Talk:A Magnificent Banquet

Needed?
It has nothing to do with Oda. Is it really needed? --Klobis (talk) 01:42, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

A lot of products outside the manga have "nothing to do with Oda". This isn't the Eiichiro Oda wiki. 01:57, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

You will make a collection of many Luffy drawn by other mangakas? That'll be fine, but at least this is not one of One Piece Special Chapters. --Klobis (talk) 02:19, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

"This isn't the Eiichiro Oda wiki"

Yes it is, every in this wiki is about him, his works (past and future) and One Piece. Every works Oda made goes here including his influence. Because this One-Shot included Nami, it's fitting for this to be here

Joekido (talk) 03:24, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

We don't need this article, as all of this page's content belongs here. 03:33, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

So? We can still keep it anyway

Joekido (talk) 03:40, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

It's an appearance of one character in a one-off manga, I don't see the necessity of it. It's not like it's something like Cross Epoch, which features many characters and One Piece things. It's a short, almost stub of an article, just take the content, and the picture of Nami, throw it in her Misc page, and we're fine. People are actually more likely to see the info there too, as this page will probably not really be linked anywhere. 03:46, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

Yes delete it. Won't even need a redirect. It also had wrong categorization at one point before Klobis removed it. SeaTerror (talk) 04:19, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

Keep it. We do stuff about other media appearances all the time. It's basically just a more isolated form of crossover story. 13:04, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

^ Monkey_D._Luffy/Misc. Time to make articles on all of these then. SeaTerror (talk) 18:40, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

Reference/cameo =/= crossover story appearance. 19:24, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

It isn't a crossover. A crossover is when two or more creators work on a story together. This is a cameo at best. SeaTerror (talk) 19:52, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

A crossover is when two or more franchises appear in the same media. A collaboration is when two or more creators work on a story together.

Honestly, I think this might be best as trivia for Nami. It's not really that big of a thing, and unless we're going to summarize the whole story, it doesn't need its own page. But I'm not completely against removing it either, if that becomes the end result. 20:01, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

Whelp... This started sooner than I expected. 21:38, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we keep it? it involves a person in One Piece. ASL Pirates 21:42, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

May I have your attention please? "our goal to build the most informative site for everything related to Eiichiro Oda and his most notable work, One Piece." "everything related to Eiichiro Oda and his most notable work, One Piece. Can the haters please speak up. I repeat, will the haters please speak up? 22:44, May 1, 2015 (UTC)

This page says nothing more than what could be said in the other appearances section of Nami's page. It's a total stub. I don't think we need the whole thing, honestly.

But if you want to keep it, you'd better still link it on Nami's page. 12:29, May 2, 2015 (UTC)

Since the oneshot is based on Shokugeki no Soma, why don't we link it to the page in the Shokugeki no Soma Wikia? They go over much more detail about it than we need to. We can list the story in Nami's trivia with the appropriate image and link to this page. 16:55, May 2, 2015 (UTC)

We could add something to the Trivia section but someone will say it isn't worth mentioning and remove it. And once again what happened to "everything related to Eiichiro Oda and his most notable work, One Piece."? JSD if the information were included in "other appearances" should we not do the same with Cross Epoch and One Piece x Toriko Crossover? 19:40, May 2, 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget J-Stars Victory Vs, which gets full coverage despite having nothing to do with Oda and One Piece only being one of many, many series in the crossover. 19:44, May 2, 2015 (UTC)

All games get mentioned here for some reason. The reason why this isn't needed is because it isn't something that was actually done by Oda and the one shot category is only for his own work. SeaTerror (talk) 19:59, May 2, 2015 (UTC)

It's related to One Piece in which it features a character, Nami, in the chapter. Therefore we should cover the chapter, and keep the page. 22:13, May 2, 2015 (UTC)

Number of people supporting the article 6. Number of people against article 4. The majority is in favour of keeping the article. No more discussion needed. 14:34, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Hey Besty, why do you want to close a discussion so fast? I've just seen it and I have the right to explain my idea. I'm against the article. Now we're 6-5 and many people could say their opinion, for both sides. The discussion must be kept open. --Meganoide (talk) 15:31, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

We close discussions when there is a clear majority. When it is obvious that no more people are going to post, and a significant portion is in favor of one option. This is almost tied, and is attracting a large amount of attention. We will not close it now.

As for my opinion, I should clarify a bit: I see no evidence that Nami's appearance is little more than a cameo in a short 13 page joke one-shot. It does fall under "all things One Piece", however because it is only Nami and her involvement is probably minor, I don't think we need to acknowledge this any more than mentioning in the section of Nami's page for cameo appearances with maybe a bit more detail than the appearances that are already there. Short cameo =/= full coverage required. 15:40, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

It's not a cameo. The heroines are the main focus of the oneshot. 17:00, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't say this is attracting "a large amount of attention", not all. Discussions become long and drawn out, to the point it puts people of commenting. That's why it's easier to end things quickly. "I don't think we need to acknowledge this any more than mentioning in the section of Nami's page for cameo appearance" By that logic we shouldn't have pages for Cross Epoch and One Piece x Toriko Crossover because the character appearances are simply short cameos. 17:06, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

The Dragonball and Toriko crossovers were actually full stories by both authors. They were about as long as a regular chapter. Not really the same thing. 18:51, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Don't tell me what my logic is. In the opinion I have, there is no parallel between Cross Epoch and OP X Toriko, and I don't want to hear about that anymore, it's slowing the conversation down. Those two are crossovers with several OP characters. This page is about a crossover with one OP character. In my mind, those makes those two things very different in relation to how we should handle them. 19:07, May 3, 2015 (UTC)

Seems the only way to decide this will be a poll. 21:41, May 5, 2015 (UTC)


 * twiddles thumbs while waiting for response to my last post* 04:32, May 20, 2015 (UTC)


 * still waiting for you to acknowledge this issue needs polling* 21:48, May 27, 2015 (UTC)

Came late to the discussion, I believe the main difference is not about how many characters it has, but that Oda didn't have any part in this and for this reason, more then a cross over it's more like an omake from the author for Shokugeki no Soma to the other series. A cross over is a collaboration. If we want to cover this kind of specials, I think it's best if we do it on a special "listing page" of these omakes rather then creating a page for each. I don't think the "it has OP character we have to make a page for it" criteria is going to work, otherwise explain to me why we don't have every doujinshi of One Piece on the wiki.


 * This means I'm opposing of it having a dedicated page, but I'm still open to mention it on the wiki somewhere if we still want to do so.

The reason why we don't have every doujinshi of One Piece is because those are largely unofficial. This crossover is from an offical, licensed issue of Shonen Jump. Doujinshis, I don't even think have anything with them. They're fanmade. 17:53, June 9, 2015 (UTC)

Poll Discussion
Going nowhere, so here's a test poll. 15:04, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

Test poll looks good. 15:07, June 2, 2015 (UTC)

The poll looks good. I'm sure no matter which option wins, this should be on the page no matter what anyways. 01:18, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Nada. Also, I feel we would be short-changing readers if this wasn't linked somewhere, as our own article sucks. 14:11, June 3, 2015 (UTC)

Re-worded it, does it make sense to everyone? 14:46, June 6, 2015 (UTC)

Yep, it does. 15:17, June 6, 2015 (UTC)