Talk:List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Bread Ninja in topic Split
 | List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 19, 2011. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that on two separate occasions in 2010, five One Piece releases simultaneously debuted on The New York Times Best Seller list for manga? | |||||||||
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
DYK nomination
editList of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers
editCriticism
edit- [1], referenced by Anime News Network
- [2], referenced by Anime News Network
- [3], referenced by Deb Aoki
Split
editPer the consensus at the FAC, I propose that this article be split into yearly lists, starting with 2009 and 2010. I propose that the prose lead-in/sum-up of each of the lists should remain here and function as the lead for the sublist, but the tables should be in the sublists.--Malkinann (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- What is the FAC and where is the discussion for it? As the years go by and the list gets too big, breaking it into sub-articles makes sense. I don't see that is a problem now, but don't really care. Dream Focus 07:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- At the Featured List Candidate nomination for this list, it was brought up that it will become unwieldy, and the idea of creating lists by years and nominating those instead was suggested. I figure that as 2009 and 2010 are over, the lists will not change, and so it would be safe to split them off into their own articles, letting the main article act as an incubator for the current year's list. --Malkinann (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- I agree. It will also help getting these featured, and make things easier to navigate.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
- At the Featured List Candidate nomination for this list, it was brought up that it will become unwieldy, and the idea of creating lists by years and nominating those instead was suggested. I figure that as 2009 and 2010 are over, the lists will not change, and so it would be safe to split them off into their own articles, letting the main article act as an incubator for the current year's list. --Malkinann (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)