Category talk:Characters Named Outside The Manga

Necessary?
Is this category necessary? What are the parameters? If characters are named in databooks, do they get added to this category? What about the SBS? That would be a ton of characters. The anime named category is valid because the names are non-canon, but this is not necessary in my opinion. 02:01, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

I agree, it is overly broad. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 02:07, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, I really don't see the point of this. It seems way too broad to be useful. If we want a category like this, I think it'd be better to have one for characters named in specific things. Like Characters Named in Blue Databook or something. But even that I don't really see the point of since it's already listed elsewhere. I think it'd be better to just work on the Magazine pages if you want to list characters that were named in them. DewClamChum (talk) 02:11, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

If anyone wants to make other subcategories okay but other databooks have named, not just characters, other subjects as well. The reason this category was made is because an anime character is using a name from an SBS without seeing whether it's the same character. Rgilbert27 (talk) 04:33, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

...Wouldn't it be a better solution for instances like Seki to simply add the SBS reference to his name?

In addition to its broadness, I'm also not sure the category is particularly notable. The non-canon names category seems pretty helpful to me because it helps keep track of characters with non-canon names that could potentially change if they are named by a canon source. But in my opinion, a name from a databook or an SBS has just as much legitimacy as a name coming from the manga, with very few discrepancies occurring between canon mediums. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 04:54, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

Not sure how Seki is related to this category being made, but it seems like a whole lot of work to do for one character. I would argue nearly half of all manga exclusive characters are named outside of the manga.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 05:46, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

We still don't know the "Seki" from the anime is same one from the SBS seeing as images from it along with the most recent SBSs are still missing plus it's not just databooks and SBSs that reveal names but also Color Walks, Vivre Cards, the magazines and, somehow, One Piece.com as well. Not all the listed characters under this category are manga exclusive but they are the minority compared to the ones named in the manga before an outside source gets around to it first. Rgilbert27 (talk) 06:40, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how they are not the same Seki. It's more speculatory to assume there are two dudes named Seki that are both kings that both went to the Levely. Also, Color Walks, Vivre Cards, and Magazines are effectively the same as databooks in terms of all of names given are canon. All of these combined with databooks make up a huge chunk of all named characters.--Nightmare Pirates (talk) 09:21, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

There isn't any images from the volume the SBS page came from that say they are the same otherwise. What was listed could be used as subcategories then just under a "broad" category. Rgilbert27 (talk) 09:50, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

Please keep the Seki discussion on his talk page if you want to start one about whether or not they are the same person, which they definitely are. Please look up the raws of the SBS yourself to see, Rgilbert. You will find them.

Kaido hit the nail on the head: names from canon sources are the same because they hold the same legitimacy. It makes no difference if they are named in an SBS or a databook if they are referenced. In my opinion, this category should be deleted. 11:55, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

But not every character is named in the manga and knowing there's a majority or minority between the two would show it. Plus, you can't always count on references to tell you even ones with bad links. Rgilbert27 (talk) 12:29, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

I agree that this is an unnecessary category., especially if the source of its existence is a single character. KingCannon (talk) 13:42, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

We have a majority consensus.

If references are bad, we should fix them. That is a separate issue. They still serve a purpose that makes this category unnecessary. 13:49, June 22, 2020 (UTC)

You can all hate on it as much as any hater can on this category but this, if not under a different name, is necessary seeing as the characters who weren't marked before this category was taken down were unaccounted for or see what other characters like Seki had their names taken from the anime. Rgilbert27 (talk) 02:00, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

I don't get what you mean by Seki's name was taken from the anime. For all we know, Oda gave the anime people the name, not vice versa. Nor do I understand what you mean by [unaccounted characters].Nightmare Pirates (talk) 02:22, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

By that, how do we know that Seki was the only one where that was the case? There are more characters who were named outside the manga that weren't under this category and how many of them were named under what source is still unknown. Rgilbert27 (talk) 03:24, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

That seems like something to take up with specific characters on their own reference pages of on the List of Canon Characters page.Nightmare Pirates (talk) 03:46, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

Rgilbert is right here, imo. We have no parameters to classify them, we have no way to tell who Oda named and the category is way too big, like the others said, it's not very useful and is very broad, and if we decide to keep it for whatever reason, we would need subcategories like "Characters named in SBS", which again, is too many unnecessary categories. Dot ( Talk ) 03:53, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

Which is why they, along with this, could be marked under as hidden categories so other users wont have to look at them on their pages and subcategories would have been gotten around to once we were sure about their source. Rgilbert27 (talk) 04:02, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

If I am understanding the issue right, I feel like this is an unnecessarily convoluted way to address it. If you are uncertain about where a character received their name, put a confirm tag next to their name and bring up the issue on their talk page. I don't feel like there is a need to quantify how many characters were named in the SBS, how many were named in a databook, etc. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 04:11, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

What's convoluted is not knowing a character from an SBS is the same one from an earlier episode without an image in said SBS. Especially if he isn't the only one to be confirmed by another source after their anime debut. Plus there isn't a Notes section, at least outside SBSs sections on volume pages, on canon source pages that list unnamed characters being named for the first time among other things or a page for One Piece.com as a reference because links become dated over time. I try to find a solution and I like there could better one instead of going back to the status quo. Rgilbert27 (talk) 06:12, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

Again, this discussion belongs on Seki's page, not here. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 06:29, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

Rgilbert, I sent you a scan of the SBS page showing that "Seki" is the same character in the manga and anime. You need to accept that or provide evidence to them not being the same, but either way, that should be on Seki's page, not here.

As far as "dead links" are concerned, use Wayback Machine like I do when they expire. 11:57, June 23, 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) I need better images for the SBS, if not the more recent SBSs.
 * 2) I don't know how "Wayback Machine" works.
 * 3) There should be a page about One Piece.com and why it's used as a source.

Rgilbert27 (talk) 12:08, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

"#There should be a page about One Piece.com and why it's used as a source." That would be a terrible article considering how stubby it would be. SeaTerror (talk) 19:26, June 23, 2020 (UTC)

We wont know until it is made. Rgilbert27 (talk) 00:11, June 24, 2020 (UTC)