Failed SMILE fruit eatersEdit
Why are they listed as DF users? DF users = 悪魔の実の能力者 = ability users. They only ate the fruits. The side effects have nothing to do with being DF users. DF users and DF eaters are not same. --Klobis (talk) 08:07, May 27, 2019 (UTC)
I see your point & I agree.
If the community is so keen on using the literal translation, then the wiki needs a huge update. They ate a Devil Fruit so they should be included in the galleries and naviboxes. Rhavkin (talk) 13:14, May 27, 2019 (UTC)
I completely agree, they are not users. In the Discord server, we have been discussing possible alternative names for the category. I'd propose "Consumers of Defective SMILEs" or "Defective SMILE Consumers". As for their placement in galleries and naviboxes, I don't think they should be included with the "Users". 13:38, May 27, 2019 (UTC)
- They ate a Devil Fruit.
- It changed their body.
- They lost the ability to swim.
As Noland said, we discussed it in Discord (which I'd recommend you to join Rhav) and we can't consider them users but consumers, they have no ability gained with this artificial df, they only lost abilities. Devil Fruits give abilities, SMILEs make you lose abilities 90% of the times, so no, we can't say characters like the Pleasures are users. · 20:28, May 27, 2019 (UTC)
Let's assume there was an organic DF that "grants the user the ability to not feel sadness". Let's say it is one of the fruits that also change the user physiology, so that they are always smiling. It's name would be the Hapi Hapi no Mi (we've heard of weirder fruits). Whom ever consumed it will have the same "abilities" as those people but no one would say they aren't users.
The simple fact is, we've never seen anyone who have eaten a DF that has already been bitten into, nor that the SMILEs work exactly the same as organic DF. Maybe with all SMILEs the same fruit can be used multiple times, after all we've seen Gifters with the same animal theme like snakes and scorpions. This is a new matter and can not be compared to anything previously shown. Rhavkin (talk) 21:04, May 27, 2019 (UTC)
You call being unable to feel sadness a granted "ability"? I'd call it being deprived of an ability. Would you call blindness, deafness or congenital analgesia "abilities"? Even characters within the story don't consider what happens to consumers of defective SMILES as abilities, but as an effect worse than being unable to swim.
I specifically had the granted ability in quotation marks. All I tried to say is that the effects of a DF can be both positive and negative, or non effective at all, like how Oda described what would happened if a human ate the Hito Hito no Mi. Like I said before: They ate a Devil Fruit; It changed their body; They lost the ability to swim. Rhavkin (talk) 21:38, May 27, 2019 (UTC)
We understand what you said Rhavkin, you are repeating yourself. No one is refuting that Devil Fruits have negative effects. We simply disagree: eating a failed SMILE does not make them a user because they are not using any special abilities. There is no reason to assume or speculate about a "happiness fruit" because that is theoretical. That kind of argument requires a real equivalent. If this is about the term "users", you are the only one who thinks that is the proper word to use. Frankly, I don't think SMILEs should be categorized with other Devil Fruits at all, as they are artificial, but I say we focus on this failed SMILE categorization first. 02:35, May 28, 2019 (UTC)
I don't think you do. What I'm saying goes beyond if SMILE are DF, it's about whether a DF eater is like a DF user. By the wiki literal translation, the term should be "Ability users" and the entire wiki needs an update, If we go be the current term "Fruit user", then the granted abilities (positive and negative) shouldn't be a factor.
- Eating a SMILE but only gaining the weaknesses = Not a user.
- Eating a DF but only gaining the weaknesses = user. (i.e. Hito Hito no Mi)
Majority or not, this topic is still not close. If we go by the literal translation of "ability users" then the wiki need to change some articles accordingly. If the criteria is being effected by a fruit, for better or for worse, then the failed SMILEs must stay.
No one commented on my equivalation to a human eating the Hito Hito no Mi, which is the closest confirmation from Oda the even suffering just the weakness still makes you a DF/ability user. I'd like to give another exception to the rule, the Sui Sui no Mi who does not make the user lose the ability to swim. There are no rules to what a DF can cause, including weaknesses so the fact that SMILEs has a confirmed successes rate doesn't mean the failed ones aren't SMILEs, which are actually named after the failed ones effect so if anything, the failed one are more of a SMILEs then the successes. Until we get a confirmation from Oda about them not being DF users, we have all the criteria to include them as such. Rhavkin (talk) 06:13, June 1, 2019 (UTC)
Rhav, just count and check there's a majority in favor of change. The Sui Sui no Mi lets you "swim" in solid stuff, so unless the contrary is said Senor Pink is still unable to swim in the water. We have lots of exceptions in lots of matters, if we had to go all literal this wouldn't be a good and useful wiki but some kind of trash glossari. If you wanna start a new discussion feel free to do so but check the discussions rules before, to not bring back something already discussed few days ago.· 01:07, June 2, 2019 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that if we go be the literal "Ability users" instead of the common "Devil Fruit user" (which the failed SMILE eaters are) then we should change a lot of character page to say "ability user", and while we're at it, based on the Sui Sui no Mi, change the "lose the ability to swim" to "lose the ability to submerge in water".
It is only fair that if you go literal on one aspect of DF, we'll go literal on them all. If not, the point about the Failed SMILE user not gaining an ability is not enough to dispute then being DF users. Rhavkin (talk) 04:13, June 2, 2019 (UTC)
Devil fruits in separated articles with SMILE devil fruits Edit
i have seen so many edit wars just now recently. i believe we need to talk about these editing if we should put some variation types of SMILE fruits on the separation articles.
- This is me and since the fruits imitate the powers of actual Zoans, which has been stated, I feel there is room to mention their mimickry. Others disagree, but I think its appropriate. The association is already made because its been stated their "Artifical Devil Fruits". I labelled them as "Smile" fruits. If wording is a problem then I'd like to continue to edit. I would not bother editing if I did not feel that its appropriate. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 23:12, August 29, 2019 (UTC)
I think it is a leap to say that SMILEs directly correlate to certain Devil Fruits unless we know for certain that they were researched and modeled after intentionally. SMILEs are rather random to my knowledge, so to me, the idea of specific linkages is a stretch. 00:30, August 30, 2019 (UTC)
I think simpler Trivia entries on imitations would fit better. Their placements in Usage was awkward and the other sections would be just as problematic. Dragonus Nesha (talk) 01:25, August 30, 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, SMILEs being on organic Devil Fruit-articles doesn't make sense to me, since SMILEs don't work like organic Devil Fruits. Trivia maybe, but certainly not in useage or otherwise. --JouXIII (talk) 06:00, August 30, 2019 (UTC)
They shouldn't be mentioned at all but if people want them on there then they should be in Trivia at best. They definitely do not belong in their own sections since they have nothing to do with the real Devil Fruits. SeaTerror (talk) 19:01, August 30, 2019 (UTC)
The list of SMILEs is getting pretty massed up with every character seen is added. Comparing to regular Devil Fruits pages, we only list the named ones and those eaten by a named character. Would anyone have a problem with doing the same here? The main difference is that the unnamed ones names can by deducted by appearance, so we could have names for most, if not all, of them. Rhavkin (talk) 08:57, January 5, 2020 (UTC)