, at least I had the chance to speak. Now, if ever you have come across to my user page, I stated there at I am prone on grammar mistakes and I ask to be spared if ever I will commit one on this opinion of mine. Now, I will try to break it down as much as I can, in every comprehensive way possible.

Now, I agree on making a navibox for Haki users. Why?
 * Too much naviboxes, people. Too much. It's pointless, really.
 * This article is about haki, it's sub types, and the USERS. So I don't see the point why you have to include the navibox for the SHP, when Nami, Chopper and Usopp are non-haki users. Again, it's pointless.
 * Yes, the image gallery exists, but shouldn't the article belong to haki, to it's sub types and the users alone? Because like I said, indicating the other users who isn't knowledgeable about haki is, for the third time, pointless.
 * The main purpose of having a separate navibox for haki users is to specify who are those users. Even though the image gallery exists already, it is good to say that once a person clicks a navibox, he can see inside the table the selected users alone. I mean, what's so bad about having a navibox for the haki users alone, while the image gallery exists?

So I cannot see why Awe (Staw) said that it is a bad idea. So if ever, I agree on having a navibox solely for the characters that are capable of using haki.

That's all. Bai. --ChokokuguzaNoTobira (talk) 01:35, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Four against one so far. If anyone agrees with Staw for some reason, would probably be a good idea to speak up now (preferably with actual arguments). 18:46, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

The only way to solve this would be making a navibox for all haki users. Otherwise removing them would be stupid since if we remove any then we have to remove them all. SeaTerror (talk) 18:53, September 5, 2013 (UTC)

I put a draft Haki Users Navibox on the Kenbunshoku Haki page. Any other issues, or tabs that should go on the pages? 06:46, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

We already have galleries for that. Don't you people want to know which groups have people with haki abilities? Cause I'm sure readers want. 06:55, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

The navibox is intended to go on every Haki User's page as well, which we don't have galleries for. Haki is an individual ability, not a group one, so "which groups have people with haki abilities" is just as irrelevant as "which groups have people with Devil Fruit abilities" or "which groups have people with swords" or "which groups have people with green hair". And stop pretending like you know what everyone wants - the only way you'll be proven right is if people actually support you. 08:38, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

We've had the navibox up for a long time, calling the discussion closed. 13:41, September 19, 2013 (UTC)

Remove/Hide Known Users List
I pointed this out in another heading but I'm making this one to be clear. I'm not talking about the actual pictures of users under each haki tab, I'm talking about the list right above the tabs. I'm sorry, but it's too long and stretches the pages. I can't be the only one who comes here to review up on my haki info and gets distracted by the list, having to scroll download a dozen seconds extra because of it. I suggest either completely removing it (since we have the tabs pointing out all significant users) or spoilering it.

I also think the "Known Users" list is going to populate FAST as we go through these New World arcs. We're going to have characters that only have a role of 3 chapters max in the manga who can utilize haki (Boo for instance), is it necessary to list them all out? On their respective character pages, yeah, I agree, haki should be listed on their articles but here, we have so many haki users that it's no longer significant to list them all out. Nexus32 (talk) 18:08, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

We should remove the list indeed. 18:13, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

or ya know just hide it-- 18:20, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

It will look even worse if we use the Hide template. 18:24, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Make it a gallery. 18:33, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

The list belongs on the article. The only way to do it other than leaving it alone is creating tabs. SeaTerror (talk) 18:36, July 28, 2013 (UTC)

Tab it. 13:06, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

It does not *belong* on the article. We already have the notable users listed in the tabs, we don't need a list that stretches the page unneccesarily. Nexus32 (talk) 09:52, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. SeaTerror (talk) 09:55, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

I think, in Haoshoku Haki users we can count Chinjao into "royal users", as his epithet Don    originally was a title used for royality.83.29.121.20 10:51, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

I facepalmed. 11:17, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Galaxy, a gallery (or 3) makes more sense. 13:55, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. WU out - 16:28, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

You agree with everybody. Anyway it would be much better to tab each one off. SeaTerror (talk) 18:18, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

We should just tab it like we do for the Straw Hats' pages, and add portrait galleries for each type. That way we get working redirects, unlike with tabber extensions, and then we'll have more content for each subpage. 18:39, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

We already have a tabbed section on here. We don't need another, nor do we need to make it a subpage. Just hide it. 20:46, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Tabs in the middle of an article are out of place. Plus they don't reduce the article length. Sub pages are the only way to go for something like this. SeaTerror (talk) 21:04, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Unless we hide it. 21:08, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't do anything. The bytes and data are still there. SeaTerror (talk) 21:10, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Since when is that a problem? It's about space on the page, not loading issues.21:13, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

With the tabs on the page, redirects such as Conqueror's Haki do not work properly. Now instead of being redirected right to the section on Haoshoku Haki, it just brings you to the top of the page, leaving the uniformed reader helpless to figure out which type of haki is Conqueror's Haki. This argument is something I've made on Talk:Rokushiki, this page, and Forum:Tabbers and html ruby without any real responses on how to deal with the issue. Unlike Rokushiki, the Haki page lends itself much better to subpages, particularly if we add portrait galleries for the known users of each type. The overall page size and load times will also be much better, because now there won't be two sizeable gifs on one page. 18:47, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

I just realized the list is an exact duplicate of what we already have under the tabs, but in text form. We have multiple pages that only have picture-lists so having a text list is really unnecessary. Because of that, I'm taking initiative to remove the list. SeaTerror, since you seem to be the only one disagreeing, next time come up with a coherent argument instead of "Cool story, bro." I would only hope that the majority of your edits on this wikia were not defined by this inane statement. Thanks. Nexus32 (talk) 10:14, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

It has references. The tabs don't. Those references are kinda important. 10:30, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

They should be subpaged instead. SeaTerror (talk) 18:49, August 8, 2013 (UTC)

My bad, I figured the references were in the tab-list.

Bump. 17:06, August 15, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. 06:30, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

I still think subpages are the best way to go. 18:01, August 25, 2013 (UTC)

I said that we should make them subpages long ago and was ignored. But it's still a good idea. 05:15, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

I think, we should vote about that. Haki page can be seperated like BLS, Santoryu, Gomu pages. Tabber style is not good. Salamancc (talk) 20:48, August 28, 2013 (UTC)

We already have a majority. We don't need a poll. 08:39, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, so we've agreed to subpage it then? That's helpful because it resolves the section above too. Someone just needs to take the the time to do it then.

And in regard to what Zodiaque said earlier, can't we just add references to the portrait galleries and remove the lists? 11:31, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, it's been hastily done, but I've managed to split up the subpages. They still need to be cleaned up a bit though. 00:39, September 2, 2013 (UTC) Are they really that long that they actually need sub-pages? 21:59, September 2, 2013 (UTC)
 * For me it wasn't so much that each section had a lot of text, but that the file sizes of the gifs and portrait galleries were too much for one page to contain. That and the redirects working better now. 18:49, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Energy & Haki
""This type of Haki [Busoshokou] may not be equipped to attacks that are not from one's body except for weapons, or anything generated from one's own body (like Kizaru's laser beams, Marco's flames or any other energy/non-solid attacks based on Devil Friuts). So, those who attack with parts of their body can combine their Haki and Devil Fruit powers."

The way this is written confuses me, and makes me think that ranged energy attacks cannot be infused with Haki. Am I right, or does the writing need to be smoothed out?--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 00:05, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

Look at Issho's most recent attack. He pulled a meteor down from space without touching it. Because he didn't touch it, the meteor couldn't have haki in it. However, if Issho had simply picked up a rock and thrown it, that rock could potentially have haki in it. I hope this helps. 07:45, September 1, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so they have to touch it. That does help, but what about energy? Like Kizaru's lasers, or (hypothetically) Eneru's lightning. Would those be able to have Haki in them, or would they be exempt because they have no mass?--Kagi mizu -Seeya 'round 07:16, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

In theory, if it comes from or into contact with a Busoshoku Haki user's body, it can have haki in it. 14:17, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

Issho
Why is Issho not listed as a Kenbunshoku/Busoshoku user? His page says he uses Kenbunshoku to compensate for his blindness, and because he's clashing with Sabo it implies that he is able use Buso. So is this an mistake on page? Naruto 45 (talk) 23:33, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

Just because he's fighting a Logia doesn't automatically make him a Buso user. Luffy fought Crocodile and Enel, and was able to physically strike them, without haki. Just wait until it's shown for certain.

23:45, July 3, 2014 (UTC)

Ok can do. So should the Buso part is be removed from his page since it only implies it. Also what about the Kenbunshoku part? Naruto 45 (talk) 00:05, July 4, 2014 (UTC)

Mihawk and Ivankov
Isn't it enough to suppose that Mihawk and Ivankov can use Haki themselves? --Meganoide (talk) 16:52, September 27, 2014 (UTC)
 * They trained Zoro and Sanji;
 * Now Zoro and Sanji they can use Busoshoku and Kenbunshoku;

Not even close. 17:12, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

That flow of logic is mostly conjecture. Just four chapters ago we saw Usopp awaken Kenbunshoku Haki on his own, showing that it is possible to be self-taught. Remember, speculation is the straw that breaks the Wiki's back.The Will of Deez (talk) 17:24, September 27, 2014 (UTC)

Users of All 3 Types of Haki
Rayleigh and Luffy are NOT  the only two people who have shown to use all three types of Haki. Shanks has also displayed all three types of haki.

1) Armament Haki: When he stopped Akainu's magma fist against Coby. Let's remember pre-time skip Haki was invisible. Without Haki, his sword would have went through the magma.

2) Observation Haki: When Whitebeard throws the bottle of sake at him. Shanks isn't looking at Whitebeard and is looking down. When the bottle comes near his head, he immediately moves to the side without looking. He was clearly using Observation Haki.

3) Conqueror's Haki: Confirmed many times. In WB's ship, by the people in Marineford, by Oda himself, etc...

Charlotte Cracker
Is there any reason why Charlotte Cracker is not yet listed under Haki users on the root Haki page?160.39.31.99 00:31, September 2, 2016 (UTC)

Navibox issue\Ability type
I've noticed several naviboxs put Haki under "Fighting Style Based", and others under "Support Abilities". Shouldn't it be under the same category all the time? Which title should it be under? Rhavkin (talk) 21:11, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

Both the usual types are used for fighting, so regardless of whether they're also used for support, I say fighting takes priority.

21:31, June 15, 2017 (UTC)

It's okay to have them under both or just under fighting style based, not an issue that really matters and only differs in perspective. 11:50, June 30, 2017 (UTC)

I think what would fit under "Support" would not just be Haki but others like the Voice of All Things and Drugs.Rgilbert27 (talk) 20:50, September 6, 2019 (UTC)

Trivia
Just a thought... would it be worth adding to the last trivia note (on how only four people have used all three types of Haki) that of the ten canon Haoshoku Haki users, all of the remaining six have been shown canonically using Busoshoku Haki but not Kenbunshoku Haki? (Until next time... Anon e Mouse Jr.)Anon e Mouse Jr. (talk) 03:33, February 3, 2018 (UTC)

English vs Japanese names?
I'm curious, why do you call the different Haki types Kenbunshoku, Busoshoku, and Haoshoku? Why not just use the official English names, Observation, Armament, and Conqueror's? I feel like they're more understandable that way, easier to say, and easier to type as well.DeeeFoo (talk) 23:32, November 9, 2018 (UTC)

You only need to check your talk page for the answer to that question. SeaTerror (talk) 01:41, November 10, 2018 (UTC)

Color vs type
Just to explain my edits: It's true that the Kanji 色 usually means "color", but only someone with little knowledge of Japanese would translate it as such in a context where actual colors aren't even present. I'm not sure why this is the prevailing translation, but it's redundant to use "color" in the sense of "type" when the exact same word simply translates to "type" as well. Should anyone disagree with my translation, please challenge this instead of simply reverting it (especially if you do not know Japanese). • Seelentau 愛 議 02:29, December 24, 2018 (UTC)

If an actual Japanese person left that alone for so long then it can't be wrong. SeaTerror (talk) 04:13, December 24, 2018 (UTC)

He's not saying it is wrong. His point is that to him, it's not the most suitable translation. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 04:25, December 24, 2018 (UTC)

Pulling the "only someone with little knowledge of Japanese would translate it as such" card is a bit pointless when several very experienced Japanese translators have translated it that way (Aohige, Viz). If you're going to dismiss everyone else out of hand, then you should have gone directly to the talk pages of Japanese people like Klobis to have a debate about it. But if 19 out of 20 definitions for the kanji 色 relate to color, in circumstances where there are other kanji that more specifically relate to 'type', there's nothing unusual about translating it as the former, and no reason to change it. 45.56.153.128 05:40, December 24, 2018 (UTC)

SeaTerror, just because someone is Japanese doesn't mean that they know English or know how to translate. As for what the IP says, the Kanji 色 has many different translations. As I said, I'm not sure why other translators decided to translate it as color (sure, it's not wrong per se, it's just not the best translation), maybe I'm missing something. But considering that it's a suffix for three different types of a singular power, has nothing to do with actual colors and is not read as it is when used as a suffix for colors (-iro), I think simply translating it as "type" would be the best. Of course, if someone with more Japanese knowledge than me could explain why I'm wrong, I'd appreciate it. I'm always eager to learn. :) • Seelentau 愛 議 14:08, December 24, 2018 (UTC)

Might be based on 特色. I don't agree with saying it "is not read as it is when used as a suffix for colors"; as it's just a less common reading. 45.56.153.240 00:02, December 25, 2018 (UTC)

Including "color"
My proposed edit is:

From: Haki is separated into three categories, or "types" (色 shoku).

To: Haki is separated into three "types", or "colors" (色 shoku). [or: "colors", or "types"]

In 2018, the topic above, it was discussed that 色 meant "type" in its context. I agree and have no reason or ability to go against Seelentau's words when it comes to meanings in japanese. However, since the kanji 色 was chosen by the author, shouldn't we include the meaning "color" in there? Neither do we have a reason to speculate what Oda means for the future by using this and not another character, nor do we have a reason to decide which pieces of information are relevant or not. "Color" in english also has a figurative sense of "variety", so it's not like the concept doesn't work in the sentence. StoopidGuy (talk) 21:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. "Color" is the official translation and widely used. 10:40, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Does the series ever refer to the categories as 色? Or is it merely an inference based on its inclusion in their names? Dragonus Nesha (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I just wanna know what "color" as in red or blue would have to do with Haki since color is rarely shown with it Meshack (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Should Ace be on the canon Kenbunshoku or non-canon Kenbunshoku list like Patrick?
Since Ace used Kenbunshoku in here https://onepiece.fandom.com/wiki/One_Piece_episode_A, but I don't know if its canon or not. Marco 1907 (talk) 18:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)