Talk:Charlotte Pudding/Archive 1

Name
Guys, is her name Purin or Pudding? Which one?Zeckopacho (talk) 18:52, January 14, 2016 (UTC)
 * Her Japanese name is プリン Purin, which is the Japanese term for (custard) pudding. Personally, I don't think it should be translated for now. • Seelentau 愛 議 18:53, January 14, 2016 (UTC)

Names should never be translated. SeaTerror (talk) 19:03, January 14, 2016 (UTC)

So we should move it to Purin then? If so we need to move the other Purin to Purin (Non-Canon) 00:37, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

I tried to move Pudding to Purin and Pudding Pudding to Purin Purin but it's not letting me Joekido (talk) 01:10, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Don't change Pudding Pudding, his name was romanized in a databook Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 01:27, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Are the raws out yet? Also isn't "Purin" the name of Jigglypuff in Japan? 02:15, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Also, we should get a disambiguation page going. We have this, Pudding Pudding, and. They should all link to the disambiguation even if they keep their current spellings. 02:29, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Klobis renamed the page, but for some weird reason it ended up back here. Now everything is settled and there's a disambig page. 03:06, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

What if Purin is that three eye girl from when Luffy challenge Big Mom,i mean we never knew her name so that must be her? 89AnimeCoupleMaster (talk) 13:10, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

That'd be heavy speculation. 13:13, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

@JustSomeDude: Yes, it is. プリンプリン (purin purin) is a Japanese onomatopoeia for something shaking and bouncing like a pudding (especially female breasts). In our case, she's obviously named after the custard pudding, going with the food theme of the Big Mom pirates. • Seelentau 愛 議 13:20, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

Pathetic. "Purin" in this context is nearly 100% certain to to be the transliteration of the English loanword "pudding". Do we not translate "Shirohige" everywhere? Fuck you people who think you don't translate names that make no sense otherwise.

71.193.202.254 22:23, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion. Don't just go ahead and change the page until we get any evidence that it isn't Purin.

22:27, January 15, 2016 (UTC)

プリン isn't the transliteration of the English loanword pudding. That would be プディング pudingu. プリン Purin is the Japanese word for custard pudding or creme caramel and you can't translate it. Shirohige isn't a name, it's an epiphet and thus can be translated. • Seelentau 愛 議 00:16, January 16, 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be Carlotte Purin? Are You Serious (talk) 17:20, January 22, 2016 (UTC)

Part 2
Sorry for resurrecting this old discussion but a thought did come to me. We've seen Purin spelt out as Pudding with Pudding Pudding, and when Zou was spelt out we also changed the name of the Zou Zou no Mi. By this logic, should Purin not be called Pudding? Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 20:51, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

That's not how it works. You don't move everything when something is spelled one way. SeaTerror (talk) 20:59, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

We didn't change the Zou Zou no Mi back because of Zou. It was done well before the island was even mentioned. Purin is a specific kind of Japanese dessert, and while similar to pudding, is different enough to warrant distinction. Purin is correct. 21:05, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

Zou Zou no mi was indeed changed at the same time as Zou, but I agree with what else DP said. 21:13, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

The page states that Purin (プリン?) is the Japanese term for (custard) pudding, and the general Japanese pronunciation of "pudding". With prior example of Pudding Pudding and the fact that nearly everyone uses "Pudding" I would be tempted to change it. 21:18, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

Not that many people actually use Pudding. Plus we already have an example of the word not being Pudding anyway by Seelentau. SeaTerror (talk) 21:30, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

Where do you go where everyone uses Purin? Even most of the people on this wiki use Pudding. And in response to your earlier point, yeah that is how we do it. If a word is spelled one way and is used in a separate capacity, then it stands to reason that the other use of the word would be spelled the same because it's written by the same guy, which is why we changed to Zou Zou no Mi after it was revealed that Oda spells ゾウ as Zou. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 22:41, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

This sounds more like a problem with Puddingpudding than it does with Charlotte Purin. I suggest moving the discussion to that talk page, not this one. 22:44, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

No, Pudding Pudding's name is set. But the fact that he is called Pudding Pudding instead of Purinpurin is indicative that Purin is also Pudding since the two characters' names are basically the same. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 23:10, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

No they don't. Most on the wiki also use Purin. And that's also not the way we should be doing things. Just because one thing is spelled a certain way doesn't mean the rest are. Besides everybody knows databooks are almost never written by the actual mangaka anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 23:34, July 24, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with ST, names should never be translated if the translation heavily affects the pronunciation. Unless Oda provides a different romanization specifically for her, I think we should stick with Purin for now, since saying that "Purin is spelled Pudding because that correlates with Pudding Pudding" is unfortunatly speculation, no matter how obvious it may seem to us. 00:39, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

I say just use Pudding Meshack (talk) 01:14, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

I would say that the contexts around their names are too different for us to trust a databook translation from like 10 years ago. I would leave it Purin until we see otherwise from a new source. Can we close this now? 14:12, August 3, 2016 (UTC)

Should be "Charlotte Purin", since using "Pudding Pudding" to support your argument for "Charlotte Pudding" is silly. Close it now. 04:48, August 8, 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, Jade, but I can understand the hesitancy with regards to context. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 22:25, August 9, 2016 (UTC)

Id suggest waiting till we see Purin/Pudding in the anime to se how they pronounce her name... As for now lets just keep it the way it is Dinosel (talk) 07:50, August 10, 2016 (UTC)


 * The right thing is to wait for the manga or data books to release the official romanized version of her name. Your suggestion will lead into an another argument, and somehow we'll dismiss it as non-canon anyway. Pudding may be chosen but we're avoiding speculation here.

Part III
The anime pronounces her name as Pudding, not Purin Meshack (talk) 07:13, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Anime isn't canon. SeaTerror (talk) 08:56, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

They didn't make the name up, they simply pronounced the canon name, I think they know how to pronounce a name at least. That said, when Capone said it, it sounded more like "Purin" to me.

It wouldn't matter how they pronounce the name because it still wouldn't be canon. The anime also pronounced Shiliew's name as Shiryuu. SeaTerror (talk) 09:52, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

Okay... Knowing how the Japanese pronounce the characters' names doesn't mean it's not canon. That has nothing to do with canon. Meshack (talk) 19:36, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

Shiliew's name is Shiryuu confirmed. SeaTerror (talk) 20:35, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

Now I get what you're saying it still has nothing to do with "canon" Meshack (talk) 20:41, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it actually does. Anything in the original work/stated by the author is canon unless they say otherwise. Everything else is non-canon. SeaTerror (talk) 20:48, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

I don't get the Shiliew example to be honest, what has it to do with this? "Shiliew" and "Shiryū" are probably the same thing in Japanese. In fact "Shiryū" is the plain romanization which we also use in the infobox, while "Shiliew" is the official one used with latin characters in the manga, but they are basically the same pronunciation. It the same thing as "luffy" and "rufy". Luffy is just the official one used.

They are definitely not the same pronunciation. Also that's a bad example since nobody ever says "Rufi" in the anime. SeaTerror (talk) 22:33, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

From the trivia: "Purin (プリン?) is the Japanese term for (custard) pudding, and the general Japanese pronunciation of 'pudding'".

Not really sure what conclusion to draw yet, just putting it out here Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 23:02, November 6, 2016 (UTC)

"Also that's a bad example since nobody ever says "Rufi" in the anime." Franky always says "Rufy" while others say "Luffy".

Yeah that never happens. SeaTerror (talk) 00:16, November 7, 2016 (UTC)

It always does. Just beacause the subs write "Luffy" it doesn't mean franky says it with the "l", in fact if you notice he always use the "r" unlike other characters which use more the "l". That's because in Japanese those two sounds are interchangeable (or something like that). It's not just "rufy", if you pay attention franky always favor the "r" sound over the "l". He also says "doframingo", instead of "doflamingo" for example.

That is the average Japanese person who pronounces it like that. Seiyuu are trained to pronounce names correctly. It doesn't matter anyway. This talk page should be closed since it wouldn't matter how something non-canon pronounces the name. SeaTerror (talk) 01:54, November 7, 2016 (UTC)


 * While there is at least one case of Zoro calling Luffy "Ruffy", thus proving you wrong... I don't see the issue. Having spent enough time with phonetics side of the Japanese language via Vocaloid, I can say your actually wrong. "Pudding" is very much what Oda is going for here. =_=


 * Why are even fighting the other editors here Sea? There is a theme in many crews and this is one of them. So its Pudding as it fits with the crew. Using the "anime isn't canon" is not a excuse against names. Your grasping at loose straws looking for an argument to make "Purin" official as the name when it is not. Hell Pudding Pudding has been in the manga before. You need to stop causing an argument for the sake of an argument, and just let the editors get on with it. Even if their wrong and it turns out to be "Purin", why waste their time? If anything, listen, remember the name order we used to run with (from the most "canon" to least);


 * Manga -> SBS Data -> Data books -> anime -> other


 * All that happens is when one translation comes out that is superior on the rankings to the older one, the page is renamed. Until then there is no need for an argument over names like this to begin with. Also, its not uncommon for Japanese names to have play on word, we had this with Cindry whose name can also be "Thin Dolly" in a phonetic play on words, which is also likel why hr body is "thin" and er eyes "doll" like. =_= One-Winged Hawk (talk) 14:11, November 7, 2016 (UTC)

That Zoro thing never happened either. Also Pudding Pudding wasn't named in the manga, that was a databook which we already discussed before anyway. It doesn't matter if one name is spelled that way. It doesn't mean other similar names are spelled the same way. Also the only time name order is used for the anime is if it's in the credits. SeaTerror (talk) 17:02, November 7, 2016 (UTC)

While I disagree with ST arguments since he doesn't have any beside the usual "nope, I disagree with you and keep saying the same thing over and over", returning to the original topic which is the anime pronunciation, when capone says the name, it sound far more like "purin" then "pudding" to me, hence the last episode should support the "purin" spelling, not "pudding". Which, as far as I understand, still a sweat name hence it still keeps up with the family's theme, so I don't see the issue.

So in order to save this entire wiki from seeing more delusional arguments, I want to ask: does it matter that much, if both words are practically the same and indistuingishable in such a way even the Japanese actors pronounce them differently? I would say no. 18:15, November 7, 2016 (UTC)

We already know that "Pudding" is an acceptable spelling so this is a meaningless debate.

We have Pudding Pudding, so is there a reason not to name her Pudding as well? 15:04, November 13, 2016 (UTC)

If we would go for consistency, then yes we would have Charlotte Pudding, as I said, it doesn't matter. Any real opposers for Pudding? 17:24, November 13, 2016 (UTC)

The majority in the previous sections. It already covers why her name shouldn't be Pudding. SeaTerror (talk) 16:15, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

There's no real arguments against Pudding. Only arguments why it technically could be "Purin". Pudding works better and is what everyone uses outside this wiki. 17:29, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

The actual arguments are that just because one is spelled one way doesn't mean the rest are. There is nothing about "technically could". SeaTerror (talk) 17:31, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

That's not an argument against Pudding though. It just as well could be spelled the same way. All you're saying is that it might not. 17:38, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

Anime uses Pudding and also fits the food theme 18:14, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

I checked that myself. Bege said Purin. SeaTerror (talk) 19:14, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

Poll Discussion
Change of plan. Let's just get this over with once and for all. 17:15, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

Ok great, let's get this over with. 18:05, November 18, 2016 (UTC)

In Japan, it's known as Purin, right? And in other countries, pudding? I see why the manga and anime use pudding but Purin is more correct Meshack (talk) 13:43, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

Even though I prefer pudding, on Wikipedia, it says the custard pudding is under the name purin in Japan. Not everyone uses Jinbe. If we were doing that, we should change Jinbe to Jimbei Meshack (talk) 14:50, November 21, 2016 (UTC)

I hope Pudding wins Meshack (talk) 04:45, November 24, 2016 (UTC)

Purin being a daughter to Big Mom confirmation?
Has anyone confirmed in the official translation from Shonen Jump Magazine that this Purin is one of Big Mom's daughters? I'm just curious. Alpha Omega Plus (talk) 06:29, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

Purin and the three-eyed crewmate the same person?
I mean to be fair her bangs could just be covering it to make the photo more appealing to Sanji. Also considering the similar hairstyle, lips and eye shape - I think it's safe to say they're the same person. --Mandon (talk) 15:13, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

It's safer to not assume anything Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 15:15, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

I agree she must be the three eyed girl! the hairstyle, lips and eye shape are the same!! The covering of ber third eye could be true! (89AnimeCoupleMaster (talk) 15:58, April 21, 2016 (UTC))

Or you know, they might be siblings. Anyways, speculation! 16:03, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

S P E C U L A T I O N. Talks are for discussions about edits on articles, take your speculations to the blogs or forums. 16:05, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

It's not really speculation or assumption, Oda literally drew the same character. Zaduj (talk) 17:21, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

As much as I personally believe Purin and the three-eyed girl are the same person, whether they are or not IS speculation at this point. Until we can see if Purin has a third eye or someone confirms she and the three-eyed girl are one and the same, we shouldn't mention that on her page. Besides, isn't speculation on the main articles forbidden?Totoofze47 (talk) 20:32, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

That's a bad argument since Oda also literally drew Kuina and Tashigi the same too. SeaTerror (talk) 23:12, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

They're related. Why wouldn't they look alike? It's complete speculation. 23:20, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

Saying that Purin and the three-eyed girl "could be siblings" is far more speculative than assuming that they're the same person. She literally has the same hairstyle, same hair shape, same eyes, same eyebrows, same nose, same mouth, same face, same look, same neck size, same breast size, same neck bones, same head shape... seriously, she's identycal in every single body trait in every single possible way. Saying that Purin is a different person from the three-eyed girl is like saying that the Wanda in this chapter wasn't Wanda, "just someone who really resembles her, maybe her sister". Keep this wiki out of this sister speculation and go by the facts.

88.6.247.182 23:32, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

Did you guys forget that Oda is pisspoor at drawing women? Nearly all of the women we've see in OP are pretty much clones of Nami and Robin. Saying that Purin and the three-eyed girl are siblings or the same person is still speculation. Otherwise, why don't we just say that Violet is Robin's long lost sister or whatever, because holy fuck, they look exactly the same. 23:34, April 21, 2016 (UTC)

It's true that Oda draws all women practically the same (and I hate him for that; damn Oda, Nami and Robin pre-timeskip had much better designs than their lazy post-timeskip appearances); but in this case, the three-eyed girl and Purin are totally the same to the smallest detail, including distinctive features like their lips and their hair type:

https://media.giphy.com/media/xT1XGYVDifp253HCKc/giphy.gif

Still, I agree that we should not conclude that this is Purin yet. There's still the possibility that they are siblings. We know that Big Mom has 35 daughters at the very least (now I know why they call it Big Mom...), so the chances that there's a pair of twins among them (if not all look the same) are very high. I should also note that Big Mom has a fairy tale theme, and there's a story called One-Eye, Two-Eyes, and Three-Eyes about three sisters with different number of eyes that may have something to do with these girls.

But to me it's very clear that if the three-eyed girl is not Purin, then it must be a sister.--Manuel de la Fuente (talk) 01:23, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

It might be a Devil Fruit Power, i mean we've seen one that grant the user to replicate and sprout pieces of their body from the surface of any object or living thing, Another can grant the user to see through everything and read the mind. So maybe there's a fruit power that grant one to create multiple eyes. 89AnimeCoupleMaster (talk) 03:01, April 23, 2016 (UTC)

Just throwing it out there; I think by "35th daughter" Oda meant that she's the 35th daughter of the whole family, not specifically Big Mom's 35th daughter. So like among all her cousins and aunts or whatever, she's the 35th girl. At least I'd like to think that cause what poor soul could survive... *coughcough* "making" Linlin 35 daughters...Mhj0808 (talk) 23:58, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe she's asexual and simply spits eggs out from her mouth like the Namekians. ^_^ Or is a witch that can transform into a beautiful princess when it's time to... you know. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)--Manuel de la Fuente (talk) 01:33, April 26, 2016 (UTC)

Alright, this has dissolved into wild speculation. We don't have enough evidence that the two are the same, and unless more evidence is shown, this discussion is closed. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 01:42, April 26, 2016 (UTC)

It's pretty clear she is the 3 eyed girl. We see Nitro with her in chapter 651. 41.232.204.102 06:47, May 27, 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, with Nitro's presence and their obvious similarities, she is pretty much confirmed to be Charlotte Purin... --Solipsius (Dreamer) (talk) 13:52, November 10, 2016 (UTC)

They could very be different people like Lola and Chiffon HiddenAssassinxxXX (talk) 16:24, November 11, 2016 (UTC)

While it is speculation that she's the three-eyed girl, I think it's safe to note their resemblance in the trivia section so that the article acknowledges her existence without pushing anything defnitivite. Blumenblatt (talk) 01:39, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Chapter 848, page 7: is that not Pudding as three-eyed girl in the flashback? Dragonus Nesha (talk) 14:52, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

We saw her sitting in a chair inside the queen's chamber. Can we stop commenting on this after every chapter and wait until we see Pudding's forehead or the three-eyed girl infobox? Rhavkin (talk) 15:28, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

I've added in the resemblance that Pudding bears to the three-eyed girl in trivia because I think that it's silly to act as if it doesn't exist. It is in my mind different from speculation because it does not include any theory about the girl's relation to Pudding. It's a simple, factual, observation that anyone can see. But if other people think it's speculation, I'm open to hearing the reason. Blumenblatt (talk) 01:41, December 13, 2016 (UTC)

Chapter 850 pretty much confirmed they're the same person, unless you assume she has a twin sister. 217.85.59.248 10:09, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

Nope, clear they're one and the same now. Mhj0808 (talk) 14:58, December 22, 2016 (UTC)

Stuff
Hey! I thought the wiki was steadfast in demanding provable facts! There's no way it can be proved, at this point, that Pudding had anything to do with Reigu's injury's. Of course, it seems very likely, but that's just the kind of misdirect that Oda could be tricking us into! Bottom line, the events regarding Pudding and Reiju in chapter 850 are not presented in flashback fashion (that is black or gray borders) so we should assume that Pudding's conversation with Reiju is taking place AFTER the events of 849. With that being said, we have no idea, for sure, who caused those injuries to Reiju...

We don't allow speculation, but we do know when causation is obvious. Pudding injuring Reiju before capturing her is FAR more likely than some random guy injuring Reiju, and Pudding seizing the opportunity to capture her. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 11:43, December 23, 2016 (UTC)

Speculation...?
We don't allow speculation, but we do know when causation is obvious. But if this is so, why is all the specualtion on Pudding's wiki presenetd as if it were facts?

What we know:

We know what Pudding said and how she acted.

What we don't know:

If this was all an act or of it wasn't.

Pudding says that she is really evil and does this evil laugh with Sanji conveniently hearing everything. BUT, we don't know if this is actually the truth. In fact pretty much everything in the story so far suggest that she is pretending to be evil and that it is all an act.

So why is what she is doing, presented with reasons as to what they meant when we don't have any confirmation yet? Wouldn't it be better if we waited at least until the arc is over?

My suggestion is thus: Instead of writing stuff like: "Puddings real dark nature", it should instead just say Pudding evil laughter or something. Because as of now, we have no real confirmation that it actually is her real nature.ExcelCore (talk) 06:20, January 14, 2017 (UTC)


 * If we went by that logic then we couldn't really write anything at all about any character's personality because who knows if they are actually acting or are serious. When it comes to things like this, unless there is obviously a contradictory element at play, we take things characters say at face value. We have no reason to believe Pudding was not telling the truth to Reiju, so it would indeed be speculation to act like this isn't her real personality when Oda has given no evidence that it isn't. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 15:19, January 14, 2017 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not saying you can't add info, I am saying you shouldn't write it as if it was fact. Instead when adding what appears to be happening, make sure that the wiki specifically states that it 'appears' to be happening. But no, you have VERY good reason to believe that Pudding was lying, what she was saying has been shown to be false in flashbacks. The only thing that suggest that Pudding is evil is that one scene, but we have plenty of proof up until that scene that contradicts what she was saying, providing us with ample proof that it was bunk. ExcelCore (talk) 05:31, January 16, 2017 (UTC)

Uh, what flashbacks? The one with Lola? She said nothing and we only saw her from the back in that flashback, and it was just there as a red herring to mislead us about her intentions. Pretty much everything else was confirmed to be a lie when she admitted as much to Reiju, and it'd be speculation to think it wasn't fact when there's nothing indicating that it isn't. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 16:10, January 16, 2017 (UTC)


 * Correction, you claim that it was there as red herring but you have no proof that it was. You base that it was red herring on the scene where she talked with Saiji's sister. But there are other scenes. Literally all scenes where we see Pudding alone with her own family she acts meek and like a doll. She does not act the way she claimed was her real personality and that only her family knew about because we have been shown that this isn't how she acts around her family. You see the problem right? you base EVERYTHING on that one scene where she talks with Reijiu. But if that scene was fake, then you would have nothing. And you have nothing that supports the idea that the scene was real and not fake, you have things that suggest she was just putting on an act. ExcelCore (talk) 02:37, January 17, 2017 (UTC)

At the current scene, we can easily state that the scene Pudding was reminiscing about is either to mislead readers or to contradict her "true personality". However, without sufficient proof, we cannot just say it is a red herring, as that would be speculation. So just stick by how she is acting now. 03:31, January 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is why I was saying that the way the information in the wiki was added was wrong. It is/was saying that "Pudding is evil" (basically). In other words, it didn't just describe what seemed to be happening in the scene, it actually decided what it meant. The scene shows Pudding saying these things, but we don't know if she was just acting or if she was showing her true self. And as I stated, we very strong evidence that she was lying about certain things that she in that scene claimed was true. For instance she stated that it was her real personality, but that only her family knew how she really acted. However from every single scene we have seen with her, she acts the opposite when she is alone with her family members. ExcelCore (talk) 01:04, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

If the scene is fake, we will simply change Pudding's page to accomodate. You're right, I may have gone overboard with the claim about the Lola flashback, but we still learned absolutely nothing contradictory from that, and the scene with Big Mom and Pudding in Chapter 651 showed nothing about her personality either. We are taking what happened in 850 as fact because Pudding has stated it to be such, and we have no reason to believe that it is wrong. That would be like saying Pedro is lying about being OK with dying in Totto Land - no one really questions that, but we're going off hearsay for that too as well. It's how this wiki works with regards to character personalities. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 03:56, January 17, 2017 (UTC)


 * If teh scene is fake you will change it yes, but like I pointed out you don't now if it is fake right now, but the wiki says she was revealing her true nature. Since we don't know if she was being truthful and we have plenty of evidence that suggest the scene was fake, shouldn't the wiki actually reflect this until we know for sure? ExcelCore (talk) 01:04, January 19, 2017 (UTC)

The way personality sections work is that we state a character's personality traits and give examples from the series to back them up, not merely listing things they do in the series. No, we don't know whether or not Pudding is acting, but right now, we have quite a lot of proof that her actions before Ch. 850 were lies while we have no such proof that her actions right now are lies. As I said before, when it comes to personality, we take things at face value because otherwise they would be impossible to write. For all we know, Sanji could actually despise women and is currently putting on this act as part of a master scheme to wipe them off the face of the Earth, or Sakazuki could actually be a pirate going undercover as a Marine. But, even though they could be hiding something, we have no proof to think that they are and as a result we simply write their personality sections based on what we've seen from them in the series. Same goes for Pudding. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 03:05, January 19, 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the only "proof" you have that Pudding was acting when she was being nice is that one scene where she talks with Reiju. However that scene is being called into question as there is proof that she was lying when she said that she the personality that she showed in front of Reiju, was her real one. In other words if she was lying when she said her real personality was the one she showed in that scene, that would suggest that her real personality could be that of a kind person. At the very least it shows us that the personality we saw in that scene was a lie. In all scenes we have seen Pudding alone with her family in, she has acted like a doll and been very meek. When she appeared in front of her brother that was guarding Luffy's jail cell she was being meek. If her real personality was the one she showed to Reiju, and that only her family knew about it, then this is how she would have acted around them. But she never did. In fact, she only showed her "evil" nature in secret to Luffy and hid it from her brother. Why would she do this? Why talk to Luffy at all? So if her family knew her real nature, then her real nature should be that of a meek obedient person. Otherwise it would mean that her family didn't know her true nature... but if this was the case, why tell Reiju this lie? Especially iof she was going to eraze her memories? See how the the whole scene is being called into question now? Yes I agree we don't know for sure. But you are still writing it as if we do. There is no need to write it like that before we know for sure; and there IS a way to write it without giving stating her nature in the wiki. As I pointed out, simply describe what she did. Don't give your opinion about what you believe her intentions were, because you don't know yet. ExcelCore (talk) 05:25, January 25, 2017 (UTC)