Jump to content

Talk:One Piece

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 16:49, 6 February 2024 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:One Piece/Archive 6) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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


BRD for paragraph removed from premise section

@1989, I disagree with this revert. The first paragraph of the premise section only captures the character list and the theme of the first few episodes. This series has been running for more than 25 years, and the paragraph I added quickly summarizes recurring plot themes. It's not like I added an episode-by-episode detailed summary, or even a basic summary of the plot arcs. It's a few sentences to explain how the title fits into the story. The void century 18:07, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for more information about the One Piece treasure. That is trivial to what's the Premise section is supposed to be, which is giving a summary of the story and the characters. 1989 (talk) 18:42, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. How can we arrive at a consensus edit that satisfies both of our concerns? The void century 18:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you mean. There is already information about the One Piece treasure in the section. How does adding more information about it help the reader understand the summary? It doesn't, which is why it was removed per WP:FAN. 1989 (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only information is that the One Piece is a treasure. The One Piece is both the title and a major plot element, which merits an explanation beyond "it's a treasure". The void century 19:08, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Giving details about how to find the One Piece treasure does not give "an explanation". It's trivial information that is irrelevant to helping the reader. 1989 (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open to alternatives. What type of explanation do you think would be more relevant to the reader? The void century 19:18, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an explanation in the section, and adding trivial information about it does not help the reader at all. 1989 (talk) 19:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems we're at an impasse then. I disagree with leaving the section as is. As is laid out in WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS, The result might be an agreement that may not satisfy everyone completely, but indicates the overall concurrence of the group. What would be a result that would not satisfy you completely, but might also partly satisfy my concerns? The void century 20:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The only sensible action is to restore your edit. The deletion was baseless and the reason given was completely bogus. 2600:8802:571B:E00:DC74:2EE:7C40:1EC4 (talk) 02:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
why it was removed per WP:FAN
"Some users consider this a pejorative term and see it as insulting to well-meaning contributors. They might likewise consider use of the term in forums such as articles for deletion inappropriate, but it is, nevertheless, in common use there. However, this usage is not a substitute for a well-reasoned argument based on existing Wikipedia policies." 2600:8802:571B:E00:DC74:2EE:7C40:1EC4 (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read my comments entirely before cherry picking quotes and actually give a reason why the paragraph helps the reader. That's what WP:FAN is based of. You have yet to answer and now you're editing from an IP address after your "enforced wikibreak". Use the account you have. 1989 (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't me. Please strike the accusation The void century 01:54, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 1989 (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possible WP:NOR

"As of December 2023, the manga had an estimated 523.2 million copies in circulation worldwide." (Reception > Sales > paragraph 1)

This number is computed using the August 2022 circulation reported by the publisher (516.566 million), adding the Oricon-reported sales data for the four volumes released in 2023, and using that as a lower bound for the possible circulation total. Setting aside the question of accuracy (if you account for all comparable data, the true circulation under the same metrics as the August 2022 figure as of the end of 2023 is almost certainly somewhere between 530 million and 535 million), this seems like a WP:NOR violation to me, though since I'm not too familiar with the Wikipedia community norms here I thought I should bring it up. 2601:CB:8200:903:D838:E673:4764:946A (talk) 02:21, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genre

Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE, we should stick to the source and not go beyond what it is saying. In this case, we don't hybridize genres as that would not be what the current source states. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with being strict about this. I would understand it if it was a combination with two different sources, one calling it sci-fi and the other fantasy, but in this case it's the same source that includes both genres, and it seemed reasonable to combine them as a single genre for the sake of conciseness, but nevermind. I also noticed that the source added the "comedy" tag recently, I think it should also be included, but MOS:A&M suggests to not include more than three genres. Any suggestion? Xexerss (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I feel like we should get third-party genres for genres. Genre is subjective and I feel citing the publisher is more marketing than any sort of critical interpretation. What I would do is go through reviews and see how the genre was actually applied and then use the most common ones found. That's more work, but probably the least biased. Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

Currently, the infobox uses the cover of the 61st takōbon volume cover to represent the manga, but with how most manga articles here use the first takōbon volume cover in their respective series, shouldn't the same be done here instead of Volume 61's cover? Inkster2 (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is stated that infobox should always include the the first volume cover; also, see WP:OTHERCONTENT. Xexerss (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See my explanation here, where I answered a similar question from another user. Link20XX (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:One_Piece&oldid=1204199868"