Talk:Zou Zou no Mi, Model: Mammoth

Mammoth Model?
Yes, Nekomamushi called it an "Ancient Zoan Zou Zou no Mi", but he did not say "Model: Mammoth". Is this gonna be the Nui Nui no Mi all over again? 17:35, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

Several minks identified it as a mammoth. We can just put 2 and 2 together.

Unless you think this specific Devil Fruit breaks the naming pattern of Zoan DFs we've seen so far. X X no Mi, Model: Whatever. KingCannon (talk) 18:24, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

King, it's a translation issue. Do we have the literal translation of the words used?

19:09, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

The Ushi Ushi no Mi, Model: Giraffe is pronounced as "Jirafu", but kanji goes with 麒麟 (kirin), this shows we can't go with "put 2 and 2 together", as the true katakana/kanji can differ from what we are currently assuming. 19:36, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

For now let's categorize it as conjecturally titled until we get some evidence from the raws to show that all the pieces line up before we presume it's correct. 20:15, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that we can't be sure this is just "Model: Mammoth". What if it's "Model: Woolly Mammoth"? I mean, Sengoku is called the "Hotoke" (Buddha), but his ability has the "Model: Daibutsu" instead; you'd think it's "Model: Buddha" if the SBS did not reveal it. We're jumping the gun to create this page, otherwise we'd go with "Tori Tori no Mi, Model: Phoenix" for Marco. At least "Nui Nui no Chikara" has a standing from someone actually saying the name. 23:29, December 17, 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, we should redefine our guidelines regarding on conjectural articles. 00:36, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

But this one does have a standing as well. It is the Zou Zou no Mi (actually stated), but of a different model. That's not conjectural, unlike Marco's fruit.

It's confirmed to be a Devil Fruit, as well as the animal it is based on. KingCannon (talk) 00:54, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

The model is still conjectural though. If the raws don't support the naming of any model, why don't we make a subsection of Zou Zou no Mi until its whole name is revealed? 00:57, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) "Zou Zou no Mi", that much we know. But we can't add "Model: Mammoth" without absolute evidence. Is it truly a mammoth in general, since even a mammoth has various species. We can place a note in Jack's page saying he ate an ancient form of the Zou Zou no Mi, no need to create this page when NO ONE actually said "he transformed into a mammoth"; nobody actually mentioned he the word "mammoth" when referring to him (discounting the ship he commandeers). 01:02, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, somebody did in chapter 808. First page:

"......A mammoth?!! What is an ancient creature like that doing here......?!!

And then, Luffy later:

"Hey Usopp, did you hear that?! A Mammoth!" KingCannon (talk) 01:06, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

If we do take out mammoth, then what does this page become? We can't have the current Zou Zou no Mi page do double duty. That could get too confusing. 01:07, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have an idea: how about we rename the page to "Zou Zou no Mi (Jack)" to differentiate who ate which fruit, until we get confirmation on this fruit's specific model? 01:13, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

Well, we already know it's a mammoth and it was said in the manga, so there's no harm in keeping it now. 01:16, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

What is the Japanese word the minks and Luffy use in chapter 808 for "Mammoth"?

@Yatanogarasu: I would be fine with that. After all, it being the Zou Zou no Mi is not conjectural (only its complementary name is), and having it as a page sub-section of a power from a distant arc and completely different character that has no relation to the current one would be really confusing, especially in regards to site navigation.

In the end, I just support a decision that doesn't result in Jack having his power being mixed up with Funkfreed's. After all, we can't ommit that Jack has the Zou Zou no Mi, but we also can't say it's the same power as the other Zou Zou no Mi used by Funkfreed. So Jack having his own Zou Zou no Mi page would be enough.

KingCannon (talk) 01:23, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

It's just マンモス (Manmosu = Mammoth) like his ship Mammoth, KingCannon. 01:41, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

In terms of naming the actual fruit, what if it ends up like the Giraffe fruit, where the kanji is 麒麟, which actually means Qilin? 02:27, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

When I suggested making it a subsection, I didn't mean copying the entire article over, but adding a section like "Fruit Variations" and giving a brief overview of his fruit. Although now I'd prefer naming it Zou Zou no Mi (Jack) 02:42, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

If we did the variation section, then we'd have to do something similar for the Hito Hito no Mi. At least we confirmed that this is a Zou Zou no Mi variant, so we can put up the kanji and use brackets to indicate it belongs to Jack. 03:11, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

So we have two methods to deal with this page: Any more suggestions/protests? 19:17, December 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Delete/merge it into Jack's subsection of Devil Fruit, noting that he has an "ancient form of the Zou Zou no Mi".
 * 2) Move this page to "Zou Zou no Mi (Jack)" until later confirmation comes out.

I support two. It's a simple and good choice. 19:19, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

If we create the page without having a complete name, we might as well go with the most likely one since either way is (kinda) conjectural.

All we need is the category for now. The Jack idea is bad. SeaTerror (talk) 21:02, December 18, 2015 (UTC)

We're trying to create pages with official names. Conjectural-titled articles are a big eyesore, they scream of "speculation". At least the "Zou Zou no Mi" portion is confirmed. 03:47, December 19, 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the fact that it's a mammoth more important than the fact that Jack is currently the user of the fruit? It should be Zou Zou no Mi (Mammoth) as a disambiguation, not (Jack). 104.238.32.54 04:10, December 19, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a better way of renaming it. 06:46, December 19, 2015 (UTC)

Should we rename it then? 18:18, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

No. It will look bad either way. SeaTerror (talk) 18:24, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

So just get rid of this page? 19:41, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

I support Zou Zou no Mi (Mammoth). Kind of like One Piece Film (2016) before we got the name for it. 22:13, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

I'm telling you, if we start making these conjectural articles at every turn possible, then it'd be a slippery slope downwards, and we'd go back to the past where we had so many of those conjectural articles ("[Someone]'s Devil Fruit", so and so). We did discuss to avoid such pages if possible, and this page is a possible to avoid, unlike the Pirate Alliance Saga and Fishman Island Saga. 19:44, December 22, 2015 (UTC)

I like the subpage/subsection page a lot more. 01:31, December 23, 2015 (UTC)

I'm seeing arguments all over the place and this has gone nowhere. Should we poll it? The options could be: 1. Rename it to Zou Zou no Mi (Mammoth) 2. Rename to Zou Zou no Mi (Jack) or 3. Delete this page and include a brief rundown of the fruit in Zou Zou no Mi. 17:48, December 29, 2015 (UTC)

"Leave the article alone because it has the category on it." SeaTerror (talk) 18:02, December 29, 2015 (UTC)

You say that but some other people are against the idea. I agree with a poll. 18:20, December 29, 2015 (UTC)

Poll Discussion
Poll is up. If there are no objections, voting will begin tomorrow. 03:25, December 30, 2015 (UTC)

Add one more option of deleting the page, and simply having the information in Jack's page, under the subsection of his Devil Fruit. 04:15, December 30, 2015 (UTC)

Seems like good-to-go now. 23:46, December 30, 2015 (UTC)

Italics?
Am I the only one who has the title of this page coming up in italics? It's only for this page and I have no idea why it's doing that. 03:22, December 20, 2015 (UTC)

It's part of the Conjectural Name function that I've set up, to show that they are conjectural. Check the two conjectural named sagas, they're the same. 03:33, December 20, 2015 (UTC)

Did you remove the italics? 18:18, December 21, 2015 (UTC)

Leave the article alone because it has the category on it. SeaTerror (talk) 21:45, December 21, 2015 (UTC)