Talk:Pirate

Mass deletion
I think all those articles about real-life pirates (Edward Teach, Bartholomew Roberts, etc.) should be all deleted. Most of them are stubs, and they don't really have much relations to articles of One Piece, other than minor references. If we want to link to such articles, we should link them externally to Wikipedia, rather than create a small, insignificant article in One Piece Wikia. Yatanogarasu 17:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

New Age
So the new age started already?Zicoihno 01:22, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

Refreshing and rewording page
It clearly needs doing, I'll add it to the list of stuff I'm meant to be rewording.

16:16, June 27, 2016 (UTC)

Pirate King
Since the series debuted 20 some years ago shouldn't the Pirate King section have it's own page given that multiple people and groups have sought and made there own guess as to what it means to be the Pirate King.--Robertg27 (talk) 17:40, May 29, 2017 (UTC)

Translation and Dub Issues
Just looking at that section, it seems like it should be scabbed, because neither of the examples are actually translations issues.--Rrmcklin (talk) 04:09, April 29, 2018 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've editted anything and I agree, not to mention it's wrong partially in that "Akagami Kaizoku-dan" doesn't mean they're all Red-Haired so translating it as such is technically wrong. Red Hair would be the better translation and make it clear. "Akagami no Kaizoku-dan" would mean the red hair part is an adjective. It really makes that section just look sloppy. I think it comes from the fact 4kids called it that, but honestly they didn't care about correct translations so it's hardly an issue for them. Doctursea (talk) 22:04, October 12, 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, removed the section. Whoever wrote it has no real understanding of either, Japanese or translating. • Seelentau 愛 議 23:29, October 12, 2019 (UTC)

Objection to using non-canon
This goes against the principle of the wiki as set up by its founder. You should only be using canon to explain the series, non-canon should never be used for explaining anything at all. You can't even get away with noting its non-canon here, you shouldn't be using it at all. I've removed it so it follows the original intention of the founders of the wiki. We objected to non-canon being used as a reference in anything but itself for a reason; it isn't always by Oda and especially early on contradicted a number of storylines, so was deem unreliable except when referencing itself.

This is why non-canon was ranked below canon. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 19:53, December 9, 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, if anyone wants a note of "founding members", please don't forget... I am one of those founding members. We saw a pitiful of using non-canon and ranked it below canon for a reason, preferring things this way because of non-canons reputation of screwing things up.


 * Its the same reason why things are suppose to be ranked as source; manga -> SBS -> Data books -> anime -> dub. Non-canon usually falls onto the same level as the category of "anime", meaning that its a 4th ranked level source at best.  This usually reference names but works for anything because of the way things are and contradictions happen.  The only time this is broken is re-cons, which are acceptable.


 * I do quote this from time to time and usually I don't speak up unless I find something that I feel goes against the spirit of the creation of the wiki and original intention of the founders like this. Otherwise you hear no peep from me. One-Winged Hawk (talk) 19:59, December 9, 2018 (UTC)