Template talk:Graphic novel list/Archive 1

Concerning the original manga titles
I'm having a little trouble with this one, so maybe someone can shed some light on it. When looking up original episode titles for anime, it's relatively easy since we have Anime News Network or the anime's official website to check for that, but for the original titles for the manga, I am finding it next to impossible to find original titles for Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl, and I'm sure it'll be just as bad for any other manga out there. What I want to know is, is there someway to make finding these original titles easier, or will 99% of manga chapter lists not include them?--  十  八  21:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The chapter list can be something of a pain, because you are correct, there is rarely a source for them. I asked about that in the main project talk page, and the basic answer was wait for someone to enter it who has the original Japanese versions. :P AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As AnmaFinotera said. Sometimes you can find a chapter list on the Japanese wikipedia, or for currently running series a scanlator who's willing to update a current list. I suspect for most of the manga I'm interested in, I'll have just the English titles for a while. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Bug?
Lovely Complex -- putting it in action with a list of just dates/ISBNs, and there's a big gap above the table -- one that grows, proportional to the number of rows used. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fixed - it was a couple of line breaks between the #if calls messing up the internal HTML. —TangentCube, Dialogues 04:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. Thanks! —Quasirandom (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

VolumeExtras doesn't seem to work as described. The template page says about VolumeExtras "If ChapterList is defined, this will occupy just under half its row; otherwise, it will occupy an entire row.". That isn't the case at the moment, instead the row seems to be missing. See List_of_Battle_Angel_Alita_chapters, which has VolumeExtras for every volume, but only those with ChapterList are currently displaying. 131.217.6.6 (talk) 09:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ChapterList is being defined, as it is included in each call but with no data. To show the VolumeExtra, the blank ChapterLists need to be removed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

ISBN 10/13
While doing a little research into ISBNs, I came across this entry on Amazon.co.jp for the first Kashimashi manga volume which lists two ISBNs: ISBN-10 and ISBN-13. What I want to know is what is the difference between these two, and which one should I use in a manga list (or should I just list both?).--  十  八  11:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh. This is a pretty problem. In general, you are supposed to use the ISBN-13, as that is now the standard and ISBN-10 is depreciated. I've always been told that the two forms of the same number should always refer to the same edition of a given book -- different editions get assigned a different pair of ISBNs; certainly, that's how every US publisher I've worked with uses them. However, I recently noticed that the on Amazon.co.jp, the ISBN-13 of Aria volume 11 brings up a special first edition, while the ISBN-10 brings up the regular tankobon, so Japanese practice may be different. (There isn't this distinction with the rest of the Aria volumes -- I checked.) My suggestion is to check both ISBNs, and if they refer to the same edition on Amazon, use the ISBN-13. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And how would I go about checking the ISBNs? I've never done that before.--  十  八  23:30, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Easiest way is to click the ISBN's wikilink, scroll down to the online bookseller section, and use the links there to search for it on, for ex, Amazon. Usually you can confirm whether it's the right book on Amazon.co.jp even if you don't have much Japanese -- you can change the interface (if not the titles) to English even. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * But...that only sends me around in a big circle. I can visually see both ISBNs on the Amazon.co.jp listing for the first Kashimashi manga, so I input those ISBNs into the link provided in the online bookseller sections on the ISBN special wiki page and it takes me back to the same listing on Amazon.co.jp both times, but of course it would because I just used the ISBNs listed on that page. Is this really 'confirmation'?--  十  八  23:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. For that Aria volume I mentioned, the ISBN-13 and ISBN-10 bring up different pages. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's a converter (from ISBN-10 to ISBN-13 and vice versa) at isbn.org; you can also try calculating the check digit manually following the instructions at International Standard Book Number. In this case, the ISBNs are the same, so use the ISBN-13. —TangentCube, Dialogues 01:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary length
Don't get me wrong, I just love making new discussions (laugh). I have a question as to how long the summaries should be. Should we try to keep them as relatively short as the typical episode summaries for anime episodes, therefore only 4-5 lines of text on average? I have found this to be incredibly difficult to do for manga summaries since most manga volumes contain around 6 chapters each, and writing a concise summary of the entire volume with six (on average) different stories is rather rough compared to the singular story of a single anime episode. I checked WP:NOVSTY which states "Size of the plot summary should be roughly proportional to the size of the plot. This is not always equivalent to the length of the work, since some plots are complex and dense while others are simple and straight-forward." Since the plot for six chapters combined comes out to be rather long and detailed, is it alright to write a summary which touches upon the important points of each chapter? In doing so, I can tell that it would take on average 10 sentences for a 6 chapter volume in order to write a concise summary of the entire volume, but this ends up looking rather bloated next to the summaries of anime episodes. So what's the guideline for this?--  十  八  04:40, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A very good question, and something I think we really need to address, not only for manga, but also for Japanese light novels. For some manga, I've been able to keep the summaries fairly brief. Wolf's Rain, for example, has 4-6 sentence summaries, but it isn't exactly a heavy series.  With Marmalade Boy, which has no actual chapter breaks, I just made my first run at a summary of volume 1.  Its 18 sentences long, and while it can probably be cut down some more, I'm not sure how much more. I think manga and novels can, and should, have longer summaries than a 30 minute episode, but we should work out some sort of guideline for both to keep things reasonable. AnmaFinotera (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For Yotsuba&!, I kept myself to a sentence a chapter, but chapters lengths vary all over the place and can be anywhere from four to ten per ~200 page volume. I didn't feel particularly constrained, but Yotsusba&! is a low-plot story. I'd say 7-12 sentences would be a good rule of thumb to start with. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay good, that's just about the length I was going for with List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl chapters. Each main summary (main plot) has about 10 sentences each, but then I added in a few lines about the omake chapters for volumes 2-4; hope that's okay.--  十  八  23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Once we do more of these -- especially getting a few more through the FLC process -- we should put a general guideline in the WP:MOS-AM. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Volume titles
How should we handle titles of individual volumes? Most don't have them, but several of Watase's works do (FY, Ceres, Imadoki), as do some other series (Kenshin, etc). Putting with them the volume number results in a weird looking table. For FY, I've tried putting it as part of the volume extras, as one possible idea. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * VolumeExtras is the best place for it. Remember that VolumeNumber is also used to generate HTML anchors, so putting more than just a number there may make that feature harder to use.  —TangentCube, Dialogues 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In the discussions for creating it, VolumeExtras was the concensus place for volume titles. —Quasirandom (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cool...thanks to both. That's what I did with Fushigi Yugi :) Man that article was in such hideous shape.  *sighs looking at all the work left to do* AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...in revisiting this question again, it really seems like this template is not going to be helpful for a lot of the novel releases, as they almost always have titles, and having them over in the VolumeExtras isn't very useful for a novel format. Should we look at making a secondary template for light novels/novels, or just stick to regular tables for those? AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If we've gone this far for graphic novels, I don't think it's too much to ask to make a secondary template for light novels.--  十  八  20:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Thought: optional VolumeTitle
Should we give volume titles their own parameter? They seem to appear enough to warrant their own row. Maybe. —TangentCube, Dialogues 21:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It would make the template more useful, particularly when using it for light novel lists. I've been putting it above the cover characters, but having a parameter would be nice. AnmaFinotera (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If someone could do a mock-up for the layout, we could better judge the utility, I think. I'm pretty sure we'd all agree it'd be good to have, if we can make it work. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * User:TangentCube/sandbox3, entries "01.5", "02", and "03" in the first table. —TangentCube, Dialogues 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Summary breaking table
I've no idea why but on [this edit] the entry for the 3rd volume is breaking the table. Purging and previewing all show the same thing. it's not down to length, and I've checked the fields and formatting and don't see any issues. I've reverted to the next revision, where I removed the summary for the time being (my saved fixes after that weren't working). I'd appreciate feedback on the problem, it may just be wikipedia being rubbish randomly. I did fill the field with random data as a test, and had no problems. I also added half of the summary and had no problems, it's only when using the full summary that I have a problem. I've moved the summary to sandbox in the meantime. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You have Okinawa] instead of [[Okinawa :) Restored and fixed for you. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! I hate how wikipedia will break an entire section (or page!) for relatively minor things like that! lesson learned, thanks! Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep... wikimarkup's behavior isn't necessarily as intuitive as it could be... IMHO, the whole system needs work, but good luck finding a dev to spend time on it. =P 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Transcludable
FYI, Graphic novel list/sublist and Graphic novel list/sublist/header can now be used to transclude this template in a manner similar to the way it is possible with Japanese episode list/sublist. You can see it in action at List of One Piece manga volumes. Happy transcluding. -- Goodraise (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Its ability to transclude seems to have been broken somehow. See List of One Piece manga volumes. The Splendiferous Gegiford (talk) 19:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. The problem was this change to Graphic novel list/footer. By the way, I've written a first version of Graphic novel list/sublist/doc. Good raise  21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"Chapters"?
Isn't the term "chapter" a bit of a misnomer, here? I would think "episode" is more accurate. Erigu (talk) 01:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it is not. Chapters is what all manga series (and books in general) are broken into, not episodes, and that is the industry term. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Who said it was an "industry term"?
 * In Japanese, "chapter" is "shō". Do you really know many manga series that are serialized into individual "shō"? More often than not, they use "kai" or "wa". That is to say "episode", just like for TV series.
 * While I can understand that you would want to avoid any confusion between lists of TV episodes and lists of manga episodes, it seems a bit arbitrary to use the term "chapter" in this context. Erigu (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Chapters is the official term used in English. Talk to the professionals if you disagree with their translating it to chapter instead of episode, however, we will continue using what English releases here and all industry experts here use.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What's your source for it being "the official term used in English"? Erigu (talk) 01:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I don't know...the various books published about manga, the manga itself, and pretty much any reliable source discussing chapters? Can you actually cite a single reliable source that says it should be "episode"?-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm certainly not arguing that nobody uses "chapter" (but you appear to be arguing that everybody does and I somewhat doubt that, hence my asking for your sources). I'm just arguing that "episode" makes more sense, considering the original term.
 * I'd say "chapter" is more of a narrative unit, like "act" or "arc". Erigu (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Chapter is well-defined in the English language. Trying to redefine it based on what you think it means is nothing short of misguided, even if done with the best of intentions (which I am quite sure you are operating under here). Episode is similarly well-defined, and can only be used in reference to printed media when context is completely clear (and even then, its use can only be recommended if it is required for some stylistic reason). What Japanese does is irrelevant; this is, after all, the English Wikipedia. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 10:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I was trying to redefine "chapter"... Or at the very least, I don't believe I disagree with the definition you linked to... Maybe it was a bad choice of words on my part... What I meant was that sections like "chapters", "acts" or "arcs" can be of varying lengths within a given work, and that length is primarily motivated by the developments in the story. Whereas "episodes" (generally) are all of the same length for a given work, a length primarily motivated by the fact these sections are serialized (<- which, I think, would be the keyword, here). Basically, like your definition says, "episodes" are "installments" (parts of a broadcast or published serial), whereas "chapters" aren't necessarily "installments". The former refers specifically to serialized works, and the latter doesn't. Here, it seems clear to me that we're talking about the former. Hence my initial comment. Erigu (talk) 17:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Popular usage disagrees with you, which is what I was trying to point out above. Most English speakers who hear the word "episode" will immediately think you're talking about a television series, whereas "chapter" invokes the idea of a printed book or series. And the idea that chapters can be of varying length (in the same way that arcs might vary in length depending on who you ask) is complete crock; the chapters in a given work are very well-defined in almost all such works (the table of contents lists chapters), and this is doubly reinforced with manga series by the fact that most manga is serialized chapter-by-chapter in a magazine prior to being collected into bound volumes. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Popular usage disagrees with you, which is what I was trying to point out above. Most English speakers who hear the word "episode" will immediately think you're talking about a television series, whereas "chapter" invokes the idea of a printed book or series.
 * Not exactly surprising, considering serialized written works of fiction probably isn't all that common for most of them (whereas in Japan...). Even the Wikipedia article is rather short...
 * Ah, well. Popular usage trumping accuracy is one of those many "little" things that keep me from really investing myself in Wikipedia... Should we also say that 2000 is the first year of the 21st century, by the same logic? Not exactly my idea of an encyclopedia... ^^;
 * the idea that chapters can be of varying length (in the same way that arcs might vary in length depending on who you ask) is complete crock
 * I... guess I didn't make myself clear. When I said that chapters could be of varying lengths in a given work, I meant that you could have a 5-page long "chapter one", a 3-page long "chapter three" and a 20-page long "chapter five" in the same book, as is the case in the novel I'm holding right now. I'm not sure how you can say that's "complete crock", really...
 * the chapters in a given work are very well-defined in almost all such works (the table of contents lists chapters)
 * Er... Yes, the list of contents lists chapters, but I'm afraid I don't see what you were getting at with that...
 * this is doubly reinforced with manga series by the fact that most manga is serialized chapter-by-chapter in a magazine prior to being collected into bound volumes.
 * It's a strange idea to bring that particular example up, as I was arguing against the term "chapter" in this context, remember? ^_^;
 * Again, I'm talking about the difference between a story divided into different sections because of serialization (and like I said, I believe "episode" to be the accurate term for those installments), and a story divided into different sections for other reasons (in the above example, the different lengths of the chapters are due to the plot itself, not publishing or broadcasting considerations).
 * For example, the manga Berserk is serialized in 20-page installments called "wa" ("episodes"), but these "wa" form larger "shō" ("chapters"), and the "shō" themselves form even larger "hen" (which, I guess, could be translated into "arcs"?). If Berserk wasn't a serialized work, it would probably only consist of "shō" and "hen" of varying lengths, like the novel I mentioned above.
 * But if we are to prioritize "popular usage", this is all moot anyway... Sorry about the disturbance... Erigu (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In this case, I believe an apology to you is in order - I was arguing under the assumption that you were drawing a direct parallel between arcs (which are variable in length for most series in terms of having different starting and ending points depending on who you ask, which is a major reason why they generally aren't listed on Wikipedia) and chapters (which, as you say above, are variable in length because of different chapters in a series potentially having different numbers of pages). However, I would still have to argue against the general idea of chapters being variable in length - from what I have observed, most serialized series generally have chapters of approximately the same length (+- a few pages, depending on plot, pacing, etc.), and (again, based on my own understanding) this is often because of editorial considerations arising from the fact that the series is being serialized. With regards to popular usage vs. accuracy, allow me to put it a different way (or, rather, to broaden the scope): you are wanting to use "episode" to refer to chapters, but doing so would not only go against popular usage (even if, in context of Japanese usage, such terminology *would* be more accurate), but also against all other such usage on the English Wikipedia that I'm aware of. If you really want this change to go through, you should work on a more detailed proposal of exactly what usage would be affected and why the change is necessary, and then present it to the community at large, instead of debating one particular usage case with (since everyone else seems to have dropped out) a single editor on a template talk page which probably isn't particularly heavily watched. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would still have to argue against the general idea of chapters being variable in length - from what I have observed, most serialized series generally have chapters of approximately the same length
 * Again, I think there's a bit of miscommunication, here... ^^;
 * When I talk about "chapters", I don't talk about the installments of a serialized work. I talk about, say, the sections of a ("regular") novel (hence my comment and example above about varying lengths). As far as I'm concerned, the installments of a serialized work are "episodes". And yes, I agree, those are (almost) always of the same length for a given work.
 * you are wanting to use "episode" to refer to chapters
 * I'd rather say that I disagree with the use of the word "chapter" when talking about serialized installments of a story. I think "episode" is more accurate in this context, technically. That may go against "popular usage" around here... but I'd argue that the popular usage is wrong, then. ^_^;
 * (to clarify my position, my argument isn't that we should use whatever term the Japanese chose... I was just wondering why we were using another, less adequate (in my opinion?), term)
 * And considering we may have some "graphic novels" or manga volumes that weren't "serialized" (as is usually the case) but simply "released" (and thus may indeed be divided in what even I would agree to call "chapters")... Well, I wonder why all those articles called "List of xxxxxx chapters" aren't simply called "List of xxxxxx volumes". It's basically what they are, after all, right? The emphasis is put on the ISBN numbers of the volumes, the release dates of the volumes (rather than the release dates of the individual serialized installments)... And we could completely get rid of the "episode" / "chapter" distinction problem by renaming the "chapter list" section into "list of contents".
 * Now, it's just an idea, and if I am the only one who has a problem with that rather... loose usage of the term "chapter", I'm not sure I see myself fighting for it... Especially since it would apparently go against a few established habits, and I've noticed that many Wikipedia editors are (ironically?) somewhat reluctant to change things around... ^^;
 * Thank you for your time anyway. Erigu (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we need much of a reliable source here. What you propose is just confusing, and you are going to face very large opposition if you try to push this through. proposing this based on a technicality seems misguided. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, like I said above, I'm aware that using "episode" might be confusing (if only as far as the transition process is concerned, anyway... after all, Japanese people don't seem to be losing their mind over this).
 * I don't intend to push such a change (even if it would only seem logical to me, it appears to be far too late for this), I was mostly wondering how that terminology was decided upon. Erigu (talk) 02:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, a "chapter" is "a main division or section of a book". The OED lists an early use at 1225, and even earlier uses in Old French. You seem to be giving the secondary usage (which is an allusion to the primary usage, e.g. "this chapter of my life") precedence.
 * If you object to its usage for serialized works, I don't see why. Dumas and Dickens serialized their works back in the day, in chapters.
 * Also, keep in mind that translation is not a one-to-one mapping. Context matters. 話 translates most directly to "story", I would say, but we translate it to "chapter" in the context of print media, and to "episode" in audiovisual media. - mako 07:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * First and foremost, a "chapter" is "a main division or section of a book". The OED lists an early use at 1225, and even earlier uses in Old French.
 * But what you call "chapters" when referring to serialized works aren't "main divisions or section of a book" to begin with. Generally, they end up getting compiled in books, yes, but that's a bit like saying we should start calling TV episodes "chapters" because they end up getting compiled on DVDs...
 * If you object to its usage for serialized works, I don't see why. Dumas and Dickens serialized their works back in the day, in chapters.
 * If you look at this or this, for example, you'll see that one installment != one chapter. The Count of Monte Cristo consists of 117 "chapters", but was serialized over far less installments (18, if Wikipedia is to believed). Which is the main reason I object to this terminology: "chapter" divisions are primarily related to the plot, not publishing or broadcasting concerns. You can have a series where individual installments cover little amounts of story but end up forming larger "chapters" (I gave an example above), and then, there are the examples I just produced, where individual installments actually cover several chapters.
 * Also, keep in mind that translation is not a one-to-one mapping. Context matters. 話 translates most directly to "story", I would say, but we translate it to "chapter" in the context of print media, and to "episode" in audiovisual media.
 * I fully realize translation isn't a one-to-one mapping: it's my job. But I see no good reason to translate "wa" to "chapter", here. Erigu (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If TV shows were compiled into books, we could call them chapters. But that doesn't make any sense. (DVDs do have chapters, though, a clever label which draws on the original meaning.)
 * The bottom line is that your definition of "chapter" is nonstandard. I emphatically disagree with your assertion that "chapter divisions are primarily related to the plot, not publishing or broadcasting concerns", and so do the dictionaries I have consulted. Chapter divisions can be completely arbitrary. I don't want to belabor this point； if dictionaries won't convince you, I'm not sure what will.
 * Aside: not all manga chapters are called "wa", which throws a wrench into your "original term" argument. For example, Kimagure Orange Road has its chapters as "blah blah blah no maki" (lit. scroll/volume). It's also common practice to take an English word and use it as a chapter marker. A representative sampling from my bookshelf: Maison Ikkoku uses "Part x"; Sing Yesterday For Me uses "scene"; Aria uses "navigation"; Seto no Hanayome uses "wave"; Bartender uses "glass"; etc. I hope you're not advocating that we keep all these different terms. - mako 06:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I emphatically disagree with your assertion that "chapter divisions are primarily related to the plot, not publishing or broadcasting concerns" Well. Maybe I shouldn't have put it like that. Let's just say that "episode" specifically refers to installments of a serialized work, whereas "chapter" doesn't. That makes "episode" a better-fitted term for serialized installments. Using "chapter" in its stead can easily lead to some issues, as I demonstrated above with Berserk, and then again with the very examples you mentioned (Dumas and Dickens). I don't want to belabor this point； if dictionaries won't convince you, I'm not sure what will.I don't remember disagreeing with a dictionary definition so far.Aside: not all manga chapters are called "wa", which throws a wrench into your "original term" argument. I know that, and even mentioned an alternate term earlier ("kai"). Same thing for TV episodes, actually. But I fail to see how that "throws a wrench" into my argument, which is that "episode" is a better-fitted term for serialized installments than "chapter" is. I hope you're not advocating that we keep all these different terms. Of course not, as we're talking about a template and the overall terminology to use, here. Erigu (talk) 07:38, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One of your supporting arguments was for fidelity to the original term used. Argument, wrench. You say that "episode" specifically refers to installments of a serialized work, but the definition for "a serialized installment" is somewhere near the bottom, and it's only for movies, radio, and television. Compare the definition for "chapter". Do you concede that "chapter divisions are primarily related to the plot, not publishing or broadcasting concerns" is not accurate? Do you accept the definition "a main division of a book, treatise, or the like, usually bearing a number or title"? We need to be on the same page regarding definitions. - mako 08:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One of your supporting arguments was for fidelity to the original term used. Argument, wrench.None of the alternate terms you listed are "shō". So... not quite. (I guess you could find an example of a series that calls its individual serialized installements "shō"... but I can't think of one right now, and I really doubt it would be anywhere near the top of a list of the most common terms used in such an instance...) You say that "episode" specifically refers to installments of a serialized work, but the definition for "a serialized installment" is somewhere near the bottom, and it's only for movies, radio, and television. Look harder.


 * 1.a. An incident or event that is part of a progression or a larger sequence: "South Africa may remain one of history's most tragic episodes" (Bayard Rustin).
 * b. One of a series of related events in the course of a continuous account. See Synonyms at occurrence.
 * c. A separate part of a serialized work, such as a novel or play.
 * d. A separate program that is part of a television or radio series.
 * It seems obvious to me that "movies, radio and television" wasn't an exhaustive list.Do you concede that "chapter divisions are primarily related to the plot, not publishing or broadcasting concerns" is not accurate?I concede that wasn't the best way to put it. Not the best approach, anyway. I probably should have said that from what I've seen, based on my experience, chapter divisions are primarily related to plot, whereas episode divisions are dictated by publishing and broadcasting concerns. Maybe I should have emphasized "primarily", too. Anyway, that wasn't an attempt at defining the word "chapter". Do you accept the definition "a main division of a book, treatise, or the like, usually bearing a number or title"? Sure. But we're talking about serialized installments, here, right? While those serialized installments may end up getting compiled in a book, they're not divisions of a book to begin with. And again, using the term "chapter" for serialized installments can easily lead to some issues down the road. Erigu (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That definition says something different to me. From the context, "a separate part" refers to a division defined by plot. Serialized installments are divisions of a "book or the like" (magazine) and bear a title. - mako 08:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * From the context, "a separate part" refers to a division defined by plot. Oh, come on. "A separate part of a serialized work". Serialized installments are divisions of a "book or the like" (magazine) and bear a title. I guess it would be my turn to "emphatically disagree", here. Serialized installments aren't necessarily divisions of a book or magazine. Again, this or this, for example. And they don't necessarily bear a title (then again, neither do chapters, so we should just forget about this one). And of course, TV episodes are "serialized installments" and definitely aren't "divisions of a book or the like". Erigu (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Now you're just playing semantics. You're technically correct, so let me start over. "Chapter: a main division of a book, treatise, or the like, usually bearing a number or title." The Pickwick Papers: published in installments of multiple chapters, each bearing a number. Same with Nicholas Nickleby. Berserk: published as a main division of Young Animal, each installment bearing a title. Therefore Berserk is published in chapters. - mako 09:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "Chapter: a main division of a book, treatise, or the like, usually bearing a number or title." The Pickwick Papers: published in installments of multiple chapters, each bearing a number. Same with Nicholas Nickleby.So do we agree that calling those serialized installments "chapters" would be problematic? And that calling them "episodes" would be adequate? Berserk published as a main division of Young Animal, each installment bearing a title. Therefore Berserk is published in chapters.(the fact that each installment bears a title doesn't matter one way or the other, really... chapters don't necessarily bear titles) You're apparently arguing that each installment of Berserk is a chapter of the corresponding Young Animal issue... and I think you're trying a bit too hard, here. And again, Berserk is divided into "shō" that consist of several serialized installments each. I think you'll agree that the best English translation of "shō" would be "chapter" (this one is pretty much one-to-one). So calling the serialized installments "chapters" would yet again be... somewhat unwise. Whereas "episode" would work just fine. Really, I can't think of many cons for "episode" ("installment" would work too, I guess). It just seems a lot more adequate and less problematic to me. I also think calling all those articles "list of xxxxxx volumes" would make more sense (and it would fall in line with what's actually displayed by Template:Infobox animanga/Manga, too). And that "list of contents" would be broader and more convenient than "chapter list" (as seen under each volume). After all, "end-of-volumes extras" are pretty common place and can't exactly be put in the same lot as the actual narrative. I'm not trying to make a mess, here. Nor do I want to change things around just for the sake of it. I'm merely proposing a couple of ideas regarding some details that seem somewhat "off", imprecise, inconsistent or potentially problematic to me. But it would seem "it's just me", so... ^^; Erigu (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Installments can be chapters in and of themselves, or they can be composed of chapters; no problem. I see where you're coming from, but I think you're trying a bit too hard to line things up precisely. I can play the same game, which is why I pointed out that magazine installments of Berserk are chapters by definition.I object to "episode" in this context because it's just not common usage for print media. And there's also the unquantifiable factor of it "not sounding right"... you know, "iwakan". "Installment" would be fine, though I still think the distinction is unnecessary. When you say you want to include stuff like omake in a volume/chapter list, I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. But let's get back to your Berserk example. I would translate "hen" to "saga" or "arc" in this context. "shō" is a bit harder to find a nice word for: section? part? narrative? You wanted to translate "shō" to "chapter", but a "chapter" that spans several volumes, as is the case in Berserk, makes absolutely no sense. It just doesn't work. - mako 10:52, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When you say you want to include stuff like omake in a volume/chapter list, I'm not sure what purpose that would serve.Er... Well, that's not what I meant... I assumed they were typically included in those lists already. Which is why I proposed the broader "list of contents". ^_^; You wanted to translate "shō" to "chapter", but a "chapter" that spans several volumes, as is the case in Berserk, makes absolutely no sense. It just doesn't work. They're just long chapters in a very long series. But really, I'm mostly surprised that you wouldn't translate "shō" to "chapter"... Erigu (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a translation that doesn't fit in this context. A chapter is a division within a volume, so having a "chapter" that covers multiple volumes clashes incongruously with the definition. The concepts don't match. - mako 22:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it doesn't say "within a volume" specifically... If a written work can span several separate volumes, so can its divisions. Erigu (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You still seem to operating on a conceptual level, but we're talking about physical printed matter here. Individual printed, bound matter, with divisions. Chapters simply do not start in one book and end in another.
 * A look at the Kōjien finds 詩文や楽曲のひとくぎり. The word "movement" suggests itself. - mako 07:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You still seem to operating on a conceptual level, but we're talking about physical printed matter here.
 * Er... Written works than span several volumes actually exist. That's not me operating on a conceptual level. Besides, let's not forget that Berserk is a manga. The sort of manga that can have a single fight last for more than a hundred pages. At that rate, is it really surprising that chapters would span several volumes? But I imagine that's not the kind of example a dictionary would have in mind... A look at the Kōjien finds 詩文や楽曲のひとくぎり. The word "movement" suggests itself. Well behind "chapter", maybe... "Movement" is really more of a musical term... Erigu (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just an example that would be less prosaic than "section". You seem to be holding on to your peculiar conception of "chapter". Have you encountered "chapters" anywhere in print (besides Berserk) that extend beyond a single volume? Is it really that common to have shō in a manga series? I do not recall any other work that further divides its plot arcs into shō. I have noticed several hen, but every example is a separate serialization. - mako 10:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think my conception of "chapter" is peculiar. If anything, I think your interpretation of the definition you gave above, "a main division of a book, treatise, or the like", is a bit rigid, even restrictive. While I understand that "book" evokes the image of the object book as a single volume, "treatise" doesn't, and "or the like" certainly could mean a lot of things... And there's another definition here that's decidedly broad in that respect: "one of the main divisions of a relatively lengthy piece of writing, such as a book, that is usually numbered or titled." Is it really that common to have shō in a manga series? I wouldn't say it's "that common", no, but it happens. The word shows up relatively often in subtitles, for example. And I've seen final arcs called "saishūshō" a number of times. In both cases, they tend to be quite a bit longer that just one serialized installment... Well, from what I've seen and remember, anyway. Erigu (talk) 11:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you give specific examples of other manga with shō? Well, as I've said, your usage of "chapter" is a stretch. It may be a literal mapping but the concordance is off. The confusion your suggestion engendered at the beginning of this thread, in multiple people, should give you a sense that your interpretation is highly unconventional. If you really feel strongly about the wa/shō/hen distinction, I suggest taking the discussion to the particular series in question, as a special case. I don't think you'll find much support for changing the general case here, as wa=chapter is common practice and uncontroversial. - mako 12:30, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That shouldn't be too hard to Google... Let's see... Whoa. This one has a 23-volume long "shō". This one has "shō" that span up to three volumes. This one (the top results) apparently numbers the volumes themselves "shō". Same thing for Kabuki, here. And there would also be a lot of "Shinshō"... as I've said, your usage of "chapter" is a stretch. It may be a literal mapping but the concordance is off. And I think your usage of "chapter" when referring to serialized installments is off. ^_^; The confusion your suggestion engendered at the beginning of this thread, in multiple people, should give you a sense that your interpretation is highly unconventional. I got the sense my interpretation was "unconventional" as soon as I found myself in disagreement with a terminology that had apparently been in use around here for a while... Anyway, I had some idea of what I was in for even before I started this section, don't worry. ^^; I don't think you'll find much support for changing the general case here, as wa=chapter is common practice and uncontroversial. Yeah, like I said earlier, I imagine it's way too late to try and argue against that particular habit... Ah, well. Erigu (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The golf one looks to be a discrete sequel to me, but I'll accept the other examples. When you say "terminology that had apparently been in use around here for a while", the practice is not particular to Wikipedia... - mako 23:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I realize that, but I would expect an encyclopedia to know better. Erigu (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Wording
I suggest using "publication date" rather than "release date". - mako 07:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't they mean the same thing in context? What would be the reason to change it?--  十  八  08:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It just sounds a bit more proper. - mako 09:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Both are used by major retailers, so don't see a major reason to switch. Release date is slightly shorter. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Formatting change
Since the common practice is to use definition list formatting in VolumeExtras, I propose that ChapterList be modified to follow suit. The disparity in looks is most apparent in skins like Cologne Blue; however, Monobook and the newer skins will also show a slight difference in where "Chapter list" is positioned. The relevant change can be seen in this sandbox diff. 67.175.50.253 (talk) 02:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly disagree VolumeExtras should be using bullets as well, not definition lists. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The proposed change is just for the top line. I'm well aware that current practice is a mix of definition list and unordered list formatting.  67.175.50.253 (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I still disagree, leave it flexible. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I still want to see a parameter added, but that's just me. 「 ダイノ ガイ  千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not talking about changing VolumeExtras, I'm talking about changing ChapterList so that it doesn't look like this. 67.175.50.253 (talk) 04:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so you want to make it so that the "Chapter list:" given in the example isn't bolded on some skins?--  十  八  04:25, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. 67.175.50.253 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, because then I bet AnmaFinotera (like myself) was confused at what you were proposing, at least if her reply is any indication. I think that's a fine proposal. As long as it doesn't look visually different on normal skins, I don't see why not.--  十  八  05:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking at the template's source (and actually paying attention), I see that the words are simply bolded:  Is there any reason for this not to be changed to a definition term (via a semicolon) to match current practice on listing cover characters? 「 ダイノ ガイ  千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 05:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

...so, nobody's going to do this? 67.175.50.253 (talk) 06:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I was waiting for further comment, and then forgot about it. I'll get this done in a second. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅. Sorry about how long this ended up waiting... ^_^;; 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Late response to Dinoguy's question above. The semicolon syntax truncates trailing colons. "Chapter list:" renders as "Chapter list:", while ";Chapter list:" renders as "Chapter list". Good raise  19:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we've omitted trailing colons for both "Cover character(s)" and "Volume title" for as long as I can remember; I think we really won't miss it on "Chapter list". At the least, I removed it when updating the template anyways. (and, if it really is a big deal, it can be escaped by enclosing it in  tags) 「 ダイノ ガイ  千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Minor idea
I think I came with this some time ago, but just in case: Since volume title is now the only thing we use for volume extras I thought that it could be moved along with the other chapters like this. Then chapter list could be renamed to content and volume title and chapter title could be used below.


 * Content:
 * Volume title:
 * The Tests of the Ninja (うずまきナルト!!)
 * Chapter title:
 * 001. "Uzumaki Naruto!" (うずまきナルト!!)
 * 002. "Konohamaru" (木ノ葉丸!!)
 * 003. "Enter Sasuke!" (うちはサスケ)
 * 004. "Hatake Kakashi!" (はたけカカシ!!)
 * 005. "Pride Goeth Before a Fall!" (油断大敵!!)
 * 006. "Not Sasuke!" (サスケ君に限って...!!)
 * 007. "Kakashi's Decision" (カカシの結論)

That's just something I wanted to show. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The only problem with that idea is that Volume title isn't "content" but a label :-) Still, I think since cover characters are now being removed, we could make that a single column with volume title on top as suggested, just without the content label. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think the volume name should be part of the table structure and not just stuffed in with-- well, with the chapter titles. I think we should make the template more like Japanese episode list, where it doesn't really matter if a column is missing. Here's what that could look like:


 * What do you people think? Good raise  07:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it, but what would happen with volumes without titles (I think only the Shonen Jump and other few magazines add titles to the volumes)?Tintor2 (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's how it would look like. Seems familiar? Good raise  13:31, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks very good,Tintor2 (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I like that idea even better. It would be especially great with the light novels that also use this template! -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * From a programming standpoint, I'm really not sure about the two-column approach for the chapter titles - new people already tend to struggle immensely with the most basic markup, let alone the current template. If the necessary code can all get moved into so that we end up with something like ChapterListCol1 and ChapterListCol2, I'll probably be all for it, though (balancing columns would be a breeze - simply move the second parameter call up or down in the list). One other thing I'm not liking (but this is really nitpicking, so feel free to ignore me) is that in the with-titles example, the bullets in the second column line up really nicely with the boundary between columns (on this 1440x900 monitor, at least), but in the sans-title example, they fall a little to the left of the boundary. It would look much better if the right line of bullets got offset to the right by 2% (and, to keep everything looking nice, the with-titles case would require the date/ISBN columns to be reduced from 25% to 24% each). 「 ダイノ ガイ  千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nitpicking for the win! No, seriously, none of that should be a problem. Piece of cake compared to Graphic novel list/sublist. Good raise  17:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought not; can you sandbox some code and give some testcases for this? 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I sure can. Though I can't tell you when I'll actually get to it. What little time I spend on Wikipedia these days is just what I manage to squeeze in between everything else. (I usually check my watchlist a few times a day, but real editing has become rare.) Good raise  18:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Got started sooner than I expected, but it's gonna take a while before I'll have it working for all possible cases. Good raise  09:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've come across some really strange behavior. (See this revision of the testcases using this revision of the sandbox.) It's working as intended if no chapter list is shown or if the instances of aren't separated by so much as a linebreak. For some reason, I don't know why, the software adds   already. Thoughts? 「 ダイノ ガイ  千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 07:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * could you point out a place where not having the clear is causing problems? I've never seen it be an issue before and would be curious as to what it is breaking? If it is an issue, then I think having it auto override it if there is a custom width would be a good fix. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On some chapter lists with an image in particular, especially on large screen sizes. Usually the overlap isn't horrible, but no overlap would still be preferable. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 08:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there've been no further comments, I'm gonna go ahead and do this. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Multiple English release dates and ISBNs wanted or not?
Multiple English release dates and ISBNs weren't ever very pretty in the tables, but since the recent changes, I find them particularly deranging. If consensus is to keep them, I'll try to adjust the template to accommodate the additional information, but personally I think we should only give the date of the first English language publication regardless of where it happened, as that is the only date of historic significance. Regards, Good raise  22:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to say the same, though part of the issue there is often times Chuang Yi is the first, but have no sourcable publication dates for their releases. 23:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you have an example of particularly deranging? I confess I don't see any real difference from before, at least in the articles I watch. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Here's an example from List of Tsubasa: Reservoir Chronicle chapters:


 * Good raise 04:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gotcha (I hadn't seen any with more than two). Not the most graceful layout, no. Hmm. *goes off to ponder* —Quasirandom (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

2 Vols in Japanese = 1 Vol in English
Hi,

I would like some suggestions on how to make With_the_Light less ugly. This series has the particularity to have each English volume containing two Japanese tankōbon making a very messy and somewhat not digest list. Thanks --KrebMarkt 22:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Adding to which, are there any other series where the English language volumes don't match the Japanese tankobon releases, that could be used as a model? —Quasirandom (talk) 03:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, duh -- Tsubasa: Those with Wings -- only that doesn't have a volume list. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * *poke* Anyone have any insights on how to handle this situation? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

How does that look? Good raise 14:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Was the lower cell supposed to be colspanned? And how were you thinking of indicating, say, the chapters that go into a given Japansese volume? And would the volume summary be at the Japanese or English level? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * To be honest, this was only intended as an answer to the question "how to make With_the_Light less ugly"? I created it under the assumption that it would not be used widespread enough to merit creation of a sub-template or even modification of this one. I wanted to keep the code simple. I'll whip up a few more examples. Maybe you'll like one of them...


 * So, whaddaya think? Good raise  21:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This template doesn't work on the wikia. Please help.
I imported all of the manga articles and their templates from Wikipedia to the manga wikia awhile back, but this one template just doesn't work at all. Every article that uses it, just ends up with html code that spews out as unreadable nonsense. No one over there has been able to figure out how to fix it. Anyway to load up the information without using html code?  D r e a m Focus  08:54, 30 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It would appear, that wiki is configured to treat html code as plain text. Not my area of expertise. Sorry. Perhaps you'll find the answer somewhere around here. Good luck. Good raise  15:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Change the scope of this template?
Do you think we should change this to just all Book series? I've noticed light novels and other books have been using the this template to and thought maybe series of novels would work out fine too. What do you guys think?Bread Ninja (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know. What's keeping you from using this template for other kinds of books? Good raise  18:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * nothing but scope. I just thoughtit would be nice to use this as a standardLucia Black (talk) 21:10, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Current formatting is ugly
Example: Arakawa_Under_the_Bridge I think the table would look substantially better if we didn't add these unnecessary hacks. --Bxj (talk) 00:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do we need line color? sounds like a bad idea that shouldn't be there.
 * TD (non-header) looks better when left aligned. This table is no exception. Center aligned is ugly.
 * Default width is 100%? That's ugly. We don't need to touch width property, and it looks better when we don't.


 * Since you bring up three different issues, I'll respond by starting a sub-section for each. But just so we're clear, here's how I think you'd like the example to look:


 * Good raise 07:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Line color
In this case, which is also the most simple one, we certainly don't need the colored line or lines. For that matter, we don't need it or them in any case. They do, however, serve a purpose in some applications of the template. They can divide clearly where one list entry ends and the next begins.Example And they can provide whole sets of articles with a coherent look.Example That said, I wouldn't object to making the addition of colored lines optional, at least for the header. Good raise 07:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Center aligned text
Well, what's "ugly" and what isn't, is always a matter of opinion. As far as your example case goes, and provided that, as you suggest, width is set to be handled automatically, I'd agree. There are, however, cases in which I find center aligned text for some columns to be quite appealing.Example So, conditional support on this matter from me. Good raise 07:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Default width
Actually, we do need to touch width in some cases. If we don't at least allow for it, multiple of these tables on the same page would end up in different sizes. As it stands, there's no way to set the template to determine its width automatically. Making fixed width optional is of course a simple matter. I am, however, not yet convinced, one way or the other, that disabling it by default is the way to go. The alternative would be to allow width to be set to "auto". Good raise 07:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikification
I am going to wikify the sandbox version in the hope of reducing the post-expand include size. (see WP:TLIMIT) The following is from the source (HTML) of Template:Graphic novel list/testcases. NewPP limit report Preprocessor node count: 99517/1000000 Post-expand include size: 1265767/2048000 bytes Template argument size: 473535/2048000 bytes Expensive parser function count: 0/500 If nothing else this should reduce any HTML errors. – Allen4names 19:18, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The preliminary tests possibly because I failed to edit the header sandbox. I will make sure there are links to the sandbox pages from the sub-templates. – Allen4names 19:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sandbox version of the header has been wikified increasing the post-expand include size. If this is what happens when I wikify the sandbox version of the main template I will abandon wikification in favor of checking and correcting the HTML code. – Allen4names 17:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed down the sandbox version of the header. I plan to start work on the sandbox version of the main template this weekend. – Allen4names 06:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sandbox version is broken right now. Hopefully I can get it fixed without using HTML. – Allen4names 19:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikification of the sandbox versions is complete but it has a cost in the post-expand include size. I will leave and sandbox versions as is for now in case someone can use them as the basis for improving the main versions. – Allen4names 22:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Unwanted closing braces
Unwanted closing braces are appearing ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mysterious_Girlfriend_X&oldid=487785718 example link]) when this template is used and I do not know why. If this is a problem with the template please fix it. – Allen4names 05:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. Good raise  11:40, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you. – Allen4names 17:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Bolding
Seeing as how the bolding of episode titles was removed from Japanese episode list, shouldn't the same be for this template? In this case, it's the volume titles that are being bolded.--  十  八  20:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a whole lot of discussion in various places regarding MOS compliance, accessibility, and article-to-article transclusion originating from here. I didn't follow most of it and I don't know whether things are still ongoing. It was my intention to wait until they had things figured out and then give this template an according overhaul. Considering how much work the last major change to this template turned out to become, I'm reluctant to start messing with the code until I know what all the necessary adjustments are. Good raise  21:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 October 2012
Two requests. One for this template:

And one for Template:Graphic novel list/header:

Reason: MOS compliance. Good raise 01:04, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This does not seem correct. I scope row is for header cells and you are applying it to a table cell. —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 12:39, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Right. Good catch! I wanted to make it a header cell, as I did here, but apparently forgot to actually do it and didn't notice my mistake during testing, because it looked exactly the way I wanted it to. Anyway, I'll use the opportunity to spare me another edit request and incorporate another change. New requested edits: one for this page and another one for Template:Graphic novel list/header. Thanks. Good raise  13:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, but the header template looks a little strange. It might be a good idea to check that it hasn't broken any articles. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 14:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Part of documentation gets shoved into the header on its page. It'll be fine if moved to the top of the page. Thanks for taking the time. Good raise  14:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, and that makes sense. I've wrapped the whole header with includeonly tags so that it's not visible on the template page any more. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 15:26, 29 October 2012 (UTC)