Template talk:Corrida Colosseum Gallery

Color
So are we gonna use pink again? 13:56, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

Doflamingo/dressrosa colorscheme. Also someone should add that "Hera" dude who can be seen near the end.

The color is done.I'll see what I can do about the Hera guy. 14:08, March 27, 2013 (UTC)

The pink really isn't working. We should use a different color for this than we do the Donquixote Pirates. All these gladiators having pink info boxes is stupid. 21:14, April 17, 2013 (UTC)

What colors do you suggest? 21:28, April 18, 2013 (UTC)

Empty Cells
Please give a reason why you keep adding the empty cells. The template looks awful with them. 21:12, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Because this. MasterDeva (talk) 21:16, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

I don't see a reason. Please be more specific. 21:19, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

How can you not see it...? "Sometimes one needs to center a cell in a section." Anyway, you should take your own advice you know. I have no idea what the general phrase "looks awful" is supposed to mean every time you use it. That's just an opinion not an argument. MasterDeva (talk) 21:23, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, my opinion is that we mustn't add empty cells here because the template doesn't look good. You don't reduce empty cells but instead you create empty cells in both sides, which is bad. You still haven't given a reason why you support the empty cells. 21:30, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

No new empty cells are created, the only difference is that the portraits are centered. They are supposed to be in the center that's why the example is there to begin with. That way the template becomes more balanced and symmetrical. Which is how it's supposed to be. I have yet to see a reason to support the opposite. MasterDeva (talk) 21:37, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

"That's how it's supposed to be". That's not a reason. 21:43, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

It is a reason because that's the truth and the gallery template example is there to prove it. I have yet to see a source from you to support your argument. MasterDeva (talk) 21:47, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

No MasterDeva, that's not a reason. That's not even a personal opinion. "That's how it's supposed to be" implies that it's a rule or necessary/common sense. Since we never made a rule about that and since it's not necessary to do it, that's not an argument. 21:51, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

You are right that there is no rule but you also mentioned common sense above which is what I am talking about. You focus too much on the rule portion that you ignore the common sense part. Templates are supposed to be properly balanced to begin with. Due to programming difficulties however, it is left up to the editors to do it manually instead of the templates doing it automatically. MasterDeva (talk) 22:01, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

They are already balanced. Your way makes them look uglier than somebody hit by an ugly stick. SeaTerror (talk) 22:06, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Deva, the thing is, what you consider balanced and what the rest of the users consider balanced apparently is different. 22:10, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to turn this into a "you against us" kind of argument Staw-Hat Luffy because it won't work. There is nothing wrong with centered portraits. The problem lies when we have cases were empty spaces are created between images. MasterDeva (talk) 22:16, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with you, ST disagrees with you, Klobis disagrees with you. So yeah, I'm not turning it into that kind of argument. We express our opinions, which are different than yours. 22:23, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

I can only see yours (Staw-Hat Luffy) and SeaTerror's opinion not Klobis. Note also that they are just that, opinions, not arguments. I do not see any argumentation being used by neither of you two, just simplistic generalisations. That's not how you reason in a debate. You'll have to do more than that. MasterDeva (talk) 23:04, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

You never gave an actual reason either. Common sense is not a reason. Also, I mentioned Klobis because he undid you. 23:09, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

I have given plenty of reasons which you simply chose to ignore them. First and foremost the documentaiton itself. If it wasn't relevant it wouldn't have been included. Secondly, until Klobis learns to actively take place in talk pages you shouldn't count him as a participant part to this conversation. Instead of simply reverting without expressing himself clearly he should properly take part in discussions. MasterDeva (talk) 23:36, June 27, 2013 (UTC)

But this is not a a reason. The empty cells are optional. So the fact that they exist doesn't mean that we have to use them. So, no, that's not a reason. 08:29, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Aligning to the left is better. No need for Empty Cells, MasterDeva. --Klobis (talk) 09:36, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

The documentation describes a situation were centering portraits is possible and goes to explain how to do it. That's the whole point and reason behind to it, not EMPTYCELL per se. The EMPTYCELL parameter is just a way of doing it. You are so caught up in the details that you are missing the essence. MasterDeva (talk) 09:58, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

The essence of it is that using emptycell makes the templates look awful. SeaTerror (talk) 10:12, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Needling is a fallacious argument and it can't be used in place of a real argument during a conversation. MasterDeva (talk) 10:26, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

As you said Deva, it's possible to use them. It's not necessary. 10:34, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to twist my words Staw-Hat Luffy. I said possible because there are cases were it is impossible to center them. For example, two portraits in a three column row, three columns in a four column row, etc. MasterDeva (talk) 10:49, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

I'll just ignore you since you actually don't know how to debate or listen to points made. Also learn what an actual fallacious argument is. It makes you look ignorant. SeaTerror (talk) 19:05, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Alright, since this page doesn't seem to be reaching an agreement, we could make a poll. 19:11, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

It would all have to be moved to the forum first. SeaTerror (talk) 19:37, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Which forum? 19:40, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

One Piece Wiki forum. SeaTerror (talk) 20:10, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Let's just poll it and get this over with. 22:41, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say is that the gallery template documentation itself gives us a reason for centering portraits. It's written in the manual itself. At the very least there is an example of its use for centering a single portrait in a five column template. That much is fact. Whether you do it by reducing the number of columns to eliminate blank spaces or using the EMPTYCELL parameter is irrelevant although the first one isn't explicitly mentioned. My reason is supported by the documentation. One what source do you support your reason against doing it Staw-Hat Luffy? MasterDeva (talk) 16:47, July 1, 2013 (UTC)

Inclusion of Officers
Should we still have Diamante's officers (Senor Pink, etc) on this template even if they are no longer going to fight in the tournament? 20:20, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

We need a "former" section. 23:02, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Yes. They were entered into the tournament, and Maynard et al are still in the gallery despite not fighting. 13:51, February 1, 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, this template is really weird. You have a combination of gladiators that didn't participate in the battle for the Mera Mera no Mi combined with those who did participate in it. I think the template should have some indication of that.. 22:35, February 2, 2014 (UTC)

This still needs resolution. Perhaps kind of indication that they were planned to be in certain blocks, but were removed from the tournament beforehand? 21:38, February 6, 2014 (UTC)

"Unknown Block" Gladiators in Episode 633
In Episode 633, there was an extra scene added where Thunder Soldier looks at a board with the important gladiators' names. In it, Hera, Spartan and Gambia are listed as being in D Block (they are unknown in the manga).

How do we want to deal with this? Keep them in unknown, or put them in D block with an asterisk? 04:13, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Unknown. Anime isn't canon. SeaTerror (talk) 05:15, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

We should probably just mention it under anime and manga differences. 06:59, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

It has some other anime only names on it too. SeaTerror (talk) 07:11, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Does it work out with the math? I thought at some point we were told how many participants there were in each block. If it does, we should accept it as a legit source. It's all we have to place them, and is a source even if it's not the best source. 15:24, February 16, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry JSD but math is against the anime. Ok for Hera and Gambia, but math says Spartan should have been placed in A block. Check the talk page of the colosseum. My opinion is that the one who created this image decided to add the three gladiators, but not knowing their group he put all together in D block. So I think we cannot use this image. --Meganoide (talk) 19:26, February 17, 2014 (UTC)


 * What math? I looked on that talk page but I didn't see anything relevant. I don't see how we can know of all the 138 participants how we can know a notable character would have been in which block instead of some nameless, unseen individual. 21:25, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

By math, he means distribution. 556 participants means they split evenly into 4 blocks of 139 combatants each. The fighters lacking proper placement are Gambia, Hera, Maynard, and Spartan. Putting aside block A for a moment, blocks B and D are the only ones that didn't reach the magic number of 139. We know Maynard to be the reason for block B's deficit, having been marked a no-show after getting beaten unconscious. Had he been present, there would have been the proper 139 fighters. That still leaves 3. Based on what we know from the results of block A and the inner workings of the Corrida Colosseum, Gambia could not have been entered in that block, only to fight and appear shortly thereafter completely unscathed. That can only mean he was placed in block D. With Gambia's absence accounted for, that gives block D its magic total of 139. That means that Spartan can only fit into block A. With 3 fighters out of the way, that leaves us with our wild card, Hera. There is nothing that strongly suggests his placement in one block over the other. We only saw him for a brief period before the first block got under way. We don't know if he opted out or fought and got beaten like everyone else. Unless further evidence comes forward, Hera will not be able to be placed in any block, as it would be speculation to assume he dropped out. That being said, should block A's numbers indeed be true, this means that there is still one unaccounted person who withdrew from Block A. 22:16, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Yep, DP's right. Based on when Maynard and Gambia went down (705), the fact that we know Maynard's in B, and when we found out the number of participants in B, C, and D (706), we can confirm that Gambia was in D. And since there should have been 139 people in each block, and we can place 2 of the 3 defeated participants in B & D, C has a full roster, than the 3rd defeated person, Spartan must be in A. (And Spartan was DQ'd moments before A started). Hera is the only unknown, as we haven't seen him.

So now the question is whether or not we should take the anime's word that Hera was in D. 22:59, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

Umm, putting Hera in D would sort of be ignoring most of what I wrote in my last post. Hera can still be considered part of any of the 130+ people in any of the blocks. It's safer to leave him out than to put him in based on what we know. 23:04, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

That being said, it's better than leaving him a straggler. 23:10, February 17, 2014 (UTC)

"556 participants means they split evenly into 4 blocks of 139 combatants each" is merely a speculation, even if it is very likely. --Klobis (talk) 06:02, February 27, 2014 (UTC)

How is it speculation if it's true? It's simple math. This was made based on deduction, not guess work. 01:48, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

We cannot confirm all blocks have 139 people. Perhaps one block is 138 and another is 140. There is bribery. --Klobis (talk) 11:26, March 3, 2014 (UTC)

If you read my explanation, you'd know your suggestion to be an impossibility. Even with bribery, the numbers add up and divide evenly. 17:26, March 3, 2014 (UTC)