Talk:Lucky Roux

Lucky Roux
Since we started a discussion on Talk:Demalo Black I might as well start one here too. His name is spelled out as Lucky Roux in the Eternal Log bounty page, and since it has Oda's direct involvement it is of a bigger priority than a databook.

Agreed. It's the same case as with Demalo Black, so I suggest you just go ahead and change it XD 16:29, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

I need an administrator to help me with the move since [ Lucky Roux] already exists.

It was romanized as Roo in an earlier databook. 22:21, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Look in Talk:Demalo Black for why Eternal Log has a higher priority than a databook. You obviously didn't read my original post.

"bigger priority than a databook"?

Oda was directly involved with the One Piece ten exhibition (the Eternal log contains the posters from the exhibit.) Databooks are lower on the chain then direct author involvement. 22:35, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Demalo Black has only ever been romanized once. With Roo, we already have one. 22:35, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Which databook was it even romanized in before? 22:36, March 14, 2013 (UTC)
 * Red

That's not true. Do you really think Oda made each wanted poster? The image are actually taken from the manga... one piece ten was a shown, Oda's involvement is not much greater then a standard databook. Actually I wonder what Oda actually did (and since when Oda is not involved in databooks?)

Oda was never involved in databooks. His assistants do all the work on those.

Oda gives approval to the databooks, but they've contained errors in the past. Even IF this is on the same level as a databook, this is the most recent spelling (see Arabasta/Alabasta). 22:41, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

This is the reason we didn't change it in the first place. We used the romanization in the databook. 22:43, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

...And why should we do that? 22:45, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Last I checked, databooks trumped events. 22:48, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Databooks trump Oda? 22:50, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the eternal log is basically a databook without the color attached to it, is also proof enough. 22:51, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

It is Oda's latest romanization, Roux makes more sense since it is an actual french word for "russet-red", while Roo doesn't mean anything. You know how his assistants can mess up sometimes (Caesar Crown).

I didn't realize that every name had to mean something. 22:54, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

Exactly why now Oda is much involved in one piece ten and not in databooks? Or why there cannot be any error in this one? The only point in favour of "Lucky Roux" is that it's the most recent. But I think databook has high priority, I mean a databook is a special volume with the goal of releasing informations, One Piece ten was a show (gallery?) where there were some informations... see the difference?

Oda provided all the names and bounties (Ace and Bepo). Oda had more involvement with this then any databook. 22:55, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking where is stated that there was Oda himself that provided all this things and the databook are just the product of his editors' imagination... if his editor can screw things up, I think the guys who made one piece ten can do that too. And again, Databook = volume containing data; one piece ten = attraction.

It's also contained in the eternal log... the databook from the exhibition... 23:03, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

I don't care either way in this case. SeaTerror (talk) 23:20, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

The eternal log is the paper version of on piece ten, so it's the same thing, it's not a databook.

Still has Oda's direct involvement... so yeah... I'd rather trust this. 23:22, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

"Direct involvement", source? It is definitely not direct, it's as any other databook at best.

http://apforums.net/showthread.php?t=35030 23:58, March 14, 2013 (UTC)

"Oda take an active part in the exhibition, he drew main poster." - Well it sure was a big contribution! Oda has an active part in the databooks too, meaning there is no reason to give priority to this, since a databook is especially made to release information while this was an attraction/show.

With a book to accompany it. And read it again. More of Oda's involvement then the databooks. More recent too. 00:09, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Oda doesn't have an active involvement in databooks. SeaTerror (talk) 00:13, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

The book is the same thing, it's like the manga transcription of the movies... it's for those who didn't go there. Still don't see the "more involvement". "Involvement" always means bunch of people asking Oda stuff, that's true for everything, and "active" means he drew stuff. The wanted posters weren't drew by Oda, he only drew some color spreads. The only point in favour is that it's more recent, but again, I'd like to trust better a databook.

Something that has less of Oda's involvement and is prone to errors is not reliable. 00:35, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Not in this case. 01:37, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Of course in this case. Databooks are NOT more reliable than Oda. 01:39, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about this one piece ten like Oda woke up in the morning to go there and prepare the whole thing. IT WASN'T DONE BY ODA. Oda involvement is not greater then anything else. Oda is an author, he drew his manga. For one piece ten like any other thing "with Oda's involvement", he simply tell the staff whatever they want to know and draw some color pages for the occasion. The prove is that all those bounties are just collages with manga images, so stop telling they were made by Oda. At the best, he double checked the romanizations, but that's something true with databooks too, also even himself mess up things. Remember why Franky has two jolly rogers? He approved the jolly roger from the anime staff and forgot he had drew one himself.

You keep proving my point more and more. If Oda gave the word here.. and it's way more recent... then why shouldn't we use it. 21:27, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

We technically have to do it anyway since we moved other articles to those names. SeaTerror (talk) 21:30, March 15, 2013 (UTC)

Other articles didn't have conflicting romanizations. I'm not strongly against it because as you said it's more recent, I'm only reluctant to do it simply because I think the databook has the priority. Why we have to change it then?