Talk:Momonga

So the title says MonongA,but the article says Momongo.Both names are references.

New Babylon 18:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The right transliteration however is MomongO, therefore I propose to move the page. El Chupacabra 12:13, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the name change?
The katakana says MomonGA, why change it to MomonGO? Odin89, 30 May 2008
 * Please sign your comments with ~, it is considered politeness (people like to know who said what). Not doing so could also be taken as rudeness.


 * I don't know which is the correct term, but if in doubt, supply the orginal source as proof. One-Winged Hawk 13:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm quite a newbie here XD. But here's the scan of the databook where his name appears

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/2641/dibujose2.jpg

So, I'd like an explanation from New Babylon, if possible. Odin89 13:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Now we need a translator...


 * This is the one problem with this sort of thing. T_T One-Winged Hawk 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's my point, I can read Hiragana and Katakana, that's why I changed the name in the first place, I dont understand why it must be changed to Momongo, which would be モモンゴ, when the scan clearly says モモンガ, and that ガ at the end is Ga, you can check it in Wikipedia's Katakana page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katakana

Odin89 16:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Then you are right and it is what you say. :-) One-Winged Hawk 16:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm being rude, I just want to know why New Babylon changed it back.

I also found this article of a real animal called Momonga

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momonga

Odin89 16:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You didn't provide a source,and didn't talk about it.And when Angel said we need a translator for it,you kept on reverting it.So....TALK about it,before you actualy change an article name,okay? New Babylon 16:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whoa... Less biting the newbie editors NB, thats the sort of thing I expect from Joekido. And he has provided a source now, so everyone's cool. He is right, I think now we have proof this is one dispute that can rest. One-Winged Hawk 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Excellent New Babylon, I'll keep that in mind for future changes, it's all I wanted to read. I guess you can blame me for being too pedantic XD.Odin89 17:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Its difficult to get all new editors to talk. If you don't talk, even if it only gets into an argument, nothing can be resolved. One-Winged Hawk 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not paid any attention to Odin's doings.

Joekido 17:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * You need a slap for doing that, lol.


 * Wake up! XD One-Winged Hawk 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Slap you? Why would I do that? You want mr. Rocket who is watching my back to come and blow me to dust?

Joekido 17:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, after all these chaotic posts, his name should be changed in the Marine templates and in the article itself right (as in, moving the page)? Can anyone do that or it must be an admin who does it? o_O. Odin89 17:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh! Anyone can do that... Everyone has the same power to do so.


 * Note: But if a admin does that, and you revert it, their the bastards that send Satan after you for it! Lol.


 * Wait... MF is our Admin... Oh MF, that was a joke, seriously, really. Scout's honour. *Insert halo here*One-Winged Hawk 17:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm looks like I can't move it again because the page already exists... any idea? Odin89 18:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah... You should be able to overwrite when it does that... But if not, its a case of copy + paste. :-( One-Winged Hawk 21:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New VA
As of episode 410, Momonga has a new voice actor. Could anyone find out who it is ? --New Babylon 09:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed reference bit
"He must be fast being that he got inside the Sea King and cut it open from inside without getting dirty, or hurt, or his ship getting dammaged. Being that he is a Vice Admiral it is presumable that he is very strong"

References, of all things here, should primarily be devoid of speculation and the words "presumabely","maybe" and "seems" (unless a situation's results are left ambiguous, in which case using such words to describe it can be allowed to a point . But certainly not like all the Shiryuu predictions weve had make it into the article, even if they proved correct). --New Babylon 21:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Haki usage?
Watching episode 410, Momonga anticipates the sea king coming out of the water i.e. before it even breaks the surface. Could this be an example of Kenbunshoku Haki? Baarb 15:42, May 17, 2011 (UTC)

Working at G-1?
Momonga doesn't work at G-1 now... the one showed in Chapter 598 was actually another marine. It was made clear in the anime episode and I know that anime isn't canon, but it never changed the actual fact and since the episode is not filler is reliable. I'm going to change it.

Probably the ones who draw the anime at first drew Momonga, but then Oda said "Hey, it's not him, it's another Marine!". So the anime makes more clear that the guy is not Momonga. That would explain the difference between manga and anime. --Meganoide 20:41, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

The mustache are misleading... but they're actually different.

I'm readding this. Come on. Even the wrinkles are the same... Momonga only wears a base cap, that's it. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 03:50, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I just saw, my younger brother added this for the mangahelpers forum. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 03:51, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Then can I delete it again?

Can't you imagne him wearing a base cap? Look on the image, please. It's Momonga, there's no doubt. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 15:02, March 20, 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a mention on this page that hes the commander of the G-1 base. It says it on the G-1 page. 173.212.117.127



This is NOT Momonga!

This is not the first time the anime ignore some resemblances or features of manga, then see only to oda's draw. He's Momonga without any doubt. Rayleigh92 (talk) 11:52, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

There is a big doubt: in the anime it's obvious that he is not him, while in the manga there is a strong resemblance. However, in the manga the "commander" appeared in only one panel which is also obstructed and he was never been called by name. The commander in the manga also perfectly fit the appearance of the commander in the anime and since the "canon" anime usually explain or expand minor details showed in the manga, you cannot really say "without a doubt". Then what to do? We generally don't say anything if the information is not confirmed, so we should just wait for Momonga to re-appear later. If you insist on saying that's Momonga for sure then we shouldn't add the anime as reference and add this in the anime and manga differences as well, but I'm against this since this information is not confirmed.

Clearly there's been a mistake in the manga by Oda and then inform the anime that he resembles him. Or it's actually Momonga, they look exactly the same. Here, exactly the same with the only difference being a cap. But I think if Momonga made an appearance, a proper template with his name would be good to introduce him after the timeskip. Anyway, the anime tends to screw things up, so..

My point is simple: since there is a legitimate doubt, we should not speculate hence don't say anything. Momonga will appear later for sure, so we will know then if he actually was him or not.

We know Momonga works at G-1 from his Marine code, to say he doesn't anymore without proof is speculation. The guy in the anime looks too different from the manga for the difference to be valid. Mostly it's the hat and hair. However, discretion being the better part of valor, we can at least say that he works at G-1, since we know this to be true. 20:48, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Just as DP sayd, there's his code too to confirm it. Maybe my "without doubt" is too much, but those are the facts. Momonga's code is a reference to G-1 and the leader of that marine base resemble him. Rayleigh92 (talk) 21:53, October 1, 2012 (UTC)

Nothing against that, the problem here was only the guy shown.