Talk:Manga/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Question about "Reading Direction" image

I just received a question on my user talk page about the "reading direction" image in the "International markets" section of the article. The questioner seemed to feel that the image was not discussed in the text and asked me if he should remove the image. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, the answer is of course he can remove it, but I recommended that he ask here on the talk page before doing anything. I also told him I'd raise the question here myself.

Actually, the text does discuss the image, mentioning that traditional manga is read in Japanese style, meaning from right to left, as is in fact shown in the image. Personally, I think the image is harmless -- by now, most English-language publishers of manga have a picture very much like this one in all their paperback graphic novels. So I'd be inclined to leave it in, but I don't have strong feelings about it one way or the other. I didn't put the image in and have no idea who did or when -- probably it was an early contribution to the article. So let's wait for consensus before removing it. That means that at the moment I'd say that the default consensus is to leave it in.

The section (but not this image) was flagged previously by commentators during the GA and FA discussions. As we said back then, the section needs a lot of work. I'm not sure that removing the image will help improve the section, but I'd like to hear other opinions.

Timothy Perper (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a free use image. It illustrates something mentioned in the text. What's the problem? --Farix (Talk) 13:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any problems either. I'll let the person who raised the issue post something here if he wants to. If not, we'll just leave it as is. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

But the image was taken from commons. I don't understand, why it should be removed. -- DEERSTOP (talk). 06:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The image originated on the German Wikipedia, was transferred to commons, and then converted to a SVG. --Farix (Talk) 11:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Barefoot Gen and EduComics

I just reverted an unreferenced assertion that Barefoot Gen was published by New Society Publishers before it had been published by EduComics. There are two reasons for the reversion.

(1) Leonard Rifas, who was the owner and publisher of EduComics, says that Barefoot Gen was published under the titles Gen of Hiroshima and I SAW IT [sic] in 1980-1982 by EduComics following in the footsteps of an "ad hoc" volunteer group that had released a translation in 1978-1979 (Rifas, 2004, page 138 and note 1 on page 155; note 9 on page 156). Note 9 (page 156) goes on to say that New Society Publishers republished "Barefoot Gen" in 1987, 1988, and 1993. This is the paper that manga entry cites, and the text of the entry corresponds to what Rifas' paper says.

(2) If the person who made the change has documented = verifiable evidence that New Society Publishers released Barefoot Gen before 1987 and before the EduComics release dates, then that source must be cited. At the moment, the only documented data we have is Rifas' own assertions in his 2004 article -- which is what the entry cites.

Here is the reference to Rifas' article, which is also cited in the manga entry.

Rifas, Leonard 2004 Globalizing comic books from below: How manga came to America. International Journal of Comic Art, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 138-171.

I hope that clarifies matters.

Timothy Perper (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

From TP, a few minutes later. I just changed the Rifas footnote in the entry to add the original titles given by Rifas in his paper and also corrected a typo (1983 for 1982). Timothy Perper (talk) 13:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Needs more referencing. Hiding Talk 08:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Not any more. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Manga tools

I don't see anywhere but how do manga artist draw do they do it fully by hand or do they use a computer. stupid question but just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxas255 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It would depend on the manga, but both are used, but if its drawn on a computer it would still require someone actually drawing it in, i dont think any mangas are computer generated.82.69.83.28 (talk) 23:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Comics B-Class Assesment required

This article needs the B-Class checklist filled in to remain a B-Class article for the Comics WikiProject. If the checklist is not filled in by 7th August this article will be re-assessed as C-Class. The checklist should be filled out referencing the guidance given at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/B-Class criteria. For further details please contact the Comics WikiProject. Comics-awb (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I just posted the following to the user page associated with this bot.

You just flagged the manga entry with an ominous warning that you will downgrade the article from B-class to C-class unless a checklist is filled out. (1) Unfortunately, no instructions are given about how to fill out the checklist (see comment immediately above <this refers to the bot's talk page>). (2) The downgrade date is August 7, I saw this warning today, August 5. Assuming that I do a careful job on reviewing the article, I now have only two days. (3) Who gave you the right to downgrade articles without reason? If you do not fill in the checklist showing that the downgrade is merited, then you are acting without discussion on the basis of criteria unknown to anyone except yourself. I assure you I will make every effort to be civil and assume good faith, but I will also firmly suggest that you do not have the right to make downgrades without filling in the checklist yourself.

You can reply here or, preferably, on the manga talk page, where I have copied this note. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To repeat, I will make every effort to be civil and assume good faith, but I do not believe that an unassisted bot should be used to make downgrades of articles. In my opinion, decisions about up- and down-grading are the prerogative of human editors and should ideally operate under the general Wikipedia principles of consensus and discussion. Second, I experience the wording of the bot's message as hostile and threatening. That, by itself, might seem to violate Wikipedia:Be Civil.

Timothy Perper (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted edit about teenagers

User:DaL33T just made two plausible sounding edits that I reverted. Let me explain why.

First, DaL33T changed "boys up to 18 years old" to "teenage males" and, second, changed "18-30 year old" into "young adult." However, teenagers are (by definition) 13-19 and the age demographic goes younger than 13; second, "young adult" can include people younger than 18 and older than 30. This isn't nitpicking. The references cited use the more specific and more accurate age-range statements, because the cut-off of 18 can often mark a transition in manga from less to often much more sexually explicit. This is the same difference between the US terms "older teen" versus "mature" or "adult" when describing books or films. The cut-off age of 18 marks a legal transition from legal "childhood" to legal "adulthood," and is directly relevant to who can purchase or obtain the books. Maybe such things should not exist or maybe they should; either way, they do exist, and the original wording reflects that fact. So I reverted this obviously good faith edit to preserve the more accurate age-range statements.

Timothy Perper (talk) 11:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

History section diverge greatly from Japanese wikipedia version

I am a Japanese and this English article seems wrong despite having decent citation. For example, Sazaesan, while being notable for the longest continuous manga in history is not recognised as having genere establishing influence as this article claim. Japanese wikipedia article on manga don't even mention sazaesan in the history section. But more importantly, cinematic technique mentioned had already been invented by Tezuka's predecessors. His innovation was synthesise previously existing techniques in term of "time frame". Moreover, this article also make no mention of factory style production method of manga, which make manga the fastest, cheapest and most read outlet as a literature. I will try to introduce edit from Japanese wikipedia. Vapour (talk)

PS I apologise beforehand if my edit will cause duplication. Vapour (talk)

Thank you for your attention to the article and your interest. However, I have reverted your edits because they did not include any references (and hence are not verifiable) and because they represent your own opinions and ideas (and hence are original research). Please remember that Wikipedia is not a collection of editor's views and ideas, but must represent the ideas of various published writers, scholars, and experts whom we must cite as our sources. We are not allowed to cite Wikipedia itself as our source, not even the Japanese Wikipedia. Instead, the sources must be independent of Wikipedia. I am sure your changes were made in good faith, but they do not meet the verifiability and No Original Research criteria. Timothy Perper (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I am replying here to Vapour's comments left on my talk page. Please believe me that I intend no discourtesy to you, but your edits -- the ones I reverted -- were also grammatically incomplete and left a sentence dangling. Please discuss these changes here on the talk page before inserting them again. Thank you. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Vapour, please stop inserting more unreferenced original research into the article. I am going to leave your last change in place so that other editors working on this article can see it and voice their opinions. I have also flagged it as Original Research. You are acting without consensus. Thank you. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The two images newly inserted into the article are not manga in the definition used by this article. Instead, they are classical Japanese scroll or woodblock prints. They would be useful or illustrative in a Wikipedia article about Japanese art, but they do not illustrate what is meant by "manga" in this article. For example, one image is an illustration of the Tale of Genji. There is no doubt that this 1000-year old story is a profound classic, but this illustration is not manga in the sense of this article. If one had inserted an image from Waki Yamato's manga version of the Tale of Genji from 1993, that would be relevant, but not the image included.

Waki Yamato 1993 The Tale of Genji. Volume 1. Tokyo: Kodansha Bilingual Comics. ISBN 4-7700-2700-1.

I hope that is clearer. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a reference point for sources and not an authority in itself. If the definition presented in my new edit doesn't fit in with the one proposed by previous article, then we must present all of these definitions. Please read relevant wiki linked article which I have referred to. All are referred as ancestor of manga and therefore, there shouldn't be a problem in term of verifiability. Moreover, these are referred in manga article in Japanese wikipedia.

As of Emakibon picture, it is a emakibon for genjimonogatari, the oldest novel in the world. It is not just a drawing, it is one drawin from a series of drawing which tell the story of genjimonogatari. Please feel free to fix my Engrish, however, please leave the content itself. Vapour (talk) 23:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The wikipedia article on Kibyōshi list a reference. "Adam L. Kern (2006). Manga from the Floating World: Comicbook Culture and the Kibyôshi of Edo Japan. Harvard University Asia Center". I would say Harvard University Press is fairly good authority. So can we finish debating if Giga/Gisaku is or isn't an origin of manga? Vapour (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep so I won't edit any further. When I come back, I will write history of manga between Meiji period to the end of world war two. Most of mondern technique in manga, such as use of speech bubble, onamatopea, variation in panels were imported from the West during this period. Vapour (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Vapour, we welcome your input, but not when you add unreferenced original research. You seem not to have read the article you are changing; it cites Kern's book. No matter how significant The Tale of Genji may be in the history of literature, the illustration you added is not manga in the sense used in this article. It does not belong in this article. You have added no references to your assertion that Giga/Gisaku is a source of modern manga. You must cite a source for ALL your assertions -- this one and all the others. When you do, I will edit your contributions, making them into Standard International English, but first you must cite sources. If you do not, you are not adding any verifiable or reliable information to this article.

Let me repeat: you must include sources for the material you have added to the article. If you do not, we will conclude that you do not have any sources, and we will remove the material you added. I am going to give this situation a few more days, and it you have not cited sources, and if no one else has added them, then I will assume that consensus is to remove your additions.

Please understand this. You must add sources: "Encyclopedia content must be verifiable." I myself wrote much, but not all, of this article and I welcome your input if it is more than opinion or guesswork. Therefore, you must cite sources. Otherwise, your additions are subject to removal. This article is not a playground for mere opinion. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In his note on my user talk page, Vapour added the following reference:

http://www.kyotomm.com/newsTopicsImage/cultural_lesson/cultural_lesson_0102.pdf|title=日本漫画の源流をたずねて第2回|publisher=京都国際マンガフォーラム|format=PDF|accessdate=7月23日|accessyear=2007年.

I have no idea where it is supposed to go in the material he is adding, if anywhere. It is the only reference he has cited, and it is not in the material he added to the article.

I would like to help Vapour bring his contributions into line with the requirements of the English language Wikipedia, but he must provide the references himself. Then we put his contribution into International Standard English and check the references. Until then, the material he is adding is unreferenced original research. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Apologies to everyone for writing in Japanese, but Vapour seems to have trouble understanding basic English. Vapourさん、どう言えば分かっていただけますか。文献も引用も無しに勝手に色々変更されては困ります。日本語版ウィキペディアは記事数も少なく基準もアバウトなので、そういうやり方は通用しますが、こちらでは何よりも「証拠」、verifiabilityが重視されます。確かに英語版のmangaの記事は間違いだらけですが、だからと言って本語版をそのまま訳してポンと、入れ替えて、ほかの人が書いたものを消すのはルール違反です。非常に困ります。まずは、discussion pageの方で「I would like to make the following change for the following reason」と、変更を提案して、consensusが生まれば変更しなければいけません。それから、申し上げにくいですが、あなたの英語力ではちゃんとした文章にはなりません。何の相談もなくやりたい放題変更して、「あとは英語の訂正よろしくね」という態度では困ります。ようするに、いい加減にして下さい。 Matt Thorn (talk) 09:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting Vapour under control

I don't know how these things work, but can I suggest that we undo Vapour's unreferenced changes and keep him from making more changes until he learns the basic rules? I understand that one of the rules of Wikipedia is "Be bold!", but there's a difference between being bold and being recklessly arrogant. Vapour is correct in saying that this article is full of factual errors and lacks a great deal of important material, but even I, who gets paid by a Japanese university to teach about manga (in Japanese, to Japanese students) am not going to try to edit this article without getting my references in order. The notion that you can simply translate the Japanese Wikipedia article on manga nad plug it in here is absurd. I've read that article, and I can tell that it is extremely problematic. Almost nothing is referenced, and the bibliography contains a laughable three items (two of which are English!). It is a horrible article. Looking over Vapours contributions, I do not see any evidence that he is an expert on manga. He is simply doing a poor translation of a poor article. Do not be cowed by the fact that he is a native speaker of Japanese. It is utterly irrelevant, unless he also happens to be an expert on manga, which he is not. This article has enough problems without this sort of reckless vandalism. Matt Thorn (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How about I stop adding edit and start adding citation. :) Vapour (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good start, thank you. Matt Thorn (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I too would welcome citations and references, as I have been saying all along. We will check them for accuracy and appropriateness (between Thorn-sensei and myself, I think we have the qualifications to do so). Let us give Vapour a few days for putting in citations before removing material. After the references are added, I will rearrange the sections, to separate the pre-WW2 material from the later material. Does that sound OK? Timothy Perper (talk) 12:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Vapour has not added any references to the material he inserted, so as per comments above, I deleted the unsourced material that he added and removed the tags. In general, please, everybody, do not fluff up this article with unsourced and unreferenced additions. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! Matt Thorn (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Cinematic technique" and Tezuka's New Treasure Island

I know somebody's going to be unhappy about this, but I'm deleting the image from New Treasure Island. That image is from the completely redrawn version Tezuka did years later, because he was embarrassed to have it republished in its original form. Only a single panel from that image was in the original. Also, the whole "Tezuka invented the cinematic technique" myth is exactly that: a myth. I can offer a dozen examples of prewar manga that used similar techniques, and were better drawn than Tezuka's earliest work Tezuka's major contribution, IMNSHO, is themes. If someone wants to replace that image with one from the original New Treasure Island, be my guest, but the one that is (was) here is misleading. Matt Thorn (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, then, off with its head, as the Queen says in Alice in Wonderland. Why don't you delete the image of the little boy reading a book while you're at it? It certainly doesn't tell us anything we need to know, does it? Timothy Perper (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, Matt, why don't we just change the text to fit the history better, because that image surely does illustrate the cinematic technique, no matter when it was invented or by whom. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

What is the Intention Here?

User:Rich Farmbrough just created a series of links between various dates mentioned in the manga article and a list of events on those dates. Thanks, Rich, or thanks to your bot, but what is the intention and purpose of these links?

I just posted the following to Rich Farmbrough's talk page, and recopy it here. I don't object precisely to creating these links; it's just that they provide no useful information about manga whatever. Here's what I wrote:

You just made some date fix changes on the manga page (or your bot did), which leads to a question I've never seen answered to my satisfaction. The issue is so strange that it might warrant being included in your "Things that stayed too long" page. Thus -- and it's only one example of many:

Reference #63 in the Manga article arises from the following text:

The influence of manga on international cartooning has grown considerably in the last two decades.

So we click on the October 22 link. Among a large number of other things, we get:

▪ 202 BC - Hannibal Barca, leader of the Carthaginians, is defeated by the Roman legions under Scipio Africanus in the Battle of Zama.

▪ 362 - The temple of Apollo at Daphne, outside of Antioch, is destroyed in a mysterious fire.

▪ 794 - Emperor Kanmu relocates Japanese capital to Heiankyo (now Kyoto).

I admit that I did not read the entire list, but only gazed and skimmed. I didn't find anything about manga or about Daniel Pink or about the Manga Industrial Complex. So, my question, why link this particular example of "October 22" to the list of Hannibal, mysterious fires, and Emperor Kanmu?

Unfortunately, Wikipedia has its fill of people who don't like it when their ways are questioned. I hope that you're not one of them. I question the value and intention of linking the manga article to a list of really quite varied but irrelevant events that happened on October 22. And I can assure you that October 22 has no special relevance to manga.

I don't have the time to tilt at windmills and remove all these date links. But they have no meaning to, and convey no information about, the topic of the article.

So why is the date linked to an irrelevant list?

Timothy Perper (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope that Rich Farmbrough can answer the question.

Timothy Perper (talk) 17:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I answered:

When a date includes a day and month, user formatting preferences ("my preferences" "Date and time") will be invoked by linking it, e.g. [[10 April]] can show as either April 10 or 10 April, and hence should almost always be linked. Any associated year should also be linked viz: 10 April 1962 because the software can display this as 1962-04-10 for those who have their date preferences set to ISO. In due course a feature may be added to MediaWiki allow a different syntax from linking to do this. Rich Farmbrough, 16:40 14 August 2008 (GMT).

To expand: There is setting in [ http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Preferences user preferences] that allows you to choose your preferred date format. This only works if the date is enclosed in [[ ]] . Unfortunately, for historical reasons, this is the same syntax as linking. Nonetheless the consensus at Manual of Style is to decorate the dates as outlined above to allow user preferences to work. A bug has been filed at bugzilla to request a different approach to date formatting , but has not (yet) been resolved. Rich Farmbrough, 18:33 14 August 2008 (GMT).

Thanks, Rich... in other words, it's an obscure glitch somewhere in cyberspace and its environs. I call them kobolds. OK, we just ignore it. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted change about manga in Korean bookstores

User:Yechan.K.B. just added two versions of the following sentence:

Almost all if not all manga are sold throughout bookstores in Korea in both Korean or Japanese.

This was followed by another change, giving

Almost all if not all manga are sold throughout bookstores in Korea in both Korean and Japanese.

I reverted both (well-intentioned) changes as unsourced and unreferenced as well as unclear. Moreover, "almost all" is weasel-wording. I think the intention may have been to say "Korean bookstores sell manga in both Korean and Japanese.<ref>Cite Korean source for statement.</ref>" but if so then the sentence doesn't belong in this section but in Section 4 about international markets or, if manhwa was intended, then in Section 5.

Thank you for your change, but please do not add unsourced and unreferenced comments to this article.

Timothy Perper (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

More about references

Someone just changed the references. The summary says "12.226.24.113 (Talk) (put footnotes back in by going back to perper 17aug08)" I don't know what this is about or why it was changed, but I suggest that we leave it strictly alone until we can all get a good look at the references. I suspect that someone will simply and automatically revert the change, but I'd like to ask that we leave it for a few days at least. I want to look more carefully at what was done. Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked over some of the changes, not in great detail, but some of them. It looks like some vandal got in and deleted huge numbers of references and other text, and those changes were reverted by 12.226.24.113 (see preceding comment). If that's the case -- and please, someone, check again! -- then we should leave it the way it is now, that is, after the vandalism was reverted by 12.226.24.113. But someone else should also check. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I took it back to your version of 17 aug 08. How the footnotes wound up in columns is a mystery to me. I guess the article is on nobody's watch list - certainly not mine as I'm just passing through. I tried to get someone's attention at http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism - I guess they pasted their template, " User has been incorrectly or insufficiently warned. Re-report if the user resumes vandalising after being warned sufficiently." on my pesky complaint, then trashed it. YWIA; so long for now. - 12.226.24.113 (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

You'd be surprised by how many watchlists this article is on. Mine is just one, Anyway, thanks, Timothy Perper (talk) 00:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Overlinking

I just removed the wikilink from "Manga, literally translated, means "whimsical pictures". If you click on pictures you get a five-paragraph, one page entry that is flagged for having no references (and it doesn't) -- in brief, useless. This is merely overlinking for the sake of overlinking, so I took it out. Actually, the manga entry is loaded with overlinkings, but I'm not going to try to find them all. Some other time, when I have less to do with other projects. That's known on Wiki as eventualism (here).Timothy Perper (talk) 04:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Reverted Year Change

An anonymous editor just changed the year of first publication of Ninja High School from 1993 to 1987. I reverted the change since the source cited by the article gives the date 1993. If this individual has a source for 1987, it should be posted here so we can see if it's reliable or not. Since the inidvidual gave no source for 1987, I went back to the date given in the source cited by the article. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Visual Alignment

I have a theory that facial masking elements provide us with horizontal or vertical alignment/reference elements, creating a preference for reading directions. I don't now if it is of any use for the 'Manga' topic, perhaps when reading direction is mentioned…

For an overview check these topics on my site:

1. Different alignment gives a different view more specific Test

2. Visual Grid and the Origin of Ocular Dominance Patterns in V1

best, Michel sharp (talk) 10:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Circulation of manga magazines

Check the following link and please add the circulation numbers of manga magazines.

http://www.j-magazine.or.jp/magdata/index.php?module=list&action=list&cat1cd=1&cat3cd=14&period_cd=2

Here's a translation of the chart:

Magazine name	Publisher	Copies printed (certified)	Demographic
Monthly Shōnen Magazine	Kodansha	923,334	Shōnen
Monthly Magazine Z	Kodansha	22,334	Shōnen
Weekly Shōnen Magazine	Kodansha	1,720,000	Shōnen
Magazine Special	Kodansha	82,334	Shōnen
Monthly Shōnen Sirius	Kodansha	20,000	Shōnen
Ultra Jump	Shueisha	72,000	Shōnen
Weekly Shōnen Jump	Shueisha	2,790,834	Shōnen
CoroCoro Comic	Shogakukan	910,000	Shōnen
Sunday Gene-X	Shogakukan	30,000	Shōnen
Weekly Shōnen Sunday	Shogakukan	833,334	Shōnen
Shōnen Sunday Super	Shogakukan	32,000	Shōnen
Bessatsu Coro Coro Comics Special	Shogakukan	170,000	Shōnen
Shōnen Ace	Kadokawa Group Publishing	76,000	Shōnen
Dragon Age	Kadokawa Group Publishing	32,000	Shōnen
Jump Square	Shueisha	390,000	Shōnen
Afternoon	Kodansha	114,334	Seinen
Evening	Kodansha	172,500	Seinen
Morning	Kodansha	386,750	Seinen
Young Magazine	Kodansha	914,584	Seinen
Monthly Comic Tokumori	Shueisha	20,000	Seinen
Weekly Young Jump	Shueisha	920,834	Seinen
Super Jump	Shueisha	339,167	Seinen
Business Jump	Shueisha	356,667	Seinen
Ikki	Shogakukan	14,667	Seinen
Big Comic	Shogakukan	512,667	Seinen
Big Comic Original	Shogakukan	819,334	Seinen
Big Comic Spirits	Shogakukan	360,750	Seinen
Big Comic Superior	Shogakukan	262,000	Seinen
Weekly Comic Bunch	Shinchōsha	177,284	Seinen
Young Animal	Hakusensha	186,167	Seinen
Young Animal Arashi	Hakusensha	159,000	Seinen
Gundam Ace	Kadokawa Group Publishing	175,000	Seinen
Zōkan Comic Ran Sengoku Bushō Retsuden	Leed Publishing	121,570	Seinen
Comic Ran Twins	Leed Publishing	139,490	Seinen
Comic Ran	Leed Publishing	214,985	Seinen
Nakayoshi	Kodansha	333,334	Shōjo
Bessatsu Friend	Kodansha	109,334	Shōjo
The Margaret	Shueisha	163,334	Shōjo
Deluxe Margaret	Shueisha	167,500	Shōjo
Bessatsu Margaret	Shueisha	303,334	Shōjo
Margaret	Shueisha	120,000	Shōjo
Ribon	Shueisha	313,334	Shōjo
Shōjo Comic	Shogakukan	185,000	Shōjo
Cheese!	Shogakukan	126,334	Shōjo
Ciao	Shogakukan	866,667	Shōjo
ChuChu	Shogakukan	93,334	Shōjo
BetsuComi	Shogakukan	97,334	Shōjo
Hana to Yume	Hakusensha	246,000	Shōjo
Bessatsu Hana to Yume	Hakusensha	83,334	Shōjo
LaLa	Hakusensha	176,667	Shōjo
LaLa DX	Hakusensha	75,000	Shōjo
Asuka	Kadokawa Group Publishing	40,834	Shōjo
Kiss	Kodansha	155,334	Josei
The Dessert	Kodansha	125,000	Josei
Dessert	Kodansha	109,334	Josei
Be Love	Kodansha	182,667	Josei
Bessatsu Friend	Kodansha	75,000	Josei
Office You	Shueisha	115,000	Josei
Cookie	Shueisha	171,667	Josei
Chorus	Shueisha	158,334	Josei
You	Shueisha	185,000	Josei
Petit Comic	Shogakukan	108,667	Josei
Flowers	Shogakukan	40,667	Josei
Feel Young	Shodensha	47,034	Josei
Silky	Hakusensha	64,500	Josei
Melody	Hakusensha	48,700	Josei
Ciel	Kadokawa Group Publishing	24,250	Josei

The columns are sortable, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Manhua/manhwa

...particularly in Taiwan ("manhua"), South Korea ("manhwa")[20][21], and the People's Republic of China, notably Hong Kong ("manhua").

Can't China be grouped with Taiwan to use the word only once? And if not so, can we have it not be a link twice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.67.194 (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Who coined the term?

There used to be a section that mentioned where the term Manga came from, listing who coined the term in the first place. He was a well known atist, but I can't pronounce his name, let alone spell it. I tried to find it here, but could not. What happened? where is it? Who was it? Corrupt one (talk) 11:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What's lost in translation

Due to the lack of information not given what is lost from the original manga novels, to anime, i would like to share a further deep understanding, of what is lost from the manga to anime. Does anyone have any reliable resources or references to add on to my discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beckmcq (talk • contribs) 23:22, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

How local and national media portray the culture significance between manga and anime

I myself being an animefreak fan, can't help but connote this article makes no attempts to revile the truths behind how the media affects the manga novels and anime series within Japan and in the U.S. I'm looking in addeding a section in which I explain the meaning behind the local and national media behind the world entertainment of manga and anime. If anyone has any great references or resources, that I can use in my topic, will be a great help.--Beckmcq (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Schodt

I read in this article, "Alternately, other writers such as Frederik L. Schodt,... stress continuity of Japanese cultural and aesthetic traditions as central to the history of manga." Yet I read in:

• Schodt, Frederik L. (1996). Dreamland Japan. Berkely, CA: Stone Bridge Press. p. 22. ISBN 188065623X.: "The physical form of modern manga-- the sequential panels with word balloons arranged on a page to tell a story-- came from the United States at the turn of the century, when American newspaper comic strips like George McManus's Bringing Up Father were imported." So should Schodt really be used as a "traditionalist" voice? Dekkappai (talk) 19:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Article review prep

Some of the issues that need to be addressed from the Good Article review conducted in February 2008.

• Cleanup referencing format. All references should use a consistence format, such as the {{Cite XX}} templates (mostly done)
• Cleanup and correct the extensive use of "op. cit." by replacing with WP:CITESHORT
• Remove all references to ANN encyclopedia. Now considered an unreliable source since the time of the review.
• Scale down amount of references. If two or more sentences are cited to the same set of references, consider moving the references to the end of the last sentence being cited by those references instead of citing each sentence. (partially done, could use more)
• Remove original research. There was a complaint during the review that the "Publications" section may contain some original research. I'm not sure if this has been fix since then. (See below)
• Fix or remove references that are dead links. (2 remaining)
• Fix or remove links to publisher websites that are used a quasi-references.
• Double check that all Japanese terms are explained when first used.

With these tasks completed, we should be able to put this article back up for a GAC. I'm working on reformatting the references using the citation templates. However, some of the citations are a little wonky and not very strait forward. --Farix (Talk) 22:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

One other problem I have with the article is that it is generally over referenced. Nearly every sentence has a reference, and in many times, two to four references. This interrupts the flow of the article far too much. References should be consolidated with multiple citations used only were absolutely necessary. If one source can support a statement or group of statements, then one source is all that is needed. If there happen to be any references that aren't used as a result, they can be added into a "Further reading" section, which this article probably should have anyways. --Farix (Talk) 23:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

All of these links to publisher websites seems to be self serving way of getting around WP:EL. I would recommend removing them altogether as the fact that these publisher publish manga is unlikely to be challenged. --Farix (Talk) 02:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged a couple of sources as being unreliable and another that appears to be a synthesis of three unreliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 02:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I have a question about a sentence in the lede. Right after a sentence about how manga, used as a loanword outside of Japan, means comics published in Japan, it says manga and manga-influenced comics, among original works, exist in other parts of the world.... Shouldn't it just say "manga-influenced comics", considering that the two sentences conflict each other? The second implies that manga is created elsewhere when the article is entirely about manga in the loanword sense, that it is published in Japan first. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Potential further reading

This is a list of references that can be moved into a "Further reading" section. --Farix (Talk) 05:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wong, Wendy Siuyi (2006). "Globalizing manga: From Japan to Hong Kong and beyond". Mechademia: an Academic Forum for Anime, Manga, and the Fan Arts. pp. 23–45. (Double referenced with Patten 2004, Patten is reused six times.)

• Preliminary research on the creation process of Japanese manga

United States and Canada

The section about manga in the United States should be expanded to also cover Canada. That is because publishers treat the U.S. and Canadian markets as the same and licenses often cover both markets. --Farix (Talk) 14:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Publications

During the last GAC, this section was the primary reason that the article wasn't promoted. After a brief read-over, this section still has too few references and suffers from a lack of precise language. (WP:DATED) Statements such as "Recently, the manga industry has expanded" date quickly. The paragraph about manga cafés is unsupported and can potentially be challenged in its entirety. The paragraph about the tankōbon is also unsupported by sources and some statements in it are also substitutable to a challenge. The lead of the magazine section is still entirely unsourced and even wrongly states that Newtype is defunct. Only Newtype USA is defunct; the original magazine is still in publication. These problems will need to be fixed before the next GAC nomination. --Farix (Talk) 15:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

While switching to shortened footnotes, I tagged the following references as potentially unreliable.

• Mahousu (2005). "Les editeurs des mangas". self-published. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
• Riciputi, Marco (October 25, 2007). "Komikazen: European comics go independent". Cafebabel.com.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Mahousu is a self-published source and doesn't appear to pass the criteria at WP:SPS. I'm trying to see if we can do away with the source entirely as it is simply a list of French manga publishers.

Cafebabel.com is a online magazine which uses "participatory journalism" for its content. (About page) In other words, it accepts user submitted articles. The website does journalists edit these article, but we don't know how extensive this process is and how much fact checking it does. --Farix (Talk) 15:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards

This section clearly needs to be rewritten into prose and expanded. Of the awards mentioned, it should state who gives out the award, how frequently is the award given, and how long the awards has been around. —Farix (t | c) 02:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What's missing?

One of the things notability missing from the article is how manga is created and produced or how manga creation has evolved over time. The section on dōjinshi can also use some expansion. The influences that manga has on anime in both artistic style and storytelling is also missing. —Farix (t | c) 02:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hodge-podge?

It's been a long time since I've looked at this article... that was back a year, year-and-a-half ago when I was writing it. Lots of problems then, lots of problems now. Strange to see the SAME list of problems for the current version as we had back then. Right now, the article strikes me as a hodge-podge of miscellaneous facts and factoids, not very well organized. Well, I'm not going to work on it (been there, did that). Is it a Good Article? Nope. Will it be? Ever, you mean, like in some future utopia? Maybe. But it needs a lot of work as it is now. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

MixxZine/Tokyopop

In 1998, Mixx Entertainment-TokyoPop issued U.S. manga book versions of Sailor Moon and CLAMP's Magic Knight Rayearth. In 1996, Mixx Entertainment founded TokyoPop to publish manga in trade paperbacks and, like Viz, began aggressive marketing of manga to both young male and young female demographics.

I was one of the charter subscribers of MixxZine (I'll spare you the "Stu Levy is a jackass!" rant), so when I reading this statement, it didn't mach up with what I remember of the early Mixx Entertainment properties. Mixx Entertainment didn't establish Tokyopop to publish manga. In fact, the first "pocket manga" as they were called were published under the Mixx label. It did change the name of MixxZine to Tokyopop in 1999. Now I'm not exactly sure when Mixx changed its label to Tokyopop, but I believe it was after the magazine had gone defunct in 2000. In fact, I believe Love Hina and Chobits were some of the first manga to be released under this label, and it wasn't until 2002. --Farix (Talk) 02:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Love Hina and Chobits were both "100%authentic manga" titles, and not even the first ones (Love Hina was part of the second batch that launched say 2 months after the first). Tokyopop published flopped titles before then, Clamp titles included.

Asterix as Manga

Is Asterix a form of French manga? BlueSal (talk) 23:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There's no such thing as "French manga". "Manga" are Japanese comics, Asterix is a French comic. You can find it referred to in the article on Franco-Belgian comics. AdamantBMage (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically no; Asterix is a comic, but not from a japanese author, thus it makes little sense to refer to it as "manga". Then again, if "manga" are "japanese comics", then how can there be "original english-language manga" and the like? Shouldn't they be referred to as "comics", even if the author uses certain kinds of presentation common to japanese authors? Idiotic division of terminology, really, although "anime" is even worse. In any case, this is wikipedia, and we know the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.109.218.244 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation key for "Manga" in English (intro section)

I personally don't think /ˈmɑːŋɡə/ should be put here alone. Firstly, this is a fairly new word in the English language, therefore the word naturally has varying pronunciations. I've heard from some in casual conversation that /ˈmɑːŋɡə/ is apparently the "right" way to say "manga" because it apparently matches the Japanese pronunciation, but it matches /manga/ just as much as /ˈmæŋɡə/ does so it could be regarded as a form of overcorrect pronunciation. Back on track though, I'm gonna put "/ˈmæŋɡə/" there with the existing pronunciation key, as has been put on wiktionary by someone else. I can't see any problems that could arise by putting "/ˈmɑːŋɡə/ or /ˈmæŋɡə/" there. Cheers Ceigered (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the article refers to a Japanese comic, the correct pronunciation would be the Japanese pronunciation. I am removing the alternate English pronunciation. Fickce4 (talk) 02:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Both are very commonly used in English, so I've reverted the removal. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the crux of the matter. It's a Japanese word, so why proliferate a mispronunciation? Fickce4 (talk) 11:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a dictionary; it's an encyclopedia, and therefore we need to document all of the commonly used pronunciations if we are going to keep the article neutral. English speakers don't seem to care for the post part how something is really pronounced in the origin language. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:26, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

E-Book manga

Dropping this one here Comics Drive Growing Japanese E-book Market Publisher Weekly. --KrebMarkt 20:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• page not found. -- deerstop. 17:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Sports manga article

Is there any article specifically on it? I was looking for someplace to link http://web.archive.org/web/19980214185535/j-pop.com/archive/manga/5/feature/feature1.html . --Gwern (contribs) 16:04 30 January 2010 (GMT)

No article yet, but there are probably enough sources out there (especially articles talking about how that genre of manga has generally not been translated into English). ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've created Spokon stub article in Russian wikipedia and can possibly try to translate it here. If you want me to. -- deerstop. 17:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Late 21st century?

The first paragraph says 'late 21st century'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.145.121 (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It was vandalism. Noting to see here now. Move along now. —Farix (t | c) 11:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Arabic Manga

An anonymous user 82.137.200.22 added the following to the main article -- it was quickly removed.

"In the Arabic world , the japaneese manga is still an > e-manga , just in internet .. DO RE MI Magazine in damas , is the 1st arabic magazine wiche publish a full manga / 2010 , under the title : canary 1001 .source : animina.net/vb"

The editor who removed this added the comment "uh...what?"

Maybe I can help explain. Except for the non-native English, the anonymous user is correct. "Canary 1001" is an Arabic manga = manga published in Arabic (and some English in Roman script) and seems to be done by a group calling themselves Amateam. The director gives his name as Mr. Wahid Jodar, from the United Arab Emirates (see http://amateam.deviantart.com/).

Covers of "Canary 1001" can be seen in part at

http://amateam.deviantart.com/ and at http://www.deviantart.com/print/13298972/?itemtypeids=

The cover has a copyright notice, saying "DoReMi 2010."

More information -- in Arabic, which I do not read -- can be found here.

http://www.animina.net/vb/index.php?s=4bc52b6814594fa3a40729015e7169d9

http://www.animina.net/vb/showthread.php?t=1750

I am NOT going to put this information back into the article, since I can't read the Arabic. If someone here does read Arabic, it can be added to the article. Timothy Perper (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Canary 1001" is not the only Arab language manga. Another is "Gold Ring," by Qais Sedeki, from 2009, and also from the United Arab Emirates.

Nitin Nair 2009 "Manga: Qais Sedeki's graphic obsession." http://gulfnews.com/arts-entertainment/books/manga-qais-sedeki-s-graphic-obsession-1.504820

Qais Sedeki's profile can be found here

http://www.pageflip.ae/profile.html

(click on English if you can't read the Arabic)

and a trailer here

http://www.goldring.ae

BTW, the Arabic for "manga" is (مانغا (مجلة

Timothy Perper (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There are no arabic "Manga", as the term Manga is defined by the country of origin. "Comics with style elements from manga and anime" would be the better description. --Niabot (talk) 11:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

You might be right, but I'm quoting the two artists -- and THEY call it "manga," using the word in English. So unless you have a source in Arabic contesting their viewpoints, their own label for their work has to be accepted, whether you and I agree or not. Neither you nor I are in the position to tell the artists that we know better than they do and that they have to do it OUR way, not theirs. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is the other way around. There are many artists in US, Germany, France,... that claim to release Manga. But they don't, since the definition of a manga is: "A comic created by an japanese artist". (View the citations/literature inside the article) They might call it a manga, since they share the style, but it isn't. This should be obvious if you look at Manhwa (Korea) and Manhua (China). Both are comparable in style to manga, but the defition rules by country, not by style. --Niabot (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. And for two reasons. First, you didn't even read the citation I posted to Gulfnews, above. If you had, you'd have seen that "Gold Ring" is drawn by two Japanese artists living in Japan. The writer, Qais Sedeki, arranged with them to do the artwork long-distance. This raises another issue.

I have no objections to people having opinions about various things, like how to define "manga." But when they don't do their homework, like not reading the articles cited -- well, then I start to have some doubts. You wrote that manga is "A comic created by an Japanese artist" (it should be "a Japanese artist"). So, by your definition, "Gold Ring" is manga.

Second, words change their meanings when they move from one language to another. For example, the English word "ghost" and the German word "geist" are cognate, and have the same origin somewhere around the time of Old English. But they are no longer the same word, though they once were -- and they have different meanings now. The current/modern German expression "Gastarbeiter" literally means the same as English "guestworker," but they refer to two quite different programs and political issues. They do not mean the same thing. I could add many more examples -- like Frederic Boilet calling his art "la nouvelle manga" and Brazilian artists calling their work and magazine "MANGÁ TROPICAL" (at http://www.universohq.com/quadrinhos/2004/review_manga_tropical.cfm).

Bottom line: if these Arab artists call their work "manga," then manga it is. You do not get to define their words for them. I also might add that back several years ago, when we -- myself and a number of other editors -- were writing the version of the manga article prior to the current one, we had long discussions about this issue, all centering on various forms of manga called "OEL manga" or "World Manga." There's even a wiki article that came from that, with lots of references to manga created outside of Japan. So we have to live with usages like Qais Sedeki saying he is creating "manga" -- because he and not you is the person defining it.

Timothy Perper (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a section in the article about works created outside of Japan which call themselves "manga". Regardless of what others call their own works, this article article is about the works created by Japanese artists, so I don't think too much of it should be spent on discussion of other works which may refer to themselves using a similar title as they are not within the focus of this article. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

For anyone wondering, I was the one who reverted the original edit because it was so badly written that I couldn't understand it, and it's source was an internet forum, which is in no way a reliable source. エムエックスさん 話 16:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, mx3. The links weren't hard to re-create. I'm not sure what the original source was, since it wasn't given as a html link. Many of the links I reached were in Arabic, which I don't read. So I dug up more material on "Canary 1001" and related issues. I will NOT enter into any speculations about what a reliable source is in Arabic.

I agree with Nihonjoe that any substantive references to Arabic manga belong in the Original English-language manga article, and not here -- which is why we created that article originally. My sense -- I'd like some opinions, Nihonjoe -- is that the Gulfnews article is a reliable source, and so are the artists' pages mentioned above. The Arabic sources are beyond me. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, now, I spoke too quickly, didn't I. Manga in Arabic does not necessarily belong in an article on Original English language manga, now, does it. So where does it belong? Anyway, let's discuss it over there = Original English-language manga and not here. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Best to start by expanding Manga outside Japan#Manga influences, and if that grows to large, create a spin-out article. Currently, the section only covers influences on English language comics, which is something that should be corrected. There was an article at Manga-influenced comics, but now it was moved to Original English-language manga and focused strictly on English language comics. The former title would actually allow the article to encompass manga influences on comics from the Anglosphere (OLE), Korea (Manhwa), China (Manhua), Europe, and elsewhere. —Farix (t | c) 20:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, let's give it a try over here. Here's the crux of the information (IMO), although not of course the final text.

1) "Canary 1001" is a manga published in Arabic by a group calling themselves Amateam. The director is Wahid Jodar, from the United Arab Emirates (for the artists' profile and more details, see http://amateam.deviantart.com/). Covers of "Canary 1001" can be seen in part at http://amateam.deviantart.com/ and artwork at http://www.deviantart.com/print/13298972/?itemtypeids= The covers have a copyright notice, saying "DoReMi 2010."

2) Another Arab language manga is "Gold Ring," by Qais Sedeki, from 2009, also from the United Arab Emirates. (Nitin Nair 2009 "Manga: Qais Sedeki's graphic obsession."http://gulfnews.com/arts-entertainment/books/manga-qais-sedeki-s-graphic-obsession-1.504820). Qais Sedeki's profile can be found at http://www.pageflip.ae/profile.html (click on English if you can't read the Arabic) and some artwork here http://www.goldring.ae

My impression is that the Gulfnews article and the artists' profiles are reliable. Both groups of artists use the English-language word "manga" for their work.

Opinions? Anyone here read Arabic? Timothy Perper (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Manga outside Japan seems primarily to focus on Japanese manga translated internationally. Maybe "Arabic manga" could be squeezed in, but it's a forced fit, I think. So until someone creates a real International Manga article to deal with manga-like work created outside of Japan -- like Brazil or the United Arab Emirates -- it looks like this information doesn't have a natural home anywhere. Oh well, that's life. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Gold Ring now has a Wikipedia article, and I filed translation requests for versions in Japanese and Arabic.

I put it in the Anime and manga project because "Akira Himekawa" is doing the illustrations. If there were no Japanese people directly producing the content, then I would not have put it in the Anime and manga project.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

In the muslim world manga and anime are popular, because there are no or very few jews living in Japan (rather unique in the whole world) and therefore japanese visual products are free from the zionist influence, of which arabs are very much afraid. Muslims think most audio-visual material made outside arab lands and Japan are actually created by the jews exclusively, with a hidden agenda of a-moral brainwash, to further zionist world dominance plans. The same reasoning applies to Italy a little bit and both regions are avid anime fans from the 1980s on. 91.83.2.249 (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Artist criteria no longer "Japanese only"

Pertaining to the quote in any above comment: "A comic created by an japanese artist". This is due in part to the series Freezing. Here, the creators (artist and story-writer) are Korean. Yet, their work in this individual series is accepted as a manga/anime. Therefore, the creator does not need to be Japanese; and this criteria is outdated. Of course, this non-manhwa is considered a manga because of its publication by a Japanese company. Nevertheless, any speculation of manga accepted as produced in other parts of the world is currently speculation. For now, we had to deal with these "other terms" such as "manhwa", "manhua", "OEL manga", and others like it. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 12:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

Manga does not mean "whimsical." An accurate translation was provided in my rather modest edits to this article. I would like to see my edits restored to this page. Also, it would be great if "Farix" would stop referring to my edits as vandalism just because he disagrees with them. 12ab3 (talk) 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Etymology of manga as "whimsical pictures" is already sourced. It is also a frequent target of vandalism, so any changes to the Etymology is going to be presumed as vandalism. Now if you say that the first source is wrong, you are going to need to provided another source to prove it. —Farix (t | c) 03:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nciku's entry on manga [1]:

漫画 [まんが/manga] a cartoon, [人物の] a caricature, [4コマ漫画] a comic strip, [新聞などの] the comics

MDBG's entry on 漫[2], and 画

• 漫màn free/unrestrained/inundate 12ab3 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I dont see anything about manga being 'whimsical' there. 12ab3 (talk) 03:52, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not a stretch to go from "free" or "unrestrained" to "whimsical". ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 06:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not a stretch at all as far as what the kanji is supposed to mean, though I don't think it's exact at all either because it doesn't have to be driven by whim or caprice.
I think if you think just saying like "The English words 'comic strip', literally translated, means 'revel thong'" is not a stretch nor misleading, it's not a stretch. I think it should be said that more likely coming from "comedy" and the form of the pictures.
Darekashira (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

For すずろ http://dictionary.infoseek.co.jp/?ii=0&sm=1&sc=1&gr=ml&qt=%CC%A1&sv=KO&lp=0,
for そぞろ http://dictionary.infoseek.co.jp/?ii=2&sm=1&sc=1&gr=ml&qt=%CC%A1&sv=KO&lp=2.
漫 is used in words like 漫遊 (walk or journey without any particular objective or destination), as in 漫遊記, 漫談 (talk without any particular objective or theme).
I also think saying 漫 in 漫画 means "whimsical" is misguiding. I think it means "free" or "not restricted (by any objective, style or theme like 水墨画 or 浮世絵 is)".
I think comparing 北斎漫画 and other 北斎's 浮世絵 gives you a good idea.
Darekashira (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The manga "style"

Just wondering. Has there been any sort of conclusion (anywhere) pertaining to a description regarding the "manga style"? Last I remember, no such "style" has been "quantified" or "described". This is due in part to the variation of "style" from author to author. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 12:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, there are several common artistic traditions and influential artists to consider some recurring artistic techniques as "manga style", but they are by no way absolute. You could compare it to the American (Will Eisner, Jack Kirby, Burne Hogarth, Frank Frazetta, Milton Caniff, Alex Toth, Alex Raymond etc.) and European (Hergé, Jijé, Franquin, Moebius, Peyo, Edgar Pierre Jacobs, Hugo Pratt etc.) traditions. There have been several influential artists who have created schools of, or in-house styles, but that doesn't mean that these styles are an absolute found in all works created for the market. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I.e. even if we would say these seven names belong to a "canon" (albeit that being a controversial subject), the medium is broad enough to contain important artists that are very distinct and don't fit neatly into the traditions proposed, for USA you could mention Robert Crumb, S. Clay Wilson, Charles M. Schulz and Art Spiegelman, for Europe, you could mention Claire Bretecher, F'Murr, Marjane Satrapi and Enki Bilal. I'm no expert on manga, but the same assumption should hold true for that market. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Inside the German Wikipedia we came to the conclusion that no "manga/anime style" exists. But that there are fairly common "style elements" that most artists share. It isn't a distinct style itself, since it has no sharp edges what typical elements will be found. But there is something like an average style, which changed over time and is still changing. Since there is no differentiation (no terms) for this average style (to put it into subcategories), the best way is to use typical "style elements" for it's description. --Niabot (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

English Pronunciation

There was a revision of "Because of the American accent, many people in the United states pronounce manga as "meh-n-guh." However, because the Japanese pronounce their "a"'s softly, manga is rightly pronounced "mah-n-gah."" with a comment "unsourced and wrong". It was unsourced, but "wrong" is wrong. It might have been better with IPA, but the "meh-n-guh" pronunciation is very common (in fact I remember it being the more common pronunciation where I lived back in the nineties). Acidtoyman (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

"Online reading"

An anonymous (red-linked) editor recently created a new article, Online reading, and linked it to the manga article. Online reading explicitly names and identifies a number of copy-violating scanlation sites but gives no references or other sources. It appears to be pure original research. I recommend that the wiki-link here in the Manga article be removed. I also think that other folks, who know more than I do about Wikipedia rules about copyright, should look at the Online reading article itself. There seem to be some serious problems there. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'd remove the link myself, but remember "consensus"? Timothy Perper (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I was tempted to remove it myself, but then decided to wait and see what others will do. The article is a strong candidate for deletion as it appears to be content that hasn't been published elsewhere in reliable sources and thus violates WP:NOT. —Farix (t | c) 20:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed the link. Since the preceding comments were written, another editor has completely revised the Online reading article and it no longer has any relevance to manga. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:15, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Money money money

What's with all the financial figures in the lead? Shouldn't the lead focus an defining manga as a medium and giving an overview of its history and form? Nting its economic position is one thing, but citing so many figures in the lead is (a) prone to recentism (b) overkill, and (c) undue weight. Do people look up "manga" on Wikipedia to find its recent economic impact? CüRlyTüRkey^Talk_Contribs 02:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Wording

The following text from the article does not sound very encyclopedic, and in fact sounds derogatory and/or slanted:

"For the most part, criticism suggests that flipping goes against the original intentions of the creator (for example, if a person wears a shirt that reads "MAY" on it, and gets flipped, then the word is altered to "YAM"), who may be ignorant of how awkward it is to read comics when the eyes must flow through the pages and text in opposite directions, resulting in an experience that's quite distinct from reading something that flows homogeneously. Flipping may also cause oddities with familiar asymmetrical objects or layouts, such as a car being depicted with the gas pedal on the left and the brake on the right, or a shirt with the buttons on the wrong side, but these issues are minor when compared to the unnatural reading flow, and some of them could be solved with an adaptation work that goes beyond just translation and blind flipping."

I suggest rephrasing. – Maky ^« talk » 01:28, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Something that probably should be on the article somewhere

The incident in 2008 where a man in Iowa was going to face 20 years of prison for bringing lolicon manga over from Japan. Here's a vaguely related link. All sorts of interesting things happened in response. If I recall a public donation call/petition was put up for his sake. AngelFire3423 (talk) 22:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't it better put into the lolicon article, if not already present? I say this because lolicon depictions were the main issue in this case. --／人◕ ‿‿ ◕人＼ 署名の宣言 00:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Tankōbon

This keeps coming up on the Tankōbon article's talk page as well. (... and occasionally on talk pages of other manga related articles). While Trade paperback may refer to both hard cover and soft cover books, a reader of this Manga article shouldn't have to click an additional link to read an explanation of such jargon. The way this Manga article is worded can lead to confusion about the meaning of the Japanese word Tankōbon because the meaning and colloquial use of the English term Paperback" books is "softcover" books. Tankōbon is not synonymous with "softcover" book(s) but the way the article is written suggests that it is. Particularly because of the piped links paperback books which disguise "Trade paperback" behind the much more general "Paperback books". Tankōbon can be softcover or hardcover publications. Verso.Sciolto (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The example image

Just wanted to throw out there that the example image is extraordinarily not in the typical manga style and does no favors to showing what it looks like. There's plain grey everywhere -- that's non existent in contemporary manga, the printing simply doesn't allow it! Even if there's some digital series today that use this style, manga as a general medium is fully black and white, and the image fails to even grasp the point of screentones, which is to simulate a shade between white and black. If there's a dotted pattern AND a grey background behind it, there is no point to that pattern.

anyway, I just don't think this image is very good for people who want to know what the manga style looks like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.65.87.114 (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have or know of a free use alternative? But to correct your statement, the image does use screentones in the background. It just doesn't scale well when the MediaWiki software rescales the image —Farix (t | c) 22:51, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Only Japanese can be manga creators?

I know of at least two cases, Dall-Young Lim, Kwang-Hyun Kim (both of Freezing) and Stan Lee (Karakuri Dôji Ultimo and Heroman), where non-Japanese creators have worked on manga, so this isn't limited to just Japanese creators. I've also never seen any reliable sources stating that only Japanese creators can create manga. Thus unless the IP editor can provide a high-quality reliable source stating that only Japanese can create manga, edits such as [this] will not be accepted. —Farix (t | c) 01:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Maybe you should've explained that from the beginning. 72.191.248.253 (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a location thing really. Only people living in Japan can create manga but they don't have to be Japanese. Gune (talk) 23:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Erroneous kanji for "manga"

Please note that the reference image given for "manga" in Japanese (https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Manga#/media/File:Manga_in_Jp.svg) is badly written. As visible [this logo] or on the [page for manga], the hyphen-like stroke between the first and second character is an error, and should be corrected. (I point this out, since I've seen this exact image used in various postings, even in stores). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.2.155.103 (talk) 11:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2017

The size of the manga industry is given incorrectly. Reference 8 has no information on the value of the industry in 2007. Moreover the exchange rates for the two years don't match (unless there was a drastic difference between 2007 and 2009, which there was not). The rates were about .0085 and .0111, respectively (you can look up monthly exchange rates on the internet). This means that the 2007 dollar should be about $3.5bn and the 2009 dollar value should be about $4.7bn but you still need a source (other than reference 8)</ref></ref></ref> that cites the 2007 value of the manga industry. John Donne (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC) John Donne (talk) 03:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC) Nigel Waters<http://www.x-rates.com/average/?from=JPY&to=USD&amount=1&year=2009><http://www.bbc.com/news/business-14526451>

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Manga. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411053104/http://www.csuchico.edu/pub/cs/spring_06/feature_03.html to http://www.csuchico.edu/pub/cs/spring_06/feature_03.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080108163613/http://www.metalchroniques.fr/guppy/articles.php?lng=fr&pg=437 to http://www.metalchroniques.fr/guppy/articles.php?lng=fr&pg=437

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:41, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Romanization of Santō Kyōden's picturebook title

The National Diet Library bibliographical details available on the left sidebar here provide the katakana シジノユキカイ (Shiji no Yukikai). However, the kanji spelling of the title is 四時交加, and in Santō's own text on that same page (and multiple other places in the foreword), he clearly intends for 交加 to be read as kōga, as indicated by the katakana コウガ shown there as furigana.

Does anyone know where the ユキカイ katakana spelling came from? This is normally applied to the kanji compound 行き交い / 行交, not 交加. This looks like an error on the part of the Diet librarians. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:41, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

There is any good explanation of why the hell this article treats like Manga and Anime are the same thing??

There is any good explanation of why this article make it sound like Manga and anime are the same medium???When a big chunk of Anime are straight from light novel and visual novel and manga are also often adapted into Films/Jdramas and Cdramas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.193.164.126 (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Manga Style

A Mangaka can draw the way whatever he wants,it can go from Jiro and Taiyō Matsumoto European style to Hoshino Yukinobu and Inoue Takehiko realistic drawings,yet this article made it sounds like there is a set definition of style that a mangaka should draw like. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelrios5964 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2019

Add English to languages one piece and sailor moon and other mangas were in English 2600:1000:B00C:494:B8A5:4620:F04:A063 (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: They are translated into English; they're not written or originally published in English. NiciVampireHeart 05:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Return to manga kanji picture

Hi there. Why was the main picture changed? On this article, we need to be impartial about showing an actual picture illustrating some manga. I request for the kanji of manga to be the main picture once again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.80.182.1 (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

An image of the kanji for "manga" is not illustrative of the topic itself (which is why I moved it to the "Etymology" section). In my opinion, File:Wikipe-tan manga page1.jpg is a suitably natural and appropriate representation of the topic, and I don't see how it isn't impartial. — Goszei (talk) 05:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I second the request. If one clicks on the source of the current photo, it leads to the artist's Pixiv page showcasing "lolicon" pornography. In quite a few countries viewing such material is illegal; and legality aside there's also the concern of children or people at their working clicking on the source and being exposed to it. I know that Pixiv does require you to actually have an account and be logged in to see pornographic photos, but the risk is still there. FairlyDecent (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Putting that aside, it doesn't make sense that this image is objectionable because of material that is hosted on a different website (behind an account wall, no less) accessible through a link that isn't on Wikipedia. — Goszei (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi everyone. I come back to request this once more. I really think that the kanji manga is the best option rather than showing any page of any actual manga, just to be impartial. Could someone please do this or tell me why you won't do it? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2021

it fuckin says DaBaby manga and that is not what it is Rockman08 (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done reverted the vandalism. Thanks. Link20XX (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Animetata sa za pedali

Animetata sa za pedali 79.134.161.112 (talk) 10:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

Please remove the image associated with hentai or remove the link to hentia. This image, while a graphic, meet Wikipedia's definition of hardcore pornography (displays sexual organs and a sexual act). This is not suitable for students. WimpyLibrarian (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Pretty sure hentai should be linked here. As for the image on the hentai page, that is a discussion to be had on that talk page, though if your sole argument for its removal is that it is unsuitable for students, you should see WP:NOTCENSORED. Cannolis (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding norwegian manga under subheader 'Localized manga'

As a new wikipedia editor I cannot edit the manga page. But I want to suggest an addition under the subheader 'Localized manga'. In 2020 the norwegian publisher "Outland Forlag" (https://outlandforlag.no/, https://no.wiki.x.io/wiki/Outland_forlag, started in 2016), an offshoot company of the norwegian comics/geek store chain "Outland" (https://www.outland.no/, https://no.wiki.x.io/wiki/Outland_(butikk) ), published the 0th volume of their comic anthology "Rakkan" (https://outlandforlag.no/manga/rakkan). This anthology features manga-inspired comics created by norwegian authors with dialogue and text in norwegian. Outland's objective with this anthology was to find out what norwegian manga looked liked (original quote "Hvordan ser norsk manga egentlig ut" https://www.outland.no/artikkel/hva-er-rakkan-norsk-manga). As of 13.01.2023 the anthology has 5 volumes (0th through 4th). The anthologies are printed in black and white. They are sold in their physical stores and on their website, as well as in some other norwegian bookstores.

I hope someone can help with this addition. I am available to help with translations from norwegian to english if needed. Sindrexzxz (talk) 13:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

There are localized manga in just about every European country by now. I guess we should limit the examples to the most notable countries, possibly France, Germany, Italy and Spain? (I'm not an expert on this matter.) I also suspect that Algerian DZ-manga is a rather minor phenomenon, but I'm willing to discuss it. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

By the way, Norway has also seen the coinage of the term "Nordic manga" as a marketing term, although the quite variable comics marketed under the umbrella term don't seem to have much to do with manga either as a stylistic or narrative tradition... Most of the series seem to have been inspired by webcomics and the modern digital art style mix of Disney, manga, bandes dessinées, US and South European comics, as well as Scholastic Graphic Novels and Western YA artists such as Kazu Kibuishi. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

An alternative suggestion would be to create a new main article for localized manga, although I guess it could easily turn into a laundry list... 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 19:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)