Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece manga volumes/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Dabomb87 22:30, 17 November 2009 [1].

List of One Piece manga volumes edit

Nominator(s): Goodraise 12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that it meets the criteria. Goodraise 12:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I disagree with the grammar issue and as its in the lead, the section that'll be seen by most indivisuals first, this imo needs to be as crystal clear as possible. I'd like a neutral 3rd party to asses my concerns as Goodraise and I are at an impass - someone who hasn't worked on this article or commented already. If they agree on any, or all points with him I will drop those issues.陣内 _Jinnai 23:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned that the series is translated into other languages, but no refs are given to any non-English/non-Japanese publication.
- The article states that "One Piece ... has been translated into various languages". How many references would you have me add to support that claim? (I'll simply copy them from here.) Goodraise 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I go with the rule of 3.陣内_Jinnai 21:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Done. Goodraise 21:43, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Australasia should be used instead of "Australia and New Zealand" or replace "North America" with the actual countries as otherwise its an inconsistent usage of geographic terms with country names.
- Done. Goodraise 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Was it really July when the announcement was made for the ramp up in production? The press release says it was previously announced the week before, which could be June 30th.~~陣内_Jinnai 20:44, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The wording of the press release is "San Francisco, CA, JULY 6, 2009 – As first detailed this past weekend at Anime Expo® 2009". Since July 6 was a monday, it can only refer to the weekend from July 3 to July 5. Goodraise 21:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional points on the 2nd paragraph
- The prose could use some tightening such as As of October 6, 2009, ~~only~~ 22 English language volumes have been published. ~~However~~, in July 2009,
  - I don't see any ways to tighten the prose aside from the example you gave. Goodraise 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not convinced that your example change would improve the overall prose quality of the paragraph. However, since I've written the passage fairly recently, I doubt my objectivity and will hope for more comments on the matter. Goodraise 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally, that sentance implies that and the following sentance imply that every place will have the same number of volumes and in Australia and New Zealand that isn't the case.
  - What can I say? I disagree. Goodraise 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please explain why. When I read it in context with the rest it implies both Viz and Madman Entertainment have published the same or possibly that Madman has published more because they were kusted last in the previous sentance.陣内_Jinnai 05:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - What do you want me to explain? You read the text and think that it implies that Viz and Madman have published the same amount of volumes. I read the same text and can't help but wonder what could possibly have made you think that. Anyways, I've changed the sentences somewhat. Perhaps you like them better now. Good raise 15:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe you should note that 22 volumes have been released by vis and 11 volumes have been released by Madman.陣内 _Jinnai 19:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not too thrilled about that idea. Viz Media's releases are the worldwide first in English language. Those of Madman Entertainment are just of relevance to the area they're published in. Treating them equally seems like giving undue weight to me. Good raise 00:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        While they are a larger publisher, they obviously aren't worldwide in English market if Madman publishes some. Right now it seems that the article is skewed too much in favor of Viz's releases as other than 1 sentance it doesn't mention Madman. FE: The isbn numbers are Viz, the whole of the article reads pretty much as if Viz was the only publisher of note and anyone else is so obscure they don't aren't worthy of the time and effort to mention beyond passing interest.陣内 _Jinnai 01:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not what I said. I said their "releases are the worldwide first in English language". I didn't say that they're selling them everywhere (and I didn't imply it either). As for the table, it contains the "worldwide first ... English language" releases, which incidentally are all by Viz Media. It's the same that's done all over Wikipedia with episode lists. We give the original airdates and the first airdates in English (if English isn't the original language of course). What we don't add are the second airdates in English, or even the third (Madman Entertainment's releases are only the third releases in English language). It also has nothing to do with how big or great the respective publisher is. I'm sure they're both awesome companies and in fact, they're covered in detail in their respective articles, but this article is not about them. Good raise 03:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You misintepret what I am saying. I'm not saying we should list every release on the list. I'm just stating that not saying that Madman has released 11 and Viz released 22 is putting undue weight on the oppisite end, on Viz.陣内 _Jinnai 05:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I understand and disagree. The original release and the first in English language are covered in moderate detail. Other English publishers are mentioned by name and with a starting date. Non-English language publishers are only mentioned summarily. In my opinion, that's giving due weight to everything. Good raise 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        And again, I haveto disagree because your wording makes it sound as though Madman and Viz are publishing at the same rate, at least until the expected increase print run by Viz. The wording gives bias to Viz's publications by not stating that at the very least that Madman's numbers.
        At this point though it might need a second opinion as i think we're at an impass.陣内 _Jinnai 15:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I've made my point in previous comments, so I won't repeat it here. If you need a second opinion to decide whether to support or oppose this nomination, then go ahead and call for one. Good raise 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Issues 陣内 _Jinnai

~~I believe there are also wideban reprints of One Piece.~~陣内_Jinnai 23:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unaware of such a release. Goodraise 00:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Couldn't find anything about a wideban release in the Shueisha site. ANN said something about a volume 0 but I don't know if it is okay to mention it here.Tintor2 (talk) 00:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, the "0th volume". I must admit, I hadn't even thought about including it. I guess, whether it is part of the series is a matter of interpretation. Goodraise 00:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I suppose that a mention in the lead would be enough since it doesn't seem to be part of the regular serialization.Tintor2 (talk) 02:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps. Though that may already be giving undue weight to some marketing ploy. Personally, I'm in favor of waiting until more is available than a short paragraph in a news story. Goodraise 11:57, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay.Tintor2 (talk) 13:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support since it seems grammar and other things are okay.Tintor2 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Issues 陣内 _Jinnai

- Looks like was wrong, but i could have sworn i saw an advertizement somewhere before.陣内_Jinnai 05:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actual evidence for wideban editions[2][3] - these won't be released, but they do have isbn numbers and a tenative release date. Dunno how much should be placed on this.陣内_Jinnai 05:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd say, planned and canceled rereleases don't need to be mentioned, but out of curiosity, how do you know they won't be released? Good raise 11:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not saying it won't; my point was to state earlier i had seen evidence that there were widebans, although those have yet to be released. I'm not saying they should be mentioned in the article.
        On a seperate note to OP 0, it should probably noted in the prose at it appears to be related to the series in some way.陣内 _Jinnai 15:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Is that the threshold for inclusion now? Everything that "appears to be related to the series in some way"? Good raise 17:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay. From what I remember it was a published pilot basis for what we know today as One Piece. It's not a part of the main series and therefore shouldn't be on the list, but it is the basis for manga and should at least have passing mention as such in the prose.陣内 _Jinnai 17:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, that would be Romance Dawn, which is duly covered in the production section of the main article. Good raise 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        EDIT (misread what the 20 years ago meant) Right. that's what volume 0 is it is also officially listen in the chronology in Shonen Jump as a One Piece title. Don't know if independant RSes consider it part of the One Piece title.陣内 _Jinnai 20:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"...in the manga anthology Shonen Jump since the magazine's launch in November 2002 and in tankōbon format since June 2003." Shouldn't these be full dates, similar to the above, or at least the tankōbon date?
The sources don't provide full dates. Good raise 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"In Australia and New Zealand, the English volumes are distributed by Madman Entertainment since November 10, 2008." This sentence is structured strangely, perhaps "...volumes have been distributed by..."?
I find nothing strange about the sentence. Good raise 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above conversation about the volume releases is a classic I find on Wikipedia, most only list the American releases, such as the Naruto and Dragon Ball lists, and completely (if not almost completely) ignore the European and Australian releases. So they aren't really needed due to the silent consensus that seems to have been reached.
Okay. Good raise 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The one big difference I noticed between this and other similar lists is the lack of mention of adaptations in the lead, as seen in the (again) above Naruto list.
The adaptations are summarily mentioned in the first sentence and the first word of the article is linked to the franchise article. Good raise 22:29, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, all looks good I think. --Lightlowemon (talk) 09:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, it all looks good and I'm satisfied with the answers given (yes I did a small edit, but that was only because I was editing it anyway for the spelling). --Lightlowemon (talk) 03:32, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.