Talk:One Piece (2023 TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Future name change

Currently the page is under the title "One Piece (upcoming TV series)". At the moment it has been confirmed to be released in 2023, and I'm not saying to change the name now, because I don't know if it's better to wait for a specific release date, but... Suppose we change it to "One Piece (2023 TV series)": Will it stay with that title while the page about the anime series of the same title will simply stay with the title "One Piece (TV series)"? (since in the talk page of that article it seems that naming it to "One Piece (1999 TV series)" has been rejected) - BrookTheHumming (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, once it releases it will be moved to "One Piece (2023 TV series)" and the other article will retain its current title. Link20XX (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Budget is unconfirmed, please remove

The source of the quoted $150 million budget, as reported on by numerous anime outlets, is a tweet made by a series fan. It's speculation, not reliable insider information. Additionally, the Wiki itself even got that figure wrong. I did some digging and I think someone got confused, because $144 million is not the reported budget of the 2023 TV series--- $144 million is reportedly how much the One Piece Film Red movie sold in the Japanese box office after five months in theaters. Cadenrock1 (talk) 04:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The site bellow is officially affiliated with Netflix Germany due to the podcast on their site being legit. I speak German and they had real stars on the show, such as Matthias Schweighöfer to promote Army of Thieves for example. The promo article states it cost "über 16 Millionen Euro pro Folgen", so more than 16 million € per episode. About 17,3 million $.

We found our source but someone can fact-check me first as you can never know.

https://netflixwoche.de/news/one-piece-was-man-zur-realverfilmung-des-mangas-wissen-muss-hintergrund-charaktere-figuren-welt 77.64.147.157 (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

All the sources on the article rely on this netflixwoche piece but it did a stealth edit to remove the budget numbers at some point, so I'm guessing it simply used numbers that were floating around in unreliable sources like (https://www.cbr.com/one-piece-live-action-bigger-budget-game-of-thrones/) and once they were called out on it they removed it. You can compare it now to an older version (https://web.archive.org/web/20230828182507/https://netflixwoche.de/news/one-piece-was-man-zur-realverfilmung-des-mangas-wissen-muss-hintergrund-charaktere-figuren-welt). The "One Piece wurde mit über 16 Millionen Euro pro Folgen aufwendiger produziert als Game of Thrones (Kosten pro Folge etwa 13,7 Millionen Euro" part is gone. There is currently zero reliable information about the budget, so all mentions of it in the article should be removed. Sandersonias (talk) 06:47, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I personally think that it seems fine to remove then. David A (talk) 18:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Update composers’ pages

The pages of composers Sonya Belousova and Giona Ostinelli must be updated with the One Piece soundtrack. 2A02:2454:25A:C400:ECF4:4E05:36F4:F140 (talk) 13:12, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

character descriptions

descriptions source supposedly the collider article. practically every character blurb cites the same article. upon simple investigation, it's clear whoever wrote them completely fabricated and falsely cited collider. not to mention, the writing is awful and deficient in grammar, style, and function. stop otaku fanboys from writing this kind of garbage. SollyWIKI (talk) 05:06, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Eiichiro Oda 's Support for convicted child porn authors

This is being edited out despite multiple reliable sources from CBR animenewsnetwork animefeminist linked.

This is noteworthy and deserves its own section. LoreVogel1995 (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

See Talk:One Piece, where this has been resolved. Link20XX (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for future cast list

Currently the cast is listed appropriately in the article. But once a second season is released, with double the cast listed, which would take up a lot of space in the article, we may have to create a page as «List of One Piece (2023 TV series) cast and characters» (mentioning only the Main Cast in the main article about the series).
Perhaps most appropriate listing them on tables (I give as examples lists like Grey's Anatomy or Lost; mentioning the character, actor, season(s) in which it appears, perhaps the first episode in which the character appears (or only episode, in the case of notable guest characters based on other characters of the original manga)... followed by a brief description of the character or also additional production notes regarding the character or actor who plays it.
In the case of Recurring Characters also adding the sections "Introduced in season one" and "Introduced in season two" to aid navigation in the list. But currently it's just a proposal for a possible future page, so perhaps it's more appropriate to talk about it once the cast for the second season begins to be announced. BrookTheHumming (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

A layout similar to List of One Piece characters or List of The Legend of Vox Machina characters might also work well. Those list articles group characters by various fictional aspects (membership to the core party, characters in other fictional organizations, characters tied to a specific location, etc). The Vox Machina article was drafted before the start of the second season & went live right around the start of the second season. If you start a draft, just link it here! Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Budget

Why I cannot find any information about its budget within this article? 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:C539:1FB0:5B12:BDA6 (talk) 10:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Because no one has added it yet. They might be waiting for clearer more reliable sources or maybe no one has gotten around to it yet, that happens a lot.

Reportedly the show cost ~$18 million per episode[1] approximately ~$140 million for the first season. (Realistically it does not make sense for an encyclopedia to make vague statements about "average" per episode costs. You can claim a slice of cake costs a certain amount but you have to bake the whole cake. The initial costs of building sets and costumes and everything else is huge.)

When better more reliable sources report a budget for the whole first season it would be great if that could be included in the Production section. -- 109.77.197.70 (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

$18 million per episode is actually good information and should be added to the article. At this point, there is no point in waiting longer. Budget info has been released. A lot of articles on TV shows (on Wikipedia) has budget info as $X million per episode. For example, Game of Thrones. I can't be the only reader who is wondering about its budget. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:4131:6D2:B5F5:1E27 (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from adding it. I might have added it if I had a source I considered reliable enough, that reported the full cost of the first season, in the production section somewhere. (Also the cost of reshoots is probably not even included in the estimates.) -- 109.77.198.106 (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sandersonias removed the section on budget (see this edit); their reasoning is listed above (#Budget is unconfirmed, please remove). Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm confused on why no reliable source has reported on the budget yet. Why? Budget info is not a secret. 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:415:8689:894:BC4F (talk) 23:58, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

One Piece never broke Stranger things or Wednesday numbers

"In its debut weekend, the show's concurrent viewership on Netflix reached number one in 86 countries, surpassing the Netflix debut records previously set by Stranger Things and Wednesday." this is false. It spread from a fan site tracking netflix rankings with obfsucated method.

According to netflix press release here It only debuted 1st in 46 countries. https://about.netflix.com/en/news/top-10-week-of-aug-28-one-piece-and-you-are-so-not-invited-to-my-bat-mitzvah . And actual viewership was far far lower than them.

It only debuted 2nd in the US rankings. https://www.netflix.com/tudum/top10/

all of these are official and the primary source here.

@Sariel Xilo. why are you insistent on keeping it? and @Isabelle Belato can you fix this? 110.235.219.38 (talk) 05:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC) 103.250.137.180 (talk) 13:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that the Netflix press release was published on the 5th of September, while the article by The Independent that is currently cited was published on the 7th of September. Perhaps that explains the discrepancy? Additionally, do you have evidence that the information "spread from a fan site tracking netflix rankings with obfsucated method"? At most, we can include both claims, but that would make the sentence rather clunky, and if we were to keep only one, I believe the information provided by The Independent would be preferred on the basis of being newer and being a secondary source. Liu1126 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@Liu1126 because if you look at articles who post a source. It's from Flixpatrol, a fansite.

The Independent source is likely the same. It says so in the article being the first few days. which directly contradicts the official source. A primary source which contradicts secondary is not possible. Why would it be preferred over the official and actual source? Even if you look at the second week press release it's the same. 182.69.180.151 (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

secondary sources are generally preferred over primary sources on wikipedia. there's a bit of history behind it but it's the way it is RetroCosmos (talk) 06:56, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here's three secondary sources that agree with the primary and were published after the contradictory one in the article.

https://www.escapistmagazine.com/netflix-one-piece-perfect-introduction-series/

https://nypost.com/2023/09/08/one-piece-director-on-pirate-show-different-kind-of-action/

https://deadline.com/2023/09/one-piece-cast-photos-luffy-straw-hats-netflix-manga-1235539642/ 103.69.14.83 (talk) 15:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The 95% positive Rotten Tomatoes audience score

Given that the old Forbes.com article about this was removed, and I think that it is very relevant to mention in this article, would the following source be acceptable instead, or does anybody else here know of a better source that can be used instead?

https://movieweb.com/netflixs-one-piece-live-action-sets-sail-with-strong-rotten-tomatoes-ratings/

David A (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

I think Screen Rant (article) is probably a similar source to the MovieWeb one; there's also this IGN India article which might work best. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:20, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful reply. Would you be willing to add the 95% approval information to the main page here while referencing all of the three sources above, so at least one of them might qualify for Wikipedia's standards? David A (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

If anybody else here is willing to handle it, that would also be very appreciated. Thanks in advance for any help. David A (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please note WP:UGC and MOS:TVRECEPTION which both strongly discourage adding Rotten Tomatoes audience scores. There are rare exceptions but I do not believe this is one of them. The Rotten Tomatoes audience score should not have be added without clear consensus that an exception should be made and considerably better sourcing than Screenrant or IGN India. Please remove the Rotten Tomatoes audience scores unless and until there is a clear consensus that this case is exceptional. -- 109.77.197.70 (talk) 12:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Anyone? It still seems to me like editors have not adequately shown good reason to make an exception to include the Rotten Tomatoes audience score. Why shouldn't I follow WP:UGC WP:TVRECEPTION and remove the audience score from this article? -- 109.79.167.231 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

The point is that as far as I am aware, ALL western live-action anime adaptions were failures to different degrees in terms of audience approval and story quality until One Piece came along, and, thanks to a close collaboration with the original author, achieved nearly universal acclaim among its viewers. That is highly noteworthy/relevant to point out and illustrate, as it marks a definitive trend-reversal and encouragement for Hollywood regarding how to properly respect highly beloved frachises and all of the people who love them.

It also seems to have been mentioned rather frequently in the media: [2]

Why are you so obsessed with erasing this information from public view anyway? David A (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Why are you so willing to take user voted web polls seriously as a source when WP:UGC clearly explains this is a bad idea and not a reliable source? Why are editors so eager to ignore the Wikipedia Project Television guidelines WP:TVRECEPTION? Nielsen numbers are a more reliable source of audience response and that is what Project Television recommends, why include the Rotten Tomatoes audience scores when the guidelines expressly say not to? If there is local consensus to make an exception that should be clearly established. Why does Wikipedia have so many guidelines that so many people think they need to take exception to? Why can't Wikipedia follow its own rules? The burden of proof is supposed to be on editors who want to use unreliable sources. -- 109.79.169.184 (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Discourage is not the same thing as forbidding, and as I tried to explain above, this is an extraordinary case of nearly universal massive audience acclaim, with an average score of 4.7 out of 5, especially compared to previous live action anime adaptions which were usually almost universally reviled by audiences.

Why does an anonymous IP address user who somehow already has high experience with Wikipedia regulations suddenly appear here with a one-track agenda to remove completely harmless information that is highly relevant in this particular context? Please explain yourself. David A (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I choose to edit anonymously, you can choose to believe me or not. WP:GOODFAITH. People frequently fail to follow WP:UGC and I have removed audience scores from articles many times before along with other mundane cleanup. (On very rare occasions, I've even helped note that there was a discrepancy between critics and audiences[3] but without dwelling on the specifics of a user voted poll by one particular website. There's no discrepancy here, it's clear critics and audiences like this show.) Including exceptions without strong explanations and prior consensus makes other editors think it is okay to [add] audience scores and they go ahead and do it in other articles without thinking. I understand the claim that this case is exceptional but that claim has not been proven, vague handwaving at search results does [not] prove the claim, and the included reference to IGN India and The Wrap are pretty weak (they verify the score as it was at the time of release, but they don't make it clear that a user voted web poll should be given particular weight). If an exception is to WP:TVRECEPTION is made I'd really like to see better sources. I get that it was added while people were impatient for sources, but an actually reliable source, the Nielsen ratings came in since then. Fundamentally the point that this encyclopedia article is trying to make is that audiences really liked this show, there are ways to show that without mentioning one user voted web poll specifically. Wikipedia Project Television clearly says that reliable sources like Nielsen should be used and fundamentally unreliable web polls should not be used. I'm trying to make sure that this exception really is exceptional and that a discussion happens. The article is only Start class now, but this question will need to be addressed sooner or later if it eventually gets to higher quality levels and pays closer attention to the rules. Based on what I see so far, if it isn't improved an experienced editor will likely blaze through remove the Rotten Tomatoes audience score in due course. -- 109.76.136.1 (talk) 07:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I apologise if I was being rude above.

We can likely add the following two sources as well:

https://theconversation.com/with-the-popularity-of-one-piece-has-netflix-hit-the-winning-formula-for-live-action-anime-adaptations-213237

https://screenrant.com/one-piece-show-rotten-tomatoes-audience-score-netflix-curse/ David A (talk) 09:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I took your comments as vigilant, not rude, we're all trying to make a better encyclopedia. Still I do not think the specific score of one user voted web poll on one particular website is what is important here. What I think is important and due attention is that the show has been phenomenally well received by audiences and critics and seems to have bucked the trend of live action anime adaptations, and the bigger more important point about the popularity and success of the show can be made without needing to reference a specific number in one web poll. (At least with movies Rotten Tomatoes and Fandango can track if people actually bought tickets, but with tv shows it's just another user voted web poll.)

WP:SCREENRANT ick, only as a last resort. WP:THECONVERSATION seems like a genuinely good source. -- 109.78.196.114 (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Well, I am open for suggestions regarding more efficient and reliable methods of making the same point. David A (talk) 11:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Project Panda

I saw a source from March 2022 saying the codename for this show was "Project Panda"[4] but the article contains an Instagram post from 2021 that implies the codename was "Project Roger".[5] Is one of these codenames incorrect? Could both codenames have been used at different times? -- 109.76.136.1 (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

American

@98Tigerius: the United States is mentioned in the infobox so I do not understand why you would want to remove the article from the American category. The article is also in several other American categories for that matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 26 February 2024 (UTC)