Jump to content

Talk:One Piece: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Reverted 1 edit by 103.109.238.24 (talk) to last revision by Xexerss
 
(556 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{ArticleHistory


Line 12: Line 13:
|action2result=delisted
|action2result=delisted
|action2oldid=
|action2oldid=
|currentstatus=DGA


|action3=GAN
|action3date=20:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
|action3link=Talk:One Piece/GA2
|action3result=listed
|action3oldid=773498076

|currentstatus=GA
|topic=Language and literature
|topic=Language and literature
|otd2date=2020-07-22|otd2oldid=968944683
|otd3date=2022-07-22|otd3oldid=1099468754
}}
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=GA|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Anime and manga|class=C
{{WikiProject Anime and manga|importance=high}}
{{WikiProject Comics|importance=Low}}
<!-- 1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. -->
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors|user=Twofingered Typist|date=March 24, 2017}}
| B1=N
{{WikiProject Media franchises|importance=Low}}
<!-- 2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. -->
{{WikiProject Piracy|importance=low}}
| B2=y
{{WikiProject Novels|importance=Low |fantasy-task-force=y |fantasy-importance=Low}}
<!-- 3. The article has a defined structure. -->
}}
| B3=N
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
<!-- 4. The article is reasonably well written. -->
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
| B4=y
<!-- 5. The article contains supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams, where appropriate. -->
| B5=y
<!-- 6. The article presents its content in an appropriately accessible way. -->
| B6=y
|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Piracy|class=C|importance=low}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 5
|counter = 6
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(28h)
|algo = old(28h)
|archive = Talk:One Piece/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Talk:One Piece/Archive %(counter)d
}}
}}
{{annual readership}}
{{Archive box|auto=long}}

== 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. [[User:Ximoquim|Ximoquim]] ([[User talk:Ximoquim|talk]]) 01:23, 28 December 2014 (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. <small><span class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Mifeena|Mifeena]] ([[User talk:Mifeena|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Mifeena|contribs]]) 01:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== inspired by the wizard of oz? ==
==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.


"He was also inspired by ''The Wizard of Oz'', claiming not to endure stories where the reward of adventure is the adventure itself, opting for a story where travel is important, but even more important is the goal.[5]"
: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. [[Special:Contributions/24.149.117.220|24.149.117.220]] ([[User talk:24.149.117.220|talk]]) 20:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


Source says "Akashiya also asked Oda about the goal of the main characters in the story, the titular "One Piece" treasure. Akashiya asked if the treasure was "family bonds," and Oda replied, "No, I hate that kind of thing." Oda elaborated, saying, "That's like the ending of ''The Wizard of Oz'', which I watched when I was a kid. Adventuring that long, and having the adventure itself be the treasure, is really dissatisfying. Those kinds of stories are impossible. It feels like, 'I've gone on this long adventure, so give me the treasure!'""
== Link to One Piece wikia? ==


I'm not sure this counts as 'being inspired by', even if we included being inspired to do the opposite out of spite---it seems more like Oda brought up the Wizard of Oz as an example because of the interviewer's question. He certainly does not clearly state that he was inspired to make the treasure at the end of the journey more important than the journey itself '''''because of''''' ''The Wizard of Oz'' or as a result of his childhood frustration with it. (The article right now also seems a bit misleading about the story of ''The Wizard of Oz'', lol.)
Why aren't we linking to the useful resource that is One Piece Wikia [http://onepiece.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page]? 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. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 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. [[User:Xfansd|Xfansd]] ([[User talk:Xfansd|talk]]) 21:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
::{{rto|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 ([http://youngjustice.wikia.com/wiki/Young_Justice_Wiki]) which was approved at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard/Archive_14#Young_Justice_Wiki]), is pretty comprehensive, has enough active editors to be edited hourly and does not seem to suffer from any edit wars. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]]&#124;[[User talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> reply here</font>]]</sub> 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. [[User:Lucia Black|Lucia Black]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|other stuff exists]] is not a valid argument to include Wikia as an external link, and will not be used here. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|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. -[[Special:Contributions/73.190.124.47|73.190.124.47]] ([[User talk: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 [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS|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.
# 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|500px]]
# 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.
# 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.
:[[User:Zkrjebril92|Zkrjebril92]] ([[User talk:Zkrjebril92|talk]]) 00:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Not sure if I think this can be edited into something relevant, informative, and correct; or if it should be completely removed from the article. Suggestions? [[User:Butter no parsnips|Butter no parsnips]] ([[User talk:Butter no parsnips|talk]]) 04:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
== Spoiler ==


:{{reply|Butter no parsnips}} I reworded and moved the sentence to the conclusion section to make it more accurate to what the source actually says. Thanks for pointing this out. [[User:Xexerss|Xexerss]] ([[User talk:Xexerss|talk]]) 04:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
There's been some recent mention of "spoilers" in the edit comments with regards to [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=One_Piece&diff=624373408&oldid=624365386 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:
:Do have the actual source where the paragraph came from? [[User:MagmaAdmiral|MagmaAdmiral]] ([[User talk:MagmaAdmiral|talk]]) 16:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


== Clean-up needed in occurence ==
*[[WP:SPOILER]]
*[[WP:NODISCLAIMERS]]
*[[WP:PRESERVE]]
*[[WP:NOTCENSORED]]


of the word "manga". Understandably, it will appear. Unnecessarily often though, at my time of writing. Tried to begin but realised the article it is too vast for a morning sitting. Please undertake the work of substituting/removing the word "manga" in its many superfluous instances.
Thanks. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|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? [[User:Tezero|Tezero]] ([[User talk: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]]. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|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. [[User:Tezero|Tezero]] ([[User talk:Tezero|talk]]) 07:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
::: What is the spoiler in volume 61? -[[User:AngusWOOF|AngusWOOF]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF|talk]]) 05:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
::::It is the 9 Straw Hat Pirates after the two-year timeskip. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|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. -[[User:AngusWOOF|AngusWOOF]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Sjones23|Lord Sjones23]] ([[User talk:Sjones23|talk]] - [[User:Sjones23/Wikipedia contributions|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.[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/11/spoilers-study_n_924413.html][http://www.wired.com/2011/08/spoilers-dont-spoil-anything/] 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. —'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]'''&nbsp;([[User talk:TheFarix|t]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/TheFarix|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? [[User:Narutolovehinata5|Narutolovehinata5]] <sup>[[User talk:Narutolovehinata5|t]][[Special:Contributions/Narutolovehinata5|c]][[WP:CSD|csd]][[Special:Newpages|new]]</sup> 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. —'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]'''&nbsp;([[User talk:TheFarix|t]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/TheFarix|c]]) 12:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
::::Hmm, so how is what {{U|Narutolovehinata5}} is suggesting different from [[JoJo's Bizarre Adventure (season 1)|this JoJo]] or [[Stardust Crusaders|that JoJo]] then? The second one is something along their train of thought. <s>Also, we don't necessarily have to use Volume 1 covers.</s> [[User:KirtZJ|<font color=#2F4F4F>'''''—KirtZ'''''</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:KirtZJ|<font color=#2F4F4F>'''Message'''</font>]]</sup> 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. —'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]'''&nbsp;([[User talk:TheFarix|t]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/TheFarix|c]]) 23:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


[[User:Arcsoda|Arcsoda]] ([[User talk:Arcsoda|talk]]) 06:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
== Addition to genre section ==


== One Piece as Science Fantasy ==
Can I add Comedy, Drama, Romance and Fantasy in the Genre section, since it's listed on other sites as that? --[[User:Animelover5487|Animelover5487]] ([[User talk:Animelover5487|talk]]) 06:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
:Where is there Romance in One Piece? [[User:Ximoquim|Ximoquim]] ([[User talk:Ximoquim|talk]]) 20:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


The One Piece should honestly be categorized as a Science Fantasy franchise. [[User:EmperorAlexander99|EmperorAlexander99]] ([[User talk:EmperorAlexander99|talk]]) 12:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
:What are the [[WP:RS|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. —'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]'''&nbsp;([[User talk:TheFarix|t]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/TheFarix|c]]) 23:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2024 ==
It's listed as that on watchseries.It [[User:Animelover5487|Animelover5487]] ([[User talk:Animelover5487|talk]]) 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)


{{edit semi-protected|One Piece|answered=y}}
: 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? -[[User:AngusWOOF|AngusWOOF]] ([[User talk:AngusWOOF|talk]]) 07:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
change Merchandise, The brand made more than $1 billion in retail sales in Japan by 2004. to:
The brand has made more than $1 billion in retail sales. In addition it has had many large brand collaborations with brands like Uniqlo, Seiko, and Gucci <ref>https://screenrant.com/one-piece-uniqlo-25th-anniversary-team-up/</ref> [[User:Marcellious13|Marcellious13]] ([[User talk:Marcellious13|talk]]) 22:42, 30 September 2024 (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. —'''[[User:TheFarix|Farix]]'''&nbsp;([[User talk:TheFarix|t]]&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/TheFarix|c]]) 11:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
:That seems like greatly outdated information, if it was back in 2004. [[User:David A|David A]] ([[User talk:David A|talk]]) 07:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
::Indeed. Given its age and the fact that the 'Merchandise' subsection consisted of the one sentence, I went ahead and moved the info to the 'Sales' subsection. Also, {{re|Marcellious13}}, [[File:Red information icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done for now:'''<!-- Template:ESp -->: your provided source said nothing about Seiko or Gucci. Please provide reliable sources for all information you'd like to added to the article. [[User:DrOrinScrivello|DrOrinScrivello]] ([[User talk:DrOrinScrivello|talk]]) 19:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:55, 23 December 2024

Good articleOne Piece has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
May 28, 2013Good article nomineeListed
May 2, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
April 2, 2017Good article nomineeListed
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 22, 2020, and July 22, 2022.
Current status: Good article


inspired by the wizard of oz?

[edit]

"He was also inspired by The Wizard of Oz, claiming not to endure stories where the reward of adventure is the adventure itself, opting for a story where travel is important, but even more important is the goal.[5]"

Source says "Akashiya also asked Oda about the goal of the main characters in the story, the titular "One Piece" treasure. Akashiya asked if the treasure was "family bonds," and Oda replied, "No, I hate that kind of thing." Oda elaborated, saying, "That's like the ending of The Wizard of Oz, which I watched when I was a kid. Adventuring that long, and having the adventure itself be the treasure, is really dissatisfying. Those kinds of stories are impossible. It feels like, 'I've gone on this long adventure, so give me the treasure!'""

I'm not sure this counts as 'being inspired by', even if we included being inspired to do the opposite out of spite---it seems more like Oda brought up the Wizard of Oz as an example because of the interviewer's question. He certainly does not clearly state that he was inspired to make the treasure at the end of the journey more important than the journey itself because of The Wizard of Oz or as a result of his childhood frustration with it. (The article right now also seems a bit misleading about the story of The Wizard of Oz, lol.)

Not sure if I think this can be edited into something relevant, informative, and correct; or if it should be completely removed from the article. Suggestions? Butter no parsnips (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Butter no parsnips: I reworded and moved the sentence to the conclusion section to make it more accurate to what the source actually says. Thanks for pointing this out. Xexerss (talk) 04:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do have the actual source where the paragraph came from? MagmaAdmiral (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up needed in occurence

[edit]

of the word "manga". Understandably, it will appear. Unnecessarily often though, at my time of writing. Tried to begin but realised the article it is too vast for a morning sitting. Please undertake the work of substituting/removing the word "manga" in its many superfluous instances.

Arcsoda (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece as Science Fantasy

[edit]

The One Piece should honestly be categorized as a Science Fantasy franchise. EmperorAlexander99 (talk) 12:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2024

[edit]

change Merchandise, The brand made more than $1 billion in retail sales in Japan by 2004. to: The brand has made more than $1 billion in retail sales. In addition it has had many large brand collaborations with brands like Uniqlo, Seiko, and Gucci [1] Marcellious13 (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like greatly outdated information, if it was back in 2004. David A (talk) 07:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Given its age and the fact that the 'Merchandise' subsection consisted of the one sentence, I went ahead and moved the info to the 'Sales' subsection. Also, @Marcellious13:,  Not done for now:: your provided source said nothing about Seiko or Gucci. Please provide reliable sources for all information you'd like to added to the article. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ https://screenrant.com/one-piece-uniqlo-25th-anniversary-team-up/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_Piece&oldid=1264800281"