Talk:Myskina Olga

"Children" Category
Should Olga be in the Children category like Sugar is? Because Olga's situation is similar where her childhood is prolonged despite her age.Gamewizard2008 (talk) 17:02, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

I personally think neither Olga nor Sugar should be in that category. It certainly depends on how you define "children", but it's children not lolita. Children should be defined by age not appearance.

I think they both belong. They are trapped in unaging, underdeveloped bodies. Sugar is biologically 12 and her lack of development makes her biologically a child. Maturity and lifespan don't factor in. 18:33, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

I would leave them out of the category. Other fictional works exclude such cases of slowed aging or immortality. This is exactly that. 20:14, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

"Sugar is biologically 12 and her lack of development makes her biologically a child." - actually it's the other way around. It doesn't matter if they will be eternal young, they are not children. For example, if they were in the real world, at 18 years they would still become adult, that's because it's how generally define an adult: past a certain age you are one. You don't define an adult based on "how your body is developed", that's because everybody age differently. You define an adult based on the age.

Well, a child is either someone acting immaturely, or someone under legal age. Seems a simple decision to me.

20:22, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

"someone acting immaturely" by that logic Luffy is a child (I don't think you meant to say this, but just wanted to stress my point).

Maturity can't be a factor. Luffy is no better example as to why. Hell, we've got a baby with a mustache, and a former Baroque Works agent with a higher maturity than her adult partner. Even if you argue that Luffy assumes the role of an adult, you have to answer to Perona, who acts like and is treated like a child despite being older than even Zoro or Sanji.

Years can't be a factor. Let's pretend that 18 is the universally accepted age of adulthood. Luffy wasn't even an adult for the first 516 chapters. Chopper still isn't 18. In the One Piece world, giants have abnormally long lifespans. I think they live to be 300 or so. What's the age of sexual maturity? 18 years for them could be over 50 years to us.

So let's think backwards here. How do we define an adult and a child? Not a legal definition, like turning a certain age, but a more rooted definition that can be applied to a fantasy setting. An adult has reached a peak in his biology, the second and final phase in his evolution. A child is still in the growing phase. Luffy and Perona are both clearly in the adult phase. Olga and Sugar are perpetually in the childhood phase. 21:58, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

We should first define our category of "Children", whether it should be physical or chronicle of the age that determines their childhood. A child's body vs an adult-length life. 22:43, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

If you're going by that definition then dwarfs are also all children. SeaTerror (talk) 22:58, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

I vote for adding her to the category. Her body is like that of other One Piece children, she has a (slight) fondness for sweets like most children, her tendency of calling her dad "crappy" is childish, her smirk is like that of a mischievous child - either she goes in or Sugar gets taken out. :P Gamewizard2008 (talk) 02:02, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

As in physically 12 years old, not short in size, as even the eldest dwarves are small or the youngest giants are big. 02:48, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

How are dwarfs also children? Dwarfs presumably have a childhood phase and an adult phase in their biology. All the dwarfs we've seen were in the adult stage. 03:03, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

You're going by the definition of small size = child. Let's use an anime example. Konata from Lucky Star is 17. By your logic she's a child. SeaTerror (talk) 03:57, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

Go by age. She's not a kid. Neither is Sugar. 07:20, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

A child is someone who has not hit puberty and Sugar and Olga have not. Maturity cannot be a factor because Luffy would be considered a child. I don't think Olga and Sugar should not be considered children because of their age because they couldn't grow Meshack (talk) 08:02, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

You seriously want to argue that a 22 year old and a 206 year old aren't children just because they haven't developed? That's why we go by age. 08:12, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

One can be childlike and yet not be a child. Having the personality or appearance of a child does not automatically make a character a child. Having a body that doesn't age does not (to my understanding) somehow negate the years passing. Chronological age would be the best indication, so I think we should exclude Olga and Sugar from the category. MizuakiYume (talk) 08:57, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

"You seriously want to argue that a 22 year old and a 206 year old aren't children just because they haven't developed?" - Exactly. It's ridiculous to say that Olga who lived for 206 years is a child because her body didn't age. You cannot even argue that she is mentally a child because she treated Luffy like a brat. Same thing for Sugar. You cannot base the definition of "children" on the appearance otherwise you should rename the category "children-like".

"Years can't be a factor. Let's pretend that 18 is the universally accepted age of adulthood. Luffy wasn't even an adult for the first 516 chapters. Chopper still isn't 18. In the One Piece world, giants have abnormally long lifespans. I think they live to be 300 or so. What's the age of sexual maturity? 18 years for them could be over 50 years to us." - You are misunderstanding how adults are defined (in the real world). It's honestly just a convention, it has nothing to do with sexual or body maturity. In fact, you could be considered an adult at age 16 in some parts of the world and during the middle age you were an adult even before (something like 12-14). Yes, it's generally tied on some "events" of the growing phase, but it's still a convention. Also you generally don't become immediately an adult after being a child, that's why it doesn't really matter when someone become an adult in this discussion. It only matter how long you would consider someone a child. For giants that would be a problem to decide when we will see baby giants.

Last thing, there is also the option to remove the category altogether. I mean, what's the point of having the category "children" after all?

Because it's good to organize the children? Honest to God, I used the category last weekend. I was writing a One Piece fanfic that took place 20 years later (that's right, I'm cool) and I wanted to know which characters would be now in their 20s-30s. Thankfully, this helpful encyclopedia kept them all in one place for me. If you think a children category is unnessicary, what categories do you think are good? 11:54, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

The category should not be removed.... just the ppl of this category that are not children Dinosel (talk) 12:02, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

I just asked because it's not like we really categorize people by age so I was wondering what was the purpose of this one. You can create thousands of categories if you want, but that doesn't mean they would have meaning for us. There are other categories that are based on physical features that are really unnecessary imo. What if I start making categories like "people with blond hair" or "people that wear hats" or "People with beards"? Generally if we don't have page associated to the category you should start wondering if it's really important.

If we categorize children, we should categorize other people by their age, like Teenagers, Adults, Elders... even Deceased Characters doesn't define a character's age.Gamewizard2008 (talk) 14:07, August 11, 2016 (UTC)

All categories that may be pretty subjective and rise problems. We generally don't know the actual age of a character.

Delete the category "Characters by Age". But keep the children. 17:31, August 11, 2016 (UTC)