Talk:List of manga licensed in English

Publisher field
I copied the licensed titles from List of manga to create this article, as it's easier to maintain than a list of all manga. I think it would be useful to add a 'publisher' or 'licensor' field to the table, to indicate the English publisher/licensor. Any objections? Ninja neko 13:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * None from me. I recommend Licensor, since Publisher sounds like the Japanese publisher. Actually, thinking about it, actually, I don't think that's a very useful field. That information should be contained in the articles themselves. The rest of the information IS stuff J. Random Browser might use to look up a series, but the English publisher is not. —Quasirandom 00:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Another task, best handled by someone commanding the power of regular expressions, is to de-bold all the titles. —Quasirandom 19:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Easy enough. Copypaste to Microsoft word and replace all ' with '' .--SeizureDog 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But -- ! but -- ! that would too easy! —Quasirandom 04:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible source
The recently published Manga: The Complete Guide by Jason Thompson attempts to give potted ratings of ever manga licensed in English as of the time it went to press, mid-2007. Using it to fill out this list does look like a possibility. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Lucky Star
I noticed that Lucky Star is on here...however, I'm fairly certain that the Lucky Star manga isn't licensed in English, unless it's being published in a magazine or something. The anime, however, is licensed. So is this page for anime too, then? I don't want to take it off the list if it belongs there. Raven23 (talk) 02:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-reference
The lead of this list seems self-referential in ways it shouldn't be, giving instructions about how it should be edited and so forth. This needs to be corrected. --Masamage ♫ 20:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
I've removed all of the non-notable entries but User:Tesi1700 feels that they should remain. I feel that their inclusion violates WP:NOT, especially WP:NOTDIR, as well as WP:V (these entries are all unreferenced, and it is the responsibility of the editor who adds them to provide references) and WP:UNDUE. Ideas? Wyatt Riot (talk) 16:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea to define a criteria instead than engaging in an edit war. So, what criteria for relevance can we use? Maybe include only mangas published by a known publisher (e.g. Tokyopop)? Or mangas which triggered an anime? Or mangas with sales above a threshold (if that data is available)? I'm just throwing ideas.Tesi1700 (talk) 17:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The easiest method I've seen (and what I typically follow) is that all red links are removed and blue links stay. This essentially falls back on the argument that if they're notable enough to have their own article, they're (theoretically) notable enough to be included in lists. But there are lists where every single entry has a reference. I think that the second option is best in the long run, but it does make for a lot of work. Personally, I think the best criteria would be a combination of the methods mentioned. Entries get a mention if:
 * They have an entry on Wikipedia (meaning they should meet WP:NB)
 * Published by publisher with an entry on Wikipedia (meaning they're probably notable, but an article hasn't been created yet), but this also means we'll have to add a 4th row
 * Made into an anime (again, same as above)
 * High sales (not sure how to define that, though)
 * Anything not mentioned above but with a reliable, 3rd-party source
 * How does that sound? Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable. So maybe, the first step is to remove the red links, which is probably what you did. If that's true I can undid my 'undid', or you can do that if you agree with this. Then, we will add to the article only those mangas that are 'relevant'. The relevant criteria maybe can be reduced to 2 or 3 questions. For example, I think that if a manga has high sales, it probably will be made into an anime, or there will be at least one fan who will create an article on wikipedia. Thus, we maybe don't need to worry about sales.


 * Your second criteria ("Published by publisher with an entry on Wikipedia") depends on the scope of this article. I was unaware of WP:NOTDIR. If we are going to respect this rule, maybe the name of the article need to be changed to "List of most important licensed manga in English" (or something like that), as the current title implies, at least for me, an exhaustive list of mangas. And that was the main reason for my undid. Moreover, we don't need to add a 4th column, because the article would not need to list all mangas published by X, even if X is notable and has an entry on wikipedia.


 * As a conclusion, one proposed criteria of relevance could be: Does the manga has an entry on wikipedia? Does the manga was made into (or from) an anime? Is there a reliable 3rd party source that claims the manga is relevant? If the answer to any of these questions is 'yes', then the manga is relevant.


 * Something more to be included?Tesi1700 (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds great to me. I personally don't think we need to change the name of the article, just because lists are by default supposed to be of important or notable subjects. Before we remove all of the red links, comments from anyone else? Wyatt Riot (talk) 11:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not by me.Tesi1700 (talk) 22:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh hey, I'd completely forgotten about this! :)  Well, I guess people can start adding to the list as long as they meet the criteria above, unless/until someone wants to revisit the criteria.  Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I'm assuming (since I've been working with this rule) the guidelines are: it's a manga in the strict sense, and there's an article for it (whether in its own right or because it's an adaptation of a franchise with an article). —Quasirandom (talk) 02:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OTOH, here's one I wonder about: Kodomo no Jikan was licensed by Seven Seas, but they decided not to publish it because of the contraversy. The page is specifically for licensed, not published, right? So include it? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it should be included, since the list is specifically titled licensed rather than published. As it is, unless they have actually relinquished the license, no one else can license it for release. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:45, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd say include it like AnmaFinotera said, but a note indicating it wasn't published and why wouldn't hurt. — Dino guy  1000  07:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I was thinking. Right ho, and thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible restructuring
I've been considering a possible restructuring/reformatting of this list for some time now, and would like to hear thoughs on my idea. I was thinking of using nihongo for the titles, as opposed to having them spread over three fields, and then adding a field for the author and possibly for the Japanese publisher and/or English licensor. Thoughts? — Dino guy  1000  13:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be most excellent, especially if it includes the English publisher. Since ostensibly, this is focusing on the fact that it's being published in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, cool. It would be nice if we could coerce convince an AWB or RegExp user (maybe G.A.S or TheFarix?) to update the page to the new structure, since it would be ridiculously tedious to update by hand. Then we can come in and just fill in the information. Is there any preference to field order, or should it just go Title --> Author --> Japanese publisher --> English licensor/publisher? — Dino guy  1000  20:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That'd be the order I'd use. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


 * All right, I'll post requests to GAS's and Farix's talk pages, hopefully we'll get a bite and won't have to restructure the whole thing by hand. ^_^ — Dino guy  1000  21:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That was quick. Hat tip to Farix! ——Though this now brings up the next question: wikilink the publishers all the way through, or just on first mention? —Quasirandom (talk) 02:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Did you ever consider a sortable table? G.A.S talk 04:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Meaning ... one long table, or sortable within the alphabetic navigation? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:48, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's my question too. As for the publishers, I say it depends on whether we go with sortable tables or not. — Dino guy  1000  19:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It was just a question:). A sortable table will only be useful if it is a single list though. G.A.S talk 19:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It'd also only be useful if there's only one publisher per field, and some have up to three English licensors. (And some, more than one Japanese publisher.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Random picky note...while y'all are looking at restructuring, if they are all kept as separate tables, set some width on those fields so they are consistent width between sections :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was going to wait till more of them were filled in, so we could see how wide they need to be, on average. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I was thinking along the same lines, otherwise I'd've done it by now. ;) — Dino guy  1000  17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * So following up on this, now that we have more, I'm inclined to peg the columns at 55%/15%/15%/15% each, which looks like is the best compromise between what they contain. I could see an argument for 55/18/12/15, given Japanese publisher is less often as large as the the others, but that doesn't look as good to my eye. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. I think having the latter three columns the same width would be more visually pleasing. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Same here, and we can always tweak them later if necessary. — Dino guy  1000  22:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and implemented the 15% widths. How does it look? (IMO, it actually looks like the rightmost columns are wider than the other two :huh: ) — Dino guy  1000  18:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I checked the widths and they are all equal, though if depending on your browser settings, it may end up larger because of stretching. Anyone think we should find a way to shorten up some of those publisher names (like Digital Manga Publishing to DMP; Madman Entertainment to just Madman). Also, the see also seems a little over loaded :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * (outdenting) I think we should use the trade name of the imprint. DMP I believe sometimes does business under the acronym, but as far as I can tell it's never just Madman. Possibly someone from Down Under could shed some light on the matter, for that one. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Article name
To be quite frank, I think "List of licensed manga in English" just sounds horrible. I know this isn't exactly something that's easy to get sounding "right", but I think "List of English-licensed manga" or "List of manga licensed for English release" (or similar) sounds far better. Any thoughts? — Dino guy  1000  20:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it used to be List of manga until that was deemed too broad and unencyclopedic topic and it was decided (as the conseqeunce an AfD, IIRC) to refocus the scope. For what it is now, this might be something to bring up at the project page, to get input from people who know the best current practices when it comes to page naming. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops, forgot: my vote's for "List of manga licensed in English". —Quasirandom (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I like your suggestion, too, it sounds better than either of mine. ^_^ In any case, I'll post a notice to the project talk page (seems to be a lot of these notices going over there recently, huh?). — Dino guy  1000  23:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * How about "List of manga licensed for release in English"? -- Goodraise (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What about List of manga under English licensing or List of manga released under English licenseJinnai (talk) 00:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm kinda of simple and like it to be pretty clear, so I like List of manga licensed for English language release (echoing the sentence we use in almost every article), List of manga licensed for English release (shorter echo :-P) or List of manga licensed for release in English. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I like List of manga licensed in English. Concise and clear. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * "List of manga licensed in English" for me, too. "...for release in English" or "...for English translation" are more accurate, but people will understand the shorter version just fine. arimareiji (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like we more or less have a consensus for List of manga licensed in English. Since that's already inhabited by a redirect, could one of yous admin-types do the page move? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not an admin type, but did the move (page move over a redirect is possible if there are no edits after it was made a redirect) :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh -- didn't know that. Thankee. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Muliple titles
So in addition of how to handle multiple publishers, which we're sort of working out, how do we handle multiple English language titles? To take one I just dealt with, Spriggan was translated by Viz as Striker and transliterated by Chuang Yi as Spriggan. So which title to list it under? Or possibly, which title to list first in the entry? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...umm...maybe by order of release? So if Viz's was first, use Striker, if Chuang Yi's is first, use Spriggan? Of course, one could also argue that the NA name is more likely to be recognized in the greater English speaking world, but by date is pretty neutral. On a semi-related issue, I wasn't sure how to deal with ones like Eureka Seven, which has two manga series by two different authors?-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That latter might require splitting them into two entries. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that which name to use should be determined by what the article uses - so, for an example, the main entry would be under Case Closed or Chibi Vampire (this may mean we have to start a few rename discussions, though, so it could be rather time-consuming, depending on how many such series are on the list). After that, perhaps alternate titles should be colspanned as "x: see y" entries, using anchors? So, for instance, we would have  for Case Closed, and an entry for its alternate English title Detective Conan as follows:  . Any thoughts? (also, I went ahead and split the Eureka Seven entry, just so you know) — Dino  guy  1000  21:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Missing titles
As some of you may have noticed, as I fill in the missing fields I've been combing through some publisher categories by way of adding titles we're missing -- specifically, the Tokyopop, Viz, CMX, Del Rey, and Seven Seas categories. Two questions:
 * 1) Are there any categories I should be looking through?
 * 2) Any suggestions of how to look for uncategorized titles? (One thought is to have a bot check for uses of publisher_en, but that's even less consistantly used than categories.)

Maintenance, it's always maintenance. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * My thought was to look through publishers' websites after we were done with the immediate update/expansion... I'll also be keeping a closer eye on the manga ads in SJ, for new first volumes... — Dino guy  1000  22:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck with that for T-pop. The new (new) site sucks natto through a straw. I assume that would be in conjunction with then checking for existing articles? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I wasn't expecting much from Tokyopop, but if I'm really (really) bored, I may try something with them at some point... And that depends on exactly what the inclusion criteria are for this list - is it required that a series has its own article (or at least an article for the franchise)? — Dino guy  1000  20:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That's my working rule -- see above discussion. We're relying on the editorial process working on the individual articles to define "notable" in terms of this list. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing anything related to inclusion criteria in that discussion, but it's not like I'm arguing with you about it, so it's not that important... ;) So, if a given series is known to have been licensed (like four of the ones here), should we perhaps list it on the talk page here or something, so we can keep an eye on them lest they get created? — Dino guy  1000  22:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You're not seeing it because I linked to the wrong section. Duh. Comments from November on. Monitoring for new articles is a tricky one, yeah. Not sure how to do that easily. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Aah, I see. So what about series without an article but which we have (or find) a reliable third-party source (and exactly what would we be sourcing in that case)? This also brings up the broader question of sourcing in general: what kind of sourcing do we want on this list (a simple reference to a publisher's website, or an article talking about the licensing on ANN, or what), and how do we go about it? As for tracking article creation, I'd say our best bet is to maintain a list on the talk page here, while watching lists of series by publisher (if they exist) and the requested articles list. — Dino guy  1000  19:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If we'd like this to ever to get FL level, we have to do some sourcing. I'd say the English and Japanese publishers would need sourcing, to any good reliable source so usually yeah, publishers site or an ANN report or the like. Though one could argue that the books themselves are sources for the Japanese publishers, the English definitely needs sourcing, especially for the licensed but never released. Which also brings up another interesting question...what we are doing with series that were licensed, but whose license has now lapsed/expired/been rescinded (ala Marmalade Boy) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... perhaps a good, generic "This series' license has lapsed" note with a specific reference? I really have no idea... As far as sourcing English publishers, though, I might tackle some Viz ones, I'm feeling a bit bored, and I just ran out of watchlist... :) But first, I suppose we should decide whether we prefer a reference directly to the publisher's website, or one to a press release stating that it's been licensed by so-and-so. — Dino guy  1000  19:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure if we should go totally generic. In MB's case, the license was specifically not renewed, presumably because the original publisher was now partial owner of Viz :P Though could be "has lapsed or was otherwise not renewed." If anyone has an idea of how to reference a footnote, please share :) I think, on referencing, that really either one would work (publisher, press release, et al). As long as it meets [{WP:RS]], I don't see any reason to prefer one over another. If its already referenced (reliably) in the main article, can also just use that. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Whereever possible, I'd use any references already in the article. Saves work. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

List of anime licensed in English
I've been intending to do this one for awhile now, but was planning on holding off until the major update work here is done. However, I always figured that we would need some discusion before making an anime list, so I figured I'd go ahead and start it a bit early. I'm anticipating a licensed anime list to be quite a bit more complicated than this one, due to the variety of media and release formats as well as the fact that (AFAIK) anime licensing in general has a tendency to be quite a bit messier than manga licensing, so we need to figure out just what information to include and how to structure the list overall. Any thoughts? — Dino guy  1000  19:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect this would be better brought up at the project talk page, if only because more of the project members are interested in anime than manga. Also, in some ways it'll be a bigger task, so the more hands the merrier. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'll copy it to the project talk page... it should end up available here. — Dino guy  1000  18:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Idle thoughts
At the risk of turning this into a chat board, a couple things that have struck me as I've filled in the tables:


 * I knew a lot of Japanese manga titles use English words (spelled with katakana), but hadn't realized how many are entirely English. This was especially striking when I got to the five titles starting "Dragon" -- all of them English.


 * I'm almost ashamed at how many more times I've typed "Clamp (manga artists)|Clamp" than "Osamu Tezuka".

As I said, idle thoughts. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know how many are in languages other than English or Japanese - French, Italian, German, Russian, etc. - especially considering that manga that use "foreign languages" (from the Japanese perspective) quite often use non-English languages (Gunslinger Girl (Italian/German), Bleach (Spanish), Blood+ and Blood: The Last Vampire (French/Russian), etc.). As for CLAMP vs. Tezuka... Wow, he's really largely unlicensed, isn't he (or is it just that EN.WP's coverage of him is woefully lacking)? :huh: — Dino guy  1000  19:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For Tezuka, I think it's a combination of both -- more's the pity. But then, there's several groundbreaking series that apparently won't ever get licensed, like Rose of Versailles or the works of the Year 24 Group. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect the Koi Kaze manga is also one of those ;-) Still shocked the anime actually got licensed and released, though, so maybe one day...-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd be surprised to see the Koi Kaze manga licensed, as much as knowing the anime was. Which is kinda a shame, as I like the art a lot, and would like to see it in print. Not as much as Yokohama Kaidashi Kikou, but well, we all have to wait forever for something -- else what's wanting for? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly, Tokyopop's licensing of Fruits Basket was the result of a poll about what series people most wanted licensed... I wonder how many publishers actually seriously consider fan suggestions when considering licensing candidates? — Dino guy  1000  22:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've seen members of two different scanlation groups claim they have, as some point, been polled by a publisher to find out what their most popular unlicensed downloads were. One of them (the yaoi-specializing one) I consider a moderately trustworthy claim, given how close a relationship the publishers can have with the fans; the other one, I couldn't evaluate, but it was in connection with announcing dropping a series because it was licensed. Though I'd put it not so much "consider fan suggestions" as "gauging potential market." —Quasirandom (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe if we all dogpiled one of the publishers, they would start some sort of "fan favorite" line? I dunno, just a random hope... — Dino guy  1000  22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, and it looks like after English, the most common language is French, followed by Spanish. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Interesting... Let's see... I've also seen something along the lines of Ukranian (it was some eastern European language, at any rate), in Trinity Blood. And you know, all it would take is one evil editor swooping through here and citing WP:FORUM to eliminate most or all of this thread... =D — Dino guy  1000  22:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, we could just point out that we're evaluating how useful the article is, by pointing out things you can learn from it. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... somehow, I don't think that would help our case much... but then, we could always tell them that we like this thread... — Dino guy  1000  22:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternate title list
This is a tracking thread to help with list maintenance, and should not be archived. — Dino guy  1000  19:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this alternate titles as in multiple English titles, or as in common known original title and what it was published under (like Kimi wa Pet = Tramps Like Us)? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * These are all multiple English titles. And it leaves out things that don't have separte entries, like the English incarnations of Dragonball and Cardcaptors. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * More specifically, these are multiple English titles that have separate entries on the list (usually all significant variants have "X: see Y" entries pointing back to the main one), or that are candidates for said entries, due to licensing, different names for different seasons, etc. Basically, any series that is widely known in English under more than one title is a candidate for this treatment (this, then, also allows for noting Japanese titles where appropriate). Note, however, that see also entries that would be separated from the main entry by only a few other entries shouldn't be listed (which is why Dragon Ball and Cardcaptor Sakura, among others, only have one entry). — Dino guy  1000  22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a list of all the "X: see Y" entries on the list, please update as necessary. New "X: see Y" entries should follow the format specified here (update this link as necessary).


 * Earl Cain
 * Cain Saga
 * Count Cain
 * Godchild
 * Four Shōjo Stories
 * The Changeling
 * Promise
 * Since You've Been Gone
 * They Were Eleven
 * Love for Venus
 * Venus in Love
 * Mobile Suit Gundam
 * Gundam
 * Seikai Trilogy
 * Banner of the Stars
 * Crest of the Stars

Ones to do:


 * Case Closed
 * Chibi Vampire

ANN's list of licensed manga
ANN has a master list of manga in their database which has been licensed. The downside is, this list also covers manhwa and OEL manga as well as series licensed in languages other than English (if you're curious, they have a similar list for anime). — Dino guy  1000  20:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that'll take culling. As another source, I'd like to point out that Jason Thompson's Manga: The Complete Guide lists all manga licensed in English as of mid-2007. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Split?
Currently, this list is 106 KB long. Any suggestions as to how best it should be split? — Dino guy  1000  22:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * None whatsoever. Aren't there other lists that peg out larger? —Quasirandom (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably, but I don't know of any offhand (other than the Animanga deletion archive, which currently sits at 139k because I'm lazy about splitting it). In any case, general usability/accessibility would suggest splits into chunks of roughly 20-40k each, so the only thing keeping us from splitting this would be deciding what letters to split on. — Dino guy  1000  22:56, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering it doesn't even have most of the references it should have...I'd think a split would be good. I'm inclined to go with half the alphabet in list one, half in list two? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That'll only cut it down to 50+k, and that's without all the reference coding. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay...3rds(ish)? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like a more likely split, I confess ... if we have to split it. (Say, if we do split, can we get the TOC boxen to navigate across pages?) —Quasirandom (talk) 04:22, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Checking the CompactTOC8 documentation, it seems like it can, though it will be very tedious (basically custom links for every last letter...). Almost be easier to just make a custom template just for this page. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I was actually going to suggest a split into fourths, until a 2-second power outage lost my message... =P Don't worry about the TOCs, I can handle them for us (and it's not custom links for every last letter, there's a way to set up letter ranges ;) ). — Dino guy  1000  18:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why fourths? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Mostly just a random number, but partly to lend itself better to future expansion - splitting into fourths means we could allow each sublist to more than double in size before having to consider another split. — Dino guy  1000  19:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Good point there...and while the industry seems to be suffering along with the rest, I'd still expect at least 20-30 titles to be added to the lists per year. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Stage 1 complete
... of our expanded format: cells filled in, at least as far as possible using the articles (with occasional ANN suppliment). Stage 2 is, wait for it, the editing. How to handle changed publishers in a consistant way, order of licensors, things like that. Oh, and deciding what to wikilink and how.

But all that's for another day. Me, I'm off to have a cider. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:46, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * At what point do we want to split the list (and on what letters)? I think we came to an agreement that it should be done before we started sourcing the crap out of it, but it would probably be easier to do all this other stuff before we split. I'm probably going to look over Del Rey Manga's and Tanoshimi's offerings and make sure it's all listed here in a bit, in any case (BTW, has anyone else noticed that Tanoshimi's catalog doesn't list anything after June of last year (yeah, they use a DD-MM-YYYY date format... annoying as all hell =P )?). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still working my way through the Madman category. BTW, why do we need to source this? It's a list-of-articles (like a list of species), rather than a list-of-things-in-themselves (like a character list). —Quasirandom (talk) 19:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that in FLCs (we can dream), referencing is still required, even for lists of articles, to show they belong in the list. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe deal with licensors and where they do English licensing by summarizing it in the lead? And add a legend/summary sentence explaining the abbreviations on where its licensed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:42, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The first, yeah, that'd be good. The latter is already there, though could pro'ly use editing. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to help me out when I've got more time, all 86 titles in Tanoshimi's collection are listed here (hacking URLs is fun! XD ). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 23:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Licensor status
Another maintenance-y type thing, to keep track of completion of listing by licensor - ideally, this means running through the list, and checking items one-by-one against the licensor's website (easy to do when there're few items (Tanoshimi) or a reasonably straightforward/well-designed website (Viz Media, even if they *don't* list any of their "Communications"-era licenses), but next to hopeless if they suck anyways (mention no names =P )). These are all the publishers I saw in the "English distributors" column on the list, and I haven't disambiguated, bypassed redirects, or fixed any redlinks, so some links don't point to the correct articles (if they exist). Feel free to update/use the list how you see fit, although licensed series without articles should be linked here so we can easily track them for creation. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 01:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, ADV's removed all manga information from their website, by way of admitting they're completely out of that business. The Wayback Machine only intermittently archived it, of course. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, fun... as if Tokyopop and Viz Communications weren't going to be bad enough... =P 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 06:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Check VIZ on the wayback machine. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To answer the edit summary, 801 Media popped out on the scene in 06, primarily doing yaoi series (My Paranoid Next-Door Neighbor, Love is Like a Hurricane, etc.) It is, however, just another label/company of Digital Manga Publishing (lied about it at first). :-P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for the explanation (and redirecting the redlink). At some point, I'll have to go through the list here, noting who's just a publishing label, and who's an actual publisher (and note alternate/former names and abbreviations). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 22:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like how Blu is Tokyopop's yaoi imprint? —Quasirandom (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sort of, yes, except apparently both DMP and 801 Media are under a parent company called just Digital Manga. *insert eye roll* As that is the official incorporated name, though, as an FYI I moved Digital Manga Publishing to Digital Manga and tweaked the article some. Need to work on more though...that was one of our worst company stubs, me thinks. Also made 801 Media a redirect there. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I've a suggestion, that we list the Blu titles as something like Tokyopop/Blu, rather than Tokyopop (Blu) -- the latter makes it look like Blu is a region code. Or maybe not with a slash ... any suggestions? —Quasirandom (talk) 01:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should be extended to a general question of how we want to handle publishing labels and alternate/former publisher names. Is it really necessary to associate them with their base publisher on individual items? 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 01:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're asking what I think you are, Tokyopop is the licensor (the legal entity of a publisher that signs the contract) while Blu is an imprint of the company (and not a separate legal entity). And the page claims, at least by the name, to be dealing with licensors. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the relationship between T-pop and Blu. And I would have to disagree with you on what the page's name claims; as I interpret it, it's saying "licensed", not "by licensor". I never asked about ignoring the relationship between labels/imprints and the publishers, though, I was merely wondering if we really want to specify who owns what imprint on every individual applicable item. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd just as soon not include imprint info at all, myself. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of Blu and Tokyopop, Tokyopop tried pretty hard to disown Blu - if you look at the Blu website, the only thing that indicates that it is connected with Tokyopop is that if you click on "shopping cart", the resulting page has a tokyopop logo on it. The only thing on the Tokyopop page is that the fans keep on mentioning Blu in their blogs. --Malkinann (talk) 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 801 Media
 * ADV Manga
 * Aurora Publishing
 * Bandai Entertainment
 * Be Beautiful
 * Bloomsbury
 * Blu Manga
 * Broccoli Books
 * Central Park Media
 * Chuang Yi
 * ComicsOne
 * CMX Manga
 * CPM Manga
 * Dark Horse Comics
 * DC Comics
 * Del Rey Manga
 * Digital Manga Publishing
 * DramaQueen
 * DrMaster
 * Eclipse Comics
 * Educomics
 * Epic Comics
 * Eros Comix
 * First Comics
 * Go! Comi
 * Gollancz Manga
 * Gutsoon! Entertainment
 * Infinity Studios
 * Kodansha
 * Last Gasp
 * Lead Publishing
 * Madman Entertainment
 * Marvel Comics
 * Media Blasters
 * New Society Publishers
 * Raijin Comics
 * Sanyusha
 * Seven Seas Entertainment
 * Studio Ironcat
 * Tanoshimi - 11 listed series, 0 redlinked series, 0 sourced series (I think their website is losing data - does anyone else see anything on what should be their Tsubasa volume 1 page?) - List of titles
 * Titan Books
 * Tokuma Comics
 * Tokyopop
 * UDON Entertainment
 * Vertical
 * Viz Media (Viz Comics, Viz Communications)
 * Yen Press

Why?
why is batman listed inhere if its not even from a manga company. its from DC. also its batman, thats completely american graphic novel.QueenofHearts (talk) 16:32, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The Batman title listed here is a manga series written and published in Japan based on the DC comics and written with their permission. DC comics then licensed it for English publication. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This isn't the only series that's been licensed out like this... there are several Star Wars manga series, and at least one Star Trek series. 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Padding the lead
Any thoughts on how we might be able to lengthen the lead? I was thinking perhaps a brief run through the history of English-language manga licensing... thoughts? 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good start to me. Be nice if there were sourced material that could be used to give a brief overview of the process as well :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Don't go on too long, though, as we really only need enough to establish context, with the detailed information in a relevant article. (For ex, dealing with flipped/unflipped would be too much, I think.) —Quasirandom (talk) 17:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * * suddenly realizes how little I know of English manga licensing history* Umm... any suggestions on exactly what to write? I'm pretty sure we'd like to point out the first series to have been licensed, and probably give a brief rundown of one or two major publishers for each significant English-language region, but what specifically (and what else)? 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Start your reading up with Manga and Manga outside Japan. :-P —Quasirandom (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Does this list cover manga which has been released in Japan in a bilingual Japanese-English format, like Asakiyumemishi? If not, it's certainly something to mention in the lead... --Malkinann (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm almost positive it doesn't, since technically those aren't licensed but original publications. But agree, it should probably be spelled out in the lead. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Been bold, added 'not bilingual editions'. --Malkinann (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

For a list like this, the lead would generally cover the process for manga being licensed in English and any notable figures concerning this (the number of series licensed, how it compares to other countries, companies that are particularly involved in this process; generally, superlatives about the list: highs, lows, etc.). For other stuff that could be done, I'd recommend adding a column for the Japanese title of the manga and separating it from the English title, making all of the tables sortable, and cutting out all the extra TOCs. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 15:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You mean recombine into one honking long table with no internal navigation whatsoever? *wince* (Also, we're low on column space.) —Quasirandom (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * No, never said that. The tables should remain separated, but all the extra TOCs should go, and the individual tables should be sortable. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 22:47, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for being dense, but what being able to sort by Japanese title get us when they're scattered across 27 groups by first letter of the English title? Like will never be sorted with like, that way. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Just goes to show how seriously limited the table sorting code is... =P Why no internal TOCs, if I may ask? 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the first challenge will be sourcing the first English translation. The first full-length English manga appeared in North America in 1987, but according to Manga: The Complete Guide, Europeans were reading it for decades before that. So what is the first real English translated manga? :-P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Good question. What country/region was the first to get a licensed English release? What company did it, and are they still around, and still licensing/releasing manga? And does anyone feel up to writing a mock-up? *notices everyone staring at me* Oh, I suppose I *did* open this can of worms in the first place, huh? ^_^;; 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * :-) Yup, them's your worms. If you get a draft, though, I'm sure we can be talked into poking holes in it. And maybe even into helping fix them too. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do, but it's looking like my time will be seriously limited in the near future (starting a new job and all). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I hear ya. Oh, do I hear ya. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I added
i added pandora hearts, theres an article on it, a japanese and an english publisher so i think its safe to leave it in there correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.249.176.77 (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Missing license
Sources: --KrebMarkt 20:01, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Haru Hana, Yuana Kazumi TokyoPop
 * Happy Cafe, Kou Matsuzuki TokyoPop
 * Red Hot Chili Samurai, Yoshitsugu Katagiri TokyoPop


 * If someone wants a good cleanup job, they could go through all the English publisher categories and make sure every series we have an article for is listed here. It's been over a year since I did that, and I don't think I made it through all the publishers. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would give some help but real life constraints :( --KrebMarkt 21:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I hear ya. Oh do I hear ya. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As do I. However, whomever takes up the task, if it hasn't already been done, now has the added task of researching every Tokyopop title due to its cessation of English-language publication.  Michealin (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Is the Nihongo necessary?
Why does the list include a full Nihongo of the manga titles? Are you concerned that people will refer to this list first in order to look up the name of a Japanese manga? They won't, especially for a list of English titles. If it's for Shonen Jump's publication in Japanese, then sure. Also, why does there need to be entries like Basara (BASARA)? AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 21:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Sailor Moon English version was not always by Kodansha USA
Pretty sure Tokyopop did the first few English versions of Sailor Moon in North America before they lost the license renewal to Kodansha USA if I remember — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.192.214 (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)