Category talk:Presumed Deceased

Largo
could largo be added to the list? he and his crew were punched knock out into the sea and he himself is a devil fruit user

What about Bon Clay who picked a fight with Magellan. Bon Clay is a melee fighter, so even one hit would cause him to be poisoned

and Bellamy? Did Sarquis decapitate him?

Okay everyone, first of all, PLEASE sign your posts with ~. It's a notification in your editor for a reason. Second, Largo may be an acceptable person to add. But this is a Wiki. If you feel like anything can be added, please add it. About Bon Clay, he was seen alive in one of the chapter covers. Bellamy may also be a choice to add, but like I said before, you're free to add him. This isn't a textbook, it's a Wiki. You can add whatever you want. 01:33, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

You just replied to a message from 2010 Nada. 01:36, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Insert the "dunce" hat on me now... 01:47, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Necessity
I can already see this category being abused once again, such as Shiki, Gasparde and Nero. I'd say, get rid of this category; if Kinemon's status is so important, then just leave it blank, just as we having trouble with Sabo's status for so long, just as Haruta's gender was undetermined until the databook came out, just as Doflamingo claiming Moriah to be dead for sure but turns out not. 10:21, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem. The thing is, if we respect what I wrote in the category, there's no speculation involved. But people are already starting to speculate (Roshio is probably dead, Bellamy is probably dead…) It is not about probability. It is about what is believed in-universe—which is perfectly provable. No speculation. Kinemon is an example, Sabo was another one before we found a confirmation in Green. Roshio may work, since I believe people in Jaya were discussing his probable death. But for Bellamy, or Drip, we have neither any proof of their death nor any proof that they are believed to be dead, so they should stay out of both categories.

I hate the category. What you said is exactly what I said. Leave it blank unless absolutely confirmed. This category will just be abused by people who want certain characters dead. The wikia has a rule against speculation therefore this category should be gone. The policy should be this: only add characters to the list when absolutely confirmed but leave it alone when not. Oda's policy is "alive until proven otherwise" There are numerous examples you could see from that: Pell, Arlong, Bon Kurei, etc. SeaTerror (talk) 16:36, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Drip was drowned in swamp, how is that different from Kinemon petrified? Both their statuses are equal and unconfirmed. Besides, if your notice was respected, then this category may be remotely usable, but soon speculations and disrespectful would start to abuse it. 19:43, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

This category can be seen sort of as a compromise between leaving a character's status blank and calling them dead. The only way for a character to make it on here is for their death to be confirmed but disputable. Two prime examples are Kinemon and Roshio. Both have been declared dead with no evidence to the contrary but there is still a small margin for error. A prime counter example would be Nero, who was last seen getting thrown into the sea. That leaves the question of his death way too open-ended since he wasn't a Devil Fruit user. The same goes for Shiki and Gasparde. But as for characters like Kinemon and Roshio, I see this category as a good middle ground so that edit wars can be avoided. It serves as a stasis until one or the other is confirmed but still pleases both sides. 20:10, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

So only when a character declares the target "dead" but actual status unconfirmed... okay. But if people start to abuse this, should we delete it? 22:19, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait and see about the abuse thing and cross that bridge if and when we come to it. It might be an issue, it might not be. 22:30, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

If people start to abuse it, I say punish the user, not the category. 22:34, December 18, 2012 (UTC)

Right, punish the abuser and not the abused, wait to see how things turn out. But another problem: let's say Kinemon is determined dead/not dead next chapter (or a few chapters later... and let's face it, it should be soon based on my experience) then only Roshio would remain on the page. An entire category devoted to one person alone, that's not right. 02:26, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

In the long run, I think it's better to have people abusing this category rather than the truly dead category. If people in this discussion have problems with certain characters being in this category though, they should discuss them on the character's talk page, not here.

As far as the argument that after Kinemon is confirmed either way, this category will be nearly empty, I don't think it's an important argument. There will always be more characters that can be "presumed dead" later. We should have this category around so that the "truly dead" category isn't abused in the future. And as Gal said, we should punish editors who add it excessively, and not worry about the category. 06:52, December 19, 2012 (UTC)

Right-i-o. 07:01, December 20, 2012 (UTC)

Well, I can see this category being abused already... Wish Oda would just be outright and show us Bellamy's head being lopped off, so we don't have to do so much guesswork. 10:31, December 21, 2012 (UTC)

More?
Alright, Eric, I understand. But Nelson and Ganzack? Nobody said them otherwise. 19:08, December 22, 2012 (UTC)

Roshio?
Why isn't Roshio in this category? 10:17, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Read his talk page. SeaTerror (talk) 17:33, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

I did. 20:21, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

That's why it's like that. I agree he should be in this category instead of the dead characters one. Galaxy originally put him like that I don't really see why he changed it just because of that talk page response. SeaTerror (talk) 20:28, March 25, 2013 (UTC)

Is It Really Needed?
I believe this category must get deleted.It's just too speculative and it's kinda useless. 17:24, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

That's great. We're still keeping it. 17:45, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Kill it with fire. Speculation on a wikia is bad. SeaTerror (talk) 18:07, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Only one character in this category and he never gave signs of death.Speculations.. 18:55, March 26, 2013 (UTC)

Rethink necessity
In the light of recent events, where Vergo and Monet where voted to be "confirmed" dead, we should rethink this category's necessity. Right now, I see only Eric, but like Vergo and Monet, his status is more leaning to deceased instead of presumed. As such, we should eliminate this category and have all characters either "confirmed" deceased based on what the situation most inclined to, or just leave it blank until better confirmation is released. This category has been the center of speculations and is never really a good thing. 23:43, March 29, 2013 (UTC)

Blank only. I refuse to put any characters in the dead category if it isn't officially confirmed. SeaTerror (talk) 05:13, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Just because the category won't be in use doesn't mean we should delete it. There are bound to be other characters that will fall into this category. So we just keep it dormant until we need it. 05:19, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

So hear me out on this first before you throw me and my opinion to the wolves: Regardless of what you think of the individual "deaths" of Vergo and Monet, the fact that Oda left us with two of these important characters dying (or being put in a situation where their death can be presumed) shows that it's likely we'll get more situations like this in the future. At first when their deaths were suggested, we had them in Presumed Deceased. And when it became clear to us at the beginning of the next arc that Vergo and Monet weren't coming back, decided (through discussion and polling, mind you) to consider them dead. Even though the characters are no longer in this category themselves, the fact that we had this category was helpful for these characters, and we will likely have to use it again in the future. 05:24, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

In Eric's case, he is just like Monet and Vergo, as he is a Devil Fruit user and is throwin into the sea at the base of the Reverse Mountain's currents. Nobody saved him (Straw Hats already left, nobody else in the area), no way he could pull himself back out, more than enough to confirm him dead, more so than Vergo (who was trapped in a building to die with no one to save him) and Monet (who suffered an anatomically fatal wound). 06:44, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Then tag him as dead. That still doesn't detract from the category's usefulness. 06:52, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good, but do we still need to vote like Monet (dunno why we needed to vote, her death was so factual) and Vergo? 06:55, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Nah. I doubt people will care as much about an old non-canon character like Erik as much as they did about those other two. 06:58, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

About Eric's case,let's just add him to the dead characters category.About the category's necessity,I think we should delete it.It's unused.If we ever need it in the future,we can restore it. 09:35, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Useless
It's been like 2 months since an article was added in this category. Oh c'mon! This category is useless and I suggest deletion. 13:35, May 10, 2013 (UTC)

I support this. Speculation shouldn't be a category. 08:06, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Not only speculative but also unused. 08:16, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Inb4 the "this isn't speculation" comments. SeaTerror (talk) 08:45, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Well if it's empty it's useless anyway. And it's so much funnier to put everyone directly in, eh!

No, If it is not stated that a character is a dead or have enough proof to consider him dead (like Monet), we won't add an article in the dead category. 14:14, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

No. They don't get put in any category because its speculation. SeaTerror (talk) 17:33, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

There will be times when this category won't have any use, just accept it and move on. It's better to keep it empty rather than delete and recreate it every time someone's supposed death is unclear. This category is used for special circumstances which may not always be occurring. There's nothing wrong with keeping it stagnant like this. 17:39, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Any speculation is wrong. Which means this category is bad. SeaTerror (talk) 17:44, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

We should never recreate it. 17:45, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather have one piece of speculation that's neutral than a dozen edit wars trying to put it one way or the other. 17:46, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Read my previous comment. If a character isn't confirmed to be dead or if we don't have enough evidence to consider him/her dead, we don't add them in the dead category. 17:51, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, there's still the problem of people disagreeing over it. "He's clearly dead." "He could have pulled a Pell." "Guys, we don't know, so stop arguing." "But it's so obvious!" We made this category so that stupid arguments like that are prevented or at least kept at a minimum. It's a compromise to avoid edit wars by making a middle ground. 17:55, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

The category is too speculative, the name itself is speculative. If we aren't sure that a character is dead, we don't add him to the dead category and we just wait. 18:02, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

You know that, and I know that, but there are more people that don't know that than do. It's to prevent them from bickering in the form of an edit war. It's either this or I lock every character whose fate is questionable. And given the way Oda operates, the number of locked pages on here would grow very quickly. 18:09, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Jugging by the number of pages that were added in this category, very few edit wars will start over whether a character is dead or not. 18:14, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

If we were to recreate this category, then we'd at least change the name. It was an error to keep this one, as it indeed sounds like it is speculative.

I think this page is useful and we should keep it as it is-- 18:16, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't recreate it at all. 18:19, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

Nobody agreed to the creation of this nor was there a vote for it. SeaTerror (talk) 18:45, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

We rarely discuss whether we must create a category or not. 19:43, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

We should actually. A lot of pointless ones were created before then deleted. SeaTerror (talk) 20:06, May 12, 2013 (UTC)

If we had a discussion for every category to be created we would have just too many useless forums 10:44, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

There's really no point in this category, since the category is based on presumption and speculation. 10:48, May 14, 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it's deleted already. Never mind. 10:49, May 14, 2013 (UTC)