5,684 Pages

You guys list Perona as gullible in her personality, but I disagree. She believed the cockroaches were real because she is afraid of them, so you can let that one slide as not being gullible, and the only reason she believed Usopp might be strong enugh to life ten tons was because he beat that zombie with the impact dial and she misunderstood itas his own strength. Usopp was just a good liar, so don't think its fair to have called her gulible. Childish yes, but gullible..... I don't think so.

He is not a good liar... And I'd only swap gullible for naive at the least anyway. One-Winged Hawk 08:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Should Perona, Absalom, and Hogback be classified as pirates? After all, they do serve the (Government) pirate, Gecko Moria. Also, when Boa Hancock became a Shichibukai, her entire Kuja tribe were classified as pirates, even the islanders. Yatanogarasu 23:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The thing with these three is that they apparently don't refer themselves as pirates. This is kinda a general problem with Shichibukai and the organizations under them. Unless specified, people under the Shichibukai aren't exactly instantly classified as pirates. One prime example of this is Baroque Works. It was headed by Crocodile and even though they bore a skull and crossbones, the agents within it don't consider themselves as pirates. There's also Doflamingo and his entire slave business. While it is illegal in most countries, his men, Disco and the other slave traders aren't exactly considered pirates despite serving a pirate and bearing his Jolly Roger in the auction house.Mugiwara Franky 09:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

First Appearance Edit

Perona actually first appeared in Episode 337, not 338 (her ghosts, not her physically). Her ghost is standing behind Chopper when he is trying to find comfort from Zoro while they trick Usopp into believing in ghosts. Chopper, being naive, believed it also. Did anyone else see this ghost? It's only there for about 2 seconds or so...

Devil Fruit 2YL Edit

I was re-reading chapter 602, how come we concluded that Perone wasn't in her ghost form but her actual body was flying? There is nothing indicating that... if you are thinking about Sanji, he didn't touch her. He said a "real woman" simply because it was two years that he haven't saw a woman. leviathan_89 19:10, 9 February, 2013 (UTC)

Maybe she was sitting on one of her ghosts.  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  19:14, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

That's not possible and it's a speculation anyway. The point I'm concerned about is the fact we say she is able to fly with her real body. I don't think there is any (enough) evidence about this at all, since the whole scene can be perfectly explained with her ghost form. leviathan_89 19:44, 9 February, 2013 (UTC)

Yes,I agree with you on that.  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  20:10, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

indeed. RAYleigh92 @\_/@ talk 20:13, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

If her whole body is supposed to be in ghost form (including clothes), then this would not be possible.   Galaxy 9000   20:16, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

And indeed it doesn't happen: as you can see the hat is not bent. leviathan_89 20:20, 9 February, 2013 (UTC)

Ehh, it wouldn't bend if it was sitting directly on his forehead (which it is). It wouldn't be possible for it to touch either, because he would just go right through.   Galaxy 9000   20:26, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Her hat doesn't seem to be touching his forehead  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  20:36, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

After watching the episode, I can confirm that her hat does indeed make solid contact with Zoro's forehead.DancePowderer Talk 21:20, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

So,it was not her ghost form  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  21:42, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

But she was still floating.DancePowderer Talk 21:44, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

This is clear in the anime, but Levi's point is that it isn't so clear in the manga, so it could be an error in the anime.
I say remove these bits. They are speculative, at the very least. sff9 21:46, February 9, 2013

She must have mastered her Devil Fruit powers  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  21:47, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Just add it as a Trivia or Anime/Manga difference in Horo Horo no Mi page. RAYleigh92 @\_/@ talk 21:49, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Based on the position of her feet in the manga, she would have to be floating.DancePowderer Talk 21:56, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

She is definetely floating  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  22:00, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty clear in the manga too. I see physical contact.

Also Rayleigh, put your signature into a template.   Galaxy 9000   22:02, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

I can really tell about the manga  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  22:04, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Isn't already in a template, Galaxy? .-. RAYleigh92 @\_/@ talk 22:11, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

No. It wouldn't post all the extra stuff if it was done correctly.   Galaxy 9000   22:12, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

ok I should have fixed. now? RAYleigh92 @\_/@ talk 22:35, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. It's fine now.   Galaxy 9000   23:01, February 9, 2013 (UTC)

@Gal and Rayleigh: please take that to your personal talk pages next time…
@DP: we're not questioning the fact that she's floating, but the fact that it's her real body. Her hat does not clearly make solid contact in the manga. Here's what Levi posted already.
@Gal: her hat has the same form in all panels, so we cannot conclude anything. sff9 23:51, February 9, 2013

Sff9 understood what my concerns are for. If you look at the manga, there is no evidence that's her solid form, the hat or other parts, rather then making contact, don't bend or react to external objects. Nobody would conclude she can now float, just by reading the manga. However, in the anime the hat does indeed bend, so by looking at the anime we all concluded that's her physical form floating. My point is simple: the evidence we got from the anime is an altered scene of the manga, so it cannot be trustworthy. If that was in an added scene, I could accept it, but that's am altered scene, so we should consider it simply an error. I agree with Rayleigh92, we should move it to manga/anime differences section. leviathan_89 12:49, 10 February, 2013 (UTC)

Also, already in the Episode 456 she's shown able to float in her real form, and we know for sure she CAN'T do it before the timeskip, so we can assume it's just a recurrent anime error, yah? RAYleigh92 @\_/@ talk 12:55, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

It's her spiritual form, there is a scene where she pass through a wall, although there are some comedy scenes where she fells on the ground. Beside, she is floating in the manga too (still spiritual form, though). leviathan_89 13:59, 10 February, 2013 (UTC)

When she pass through a hedge, she the leafs produce rumors, then she touched them. when she got surprised twice, she falls on the ground and touch it. however they show some incongruities with her to be in the real body form. what I mean, it's the same after the timeskip in the anime. RAYleigh92 @\_/@ talk 14:07, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

From all the evidence presented for both arguments, this sounds like one big retcon brought about partly by the various comic relief moments (similar to the debate about Nami hitting Luffy) as well as her general behavior while floating. I say we put it aside for now and hopefully someone brings it up in an SBS.DancePowderer Talk 19:38, February 10, 2013 (UTC)

I doubt this will come up in the SBS since it was never shown in the manga, but then are you ok to move it to the manga/anime diff? leviathan_89 21:16, 10 February, 2013 (UTC)

So no complains if I move it to the anime/manga diff? leviathan_89 00:04, 12 February, 2013 (UTC)

Keep it how it is. SeaTerror (talk) 00:10, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

How it is, it's wrong. I have already proven that it's an anime only thing and it's also different from the manga. So, unless someone can explain to me why we should keep it in the page, it has to be moved. leviathan_89 00:13, 12 February, 2013 (UTC)

You didn't prove anything. Look at the manga image with Sanji. From the angle it looks like its possible for her to be touching him but not clear. SeaTerror (talk) 00:21, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

I have proven that the only evidence of her being in a physical form is in the anime and also in a changed scene of the manga, so why are we still keeping it in the page? "From the angle it looks like its possible for her to be touching him but not clear" - you just said that she isn't touching him, hence we cannot assume she is in her physical form. "It's possible" is just a speculation, and honestly if we think about how her devil fruit works we should realize that her body being able to float is something out of the DF's powers. leviathan_89 11:23, 12 February, 2013 (UTC)

The only thing we know right now about Perona is that her real body is located at Thriller Bark,nothing more.  Staw-Hat Luffy  Talk  12:02, February 12, 2013 (UTC)

Bump. Who still disagree? leviathan_89 16:03, 13 February, 2013 (UTC)

I moved to the anime/manga diff since the majority here didn't disagree and no argumentations in favour of keeping it were given. leviathan_89 11:52, 14 February, 2013 (UTC)

Move to PerhonaEdit

"Perhona" is used as official name in various videogames (One Py Berry Match, One Piece: Pirate Warriors 2). Should the page be renamed? Even if not canonic, the named is always used in this version in the official page/scan/game.RAYleigh92 @\_/@ talk 21:03, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

No.DancePowderer Talk 21:06, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Depends. Did Oda ever write it as Perona?   Galaxy 9000   21:19, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Even if he didn't, video games are pretty far down the list of priority. I'm not even sure if they're on the list for that matter.DancePowderer Talk 21:22, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

I never seen trace of "Perona" in Oda's or non-canon source. Even if it's the last of the priority list, there are not other sources more important then that.RAYleigh92 @\_/@ talk 21:25, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are. That's what priority means. Certain sources take precedence over others, like the volumes, where it's spelled without the H.DancePowderer Talk 21:36, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Just checked the Thriller Bark volumes Raw. Those volumes didn't spell out the names in English.   Galaxy 9000   21:41, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

And in the translation it's Perona.DancePowderer Talk 21:48, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Viz doesn't count when it comes to that. If a Japanese website spells it as Perhona, and there's no manga equivalent, then... yeah.   Galaxy 9000   22:08, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Since when do we even follow how the merchandising company spells anything but original characters?DancePowderer Talk 22:11, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DP. Although it's the only romanization available, remember that videogames are renowned for terrible mistakes, so they are not trustworthy. Actually I don't even remember a case when we relied on informations coming from merchandise. For example, Doflamingo was listed as fruit user in a video game, but we didn't update the article (although we mentioned that). So if you want we can do the same here. leviathan_89 22:43, 10 March, 2013 (UTC)

The only time we ever rely on video games is for original characters like Popora, Simon, and Gaburi.DancePowderer Talk 22:48, March 10, 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That would be just as bad as how the Bleach Wikia did it when they used a Bleach card game as a "canon" source for a name. Also Levi the article was "updated". I had removed that but left the reference in for the game. SeaTerror (talk) 00:44, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

What I meant was that we don't clearly state he he a devil fruit user. 11:33, March 11, 2013 (UTC)~

So.. we should ignore an actual spelling and speculate.   Galaxy 9000   00:59, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

We're ignoring a spelling from an unreliable source.DancePowderer Talk 01:00, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Only canon sources count. SeaTerror (talk) 01:00, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Why should we ignore it? How can we absolutely call it unreliable? If no other name can be dug up, then this is the only real one we have.   Galaxy 9000   01:03, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Because it came from a VIDEO GAME. Video games have a history of being unreliable when it comes to spelling. We've never used video games as sources for this kind of thing for exactly that reason. Just because it's the only one, doesn't mean it's the right one.DancePowderer Talk 01:07, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, viedogames were never considered as information sources to begin with. You can tell yourself that "Perhona" is a ridiculous name too. leviathan_89 11:33, 11 March, 2013 (UTC)

Levi you misread what I said. It actually did say he had a Devil Fruit. I had to change it. SeaTerror (talk) 19:14, March 11, 2013 (UTC)

I believe it was decided that Doflamingo shouldn't be categorized as devil fruit user until confirmed in the manga, like Lafitte and others similar cases (I'm all ok considering him one, but not because he was stated in a videogame). leviathan_89 20:23, 11 March, 2013 (UTC)

Move to Perhona Pt. 2 Edit

After the discussions on Gekko Moriah's talk, I think it's time to revisit. We're not really clear what sources we prioritize over others. At least with Moriah, he had romanizations that went both ways. With P, the only romanizations we've ever seen say "Perhona". It says this in a handful of merch, video games, recently a deck o' cards. Usually not a source we go with over things like databooks or wanted posters. But Perona doesn't have any of those. The only source we have for Perona is the Viz and FUNimation translations. Those are also a bottom-of-the-barrel source for us that we almost always avoid using. We've got two bad sources that conflict and it's time we figure out what our actual order-of-operation is. Ryu-Chan•|•Talk 14:42, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Lucci is also spelled "Rucchi" in nearly all merchandise and video games. That stuff is so unreliable and flippant that we don't really ever use it as a source. So no, I don't think we should change this well-established name for the sake of something like that. Awaikage Talk 16:24, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

I will agree with Kage on that. Also since we dont know which one of "Perona/Perhona" is the right one we might as well just leave the already existing one. Dinosel (talk) 16:27, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

Personally I would only use as "official source" stuff related to manga (manga, sbs, databook), maybe even anime, and treat everything else not as "official source" but as "suggestion". If we like it, we use it, otherwise we stick with our choices. We don't have to feel obligated to use such romanization because those sources don't give too much weight on romanizations as we do. Merchandise stuff has to "choose" a romanization for internationalization, but I doubt they "ponder" such choice. I mean, I believe no one would choice "perhona" as romanization because it's weird, but maybe that's something your average employee who makes such decision don't get because he is Japanese

Even for Viz/funimation you can almost consider them like any translation group. Granted, they provide the "official English names" but they are "official" for the One Piece adaptation for USA/UK. They are the official romanizations.

To conclude, IMO the important question should be: do you like/agree with "Perhona"? I personally don't. leviathan_89 16:58, 14 August, 2016 (UTC)

If there is no source for Perona in any Japanese material, then I think that Perhona should take the title Meshack (talk) 17:42, August 14, 2016 (UTC)

And that is correct. There is no Japanese source for Perona. You throw around how unreliable it is with things like "Rucchi", but we also consider Viz/FUNi to be unreliable. Remember that they give us Bon Clay, Sally Isntoinette, Peekatha Krotch, Jimbei, Big Bun, Don Quixote, Camie, Pappagu, Eneru, and Zolo. Why is "the dude who decided how to spell it at Viz Media" a more reliable source than "the dude who decided how to spell it at Bandai Namco"? Ryu-Chan•|•Talk 01:29, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

So poll? Meshack (talk) 02:13, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

Just because there is no other source doesn't mean we have to use an unreliable one. As for Viz.Funi, take them with a grain of salt.DancePowderer Talk 03:11, August 15, 2016 (UTC)

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