Is it definately not "80 cool brothers", which would be a Kill Bill reference (Crazy 88 anyone?)? that's the translation I got.
- Yeti's been confirmed for a while now, shouldn't we remove this?
Also, is there any confirmation that those footprints were the brothers? The VW Saldeath incident kinda leeds me to think this is another troll of Oda's (pardon the pun). If those aren't the brother's footprints, then we can't confirm their size at all.
Are they confirmed as Rock and Scotch? As in the translation i've read its Locke and Scotch.. which would also make sense as a scotland reference. Ghostyzz 15:43, May 9, 2012 (UTC)
There's yeti in Scotland? SeaTerror 15:51, May 9, 2012 (UTC)
No :L , but Scotch (obvious) amd Locke (scottish word for lakes) Ghostyzz 18:45, May 9, 2012 (UTC)
That's "loch" actually. SeaTerror 04:29, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
It's Rock. We have it right.04:41, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
GUY RITCHIE QUOTE
mmm..isn't quite obvious? the names of the YB and the image-posture of their shadows with rifles is a quote to "Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels", the Guy Ritchie's movie. (i dont' know if the title is right for the american/english release) :)
just a passerby
- Then Scotch's name would be ストック instead of スコッチ (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/ロック、ストック&トゥー・スモーキング・バレルズ). Also...American movies aren't necessarily 'obvious' to Japanese people. 220.127.116.11 13:42, May 10, 2012 (UTC)
- disagree: 1. yeah, the quote can be only in my mind (i don't think so), but your objections has no sense. so we should suppose that Emporio Ivankov is NOT a quote from the Rocky Horror Picture Show because Oda called him "Emporio Ivankov" and not "Dr. Frank-n-Furter"? :)
- and 2. of course American movies aren't 'obvious' to Japanese people. they're 'obvious' to Eiichiro Oda, that is the author, so is the only one that matter in terms of 'quote' :)
- by the way, for future speculations, i think the quote is real for A: similar name, B: very similar posture, C: long, ancient-style barrels. that's all :)
- _just a passerby
Cool story, bro. SeaTerror 15:04, May 11, 2012 (UTC)
just a thought Edit
about the main picture, wouldn't the picture when they're both shivering in front of franky/nami be a better main picture? The main pic now is their original intro picture and the one i'm talking about shows them in detail (minus their faces). Lvdoomien 21:49, May 17, 2012 (UTC)
The difference in detail really isn't enough to warrant the second picture. We'll probably change it if and when their faces actually get shown.00:31, May 18, 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the bros be listed among giants? Edit
Surely someone whose size was on par with a giant . . . would just be a giant? Or are we not labelling them as giants because the bros are Yetis?
No they are artificial Giants.And sign your posts.15:48, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to safely classify them as giants because they're the only yetis to appear so far. For all we know their height might be average for a yeti. To be giants they'd have to be larger when compared to another one of their species (not humans), otherwise they're just really big.20:35, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
My bad on the signing, and thanks for the response. Maybe we should mention this uncertainty in the trivia section, ie whether they are a seperate species or just really hairy or whatever, I dunno. Leophiostellaphage (talk) 21:21, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
... They're yetis. 23:37, April 21, 2013 (UTC)
I don't recall that being actually stated, would you care to source? Don't cite "they have yetis in their names" as proof btw, that's like saying Moria's a lizardman because he has gecko in his name Leophiostellaphage (talk) 00:53, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
... They are the Yeti Cool Brothers. It is a completely different scenario from Moriah.00:55, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Also, did you not see the footprints?00:57, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
. . . No it is not a different scenario. At all, in the slightest. The species of the Yeti Cool Bros is a complete unknown afaic. The bros look like yetis and have yeti in their epithets, sure, but that proves only that they have a yeti theme. There are countless strange and unusual characters in One Piece with incredibles heights and weights, bizarre proportions and so on that are still considered totally human. Similarly, until it is stated in canon that the bros are yetis, it is entirely reasonable to assume they are just hairy giants, like how it's reasonable to assume Oars and Oars Jr. are just really large, rotund giants with horns rather than demons or something.
They're Yetis. The myth of the yeti is the fur and footprints. End of story.01:07, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
No, Galaxy, that is called a "Theme". Countless characters throughout One Piece have had various different themes, as shout-outs and references to culture, history, myth and art from all times and all over the world. This is not basis for assertions of a character's species. Donquixote Doflamingo has a very strong flamingo theme. Do you see anyone claiming that he is a flamingo, or part flamingo? Gecko Moria actually resembles a gecko somewhat, and certainly doesn't look or act like an ordinary human. Does that make him a gecko man? No, it does not. Carry the reasoning forward and you realise that, although it is entirely possible that they are, there is no hard proof that the Yeti Cool Bros are anything more than heavily themed giants.
Frankly, Galaxy, I find your constant dismissive assertions of my carefully thought-out arguments rude and decidely unfitting for an editor of any capacity. Is it so difficult to engage a fellow editor in simple discourse, or are you above that? Leophiostellaphage (talk) 01:20, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Yeah... your Moriah argument and Doflamingo argument is the last straw for me. Not even worth discussing.01:23, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming that you are an unreasonable and lazy interlocutor, thus enabling the total dismissal of your arguments. I'll go ahead and edit the article. If anybody would care to bring evidence for the bros being yetis to light, or basically engage with the argument at all rather than believing their opinion is above it like Galaxy has so bravely displayed, sure, I'll take it into consideration. Leophiostellaphage (talk) 01:30, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Not how the wiki works anyways. You can't change anything until people agree. I gave you my reasons for them being yetis (which you ignored), so too bad I guess?01:59, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
I don't think you quite grasp how arguing works. You explicitly gave no reasons for your case, only the base assertion which you failed to back up in the face of contradictory evidence that you neglected to refute through what I could, if being kind, assume is laziness but which is more likely arrogance. I have given forth my reasoning for making the edit, and the only response has been you going "nyeh, you can't do it anyway". Well, nuts to that. I'll keep the article more reasonable and factual until more people weigh in. Leophiostellaphage (talk) 02:14, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
It really isn't supposed to be that hard to grasp. Did you not read the chapters they were present in?02:17, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Also, you are eligible for banning, given that you've undone an undo of an undo. Out of respect - something which you lack - I will leave the article until more people get involved in the discussion. I've stated my reasons, let's see what someone who doesn't ignore them have to say. Leophiostellaphage (talk) 02:33, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Well, I was 16 2 weeks ago.
Also no... I'm not eligible for banning, since I'm reverting it back to how it was before you started changing things, as they should be done. You really should read a wiki's rules before you start editing.02:35, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
I have read the rules, and I see nothing that would outline my actions as banworthy. I would ask you to direct me to the relevent section, but seeing as you refused me that right already, I'll wait for a more capable user to do it. Meanwhile, it is clearly stated that, after an edit has been undone, and then the undoing has been undone again, no more undoes are to be allowed until a conclusion has been reached in the discussions. You undid one step further than this, which means you actually made it an edit war and not myself. I will not sink to your level however, and will leave the article as is until more people join the discussion.
Edit warring is against the rules. Nice of you to result to petty insults though. It really shows how mature you are.02:46, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I know, that's why I pointed out how your edit warring makes you liable for banning. Meanwhile, you have yet to show me why my actions are banworthy.
You insulted both my intelligence and my legitimacy as an editor, as well as showed great disrespect towards me by ignoring my argument while I patiently and considerately dealt with yours. Don't get cocky. Leophiostellaphage (talk) 02:54, April 22, 2013 (UTC)E
Except the only one edit warring is you. I was reverting the page back to where it was before you ignorantly changed it without the discussion ending.
As for the second comment, no comment.02:59, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Except the only one edit warring is you. My edit was perfectly in line, and your twice undoing of it literally constitutes the beginning of an edit war as in the rules. I have read the rules and it states as much very clearly. The only party displaying ignorance is yourself, refusing discussion on every level as it were.
You changed the page without this discussion being over. If you can't comprehend why you're in the wrong here.. then yeah................03:05, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
The discussion is over. I made a point and a case and you failed to refute it. You outright refused to in fact, on several occassions. Not only that, but the nature of my edit didn't even merit a discussion in the first place; I went to the talk page out of consideration and politeness, but nowhere does it state this as a must. I have been entirely in line with my edit; if you can't comprehend that, then "yeah" to you too. Leophiostellaphage (talk) 03:08, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
That isn't how discussions end. Not enough people contributed. Once again, I urge you to read the rules again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again. If the page had said what you proposed from the start, then it would be the default version, but the page has said they are yetis for over a year now, and without any discussion from other users, you changing the article is against the policy.
03:11, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
I really, really do desperately urge that you yourself read the rules over many more times than you already have done, and then maybe pass your copy of them to me so I can check if it's not some random mashing in a notepad doc you have somewhere. My edit did not require a discussion in the first place; I was entirely within my rights to just up and edit it without debate. Further, the article doesn't *actually* state anywhere that the bros are yetis; it omits any mention of their species entirely, as a matter of strict fact. Finally, the golden rule of all wikis is: FACTs, not speculation. The fact of the brothers' species is currently unknown; they could be yetis, they could just be hairy giants with a yeti theme. There is no evidence either which way, and as such the assertion that they are a pair of yetis is pure speculation. Not baseless speculation, not unreasonable speculation, but far from fact either, no matter how much the assertion is repeated.
Verbal ticks while typing are neither endearing nor admirable. Or should I be finishing my statements with "Nah..." just to make you feel comfortable? Leophiostellaphage (talk) 03:24, April 22, 2013 (UTC) (I keep on signing this and it won't let me, what's going on?)
"Sigh". Not my problem if you can't find the rules.03:22, April 22, 2013 (UTC
It is, however, your problem if you can't. I'm going to bed now. Hopefully a member of the community who understands respect and how to argue will be willing to engage with me on the morrow. Wish me pleasant dreams. Leophiostellaphage (talk) 09:22, April 22, 2013 (UTC) (gfgf)
So basically, you described me.03:28, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Leophiostellaphage, while the Yeti Cool Brothers are "giants", they are not literally Giants. It's sort of a species thing. The Brothers have been noted in the manga as "Yetis", and we can't quite classify them as giants yet, because we know so little about their species, if they even are separate from Giants. We also don't typically allow saying there's a "possibility" of something, because that sort of gives off speculation, which of course isn't allowed. I hope that answers your question. Feel free to ask more if you need to. 04:09, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Nada is entirely correct, it's speculation at this stage to say that they are giants. Talk | 04:31, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Okay, first, good morning. I'm making this post on about six hours sleep so I'll try to make it short and coherent. Second, thanks for the response, I genuinely appreciate it.
My point is not, I repeat, NOT that the bros are giants. Far from it. If you would read my posts, my arguments is that the Yeti Cool Bros' species is unconfirmed as of present, and that assuming they are either Yetis or Giants are both equally speculative beliefs.
The core of my argument is that I have not seen a definitive example of the bros being referred to as yetis in canon. The brothers have strong, obvious thematic parallels with the legend of the yeti, so characters like Zoro, Brook and so on who have never encountered them or others like them before wouldn't be out-of-mind to assume they are so. However, these characters in-story opinions do not count as actual proof of their species. If the bros themselves state they are yetis, or if someone knowledgeable about the bros such as Caesar Clown himself said they where, that would be a different case altogether.
If someone can find me an example of a character referring to the bros as yetis with authority, I will of course totally concede point. But as matters stand, while it is a valid speculation, there is no reason why the bros couldn't just be a pair of hairy giants, like so many unusual characters within the story of One Piece. (I gave examples of similarly unusual looking and mythically themed characters earlier, and why it would be wrong to assume they are anything other than human either) Leophiostellaphage (talk) 09:22, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I think I see now. Sorry, I'm a bit of a skimmer. Now that I really think about it, I'm not sure if they ever stated they're literally yetis. I suppose the best solution would be to mention neither at all, aside from talking about their size and the creature they're named after. You're right; their species is unconfirmed.12:24, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, unknownada. The edit I made to the page that spurred this discussion was essentially just that, a recognition of the brother's unclear species, so I will reinstate it post haste.
No problem, though about your edit, I don't think it was necessary to remove their size section, especially when it's a bit specific. It's true their size is about on par with giants, and that doesn't really mean we're saying they're the same or different. Just that they're really, really big like giants. Also, saying their species is unknown isn't really something we usually do, though it could be added, I guess. We're a bit unclear whether or not we allow "this isn't known". One more thing, the discussion isn't actually closed yet. We consider it close when a majority conclusion has been reached. I'm sorry for the inconvenience.13:55, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
I re-worded it a bit so it sounds a LITTLE less speculative. With this, it should be a good compromise, as it doesn't really say they're anything nor does it say they're "unknown", and it even gives the characters' input. It also says they're about as big as giants, as that is something to point out. I hope this is a good compromise.14:09, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
I don't remember removing a size section, if anything thought I expanded on it? Or rolled it into a seperate piece, but whatever. I agree, your edit's made it less speculative so it's good in my books. A technical question, how many opinions are needed before a majority can be established? The current opinion's on this matter's two to one last I checked. Leophiostellaphage (talk) 14:42, April 22, 2013 (UTC) (aka the man who always forgets to sign the first time . . .)
You didn't remove the entire size section. Just the part that regarded their height compared to giants. I put that back in. As for your question, there isn't really a set amount of "opinions" for a majority to be given. It's just a general rule. If a majority is clear, it goes. If it isn't, we typically resort to a poll. Though a majority seemed to have been reached early in this discussion (before the discussion died to that argument), that doesn't mean the topic still can't be discussed. It's an unwritten rule that would be a bit controversial if it was set in stone, so it pretty much comes down to social respect.14:48, April 22, 2013 (UTC)
So it's basically a loose convention then. Well, pretty much what I expected, and a respectable one to boot. I've nothing else to add here. Leophiostellaphage 15:56, April 22, 2013 (UTC)