File talk:Jinbe's Sun Pirates Mark.png

Anime or Manga
Gonna throw this here before it gets out of hand. The images are virtually the same, and since an anime image is out that matches it, the anime should be the one used. 00:37, October 2, 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, the images being virtually the same, the manga should be the one used. Manga is canon and is the original work. I see no reason why the anime should be preferred.

I agree with sff9.

I disagree. While you're right about the manga version being used if both images are the same, the anime version gives a better view of it. Jimbei is practically pointing at it. Since the image exists purely to show off the tattoo, we should go for the pic with the best view and angle. In this case, it's the one that sits in front of you. 14:09, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

With that logic SFF, we would use manga for every image that has an equivalent anime scene, which of course, we don't. Nada said exactly what I would have said. 14:14, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

"Exactly the same" includes colour, which doesn't apply to that many manga images, so no, you're wrong. I vote for manga image. 15:13, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

You're just being biased against the anime. It displays the picture well enough to replace the colored manga image by far. 15:28, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything Nada said. For the tattoo, the anime is simply a better image to highlight the difference. 15:43, October 4, 2012 (UTC)

The anime one looks better. There's no reason to hate on the anime everytime. In this case the anime picture is better.

Well, the anime version looks different from what Oda drew for chapter 620 (one hand in the manga, two in the anime) as the panel explains it's the Sun Pirate's symbol... it's not like we wouldn't see the brand mark (it's not a tattoo so the file needs to be renamed, too) at least partially most of the time, and as Klobis' image shows: If Oda had him open that clothes of his more, then he would have drawn the breast muscles, so the anime image is actually quite errornous. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 05:15, October 6, 2012 (UTC)

Felt like bumping this and felt like saying that I disagree with all my previous points, and this image should probably be manga. 18:48, September 13, 2013 (UTC)

Both of the images are great so I don't care which one you're gonna use. 10:36, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

If the image was considered a "portrait of the mark", we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. The mark is shown frontal, and Jinbe is actually displaying the mark to show it to others. It makes perfect sense to use the anime version. "Canonicity" adds nothing to this image. 12:01, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I also find it to be better because of the lack of a shadow that is present in the anime image. 18:55, September 15, 2013 (UTC)

Since both images are in colour why not go with the manga? It depicts the burned brand correctly and is in colour to boot. Not to mention that in the anime version Jinbe's chest was not even drawn at all. MasterDeva (talk) 22:10, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Wow, didn't even notice that. That's an even better reason to use the manga. 22:43, September 17, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, let's use the manga version. 11:56, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

Reading everyone's arguments I agree with the manga version. 16:10, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

Look to the left of Jinbe's hand in the manga version: It's watermarked in Japanese. It's faint, but totally there. 17:06, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

There's nothing there, but even if so, the focus is the tattoo. Pretty clear majority here too (counting Sff and Levi, Zodiaque, Defchris, and even Klobis as well). 17:25, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

I see it now, but since it was part of the original raw, it should be fine to use. The focus is the tattoo, so the faint advertisement shouldn't matter. 17:57, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

Well, what I question is if the advertisement/whatever it is mark should be more obvious in a true raw, or if this has been cleaned badly. If you can prove that it's like that truly, I'd be satisfied. 21:12, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

It's obviously a bad clean. The only alternative to use is the one that shows the full text, but I doubt we want that. As I said, it's hardly noticable, so, it's just like any other bad clean. 21:23, September 18, 2013 (UTC)

If you want a version without the watermark, here it is. 21:24, September 18, 2013 (UTC)