Forum:Chapter release dates

A good part of the chapter pages doesn't have a full date, but only the year. Does anybody know where we can find those dates? Or are we doomed to have just the year?

I've been looking into that. While I cannot find a place for all the chapters, I found a way to fill in at least some of them. We have a list of jump issues that have One Piece characters on the covers. Better yet, we have images of the covers as well as the issue number. We can start from there, filling in those, and then working from there as far as we can. It would ultimately be a stall tactic to make progress while we look for something more absolute. 04:52, July 5, 2012 (UTC)

New Discussion
Update: Greg from One Piece podcast recently released a table with each Jump's issue release date and Oda's comments on Jump. That said, he explicitly said he did not grant the use of his translation of Oda's comments (as they are in English) on other sites, also I felt he was implicitly talking about us in his introduction. Aside the comments, I fell there is no problem with updating the chapter release dates, although I think as token of thanks we should add a reference with the URL to that page (since it's actually the only source available). I think we should leave the comments matter aside, as we cannot use his translation, but we didn't have that sort of informations on the wiki to begin with, so I don't think it's a problem.

I remember that I used scanlation sites for some of them since OneManga use to have Jump releases alongside the scanlation release. I don't think sites do that anymore. SeaTerror (talk) 20:36, April 4, 2013 (UTC)

Let's get adding the release dates. 21:35, April 9, 2013 (UTC)

Bump... 04:19, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be really important for us to have these dates. But it's a question of whether or not Greg would have a problem with us using them as a source. Has anyone thought about contacting him about it? If someone does, it should be someone who wasn't around when the wiki first had problems with him. 04:30, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Guess that's you volunteering. 04:57, April 11, 2013 (UTC)
 * I know nothing of this podcast, nor any way to contact Greg. So someone else should probably do it. And that's only if other users even think it's a good idea to contact him. 11:56, Apri 11, 2013 (UTC)

There is no problem in using the dates as long we add the reference, Greg just doesn't want other to use their translations of Oda's comments.

I should inform anyone who don't know this yet or forgot but Greg hates One Piece Wikia and had been a dick to us multiple times over the years. My bet is if we ask him, he'll say no and probably in a jackass way. If we don't ask him, he'll accuse us of stealing it from him in a jackass way too. 22:11, April 11, 2013 (UTC)

Then you'll be glad to know that I found something that throws a monkey wrench into his little site. From our own archives, we have the cover of the Shonen Jump featuring chapter 1. . It is issue 34, with a listed release date of August 4th, 1997. Not, July 29th, as our hateful colleague has so confidently published. While his dates might be wrong, I think we can use his issue and chapter numbers in conjunction with the 61 jump covers we have on here. While not complete, it will serve as a helpful jumping off point since then we will only have to fill in the gaps. 22:58, April 11, 2013 (UTC)


 * You do realize that the dates on SJ covers aren't the release dates right? Take the most recent cover that featured One Piece: Issue 18, in which Chapter 703 was serialized. The cover says April 15, while the issue was actually released on April 1. Then, if you look at the top-left corner of the image, it has both dates in small text. Most of the other images for Jump covers on the wiki are too small to read that text, so they can't be used as a reference. Greg's dates are most likely accurate, the only issue is whether he would allow them to be used. 120.149.50.213 04:18, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Well. That solves that issue. 04:32, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Newer Discussion
After This post from Greg we need to discuss this more.

It seems obvious that whoever added the information got it from Greg's list, so I think it's obvious that we should cite his list for the dates that were changed. As far as English tranlsations are concerned, these release dates are not common knowledge, and proper citiation protocol is that we should cite any information that is not common knowledge. Also, since these things were only changed after Greg's table was made, it's obvious that the info came from him anyways, so we should cite him because it's the right thing to do. And should anyone else want to know how we got the dates, they can see how we did get them.

This wiki's past difficulties with Greg are not related to this issue. It's his work, and it deserves to be cited. There's no reason not to cite it. Citing the information is the best result for all parties. 19:49, July 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * JSD, that link you posted is the wrong link. It only lead to this forum, and I see no posts from Greg. 20:51, July 29, 2013 (UTC)


 * Fixed it. Thanks, Jade. 20:53, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand what the discussion is about... just add/update the release dates and provide references with a link to Greg's table.


 * Should we make a template (which includes a banner at the bottom of pages that use his translations) to reference him?--


 * Don't need to - we can just edit the Chapter box template to include a qref, then use a bot to add a references section to every chapter page. I edited the template it yesterday to make it so that mousing over the date provided the reference in a tooltip (as a temporary measure because the pages don't have reference sections yet), but ST undid because he's ST. 04:49, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I remember he posted all of the dates on a thread. We could just put the external to the thread in the qref. That way we're still crediting him, but we don't have to go as far as making a banner or anything. 06:12, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Personaly I would only except what DP said as an option, I will not feed that wankers ego. 06:21, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

We don't have to cite him nor should we. Greg is just a fan as anybody else and could have easily made up everything. We don't credit manga sites for chapter summaries going up. SeaTerror (talk) 06:23, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Could be bullshit for all we know, almost everything that he posts is complete and utter bullshit. 06:28, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'm fine with the solution put forward by Zodiaque. 06:31, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

With my external link idea added in, right? 06:36, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Actually stratch that, he shouldn't get anything. 06:46, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Yeah Dp. 06:48, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure we don't even add references to chapter and episode pages in the first place. SeaTerror (talk) 06:57, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with ST on that. It looks strange just having one reference for a lot of pages for someone who seems to hold a grudge against us. Could it be possible that we could just place it in one page? 08:09, July 30, 2013 (UTC)


 * That was part of my rationale for the tooltip - it's less obtrusive and removes the need for a separate references section. It looks like this:


 * To all the people saying screw Greg, you're saying that a childish grudge over something that happened years ago is reason enough to not have the chapter release dates for hundreds of chapters - information without which we can't call ourselves a One Piece encyclopedia. If you're willing to fly to Japan yourself at your expense and contact Shueisha to personally research the dates then sure, we can put them on the page without references. Assuming that you're not, his request for attribution is fair. 13:56, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

We shouldn't place those references anywhere. We really should not cite him as a source. SeaTerror (talk) 08:48, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, his request is fair. Putting the external link to the thread DP mentioned is the best way; the tooltip is fine as a temporary measure. Just ignore ST's jimmies being rustled and go ahead. Let's try and look less like we're in a school playground. Seriously.

Honestly, guys. He did good work, and we ended up using it. He deserves the credit. And he was decent enough to message us simply asking us to cite him, and he wasn't an angry dick about it, and he didn't dwell on the past, so we should do the same. And for those of you saying the information could be wrong, then by citing him, we show that he is the one who's wrong, not us. (Though I sincerely doubt it's wrong anyways). 14:54, July 30, 2013 (UTC)

I still not understand what's the problem here... we have to cite the source of those dates and since the only source available now is Greg's page, we cite that. It's just that simple. On my wiki, I already added way back those dates with a simple reference as "The One Piece Podcast", as you can see here. If other sources were available, we would use them, but there is no much of a choice. By the way, we don't cite HIM, we just add the link to that page, nothing more.

That looks pretty good. 09:39, July 31, 2013 (UTC)


 * I really like those reference popups (that's actually the effect I wanted - a popup box like on wikipedia instead of a tooltip, and when I searched for a way to do it I saw your post on the central community wiki). If it was possible to do it like that here it would be great. 09:56, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

That would be very annoying. 10:00, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

What SHB said. The reasons for not adding them have already been mentioned. SeaTerror (talk) 10:04, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Let's do it then. Pretty clear majority in favor. 13:40, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

The ReferencePopups has nothing to do with our problem. ST, you just said "let's not add them", not much for a reason. The problem is simple: by posting the dates, we claim we know them. As with everything else, we have to provide the source of that information since it's not obvious. If those dates are made up, it's not our fault because we said we took them from there, but if they are made up and use them anyway without providing the source, we are now the ones who made them up. As I said, just add a simple reference with the link, we can even don't mention him or the site, as long there is the link.

There is definitely no clear majority. Also I said we cannot provide a source on chapter articles because are rule is not to allow references on chapter and episode articles. If anything it can only go on the Chapters and Volumes article. Also you definitely didn't read this forum if you think that was my reason. Everything I and SHB said is 100% true. SeaTerror (talk) 18:21, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

There's no clear opinion here, why not make this a poll? 18:22, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Because chapter release dates are something the wiki needs to have. And they're definitely not made up - not only did Greg compile the list of release dates, but he compiled a list of every Shonen Jump author's comment Oda has ever made, which would have required far more effort. Given that he would have had to look at archival copies of every magazine to get those, there is absolutely zero reason to believe he is lying about the dates, which are trivial to obtain by comparison (but still impossible for us). 18:33, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

About the no refs on chapter and episode pages rule, it's being misinterpreted slightly. We originally added it because people for whatever reason were starting to cite the chapter as the source material on that chapter page. For example, let's say in chapter 297 (throwing a random number out there) Luffy had some errands to run. It's mentioned in the summary as it should be, and then sourced, so that in the reference section at the bottom, it reads "Chapter 297, Luffy does this, this, and this." You're using the chapter to cite itself, which is ridiculous. That was the original problem it addressed. However, this time we're not citing any fact or data from the story, but rather the release date of the magazine, completely unrelated to the events in the story. I suppose the same would also apply to episode articles as well. 18:34, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

It is still the rules which is the issue. SeaTerror (talk) 18:54, July 31, 2013 (UTC)

Polling this would be very stupid. If we do, it would have to be minimum a week, since two weeks is a stupid amount of time for something like this. 03:19, August 1, 2013 (UTC) There is no general consensus so poll it and get it over with. 07:06, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

We still have to decide on the poll length. SeaTerror (talk) 07:32, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Standard poll length, just like anything else. 16:33, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be a poll unless you can come up with a valid reason not to use the dates. "I don't like Greg" is not a valid reason. 16:57, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

@ST Even if it's the rule to not have refs on chapter articles, if we agree to do so, then the rule simply changes to allow refs for the date. We made the first rule as a wiki, so we have the authority to change it in the face of new challenges for the wiki.

In regard to a poll, there's not yet a clear majority here because not that many editors have posted here about the issue. Though I think if people did, there probably would be one. And I completely agree with Zodiaque that there has not been decent agrument against referencing yet.

And has anyone actually responded to Greg? If nobody has, he might just be seeing this as us ignoring him, which could inspire him to take stronger action against us, likely in the form of reporting us to Central Wikia. It seems really stupid to poll this, because NOT referencing him could get us into trouble with Central (and not because Greg could "tattle", but because we are choosing to not reference something that must be referenced). 17:00, August 1, 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for reminding to check the Chapter box template page to undo ST's daily removal of the references for the release dates that are already up. Can an admin lock the template and/or ban SeaTerror? This is getting annoying. 17:06, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Just typical lies about not having a valid reason coming from Zodiaque. Even if that was the case it wouldn't matter since if enough people want a poll to go up then a poll goes up.

That would have to be on a different forum so more people would see it. It wouldn't be good to vote on that rule here. Also that is completely false. Greg LITERALLY cannot do anything because chapter release dates are not something somebody can copyright. Central wouldn't do anything. For the last thing: it is your fault for adding them when the original version of the template does not have them. The only reason it should be locked is to prevent you from readding them until the poll is over. SeaTerror (talk) 18:30, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Just ignore ST, he's the only one against it as usual. 18:37, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read the forum. SeaTerror (talk) 18:42, August 1, 2013 (UTC)

Adding them wouldn't be much work, would make the wiki more professional looking and wouldn't be detrimental in any way so why is adding these references such a problem for some people? Also I don't know what the problem with Greg was since I wasn't here then but it doesn't seem like that is relevent to this issue. 07:02, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

We've still haven't come to a conclusion, so we should poll it already. Standard length since it's a rule for forums. I wouldn't mind the idea that Levi has at his wiki since it hides it, and only appears when you hover over it. Still don't believe we really need to have it on every chapter that we got it from Greg. Just one page will be fine. 08:17, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said at the most it should go on Chapters and Volumes article. The best option is still not to have them. SeaTerror (talk) 08:24, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Only 3 of you are against it, while the clear majority actually want to resolve this peacefully and not have a stupid poll. Just stop being immature for no reason so that things can actually get done. 08:55, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

Because obviously the MAJORITY of users have commented here. SeaTerror (talk) 09:17, August 2, 2013 (UTC)

ST, we know there's nothing Greg can legally do, we're not stupid. This is simply a matter of respecting a source and citing what would otherwise seem odd to have suddenly acquired overnight. The no sources in chapter pages has no bearing here because we're talking about information regarding the magazine itself, not events that took place in any single chapter. I don't care for him any more than you do, yet here I am, saying we should give him source credit. This is about respect and giving credit where credit is due, not how much you like the guy who did it. 09:20, August 2, 2013 (UTC)


 * "Also you definitely didn't read this forum if you think that was my reason. Everything I and SHB said is 100% true. SeaTerror (talk) 18:21, July 31, 2013 (UTC)" - Here the list of all your posts before mine:
 * They can be summed up as "don't cite that asshole". You vaguely mention something about that we don't usually add references, without even be sure yourself. Sorry for not catching that, but as usual it looks to me you just say what you think without caring to answer other argumentations. About that rule (which it would be nice to have a link to it) it's as DP said, it's misinterpreted. Worse case, we vote again to make an exception to allowing outside-chapter references. Really guys, citing sources has always been the main rule of thumb. I'm surprised we still even debating it, but if you really don't like it, then DON'T ADD those dates.


 * "That's why I said at the most it should go on Chapters and Volumes article. The best option is still not to have them. SeaTerror (talk) 08:24, August 2, 2013 (UTC)" - I don't understand how can we add that reference there since in that page there aren't the chapter release dates, only the volume ones.
 * "Only 3 of you are against it, while the clear majority actually want to resolve this peacefully and not have a stupid poll. Just stop being immature for no reason so that things can actually get done. 08:55, August 2, 2013 (UTC)" - I quote that. 3 out of ~12.

Just cite him but do it in a small way. 08:20, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

There is only one way: The One Piece Podcast or just http://www.thegrandline.com/odatocLIVE.htm.

Or http://www.thegrandline.com/ or not at all. SeaTerror (talk) 19:41, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

That won't do, you have to credit the exact page.

The link to the exact page is further up in one of the older conversations. 20:17, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

So let's credit the page. Why is this such a big deal? 20:19, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

Because some people, as made apparent by the conversation above, have personal grudges against our source which are interfering with their judgment. 20:22, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

That's ironic considering you said in chat you only wanted to source him "so you didn't have to hear him bitching". SeaTerror (talk) 21:07, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

What exactly is the deal with Greg and this wiki? I've heard that there were some issues but not what those issues were. 21:57, August 3, 2013 (UTC)

He bashed us once or twice in the past. That's about it. And once again, ST has taken something out of context, so allow me to put things right. I said I didn't want him to be griping about and bashing us because we ignored him. It has nothing to do with removing a potential irritant, but rather to preserve the wiki's integrity. It's good to know though that you're out of arguments as evidenced by your bypassing your previous reasons and going after me rather than focusing on the actual issue, and not something immediately reactionary I said in chat. 00:04, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

"I said I didn't want him to be griping about and bashing us because we ignored him." That's a complete lie. But people will believe you since you are an admin so carry on. Anyway I say do what SHB said and do it in a small way. That would be the way I linked earlier. SeaTerror (talk) 00:57, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

The fact that you choose not to believe it does not make it a lie. And we already have. Just go to any chapter page and hover your cursor over the release date. 01:02, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't the only one in chat that night. Levi wants to do a different link. That's why I said the one I linked would be better. SeaTerror (talk) 01:03, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

Why not do the one we had before? It's a reference without the need for a reference section. 01:06, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

"Just go to any chapter page and hover your cursor over the release date." - it looks to me the chapter dates are still not updated and I don't see the reference you were talking about. I didn't check every chapter, but still it's not "any chapter" at least.


 * See any chapter from 2-90 - they're the dates the AWC added before leaving. We can add the remaining dates at any time, but I figured it was best to wait until this discussion was over. 10:44, August 4, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but the ref should be in the chapter page, not in the template. Btw, now that we have all the dates, the distinction between  and   in the template is meaningless.

And speaking of dates, somehow the early chapters (if not more) have gotten their date changed to the printed date on the magazine and not the actual one. I can see this being a problem in the future as well as now. Maybe we should make it so some kind of disclaimer appears when people try to edit the dates, like the one we use for stuff like Sabo only it appears when people try to edit the chapter templates. 08:26, August 5, 2013 (UTC)

We should use a template to store the dates. Will make things much easier. 22:45, August 7, 2013 (UTC)

That's a good idea. 22:53, August 8, 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. I think. I'll have to make sure it all works properly when it's not 5am. 19:28, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

We still need to decide on which reference link to use. SeaTerror (talk) 03:34, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

We should use the link to the specific page (http://www.thegrandline.com/odatocLIVE.htm) since the point of refs is to show readers that our information is accurate and to allow them to look it up if they want. 15:45, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

No we don't. The site it self is fine. Plus SHB said "Just cite him but do it in a small way." The site link is a small way. SeaTerror (talk) 17:23, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

So what? You two are the only one against it and just for a personal grudge, using the full URL is just how it's done for every reference on every wiki. I don't want to credit him or the site, I want to cite the source which is http://www.thegrandline.com/odatocLIVE.htm.

With your magical VTSF powers you should be able to back up that statement about every wikia using a full URL. The source is Greg anyway so the main site URL is just as good. SeaTerror (talk) 17:38, August 9, 2013 (UTC)

It's VSTF actually, and I take the fact you mentioned it as you have no more arguments. It's common sense to cite the source and not just a vague reference, or rather there is no reason to be against doing it that way. It's also how I've always seen using references here (and not only here).

I've completed a template that will automatically insert the date from Greg's table into the chapter box (as well as store all current and future dates), but there's one issue left. Every chapter page from Chapter 554 onwards has to be cross-referenced against the table to check for inconsistencies, to determine the cut-off point at which we stop referencing him. For example, for Chapter 554 (the first chapter without just a year) the release date was simply "2009" for three years before DP added the date August 22, 2009, while Greg's table has August 24 instead. We basically need to find the first chapter from which our date records can be trusted to be accurate. 06:13, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

You're in the right ballpark at least for when whole dates started getting added. I'm going to try to get a better idea of about when we started by checking a few of the jump covers against the chapters. It won't be perfect, but it will at least get us closer. 06:21, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I got nothing from the covers. If it means anything, I kind of didn't know about the whole one week difference thing between the online release and the actual publishing date. I agree it would be wise to cross-check the others and only cite him if our dates don't line up. 06:29, August 10, 2013 (UTC)

I'm against using that template Zodiaque. Why making it overly complicated? It's just a reference! We should add it like we always do it, and if by some superior rule no exception can be made, then add something like ref after the date (but not in the template). It's just that simple.

The main purpose of the template is to contain all the dates, to stop people changing them (or at least make it easier to track changes to dates). As for putting the ref tag in the template, it just helps keep things consistent, rather than requiring every page to be edited. I don't see what's so complicated about it. 11:02, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

I understand why you made it, but I don't find it necessary. There are bot for that sort of jobs.

As Zodiaque said, it keeps people from editing the dates. There's no reason to leave things that will never change out of templates. 11:56, August 11, 2013 (UTC)

Well do as you like.

So are we going to implement Zodiaque's template? 03:24, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Don't know, I'd like more the "old way", but that's just my opinion.

I like the "old way" too.--

I finished cross-checking. From Chapter 565 onwards, the dates are pretty much all accurate. The exceptions are mostly Saturday chapters, which people unhelpfully "correct" to Monday even a year after the chapter was released, because that's the usual release day ([ here], [ here] and [ here]). In my opinion, the template would make it harder for edits like these to slip through the cracks.

If the date isn't filled in, this: "Please insert the release date [ here]." will be displayed, directing editors to the template, so it shouldn't make things difficult or complex. 14:17, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

Rora and Levi:

There is zero advantage to keeping them on the page. They will always be static and will never should be changed. 20:09, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

I agree. 20:22, August 13, 2013 (UTC)

You can always add a comment like we do for everything else, just to say. (Sorry Zodiaque, I removed the code you added because it made the page unreadable, add just a link or the template itself, not the whole code!)


 * Oops sorry, not sure how I missed that.

Anyway, this isn't going to go anywhere unless we get more input than just the five of us. I wouldn't be comfortable adding the template if more people didn't agree to it (partly due to people's issues with being left out of the loop in the automated images discussion), and as it stands I need the support of a bot from either of Levi or Rora to do it anyway (to clean up by removing the leftover date parameter from all pages). 04:23, August 14, 2013 (UTC)