One Piece Wiki talk:Missing References

Page
Wouldn't this page be better as a Crew, not a list?

23:06, May 8, 2019 (UTC)

We have template:No References if you didn't already know.-- 23:34, May 8, 2019 (UTC)

That template solves nothing and what crew?Rgilbert27 (talk) 23:45, May 8, 2019 (UTC)

The template does exactly what we need to: tell us what needs to be referenced (without overusing template:Confirm). Nova is referring to the Reference Crew, where this would be better suited. 00:46, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

I have talked to User:Awaikage about this. He is an admin and the only one from said reference crew who is still active and it was his suggestion to make a list. To sum up answers and what I talked about with kage: The No References point to the page, the Confirm points to the statement, however pointing it out does little to solve or help solving it. This list is linked at the Confirm category page and it's purpose is to differ between hard to find references and non existing references by giving all wiki users an attempt to see and help find sources for the information before it is deemed speculation. Rhavkin (talk) 04:08, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

You don't get to create new rules. SeaTerror (talk) 17:55, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

First of all, says who? I had an idea to improve to wiki, ran it by an admin and he agreed. Despite what you wrongfully made yourself believe, you do not get a say in every matter. This way the missing information is not just flagged, but also fixed, and if someone can't fixed, then it is brought up here as a way to ask for help and or inform about a speculative statement that needs to be taken care of.

Second, I did not made any rule, the month rule was an idea you brought up to my attention, and this is not "a month since added" it's "a month since the source can't be found" How would you classify a statement on this wiki that has no base in any reliable source?

Third and finally, SaaTerror, you had gotten yourself a reputation as the wiki naysayer, so anything you are against to only means it's a good idea. For years you have been warned against your attitude and your talk page ways and you've yet to make any significant change. "You don't get to create new rules" isn't a productive comment. If you have something of value to say, just say it. For example, you could have said "I don't think the time limits are fair" or "Not being able to find the source doesn't mean it's automatically speculation" and then it would be even more productive to not only object, but also give a different approach like "instead of deleting, shouldn't we start a forum or a talk for each missing reference".

Communication is impotent for a stable community which is what this wiki is trying to be. Rhavkin (talk) 18:11, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

ST, I assume you are referring to the "if it's not changed in one month it should be deleted" statement. Are you opposed to it because it is flawed, or because Rhavkin (with Kage's input) created it? Information, particularly big pieces, should not remain unsourced on articles for a long period of time. For as long as the wiki existed I don't think there has been any official designation on how to handle unsourced information, and imo this step is a good one toward ensuring no false information lingers on the wiki. Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 20:52, May 9, 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let's not argue with ST, that never gets us anywhere. I may not have been too active lately, but I do have some problems about here. How could we find a reference to that concept art image? That was there for a long time unsolved, should we just delete the entire trivia and the related image there since it seems unsubstantiated? (Using that as an example.) 03:13, May 10, 2019 (UTC)