Talk:Seven Warlords of the Sea

Former Shichibukai Histories
I say we should keep the members post history in with the rest. Since they were Shichibukai doesn't mean they should be ignored completely. This page should cover the grounds of all characters. Genocyber (talk) 23:36, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

If they're not Shichibukai anymore, they shouldn't be covered. This page is about Shichibukai, not regular pirates. 23:43, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Crocodile's actions during Marineford and Impel Down are mentioned here for some reason. I suggest somebody fix it. 00:37, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Since Jinbe didn't actually resign until they got to Marineford, technically he's still a Warlord during the time in Impel Down, so I think it's safe to mention that Crocodile happened to be there at those parts, as long as we keep him in the "former Warlord" thing. Plus, most of Crocodile's actions in Marineford were against other Warlords. But the parts that only concerns him, like when he tried getting Whitebeard, should be out. I'mma do it. 00:46, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Just fixed it, but some parts had to stay in because they actually involved a Warlord in one way or another. Like Crocodile's quarrel with Jozu, Doflamingo stepped in. Jinbe had the most excluded, ironically. 00:56, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Tabs?
Given this article's length, I think it might be prudent to section it off into tabs, at the very least for the history portion. Sectioning off the history alone would shorten the article by at least two thirds and make it much more presentable, in my opinion. For that matter, I think tabbing some of the longer character pages might also be a good idea. Memnarc (talk) 09:47, March 4, 2013 (UTC)

Bump., 15:00, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

What would the tab divisions be? I pretty much support the idea, as long as there aren't too many tabs, and they are logically organized. 15:11, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

History would get its own tab. Leave the introduction on the main page, and the overview.

Merchandise and trivia can stay on the same page. Not sure how to divide the rest. 21:34, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the history section should get its own tab. MasterDeva (talk) 21:51, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

We shouid make three tabs.The main article will have information about the members and general information about the group, the other tab wiill have the history and the third tab will have all the additional information (Merch., trivia, concept art, etc). 21:56, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

The third tab is not needed. There is not enough content to warrant a separate tab for the things you listed. MasterDeva (talk) 22:31, July 10, 2013 (UTC)

Two Tabs then. WU out -  08:33, July 12, 2013 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and do it then. 10:47, July 18, 2013 (UTC)

Gallery?
I thought about adding a gallery of the members as children. Would you people be ok with that? Genocyber (talk) 21:27, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

It's already in the Trivia, so it's not needed. 21:31, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Well, we could swap it out for them. The one of Law there in the trivia could be added too. Genocyber (talk) 21:39, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

The one there is one collective image, and is better then having a whole galley. 21:51, July 3, 2013 (UTC)

Crocodile Image
Discuss it here. 10:58, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

this isn't Crocodile. No reason to use such an undetailed image on the page. 10:59, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention, both images are completely useless for the page. It should show him attacking that Puppu guy. 11:04, July 4, 2013 (UTC)

Law and Teach
I know they're not canon, but there have been merchandise that depicts Teach as a hippo and Law as a tiger to fit in with the other seven who have animal themes. I think it would be safe to put them in the chart as long as there was a note or something saying they only appeared that way in the merchandise. 13:47, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I can't believe this is coming from you of all people :P. About Law, we could let it slide, since tiger fits his name too (tora means tiger). But I have a huge objection for Teach. Oda has already chosen the hippo theme for Wapol and I don't think he would allow a second character with the same animal theme. At least there has been no such case as of yet .(looks like I was talking crap)

Law and Fujitora both have a tiger theme. The only difference is one of them is purple. 16:05, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Blueno and "Green Bull" Admiral shares the same animal theme too. Personally, I'm finding merchandises to be nothing more than "fanmade" items. They are not related to what Oda thinks and he also seems to have quitted the idea of animal-themed Shichibukai. He just created the first 7 Shichibukai with these themes and now he is moving forward without caring about it anymore. It is plain fanfiction to try reviving this old idea and we, as wikia, should avoid that kind of references. It is more confusing than helping in my opinion. K the AWC (talk) 16:46, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

It would be really easy to avoid confusion. All we have to do is put a reference with a disclaimer. It's worth pointing out. Law was a tiger figurine long before "Tora-guy". I'm not saying Teach going to have a hippo theme in the manga, I'm just saying there's a valid reason to add them. 17:47, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Leave it in the trivia. No need to put it in the canon section. 18:48, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed with Galaxy. 20:13, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I already took the liberty of doing so, but what if we still mention the animal themes in the same section, but under the chart so it's not seen as canon? I don't think we treat the animal themes as canon, anyways.

ALSO, as an addition, we list the animal themes again for ALL the members in the trivia section? That way at least it's all still together. 22:12, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this should be a trivia info, there is no reason to keep the animal themes in member's profiles. As Nada said, even if some themes are obvious they still don't deserve canon treatment. K the AWC (talk) 02:06, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

So, are you suggesting we remove completely the "animal theme" section from the template, and move that part of info to the trivia section? Because if you are, I totally agree.

There's really no need to go that far. I actually agree more with Galaxy that Law and Teach's animals could and should go in trivia, which it has. There's no need to modify a whole chart because of two things that aren't even there. I think we can wrap this up here. 15:15, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

I think the fact that Teach has the power of the Gura Gura no Mi needs to be added, I would add it myself but the page is locked. Sblego11 (talk) 03:20, May 3, 2020 (UTC)

He didn't have the fruit when he was one of the Shichibukai. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 03:47, May 3, 2020 (UTC)

TRIVIA: About Multiple Members Only
There was a problem a few years ago with the trivia section being too long. I suggested in a previous section that we should keep the trivia to ones about more than 1 member & trivia about a specific member goes on said member's page. Although One-Winged Hawk was the only to respond to and follow my suggestion, others seems to agree since no one undid the edit. But right now SeaTerror is against it, so can I get other people's opinion on it?
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 02:30, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree.

02:35, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

I agree in general, but in this case about Ace, if the trivia is reworded like " The only known pirate who has turned down the Shichibukai status offer is Portgas D Ace" then it fits perfectly on this article, because it concerns the status itself not the individual.

I can go with Vaz's idea: the trivia is acceptable if the subject is the status/organization rather than the individual.
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 04:00, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Works for me. 04:50, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

I'm down for it too. The trivia would only really be seen in the Warlord page or his own page, and if we live it out of the former, it feels missing to whoever doesn't read the latter. If it's acceptable by regarding the organization itself, that's fine. The way Hime rewrote it is good. 07:45, December 21, 2013 (UTC)

Tentative Shichibukai Trafalgar Law
Trafalgar Law is a tentative Shichibukai according to the translations of Chapter 746.

We all know that Admiral Issho "revoked" his title in Chapter 713. However, later chapters have indicated that Trafalgar Law is still a Shichibukai. Not a full Shichibukai, but a tentative/provisionary one. Here is the evidence I would like to bring up:

1. 16 chapters after Chapter 713, we find out that Chapter 729 is called Shichibukai Doflamingo Vs. Shichibukai Law.

2. In the very next chapter, Chapter 730, Donquixote Doflamingo speaks to the crowd that gathered around the commotion and refers to Law as a Shichibukai.

3. In Chapter 746, we are presented with new evidence. According to several translations, Law is said to be a tentative/provisional Shichibukai. This indicates that it has not been confirmed by the World Government that he has lost the title.

4. Chapter 713 is the chapter in which Fujitora "revokes" Law's title as Shichibukai. Chapter 713 is in Volume 72. In the very next volume, Volume 73, in the short bio section at the beginning of the volume (where it lists all the major characters), Trafalgar Law is still listed as a Shichibukai. In Volume 74, Law is once again listed as a Shichibukai in the short bio section.

There are also some points to consider:

1. In relation to point 1 from above, Chapter 629's title is called The Former Shichibukai Who Stands in the Way. This indicates that Oda has stated "Former Shichibukai" in the past, but oddly enough it is not mentioned in Chapter 729's title.

2. In Chapter 513, Shichibukai Bartholomew Kuma stated that the Shichibukai are not obligated to cooperate with the Marines unless under the direct order of the World Government. In Chapter 211, then-Master Chief Petty Officer Tashigi claims that Crocodile's rights, not title (though the translation could be shoddy), as a Shichibukai is stripped by the powers granted to her by the World Government. All we know is that Issho was ordered by Fleet Admiral Sakazuki to assess the situation, not by the World Government.

3. We have only seen confirmations of a revocation of a Shichibukai's title in meetings. In Chapter 234, Liffitte tells the Marines and Shichibukai that have gathered in a meeting that he has heard about Crocodile losing his title. In Chapter 594,in a meeting about the aftereffects of the war, the Gorosei confirms that there are three vacant seats that need to be filled (Jinbe's, Marshall D. Teach's, and Gekko Moriah's).

Trafalgar Law is not a former Shichibukai. He is a Shichibukai whose status is in limbo. He has a provisionary/tentative status, not a revoked status. - Racht  01:37, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

The Gorosei haven't yet revoked his status, since Fujitora hasn't informed them, neither Sakazuki. However it's a detail. --Meganoide (talk) 14:31, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Right, but I'm saying that Law should not be listed as a former Shichibukai. Racht 23:02, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

An Admiral revoked his status. He is no longer a Shichibukai. What part of this isn't clear?

23:55, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

Because of the reasons I said above. His status was "revoked" by Fujitora in a chapter before Law is referred to as a Shichibukai in a title chapter and in the text within the chapters. Racht 23:59, May 19, 2014 (UTC)

That's insubstantial evidence at best. One character, who is well known for mocking and for being Law's superior, and a chapter title, does not change the concrete fact that Issho revoked his status.

00:08, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

What does being Law's superior have to do with this? Also if the Shichibukai have no obligations to obey the Marines unless under the direct orders of the World Government itself, as the Marines page states and as Kuma had stated in the manga, then why should we take Issho's word as concrete fact? Only the World Government has that kind of authority to take away the title. There has not been any newspaper stories of Law losing his title, as the story hasn't progressed yet. Racht 00:26, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

. Mr. Whatever (talk) 05:41, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

There wasn't a story about Moriah losing his title either... And I don't recall Crocodile's dismissal making any papers either. Play it as it lies and keep it as rescinded. 05:48, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

Chapter 713 is the chapter in which Fujitora "revokes" Law's title as Shichibukai. Chapter 713 is in Volume 72. In Volume 73, in the short bio section at the beginning of the volume (where it lists all the major characters), Trafalgar Law is still listed as a Shichibukai. The link that Mr. Whatever provides is the proof for my statement. Racht  06:16, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

I would like to also point out, DancePowderer, that while Moriah's title was not discussed in a story, it was confirmed when the Gorosei are in a meeting discussing the aftereffects of the war in CHapter 594 (three positions need to be filled). That is when it became official. Racht 06:20, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

I should point out that Oda doesn't always write the little character summaries at the beginning of the bios, so something from the actual story would be better. 06:37, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

He already did. Chapter 746, which says "tentative" clear as day in this image. The meaning of the word is far more straightforward than what Fujitora said (which would be consistent with knocking him down from a full Shichibukai to a provisional one). The chapter title and volume introductions are just icing on the cake. 06:47, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

Zodiaque's hit the nail on the head. Racht 17:25, May 20, 2014 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if this can be discussed further. Law's still considered a Shichibukai according to the manga. Racht 04:40, May 24, 2014 (UTC)

The evidence is clear. Just go ahead and change the pages. Mr. Whatever (talk) 01:59, June 1, 2014 (UTC)

[ Klobis agrees], so it's 4 against 2. Quit reverting it. 00:57, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Zodiaque. Anyone who is against, please read the first post again as it has been updated. The facts are right there. I don't know why this is STILL an issue. Racht 01:37, June 5, 2014 (UTC)

Volume 74 lists Law as a Shichibukai. Racht 04:24, June 6, 2014 (UTC)

True enough, it still says "Ouka Shichibukai". In no place do I see "Moto" (Former). 23:55, June 14, 2014 (UTC)

Does Akainu telling Fujitora to hunt Law down along with Luffy confirm he's no longer a Shichibukai? 22:41, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

No. 22:46, July 18, 2015 (UTC)

3D2Y
As before his 3 month ban, SeaTerror continues to undo my edits accusing me of being a troll. This time I'm removing a sentence derived from the special episode "3D2Y". In that special is hinted that the shichibukai organization has been created less than 30 years ago. The hint is that World doesn't know about who them are.

The problem is: World did the same before his imprisonement with the Cipher Pols. So you're gonna tell me that the Cipherl Pols didn't exist 30 years ago?? Simply absurd. World is a person that doesn't care about the other people, who they are and what they do, until they cross his path. That is also underlined by the fact that he destroyed whoever crossed his path and by the fact that Byojack actually works as the brain of the pair. So the trivia about the shichibukai is totally false.

In addiction to this, SeaTerror is still a pain in the ass for the users of this wiki. To avoid misunderstandings: I mean that he makes the other users' work much harder. Meganoide (talk) 19:14, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

Welp that's Seaterror. I think we should leave it until Oda confirms it. Joekido (talk) 20:45, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

We should keep that speculation? PS that's SeaTerror is a way to say "he can do whatever he wants". But he can't. He must learn to stop himself, otherwise some admin should stop him. --Meganoide (talk) 23:53, September 13, 2014 (UTC)

It's not speculation. We know that pirates and Marines banded together 30 years ago to fight World. Someone even said that he was the reason the Shichibukai were created to stop world. You can put 2 and 2 together yourself without having the whole thing spelled out for you. 07:29, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

I would remove it only because it is non-canon but it still fits with trivia guidelines so it's still valid. SeaTerror (talk) 22:51, September 14, 2014 (UTC)

Royal Shichibukai
Why are we using a shortened name as the title? The real name of the group is "Royal Shichibukai", so that's what the page should be called. Obviously we can still refer to them as Shichibukai in the contents, but there's honestly no problem with having the full title as as the name of the article. 13:18, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but instead of "royal" we should use "Oka", the Japanese term. It would be absurd to use a name which is half English and half Japanese. Meganoide (talk) 15:46, October 21, 2014 (UTC)

Forgot to comment on this one before. I wanted to open a section about this before but never got around to this. But what Meganoide said. It has to be full Japanese. SeaTerror (talk) 16:52, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Well, we use "Shichibukai" in Japanese because of the difficulty in getting a decent translation to English. If "Oka" translates smoothly to "Royal" I don't see why we shouldn't use "Royal". 17:02, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Because we don't use half translations. Gomu Gomu no Mi, not Gomu Gomu Fruit. SeaTerror (talk) 17:03, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

I agree with JSD. "Royal Shichibukai" is better. 17:06, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Then I say Shichibukai only if you're going to push for terrible half translations. SeaTerror (talk) 17:11, November 14, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't want a half translation, so I'm going with "Oka Shichibukai". 00:18, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

We already use plenty of half translations in island names, but whatever. Let's just keep it as "Shichibukai" then. 21:32, November 15, 2014 (UTC)

No we don't. Islands all use the original name. SeaTerror (talk) 01:25, November 16, 2014 (UTC)

We could transform it into "Royal Seven Warlords of the Sea" or "Oka Shichibukai", depending on how the "Celestial Dragon" issue goes. 05:54, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Different situations. SeaTerror (talk) 18:08, November 21, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, does anyone care strongly about this? At this point, I'm just for leaving the page the way it is right now. If nobody posts saying they care in a few days, we'll close this discussion. 16:58, November 24, 2014 (UTC
 * Nobody cares, we're done. 19:12, November 28, 2014 (UTC)

Plunder to the Gov.
"They are only allowed to attack other pirates and must also compensate the Government with a tenth of their plunder though this regulation is not usually followed at the very least."

Where was it stated specially that the Shichibuki had to give tenth of their plunder to the Government? I read that part with Yosaku explaining this to Luffy and Zoro in the manga, and watched the scenes in English and Japanese in the anime, but never once did it state the specific amount of their plunder they were supposed to give to the Government as part of their duties. Was it stated in a databook or something?--137.30.93.133 15:07, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

If I remember correctly (and I may be wrong), it was stated in the VIZ version of the chapter Yosaku explained about the Shichibukai. 17:03, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember that. Viz was probably wrong. SeaTerror (talk) 18:26, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

I looked into Batoto's translation and it just said "a portion", and did not specify how much exactly. I've left a confirm template on the section on the article for now, but we do need to see if anyone can find a source for the exact amount, otherwise we should remove that part of it. 19:43, December 1, 2014 (UTC)

It's literally "some percents" (何割), if it's a tenth it should be written as 1割. http://imgur.com/2aJiMJC Mocha21 (talk) 07:30, December 5, 2014 (UTC)

Alright, so there's no proof it's a tenth, I've changed the wording to "a portion". 18:55, December 22, 2014 (UTC)

Trivia Wars
So there's been a big edit war here. We need to just talk this out before we edit the page.

I am of the mindset that anything included here is valid. The only question in my mind is if it all qualifies as trivia. Since everything to me is valid, I think we should move anything that is deemed not "trivia worthy" to another section of the article.

Thoughts? 17:19, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

I think we should move the SBS stuff to the appearance, as Kage did in his edit, since they aren't really trivia, just appearances of the Shichibukai of their kid selves and genderbent selves.


 * "While Yosaku was accurate in describing their immense powers and alliance with the World Government, the shadowy figures he imagined bore no resemblance to the actual members aside from Mihawk."

I do not think that that trivia of Yosaku is that important because the first part of the trivia is obvious and pretty much useless, while the second part, Oda likely did not plan ahead for the Shichibukai's appearance, or they were just draft appearances. I don't think it's ever meant to be accurate, especially when you consider that Yosaku quite likely have no idea what they look like, other than Mihawk, and these figures are probably just figments of his imagination.

However, I'm comfortable with keeping the trivia for Ace. IMO, not that good, but whatever, it seems okay enough to leave it up on the article.
 * "The status of Shichibukai was offered to Portgas D. Ace, but was he refused the offer. This is the only known time an invitation into the organization has been rejected."

So yeah, that's pretty much it. 21:42, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

The gallery is fine but not having the trivia to go with Yosaku's image doesn't really make it a good image since the whole point of uploading it was for that trivia piece. If we're also getting rid of the SBS trivia on that section then just make a new page called Misc like we do for the Straw Hats and put everything there. SeaTerror (talk) 22:24, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

Then we'll remove Yosaku's image from the gallery. And how much SBS trivia we have to make an entire new page? Seems like there's only a few, so I don't think it needs a new page. 22:27, February 24, 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jade. --&#34;The good mean well. We just don&#39;t always end up doing well.&#34; ~ Isaac (talk) 01:14, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Well, the Yosaku info one does have its connections to the article itself, so why not keep it? But comparing the figures to Mihawk is rather presumptuous, maybe rid that. 02:49, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Since it was the first image of the Shichibukai shown, it's worth keeping, surely.

21:15, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

Nothing about Ace or the SBS trivia? 22:59, February 25, 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind the SBS trivia (like the genderbender and children) to be moved under a new heading, but it should at least include from what SBS volume it came from. Like the original trivia moved underneath it the images or something. As for the Yosaku trivia, it should stay. What he said was helpful in figuring out more about the Shichibukai, and his vision of them is important as well. As Nova mentioned, it was the first image of them shown. It's kinda like Kanjuro's appearances that Oda kept changing. Ace's should stay too. Having all of these trivias won't hurt the page. 02:06, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, we can list which SBS the genderbent and children images showed up in easily enough.

Ace's trivia can stay if the majority is for it. 02:20, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

I think the Yosaku thing works better as trivia. While the image really belongs in the appearance section, the image is nothing without the text about Yoskau, and the text doesn't belong in the appearance section, imo.

The Ace one is totally legit, I don't see any reason to move or remove it.

As far as the SBS based ones, why not just leave them all there? 03:49, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

Obviously, SBS all stay there. As for the Yosaku one, we could give a text box sentence saying "Yosaku explaining the fearsomeness of the Shichibukai to Luffy and Sanji." or something, if it goes in the appearance section or whatnot. 04:34, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

Because the trivia is the reason the image exists. SeaTerror (talk) 05:39, February 26, 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused, Yata, JSD, do you mean the SBS trivia should remain as trivia or be moved to the gallery? 00:47, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

I meant leave them in the trivia section. 02:25, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, keep the SBS trivia in the trivia section. 02:55, February 27, 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. The SBS trivia is literally just describing the images. Just look at what the SBS trivia says:
 * "In the SBS of volume 63 Oda drew all the known Shichibukai at the time (including former members) as children. Trafalgar D. Water Law was not a Shichibukai then, but he was shown as a child when Oda drew the Eleven Supernovas (which Law is also a member of) as children in the next SBS and when his past was revealed. Buggy is the only Shichibukai to have yet be shown younger than adolescent."
 * "In the volume 76 SBS, Oda drew the original seven known Shichibukai and Blackbeard as their opposite gender. Law was already drawn as a female in the volume 72 SBS along with the Eleven Supernovas. Buggy is the only Shichibukai to have yet be drawn as his opposite gender."

The images should be placed in a gallery, with captions, like Kage did in his edit, and the SBS trivia removed, as it provides nothing valuable. 03:26, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

Well, appearance sections don't really belong on Organization pages though. Not according to our layout, anyways. And that makes sense, because a large group with changing members can't really have an "appearance" anyways. 16:52, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

The trivia, in this case, is that Buggy isn't included. That's the interesting fact. So this should be moved to Buggy's trivia, right? "Buggy is the only Shichibukai not to be drawn as a child or as the opposite gender." 17:18, March 4, 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine with Ryu's suggestion. 00:12, March 5, 2015 (UTC)

No, the trivia is that their appearances were drawn in the SBS, but we don't have appearance sections for groups. It belongs in trivia. 02:12, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Ech, whatever, the SBS trivia can stay in the trivia section. Seems like the majority is for keeping all disrupted trivia, in which I'm going to closing this. 02:31, March 6, 2015 (UTC)

Doflamingo's status
Bringing this topic concerning Doffy's status right here since nobody has posted it yet.

As of the latest chapter, Doflamingo has been defeated by Luffy. The Marines have him chained and everything. Should we change Doffy's status as a "tentative" Shichibukai?

I personally think we should just wait some chapters. I think it's going to be adressed anyways. For now I would only remove Law, since Fujitora is saying he is willing to arrest him.

Grievous67 (talk) 23:00, August 7, 2015 (UTC)

Name Change
I do think not everything needs to be translated but since One Piece Green Secret Pieces translates Shichibukai as Seven Worlds of the Sea, we should follow suit and name this page Seven Worlds of the Sea even though it doesn't translate properly. Since there're other pages with translations from databooks, for consistency's sake, this page should do what the databook does Meshack (talk) 00:54, July 15, 2017 (UTC)

>Doesn't translate properly

No. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 01:30, July 15, 2017 (UTC)


 * But it's still a translation the databook gave so the page should be translated Meshack (talk) 03:41, July 15, 2017 (UTC)

I'm against changing it. It's a horrible translation, and as Japanese words can mean several things, the best this deserves is a line in the trivia section.

10:28, July 15, 2017 (UTC)

We don't have to go by what the databook or anything says if it's clearly a mistake. E.g. not changing Linlin to Rinrin Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 14:18, July 15, 2017 (UTC)

It's not entirey a mistake. Seven Worlds of the Sea is the only official translation from the Japanese material we might ever get unless Shueisha wants to write another one in another guidebook or something but I doubt itbwould get changed. We don't know entirely what Oda or even Shueisha was going for but Seven Worlds of the Sea is officially written so the page should be changed to the name. P.S. About changing Linlin to Rinrin, Oda wrote Linlin so your point is not really valid. Meshack (talk) 14:47, July 16, 2017 (UTC)

Noting the phonic similarities between world and warlord, as well as the fact that it simply doesn't translate to that, there is too much discrepency in using worlds. We have to take translations with a grain of salt, especially here. 05:53, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

Ok then let's use Warlords instead of Worlds. It doesn't change the fact that the databook translated the term so we should too Meshack (talk) 07:47, July 19, 2017 (UTC)

I'm against too. 22:20, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

^Myself as well 22:52, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

5 against 1 here, looks conclusive.

22:59, August 11, 2017 (UTC)

Wow. The hypocrisy Meshack (talk) 03:54, August 12, 2017 (UTC)

Go be bitter somewhere else. We're not changing it until we get a better translation. 06:29, August 13, 2017 (UTC)

I actually found another translation for Shichibukai here. Meshack (talk) 07:46, October 26, 2018 (UTC)
 * Also this. If those aren’t accepted then like I said before, Shueisha will most likely never change it. Look at this.Meshack (talk) 07:54, October 26, 2018 (UTC)

Thw first source you gave looks like Chinese rip-off Android game but you're right. Japanese merchandising uses mainly Seven Worlds of the Sea or Seven Warlords of the Sea but merchandising isn't reliable source and databook doesn't translate the name correctly. I personally support leaving the name as it is or changing it to "Seven Worlds of the Sea". Cdwp22 (talk) 09:23, October 26, 2018 (UTC)

All of those are obvious bootleg merchandise or fanart. SeaTerror (talk) 10:50, October 26, 2018 (UTC)

The last one is actually Bandai figure series. Cdwp22 (talk) 10:59, October 26, 2018 (UTC)

I didn’t know about the first two cause my searching got messed up cause I guess searching with just kanji made them use the Chinese search engine. I think the name should be changed to Seven Worlds of the Sea. I doubt they’re gonna change it. I mean, y’all changed Reverie to Levely... Who cares about translation if one word is off. It was translated by Shuiesha and here my Bandai Meshack (talk) 17:37, October 26, 2018 (UTC)

Just because it says Bandai on the box doesn't make it a true release. The figures themselves look like bootlegs. The 2nd is fanart and the first is obviously not official. No reliable source has ever spelled it as Worlds. Worlds is an obvious mistake anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 18:36, October 26, 2018 (UTC)

I've made some research. The second picture with Law is Bandai poster and the third one is official Bandai figure collection licensed by Toei. The only sources for Seven Worlds of the Sea are databook and merchandise. I don't know it's enough for change. I don't care anyway. Cdwp22 (talk) 19:13, October 26, 2018 (UTC)

The majority remains. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 04:23, January 16, 2019 (UTC)

Part 2
Here officially by Shueisha themselves, they use the name Seven Warlords of the Sea. Meshack (talk) 05:20, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

We don't use Shonen Jump romanizations. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 14:56, March 25, 2019 (UTC)

Also it would appear that Shueisha can't even make up their minds when it comes name consistency for some characters considering Shiliew is back to Shiryu and Chouchou name in the recent databook went by the actual English spelling for his name in katakana (Shushu). Despite chapter 619 showing his name (Chouchou) on a sign in English. Vincent Dawn (talk) 04:56, March 26, 2019 (UTC)

Shichibukai hasn't been romanized by Oda and Seven Warlords of the Sea is really the only one unless you wanna use Seven Worlds of the Sea. @Vincent You are mistaking Shueisha for Oda. I think the name should be changed Meshack (talk) 02:59, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you familiarize yourself with this list. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 03:28, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

If Oda romanized it as Seven Warlords of the Sea then we would be using that. Shueisha is not Oda. SeaTerror (talk) 10:52, March 29, 2019 (UTC)

Trivia note
Just wanted to mention that the trivia note about Buggy and Teach being the only ones with no animal theme should be removed. I dunno about Buggy at the moment but Teach's theme was confirmed as a Hippopotamus.--158.174.97.127 13:47, January 12, 2020 (UTC)

Seven Warlords of the Sea
As I did with the Yonko discusion, I want to bring back te rename discussion. For example the Kuma page says: "he is a former Shichibukai", that is absolutely wrong because you are saying that Kuma is a Seven Warlords of the Sea, same with the Yonko term. With the rename u can just say that he is a former Warlord of the Sea. I really think that the best option is to traduce it as we do with all new terms, until Oda gives as a romanization (like the Tobiroppo case). Cracker-Kun (talk) 22:44, May 18, 2020 (UTC)

That literally makes no sense. Saying former is saying that he is a former member. Also we use actual translations. Shichibukai does not translate to "Seven Warlords of the Sea". Yonkou literally translates to four emperors. SeaTerror (talk) 06:21, May 19, 2020 (UTC)

Japanese doesn't work like English. While in English you can join multiple words to make a phrase literally meaning that, in Japanese, a group of Kanji can mean something totally different when written together with something else. The word Oka is added to the name too, which usually refers to someone of royal status/a very high military status, the official kanji for the warlords is a mix of Oka, Shichi and Bukai, while alone they all mean royal, seven, group/meet, together they mean "7 of royal status/high military status of the seas", or 7 Warlords of the Sea(s). ( Dot  Talk  ) 15:42, July 5, 2020 (UTC)

I vote in favor of renaming “Shichibukai” to “Seven Warlords of the Sea“.(GoldenOath20 (talk) 03:21, July 18, 2020 (UTC))

Yonkou literally translates to Four Emperors. Shichibukai does not translate to Seven Warlords of the Sea. SeaTerror (talk) 18:19, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

It makes no sense to keep Shichibukai untranslated since we translated Yonko to Four Emperors 18:28, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

That was a mistake but besides that if you're going by that logic then we have to use the literal translation. SeaTerror (talk) 18:30, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason we have to use the literal translation. Seven Warlords is far more ubiquitous, plus the spelling we got from the databook is closer to Warlords. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 18:59, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

Not every translation that we do is perfect, for example "Tobiroppo" doesn't exactly traslate as "Flying Six", but we used it. So "Seven Warlords of the Sea" is an appropiate translation given the Kanji. Cracker-Kun (talk) 19:02, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

Not even close. Yonko to "Four Emperors" is one thing, but Shichibukai simply does not translate into "Warlord". Just... No. --JouXIII (talk) 20:14, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

So, for the sake of argument, what does it's translate to? Rhavkin (talk) 20:21, July 18, 2020 (UTC) I don't understand, 武海 these kanji mean "military warrior" aka "Warlord", 海 this one also means "sea, and 七 this means "Seven", so "Seven Military Warriors of the Sea" aka "Seven Warlords of the Sea", I don't understand what problem do you have with the translation Jou and ST. Cracker-Kun (talk) 20:24, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

"you are saying that Kuma is a Seven Warlords of the Sea" - that's not how languages work, but go off. • Seelentau 愛 議 23:25, July 18, 2020 (UTC)

I just wanna state that, for the record, at this point, it seems a majority is in favor of the name change.(GoldenOath20 (talk) 00:29, July 19, 2020 (UTC))

Seel that is exactly why we need a name change. Using the Japanese name brings that problem but once it's in English, we can properly fix it to "One of the Seven Warlords of the Sea". Anyway I don't think there's much of an argument here, it does directly translate to Seven Warlords of the Sea, unlike what ST claims, and we already discussed other reasons on the Four Emperors page. Let's vote on this already. ( Dot  Talk  ) 03:14, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

If it really does translate beyond doubt to Seven Warlords of the Sea, we already saw the change with Gorosei and Yonko, so I see it changing here too. StoopidGuy (talk) 03:34, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

It was already was already explained in the Yonko discussion that the terminology argument is a false premise. In Japanese both Yonko and Shichibukai can be used in singular. There is also no problem for us in using them in singular if they remain untranslated. However, people argued for the rename for other reasons, which are valid. I don't really mind either way, but since the rename was decided for Yonko, it seems natural to rename Shichibukai too. 08:25, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

@Dot, again, languages and translations don't work like that. What's happening here is the same that has happened with "Yonko": People with no knowledge of Japanese or translation try to enforce their uneducated opinion through a majority vote. You apply English grammar to a Japanese term and then act surprised when it doesn't work out. Like Awaikage said, there is no plural in Japanese, 七武海 can mean both one or multiple members of this group. That's why there's no "Shichibukais" or "Hokages" or whatever. On top of that, the word is, as far as I'm aware, a neologism invented by Oda with no equivalent term in English anyway. As such, there's no problem in saying "the Yonko" or "the Shichibukai". Also, @Cracker-kun, 武海 doesn't mean "military warrior" or anything at all, this word doesn't even exist in Japanese. • Seelentau 愛 議 16:11, July 20, 2020 (UTC)

That may be, Seelentau. However, as you yourself just pointed out, they are doing so with a majority vote. In other words, the majority is in favor of the name change. Plus, you mentioned that they are “uneducated”, well that’s all the more reason to change it. Shouldn't the wiki be in a state where everyone can understand it clearly.(GoldenOath20 (talk) 01:16, July 21, 2020 (UTC))

Yes Seel I do realise what you mean, I myself am learning (very basic, and practical) Japanese, though I'm not good with Kanji and I won't claim to be, I've barely even scratched the surface of the language. However, speaking in terms of the story, and not the language, these are names of groups, which I believe should be in English, of course, that's just my opinion though. And originally, with the Yonko poll my point was exactly what you pointed out, because our wiki is in English, which makes the need to have proper grammar IN ENGLISH important. Which is where your point comes in, we have no choice but to improvise the grammar with certain words or names being in Japanese, just making everything a mess. Of course, if Oda himself romanizes the groups' names as the Yonko or the Shichibukai we'll go with that, but till the time we don't have an official romanization, I believe using a translation of the name is more suited. ( Dot  Talk  ) 04:57, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

" it does directly translate to Seven Warlords of the Sea" No. It flat out does not. SeaTerror (talk) 05:55, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

I may be wrong but I still think this is kind of right - "a mix of Oka, Shichi and Bukai, while alone they all mean royal, seven, group/meet, together they mean "7 of royal status/high military status"" ( Dot  Talk  ) 06:07, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

Officially, the name has been translated as Seven [Worlds] of the Sea in a guidebook. Obviously, the problem is the word "Worlds" but we should definitely translate the name but maybe switch Worlds with something else? Maybe Warlord to stay consistent? 15:12, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

@GoldenOath20: You're missing the point. 1) a majority vote on something incorrect doesn't magically make it correct. 2) the ones pushing the vote being uneducated on translations or Japanese doesn't change by changing anything on the wiki.

@Dot: As I explained, "Shichibukai" and "Yonko" is proper grammar in English, because the original words are used in singular and plural. @Cracker-kun's example of "For example the Kuma page says: 'he is a former Shichibukai', that is absolutely wrong because you are saying that Kuma is a Seven Warlords of the Sea, same with the Yonko term." is simply not correct. For example, over at the Naruto wiki, we write stuff like "a Chidori", even though "Chidori" means "One-Thousand Birds" and "a (One-Thousand) Birds" would obviously be wrong. If you want to use a translation of the term to keep consistency across the wiki, then that's another issue, of course. It would obviously open the can of worms about other terms like devilfruit names, for example. • Seelentau 愛 議 16:51, July 21, 2020 (UTC)

Chidori is the name of a move, Yonko and Shichibukai are groups. Even if the words can be used in singular and plural that's for Japanese, in English, the words straight up do not exist. If it were something like the name of a person, or the name of major objects/places, say Devil Fruits, we won't need to bother with changing it, I personally feel like we should be changing the group's name because it's essentially a title. Also, yes a majority vote doesn't make it correct but we do need a way of deciding what we go with that is not an edit war. If we don't vote on thing that is what will happen. Whether we vote or not there will be people against decisions, voting simply exists so we know which side is more supported, because the wiki has to be consistent. ( Dot  Talk  ) 13:04, July 22, 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's a move or a group. A proper name is a proper name. I could've used "Kage" as well - we write "the Kage" and not "the Kages" or "the Shadows". Which brings me to the next point: Why enforce a translation of a made-up group title, when there's no word in English in the first place? There's no harm in using Japanese words in English context, as long as the meaning of the sentence is clear. That's why we didn't translate "Chidori" and "Rasengan" at the Naruto wiki: Because all fans are familiar with it. And I'd wager it's the same with "Shichibukai" and "Yonko". So in my eyes, it's an unnecessary "just for the sake of it" move, especially for a wiki, where the articles should be as accessible as possible to readers. • Seelentau 愛 議 14:36, July 22, 2020 (UTC)

Simple reason: The wiki is in English. Im all in for making Devil Fruit pages being named with their official English names too, but can understand the difference between those and groups like Yonko, Shichibukai and the Five Elders. ( Dot  Talk  ) 16:01, July 22, 2020 (UTC)

The wiki is in english about a japanese manga. Yes, there's a difference between Groups and Devil Fruits, but wanting to change everything to english wouldn't work well. Many DFs have abilities that do not sound good in english, nor are used by the community, and many are japanese onomatopoeias. So saying the wiki is in english is not a very solid argument. Here in Shichibukai, I think we have to see if this is a creation of Oda like Seelentau is saying or if there is an actual literal translation that leaves no doubt. StoopidGuy (talk) 16:17, July 22, 2020 (UTC)

"The wiki is in English." I guess that means the Naruto wiki has to change Naruto's page to Fishcake Whirlpool. SeaTerror (talk) 02:59, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

This conversation seems like it keeps getting a little derailed. I think we should translate Shichibukai. At this point, every other group name is translated. Celestial Dragons, Five Elders, Four Emperors, etc. It looks very strange to have all of them translated while Shichibukai is left untranslated. Yes, it's an original word, but so are several of the other group names that we choose to translate. And like has already been pointed out, there's already been an official attempt to translate Shichibukai into English, it was written as Seven Worlds of the Sea in the Green databook. Clearly that was meant to be Seven Warlords of the Sea and was just a typo and/or bad Engrish, I feel like that's pretty undeniable. I don't see much use in leaving it untranslated. DewClamChum (talk) 04:17, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

Naruto is a completely different thing. It's a name, it's written with kana, it's romanized on every volume cover, and the series itself is strongly connected to Japanese culture (ninja, Amaterasu, Susanoo etc.), so Japanese names are rather natural. As Seelentau noted, "Shichibukai" is a neologism invented by Oda, but it's made up of several kanji which have their own meanings. Another thing is consistency. A majority of group names are translated on the wiki. Also, the name "Shichibukai" is much more difficult to pronounce or even type for an English speaker than its English equivalent. Cdwp22 (talk) 12:58, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

And "Kuma is a Seven Warlords of the Sea... The Seven Warlords of the Sea then attacked... Zoro killed the Seven Warlords of the Sea" is better? Because that's what those sentences would become if we'd translate "Shichibukai" as "Seven Warlords of the Sea". It's a group name, thus "Seven Warlord of the Sea" doesn't work as singular in English, unlike in Japanese with Shichibukai (since they don't make a difference between singular and plural). • Seelentau 愛 議 15:55, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

"Kuma is a Seven Warlords of the Sea... The Seven Warlords of the Sea then attacked... Zoro killed the Seven Warlords of the Sea" This is not an issue, because we can just use "warlord", or "warlord of the sea" and link to the Shichibukai, well Seven Warlords of the Sea, page. There's also the use of "one of the Seven Warlords of the Sea", though that's not as pleasant to read. However, that use of english words could possibly take from the meaning of the sentences; something we also see with the word "emperor", but not to the same degree. About Shichibukai being difficult to write, it really isn't - even if it was, I don't think that's a solid argument. StoopidGuy (talk) 16:08, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

But "Shichibukai" doesn't just mean "warrior", it's a specific title of a group. In English, it's not possible to be a Seven Warlord of the Sea, in Japanese, it is possible to be a Shichibukai. • Seelentau 愛 議 16:10, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

Akazaya doesn't mean "Scabbards" but we still use it. That argument doesn't mean anything. And it doesn't matter if u can't be one, in English we say that you can be part of that group. Cracker-Kun (talk) 17:01, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

Why do you even respond when you don't know what you're talking about? 

And of course you can be part of a group. And if we translate "Shichibukai" to "Seven Warlords of the Seas", it would be replaced in article texts as such. "Kuma is a Shichibukai" would become "Kuma is a Seven Warlords of the Seas". Of course you can add "member of", but not in cases where the "Shichibukai" replaced the subject. "The Shichibukai attacked Zoro" would become "The Seven Warlords of the Seas attacked Zoro". • Seelentau 愛 議 17:18, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

We can just put "the Warlord atacked Zoro", even though it is not a perfect translation, the reader clearly knows that we are referring to a Shichibukai, same case with the Yonko, which he have recently translated. Cracker-Kun (talk)

Or we could write "Shichibukai", a term that is well-known among the fans and describes the whole group without relying on a short form. • Seelentau 愛 議 17:29, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

"Gorosei" and "Yonko" were also well-known terms that have been traslated, and nothing happened, the world didn't explote xD. I think that is better to be consistent in this topic, and if we translated Gorosei, Ternyubito and Yonko, we should translate Shichibukai. Cracker-Kun (talk) 17:36, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

As far as I know, Gorosei was translated by Oda. And we could simply untranslate those other terms again. • Seelentau 愛 議 17:41, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

We had a poll to vote for the change of some of those terms, we are not untraslating them. Cracker-Kun (talk) 17:44, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

I really don't think polls are legally binding. • Seelentau 愛 議 17:48, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

It is the most democratic way to solve this type of discussions btw. Cracker-Kun (talk) 17:50, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

That doesn't make it any more correct. Especially if it's based on a false premise as the one you stated at the beginning. • Seelentau 愛 議 18:01, July 23, 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, it was my fault, but on this discussion we have give u good alternatives btw. Cracker-Kun (talk) 18:50, July 23, 2020 (UTC)