Talk:Trafalgar D. Water Law

Hair Again
So now his new manga profile/full body depicts him with black hair, so is that now canon? And if so should we change his description to black hair over dark blue? AsuraDrago 00:22, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

By this point Oda has changed how he colors Law's hair so many times that I'm inclined to believe it's extremely dark blue that can look either black or blue depending on the lighting. The more practical explanation is that in recent manga color spreads, not enough of Law's hair is showing to warrant filling it in with color, so Oda blocks it in with black. As for other instances like the cover of Volume 69, I'd attribute it to artistic license: changing the color to aid composition. MizuakiYume (talk) 00:39, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Well I'm aware he's changed his color so often, he's done it both for Shonen Jump and his released volumes. But the last couple of color spreads and volume covers seems to be jet black. There is a difference between dark blue and black at this point. AsuraDrago 01:11, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Oda stopped drawing it blue. He has only done it black in later drawings. It's black and we should change the description. SeaTerror (talk) 03:05, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Let's just say "Law's hair is black (sometimes portrayed as blue in the manga)" and be done with it? Or something that mentions both. 03:14, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Well, first his hair was black, then blue for awhile, and now black again, right? So how about something along the lines of "debuted with black initially, then post Punk Hazard went dark blue, then black again during the later part of Dressrosa. Because I was also wondering about changing his portrait to anime seeing how his anime/manga color scheme match. AsuraDrago 03:25, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

That's too much. Put it like this instead. "Law has black hair (originally blue)" SeaTerror (talk) 03:35, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Examples where his hair is blue: Cover of volume 51, Supernovas post-timeskip, Cover of chapter 693, Cover of chapter 717, Cover of volume 70, Cover of volume 73, Digitally Colored Chapters. Examples where his hair is black: Cover of volume 69, Cover of volume 75, Cover of chapter 771, Cover of volume 76, Cover of volume 78. Our page on the digitally colored manga says that it follows Oda's color scheme instead of the anime, indicating his hair is blue. But if I'm the only one that cares about it being blue, I would agree to JSD's suggestion. MizuakiYume (talk) 05:10, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we just say "Law's hair is dark" or say it's sometimes portrayed as blue and sometimes black? Really, it probably moreso depends on the lighting. We're kind of taking shading too literally. Oda's colors are slightly inconsistent. This isn't news, nor is it a very big deal. 05:13, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Actually it would indicate his hair is black since Oda has colored it black in every new appearance. That volume 70 one looks black to me too. Like how he used Big Mam pirates first then changed it later in the same arc to Big Mom. SeaTerror (talk) 08:23, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Just do what JSD said. It's not a big deal. 18:43, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

My way is essentially the same but shorter. SeaTerror (talk) 18:49, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

"Orginally" implies that it was changed once, whereas in reality Oda has gone back and forth over time on the matter. 20:16, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Looking at Mizu's examples, I think we should do as Nada suggested and say that Law's hair is sometimes portrayed as dark blue and at other times, black. 20:19, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

But as seen by the links he stopped doing blue entirely and stuck with black. Either way I guess it doesn't really matter. SeaTerror (talk) 20:20, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

Done. Made it a separate sentence for ease of reading and called it "dark" in the original. If you want to change it, just edit the page (with summary), and we shouldn't need to open this discussion again unless an edit war breaks out. 20:29, July 22, 2015 (UTC)

I'd say that works out fine. AsuraDrago 22:44, July 23, 2015 (UTC)

Im hoping the panda does the same.

Shichibukai Status
Shouldn't Law's Warlord status be officially revoked now? Chapter 793 Sakazuki ordered Issho to hunt down Law and Luffy, Chapter 795 Maynard asks Issho why he is not acting on that regard. 01:22, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

Same reason we didn't remove Doflamingo's either. SeaTerror (talk) 01:38, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

^ 14:04, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, but they simply removed Doffy from Dressrosa in chains, nothing about removing his privilege or sending him to prison. They want Law's head, however. 22:45, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

Law was listed as "tentative" even after Fujitora straight up declared that "I hereby revoke your status" and attacked him. This doesn't really change anything. The Marines can revoke Shichibukai status, but it probably has to run through the Gorosei or Kong first before it becomes official. 22:52, August 1, 2015 (UTC)

So Doffy and Law remain Shichibukai until we see any talk about getting them replaced or officially revoking them? 04:25, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Leave them. 02:29, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Seems like a clear majority to me, so closing this. 12:33, August 4, 2015 (UTC)