Talk:World Timeline

Anyone has an idea what AOS means? I guess its something like "Age of..." But Age of what? Is that time meant where noone may know something about? Age of Silence or something like that?


 * "Age of the Sea" I think. I dunno. Maybe ask Joekido for clarifications.Mugiwara Franky 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Rescuing the timeline
This is a shambles... Can we drop the "AOS" bit please. Things were fine when they were "xxx years ago". It was easy to work out... When someone said it happened "XXX years ago" you just went to the bit that said "XXX years ago". Now you have to convert into AOS years to work it out.

Alternately we could set it up: XXXX AOS (XXXX Years ago)

What do people think. A it is now, the only reason why I've not updated this is because I just got annoyed at having t sit there and work it out. :-/ --One-Winged Hawk 12:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think with the approximation of time in this series outside certain events (Noland's visit to Shandora), it would be for the best. Personally I would also like to get rid of the "events of current time" part as well since that's just restating the entire plot of the series, particularly from the point of view of the Straw Hats who are one of many, many factors in this world at this point. -StrangerAtaru 13:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The orginal timeline, which this is based on, was on wikipedia. Those unhelpfuls at wikipediagot rid of it before I could transfer all of the stuff. As for the current year stuff, yeah, they weren't on that version and its something I avoided at wikipedia. --One-Winged Hawk 13:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I kinda I have to agree with just simply using XXXX years ago rather than XXXX AOS. Apart from Norland's log books, Oda simply uses XXXX years ago in referring to the past. In fact, what year it is or even if it's still the Age of the Sea, isn't even specified. For all it could be known, it could be 22 AP as in 22 Age of the Pirates.Mugiwara Franky 13:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia really doesn't allow anything on it anymore due to it's obsessions and its editors. Personally a timeline would fit for us but to them it's too "spoiler intensive" or "in-universe". Personally I just want to get rid of the "current events" section but I say that maybe just going "XXX years ago" is all I really want to see compared to AOS...except maybe noting Norlands notes on when they occured respectively. -StrangerAtaru 15:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

So the things we all agree on:


 * 1) The current events should be lost. I'd only agree on them if the WORLD events stayed and not just the quick stuff on the Straw Hats.
 * 2) XXXX Years is fine without "AOS" is not as its unconfirmed.
 * 3) Wikipedia is crap. (sorry... Couldn't resist)
 * 4) This page needs some work done to it.
 * 5) Norland's journel is the only thing we have to work from, so everything has to be from that reguardless. :-/
 * 6) Oda himself only uses XXXX years ago.

So... We need to loose the AOS bit and it looks like everythings being converted back to "Years ago" system. This is what we've come to so far agree.

I'm thinking a table may be handy here too. Perhaps like the bounties table one? I think, the year at the top and the events that happened in that year in the box below. A way round would have the current years on the left and the "XXXX YA" on the right. Or vice versa.

Some other note: I think going by Robin's supposedly fake info for Alabasta matches the kind of yearing scheme noted in Norland's journel... Which makes makes the pair of them (even if Robin did or di not fake it) tell us at least what the OP's yearing scheme is somewhat. --One-Winged Hawk 18:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Another note regarding the curren year thingy: Mythbusters is about all I an supply for the cyrrent year thing staying. But I will still agree on the note its pretty much a retelling of plot... If I had to rewrite that bit these are the only bits I'd include are the bare minium:


 * Arlong arrested in the East Blue.
 * Captain of the Straw Hat crew recieves bounty.
 * Drum Island renamed Sakura kingdom, changer of ruleship occurs.
 * Baroque Works discovered by Smoker and Tashigi, Crocodile arrested.
 * Princess Vivi of Alabasta mysteriously returns to the kingdom.
 * Captain and swordsman recieve bounty).
 * Enel overthrown, Skypieans and Shandians make peace.
 * Straw Hats raid Enies Lobby. All crewmembers recieve bounties.
 * The Yonkou Shanks and Whitebeard meet.
 * Teach replaces Crocodile, 2nd commander Ace of the Whitebeard Pirates arrested.
 * World Noble innicident.


 * Pretty much the only important things in the storyline. Since we don't know Moria's defeat and what it has led to I'd leave any Thriller Bark stuff off. --One-Winged Hawk 18:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A table could help the page alot indeed. As for the current events, it maybe confusing. From Luffy leaving home to now, the time spent for the adventure is kinda indeterminate. It maybe easy to determine for certain parts like Skypiea but others like after Thriller Bark to Sabaody is unknown. It could be two years already for all we know. Best not include if conflicting theories can be made.Mugiwara Franky 18:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Luffy hasn't aged yet, so whatever its been less then a year. Thats the ONLY piece of info we can base the year thingy on. But yeah, regardless, the current year thingy is still a problem and thats the ONLY argument for it staying. But lets try and avoid this argument, we'll end up fighting over it. And this ISN'T wikipedia we're on, this is the P encyclopedia where we don't try and get into those messes. ;-) --One-Winged Hawk 19:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we can make a == AOS == section for the years in AOS. But what if Oda does explore AOH? I would love to see each years to have the name of the age. Damn, I'm out of ideas

Joekido 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To Mugiwara Franky
Why don't you delete all years that has AOS behind them.

503 AOS 1504 aos 1522 AOS 1505 AOS 1494 AOS 1500 AOS 1502 AOS 1503 AOS 600 AOS 700 AOS Joekido 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect them to the timeline page would be a better idea. --One-Winged Hawk 23:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Table
Working on that today. Bare with me. Might be slow in production since I'm quite ill today. T_T --One-Winged Hawk 10:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tables going in right now. HOWEVER, ths isn't the final version as the font discussion is still taking place on Angel Emfrbl/Timeline table. That will be sorted on Monday. --One-Winged Hawk 19:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Calculations and references
Well folks... I've found we've got problems. Unfortantely sitting here with a calculator has revealed we need to go back and re-add some of he info... Sad bit is... We don't have any references. So can everyone lend a hand.

Note: Please wait though while I add the table. Otherwise editors will trip over each others' edits. --One-Winged Hawk 19:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Done.

Note: The current storyline has been written as though a third person/historian is reading the text and not a fan. Its the best way I could think up to cut all the fanfluff out of the timeline. As far as this page is concerned, its not deprieving the other pages of their chance to explain what exactly the plot is of the story. --One-Winged Hawk 21:38, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Years concern
The Skyipean Vs Shanidan war is 400 years old. But according to the timeline it isn't. I recall seeing the translation for Norland's log book as "over 400 years old". I just want some confirmation here. I'd check onemanga.com but the site cannot be accessed right now. One-Winged Hawk 06:40, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Canon VS Fanon
Canon is the only thing that matters. It doesn't belong on this wikia at all even as a link. Drunk Samurai 22:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The link is just a link to a fanon wikia. It doesn't do anything than being a link that leads there. If you insist, then please take your complaints to Template:Interwikialink which is currently being used in other pages than this.Mugiwara Franky 22:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The fanon wikia means we have somewhere to direct certain edits that occusionally make it to here, provides them with a free ad and serves us as a rule enforcing aid. They count as related external links as much as the links to wikipedia. So long as they don't do anything more then that ad, its fine to let the fanon wikia post links to pages. They must however in response post links to our pages in return, so if you follow that fanon link you'll find a link on that page back to our world timeline page. In a way, this keeps the peace between our wikias. The admin there is allowed to post staff recruitments here, but not spam ads... We're likewise allowed to do the same (though you could argue we have no reason).


 * I'd rather not see a argument between the wikias, lets keep the peace here. One-Winged Hawk 23:14, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Impel Down escape
should we go ahead and add that 241 prisoners successfully escaped Impel Down, because that is a pretty major event in the world of one piece even though it is not widely known (yet atleast). I'll go ahead and add it and if anyone feels it should wait to be added or be revised, etc. please feel free to do whatever. --Kingluffy1 20:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Timeskip
Can someone go ahead and add the 2 year timeskip to the timeline? Or at least when the chapter comes out tomorrow. I'd do it myself but lack knoe how. --Kingluffy1 19:07, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should still be using AOP to describe the era of the timeskip. I mean, it did say that the war at Marineford would end the AOP, so it would seem to me like we should change it. Maybe to New Age or something like that?DancePowderer 16:24, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe. None the less I was able to update it as best I could. It's going to need revision either way. But it should all still be one timeline I say. --Kingluffy1 16:28, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

We could possibly call it AOB (Age of Blackbeard), he did after all claim it as his own. Alternatevly, we could just wait until the story move farther along --Kingluffy1 16:44, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Warning!!!!! the timeline is wrong... :S it say 2 years before The Straw Hat Pirates begin to regroup, that the The Straw Hat Pirates first appear. I think its 4 years before the manga 598 that the Straw Hat Pirates first appear.

Sections
Is there any way this could be divided into sections? It would make for easier editing. The way I see it, it could be divided so that each individual year could be edited, or so that each era (???, AOH, AOS, AOP) could be edited. It would be easier than having to scroll through the whole thing.DancePowderer 02:06, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

About AOS thing
in the manga, there was THREE instances that featured the years in AOS,

first in chapter 228, when Nami reads the logbook, June 21, 1120

http://www.mangareader.net/103-2335-17/one-piece/chapter-228.html

second in chapter 261, when Robin reads from the ruins of Shandora, Age of Sea 402

http://www.mangareader.net/103-2368-13/one-piece/chapter-261.html

and third in chapter 287, in the narration box when Norland arrived in Jaya, May 12, 1122

http://www.mangareader.net/103-2394-3/one-piece/chapter-287.html

yes, it means it tooks 2 years after Norland set sail from Villa and arrived in Jaya

also, the plague in Norland hometown is 460 years ago, not 470

http://www.mangareader.net/103-2396-15/one-piece/chapter-289.html

if you're unsure about the translations, try to use Stephen's, and sorry for my bad english :(

Ibaldesu 00:06, August 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the details. I added references.

No those are just dates and years. There is no instance of them actually saying AOS. AOS is a fan term which should not be on the wikia. SeaTerror 09:42, August 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hm, what do you mean? You want to use "Age of Sea" everywhere? This would be heavy…

What's the problem? AOS is an acronym of "Age of Sea", it's not a fan term, why shouldn't we allowed to make an acronym? It's simply a wording choice.

Yes it is. There is no official source ever saying Age of Sea. None of those manga pages say Age of Sea. SeaTerror 20:32, August 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * Chapter 261 does.

SeaTerror is right. I say we delete all acronyms as it is fan based. Yountoryuu 20:39, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

SeaTerror, where exactly did the term AOS originate from? Was it AP? 21:12, August 28, 2011 (UTC)

These are the raws (from chapter 228): If you see errors in the thumbnail, try to download them.
 * first
 * second

I'm assuming it came from the Wikia itself but maybe AP forums. Those links don't prove anything either. SeaTerror 22:55, August 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * How can you be so sure, given you don't read Japanese?

This World Timeline is terrible... --Klobis 02:19, August 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) What is called AOS is 海円暦 Kaienreki. I think AOS is just a fan term.
 * 2) No one said "402 AOS or Kaienreki = 1102 Yrs Ago."
 * 3) Age of Heaven or 天暦 Tenreki is unrelated to Kaienreki.

So, with kaienreki, what would be a better translation? 02:30, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Literally Sea Circle Calender, Sea Circle Era. SCE? And Tenreki is Heaven (Sky) Era. --Klobis 02:40, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so why did you put the tenreki events at the bottom of the page? Couldn't they have stayed at where they were and just have the divider? 02:43, August 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * No one said "402 AOS or Kaienreki = 1102 Yrs Ago." → Well, I think it comes from the indications of Jaya's events being "400 years ago". But it's obviously a bad idea to take it as an exact reference.

We're in "Age of Pirates", I did object to this early on but in those days Joekido was very stubborn and it was a senseless argument. I'd rather have just the date and leave it at that. I never wanted AOS see to begin with as it isn't needed for the timeline nor was it originally then when the page was written, its just I had other things to do and arguing with Jokido in those days used to annoy me. He was like that in those days, we had numerous arguments because he kept inserting these things onto pages. He got better over time but the legacey remains in places. One-Winged Hawk 10:20, August 29, 2011 (UTC)

Then it should be removed and only a date should be listed. SeaTerror 06:42, August 30, 2011 (UTC)

I'm bumping his. We never decided what to do with this. Maybe we should take it to the forum. SeaTerror 20:49, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

If you do, please explain very well the problem, because I still confused on what the dates are referred to.

This was once again ignored by almost everybody. I'm removing the fan term in 3 days if there is no discussion about it. SeaTerror 07:42, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Why did you remove AOS but neither AOP nor AOH?

One debate at a time. Though I missed one so I'll edit it again real quick. SeaTerror 19:55, December 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm actually just trying to figure out what bothers you so much about Age of Sea. It's just a translation of Kaienreki. If you find it bad, provide another one, but don't remove all references to Kaienreki: 402, 1120, 1122 and 1127 are Kaienreki, this is valid information.

Its a fan term. There is no evidence they even have a real timeline such as a calender year. SeaTerror 20:10, December 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I just don't get it. Kaienreki literally translates as "Sea Circle Calendar", "Sea Circle Era", or "Age of the Sea Circle". What evidence do you need on top of that?


 * I always preferred the "AOS" and things like that to be left off the page as most were subject to translation opinions.... But NO I wasn't allowed because someone whined about it. Now years later someone makes a fuss of it and it goes.


 * Please, lets just not use them, I'm in full support. The time line really needs a reamp as when I did it orginally it was a shot in the dark on what everyone wanted of it. Needless to say like many things I did, I lost faith for a while and abandoned the project for another to pick up. Someone has revamped ia few years back, but it really needs a overhaul and rewritten from scratch. -_- One-Winged Hawk 22:00, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

(Luffy wasn't officialy permitted to stay on the island)
Wasn't it Hancock that lead them to Amazon Lily for the cause of hiding him there? That actually does sound like a permission to stay on AL... -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 19:40, December 7, 2011 (UTC)

Revamp
So, I removed the speculative year numbers. I also made a template for the code to be simpler to edit. The tenreki section remains to be done.

I indicated "Kaienreki" next to the four dates that we know officially. I think there should be an article on this wiki explaining what we know about Kaienreki and Tenreki—even if we know virtually nothing, it's still info that has to be written somewhere, and I don't think the timeline is the appropriate place.

So, what are your thoughts about this all?

There should have been a discussion before making any major changes so I reverted it. SeaTerror 02:18, December 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, here it is. So? (bump)  (bump)

The only thing we should do is remove the fan term dates such as AOP. SeaTerror 17:46, December 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * And leave the year numbers in, you mean? I thought your aversion to speculation was deeper than that! Except for the four Kaienreki dates, no year number was ever provided by Oda. And for all we know, the "400 years ago" mentioned in the manga are approximate, and could be 412 or 383...

The 400 years ago was not approximate. If it was approximate then Oda would have said so. It was exactly 400 years ago and if he intended it on being something else then he would have said the exact date. Such as 398 years ago. SeaTerror 19:04, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Do you also think the alliance between the World Government and Fishman Island was exactly 200 years ago? That Oars died exactly 500 years ago? That the construction of the Tequila Wolf bridge began exactly 700 years ago? That the Void Century began exactly 900 years ago and ended exactly 800 years ago? That the Palace of Alubarna was built exactly 4000 years ago? That the Tree of Knowledge was planted exactly 5000 years ago? Does that really make sense to you?

So by your logic Gold Roger was executed between 18-25 years ago. Oda didn't give an exact date after all. He must have just have given an approximation. SeaTerror 23:51, December 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * If he only said something like "20 years ago", and if we hadn't so much information available about what happened around this date, yes, we should treat it as an approximate too. But both conditions aren't met.
 * This is completely different from the events I listed in my previous message, which all have three things in common:
 * they're old;
 * they're said to have occurred a round number of years ago;
 * they cannot be linked to precisely dated events (like, "A occurred six years after B, which occurred exactly 347 years ago").

Nope. They are exactly the same thing. You can't have it both way. If you're going to try to treat some dates as approximate then you have to treat the others as approximate. Plus if it was supposed to be approximate then Oda would have put the word ABOUT before the dates. SeaTerror 08:57, December 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * They are not the same, for the reasons I stated. No reason to treat them the same. If Oda stated that the tree of knowledge was planted 5003 years ago, then it would obviously be a precise date, and the fact that we consider the other dates as approximates would not change that.
 * "if it was supposed to be approximate then Oda would have put the word ABOUT before the dates" →Oda makes his characters speak informally. When Nami picks up Noland's log book in Chapter 228, she says something like "Incredible! A 400-year-old logbook!". Does she refer to when the logbook was manufactured? When Noland first wrote in it? When he last wrote? You argument doesn't stand.


 * sff9 is right. We don't know when is just 400 years ago. --Klobis 12:08, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

You're the only one who considers them approximate. You ignore the fact that if he wanted it to be approximate he would have said the word about. Look up the word about in the dictionary. You might learn something in your life for once. SeaTerror 16:58, December 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * "You ignore the fact that if he wanted it to be approximate he would have said the word about." →Well, I didn't ignore it at all, I precisely answered to this argument. Seems fruitless to try and convince you, so I'm gonna pass.
 * It would thus be interesting to have other people's opinions. Come on guys, you basically just have to say yes or no. Bump...

SeaTerror knows that the Tree of Knowledge was planted just 5002 years ago... ludicrous... --Klobis 12:26, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Oda just gave an aproximation. Who would say 3421 years ago? Oda just gave us an aproximation, because if he would've wanted us to know the exact date, he wouldn't use lots of zeros. If Oda wants his readers to know an aproximate date, then we should also use an aproximate date on this wiki!

If he used approximation then he would use the word about before it. If you notice Oda also gives odd bounties such as Franky's 44,000,00 instead of making it 45 or Robin's original bounty set as 79,000,000. SeaTerror 18:32, December 31, 2011 (UTC)

And that can't be seen in the timeline as there are years such as 5000, 4000, 1100 and so on. As you can see in bounties, the only numbers that really matter are the ones after the 6 zeros! And I am referring to gag bounties such as Chopper's. The odd numbers would be 44 and 79. But in the timeline, each exact year would matter, but Oda only gave years such as 400, 500, 800, 900. And if you want an exact bounty, then try 45.333.128 for example. They are only aproximate years. The digits Oda concentrates are the ones such as that 5 in 5000.

I agree that the dates given are likely approximate and we should note as such. Bastian964 15:28, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Prove they are approximate years. If Oda intended them to be so then he would have used the word about before it. SeaTerror 21:40, January 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I proved it already. Chapter 228, "A 400-year-old logbook" does not make sense unless 400 year is just an approximate. In the timeline it was decided that 400 years corresponded to Noland's arrival at Jaya. Why not his departure from Vila? Why not his departure from Jaya? The choice is totally arbitrary, and thus speculative.
 * Since you seem to need even more proof, just consider that in Chapter 227, Noland's tale begins by "This story takes place more than four centuries ago". The tale is about Noland's second voyage to Jaya. And neither the tale, nor the book Nami holds, is recent. This is totally inconsistent with the first arrival at Jaya being exactly 400 years old.
 * That makes two proofs.


 * So, still reverting Klobis' changes? How can you not be convinced by two proofs? You could at least explain what makes you think they're invalid.

Man, if Oda ever wanted to be precise about years he would have places the years into the story himself - he's known to be that way. But instead, he doesn't give even a character's age without being asked nor did he even say for how long the Strawhats needed to get from East Blue to Sabaody. If you want to give precise years, you're the one who needs to proof! SeaTerror is nothing but trolling this article. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 19:06, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Where's the proof that Nami read the log in the year 1522? Where did Oda give this exact year? -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] ·

You're a retard who doesn't know what a troll is. Quit being a fucking idiot. Jesus Christ. If Oda intended it to be approximation then he would have implied so by putting the word "about" before every date. You want to change Roger's death now too? SeaTerror 19:23, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Just keep insulting other users without providing any proof. Give us the chapter where Oda said "It's the year 1522". Period. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 19:25, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Burden of proof is on who originally changed it. Prove Oda meant it as approximation. SeaTerror 19:30, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * I did it twice. All your previous arguments were invalidated by these proofs. Now explain what you think is wrong with them.


 * And that's the part that qualifies you as troll, SeaTerror. You're reversing burden of proof. It's you who has to proof the all years aside from the Norland's flashback in this chart are correct. Unless you can't, the information provided by this wiki is false and needs to be removed due to it's own rules. Read One Piece Encyclopedia:Speculations and One Piece Encyclopedia:Referencing Information
 * It's not the others part to proof you're wrong. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 19:36, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

You didn't prove anything. You gave no proof that Oda actually intentioned on these dates to be approximation. There is no proof Oda intended on approximation. Those articles also have nothing to do with this. Since you can't prove Oda intended on approximation then the only ones who are wrong are you. SeaTerror 19:40, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Then you still have no proof, that it's 1522 before the time skip and 1524 after skip? -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 19:43, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

If those are the actual dates then that is what it is. It goes from the 400 years ago thing. If you're going to claim approximation on anything then you should also be removing the 22 years ago thing from Roger's death. SeaTerror 19:49, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop straying off topic, SeaTerror. Give proof!
 * Nami says the log book is 400 years old. -> Chapter 228
 * Noland notes into his log that he's already 2 years sailing on sea and then lands on the 21th day of the 5th month of the year 1122 on Jaya -> Chapter 288
 * Noland stays on Jaya for about two weeks --> Chapters 290/291
 * Five years later he returns with his king on the 16th day of the 11th month of the year 1127. --> Chapter 292
 * And what date is Nami referring to? It's obviously something about the weaver which can't be said to have occures in 1122. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 20:03, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

That isn't off topic at all. There's your proof right there then. 400 years old. Which means the 404 years ago date is correct. SeaTerror 20:12, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Again jumping to conclusions. There's not a single proof about the current year being 152x. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 20:16, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

The question is which date is 404 years old.


 * No, the fact is we can't be sure at all, what date Nami was referring to and that those 400 years are precise. So there's no point in giving the exact years aside from the years 1122 and 1127 and say that both are about 400 years before the timeline before and after the time skip.-- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 20:20, January 8, 2012 (UTC)
 * We can't even be sure if Nami didn't read from the log book of Norland's former journey on the GL. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 20:22, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Ahhh. Okay, Nami is referring to the year 1120 while reading... -> Chapter 228
 * But Oda also introduces the Norland's Jaya flashback with "400 years ago" - but there it's 1122. --> chapters 286-288
 * There's the proof for those approximate 400 years. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 20:36, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * What about the supernovas? FROz3nB0T 20:40, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

You have to prove that they are exact dates, not that they are approximations, since some of them don't come from a calendar or something which record the time progression, but they come from "verbal" sources. Normally when you give a big rounded measure such as 100 years, 1000 km ecc. they are approximations, if you don't specific otherwise (like saying exactly 100 years ago). Oda is a person himself and he does this like everybody do, if he intended to give specific dates he would have write them on a calendar or make statements like "exactly 100 years ago". Since this is not the case, we should take in account only the order of magnitude of this given dates. {C}In science, a number without errors where is not clearly stated how many significant digits has, is ambiguous: saying a city has 5,000,000 people without giving any other informations doesn't mean that the accuracy is to the unit, in fact such a number has only 1 significant digit; saying that a city has 5,000,001 people instead means implicitly that the accuracy is to the unit. So by convention, "100 years ago" if you can't tell from the context his accuracy or it's not clearly stated means "about 100 years ago". I don't see the point to insist that they are exact dates, unless we can prove otherwise. The bounty example, is a good example: if the bounty is written then is exact to the unit, since it's the bounty the Government itself chosen, if it's only verbally stated can be ambiguous: when Crocodile's bounty was mentioned a Whiskey Peak, it was 80,000,000, but it turned out later it was actually 81,000,000.

That isn't proof for approximate years at all. Actually it was already set as exact dates so the burden of proof is on the people saying they are approximations. You are forgetting that most people also put the word about before a date if they are implying it is approximate. This is usually for history while science usually just uses numbers. The bounty is a horrible example since that is an obvious example of Oda making an error the first time. SeaTerror 21:00, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * Nami: 400 years ago = 1120
 * Oda: 400 years ago = 1122
 * SeaTerror: "Oda made a mistake."
 * My hint: You're doing it (very) wrong. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 21:05, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Nope. 400 years ago is pre timeskip. 402 years ago is post timeskip. The bounty example was a horrible example. SeaTerror 21:22, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Alright SeaTerror, let me figure out your logic real quick:

HereSanji states that Roger died 22 years ago. By your logic, that means he died exactly 22 years ago, on the same date, at the same time of day, down to the last millisecond. Because Oda didn'e use the words "about" or "approximately". But wait! Here, Smoker states that Roger died 22 years ago, on the same date, time, and second (by your logic, as shown by the lack of "about"). However, those are two different dates. How did Roger die at two different times?

SeaTerror, use your common sense. My argument may be crappy, but these guys have given you enough evidence to convince any normal person otherwise. 21:29, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Nope. That is not how the exact dates work since we only have years. They have given no evidence. They're all just full of shit. SeaTerror 21:39, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Instead of just insulting people and shutting out their arguments, you could provide some decent background for yourself. 21:44, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I already did many times. SeaTerror 21:47, January 8, 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you didn't. Not a single reference was from you, SeaTerror. And now you keep trolling. -- [ defchris ] · [ Diskussion ] · 21:49, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Would it kill you to be the least bit civil, SeaTerror? PX has a valid point since all the dates are approximations. In order for everything to be exact, everything from chapter 1-597 would have had to take place all in the same day. The dates can't be exact since there are only four separate instances from over 400 years ago. They have to be approximations. 21:54, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Look, I didn't follow this discussion throughly, but the dates stated in a casual conversation like "Oars died 500 years ago" are to be considered approximations, and don't say "Oda would say so" because he doesn't have to give exact dates every times, he could have given the exact dates like "Oars died exactly 500 years ago" or "Oars died 502 years ago", and even remark that it was an approximation like "Oars died about 500 years ago", but why should he bother to do it? He is writing a speech, and in a speech is common practice to round big numbers, moreover if the are 4 digits numbers like "5000 years ago". I have already explained to you even the conventions on this matter, and ok that is a bit technical, but it's a general convention, not only a scientific one. For example do you really believe the Fishman Island has exactly 5,000,000 people? If you read the page I give you, it's the first example. You said that the bounty example is an horrible example, but since that proves that Oda makes errors, as you said, doesn't make it a good reason to be more safe with these dates? You said that you proved your reasons many times, but these are all your posts: They are basically all the same answer. So up until now you are the only one to insist on this matter, there is a clear convention on this matter and everyone can recognize that a date like 4000 years ago is hardly exact without a context. Is so hard to give us argumentations? Because I'm starting to think you are playing the joke of "the deaf and the dumb" and making fun of all of us. The world goes like this, get over it.

Really now? If you're claiming Oda makes mistakes then you have no evidence he didn't make mistakes with your "approximations" either. You have yet to prove any of the dates are approximations. SeaTerror 18:13, January 9, 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything, they are to be considered approximations since we cannot prove they are exact, it's the other way around. Oda, like everybody, when "talks" round big numbers if it's not important to be exact, and nobody add the "about" if it's not important to remark it either. I didn't claim Oda makes mistakes... you did. I see it's another of your copied answers... remember that you are the only one who is making a fuss about this and you don't accept any other answer.

That's enough Levi... Everyone but him agrees that the dates are approximate. The burden of proof is on him. The discussion is over until he provides a solid argumentation including references and invalidating the points we all made. That's how it works.

I'm glad the dates thing is sorted now, the new thing pleases me. I don't care for the approx discussions, but I do care The Joekidos' whining that led to something going on the page that should never had made "publish" is gone. Thank you! :-D One-Winged Hawk 21:19, January 9, 2012 (UTC)


 * Also on the Approx. thing... Hoenstly, I think you guys arer taking this a little too seriously. If it is a approx. date, it means handling it is difficult and you can only go by what your given at any one point.   If someone says "over 400 years ago", your stuck with taking it literally even if its referring to 401 years ago.  You can only work with what your given and  saying "approx" could enxd up being a speculation thats unintended.  Thats my thoughts on the matter. :-/