Talk:Marine Base

Grand Line Base
So, G-5 is apparently said to officially be the "Marine Grand Line 5th Branch." The others follow the same pattern in Japanese. To me this says that 1) the "fortresses" are branches, 2) the "G" does stand for Grand Line, and 3) the "fortresses" designated as "G" all being on the Grand Line is not speculation.--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 01:55, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

As I said it is most likely but it is speculation to state it straight as fact. SeaTerror (talk) 20:56, April 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * If the names of the larger Marine Bases are all just G, then why do G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-5 all have the name "Marine Grand Line # Branch" in their infoboxes? The G-5 page has it right in the introductory paragraph. The Japanese text given matches the Romanized text, though Grand Line is written as G・L. If the raws do not agree, then this is a bigger issue than just the one page. What is the uncertainty?--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 21:53, April 15, 2016 (UTC)

I hope you're not seriously trying to argue that despite Aokiji stating outright that the G of G-5 stands for Grand Line, it's stands for something else elsewhere. That's not the way systematic building codes work. 104.238.32.86 14:28, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Where did Kuzan say that?

14:45, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Chapter 594, where else?
 * 「G5]　...　「海軍G•L（グランド•ライン）第５支部」
 * "G5" ... "Marine GL (Grand Line) 5th Branch"

There's no other valid or reasonable way of interpreting that. 167.160.116.207 15:39, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

He never actually said that. And if it even says that like you claim that's still speculation since it doesn't actually say what you claim. Something that is most likely doesn't mean it's true. SeaTerror (talk) 17:00, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

What does he say then? I'm interested in this different version of One Piece you're reading. Maybe it explains why you're wrong so much on talk pages. 167.160.116.231 21:07, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

It's speculation. And just because you're an anon doesn't mean you get to be disrespectful. 21:34, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

It is speculation that the Japanese text says that? If that text appears in the manga, it is not speculation.--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 21:59, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

I'll treat people with the same respect they afford me. A person who calls me a liar without providing evidence of their own in rebuttal and reverts all my (correct) edits without giving reasons doesn't rank very high. 104.238.32.85 08:59, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

Ironically the only person who called you a liar was yourself. Also the edits weren't correct since as you have shown it is still speculation stating it as fact. SeaTerror (talk) 14:08, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to my edits in general (my IP changes pretty frequently). But you still haven't explained your interpretation of the lines above, which are also visible in Smoker's and Tashigi's post-TS manga infobox images (Grand Line being written in katakana above the GL in the top line).

Are you saying that it's a coincidence that the fifth Grand Line base has the number G5, and the first is G1 and second is G2? Maybe the sixth isn't G6, but is in fact X20? Or Pink Bunny? You haven't put forward any actual arguments. All you've done is stall and lazily say it's speculation, and you're not participating in this discussion in good faith. 104.238.32.73 14:29, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you're assuming an absence of a system despite its presence is what's wrong with your argument. If we can see the system, that's the system. Why wouldn't the 6th be G-6? To deny what is already there is the fundamental flaw in your argument. You are basing it on a "what if" that doesn't exist. 01:57, April 20, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, good. You actually do agree with me then. Maybe make that clearer earlier next time, OK? 167.160.116.183 09:01, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

So, it is not speculation that "G-5" is the "Marine GL (Grand Line) 5th Branch". There is a very, very slim chance that "G-5" is not a direct contraction of the subtitle, but how else can it be read?--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 02:11, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is not speculation. The insistence of calling them fortresses is more speculative than saying it is a contraction.--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 21:46, April 27, 2016 (UTC)