Talk:Nika

Gender
Nika was never stated to be male. It is just Who's-Who's depiction of them. The official translation means nothing, we know they have many mistranslations (Zolo), and even in 1018 they used "thousand" instead of two thousand, even thou the numbers doesn't add up. Even if the raw uses male pronouns, we shouldn't have an article based on a character perspective, at most it can be a trivia note about Who's-Who believing Nika to be male. Rhavkin (talk) 03:49, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Nika clearly has a male figure.
 * I don't specifically know what the raws say, but I've read multiple translations of this chapter and all of them, including the official one, refer to Nika as male.
 * "Zolo" is not a mistranslation.
 * The CP0 stuff was not mistranslation either, they are talking in general terms and not keeping an exact count of casualties.
 * There is no indication that anything about Nika was purely made up by Who's-Who's imagination. He heard the legend from a guard and I see no reason to think why his visualization of Nika wasn't in line with what the guard told him. We have no grounds to say that Who's-Who was incorrect about anything regarding the legend as there is nothing to contradict him. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 04:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


 * In Who's-Who's mind. Look at Kanjuro "appearance" as a child or his initial silhouette, or Kiku's figure, What we saw regarding Nika should count as actual appearance in any way.
 * Even if raw uses male pronouns, it is still in Who's-Who's mind. I do not want to bring the issue with Yamato here, but pronouns were shown times and again, especially during this arc, to not indicate gender.
 * Whatever. The point is time and time again it was proven we can't take the official translation too seriously.
 * A miscounting of a thousand isn't "not being exact" its being wrong.
 * Do you know what hearsay is? The article is about the figure, and Who's-Who's depiction is just that, a depiction. We've had wrong depictions before (Noland the Liar) and personalize depiction of stories (Vito and Sora comics).

As I said before, Who's-Who's depiction should be mentioned, but the article can't be based on it. Rhavkin (talk) 04:41, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing about Nika was indicated to have been made up by Who's-Who. Please show me evidence indicating that Who's-Who's understanding of the legend is incorrect. If you don't have any, then you can't speculate that he is offering up some false idea of who Nika is. We don't assume that statements in the series are lies unless we have evidence to support it. That would be blatant speculation.

If we only had "Liar Noland" as a source for Noland's character, then we would use it as the basis for his article until we learn the truth because it's not our job to be one step ahead of Oda and his twists. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 06:03, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Other then the figure as shown in Who's-Who's imagination which is argumentative at best, and the pronouns in the translation which we know uses what they see fit, sometimes against official sources, we can't say Nike is male.

The raw should be out by now, and we can solve that part, but even so, this is no different from Bartolomeo imagination of Sengouku and Tsuru (which are shown in the trivia section), Big Mom as imagined by Sanji (mentioned in trivia section), Brook and Shirahoshi, Yetis, Kaido by Garp, or Sanji's Raid Suit. Depiction by imagination go in Trivia. Rhavkin (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

That argument makes no sense since all the examples you gave are clearly jokes based on the fact we already knew how they looked. The joke is that the imagination spots were nothing like the real thing.

Who's-Who's description though, was not joke-based. He was telling a serious story, so there's no reason to believe the sillhouette is too different from the real thing.

As for Garp and Kaido, that was not imagination-based, but Oda not having their designs fully realized by then. Details simply change, as seen by all the concept art Oda has ever made.KingCannon (talk) 21:37, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, regarding the Kaido/BM silhouettes, we very much treated those as their real appearances until we got to see them in the flesh. We were not wrong to do this, as we had no basis to say that those appearances were wrong until we actually got evidence of it. We should treat Nika the same way. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Merging with Joy Boy page
So, with the revelations of Chapter 1044, would it be safe enough to merge the Nika and Joy Boy pages? After all, it's clear they're both titles for whoever manages to Awaken the Gomu Gomu no Mi. Timjer (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

No? There's no conclusive evidence they're the same thing. Nika is the mythological being the Gomu Gomu was based off. Joyboy was an actual person from the past.KingCannon (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I disagree. I think it's the exact opposite, that the previous wielder of the Awakened Gomu Gomu no Mi (Joy Boy) is in fact the inspiration for the Legendary Nika. After all, Nika was said to free slaves and bring smiles to their faces, something that the Awakened Gomu Gomu no Mi is stated to be able to do. Not to mention the title of Joy Boy seems to reinforce that idea, as is the fact that the Awakened Luffy is the new Joy Boy and is clearly smiling in that form. Timjer (talk) 16:12, 27 March 2022 (UTC)