Clean Up Needed[]
This page needs cleaning up, possibly rewritten even. Okay, since this is about the show itself, its setting a bad example and lets get it sorted by the end of this week. One-Winged Hawk 12:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Zoriax 23:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC):I want to do a consideration. Gold Roger said that "You must travel the entire world to find it [the One Piece]"...I think that the treasure, the One Piece, is a dream. All the pirates had a dream, and Gold Roger tricked them. I mean, you will really need a treasure when you have fulfilled your dream and travelled all over the world, being a legend? :-)
Hmmm...no...That was a dub quote...Dub Quotes= non-canon. 68.36.166.78 02:02, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
One Piece page to go back to my revisions[]
I transfered all data from the Manga to here because what it's been talked about in the Manga should be here not there. The One Piece page was suppose to talk about the story, the style and the treasure all togather while the Manga section just list manga related-list so let me revert to my edit and please don't revert my edits anymore. I need you guys to to stick with me on this matter.
Joekido 13:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- DON'T!!!
- One Piece = Treasure
- Manga = One Piece manga!
- They create problems otherwise since its easier to link to One Piece when talking about the treasure then havig to write something lik One Piece (Treasure). And its easier to let the page manga handle the manga side just as we had the page anime handle the anime side. One-Winged Hawk 14:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Well it did the same in Star Wars Wikia so I liked my version better but 'meh'
Joekido 14:18, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I know SWW is a grest wikia and all, but while wikias will have simulairties they won't be identical. What works in one wikia might not work in another. One-Winged Hawk 14:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the Star Wars wikia, War Craft wikia, and any other wikia, they have those type of articles because they explain the franchise of the series. In this wikia, its kinda of a special case.
- One Piece can refer to the series itself, or the treasure
- There are already two such articles explaining the franchise
- For this wikia, to have a page similar to those other wikia, the anime and manga pages will have to be combined and there has to be a distinction between the franchise and the treasure itself. This wikia started out with such a page but over time it evolved a different route. It seems odd but alot less odder than a page that talks about both the series and the treasure almost as if there are one.Mugiwara Franky 08:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Problem[]
The problem is that in overwhelming majority of pages that link here not a reference to the treasure, but a reference to the series is intended (you can easily be convinced by looking at several pages from "What links here" list). Manually changing them is too much of work (there are hundreds such pages). So, I think, it is better to make One Piece page as a disambiguation page or redirect to One Piece (Manga), and to rename page about the treasure to One Piece (treasure). Ruxax 16:04, May 15, 2010 (UTC)
- I second this; I was actually coming to the talk page to suggest the same thing, but you beat me to it. I think a One Piece (Disambiguation) would be a swell idea. 2xN 08:19, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
Almost all the links are from episode and voice actors pages, I can fix that. I am against the rename of the page to One Piece (treasure) if this is the not default page. If you make the manga page the default we will have the same problem doesn’t change anything and we should fix all the links that redirect here. Whatever we do we should fix hundreds of wrong links. Tipota 10:13, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
- Well, if you are ready to fix all the links to this page, then please do it. Apart from episodes and voice actors pages, there are many other cases like in Category:Islands:
- "Most locations in One Piece are islands."
- or in the article Pell:
- and even in the Main Page.
- Two issues arise: 1) where to link here - to One Piece (Manga) or One Piece (Anime)? 2) when one will write something similar in the future, I'm pretty sure he'll not take into account that One Piece is a specific page is about the treasure. Ruxax 10:48, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
So I agree that links from episodes and voice actors pages should be changed to One Piece (Anime). But the default page should be the disambiguation page, imho. And the two reasons for that are: 1) main usage of "One Piece" is name to the series; 2) if link, implied to refer to the series in general (like cases I showed above) would link to the disambig page it would be "less wrong" than if it would link to the treasure page. Ruxax 11:07, May 18, 2010 (UTC)
World Government[]
Did it ever say that the World Government showing signs that they fear One Piece? Because it seems that way. I'm not trying to make a fourm, but if the World Government truely does fear One Piece and it has been shown, should we put it onto the page and/or put it into the mythbusters?68.36.166.78 01:58, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure about the Government, but acording to Whitebeard, the ones who really fear the One Piece are the Marines, so I think that should be mentioned.GMTails 21:47, February 10, 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, feel free to put in whatever you want. I'm just not sure what to say. 68.36.166.78 21:00, February 11, 2011 (UTC)
first time mentioned?[]
the first time One Piece was mentioned is during the execution of Roger,right? I understand what he said is "I left everything I own in One Piece", but none of the English translation confirm my suspicion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.119.96.73 (talk • contribs). Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!
That was the 4kids translation, and it's incorrect. He said "I left it all in that place." It was already known as One Piece before he gave up his piracy. uknownada Talk 13:23, May 15, 2013 (UTC)
Looking for source[]
Does anyone have the source for when Oda apparently said that One Piece is a physical object? Never seen it for myself. Anima40 (talk) 01:43, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
Where exactly did you see that? It's not on this article. It's recommended to throw away socks after a year 10:11, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
I know it's not on the article, it's more something that I've always seen others say but now that I think about it, they never backed it up with a source so I was hoping you guys would know if it exsits or not. Anima40 (talk) 10:29, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
No source = speculation. It's recommended to throw away socks after a year 11:01, February 25, 2014 (UTC)
Joy Boy[]
So, after Chapter 967, is it safe to say that the One Piece is in fact not Roger's treasure, but Joy Boy's? That's how I intepreted it, but I didn't want to change it without approval. Timjer (talk) 12:28, December 29, 2019 (UTC)
- It is completely obvious but not confirmed.--Sandwichman2449 (talk) 21:23, December 29, 2019 (UTC)
No. The One Piece could be the sum of Roger and JB's treasure, or the true history itself, or not even JB's treasure but someone before him and JB also followed the Poneglyphs. There are too many unanswered questions that leave the One Piece original owner unknown, but just like any pirate treasure, since Roger is the last person who had access to it, it is his. Rhavkin (talk) 21:57, December 29, 2019 (UTC)
Then I suggest this page should be protected until we find out if Joy Boy really was the true owner because its never officially confirmed yet and it will cause edit wars. ShadowSilverx4 (talk) 19:56, January 19, 2020 (UTC)
Did you read 968? One Piece is the name of Roger's treasure, regardless of its or parts of it former\original owner. The page is fine as is. Rhavkin (talk) 20:07, January 19, 2020 (UTC)
But that's exactly the point and why I added Joy Boy as a former owner: There's only one treasure - the one Joy Boy left behind and Roger found. It wasn't Roger's decision to christen it "One Piece", after all. It was named that by people who had no clue what the Roger Pirates had actually found.
You could see it like this: If I found a dog on the street and named it "Bob", and it turns out that its former owner had died, then that person would still be the former owner of "Bob", even if they maybe called the dog by a different name.
And please don't argue about Roger tampering with the treasure in any way. We don't know that (as I wrote in the article) and it would quickly become a "Ship of Theseus" matter like that. • Seelentau 愛 議 22:37, January 19, 2020 (UTC)
One Piece was clearly described as "everything Roger gained". If I may use an example that is not a living creature:
- If you found a table on the street, and brought it home, it is now your table.
- If you found a broken table on the street, brought it home and fixed it, it is now your table.
- If you found a table top on the street, brought it home, and assemble legs to it, it is now your table.
- If you found a random piece of wood, brought it home, and assemble legs to it, it is now your table.
What ever it was that Joy Boy left behind is part of One Piece, but One Piece as a whole is confirmed in 968 to be Roger's. Rhavkin (talk) 22:56, January 19, 2020 (UTC)
Again: "One Piece" is a term for what Roger gained, given by people who had no idea, as Roger himself noted in chapter 968. What Roger gained was the treasure Joy Boy left behind. Thus, Joy Boy is the previous owner of what came to be known as "One Piece". I don't get where you got this "part" stuff from. Do you think "One Piece" also refers to whatever treasure Roger wanted to give Whitebeard, for example?
And regarding your examples: If all of these items had previous owners, then those previous owners would be, well, previous owners. That's the entire point here. • Seelentau 愛 議 23:11, January 19, 2020 (UTC)
We don't know what part of One Piece is Joy Boy's treasure, and what Roger also had, which is why I gave multiple examples for how a table can be gained. Is it possible that Joy Boy's treasures is exactly the One Piece? Yes. Is it confirmed? No. Hence we can't say One Piece belonged to Joy Boy. Rhavkin (talk) 23:20, January 19, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, we can. Once more: One Piece is the name given by the uneducated to the treasure Roger found on Laugh Tale. The public apparently thinks that Roger left a treasure on Laugh Tale, because, as Roger himself said in the chapter, they don't know what really happened. And he also said that Joyboy left the treasure there. So yes, the treasure that was named One Piece by the public is the same treasure Joyboy left behind. The question if Roger left something there too or took something with him doesn't matter in this discussion. Because, again, Ship of Theseus. • Seelentau 愛 議 07:37, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Where does it say that the name is what was found on Laugh Tale? Until now it was always what was left there, and the person who left it there is Roger. And assuming Roger was referring to what Oden wrote in his log and not what they read in the paper, saying "They have no idea" doesn't necessarily mean "they have no idea that it is not originally mine". Rhavkin (talk) 08:32, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Ah yes, that was my mistake, I actually read Roger's words as a reaction to Oden's logbook, which of course doesn't make sense.
But in any case, your proposal would effectively mean that we have two treasures: One left behind by Joy Boy, the treasure that everyone is looking for and then the One Piece, which is Joy Boy's treasure plus anything Roger might have added, minus anything he might have taken away and on top of that any other treasure he gained over the course of his life, like the treasure he wanted Whitebeard to have in exchange for Oden. This in turn would of course mean that the One Piece doesn't await anyone who reaches Laugh Tale, but only Joy Boy's treasure is. Which we know isn't the case - One Piece lies at Laugh Tale. That's why I'm saying One Piece is Joy Boy's treasure and nothing else. • Seelentau 愛 議 13:50, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Speculations. Rhavkin (talk) 14:15, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Rhavkin, you're the one who proposed that there are two treasures - Joy Boy's (the treasure at LT) and the One Piece (the sum of Roger's treasures). And since it's a fact that the One Piece lies at LT, your proposal would mean that Roger left all his treasures behind, adding it to JB's treasure. But this is - as you so aptly called it - a speculation.
If I made a mistake in this train of thought, please tell me. • Seelentau 愛 議 14:24, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
I never said there are two treasures, just that there is no confirmation that they are the same one. Rhavkin (talk) 15:51, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Of course there is: The people called "Roger's treasures" One Piece => The One Piece lies on LT => The treasure on LT was left there by Joyboy = The One Piece is the treasure left by Joyboy. The only way this wouldn't work is if there were two treasures, but assuming this possibility would be speculation. • Seelentau 愛 議 15:55, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Or that Joy Boy's is part of One Piece. Rhavkin (talk) 16:00, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Do you have proof for this claim? Because again, it would mean that Roger left his treasure at LT. And that was simply never said. • Seelentau 愛 議 16:05, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
If we have two equally possible speculation, it is best to leave the page as is. You can mention in this and Laugh Tale trivia sections that "Joy Boy's treasure was also left at Laugh Tale, but no other connection between the has been confirmed." and I think that is currently the best option. Rhavkin (talk) 16:16, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Which part of what I wrote is speculation? • Seelentau 愛 議 17:06, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
"The One Piece is the treasure left by Joyboy". Rhavkin (talk) 18:11, January 20, 2020 (UTC)
Not really, no. "The treasure on LT was left by JB" and "the treasure on LT is the OP" are both true statements. So as long as there's no other treasure revealed, "The treasure left by JB on LT is OP" is true. • Seelentau 愛 議 11:00, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
That logic is flawed unless you can prove Roger did not have anything else he left of Laugh Tale. Rhavkin (talk) 12:38, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
Please don't strawman me. I never claimed he didn't leave anything there (or that he did). It's not part of my argument, because I can't know. • Seelentau 愛 議 16:06, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
I don't know what "strawman" is, but if saying that they are the same treasure just because they were both left at the same place is a flawed logic anyway you look at it. Rhavkin (talk) 16:29, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. In our case, that would be the argument "Roger didn't leave anything at LT.", which I never presented, but you refuted.
Of course it's not perfect logic, but it's based on all the facts we have without taking any other possibilities into account. And that's what a wiki does, isn't it? Presenting the facts, not possible alternatives. If there's any indication Roger took or left something from or at LT, we will obviously correct the article. But saying that "One Piece is a part of Roger's treasure" directly implies that he left something at LT. Which would be the exact same flawed logic as saying he did not leave anything there. • Seelentau 愛 議 16:39, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
What I said was "unless you can prove Roger did not have anything else he left of Laugh Tale". Right now we know of two trasures: Joy Boy's unnamed treasure and Roger's One Piece. If Joy Boy was the former owner of One Piece, that would mean that they are the same treasure, which wasn't confirmed. Plausible? Reasonable? Suggestive? Yes, yes, and yes, but still not confirmed. Rhavkin (talk) 16:56, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
The way I understood it, One Piece is a term for "everything" Roger had gained, and not restricted to what he found on Laugh Tale. The whole concept is defined via Roger. Due to that loose definition, I think the current version of the page is fine. Awaikage Talk 17:14, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
But the One Piece was stated to be the treasure that is on LT, no? If it was everything Roger had gained, stuff like the treasure he wanted to give to Whitebeard was the One Piece too. • Seelentau 愛 議 18:56, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
That's not stated. The definition given is "everything that Roger gained". In this chapter we have people coming directly after Roger for his treasure. Only after his final words "I left everything at that place" did people assume that everything Roger had gathered was on the final island. Obviously whatever he didn't have anymore wouldn't be part of it. Awaikage Talk 19:59, January 21, 2020 (UTC)
I see. So there are two treasure's then, JB's and the OP, right? Then the article would need to be corrected, I guess. • Seelentau 愛 議 10:50, January 22, 2020 (UTC)
One Piece translations[]
I'm too shy to edit the page directly, but the explanation of the translation for One Piece isn't correct, esp this line:
That it should be read as "人繋ぎ" - a phrase roughly translating to "the rope linking all men".
"人繋ぎ" (hito-tsunagi) means "connecting people", as in "a treasure that brings people together". This is a very natural meaning most Japanese speakers would think of when they see it, and I'm sure it's intended somehow.
I think the explanation there confused it with "人綱具" which is an incorrect/ungrammatical way of writing "person + rigging" (like on a ship).
That it should be read as "hitotsu-nagi" or "一つ凪" - a phrase roughly translating to "one sea at peace".
一つ凪 doesn't mean "at peace" but literally "a calm sea", like the Calm Belts. This is a slightly weird/unusual reading but it's plausible and JP analysis sites mention it too.
Mvbmvb (talk) 08:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Proposition to change the page’s picture[]
In One Piece opening 26 there’s a scene that depicts a light at the end of the grand line, it’s meant to symbolize the one piece and I think it should be used for the page until the one piece’s reveal.RayTheFlyingSquirrel476 (talk) 18:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
No. That's just a map of the Grand Line. There is no need for an image until the One Piece is shown. Awaikage Talk 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
the point of the one piece is that it’s the final treasure of the grand line, besides it’s not just a standard grand line map since it clearly depicts the end of it including the light meant to symbolize the one piece itself, I think it would be better than using the placeholder image.RayTheFlyingSquirrel476 (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Removal of the section about Big Mom and the One Piece[]
I haven’t removed the section, yet.
The section is about how Big Mom says that some of the One Piece is in Wano.
It doesn’t line up with what we know of the One Piece so far and multiple other translations. I’ve checked, for example, the official French manga version, and I can say that there’s no mention of anything close to that there.
The notion that some of the One Piece is in Wano only comes from Viz as far as I know. I usually don’t like relying on fan translations and prefer the officials, but I think the translators from TCB Scans give some interesting insight on this. The wording in Japanese is pretty vague on what Big Mom is referring to when talking about the One Piece, but given the context, the proper translation is definitely talking about her previous lines where she asks where and what is the One Piece. The proper translation would be something like saying Wano is important to answering key questions about the One Piece.
This makes much more sense since Wano is indeed important to the One Piece, a Lode Poneglyph resides at Wano, Oden was one of the people who saw the truth about the One Piece and documented it in his journal which can be found in Wano, even though the page about his journey to Laugh Tale was removed. Furthermore, the Kouzuki clan made the Poneglyph, the only way to get to Laugh Tale. Wano is deeply connected to the One Piece, so it isn’t crazy to say that Wano is integral to finding out mysteries about it.
It would make no sense if part of the One Piece was in Wano, or simply that a part of the One Piece even exists. Luffy has long departed from Wano, the story has shifted away from it, it wouldn’t make sense if Luffy gets the One Piece in Laugh Tale (if it’s there) and then gets told that, never mind, the rest is in Wano, that just doesn’t make sense story wise. And it’s called the ONE PIECE, come on.
How would Big Mom even know that some of it is in Wano, and why would Oda reveal this very major thing in such an unimportant way. There’s no importance given to Big Mom saying some of the One Piece is in Wano, that’s because she’s not actually saying something all that important, we know Wano is connected to the One Piece. The reason why Big Mom saying some of the One Piece is in Wano hasn’t been elaborated further thus now is because it’s a translation error, we’re never seeing this getting elaborated further.
Tadgomer300 (talk) 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)
I do think this is worth discussing and you have a point in bringing this up. Addressing various points you've made:
- The phrase in Japanese is この国にもあるんでろ？ (Kono kuni ni mo arundero?). Due to my lack of Japanese expertise I won't make any firm declaration about its meaning but it appears to be generally understood that its basic translation is "Is it in this country too?" Obviously it is a pretty vague phrase as you yourself have noted. Input from editors more familiar with Japanese is definitely welcome here.
- The Crunchyroll subs take a similar view to Viz, as they render it "It could be found in this country too, couldn't it?" However the dub does take a different interpretation as it has Big Mom say "It could be right under my nose and I wouldn't know".
- The Viz translator, Stephen Paul, does discuss this line on the One Piece Podcast episode which covered Ch. 1040. You can listen to him here at around the hour-fifteen mark. Basically, he interpreted the phrase as referring to the One Piece because it was the most likely conclusion given the context of Big Mom's screed. But he does acknowledge the phrase is extremely vague and notes that based on his observation of Japanese Twitter when the chapter came out, even Japanese readers were confused as to what the line meant.
- I do think you are taking an overly narrow view of what can and cannot happen with the One Piece. The term "One Piece" refers to all of Roger's treasure, thus it's important to understand that we may not be talking about a singular object here. If the treasure indeed consists of multiple components, then it should be easier to see how there can be "parts" of it.
I've thus come to the conclusion that utilizing Viz's interpretation is the most sensible course of action. Stephen himself does acknowledge the possibility that Big Mom is referring not so much about the treasure itself but about the information concerning it - but I would strongly disagree with being confident enough to conclusively say that this possibility is the correct, or most likely, interpretation. To me that conclusion has to be jumped to, and your reasons for jumping take an overly narrow view of what the One Piece must be. As it is presented in the manga - before saying the controversial phrase, Big Mom asks "What is it?!" (何がある？！, Nani ga aru?!?) and "Where is it!!? (どこにある！！？, Doko ni aru!!??). I think every reader understands "it", and the implied subject in the Japanese, to be referring to the One Piece in both those instances. And thus, in the absence of better context, it is reasonable as a reader to interpret that the subject of the next sentence is also the One Piece, even if it raises some questions.
I think the section in the article which tackles this topic already does well to note that the view is only Big Mom's and that there is no evidence to support it beyond her single sentence. But to accomodate the possibility that she is not referring to the One Piece, I would be ok with adjusting it to say something like (paraphrase) "Big Mom may have indicated that some of the One Piece is in Wano, but whether she was solely referring to the treasure is uncertain based on a lack of context".
Kaido King of the Beasts (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2025 (UTC)