FANDOM

5,592 Pages

Individual NamesEdit

I really can't see the point in scrapping everything to write out things as individual names over species. This buffles me. Its easier to write out 'Spot-billed duck' then each of the Super Spot Billed Duck squad names (okay that was an example only, its not 100%). Another more realistic example is Shushu/Chuchu, who is a dog... Why not 'East Blue' then 'Dog' and then you can write all about DOGS and not the individual animals.

The system I used on wikipedia works. Lets expand on that rather then scrapping it all and putting up a rubbish system that just confuses all... Plus we already have the individuals on the characters page, but have a copy here? One-Winged Hawk 11:30, 17 October 2006 (PDT)

Joekido here. I love to see each animals getting there own pages instend of talking about them in one full page. I'm trying to get the One Piece Encyclopedia not to go in the same way as the One Piece Wikipedia. Honestly this section buffles me, One Piece Encyclopedia should have thoustands of pages while we edit the site whatever we like. Look in Star Wars Wookipedia Wikia site for example, they follow there own basic, we never saw them follow the basic in the Star Wars Wikipedia, we should do the same. We don't need this site in One Piece Wikipedia standard, this site should have it's own rules, it's own freedom. Look at Arlongpark.net, I'm trying to get this site similer to that site. We don't need One Piece Wikipedia standard here!

We can do that... See Comunity page for my reply. We don't have to talk about them on one full page, we can give them each a page, its just as I keep saying... Why do one for individuals when you can doa species. We have a characters directory listing individuals and all. One-Winged Hawk 07:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
The current article is fine. Well, no article is perfect. We are not Wikipedia, but you have to admit a few of their rules have good points in them. We should aim for quality. Arlong Park has articles ready, but not writtent, Here we can fix problems and add articles without needing permission from the admins over there. To help fix the species vs individual dispute, the main thing is the specie's name, but it would be for the best to list known/well known member sof that species(Spot Billed Ducks would have all of the super spot billed ducks squad listed). Once again, having a page for each species isn't going to work. Rmember when I said Wikipedia has a few good rules with good points? Well trying to keep a bunch of pointless little stubs into a bigger article thats appropriate is one of them. Cody2526 04:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
About the little stubs... I've just tried a few pages. I think your right. I'm gonan continue on a few more, but some of these, honestly dont' seem deserving of a page. Does anyone have the databooks? I know their in one of them. My Japanese is limited, I have the books but I vaguly read them. Oda seperates things into 4 basic category:
  • small and peaceful
  • Big and peacful
  • Small and fierce
  • Big and fierce
It might be worth noting that... Or not. One-Winged Hawk 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay...Edit

I'm going to make one attempt at this page. This isn't planned. But I'm bored. I just released that I started the Denden Mushi page at the same time as Joekido. Dam... I'm not looking for a fight, but whoops I just saw his user page and he wants to do those pages, I'll have to deal with that later. Please don't let him have a go at me for that! O.o'One-Winged Hawk 21:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nope... I've stop where I have. Its not working, there are just too many stub pages being created. We need another idea for the layout of this page. I'm going to revert my attempt in the meantime, because this sucks. The one page would be better at this juncion then a dozen little ones. :( One-Winged Hawk 21:49, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Man, I believe you'ev already started that and I was just about to give each species there own pages. Whoopsy there babe. Ok I'm going to list all species in my profile and see how they go

Yeah thats my bad, I decided that since we're suppose to both be relaxing off the characters page for the day to try the other pages I have on my list... Animals was my next one. You continue on with yours and I'll try another page. I seem to have started after you anyway looking at the times of things.
I've come across the same problem with this page as with the animals page. Think you can solve it Joekido? Its called 'Stubs'. I've actually opened a discussion on this on the community Portal page. Its not just these pages, a lot of pages are lurking towards stubs.

SuperfluousEdit

I've noticed that this page, as it is right now, only lists the species and gives some (often stubby) information about them. However, the animals template and the individual articles on the animals cover all this information as well, and the individual articles are often more detailed and have images. So we don't really need this page, so we'd beter rewrite it completely, so that it should give an overview on the wildlife in the One Piece world and general background information (for example, Oda's classification) with links to the individual articles for more detailed informtion on the species. El Chupacabra 11:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

AnimalsEdit

We can use this article for what I said before. Maybe we could also split it up between A-L and M-Z to make it less cluttered. Drunk Samurai 05:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Never been against the merging of all the animals into one article. A-Z splitting wouldn't matter though and to be honest might just confuse things a little. One-Winged Hawk 09:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well it only matters if there is too much to add. Such as how wikipedia use to split up the naruto jutsu lists. Drunk Samurai 20:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I wish that making differant pages would be something that this wikia should have but I can't stop you guys. But having to make a long page, even in abc order would be a mess, it'll be nice if we just leave it seperate but again I can't stop you and I don't fully agree with your plan so be it.

Because Oda kept adding more and more stuff, I think it's nessessary to merge most page. Some pages should be merged but some don't and by the time Oda finish the series, we might have to decide on seperating pages or not.

Joekido 22:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hate to say it Joekido, but we had this discussion way back in 2006/7. Nothings really changed. I've tried to expand on them... I've even listed useless Data book info, but aside from refs and a picture, there nothing more to add to them much. Den Den Mushis and Sea Kings are about the limit on what we can get away with.  :-/ One-Winged Hawk 22:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem is most of them are just 1-2 sentences long which really just makes them pointless articles. Some animals should remain unmerged such as Carue and Laboon and any other named animals. Drunk Samurai 22:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And species that takes up more then 1 chapters like the Blue Gorilla but I agree with that one

Joekido 23:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


Well, there is clearly a problem on this page, most of the animals articles are copy paste of this page paragraphs (or vice-versa). Would it be OK if we redirect the articles to the paragraph (which also mean suppress the link in this article). The only add on of for those articles are the images but it can be added here (Cf Erimaki Runners for ex). Also I think we should suppress the red link that have been created in Strong World part Kdom 13:29, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
They shouldn't be identical or near to each other. We need only a short passage here and then if their worthy of greater detail, a link to a main page. If had was in better mind right now, I'd think on this harder, but in short ruight now its all I have to say about it. Animals page always has problems, since many animals appear once and then are gone "just like that". :-/ One-Winged Hawk 14:29, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
If the articles are stubs and not likely to be improved, they should be redirected to this page. If they include any information not given here, it should be added. Large artilcles can be kept, possibly some small articles can be merged into one big (I did this with all the articles on various [[sharks]]). Redlinks should be removed. If these animals are real, link them to Wikipedia, and fictional ones should be described here. El Chupacabra 14:53, January 16, 2010 (UTC)
I think that is a good compromise, it is highly doubtfull that the stub pages will evolves since we probably won't see them againg Kdom 15:13, January 16, 2010 (UTC)

What kinds of animals should be listed here?Edit

We have pigeon and camels here (which are real-world), but don't have dogs, mice, etc (which were also present in the series). On the other hand, some animals representing fictional species (e.g. birds Fuza, Pierre) are not listed here. What exactly is the criterion? Ruxax 13:58, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

I suggest to delete Starfish, Reindeer, and Camels entries from this page, because there is nothing notable about the species as such, only remarkable individuals (for which individual pages exist). Ruxax 16:17, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I myself am surprised we've got them, but its a case of "things we had at wikipedia that were transferred over here 4 years ago and stayed". One-Winged Hawk 16:25, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Surely the various oddities of Longring Longland deserve some sort of group mention, at least. They're ordinary animals, sure, but they've got a unique quirk to them. --173.49.245.57 06:21, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Image SizeEdit

The images are far too small to show any details of the animals. We should fix it so the images are bigger. SeaTerror 06:42, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that many of them have only a couple of lines of accompanying text, and if they were bigger there would be a lot of blank space in the page and page would not look very good. Ruxax 08:32, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

They still look bad. There has to be a way to extend the article sections so that the images would fit better. Just look at the Sea Rabbit one. It looks terrible scrunched up like that. SeaTerror 19:37, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Try to extend the text. Ruxax 20:00, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

How can you extend the text when there's not much info about some of the animals to begin with? SeaTerror 20:07, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

What did you mean then in sentence "There has to be a way to extend the article sections" above :) ? That is the problem - little info, which causes little text. Ruxax 21:10, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Messing with page coding or something could help. There has to be a code that can align the pages properly even with bigger images. SeaTerror 02:54, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Page Layouts Edit

Before I go on, I wanted to see how everyone felt about organising the pages like this. I layed it out as such so you have an idea of what the pages will look like.If no one likes it, it's cool. But this might be a neat way to show the animals, and all the images will be bigger.(BTW, didn't change everything. Just most of it so you get the idea.) YazzyDream 11:49, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe instead of that we could put them in a gallery instead? I personally think that the images should still be bigger than how they are shown on the article. SeaTerror 22:36, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Related discussionsEdit

Ruxax 12:17, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.