Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Naruto chapters (Part I)
List of Naruto chapters (Part I) edit
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 16 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. Promote. Scorpion0422 01:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a list of chapters of the first part of the Naruto manga, covering the first 244 chapters. This article was created from List of Naruto chapters due to size and readability concerns. I believe it qualifies under the featured list criteria, and covers all relevant aspects of the topic at hand. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure if I can support this. Unlike, say, a list of episodes, this doesn't really have any real content other than a list of chapter titles. I could see supporting a list of volumes, with summaries for each volume, which these lists could easily be converted into. At the same time, I'm not really sure how I feel, and I'm willing to hear what other people think before I oppose or support. -- Ned Scott 05:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The volumes are included alongside the chapters, and are how the chapters are organized in the list. Perhaps if summaries were added to the volumes you would support, as it would be closer to the list of episodes format? Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hidden discussion regarding original publication dates
- Oppose Until the summaries are applied consistency. I think some date for the chapters' original publication (either on a per-chapter or per-volume basis) is also necessary. Borrrowing the same color from the equivalent episode list might also be a good idea. ALso, toomuch linking of character names. Circeus 23:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Overlinking of character names? There's simply lots of characters introduced - it's no different than the links that appear in the summaries accompanying a list of episodes. Furthermore, although I'm not opposed to it, is aesthetic considerations with color consistency amongst multiple lists (that touch different subjects) necessary? Curious. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You link every character every time. That makes almost every chapter link to Naruto. That's rtoo much linking. Circeus 14:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean repeated linking of the same character? That doesn't appear to be a problem. I've removed the redundancies. As for the rest, there's simply a very large amount of characters introduced, and only the major characters (in the context of the volume) are linked. If we were really going in depth, there would be tons of character linking. I would say this is reduced quite well. Furthermore, the links aren't to the central Naruto article, but rather to the character's entry on whatever list they are on. In any case, moving back to the original problem - links to specific dates of chapter airings - the tankōbon is considered largely to be the permanent edition, with the chapters collected and presented in a cohesive book, as the individual chapters are merely printed in whatever magazine they are published in (Weekly Shonen Jump in this case). As per the tankōbon article (as well as the collective experience of the WP:ANIME editors who have commented on the List of Claymore chapters FLC), the individual chapters are considered disposable and unimportant. When a casual reader considers a manga, the tankōbon is foremost, as it is not only more prominent (considering the dozens of other manga publications in a magazine), but it is also more focused. In addition, linking to the release of each of the 244 chapters, or even the volumes, would be a logistical nightmare. That said, I would like more outside input before we move forward on this. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have nothing against linking to characters. It's repeatedly linking to the same characters that I was at issue with.
- In addition, linking to the release of each of the 244 chapters, or even the volumes, would be a logistical nightmare. Wait, what do you mean by that? I'm sorry but that doesn't make sense to me. What's wrong with (e.g.) "Published between: November 2004-January 2005"?? Unless the information is almost is almost impossible to obtain, I'm not seeing much sense in your objection besides a "WEDONTLIKEIT". I've mentioned before I don't see what makes the original dates so irrelevant regardless of the "disposability" of the magazine themselves. Circeus 01:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh...I was under the impression that you were asking for two hundred or so odd dates plus sources. My bad.=/ Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 04:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the objection is not WE DON'T LIKE IT but that it isn't notable; we've given several reasons why it isn't notable (tankobon are a permanent edition, magazines are disposable) but you've yet to provide any reasons why they are notable. Doceirias 01:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Release dates for individual chapters are an impractical piece of information to provide, specifically because the information is simply not available. This site is the only thing that comes close to providing release dates, though it is neither "reliable" (fansite) nor is it very up to date (last given release date is some 75 chapters ago). As an aside, summaries have been applied for each volume. ~SnapperTo 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that this nomination is winding down, and a result of "no consensus" would be unfortunate over a single issue, it would be suitable to determine a consensus now whether to include these. The principle concern is that this will determine the state of future chapter lists, but I personally believe that the present one is a suitable precedent for future lists. Anyhow, let's get to it. There's no reason to lose a potential FL here. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean repeated linking of the same character? That doesn't appear to be a problem. I've removed the redundancies. As for the rest, there's simply a very large amount of characters introduced, and only the major characters (in the context of the volume) are linked. If we were really going in depth, there would be tons of character linking. I would say this is reduced quite well. Furthermore, the links aren't to the central Naruto article, but rather to the character's entry on whatever list they are on. In any case, moving back to the original problem - links to specific dates of chapter airings - the tankōbon is considered largely to be the permanent edition, with the chapters collected and presented in a cohesive book, as the individual chapters are merely printed in whatever magazine they are published in (Weekly Shonen Jump in this case). As per the tankōbon article (as well as the collective experience of the WP:ANIME editors who have commented on the List of Claymore chapters FLC), the individual chapters are considered disposable and unimportant. When a casual reader considers a manga, the tankōbon is foremost, as it is not only more prominent (considering the dozens of other manga publications in a magazine), but it is also more focused. In addition, linking to the release of each of the 244 chapters, or even the volumes, would be a logistical nightmare. That said, I would like more outside input before we move forward on this. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Undent
- I'm willing to compromise on the date thing, but I'd like to hear your opinion regarding the color thing (i.e. I think it's more pertinent to have colors consistent within a series than to separate episodes and chapters via color, since chapters use a significantly different layout). Also, I think having links under "cover characters" is now mostly redundant given that they are almost all linked more prominently in the volume summary (only one or two are exceptions). Circeus 00:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 01:58, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem. I've asked the closing user about his closing rationale, which stated that it "wasn't heading towards consensus," even though you had agreed to compromise on the date issue, and I had addressed the issues that you had brought up. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think we're into an area that we haven't given much attention before, and is pretty new to the FLC process. The format is similar, but different from a list of episodes, and might have some other considerations as well. A little bit of format tweaking and I think we'll have something that not only looks really nice, but will become a great foundation for all of the other manga lists. -- Ned Scott 05:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: What's the purpose of the American airdates? As far as I can tell the show is Japanese. Matthew 10:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a show, it's a comic. The US release dates are likely the first English language release dates, which is pretty normal for us to include on anime or manga articles. -- Ned Scott 19:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- They are not "airdates" and they would be perfectly appropriate even if this was an actual show. Circeus 20:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Though this is different from a list of episodes, it's not that far off. What needs to be there is there, and with chapters you have considerably less side information (no songs, intros, etc) so you're bound to be isolated to a relatively specific set. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 00:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Looks good. -- Scorpion0422 01:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]