Talk:Marine Base

Grand Line Base
So, G-5 is apparently said to officially be the "Marine Grand Line 5th Branch." The others follow the same pattern in Japanese. To me this says that 1) the "fortresses" are branches, 2) the "G" does stand for Grand Line, and 3) the "fortresses" designated as "G" all being on the Grand Line is not speculation.--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 01:55, February 12, 2016 (UTC)

As I said it is most likely but it is speculation to state it straight as fact. SeaTerror (talk) 20:56, April 15, 2016 (UTC)


 * If the names of the larger Marine Bases are all just G, then why do G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-5 all have the name "Marine Grand Line # Branch" in their infoboxes? The G-5 page has it right in the introductory paragraph. The Japanese text given matches the Romanized text, though Grand Line is written as G・L. If the raws do not agree, then this is a bigger issue than just the one page. What is the uncertainty?--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 21:53, April 15, 2016 (UTC)

I hope you're not seriously trying to argue that despite Aokiji stating outright that the G of G-5 stands for Grand Line, it's stands for something else elsewhere. That's not the way systematic building codes work. 104.238.32.86 14:28, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Where did Kuzan say that?

14:45, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

Chapter 594, where else?
 * 「G5]　...　「海軍G•L（グランド•ライン）第５支部」
 * "G5" ... "Marine GL (Grand Line) 5th Branch"

There's no other valid or reasonable way of interpreting that. 167.160.116.207 15:39, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

He never actually said that. And if it even says that like you claim that's still speculation since it doesn't actually say what you claim. Something that is most likely doesn't mean it's true. SeaTerror (talk) 17:00, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

What does he say then? I'm interested in this different version of One Piece you're reading. Maybe it explains why you're wrong so much on talk pages. 167.160.116.231 21:07, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

It's speculation. And just because you're an anon doesn't mean you get to be disrespectful. 21:34, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

It is speculation that the Japanese text says that? If that text appears in the manga, it is not speculation.--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 21:59, April 18, 2016 (UTC)

I'll treat people with the same respect they afford me. A person who calls me a liar without providing evidence of their own in rebuttal and reverts all my (correct) edits without giving reasons doesn't rank very high. 104.238.32.85 08:59, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

Ironically the only person who called you a liar was yourself. Also the edits weren't correct since as you have shown it is still speculation stating it as fact. SeaTerror (talk) 14:08, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

I was referring to my edits in general (my IP changes pretty frequently). But you still haven't explained your interpretation of the lines above, which are also visible in Smoker's and Tashigi's post-TS manga infobox images (Grand Line being written in katakana above the GL in the top line).

Are you saying that it's a coincidence that the fifth Grand Line base has the number G5, and the first is G1 and second is G2? Maybe the sixth isn't G6, but is in fact X20? Or Pink Bunny? You haven't put forward any actual arguments. All you've done is stall and lazily say it's speculation, and you're not participating in this discussion in good faith. 104.238.32.73 14:29, April 19, 2016 (UTC)

The fact that you're assuming an absence of a system despite its presence is what's wrong with your argument. If we can see the system, that's the system. Why wouldn't the 6th be G-6? To deny what is already there is the fundamental flaw in your argument. You are basing it on a "what if" that doesn't exist. 01:57, April 20, 2016 (UTC)


 * Oh, good. You actually do agree with me then. Maybe make that clearer earlier next time, OK? 167.160.116.183 09:01, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

So, it is not speculation that "G-5" is the "Marine GL (Grand Line) 5th Branch". There is a very, very slim chance that "G-5" is not a direct contraction of the subtitle, but how else can it be read?--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 02:11, April 20, 2016 (UTC)

I think that it is not speculation. The insistence of calling them fortresses is more speculative than saying it is a contraction.--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 21:46, April 27, 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and added the names with citations. If anyone wants to add commonalities between the Grand Line branches that we have seen so far (without speculation), then that might be a good addition.--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 04:38, April 29, 2016 (UTC)

And I removed it again because the discussion did not actually end. SeaTerror (talk) 06:45, April 29, 2016 (UTC)

The talk page started two and half months ago and you haven't come up with a single argument in favor of your position in that time. It's pretty clear it's over. 104.238.45.145 08:57, April 29, 2016 (UTC)


 * Claiming your argument to be right merely because the opposing view can't prove it to be wrong is a logical fallacy. Instead, try restating your argument clearly and succinctly, and not just relying on implications.


 * 13:46, April 29, 2016 (UTC)

What implication? He's never made it clear what he thinks is fact and what isn't, so it's hard for me to respond without going into a straw man like I did above.

The logic is that there's a pattern between the bases we've seen, as DP has correctly recognized above.

Take for example Franky Shogun: It's under Battle Frankies, because of the BF-38 on the chassis. Has he actually ever outright said it's a Battle Franky? The answer is no. But it's listed as a Battle Franky because that's the pattern of the abbreviation. The approach you're taking here is completely inconsistent with that. 167.160.116.230 14:20, April 29, 2016 (UTC)

Two things:


 * First, you don't just add a poll because you can't convince anyone to agree with you.


 * Second, you don't actually have the qualifications to vote in that poll, so you'd really just be digging a deeper hole.

11:40, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps. The only person really against it is SeaTerror, and he will not tell me why it is speculation, only that it apparently is. I can not change the page with the discussion going on, I can not close the discussion without a poll, and it seems that I can not make a poll, so he wins without saying a reason why my simple edit is wrong.--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 21:56, April 30, 2016 (UTC)

So what's the issue here? The naming system is perfectly clear. "Marine Grand Line Xth Branch" becomes "G-X". 14:38, May 13, 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. The issue is that some feel that saying that is speculation. Apparently, Kuzan in Chapter 594 does not ever actually makes the connection between the two names of G-5, even though he does. Even if he did not, the naming scheme is obvious beyond being merely likely. The main issue seems to be if the "G" is sort for "G•L/Grand Line" or is it just stands for "G" as a proper noun or a complete unknown. Though in my proposed version, I think that I have written around it in a way that this technicality is not an issue. The current revision implicitly says that "G" means "a fortress."--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 00:55, May 14, 2016 (UTC)

Let's just go with what the sandwich said 22:17, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

But it wasn't actually stated. Just heavily implied. SeaTerror (talk) 22:24, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

I agree, G-5 is definitely a shortening. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 22:57, July 25, 2016 (UTC)

Heavily implied is good enough for me. Any other opposers? If not, it's a majority in favor of the naming scheme, unless my maths is shit which it is. 13:29, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

I'm with Sandwich and AoD. Heavily implied is good enough for me. 13:34, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

^ What she said 13:38, July 27, 2016 (UTC)

Alright we're done here. 13:41, July 27, 2016 (UTC)