Talk:Gecko Moria

Odd link
Why does this page have external links related to geckos? It's really uncyclopaedic.


 * To relate to the animal that Moria is themed after and to prevent people from making a stub for geckos on this site.Mugiwara Franky 18:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Nickname
So, is Moria's nickname "King of the Depths" or is it a mistranslation from the term "Ouka Shichibukai" (lit. "Below King Seven Armed Sea)? Yatanogarasu 20:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a mistranslation.Mugiwara Franky 07:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I have the raw of the chapter... But which chapter is it? I can upload the page where his intro box is and we can compare if need be if I know the chapter no. One-Winged Hawk 09:11, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Chapter 455.Mugiwara Franky 09:21, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

His theme
Please stop putting his theme is also a bat, Other than his one attack named brick bats there nothing else to say it's his theme, His name ,Transformation, horns and the fact that his collar looks like a gecko's frill pretty much say his theme is a gecko, to say other wise is speculation, the Brick bat attack is only going with the nightmare and horror theme of thriller bark--Swg66 23:56, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The gecko theme indeed seems more obvious than a bat theme. Though Moria has that one attack, has pointy ears, and long arms, they're not much of a support for a bat theme. Even when combining parts of his name to make the Japanese word for bat is a bit speculative as it's just similar sounding and not the exact word. The lizard-like neck, the way his body has the same shape as the original Godzilla when viewed from a certain position, the name, the frills, the way his Shadow Asgard form looks like a amphibious dinosaur-like creature, basically everything about him screams gecko. A bat theme maybe apart of his design, but it's not exactly the same.Mugiwara Franky 01:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

His Shadow Asgard just makes him larger. It doesn't make him look like a gecko at all. Drunk Samurai 04:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, not necessarily a gecko per say but it looks definitely reptilian.


 * By the way, if there is a discussion going on, its best not to continue reverting.Mugiwara Franky 06:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone pointed out he looks like a gecko when it puffs up its neck to make itself look big. Another argument I've seen is that the Japanese used is often usedfor frogs (I can't remember the full details), as a lot of Japanese animes have a frog named gekkou (or however its spelt). I can't remember the full details. So I won't argue support for that one. One-Winged Hawk 08:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For the Japanese, Geko is an onomatopoeia for a frog's ribbit along with Kero. A frog themed witch from this manga, Soul Eater, is a fine example as she constantly makes the sound when talking. It may not be exactly a connection to the actual gecko however. Though considering Moria's Shadow Asgard form starts off as a large belly dragging creature, it's slightly there as both frogs and geckos are night-time creatures with a penchant for puffing their throats.Mugiwara Franky 16:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, sorry now I remember your right, that was his point back on AP forums. (I didn't fully read page sorry, really not a morning person). One-Winged Hawk 07:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * He has two animal themes, gecko and bat. His name in Romaji is 'Gekkō Moria', bat being 'kōmori'. 86.32.145.143 00:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion there's more evidence to support the arguement that his theme is bat that there is to gecko. For gecko there is his name and his Shadow's Asgard form, on which there are just too many disagreements and has now been reduced to being gecko/frog themed. For a bat theme we have his Brick Bat technique, the collar and his vampiric appearance (sharp teeth, pale skin) and as noted above the kōmori thing, things which are very definitive. I'd like to debunk the arguement of the frills, as first of all Gecko's don't have frills, the Frill-necked Lizard has. Second, it's just a piece of clothing like a scarf or an ascot, Miles Edgeworth of the Phoenix Wright series has one and it doesn't make him look any gecko/lizard like at all. So once again, I'd like to press that his theme should be Bat, not Gecko/Frog/Lizard/Godzilla.--Caraccidential


 * Reptilian attributes like frills, horns, spike-shaped hair and etc. may not be present on the gecko itself but because they're reptilian supports more of the gecko theme. For the teeth and pale skin, I can say they're reptilian on a speculative note similar to yours. Vampire bat teeth are generally super long at the sides. Reptilian teeth are more slightly more even in size. A gecko is generally characterized as a smooth skinned reptile. Moria's skin is smooth looking like a gecko's. In fact, looking at Moria more closely, one can say he resembles more of a typical Demon/Devil Lord rather than a stereotypical Vampire.


 * Looking at it, Moria kinda has a mixture of both themes. His body shape and certain stuff can be said to support a gecko theme. His vampire-like features and other certain stuff can also be said to support a bat theme. It depends on how one's look at it. For the sake of no arguments, it may be best to mention both themes. However because the gecko theme is slightly more prominent, it'll have to be written in the article as the main animal theme.Mugiwara Franky 09:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm against the notion of a gecko theme being more prominent, the attributes you've mentioned aren't universally recognised as reptilian traits. I thought I had made my point saying that the frills are common piece of clothing and I have yet to see a reptile with spiked hair. Does anyone in Dragonball look like a reptile because of their hairstyle? I'd have to say that the horns are more associated with demons/devils than with reptiles. The smooth skin is a strange arguement as humans have smooth skin too.


 * Other traits you've mentioned: amphibious, dinosaur-like, godzilla-like, frog-like, frills, horns. Note that they are all traits that aren't commonly associated with geckos. Things that are associated with geckos are large heads, padded toes, no teeth and big eyes. Moria has a tall head, not large, claw-like hands, large and prominent teeth, and tiny eyes compared to the rest of his body. There is just much more specific evidence that points towards bats than there is towards geckos. --Caraccidential


 * From my experience... His name can also be linked to frogs. I've seen "Gekko" in anime be linked to toads and to be honest when you look at it, his Shadow whatsit does look a big like a puffed up toad. One-Winged Hawk 22:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * So you're implying that his theme should be frog?--Caraccidential


 * Not really, just mentioning it. Its been pointed out before on a forum somewhere, I think it was Arlong PArk. The person got silenced though they raised a good many points about it. I can't remember the full details though... But I do want to point out in the show digimon, geckomon and shogun geckomon were frogs not geckos. This ISN'T the only example but it is the only example I can remember. One-Winged Hawk 07:01, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, no pictures of any of them, trouble with looking up old shows. best I could do was this. They got translated to "Geckomon" because of their Japanese name. The person who I mentioned above at the time of the forum post, had jogged my memory of this show but I could not aid them as they were already being slaughtered by the Gecko theme supporters. As I said, I don't remember the translation pint he pointed out to them regarding the frog and why it crops up in anime, but it was something I noted before. One-Winged Hawk 07:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Moria's hair especially when in Shadow Asgard form look like the spikes on a lizard's back. Moria's frills, the ones on his back, are like Doflamongo's feathers and Kuma's bear ears.


 * While traits like large heads, padded toes, no teeth and big eyes are found in geckos, they're not the things everyone thinks of when they think of geckos. The image of a gecko is commonly a slimy nocturnal reptile that clings to walls. Very specific minute things like large heads aren't what everyone thinks when thinking about geckos. Also these traits don't have to be necessarily superimposed for a character to have a gecko themed. Simply naming a character Gecko and giving them reptilian and amphibian traits will make anyone see a gecko theme. Looking too much in the real world in this matter will probably confuse or ruin stuff.


 * Speaking about the name, the komori thing you get from combining Moria's names (コー･モリ), is slightly not even the proper Japanese word for bat. It is merely phonetically similar to Japanese word for bat (コウモリ). Considering Oda names the Shichibukai with obvious animal names rather than hidden ones, Moria being a gecko is more prominent than being a bat. If Oda intended for Moria to be prominently a bat, he would have named Moria with a more obvious name.Mugiwara Franky 00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There is one major point though. Moria does not look like a gecko at all in shadows asgard. Drunk Samurai 00:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Geckos puff their necks when in danger. Likewise Moria puffed his neck when he performed Shadows Asgard, a moment when he was most in danger.Mugiwara Franky 00:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

He wasn't in any danger then. He was only in danger after Luffy used Gear 2 and Gear 3 on him. He doesn't look like a lizard at all. Drunk Samurai 01:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The danger then was that Oz was defeated, Moria was seriously hurt, and he was surrounded by a thousand or so of his victims. Zoro also said that he was doing so since it was his last resort to buy some time until the sun rose. If you look at the initial scene of Shadows Asgard, Moria is on his belly like a sprawling lizard.Mugiwara Franky 01:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm going to back MF on this one, at the end of the day regardless of translation notes and points about the frogs and bats and all, his name is translatable to gecko. However, maybe we should explain this on the page what we've discussed in the "Translation and Dub notes" section for future notage. One-Winged Hawk 07:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I have always believed Moria's name is slightly based on the japanese name of the gecko, which is Yamori. Yamori -> Moriya -> Moria. Besides the obvious "Gecko" in the name. KurowaSan 07:23, 02 December 2009 (UTC)

Defeat
I don't think it should be listed as a defeat by Luffy per-say. as although some characters state Luffy beat him, from the way it looks it seems that Gecko fell into the Mast and the mast crushed him, thus Thriller Bark beat him rather then luffy. YTOfficer01 21:35 05 March 2009

I wonder who caused that to happen? Did the mast suddenly walk around and defeat Moria? Are you actually serious? Luffy defeated him. The 100% evidence is in the manga. Drunk Samurai 23:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look at it, the Mast became damaged by the two of them during the fighting and it inevitably fell on Moria being the larger target so there isn't 100% evidence in the manga YTOfficer01 07:06 06 March 2009


 * While the mast is the thing that laid the final blow on Moria, like you said it was a result of them battling each other. Because Luffy battled against Moria and hit him with that last Gigant Shell, Moria hit the mast and caused it to fall. So basically Luffy was the cause of the whole sequence, and the effect was the mast falling down on Moria. So by this logic, it's Luffy's victory.Mugiwara Franky 07:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well is it really his win? while Luffy set the chain of events off it was only technically a victory for him which is my point. rather then the article saying luffy beat him (although I am aware several characters report this)it should say something more along the lines of Luffy assisted in the defeat of Moria YTOfficer01 07:29 06 March 2009


 * When you hit a person into a wall and the wall falls down on the person and knocks him out, the defeat of the person is attributed to you and not the wall. You used the wall to defeat the person. The wall assisted you in defeating the person. It's not the other way round. You are the cause and not the wall.


 * Likewise, Luffy is what defeated Moria. Though technically it was the falling of the mast that ultimately defeated Moria, you can't say that Luffy assisted the mast. The mast did not do anything other than fall on Moria. It was the one that assisted Luffy in defeating Moria who was already at the breaking point because of all the hits that he received from Luffy.Mugiwara Franky 07:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It's like saying that Zoro had not beat anyone--Thenewjericho 07:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Zoro assisted his swords to defeat his oponnents.
 * Nami assisted his clima tact to defeat his oponnents.
 * This is just so Stupid, I guess I'll go on. ..
 * Making an analogy into Naruto, Jiraya got defeated by the sea.
 * Arlong got defeated by Arlong Park (all the rocks fell after that ONE kick).
 * I guess you got the point.
 * Arlong got defeated by Arlong Park (all the rocks fell after that ONE kick).
 * I guess you got the point.
 * I guess you got the point.

One is not defeated by the thing/person that gives the last hit, but by the person who was fighting him and beating him.

So it would only be the mast to win, if it was MAST vs Moria, and in the end Luffy fell over Moria's eye, killing him.
 * 77.54.209.119 00:21, December 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * 77.54.209.119 00:21, December 17, 2010 (UTC)

Physical Strength
Yeah, that part on him is relevant.Buh6173 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

To create shadows you need light. Darkness does not mean there are more shadows. In fact, there are less shadows in the dark then the day. This is something I always cribed about the show "Skeleton Warriors" as at one point this guy who could travel through shadows was told by the villian of the show "Its a shame its a nice bright sunny day, theres no shadows for you to pop into". The lack of shadows in the daylight has nothing to do with brightness, but rather position of the sun in the sky in fact, since shadows change their length over the course of the day and year, with winter producing the longest shadows due to the lowness of the sun. One-Winged Hawk 21:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He used an artificial light for his shadows. The problem is that if sunlight strikes someone without their shadow, they will disintegrate; that will cause their shadow to be destroyed as well. Buh6173 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's actually a strength and not a weakness. He may not be able to use the person's shadow but he can instantly kill the person. He can still steal, he just can't use the shadows he takes.Mugiwara Franky 01:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also if one states that Moria is incapable of stealing shadows in broad daylight, that is speculation that Moria's power to grab shadows and cut them off will not work in the day.Mugiwara Franky 01:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It's true that if he were to pluck a shadow from someone, they'd be instantaneously killed; however, wouldn't that require some time? Besides, something tells me that only the dimmest of fighters would stand right next to Moria for him to pluck their shadows. Though as far as that goes, we'll just have to wait and see.

And no, he can't steal shadows in broad daylight. Technically he can, but the moment he does so, the owner would die, and the shadow would vanish, making it moot if his desire was to increase his own power.Buh6173 01:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Stealing is the act of taking something from someone.


 * Using is the act of doing something that you have in your possession.


 * Moria can steal shadows in broad daylight but he can't use them. Doing so would indeed be bad for Moria since he won't have anything to increase his power. However, why would he need to increase his power if his opponent can be killed right away. Considering the war with Whitebeard will be more on fighting than making zombies and empowering himself at the moment, instant killing is probably the most effective form of attack that Moria can provide against powerhouses like Whitebeard's crew, people who would probably still do alot of damage even if they had their shadows stolen.Mugiwara Franky 08:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Race
Has it been proven that Moria is actually human, if not is it acceptable to add speculation to the page?Sables 07:23, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:Shichibukai
 * Kaizoku-Hime 07:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * At the very least he is a "man" by the OP world's standards. One-Winged Hawk 16:29, September 1, 2009 (UTC)

His Name?
Could somebody confirm that Mori actually means death in Japanese. I thought that it means (among other things) forest or something similiar, while in Latin Mori actually quite literally means "to die".--Uncanny Ultrabeast 08:21, April 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Confirmed. However I don't have time to edit as I'm literally going out in 5 minutes. One-Winged Hawk 09:00, April 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * why is it suddenly gecko moriaH ,it is proven nowhere in the seriesThe tyrant kuma 16:08, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was given in the latest data book, so was Jinbe's and Dracule Mihawk's (proper spellings).DancePowderer 16:18, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was given in the latest data book, so was Jinbe's and Dracule Mihawk's (proper spellings).DancePowderer 16:18, November 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was given in the latest data book, so was Jinbe's and Dracule Mihawk's (proper spellings).DancePowderer 16:18, November 7, 2010 (UTC)

Categories
I know he uses his damned scissors as swords against Jinbei, but can we REALLY call him a swordsman? I don't see usage of swords as a relevant part of his abilities, so I deleted the category; howewer, it's debatable, I know. On a side note, after reading the spoiler for the next chapter, I suggest the mods to lock the page. Romanov D 11:19, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * He isn't a swordsman, good call. We shouldn't put "swordsman" on every page with the slightest hint of minty fresh steel. Example - Kuro isn't a swordsman. ;-) One-Winged Hawk 11:46, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Speculation
I'm going to take out the last bit of the last sentence in his history section. It says: "then he asked Doflamingo that if it was Sengoku who gave that order, he told him "try higher" meaning that the order maybe was from the Gourosei themselves." We should leave it at Doflamingo's quote, and get rid of the part about it maybe being from the Gourosei. It's probably what he means, but until we're sure, let's leave it out. I'll re-write it to say: "When he asked if the order came from Sengoku, Doflamingo smiled and said 'Try higher'."Gerokeymaster 21:26, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I'm bumping this. I edited the part saying it was from the World Government. That is complete speculation. How do you know it wasn't from say a complete third party such as a pirate? SeaTerror 23:27, May 17, 2010 (UTC)

Overstating the fact
His intro blurb:

"Upon the war's end, Donquixote Doflamingo claims that the World Government has decided that Moria is too weak to continue to be a Shichibukai, and is to be stripped of his title and eliminated. "

Enemies:

"After the War at Marineford ends, Moria found himself targeted by Doflamingo and possibly the World Government. Moria is deemed to be unworthy of keeping his status as Shichibukai and Doflamingo got orders to get rid of Moria and make it seem like he died during the war. "

Shichibukai:

"After the War he gets into a fight with Doflamingo, after Doflamingo was ordered to kill him. He is seen on the ground bleeding while Doflamingo laughs at him and says too weak to be a Shichibukai and it would be better for it to look like he died honorably in the War. When Moria asked if Sengoku ordered his death, Doflamingo smiled and said "Try higher". "

Abilities and Power:

"However, after the war against Whitebeard, Doflamingo claims that the government has deemed Moria too weak to continue to bear the title of Shichibukai, and is better off to be eliminated."

Post-War Arc:

"He is last seen coughing up blood after being attacked by Doflamingo and a group of Pacifista because the World Government thinks he has become too weak to remain a Shichibukai, and it would be better for it to seem like he was killed in the war. When Moria asks if the order is from Sengoku, Doflamingo simply smiles and says "Try higher", suggesting that he might have been ordered to do so by the Gorousei."

Does this REALLY need to be mentioned so many times? I mean, I found it exciting as well, but how many times does it need to be mentioned on one page?121.223.98.137 01:03, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * When you see something like that which is obviously incorrect it is better to change it yourself than waiting for others to do it. Your question as a high risk of being missed and the article not changed. Just enter a comment on the summary edit section to explain your change. Kdom 08:20, April 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * The intro bit shouldn't retell the story, its a introduction, not a retelling. One-Winged Hawk 08:22, April 17, 2010 (UTC)

Category
Isn't he a presumed deceased (as Doflamingo said)? Shouldn't we add that category? --Meganoide 11:10, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's unconfirmed at this point whether or not he's dead yet. While it is true Doflamingo claims to have offed him, Perona (and I believe Mihawk) say(s) he's still out there. Unless we get a consensus from the characters or confirmation from Oda, it's still up in the air. Bon-boy and Croco-boy 04:26, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Zombies creation
How can Moria create zombies apparently without stealing shadows (in Marineford, chapter 558)? Aoshi shigamori 11:44, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Probably Moria brought and hid his zombies before the war even had started. If you pay close attention you'll notice that some of those zombies were also seen back in Thriller Bark. Logically Moria had already gathered and implanted new shadows to animate his zombies as part of his preparations for the war. There is also a notable difference in their appearance this time, being that the zombies now wear Marine uniforms to signify Moria's allegiance with them. MasterDeva 16:55, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't Moria's history include a picture of him being defeated by Jinbei/Jimbei?
Should not Gecko Moria's history include a picture of him being punched by Jimbei/Jinbei and effectively deflating like a balloon? Iamnofool 23:25, September 25, 2010 (UTC)

Why are my edits being removed? They made sense, so why?
Why are my edits being removed? They made sense, so why? Can you please give me a good explanation as to why they are being removed?Iamnofool 03:02, September 26, 2010 (UTC)

Title
Why did it change to Gekko Moriah? Isn't it suppose to be Gecko Moria? (68.36.166.78 21:41, November 4, 2010 (UTC))

The official English spelling came out in the new databook released today. The proper spelling is Gekko Moriah.DancePowderer 22:16, November 4, 2010 (UTC)

And this is not by what a dubbing/subbing company calls it right? We are not suppose to use those names. Anyways, if this truely is the proper spelling, we should change things around the wikia. (68.36.166.78 22:31, November 4, 2010 (UTC))

Just FEI, the spellings/information in 'official' databooks (and not just One Piece ones) are rife with innacuracies. These are usually mistakes, or variations meant for pronunciation clarification for english speaking readers. Alot of times, these spellings end up being much different then what the author originally intended (as was the case with several pieces of Bleach media that were not written by Kubo, and is heavily prevalent in Dragonball related items that were not created by Toriyama or his team). I am of the opinion that, if the source was not authored by Oda personally, then the information really should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially in cases like Moria and Jinbei, where the actual romanizations are obviously more akin to their meanings then the new, 'official' spellings. Yoruichi&#39;s Paramour 18:02, November 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortantely they are still approved by Oda himself. It makes it arkward at times as while he approves things, he sometimes allows mistakes through. Still, the order we normally draw names from is; manga -> SBS -> Databooks -> everything else. One-Winged Hawk 19:43, November 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand, I was just voicing an opinion. Though, if it's true that the manga takes prevalence over all of the other sources, then why are the 'official' names being changed to the ones in the databooks? I guess it doesn't really matter, and I'm not saying that they need to be changed back or anything, it's just that some of the new romanizations (and even the accompanying katakana) obviously don't make a whole lot of sense. Jinbei for instance: his name is Japanese, it's meaning is significant to it's Japanese origins, and he's obviously a very Japanese inspired character. And yet the new romanization is 'Jinbe'? The same goes for Noland, whose name, according to the book, literally comes from "the island not being there", i.e. "no land". And yet the romanization is "Norland'? It would seem to me that either a few mistakes are slipping through the cracks, or Oda's gone a bit off his rocker and is sporatically changing names. Yoruichi&#39;s Paramour 17:06, November 9, 2010 (UTC)

most kills so far?
isn't gecko the guy who killed the most in one piece(onscreen)?178.118.121.7 18:37, January 3, 2011 (UTC)

Active Again
Since Moriah had his status revoked, wouldn't that make him the second highest active bounty and not Kid? 05:52, August 1, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, we don't know whether the government kept his bounty active; it's possible that they keep pretending he's dead. If not, it's possible that they increased his bounty… Regarding these possibilities, the second known highest active bounty still is Kid's.

The fact that is a secret to the public doesn't mean that the bounty isn't active... since it's not a schichibukai anymore the bounty is restored, simply the public doesn't know it. We should go with the simplest way of thinking.

Agree with Sff9. There is no point in speculating how the government handled the incident. The simplest way of thinking is to leave Kidd as the second highest known until Oda goes back on Moriah or the government properly comments on Moriah. 11:51, August 1, 2011 (UTC)

I know that you two have a point, but I fear that for the sake of "let's not speculate" we are basically speculating more, because what we know if you are a shichibukai you have your bounty sealed, if your status is revoked then your bounty is restored. You are taking in account speculations as possibilities, like "what if..." then because there is a strange theory then we cannot write that because we don't know, so it's a speculation. I don't want to say that what you are saying it's absurd, maybe you're right, but I have the feeling that we are too "frightened" of made a simple statement. Basically, we can say that we can't use the supernovas' bounties because they can have changed (and surely they have), it's the same as thinking we can use Moriah's bounty because it can have changed or the government can pretend he is dead. In this case shouldn't we use the bounty until we have evidences of other possibilities? We should follow more Ockham's razor and don't always think of every possibilities...


 * (Ockham's razor applies to reality. The author of a fiction is not due to always use the most plausible outcome—this is the opposite, actually.) Leviathan, what you say is basically that everything is speculation, since Oda can always decide that what he stated before was a lie, or something along these lines. I agree. But here, we do not consider strange and unlikely theories. We really just don't know how the government handled this particular case. And I don't think it's worth speculating just for stating something about the second highest active bounty…

Well ok, then let's wait a confirmation (if there ever will be one). But really, we shouldn't be too cautious in cases like these, if there is the 1% chance that a fact is untrue, we can still take it as true, can't we?. Because otherwise we can really fell in the paradox, as you said, that "everything is speculation, since Oda can always decide that what he stated before was a lie". (And I didn't mean to apply Ockham's razor to "Oda" but to how we "read" One Piece and take the informations)

Unnecessary Information
"Not long after that, the Straw Hats did indeed suffer a crushing defeat and separation at the Sabaody Archipelago, thus beginning a training period of two years to prepare themselves for the New World." doesn't really relate to Moriah; wouldn't it be better to just say that his prediction came true?Videogamep (talk) 04:03, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I think so. That is a little too much to add. Brooklyn (talk) 04:12, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

No. It is valid information therefore it stays. Don't be like other people who tried to remove valid information in the past. SeaTerror (talk) 04:27, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Valid information is not the same as relevant information. Just because it is a fact doesn't mean it should be included in a page it doesn't relate to.Videogamep (talk) 04:55, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

It is still relevant since he is the one who said it. Its not like its on Gaimon's page. SeaTerror (talk) 05:23, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean remove the fact that he said it or the fact that it happened but the details like the strawhats beginning a two year training period is excessive. The same point can be convayed by saying "His prediction later came true when the Strawhats were separated from each other.Videogamep (talk) 08:40, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

The info is still valid regardless. Giving more detail is always better than giving less detail. SeaTerror (talk) 09:15, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Then why not write the whole battle against Sentomaru, Kizaru, and Kuma on this page? If anyone wants more detail about the Straw Hats' defeat and separation (which has nothing to do with Moriah), then they can just go to the Straw Hats' and/or the Sabaody arc pages. It's irrelevant here.
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 09:25, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'll give your troll comment a 7/10. It was good but it was still too obvious. Those have absolutely nothing to do with Moria but what happened with the Straw Hats do. Adding the extra info makes it 100% better. SeaTerror (talk) 09:29, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Occam's razor; The Principle of Parsimony: It is pointless to do with more what is done with less.
 * 海賊☠姫 (talk) 09:46, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

It is pointless to remove valid information. Don't become Ninjasheik. SeaTerror (talk) 10:02, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

ST, it's an extraneous detail that doesn't have anything to do with Moriah. Keeping it completely breaks the flow of the article and it sticks out like a sore thumb. Leave it out. 16:55, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

You're only saying that since I'm the one who wants it left in. The detail makes the article better and doesn't break any flow that you can claim. SeaTerror (talk) 17:05, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

The second half of the sentence (after the comma) is obviously completely useless.

It isn't useless one bit. You might as well delete every single page for being "too detailed". SeaTerror (talk) 17:31, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, ST. The second half of that sentence is unneccesary. It may be necessary if you were writing an essay or some other form of writing, but this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias have very different writing standards. Look here: Even wikipedia agrees. And wikipedia acknowledges there that one of thier biggest problems is being concise. JustSomeDude... 18:12, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Being too detailed isn't the problem if the details are about the character. Moriah didn't show up or do anything in the Sabaody Archiplego arc and the only way it relates to him was that his prediction came true. You don't have to describe the whole scene to convay that point and doning so just destracts from the point.Videogamep (talk) 18:34, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what Wikipedia uses. If we went by what Wikipedia does then almost all of these articles would not exist. The details still have to do with Moria because he is the one who said it. It was Oda's form of foreshadowing. It doesn't distract from shit, the point is still made and shows the exact information. The information is perfect and removing the valid information just makes us look stupid. SeaTerror (talk) 19:08, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

SeaTerror, you're outnumbered on this issue. At this point you're just being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Accept that more people agree that it should be removed and move on. 19:49, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'm the only one being logical. We all know that the only reason you're against it is because I want it in. I gave how the information is valid and how it gives more to the article. None of you have countered it once. You all have ignored how it actually relates to what Moria said and how Oda foreshadowed it. SeaTerror (talk) 19:57, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing that Oda foreshadowed it, I'm just saying that we could explain that his prediction came true without giving extra detail. The Strawhats beginning a two year training period has absolutly nothing to do with Moriah. All that is necessary here is saying that his prediction came true at Sabaody Archiplego. It convays the same point in a more concise way.Videogamep (talk) 20:35, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

The extra detail gives more information which makes the article better. Again, this isn't Gaimon's page. Let's just delete all articles since deleting valid information gives the same effect. SeaTerror (talk) 20:59, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anyone on this wiki is immature enough to be against anything simply because one person has the other opinion. Nobody is immature enough to ignore ALL the facts just to spite someone. If someone disgrees with you, ST, it's because they disagree with you about the basic principle that is being argued about. I 100% agree that we need to mention Moriah's prediction. And I even think we should mention the total defeat at the Archipeligo. But we should not talk about the SH's separation. Moriah didn't cause the separation, Moriah didn't predict the separation (just their defeat), and Moriah wasn't part of the separation. The separation and Moriah are unrelated. It is valid that the separation happened, but nobody reading the page about Moriah needs to know about it. In the end, the wiki as a whole is a reference tool, not a summary. We need to do things to make it a better reference tool. A good reference tool is easy to read, and contains no more information than is needed to make a reference to a specific topic. More detail is NOT always better. For a reference tool, which is exactly what this wiki is, more information can actually be harmful in some circumstances. Information that does not relate to the topic of an article is harmful.

I hope that was a good counter to your opinion, SeaTerror. JustSomeDude... 21:17, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

More detail is always better. The extra information does not harm anything. The wikia has always been like this and there is no need at all to change it. SeaTerror (talk) 21:52, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

The point of a wiki is people adding or changing information to make it a better reference source and that phrase is pointless in his personallity sectionVideogamep (talk) 22:07, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Removing valid information makes a wiki worse. SeaTerror (talk) 00:32, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Keeping invalid information in an article doesn't make it better. The Strawhats being defeated and to say that Moriah foreshadowed this is already a stretch as Moriah's nakama got killed in the New World, as the Sabaody Archipelago is still in Paradise. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 01:51, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

"Keeping in valid information in an article doesn't make it better." I fixed your comment for you since the information is actually valid. SeaTerror (talk) 02:21, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I never wrote invalid as "in valid". You didn't fix my comment. I'm not saying that you're lying, but sarcasm doesn't fit you here at all as your ignorance already failed you just some days ago, remember? -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 02:37, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * ST, you are ignoring our point that the information does not relate to Moriah as he wasn't there. This argument is becoming repetitive and you are the only person here who thinks it should be kept. This is a fan created wiki and the majority of the people on this page think it should be rewritten.Videogamep (talk) 03:45, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Yet you're ignoring the point how it does relate to him. Nobody that frequents the chat said anything actually. They would probably want it left in. SeaTerror (talk) 04:35, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

I am not ignoring the point that it does relate to him. I'm just saying we should completely remove the phrase, just that we should shorten it to the parts that do relate to him. The Strawhats spending two years training has nothing to do with Moriah. And don't speak for what other people might believe.Videogamep (talk) 07:59, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

You already did. It doesn't matter anyway since this isn't the majority of the actual community. It's funny how you say not to speak for what others might believe when you're only a noob to the Wikia. Even if there was a vote you and Just wouldn't be allowed to vote on it because of the voting rules. SeaTerror (talk) 08:15, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm saying not to speak for people not involved in this debate. I'm just stating the opinion that everyone else has shared on this page. My point before was that we should just rephrase the article. And please try to stay civil in this debate.Videogamep (talk) 18:50, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

I just checked, the voting you're talking about is admin voting and has nothing to do with this.Videogamep (talk) 19:00, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nope, he's right about voting: Forum:The Magic 1000 rule Sorry.

Yet you're the one who claims that the majority of people wanted the stupid change. Keep it up, bro. The point was the information was never unnecessary and should never have been removed. Go ahead and remove information like it form other articles and be reverted. You'll give everybody else more edits if they care about their edit count. Also LOL no. Its a poll voting which means you obviously never "checked" anything since that has how it has always been on the wikia. SeaTerror (talk) 19:08, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

If you want to open a poll, do it. Just because VG and I can't vote yet it doesn't mean there can't be a poll. The two of us aren't the only ones who disagree with you guys on this issue, and the one below. JustSomeDude... 19:54, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see that part when I tried checking. And again ST, please stay civil. Rudeness doesn't help your point and reflects badly on you.Videogamep (talk) 23:00, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

More Unnecessary Information
Speaking of unessecary information, why does Moriah have a history section for Skypiea? He wasn't even introduced yet, and having a section about how he was absent from the series at that point seems a little backasswards to me. If I didn't know any better, this section makes it sound as though Moriah was shown ignoring the invitation. And all that information about the specifics of Crocodile's defeat is unneccesary too. Even if we keep the section, the "who was defeated by Monkey D. Luffy and arrested by Tashigi for the production of Dance Powder and trying to conquer Alabasta" part is totally irrelevant. Just saying that Crocodile needed to be replaced is enough. JustSomeDude... 21:19, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I agree, a character page shouldn't include events that the character wasn't involved in. I've actually noticed similar articles on Jinbe's and Hancocks's pages.Videogamep (talk) 21:27, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Delete it all. We need to become more like Ninjasheik after all. Also if you read the manga you would realize that he did ignore the summons. It was made obvious by the Marines stating that they expected Mihawk to show the least. SeaTerror (talk) 21:52, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

We shouldn't include it if Moriah wasn't there. If he was shown refusing the summons, then he should be mentioned.Videogamep (talk) 22:06, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Moriah didn't ignore the invitation. It's just that Moriah specifically was neither shown or mentioned (by name) to have ignored it. The article mentioning him makes it seem like he was mentioned specifically. That section at least needs a re-write to make it clear that he was never mentioned and not introduced yet. But to me, talking about the absence of a character when the charater wasn't even mentioned in the series yet seems wrong to me. It would be like having a section for Water 7 on Jabra's page stating that he wasn't undercover at Galley-La. He was never there, and never mentioned, why should we talk about it? That information should be available on the general page for the Shichibukai, but it doesn't need to be on Moriah, Jinbe's, or Hancock's articles. I can understand people having the other opinion about that part though, even if I don't agree with it. The truly unnecessary part is the sepcifics of Crocodile's defeat. That's where my real problem lies.

Also, I don't know who this Ninjasheik person is, but to me it sounds like you're talking about them in a negative context. It almost sounds like you're using that user's name as a slur. To me, that almost sounds like abuse. I'm trying to be nice and civil about this (and everything else on this wiki), ST. It would be great if you could do the same. JustSomeDude... 22:29, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if he wasn't introduced yet. The information is still valid especially since he did ignore it. If you want to delete all that information then go ahead. It will just get reverted by everybody else anyway. Also, "slur and abuse", lol. That made me laugh. SeaTerror (talk) 00:32, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Sengoku mentions both in chapter 234 and episode 151 that all shichibukai were summoned which includes Jinbe, Hancock, and Moriah. Whether they have been introduced or not is irrelevant. Jinbe was introduced as Shichibukai in Arlong Park, and Hancock and Jinbe were confirmed on their respective introductions as Shichibukai that they were for quite some time - Robin knew about Moriah from her time with Sir Crocodile, and Hancock was said to be invited after her first raid.
 * That's the sort of information readers gain if they read the story much closer than the chronological order.
 * I also disagree on the removal of "who was defeated by Monkey D. Luffy and arrested by Tashigi for the production of Dance Powder and trying to conquer Alabasta", since that's the initial cause for the invitation. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 01:27, July 21, 2012 (UTC) edit -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 02:13, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * I am awesome there for I win and you should all just stfu 01:31, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is like saying we should include Moriah in the east blue saga page, because the shicibukai are mentioned by Johnny and Yosaku. It doesn't work that way. The Skypiea saga reference should be removed.
 * Galaxy9000 (talk) 06:05, July 21, 2012 (UTC)
 * Characters should only have a history section for arcs that they appear in. If we referenced characters every time they were mentioned Thatch would have a history section in the Post Enies Loby arc because Ace mentioned him.Videogamep (talk) 08:03, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

We know that all the Shichibukai other than Mihawk, Doflamingo, and Kuma ignored the summons because of what was said about Mihawk. Moria being mentioned is entirely valid and should not be removed. SeaTerror (talk) 08:15, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Videogamep and Galaxy9000, please have a look at the Character Page Layouts. Especially take notice about the part on "What the character did before the Storyline began."
 * It's clear that Moriah, Jinbe and Hancock ignoring that gathering belongs into their articles. It's irrelevant whether they appear in the chapters or they are only mentionned as part of a group.
 * And no: Moriah does not need of an East Blue saga section because there's nothing being mentionned in neither Manga nor Anime as of now that gives us a time reference of what he was doing at that time. But what we can say is, that there was a gathering in Mariejois because Sir Crocodile needed to be replaced, and that three Shichibukai ignored it. By later introductions we know two of them are Hancock and Moriah, as we knew already about Jinbe.
 * Please notice that there's a context that needs to be mentioned here. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 12:07, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, if we keep the section as a whole, shouldn't it at least get a re-write in order to explain that he was not shown or directly mentioned to have ignored it? And again, my real problem is how it goes into extreme detail about Croco-boy's defeat. Moriah wasn't there for Luffy defeating Crocodile, Moriah has never been seen interacting with Tashigi, and Moriah and dance powder are even more unrelated. Can you see how that part is more than a little erroneous? People reading the page about Gekko Moriah do need to or want to have that information on the page about Moriah. If they want that information, they can click on Crocodile's link and find that information out from a page that is more relevent to that topic. Isn't having 4 links that are not related to Moriah in one sentence a bit much? Just saying that the metting was about replacing Crocodile as a Shichibukai should be enough, as long as there is a link to Crocodile's page, it is ok to leave that information out. JustSomeDude...  15:31, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Notice the context. Sir Crocodile wouldn't have lost his title if Tashigi hadn't arrested him. It's one subordinate clause in one line. That can't be too much. And Shichibukai don't lose their title for losing to Luffy - Moriah himself is the perfect example for it. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 15:40, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * With this logic, I could go to Nezumi's page and add a Whitebeard War saga tag to him. He didn't go to the war, so he must have been stationed somewhere. See how stupid things can get if you let this kind of stuff be in articles?
 * Galaxy9000 (talk) 16:58, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, come on... And with your logic we'd have to shorten Thatch's article to a three sentence stub and mark him as possibly alive as we haven't seen how Blackbeard murdered him. Articles aren't just consisting of the super-obvious information. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 17:04, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * It's all an argument about degrees of separation. Everything we're talking about is valid information, we're only talking about how many degrees of separation a piece of information needs to be away from something to be considered "too much". If we had everything that could possibly be related to something (6 degrees of separation) in an article, then everything would have a link to Kevin Bacon in it. In the opposite direction, if we only have information we get from the characters themselves (1 degree), then every article would be a stub. Thankfully, nobody is arguing for either of those extremes, what we're arguing about is somewhere in the middle.
 * My opinion is that is that the details of Crocodile's dismissal (I apologize for using the word "defeat" earlier) are too much. The article is about Moriah, so we need to think about how each cause relates to Moriah. Crocodile's dissmissal directly caused Moriah's summons. Crocodile's arrest and actions against Alabasta directly caused Crocodile's dissmissal. Crocodile's arrest and actions indirectly caused Moriah's summons. It is because the connection between the summons and Crocodile's actions is an indirect one that I believe it's too much. It was Crocodile being dissmissed that caused the summons. Croc's actions did not cause the summons, without the dissmissal, Moriah would never have been involved. It is the dissmissal that is truly important to the article, not Croc's actions. Do you understand a bit more about our side of the argument now DefChris and ST? JustSomeDude...  19:09, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a comment. K0R0M0 (talk) 19:20, July 21, 2012 (UTC)


 * Again. That is one subordinate clause necessary to get the context on why Moriah and the other Shichibukai were summonned to Mariejois. This is simply ridiculous discussion for the cause of discussing as there's no reason not to pick up the context in - again - one subordinate clause. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 19:39, July 21, 2012 (UTC)

Your argument doesn't matter. The information is still valid and should remain. The only way to solve this shit is to have a poll but in that case like I said before in the other section you and videogame wouldn't be allowed to vote because of the voting rules. SeaTerror (talk) 19:43, July 21, 2012 (UTC)