Talk:Fansub

K-F + 4Kids
As I recall when I first went to that site... Didn't they get investigated a couple of summers ago by 4Kids or something. I vaguely remember reading about it. If my memory is correct I'd like to write a note on this page about actions 4Kids have taken against Fansubs. One-Winged Hawk 00:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think they ever actually have... I know people have mentioned it multiple times, but those have all been practical jokes pulled by the admins... Frankly, I doubt it's ever happened; if 4Kids cared, they'd just give 'em a cease and desist order (or whatever it's called), they wouldn't just investigate 'em... I know that's happened with other groups. So, it's possible... but I'm not sure... I'm sure Dythim wouldn't mind answering questions, though, he's pretty much okay to talk to as long as you're polite about it. ^^ --Murasaki 04:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A couple questions...
Just wondering, how many episodes should a group have before we give them a page? I was thinking 10 or so, but I didn't know what everyone else thought... ^^;;

Also, I don't remember where all our rules are as they're laid out... strangely still, so I'll just ask here: Links to fansub groups are against the rules, right? I'm assuming they're not allowed, but if they are, I thought I'd add the links to the pages, so they'd actually be referenced. XD --Murasaki 02:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think links to the forum is allowed but not to the bit-torrent. A forum is... Well... A forum. But a bit-torrent is a violation of copy-right rules for sure. One-Winged Hawk 07:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But from the forums of the sites, there's a download link normally (I know there is on K-F and Vegapunk, Gerusama never had its own forum, I've never found where ADC's forum actually is), so the links are right there in plain sight... Which is why I was unsure. ^^;; --Murasaki 07:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Wow... In that case I guess more or less all the forums are taken out. >_<' One-Winged Hawk 08:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Needed
Content and discussion moved to Forum:Fansub Page in order for a poll to take place.

Legal Disclaimer
Because I want to avoid an edit war, I decided to take the matters here. In this edit, I added a disclaimer which explains that the use of fansubs are in fact illegal, and we at the One Piece Wikia do not support piracy (which is kinda ironic). I understand this disclaimer may not be perfect, but I believe it's necessary to have as this is information on an illegal distribution, and it shows our support for the official releases. I don't quite see a reason NOT to have this. Without it, our Wiki can easily be mistaken as one that does support these things (since we don't quite mention ourselves in the article). I request the addition of this disclaimer, as it gives us a good name and makes this page more legal. 04:41, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

I'm not completely against it, but it seems rather redundant. The article as it is definitely isn't us "not condoning the use of fansubs". 06:39, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm incorrect in saying the article says we condone fansubs, but it doesn't really say we don't condone fansubs either. I believe this disclaimer is a nice, legal, respective way to show these are illegal, as it is the first thing you see, and it respects and promotes the official translations. 15:23, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

We condone fansubs just by having the article. Maybe it would be different if we removed the names but you would have to open that forum again. SeaTerror (talk) 18:56, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

If we are talking about showing fansubbing's existence while not supporting it publicly, then shouldn't we take an example from another respectable wiki: Naruto? I know Naruto have several subbing groups, but Narutopedia does not even mention them, yet take info from subbing and scanlations, and at the same time keeping legal disclaimer rights and references a priorities. 19:01, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

@SeaTerror: I don't believe mentioning fansubs mean we support them. We mention them to provide information. Rather we like it or not, we need to give out information even if we don't support it. That's an unwritten rule for an unbias encyclopedia. If people think we condone fansubs just by having the article, then that disclaimer should clear things up.

@Yatanogarasu: I don't often visit Narutopedia, but I just did to see what they say about fansubbers and scanlators. Only mention I've found is in the main series page, where they were talking about the fansubs and how they are prosecuted. They still explained that they are still being produced. However, since One Piece has a whole bunch of fansub groups, each one having something else to go into detail about, we've got a page explaining it all. I'm likely wrong on this, but Naruto doesn't quite have as much to talk about when it comes to fansubs. That's why they don't have an article but we do. We go into detail about these subbers, for information purposes. That's why it can be mistaken as us condoning it, so I made that disclaimer. 20:45, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Naruto had more subbers than One Piece due to the anime's popularity in North America. I assume One Piece would have had more if 4Kids never got it. Pretty much fansubbing had a larger impact on One Piece because of K-F and 4Kids which is why the article exists. Anyway Nada it really does condone fansubs due to listing the names. I'm saying you would have to open the forum again if you want the names removed. Having the disclaimer up there is just plain hypocritical. This article needs to be rewritten anyway to make it more neutral. SeaTerror (talk) 21:20, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

Having the names do not mean we condone fansubs. Just because you talk about something doesn't mean you agree with it. I don't want the names removed, but let's not get into that. The disclaimer is legal and shows we do not condone it. If you think giving information about something means we condone it, then you need to grab a dictionary. 21:25, January 23, 2013 (UTC)

So is everyone okay with adding the disclaimer? 19:20, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

I already said why we don't need that disclaimer. I told you the issue with the disclaimer is the fact that we list the fansub names. We would need to open the forum again and either revote on it all or a forum to vote on the disclaimer. It would be hypocritical to have the disclaimer while we list the fansub names. It would be like how politicians say one thing to get elected but then do the complete opposite once they are elected. SeaTerror (talk) 20:24, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

That is a terrible analogy. This isn't like that at all. This is like if a politician talked about the rival in their campaign. They're not supporting their rival, they're just giving information. We're not supporting fansubs by mentioning their names, we're giving information on them. Information does not mean support. 20:30, January 25, 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to add it if there are no objections, k? 02:17, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

You already had plenty of objections to it. SeaTerror (talk) 03:16, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

And I've been responding to them, but they keep being left hanging. I just want a valid reason NOT to have this disclaimer. I've explained how we don't condone fansubs, so don't tell me we do again. 03:27, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

You may think we don't but it is a fact we actually do. There were even links at one point. If the page was only about what fansubs were without any names then we wouldn't be condoning them. SeaTerror (talk) 04:14, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

How does mentioning names mean we support them? We're giving information, not supporting. If we were supporting them, we would be telling people these are the best ways to watch it. That's not what we're doing. We're simply giving information. 04:19, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Giving information on racism doesn't make it racist. Giving information on religion doesn't make it religious. Giving information on humor doesn't make it funny. Giving information on piracy doesn't make it piracy. I don't know how many times this needs to be explained, and I don't know how many times you're going to keep this being ignored. If you don't respond, that's just acting like you have nothing more to say, so the discussion should be closed. 19:00, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

We already went through this before. It lists actual fansubber names instead of just saying what fansubbing is. If it was just what saying fansubbing is then it wouldn't be promoting piracy. Other than that, nowhere on the forum was voting for a Funimation disclaimer voted on. SeaTerror (talk) 19:15, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

Because nobody proposed it. And I just explained many times how listing fansubbers do not support piracy. Many users in that forum explain how listing fansubbers do not support piracy. You keep ignoring this page when I explain how listing fansubbers do not support piracy. Could you explain to me how any of the points I've made are false, and that it is supporting piracy? 21:04, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

You didn't explain anything. All you said were unrelated things like "giving information on racism doesn't make it racist". I already explained numerous times how this page promotes piracy. We do not need the disclaimer and if we were going to put it up it would have had to be on that forum anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 23:38, February 25, 2013 (UTC)

That forum was talking about a completely unrelated topic on the page. Those "unrelated" things are called analogies. It means to clarify something by comparing another. Just like talking about racism doesn't make it racist, talking about piracy doesn't make it pirate. You shouldn't have to have analogies explained to you. You're not "explaining" how this page supports piracy, because all you're saying is that listing the names means we are, which I've already told how it doesn't. Mentioning names does NOT mean we support piracy. Do you even read what I write? If we supported piracy, we wouldn't need official pages like FUNimation, Viz, or Toei. I don't know how much more clearer I need to be for you. Please explain how this page promotes piracy other than "we're mentioning names", because that argument is moot at this point. 00:29, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

I know what an analogy is. I also know what a bad analogy is. You're trying to compare two completely different things in your analogies. The argument is not moot just because you think it is. Racism is not the same as listing the names of fansub groups so people could know where to commit piracy. Listing a name of a fansub group is helping people pirate. If this page just explained what fansubs were without any names then it would not promot piracy. People also mentioned a disclaimer on that forum but it never was on the vote. The disclaimer thing should have been on the vote but it never was. Which means it should not be added since it wasn't on the vote. SeaTerror (talk) 00:48, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand the analogy. It's saying how just because you talk about something does not mean you support it. I'm not comparing racism with naming fansub groups. I don't see how you could possibly get that idea. I even got that analogy from the forum itself; it's not my words. The disclaimer could still be added. It was brought up in the forum, but was never talked about in full. That doesn't mean it can't be added later. Once again, mentioning fansubs name don't mean we support them. They mention criminal names in crime shows, does that mean they support them? No, it means they're giving information on them. We're giving information on these fansubbers. Not supporting. 01:02, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

You really don't get it? The analogies are completely different than what this discussion is about. Your last analogy was much better and closer to what it was about. It should have been discussed on the forum but it wasn't so it shouldn't be put up. Screw it, we should just poll this stupid thing and get it over with. SeaTerror (talk) 01:13, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

That last analogy is more literally close to the fansub, but it still all conveys the same point: Just because you talk about something doesn't mean you support it. It's a little confusing how you connected the last one with fansubs but not the others. It wasn't discussed in the forum because the forum wasn't about the disclaimer. It was about having links in the article. Just because it wasn't completely discussed doesn't mean it can't be added later. So stop bringing up the forum because it has nothing to do with this. This doesn't need a poll because it's only two users who are discussing it, if you can really call this a discussion. I don't know how many times I need to explain to you that mentioning something doesn't mean you support it. We're giving information on fansubbers and groups. Promoting would be if we told them it was a better option on all fronts, and gave a link to each. This page doesn't have that, so we are not supporting them. We are giving information on it. Giving information does not mean support. They're two totally different things. Now, read this paragraph again. 01:35, February 26, 2013 (UTC)

Since Nova is being like this for no reason I'm bumping this section. What I said before still stands. SeaTerror (talk) 00:00, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

ST, you're being deliberately obtuse here. Nada is completely right - we can't promote illegal scanlations, so we have to have a disclaimer. Merely mentioning that they exist is not agreeing that they are right.

00:07, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

The argument is about this page itself. Since it promotes piracy there is no need for the disclaimer. Plus it was never discussed on the original forum to add it. SeaTerror (talk) 00:23, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

A year later and you still don't have a logical argument. Simply informing someone that piracy happens is not the same as telling them piracy is a good thing. And that forum was about a different topic.

00:25, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Not surprising that the first discussion ST get in after is about fansubs. Despite his boner for this issue, it's a very clear majority, an old case, and there's no reason to revive the issue when ST is the only editor in dissent. 00:33, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Nada alone is a "clear majority"? This is about the disclaimer only and not the article itself. Also the forum really was about this issue since having the links to fansub sites condones piracy by just having the links. It would be hypocritical to have a disclaimer that we don't condone it while also linking to the sites that provide the illegal fansubs. SeaTerror (talk) 00:57, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Nada by himself is not a clear majority, no. Nada, Yata, me and JSD is. The forum was whether the page needed links. This discussion is about putting a disclaimer since the forum decided to keep the links. And there's a majority.

01:07, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Yata didn't say anything about the disclaimer. He was referring to the article itself. This discussion is also not about adding the disclaimer because of the forum keeping links. Nada added it himself because he wanted to. He also suggested it in the original forum if I remember correctly. Having both links and a disclaimer is hypocritical since it links to illegal fansubs while claiming we don't support them. As somebody else said "It makes us look two-faced". SeaTerror (talk) 01:14, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Can't say I support this page's existence, since it is providing a list of illegal sites (or a list of black marketeers, if you will). I don't see any other wiki who have such a list. Links, definitely a big NO. The page itself, seems too risky to have. We could bring up a poll. 02:14, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

This is about the disclaimer being added and not the page itself. You would need to bump the forum if you wanted the page gone. SeaTerror (talk) 02:29, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

I plan to do that once this is resolved. If we're going to keep the links as discussed in the forum, we have to put a disclaimer up.

10:32, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Only if you want to look hypocritical. SeaTerror (talk) 18:35, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

First of all, this discussion is about whether we should have a disclaimer about piracy on the article, or not, since a few people appear to misunderstand what is this about. Secondly, the links to the fansubs websites is a different issue, and you can open it on the forum or on the talk, just in a different section, since, you know, holy crap, a disclaimer and links are different things!

Anyway, I support having a disclaimer on the top of the article. ST, care to explain why is it hypocritical? It's somewhat less annoying for us if you have logical reasons to back up your argument, instead of being so pigheaded. 21:58, May 28, 2014 (UTC)

Critique about the 'Failures of FUNimation'
I think the part criticising FUNimation for failing to distribute should be removed, on the basis that they have not recieved to rights yet to make a dub for the Saboady Arc, or ANY ARC in the White Beard Saga. And currently, they are working on the Dub for the Water 7 Arc and the rest of the CP9 Saga. I feel it is unnecassary, and kind of comes off as angry a spiteful towards FUNimation, unless they meant to say 'sub' and not 'dub'.

- DOPE|Come on, sit down 19:46, February 13, 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. 02:01, February 14, 2013 (UTC)

I've refixed it to be less harsh towards FUNImation, and basically say that they haven't released these episodes yet. It's valid information. 02:11, February 14, 2013 (UTC

Yibis

 * Yibis also localizes instead of translating accurately such as when they translated "kintama" as family jewels instead of the literal meaning of balls of gold.

This should probably be changed to the following: "Yibis also translates accurately instead of literally translating to the point of destroying the essence of the anime, such as when they translated "kintama" as "family jewels", instead of the literal meaning of "balls of gold," as "kintama" almost exclusively refers to a boys private parts, despite the literal meaning.

I'd do it myself, but I'm quite biased as I'm one of the yibis translators.

Bobthemilkman (talk) 12:38, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Kousei
They aren't a speed sub and they're not the updated version of CCS-Speed. CCS-Speed is a speed sub group that modifies FUNimation subs while Kousei make their own translation... 217.72.90.203 09:43, August 16, 2013 (UTC)

Site Status section
Is this really needed? It doesn't serve much purpose, and if it iss kept it needs to be expanded.

21:01, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and kill it. It doesn't even belong on the page. 21:36, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

It goes with the previous section. Plus it was a direct copy and paste from before the other article was deleted since this article was the only place it could go on. SeaTerror (talk) 23:05, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains, we're talking about a section dealing with scan sites on a page about anime subs. It doesn't belong, regardless of whether or not it was salvaged from a page deleted a few years ago. 23:14, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

It definitely belongs since both scanlations and fansubs are tied together. You're the only two who stated otherwise. Two vs one does not mean it gets removed when there is a discussion ongoing. SeaTerror (talk) 23:21, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

If you asked me, I would kill the whole page. This is nothing but free advertising. If someone wanted to find fan subs this would be the last place to go anyway.

Vaz has a point. The manga section sticks out like a sore thumb, and the page doesn't do much really. And tied together or not, it doesn't belong on a page titled "Fansub." If it did, it would be called "Scan Sites." 23:38, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

The page can't go since there was a poll about it. The page has to stay due to the history and impact on the series that fansubs had on it. Anyway I already said why it should remain. There was no other place for it and it was all valid and good information. Creating an article for scanlations would be fine too. SeaTerror (talk) 23:50, December 29, 2013 (UTC)

Once again you fail to see the difference between validity and relevance. And one poll is not eternal. We can easily decide to delete it through another poll. The poll you're talking about is old as hell. 00:01, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Is a section telling people where to read OP illegally online really something we want on the wiki, as well? 00:05, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

It is both valid and relevant since they are connected. Obviously a new poll would need to be opened but it wouldn't get deleted since more people realize the importance that fansubs had on the series itself.

http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Fansub_Page is where the forum and poll was at. Bump it if you want to. Also yes we do Nova since it is important to the series. SeaTerror (talk) 00:11, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but even supposing we end up keeping the section, we cannot name sites individually. Popularity and getting noticed is what made some sites shut down, remember. 00:16, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

We decided to keep them in the last poll and the sites never got shut down. The groups that shut down did so themselves like Yonkou. SeaTerror (talk) 00:34, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

We need another poll, although we really shouldn't have to. 00:53, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

This is fucking ridiculous, hiding behind some stupid poll from years ago just to save an outdated relic of a page. It's free advertising for questionably legal sites. Why not put torrent links on the dvd pages while we're at it? 00:56, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

The page can't be deleted entirely. The poll was last year.

Funnily enough, you voted to keep it DP. 01:02, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

DP, make an administrative decision, there's no point having a poll about this section because nobody will care about this. And Gal, we're not talking about deleting the page, just the bit that names manga reading sites. 01:05, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

I see posts from DP and Vaz that say the entire page should be deleted, and DP even mentioned it in his last post.

Don't really care about the Site Status section, but I don't mind if it stays. 01:06, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't that outdated anyway. The poll would have to be reopened on the forum I linked if people want to delete the article. Many people would just vote to keep it since the forum shows how important fansubs are to the series. SeaTerror (talk) 01:20, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

All the content for site status relates to manga, which this page is not about. I don't care if there's no other place for that information, it doesn't belong here. And besides mangastream, many of those sites aren't even popularly used anymore.

As for the wider discussion about whether this page should even exist, I'm all for giving the admins a bit more power to make executive decisions to keep things running smoothly, and I'm prepared to make some compromises for that. However, this page is not one that should be deleted without a community decision. That issue was just too hotly debated to be deleted without some formal discussion. The forum is less than a year old, so I don't think re-visiting the issue is worth the effort, since it will probably lead to a similar decision. 04:57, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

It seems all but one here want the section killed, so I'm going to do that. I might have been getting ahead of myself when I said the page should be deleted. 06:38, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Now the article can't be updated when you said it was outdated since you protected it. I also said how it is related anyway but whatever. Also Galaxy didn't say to delete it. That's a neutral comment so it isn't all but one. As for the page itself if people want to try deleting it then they have to bump that forum. It's barely more than a year old anyway. SeaTerror (talk) 07:03, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Last time I checked this was a wikia referring to One Piece anime manga and merchandise. This article has nothing to do with One Piece whatsoever! It is about fans who just try to make it easier for the other fans to follow the series, exactly like us here!! If we're doing this, why don't we through in an article about how awesome of an admin DP or Yata is, while we're at it? Be it shameless ad or a tribute this article is completely irrelevant to the official One Piece universe and it's creators. However, I'm not gonna raise the issue if I'm alone on this.

Might as well say the same thing about the Mythbuster articles then. SeaTerror (talk) 10:14, December 30, 2013 (UTC)

Putting my ego aside for moment, manga sites simply aren't fansubs, regardless of how the communities are connected. It's that simple. We don't put one character's history on another just because they have a connection, same principle applies. 20:55, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Vaz, the reason why we have articles like these is because One Piece, as a franchise, still has an effect outside its own universe or marketing. Before I started editing, just watching the series, I was curious about all the different fansubbers. Why isn't Kaizoku doing more? How many different groups are there? So I found this page. This is sort of the only place on the internet you can find any information on Fansubbers. Establishing how the franchise effects the outside-world is informative 21:16, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Legal Scare Section
That section seems kind of pointless since it isn't sourced, is only one sentence and is four years old. Does anyone think it should stay? 06:23, April 12, 2014 (UTC)