Jump to content

Talk:Weekly Shōnen Jump/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Pic

Does it make sense to show a picture of the US "Shonen Jump" in this article? It does mention the US version of the series, but most of the information that it contains is related to the (significantly more influential) Japanese "Weekly Shonen Jump" anthology series. (The article title too is 'weekly', indicating an emphasis on the Japanese version.) or is the English only in place due to the lack of a Japanese cover scan? Jrp 02:33, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Article should have both (since it talks about both) with Japanese first. If you have a copy of a Japanese edition, please feel free to scan it in and add it (but I don't have one). RADICALBENDER★ 03:47, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Had a friend scan in a copy of one of his Japanese SJs. Included it at the top and moved the US cover down to the US section. --Mitsukai 16:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
Aren't they numbered like YYYY-##? And if someone would explain how they count the numbers I would be most happy :) Philip Nilsson 20:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I believe so, but unfortunately, he didn't tell me which year that issue's from. ^_^;;; --Mitsukai 13:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Release day of the week

What day of the week is it released? Thursday or Friday, I always thought Friday, but something had me change my mind :/ Philip Nilsson 19:37, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

US is released on the first Tuesday of the month.JRP 22:27, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm more interested in the Japanese Jump. Philip Nilsson 10:26, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Ah, mondays :) Philip Nilsson 18:01, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Are you sure its mondays? The RAW chapters usually come out on a Thursday or a Tuesday. Anthr4x 01:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I think from what I've seen that the official issue date is a Monday, but its released several days prior, thus how the raws start showing up about the middle of the previous week. -StrangerAtaru 12:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

umm, this might be a bad place to be getting info from, but in gintama, shonen jump came out on saturday.

Why do you care? We're English. We can't read Japanese. We have to read the English Jump. --64.107.78.194 (talk) 20:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, just maybe..... we know Japanese. And by the way, this discussion was in 2006. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 21:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The title was actually "Sometimes Jump comes out on Saturday" (note the italics). Whenever its a week where the Monday is a holiday, then Jump comes out on Saturday. That's what the chapter of Gintama was referring to. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Move?

Shouldn't this be moved to "Shonen Jump", as the magazine is most often referred to as that, and the English version has that title. WhisperToMe 03:56, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There are also Monthly Shonen Jump, V Jump, Super Jump, Weekly Young Jump, Business Jump, and Ultra Jump. They are all separate publications, and you don't want to be ambiguous.--Outis 07:39, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Of those, Only "Monthly Shonen Jump" can possibly be ambiguous with "Shonen Jump" - "Shonen Jump" is the U.S. (English) title and "Shonen Jump" usually refers to Weekly Jump. What could be done...

This article refers to the Weekly Shonen Jump magazine and its counterparts in North America and Germany. For Monthly Shonen Jump, see its article. WhisperToMe 19:01, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Monthly Shonen Jump redirects here as of my timestamp. Shingen 01:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
Strange.-Giant89 15:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I've created an article for Monthly. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Need cover

We a need cover of the first japanese shonen jump —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.195.132.253 (talk • contribs) .

  • I agree all we need is a picture of the first Weekly Shonen Jump magazine showing the following: Cover, Spine, and the little info strip by the add on the back. Jump Guru 20:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Keeping list up-to-date

Is there any interest in maintaining an up-to-date list of the ongoing manga in the Japanese Jump? --Bumptrout 20:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Weekly and Monthly titles

For some reason, people have been adding Monthly Shonen Jump titles in the Weekly section, particularly "Beet the Vandel Buster". Beet is already linked in the Monthly section and should not be in this section. There is a link to Monthly on this page now and should instruct people regarding Beet and other titles. I think the key now is to acknowledge that the American Jump titles do encompass for both Weekly and Monthly titles. (as well as matters like the Yu-Gi-Oh GX manga, which will be published in the American Shonen Jump but was originally published in V-Jump). -StrangerAtaru 15:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Non-Japanese magazines

"These magazines are published monthly, unlike their Japanese counterpart which is published weekly."

So why are they listed here and not at the page for Gekkan Shōnen Jampu? (Stefan2 01:51, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

  • Every time I do see a monthly manga listed here, I end up deleting it and making sure that its on the Monthly page. That goes for both Beet and Claymore (the main culprits due to being part of the American SJ line). As for why people keep putting them up...well a lot of people forget there are monthly Jump magazines. -StrangerAtaru 03:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Differentiate?

Should there be a more obvious difference between the two? perhaps because of the pic, the two looks similar at first look. lwq 15:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How many chapters of each manga are published in each issue?

In the American Monthly Shonen Jump thers's usually 2-3 chapters of each manga published each issue. What about the Japanese Weekly Shonen Jump? How many chapters of each manga? There seems to be a lot of manga serieses serialized in each issue... -- AS Artimour 20:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Yes, I've been wondering that too, and also, how many series are featured in each issue of Weekly Shonen Jump? Are there more currently featured than in the American version? Or is the amount of manga featured in each issue the same as in the American version?

  • Every issue of Weekly Shonen Jump has exactly one chapter per manga. But since there are so many manga, they need space for all of them, thus one chapter. But hey, since there is usually four issues per month, a series that isn't on break for one of those weeks gets four chapters per month. -StrangerAtaru 01:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • adding to what he/she said they do this because the chapter is a brand new one that no ones seen before that the authors just finished so doing more than one is very difficult to do in a week all weekly manga magazines do the same. theres more in the english jump because those chapters were already released.--Greedisland14 01:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
So, the authors of the manga are basically drawing one chapter a week? That's pretty amazing. -- AS Artimour 20:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Technically the author and assistants who help with layout, background and such. There are very few who do everything by themselves. (one of the first to come to mind is Togashi, particularly due to the infamy of some "sketchiness" of initial released chapters of HunterXHunter. -StrangerAtaru 20:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Pyu to Fuku! Question

Do we have any verification that "Pyu to Fuku! Jaguar" has been licensed in this country? I removed the italics before and may do it again if we don't have proof. -StrangerAtaru 12:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Which country? There are a lot of countries covered by the English Wikipedia. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

What's the point of two lists?

We currently have two lists on this page: one for the "American Shonen Jump" releases and another for all Jump releases with the American ones in italics. Is there a reason why we need two seperate lists on our page? Can't we just differentiate between "magazine" and "bimonthly releases" for America in the main Jump listing? -StrangerAtaru 19:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


Uhh forget about what I said

Sooo have you ever tried going to a random mangaka and seeing if they had published any other manga in Weekly Jump? Jump Guru 01:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

  • There is a webpage that shows practically all manga ever published in WSJ, but that would require a new page for a list..and who knows if anyone really wants to know every single manga ever in the magazine outside the popular ones. (lots of really short series will end up being listed if we do that) -StrangerAtaru 01:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Awesome where is the webpage?Jump Guru 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • http://www.biwa.ne.jp/~starman/index.htm. Problem is its in Japanese and it only goes from '68 to '00. We can use Jump's page to cover all the series from '03 on but there's still the '01-'02 gap. (of which I only know of certain series that started: Bo-bobo, Bleach, Mr. Full Swing, Ichigo 100%, ES21...outside them its probably mostly really short series) If we do this list, my idea would be that we keep the "currently in Jump" on this page and then list everything (current and not) on this list page. -StrangerAtaru 16:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I knew it I know all of those but I dont know which years they where published...Jump Guru 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)note: I know Japanese.
  • Yeah we dont need a bunch of one shot manga on the article. I would say we only need the one shot manga that Akira Toriyama as published over the years. That is so because he is one of the more populure mangaka in Weekly Jump would you agree with that?Jump Guru 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
    • When I said that I meant the short series, not the one-shots. And while I could see Cowa and Kajika in the list due to your logic, that doesn't mean we include every single Toriyama story, including one-shots..that gets tedious.


  • Oh! I thought you said one shots.....you mean short storys like two or four volume series! like Legendz Jump Guru 21:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Legendz was in MSJ but yeah like that. Basically any series that starts serialization and lasts anywhere between one or several volumes, never lasting long enough to be really popular or get an anime or that stuff. -StrangerAtaru 17:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
    • But some of those manga on the website are long series so can we put those on?Jump Guru 01:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
      • I put up a discussion question on the "List" page, so check there. I'm debating whether to just put down series that lasted a year or longer (or slightly shorter ones that are coming out here or tied to a well known author) or if I put down everything. (trust me: there are some on that list that went nowhere and ended instantly...why do we need to keep them for American knowledge?) -StrangerAtaru 22:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One Shots & Akamaru

Do we really need to list one-shots and such? Most of them really don't matter to the run of the magazine. Sure they could be listed in the author's section but not on this page. -StrangerAtaru 17:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • In stead of just leaving the Akamaru Jump manga out...why dont we just make a List of series run in Akamaru Jump? Jump Guru 23:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Don't want to do this. Akamaru Jump is mostly a collection of one-shots and such. It has a few things from established Jump manga but its mostly made up of the one-shots, many of which never really see the light of day beyond this. (unless the mangaka gets a series, then Jump will allow for a special volume collected of one-shots such as "Wanted") Considering how far back this goes, we would have a list of mostly garbage. I say that any one-shots or stories outside the main manga (unless they tie back to other events) should be listed on the mangaka's Wiki page. -StrangerAtaru 00:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hatsukoi Limited

What is Hatsukoi Limited about and is it really a new series running in WSJ? Where can you find WSJ in the Canada or the USA? Yanra36 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

About the Comic Champ & Arena Komik stuff

Yeah, good point.Yanra36 22:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

About Comic Champ

  • I just wanted to let you know that technicly Comic Champ is the South Korean version of Weekly Shonen Jump, but that's the only manga magazine they take manga from. Yes it is a hybrid and they do put manhwa in it. A better way of saying this is......or...typing this is that basicly it's half and half, so that they can have thier own traditional comics and they can also have manga from Weekly Shonen Jump that every one will be familiar with. Jump Guru 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But it already has a section on this page so I don't see a reason to expand it unless you want a separate page. -StrangerAtaru 00:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's JUMP to the next step

  • Wouldn't it be good if we made a JUMP wikiproject? Jump Guru 22:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
    • How so, a Wikia or like a special project to link all Jump-related manga? (the big problem with the former: we would be drowning in DB and Naruto and not get some of the longer, more obscure series.) -StrangerAtaru 22:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Well you know some of the naruto articles aren't even appropriate to put on wikipedia, we can try to controll what goes on to the wikiproject and not. Jump Guru 17:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
        • But isn't there a Naruto Wikia? And wouldn't that be better for that? -StrangerAtaru 18:57, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
          • I looked there is no Naruto wikia...well if there is it's not very sucsesfull. But I know there is DB and YGO wikiprojects. Jump Guru 01:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
            • The problem with creating a Wikia is that you really need to get yourself together to get one done. It isn't impossible for a small number of people to do it but it could seem like it. BTW: there's also a OP Wikia I hear so somehow it may intrude on these other series to have this when it really is extremely limited in scope since its not like Marvel where all these characters interact every single day...its literally hundreds of multiple, separate worlds. -StrangerAtaru 01:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Kinnikwestion

  • I don't get this Kinnikuman NiSei says on this article: tied to SJ release to original Kinnikuman. But Kinnikuman wasn't in america? Jump Guru 17:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I thought I already explained it: the original Kinnikuman was never released in the US either in manga or anime form. All we got were M.U.S.C.L.E. toys which were treated as is...and anything associated. (like a Kinnikuman game for the NES using the M.U.S.C.L.E. name) Thus though we never got Kinnikuman, the toy's legacy connects towards Kinnikuman Nisei (aka "Ultimate Muscle"). -StrangerAtaru 22:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Mascot

anyone have information about the mascot of WSJ(Pirate head)? When is created? and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mastercomputerpro9999 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Publishers, Publishers....

The reason I put "(by VIZ)" after the Green tickY mark on the list is because some of the manga are published by other company's. For example, Barefoot Gen is published by Last Gasp, Shadow Lady is published by Dark Horse and both of them are still ongoing. It's just in case another publisher takes one of the titles. Jump Guru 20:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • However, every Jump manga currently in the magazine that is published in the US is done by Viz. I changed the info above stating that all Jump manga will be published by Viz unless otherwise noticed. (for example, if "Digimon Next" was a WSJ series and not V-Jump, I would put down "published by Tokyopop") There are exceptions but most of them were prior to the current deal between Shueisha and Viz. (not to mention how things can change, see how Slam Dunk went from Gutsoon to Viz) -StrangerAtaru 20:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Jump Spirits

Shouldn't we count Jump Spirits as one of the series in Weekly Jump? It has it's own series. Jump Guru (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC) To see official website go to [1] Jump Guru (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Majin Tantei Nougami Neuro

Hey guys, I don't want to mess up the page but i am pretty sure that Majin Tantei Nougami Neuro is still running but it is not in the currently running series section. It is still in issue 49 of this year. Just saying. Yanra36 (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Other publishers of Jump

I was wondering if we could put a list on wikipedia with all the foreign publishers of Jump manga? Jump Guru (talk) 21:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't think I want this page to be a complete encyclopedia of all things Jump. Mostly its supposed to be an introduction and that's it. Would an American even care who published Jump in France or Nepal or Sudan? As long as they know what the manga is, that's all that's sufficient. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Series for 2008

Halloweens

What is this manga? I see it all the time on the BANZAI! article. Jump Guru (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Cover

I think we should get a new cover for the heading, probobly one with a good amount of characters. Jump Guru (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • We're getting close to the holidays so we should get at least one "all-series" cover coming really soon. Or we could go to the back-cover section of the main Jump site and use one from a previous year. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

BANZAI! Cover

Found a good cover for the BANZAI! part of the page to see go to this. Jump Guru (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Psyren Article

I have been reading scans of Psyren online. Is it too early for me to start an article on the series?Yanra36 (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:HikarunoGo.jpg

Image:HikarunoGo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Item associated with WSJ

Just had a weird idea: maybe we can create a new article with everything connected with WSJ, including alternate publishing means (SJ Remix, Jump Bunko), Jump Shop, Jump Festa, etc. That way, we can express everything else Jump on one page and keep this page for the actual WSJ magazine. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 17:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Other items

Should we merge "Newcomer awards" into the items list? Jump Guru (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Not sure. Personally I sort of don't see them harming the magazine section but at the same time they aren't really that associated with the magazine outside the awarding and the mangaka associated with judging. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Other stuff

Should we make a list of WSJ art books, ani-manga, and data books? Jump Guru (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Simple English

Anyone want to help me make a Simple English Weekly Jump page? To see Simple English Wikipedia go to: http://simple.wikipedia.org/ Jump Guru (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Aomaru Jump

Does anyone know what Aomaru Jump is? Isn't it a spin-off of Akamaru Jump, like Jump the Revolution!? Jump Guru (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Slam Dunk

Is Slam Dunk really going to be serialized in United States SHONEN JUMP? Jump Guru (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Ultimo

I know I put it in the wrong section, but some have said the Ultimo one shot will be turned into a series and this is just the pilot. I guess we have to wait to see how it turns out though. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

References

This article has no references at all, I honestly don't want to erase any of your writing..... the Jump SQ. page already has a "B" rating as i've worked on it (it has a lot references). – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 21:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Jump Comics article

User:ChuChu and I were thinking about making a Jump Comics article, see Talk:Shueisha. I think it is a great idea, you want to? The Japanese have a page. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Split SHONEN JUMP?

Why do we need to merge this? The English one is included on the Japanese article? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I though we were going to discuss this? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, the tag is suggesting that Shonen Jump be split into its own article. I strongly agree with this suggested split. They are different magazines, published by different companies. There is really no reason to keep them together like this. Split to Shonen Jump (magazine) and create a disambig page at Shonen Jump for the different variations. I've also suggested that Banzai be split out for the same reason. One of the biggest issues with this article at the moment is having so many magazines covered in one. Splitting out the different language versions would be a big step towards cleaning this one up.
I've also left a note with the project to alert more people to the suggestion and the discussion here.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:49, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree on this; it's very ungainly trying to talk about both at once, when they really aren't the same thing. Doceirias (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess it sounds good. Opps...did I say merge? – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 04:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I support splits by language as suggested by AnmaFinotera. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Considering it will get rid of the glut on the page, it probably should work to have one for international SJ magazines . -StrangerAtaru (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Splits

The two big splits have now been done. Shonen Jump is now at Shonen Jump (magazine) (as the English version is the most common one for having the name) and Banzai! is at Banzai! (magazine). The Shonen Jump article is off to a great start thanks to Jump Guru doing some of the initial work in his sandbox. The Banzai! one needs quite a bit of work yet and both are badly in need of well formatted sources. Also note that in clearing them out of the article, I have fixed their headers and references. Remember that while a company may choose to stylize something with all caps or partial all caps, per Wikipedia guidelines we should refer to them with normal caps. So SHONEN JUMP should be written Shonen Jump, and VIZ Media written Viz Media. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks better. : ) We do need to do a lot of work in the Banzai! article. We should make a list of the series. : ) – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 18:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I really like these splits and the way you linked them in the original article. Do you have plans to split off the Norwegian and Swedish versions in the future? (Don't imagine there's as much info about them yet.) Also, what brought me to this article in the first place was a redirect for Comic Champ, the long-running Korean version of SJ, which isn't actually mentioned at all in the article. That's why I tagged it with the Comics project tag, so our editors could figure out how to best add the info in. If sufficient info is gathered on CC, how do you guys feel about a new article like for US SJ & Banzai? I'm in no rush. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 22:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
If enough reliable sources can be found, then yes, the other two languages will be split out. Also agree, if there is enough reliable sources, then Comic Champ should also have its own article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:20, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I did add Comic Champ before on this article, It is the Korean version of Weekly Jump. {joking} Just somebody wanted to take it off. : ) We should make a separate article and a link for it. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
So far, I haven't been able to find any real sources for it. I only found the publisher name on another wikipedia. :P If no sources can be found at all, it will need to stay here for now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah....it's hard because it is abvious that it is the Korean Jump. I mean the manga line is called "Champ Comics" and has the identical "Jump Comics" design. And there's also Super Champ (Super Jump), Young Champ (Young Jump), etc. Basically take any Jump magazine and replace Jump with Champ. – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I haven't found a whole lot either...Korean publishing seems to be a little more murky to wade through than Japanese. Just a mention of its existence and would suffice for now, of course. I was really confused when I was redirected to this article from Comic Champ, and had to do research to find out why, LOL. When I find more info (I have confidence! LOL) I'll drop by and we can re-evaluate. I've also asked if anyone in Comics is familiar with/interested in the Norwegian & Swedish Jumps, in case they can contribute on those (we have a European comics group). --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 23:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

This article covers ALL verions of Shonen Jump

Rewording my comment, as I was caught off guard earlier and didn't express myself well. Basically, b/c the versions of this magazine released outside of Japan are not just reprints of the Japanese version, but have different contents, different covers, sometimes even different titles, it makes sense to me to bring this article to the attention of comics editors outside of Japan, also. Foreign companies that release these magazines aren't simple licensors/distributors, providing only a translation; they're actual publishers. Don't worry, no one's trying to steal anything away or redo the whole article in another style. This is all in the benefit of making articles the best they can be. :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 16:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Biweekly Jump?! KOREAN!!

Holy crap! This is the weirdest thing I have ever seen! I was looking at the Comic champ page in Korean and I found a link to something, so I clicked on it, went to the website and found this: http://www.jumpcomix.co.kr/main.php . I am sooooooooo confused. ~_* – 「ＪＵＭＰＧＵＲＵ」@Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 21:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Special Editions of Weekly Shōnen Jump page

The Japanese made a new page for the Special Issues, I think maybe we can give it a try. It's a cool idea! : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

No, they should not have a separate page here. Remember, different language Wikipedias have different guidelines and policies. JA pretty much seems to let almost anything in, with no referencing being common or seemingly desired at all. The special issues are not significantly notable for having a separate article, nor even a list. At most, just a brief, appropriately referenced set of sentences as part of the magazine's features. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

incorrect

"Weekly Shōnen Jump (週刊少年ジャンプ, Shūkan Shōnen Janpu?, lit. "Weekly Boy Jump")", that sort of clashes with what is written about Shōnen in the Shōnen article. This article makes you think Shōnen means "boy", the Shōnen article makes you think it means cartoons. JayKeaton (talk) 09:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Huh? it doesn't mean cartoons! I will change that, why do people edit a article about something that they don't know notin' about? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

strange numbers

The article says that in 1997 circulation was exactly 27,000,000. Ten years later, according to the info box, the circulation defies trends and still remains exactly 27,000,000. However in the lead a vastly different number is used, as it says circulation is only 3,000,000. All these claims are unsourced and all of them clash with each other. JayKeaton (talk) 09:33, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The article says circulation in 2007 was 27 mil, which is sourced and correct.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
In the sole source provided, Masahiko Ibaraki is translated as saying, "In 1982, when I joined Shonen Jump the circulation number was 25.5 million copies. Then the circulation grew as high as 65.3 million copies in 1995 because of hit titles such as Dragon Ball, Slam Dunk and others. However, after 1995 the circulation decreased constantly until last year. The circulation number last year was 27 million copies."
The problem seems to be a misplaced decimal point, likely due to inept translation from the way numbers are stated in Japanese to the way they are stated in American English. My research: Google Circulation of Shonen Jump with a first hit of http://comipress.com/article/2007/05/06/1923 showing a 2.7 million weekly circulation. The 3,000,000 figure is about right. AnmaFinotera's assertion is badly flawed. - 12.226.24.113 (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
My assertion is not "badly flawed" it is validly sourced. Your source specifies that their numbers are weekly, while the one used here would appear to be yearly numbers, making both correct. And you do realize that both sources are the same source, just different articles, right? A third reliable source is needed to ensure the correct information is presented. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
"Would appear to be"??? What kind of crap is that? If yearly, then it's 500,000 weekly - not both correct. Please check things out and fix it up. 12.226.24.113 (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I was rude. I fixed the top. 12.226.24.113 (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Again, a third source is needed to know either way, particularly when the conflicting info is coming from the same source, which calls to question ComiPresses reliability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
A collection of Sources concensus is about 3,000,000 per week - somewhat under. Pulling a few out of the listings:
http://web-japan.org/kidsweb/archives/news/03-01/manga.html
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/weekly_shonen_jump
http://endless-naruto.com/Weekly-Shonen-Jump.html
http://www.shonenjumpinfo.com/what+is+shonen+jump.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,423567,00.html
all say a bit over 6,000,000 per week was tops way back when, which makes 27 million per week a foolish figure. If (let us say) 2.7 million a week, then about 140 million of the things are put into circulation every year. Many people look to this article for "facts," so it might as well be roughly right at 3 million a week. That's a lot, by the way. Pick any source other than the mistranslated Masahiko Ibaraki interview someone seems to be in love with. - 12.226.24.113 (talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The sarcasm and attitude is totally unnecessary. Of those, only one is actually a reliable source, so thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Comics Champ revisited

Hate to bring this up again (LOL) but I think there needs to be a reliable source that Comics Champ is actually the Korean version of WSJ. A lot of claims about Daiwon's magazines being Korean versions of Shueisha's magazines (some utterly ludicrous) used to be on the Daiwon page, but all were removed at some point (hard to follow changes to the article b/c no one ever used the talk page or edit summaries). The redirect was created last fall by Jump Guru, but he provided no reason as to why and there was nothing on the WSJ article about Comic Champ (until I barged in recently =P). His article-in-the-works in his sandbox is completely unsourced. I've dropped a note on his talk page, but in the meantime, would it be prudent to remove the info from this article and "break" the redirect (I have no clue what that involves)? I think it'll be a good long time until we can confidently say the two are linked, because there's a lot of evidence they aren't. Eek! :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 08:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I took the liberty of removing the one line about Comic Champ and redirecting Comic Champ to Daiwon. This is just until something reliable supporting the redirect to WSJ can be found. I broke the wikilink on Daiwon's page, as well.  :) --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 08:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any sources for it yet either, so I agree on removing it from the article. For the redirect, I think that's fine since that is the publisher. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it's more that it carries some SJ series, and somewhere along the line things got confused...which is mighty easy to do, LOL. --hamu♥hamu (TALK) 08:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Swedish Shonen Jump is horrible?

At this forum they seem to really hate the translations of the Swedish Jump. Maybe we should note this... ~_^ – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:35, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, we do not use forum postings as sources. They are not WP:RS at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
When did I say we could use that as a source? I was just saying. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 03:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but we can't note something without a source :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I tried to find one, none of them were reliable (not that i'm not suprised or notin' -_-). But I feel that it seriously needs to be mentioned, that's what people know it by. Didn't realise it was that bad! – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 05:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Without a reliable source, we can't say that it is something that most people felt was true, or even a large number of people. To mention it with no source, we'd be making the presumption that the opinion of a few folks in a forum is representative of all readers. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:24, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Let's leave it I guess... – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Tokyopop's Shonen Jump Manga line

We can't note the last thing, but we can note this. Tokyopop (of Germany) has a currently running, "Shonen Jump Manga" line. They never had a magazine, but normally a company doesn't give a magazine they don't own, it's own line. So even though it has no magazine, we can add it to the Foreign adaptions. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Source? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Click on the picture of Bleach vol. 1, to get a closer look. It says "Shonen Jump Manga". – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
I also already listed all the "Shonen Jump Manga":

All set up. ; ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but whose Shonen Jump? Banzai's? Or, did they partner with Viz to release Viz's in Ggermany? Without details, we can't say whose article it belongs in at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Banzai! went belly-up, they still kept the titles they serialized, in volume format. Then Tokyopop aquired the rights to the series. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 21:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
But, is their a source noting that? If so, then a brief mention on the Banzai page would be appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll note it. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 21:39, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime?

So, why can't we add a mark for the series that have an anime? Of course they have something to do with the magazine as it is them who give the permision to use the stories and are important to know which series are strong for the magazine an thus deserve an anime. Let the WP:(whatever) flow to me! 189.136.42.75 (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Becuase it has absolutely nothing to do with the magazine at all nor does it relate to "deserving" an anime series. You can't claim that without a valid, reliable source. Which series have anime titles are covered in their individual article. The focus of this article is the magazine, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
In that case even the list of Mangaka is also information outside the magazine, as much as the anime is anyways. I'll add it anyway or we can get both out. 189.136.42.75 (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No, the mangaka speaks to the magazine and its content. The anime doesn't and if you readd it will be removed again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. The only "puntual" info about the series in the magazine is the title of each one. If you remove the ones that have an anime counterpart is as if you would like to deleate both the people that work in it and the dates. 189.136.42.75 (talk) 03:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
No, I don't. The writer is an identifier, same as the title. The dates are purely magazine as it speaks to what was in the magazine when. The anime info has no relevance at all. If it did, it already would have been there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
As it stands, the list for all series has something that lists any particular note outside the manga, including movies, anime and LA series. That's all we really need to do for that. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Um...huh? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
This the most confusing conversation I have ever seen. What Ataru was trying to say is that: there's a marker for series that have been adapted to anime, OVA, films, etc. on the main list. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
In this article? No, there shouldn't be. That's what the IP was trying to add. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
In the main list. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah...that needs to be fixed then. Shouldn't have it there either. Looks like that list needs some other clean up to, to bring it inline with the format here, like removing the unnecessary ja: links and stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
Look, I've been really feeling like the odd man out in the maintenance on anything regarding this Wiki as of late so bare with me. When I created the list on the other page, I wanted to have a guide for series that had other importance outside the magazine. Many series, plenty of which have no articles in our language (and most likely never will), have something that may need to be known, whether it has another adaptation or if it was released or known in the US somehow. You can change it if its out of line but all I want to know is how the heck anything is supposed to be anymore? Its not just you: JumpGuru and everyone else has been doing all this work to fix everything and I just feel so out of the loop as if I can't do a single thing about it. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For the series list, the emphasis is still the magazine, not the titles. It is up to their individual articles to note their importance, other adaptations, etc. The adaptations and importance are not directly related to the magazine. The list itself should be the title, the creator, and the dates of the run. This article is still being cleaned up, but see Shonen Jump (magazine)#Series for the way the lists both here and there should be (sans the current highlighting). The series list also doesn't need the completed tag like we see there. Does that help? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Aomaru Jump

I don't see why we have to put a one issue equivalent of Akamaru Jump in the listings for the magazine. If we add an entry for Aomaru Jump, then that should mean any special one-shot should also have articles, and that will end up clogging up the entry. There's no significance whatsoever unlike the info for the evolution of V-Jump or Super Jump. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 20:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Um? No we don't need to make an article for every one-shot, that makes no sence. I'll just include it in the same section as Akamaru Jump. Kay? — J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 22:02, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Fine by me (considering I really don't edit on regular Wikis anymore due to all the research and such involved...at least on Wikia I can get more specified. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

More recent cover?

The current fair use cover image is from 1968, and not very representative of Shonen Jump. Wouldn't it be more illustrative to have a more recent image? Here's the November 10 cover: [2] (more here). It would be fair use, so we couldn't use both, but I think a more recent cover would be better. -kotra (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It is generally considered best to use the cover of the first issue in the infobox. That is why it is used here. Just pulling out the most recent cover would be "recentism" and could cause people to start trying to do monthly updates. If the article had a longer, fuller, more referenced history section, the case might be made for showing an image of the first issue after they changed the layout, but right now, there is no justification for that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Not to argue, but where is it said that it's best to use the cover of the first issue? I looked in the MOS and the documentation for the template, but it only mentions unhelpfully "An image relevant to the magazine. (Usually the cover)". I see that Time (magazine) uses the first issue, but other publications like Newsweek and the New York Times use more recent covers, as do the other manga in Category:Japanese manga magazines. And I don't see a problem with "recentism" in this case, since people reading the article now will typically want to know what Jump looks like now, not 40 years ago. And to most people, something more recent would be more representative of Jump than the first issue.
As for monthly updates, I don't think people would do that; they haven't bothered with the others. Not that I think we should decide which image is better on the grounds of how much time editors will spend on it. If we did, then we would never improve our images at all. -kotra (talk) 07:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
We go by the WP:MOS-AM as well, which more specifically prefers the first cover. Also, see Shonen Jump (magazine) and Shojo Beat which are both GA level magazine articles (unlike your examples) and they use the first covers, not just something "recent". And yes, people would on this one, we already have people running around trying to throw in planned series for August 09 and stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure where in MOS-AM it specifically prefers the first cover. Are you referring to this?
Article introductions should be primarily about the original format of a work and not about the most popular format of that work. For example: "Bleach is a manga series, which was later adapted into an anime series", NOT "Bleach is an anime series, based on a manga of the same name." In cases where title disambiguation is necessary, a similar guideline should be followed.
If so, keep in mind that it's referring to article introductions, not infoboxes; and format (manga vs anime), not a particular issue.
As for Shonen Jump (magazine) and Shojo Beat, they use first covers which also are pretty recent. Their first issues were in 2003 and 2005, so there's no need to use something more recent, as they wouldn't look radically different. With Weekly Shonen Jump, however, there is a need: 1968 is a long time ago, and the covers have transformed radically since then.
I do still doubt that people would be constantly updating the image (downloading, uploading, writing or copying a fair use rationale, and adding the image to the article is much more time-consuming than just adding text to the article), but as I said earlier, it doesn't really matter. We should use the best available image for the article, and if some editors want to spend their time updating it every month, that's their choice. It may be a poor use of one's time, but we have no shortage of those on Wikipedia. -kotra (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
No that is not their choice, that is against Wikipedia rules. — J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 19:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
In discussion infobox images, the project consensus was that the first volume of the work be used before subsequent volumes, regardless of a change in appearance. This is the same as with book articles (cover of first release, even if subsequent releases are "more popular"), films (film poster preferred above later DVD covers), etc. Again, as was already noted, if someone can expand out the history section to a full and proper section, then a case could be made for using the first cover of the magazine after the redesign within the text. However, this article is about the magazine as a whole, and its first issue is the most appropriate one for the infobox. Charting its visual changes, if well sourced and the layouts are discussed critically, belongs in the article text.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to rewrite the history some time around. I'm not too sure who originally wrote it. There's only a few sentences that could be considered "history". — J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 01:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to be dense, but I still don't understand where you find this consensus. I've searched Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles) (and its archives), Template talk:Infobox animanga (and its archives), and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (infoboxes) but I don't see it. Could you link me to the guideline/policy/discussion you're citing? This dispute seems to hinge on it: the main reason I've heard so far to use the first issue's cover is that it's preferred by project consensus. This in itself seems like an odd statement, given that other articles on manga anthologies tend to use recent covers, even for anthologies that have been around for decades. But regardless, I've yet to hear why it's preferred, other than that some editors with too much time on their hands will update the image frequently (which I'm not sure how is a problem, even if it were the case). Concerning your examples of book articles and films, these aren't accurate comparisons: books and films are single, one-time works (despite their republishing and re-releasing). Manga anthologies are fundamentally different, and are better compared to magazines or newspapers (examples of which I gave earlier).
I must admit I don't quite understand why this is an issue. It seems straightforward to me that when people think of Weekly Shonen Jump, they think of a modern, current manga anthology, not a historical one from the 60s. Shouldn't the lead image, then, reflect that? -kotra (talk) 07:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Its preferred because it is the first image. As noted earlier, the same is done with books (first cover, not the most popular or most recent), films (poster preferred over other possible images when possible), etc. Their being one-time works isn't irrelevant. Also, not that for manga and book series, the first volume is the one used for the infobox, irregardless of the length of the series. The first is preferred because it is the most neutral image possible to use, rather than just picking any random cover which may be picked more because of editor aesthetic preferences. Other articles for manga anthologies that are actually good articles, do not use recent covers, they use the earliest available cover available. SJ and SB have both had cover redesigns, but they still use the first cover image. The discussion was done at the WP:MOS-AM talk page, and centered more around are articles in general, but it is, I believe, very applicable here.
Again, no one is saying an additional image showing how the cover changed can't possibly be included, however, the first cover is, in general, the best representation of any magazine/newspaper. And no, the image should not reflect what a few people might think of when they think of WSJ, which would obviously be a false impression. Indeed, if people are thinking that, then coming here and seeing the image in our infobox, they immediately learn that it does have a lengthy history without reading more than its caption. This article's purpose is to provide an overview of the magazine, particularly its history, influence, reception, etc. An image of its original first issue showing its history, portrays that far better than a random new image. If all we cared about was current perceptions, we wouldn't even have a history section, nor include so much historical stuff in the infobox. Additionally, the magazine's cover has not changed so dramatically that if they only see the first issue, they won't know the magazine. As we are kind of going around and around, I've posted at the project to ask for others to also come weigh in. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Here is the discussion of the infobox images: Template talk:Infobox animanga/Archive 2#Infobox image -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Having just read that archived discussion, it seems to me, that it's about logo vs. cover and not about old cover vs. new cover. Aside from that, I have to agree with AnmaFinotera. We're writing Wikipdia not for the present only, but for the present and the future. A recent cover becomes less recent with every week, while the first will always be the first (keep in mind that not everyone has access to the newest version of Wikipedia). We also shouldn't try to give a reader of the magazine what (s)he expects, but what is most informative for the broad audience. -- Goodraise (talk) 20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh. I forgot about this discussion, sorry. Goodraises's argument is a good one. If we are designing Wikipedia for readers in the future as well as the present, then the first has some benefits (stability, historical significance). On the other hand, I do think we should try to give the broad audience what they, in general, think of the subject (i.e. what's most popular) whenever possible, in order to inform those who aren't familiar with the subject. For example, if someone wanted to identify Weekly Shonen Jump in a store, this article probably would mislead him or her into thinking it looks something like that old cover, and she or he would certainly fail to find it. So for practical purposes, the older cover might be less informative. -kotra (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
We can (maybe) put an image of Weekly Shōnen Jump which features many characters from the magazine in another part of the article. I think I know a good one, but first I will try to find the earliest cover that illustrates what the newer issues look like. If what I said makes sense. :-P — J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 21:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
That makes sense. I think that will be a good solution as long as the additional cover or characters image illustrates something described in the text, because with fair use we can't have two copyrighted covers in the same article unless they both are necessary to illustrate different things. In this case, I think what we have in mind is for the first issue cover to illustrate Jump in general and its early history, and the newer cover would illustrate the modern, more recognizable form of Jump. I can write the fair use rationale for whatever image you come up with, unless you've got that covered. -kotra (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
No. Images can not be randomly chosen, nor is just choosing one with "many characters" a good idea. As I have mentioned repeatedly, if the history section is expanded, with plenty of sources, and the major redesigns are discussed and sourced, then an image of the first cover featuring the new designs can be used. Not just a random "modern" image. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

First cover image

I've found a better image here. This one is from the official Shueisha history page. — J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 22:41, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool! Updating. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:59, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
That's weird it looks all faded on Wikipedia. -_~ — J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 23:16, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
I may have lightened it a little too much...it was too dark as it was. I've uploaded something in between the two :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahahahahahahaha LOL. The guy on the cover looks like Elton John!!! \(>o<)/ — J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 05:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know why?

This isn't much of any mistakes on the article but just an ¿important? question about Jump (and lots of other magazines, I think). Why do they date the issues with one month ahead (you know what I mean; they put "september" issue when it's actually august), is there any historical reason or something? I'm really curious. --ShonenJump (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good question actually. I think it might just be that...wait...no. Very good question actually. – J U M P G U R U ■ask㋐㋜㋗■ 01:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Almost all monthly magazines do that (I received my January Shojo Beat issue at the beginning in December). Most are sent to subscribers earlier than they are sent to stores, and then still sent to stores earlier than their release month. No idea why, though my guess would be because historically, it may have taken a month to get a magazine from press to release because of slower shipping speeds. So may be a hold over tradition that never fell out of favor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Japan doesn't actually have a subscription system, though. I don't think anyone subscribes to any magazines at all, there. They just get their local bookstore to order it for them. Doceirias (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
This isn't really true anymore, though. There are some magazines beginning to offer subscriptions, though they are very few in number. I think they want people to go into the stores. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 20:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Really? Cool...I'd guess they just kept up with the "tradition" anyway, though. Curious...is it something only with monthly magazines or do weeklies appear early too? You'd think in today's "modern" society, the tradition would be changing.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Does it matter honestly?--Ssteiner209 (talk) 02:58, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Not really...just an interesting side note (and I think once someone asked if it should be mentioned in one of the other mag's GA run) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps in the correct article... this is the weekly japanese version, not the monthly american version.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Is it sad that I just now noticed that? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
Well So far I haven't seen the ussual Pro-US idea that shonen jump should go to monthly but.--Ssteiner209 (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Price?

How much does the typical issue cost, in yen? I haven't been able to find that info elsewhere. --Shay Guy (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe it currently sells for around ¥250 per issue. You can look at the cover of a recent issue to find out. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2014

According to Animerica Issue 32 Pages 7-8, author Neil Wright mentions that Weekly Shōnen Jump has been banned in 6 countries: China, Papua New Guinea, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait, and Qatar. Please add this to the article. Missing, gone fishing (talk) 12:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This needs independent verification given the history of sockpuppet accounts adding fake information the the article. But even if correct, the magazine is a Japanese only publication so such bans are insignificant and calling attention to them in the article would be undue weight. —Farix (t | c) 11:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Animerica doesn't even have an "Issue 32" so it's not off to a great start. SephyTheThird (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2014

There are some red links in this article. Please remove the links to Meed Thii Sib-Sam and Manga Media Roy Tripp (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Partly done: I removed the link to Meed Thii Sib-Sam but not to Manga Media, per WP:REDLINK, I think it is quite possible that company could be notable, but less likely that comic is Cannolis (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Updating current series list

Mitsubuki Condor (as of issue 49, 29 October 2014), Naruto and Yoakemono (as of issue 50, 5 November 2014) have all ended yet are still being listed as current. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ushio01 (talk • contribs) 15:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit notice

Since this talk page has been semi'd indef (at least for now), can we have some edit notice or at least some way to direct non-autoconfirmed users to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for edits to a protected page? People, especially new ones, are probably unlikely to be aware of that part of RFPP, so can there be a way to inform them of this? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 November 2014

Link My Hero Academy to Boku no Hero Academia GamerTimeUS (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:48, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I know what the user wants, but it's high risk for being AFD'd due to a lack of notability so I don't think there is any hurry.SephyTheThird (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
No comment on the merit of this request. But probably the best approach would be for SephyTheThird either to nominate said article for AfD, or else to withdraw his/her opposition. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm currently following best practice before nominating by seeing if the article can be improved first. As neither of the contributors to the article have anything to add or any objections, it will probably be forthcoming soon. SephyTheThird (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

As a correction, this should be a link to My Hero Academia, where I have moved the page to as it is the official title in Japan. We should not use Japanese titles when a translation exists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Re-requesting this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, AfD now seems heading to keep:  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:42, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

List of items associated with Weekly Shōnen Jump under discussion at AFD

This poor little Manga related article has been mostly unloved for eight years. Please take a look and see if you think it has the potential for cleanup or if it should be mercy killed. Leave comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of items associated with Weekly Shōnen Jump

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 09:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sourced content was removed from the article under the edit description of "Further cleanup and oragnisation"?

Why was the following sourced content removed from the article in this edit:

  • At its highest point in the mid-1990s, Weekly Shōnen Jump had a regular circulation of over 6 million.[1] In recent years, its circulation has been less than three million.

Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 18:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Fujii, Daiji (2003). "Entrepreneurial Choices of Strategic Options in Japan's RPG Development" (PDF). p. 13. Archived from the original (PDF) on December 30, 2008. Retrieved August 12, 2006. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |curly= (help)
We had multiple sections stating circulation. I moved the more detailed section on it's circulation further up the page. Instead of being at the bottom, it is now directly below the publication history. I have nothing against merging the two sections, but there doesn't seem to be a need to state the information twice, especiallty in subsequent sections (of course this doesn't include the lead where it can of course be summarised). I also point out that this moving of content was made in the same edit. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

"Golden Age of Jump"

Trying to locate where the phrase "Golden Age of Jump" originally came from, but I cannot find anything that predates this Nov. 2013 edit then the term was added to the article. The source then, and now, does not back up the "Golden Age" claim. Kotaku, Ecumenical News, and The Daily Dot all apparently borrowed the term from this Wikipedia article.[3][4][5] —Farix (t | c) 11:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I just copied it from the Akira Toriyama article, where it has been since before I even started editing Wikipedia in 2009. I guess someone added it simply to emphasize that it was the magazine's most successful point and did not mean to suggest that it is a "proper title" used by others. I've removed it from both articles. Xfansd (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Checking into the history of that article, it has been there since it was created in 2002.[6] Unfortunately, this phrase probably originated here on Wikipedia and then spread to other sources, such as the ones I listed above. Any attempts to cite it will ultimately be a circular reference. —Farix (t | c) 22:00, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Weekly Shōnen Jump. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding new manga.

This section is for requests for adding new manga onto Jump's lineup. Some of the manga may be one-shots, but that's to be expected.

To be added (as of March 2018): Jujutsu Kaisen, Noah's Notes, and Ziga Swaggum13 (talk) 03:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The Features Section Needs Updating

I'm not able to edit the article because of the lock, but several series now longer run in the magazine.

Bozebeats, Robot x LaserBeam, Tomatypoo no Lycopene, and Ziga have all been cancelled or moved to another magazine. The former is egregious because it's been out for months.

Meanwhile, Momiji no Kisetsu, Kimi o Shinrayku Seyo!, and Sōgō Jikan Jigyō Gaisha Daihyō Torishimariyaku Shachō Senzoku Hisho Tanaka Seiji currently do run.

I don't understand why his page is protected to begin with, it doesn't seem particularly active.

SandSan (talk) 19:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request - internal links for Shōnen Jump+

Please help add internal links for Shōnen Jump+ in the article. Thanks. -Hijk910 (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

  • "On September 22, 2014, the free Shōnen Jump+ ..."
  • "Jump Comics+ is the imprint for all the manga series exclusively digitally released on the app and website Shonen Jump+ after ..."

-Hijk910 (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done ~ Amkgp 💬 16:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Jump Next! has ended publication on 2016 and it has been replaced with Jump GIGA. Please update the related magazines section. Nansakana (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Gender bias

Please remove gender bias from opening paragraph that the magazine is written for young boys. A few paragraphs further there is a whole section about high popularity amongst young females. Unless the company specifically stated that it is geared towards young boys, I don't see how you can accurately post the statement without any supporting evidence. DJPISTON (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The magazine's name strongly suggests it is geared towards young boys. In Japaneses, the word shōnen implies young boys (see wikt:少年#Japanese). The genres of shōnen manga and shōjo manga are based on gender. This is a description of how these comics are marketed, but Wikipedia is not endorsing that marketing. Grayfell (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Shonen manga and anime mainly targets teenage boys. While the word does mean just “boy” in the general translation, there are two senses to the word. The general sense means boys of all ages. But in the narrow sense, it refers only to boys age equivalent to junior high school to high school students especially when used in context of manga and anime. Which means early to late teen boys. Junior high school students are 12-15 years of age in Japan. High school students are 15-18 years of age. So in context of manga or anime, “Shonen” is only referred to in the narrow sense. Many Japaness sources confirm this and I am glad a lot of sites are now acknowledging this. SG1994! (talk) 14:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Nakano Confirmed

I wanted to point out that the magazines main demographic are young teen males. I feel just saying “young males” isn’t specific enough. Cuz now due to more information, Shonen manga are mainly targeted towards teenage boys 12-18. And Hiroyuki Nakano the Chief-Editor, confirms the magazine’s target audience are teenage boys and always have been since the beginning.

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/interview/2019-02-11/weekly-shonen-jump-editor-in-chief-hiroyuki-nakano/.143096

  • Weekly Shonen Jump is a print magazine with a long history. The works are mainly aimed at teenage boys. That's the strong focus we keep in mind for Weekly Shonen Jump.* SG1994! (talk) 14:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Weekly_Shōnen_Jump/Archive_1&oldid=1180976026"