Talk:List of One Piece episodes (seasons 1–8)/Archive 1

To do

• Create tables for all episodes.
  • Make this page conform with Template:Episode list.
• Create entries for all episodes.
  • Translated Japanese name, Japanese airdate, number.
  • Screenshot. Because of fair use requirements each image should identify a key moment in the story, or show something else important and unique to the episode.
  • Image caption. For our fair use justification, each image should have an accompanying caption that explains the images' subject.
  • Short summaries. Summaries should be 2-3 lines long, so that they don't expand their table box. Longer summaries should have a good episode page created for them.
• Episode pages.
  • Infobox with screenshot.
  • Sections. At least these three: 1) Identifying lead paragraph, 2) "Plot" section, 3) "External links" with link to tv.com, imdb.com, etc. page about the episode.
  • Template:One Piece general at the bottom.
  • Add differences between the Japanese and US versions. See here.
    

Feel free to modify and discuss this to do list. - Peregrinefisher 06:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

General

You're doing a good job. Congratulations on a succesful covering of One Piece so far! I didn't know where to send my fanmail, so I just added my admiration here instead.

Uh... for some reason, the episode guide has been translated into some other language.... Help?

Translations

While I understand that most fo these names are rought translations or were possibly done by one place and copied here, the G8 arc and probably all the non dub ones after it are are incorrect. I will be updating them to more-correct translations to match the way the rest of the ones in the article was translated, and if someone else could do the same for the Davy Back Fight and beyind, that wouldbe nice. I will be using KF's subs, since the rest of the article used them.

Incomplete

The page is just this... Also, all the links to individual arcs and episodes are of poor standards. Angel Emfrbl 20:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

... So, exactly what do you suggest to do? Sigmasonic X 01:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode Summaries

I think that we should move the episode summeries the Original names, and use the facts as they where presented in the original, pointing out the changes made, after all, look at how many episodes 4kids skipped, altered, meshed together, Et Cetera, Et Cetera. And because 4kids altered so many episodes, I do not believe them a reliable source. I will bring this up in them main One Piece discussion page(Justyn 23:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC))

Let's make it like List of Outlaw Star episodes

I think the formatting on this page makes it very hard to find what you're looking for. We should make this page look like other episode lists such as this or this. It would be a huge make over, and require a lot of discussion to decide how to do it. - Peregrinefisher 07:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Spiffy new tables

I've started to convert this page over to spiffy Template:Episode list tables. What I would love is to tag team this page. I can do summaries, tables or screenshots if someone will share the work with me. - Peregrinefisher 07:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely don't like the idea of tables

Uh, it was way better and much simpler without the tables. Renegade78 00:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This the standard way of doing episode lists on wikipedia. See Template:Episode list. - Peregrinefisher 00:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has chosen various episode lists as the best lists that wikipedia has to offer, see here. They all follow a standard format. - Peregrinefisher 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

If you guys want to go ahead and change the format that's fine (I'll even help you do it, if you'd like.) But PLEASE keep the original episode titles. It's much better. - Jrinu 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Please help, this thing is huge! I think the original titles is a good idea. I was just using what was already there. We should fix the external links so it links to something with the originals. - Peregrinefisher 18:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you can add summaries, I can add screenshots, although I'm out of town this week. And there are a few more individual pages that need to be linked to. Find them here. - Peregrinefisher 18:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You got it, I'll certainly help. I was going to do the Baratie arc, but since that already seems to be a work in progress, I'll get started on the Arlong Arc ...eventually. - Jrinu 22:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How come you're using the US airdate rather than the original airdate? Especially given the fact that the episode titles are the Japanese titles. The Splendiferous Gegiford 21:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll start changing them. It's a large project, and originally a bunch of the names were the US names. I think the best way it to use Japanese names and dates on the list page, but include both in the individual episode pages. Feel free to help change them. - Peregrinefisher 22:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Epsiode number in front of title

We should make the table so that the episode number is in front of the title. Renegade78 23:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the standard way of doing a list of episodes. See Template:Episode list. We're trying to make all the episode lists on wikipedia look the same. - Peregrinefisher 18:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The standard should be changed then, starting with One Piece. Besides, the Fullmetal Alchemist episode list has the episode number in front. Why can't One Piece have it like that aswell? Renegade78 01:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

hold on does anyone know how many episodes are on one piece JCno1fan10:36, 12 July 2007

Considering your referring to a old discussion... Resolved many months ago... Yeah you have a point. Also, episode names may change with translation - numbers rarely do. Angel Emfrbl 11:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Version handling

Isn't Wikipedia's anime policy that the English version takes priority over the Japanese one? Matty-chan 05:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It can't in this case because of this. As seen here a great number of the Japanese episodes have been cut and spliced together to make completely original English episodes either because of censorship reasons or etc. Some of them did not air in English and most don't even have an English version to source from since the Japanse is still going and the dub is way behind. It is best to use the Japanese version for this list. There used to be a list here cronicling the English Episodes but a troll blanked all that informaton.

Because of reasons specified above, a list of dub episode titles should be incorpirated in the episode list. It means making another long episode list but it is necessary so people who want to know the titles of the english dub version or want to know where the English dub is currently at can refer to it.

Maybe it is feasible to keep both episode list in parallel on the same page, like in One Piece Episode Comparison Guide? After all, most episodes match 1 to 1. Pro: One page only, more info for users. Con: Require creative advanced table use, reduced width per entry. If not, it would be good to still have a simplified comparison table.... but where, in US version page? Musaran 19:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

World Gov. Saga Off-center

The title for the world government saga in the table of contents is off-center. Anyone gonna fix that? Renegade78 19:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pictures

Wow, many of the pictures on this page are completely random o_0. Shouldn't they relate more to the actual episodes instead of having, say, a picture of the Usopp Pirates looking shocked during the episode where Luffy defeats Kuro and recruits Usopp, or a picture of Richie the lion for the episode where the Straw Hats escape Loguetown and set off for the Grand Line? Heck, do we even need pictures in the first place? Sigmasonic X 21:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the pictures should illustrate some unique aspect of the episode. I added that picture of Usopp's crew, and I chose it becuase it's the episode where they get a lot of screentime. If you think a different picture would illustrate what's going on better, feel free to change it. As far as the lion picture goes, there are a number of images that should be replaced. - Peregrinefisher 21:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Started filling in the screenshots which are not there. Btw, some of those screenshots that are already there are kinda random so im gonna try and replace them as i go.Peppersalt 22:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work on the screenshots, but we need summaries to go with each screenshot to meet Wikipedia:Fair use requirements. Someone will eventually delete them, if they're by themselves. Apparently it's easy to find people to take screenshots, but hard to find people to write summaries. Someone who added like 20 screenshots a couple of weeks ago has already had their's deleted. - Peregrinefisher 17:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

A BIG Warning!

I've just notice we have 'edits' done to each episode. I hate to say it guys... They have to go. One of the things once upon I asked about when I first started doing edits to One Piece was in the reaches of having such things on the pages. This was on the Anime/Manga adaptions things, when they were on the front page. The result I got back was that this is our Own Research... Something we CAN'T have on Wikipedia... However, we CAN link to sites that supply it.

We have them on the Adpations page, a brief description of things that are altered and removed... This is our limit. I hate to be the barer of bad news, but they can't stay. If you've got them there because somewhere else has them, then that somewhere else shouldn't have them either.

Either way... The outcome (don't hate me for this) is I'm gonna go around and get rid of those. I'm not going to do this until tomorrow though, see what everyone's reply is. But we need to reframe from these such things in future. If one of the non-One Piece Wikipedians say this and new about the whole 'own research thing' they'd do the same take this is mind... And if ever there is a discussion on these pages, someone might grasp at it. Angel Emfrbl 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Aren't these edits things that can be easily verified by looking at the two versions? - Peregrinefisher 21:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what they are - They have to go. They can stay in one particulaur form, but its along the lines of what was written in the Adaptions page... But that page itself leans towards anti-4Kids and its impossible to keep these articles neutral if we change things to that.

Basically, write a paragraph of a FEW general note worthy edits written at the most, but don't go into what we've done on pages like this one. That crossing the lines into our own research and observations. As I said, we can link to sites with that stuff on but we can't write up all up ourslves. I've actually mentioned this a few times in the past one the One Piece main page and other pages since I learnt of it. O.o' Angel Emfrbl 22:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you explain to me what part of Wikipedia:No original research we are violating. It doesn't seem to match any of the bullets about What is excluded. You say write a few, but either it violates WP:NOR, in which case they all go, or it doesn't, in which case they can stay (if they are verifiable). - Peregrinefisher 22:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... All I know is when I put this idea up before I got told what I was told. Otherwise we'd have had something like this up a long time ago. Trust me on this note, I'm not lying. You can look through the past discussions to find my questions if you want to do that. Angel Emfrbl 22:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me where these discussion are? - Peregrinefisher 02:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a lot of discussions to go through to find it. IF I find it. This was several months back so give me a week to find it. I'm not sure where it is now. Right now, I have to fix a small crisis. Angel Emfrbl 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Take your time and thanks for working to make this page better. - Peregrinefisher 19:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Still haven't found it, but I haven't looked yet. Been busy with another site... @_@ Angel Emfrbl 21:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Text in images

I'd just like to say, those images with the sub texting across them just look bad. They should all be replaced ASAP. Its not difficult to get a image without text from an episode. Angel Emfrbl 21:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article is about the episode, not the fansub. If we want them replaced with a better image, we need to remove them or else no one will upload a new one. - Peregrinefisher 23:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Split off english dub list

I'm going to split off the english dub names because the page is getting too long. I'm trying to decide on the page name. Maybe List of One Piece (US) episodes or List of One Piece dubbed episodes or List of One Piece episodes (English) or something else. Anyone have an opinion? - Peregrinefisher 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"List of One Piece episodes (US edition)". It keeps the current article name structure. It highlights the reason for being separate: different cut/episoding (remember to explain this). It does not get in the way of possible other editions (there could be a GB english one). It follows the wiki disambiguation rules. But before spliting, please look at "Version handling" diszcussion. Musaran 19:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Saga, Season, Arc grouping?

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject List of Television Episodes/structure recommends to have episodes grouped by season, each having a different color-coding (example 1, example 2).
One piece is currently divided in arcs, arcs being grouped in sagas. Fansub community usually goes with seasons, I suppose One Piece is sold as season packs too, so seasons are not just production concern and I think we need them too.
As far as I know seasons includes full arcs but sagas can overlap seasons, so I suppose a grouped color scheme would do, like green for season 1, light green for arc 1, dark green for arc 2, etc.
Season episodes: 1-61, 62-77, 78-92, 93-130, 131-143, 144-195, 196-219, 220-263. Musaran 21:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Ugh... Arabasta arc starts with episode 92, last in season 3. No clean borders after all, unless 92 is considered an interlude or introduction.Musaran 09:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Good edit?

Whas this a good edit? - Peregrine Fisher 09:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd say so. We really don't need the summaries to be that long. The Splendiferous Gegiford 16:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Template messes up after a certain number

The Template:Episode list messes up after a certain number. I think we've hit that number. We may want to start thinking about breaking this page up. - Peregrine Fisher 19:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've brought this up on Template talk:Episode list. We may have to change to a different template. The Splendiferous Gegiford 19:20, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The page is 100kb long and it will get bigger when all the summaries are finished. I'm thinking we could break it up like List of One Piece episodes (xyz arc) or something. I'm going out of town, but I can do it in a week, or someone can be bold and just go for it. Or we could just make a table that looks like the template, and use it for eps past 297 or whatever. I think that will work. - Peregrine Fisher 19:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. Copy the format I stuffed in and you can bypass the problem. It doesn't have the same height spacing as the episode list template outputs, but I can't accurately copy the effect. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:52, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

One hour specials

Where do the one hour One Piece specials fit in? Are they included in this page because I didn't see them. Or at least I did not see "Boss Straw Hat Luffy's detective story" is it part of the main episodes? I heard there are other one hour specials. Am I missing something? 69.141.78.155 21:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Chopper vs. Wiper and other names

Is it Chopper or Wiper? We should decide all the correct name we want to use, then find/replace them all with the correct version. - Peregrine Fisher 20:16, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh? What are you talking about? The Splendiferous Gegiford 20:21, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Some of the summaries refer to Chopper (that's how I know his name) as Wiper. I think it's because some fan subs use Chopper, and some use Wiper. For instance, episode 164 "Light the Fire of Shandia! Wiper the Warrior" uses both. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peregrine Fisher (talk • contribs) 20:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC).

They are two different characters... Wiper and Chopper isn't a conflict of translations at all. Angel Emfrbl 23:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode Images

As you're probably aware, there's an image for each episode. That makes 300 images, one for each episode. However, this does little to nothing to aid the article. Personally, I have never seen a single episode of One Piece. To those that would like to find out more about One Piece, the images do not help at all.

Furthermore, you have to keep in mind that Wikipedia is accessed by users from all around the world, with their Internet connection varying in quality. For those whose connections aren't up to par, the images take FOREVER to load. I'm safe to estimate that each image is around 20KB, so 300 of those images is 600KB. That is beyond insane for a page, when it is recommended for a Wikipedia page to be shortened or split into another article when a page exceeds 32KB. graphitesmoothie ^{(talk | contributions)} 05:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This article will be split some day, it's at the top of the to do list above, but I would prefer that you leave it until it's done. Also, some pages just tend to be large. List of South Park episodes (a featured list) has 150 images and summaries, and it's been determined to be an example of the best work that wikipedia has to offer. It's probably time to start talking about how we will split this up, when we do, though.- Peregrine Fisher 05:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I live across the globe in Hong Kong, and the images load fine. If images load too slowly for some users, they can turn off images in their browser options. I also doubt that people will still have problems loading larger than average amounts of images, with the availability of much faster internet connection and processing speeds that is not expensive nowadays. There will always be a minority who cannot afford enjoy some parts of web browsing. I don't agree that the majority should have to compensate.203.218.26.240 06:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I think that your calculations (300*20KB=600KB) might be off "a little," graphitesmoothie. If you save that "one webpage" to your computer, the size of it will be appx 7.86 MB and growing.

About your first inquiry about the images, we could use Media Player Classic to create "Thumbnail - Screenshots". If you have Media Player Classic, open a video file (mainly an episode of One Piece), then click on File, then click on Save Thumbnails. What do the rest of you think? Can we edit the thumbnail images so that they link to the Thumbnail Screenshots, or is that against the rules?

Usage of images in LOEs

There's presently a discussion at WP:AN in regards to image usage in LOEs. With several having gone as far to edit war in the hopes of removing images. You are invited to participate and give opinions, so that another consensus (of many) may be reached, again. Matthew 12:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Links

Maybe should add where to watch like youtube

• How about no? Especially now that the series has been licensed by FUNimation and they are guaranteeing us uncut DVDs. Plus, YouTube is not a legal source.

when

when will the funimation dub come out?70.124.12.133 03:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Please you could dawn with episode 320 and when they transmit it in Japan? I pray to you! 17:13, 22 July 2007

That last one is confusing. Can you write it again so its understandable? Angel Emfrbl 17:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

When the episode 330 will be transmitted in japan? Can you write the date? Please! 21:51, 05 November 2007

FUNimation Uncut Episodes

Should this Section be edited to include FUNi's Uncut Episode Titles as they come out? Should another Section be made? Something should be done since the First DVD is already out. User:DemonRin 08:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is something I've been wondering for awhile now. More specifically, I'm wanting to know if there's ultimately any point to listing the FUNi episodes on the dubbed list, since they're not cutting and editing episodes like 4Kids was doing, and they're re-dubbing and re-releasing the first 143 episodes as well. I'll probably end up asking about this and a related DBZ issue at the main animanga project page. —Dinoguy1000 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the old titles for episodes 1-13 with FUNi's titles. There's no reason to really go with alternative translations when professionally translated ones are readily available. Plus, these translations are more accurate anyway - how the crap anyone got "Showdown Between the True Powers of the Devil" from "Akuma no Mi no Nōryoku Taiketsu!" is beyond me. If anyone has a problem with the FUNi titles being used, please provide a good reason as to why Joe Fansubber's translations should take priority over Clyde Mandelin's professional work, or even over some random Wikipedia guy who happens to be just as bilingual as the fansubber. AdamantBMage (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Bringing the list up to snuff

Did a chunk of it today, changing the fields in episodes 14-300something to the correct format. You can help; remove the image caption field, add |JapaneseTitle = and |KanjiTitle = below |EnglishTitle = and then copy and past the kanji title from the list at ja:ONE PIECE (アニメ) here. That way, all I have to do is transliterate them. Doceirias (talk) 03:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Navigation

Forgive me if I don't follow the formating for adding a post to this page. I don't edit wikipedia much because what I can do is limited not knowing the conventions or coding. I can never make myself learn the conventions used because I can't justify the effort considering how little I edit wikipedia. All I ask this one time is you look past my horrid formating to answer the question I am trying to pose. What happened to the navigation at the top of the page in the past four days. The history for the 26th of May had the one I'm referring to. It was organized and easy to use, the best out of any episode list I've seen on wikipedia, which for some reason has become my de facto source for watching a new anime or checking when episodes come out in japan, but has since been replaced with a standard list that in addition to not fitting on one screen length for most users takes longer to express less information. Just asking why it was removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.165.79 (talk) 18:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It was not appropriate at all and violates our MoS. We do not use that sort of system of navigation. The standard menu is sufficient, and will be even more so when this article is cleaned up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say I agree with 68.205.165.79. The page was excellent, probably the best episode guide on Wikipedia. The standard menu is not clear enough in comparison. That’s a reel loss in term of clarity of information, and therefore, of time. -- Loriquet (talk · contribs) 02:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Loriquet (talk • contribs) — Loriquet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It was very appropriate. I'm not going to argue if it violates the MoS, but instead argue if it increases the effectiveness of navigation. What good is the MoS if it hinders an articles worth because it's impossible to navigate? The previous navigation provided a gateway to the rest of the article by organizing the arcs visually. The standard ToC is woefully inadequate in this context; there is nothing to indicate what episodes an arc comprises of or what saga it's a part of, and it doesn't make use of the horizontal space taken advantage of beautifully by the previous navigation. This is very non-intuitive and annoying to use. Qtcider (talk) 00:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)— Qtcider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

To both of you, no, it does not lose information, no the previous navigation was not a good thing. This is not a fansite, nor a personal webpage. Consistency is important between articles. The standard TOC is perfectly acceptable and provides the appropriate navigation. It is not impossible the navigate, the arcs are very likely to be stripped out, so that won't be an issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You think in programmer instead of thinking in designer. A user doesn’t care if the MoS are violated or not. He just wants the information he needs as quickly as possible. That’s not the case here.

See, I have a large screen, using a high resolution, but, when I arrive on the page, I don’t see the menu entirely! Ergonomically speaking, that’s bad, really bad. Personally, I don’t want to go to the end of the page to see if new episodes have been released, if I can have the information on the top (and I don’t even talk about the problem of spoilers by navigating on the page!).

The real progress is, when someone has a good idea (here, a horizontal menu), to reproduce it. I think every episodes guides on Wikipedia should take example on what was the previous version of this one. Not the contrary…

PS: I’m French, so excuse me if I make some mistakes. Loriquet (talk · contribs) 21:02, 03 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, I think in both as I am both. The episode list is going to be completely reorganized, so it does not matter. The menu was not appropriate, now or then, nor do we do anything to attempt to hide spoilers. Wikipedia is not a spoiler free zone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering what happened to the navigation menu as well. From what I can gather, the reason it was changed is because it violates the Manual of Style for Wikipedia, and for the sake of consistency, the navigation menu was removed. However! As several people have mentioned, people found the original menu much more ergonomically sound. The very first thing written on the Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style is that "Editors should follow [Wikipedia's Manual of Style], except where common sense and the occasional exception will improve an article." The article continues on, saying, "If an article has been stable in a given style, it should not be converted without a reason that goes beyond mere choice of style." This episode list article has been stable for quite some time already; many have enjoyed great benefit from the original format, and it has greater practical use than the currently existing version. Unless you can provide a case in which the format of the article created any threat other than stylistic choice, I see little reason not to return it to its original format. The entire reason that a Manual of Style was created is to make the article as easily approachable as possible, to prevent confusion. The original was much easier to navigate, and was a clear and well thought-out presentation of the information. I'm sure that you mean for the best, Collectonian, but if you would reconsider the changes to this article, I'm sure many will be grateful. -- Kkchong (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd actually agree that it worked for the page as it was, but the page should be changing dramatically soon - namely, the list will be broken up into several pages. Then the usual table of contents will work just fine. Doceirias (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Again, no, it will remain as it is, with a standard navigational menu. It was not appropriate, and the old menu did not improve the article at t all. Also, you are selectively quoting from completely unrelated sections of the MoS, which is a bad method for attempting to support your choice. The aritcle will be brought in line with the actual relevant MoS guideslines, including the project guidelines for episode lists. The MoS was also made for consistency, which the standard menu provides. There is nothing in the MoS at all that supports a hacked up menu over using one of the standard ones. It will be left in the standard format and the list clean up will continue.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What I did was not "selective quoting". It is the very first thing shown at the top of the Manual of Style, reflecting an overriding philosophy that the Manual of Style represents. The claim that the original menu is not an improvement is unbased (and please be careful with your spelling--!); many comments that run before you claim that it functioned much better. The 'ease-of-use' of an article is determined by its readers, first and foremost. Do not forget, in serving the great Wikipedia project, that the ones Wikipedia is made for are its readers. Wikipedia is not made for the sake of the rule book; a set of rules has no use for, and cannot enjoy the knowledge provided by Wikipedia, unlike you and I. On another note, if the page will be changing dramatically, as Doceirias has mentioned, I await their change and will trust that they will provide the best they can for us; if there are any things that can be done to improve the new article, I will be glad to help. -- Kkchong (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, no matter how many times these drones bring up policy (many times incorrectly) the fact remains: This article sucks. It's awful and almost entirely useless. Drakon Nacht (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

NOTE: For those looking for the original format with a Navigation bar and filler labeling, etc., I've moved it over to the Episode Guide at the One Piece Wikia. The article here at Wikipedia can now be improved to wikipedia's standards, while those that wish for more fan-related information can head on over there. Hopefully, this can satisfy everyone! (I've spent a lot of time on this) -- Kkchong (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Return to original design

I don't care if you re-add the 4Kids episode release date, but could you return this page to the way it used to look? It was much easier to find things that way. Flaming Mustang (talk) 06:09, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, no, as has already been discussed multiple times above. The list will remain in the proper format. The old design was transwikied over to the One Piece wiki if you wish to find it there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Then shouldn't you provide a link to the trans-wikied article? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 19:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone linked to it above. It does not belong in the list itself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The site I trans-wikied it to is here, at the Episode Guide at the One Piece Wikia. -- Kkchong (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay collectonian, wikipedia should be easy to use and understand for the masses. The masses are *NOT* interested in this 'official seasons' approach to organizing this page. Organization by arc was much easier, the way it is now looks quite frankly retarded. It just makes it so much harder to use, everyone sensible will be happy if you just stopped having anything to do with this article. K thnx. Stylishman (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the "masses" are not, only a handful of SPA fanboys. Get over it. It will be formatted per the guidelines, not per a few whining people. I'm not the only one who agrees with the new format, it has project consensus whether you like it or not. Just most of us ignore you guys rather than waste our fingers arguing with you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that you should know that these "whiners" represent a minority on three levels: it contains only those who visit this page; of those, only the ones who take the effort to look at the discussion of this page; and finally, of those people, it contains only those that take the effort to edit the page and add a comment. The "whiners" may not only ones upset--they are just the only ones you can see. It seems, as well, that there are quite a few of these "whiners" (this discussion page has been expanding quite quickly since the last time I've checked it), so the actual populace of those unsatisfied may be rather large. Out of all these comments, I've yet to see a single comment from a user thanking the editors for the new layout. Though the saying goes, "Ten negative comments for every One positive", there isn't even one positive comment, other than from those directly involved in the new layout. Sometimes, pleasing the users may outweigh pleasing the rulebook. Who is this page for, in any case (For the users, or for the rulebook)? I ask this question honestly. -- Kkchong (talk) 03:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Its for all readers, not just fans, and done so inline with our guidelines and policies. And yeah, its usual only a handful of people who will complain, almost all of whom are non-editors. The new design has consensus from the project. Believe me, if it didn't it would have been reverted and other project members objecting. If the new design was not appropriate, actual established editors who are well versedin the guidelines would be arguing for it. They aren't. Only a few non-editors and SPAs are, and they are mostly arguing only from a case of WP:ILIKEIT. If we did everything based on such comments, we'd have a dozen links to every fansite in every article, tons of non-free images, pages upon pages of plot summary, with an article on every last episode giving a blow-by-blow of each episode's plot. We'd allow people to put whatever original research they want, and none of the pages would look consistent because people would be able to just do whatever they want. In the end, the new design is of more benefit to most readers, those who don't even realize they can edit a Wikipedia article or leave notes on the talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, if the site ever did get out of hand like that (inclusion of non-free images and pages and pages of plot summary), then changes should definitely be made. I think the original, however, was only an episode list, and did not contain excessive fan content such as what you've mentioned. There were a few I'd like to address, however. Though the debate seemed to have been settled in favor of its removal, "anime-only" is verifiable by research (that research being to go through the One Piece media of both graphic novel and animated formats). "Arcs", however, are less verifiable, other than by story analysis and such, and though they are immediately apparent when viewing the original subject media, there are no official titles or divisions of the episodes as such. You seem to be putting a lot of effort into this, Collectonian. By any chance, are you a fan of One Piece? -- Kkchong (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal is removal. Anime-only is not going to be added as a way around it. Its also factually false. Even episodes that follow the manga ares till anime only. All anime is manga, but manga is not anime. And no, not a fan at all. I've never seen it, read it, nor have any desire to. I'm just one of the hard working, and often abused, members of the Anime and manga project striving to have quality anime and manga articles, clean up the mess that many of our articles have become, and improve them within Wikipedia guidelines and standards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah! If you haven't seen it, then please do! I think that would solve this entire problem. I personally felt completely indifferent towards it when I first saw it, and I thought of it as some "unrefined" child's show, but when I took the effort to sit down and watch it, it was amazing. I'm sure you'll love it! Watch it if you have the time, and don't let this dumb wiki page thing get in the way of your enjoyment. -- Kkchong (talk) 04:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. "Anime only" is perfectly applicable--if I wrote a novel about Bob's adventures at the Islands of Bali, and a company decided to animate it, and followed his adventures in Bali but decided to add a new venture into the Bahamas, then that Bahama fiasco only exists in the animation, and isn't be in the original novel. Hence the term, "Animation only", or in this case, "Anime only". I understand what you mean that all the anime is "anime only", but there is still a difference between the anime and manga that can only be so succinctly put in the same words, "anime only", though it does not hold the exact same meaning. But nevermind this--go watch it!

No, watching wouldn't "fix" anything. I take the same neutral point of view with other series I have watched/read and absolutely love. The plot doesn't really interest me, and skimming the summaries while working over this page confirmed it. I'm not much into comedic stuff. And no, anime only isn't applicable. All of the episodes are anime only. Every episode has scenes and words unique to it. I have yet to see a single anime adapted from an anime that was a word for word, scene for scene animation of a manga. Indeed, it would be impossible, as anime requires motion (well, except for those two horrible episodes of the Kare Kano anime that literally did just stick panels of manga on the screen with stick figures *shudder*). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) While One Piece is one of the best shonen manga out there, the fact remains that anime pages on Wikipedia do not include information on which episodes are filler - and calling it "anime only" instead doesn't solve that. I realize that information comes in handy for some people, but for all the reasons that have been stated several times over on this talk page, that information really can't be added. Please go to a fan site for that information - it is readily available. Doceirias (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh! Yes, of course. I was just discussing whether "Anime Only" was verifiable--I don't really mind if it isn't added, since I'm already fine with it being taken out. =P And alright, Collectonian, if you're a busy person...just don't pass your judgment so easily! Comedy isn't the only thing One Piece is about, and a summary isn't the same as an experience. -- Kkchong (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

With over 500 manga volumes in my collection, the 20-30 more I buy per month, and what I'm reading for my library, I have to be at least somewhat selective. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

4kid and funimation and original.

I was wondering if there should be a new artcile for the 4kids dub giving all episoe titles and summaries for that dub there and difference between the dub and original and any dvd releases. Then have original one use only hte funiamtion titles and the proper episode numbers rather than 4kids muck up and include all the funimation releases.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 19:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there shouldn't. There already is one and per the AfD it is being merged back here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Well someone is goign to have a hard job serparting the 4kids parts out considering the merged quite a few epiosde totgether as well as skipped them, it bit daft merging so many dubs into one article the should either be serparate or not here at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 09:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Getting REALLY annoyed

OK the list here is barely usable. It sucks. I don't think we should change it because the Arcs and other useful information supposedly don't fit here. BUT WHY CANT I PUT A SIMPLE LINK TO A WEBSITE THAT DOES HAVE THAT INFORMATION???? That website has all kinds of valuable information that is DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE ARTICLE. Yet some WikiNazi thinks that this is his personal article and keeps making up some BS about how my link is a form of advertisement or some shit. There are NO ADS. It is another wiki site, and it is 100% ON TOPIC WITH USEFUL INFORMATION THAT EVERYONE KEEPS TRYING TO ADD TO THIS ARTICLE. Since he won't let his PERSONAL wiki site be altered with USEFUL INFORMATION then let me keep the link. I'm so sick of pedantic fools making wikipedia so useless and difficult to use. I get that this page should reflect wiki-standards but that link I added is 100% relevant and is far more justified than plenty of external links I've seen on other pages.The Callipygian (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Its already been explained umpteen times before. Links to wiki's are NOT valid links per WP:EL except for a few rare exeptions. Its a fansite and doesn't belong. Adding the link is spam. Ads do not mean it isn't self-advertisement. Also, cut out the incivility and personal attacks both here and on your personal page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to Wikia, however, are acceptable, aren't they? I mean, we have a template for it. Doceirias (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Not per WP:EL. There is a list of acceptable wiki/wikias that can be linked to, but most do not meet EL requirements, including this one. Specifically WP:ELNO #2 "any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" and #12 "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. It may also fail "Restrictions on linking" #1, but I haven't checked it in depth to see if it has any copyvio stuff. Wikis that meet this criteria might also be added to Meta:Interwiki map." The template has been up for deletion twice, but kept because of those few Wikias which are considered acceptable ELs (like Memory Alpha). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

YES they are. And this is ridiculous. Because there is some information that is USEFUL to people this person won't allow it because they didn't add it. Just look, nothing is allowed that Collectonian doesn't want. It's their own little sandbox and they just don't want to let the other kids play. We need this information and it's very helpful stuff. This isn't some crap about when luffy appeared in Shonen Jump #455 of Iron Man or something random. This is a site that has all the original air dates, story arcs, and other information that is VERY useful to fans and the uninitiated alike. This isn't "fansite" and I don't understand this person's undying determination to make Wikipedia as pedantic as possible when a quick view of my link shows that it fits this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Callipygian (talk • contribs) 21:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they aren't. See above. It fails multiple EL guidelines. That link, in particular, also adds nothing new to the article that isn't already there, considering its the same thing, just arranged differently. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The table is a mess

Seriously, look at it. For the first 13 episodes, we got 4Kids' dub title followed by the FUNi dub title, the original Japanese title, and the romanization of the riginal title. That's fine and all. Now, for the next dozen titles, we got the 4Kids name, whatever translation of the title some fansub used (which shouldn't be in this list in the first place, but eh) and the Japanese title with romaji, and then we switch over to the romaji followed by the fansubber translation followed by the original Japanese title. It looks horrible. Also, uh, can we please identify the first 13 episodes' "Dub Title/Original Title Translated to English" as "4Kids Dub Title/FUNimation Dub Title"? It's what they are, the FUNi titles just happen to be direct translations of the Japanese title as well. AdamantBMage (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The list is in the process of a merge from the old US dub list, and a clean up/correction, so it will look mess for awhile yet -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Fansub titles have been checked for accuracy; doesn't really matter where the translation comes from when there is no official translation. Sometimes we translate, sometimes the people making the list don't speak Japanese and have to grab a title from wherever. They will, obviously, be corrected as the Funimation sets come out. I agree on the title adjustment - I don't think 4Kids/Funimation would be biased, simply accurate. Doceirias (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I had the headers as 4Kids/Funimation, but someone changed them because the Fun ones aren't all out yet. Blech, dealing with these ones that weren't dubbed at all is such a mess! Took me nearly an hour to match the episodes from the dub list here :-P For those without a dub, I just settled for a note at the top - any ideas for other ways to handle it, or do y'all think that's enough? I'm taking a nap break if someone more familiar with the series wants to check what I've done so far (eps 1-52). Also, the US dub list frequently has semi-better summaries, at least more than just one sentence, if someone wants to clean them up to fix names back to the non-dub ones?[1] -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:50, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

What about just "none" or "n/a" - and why does no 4Kids title result in the romanji taking its place? We can always change the headings for each season, by the way - using whatever headings are relevant. Definitely need 4Kids for the seasons they did, and Funimation when the titles are taken from them. Doceirias (talk) 22:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

For those that are doing it, its because the template is too smart for its good and ignored the blank English title field. For the ones like ep 39, where I've moved RTitle down to English title, it goes back to normal. I put NA in the ep number field, and will add unaired to English air date. :) Gonna try to do some more tonight...don't know if I'll get them all done, with 300+ eps, but will try to get more done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I'm the one that changed the headers, but it wasn't because the FUNi episodes haven't all been released yet, I was just making the headings consistent, and would have no bias to changing them back. BTW, if I read right, you guys said that we're listing the 4Kids, Funi, and random English translation titles for each episode... if this is the case (I'd check, but the computer I'm on is crap to the point it would literally take at least two minutes to fully load and render the article -_-;; ), I see no reason not to remove the unofficial translations, since we normally don't use them when we have one (or more) official ones. And on that tipoc, if I may inject a little POV, I'd like to see the Funi dub titles listed first, followed by the 4Kids titles... that would fix the problem when a given episode has no 4Kids title. —Dinoguy1000 06:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Funimation titles only exist for a handful of the episodes, and we're converting the unofficial translations as Funimation titles are released. That's why the titles weren't consistent. 4Kids dub titles only exist for a portion of the series, after which the format will change. Doceirias (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - yeah, what Doceiras said :) Reversing the titles would help...except the 4Kids episodes came first, so putting them second would be confusing (and a little NPOV I think). We had the same issue with List of Tokyo Mew Mew episodes. As you can see, where the 4Kids eps ran out, the table format switched :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of which came first, keeping the accurate translations with the Japanese title seems more logical. Doceirias (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Great work, you guys. Just a note on the Arlong arc - I'm not very familiar with the 4Kids dub, so I don't know exactly what was done here, but I know a bunch of episodes were spliced together here, so the guide is thrown out of whack (which is why including the 4Kids dub titles in this list is somewhat of a problem - they didn't just dub the original episodes, they cut and spliced them so much the series ends up looking completely different episode-wise. AdamantBMage (talk) 16:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

When 4Kids hacks something, they really hack something, eh? I know they've skipped a bunch of episodes and I've been trying to carefully note where they combined several episodes, but I haven't found a single site actually noting them. If anyone has a link that could help, I'd appreciate it :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

How about have the 4kids stuff serpareate since it so mucked up formthe original it very hard to say what episodes are merged etc. I know oyu have already it getting merged but i think it goes to shows in this case it might not be possiable and 4kids dub is probally bet on it own article no one really does anything about it since it really hacked --Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not an option. It already has its own article, and per AfD it must be merged here. We don't generally separate the Japanese and English episodes, even when they are hacked up. It taking hard work to get it merged isn't a reason not to do it, and it is fully possibly, just takes time. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

That when people who think wikipedia rules must be followed by stricitly cause problems there is option to leave but hay i aint going to say anything the one piece guide is looking dafter and dafter as more 4kids are merged, and i aint said anything about merging funimation i agree merge funimation but 4kids should have it own article because techincally it isnt one piece the way it is hacked, but you aint goign ot listen like a few others people i know there so determine to have it presiouly to wikipedia rules and no option for middle ground so go right ahead and mess it up Oh and no i aint having a dig at you or go at you just saying my opinions on wikipedia purists --Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty...but yes, you are really having a dig at me, as I am the one who nominated the other list for the AfD and would likely all under that "purist" group you are complaining about. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I found this through some googling: http://opguide.bravehost.com/episode_list.shtml I changed the episode numbers for the 4Kids dub as best as I could for season 1, but the episode titles are still a mess. Damn, what a hackjob they made of the series. AdamantBMage (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll use that as I work on the rest, and to add some notes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, season 1 has correct titles, numbers and airdates now. Needs a ton of notes, and looks like ass, but that's 4Kids and their hackjob's fault. AdamantBMage (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, merging the two tables together has done nothing but make it look extremely cluttered and ugly. It would be better just to make a separate table for dub titles. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 19:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, no. The table will get cleaned up some as work progresses, but it looks fine. Having TWO lists of such a huge serious would make this page just plain ridiculously long. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you in principal. But he has a point; it looks cluttered. Your current version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_One_Piece_episodes&oldid=223621117 looks horribly in my browser (Opera9.50Beta/100%Zoom/1024PixelWidth) compared to my version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_One_Piece_episodes&oldid=223620165. Though I admit, that it looks better at a higher resolution. Is there a specific guideline, how to handle this kinda issue? Goodraise (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The dates should not wrap. Just let it be for now, please. I'd rather the priority be to get the merge done first and the data accurate, then we can deal with tweaking the layout. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian: let's not worry about what color to paint the bikeshed until we have the walls up. ;) —Dinoguy1000 23:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

This table is horrible. Surely it would be best to have this table for the original and Funimation episodes, and a seperate table for the 4kids episodes, especially because of all the merges 4kids did. And what about the titles for Jaya and Skypiea? We have two titles that are practically the same! I don't know why we don't just list the Funimation versions, as they are the official translations. -- HokageLuffy (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, it's not done yet! Second, it's not a TV-Guide. And Thrid the decision was made, as stated on the top of this very page, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_One_Piece_episodes_(US_TV_broadcast_edition). --Goodraise (talk) 11:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fourth, whether you hate the 4Kids dub or not, it was the FIRST English release and they are still "official." If one were going to be dropped, it would have to be the Funimation, otherwise its being NPOV. Second, again as Goodraise has already noted, it is NOT done yet. Why not let the work finish before trashing it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you're getting carried away. We can no more drop the Funimation titles than the 4Kids titles; both are equally official. Doceirias (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Psst...that was kinda my point :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge done

Merge complete, time to answer my question. :P --Goodraise (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Well i will give credit where credit is due..... From season 6 onwards the table is very good :) but seaosn 1-5 is really a mess and very hard ot understand.... since there no chance of a serpate page for the 4kids dub why not make two tables on the one page with japanese one used for funimation title and air dates and another tbale for the 4kids dub. This is my only opninion on it and i wont be making mroe comment unless spefically asked to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 20:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Two tables just isn't gonna work. The page is already too big. I'll play around with the layout some soonish, try a few options to see what works best. Quick question, did any of the Funi dubs air from before season 6, or only the later eps? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe they've aired any yet, but I'm sure they'll be trying to get their redub syndicated. Doceirias (talk) 23:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Funimaiton dub started at season 6 only. I dnt think there any plans in america to reair the older ones but i bnelieve australis is.

--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the naruto list of episode and it seems ot have a page for each few seasons, if there was a page for eahc two seaosn of one piece them maybe you could do two tables???--Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no, and no. There will NOT be two separate tables, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

And besides that, there has been some limited discussion on redoing Naruto's seasons so that each page covers only one season. —Dinoguy1000 17:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The list acutally looks reasonable now it much clearer and easy to understand but i think maybe the dub colum should be renamed 4kids dub number? just so it knownw it 4kids dub numebr and not funimaiton.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC) edit i should meantion that onyl seaosn 1 is much clearly if seaosn 205 are done the same the 4kids,funimaiton and original will at leas tbe understandable. some of the english airdate havent been added i noticed two epsiode aired in australia first so they should be added.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 10:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fix that and removed the word dub from after Funimation, since those are the titles for both version, presumably. There's a lot of confusion throughout the list, however; lots of notes saying the "dub" combined when they mean the 4Kids dub. This simply isn't accurate. And I can't even work out what the hell is going on with Seasons 7 and up, which have a Dub title mentioned, but only one English title listed. Doceirias (talk) 10:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The 4Kids dub stopped at the end of season 6 5, so after that it's just FUNi's stuff. This is mentioned (more-or-less) in the lead. —Dinoguy1000 21:23, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So why are we still listing two titles in the headers when there's only one in the actual fields? Doceirias (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably because no one's bothered to update them yet. I changed them all to just say "Title", since FUNi's dub is ongoing and I don't feel like updating a header every time they finish a season. —Dinoguy1000 22:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, see Season 1 for one possible option - 3 rows on the titles that have both 4Kids and Funi dubs. The pro here is that each title has a distinct appearance and are on their own line. The con is that it makes the title row's tall, but the rest just has single line content, which may be less visually appealing. Thoughts? (please let discussion go before reverting for ease of discussion). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. The [n 1] is wrapping onto the next line on episode 10, though. And we might want to break this list up onto several pages before continuing to tinker. Slow ass loads getting on my nerves. Doceirias (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I know the feeling. I debated doing that as well, now that the English stuff is merged in. The only problem with doing it now is that if we then decide to go with the Funi seasons later, we'll have to redo them. If there is agreement to make season pages, though, I can make the necessary ep list hack so we can then transclude the lists (sans summaries) here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Won't kill us to redo the pages if we decide to change. Not sure I understand a word of that last sentence, though. Doceirias (talk) 01:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the code of List of Lassie episodes to see what I mean on the transclusion (then the source of List of Lassie episodes (season 1). Its become a standard in the TV project, and something worth incorporating here for those few series that do need multiple episode lists. With the transclusion method, only one actual episode list is maintained, instead of two. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Seasons

I haven't been on wikipedia for a while so i didn't read the discussion pages, but why are episodes divided into seasons instead of arcs or sagas? Do you know how many episodes are in a one piece season, especially if you include the filler episodes?--Sanji_1990 (talk) 16:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion above #List organization. Sagas/arcs are primarily fan creations and not a sourcable, valid division. The seasons are the official season divisions per Toei. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

List organization

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Consensus was to reorganize the list by the season divisions of the Japanese release.

The "arcs" and "Saga" names here appear to be fan-created splits, and not actual official titles. This is not a valid way to split the list at all. The think the episodes need to be reorganized and resplit, preferably along simpler lines. Funimation is releasing the series in season sets, suggesting it does have official seasons. As such, I propose the list here be split like such:

• Season 1 (episodes 1-26)
• Season 2 (episodes 27-52)
• Season 3 (episodes 53-78)
• Season 4 (episodes 79-104)
• Season 5 (episodes 105-130)
• Season 6 (episodes 131-156)
• Season 7 (episodes 157-182)
• Season 8 (episodes 183-208)
• Season 9 (episodes 209-234)
• Season 10 (episodes 235-260)
• Season 11 (episodes 261-286)
• Season 12 (episodes 287-312)
• Season 13 (episodes 313-338)

And then two seasons can be combined into a single subpage, mimicking List of Naruto episodes.

Alternatively, we can split along the changing in opening themes:

• Episodes 1-47
• Episodes 48-116
• Episodes 117-168
• Episodes 169-206
• Episodes 207-263
• Episodes 264-279
• Episodes 279-283
• Episodes 284-325
• Episodes 326-

I believe organizing it around either of these methods will produce a cleaner, easier to navigate list and remove some of the most visible WP:OR on the page. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

We could also follow the Japanese releases, which did start breaking it down into chunks after a while - that does leave a very long first season, and might be a bit harder to verify, but it is closer to the story based arcs currently being used. Doceirias (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Good idea Collectonian, List of Naruto episodes seems like a fine precedent. Copy-paste the layout, then write over it. I'll help fill in any details if needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been conflicted for a long time on what the proper organizational tool is for separating into "seasons." List of Naruto episodes goes every 26 episodes, but I don't know whether that arbitrary number is a season, or the opening themes designate a season (which seems more logical, given that opening themes tend to characterize the content they're covering). However, if we went by opening seasons for the Naruto episodes, then we would be doing every 25 episodes per season, not every 26 episodes. The Bleach episodes at List of Bleach episodes go by this route, although they have the benefit of named and defined story arcs that double as seasons, similar to List of YuYu Hakusho episodes. That said, IGN defines one Naruto season as 26 episodes (see here for an example), so I guess that's official. And the DVD set boxes each house 13 episodes, so two boxes cover a season, so I guess it makes sense that way too. What makes this odd is that the Bleach episodes go by opening themes that clearly define story arcs (that are officially named), so I guess it's just a difference between series.

And to stop a similar thing from occurring here, I've also been irked for a while how the Naruto episodes were arbitrarily put into double season lists (List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2), List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3-4), etc.), and I have really big misgivings about fixing up and bringing List of Naruto episodes (seasons 5-6) to WP:FLC for a tougher crowd than the first two went through when it's subject to such an arbitrary split. I suggested a couple months ago that they could be split, but that discussion never really got off the ground. As such, I think we should consider splitting the respective episode lists into individual season pages (List of Naruto episodes (season 1), List of Naruto episodes (season 2), etc.). We'll lose two FLs, but they can be brought back to WP:FLC and passed with a small bit of cleanup and little fuss (and we'll end up with 4 FLs over two anyway :p). My main point in this rant is to avoid something similar happening here, and to make sure that individual season articles get created. I might start a discussion at Talk:List of Naruto episodes over this in a bit. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to comment at the discussion at Talk:List of Naruto episodes#Breaking the season lists, round two. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with individual season lists as well. I only suggested doubles because of Naruto :P (though sometimes I wish I'd done doubles with the Lassie episode list, and its 19 seasons LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for barging in just like this, but I really disagree with this part. It is okay in the sense that arcs or sagas are not the official lists in the sense that they have not been presented officially, but in this way we should deny the idea of listing by opening-theme changes. Listing by arcs or themes is the same case, because the arcs are clearly set, their starting episodes brings up new challenges, and their ending episodes are often catarctic, after defeating their enemy or enemies. The arcs are loosely or not even connected to each other, in most of the cases, the starting episode of a new arc just suggests that some time passed. If we think about the usability of the list, now it is not very useful. I would choose the scheme like the Bleach's listings in this case. It is much more easy to use and it is logically edited... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.134.122.70 (talk) 03:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC) 05:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It has already been denied. It is listed by actual official season. The arcs are not official and can not be used. Bleach's episode list isn't really a good model to use, as they need clean up as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So, any final thoughts here? If we go by season, should we go with Funimation's season divisions, or the theme change divisions? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Theme change divisions were every bit as random as anything; I'd go with Funimation's. Doceirias (talk) 21:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, lets start redoing the list into the seasons noted, so we can then get the US list merged in. Anyone want to join in the fun? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Toei has an Official "Season" List. It's on the Official Japanese R2 DVDs. It's also Collected in the "One Piece: Rainbow" Animation Guide. According to Rainbow and the DVD Releases, these are the Seasons, and the Titles Given to them:

• 1st Season: [Untitled] - 1 ~ 62
• 2nd Season: Entering The Grand Line Chapter - 63 ~ 77
• 3rd Season: Enter Chopper at the Winter Island Chapter - 78 ~ 92
• 4th Season: Arrival At Alabasta Chapter - 93 ~ 110
• 4th Season: Alabasta Kingdom Chapter - 111 ~ 130
• 5th Season: Rainbow's Edge Chapter - 131 ~ 143
• 6th Season: Sky Island ~ Skypiea Chapter - 144 ~ 172
• 6th Season: Sky Island ~ The Golden Bell Chapter - 173 ~ 195
• 7th Season: Escape! The Naval Fortress & The Foxy Pirate Crew Chapter - 196 ~ 228
• 8th Season: Water Seven Chapter - 229 ~ 263
• 9th Season: Enies Lobby Chapter - 264 ~ 278
• 9th Season: Special Chapter – Straw-Hat Theatre and The Straw-Hat Pirate Crew - 279 ~ 283
• 9th Season: Enies Lobby Chapter - 284 ~ 325
• 10th Season: Ice Hunters & Thriller Bark Chapter 326 ~ Present

Since the seasons are designated by Toei's DVD release, and Season 9 hadn't Started yet on DVD when Rainbow came out. I got the Season 9 info from CD Japan and their Cover Scans. Also, the Japanese DVD Release doesn't include the Straw-Hat Flashback eps with the Straw-Hat Theater shorts at the end with the 9th Season. While it says their 9th Season, the volume they come in is specially named, and doesn't count towards the numbering with the rest of the 9th Season DVDs. So S9 Volume 5 ends with Episode 278, and Volume 6 Picks up with 284. And since the DVDs aren't out of Enies Lobby yet, we don't know Exactly where the 10th season begins. however, the rest of the seasons seem to follow the Major story arcs, so it's a safe bet that Ice Hunters and Thriller Bark are Season 10. If anyone needs links, or References, CD Japan has all these DVDs, just look up "One Piece" in the DVD Category there. I can also Scan Rainbow if anyone needs that. I also think it's worthy to Note that FUNimation has yet to say how long they're going to run their "Seasons" for. So "Season 1" could have 2 "Voyages", or it could have 6. So until we know more in that area, we should Stick with Toei's Numbering. User:DemonRin 03:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll check the CD Japan page, however we usually do go with the English seasonal divisions where there are some. It seems Funimation already plans to redo the seasons, since Season 1 has 26 episodes from the first two box sets. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:58, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Like I said before though. We don't know Where FUNimation's DVD Sets will designate the Seasons. Like, when/where did they say the First season would only have 2 "Voyages" (Parts)? Until we know that, we should go with Toei's Numbering. it's the only confirmed Numbering system we have!! It's like, this "26-Episodes Per season" Idea was just someone Assuming things rather than fact.

Plus, Toei's "Season" listings Follow the Major Story arcs. Who's To say FUNimation won't do that too? That's what they're doing with Dragon Ball Z! User:DemonRin 17:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Assuming they will do the same with One Piece that they did with Dragon Ball Z is not any better than saying its an assumption that Funimation will do 26 episodes per season. I think its an acceptable compromise, as the only source for the claimed seasonal divisions by Toei is the listings at CD Japan. The One Piece site itself does not mention series, while Funimation hasn't finished the site to note such divisions. Do you have a more official source, or some other confirmable sources for the Toei divisions? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:02, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming that's what they'd do. I just said that's what they could do, so we don't know yet. Taking that into account, The Toei list is the only official one we have. And yes, I do have a more verifiable source. I have the One Piece: Rainbow Databook. I can scan it Scratch that, I can't scan it well without tearing out the Pages. I can find scans online though. Give me a moment, and I'll post just the few relevant pages here. (Or I can scan mine if you don't mind Gutter Shadow) And here are the Relevant Pages: Page 01 Page 02 Page 03 Page 04 Page 05 Page 06 Page 07 Page 08 and All of the Season "Titles" I listed above are here too, my List above was translated by me. User:DemonRin 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC) Leave me alone sinbot, I DID Sign...

Alrighty. In the absence of an official season list from Funimation, I have regrouped the list around the Toei seasonal numbers (names were left out, as they aren't particularly necessary and would make the headers extremely long). Can you give me the ISBN of the databook so I can put it in as the source on the number of seasons?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how to Find it on the book itself, but the book's listing at Sasuga has it. Here User:DemonRin 19:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The author of this section says that the arcs are "fan-created splits". I find this entirely false. The One Piece official website makes no mention of seasons and the only mention of official splits os from the publisher or tv companies. Therefore the splits these companies made must be completely arbitrary. Can you tell me why this page is based around these arbitrary splits and not the naturally occurring ones within the series, as the makers intended. Not meaning to be rude, but collectionan, i don't think you really understand what this page is for, its for providing information in the most relevant and accessible way, not as an simply an archive of officially verified information. In this case I think common sense should be used, since by watching the series you would understand that these "fan-created splits" are actually intended by the creators, even though the publishers don't recognize them. But i do understand where you are coming from, i think we need to find a way to include both somehow?82.69.83.28 (talk) 15:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't false. You admitted it yourself that you have to just "see it" and sory, but you are the one who doesn't understand what this page is for. Fan-created splits that the publishers don't recognized are, in fact, not intended by the creators, but are what you just said "fan-created" and they have no place here. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. They do not belong here, period. The season splits here are what Toei lists as the individual seasons. Whether the company split them arbitrarily or not is irrelevant, it is how they chose to split it and that is what we will use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point entirely. I was saying that the splits are NOT "fan-created" they are in fact put there by the makers intentionally, and just because the publisher doesn't recognize them, because they have to fit in with dvd sizes and tv schedules, doesn't mean that this information should be censored. And when i said you just have to "see it", thats the point, because the splits are so obvious in the series it makes sense to organize this page in a way that makes individual episodes easy to find, not in a way that ensures you need to either know the number of the episode or check every single episode description to find the one you want. This page is for the easy access of information, not for obsessive people to organize it in a way that means that no-one can find the information they want making the whole page redundant. I do see the need for seasons to be included, but can't you find a way to have both? Im sorry for being a bit rude there, but really, you took everything i said and turned it around.Richard Eales (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't miss your point at all. Being obvious is irrelevant. You're already said it yourself, the arcs are NOT recognized by the creators so irregardless of what fans think, they are not official and not verifiable or sourcable. Its fancruft and O that has absolutely no place here. The only people who would search for arcs are fans who are so well versed in the series to have visited fansites and know about them. The majority of readers don't know anything about those arcs and they are not anymore helpful in finding a specific episode. Your argument that the arcs are somehow more helpful does not hold any water at all. People still need to know the episode number or name to find a specific one, irregardless of how this page is organized. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"The only people who would search for arcs are fans who are so well versed in the series to have visited fansites and know about them" what basis to you have to say this? "People still need to know the episode number or name to find a specific one, irregardless of how this page is organized", "The majority of readers don't know anything about those arcs and they are not anymore helpful in finding a specific episode" - absolute rubbish, now it takes about 30 seconds to find an episode, whereas before it would take closer to 5. Who do you consider the majority of readers? People who have never watched one piece before? I doubt a single person who has never watched the series has visited this page. This page's 'majority of readers' are in fact people just starting to watch the series and want more information. it is far easier for these people to navigate using arcs rather than series, for long term fans the series listings are fine because they are so well versed in the episodes they can quickly find the one they want. What you are doing is making this into a page only fans of the anime can access, leaving it virtually unreadable to beginners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Eales (talk • contribs) 17:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: no, the page is not somehow unreadable now, it is perfectly accessable, follows Wikipedia's guidelines, and is well conformed to our MoS. No, it is not more easy for new viewers to navigate using arcs. They haven't seen the series, how the hell would they know what the arcs? Again, your argument is only for hardcore fans, not new viewers. The list is properly organized and will remain that way. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. How are the seasons any more relevant to all audiences that the story arcs. if anything the arcs are MORE useful to all audiences than the season listings, which are irrelevant to all apart from the TV executives. It is verifiable and encyclopedic and one of the joys of wikipedia is that there is information that no other encyclopedia has, and whether this information should be included should be decided by consensus, not by one or two ultra experienced editors, who do do a great job and I'm glad you're trying to clear this page up, but i think in this case you are approaching it the wrong way. can we please have a vote or something?Richard Eales (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not work by voting. Consensus already agreed that the list would be organized by seasons, an organization method based on verifiable, reliably sourceable divisions. The arcs are not verifiable by any RELIABLE source and, as such, are not a valid option at all. Those wanting to use fan-based methods of organization should go to the One Piece wikia, as we don't use that here. It isn't going to happen, no matter how many IPs and new users complain, because it isn't valid.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anime Only ("Filler")

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Episodes will not be marked as filler nor use any other labels such as "anime only"

When an anime is made from a manga, the anime is produced faster and therefore the plot of the anime quickly catches up to the manga. It is therefore neccassary to pad the anime with extra plot so that the manga can catch up. This is called "filler". Its not that hard to read a manga and then watch an anime and realize that some of the stuff that's in the anime is not in the manga.

This is useful information. For example, me and my friends are currently watching the entire One Piece Series and we've agreed to skip over the filler. We use the valuable information on Wikipedia to help us decide which episodes are worth watching. Since this information has been repeatedly deleted from Wikipedia we are forced to use http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Episodes .

If you insist that filler is a subjective term, then let us use the term "Anime Only" or "Not in the Manga" or "Original for the Anime". But this is verifiable information, its not something that fans just made up.

32.97.110.142 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No. This is a list of the ANIME episodes. They are all "anime only." I'm glad you've turned to the wikia. A fansite like that is an appropriate location for such labeling, not here. Now please stop trying to add the labels back, as they are subjective and do not belong here at all, nor do any other substitute labels. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Even on the wikia we'd only allow them in the form of "category". I'll admit foremost that they are indeed not appropreate here and not worth mentioning. If you really want a list of fillers, any forum will happily supply you with it if you just ask the members nicely. ¬_¬' Angel Emfrbl (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you explain exactly why this label is not allowed? As I've explained, some episodes are based on content from the manga and some aren't. If you actually watched these animes you might realize that. You haven't demostrated to me that this is in any way subjective. If you can point me to a wikipedia style guide that specifically says that this is inappropriate, fine. But otherwise, stop being obsesive. Its not like it costs wikipedia money to have this useful information availible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.32.149 (talk) 06:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Its trivia and fancruft and it does not belong per project consensus and the episode list guidelines. Its not anything that belongs here, period. Check any of our featured anime lists. At best, we may mention that a season is a filler season when it can be properly sourced to a reliable source (which does not include you saying so, any fansites, nor a wikia). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For those willingly to bother looking it up... Supply the Jump Magazine issue refs (for those who actually know what these things are -_-' ) and they can go. Now I know the Ice hunter arc WAS mentioned in J.Mag but I'm not going to hunt this crazy thing down because I haven't the time to do this sort of thing anymore. Also I don't have a clue when the issue was out, but it was around about mid-Thriller Bark arc (manga wise).

If anyone knows which issue it is, but needs a quick lesson in how to write refs because I'm a gullible fool who has nothing better to do with the time I do have spare because it benefits wikipedia overall. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, having a source does NOT mean a label can be added to every last episode as "filler" or "anime only" or any other such label. A source can be used to note in the lead that this season of episodes are filler episodes. That's the limit of filler labelling. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah if anyone really needs to be spoon fed on where to put it... That note usually goes somewhere at the top or the bottom of the page (but not in a trivia section, heaven forbid don't add a trivia section to a page after our crusade a few months back to get rid of them). Or just under the contents it involves if there is room for it there, its preferred. I shouldn't have to write this down though. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I meant as part of the lead prose, same as with the Naruto episode lists. A single sentence. Nothing more, worked into the lead. Nothing in the table, or beyond. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Lol. I don't go to the Naruto pages, but I do visit other pages. Most of the ones I visited have it in other places, so I presumed this is alright. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Collectonian, but the original poster of this "Discussion" is right on. There is absolutely no need to discard the 'filler' or 'anime only' tags. Many people view these lists EXPLICITLY for that reason. Calling it 'subjective' and claiming it needs a 'source' is completely unnecessary, and quite frankly, redundant. Please stop removing the filler tags. -- Devin3m (talk · contribs) 01:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devin3m (talk • contribs)

No reason except the clear consensus established by the majority of editors on Wikipedia. If you want that info, go to the Wikia. It does not belong here. Doceirias (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, the tags do not belong. As Doceirias already noted, consensus by the whole of Wikipedia is that it does not. Its trivial fancruft that is better suited for the One Piece Wikia. Go there to find the filler/non-filler. We do not use such tags here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Strickly speaking, that information is illrelevent sinc emost OP fans these days know whats filler and whats not. You really don't have to mention it at all. When I first came to wikipedia that wasn't the case and a lot still didn't. To mention it now days, its like dumbing it down. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely! Once you become a fan, you automatically memorize all the information about the series. I applaud you on you insight. Why would a fan need Wikipedia to provide useful information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.210.39.120 (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is suppose to be an quick read on any one subject, its not asking to be a expert on the subject at hand. Anyone should be able to log onto ANY page and get a quick answer on things like "What is a Tiger". If your intereasted, your suppose to take wikipedia as a starting point - there are things elsewhere that can tell you more in-depth on the subject. In our case I can tell you that the main OP site Arlong Park, the OP Wikia and "Save One Piece" pretty much cover all the details on the show between them that a fan would really want to know with "Save One Piece" just catching all the loose bits on the 4Kids show that Arlong PArk and the OP Wikia doesn't have. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I just want to give a line here. The term filler episode has certain negative connotations to it, so including that term is a NPOV violation, rather than something less important as fancruft.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 12:51, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative to way to say which episode is filler

There's a debate here on whether a "filler" tag be added to episodes which are not based in the manga. Personally, I believe that including such a tag does not violate any "rules" wikipedia have. Yes, filler might be a term that is not official (not intended by producers to be called that way), but it is descriptive. And descriptive aspects are what Wikipedia is looking for. The real thing that should be debated is whether the "filler" term is known to most readers of this article or not. If it is not, then why not wiki-link the first "filler" tag to filler (media)? And as a final note to all who argue against the inclusion of filler tags: filler may be a fan term but our language is so dynamic that it can generate new words out of different sources. Who knows, the "filler" tag might have a Webster entry in the future.

Well, too much for my own arguments. Here is my alternative: Why not create a new column in the table which tells which manga chapters a certain episode is covering? If an episode is a filler, then we can just leave some note for that episode in that column. eStaRapapax ^{xapaparatse! exsatpaarpa!} 06:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, no, we do not mark any episodes as fillers, nor do we tie the manga chapters to episode lists. It violates the anime and manga MoS and the project's established consensus for the formatting and content of episode lists. Filler is a subjective term and a fan term that has no relevance here. It is not a notable aspect of the episodes. Again, that sort of information belongs in the Wikias, not Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:21, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. One thing you can do is to say in the lead "episodes ?-? are not based in any manga chapter and were made by the anime staff".--Tintor2 (talk) 13:09, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Even that can only be said if it is actually sourcable to a reliable source(s). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur: This information is best said in the lead, if and only if it is attributable to a reliable source. G.A.S 05:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there any source more reliable than the manga itself? Surely episodes marked as original anime stories or whatever could just be referenced to the volume of the manga in which the events depicted do not happen.

As an aside, the 'original' Bond films (by which I mean the story was written especially for the film, as opposed to an adaption) do not apparently need a reference to state that they are not adaptions - see octopussy - and I am not clear on why noting this quite important fact for episodes of an animated series is any more 'fancruft' than it is in the case of a blockbuster film. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

That is incorrect. The statement is sourced in Octopussy in the production section, and in that case, its to note that while the film is technically based on a single book, it uses little in from the book. It is not a serial work, and thus a poor comparison. The One Piece anime series, as a whole, is based on the One Piece manga series. Minute details about changes, including adding new stories, is unnecessary and excessive detail, and unsourced. Note the film article you pointed to does NOT give a scene by scene breakdown of changes, it only gives a general overview. That's all that belongs here, and then only if its sourceable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I see. I take back my aside then, with no regrets. Nevertheless, my actual statement regarding the fact that original anime material can be cross referenced with the volumes in which it would take place if, of course, it did take place still stands. It is not subjective nor original research to state that, say, the events of episode 57 did not take place in the work being adapted, as it is verifiable. In volume 12 of the One Piece manga, directly after leaving Logue Town the main characters move to the Reverse Mountain. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

Maybe not, but it's also not notable, and unlikely to be sourceable (how many reliable sources actually take the time to document every little filler episode in a given series?). Even if it can be sourced, individual filler episodes don't merit mention as such. It's only when an entire arc spanning several episodes (or a whole season) is original to the anime that it might merit mention - once again, only if it can be sourced. —Dinoguy1000 20:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As stated, it is in fact sourceable to the volumes of the manga itself. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

No, it isn't. See below. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit cnflict) It would still be inappropriate and excessive. It also isn't being neutral. Some people feel that episodes that are not directly based on something in the manga is "filler" and such a label implies it is also inferior. However, ALL of the One Piece anime episodes are, in fact, based on the manga. They use the characters, storylines, etc from the manga. Even those that are not directly based on a manga chapter, are in fact based on the manga base material irregardless of whether a specific story is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that the word 'filler' should be used because it is not neutral language (as you say it implies inferiority) and a fan-term so therefore inappropriate language for wikipedia, but a (unbolded) note that the episode is 'original anime material' or similar would much more tastefully express that information. You said that other works that have been adapted from source materials do not note specific changes but there are many in fact that do: The_Lord_of_the_Rings:_The_Fellowship_of_the_Ring (and the rest of the lord of the rings film trilogy), Harry_Potter_and_the_Goblet_of_Fire_(film) (and the other Harry Potters), Hannibal_Rising_(film) etc. These can perhaps be taken as precedents. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

You making bad attempts at comparison by pointing to film articles based on a single book, which is not a valid comparison. This is an episode list, not a single article. Films have a different MoS and different content guidelines. As an aside, however, note that all three of those articles comparison sections are NOT sourced to the film nor the book, but on reliable third party sources and documentaries about the film. The only one that doesn't is the last, and it doesn't meet the Film MoS and is a low end Start class article.

Let's actually look at real comparables. List of Trinity Blood episodes - featured list based on novels; does not note rearranging of chapters nor changes. List of Bleach episodes (season 1), another featured list, no "filler" tags, just notes briefly in the lead that the set of episodes covers the first eight episodes. Ditto List of Bleach episodes (season 2). List of Gunslinger Girl episodes, again a featured list, no noting of filler/changes, only based on. And the ones most comparable to One Piece, List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2) and List of Naruto episodes (seasons 3-4). Note only the later notes anything about filler at all, and it does so very briefly with no tags on individual episodes. Differences between adaptations are covered solely in the primary article, not in this episode list. "original anime material" does not more tastefully express the information, it has the same negative connotations and is an obvious reword of "filler." Every last episode is "original anime material" regardless of specific scenes being from the anime. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What happened with this? It used to be organized according to arc, which was much easier to navigate. It would be extremely helpful to tell us which ones are filler episodes. Also, all the bigwig 'editors' here need to think about the information that users want, and whether an arc/episode is filler or not is definitely one of them. Don't continue in this bad direction. Charlespeirce11 (talk) 01:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The arc organization was not reliable, nor do we mark filler episodes. Read above. We don't organized information by the desires of a handful of fans, but following Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and only using verifiable methods. It is not a bad direction, it is the proper formatting and organization of an anime episode list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just want to mention towards the people that are saying that a label of "filler" has non-neutral and negative connotations. I noticed that the page also lists that 4kids released the original English dub of the episodes. Anyone that knows the quality of 4kids' work will agree that this statement also has negative connotations, because such a label implies that the dub is inferior to the work of other companies. It may be a fact, but it too has negative connotations like the word "filler". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.43 (talk) 07:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

How so? It is factual and sourcable that 4Kids released a dubbed version of the series in English, and it was the first North America release of the series. That isn't non-neutral to mention it. Non-neutral would be to add the implications and commentary saying that 4Kids work was inferior, rather than simply stating "the first English version was the 4Kids dub." It is also necessary to indicate which English titles are being given in the headers, as there are now two dubbed versions of the series, the original 4Kids one and the later Funimation. The language has been made extremely neutral, with no complaints about the 4Kids version allowed, except where neutrally expressed and very well sourced. Noting who released the series in English is not a negative connotation, is it a necessary and relevant part of any anime/manga article. Noting something is "filler" when the term is extremely subjective, non-neutral, and primarily used only by fans is not even close to be comparable to providing verifiable, fact based notes on who released the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

As has been said before, and why I didn't bother to mention it in my response, filler is not subjective. If the plot and story is in the manga, it is not filler. If the plot is not in the manga, it is filler. The source? The manga. You can cite everything in the manga as being in the manga; what's left is filler. It may be non-neutral, but it's still a fact. Call it anime only if you want - that's the exact same definition without these negative connotations of facts you seem to dislike. My point was that in the same way that if you tell a person "this episode is filler" they'll be more likely to dislike it, if you tell someone "4kids was the company in charge of the English dub of One Piece" they'll be more likely to dislike it. Both statements are probably true: they aren't "neutral" in the sense that they do inspire certain feelings. But both statements are also indisputable facts and in the same way that you tell people that 4kids did the dub, you should tell people what is from the manga and what is not. The article on filler on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filler_(media)#Anime_series) [EDIT: never mind. I see you "fixed" that too. I tried to find another site that defines it, but the only one I could is blacklisted and I can't post it. You're on your own for sources, I guess.] explains why it's not a subjective definition, despite the negative connotations. Filler is story that does not come out of the manga; it's that simple. Just because the word also implies other things doesn't change the factual nature of it. As an analogy, if I'm writing a story about a convict, and I say "He was in prison", I've stated a fact. Describing someone as "being in prison" has negative connotations, but it is nevertheless a fact about that person. If I were to say "He is a bad person", *then* I've made a subjective comment and not a factual one, but the prison statement is still just a fact despite what it may or may not imply. Long post, sorry, but I want to be clear and detailed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.43 (talk) 03:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is completely and totally subjective. The manga is not a valid source for declaring something is "anime only" or "filler" as it is a subjective decision that applies a false term. There is no verifiable nor reliable source defining filler, nor declaring any episodes filler. Again, these labels do NOT belong in episode lists and will not be added back. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you even read what you write? "The manga is not a valid source for declaring something that is "anime only"". Do we need to look at that again, a bit more closely? How is the manga not a source for this? You LOOK at the manga, and if the story is IN THE MANGA, then it is NOT anime only. The manga is a primary source here - there's nothing any MORE valid or accuarate. You can correlate each episode with the equivalent chapter(s) in the manga, UNLESS it is filler/anime only, because then it has NO chapter equivalent. How is the existence of something subjective? This is not a radical concept, nor is it confusing or subjective to anyone. However, as you're far more dedicated to being the minion of Wikipedia rather than aware of reality than I am or ever will be, you're right. They won't be added back. At least you stopped calling them non-neutral facts, at last. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.43 (talk) 05:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Ye, I do, and watch the tone. They are non-neutral labels, and no, you can't fully look at the manga and say "well this story is an anime only story" because you don't know the source of the story. It could have been a discard chapter from the writer, or a new concept based on the same chapter. To just declare something "anime only" implies that it has nothing to do with the manga, which is a false comment. To look at another series, lets look at the first two episodes of Chrono Crusade versus the manga. Now, only the second episode was really in the manga, however the first episode uses some elements from the first manga chapter, then basically adds in a new first case instead of starting with the one from the manga. Some might decide the first episode is an "anime only" event, however it was clearly based on the manga and inspired by a few scenes from the first chapter. So where are the verifiable sources to show that every episode people wish to call "filler" was not inspired by a single panel, remark, etc in the manga? At what point does it have no tie to th emanga? It is completely, and wholly subjective. Heck, ask on any well populated anime forum and you'll certainly see that people have varying ideas on what constitutes filler and the meaning of the term. It is a confusing, subjective, and useless label that adds little to no value or understanding of the series to the average person, which is who articles are written for, not the fans who nit pick over such minor details. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

See, now that's the kind of example that makes your position make sense. I've never seen dispute over filler (always seemed pretty cut and dry to me), and you kept claiming it like it was the most obvious fact ever. I wouldn't have responded as I did if your tone was not so supercilious that you had to be right before providing this example. I still disagree with you, but now I see your reasoning at least; all you needed to do was give an example like that rather than proclaiming that it was subjective repeatedly. Thanks for doing that and I'm sorry for my tone from before. Anyway, now that you've explained stuff, I'm done - that's what I wanted knowing that you weren't going to change your mind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.173.59.43 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of the site a little here. Though the term "filler" may have a negative connotation, it is definitely worthwile to include information on each episode's basis in the manga. I used this list to navigate the series when I began watching. Information on the different arcs and which episodes were manga-based was very useful to me. As this list is now, it is much less so. Remember, at its core, the purpose of this site is to provide viewers with useful information. It would be a shame to ignore that just so we can make the list look more formal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk • contribs) 11:00, July 4, 2008

No, we aren't missing the point of the site at all, you are. This, again, is not the One Piece fansite. The purpose of the site it is to provide verifiable, encyclopedic information to all audiences, not have stuff to feed fan desires irregardless of actual encyclopedic value. We also aim to have similar pages in a consistent format as it aids readers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose it's up to you to decide what has "encyclopedic value." My point here is that the information you removed does have value, and that you have lessened the value of the page by removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk) 20:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

It only has value to a handful of fans, not the vast majority of readers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, to the vast majority of people who visit this page, this information has value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk) 20:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

its so hard to use now

Why do we have to divide it into seasons? it was easier to find everything when it was divided into seperate arcs...and why did we combine the usa broadcast version with it? now its just...Really hard and weird to use.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.130.66 (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The US broadcast is being merged in due to an AfD and in keeping with the MoS guidelines which does NOT separate the various languages into single episode lists. As for seasons, because it is a more accurate division. The arc names are fan creations not supported by any verifiable source. Regular television series use season articles, so using the same here does not somehow make it more difficult to use for the vast majority of readers who may have little to no knowledge of the series. Only die hard fans would even have a clue about arc names, so the season divisions is a far more useful and intuitive division for the vast majority of English readers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:25, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, this is an organisation thing and not a 'filler' thing and isn't really in the right place. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

It was my understanding that they anime didn't have "seasons" (or series as we call them in the UK) in Japan. Who decided how to split it up into seasons? eyeball226 (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See above. The series does have official seasons/series in Japan. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "season" provides no useful information here. Some "seasons" are separated by less than a week. The creation of these divisions seems completely arbitrary. By forcing this organization on One Piece, you've only made the list much more difficult to navigate. Anime series of this length must be organized by arc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk • contribs) 11:00, July 4, 2008

No, they don't "must" be anything. The arcs are fan creations, while the season divisions are the OFFICIAL seasons are declared by Toei. There isn't anything arbitrary about them. If you disagree with the seasons being useful, go complain to the company that made the series. Until the Funimation release is completed, we will use the official seasons. After that, we will revisit to see if the Funi seasons would be more appropriate to use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:29, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You're completely missing the point here. You're substituting a useful organizational method for one that isn't simply because it's official. This shouldn't be about the way Toei sells their DVDs, but about which would be most helpful to people visiting this page. The arc system is much more helpful because the Toei system is rather arbitrary. It's based on nothing more than how many episodes have passed since the last cutoff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. The arc system is only helpful to a small number of fans who even have a clue such arcs exist and have names. Seasons are a standard way of organizing television episode lists, and in the case of an anime series, where we do have seasons, it is the most neutral and verifiable method. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

When I first came to this page, I was not a fan of One Piece, but I found the arc system to be an easy to understand and effective way of organizing the episodes. I don't have a problem with keeping the information about the different seasons. I simply believe that the information about the different arcs should be included as well. I think all relevant information should be available to those viewing the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.123.117 (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

We shall just have to agree to disagree, and the page will organized properly by seasons. Feel free to use the One Piece wikia page the old version was transwikied too, if you don't like this one anymore. Either way, please learn to sign your own posts. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:45, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this new season order is absolutely useless. I much more preferred the arc order although I'm not a "die hard" anime fan. There are in fact no seasons in animes, no matter what's written on some DVD boxes. The arc divisions may be unofficial but they are still way more useful than this confusing season system. There's no point in sticking to an official order just because it's official. The fact that it's official doesn't make it better or more correct in any way. I just get the feeling that this whole revision thing of the article has been done by someone in order to get some attention and that's all to it. Why can't you just let things be as they are when there's no problem with it? It's the same thing now with the opening/ending lists. Why in haven's name should it be changed to prose when the table's obviously much more comfortable to use.--Jeythor (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You do realize the season divisions line up with the arcs? I agree that the opening and ending songs, given the sheer quantity of them, should not be changed to prose. Question: Since the source of these season divisions actually does name the later seasons, why are we disregarding the names of those seasons? Those are just as official as the divisions, and would placate some of the objections to the new organization. Doceirias (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It would make the headers too long, and violate the guidelines regarding section header lengths. A compromise could be to add ":x-y" beside each to indicate which episodes are in each. This was done with some of the DB lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like something to look at once we get this broken up. Episode numbers might help a little, but if there's a way to include the names on the main page of the episode guide, to tell you which of the multiple pages you need to go to, that would help with navigation. Doceirias (talk) 02:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

A vote?

I would like to suggest that we take a vote on whether 'original anime material' is noted (and sourced to the one piece manga) or not. As I am not an editor, I cannot personally begin the vote as I am not sure of the protocol, but it is clear from looking at these comments that a variety of users appear to be arguing one point of view while just one argues the other (lots). If it is widely agreed by users that Collectonian is correct but no-one has felt the need to step up because Collectonian is arguing so well on her own, then perhaps that's okay, but otherwise it appears that she is in the minority despite strong argument. A vote, then? 82.27.194.127 (talk) 11:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

There's no need for a vote, since Collectonian is *not* in the minority. She has the support of policy, guidelines, precedent, and project concensus, but don't expect every project member to step in and leave a word of support for her just to prove a point to you - if we did that, we'd never get any work done. ;) Read her above comment, in it she clearly states, with an example, just how problematic it can be identifying what is filler/original anime material (pick your preferred term) and why we don't bother doing so. —Dinoguy1000 16:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, we don't work by voting, but by consensus. The project is well aware of this discussion, so if I were arguing something that was unsupported, believe me they would say so. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

As someone who has seen consensuses in wikipedia reached by vote I hope you can understand my confusion on the matter. As I stated, I am not aware of the protocol. 82.27.194.127 (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC) - AL

Generally, it shouldn't be a vote in the traditional sense, but weighing each argument to come to a conclusin. WP:CONSENSUS probably explains it better than I have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

author

The episodes that appear in the manga are written by Eiichiro Oda, whilst the 'filler' or 'anime only' episodes are written by someone completely different. Is this not reason enough to include at least some reference to anime only episodes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Eales (talk • contribs) 15:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, because that is false. None of the episodes are written by Oda and filler is a fancentric term that has no actual relevance here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

i sorry but that is a complete lie. the storylines for the non fillers WERE written by Oda even if the script wasn't, whilst the storylines for the anime only were written by someone else. You dont have to start arguing about the term filler again, its been argued above, the term anime only isnt fancentric, we could use that if thats the main reason you dont want to label fillers, which it obviously isnt. can we argue about the real point, not get weighed down by pointlessness. the storylines were devised by different people, why is this not relevant to this list? thats the point im trying to makeRichard Eales (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they weren't. The episodes were written by someone else, adapted from Oda's writings. It has already been agreed that filler nor any other similar label will be used here or in another list. It is not a relevant label, nor accurate. Its totally subjective and OR and will not be added. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You just did it again, completely twisted what i said. i agreed that the episodes were written by someone else adapted from his manga, but surely this in itself is relevant? that some were adapted from his own storylines and some wern't. You could put a * by the episodes that were directly adapted from the manga script and put a tiny note at the bottom saying that the episodes with a * were directly adapted from the manga script, this way you would be singling out those episodes from the manga without putting any negative connotations on the rest.Richard Eales (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, no. Its unnecessary. The lead notes that the series is based on the manga. That is all that is necessary. There will be no individual episode marks anywhere claiming some as filler and some as not. Again, it isn't verifiable and such declarations are pure WP:OR as you don't know what was based on what, you are only making educated guesses. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

How can you say its unnecessary? If its verifiable information which people would be interested to know, doesnt take up much space (it would only take up one line and some *s) and wouldnt get in the way of the other information then surly it should be included? You also said it wasn't verifiable which it clearly is, that some episodes are directly based on the storyline released in the manga and some were indirectly. Im trying to come up with a compromise here and i feel like youre being a bit unreasonable. Without resorting to things about verifiability, makes the information harder to read, takes up too much space etc. can you give me some good arguments why it shouldnt be. im open to being convinced here, because you obviously edit here alot, so please can you treat this seriously instead of treating us like people who just dont understand wikipedia and properly try to convince me why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.83.28 (talk) 19:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability is a pretty significant reason not to include such information, further reasoning really isn't necessary. That being said, project consensus is that marking episodes in this manner is unnecessary and unwanted. —Dinoguy1000 19:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The argument here is about whether this goes against WP:OR, and as long a a reliable source can be found then by those rules it is fine. Nevertheless it clearly states under WP:IAR that it should be included "If there's a better way to do something than what the rules say, do it the better way." and this clearly improves the page for the vast majority of people visiting the page, without impinging on others. Hypothetically I think that if surveyed the visitors to this page then a large majority would say they did want the labeling and nearly all the rest would say they didnt mind either way, I cant see why you think it is unwanted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.83.28 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is held to a higher standard that other sites. People liking something is not a justification for including something without a reliable source. Doceirias (talk) 20:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I realize that, the source would need to be reliable but in the guidelines it says ----- "Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; it is common that plot analysis and criticism, for instance, may only be found in what would otherwise be considered unreliable sources. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources. When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included."----- so if a source which fits this description is found then it should be allowed. Also i think that if the information is relevant and important to most people reading the page then that is a good reason to include it regardless.82.69.83.28 (talk) 20:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also There's this ---" An Internet forum with identifiable, expert and credible moderators with a declared corrective moderation policy may, exceptionally, be considered reliable for some topics. In this sense, where moderators act as editors to review material and challenge or correct any factual errors, they could have an adequate level of integrity. This exception would only be appropriate to fields that are not well covered by print sources, where experts traditionally publish online."----I think this counts as one of those cases?82.69.83.28 (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We have enough reliable sources that there is no excuse to use fansites, personal sites. For forums, only AoD's forums meet those, and only posts by those identified as company reps. And, for the purposes of adding content that the project has already reached consensus to declare has no place here, it doesn't matter. Consensus says no, and I doubt you'll find verification for EVERY episode people want to mark as filler within the acceptable sources. (also, please be more careful with your posts...you accidentally removed the entire thread below this) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

How is this consensus reached?Is there a discussion anywhere as to whether it can be changed? I consider it valid analysis of the anime in relation to the manga which is valuable information, and if a source can be found it should be included82.69.83.28 (talk) 21:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Over a great deal of time and discussion. The tide is very much against it now, and, honestly, there's little change of it reversing at this point. The feeling is that declaring content as filler is inherently biased and fanboyish, and not suiting the tone of Wikipedia. I suggest you head to a fansite or Wikia for that sort of information. Doceirias (talk) 21:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I kind of agree about the episode splits now, but with this one I really think you're loosing some valuable reliable information. Clearly wikipedia isnt the bastion of all knowledge it used to be.82.69.83.28 (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never been a bastion of all knowledge. 66.116.22.178 (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to state I am very happy I started watching Naruto, One Piece, Bleach, etc, before the anime and manga project decided to "improve" the episodes list. I probably would have stopped watching the shows once i hit the very sub-par filler. Someone used Chrono Crusade as an example of why it isn't easy to define filler. Before this page was "improved" there were three categories of episode filler, not filler, and (drum roll) partial filler. There were a few episodes of one piece that were based on manga and had original elements. There you go problem solved. I guess I'm in the minority who would like to know which manga chapter corresponds to which episode of the anime. It's funny I found wikipedia while looking up information about Saint Seiya. Now because of these "improvements" I need to go elsewhere. Thank you anime and manga project for making this a better organized place. One last quick question. I believe there are about 800 members in the anime and manga project, lets say i find 1,600 people who believe the tag filler is important. Would you be ok to include it then? Knightsend (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightsend (talk • contribs) 03:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No. The number of people coming and calling them important is irrelevant. verifiability and reliable sourcing is. And if 1600 people came here to demand the filler tags, it would be pretty obvious there was sock puppetry involved. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The anime and manga project has been using two defenses so far to not tag episodes as filler. "It only has value to a handful of fans, not the vast majority of readers." and that it needs to have reliable sourcing. If I were to legitimately create lets say a facebook group that I couldn't fake with lets say 2000 members we would only consist of the minority of fans? As for reliable sourcing we haven't gotten a real answer why saying episode x's story is based on issue y of the manga. That may be something people legitimately look for. Knightsend (talk) 04:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you would. There are over 6 billion people in the world. Also, see WP:CANVASS and Wikipedia:Sockpuppets#Meatpuppets. The idea of creating a facebook of socks to try to change consensus on Wikipedia is beyond a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and would only get you and everyone else who participates blocked. I'd suggest stop beating a dead horse and decide if you actually want to be a Wikipedia editor, or if you only created an account to complain about a decision made by consensus of editors based on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, not fan desires. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I would like to be a Wikipedia editor. I have read over you mos and I don't see anywhere where it says I can't list what issue corresponds to what episode. As an editor may I add that. Under the MoS it states "issues arising from the transition from one medium to another (e.g.: manga to anime, anime to film, etc.)" It seems that anime exclusive stories may be an issue in the transition. Would that work? Knightsend (talk) 05:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, no, you can not. Its already been discussed above, extensively. There will be NO marking of episodes as filler. We also don't mark which chapter an episode corresponds to. Look at any featured episode anime list, you will not find such mess there. And no, that is not an issue of transition, and that entire section is about the main article, not the episode list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why has this page been ruined?

Im sorry for not putting this in one of the other topics but i don't really use this discussion thing much and I'm not sure about how it works. FILLER is not a derogatory word, it is simply a word used to denote variation from the original manga, everyone who watches anime knows this and treats the word as such. If it helped you could colour code the fillers and put a label at the bottom. The label may not even include the word filler, just an explanation of the differences. It just needs to be immediately obvious when looking through the list which ones are which, because in my experience the main reason people browse this page is to check which episodes are fillers

Also why is it arranged in seasons and not arcs? Seasons are irrelevant for a series this length, and it makes it really hard to navigate, it makes the ENTIRE page nearly USELESS. Im sorry for such strong language but that is in effect what has happened. Luckily I have finished watching this series, but my friends who have just started watching one piece have been forced onto other pages because this one is so useless. Doesn't that defeat the object of wikipedia? Could a button be included in the page to change it from season view to arc view? This would solve all the problems if it were possible. I understand the need for seasons with dvds and stuff coming out, but both are necessary so you need to find some way to display both, otherwise you might as well just delete the whole page.82.69.83.28 (talk) 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No, there is no such button, filler is a derogatory term in many circles, we will not explain differences which is OR, and it will use seasons the same as the publisher and any other television series. Its already been said a hundred times before above and in the archived messages, the arcs are fan creations, not official series splits, and will not be used here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:47, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, you said earlier that this page is run by consensus. Lately, I don't think you understand the meaning of that word at all (maybe you should check the wikipedia article about it) Clearly, the MASSIVE majority of people want to have some indication of episodes that are 'anime-only'. About 30 people have argued for that here, think of the amount of people who feel the same way yet can't be bothered to write here. Use the same logic as complaints boards do - 1 bad complaint means about 200 people are dissatisfied (okay that changes all the time but here i really think its true.) Imagine the hundreds upon hundreds of people who want this. And against them stands you and one or two others, certainly there have been VERY few people posting here who take your side. It has been you against the masses and that is VERY OBVIOUS. Now, go check in the dictionary, look up the word 'consensus' and realise how hypocritical you are. Then leave wikipedia forever =]Stylishman (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally someone has said it! I completely agree with you stylishman! Im not gonna resort to namecalling like the people on the one piece encyclopedia who are calling collectonian a "Nazi" though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.53.130.66 (talk) 00:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the word well, and thanks for the personal attack. I guess because you can't back up your argument with any real validity, you must resort to such silly, immature attacks. A bunch of new editors, whose only edits are to complain here after the discussion is done or to vandalize other articles (oh, like you), is not consensus, particularly when their view is not backed by policy or guideline. As has already been note, multiple times, this reformat has the consensus of the anime and manga project. That outnumbers the handful of people here. It was also already note that most people in the project are not bothering to post because they know its pointless to try to get y'all to understand Wikipedia guidelines, but I'm a masochist like that. To quote the above note regarding that: "There's no need for a vote, since Collectonian is *not* in the minority. She has the support of policy, guidelines, precedent, and project consensus, but don't expect every project member to step in and leave a word of support for her just to prove a point to you - if we did that, we'd never get any work done. ;)" The consensus was validly reached and is enforced when other project members also revert all attempts to return the list to its old format. The list format will remain as it is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A lot of show lists are doing it, so why shouldn't this?

A look at Special:Longpages took me here, whose contents bring it up to 245K. As with those for long-running franchises like The Simpsons and Seinfeld, here's what to do:

1. The episode details need to be moved into new articles for each season, such as One Piece (season 1), One Piece (season 2) and so on.
2. By the time we get this over with, only the episode titles need be covered.

This should really ease down the page size if, and when, attempted. I'm only leaving this comment for consensus-building reasons. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're telling a lot of people something new here. But this list has only recently gone through a long and stoney mergeing process. It may be too early for another so radical change. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we know. Unfortunately, the issue is on the season divisions. I suspect once the English season divisions are clearer, then individual season pages will be made. Until, though, if we do it now, there are two very different season counts so such pages would have to be almost completely redone if done now. There is no deadline, of course :) We have done this with some other lists, just not this one yet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is way too long and needs to be broken up

This definitely needs separate articles for each season or something due to insane size 67.175.45.138 (talk) 04:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Ending Themes?

The ending themes only list up to episode 278, is there a reason for this? I havn't seen the later seasons of One Piece so I don't even know if they have ending themes, although I assume they do. 220.237.127.78 (talk) 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Am currently watching the entire series from the begining, when I get to episode 278 I'll update this discussion, but that will be a while yet, does anyone else have any info on the ending themes? Ancient Dwarven Chaos Knight (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The reason the ending themes list only goes up to episode 278, because the anime stopped having ending themes after that episode. I don't know the reason behind this decision, they just stopped. Silver Wind Wolf (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

or the fansubbers just took them out to make their time limit shorter so it can fit on places like youtube —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defender of comic justice (talk • contribs) 00:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

FUNimation Seasons

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A split discussion was held, the result was split along Japanese seasons -- Goodraise (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

---

OK, I think this page has long enough remained in this half-finished state. Therefore I'll cut straight to the case. If we take a look at this part of FUNimations One Piece website, then we see in large letters written on the right: SEASON ONE and in the line thereunder: FIRST VOYAGE, SECOND VOYAGE, THIRD VOYAGE, and FORTH VOYAGE without space for more "Voyages". The source is without a doubt reliable. My question now only is: Are the assumptions, that every following DVD will hold the same amount of episodes as the first two, that the first season will have exactly four "Voyages", and that every following season will have exactly four "Voyages" as well, too much of speculations or are they sufficiently based common sense deductions, in which case we could start spliting this page into more handy pieces? -- Goodraise (talk) 10:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be considered speculation, but I also agree this page needs splitting. Going with the same eps per voyage, and four voyages per season, would that follow the list posted above (13 seasons so far with 26 per season), or would it be different? If it ends up being different, we can always move eps between lists, so if others agree, I think this would be a valid split. If we're good to go, if someone will arrange the ep tables, I'm happy to do the list splits. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's three lists posted above. If you mean this one,

• Season 1 (episodes 1-26)
• Season 2 (episodes 27-52)
• Season 3 (episodes 53-78)
• Season 4 (episodes 79-104)
• Season 5 (episodes 105-130)
• Season 6 (episodes 131-156)
• Season 7 (episodes 157-182)
• Season 8 (episodes 183-208)
• Season 9 (episodes 209-234)
• Season 10 (episodes 235-260)
• Season 11 (episodes 261-286)
• Season 12 (episodes 287-312)
• Season 13 (episodes 313-338)

then the answer is no. But only to some degree, as the list would simply be contracted to the following one.

• Season 1 (episodes 1-52)
• Season 2 (episodes 53-104)
• Season 3 (episodes 105-156)
• Season 4 (episodes 157-208)
• Season 5 (episodes 209-260)
• Season 6 (episodes 261-312)
• Season 7 (episodes 313-364)
• Season 8 (episodes 365-current)

-- Goodraise (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The only thing is, we're not really sure where the Designations are yet. Until we get announcement of "Second Season: First Voyage" we don't exactly know. Plus, the Idea of the First season having 4-5 Voyages seems like it Might put the list somewhat in line with the Japanese List (the one already in use) In which case, Season 2 would only have One Voyage, and Season 3 would have 2 (Just for example) and would actually make a lot of sense considering FUNimation's Other Series' "Season Releases" (Like Dragon Ball Z and Yu Yu Hakusho) Like to seperate the seasons by Story arcs, which is what the Japanese One Piece Season list does already.

There really doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the Seasons as they are right now, what's the problem with waiting? (User talk:DemonRin) 16:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

And I don't see any problem with splitting the lists now. As Collectonian pointed out above, individual episodes can be moved between the lists pretty easily, and even in the event where so many episodes get moved that a given list article is emptied, it can simply be turned into a redirect until such time as episodes from that season start to be released. —Dinoguy1000 23:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"This page is 253 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." That's the reason why we should split. The only question is where to make the cuts. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:07, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why not to do that, the only question now I guess is whether to stick with the Confirmed List or assume each Season will be 4 Voyages and go with that. I'd be fine personally going with that if it weren't for the fact that, if we're going to assume on this we should at least think about it a bit, and If you look at Other FUNimation releases (Specifically Dragon Ball Z) they don't seem to have any Set Episode Length. Season 1 is 39 Episodes and Season 5 is only 29. that's a 10 Episode Difference! Whose to say FUNi won't stick with the same for One Piece? Not to mention that the General Consensus on most One Piece pages and information on Wiki, to stick with the Japanese Side of things (the pages even use "No Mi" for the fruits instead of just putting "Fruit") So, maybe sticking with the Japanese season listings would help keep things a little more Uniform in that area, again, at least until we have more info.

Perhaps since, as already said, individual Episodes can be moved easily, we could stick with the Current, confirmed Season list and just remodel it once we have more concrete information. If you do, you could even use the Official Season Titles (I already included them in the Archived conversation above) and, if you want, I could dig up all the pages that detail the information on the Season from my "One Piece: Rainbow - Grand Animation File" Guide, and I wouldn't mind Writing up some extra Information about things in the individual Season Pages, there's actually a lot of good information here that I could include, and when we get more concrete Information, which might not be until Season 1 Part 4 Comes out, and we get a Teaser Trailer on that DVD set, which seeing as there's about 3 Months till P3 and there's going to be about a 4 month wait from there till part 4, we have a long while to wait. (User talk:DemonRin) 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, per Wikipedia guidelines, we emphasis the English over the Japanese. Alas, many of the One Piece articles are in bad need of correction to fix that (including the Fruit issue). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I made the case in another Talk page on translating the Devil's fruits, or at least putting "Fruit" instead of "No Mi", and was told the Idea of Translating the Fruits was "A load of Crap!". So, it DOES seem the consensus around here is to leave things as Wapanesey as possible, which I'm strongly against by the way. (User talk:DemonRin) 06:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

All of the articles should use whatever terms are used in the English version of the manga. If it is using fruits, then we use fruits. If people are arguing its "a load of crap" to use the official English words, pop a note on the project page pointing out the discussion and asking for additional, more neutral views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"All of the articles should use whatever terms are used in the English version of the manga." Is that documented somewhere? I'd like to have that argument on standby. Usually the response to the "original work" argument is the "responsible for most of the topics fame" argument. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Its a summation of the naming conventions in the WP:MOS-AM. Basically, we use the official English names. With multiple licensed versions, if they use different names, we generally use what is used for the primary work (in this case the manga), unless the primary work isn't licensed, in which case we usually go with the first released work. For One Piece, both the manga and anime are licensed, and as the manga is the primary work, the names used in its English version should be used here (even in cases where people might feel the English is incorrect, such as the spelling of the sword names in InuYasha :P). Differences in the English anime should just be noted as relevant. This was partially discussed at the main One Piece page, I think, but has yet to be fully implemented. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:48, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't remember reading that in the WP:MOS-AM, so I read again and found this: "If there are multiple official titles, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the broader English-speaking world. If there is no official title, use the most commonly known name." Isn't that contradicting your statement? Don't get me wrong here. I'd love it to be the way you say it is, for that would make determining the translation "that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known" unnecessary. But in the end I don't care which way the consensus goes. I just want to know what it is, so I can implement it. And I need to know where that consensus was made (or is documented) to deal with the wild hord of fan boys reverting these edits on sight. -- Goodraise (talk) 15:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Per many many discussions on the various project talk pages, by default "best known" is considered to be the primary work if it is licensed unless there is extremely compelling evidence to say otherwise. It was just felt that spelling it out in that much detail was instruction creep (I think we'd do better if we did spell it out, but such as it is). You can point to any of the discussions on the project talk page or on other articles, though usually if you find yourself getting fan disagreement, posting a request for additional input from the project will usually also get you plenty of backup. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) This is going off topic, but here is the short part of discussion I think you're refering to. I am the only one who replied to your comments and I fail to find the line "A load of Crap!" anywhere on that page. In fact, I see nothing but adequately polite responses containing a resonable explaination. As for the matter of what the consensus around here "DOES" seem like: It's not a question of "Japanese or English?" but a question of "Official English version 1, 2, 3, or 4?". The only thing we can't do is what you proposed: translating things ourselves. -- Goodraise (talk) 14:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:One_Piece#.22Fruit.22_vs._.22No_Mi.22 Right there, Under "Fruit Vs No Mi" "Load of Crap". Honestly, there ARE 4 Official English versions, BUT, The Fruit names are actually pretty standard between them. All Use Gum-Gum, Chop Chop, Hana Hana, Etc. And what's more, we now have the FUNimation version, the only "Uncut" version to go by, so maybe it would be a good Idea to adapt a "WWFD" mentality (What would FUNi do) because, According to one of the Lead Translators who posts on Arlong Park, FUNimation is following a Lengthy and detailed "Official" Terms List given to them by Toei, the Japanese Company who owns the Anime.(User talk:DemonRin) 18:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody here wants the Japanese terms. You're preaching to the chorus on that point. Aside from that, I didn't know that the English manga was a "Cut" version. And "WWFD" sounds to me like an invitation to speculate. I repeat myself: "The only thing we can't do is what you proposed: translating things ourselves." If Funimation has a lengthy and detailed official terms list or not doesn't matter as long as we have no access to it. Therefore "WWFD" is not the way to go. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

BACK ON TOPIC THOUGH, if the seasons are to be split into A Separate Page for each season, I suggest leaving the season and Episode Designations as-is Right now (just splitting them to seperate Pages) since what we have now is easily verifiable without having to make any assumptions, and simply wait. it has already been said that it's very easy to simply move titles around and delete season pages, so why not just stick with what we can verify until such a time as this information changes? And again, if they each have their own Seperate pages, I would be more than happy to type up leages of extra information to fill their pages with from my "One Piece: Rainbow - Grand Animation Guide" Book.(User talk:DemonRin) 18:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As unhappy as it makes me, the previous examples of Funimation releasing seasons asymetrically is enough to put serious doubt on the assumption I stated in the opening post. Hence I say we go with the current season divisions. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I, too, agree that the season designations should be kept as it is for the moment until Funimation verifies more on the season information. That way the articles will be officially split up according to their correct episodes. (User talk:Sappton Benjamin) 21:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious that the two of you have the same weird signature... Nevermind. -- Goodraise (talk) 05:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean? Also, Viz openly admits to editing a great deal of their Manga for various Reasons. One Piece usually gets edits when they decided to follow 4kids' Edited Names for things, and edit art accordingly (IE, changing the "Logue Town" Signs to "Rogue Town", and I also believe they edit out Ace's Tattoo with Whitebeard's original flag, among other things. The dialog is also edited for content. For Example, at one point, a line was changed where Sanji originally asks Zoro if he "Believes in God" (User talk:DemonRin) 05:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say anything other than that it was curious. Same goes for Viz' editing. I simply didn't know about it. I don't read or watch officially English translated One Piece, nor is it available were I live. (Our local dub isn't that great either...) Which is another reason, why I find it a hard task getting the One Piece related articles in line with those translations, as I simply don't know what versions use what terms. You might be mistaken though on the flag and tatoo, as even the original removed the swastika in later appearances as far as I know. But this is going way off topic here. -- Goodraise (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Viz editing the manga is irrelevant. It is still the primary work so the decider of the official English names to be used. If the manga is using "Fruit" that is what we should be used here. Only on the episode list should the English anime terms take precedent (with an appropriate note if necessary). Getting more fully back on this topic, with Funimation's rather varying definition of a "season", to get the list split, in order, clean up, and the individual lists on their way to FL happiness, I agree that splitting on the official Japanese seasons (sans the names) would be best. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I was just letting him know after he said "I didn't know that the English mjanga was a "Cut" version". But this sutuation is unique in that Viz ORIGINALLY did an uncut release, with no dialog or art changes, and Zoro was ZoRo and everything, and they changed the way they translated it Mid Fifth volume becuase That's when 4kids had picked up the show, and they wanted the manga to match it. So really, the Manga doesn't use it's own Terms, it uses MOSTLY 4kids' (with a few exceptions)

but again, back on Topic, why cant we include other info like the Season titles? If they're going to have their own Whole PAGES, i would be neat information to include I think. DemonRin (talk • contribs) 20:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Because if we do season divisons based on the Japanese seasons, it would only be temporary until the Funi seasons are available. Those aren't named, so no purpose in putting it in. Also, I "unclosed" this discussion and asked others from the project to weigh in. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense. but would it be too hard to just delete the Titles when we change the pages over? DemonRin (talk • contribs) 14:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

At this point I doubt funimation will declare special seasons that differ from the Japanese ones unless they start doing stuff like removing the remake episodes that were played during season 9.Jinnai (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Funimations seasons already appear to differ from the Japanese ones, as their first season is 52 versus the Japanese of 62. It seems to be a fairly common thing for them to do. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, FUNNY THING ABOUT THAT, The Japanese season 9 DVD release removes those episodes too XP. Volume 5 includes the episodes leading up to the Recaps, Volume 6 includes the Episodes Following the Recaps. The recaps got done as a "Special" DVD release.DemonRin (talk • contribs) 14:34, 01 November 2008 (UTC)

So do we know what we're doing? Lets get the ball rolling on something. If we're gonna split the page and give each season it's own page I say again we should just stick with what we already have, as it's the only one that you can totally confirm without assuming anything. As has been said already, editing these things is an easy task, so why not stick with what we have confirmed and then change things a few months down the line when we get a few more Boxed sets and, with them, some confirmation on the seasons?DemonRin (talk • contribs) 17:14, 06 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we don't know yet because there really isn't a clear consensus either way. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ye, this article has been like this for a long time. It doesn't hurt to wait with a change as radical as this until some more voices are heared, even though everyone here seems to be in a greement. -- Goodraise (talk) 06:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Really, now - changing the season division because of an assumption of what FUNimation might possible maybe do, based on the fact that they've only announced four "voyages" in season 1, and the two first voyages had 13 episodes each, is just silly. Until we know what FUNi is going to do, the season divisions should stay the way they are. The current divisions are the official Japanese ones, there's no reason of change those to some vaguely assumed English ones. Let's wait and see what FUNi do before changing. As for the naming issue, it's really messed up all over the line. Viz went with their own, well-translated names, then 4Kids made up a bunch of their own for their TV dub, and Viz followed suit. Now FUNi were forced to use 4Kids names for their TV dub to avoid confusing the kids, but their DVD dub (which is the primary English anime source nowadays, with the anime not having aired on TV for ages) goes with "official" names given by Toei, translated just enough to work in English (ie no "gomu gomu" or "no mi" crap). I'm not very familiar with the Viz translation, but the FUNi DVD dub strives to be as correct and faithful as possible, and FUNi really tries to push these names on us. And it's not like their DVDs are that much more obscure as opposed to Viz's 4Kids-friendly manga, is it? I'd really prefer the English One Piece articles to go with FUNi's namings here. AdamantBMage (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I got a question about the last 13 episodes in season, will there be a 5th voyage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defender of comic justice (talk • contribs) 23:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uncut AU Airing

Pardon my language, but.... WHAT THE FUCK IS UP WITH YOU PEOPLE?! The episode aired uncut in AU and I even provided a video clip... and what happens? I get called a vandal. Get the stick out of ya ass, would ya? You ain't taking anything for proof, so how do you expect facts to get on Wikipedia? Also, a FUNi rep has revealed that from this point on FUNi's episodes on AU will air unedited because US canceled and AU doesn't need edited versions. But I can't very well give you a source to that cause you'll discard it and label me as a vandal.

"Screw you guys, I'm goin' home." Buuhan1 (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You were called a vandal because you linked to a video that clearly violates WP:COPYRIGHT. That isn't proof of anything and it violates Wikipedia policy and various copyright laws. Find an actual reliable source if you want to make a legitimate claim. Stolen property won't cut it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Video excerpts from a show for educational/illustrative use is not a copyright violation and is covered under fair use 90.149.198.186 (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

In this case, yes it is. It has nothing to do with fair use and everything to do with sharing illegal copies of episodes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you even check the source? It's not a full episode, just an illustrative excerpt. 90.149.198.186 (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Depends on which of the links you check. Either way, its not an illustrative excerpt by an actual legitimate news source, but a personal website. Not fair use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal or commercial news site is irrelevant to whether something is fair use or not though. The clip could have been posted to youtube (as many other video links on Wikipedia are) and still be considered within the guidelines. Now if you want to question the credibility or the correctness of the clip, that's a whole different discussion. 90.149.198.186 (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Not for Wikipedia policy (not guideline). If it had been posted on YouTube or any other video site, the result would have been the same. It was NOT posted by the license holder, no one at this fansite has authority nor explicit permission to post the video. It is copyright violating and not suitable for linking here, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The guideline for determining fair use doesn't have any requirements as to where something is stored, and I seriously question your personal view that it's a copyright violation. It fits all the requirements for fair-use, including those specified by WP:COPYRIGHT. Funi wouldn't request a take-down from youtube from it if it had been posted there either - it's not a full episode, and it only does what it was designed to do, which is inform people of _some_ (not all) of the differences in the episodes. It's easily verifiable by comparing the clip to existing releases on the Japanese DVDs and of course the other releases out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.149.198.186 (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The policies regarding copyright material do have requirements for sourcing, and the fair use guidelines here also DO require valid sources. This is not here. And yes, Funi likely would. You can't claim to know what the company would, and Funi takes a hard line to such stuff. Final comment, regardless of what you may believe is allowable under fair use laws, it is NOT allowable here, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use requires a source, but that source doesn't have to be the original license holder. I suggest you take a look at this, which is a typical example of fair use in practice http://volokh.com/posts/1172077093.shtml 90.149.198.186 (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and yes, OUR fair use requires a valid source, not just any old place you find something. Nor is a blog post in anyway authoritative on the subject.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh hi, my name is Quexinos and I run funpiece.com I have an inside source from Funimation that says the episodes will remain uncut because Funi never finished editing past 175. Can I please add this to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quexinos (talk • contribs) 20:35, November 10, 2008

No, you are not a reliable source per Wikipedia editing guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Que, you mentioned that you have an inside source at Funimation, right? Would it be possible for you to ask them about having FUNi release a press release or something talking about this, or at least commenting on it in another press release? If you could get that to happen, it would pretty neatly clear up this whole situation, since it would give us a reliable source to use (but it would have to be an official press release, as was mentioned elsewhere, even if the FUNi source came on here, proved who they were, and said it themselves, it still wouldn't work)c. —Dinoguy1000 20:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, excuse me, but I can vouch for Quexinos AND as a fan who watches the show in Australia, I can confirm that everything she says is true. How is funpiece not a reliable source, when hundreds of other pages have fansites as sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.173.37.241 (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

She is not a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines: See WP:RS. Fansites are not reliable sources period. Some may have snuck into less watched articles, but that doesn't mean they are appropriate nor that they should be there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But the isn't the fact that the episodes exist and have aired evidence in themselves? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.134.135 (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Quoting myself from my comment right under this one: "What Wikipedia demands is not proof and truth. Wikipedia demands reliable sources to satisfy verifiability." Wikipedia does not care about evidence. Not the least bit. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

What Wikipedia outsiders often do not understand, is that the criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth, but verifiability. I believe you right away. They are certainly airing uncut episodes. But what any of us believe does not matter. And someone, who's comments are getting automatically signed with his/her IP address, vouching for someone, claiming to be a blogger of some site, isn't changing anything. Even if a Funimation spokesman came here, verified his/her identity, and claimed the same thing. It would not matter. Nothing any of us can do in that line is relevant. Wikipedia editors are "internet nobodies". What Wikipedia demands is not proof and truth. Wikipedia demands reliable sources to satisfy verifiability. If for example, the pope publishes a book, claiming the earth is flat, then that is clearly wrong, but it would still be fit for inclusion. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:00, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sake vs Booze

Look, I'm not going to argue about this. Getting into a fight on the internet...on Wikipedia no doubt, is really stupid. I just think the title sounds better as Bink's Sake. Bink's Booze looks incredibly awkward. It's commonly referred to as Bink's Sake. Now, I know what fans do isn't you know, reliable and what not; but it's not like Sake is entirely incorrect. -Sukecchi (talk) 14:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sukecchi that Sake should be used. To English speaking audiences, Sake is a specific drink and it is a known, recognizable word (particularly among those who drink alcohol). Changing it to "booze" frankly seems a little insulting to me. Until the English title is released, I see no reason to attempt some sort of "Translation" of this word when none is needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not about what "sounds cooler"; it's about what's more accurate. What part of "The Japanese word for what English-speakers call 'sake' isn't 'sake'" is hard to understand? From the sake article:

This article uses the word "sake" as it is used in English, as the name for this specific Japanese beverage made from rice. However, in Japanese, the word sake (Japanese: 酒; often preceded by the honorific prefix o-) refers to alcoholic drinks in general and not this specific beverage exclusively; instead, the word Nihonshu (日本酒, , "Japanese alcoholic beverage") is used to distinguish it from other alcoholic drinks. In English, the word "sake" always refers to Nihonshu.

If you need more, the Japanese article for sake, the English article on the side bar is alcoholic beverage, while article on the side bar for nihonshu is sake. The title isn't referring to any specific kind of drink, just alcohol. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I never said sounded cooler, I said sounded better. -Sukecchi (talk) 03:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

"Bink's Sake" is the name of the song that the episode's focused on. Why call it something else if the intended title (and what they're saying) IS "Sake"? Also, "booze" doesn't go with the rhythm of the song, "sake" does. 67.186.163.48 (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Translation Consistancy

I know this has been talked to death in almost every One Piece related Page on This Site, but I have to bring it up here now because it's relevant to here. We NEED a Uniform Translation Guideline for One Piece, we can't keep going with the "Use whatever sounds coolest in Japanese" Approach that all the pages are using now. The reason I bring this up HERE is, I just noticed that the Episode titles and Synopses are TERRIBLY inconsistent with one another. For example, just look at every Episode Synopsis that talks about Luffy's Devil Fruit. Eps 1-26 (what's out in the FUNi DVDs) uses "Gum Gum" or "Gum-Gum" but Everything AFTER that uses "Gomu Gomu no". The Consensus around here seems to be "Keep Everything as Japanese as Possible", I hate that Thinking, but Fine, why are there SOME "Gum Gum"s in there and then a tons of "Gomu Gomu no"s? If it's gonna be "as Japanese As Possible because it sounds cool" then EVERYTHING should be that way instead of Some here and Some there. (User talk:DemonRin) 2:40, 02 December 2008 (UTC)

You're underestimating the severity of the problem. We don't have a consensus to "Keep Everything as Japanese as Possible". That would at least give some consistency. What we in fact have now is "everyone go and change anything to whatever you like best". Anyways, this belongs on the main talk page. where I have recently brought up a suggestion, that has so far gone unnoticed. I suggest continuing this discussion there. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually just now Saw that, and am Typing up my response right now (I just switched over here to copy-Paste my Signature) I agree with you wholeheartedly there, but what I was talking about here was the fact that I've noticed the extreme inconsistency with the Synopsys and wanted to point that out (The Gum Gum Vs Gomu Gomu Thing this page has going for it)(User talk:DemonRin) 3:16, 02 December 2008 (UTC)

On a side note: You know that typing ~~~~ will create a standard signature? There should be no need to copy-paste your signature. If you want a custom one, you can also use the "Signature" field in the "User profile" tab of your preferences page. -- Goodraise (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a Japanese series. If the creator of the series intended to use certain terms, like "Sake", I don't see why we can't use that. 67.186.163.48 (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Give some proof that the creator wanted it translated as "sake". If he did, he would have used "nihonshu" instead. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

DVD Cover Art

Just mentioning really quick, the DVD Cover art used here is wrong. It's a Mockup of the first Season DVD set that hit the net before it was released, the one that Actually got released looks different. http://www.rightstuf.com/items/2008-03/31/large/fun09581.jpg This is the Real one. Could we switch it? DemonRin (talk) 02:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That link doesn't work for me. -- Goodraise (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh whoops, looks like Right Stuff doesn't allow direct hotlinking to the images... http://www.rightstuf.com/cgi-bin/catalogmgr/CiVFrxr0D0L5gUd79f/browse/item/78085/4/0/0 Try this one then DemonRin (talk) 05:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

yep, that is way different and it is nice to know someone else also relized that too =^-^= —Preceding unsigned comment added by Defender of comic justice (talk • contribs) 00:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

So can we replace the one we have now with the real one from the Right Stuff?DemonRin (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Skypiea Edited Episode Titles

Can we fix the episode titles for the Skypiea episodes from when the FUNi broadcast started? it only lists the edited titles up until the AUS Airing was uncut, even though we already have confirmation (through the Uncut AUS Airing) that the terms "Wyler" "IQ Test", "Loftra", and "King" won't be used in the Uncut Dub? Could we just change those terms over to their Uncut counterparts? Or can we do what is done for the Episodes 4kids did and list both Edited and Uncut Titles?DemonRin (talk) 07:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

If both are official, list both. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Reading your post again, it doesn't actually make too much sense to me. If an episode title in the list is an unofficial translation, replace it. If it's an official translation and you have a second official translation, don't replace it, but list both. - Does that answer your question? -- Goodraise (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

They are, but they're incredibly close to one another, For example: "Sail the White Sea! The Sky Knight and the Gate in the Clouds!" vs "Sail the White Sea! The Sky Knight and Heaven's Gate!". The Uncut Name is a Literal Translation of the Japanese, wheras the Edited ones are the same but with some terms replaced with their 4kids counterparts that FUNi had to carry over, my only qualm is it will look redundant, and it's only for select Episodes, so the list would look somewhat wonky.

But Either way, the OTHER Episodes with edited titles list both Official Edited and unofficial Direct translations of the Japanese, so I think these eps should too.DemonRin (talk) 08:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Better add both. If it looks bad, they can still be cut once the (then hopefully split off) sublists go to WP:FLC. -- Goodraise (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, Check it to see if it's ok DemonRin (talk) 13:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, what you want to be checked. Looks agreeable to me. -- Goodraise (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Splitting the list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Closed as obsolete. Previous consensus established at Talk:List of One Piece episodes/Archive 1#FUNimation Seasons. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:24, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

---

The season lists should be split into their own articles similar to other long-running anime series like Bleach & Naruto and this article should be turned to a list page. The Funimation changes to the seasons can be dealt with as they come along, but that's not an excuse to keep the entire article as it is.じんない 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Discussion! See above about it!!

Honestly though, since we don't know What FUNi is going to do down the line (IE, will there only be 4 voyages in Season 1? Will there by only 4 Voyages in EVERY season?) we should split the seasons into the Japanese listing (as they are right now) and then we can edit them as more information comes in.

I think we came to a consensus on this, but nobody did any of the editing... We probably should. If someone could do the initial splitting, I could add lots of supplementary information from the One Piece Rainbow: Grand Animation Data File book, and of course I could supply scans from the book as references.DemonRin (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I may do it in a few days if no one else. I'm a bit tired out from finishing the 2008 assessments.じんない 02:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we came to a consensus to split along the Japanese seasons. Back then, we didn't close the discussion that way, because we wanted to give more project members a chance to voice their oppinion, while that discussion was still advertised on the project's talk page. Eventually that advertisement got archived, but by that time I had already shifted my attention in other directions. Go ahead and split, the time to object has long passed. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Old discussion closed and archived to Talk:List of One Piece episodes/Archive 1#FUNimation Seasons. -- Goodraise (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.