Talk:Original English-language manga/Archive 1

Untitled

Talkarchivenav

Japanese Story-Telling

Y'know, something tells me it is possible to have a manga-styled work with American story telling. Currently, that has not happened yet; and indeed, Wiki is not a crystal ball. However, there is a book called "Manga without Borders" which makes point about localized flavor put into a manga art. KyuuA4 08:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Manga-Influenced Comics

Recommend name change to article. The name recommendation parallels Anime-influenced animation. KyuuA4 15:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the gigantic discussion below on exactly what you're recommending. Luvcraft 18:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Does anyone know of any Amerimanga examples prior to the mid-eighties Shuriken and Eagle? Aside from Ninja High School, those are the earliest ones and I'm getting ready to work on the history portion of this article, so any assistance would help. If anyone has any information in this regard, please drop me a line at my talk page about it. Thanks.--Mitsukai 04:07, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Public use of "OEL Manga"

I highlighted Publishers Weekly's use, because they are one of the few authoritative voices, if not THE authoritative voice, in the news of the publishing industry, so it was the most notable use. I do know that Jeremy Ross used the word "OEL" a few times in his letters from the editor in the monthly Manga Online section of tokyopop.com, but this was only after the term appeared in the print edition of Publishers Weekly. (The Tokyopop website was recently overhauled though and I can't find those letters anymore.) I have not found any advertisements or press releases from Tokyopop using the term; the press releases at least are available on the website. I do know that as Tokyopop has decided to use "global manga," Seven Seas pushed the term "world manga" when they first announced their line of original titles, but they soon dropped this in favor of just "manga." They did snap up the URL oelmanga.com soon after the term became popular (this may be one reason Tokyopop went with "global manga"--so they could get the domain), and the word appears in a July 2005 posting with their Aoi House webcomic, but I've been unable to find a press release or advertisement from Seven Seas either officially using the term "OEL." Most of the reputable non-forum uses of the term to refer to Tokyopop's or Seven Seas' non-Japanese manga seems to be in the form of news articles written by outside sources such as PW, Comic Book Resources, ICv2, etc. —pfahlstrom 06:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My view

It says in the article "the term "OEL Manga," or Original English Language Manga, is most commonly used today.". Therefore, as Wikipedia articles should be at the most common names, this article should be at OEL Manga.
That, and Amerimanga is a silly name. --Jamdav86 09:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It is indeed by far the most common term to reference them. The fact that is has the word "manga" attached. It is a step in the right direction. KyuuA4 08:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was decided prior to the move that the page for Original English-language manga was to be merged here to Amerimanga. I disagreed, but went along with the consensus. However, if we choose to move this page to OEL manga, that means non-English Western manga (such as German, French, Spanish, etc.) would probably need its own page. I suppose one solution is to keep Amerimanga (which almost everyone here seems to accept is not the preferred page title) and OEL manga on the OEL page and have an international umbrella article as proposed by pfahlstrom. I don't think we really need to split the articles, or that all the other movements are strong enough on their own to warrant a page, though. --SevereTireDamage 22:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The International influence part of the manga article might be a good place to start for the umbrella article. If nothing else happens in the next few days I'll try to find time to give it a go. —pfahlstrom 01:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where are we on naming this page?

Discussion has died down. Is there a concensus? Should I open formal move request? --Kunzite 17:28, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, someone just move it away from this page. --Jamdav86 17:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The general consensus was that the article should not stay at Amerimanga. The problems are, where should this moved to, and what should the scope of this article be? For instance, is everyone okay with moving this page to Original English-language manga and excluding the international influence of manga on the West, and keeping the focus on American/English/Canadian manga that directly imitates (clearly and plainly, not just influenced by) Japanese manga? --SevereTireDamage 05:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are not that many "Euromanga" and there are already seperate articles for manhwa and manhua. And it doesn't necessarily exclude non-english manga--there could be a section on non-english manga-style comics. I don't care for "OEL manga", but I suppose "Manga-influenced western comics" wouldn't fly either. --Kunzite 05:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still have the same opinions as last mentioned (two articles), but am unfortunately too busy right now to make a major contribution. —pfahlstrom 05:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. -- Kjkolb 04:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amerimanga → Original English-language manga – More articles (as opposed to user's pages) link to "Original English-language manga" than "Amerimanga", "Amerimanga" is the name of a publishing company and is thus confusing, "OEL manga" returns more hits on Google and Technorati than "Amerimanga" (which I realize is not notable on its own, but is a notable point in conjunction with the proceeding points). Luvcraft 01:08, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Oppose I'd rather spell it out: Original English-language manga or go for the Manga-inspired western comic books --Kunzite 03:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with ~~the unsigned user above~~ Kunzite that it should be spelled-out as Original English-language manga rather than an abbreviation, but that's a support for moving. SnowFire 03:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support move, Oppose abbreviation in title. --Jamdav86 09:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to full unabbreviated title. --SevereTireDamage 20:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per discussion above. —pfahlstrom 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Fixed. I prefer "Original English-language manga" too, but chose "OEL manga" because it has wider usage. I've changed the move request to "Original English-language manga" rather than "OEL manga". Luvcraft 19:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see "original-English language manga" as a descriptive term and "OEL manga" as just a convenient abbreviation of it. A redirect from OEL manga would be appropriate; OEL itself is already a dab page. —pfahlstrom 02:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Luvcraft 05:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

NPOV/Contradiction tags still needed?

Is the neutrality of the article still in dispute? Also, which article(s) does it appear to contradict? —pfahlstrom 17:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original tagging author didn't leave any comments here, but I think s/he was referring to this paragraph:

However, "OEL Manga" has also received criticism from some quarters. According to some Western anime and manga [[otaku]], this word would be an [[oxymoron]] since the word "manga," being a Japanese [[loanword]], in English use initially meant comics published in Japan for a Japanese audience. For instance, comics in China ([[manhua]]) and Korea ([[manhwa]])—which are often labeled by Westerners as manga—do show many influences from Japanese manga, but are not described locally as manga; however, comics from Japan are not called "manga" in those countries either, so the relevance of this point is debatable. Those who prefer not to use the word "manga" to refer to non-Japanese-origin comics have proposed the term "manga-influenced comics" as a possible neutral term for to works created outside of Japan, but this term does not inherently refer to non-Japanese comics, but simply to any comic which is influenced by manga, which would include comics produced in Japan as well.

But it looks to me like any contradictions there have already been removed, so I'll toss the tags. Vectro 02:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced POV statement.

The conversion of American comics into the Manga style, as in the case of the Marvel Mangaverse has also drawn ire from some American comic fans, as they feel the format is unsuited towards American comic heroes such as Spider-Man. Of course, this has also drawn in the ire of some fanboys who decry the trend towards making American comics into manga, as an invasion that threatens the future of all American comics. This is, however, in all likelihood, nothing more than typical fanboy v. fanboy arguments that are common from everything from comic books to fantasy. (Harry Potter v. Lord of the Rings, Star Wars v. Star Trek, etc.)

Please re-source it and remove biased statements before re-adding it. --Kunzite 03:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by the popularity of Harry Potter Doujinshis, I can see the fans letting the concept of an HP manga slide by (as long as it was drawn talentedly). Interview With the Vampire had a Japanese manga that looked SO much better than the Vampire Lestat American comics. LikaLaruku 8:33 pm 27 November 2006

"nissei comi"

I see a lot of works online using the word "nissei comi" to refer to OEL manga, but the word "nissei" is incorrect. Second generation (usually referring to second-generation Japanese Americans) is termed nisei, not nissei (nisei comi has also been used before, though to a lesser extent). It's also not at all clear who refers to these - are they Japanese, or are they American purists? ColourBurst 21:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origin

~~This term was coined by Fred Gallagher in a Megatokyo rant, wasn't it? --Masamage 22:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

Wait, nevermind. I just found the rant I was remembering, and he's totally making fun of it. X) I guess you could use that for a 'criticism' in the article. --Masamage 22:40, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biased intro?

Referring to OEL-manga as an "oxymoron" right at the beginning of the page smacks of someone's biases. Something like that is best saved for the "Criticisms" section. The whole article seems biased, but the introduction is the worst. --MayumiTsuji 00:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)MayumiTsuji[reply]

Wow. This article has POV written all over it. I tried to improve the intro a bit, but it's almost to the point of needing a complete rewrite for the first several sections. --tjstrf talk 09:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is better to include OEL manga work simply as manga , there exists a resistance to that notion. Other terms such as "world manga", "amerimanga", and the like have been introduced; and OEL manga is the one with the most use. KyuuA4 06:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Better Name/ Opinion

Seeing all this I can't help but think, people (although are right to a degree) think the manga means ONLY Japanese comics correct? Don't people usually use this to decribe the Style of the art here in the West? Or it could be a possibility to create a similar name like the Chinese "Manhua" and Korean "Manhwa" which are basically that nation's version of the Japanese "Manga" ( Not a name incorperating Ameri- though,that is too American Centric, there not the only Western country that creates Manga inspired art) Post Here If You Agree or want to discuss this user:Editor=toast

The Japanese term "manga" according to the Japanese involves ALL comics. Naturally, like anime, we've managed to delegate manga to imply "Japanese only", without consideration of the Japanese meaning itself. However, the differences between comic and manga is distinct to us Westerners. So, we separate manga work from comic work. Regardless, for well over 10 years or so, we do find some non-Japanese work starting to "imitate" manga. Why do we use OEL-manga? It's become the most dominant term used in the industry. That's all. KyuuA4 06:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book Sources

Here is:

Dream Land Japan, by Fred Schodt

If I find more, I'll link them here. KyuuA4 19:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reception Has Mistake

There's a mistake here. Let me explain.

Here's the quote from the cited websource, which, BTW, is a Malaysian on-line newspaper:

"However, licensed manga still fares better than its OEL counterpart, according to an April 2007 article in Austin American-Statesman titled Manga, American-style. The article quoted Lillian Diaz-Przybyl, a Tokyopop editor, as saying that while a top Japanese manga will sell as many as 100,000 copies in the United States, a best-selling OEL will sell only about half of that."

This does not say that the total US sales of OEL manga is half that of import, original-Japanese manga. TokyoPop might want you to believe that, but tain't so. The reason is that import, original-Japanese manga vastly outnumbers US-produced OEL manga in the US. Diaz-Przybyl is talking about individual titles, not the combined market for the two kinds of manga.

Here's how the numbers work. Let's say we have "Jethro, the American Ninja Boy," as an OEL manga, and it sells half of what a best-selling manga title sells, like Fruits Basket. That's not bad for the author of "Jethro," because it might amount to 10-20,000 copies of a trade paperback. But then there's Rurouni Kenshin, Full Metal Alchemist, Naruto, Death Note, Berserk, Yotsuba&, Saikano... plus the other 42 original-Japanese manga titles from the top 50 list on Anime NewsNetwork.

And poor little "Jethro, the American Ninja Boy" vanishes under all those other titles.

I'll give this a few days, and revise the entry. Is that OK with everyone?

Timothy Perper 10:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the mistake mentioned above, and added data from ICv2 top 50 list. I also fixed the description of Lillian Diaz-Przybyl's comments. So it ought to be OK now. Bottom line? OEL manga is nowhere near the popularity of Japanese-origin manga. Timothy Perper 14:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

"Original English-language manga or OEL manga is a term commonly used to describe comic books or graphic novels whose language of original publication is English^{[citation needed]}"

That tag is idiotic, and whoever placed it should die a slow and painful death. 91.22.121.117 (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now... be civil. Actually, it does need a citation, since a variety of terms have been proposed instead of OEL. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, that whole section needs citing, since Manga-Inspired Comics is also in heavy use, including by major industry sites. It is still an extremely contentious issue so sourcing is a must before declaring "this one won" as these statements do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AnmaFinotera (talk • contribs) 21:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This article is redundant to Manga outside Japan. It is an article that covers the same topics and issues involving OEL manga, without the Anglo-centric theme. KyuuA4 01:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC) KyuuA4 doesn't know what he's talking about. User:Xenos 11:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.250.21 (talk) [reply]

Not really. That article mostly talks about the publication of manga from Japan in other countries. Notice that it has a link to la nouvelle manga which is an article which parallels this current article, but for French instead of English.—pfahlstrom 07:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that there is anything from Original English-language manga to merge. But at the very least, Original English-language manga should be redirected to Amerimanga. --TheFarix (Talk) 20:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To me "Amerimanga" is a neologism and an Amero-centric thitle that is not in keeping with WP:CSB. A more neutral term should be used for the phenomenon. --Kunzite 02:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Manga-influenced comics (MICs) is a nice neutral term I've seen pop up on discussions about this subject. However I can accept maintaining Amerimanga as an entry solely on the magazine that bore the name. --72.137.173.201 18:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how is Amerimanga a neologism when it's been used for over twenty years (see my statement from above; all those series are from the early to mid-eighties)? If anything, OEL is a neologism, not Amerimanga. Is it Amerocentric? Yes - but that still does not deny the existence of the earlier term.--み使い Mitsukai 14:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merge. Amerimanga has been used, but it I don't believe it was honestly that popular, much like "Japanimation". I've definitely heard OEL used far more often in the past couple of years as a generic term for this American-made manga. Both terms were created by companies publicizing their work, but I believe OEL-manga deserves its own page, especially since it has a recent history that can be written up and its growing neologism status (rather independently of Wikipedia). Also, it is a commercial label that applies to a line of books, like CMX or Vertigo. Also, most google results for "Amerimanga" result in ads for that specific anthology. --SevereTireDamage 03:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with OEL is that Tokyopop, the company that promoted its use has dropped it in favour of "global manga"(which has its own problems, but I won't get into that here). So whatever grassroots use it has garnered will fade without the company reinforcing the term. It's worthy a subsection at most in a general article about non-japanese manga style comics. --72.137.173.201 20:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the merger should occur, but that the article should remain as Amerimanga for historical purposes. If needed, the article can reflect that the term has since fallen into regional use. By doing so, that's not systemic bias, that's accurate reporting, as there are tons of amerimanga artists (including some that work for Tokyopop) who use the term amerimanga, even if the company itself does not.--み使い Mitsukai 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"OEL" was not promoted or pushed by TOKYOPOP. It spread purely as an internet meme and then became a print meme with ICv2 and Publishers Weekly. People started using it because it was a good descriptive term, and they still use it far more often than "Global Manga" (though that has seen some use such as on MangaCast). —pfahlstrom 21:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure? Beside the interview cite from June 2005 that I already put up, even a cursory google search shows that many major news sites (Newsarama, ICv2, Comic Book Resources, ComicCon's official site) use it even to discuss both Tokyopop and non-Tokyopop books today. This August 2005[1] CBR review flat out says Tokyopop was calling their books OEL at that point, which I already believe started with the June Newsarama interview. Not to mention Seven Seas bought the oelmanga.com domain. To say that there is no push from actual companies to use "OEL manga" as a term doesn't seem particularly accurate. --SevereTireDamage 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're offering evidence against your statement. I'm saying that the push for "OEL" was from the artists themselves and the news sites, not TOKYOPOP or Seven Seas. Please read my comment at the bottom of this Talk page. In the Jeremy Ross interview, it was Heidi MacDonald who brought up "OEL" first, then Jeremy responded--if you'll note, Jeremy said the TOKYOPOP internal term was actually OGM, a portmanteau of Original Graphic Novel and the M from "manga," and no one could decide for sure what it stood for, so they called it "Original Gangsta Manga." (The G now stands for "Global," but before the announcement of "Global Manga," TOKYOPOP's policy was always to just externally call it manga. I know that Rivkah had an advertisement on her own website calling her book Steady Beat "Authentic American Manga" which TOKYOPOP was not exactly pleased with; she changed it to read "Authentic American Shoujo.") In the Newsarama interview, Benjamin Ong Pang Kean is not a TOKYOPOP employee. And the CBR article is hearsay, not a direct quote; Tony Salvaggio hung out on pseudome.net where Carlo Santos and many of the creators also hung out, using the term constantly; it's easy to see where he got confused. See my other comments in the other section below. But anyway, as you say, many of the news organizations are still using OEL rather than "Global Manga," which is evidence against 72.137.173.201's claim that the grassroots support will fade away. —pfahlstrom 22:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look: I have cited several reliable sources from different times that are interviews with Tokyopop people or artists, where their work is being labeled "OEL manga". I am not denying the term picked up steam on the internet - however - I am citing evidence here that shows Tokyopop promoted it. Your interpretation is that they were passive observers and did little to nothing to push the term. This despite that they are in fact the largest OEL manga publisher. Despite lots and lots of press labeling their work as OEL, they just didn't seem to care the label, it was all the media. If it's Tokyopop artists pushing, well, isn't that the same thing? Then later the companie goes out of their way to distance themselves from "OEL manga", even though they never actually supported it in the first place? Honestly, I believe this is stretching the bounds of reasonable doubt. --SevereTireDamage 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your definition of "promote"? You have not cited evidence that TOKYOPOP has actively promoted it, just that they have not discouraged its use in those articles. None of those articles show TOKYOPOP promoting it. And no, TOKYOPOP artists using it is not the same thing. TOKYOPOP artists are all freelance. They do not work in the company offices; they are not on the company payroll. They do not work for TOKYOPOP any more than J.K. Rowling works for Scholastic. Some of the series they work on are done under a shared copyright, but Rikki & Tavisha of ShutterBox specifically do not--they have full control over all rights concerning their manga, and they have vocally disagreed with TOKYOPOP decisions in the past; there is no reason to believe they would toe any company line.

If you find a press release from TOKYOPOP or advertisement from them that uses the phrase, then that will be proving they promoted its use. TOKYOPOP has put out plenty of press releases over the years, and they are available on the TOKYOPOP website as well as archived in other places such as animenewsservice.com, so it should not be hard for you to find an example if one exists. Advertisements are trickier, of course, but a press release should be easy to find. As for me, I'm not sure what you want ME to prove; it's hard for me to argue from a vacuum. Why would someone write and publish an article explaining that TOKYOPOP never officially promoted their books as OEL? —pfahlstrom 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And no offense, but you saying that Salvaggio is wrong without anything to back it up is also unreliable and original research. All you have to do is find a reliable source to back up your assertions about the "OEL manga" term. Also note that according to WP:RS, blogs, self-published sources and vanity press are inherently reliable and can not be used to verify claims, in particular with Santos' claim, his blog should not be used as a sole source, if at all, about his originating the term. I would not consider him a "well known, professional researcher", especially with his claims being on a low-traffic personal blog, not to mention they're about crediting himself. (Not to mention he wasn't even writing his ANN column at the time, so his claim to popularizing it through forums, also unreliable, is borderline unverifiable.) You called it weasel wording, which I can understand at first glance, however I was merely reflecting the inherent unreliability of the statement and source. Just find a reliable secondary source (such as the ComicFoundry article), we don't need to go through this argument. Just find external proof; that's all you need to do. --SevereTireDamage 02:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you like, I will write to Salvaggio and ask him to clarify this issue. I have read through WP:RS, and it does not seem at all clear on whether someone's statements about themselves can be considered a valid source. Aren't personal journals generally considered to be primary sources? It's not like Carlo is saying "someone I know did this" or "when X is added to Y, Z happens"—he is saying "On this day, I did such and such thing." There is no way anyone else could give a more reliable account of his own actions than he himself can. Could he possibly NOT be the first person to use the term? Yes, but nobody else has claimed it, so unless you go out and find evidence that someone else came up with it, why isn't his personal account good enough? He also did not claim to popularize it through forums. The OEL manga creator community is pretty small, but quite active on the internet, and they read each others' blogs regularly. Carlo was responding to Queenie Chan's blog, and she responded in kind and it was picked up by Rivkah and it went from there. Tony Salvaggio himself is a writer for an OEL manga called Psy-Comm, for example, and he and many other creators hang out on the forums of the Van Von Hunter creators, at pseudome.net, where they discuss TOKYOPOP and the manga industry as a whole. It's no surprise that he started using it in his "Calling Manga Island" columns, and it's easy to see why he might assume that TOKYOPOP was using it, if so many of their artists were. The phrase spread through blogs and forums; Heidi MacDonald is a very prolific comics blogger who also started doing work for Publishers Weekly's comics coverage, so when she picked up the term it's not a big jump at all to Publishers Weekly using it. —pfahlstrom 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early to mid-80's can still be a neologism. There was an article on "Proteanism" that was recently culled because it was a neologism. The word was originally coined in the 1800's and used once or twice in acadmic papers. The word never entered into mainstream usage and it was still a neologism when it was deleted. We should find a neutral term that defines this phenomenon and describe it with that term and not the marketing phrase that was hot in a particular year. "Original English-language Manga" is a phrase that could be used, though it apparently has attachments to a publisher. What about "Manga inspired comic books"? Google search says that "World manga" is more popular than "amerimanga".

Finally, reading this article again, it seems to be mostly OR and REALLY needs some sourcing for such statements as:"However, "OEL Manga" has also received criticism from some quarters. According to some Western anime and manga otaku, this word would be an oxymoron, since the word "manga," being a Japanese word, would inherently mean that the comic was published in Japan. Some of these people refer to "Amerimanga" instead as "Manga-Influenced Comics" (usually abbreviated to MIC) in an effort to disambiguate the use of the word "manga" to refer to works created outside of Japan." Who are these "otaku" or these "some people" and why do we give a damn about what they say? --Kunzite 12:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Manga inspired/influenced comic books" is probably the most neutral way to go. It describes what the subject is without using marketing-speak or omitting certain cultures/languages/geographies. I lean towards "influenced" myself because it's basically comic books that have incorporated certain elements of manga.--72.137.173.201 20:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually go for "Manga-influenced comics" so that it also covers non-comic books (there is a subtle distinction on Wikipedia between comics and comic books, see Category:Comics terminology and Category:Comic book terminology)such as the many manga-inspired webcomics and the rare example of newspaper print comics such as The Boondocks. I also would prefer this sort of neutral term over the current "Amerimanga".

As far as OEL manga goes, I hadn't realized they dropped the name.[2] I still believe that term and label deserves its own page, considering they broke ground in the industry on a creative and marketing perspective. Many others tried to make a huge impact with this genre, but Tokyopop actually made it into real bookstores piggybacking the success of their imports. It doesn't necessarily have to be included in this article - it's just the current OEL article is pretty weak, even weaker than the section in the main Tokyopop article. --SevereTireDamage 23:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's go with "Manga-influenced comics". I've edited the article accordingly. I'm not sure what to do about the Amerimanga magazine section. Reading over the Studio Ironcat article, it only lasted for less than a year, so it doesn't seem to be all that significant compared to other publications of the subject. I think OEL would be better as a section in this article, as part of a general history of manga-influenced comics. It's not going to go much further with Tokyopop pushing new terms around. --72.137.173.201 04:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I don't particularly like the word "Amerimanga" myself, but it was the status quo, and it does have decades of use. I do not like "Manga-influenced comics," because this implies that 1. Manga are not comics, 2. Comics are only in English, and 3. Manga in Japan is not influenced by other manga.

"Original English-language manga" is a simple descriptive phrase invented by one particular blogger, and has not been used in any official capacity by any publisher, but it HAS been used in industry publications like Publishers Weekly. "Global Manga" is the one attached to a publisher, TOKYOPOP, and they use it to refer to anything produced outside Japan, including works in Korean or German.

Anyway, I don't feel comfortable with an unregistered user moving this page with no formal RfC or vote. As much as the word pains me, I think it's best to go back to the status quo until a more neutral yet appropriate term can be decided upon.—pfahlstrom 00:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, by the way, I do support "Manga-influenced comics" if it is used as an umbrella term covering manga as well, so that all comics influenced by manga, whether they come from inside Japan or outside of it, may be called "manga-influenced comics." That's the only way the term makes sense in my book. "Manga-influenced comics" as a superset of "manga"—if that's the way it gets explained, I'm all for it. —pfahlstrom 00:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted. We did have a discussion on the matter. I really find "~~Animanga~~" to be too Amerocentric of a term for this phenomenon, even though it might have had some prior, very minor, usage, based on a magazine name. If there is a better, country neutral term that we can use to describe these works of fiction that draw inspiration from the Japanese manga medium(and sometimes call themselves "manga".) I personally DO not feel that this term needs to make reference to the fact that "manga in Japan are influeced by other manga" that's a given since Osamu Tezuka and his cinematic style gave birth to the modern genre and belongs in the main manga article. I also do not believe that the article insinuates that all comics are written in English. --Kunzite 01:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted back. I see the discussion, and I don't see convincing consensus beyond the idea that "Amerimanga" is a bad term. I also don't see support in the wild for the term "manga-influenced comics." There are 18,000 hits for "amerimanga" (and the usage did NOT begin with the short-lived magazine; it's been around since the early 80s with Ninja High School, etc.) and only 527 for "manga-influenced comics." "World manga" gives almost 30,000 hits, but it's difficult to determine how many of them are actually talking about non-Japanese manga (the top hit, for instance, is definitely talking about Japanese manga). However, "oel manga" gives 11,800 hits, much higher than 527, and it's doubtful any of those hits are for pages not talking about this subject. In fact, searching for the terms not in quotes gives 88,000 hits, and again, it's likely that any page with both of the words on it is actually talking about this subject, since "oel" is an unlikely combination of letters.

The term "OEL manga" has large support in the wild, while "manga-influenced comics" has almost none. However it does by definition restrict itself to things written in English. What does this article want to be about—does it want to be about any comics influenced by the Japanese tradition, or does it want to focus on the comics of one language? In the past the "Amerimanga" article certainly focused on things published in English, but a broader scope might be better. Of course, I also do not have any problem applying the term "manga" to something that originates outside of Japan, any more than I have any problem applying the word "sushi" or "pizza" or "cheddar" to something made not in Japan, Italy, or the English county of Cheddar.

Anyway my point is that while Amerimanga is a bad term, "manga-influenced comics" is neither adequate nor actually in use. This article should have a name that is actually used by people involved with what it describes. —pfahlstrom 02:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problems is that your search is flawed. A basic "Animanga" search on google turns up all of the commercial sites that have the Animanga magazine for sale. Your hits are also skewed because you do not exclued the word wikipedia from the search. Guess we'll have to do a formal move request... --Kunzite 12:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That may be, but the vast disuse of the term "manga-influenced comics" is still clear. (I assume you meant Amerimanga when you wrote Animanga, and it's indeed difficult to separate out the hits that refer to the magazine rather than the term.) Excluding wikipedia from search results, "manga-influenced comics" gives only 492 hits, while "OEL manga" gives 9,960. Searching for just the words OEL and manga but limiting to English pages and excluding "wikipedia" and "Öl", the hits are 23,600; jumping to random pages in the Google search results and perusing the results shows that the vast majority are talking about the subject at hand. Conclusion: "OEL manga" is widely used in the wild; "manga-influenced comics" is not.—pfahlstrom 18:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "manga-influenced comics" is meant to be a descriptive term for a disaprate series of phenomenon. It's not meant to google. I was following what's laid out at WP:NCON in assigning a descriptive name. If you would like to propose an alternative descriptive name, feel free. I have no major attachments to this one. I will also suggest deleting the unsourced, self-referential, nitpicking about this term from the article itself. --Kunzite 00:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. You will discover that the artists who are involved in the production of the comics addressed in this article do have some Self-identifying names. They identify themselves as mangaka, and they call their product manga, Original English-language manga, or a few other things. As it says in that link, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive; it is not Wikipedia's job to declare what the name should be, only what it is; it's not Wikipedia's job to tell them they cannot use a term ending in the word "manga," merely to say what term they use. —pfahlstrom 02:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(comment split) Of course, but that usage is universally self-identifying amoung these artists nor is it universally accepted by all persons... so, we should try to find a neutral term to describe them. I personally don't think that we should even use the term "mangaka" on wikipedia because it violated the "use english" directive, but... these things are hard to remove. (Though we were successful at getting rid of dorama.) --Kunzite 03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a purely descriptive term, I have no problem with the terms "manga-influenced comics" or "manga-style comics," as long as they are used to describe that which the words themselves describe: comics that are influenced by manga or are in a manga style, both of which logically include comics from Japan. If the article's first line reads "Manga-influenced comics are non-Japanese comics that..." then that is a logical impossibility I cannot support; if it says something like "Manga-influenced comics are sequential art grounded in the comics movement of Japan and are a global superset of manga," that would be a logically acceptable statement that I would have no problems with. But what is this article about? Is it about any comic stemming from the manga tradition? Or is it about comics stemming from the manga tradition whose original publication is in English? Or those whose original publication is in any language other than Japanese? It might be a good idea to have one article for any comics in the manga tradition which says "Main article: manga" for the Japanese part, "Main article: manhwa" for the Korean part (etc.), and "Main article: Original English-language manga" for the English part; others such as Original German-language manga (examples would include Yonen Buzz and other titles published by TOKYOPOP Germany) could be covered in subsections of the umbrella article. Amerimanga could be a separate article acknowledging the history of the term and the magazine that bore that name, but directing users to Original English-language manga for the current usage. The OEL article could acknowledge the other terms such as "World Manga" and "Global Manga." Controversy could perhaps be kept to the umbrella article so as not to clutter things up. Comics which are influenced by manga but which are not marketed as manga, such as Frank Miller's work, could be touched on by the umbrella article. —pfahlstrom 02:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the lead of the article is still mostly crap and it doesn't know what it wants to be. The solution of splitting the article up into many little bits is not what we should be doing. Wikipedia articles on the same topic are usually concatenated into the same article. (i.e. share taxi.) We should have one article. Redirects can take care of shuttling people between the various terms. Amerimanga is no longer the prefered term (I think your google search showed this) and should not be used. OEL manga is better and more current. It's better than Amerimanga. --Kunzite 03:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think what I described was "the same topic"; I thought I described three separate (though related) topics, each of which would get their own article. Subsets articles that would be linked to by the umbrella article already exist—manga, manhwa, manhua, and la nouvelle manga; Original English-language manga would be another; unless you suggest combing all 5 topics into one superarticle, which I don't think is a good idea, it makes sense to have an umbrella article for these 5 closely related comic styles as well as to act as a catch-all for things like Original German-language manga which may not be notable enough to get their own articles. Finally, "Amerimanga" could maybe then be a disambig article leading to the OEL article as one option and to the Studio Ironcat article as another option, since the magazine is already discussed in detail there. That would mean only one new page would be made--the umbrella article. —pfahlstrom 05:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I performed the move, not an anonymous user. Second, Amerimanga in particular was a bad term for this page, because even though it's been around for a while, it never caught on and even has a negative connotation now (according to Tokyopop and Anime News Network, anyway). Not only that, but just about any term that falls into ___ manga is inherently going to be somewhat off by definition, since manga only comes from Japan, just as you won't call The Powerpuff Girls anime by any stretch of the imagination. I personally don't see any of the connotations you mentioned with "manga-influenced comics".

What's important here is the subject of the this article: Western comics being influenced by manga. It's not Wikipedia's job to coin neologisms. The position I am taking here is that it is better to take a more neutral term is better than using a failed neologism that has arguably been supplanted by OEL manga, World manga, what have you. However, it seems that these terms themselves are rather fleeting, so again, it seems to make sense that we take an article title that will make sense. "Manga-influenced comics" to most people will convey the main topic: Western comic books influenced by manga. Would you prefer Japanese-influenced comics? (Though that would probably be too broad.) The "manga being influenced by other manga" statement has nothing to do with this article at all, as of course all artists are influenced by their peers.

If you have a suggestion, I'm open to hearing it. So far, though, the articles for keeping Amerimanga aren't very strong, besides the historical value. Other existing terms are too new to be used (as the Tokyopop announcement even indicates). A neutral title that isn't a coined term makes sense here. --SevereTireDamage 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then call it Western comics influenced by manga or Manga-influenced comics from outside of Japan. Neither of those is particularly wieldy, but they more accurately describe the subject than "Manga-influenced comics." However, I do in fact disagree with your definition of manga. I do not see any reason why manga must come from Japan, as I said—pizza doesn't have to come from Italy, an American can learn karate, etc. etc. Most of the people who actually draw the stuff discussed in this article just call it manga.—pfahlstrom 04:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still prefer the short "manga-influenced comics", as those phrases sound like a specified list rather than a concept. I'll give you that many Westerners do call their comics manga, but that doesn't mean it's not being misappropriated (as Korean comics also being sold in America as "manga"). By the same reasoning, American slasher films are not considered giallo. Also I believe most of these comic creators, even the ones mentioned in this article, still call the comics, simply "comics" (Does Bryan O'Malley call his books manga? Frank Miller, Aaron McGruder?), but that's pretty hard to prove either way. Still, I would like to hear a greater consensus either way, so I will leave messages on the Comic and Anime/Manga Wikiprojects. --SevereTireDamage 05:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"manga-influenced comics" does not inherently refer to things produced outside of Japan; it refers to comics produced inside Japan as well. As for Bryan O'Malley, he says his work isn't trying to be manga [3], though it has manga influences. This Amerimanga article originally was about non-Japanese comics that are more or less trying to be manga; more mainstream comics such as Frank Miller's which show manga influences but which were always intended to be marketed toward the American comics crowd are not really the same thing. (That's another problem with "manga-influenced comics"...it's just so broad.) (However, I do know that Chuck Austen, who has been creating American comics for years, does call his baseball sex comedy Boys of Summer manga.)

Korean comics are marketed as manga for a good reason: they appeal to the same crowd. If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... English is an ever-changing language. Terms come to have different meanings as time goes by. I am a descriptivist; in short, I believe the way people actually use words is what defines what correct usage is.—pfahlstrom 05:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I haven't commented in this in a couple of weeks, but I was asked to by a friend, so I will. Frankly, I think Amerimanga should stay. It is no longer politically correct? Absolutely, assuming it ever was. But that's not the point. The point of the matter is that the first generation of amerimanga-ka (or amerimanga artists, for nitpickers) chose to call it that to seperate themsselves from being "knockoff superhero artists", "indie comickers" or "those guys who normally draw the Robotech comic". Frankly, I don't see any of that mentioned in the history section, and that bothers me (I note that it's mentioned in the main manga article). To anything less than that is historical revisionism.

As long as we explain that amerimanga is the historical term, we should keep it as is. Yes, I agree that it is now out of vogue and that in truth, it should all be called “manga” or “comics” (including that in the CJK triangle) To come up with a "more descriptive" name is not only coining a neologism, the more descriptors added merely serves to balkanize the creations. As one of the artists once said at an anime convention (it was at Katsucon 2004, sorry, but I don't remember the exact artist who said it), "I want to be known as a manga-ka. If I wanted to be a comics artist, I'd be drawing Superman."--み使い Mitsukai 17:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, I've been reading manga and manga-inspired comics for decades (two, two is plural ;) ), and I've never heard them called 'Amerimanga'. Well, maybe once or twice, by some fan who had fallen into the 'if it's from Japan it must be better' trap. Certainly not as any sort of generic term. I'd much prefer to see something akin to "Manga-influenced comics"; maybe "Manga-style western comics" (maybe). Do keep in mind that 'actual manga' would, in the sense of this kind of term, not be influenced by manga, it is part of the definition of what is doing the influencing. You don't talk about the influence of Western Culture on itself, you talk about its influence on the rest of the world, or you break it down to component pieces and talk about their influence on each other. 'Manga-influenced comics' would be talking about the influnce of manga (a particular, if exceedingly general, type of comic) on all other comics. --Rindis 18:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find an article on the Influence of Western culture. I did find Early western influence in Fujian, but Fujian is a specific place, not a gernal term like "comics" which already includes manga. Can you find an article that's analogous?

Kingdom Hearts is a Disney-influenced manga. However, it also has manga influences. So yes, even though it is itself a manga, it is still influenced by manga. It is a manga-influenced comic, a manga-style comic, and a manga. Manga-influenced comics by definition include manga; manga are drawn in a manga style so therefore they are manga-style comics. —pfahlstrom 20:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simple: Japan-influenced comics

German manga

Well, Gothic Sports is an example of a German manga. Per this article, and I quote:

In Germany, where comic-book reading has traditionally been less widespread, manga now accounts for 70% of all comics sales, says Joachim Kaps, managing director of Hamburg-based Tokyopop, a manga publisher. "manga is one of the biggest success stories of publishing of the last decade." So successful, in fact, that Germany is now producing and exporting its own manga.

All this "terminology" stuff is simply a matter of market influence. This Japanese-originality is basically moot, especially when Western artists are able to license their work to Japan. KyuuA4 (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So now that there are German "manga" being produced, where do they fit in, category-wise? I don't care about a catchphrase for describing the works in articles; that's what descriptions are for. I mean in terms of the actual category these works get put in. Right now most "OEL manga" are in Category:Original English-language manga, but where do we put the non-English-but-still-Western ones that are developed and marketed in the same vein as, say, Tokyopop's ventures? Hate to reopen this can of worms, and I don't care what the article is called, but I think the timeliness of the category's name has outlived its usefulness and we need to review alternatives again. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 21:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think something like "World manga" or "Western manga" would cover the bases better. Of course, for the example above, the basic category should be Category: German comics titles as that is what it is. Defining something as a non-Japanese manga-influenced comic could get a little tricky and possibly even subjective - what about non-Japanese manga creators who aren't creating what would be strictly defined as "manga" (e.g. John Aggs with The DFC, Paul Duffield with FreakAngels, Amy Reeder Hadley and Madame Xanadu)? After all, in the end, they are all just comics. There are a wide range of styles in manga (which after all just means comics) so one of the few unique defining characteristics are that they are in Japanese. (Emperor (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Agree that primary category should be Country comic titles, and this one is useful as a secondary. Currently, it is primary for many of the articles in it; they aren't listed under their country. If we can get that changed, I'd feel better about this category as a whole. Define-ability of world manga could be to look from the POV of development and marketing -- lumped with manga by publisher, shelved at stores with manga, written by a self-proclaimed mangaka? Doesn't eliminate all the gray area, but could(?) help, and could maintain the cohesiveness that makes this category useful to users. Agree regarding "manga" as a whole; but there's a difference between how the word is used colloquially (by much of the general public and publishers) and how it's used for categorization. Wikipedia says the only defining characteristic of manga is that it's originally Japanese, and the project that deals with those wants a very distinct line drawn between those works and other comics. Working around that is challenging (for me, anyway).

Regarding a good name... World manga will have people tossing in anything non-Japanese, which isn't what the term is meant to mean. Western manga actually nails the meaning, but could be confused with Category:Western anime and manga, which includes stuff like Trigun? "Manga-influenced comics" is used in the new Banzai! (magazine) article, and while it conveys the meaning, it's so open to misuse by people thinking it's a genre rather than an actual categorization. I keep coming back to what is most natural and useful to Wikipedia readers and casual editors, and I'm stuck. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 01:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of the options, I'd lean towards "manga-influenced comic" over "world manga" though its more of a personal taste thing. I'm not sure which is the more widely used. Do we have any kind of sources on usage for each? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are what caused the problem in the first place, calling them all "manga", aren't they? =P TP is moving away from OEL and toward World Manga and even, get this, Graphic Novel -- we've come full circle! I'll try to run some numbers. Based on your experiences on Wikipedia, what do you think is the potential for "manga-influenced comics" to be misinterpreted and misused? Ideally, I'd like to get the word "manga" out altogether but that may be a pipe dream. Thx for your comments! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually graphic novel is accurate for the form of the bound volumes, but not really as a label fr the type f media. I think either "manga-influenced comics" or "world manga" will have some folks misinterpreting and misused, but the only other option would be to have articles for each of "original English-language manga", "original German-language manga" etc. Alas, "non-Japanese manga inspired comics that are not manwha and not manhua" is just too long *grin* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! LOL! In the end I think we'll have to settle for simply just having to occasionally re-categorize some mistakenly labeled ones. I just hope people "get" that it's for Western stuff, not for Malaysia and Thailand and Indonesia, etc, yet we can't use the world "Western". "GN" has an ever-evolving usage (like "manga"), so it's tough. In WP categories, it's really for works that are treated as individual units, not for series like the ones we deal with. I may think on that though... GAH why is this so complicated? :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 04:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I think GN ended up being used for manga volumes, though, because of its long use for compiled comic volumes and books. :) Something the mainstream bookstores would know, wee. And so so true...its enough to give ya a headache if you think about it to much :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This is strictly opinion. :D I really do hope that publishers simply look at manga, German manga, (even comics), etc. strictly as Graphic Novels -- based on a technicality. After all, we're dealing with a media publications centered on using images and dialogue to tell a story. Until anyone does settle on a "universal" term, then the struggle with language itself will continue. KyuuA4 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What to call it

← So, has discussion stalled? A few points:

edit:To be very clear, this discussion pertains to a Comics category, as well as the article. This is not just about the article and any consensus will affect both.

I don't even know how to look for what names others are using for these types of works, because the publishers of the works and most of the reviews and most of the readers call them "manga" or make up a term of their own, which will change again in a few months. Upon further thought, I actually feel use of word "manga" should be avoided, because manga doesn't mean the same thing on Wikipedia as it does in common usage, or rather, common usage of the term has variable meanings (as we all know too well). This is a case where what anyone outside Wikipedia uses to describe these works cannot be taken into account because of these varying meanings. If Wikipedia is going to use "manga" to only refer to a national origin, then it can't also be used to define a style unlinked to specific national origin. So perhaps "Asian-influenced comics?" Again, it's not perfect as it still implies some kind of geographical element. But, it doesn't invoke contradictory usages of the word "manga", and adheres to the "use English" guideline. I think this category should be descriptive, not defining and "manga" is, by Wikipedia's definition, defining.

This name will be used for both this article and the corresponding category. Just food for thought. And just FYI, there are already articles about German "manga" on Wikipedia (eg Yonen Buzz) so this isn't just theoretical.

Articles currently in this category, for the most part, are not in Category:American comics titles or other country categories. OEL is their primary category, though some are in publisher categories too. Can we discuss possibly removing this category from Category:Comic book titles (but retaining it in Category:Comics types) and adding the articles to the appropriate country categories instead? Given the somewhat-vagueness of the criteria for and the difficulty in naming this category, I don't like using it as a primary.

I'd like to see a bit of discussion on what the criteria for inclusion in the category are. A lot of the stuff is easy -- the Tokyopop and Seven Seas stuff. Some of the webcomics and other works I don't know much about, and would like to know how other editors feel they fit this category's general mold. How do we avoid delving into original research?

Thanks everyone for your time! --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 22:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a subheader and posted a notice to the Anime and manga and Comics project to help get more input. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not an easy decision. My personal sense of US readers is that "OEL" and/or "Original English Language" comics are recognizable by many readers as referring to manga-like or manga-influenced comics drawn by non-Japanese artists working in the US or Europe. I have no data on the feeling, and doubt if anyone else does either. KyuuA4 is quite correct in saying that these labels are driven by/created by marketing needs. In the absence of anything better, I'd probably opt for OEL or "original English language" manga as a description purely because I suspect it's recognized by many readers (how many? I have no idea.)

But notice something -- we aren't the only people who are having trouble finding the right terms for these comics. The publishers can't decide either, and have been trying various labels since the early 2000s. None of them has really stuck, except maybe TokyoPop's OEL label. And if we accept that, it which amounts to us using a tradename as a generic, which is maybe NOT a good idea.

Timothy Perper (talk) 02:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with OEL is that it does not cover other languages. If we do OEL, then we'll have to make a separate article for the others, Original German language manga, Original Swedish language manga, etc. OEL works okay for English, but then the question still remains on dealing with the rest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sure agree with you there! For example, Brazilian, um, manga-like, um, well, what do we call them, er, comics. More generally, I'd like to see someone redo the entire article, to include referenced material on a variety of different nations giving authors, publishers, and works. I think I'll post this question to an international manga/anime listserve I'm on and see what people think. Timothy Perper (talk) 02:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And using the word "manga", which Wikipedia uses only to refer to comics of Japanese origin, omits inclusion of works that are more influenced by, say, Korean comics and culture (12 Days, for example). We need something inclusive and general and unbiased (and hopefully not too market influenced) that retains meaningful cohesiveness. The article is only one small facet of this discussion, and there's plenty of room to talk about the naming problems in it. The category is the part that really concerns me because I don't want it to be used to define these works, as that's not Wikipedia's job. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small quirk, would anyone object to "non-Japanese manga"? Or, to exclude "manwha" and "manhua", how about "non-Asian manga"? Certainly, it isn't Wikipedia's job to define terms. We simply find what others in the Internet and beyond come up with. Now, if we really do with to include other languages, we'll definitely need something "universal" - and under that note, it will include Japanese. KyuuA4 (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Essentially, what you are striving for is an article that encompasses comics that have a heavy manga influence. But instead of trying to come up with a clever protologism, why not name the article for what it is? Such as "manga-influenced comics", "comics influenced by manga", "Japanese influence on comics", or something similar. --Farix (Talk) 03:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's trying to come up with a "clever" anything, and I believe we've said that using some catchy marketing term isn't in our best interests. The problem with "manga" is we're then limiting ourselves only to works influenced by Japan and Japanese culture, which is presumptive, biased, and leaves us omitting authors who state they were influenced by some other Asian country's works and culture. This name is for a category, not just an article. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 03:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think the general shape of what we're driving at is becoming clearer. I heard from some of the people on the listserve I mentioned -- many of them are manga professionals in a variety of ways and from different countries. One person mentioned "manga-style" comics, a phrase (he said) sometimes used in Hispanic countries, and another person pointed out that the Japanese themselves call it "international manga" -- for example, in the International Manga Award mentioned in the main article on manga here on Wikipedia. I'm beginning to lean towards something simple, like Farix's suggestion for "manga-influenced comics" or "manga-styled comics". The term "International Manga" works in Japan, because then "international" automatically refers to places outside Japan, but in the US (say) it could include Japanese manga. So I don't think "International Manga" works because Japanese manga is itself already international. So "Manga-Influenced Comics" seems closest at the moment.

But we should be aware that there are fans and publishers who will deny the word "influenced". They will say that Svetlana Chmakova's comics (say) aren't "manga-influenced" but are manga. I think we should include that viewpoint in the article, in an NPOV way, but not adopt it as a definition (which would be POV). Maybe something like "International Manga and Manga-Influenced Comics" would work as a NPOV label.

There are still other questions,

Does this category, label, or phrase include or exclude manhwa and manhua?

Who or what determines if a given comic has been "influenced" by manga? One answer is that if the author/artist or publisher says so, then we accept that (given that such a label is now verifiable!) but what about the US "Teen Titans" or "Powerpuff Girls"? My feeling is that if we can quote someone from a reliable source who mentions/discusses the influence of manga-style on these two then it can be included.

Timothy Perper (talk) 12:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt we'd find anything documenting the "influence" of a work - aside from interviews of creators. If Svetlana Chmakova admits that her work is "influenced" by manga, then that is a direct claim right there. Otherwise, the idea of "influenced" is murky at best. KyuuA4 (talk) 15:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, to answer your question, on Wikipedia "manga" means Japanese comics and nothing else. The works in this category have been influenced by (or are in imitation of?) a style that is associated with Asian comics. "Manga" can't be both a national origin and a style, so using "manga" in the title sits poorly with me. And to say the style belongs only to Japan is just...I won't even go there.

But this leads into something I was thinking about last night. It occurred to me that the types of work being discussed here are actually two things. One is work that is actually influenced by another style, as claimed by the creator or such. Another is work that has been marketed after another style, called "manga" to make a buck. Not the same thing, hence my questions about what this category should encompass, and looking at the works currently in it, what criteria have been used in the past to include items in it? What criteria should be used? Is this category just a regurgitation of a marketing strategy? Wikipedia has already rejected publishers' definitions of manga, why should we not also reject their definitions of what's manga-influenced? What is manga style, anyway? Is this entire concept and any defining phrase just a neologism? --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it's just a neologism. It's a real phenomenon, world-wide -- artists in a variety of countries have seen and been fascinated by manga, and have decided they can learn from manga to create novel or new styles of comics in their own countries and for their own markets. The problem is to define and characterize these "new styles" for each national center of production of manga-influenced comics. The closest to the Japanese originals (which are themselves extremely varied!) is probably Korean manhwa, followed by Chinese (mainland, Hong Kong, Taiwanese) manhua, which draws partly from Chinese traditions in cartooning. After that, it becomes more difficult -- la nouvelle manga, from the Francophone bande dessinée tradition, is, I suppose, a form of French aesthetic Japonisme but Boilet is not the only Francophone artist working to create this new style.

So, to do this topic justice, we're going to need people who are familiar with these different national styles of manga and know the titles and sources for them in their original languages. Someone familiar with la nouvelle manga may not know much about Brazilian manga, and likewise for all the rest. Otherwise, we going to get nothing more than random people throwing titles into the article without references -- which, IMO, is worthless. But then I'm a stickler for referencing sources especially for Wikipedia.

Right now, material on all these topics is scattered across a large number of entries. It'll be a real job for someone to pull it all together.

Timothy Perper (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The experts on the manga listserve I'm on are starting to post bibliographies of books, papers, and journals that cover international manga-influenced comics. There is a lot of material written world-wide on this topic. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a Brasilian website about anime in Brasil. http://www.papodebudega.com/ Timothy Perper (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In yaoi, a similar phenomenon is covered, comics influenced by yaoi/BL currently seem to be called "Global BL" or "GloBL". -Malkinann (talk) 23:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Comic Books or Graphic Novels

Here's an idea. We can merge this article into Comic Books or Graphic Novels. As an opinion, I'd merge into graphic novels over comic books. Even the manga article can give some mention. This would solve the "language" (OEL) indicator part. Requesting Approve or Oppose. KyuuA4 (talk) 15:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral~~ I'm not sure I understand the details of the proposal. Can you elaborate a bit, KyuuA4? Timothy Perper (talk) 16:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I got reeled into the discussion over in Anime News Network - again. Yet, doing so, it allows me to think a few things. Considering "Original English-language" - we're limiting the phenomenon of non-Japanese cultures emulating or adapting "Japanese manga" into their own home-brewed version - as English only. That's a clear WP:NPOV violation. The focus of this article can be broadened if mixed into another generalized term. In my opinion, I'd opt for graphic novel. Some have pointed to OEL as a marketing gimmick - which tags "manga" to some kind of graphic novel. Regardless, manga or OEL manga, bookstores pull them all in the same category - the Graphic Novel section. In some respects, that seems like a reasonable standard. KyuuA4 (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least you admit it's a cheap gimmick. Graphic novels are the better term for them all, including Japanese manga and how most of that is sold in America.User:Xenos 11:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.250.21 (talk) [reply]

No, manga stays separate. It is a different topic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Thanks -- that clarifies things. Yes, I agree that "graphic novels" is the preferable term. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think a merge into graphic novels would be the best way to solve the NPOV issues. To ensure this discussion is will covered, though, I have notified both the Anime and Manga project and the Comics project. Will also need folks from there to aid in the merge if consensus goes through as graphic novel is currently a Good Article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging the content to Graphic novel makes sense. Anything specific in mind for the Manga article? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this will need flagging on the actual articles (using {{mergeto}} and {{mergefrom}} so everyone gets the chance to offer an opinion. I'd also be curious to know how/where this would be merged into graphic novels - would this article have to be trimmed down/refocused and if so how/where. Also I wonder if comics might be a better destination - it is more general and while most are released in book form quite a few of the manga-influenced comic books are serialised and collected later (e.g. those from Antarctic Press) which suggests to me graphic novels wouldn't be a suitable destination - the use of "graphic novel" to describe trade paperbacks is purely a marketing technique (and is even opposed by some of the creators). (Emperor (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comments

I have to agree with Emperor on both counts: How would this article be trimmed if/when moved? And that the style is applied to comic books, not just square bound volumes. Moving the information to the more specific "Graphic novels" would mischaracterize that.
Using book stores' product placement is a little iffy. First, some do split between manga and Western, with the OLEs winding up with a "looks like manga..." placement. Second, "graphic novel" is applied to every thing comic related unless the store has the monthlies on a spinner or with the magazines. That includes collected editions of comic books.
Lord Sesshomaru also brings up a good point, is any of this going to be ported to the manga article? It is relevant information with regard to that topic as well as to Western comics.
Last thought, what about a possibility of renaming this article and the related category? If the concern is that the use of "Original English" is POV, then wouldn't the reasonable first step be to see if changing it to "Non-Japanese original manga" is viable?

- J Greb (talk) 10:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Concerning moving this article, or parts of it, into the main manga article. In principle, yes, maybe, but in reality we should be very careful about that. One reason that this OEL entry exists is because it was developed from material originally in the manga article and supplemented by additional material put in with references by KyuuA4 and by me. The problem is partly the references. The OEL article lacks references that are contained in the manga article, and if there's one thing that the manga article does not need, it's more unreferenced stuff. If you've been following that article, you'll know that several editors have chimed in over the past few days against adding unreferenced material. I will certainly object, and others might also. So before anything is moved from here to manga please bring it up first on the manga talk page to obtain consensus. Otherwise, it's likely simply to be deleted.

More generally, concerning the distinction between "comic books" and "graphic novels." Basically, it's a publishing and commercial distinction. "Comic books" are often thought of as "pamphlets" with relatively few pages and displayed cover-outward in stores. "Graphic novels" are published in paperback bound book form with many more pages, and are typically shelved spine-outward with the covers hidden (except on spinner racks and their promotional equivalents). So the terms refer to publication format, and not to genre or content. They have a long history (see Lynd Ward) and the term is now widely used by librarians whose libraries collect them. For example, Library Journal publishes reviews of graphic novels for librarians, but they don't review "comic books," meaning the pamphlets with flimsy covers. If you want more information, I'll ask my wife to join the discussion, since she is one of Library Journal's two senior graphic novel reviewers.

Timothy Perper (talk) 14:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Library Journal publishes reviews of graphic novels for librarians"

Did somebody just say "reliable source"? This sounds like it could be potentially quite useful. --erachima talk 11:21, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In order for consensus to be determined for the proposal, those supporting a merge to graphic novel should explain why they prefer to target that form of publication over others. (See also Emperor's and J Greb's comments) - jc37 07:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no consensus -- so I'm removing the "merge" tag. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, how do you figure? It seems like support to me? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Original Research

User: Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth just tagged "The popularity of OEL manga can therefore be calculated as 2 out of the top 50, or 4%" as {{original research}}. In their edit summary, they wrote: "That two percent number looks like it is Original Research." I just reverted this obviously good faith change.

The reason is that the "2 out of the top 50" is taken directly from the source cited. It was not invented or created by me or by anyone else on Wikipedia -- and the article cites the source explicitly. It is now common knowledge that 2/50 = 4% (not 2% as the editor said, a typo no doubt). It's like saying that 2 + 2 = 4. It's common knowledge. So I reverted the change.

It's up to you, as a reader, to figure out what that 4% might mean. For example, it would be OR if I added "a number that is too small to be important" or "obviously an insignificant amount" or "clearly telling us that OEL manga is irrelevant to marketing of manga." But nobody said anything about such things, just that 2 of the top 50 (or 4%) were OEL manga.

Timothy Perper (talk) 00:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yep, that was a good faith edit on my part and it's also a good faith edit on your part to remove it. The issue I have here is that while saying that 2/50 = 4% is perfectly good mathematics, it doesn't take into account the number of individual comics sold. If, for instance, there are 10,000,000 of the number one book sold and 200,000 of the number two book sold, then you've got a ratio which isn't at all related to the position of each comic on the 1 to 50 list of comics by sales. Was the 4% number in the article which is referenced? If it's not, then I believe this is original research. Thanks! Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the original quote from the entry.

The Fall 2007 ICv2 Guide to Manga (#45, pp. 6-18) lists TokyoPop’s Fruits Basket as #2 in sales (exceeded only by Naruto, published by Viz), and lists TokyoPop’s Warcraft as the best selling OEL manga, at #12 in sales. So 11 manga of Japanese origin exceeded Warcraft in sales. The next most popular OEL manga in the top 50 list is TokyoPop’s My Dead Girlfriend, at #38. No other OEL manga appear in the top 50 list. The popularity of OEL manga can therefore be calculated as 2 out of the top 50, or 4%. Of the top 50, 30 were published by Viz, all of Japanese origin, and 13 by TokyoPop, 11 of Japanese origin and 2 OEL manga. No Korean manhwa appeared in the top 50 list.

The original source (ICv2) does not give the numbers of copies sold, but only the rankings. Of the top 50, they list two OEL manga. Those are the data they published and that we are mandated on Wiki to report. 2/50 = 4%. Anything else, including your speculations -- let me stress that: speculations -- about the numbers sold are, in fact, original research. Your comments are criticism of the source quoted in the article and those criticisms may, or may not, be valid. Either way, anything beyond reporting that 2/50 = 4% is the popularity ranking of these manga is original research.

In brief, you may dislike the numbers, but unless you have another source for the speculation that 10 million of the top ranking manga were sold, as opposed to 200,000 of the least popuilar, then you putting in original research. that is, unfounded speculation. For example, let's assume that you want to claim that OEL manga has a 20% popularity ranking -- that is a claim you must document. Speculation about possible sales figures aren't good enough. You need data and sources.

So far, you haven't provided either. Hence I removed the tag. Please be aware that it is now you who must document some other number than 2/50 = 4%.

Timothy Perper (talk) 01:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're completely misunderstanding me. I don't dislike the numbers. I don't care about the numbers. I just want them to be well-sourced. The fact that two of the top 50 publications are OEL is very well supported by the reference, so I'm good with that. In fact, I never said that should be removed. And I'm not speculating on the numbers of issues sold. The ten million and two hundred thousand numbers were hypotheticals used to illustrate my point. (That's why I said "If, for instance".) My point is that saying that 4% is the popularity ranking is original research unless the article that is referenced actually says that 4% is the popularity ranking. If the article doesn't say this, then I recommend removing the sentence: "The popularity of OEL manga can therefore be calculated as 2 out of the top 50, or 4%." That is what I am trying to get into the consensus here. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 08:30, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you familiar with ICv2? It is a highly respected trade magazine in the manga/anime field, and I doubt if one can a better source for these numbers. But if you don't know the magazine, then maybe you don't know the kind of rankings they publish -- they are ranks by sales in a given period. So the rankings are best-seller lists ranked from top selling to the 50th. That means that manga number 1, at the top, is the best selling manga title in the United States during the period reported. Number 50 is the 50th best selling title. Number 38 is the 38th best selling title, and so on. By definition, such rankings are direct measures of popularity, assessed by sales rank. The data (ICv2 tells the reader) are based on reported sales from a variety of bookstores and comics shops across the country. ICv2 does not report sales figures either in raw numbers or in dollar amounts. Although many people in the field would like to see those numbers, it is simply a fact that manga publishers do not publish actual sales figures, either in raw numbers sold or in dollar amounts. Those data are kept private and confidential by the publishers, for whatever reasosn they have.

It occurs to me, however, that you're objecting -- for reasons you haven't explained -- to the word "popularity." A ranking from 1 to 50 according to sales figures is a popularity index, nothing more, nothing less (and by definition). That too is common knowledge, and needs no reference. If you expect ICv2 to say "popularity," to be honest, I don't know if they do -- maybe, maybe not -- and it's not worth the time to turn every page in something like (by now) 45+ issues of the magazine looking for the word. It's like ranking movies according to box office sales figures. If two of the top 50 are from studio X, that's 4%. And that 4% is a measure of the popularity of films from Studio X. That is common knowledge, not original research or opinion or anything else.

I hope that's clearer, because beyond this, I really don't know what to tell you.

Timothy Perper (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm . . . . I find this sentence just a tad problematic: "The popularity of OEL manga can therefore be calculated as 2 out of the top 50, or 4%." My problem is with the definite article "the" before "popularity." That article turns an indicator of popularity - 2 in the top 50 - into the thing itself, popularity. It's not, it's only an indicator. Whether or not calculation of the percentage contributes further to this reification strikes me as being a secondary matter. As Tim Perper has indicated, the equivalence of "2 in 50" and "4%" is trivially tautological and hardly original research. Bill Benzon (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map is not the thing, eh, Bill? I have no problem with that. In fact, I just changed the text to fit. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth was concerned about, but I think it's hard to find fault with the current phrasing, "One indicator of the popularity of...." This issue seems pretty well resolved to me. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current prose is trying too hard to analyse the data given - there are a lot of 'therefores'. While it's not on the list of words to avoid, it can still be a bit of a red flag for original research. If I were to be bold and rewrite the segment in question, it'd go like this:

The Fall 2007 ICv2 Guide to Manga (#45, pp. 6-18), a top 50 list, ranks TokyoPop’s Warcraft as the best selling OEL manga, at #12 in sales. The next most popular OEL manga in the list is TokyoPop’s My Dead Girlfriend, at #38. No other OEL manga appear in ICv2's list. Of the top 50 list, 30 were published by Viz, all of Japanese origin, and 13 by TokyoPop, 11 of Japanese origin and 2 OEL manga. No Korean manhwa appeared in the top 50 list.

It gets rid of the comparison with Naruto and Fruits Basket and some repetition, and the percentage, because I'm not sure what the percentage is intended to tell us - it's a very small sample to begin with (50 series) and so extrapolating it to a percentage, implied to be for all OEL manga, may be giving the list more weight than it warrants. Part of me desperately wants to somehow submit the data to a Student's t-test and put some error bars on it. *twitch* It's good what you've written, but it feels like it's trying too hard to make OEL manga important or it feels like you're trying to milk the source for all it's got. -Malkinann (talk) 09:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can go with Malkinann's simplification, though I'd offer a slightly different analysis of the problem. A top 50 list is just that, a list of titles ordered by sales volume (as measured in units sold, dollar value of sales?). And, apparently, that's all the information we're given in the original list; we don't have any information about the absolute numbers involved. Thus, the moment you introduce the phrase "2 in 50" you toss out the only real information we've got, the order information. 2 in 50 on the list could be slots anywhere in the list, the top 2, the bottom 2, the 2 in the middle (#25 and #26), or any other two. You can't tell. But having the top two slots is a very different statement about popularity than having the bottom two slots, etc. Not only is information lost, but the remaining information is obscure, to say the least. The temptation, it seems to me, is to treat these two numbers (2 in 50, %4) as cardinal values, rather than the original ordinals. As cardinals they are simply meaningless because the original data lacked the appropriate information. The only real information in that list is the raw order itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbenzon (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, these are fun data -- welcome to the world of "not enough information" in manga and anime sales. But now I think you guys are trying too hard to analyze and/or read into the data. It's a top 50 list; 2 are OEL. That's what we have. Malkinann's revision says the same thing, but I like including the top Japanese titles for clarity and I like spelling out the conclusion that her revision leaves implicit, that 2/50 = 4%.

Here's some additional information. I was going to replace this entire section with a new, updated material when Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth put up the Original Research tag, which, I think, has somewhat distracted us, or at least me. And why? The data in the article came from ICv2 #45 (Q3 = third quarter, 2007) and I wanted to update it. (Fall 2007 was about when I originally added this stuff.)

The next one is Q4 2007 (#48), in which TokyoPop's "Warcraft" has dropped to #45 in the list, but Fred Gallegher's "Megatokyo" is now #33 and "My Dead Girlfriend" isn't on the list at all. So we still have 2/50 OEL, though only one is the same as the previous 2/50.

Next is ICv2 #50, March/April 2008 (for sales in 2007, September & October). "Warcraft" isn't on the list at all; but #40 was Jake Forbes' "Return to Labyrinth" and #44 was M. Alice LeGrow's "Bizenghast" (TokyoPop). Two new titles, but still 2/50.

Then, moving on to ICv2 #51 (May/June 2008), "Warcraft" is #14, "Megatokyo" is #26, and Jake Forbes' "Return to Labyrinth" is #36. So that's 3/50 = 6%.

Then, in ICv2 #55 (Fall, 2008), reporting the first 15 weeks of 2008, they list the top 25 manga, and all the preceding OEL manga have dropped out, to be replaced by Svetlana Chmakova's "Dramacon" (TokyoPop). So that's 1/25 = 4% again.

Next comes ICv2 #57, September/October 2008, reporting March through the first two weeks in May 2008. Now #22 is "The Dark Wrath of Shannara" by Terry Brooks (Del Rey) but nothing else -- the others have dropped off the list. So that's 1/50 = 2%.

What, you may ask, is going on here? Well, if you read the magazine (or know anything about manga marketing), the different titles are being released at different times of the year on different cycles. Purchasing of the most recent volumes shows a surge, then a drop because the fans have bought the ones they like. (That's conventional wisdom in the field, BTW.)

However, one thing that has remained constant over the period is the percentage -- it's steady at an average of 4%.

Now, let's deal with "original research" again. If I were to put all these numbers up and conclude that this particular popularity index of OEL manga is averaging 4%, that would in fact be {{Original Research}}. But that's not what I did. I just reported the one issue -- #45, which was then current -- with its 2/50. And that was good enough, in my opinion, to give a (documented and sourced) sense of the magnitude of sales rank of OEL manga compared to other manga. And, as you can see, that sense is not misleading.

However, before someone starts panicking and wringing their hands about OR, no, I am not going to put these numbers up. I'm including them in the talk page right here to show that these popularity indices are not as simple as we might like. And if we had the actual sales figures or their dollar amounts, the figures would be even more complicated.

I need to add another thought about people panicking about OR. The original statements (which are still in the entry) are not {{Original Research}} because I quoted a documented and reliable source for the original statements. I didn't invent the numbers and they're not speculation.

My recommendation is to go with the present version of the entry (or I can update it if you like to report only the most recent results from ICv2). Nothing much is going to change in the figures, although which titles reach the top 50 list depends on when the list was assembled and on what OEL manga were released in that reporting period.

Normally, I'd end by asking if that is clearer, but this time I'm going to ask if this is now more complicated -- but complex in a useful way because I'm trying to explain what these figures are.

Timothy Perper (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, it's a mess. The situation seems to be this: Over the past year OEL manga have held 2 slots in ICv2's top 50 list. The titles vary from one issue to another as do the specific slots occupied by the titles. But the number of slots has remained constant. We can't put that statement into the article, however, because it constitutes original research. OTOH the amount of discussion this little matter has generated suggests that some people will misinterpret "4%" to mean something like "OEL manga has 4% of the market." That's not what the current statement says, nor is it a valid inference from what the current statement says, but that's what some people will casually infer.

Why? Because people aren't used to thinking of a top-50 list as a set of slots-to-be-filled-by-items and because people are very used to thinking of this or that as having X% of the market. The entity "number of slots in the upper segment of an ordinal list" is a very strange and very abstract entity. OTOH, reporting only one set of data in the simplest way possible fails to indicate a significant generalization. So, we're caught between a rock and a hard place. I guess I'd just leave it alone. Bill Benzon (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the reception section updated to have all the lists that Tim put in his last post, but I am not keen on the percentage - I find it confusing, and believe that we should just allow the data to speak for itself. A few sets of rankings are clearer for me than a percentage of rankings. When you give someone a percentage, it begs to be generalised, but these percentages can't really be generalised, even as a snapshot of the market, due to the small sample size and that the titles in question might be the runaway successes of OEL manga. So to head that problem off at the pass, I'd recommend cutting the percentages. -Malkinann (talk) 20:40, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about making a little table? It would have Title, Author, Publisher, Dates, Ranking across the top and downwards all the data given above? However, I don't know how to format such a table using Wiki markup language, so someone else has to set it up. For starters, I've moved the data from above to User:Timothy Perper/SandboxDN. We can tinker with formatting over there. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the data

Just as an observation, my $%^& email program has better formatting abilities than the system that Wiki uses.

But here are the results. Ranks are given as rank/total number ranked.

Date & source Title Author Publisher Rank

Mid-February to mid-May, 2007 (ICv2 #45)

Warcraft Richard Knaak TokyoPop 12/50

My Dead Girlfriend Eric Wright TokyoPop 38/50

Mid-May to mid-August, 2007 (ICv2 #47)

Megatokyo Fred Gallegher CMX 25/25

Summer (June-August), 2007 (ICv2 #48)

Megatokyo Fred Gallegher CMX 33/50

Warcraft Richard Knaak TokyoPop 45/50

September-October, 2007 ICv2 #50

Return to Labyrinth Jake Forbes TokyoPop 40/50

Bizenghast M. Alice LeGrow TokyoPop 44/50

Full year, 2007 ICv2 #51

Warcraft: Sunwell Trilogy Richard Knaak TokyoPop 14/50

Megatokyo Fred Gallegher CMX 26/50

Return to Labyrinth Jake Forbes TokyoPop 36/50

Dramacon Svetlana Chmakova TokyoPop 41/50

Final 2007 (top 25) ICv2 #52

Warcraft: Sunwell Trilogy Richard Knaak TokyoPop 14/25

January to Mid-March, 2008 ICV2 #54

Dramacon Svetlana Chmakova TokyoPop 20/50

Dark Hunger Christine Feehan Berkeley 49/50

January to late-April (1st 15 weeks of 2008) ICv2 #55

Dramacon Svetlana Chmakova TokyoPop 20/25

March to Mid-May, 2008 ICv2 #57

Dark Wraith of Shannara Terry Brooks Del Rey 22/50

You can see why it's not original research. By the way, the "sample" isn't really described; ICv2 samples bookstores and comics shops as well as Diamond's records. So the sample of stores is probably in the many hundreds across the US, but I don't really know the number. But it isn't a "small" sample, so Malkinann can rest assured about that.

Timothy Perper (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's over to you guys now. The data are at User:Timothy Perper/SandboxDN and anyone who knows how to format a table can come over and set it up. I have no idea how to do that. If no one wants to bother, I'll simply reformat all the data immediately above, eliminate redundancies, and put it into the article. Or someone else can do that if they want to. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a crack at it. Bill Benzon (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a draft table over at User:Timothy Perper/SandboxDN. Please check for accuracy and legibility. Bill Benzon (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that was pretty damn bloody heroic, Bill. Thanks! I'm going to tinker with the page refs and stuff over at User:Timothy Perper/SandboxDN. Is there some way to add a title to the table = "OEL Manga in the Top 50 Manga for 2007 and 2008" or something like that? Timothy Perper (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heading added. Bill Benzon (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I checked the table and corrected a couple of errors. Then I added it to the article, replacing the older paragraph that we've been discussing above. The table has no percentages, and cites ICv2 for each table entry. No, it is not original research. Thanks immensely, Bill, for doing the table.

Does that settle the issue?

Timothy Perper (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the error about Gallagher, Malkinann! For the other changes, we've listed titles and authors exactly as they appear in ICv2. I read somewhere -- have no recollection where -- that we're not supposed to wikilink from a table, so I didn't like anything. The links, which appear in a different color, make the table very hard to read and by making certain entries stand out, they seem to have more significance than they do. So I don't think linking from the table is a good idea.

Timothy Perper (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ICv2 needs a better spell-checker then. The table looks great, I think the problem of original research is solved now. -Malkinann (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Cleanup

This article needs a general cleanup. It has bad grammar, unclear sentences, lots of stuff without references, and a generally amateurish tone. I'll see what I can do, but other people should pitch in also. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated OEL Top 50 List

I just updated the list from ICv2 #59 and added an explanation why the titles come and go. The explanation is quoted from page 6 of the current issue of ICv2, so it's not OR. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opening defintion is absurd

"Original English-language manga or OEL manga is a term commonly used to describe comic books or graphic novels whose language of original publication is English."

I see. So, Maus, for example, is an "OEL manga?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 05:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No...that isn't quite correct. OEL manga describes manga-style/inspired comics, not just any comics. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've redefined it in terms of the Japanese international manga. Which should really be a blue link, though I'm not sure whether to point it at the award or Manga outside Japan or just create a pseudo-disambig which briefly defines the term and then links to all the individual articles on OEL manga, manhwa, manhua, la novelle manga, the two I listed above, etc. --erachima talk 06:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]