File talk:Sakazuki Anime Post Timeskip Infobox.png

Opening for infobox?
Is it really safe to use it? Oda hasn't released any illustrations of his full appearance in color, so for all we know his clothing could look completely different when it's fully revealed in the coming chapters, or an entirely different color-scheme. Not to mention Toei's already taken liberties with the appearance of the characters in this opening, I'm mainly referencing the Blackbeard Pirates and the way they depicted them. Mandon (talk) 01:35, January 25, 2014 (UTC)

It's an anime infobox. 03:52, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

^ Has nothing to do with what he said. SeaTerror (talk) 04:15, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Of course it does. It's his anime infobox, so the manga isn't as important. 04:16, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Sea's right. You missed my entire point. This color-scheme used in the opening could be totally different than the actual canon, which will undoubtably be used in both the anime and the manga. His full appearance in the opening isn't canon, that's my point. Hell, for all we know Akainu was scarred from his battle with Aokiji and the reason Oda showed him in that angle was to hide them until a more complete reveal. The fact that we only saw his face and a little bit of his upper torso is important enough to warrant us avoiding a full frontal image until we've actually seen what he looks like full frontal. Mandon (talk) 07:12, January 26, 2014 (UTC)

Mandon, Seaterror, I understand both from where you guys are, but as galaxy said its just the anime infobox, right now its no different then the manga infobox situation. Obviously Sakazuki will have some changes to his appearance, but a minor shirt collar coloring and speculation about battle scars wont really come into play. The only thing that we are looking at is his face, which hasn’t really changed. For now, we will use what we have available from either versions to use. AsuraDrago 01:06, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

It's his anime infobox m4ndon. How the anime depicts him is what gets put in the anime infobox. 01:07, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Openings don't count as a depiction. SeaTerror (talk) 15:08, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

As you would say, "Citation Needed". 16:38, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

His entire face hasn't been revealed in either version yet. Yes it's speculation that he has battle scars, but the opening isn't canon, so we haven't really seen his entire face yet. Mandon (talk) 23:03, January 27, 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we already know what is face looks like. Remember the "new age" color cover? We saw his face from the nose up, and his eyes were squinting. Then we see his eyes shadowed out during his first post-timeskip appearance. So his face obviously has no battle scars. What we have is fine, besides at the wiki we ignore speculation and use what facts we know. AsuraDrago 00:07, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

We saw most of his face in the new age cover, not the whole thing, and we didn't see the left side of his chest either like in the opening. All we've canonically seen is most of his face and his tattoos, but that still isn't everything. I'd like to think Toei consults Oda about these things, but there's more than enough reason to believe this isn't the case, and this picture might end up contradicting itself in future chapters. The same goes for the other option too, actually, since it also shows more of Akainu's face than we've previously seen in the manga, since it's shown on a different angle and all. Mandon (talk) 07:31, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Its not that big of a deal, its just for the anime info box, thats all we have at the moment and thats all we are using. This is not a permenant image. AsuraDrago 15:37, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to look at the file history before saying ignorant crap like "that's all we have". SeaTerror (talk) 16:19, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

The file history contains a side view image, which is not preferred in an infobox. 17:44, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

Yet we used one for the manga infobox for a year, because that was all we had. The situation hasn't changed, the only canon image of him is a side view image, and I don't think using an image from an intro when his full appearance hasn't even been revealed is a very smart idea. As I said, it isn't canon, and remember when I tried to use a cropped version of this exact same image for his portrait Gal? you specifically said it can't be used because it isn't canon. Now I'm using the same argument here. Mandon (talk) 23:32, January 28, 2014 (UTC)

The portrait follows canon rules, but the anime infobox does not. 23:35, January 28, 2014 (UTC) Wait, are we talking about the anime infobox or the portait for the marine page? I think i misunderstood the situation. AsuraDrago 00:04, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

The anime infobox. Gal is correct about the portrait and infobox rules, so my bad for bringing it up, I'll need to brush up on that stuff. Anyways, my other points still stand. Mandon (talk) 00:26, January 29, 2014 (UTC)

Ok, generally we don't use screens from openings, so i can understand that. But in this case its acceptable for the anime infobox, its showing no more than the initial manga appearance. AsuraDrago 00:52, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree if the picture didn't show the right half of his upper torso and the bottom-right of his face. These areas weren't shown in the manga, and there could be differences in those areas in his actual canonical appearance. I don't trust the opening as an accurate depiction of the characters, either, taking into account Blackbeard and his crew. Mandon (talk) 03:58, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

It's his anime infobox so none of that matters. The Blackbeard Pirates were obviously depicted that way since only Burgess has made an appearance. 23:05, January 31, 2014 (UTC)

Still shows more than has been canonically presented to us. Mandon (talk) 02:58, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

I'd say we're safest showing only the manga adaptation in the infobox. I'd say it's definitely an opening image worth putting in the gallery though. 21:38, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

Like galaxy said, its just the anime infobox. And we all know that somtimes thing are different between the two. And that should not even matter, i can understand if there was a major change with him but we all know what his face basically looks like. As before i mentioned, we already have seen him nose-up from the "new age" color cover, but his eyes squinted. Then we saw the lower half of his face, just added facial hair. Its not like his face was scarred, so either manga or anime both are essentially the same. AsuraDrago 21:47, February 3, 2014 (UTC)

SomeDude has a point, actually, I don't find either photo acceptable. On one hand we have an image that's not canon and on the other hand, Toei showed considerably less of him than the manga did in the actual episode. If we strictly use the manga infobox for now, by the time he gets a full body debut in the manga, we'll have a better image to go by to represent the article as the default image, and once that chapter is animated, we'll have an acceptable anime image to use that's actually canonically valid. Mandon (talk) 05:43, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

We have an anime image so we have to use it. SeaTerror (talk) 06:02, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

Mandon, you are really over-thinking the situation, its not that big of a deal. AsuraDrago 06:04, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. These are the facts, the image isn't canon. Toei's taken liberties on their own in the past and it's subsequently bitten them in the ass 99.9% of the time, creating inconsistencies with the manga and sometimes even plot holes. I'm just calling it before it happens. To be honest the fact that it's a non-canon design alone should be enough reason not to use the image. Mandon (talk) 00:01, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Dude seriously, its not what you think and its not that big of a deal. Once again as galaxy has said, its the ANIME info box. Its not that big of a deal. Akainu's face is no mystery. Regardless of these ramblings his face going to end up no different than what we already know of. We've basically seen both parts of his face in the manga, so its no surprise.

We've gone over this enough. Lets just drop it and leave it as it is. AsuraDrago 01:52, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

We also don't use opening images for infobox images. The other image is much better. SeaTerror (talk) 02:24, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Poll? Mandon (talk) 05:05, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

We have a precedent of never using non-canon images for infoboxes for canon characters. Just look at our conversation about characters from Z like Coby and Helmeppo. (I'm really surprised Galaxy didn't think of this, but he's gone now so oh well.) When it comes to infoboxes (and portraits) and full appearances, we have to stick with canon. The opening image is definitely gallery-worthy, but not infobox-worthy. Plus, Kuzan battled with him for 9 days and got severely injured. I think it's reasonable to suspect that there might be scaring on the other side of his face. We just can't know based on a non-canon image. 16:03, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Maybe not on his face, persay, but upper right chest similarly to how Kuzan was scarred? Very possible. We don't see all that much of him outside of the New Age cover and the actual chapter, and those leave a lot of his appearance to the imagination. It's just safer to use the image from the episode. Mandon (talk) 19:17, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Poll Discussion
This is going nowhere, so here's a poll. Standard 1 week length for image polls. 02:47, February 11, 2014 (UTC)

Fullbody
I see no reason to not use the fullbody pic as it heavily corresponds with what we've seen in the manga. The only discrepancy Mandon's pointed out is the flower, but come on, it's a flower. We shouldn't deny a better anime pic just because of a tiny detail that doesn't provide any misconceptions about his appearance. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 22:38, April 10, 2016 (UTC)

As minor as you may perceive it, it's simply more safe to go by what we've seen - and what we have seen of his outfit in the manga is very little to go on. --Mandon (talk) 00:06, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

Sazuki's only known to change 1 thing during the timeskip, and that's his suit. No reason to assume he ditched his signature flower and even still, IT'S A SMALL FLOWER. --Sarutobii2 (talk) 01:22, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

By your logic Mandon we shouldn't use any anime pictures for characters that haven't been colored in the manga, since Toei would have to guess that too. But we do, and a full color palette is much more major than a flower. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 01:39, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Kaido and Sarutobii here. Also gonna bring up once again that the current anime infobox for Sabo shows him with six fingers on his left hand, which contrasts with the manga, and yet we still decided to use it because that detail is so incredibly minor and irrelevant when compared to the rest of the shot, which is perfectly fine. Same can be applied to this.--Xilinoc (talk) 03:57, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Christ this is ridiculous. Don't turn into Galaxy 2.0. There is nothing wrong with the flower. SeaTerror (talk) 04:06, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

There's absolutely nothing wrong with the flower, use the fullbody image. This is so trivial I can't believe this... 04:08, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

So you're comparing me to Gal because I'm raising a genuine concern with precedence? Everything below Akainu's neck is non-canon conjecture. Does it look better as a picture to show his full torso? Of course, but irregardless - I still think we should wait. As for Sabo's six fingers - that's like comparing apples and oranges. An art fail is different than artistic speculation from Toei. While I doubt Akainu ditched the flower, it's still possible that he did. I say we wait until we have a full body shot from the manga, we should wait. --Mandon (talk) 04:16, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

A single flower is too irrelevant to raise such awful complaints over an image like this. I'd get it if the anime portrayed him with, say, no right arm or his chest being heavily scarred or whatever. But a flower? A completely minor and irrelevant flower? It's ridiculous that it's even an issue in the first place. 05:03, April 11, 2016 (UTC)

I can raise whichever concern I please, if I deem it as such. You think it's irrelevant - I do not. But either way it's irrelevant because there's a clear majority here, so go ahead and change it back. --Mandon (talk) 05:59, April 11, 2016 (UTC)