Talk:Jump Square/Archive 1

Jump SQ.

I think we should name the article Jump SQ. because thats how it's properly spelled. Jump Guru (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Third Year Z Class: GinPachi Sensei

Isn't it a novel?

By the way, it is not one-shot.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knuckmew (talk • contribs) 10:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I put it in the One-shot section? Sorry that was my bad we should put it by the series section. (and mention it is a j-BOOK) Jump Guru (talk) 21:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Up to date

We need to keep the Jump articles up to date. The only Jump article that was organized was Weekly Jump.... so I started working on this one. Now that this list is totally accurate; we should keep it this way and keep it healthy. If you ask me we should start doing the same with V Jump, BJ, MJ, ect. Jump Guru (talk) 07:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

List of issues

The list of Jump SQ issues lacks the premiere issue 12/2007. Does anyone know its title, of if it had one? 92.194.1.172 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Actually that's exactly were i'm stuck at. This is how you can tell what the name is: It's very simple actually the biggest text on the page is the title. So I kinda know how the title looks; the only problem is that I can barely read Kanji. I use to be better at Japanese, I think I need to go to a Japanese class. (Also got a few letters mentioning that) Jump Guru (talk) 17:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
• I was also thinking about scanning all the covers for the series list (but only if we can keep up with it). Jump Guru (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2008 (UTC) P.S. anyone is welcome to edit the page! I don't want to be the only one.

This entire section is amazingly non-notable trivia, and should be deleted outright. Keeping a list of short stories is a good idea, a list of ads on the back? Not so important. Doceirias (talk) 09:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Comic Essay

On the Japanese article Parman no Jōnetsuteki na Hibi is seperated from the others and is put under a section called "Comic Essay". Is Comic Essay going to be whole nother SQ. line of series? If so, we should do the same. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 15:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Stylistic history

Jump SQ.'s logo has gone through a history of different disigns, only noticed closely. The first Jump SQ. logo was disigned with the Japanese of Jump Square (ジャンプスクエア), in the middle with it slightly going of into the "Q.", and the English text thet reads "JUMP SQUARE" was fully in line inside the "Q." The design just recently mentioned was only in the first issue. The second logo made the Japanese text (ジャンプスクエア) above the English "JUMP SQUARE", this was only in the second issue. From the third issue on the English "JUMP SQUARE" text was removed, and has a somewhat 3D font up to issue 2 of 2008. In issue 3 of 2008, the Japanese "ジャンプスクエア" has a black outline, this design is still used in the current issues.

I was thinking maybe we could make a "Stylistic history" section? What do you think? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 21:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Only if it can be sourced to reliable, third-party sources (not just looking at the covers). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Tameshi Yomi

I should really start work soon, but thought I ought to fix a particularly incomprehensible bit...then realized it was so incomprehensible I might be wording it entirely wrong. Is this stuff online only? Or is it little printed booklets designed for display in bookstores, like I'd assumed? New version, if that's the case: 1 Hanashi "Marugoto" Tameshi Yomi (1話「まるごと」試し読み, 1 Hanashi Marugoto Tameshi Yomi, literally, One issue "Complete" Trial reading) is a line of small booklets containing the first chapters of Jump SQ. series, or complete short stories. These booklets are commonly placed in bookstores to promote the magazine and the manga within. These sample issues also appear on-line. Doceirias (talk) 00:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Where can you find them in a bookstore? Weird, thought they were only online. Well if they are I guess we should mention the online manga and sample booklets. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 01:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Er, not if they don't exist. I'm trying to figure out what these things are; I have no idea at all. When I saw the name, I thought they were the little sample booklets you see in Japanese bookstores; then I thought they might be the s-manga sample chapters, then I thought they might be something unique to Jump Square and abandoned the idea of fixing it myself. Doceirias (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused too, it says "trial reading" so that would make sence that it's a booklet used for samples.... but i've never seen one at my Kinokuniya before. I though that you've seen them, but what I know for sure is that it is a series of online manga too. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 01:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen them for Jump Sq. though; I left Japan several years ago, and I don't think they ship them to American Kinokunias...mostly saw them in the manga specialty shops. I think we'd better assume it's online only. Doceirias (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

They ship Jump SQ. to American Kinokuniyas, i've just never seen a Tameshi Yomi sample book in one. if they can ship a phone book size manga magazine to the U.S., I don't see how they couldn't ship a (i'm asuming) small phamplet. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 04:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Kinokunia imports Jump SQ, rather than getting direct shipments. They don't really operate here like a real Japanese bookstore - you have to special order anything that isn't a best seller, basically. I'd guess most of their customers know what they want coming in. Doceirias (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I just walk into the store grab an issue, buy it, and walk out.... I don't know how your's works. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 04:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. This is starting to get of topic.

They have Jump SQ. lying around, but I bet they won't get Tista 1 next month unless I special order it. Doceirias (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

At my nearest Kinokunia they have Belmonde Le VisiteuR, Suheisenno Shachi, Passacaglia [Op.7], ZombiePowder., Sket Dance, and a whole ton of cancelled, low volume counted, and obscure series. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 21:57, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Please note, this is not a GA review, but it may help with future review processes.

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted and this problem could hinder any future nominations or reviews. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly as soon as possible, and indeed this is something that the reviewer should have insisted you do before promoting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

JumpGuru, you are still formatting references incorrectly. Please follow the above advice! This is important! Doceirias (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

GAR - June 3, 2008

This review is transcluded from Talk:Jump Square/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article has been delisted as a GA. It was inappropriately and prematurely passed while failing multiple major aspects of the GA criteria, as noted below. The article is in serious need of clean up, expert attention, and

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Prose does not flow well and article has some grammar issues. A copyedit is greatly needed.

   B. MoS compliance:

   Article has numerous MoS violations of the basic Wikipedia Mos, including misplaced references, badly formatted references and external links, and an completely inadequate lead section. There are inappropriate external links and email addresses stuck in the middle of the prose.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Large sections of the article are completely unsourced, including most of the "History" section, the entire "JC SQ. Comics" section, all of the prose sections in "List of serialized manga series", etc etc.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

   Excessive details and lists for less notable aspects of the topic, with excessive detail on the magazine website and an unnecessary chart, and far more tables than are needed. The article jumps all over the place and is badly organized. Looks more like a fansite page than an encyclopedic article, and hard to even tell it is about a magazine.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Editors who nominated, I believe this article was improperly delisted and you should take the issue to the reassessment page--Finalnight (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It was improperly listed, not improperly delisted. An article passed when it shouldn't have can (and should) be quickly delisted. You were wrong to pass and article with so many blatant and glaring issues, which another reviewer had already pointed out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It was my opinion that the issues were sufficiently improved upon after the hold was placed that it passed GA criteria. But I guess I was "beyond wrong", whatever that means.--Finalnight (talk) 01:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The issues were not fixed. "Large sections of the article are completely unsourced, including most of the "History" section, the entire "JC SQ. Comics" section, all of the prose sections in "List of serialized manga series", etc etc" that is a HUGE no to a GA listing. I've also pointed out other issues in my review that you claimed were passes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I leave it up to the original nominators/editors to decide where they want to go from here with it.--Finalnight (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this article was and is a hopeless mess. We've made some improvements, but I can't begin to imagine how you look at this thing and think it's good. The prose is largely impossible to understand, and the entire article is heavily focused on indescriminate and irrelevant detail at the expensive of the information that should be there. The sweeping changes we've made have helped get it to a place where we can begin working on it, but this isn't even a B class article. Doceirias (talk) 03:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Man you guys, at least try not to insult me... – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 01:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We're criticizing the article, not insulting you. We respect the work you've done, even when it isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. Doceirias (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's good! thanks, you guys really are great. : ) – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 20:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Now what?

Alright, we had the blunt instrument come through and do a bit of slash and burn. This is a solid base for the article; a few reference checks, a few copyedits, and a reworked table and we have a solid start to the article. JumpGuru, before we start making changes to what survived, we should probably work out a game plan. Any sections you'd like to try and build back? Anything we need to expand on? Discuss it first. I'd like to see some discussion of the magazines unusually extensive web presence, personally, but we would need to source that properly. Doceirias (talk) 00:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

We should make one nice big section telling about all of the other SQ. stuff. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's start by finding sources. If we add something, it needs to be proven notable. For example, the postcards - I think giving away postcards is interesting, and it is worth mentioning...but we need to find a source that says so. Proving the exist is not enough; we need to prove they are notable and relevant to the article. Doceirias (talk) 01:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No, there doesn't need to be a "nice big section telling about all the other SQ stuff." For the giveaways, that isn't really unusual is it? I know quite a few other magazines give out postcards, little calendars, other little pack ins, etc. Seems to be a pretty common promo thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It's still notable, not everybody reading the article is going to know that. We can mention "that it is a common promo thing". It's boring telling about the main stuff and that's it, people are interested in the obscure stuff, it's human nature. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 03:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

It is only notable if we can prove it is notable. Find an article from a legitimate source talking about how Jump Square uses their website to promote the magazine, and how they do things like fanart contests and postcards to encourage sales, and how that makes Jump Square different from other magazines, and you can add it. Without that source, it can't be declared notable, and can't be added to the article. Doceirias (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Jump, the manga list was not "fine as it was." The formatting was horrible, and it was a nearly unreadable mess with a excessive glut of unnecessary kanji, links, etc. Please do not revert its clean up again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

JC SQ. Comics

Note, I have removed the entire "JC SQ. Comics." The "sources" linking to s-manga did not actually support any of the statements made, and no searching finds a single reference for the existance of such a label. Looking at volumes released of the serialized manga, they are all labeled as just "Jump Comics." If someone has real sources to support the section, let's discuss them here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources were a bit confusing but they still worked. It's hard to explain, the volumes of JC SQ. Comics are still considered Jump Comics and are labeled as is on s-manga. If you look in the Jump SQ. magazine, they have a section about the line, and if you look at the covers of the manga like Dragonaut, they will have the label. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to vote for ultimately just not interesting or relevant, here. The Jump Square titles may well have their own imprint (still haven't got my copy of Tista in) but that fact doesn't really enrich the reader's experience. Doceirias (talk) 22:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What i'm concerned about is the fact that this article only contains stuff that people already know. The Manga section is a train wreck by the way. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 22:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what it's supposed to contain. An overview for people who don't know much about it. No reason it can't have more depth, but given the nature of Wikipedia (needing sources) that extra information is often hard to come by. Also, remember that just because something is true, and not well known, does not make it worth including. Too much information can be just as bad as not enough. The earlier version of the manga section, for instance, had much too much information - in fact, I'd argue it should only have titles and author's names, in a list rather than a table...like every other manga magazine article. Doceirias (talk) 22:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "the other manga magazine articles", I have to say are very horrible and neglected. I wan't this page to be different, show me a manga magazine article that you thought was good. Maybe we can use it as a base. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 22:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Gah, I was going to say Shonen Jump, but since I was last there someone revised the manga list, and it is god awful now. I agree that the standards for the magazine articles are poorly defined; they all seem to have different formatting, and most of them just have a lead and a list of titles. I think this article is significantly better than most. But I also think simplicity is sometimes better, and with the list of currently serialized titles, tables may be an unnecessary complication. I would favor a combination of Afternoon's list format (but with the titles and authors reversed) with Shonen Sunday's list of current series and list of former series, which would be split off on to its own page in time. I went ahead and changed this, just to show what I mean. Thoughts? Doceirias (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Also have to agree, the section wasn't particularly relevant. At best, a one sentence mention in the history if it can actually be sourced that a new line was started, would be all it needs. My thinking is to eventually get the table similar to the one I have on Shojo Beat with the title, author name, date it premiered and date it ended. I can also see the case for it not needing it at all, as it does touch on WP:NOT#Directory some. Either way, the old table was horrible, with way too much stuff that just wasn't necessary at all. The kanji of the author name's is completely unnecessary here, its in their article where there is one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I still think it looks better without a table, but I'm not opposed to one. I am opposed to purple bars, though; the currently running series and finished/canceled series should be in separate tables. That may be a discussion for that page, though, since nothing's been completed here, yet. Doceirias (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, that's pink not purple! :P I thought it was a simple way to highlight the current series, as I didn't like the idea of two tables. But we can talk about that over there if you want. :) For this one, I think a table looks nicer with the info presented. A list would look better if it was just the titles, or "title by author." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To do

Here's what I think we should do:

• Make the table same as Shojo Beat one (I actually liked yours AnmaFinotera ^_^ ).
• Clean it up.
  • Nihongo template should be cleaned, mostly of the other crap we forgot to delete. That way it doesn't look like a code mess.
  • Keep the Nihongo template on Claymore, Tista, etc., who cares if it is in English. That's the Japanese romanization.
  • If we can't do that then we should downright delete them.
  • Authenticity! Keep the Japanese names as is, we don't need translations like "Reborn! Hidden Bullet" (correctly "Katekyo Hitman Reborn! Kakushi Dan"). Most people are against that, including me. Why else would people be crazy if they didn't have uncut anime DVDs, that's why people hate 4Kids...... incuding me!
• Give the page references, it doesn't have much.
• We don't really need the JC SQ. Comics section that much. It deserves a mention in the History though.

That's all. :P – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 00:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely looking better. I'm happy keeping the nihongo template when we have katakana titles, but we don't need it for titles in romanji in the first place. We could also entirely remove the Japanese titles and leave that for the pages on the series, but I don't really mind which. Authenticity is a fine thing, but not when there are official English titles. Since the Kakushi Dama (I think you're reading that wrong, incidentally - are there furigana?) novels don't have an English translation, we don't need to translate the subtitle, but we do have to use Reborn! as the series title, following MOS conventions. Doceirias (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Doceirias, I need to go to a Japanese class. I need to get better at it. But yeah it is looking nicer. What do you think AnmaFinotera? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 22:44, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Dang, hit some magic button that added the edits before I could type an edit summary. The manga series has an official English title, so that title needs to stay the same; I agree the subtitle can stay in Japanese, barring an English release of the novels. Doceirias (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Made a few tweaks to correct the column contents, but much better :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Manga list

Why are the series organized like this: Kiyoku Tadashiku Utsukushiku (清く正しく美しく, 清く正しく美しく), we don't need double Japanese. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 16:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Guessing they got left behind accidentally while cleaning out the ja links. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I got confused... ~_~ You reverted it when I erased them. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 17:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

New format looks great! I snipped the English part of the Japanese version of Embalming's title, since it was making that field gigantic. Doceirias (talk) 22:30, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, a couple more questions about the manga list:

• What's the logic behind having both a completed date column and a Yes/No completion column? This made sense with Shojo Beat, where stuff moved out, but they seem to be giving the same information...unless we want to distinguish between series that reached their natural conclusion and ones that were outright canceled.
• What order are these in? It seems random. I'm guessing it was table of contents order for the first issue plus chronological order for new series. But is that the best way to sort them? Two other ideas worth considering would be alphabetical order, and alphabetical but with the concluded series listed after the ongoing ones (if we don't want to split it into two tables.) Doceirias (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed that. I think Jump Guru got confused on what it meant. :) "Finished" is the last issue it appeared in, while "completed" should be a yes/no indicating whether the entire series was serialized in the magazine before it was removed. If all series will likely run to completion, then the column can come out. I think chronological would be best for the default sort, with alphabetical for those that share the same inclusion date. Thoughts on making the table sortable again?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:06, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing the column seems to have left a tiny blank field. Chronological with alphabetical for the first issue batch works decently; if you know how to add resorting, by all means do. Doceirias (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it, one column was missed :) It looks like they may actually be in order, the serialization dates are just wrong on some. I'll work on that and I'll attempt to add sorting, wee! (my first) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the series carried over from a previous magazine, and the dates may be from that. Doceirias (talk) 00:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, they were. I fixed those, since it should be when they appeared here, and the move over of some series is covered in the prose. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually....the Yes/No thing can work. The series that moved to online manga like Tales could work, since it never finished inside the magazine. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 19:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Magazine Name

Okay...is the magazine Jump Square and Jump SQ is its alternative name, or is Jump SQ the official name, and Jump Square the secondary name? ANN refers to it as Jump Square, ICv2 uses both, and the magazine itself has both on the cover. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you would always say it as Jump Square; I'd put Jump SQ down as a typographical choice, personally. Doceirias (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

No it's correctly Jump SQ., Jump Square is the extra name. The company spells it as Jump SQ. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 00:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I got the sense SQ was just a typographical quirk, no more relevant than all caps. In this case, I think it is safe to go with how the title is said aloud. Doceirias (talk) 01:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's okay, exept I revolve around official names. Make sure how you type the names are how they are spelled in the magazines. That way the article stays clean from alternative titles. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 01:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm still gonna use SQ. though, I'm all about official. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 01:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Please use Jump Square. The English sources seem to show Jump Square is the official name. If you can find a reliable source that says otherwise, please post it here. Also, take it easy on the nihongo templates, there is no need to throw out the Japanese names of every last thing in the article. Manga titles that have already been licensed in English can just be listed by their English titles, and writer's names should be listed in English only. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I meant when I type on talk pages n' stuff like that. We need to make the article balanced. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 20:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Online manga

We need to bring back the online manga section. That doesn't mean we need the Tameshi Yomi section too. But we definatly need the major online manga like Kurohime, Tales of Innocence, etc. Those all play a big role in Jump SQ. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 00:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Its mentioned in the features. How many manga series do they currently offer online and are they also printed in tankobon form? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes they are: Maho-Tsukai Kurohime (the first Jump SQ. online manga series, originally serialized in Monthly Shonen Jump, latest volume was announced), Kiyoku Tadashiku Utsukushiku (moved from SQ. serialization to online manga for not to long, then it ended, no tonkobon that I know of), and Tales of Innocence (also moved from SQ. serialization just recently, first volume just came out from the SQ. serialization, abviosly gonna have a second volume from the "online" version). The only one I can think that wouldn't be notable is KTU. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 20:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Obscure link

I just noticed that a link I found on the SQ. Resque Taiga Iku page for the old promo movies got erased: http://jumpsq.shueisha.co.jp/html/special/movie.html . I understand why, but is there anyway we can use this obscure link. Back when the Jump SQ. website started this link was on the website, now it is largely forgotten about and is still linked on the Taiga Iku page. I think they just forgot to erase it. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 01:34, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Loosing focus...

Were're starting to loose focus on this page, we need to get back to work. Sources, sources, sources, sources..... – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 19:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)