Talk:List of manga magazines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Denmark magazines[edit]

Um, Are "Yu Gi Oh" and "Dragonball" name of magazines published in Denmark, or was it meant to be posted as a manga not a magazine? Just wondering because it's a bit confusing @_@ --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.194.62.23 (talk • contribs) .


I added information on Swedish manga magazines.

I structured the info on Swedish magazines the same way as the info on US Magazines for consistency.

Danish and Norwegian magazines[edit]

In Sweden, Dragon Ball, One Piece and Yu-Gi-Oh! has been published in pocket format, and Yu-Gi-Oh! is also running in the Swedish edition of Shonen Jump, but there has not been any manga magazines with any of these titles (although a Dragon Ball anime-comic magazine was published for a while). I suspect the same thing might be true for Denmark and Norway. It would be nice if someone could confirm this.

Dengeki Daioh[edit]

In the main article for Dengeki Daioh, the magazine is described as a seinen magazine. On this page it is listed under a shounen one. One of the articles needs editing to bring it in line with the other, but I'm not immediately sure which one. Buugipopuu 16:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and moved it. It is properly listed as a seinen magazine. Kyaa the Catlord 00:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with this article[edit]

I am not sure if this article should exist at all. Half of the magazines here no longer exist, or have undergone name changes. Other popular magazines are missing. Every year, manga magazines come and go. Who is going to keep track of those changes and keep this list up to date?

Worst of all, the categories are arbitrary and in some cases downright bizarre. "Salaryman"? Define that category, please.

A good reference for magazine information is The Japan Magazine Publishers Association Magazine Data. Please note that they use four simple categories: shōnen, dansei (men's), shōjo, and josei. If that's good enough for the JMPA, it should be good enough for this article. As it stands, this article is an embarrassment. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By just keeping up with the japanese wikipedia entry, it would be easier to keep up with the changes... though I would like to see a revampment of this article. There are lots of new manga magazines that start and go defunct each year, we don't have to list everything in this article...
The "salaryman" magazines should be under their own section, under "4-panel manga magazines". Not all of these magazines aime at salarymen, some of them are more aimed at women, and some are aimed at the otaku (moe 4-panel manga).
I prefer the publishers as a source, JMPA have some mistakes that I noticed (for example Ultra Jump is a seinen manga magazine, and not shounen magazine as listed by the JMPA). --ChuChu (talk) 07:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the 4-panel section, so I went ahead and made it myself. Kazu-kun (talk) 08:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The JMPA is the publishers, so the listings there are not "mistakes" but rather (cynical) calculations on the part of publishers. They try to make a magazine look like a "bigger fish" than it is by putting it in a "smaller pond." Still, I agree that categorizations found on the publishers' web sites should be the standard, since this shows pretty clearly where they want to direct visitors. The four-panel category makes much more sense. I didn't even realize that's what the "salaryman" category was supposed to be referring to. I have a couple of former students (both women) who are contributing to such magazines. (^^) Matt Thorn (talk) 11:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Country sort order[edit]

Is there some particular logic to the order the country sections are in? I can't see any myself. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 02:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, I'm inclined to say not at all. Seems to me, there are way too many sections with just 1-4 titles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was part of Nihonjoe's recent reorganization of the page, but I guess not. It would be pretty simple to alphasort by country and then combine all the country sections with fewer than X listed magazines (4 seems a good cutoff) into a single "Magazines published elsewhere/in other countries" section; any objections? 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 06:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, he did just the first part to see how it went? I think putting the rest in a single section would be good. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did the first section because it was so long and I had trouble finding things in it sometimes (I found 2-3 duplicates, too, while working up the table). I think it would be fine to put the rest of them in one table, making two tables on the page. I hadn't actually planned on doing the rest, but I think it's a good idea. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 08:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it right now, in fact... ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, all done. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question[edit]

Is there some term for a magazine which comes out 8 times a year? Biquarterly? --Mika1h (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Semiquarterly. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. --Mika1h (talk) 02:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Animedia (アニメディア) wrong internal linking[edit]

I believe there's a mistaken link here to Animedia which is a Spanish anime site, not the magazine published by Gakken Publishing. A page for the magazine apparently does not exist in the English wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyuzo dono (talk • contribs) 01:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics[edit]

I have removed the male/female demographics done by two editors per WP:POV, and WP:V. My internet was acting up over the past 24 hours so sorry if I couldn't address this sooner. Anyways, the problem I see with adding demographics mainly are sources, even if it is sourced by whose point of view are we going on? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Importance[edit]

@AngusWOOF: Is there a reason you feel this list belongs as "low importance"? I feel here that since manga magazines are where all manga are first serialized that it would at least be a mid. What are your thoughts? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going by the list articles guideline being assessed as Low, but you can raise it back considering this would be the exception. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I agree with you and the guideline that most lists are of low importance but there are some like these that are more essential. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table format[edit]

@Nihonjoe: I liked your idea but when I thought about it more I saw that the table would become lopsided with just information for the entries without articles. I will create a sub-user page this afternoon and tinker things out to see how I can make the table look more presentable. Ideas I have include a separate table for the ones without articles to adding a short description to all the entries. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it needs to be limited to titles without articles. I don't see any reason we can't provide similar details for works even if they have articles, it would help the list as so many titles have changed formats over the years and summary could be good.SephyTheThird (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with having info on all of them. I figured it would be most useful for those without articles, however, so that's why I suggested that. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 14:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will start work on it this afternoon which is about 4 hours away for me. You two plus others are of course free to help out. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Nihonjoe: Is there a way to make it so the table doesn't stretch out? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well I mean make it so the table doesn't stretch out the whole page 80% or so would be fine. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
With the description cell, it's going to stretch as far as it can. Once the information is in, it should be easier to view. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Experimenting with the format I found that it is not sortable. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After edit conflicting with you about 3 times, I finally got the updated version in. All entries now have the new format. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:03, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, is there a way to make the table sortable though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:05, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how well that would work with the description cell. I'll test it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, it won't work because each entry is in a two-row format. It sorts all the rows individually. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a shame as it is going to make things harder to manage/find. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that. Ctrl-F or Command-F works really well, and they are listed in alphabetical order. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the proposed format since it's in the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will give a week or so for other editors to help out, if nobody steps up then I am going to restore the original format. I cant do all of the descriptions alone, some magazines have so little info to go by it becomes tedious. I can very much picture this un-finished list being in limbo for years as I have seen other articles like it. Im trying hard to accept the new format put forward, but I am still disappointed with the results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no deadline on completion of Wikipedia articles, so you may not impose a deadline here. Because this list is quite long, it may take a while for all of the descriptions to be filled in. Just be patient. As it is, having the empty descriptions fields in no way harms this list. The vast majority of people will simply skip over the blank spots without any thought as to why they are blanks. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:48, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the meantime, thank you for starting to add the descriptions. You've made some good progress. Since it's only been a couple days since the new format was put in place, some people may not have noticed the new format yet. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:52, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't worry too much about it being in limbo, the work that has been done is sizeable progress and there is no need to rush. Remember, the list has only had any work done to it because someone drew attention to it with edits. Progress is progress. I'm unlikely to add to the descriptions any time soon, but I may in future (I have coverage and sources here). My first concern is finishing the dates as best as possible, which I'll probably continue at the weekend/next week when it's easier for me to do that sort of repetitive work. I was going to do some prep work with the table but the flurry of tweaks and the discussion yesterday cause me to stop and see. You've done a lot of work with the table. Take a break and come back to it later. SephyTheThird (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I was stressed and took a much needed mini weekend vacation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back. Vacations (even mini ones) are good here and there. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:36, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The format is coming in handy for tackling the titles with format/name changes. I've just been able to date a few of the works and provide the details of changes in the new field.SephyTheThird (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of manga magazines. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 03:21, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of manga magazines. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 07:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_manga_magazines&oldid=1203869992"