Talk:Sadi

Name Problem
Chan is an honorific. It's not part of her name Drunk Samurai 02:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It actually is as サディちゃん = Sadi-chan.Mugiwara Franky 05:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * So if her name is "Sadi-chan", then does that mean if we were to add an honorific, it would be something like Sadi-chan-chan or Sadi-chan-san? Yatanogarasu 13:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

"She also tends to add an "mmmmm--!?" in the middle of her sentences, and insists to be addressed as "Sadi-chan"." That line says otherwise. She wouldn't "insist" on being addressed as it if it was her name Drunk Samurai 05:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The introbox showed her name plus it was a Marine asking not a regular Impel Down employee, meaning that the Marine apparently mistook it as an honorific.Mugiwara Franky 05:47, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * When is it EVER stated that "Chan" is actually part of her name? Her name is written as "サディちゃん" with "Sadie" being written in Katakana, and "Chan" being written in Hiragana just like Honoriffics. Oda wouldn't have mixed the two Kana styles if he didn't intend the "Chan" to be taken differently, it would have been "さてぃちゃん”　Or　“サティチャン”.DemonRin 02:30, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, since nobody has replied to this in months, I'm going to assume nobody has a counter-argument to what I said and I'm removing the parts of the article that definitively say "The 'chan' is part of her name". The simple fact is that that's just people assuming rather than being something Oda said, so the smartest route is to not have a position one way or the other on it. DemonRin 23:54, June 4, 2010 (UTC)

There's no evidence her name is Sadi-chan. If I remember right what she said was "Call me Sadi-chan" not "Sadi-chan is part of my name. SeaTerror 16:45, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

This article should be renamed. I totally support DemonRin's message of March the 24th. The two alphabets would not be mixed up if Sadi-chan was her full name.

It still appeared in the infobox, so why wouldn't it be part of her name? 21:08, July 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's relevant. Shirley's infobox stated "Madame Shirley", Kureha's infobox stated "Dr. Kureha". No reason to make a special case of Sadi.

Isn't the -chan an whim of hers? So is part of his character and personality, but not actually her name... I thought Oda emphasized that by putting it in the infobox... but if her name is really Sadi-chan, then she should call herself Sadi-chan-chan... Technically for this very reason we can leave the page as this, but the name is Sadi not Sadi-chan.

Oda might add titles to infoboxes, but he doesn't add honorifics. Also, she doesn't have to give herself an honorific when talking in the third person. The name is right. It's just like how people thought Hachi was Hatchan's real name because of the chan at the end of his name. It's the same thing only placed differently. Why else would Oda put it on the infobox if it wasn't part of her name? 21:52, July 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * Oda adding titles but not honorifics →there is no rule. We know nothing about what Oda accepts and what he doesn't.
 * Third person thing → I don't get what you mean; isn't the fact that she refers to herself as -chan actually the joke?
 * Hatchan's name is written all in hirakana, this is not the same thing.
 * Why Oda would put it in the infobox? Well, it's the way she's referred to by everybody including herself. Kinda like a nickname... This infobox really is no proof, Oda can do whatever he wants. The most relevant element is the mixed up kanas.

Yeah, he can do whatever he wants, he could rename Luffy Happy Bunny Flour Pants if he wants. The infobox is proof because there is always a degree of consistency in what he does. You're trying to play Oda by saying there is no rule. The fact that the staff only calls her Sadi-chan is a pun on the fact that they're saying both the name and the honorific at the same time. He did the same thing with Hina. She uses no honorific when she refers to herself in the third person, yet everyone calls her Hina-chan. I know what you're going to say, Hina isn't Sadi-chan. There's still a pattern. 22:14, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

I don't really know how Japanese works, but I agree with Sff9. On the other hand, even if the name is Sadi (thus should be renamed) we can follow the joke and leave Sadi-chan, it's not a big deal in this case (there is even the "-")... btw we should totally rename Luffy in "Luffy Happy Bunny Flour Pants"!


 * DP, you sound like you think I'm of bad faith. Be assured that's not the case.
 * Everyone calls Hina "Hina-chan", except herself: that seems quite normal to me. That's just an honorific, no reason to put it in the infobox. But as for Sadi, the important thing is that she calls herself Sadi-chan (and also, refuses to be addressed anything else than Sadi-chan). This is not the case for Hina, nor for any other character.
 * Being the only character to use an honorific this way, we cannot rely on an infobox consistency/pattern about this matter—that's what I wanted to say by "there is no rule", I was not playing Oda in any way.
 * Moreover, judging from Carlosnet's translation:
 * Marine: Referring to herself with "-chan"... is she messing with us...? // GUAHH!!
 * Sadi: Silence!!! / You will address me as Sadi-chan!!!
 * she really asks the marines to address her as Sadi-chan. I don't get the joke if I suppose her name actually is "Sadi-chan".
 * Plus, names in Japanese do not mix up kana styles.

The joke would be that chan is a two in one, a name and the appropriate honorific used at the same time. 23:15, July 31, 2011 (UTC)


 * I understood that, I meant that the dialog doesn't suit this, in my opinion. If it was the intended joke, it should have been much more clear for the reader that Sadi-chan is her full name, otherwise the joke would fall flat. Even Japanese speakers like Carlosnet did not understand the joke like this (since he uses "Sadi" at the beginning of her lines). Guess some other Japanese-speaker advice would be useful!

So why hasn't this been changed yet? SeaTerror 10:04, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

Time to bump this up. Chan is only an honorific and not part of her name. SeaTerror 07:11, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

she actually calls herself that, to be sure of her name can't some just check page 67 of the blue deep databook.(OnePieceNation 23:26, April 25, 2012 (UTC))

It just means she's arrogant. That doesn't mean its part of her name. SeaTerror 23:28, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

we cannot be fully sure about that seaterror. (OnePieceNation 23:35, April 25, 2012 (UTC))

We can. SeaTerror 03:15, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

Time to bump this yet again. SeaTerror (talk) 06:15, March 30, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. Why hasn't the "chan" been removed yet? WU out -  20:26, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

Because it's part of her name, like Hatchan. 22:01, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

^ That's not the same situation at all. 22:03, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

As I've read the discussion above, the majority claims it to be nothing but a honorific. And I agree. WU out -  08:17, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

It's not, so we won't remove it. 08:22, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

If you ignore the fact that her intro infobox, all volume introductions, databook entries, every single time her name is mentioned in-story, and literally every shred of evidence refers to her as Sadi-chan, sure you could come to that conclusion. Even if it was "nothing but an honorific", the fact that it's always present is enough reason to keep the page titled this way. It's kinda like Korosensei from Assassination Classroom - if he was a One Piece character we wouldn't remove his occupation/the sensei honorific from his name and just call him Koro, because "sensei" is such an integral part. 08:28, July 13, 2013 (UTC)

Current Events
The part of her history depicting what she did in Impel Down isn't really part of "current events" anymore. I think it should simply be taken away and combined with the Impel Down Arc section. If nobody minds, I'm just gonna change it. Subrosian 14:36, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

yes it should. (OnePieceNation 23:23, April 25, 2012 (UTC))