Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece manga volumes/archive2

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 21:41, 24 September 2010 [1].

List of One Piece manga volumes

Nominator: Good raise 10:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notified: Jinnai, Tintor2, Lightlowemon

I am nominating this for featured list because "we need more FLCs!"[2] The last FLC failed because of a reviewer taking some issues with the prose with which I simply disagreed and therefore did not address. Please take the time to read his arguments and state whether or not you agree with him. Thanks. Goodraise 10:58, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - As it currently is as the issue from the last FAC hasn't been addressed. As I said last time, if someone else uninvolved with that particular issue or other manga FLCs disagrees with me, then I would drop it. They haven't though that still stands.

The issue I raised was about volume release by Madman.
In addition, since Viz ramped up their production, I am wondering if Madman has. I don't see anything on this.
"It follows the adventures of the seventeen-year-old boy Monkey D. Luffy, whose body gains the properties of rubber from accidentally eating a supernatural fruit, as he travels the oceans in search of the series' titular treasure and gathers himself a ragtag crew of heroic pirates, named the Straw Hats." - This sentence feels a bit long and should probably be divided into two.陣内 _Jinnai 17:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've made clear in the last FLC why I did not make the changes you requested, so I won't go into that again. Your second point is merely a new facet of our disagreement and I'm not addressing it for analogous reasons. As for that long sentence, it feels fine to me. Thanks for taking the time to review. Goodraise 19:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still feel the sentence should be divided, but if that were the only issue, I wouldn't oppose. My point is though that the article is biased toward NA release schedule as it gives much more detail to Viz leaving the others as only mention simply because Viz produced volumes first.

On a secondary note, if this it to be a complete listing on the English volume/chapter listing, it should also not the re-release in a compilation format by Viz.陣内 _Jinnai 19:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being silly. Local releases, compilation format re-releases, that's all supposed to be in the list? The original releases and, since this is the English language Wikipedia, the first releases in English are the only ones with historic significance. Therefore, they are given considerably more weight than all other releases. That has nothing to do with bias. With an ongoing manga, that may not be so obvious, but if Eiichiro Oda had lived 200 years ago, then you wouldn't insist on each instance of a company anywhere in the world trying to make a profit of his work to be mentioned here. Noting a re-release may just take one sentence, but that's beside the point. Wikipedia is not a sales catalog and it's not supposed to be complete. It's supposed to be comprehensive. Good raise 06:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that were the case, we wouldn't note a sudden ramp-up in production by those same historical terms as production schedules always change and we often don't make mention where there are more subtle changes or temporary hiatuses. And so because Viz just happened to do it first your stating we should only briefly mention what any other English publisher does, ie that they may publish the series? That is not comprehensive; that's systemic bias. In a comprehensive history we'd also note similar tends with any major publication. Just because some company does something first does not give license to ignore coverage of the one who comes second.陣内 _Jinnai 20:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If that were the case, we wouldn't note a sudden ramp-up in production by those same historical terms as production schedules always change and we often don't make mention where there are more subtle changes or temporary hiatuses." – Yes, we would. The first release in English language is the first release in English language. It doesn't matter if it happens now, happened 200 years ago, or happened before the emergence of Christ (ignoring for a moment the fact that English hasn't been around that long). If more significant things happen in regard to the series in that time, then those take precedence of course, but the passage of time alone doesn't take anything away from the relevance of that fact. And what the changing nature of publication schedules, let alone "more subtle changes or temporary hiatuses", has to do with the relation between the time passed since the first publication and the weight given to that publication's schedule is beyond me.
"And so because Viz just happened to do it first your stating we should only briefly mention what any other English publisher does, ie that they may publish the series?" – Basically, yes, that's what I'm saying. However, I'm looking at it differently. While the lead is usually read first, it is written last. Or rather, the lead is written to match the article body, not the other way round. This is even more so with lists than with normal articles. Therefore, the question that comes first is: What should go into the table? As you haven't objected to the lack of information in the table, I assume its content agrees with you. And since only the first English language release dates are contained in the table, I'm lead to the conclusion that you acknowledge that the first English language release dates deserve to be given more weight than later English language release dates. That leaves us with the question: What goes into the lead? As specified by WP:LEAD, the lead section should be introduction and summary. Mentioning that the series is published in English in various countries serves an introductory purpose. Mentioning Viz's accelerated publishing schedule on the other hand is part of the summary of the article body. Similar information for other publications would not play the same role, as the release dates of those publications aren't found in the tables.
"[...] because Viz [did] it first [we should cover them more deeply]? [...]; that's systemic bias." – How so? I may not agree with your opinion that the article is biased, but I can understand why you'd call it that. However, you'll have to explain to me why you think it is a systemic bias.
"In a comprehensive history we'd also note similar tends with any major publication." – Perhaps, but that's not the goal of the article. The article title is "List of One Piece manga volumes", not "Publication history of the One Piece manga series".
"Just because some company does something first does not give license to ignore coverage of the one who comes second." – Since Madman's releases are not ignored, merely covered less deeply, I assume what you want is for Madman's releases to be covered equally deep as those of Viz. If Madman's releases really deserve equally deep coverage in this article, then why don't you insist on inclusion of their release dates and ISBNs in the tables? Good raise 10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not disputing that we wouldn't note the first appearance of something. However that is not an excuse that we ignore anything else simply because something was first. If we have a finite amount of space then the argument about being concise would have more justification. Because VIZ gets there and publishes something first is not an excuse to all but ignore any other English language developments. I am not saying that Madman (in this case) needs to be equally covered either. I am saying they should be more than some passing 1-line sentance that amounts to "oh this company also publishes One Piece in English". That is where the systemic bias is - that by coming first you think a passing mention to anyone who comes second should simply be ignored unless it is of extreme notability far above and beyond that of what VIZ does.

In that regard, listing the first publication date for every volume isn't necessary for Madman, although and last (the latter of which has yet to be announced) is. Furthermore its by language, not region. While it doesn't apply here specifically, other divisions do divide by region, such as video games and in that case it would be important to note Madman's first publication for each and every one if we divided it as such. It would also be notable to make the publications if Madman, took its cue from 4kids and altered the manga to come out with their own unique publication style.

The bottom line is I'm not disputing with you that VIZ by virtue of being first has more importance. I'm saying that status doesn't amount to all but ignoring Madman save for one lone sentence.陣内 _Jinnai 05:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I will ignore the first two paragraphs of this post as they are borderline gibberish, and since making sense of them would require painstaking guesswork on my part. Considering that you identify as a native speaker of English on your user page and obviously deem yourself knowledgeable in matters of English grammar,[3] I find your writing in this manner to be an imposition.

"I'm not disputing ... that VIZ ... has more importance. I'm saying that status doesn't amount to all but ignoring Madman save for one lone sentence." – So, you're saying Madman Entertainment's releases should be covered less deeply than those of Viz Media, but in more than one sentence, right? Why? Their releases are already covered more deeply than all non-English, non-Japanese releases combined and equally deep as the releases of Gollancz Manga. Why do their releases merit deeper coverage? They're only selling Viz's adaptation under a different name.[4] If anything, they're already given more attention then they're due. Good raise 12:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the stricken passage above: After several hours of doing other things and after reading those paragraphs another few times, I realize that I may have overreacted a little. I apologize and hope no feelings were hurt. However, the fact remains that your writing is often hard to understand for me, perhaps not lastly because I'm not a native speaker of English. Good raise 18:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: As for the re-release, yes a sentance is enough, but as re-releases are noted in other FLs, it should be noted here.陣内 _Jinnai 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That other articles fail at something is no reason to repeat their mistakes. (See WP:OTHERSTUFF.) Good raise 10:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not comprehensive to not state a widespread republication in a completely different format. That kind of info is expected for a feature-class article; reprints that have little to no change aren't.陣内 _Jinnai 05:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"completely different format" – I have read the description on the Amazon.com page you linked to above. I have browsed Viz's product description pages.[5] I have even read a review of the first of these volumes.[6] But if there is anything so different about these volumes that it would merit the attribute completely, then I must have missed it. Please, enlighten me. Good raise 12:52, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having read volume 1 of that I can say there are some notable differences. The biggest is probably the Zoro/Zolo translation was retranslated to Zolo for these translations. There are also additional production errors not seen in the original and that are easily discernable to the average reader.陣内 _Jinnai 16:47, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As in the previous one, I support it. Although the sentence may feel long, dividing it into two could wouldn't feel good. This issue seems somehow trivial, and making not pass just for that doesn't feel good, considering article's good state.Tintor2 (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Last time I looked, MOS frowned upon bold links, so remove the linking (or bolding) of "One Piece"

Removed. Wasn't me by the way. Good raise 22:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"gathers himself a ragtag crew of heroic pirates" this isn't particularly encyclopedic. If that's what the blurb says, then make it a quote, otherwise, neutralise the tone and stick to pure facts.

Better? Good raise 22:48, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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