I'm gonna get some refs put on this site for all the pirate pages this week. It will involve a trip down my local library, but we can't just take the info off of other sites. I'll have to get the info from books and reference the books on the site.
Its the only way I can see we're gonna achieve references for some of our trivia pages. I prefer this to stay sourly a One Piece site, so whatever happens, I'll keep it to a minimum the best I can. The trivia pages are just references tied to One Piece anyway. One-Winged Hawk 07:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Mass deletion[edit source]
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[edit source]
So the new age started already?Zicoihno 01:22, January 9, 2011 (UTC)
Refreshing and rewording page[edit source]
It clearly needs doing, I'll add it to the list of stuff I'm meant to be rewording.
It's recommended to throw away socks after a year 16:16, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
Pirate King[edit source]
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[edit source]
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)
Objection to using non-canon[edit source]
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.
- 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.