Talk:One Piece/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

nagad== Odex dub references ==01306297057

I've been digging through half the web to find reliable sources for the information concerning the Odex dub. One Piece, List of One Piece episodes, List of One Piece characters, and Monkey D. Luffy are all in need of them. Sadly, the Odex website seems to be under permanent construction and (oh surprise) no copy in the Internet Archive is actually usable. What needs to be sourced are the voice actors, release dates, the amount of episodes and releases. I can't even find a reliable source for the dubs existence (aside from this site, selling the first vcd box). Anime News Network seems to have no news about Odex releasing One Piece. Its encyclopedia entries about One Piece and Odex make no mention about the dub either. If anyone has access to Odex' releases or otherwise knows a way to reference said information, please speak up. -- Goodraise (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know if it would classifiy as a reliable self-published source, but this side has interviews with the VAs.じんない 08:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh man, I almost forgot this thread... No, that's not a reliable source. -- Goodraise (talk) 02:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
[1] not sure if that is realible personal i think not but you might think it could be and certainly meantions the odex dub, and this is the only othe one ican find, it might be more realible as viz use the site as well however nto sure if you will think so [2] hope it helps--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Refimprove?

I'm not seeing anything in the archives discussing this, so a new discussion. I'm having trouble supporting keeping a {{refimprove}} tag on an article with 103 references that are fairly evenly distributed throughout. If there's specific information that needs verification, it is not only much more appropriate to use {{fact}} tags but clearer to editors what needs work. Unless someone has a specific concern, I would like to remove {{refimprove}}. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I think only the films section needs refs. The anime one has {{fact}} so I think it the {{refimprove}} could be removed.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
What sort of references are we looking for in the film section? Can it just reference the primary sources? --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 09:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
2nd 2 paragraphs - yes, although some of those statements in the first one are questionable without secondary sources.陣内Jinnai 19:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
A second source may be needed for the total sales figures. This article claims One Piece is the all-time largest seller will under 200 million copies sold, but Golgo 13 claims that it has sold over 200 million copies. Certainly One Piece is not the longest-running series out of all the various genres in Japan. The "all time greatest selling title" might need to be modified to pertain just to titles printed in Japan and yet further to "comic" type titles. After all, there may be National Geographic which is also available in Japan and it has a much longer print history than One Piece. AnimeJanai (talk) 12:10, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Corrected. The source was accurate, but the article did not reflect the claims made by the source correctly. Golgo 13 has sold more as a series, but it is also more than twice as long; individual volume sales are less than One Piece. Doceirias (talk) 15:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Release date, manga

Ok, I'm not entirely familiar with the tables used in the "list of manga volumes" section, but there is an inconsistency and I can't find where to make the change. Per several sources (borders.com, barnesandnoble.com, aaaanime.com) the US release date for volume 22 of the manga has been changed from 9/1 to 10/6, however the volumes section still reflects a 9/1 release date. how would one go about changing this? StryyderG (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

that is weird.--"I am an oktau and a baka at times but deny proven facts and you got a fight" comment added by Dragonmaster88 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
List of One Piece manga volumes uses transclusions to generate its tables from the data provided in its sub-pages. Making the correction in List of One Piece chapters (187–388) will also affect the volumes list (as soon as the server's cache is purged). Goodraise 16:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

That did it. Thanks! StryyderG (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

"Category: Viz Media anime" addition to recognize previous licensor

Prior to Funimation Entertainment's acquisition of the One Piece license, the DVD distribution rights were held by Viz Media. I have added the Category for Viz Media anime to the page in order to allow it to be seen along with other Viz Media anime licenses (even if those licenses have since expired).

OtakuMan (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All Time Best Selling Shonen Jump Manga

The Source for One Piece being the All Time Best Selling Shonen Jump Manga is from an all japanese link that has no english translation, I've temporarily edited the article and made it "one of the best selling mangas" (http://comipress.com/article/2007/05/06/1923) until we find a source like ANN that proves OP is indeed the best selling manga now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raging goddess (talk • contribs) 12:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The comipress source is from two years ago. It doesn't matter if the source is in Japanese, if it is reliable, it can be used.Tintor2 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

last I checked the One Piece page is written in english, so how is it that a source to a certain info is a japanese website that for all we know might not even concern the Best Selling manga topic, leaving that source is like saying that you expect every reader to know how to read japanese, and that's wrong. Since I can't read japanese, I demand proof that the website indeed states that One Piece is now the best Selling Shounen Jump Manga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.150.150.150 (talk) 18:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-English sources are acceptable per Wikipedia policy, though English sources are preferred. (See WP:NONENG.) Goodraise 18:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

So if someone provides false info and says its source is from Toei's Japanese Website (where everything is written in japanese), what proof do other editors have that the info is false if the website is "reliable"? I again demand proof that the source indeed discusses One Piece becoming the best selling Shounen Jump Manga, otherwise I'll keep pursuing this till the info is either removed or someone provides a full translation of the page, cause I really can't see an issue concerning a best selling Shounen Jump manga not being mentioned in Animenewsnetwork or Comipress or any other websites.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.189.93.215 (talk)

You can always request a verifiability check using {{Verify source}} to see if the Japanese source actually does back up what is being cited. There are a number of Wikipedia editors you can read Japanese and double check these sources. However, excluding Japanese language sources is a form of bias that Wikipedia must avoid and assume good faith that the information sited to foreign language sources are what they are. --Farix (Talk) 12:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
WP:AGF (assume good faith) in no way obligates anyone to assume that any source (in whatever language) says what it is used to cite. The relevant policy for this is WP:V (verifiability), not WP:AGF. Anyways, the IP editor may want to take a look at this online translation of the source in question. Goodraise 12:52, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
One Piece have sold over 20 million copies worldwide, it is one of the best selling manga in the world. It is common knowledge. Kasaalan (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." -WP:V --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Common fact it is. Superman and spiderman is one of the most popular comic. Kasaalan (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know japanese, too. Maybe we can ask help from japanese wikipedia. Kasaalan (talk) 11:30, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a good number of people on Wikiproject Anime that have japanese skills. Might ask there first. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 11:34, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
More than 177 million copies sold in solely Japan as of July 6, 2009. Kasaalan (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This needs verification because http://shonenjump.viz.com/news/newsroom/index.php?id=101 first I read this article and it says that Vol.54 sold 2.6 million copies. But when I checked the official Oricon’s weekly data here http://www.oricon.co.jp/rank/obc/w/ translation(url change every week, so use the previews (前へ) button to find the specific date). One Piece Vol. 54 on (11th week and 24 place) August 24, 2009 sold approximately 1,789,871 copies. The same goes for the 177 millions, this number need verification from Oricon. Because Oricon was never published such a numbers. So the Viz article is an “Official lie’’ or even better an advertisement trick. Oricon is the ONLY company in Japan doing this work. Viz sure is an official company about One Piece manga but not official source for the Japanese manga sales. You can’t reference to an article like this: Wikipedia references to Viz article reverences to nowhere. This is not verify nothing if Viz is not responsible about Japanese manga sales. So the article must be remaining with One Piece 140 millions third place and give the appropriate receptions for 2008 and 2009. After 2007 Oricon didn’t published again ‘’All Time’’ manga statistics. Then do not wonder why this article is rated as C-Class.--79.166.20.241 (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Right above I mean ‘’second’’ place not ‘’third’’--79.166.20.241 (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I have to agree with the IP, though I'd like to put it in a little more diplomatic words: The source in question is a press release and as such isn't a reliable source for the information in question. Press releases generally lack the amount of fact-checking and neutrality we desire. Goodraise 16:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I think we're seeing a gap between sales and copies in print, which is a common press release trick to inflate the numbers. As long as we are strict about which figure we are giving, there's no reason to discredit an official source. Doceirias (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia entry for Golgo 13 states that Golgo 13 has sold over 200 million copies so far. Of course, it is substantially longer-running series having started in 1969. It is still being actively published. Therefore, with One Piece selling less than 200 million copies so far, can One Piece actually claim it is the number all-time seller? Detective Conan is yet another long-running popular manga serial that started earlier than One Piece. It too is still being published and also has an anime series that is ongoing as well. Just the compilation volumes for Detective Conan have sold over 120 million, so I wonder if adding the other sales of related volumes will close or exceed the print gap versus One Piece. There may be other manga (romance?) that may also be long-running. AnimeJanai (talk) 12:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

The publishing trade terms also need to be clarified. Just because 2.8 million copies are printed doesn't mean that all of them are actually purchased. Distributors and wholesalers in the publishing industry receive issues for which they make payment. Depending on contracts, books not purchased by the endconsumer can be returned by booksellers for credit, transferred to remainder wholesaling networks, or recycled. So, just because the print run is technically sold to the distribution chain doesn't mean all of those books are purchased because there are bound to be bookstores that return books for credit. Identifying the number of books returned for credit is the difficult bit of information to get from publishers who want to show only positive news to the public. Because of the bias of information sources, the One Piece article has a rather "overly cheery fannish" feel to it as opposed to neutral.AnimeJanai (talk) 05:21, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I know this discussion is reasonably old, but, before it gets archived, I'd like to say something in regards to the issue of whether or not non-English sources should be allowed. I was going back-and-fourth on this myself but came to the conclusion that, hey, Wikipedia can make any rules it wants; if its policy is that, while English sources are preferred, non-English sources can be used, whether or not that is agreed upon or fair, it needs to be realized that no one is forced to visit Wikipedia.--99.124.128.157 (talk) 20:06, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I also support the usage of sources that are not English-language (such as Japanese). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:20, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

i know this is old but as a final stance on this figure we get it worded for something we all agree on in the future for edits (which is the purpose of a talk apge). Wikipedia approves non english sources. if you can not use google to translate a page or at least copy the text in to translate then that is your issue. sources are always deemed in good faith but if prooved wrong removed. removing for language barriers is not disproving a source. deliberatly miss leading sources via language barriers is wrong and constitutes vandalism long term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.91.9.153 (talk) 22:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Chopper

I know the characters pages were deleted because they're not important, but Chopper is getting a spin-off known as Chopperman illustrated by Hirofumi Takei. Ref = http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2010-11-09/shueisha-to-launch-super-strong-jump-mag-for-kids

I'm assuming that this gives him some kind of additional help in getting his own page as a Series Mascot for two series now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.158.211 (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Volume 61 Cover

To let everyone know, I have made a significant change to this article. Previously, the cover for One Piece: Volume 1 was shown at the top of the page to represent the series, but I have replaced it with the cover for Volume 61. I did this because I believe that the cover for Volume 1 doesn't necessarily represent the series as a whole as well as it should, since it only shows 3 characters and doesn't match the art style changes of the series later on. However, the cover for Volume 61 is based on the aesthetic of the original Volume's cover, and features all of the main characters in their current forms. Therefore, I believe that this image represents the series better than the first cover that was posted. --AutoMe (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Add Parental Warning About the Story Arc With Homosexuals and Transvestites?

I remember that at Impel Down (the prison) there was this powerful transvestite that was fat and ?used to be on Luffy's dad's crew? that has a crew of transvestites, and Mr. 2 Bon Clay was a transvestite as well. I think that One Piece should have a warning that parents will have to deal with answering questions like "Why is that guy dressing as a woman" and "If I had a superpower like him to change people's gender could make you a hairy man and aunt Jojo could kiss you?" or something like that. It's just not appropriate. Poor Sanji had homosexuals mooning over him! =( 74.78.201.42 (talk) 13:45, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. Goodraise 20:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

trim or clean or even protect

I LOVE One Piece as the next guy,but this article could use one of three things,trim,clean or protect,and I really think protect.~Tailsman67~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.178.171.167 (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

See something that could be improved? Go ahead and do it. Protection isn't going to happen though. See Wikipedia:Protection policy for details. Goodraise 23:10, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Good article nominee

Please review the article on this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:One_Piece/GA1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddy1988 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Plot detail

Someone has been adding excessive plot detail to the One Piece section. I tried to help rewrite the section, but it was swiftly reverted. Rather than getting involved in an edit war again, I am taking the WP:BRD route and opening this discussion to see if others can voice their opinion on this matter. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:55, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unnecessary citation needed tag?

Under the Anime subsection of the Reception section, there is a "Citation Needed" tag for the FUNimation dub receiving praise. However, a number of mentions of positive reviews of the FUNimation dub are right in the following paragraph. Should I remove the "Citation Needed" tag? The citations are there--they're just in the list of examples rather than attached right to the sentence. Ron Stoppable (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:One Piece/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Numbermaniac (talk · contribs) 01:30, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

It looks like a good article to me, good info, except that some references are broken, specifically references 42-44. Several other references also have problems such as dead links, missing titles, page needed, etc.

  • GA1: The article is mostly clear and concise, and written in great detail.
  • GA2: A good list of references are listed, however some are incorrect, and need to be fixed for being selected as Good Article Status.
  • GA3: This article definitely covers the topic well, and in very great detail.
  • GA4: Neutrality appears to be stated, no obvious biasing of any kind.
  • GA5: No content disputes or edit war is currently active or applicable here.
  • GA6: Images correctly added where applicable, although this type of article does not require many pictures.


Overall, the article's content is brilliant, and once the references are properly fixed, I believe this article can be listed as Good-Article Status. Numbermaniac - T- C 02:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Those citation needed templates need to be addressed. One concerns the intent of the creator and while not specifically a BLP matter, it should be sourced. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
The original nominator, Eddy1988, has been inactive for over a month. I'll try asking around to see if an editor would like to take up the issues. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:17, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
After DragonZero's reminder on my talk page, I have decided to take up the issues here. We need to address the citation needed templates obviously per ChrisGualtieri. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Reference 136 also has two issues with title missing and page needed. Numbermaniac - T- C 04:59, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Note: I have fixed some citation errors, where a "url=" parameter was needed in the presence of "archiveurl=" parameter. smtchahaltalk 04:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Smtchahal! :D Anyway, cool. There are still some ones that need fixing, with small errors. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 07:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Generally, editors are given 7 days to fix the article for GA status. However, I do like this article, hence I am giving editors 14 days to fix all necessary issues with the article. I may extend the time later, but don't count on it. Editors now have until 2 June to address all issues, before a final reassessment of the article. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 02:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

7 days remaining. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC) Current references with errors:

  • 48: Dead link
  • 95: Also dead link
  • 136: Title missing, page needed

If these are fixed, I can do a final reassessment and lift this to GA-status. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please also have a look at http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=One_Piece, which shows the references that need to be fixed, specifiaclly towards the bottom of the list. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 01:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I think its time to fail it. You've done a lot as the reviewer, even fixing some of the issues, but there are still problems and no other editor has taken this up. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I shall wait until the 2nd of June, if they still are not fixed, then it will be failed. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 00:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I tried finding sources for those claims (even twice), but couldn't. Can't we just remove those claims if there are no sources available to cite them? smtchahaltalk 02:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 03:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done. Dead links fixed, the ones I couldn't removed, unsourced and incorrectly sourced statements removed. No problems in citations at the moment. smtchahaltalk 04:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Brilliant. I have also repaired some links myself. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 08:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The article is now a GA! Yay! -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 09:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I'd just like to throw a note in here that any editors willing to help get this article to GA status have 14 days to do so. See review at Talk:One Piece/GA1. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 02:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Bah; I missed this one, but how close to FA do you think it is? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:56, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
I see it as a pretty good candidate for FA, ChrisGualtieri. However, I'd suggest someone involved in the page's maintenance requests a peer review to address any issues in the article. Also, I manily do GAs, not so FAs. But I still like it. -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 01:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor

just a tip for the editors: Do NOT Use Visual Editor Here or ANYWHERE where an infobox is found, it will just get to the conclusion that the infobox gets deleted by mistake and will be reverted and the edits you actually wanted to do get simply caught up in it. My1 15:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Good thing to add

It would be very interesting to point out in the Production section how the flag of the Whitebeard pirates was changed for the anime, due to it using a manji, and how the manga changed to use that design much later. Xfansd (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I Just Know...

That the talk page itself can be edited. It's old story actually. If that's the case, I can't even complain if there's something wrong/false/inaccurate info about an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheVUP (talk • contribs) 23:53, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Correction needed

This is not my first language, so I don't feel comfortable fixing myself, if someone could do it.

"As of 2013, the series had over 345 million volumes in circulation worldwide, of which 300 million were sold in Japan alone, making it the best-selling manga series in history." It's no 300 million >SOLD<, it´s copies in circulation.

http://mantan-web.jp/2013/10/31/20131030dog00m200046000c.html "累計発行部数が3億部を突破することが31日" << source

More circulation's infos can be found here: http://www.geocities.jp/wj_log/rank/rank0.html#%E3%83%AF%E3%83%B3%E3%83%94

There no official number for sells, only Oricon's data which is not official, just estimated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mifeena (talk • contribs) 01:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Mystery as genre

There is a constant undertone of mystery throughout the entire series, with the many mysteries surrounding the One Piece treasure, the Ancient Kingdom, the Ancient Weapons and the Void Century. I think mystery should be listed as one of the genres.

Most adventure driven stories have some elements of mystery in them, but the mystery genre itself revolves around investigating a crime. So OP would not fall into the mystery genre. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Spoiler

There's been some recent mention of "spoilers" in the edit comments with regards to this recent edit, which removed a volume cover on the basis of being a spoiler. Just so everyone is aware, Wikipedia has a few policies which might apply to such content:

Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:28, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, these policies only mean that spoilers aren't disallowed. There's still such a thing as being considerate and trying to stick to non-revealing images that best represent the series for everyone to enjoy. Actually, isn't the first volume standard? Tezero (talk) 04:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It might be considerate, but potential spoilers have actually been discussed numerous times in various articles. For this article we have been using the 61st volume for a while and I felt that it would best represent the series. After taking a look at the recent edits, I did a quick revert and restore, and even if new readers would see the article, there's bound to be spoilers anyway. As such, removing things on the basis of a spoiler would potentially violate WP:SPOILER. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:53, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
As a reader of fiction articles, I generally expect spoilers to be localized to the Plot section, or at the very least the body text in general. Putting one in the infobox is not ideal, I think. Tezero (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
What is the spoiler in volume 61? -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It is the 9 Straw Hat Pirates after the two-year timeskip. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Saying "timeskip" or "these are all the straw hat members" in the caption would be a spoiler. Saying "this is the cover of volume 61" just says that those are some of the characters that are in the series. Some manga/anime covers feature antagonists and other major characters, or a mix of both good and bad guys. -AngusWOOF (talk) 05:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I've already asked others at WP:ANIME about this matter. Also, I would also like to please note the fair use rationale for that image (my emphasis in bold): "[..] The cover art of Volume 61 is made to resemble this first volume, but features higher quality pictures and shows all of the characters of the series in their current form. Therefore, it better represents the series than the cover of the first volume, which features only a few characters from the entire story and does not match the artistic differences from the beginning of the series to its current point." As such, the cover of 61st volume represents the series as a whole and that, rather than the first volume's cover, should be used for the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Let me start of by saying that I do not believe that there is such a thing as "spoilers" and there has been one study that demonstrates that knowing plot details ahead of time does not adversely affect a person's enjoyment. Instead, it actually enhanced their enjoyment.[3][4] Second, the current image is over 3 years old. It does show the more of the crew, but that is all it does. And third, it is a cover, cover images are not going to "ruin" someone enjoyment of the work. Covers are meant to entice people to read. The only question we should be considering is whether the cover of vol 61 is a better representation of the work than the cover of vol 1. —Farix (t | c) 11:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps an ideal thing to do is a compromise, where we use the covers of both volume 1 and 61, to show any differences in art style or whatever in the intervening years? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
You can only use one image in the infobox and its purpose is to represent the work and help the reader identify the subject. —Farix (t | c) 12:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, so how is what Narutolovehinata5 is suggesting different from this JoJo or that JoJo then? The second one is something along their train of thought. Also, we don't necessarily have to use Volume 1 covers. —KirtZMessage 22:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Those articles should only use one image to identify the subject. The two Stardust Crusaders covers are virtually identical to each other. And JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 1) can use some serious cleaning up by removing the heading for each episode. We simply don't do that on list articles. —Farix (t | c) 23:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to...

Is it a good idea to include a link to an article on the War of the Best? I personally believe that it isn't covered in enough detail in the article. Ximoquim (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Link to One Piece wikia?

Why aren't we linking to the useful resource that is One Piece Wikia [5]? Please note that the argument that fansites like this violate WP:EL is not valid, I asked about this at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Honorverse_wikia recently. So if there are no other objections, I'll add a link to it to our elink section. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No per number 12 at WP:ELNO. For some reason that wasn't brought up in the discussion you link. Xfansd (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
@Xfansd: Because "except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". This exception clearly applies here; the Wiki has about 4k articles (twice as much as the Young Justice wikia ([6]) which was approved at [7]), is pretty comprehensive, has enough active editors to be edited hourly and does not seem to suffer from any edit wars. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe One Piece wikia meets with WP:ELNO #12. defintiely substantial ammount of editors and pages, and constant patrol shows a lot of promise. Lucia Black (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Lucia Black on this matter. Not only does it violate #12 of the WP:ELNO criteria, but other stuff exists is not a valid argument to include Wikia as an external link, and will not be used here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with including it only because it has a well-managed staff of administrators that do their jobs of staying on patrol and the site is well informative with up to date information with reference link and sourcing. While other anime wikis are less qualified due to the lack of constant patrol or Staff to which they are not worthy to be linked to wikipedia like Yu Yu Hakusho or Tenchi Muyo!, the One Piece wiki is one of the better qualified wikis out there from wikia besides the Naruto and Bleach wikis which is also already currently linked. As it has remained stable for a long time with a substantial amount of editors it has a better chance of qualifying. -73.190.124.47 (talk) 03:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that WP:ELNO #12 is clearly not relevant to the One Piece Wiki as it is considered a flagship wiki in size along with the likes of the Fairy Tail Wiki, the Game of Thrones Wiki, WoWWiki before it left, Bleachi Wiki and others. In fact, one might say that other stuff exists is not applicable and redundant in this article as its one of few where all the links are official but I would have called people out on it - ANN is not a good site and is a unmoderated Wikia ripoff but it recieves endorsement. Regardless of this, I believe there is a conflict of interest here because of the editors to Wikipedia's animanga pages being in opposition to the de-facto collaborative source on One Piece would have interests against linking to a different or alternative collaborative source. I will put my case forward to prove to my ability that One Piece Wiki is a positive under WP:ELNO #12.
  1. It IS a large wiki; it is endorsed by Animanga Wiki as the largest of its members. I've got Quantcast figures for the disbelieving because I have access to them. In essence, the wiki has been going since 2009 with 20,303,404 page views the last month, and peaking at 218,500 users in one day with 1,000,000 pageviews. THAT is big. Infuriatingly, I find that the wiki has so far been treated in a biased and demeaning way by being rejected on principle. There are many dedicated users there with editcounts hitting the 1% easily and the sheer quantity of 10K+ edit users is unparalleled in wikis. In fact, if this wiki is rejected, you will probably set a precedent to this rule which would pretty much deny EVERY wiki in the Wikia domain a place in the External links section by the same principle and then I would go to a moderator or admin in the Policy section to get the exception removed because it would be deceptive.
File:QuantcastOnePieceWiki.png
  1. It's patrolled in the exact same way Wikipedia is; the size of the wiki prevents central moderation so factions are responsible for areas of the wiki with a controlled hierarchy much more rigid than that of Wikipedia. Vandalism is quite common due to the completeness of the cite and the relative lack of need for growth so its more easily managed.
  2. Wikipedia accepts ANN in multiple articles under ELNO #12 as an external link but the website is known from many online forums as a Wikipedia/animanga wiki copypasta with quite a few errors. Its press releases are not modifiable but its data is, so citing it and linking to it is not a great idea. The site is also not referenced or original in its encyclopaedic articles, unlike the One Piece Wiki which has a strict citation policy (though not as extreme as the Bleach Wiki). And vandalism is actually harder for them to cope with if it wasn't for a lack of users willing to submit content false or true in comparision to Wikipedia and animanga wikis. I clearly remember adding a sentence about Funimation simulcasting to an article and they promptly lifted it 6hrs later. So ANN is allowed but wikis shouldn't be? I believed ANN had a Brittanica-style focus on recruiting editors (the less the better).
I would like to take this chance to invite all opposition voters to actually define the One Piece Wiki's physical violation of WP:ELNO & ELNO #12 instead of rejecting on principle. I'll also take this as a chance to mention that being biased in editing is never a good thing. Hopefully, our discussion can continue and we can reach a fair conclusion.
PS: Sjones23, you made a "Reject" comment with "I agree", you may have left a typo. Just a heads up.
Speeditor (talk) 00:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I thank you for the very extensive analysis. Let's see if there is any other input - and whether it transcends IDONTLIKEIT or it variants. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Addition to genre section

Can I add Comedy, Drama, Romance and Fantasy in the Genre section, since it's listed on other sites as that? --Animelover5487 (talk) 06:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is there Romance in One Piece? Ximoquim (talk) 20:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
What are the reliable sources for those genres? Just because those genres are listed on other sites doesn't mean that those genres are correct or that the websites are reliable. —Farix (t | c) 23:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It's listed as that on watchseries.It Animelover5487 (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that's an illegal site per WP:ELNEVER, so it can't be used. Besides, the series already has three genres. Why would it require more? -AngusWOOF (talk) 07:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
And just what is that website? By the looks if it, it is a Google ad gateway and doesn't list any specific series. —Farix (t | c) 11:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think that fantasy makes a lot of sense for this series, and here is a reliable ref for that: John Ingulsrud; Kate Allen (3 February 2010). Reading Japan Cool: Patterns of Manga Literacy and Discourse. Lexington Books. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-7391-3507-5.. That said, I see that the series is already listed as that (+adventure), per ref. I think the other entries (action, comedy-drama) seem valid too. But romance... eh, that would really need to show some serious sources. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are the anime and the manga the same article?

I don't understand this, in most cases animated shows and the comics are different pages.

That's the case for Tintin, the Smurfs and many others. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

That's because WP:A&M has different guidelines. Usually the manga and the anime are just too interconnected (well, the anime is based on the manga, so they have the same plot, characters, etc.) that they don't have independent notability. One Piece may be a case of exception but one would have to prove it by providing sources (usually info on anime production to differ from manga production). Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

List of One Piece video games needs updating

If anyone cares to save this Featured List, please update it. Otherwise it will likely be defeatured for being not up to date. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Amount of episodes

See List of anime series by episode count. It's not the longest running anime by a long shot (the #1 spot has almost 10x as many episodes), but it does seem to be the longest running anime show with a fully serialized story. All entries above it are procedural shows. That might be worth mentioning, I'm not sure. 95.97.234.31 (talk) 23:15, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on One Piece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Parties and Luffy's team

In 2014, User:Zhang861 drafted a couple of new sections for this article in his own sandbox. I am posting links here in the hope that someone else will assess them.

Selectively copied from User talk:Zhang861:

I also added some content to introduce some significant parties in this manga, such as "4 kings" "11 groups under kings" and so on, this pack lack of character introduction, not only images, I also added some discription about these characters.
  • Parties in New World [8]
  • Luffy's team [9]

The images have since been deleted, but the text might be usable. – Fayenatic London 22:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Zhang861, please look at List of One Piece characters. Most of this description is already organized there concerning the Straw Hat Pirates and the Seven Warlords of the Sea. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:38, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:One Piece/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ProtoDrake (talk · contribs) 09:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


I'll try to get back to this in a few days. If I'm not giving my thoughts by next week, please ping me. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Review

  • "It is 29 minutes in length and features character designs by Hisashi Kagawa. Luffy, Nami, and Zoro are attacked by a sea monster that destroys their boat and separates them. Luffy is found on an island beach, where he saves a little girl, Medaka, from two pirates. All the villagers, including Medaka's father have been abducted by Ganzack and his crew and forced into labor. After hearing that Ganzack also stole all the food, Luffy and Zoro rush out to retrieve it. As they fight the pirates, one of them kidnaps Medaka. A fight starts between Luffy and Ganzack, ending with Luffy's capture. Meanwhile, Zoro is forced to give up after a threat is made to kill all the villagers. They rise up against Ganzack, and while the islanders and pirates fight, Nami unlocks the three captives. Ganzack defeats the rebellion and reveals his armored battleship. The Straw Hat Pirates are forced to fight Ganzack once more to prevent him from destroying the island." - This entire piece is uncited.
  • "It is 34 minutes in length and based on the first version of Romance Dawn. It includes the Straw Hat Pirates up to Brook and their second ship, the Thousand Sunny. In search for food for his crew, Luffy arrives at a port after defeating a pirate named Crescent Moon Gally on the way. There he meets a girl named Silk, who was abandoned by attacking pirates as a baby and raised by the mayor. Her upbringing causes her to value the town as her "treasure". The villagers mistake Luffy for Gally and capture him just as the real Gally returns. Gally throws Luffy in the water and plans to destroy the town, but Silk saves him and Luffy pursues Gally. His crew arrives to help him, and with their help he recovers the treasure for the town, acquires food, and destroys Gally's ship." - Uncited.
  • "One Piece was removed from the Toonami block after March 18, 2017." - Uncited.
  • "The 4Kids and Funimation dubbed episodes also aired in Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand. In the United Kingdom and Ireland, the series was broadcast on the Toonami (UK & Ireland), initially using the censored 4Kids dub before switching to Funimation's dub. The series was broadcast on Cartoon Network in Australia." - Uncited.
  • All but one small sentence in the "Video Games" subsection are uncited.
  • The entire "Music" subsection is uncited.
  • Several citations look incomplete to me, not including dates or authors in multiple instances where it would be possible to include them.
  • Not essential under normal circumstances, but I'd advice that all sources be archived with all speed where possible.
  • I'm really not comfortable about the use of forums as sources, unless they're definitely written by site staff. It would be best to include authors.
  • Several urls appear to redirect, according to the Checklinks scan I performed. These should be sorted.

That's what I saw on a first scan. Once these have been addressed, I'll have another look through. --ProtoDrake (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

  • For the two first bullet points, does the short plot summaries have to be cited? I ask this because on episode lists, the plot summaries written for each episode is not cited.
  • I'll allow for lack of citations for plot summaries. As to any staff, they definitely need citations if that can be managed.
  • I removed the sentence.
  • For the fifth bullet point, the proof about the Bandai part is in the video games article linked in the section.
  • Whether it's in another article or not, it's still good to have the information cited. If it's in the main articles, getting the references should be easy. If you don't feel it's necessary, I won't press the point, but if you're taking this article beyond GA, you should include references even if you need to lift from other articles.
  • I am unable to find a source that says some of the One Piece games are made by Bandai, however the list shows that most of the games were made by them.
  • For the sixth bullet point, the proof about the music info part is in the discography article linked in the section.
  • Same as my response for the fifth bullet point.
  • I am unable to find a source that says the specific number of singles and compilation albums released, as the number is counted from the list linked.
  • I archived some links due to some falsely recognizing as a connection issue.
  • Some of the archiving cells in the citations are empty. Can this be sorted, or will it be sorted later? Again, if this is taken beyond GA, empty or redundant cells will be raised as issues.
  • I'll try to sort this out later. Visual editor automatically adds blank parameters for some reason.
@ProtoDrake: The rest is fixed. -- 1989 17:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@1989: Replies above. --ProtoDrake (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
@ProtoDrake: Same. -- 1989 19:53, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@1989: I can't see anything overtly keeping it from being a GA at the moment; I'll give it a pass. But it will need further work if you intend taking it any further. --ProtoDrake (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

One Piece Cookbook(s)

So I'm seeing online that there is at least one One Piece inspired cookbook. I came here to find out more about it but there is no info on this article. Would anyone who knows about it update the Wiki article? I'm curious to know if there is only one cookbook or two.2001:569:75E1:C500:54AF:2527:DC84:3B9C (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)BeeCier

Semi-protected edit request on 3 June 2017

Hello. Lots of stuff has to be done on the One Piece wiki. I can't do anything myself since the article itself doesn't seem to allow you to edit anything. So I'll say here what to do instead: Add first volume cover as profile picture, add plot section, add more races to be named, add more interesting information such as quotes of the author and references of the series. Hope anyone could do this stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsungx635 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

  •  Not done The 2011 cover shows all of the members of Luffy's crew; so I oppose going back setting the first volume as the main photo. The premise section that summarizes the show is enough. Trivia stuff are not really a thing here. -- 1989 19:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to tell you this but you are wrong when saying that. When it comes to manga or comics, the very first cover has to appear as profile picture. Always the very first. Always. Showing another volume cover might spoil new people to characters that might appear later on, in this case the rest of the crewmembers. Lots of manga series show it's first volume cover, such as Dragon Ball for example. One Piece isn't any different and it should have first volume cover as profile picture. Plot has to be added (super important!) I've been checking lots of media, such as movies, comics and so on, and ALL OF THEM have a plot section. "One Piece" isn't any different from them, since it's a Japanese manga series and needs a plot. The "setting" section explains, like the name says, the main setting of the series, which is the very beginning of it. On the other hand, the plot uncovers the ENTIRE plot of the series (which is very different that what the setting explains) My first suggestion is that these 2 things must be changed in the article. (First volume cover and plot section) There are more stuff to add to the article, but I'll need to edit it myself so that the article gets perfection. What do you say? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsungx635 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Samsungx635 - are you aware of [10]? Jackiespeel (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
None of what you said is true for wikipedia, this is not a fan wikia.★Trekker (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Could someone please delete this section? I think that the guy has understood already.

Sections don't generaly get deleted, they become archived when it's been a couple of days of no-one editing them.★Trekker (talk) 22:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Tower

This is a very busy article, so I may have missed it. I see no mention of One Piece Tower. Seems to be a pretty big deal in Japan, so the omission surprised me. rags (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply, but we may need to include it if we can get some reliable sources. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I've started a paragraph about it, if anyone would care to elaborate. PetéWarrior 04:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Petewarrior (talk • contribs)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on One Piece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2018

Add all of the following. One Piece takes place around the year 1522 (Revealed in the Skypiea arc). Monkey D. Luffy is the first and only pirate in existence to ever enter and escape the top 3 government facilities (Enies Lobby, Impel Down, Marineford) alive. Luffy was the first anime character to appear on the cover of a Japanese fashion magazine. 76.173.176.14 (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The latter two edits might be more suitable for Monkey D. Luffy, but the former can be added if there is reliable source supporting it. TheSpacialist (talk) 10:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
They all need sources.★Trekker (talk) 15:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 17:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Date of anniversary: July 19 or July 22

Many friends told me it was the 21st anniversary of the series, so I came to check and saw the "July 22" date. Then I found this link (http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-news/2016/12/02-1/one-piece-has-big-plans-for-2017s-20th-anniversary) that says the anniversary was in fact in 19 July. When I was going to edit this wikipedia page, I saw the message asking to talk about ir here in the talk page before changing the date. So, why wikipedia says the date is 22 July? Paladinum2 (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

"Plot summary" section removed

A few days ago I added a brisk (for such a lengthy series at least) plot summary of the series, so that the article matches up with other manga series such as Naruto, Dragon Ball and Bleach, all of which have summaries in their article body. However, that edit was blanket-undone with no discussion despite being performed in good faith and to coincide with other articles. There is a "premise" section of the article that gives a barebones account of the protagonists, but that simply is not sufficient as it doesn't cover the main events of the story. I would like to hear any arguments for why this article should lack a plot summary while other manga do not; otherwise I intend to add the deleted material back. Buh6173 (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Weren't you discussing that with another editor by any chance? While a summary might be needed, its weight might be overthetop considering how many story arcs does this series have and it still hasn't even reached a climax. This might fall under the category of WP:Undue weight but the chapter list of the series has the summary of each manga volume.Tintor2 (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

If you read my summary, you'd see that I made an effort to keep it lean so as to not bog down the article, trimming drastically for brevity's sake. If you wish to trim it down further, that is acceptable, but outright deleting it is not. And you could say I was "discussing" it with another editor, though rather they simply deleted everything I wrote, which took me a good half hour or so. Buh6173 (talk) 23:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah. The editor was me. See their talk page for the discussion. I listed my reasons there why I oppose the idea. -- 1989 (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
I specifically directed discussion here, to where it belongs. Buh6173 (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Not a big expert on One Piece but I know there are arcs where some members leave the group and later reunite. If the article is lacking something important then it might be added but I don't think we should add every single story arc. Maybe something about why the entire gang split prior to Ace's execution and some overall progress the Straw Hat made. Imagine if in Hajime no Ippo or Case Closed's plot summaries we had to talk about every single arc.Tintor2 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Please read my summary which was cut. It doesn't cover every story arc in detail, but instead gives a broad overview of the series. Buh6173 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
So any actual insight on the summary I wrote? Again, I'm okay with trimming it down, but leaving it out altogether is an unacceptable option. Buh6173 (talk) 18:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
This is definitely an issue of undue weight. I noticed you mentioned Bleach and Dragon Ball as examples. If Bleach had as much arcs as One Piece did, the value and significance of each story arc will be diluted, making it unnecessary to be mentioned in a plot summary to the point only the first and last story arcs would be mentioned. The Dragon Ball one is the same, but it is very well written and is only about 700 words and very concise (While the one piece summary is about 2000 words). Currently, I would give One Piece the same treatment as The High School Irregular article and stick with a premise. If the High School irregular series ever ends, I would then rewrite the summary in a way to ensure the general audience understand what led to the final arc. On the side, I would trim down on the settings and possibly remove the Haki section if it was me. D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 00:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with using the one example you provided as a basis. Every other Shonen series I've seen has had a basic synopsis in its body; One Piece should be no different, even if simplified.

How's this? Sawed down to 1300 words.


22 years prior to the start of the series, legendary pirate Gol D. Roger was sentenced to execution, but not before challenging people across the world to find his great treasure, One Piece. This caused a surge of pirates to sail out in search of his treasure, resulting in the Great Pirate Era.

12 years later, a young Monkey D. Luffy accidentally eats a Devil Fruit, the Gum-Gum Fruit, which gives him the physical properties of rubber while rendering him unable to swim. His childhood idol, Shanks, gives his straw hat to Luffy and inspires him to one day become the Pirate King and find One Piece.

7 years after Shanks' departure, the 17-year old Luffy leaves his island to gather a crew and enter the Grand Line. During his travels he meets and recruits swordsman Ronoroa Zoro, navigator Nami, marksman Usopp and chef Sanji. With Going Merry, a ship provided to the crew by Usopp's friend, the group sails into the Grand Line.

The crew meets Vivi, the young princess of the nation of Alabasta who is being hunted by the underground organization of assassins known as Baroque Works lead by Sir Crocodile. Escorting her to Alabasta, the crew recruits an intelligent shapeshifting reindeer named Tony Tony Chopper who serves as their doctor. At Alabasta, Luffy defeats Crocodile. While Luffy wishes for Vivi to join the crew, Vivi stays behind for the sake of her country. Crocodile's former second-in-command, Nico Robin, sneaks onto Luffy's ship as his crew departs and requests to join the crew, which Luffy casually accepts.

The crew then ascend into the sky by riding an explosive current called the Knock-Up Stream. They travel to a land in the clouds called Skypiea but are swiftly branded as outlaws for illegal entry and are sentenced to death by the island's "god", Enel. While the crew explores Skypiea in search of treasure, a war breaks out between the native Shandians and Enel's forces, with the Straw Hats caught in the middle. Luffy defeats Enel, whose electric abilities don't affect Luffy's rubber body. Taking as much gold as they can carry, the crew depart Skypiea and return to the ocean below.

The Straw Hats next arrive in the floating city of Water 7, a shipwright town where they hope they can find someone to repair and maintain the Going Merry. Their money is stolen by the Franky Family criminal gang; the Straw Hats defeat the Family, but their leader, Franky, escapes with the stolen money. Usopp furiously leaves the crew after Luffy decides to buy a new ship. A secret Government organization, CP9, captures Usopp, Franky and Robin to bring them to Enies Lobby, a judicial island. The Straw Hats travel to Enies Lobby and barely manage to defeat CP9 and reunite with the others. They escape Enies Lobby thanks to the sudden appearance of the Going Merry. However, the Merry falls apart shortly after their escape, so Luffy sets the ship ablaze. With the money he had stolen, Franky builds the crew a new ship, the Thousand Sunny. Luffy goads Franky into joining his crew as his shipwright, and he accepts Usopp back into his crew after Usopp apologizes for his actions.

The crew then arrive at Thriller Bark, a massive ship the size of an island. They meet Brook, a skeleton musician who Luffy asks to join his crew. After the group defeats Gecko Moria, the master of Thriller Bark, Brook joins his crew and they travel to Sabaody Archipelago to find someone who can help their ship travel underwater. However, a massive battle breaks out and Luffy and his crew are completely overpowered and sent flying to opposite ends of the world. Luffy arrives at Amazon Lily where he learns that his brother, Portgas D. Ace, is slated for execution. He sneaks into Impel Down, an underwater prison where Ace is being held. He misses Ace as he's removed to be executed at Marineford, the headquarters of the Marines. Luffy, a makeshift crew of imprisoned villains, and the fishman Jinbe escape Impel Down and travel to Marineford. There, Ace's father is revealed to be Gol D. Roger. His crew, led by the aging Whitebeard, and the Marines engage in a massive war, which Luffy and his allies eventually join. Luffy frees Ace, but Admiral Akainu lands a fatal blow, causing Ace to die in Luffy's arms. Jinbe manages to escape with the comatose Luffy in tow. Luffy awakens two weeks after the war's conclusion, and rather than attempt to reunite with his crew, he uses a secret message in the newspaper to instruct them to train for two years.

Two years later, the crew reconvene at Sabaody Archipelago and set sail underwater to Fishman Island. When they arrive, they are caught up in an attempted coup by the fishman Hody Jones, though the Straw Hats defeat Hody and his crew. They then return to the surface on the other side of the Red Line, entering the second half of the Grand Line known as the "New World". They arrive at the island Punk Hazard, where they defeat and capture the mad scientist Caesar Clown. The Straw Hats, Caesar and Trafalgar Law travel to Doflamingo's home, Dressrosa, where a massive country-wide battle takes place that concludes with Luffy and his crew defeating Doflamingo's forces. The crew then reaches Wano, where they and their samurai allies intend to depose the current unrightful rulers.


Buh6173 (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Per everyone above, this is undue weight. By the time the manga ends, this will be much longer. There is already a "basic synopsis" in the Premise section. What you call above a "basic synopsis" is a Plot section. -- 1989 (talk) 23:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
First off, the manga is 3/4 done. So it wouldn't be much longer. Second, as I apparently keep having to say, the premise is not sufficient as the plot. And call me crazy, but the classification for undue weight seems to be in regards to opinion, when this is a factual synopsis. If you're going to axe a synopsis for this manga, might as well axe it on every other manga page; there's no reason whatsoever this series should be exempt. Buh6173 (talk) 17:57, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
I was told to bring this to talk to discuss the issue, and thus far the issue has not been discussed. So far the only argument has been "undue weight", which as I've already explained doesn't apply, and it makes no sense for this one series to be exempt when any other manga series is going to have a plot synopsis. I'll trim it down, but if there's no further feedback, I'm putting the synopsis back up. Buh6173 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus to put back the section that was removed. If you readd the section, it will be removed again per this discussion. -- 1989 (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
And there has been no consensus to remove it altogether, either. You can't say "take it to talk" and then expect me to sit with my hands under my seat due to abject silence Buh6173 (talk) 03:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
There is consensus that it is not needed right now, so the "abject silence" claim is false. So don't expect it staying if you readd it. -- 1989 (talk) 05:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
The "consensus" is you. Of the two other people who commented, both said "the current synopsis is too long, but if it were shortened it could work", which is what I aim to do. Buh6173 (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
No one here except you objected my revert, nor did they agree with your point of view. All of us except you says the section is undue weight, and should stick to the premise. There is no consensus here to support your wishes. Don’t waste having your edit reverted again and reported for disruptive editing. -- 1989 (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm not certain what discussion you're reading, because as far as I can tell, so long as the word count is kept in check along the likes of Dragon Ball, there should be no issue. And I repeat, I fail to understand how this classifies for undue weight when, as far as I can tell, undue weight applies to opinion, when this is factual information bout the series. Buh6173 (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Undue weight means the more significant something is (to the general audience), the more coverage it gets in terms of content;having so much story arcs have already diminished most of the plot points of the series (Unlike DBZ or other Shonens). I follow One Piece, and I know the premise covers all the important plot points already. A Good Article needs to keep this kind of thing in mind. For this article, once ONe Piece ends, it may receive a rewrite to include plot points that are part of the big picture. One of my examples would be Tales of Symphonia, this was at least a 50-60 hour game with lots of story arcs that I have cut out to include only the events that are noteworthy to the general audience. I've skimmed your summary in the discussion, and it has all these trivia plots and in-universe terms that are important to fans of the series but just a fluff piece to the g-a.D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 23:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

While One Piece does have many story arcs, they tie together into larger "sagas", not unlike Dragon Ball or other Shonens (Dragon Ball divides its "Frieza Saga" into a "Namek Saga", a "Captain Ginyu Saga", and a "Frieza Saga" for example). One Piece behaves in the same way, with larger story beats that can be broken down into smaller ones. All the premise covers is naming each of the main characters, which is simply not sufficient, and honestly would serve better being folded into this summary. I edited the summary above down to 900 words in an attempt to hack away at the "fluff piece" sections to keep it critical information. Please check again and see if that's satisfactory. Buh6173 (talk) 18:34, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The length of the synopsis has been cut down to the same length as the likes of Dragon Ball and Naruto. Unless actual arguments can be made against implementing the reduced synopsis outside of "undue weight" (which again does not specifically apply to this singular series), then I will be adding the shortened synopsis to the article.Buh6173 (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Which will get longer and longer as time goes by. Doesn't solve that issue. Instead of waiting until the series is over like DragonZero said, they rather keep going with this, knowing they'll be reverted again. -- 1989 (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Buh, I am very knowledgeable about One Piece, Dragon Ball, and Naruto. I've also been here and done enough to know how this should be viewed and written for the general audience. You can not use silence as an agreement to your actions, as editors are free to pop in and out of discussions as they please. Likewise, nothing is completely binding against your actions right now either; but at some point, this looks like it'll be heading in a direction requiring some binding resolution since this has gone on for far too long. As far as I can tell, if it heads that way, it would probably not work in your favor as it will most likely be a straw vote; you can not convince everyone to look at your way and prob them to continue discussing forever. I won't be able to agree with your additions (though I won't go out of my way to revert), and if I were working on this article, I'd be removing more of the Synopsis rather than adding on. D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 02:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Then in the very least it would be wise to retool what we currently have. A synopsis of the plot is apparently out of hand, but instead we can go at length about what the Grand Line and Red Line and Log Poses and Haki is? It makes no sense whatsoever the way it's currently structured. Oh, and 1989, the only one who's arguing in favor of reversions is you; DragonZero is at least trying to figure out a compromise.Buh6173 (talk) 17:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
What compromise? They disagree with your additions as well, and I or someone else will go out on our way to revert per this discussion if you continue to play dumb and add the section anyway. -- 1989 (talk) 17:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, DragonZero seems pretty neutral on the matter (not in favor, but wouldn't revert). You're the only one who is actively trying to shoot this down. If you want to put it to a vote, then that's fine. Because whether or not a synopsis is added or the summary is retooled, the page in its current state is utterly unacceptable. So far only four people appear to have chimed in: me (either add a synopsis or rework existing), you (leave alone), DragonZero (rework or leave alone) and Tintor (rework or leave alone). Not exactly an overwhelming majority. Buh6173 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Buh6173, I don't have an active interest in One Piece, but since I was the one to review it at GAN and I was called in by Ryūkotsuseito comment on this, I will. I have to say, looking at the version posted in earlier edits and the one above, that a plot summery at this time would be far too bloated as we've no way of knowing how much of the plot is actually relevant to the overall narrative. The one presented at present is hideously bloated. If I were reviewing the article in that state, I'd be taking serious issue with the size and readability of the summary, and as for either its removal or substantial trimming. More likely the former. --ProtoDrake (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Except if you look at the current information on the page, it's got paragraph after paragraph of granular information rather than crucial, significant information, the exact thing that used for ammo as to why a synopsis would be bad. Buh6173 (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone who could please consider this article a featured article.

Original poster blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Samsungx635.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Someone who could please consider this article a featured article. This is the best-selling manga series in history, the best-selling comic book by a single author, the most read, watched, popular, loved and talked series. It is also Japan's #1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanfranciscoposse (talk • contribs) 12:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

You need to sign your talk page posts, please, per the instructions I gave you on your user talk page(that you removed). There are certain criteria for an article to be considered featured, and the fact that an article subject might be popular isn't considered. I think you are diving into Wikipedia too quickly, and should step back and take some of the introductory steps I outlined to you on my user talk page. 331dot (talk) 12:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2019

Episode 869 -> Episode 870 Katsini (talk) 17:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bradv🍁 05:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Splitting out the anime TV series into its own article

It is advisable to split out content on the anime television series into its own article: One Piece (TV series). As there is a sizeable amount of separate content on the TV series already – e.g. see Lists of One Piece episodes and related articles – the anime TV series should surely have enough content to justify a standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Requests.

186.137.218.201 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Could someone PLEASE change the profile picture into the first volume cover, add a plot and consider the article a featured article? First volume cover because it's the one that introduces you to the series. Imagine any newcomers and see the volume 61... they would be totally spoiled! And also a plot because every single book, comic, manga, film or series that tells a story HAS A PLOT. If I were to do these changes myself, the admin would put it back as it was before. Could someone please reply to me and solve this asap? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.137.218.201 (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not true that an admin like myself would undo your changes just because, unless you are a blocked user evading your block. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samsungx635/Archive same behavior. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:44, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
As for spoilers, see WP:SPOILER. If readers do not want to be spoiled, they should not view Wikipedia pages about this. 331dot (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2019

The letter D. in the names of One Piece characters like Monkey D. Luffy, Gol D. Roger, Posgar D. Ace. This D. is all known to be the natural enemy of Thien Long Nhan, but in addition it has another interesting thing. It is a distant relative, each person's name is different, but what they still convey is descendant. Like Gol D. Roger and Monkey D. Grap both differ from each other but their names are the same in the letter D., each of their surname can be placed according to their father or mother, but the letter D. still proves that they are together ancestors had the letter D., most of the series had characters D. male, except Posgar D. Ace's mother. Her real name is "Portgas Rouge". Ace's letter D. taken from his father and Portgar's parents took his mother's, so don't misunderstand D. in Ace's mother's name. Thus, the letter D. moved with his father's last name. If the female has the letter D. their children will follow their husband's surname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoangdao14 (talk • contribs)

 Not done. Speculating on the use of the D. in the character's name is original research and should be backed up with some external analysis. It also has nothing to do with the main article so there's nothing to edit about this here. Thien Long Nhan is not mentioned as a notable major character in the characters list. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

First volume cover as profile picture and plot.

200.45.154.238 has been blocked as a sockpuppet. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This has already been asked exhaustively, but could someone please add the first volume cover as profile picture and a plot? It has to be the very first volume cover for a spoilers and common sense topic, and a plot because every single series needs to have one, explaining what happens at the series. Also, add the word "ongoing" at the definition. PLEASE.

Per WP:PRECISELANG and MOS:RELTIME, articles should avoid using terms that latter may go out of date. Thus "ongoing" should not be added to any lead section. —Farix (t | c) 20:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Secondly, you did not give a reason why the image should be changed beside the unfounded claim that it contains a "spoiler". There are no spoilers on covers and the existing cover does a sufficient job at identifying the subject of the article. —Farix (t | c) 20:35, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Using voiced by for One Piece characters list

Discussion at Talk:List_of_One_Piece_characters regarding whether it should be converted to Voiced by. Previous consensus was to keep the sentence case. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Infobox image

@1989: what guideline? almost all manga articles have the first volume's cover as the infobox image, why is this article an exception? QuestFour (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

@QuestFour: MOS:AM. 1989 (talk) 23:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for linking that, but you still haven't answered my question. Why exactly is this article an exception in regards to using a volume other than the first? QuestFour (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It’s best answered here. Your argument of showing the first volume being “standard” is not supported by the guideline I linked. 1989 (talk) 23:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't remember the exact guideline, but it is preferred in images to add a more descriptive image of the article. For example, movies tend to have multiple posters but in the end we use the most descriptive posters that have more characters.Tintor2 (talk) 23:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
@1989: the argument about a volume showing "more charecters" is also not mentioned in any guideline. Although using the first volume isn't, it's still the standard, and by standard I mean it's used in articles such as Naruto, Bleach, Dragon Ball etc., the first two of which together with One Piece form what is known as the "Big Three". A user changing the image seven years ago isn't really a justifiable reason, especially when the change didn't involve any discussion or consensus and that the cover of the first volume was used first. QuestFour (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The reason is more than that, which was explained in their statement. While the change wasn’t discussed, their changes were not immediately reverted as they gave a detailed reason why. While I understand they are the original members, that doesn’t mean later members are less value. So far me, Tintor2, and TheFarix disagree with your changes. I suggest you do not edit war over this. 1989 (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
By "more than that" I'm assuming you mean what the user described as "art style"? and by that they probably mean the characters in their timeskip forms. Regarding your second comment, "members" have nothing to do with any of this. Later volume covers of Naruto for example feature other significant "members" in both Part I and Part II forms yet the first volume, which solely features the title character, is used to represent the series. QuestFour (talk) 00:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Of course it is. The manga Naruto is based on Naruto Uzumaki, it’s named after him after all. That’s why the first volume showing himself is the choice for the infobox. 1989 (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
What about examples such as Bleach or Dragon Ball then? same thing applies. QuestFour (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Haven’t seen Bleach. Goku is the spotlight of Dragon Ball. It’s mostly based on him and his adventures. 1989 (talk) 00:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
The main characters of all the mangas mentioned above are identical in their roles, and that's beside the point. Your arguments so far have been agreeing to what a user posted about their nonconsensus change. At this point, I think a WP:RFC is needed. QuestFour (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Edits don’t need consensus unless someone disagrees with their changes per WP:BOLD, which is what’s happening now. 1989 (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I disagree with the rationale used to change the image. By that standard, the first volume would rarely be eligible for use. The requirement is that the image be 'representative' not 'comprehensive'. The initial volume of a work is inherently representative. Everything follows it. Regardless of where you might begin to read, there is a connection to the first volume. If you choose artwork from a later period, especially with the intent of being most comprehensive, then a reader who has not reached that point will have less of a connection as they will see unfamiliar characters or situations. And only the person who posted the image will know why he chose it. Additionally, it may be the case that a few volumes later you'll need to repeat the process — new characters could be added, old characters could be killed off, the illustrations will continue to evolve and then you'll need a new image to match that. And then there are all those other manga that use deficient images needing replacement. There is a clear pattern of infobox image selection and not a change that should be done lightly. Finally, there is inherent interest in the first item in any such series — especially in the comic world.
Also, including links within a page (e.g. MOS:AM#Infobox) during a discussion can make it easier for people to participate in an discussion as they won't be required to read a 20K document and guess what the intent was. A brief quote of the relevant portion means even less guessing. Regards, ogenstein (talk) 07:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Split?

I think there's enough production and reception information to split the TV anime series. Does anyone want to support this?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 21:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

One Piece (anime) 1989 (talk) 22:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

RfC about infobox image

The consensus is against changing the infobox image to the first volume of the series.

Cunard (talk) 01:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should the infobox image be changed to the first volume of the series? QuestFour (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Survey

  • Support: in 2012, user AutoMe changed the volume cover and posted their reasoning in the talk page without further discussion or consensus. Their reason was that the first volume cover "shows only 3 characters" and "doesn't match the art style changes" of the series, the latter I'm assuming refers to the character timeskip redesigns. Using the first volume or an image representing the starting point of the series as the infobox image is the standard across the majority of manga articles in Wikipedia, and AutoMe's reasons do not adequately vindicate why this article should be an exception. QuestFour (talk) 02:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Note: I also think ogenstein makes a good point in their comment in the discussion above. The discussion got archived, i'll insert their comment here:
"I disagree with the rationale used to change the image. By that standard, the first volume would rarely be eligible for use. The requirement is that the image be 'representative' not 'comprehensive'. The initial volume of a work is inherently representative. Everything follows it. Regardless of where you might begin to read, there is a connection to the first volume. If you choose artwork from a later period, especially with the intent of being most comprehensive, then a reader who has not reached that point will have less of a connection as they will see unfamiliar characters or situations. And only the person who posted the image will know why he chose it. Additionally, it may be the case that a few volumes later you'll need to repeat the process — new characters could be added, old characters could be killed off, the illustrations will continue to evolve and then you'll need a new image to match that. And then there are all those other manga that use deficient images needing replacement. There is a clear pattern of infobox image selection and not a change that should be done lightly. Finally, there is inherent interest in the first item in any such series — especially in the comic world.
Also, including links within a page (e.g. MOS:AM#Infobox) during a discussion can make it easier for people to participate in an discussion as they won't be required to read a 20K document and guess what the intent was. A brief quote of the relevant portion means even less guessing."
QuestFour (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per discussion above. 1989 (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Using the first volume or an image representing the starting point of the series as the infobox image is the standard across the majority of manga articles in Wikipedia." The fact that it is the default setting does not mean that deviating from this practice is not, in some circumstances, a better option, as I believe this is one such case. There are other examples to date that have used volume covers that were not the first volume for similar reasons, such as School Rumble (discussion) and A Town Where You Live. This is particularly evident in the case of School Rumble, where the first volume cover is actually just an extreme closeup of Tenma's face, as opposed to the volume 13 cover, which was the first cover to show both Tenma and the male protagonist Harima at the same time. Since they're the two main male and female characters of the manga, it makes sense to showcase the cover with both of them on it instead of the largely useless volume 1 cover. The same thing is happening here with One Piece, using the volume 61 cover to better showcase a larger cast of characters and the eventual art style changes which is typical for series that have been running as long as this one.--十八 03:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Volume 61 represents the series better. D.Zero (Talk · Contribs) 04:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose - using a representative image is a better option. It's why FA Lazarus (comics) uses the cover for the second issue. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is no requirement for the first volume to be used as the infobox image. There is also no requirement for the image to be the English or Japanese version of the cover. But the general rule is that if an image already exists, it should not be replaced without a consensus or you are switching to a higher quality (ie. higher resolution) image. And stating that using the first volume cover is "standard" is not a valid rational to change the image. —Farix (t | c) 16:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments

QuestFour, I hope this is in good faith that you're asking about this and not from the IP sockpuppets who have been asking for this multiple times (as well as wanting to change Case Closed to Detective Conan) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:12, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I first edited this article in May, I'm not aware of anything prior to that. QuestFour (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2019 (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.

Reminder and request.

Hello there. 1. Could someone please remind me why is it that there's no first volume cover as profile picture and plot on this Wikipedia article? 2. Could someone please update the number of chapters and volumes to the main article? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.232.73 (talk • contribs)

1. Look at the RFC above. This isn't necessary to bring up every week. 2. I would say WP:SOFIXIT but it looks like Volume 94 is the latest published volume. Vol. 95 isn't coming out until December, so it shouldn't be updated in the infobox until then. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I meant to update the number of chapters that appear at the "Manga" section of the main article. It says "953" and we are currently at "962" chapters. Thanks.

190.191.232.73, as soon as someone adds the chapter names, then it can be added and updated. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:12, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_Piece/Archive_5&oldid=1216041020"