Talk:One Piece - Defeat Him! The Pirate Ganzack

Edit War
The whole section underneath "Oda's thoughts on the One Piece OVA" is useless and should be removed. 21:42, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

None of it is useless. This is where it belongs. You were also removing sourced information. SeaTerror (talk) 02:35, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

I think it's fine. 16:56, May 28, 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we include Oda's thoughts on One Piece Film: Z, Glorious Island, and the other Ovas for example? Oh wait, we have a Manual of Style! Doesn't matter if it is sourced or not. The information doesn't belong on the page. There should not be exceptions for what should and shouldn't be included on pages. 13:02, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

We don't have Oda's thoughts on the other OVAs, because we don't have any publications or sources for Oda's thoughts on the other OVAs. We can adapt our formats when specific info comes up that we should note. Example: We should not have character galleries on Video Game pages, but we do for this one because we should note the info about their costumes.

This info is solid and relevant to the page. My only problem with it is the wording used on the section heading. 14:04, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Actually we do have his thoughts on Film Z. Twice.

"Due to the similarities shared with One Piece Film: Strong World, this film's canonicity was often subject of discussion. However, Eiichiro Oda himself and, later, Chapter 700 confirmed that it is not canon."

"Oda himself said it was not canonical, so as not create problems for the fans who follow only the manga." SeaTerror (talk) 18:23, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

Meh. I suppose that's needed for those who don't know the difference with cannon and non cannon. Anyway, this isn't a cannon vs non cannon issue, where the authors words are needed as clarification. Oda's comments on this page doesn't tell us anything that we don't already know. 19:19, May 29, 2015 (UTC)

That's not true, they tell us Oda's thoughts on the earliest piece of animated One Piece, as the anime was not out yet by the time this was made. That may not be information you care about, but other readers (like myself, ST and Kage) do find it to be important information. There is no other place this info could go, so you would be removing valid, cited, and wanted information from the wiki. 13:56, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

It's fine. I think it just needs a little formatting and structuring. 14:03, June 2, 2015 (UTC)