Template talk:Infobox Asian comic series

Redundancy
I don't think there needs to be an Original English Manga infobox here when Infobox animanga/Manga takes care of this when the OEM parameter is set to yes.--  十  八  05:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Which, to my understanding, the AM Project, or a sub-set of those editors, has been removing under the premise that "Only material published in Japan for a Japanese audiance should use the manga infobox." This was the upshot of the discusion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/World comics work group. - J Greb (talk) 11:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * IIRC, I may have suggested removing it in favor of this template (I don't remember if it was me or someone else) since OEL manga is specifically outside of the AM project's scope. If necessary, I can start a discussion there, though. — Dino guy  1000  20:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Could we get rid of the whole  (line break) after each one and just use commas? The line breaks make it long vertically even with just two or three, and in my opinion it doesn't look that great. Also, I think this template might do better if it were hardcoded instead of using Infobox - at the very least it would probably be easier to edit. --Eruhildo (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Issue 1 - The commas
 * Yes, it is possible, but the layered "If-then-else" statements would make the current setup look short and simplistic. Roughly - replace the 27 one liners with 26 "diminishing" nests (27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, and so on) just so there isn't a hanging or leading comma. And, looking at a number of the placed boxes, that doesn't even begin to address adding additional options. (That is: To add a 28th genre is currently just adding 2 lines, 3 if it has a cat. In the coma setup it's add 2, 3 for a cat, and edit 26 to redo the nests.)
 * Issue 2 - Table vs template
 * No, it won't make the coding easier to edit.
 * The "If-then-else" statements would be the same. They may even become clunkier since | will have to be pepper through out to make sure they continue to work. And that's on top of making sure the table formatting is kept straight. And then there's adding the whole new layer of "if-then"s to vanish cells that aren't used - an automatic feature of the template.
 * - J Greb (talk) 01:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The templates that this one is based off of (Infobox manhwa and Infobox manhua) were originally hardcoded, but were switched over to use Infobox for some reason (there's a discussion on it somewhere in the workgroup archives, but I don't feel like digging around for it). Personally, I think it would be better if it were (still) hardcoded, but... meh. — Dino guy  1000  17:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking back at the code for the old templates ( & ) I would say the code was easier to read than the current code, albeit a bit longer. As for the commas, ugh, I forgot about that stupid hanging end comma problem. Well, given some time though, I think I could come up with a simple solution. --Eruhildo (talk) 19:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Would you like to throw those together with the current functionality of this 'box? Otherwise it's damn near comparing apples and oranges.
 * But a closer comparison, just sticking with the infobox, would be:


 * }


 * And


 * Both of these generate the same thing using the same information. The templated version shown here is without:
 * The checks in the image to not use NFC images outside of article space
 * Caps on image width and height.
 * Relies on the full [[Image:...|250px]] formatting.
 * Targeted - only useful for 1 specific grouping. (Part of the reason for the move was to consolidate like 'boxes in to one, flexible version.)
 * Without the automatic categorization and genre fill in.
 * In all honesty, which of those is the clearer and easier to edit?
 * - J Greb (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Having written (or at least copied and adapted) a large portion of the harcoded version, I don't think I can give a completely unbiased opinion. That being said, the programmer in me says that the template version is easier to read, but less flexible (since a metatemplate can't provide for all possible uses). — Dino guy  1000  15:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but the hardcoded version isn't that friendly to change either. The 'box is built with an eye generally on two things: "What does it need to do now?" and "What does what ever is currently in place do?" It's hard to say "And in the near future it will need to do 'this', 'that' and maybe 'the other'" and make sure that it has that functionality incorporated. With both methods, as that new stuff - phased in or out - corps up, the coding needs to be revisited and updated.
 * And to be honest, some of what can be done inside the template is surprising. The "hidden" table for one thing. I was sure that wouldn't be possible, but the template accepted the coding with minor tweaking.
 * The only preferential point I see for the hardcoded table version is what's been done with the anime/manga infobox — massive modularization. And that being said, 1) I don't think there is the need for it with any version of this 'box, and 2) an "all-in-one" version based on the template can be done, though it would likely force a consistent order to the "modules".
 * - J Greb (talk) 17:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your second point in the last paragraph: attempting an "all-in-one" template for the animanga infobox would be impossible since series can have an arbitrary number of different adaptations of the same type. — Dino guy  1000  17:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify (and this is something that I wouldn't suggest doing):
 * A 'box template can be set up with fields for the manga, the anime, novels, short prose, video games, films, plays, etc. It would be laid out with everything available, but not necessarily used. Even with in that, an arbitrary "upper limit" or even a "folding table" like the "other non-English publishers" here can be set up.
 * The down sides are "dead space", the unused fields, and that it would always present in the same order, which is counter to how some of the modular ones are used (IIUC, they are placed in loose "production order" so some have Anime first, other Manga, and the other adaptation shuffle). I don't think such a template is ultimately a good thing - with too much optional material for most articles and too big a buck against the established schema - but it can be done.
 * - J Greb (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Certainly it can be, but as you pointed out, the trade-off is too large. In addition to dead space and a fixed order, you're going to have a fixed upper limit of the number of adaptations of a given media type you can cover in the infobox, and inevitably, somewhere, there will be a series which would need more than that upper limit. Also, currently, the ordering for infobox animanga components is by release date in all cases where it is known (and approximated according to whether the month of release is known, etc.). — Dino guy  1000  16:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought re the ordering (and I was deliberate, that's how I Understood it, not Recalled it).
 * As for the "Something will come along to exceed the 'cap'"... Devil's Advocate: There is 1) the option of "bumping" until the operating cap of the template is reached (and there is a max number of field numbers) and/or 2) (and this has been broached with some 'boxes) there's the option of limiting to the "initial, notable few" with a link to the section of the article that fleshes out the rest. Again, I wouldn't push those since the first can and would be hit. And the second... I can easily imagine the harangue in trying to weed down to a "notable few". That alone wouldn't be worth it. - J Greb (talk) 22:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a big issue, y'all. Lets just stick with what we currently have, and if we come across something in the future that requires us to switch to hardcoding, we can do that when it comes up. Really, this template currently has a very limited use - it only is used on articles about non-Japanese, Asian comics (of which there are very few articles). There's not a whole lot that needs to go in the 'box either. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Colour scheme
Any particular reason why this box uses the horribly obtrusive bright blue background? --erachima talk 02:50, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

OEL manga template
Hi. I've noticed that whatever year is put in the "| first          =", the template puts the article in "Category: 200X comic debuts". (For example, if "| first          = 2006", then "Cat: 2006 comic debuts" appears at the bottom of the article. If "| first           = 2008", then "Cat: 2008 comic debuts" appears at the bottom.) While this is true for the majority of the OEL manga, it isn't for some (Nightschool). Is there any way to make "Category: 200X comic debuts" optional? (Sorry if this is confusing, templates are not my thing.) Kaguya-chan (talk) 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * When the "first/"last" was put together, the idea was that it would cover the original run of the manhua, manhwa, or OEL, be it as stand alone books or as a strip in an anthology. In the case of Nightschool, the article eventually points out that its run in Yen Plus started in August 2008. That is when the series debuted even though the first collected edition didn't show up until 14 months later.
 * Two things I can see doing:
 * Tightening up the parameter notes for "first and last" and "volumes".
 * Setting it up so that if a magazine entry is present, "Volumes" becomes "Collected volumes".
 * And a last thing, "Year comic debuts" is as close to a neutral term as we can come since the category needs to cover comic books, comic strips (US meaning), comic strips (UK/European meaning), comic magazines, etc. The only thing it doesn't directly cover is manga (as it was explained to me - Japanese comics made primarily for the Japanese market).
 * - J Greb (talk) 22:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I didn't realize that. Well, no big deal about the category then. However, I agree with the "volumes" to "collected volumes" if it was serialised idea. Kaguya-chan (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Automatic categorization issue
A lot of webtoons use the manhwa infobox, which is based on this infobox. For some reason, if a debut year is inserted (for example, 2011), the article will automatically be added to Category:2011 comics debuts. I haven't been able to figure out how to circumvent this without removing the year out of the infobox. This is an issue, because I am working on Category:Webcomics by year (I still have a few years to go). Of course, an article shouldn't be listed at both Category:2011 comics debuts and Category:2011 webcomic debuts simultaneously. To give a few examples of where this is an issue: Dr. Frost, Fashion King, Girls of the Wild's, God of Bath, Orange Marmalade (pretty much every single webtoon seems to use this template). Is there a way to remove these articles from the general comics category? ~ Mable ( chat ) 18:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Is there no solution for this issue? ~ Mable ( chat ) 11:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The second paragraph at WP:TEMPLATECAT says not to auto-categorize like so. --Izno (talk) 20:12, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * then this aspect of the infobox needs to be removed entirely, correct? ~ Mable ( chat ) 09:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. I might suggest that the pages in their respective categories should have categories added prior to deletion of the feature. You should request a bot for that. --Izno (talk) 12:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Done, waiting for response :) ~ Mable ( chat ) 12:39, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Per Bot requests, all articles that use this infobox now have the category manually added to them. Everything is ready for the automatic categorization of Asian comic series by year to be removed. ~ Mable ( chat ) 07:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll take care of this tonight. That said, it looks like there are a lot of other categories--maybe you should request more botting. :) --Izno (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm working through this gradually. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:57, 20 April 2017 (UTC).


 * Izno@undefined Maplestrip@undefined Every article using this template should now have all the relevant categories (i.e. everything except the maintenance ones). Note that this template is wrapped by three other Infoboxs.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC).


 * Thank you, Rich, that should mean we're ready to change the template! ~ Mable ( chat ) 08:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)