Talk:Non-Canon

Who was the fucktard who wrote this:

" In anime, fillers are used to fill out a series when the anime catches up to the storyline in the manga. The anime sometimes catches up to the manga because a single episode usually covers more than one manga chapter. Because the One Piece manga comes out weekly, the anime cannot get ahead of the manga at any one point. This is the cause for filler episodes"

The first part is right, but the second is like impossible almost impossible with One Piece, the manga moves really fast ahead compared to the anime, also the third point clearly makes it clear that it will never get ahead of manga or catch up to it, and to the final sentence how the heck is this again the cause of fillers. Most fillers in One Piece are caused by somekind of events in japan, once a year, new year, retelling of an arc but with the newest members and powers, collaborations like with DB and Toriko.

Maitkarro (talk) 18:14, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

You're not going to make people want to listen to you or help you if you open every discussion the way you did this one. 18:30, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

^

Also, I don't understand your argument. It seems clear to me.

Fillers stop the anime catching the manga. This can happen because an episode can cover more than a chapter. Because the manga is weekly, they have to make sure the anime doesn't catch up too fast, so they have fillers.

18:41, April 27, 2014 (UTC)

Non-Canon is take place as alternate universe or not as anime canon? Pokemasterss (talk) 07:49, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

The anime filler is the non-canon. It fits into the anime, but not the manga. 16:03, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Neither. Filler is just filler so there is no alternate universe and especially not anime canon. SeaTerror (talk) 17:21, July 31, 2014 (UTC)

Category
I guess people don't know how either of those categories work. Both categories are used when both things are missing. By the logic that was used then the image category would never be used since it would only be used if there was no infobox at all but had an image on the article SeaTerror (talk) 09:35, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, this category is only used on articles that have an infobox but no image in the infobox. For example, this page has an infobox but no image. 09:43, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

"This category is for articles that do not have an image for the infobox." That's what it literally means. If there's no infobox then there's also no image. Both categories are used when an infobox is missing. It is used on both types of articles since they are two different categories. An article could have an image but missing the infobox when that image could be used in the infobox. SeaTerror (talk) 09:53, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Like I said already, this is not the kind of an article that needs an infobox.

Joekido (talk) 09:55, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

If it doesn't have an infobox, then the articles without an infobox category can go there. If it doesn't have an infobox, it's pretty obvious it doesn't have an infobox image. 12:35, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

But that's not the purpose of the category. From what I understood, this category is supposed to only be tagged to pages that have an imageless infobox. Zodiaque created this category to make it more easier to locate infoboxes that need images. 14:17, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

Then you understood it incorrectly. I wasn't the only one to use it like that either. Just did too at some point after I added the other category to an article. I don't remember which one. I thought he had created that category too. SeaTerror (talk) 19:00, February 2, 2016 (UTC)

What I meant was that articles without an infobox should get said category. If they get an infobox but don't have an image for it, then the articles without an infobox image category would then be used. It's kind of obvious and pointless to add the latter category to the former scenario. 20:28, February 2, 2016 (UTC)