Talk:Fairy Tail: 100 Years Quest

Plot
All right. For the plot summary's introduction, should we phrase it as "One year has passed since the defeat of Zeref and Acnologia, and Natsu Dragneel and his team from the Fairy Tail wizard guild – Lucy Heartfilia, Happy, Gray Fullbuster, Erza Scarlet, Wendy Marvell, and Carla – embark on a "century quest", a guild mission that has never been accomplished in over 100 years since its posting"? Or is it unnecessary as per MOS:PLOT? As usual, I'm opening up a discussion on this page WP:BRD in an effort to avoid edit warring. Any ideas? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * According to MOS:PLOT, anything that puts the reader within the frame of reference of the work – such as "It is one year after..." or "One year has passed since..." – automatically makes it in-universe. "One year after..." is the appropriate way to phrase it. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 01:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have another idea: maybe "In X793, one year following..." would work, given that the epilogue of the original explicitly takes place in X793. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:41, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Using dates with fictional numbering is optional, but I see no harm in it here. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 01:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

To give a better explanation for why using notes to say "As depicted in the original Fairy Tail series" is unneeded, I shall use the MCU itself as an example: unlike Fairy Tail, the MCU is a large series consisting of many smaller, interconnected subseries (the Iron Man series, the Thor series, the Avengers series, etc.). When each article uses a note in its plot summary to provide additional plot details outside what is depicted within the film, it is only ever used to denote films outside the subseries that article's subject is a part of. For example, the plot summary for Thor 3 only uses notes for relevant events in MCU films that are not Thor 1 and Thor 2. With simpler, direct sequels such as 100 Years Quest, using a note to describe to establish events for the series it's a sequel to is unnecessary, because the article already establishes this as a direct sequel to that series, and thus the note adds nothing that doesn't already speak for itself. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 01:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the guidelines of WP:PLCUT, I've determined that mentioning what fictionally numbered year the series is set in isn't as vital as simply giving the frame of time (i.e., one year after the climax of the original series). From the perspective of a non-reader of the series, it could come across as a bit jarring. For this reason, as well as the fact that this manga doesn't bring any significant attention to the year, I'm cutting it. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)