Talk:Manga

What the heck is "manhwa"? An alternate spelling of "manga"?

This category should be renamed to "Manga", since that is the most recognizable word.

Or better yet, it should be merged with the Comic Books category, because there's not really any reason to keep this type of comic separated. It seems ridiculous to separate certain comics just because they're drawn a particular way.--Baluki 02:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read Manhwa, where it starts with "Manga" redirects to here for now... Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 02:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Manhwa isn't it the term used for Korean "comics"? While the manga is technically "manhwa" by the fact that the artist is Korean; The series is definitely listed as "manga" in the official publication in the comics themselves. We should be listing things under the official publication term, not technicalities. So first thing I say the new category is somewhat misleading. Secondly one definition of manga is is "comic", or "cartoon" from a english translation pov. So yes technically both could fall under the same category of Comic Books as you mentioned. ...or we could create a Comics & Manga category for both.Baggins 02:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd say create the a category for both, since we have a template for both as well. {{Graphic novel}}. Hmm, just noticed the graphic says Manga, when the description bar reads Manhwa.. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 02:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, they should both be in the same category. If there are separate categories they should at least exist as subcats under the main category for both. BTW, its not our job to "correct" Tokyopop, or Blizzard for interpreted incorrect use of termninology. Both companies both list them as "mangas" officially[1]. So manga should be the main article. Manwha should be a foot note within the manga article.Baggins 02:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Category:Graphic novels already exists, how about we just move everything in Manhwa's category there. Same with Comic book's category. Looks like most of it has been double catted anyway. Sssssssssssssssssssssssss For Pony! ^{{TDon't hiss at me.•CIf you do things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all.)} 02:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.Baggins 03:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearly none of you understand the difference between a book and a comic and why they need to be split. Reverting it all, but leaving the manhwa->manga alone. -- 

• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png%7CUser talk:Zealvurte</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink>

  11:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If I wanted to be pedantic a comic book is a subcategory of the term "book" (I'll pass on throwing piles of encyclopedia and dictionary definitions at this time, however). A comic book even falls under the subcategory of books known as the 'illustrated book'. The only time "comic" may not be a book if its printed in a newspaper, or is printed inside a book that content is not all "comic", i.e. 'comic strips'. I'll even avoid throwing out all the dictionary and encyclopedic definitions of 'graphic novel' in order to avoid sounding anal. Additionally as for the term 'comic', manga, manwha, etc are all terms for subtypes of comics. They mean comic in translation into english (although the literal translations are a bit more poetic in nature). They clearly fall under what defines the use of the term "comics"(hint: it doesn't have to have anything to do with the term 'funny'). Again I'm up for subcategories within a main category for simpliflication. However, there is a thing as too many main categories, I.E, 'overcatergorization.Baggins (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Baggins, a comic is typically released in small part issue formats, at which point it's never a book. When a comic is released in a volume it's a book and graphic novel. This definition isn't anything special, but was needed to seperate the two so the cats weren't unecessarily doubled up with both volumes and issues. You weren't around when i made that distincition and split them up accordingly in the categories, so i'm not surprised you didn't know. The split allows issues to sensibly exist under a parent volume's category for quick navigation. There is no issue of overcatergorization, as that suggests tht you have to dig down too deep to find something. You will clearly see that the articles and particular specific series cats are on several low levels, not the lowest, and thus the further splits of graphic novel, comic book, and manga are merely there for people who want further specification on the list of articles/cats without having to check each article in the book category to find out if it's of the type they want.

I stumbled upon this change while i was navigating the cats, and clearly discovered the mess it had become with the removal cats and recating of several articles. I could no longer find the ones i was looking for from the cat tree. If you want to rename the comic category to issues instead of comic for better clarification, go for it. But the specific book sub cats need to stay. -- 

• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png%7CUser talk:Zealvurte</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink>

  11:34, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, again while this is bordering being pedantic, but your references to "issues" is literally a reference to multiple "comic books". A book being a "set of written, printed, or blank sheets bound together..."-webster, "within covers"-Dictionary.com/Random House Unabridged, including "...magazines"-webster/Dictinonary.com. Comic issues are bound in this case with staples, and certainly are bound within covers (before you quibble as previously mentioned magazines have always fallen under the definition of the definition of "book" as well, although most people never notice that).

A comic book (notice that reference to books) is a "magazine containing sequences of comic strips"-webster (I've already pointed out the that magazines are a type of book by the definition of book). Comic book is an old term (1941) which first appeared in reference to newly created "issue" format (circa 1930s) for comics. Comic strips on the other hand the form of comic found inside newspapers and magazines are not books by themselves, they have been around a bit longer (about as long as newsprint has been around if not longer).

However, this is more of a linguistic history lesson and trivia then actually having much to do with the issue we are discussing here. Anycase my point is the definiton of book is simple and has been around for a long time. However, there are many subcategories of books including magazines, and comic books. Please don't accuse me of being clueless. Btw, this kind of thing is easily researchable.Baggins (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You took it all wrong if you thing i was calling you "clueless". All i was saying is you weren't active while i was doing the cats and showed a lack of understanding of why things were done the way they were, which i presumed was because of that. As you said yourself, everything you just said was essentially irrelevent to what we were talking about, and i wasn't trying to suggest you didn't know what a book or comic was in that way. This was just about practical definitions for use on the wiki. -- 

• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_zeal.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_talk.png%7CUser talk:Zealvurte</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_contribs.png%7CSpecial:Contributions/Zealvurte</imagelink>
• <imagelink>http://www.zealvurte.co.uk/temp/sig-av/wiki_end.png%7CUser:Zealvurte</imagelink>

  22:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Anycase best I can tell everything works out now as far as categorization. My main issue was with the use of manhwa over manga. As you recall I prefer to strictly avoid defining topics by our own descriptions or definitions if an official designation exists. I think that issue has been cleared up, and as long is there isn't an over abundance of categories everything goes well. I've checked and see what you had listed under manga/graphic novel/book categories and the way they are subcategorized, and cross-categorized. I agree I don't see much of an issue. Seems straightforward, and not overdone. I think the main issue & reason I entered the thread was just the use of manhwa anyways, which was the main point of this discussion in the first place. There was also some issue with the template uses. I personally have a more reductionist approach to their use. That is not have too many different ones, and put things that are closest in form together. Graphics (comics, manga, etc) vs. prose (short story and novels)for example.

However and I digress, I personally wish they were a bit more transparent, or done away with altogether as they are borderline bias POV (they used to be even more biased until I reworded them a bit). Basically they are huge blinking signs telling people to be critical of a source based on its type of media. Who do we think we are to presume to warn people about what they are reading? That's almost like saying from the get go that one source may or may not be valid than another (something we probably should avoid doing as it is a form of speculation). People can and need to be able to form their own opinions. Besides we have enough citation methods that source of details should be abundantly clear. You would never stick such blatent "warning signs" into an academic paper not even in a critical paper (and wikis are not a place for academic critique either). But really I'm going off on a tanget again, this isn't really the place for this, sorry :p... But if you want to discuss this further feel free to message me, or discuss it in one of the public threads (village pump).

But back to my original point before the digression, hopefully the use of the template has been cleared up. If it is autocategorizing, that needs to be fixed. It shouldn't categorize things into both comics (comic books, whatever), graphic novels, and manga. That can be done manually in order to make sure it isn't categorizing topics into the wrong categories.Baggins (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Manga: A linguistic perspecitve

I've looked the American English language and what has been accepted into the so-called "standard English" as defined by published dictionaries for the terms manga and manwha. To begin with I warn about the concept of standards is kind of a misnomer as various dictionaries, cultures & subcultures do not always agree on what is considered "standard" and there is always room for slang, argot, jargon within cultural dialects, pidgins, and creoles, which may vary from region to region or within sub-cultures. These terms are not considered part of the so called "mainstream", i.e 'standard'.

In a linguistic study, the linguist looks more at the development of languages (including meanings, syntax, or grammar, etc from culture to culture). He does not put judgments on the way the language developed. In the linguists point of view these would all be considered valid language variations (dialects and pidjins) or in some cases new unique languages if they are sufficiently developed (including creoles), or as mentioned before, the ‘nonstandard’; "slang", "argot", or "jargon" used within a language by subcultures within the so-called "mainstream".

With those caveats set into place, I move onto the discussing the phonetic spelling "manga", based off the pronunciation of the original Japanese characters. I will limit the etymology to its first appearance (in Japanese language) up to present use in ‘American standard’ and further evolution of definitions by subcultures. It originally came into use in Japan sometime around WWII, it literally meaning something close to "aimless pictures, or whimsical pictures". It was a transliteration of the English term ‘comic’ which had become popular during WWII. Around circa 1951 the phonetic “manga” was adopted into the English language to define specifically Japanese comics. Sometime later it was added into many if not all of the English dictionaries, to mean Japanese-language comics.

In more recent years Korean-language comics were brought to English speaking countries. There was not a word in the English language to specify said variations of comics, and English language had not adopted the Korean transliteration for comics (phonetic “manwa”) into the “standard English”. Companies began to use the phonetic “manwha”, “Original Korean-language manga”, “Korean-language comics”, or simply “manga” (evolving the definition to represent any comic coming out of Asia). Dictionaries have not yet updated to represent this current “jargon” use of the word “manga”. So far a subculture in society has fully adopted the use of the phonetic manwha; however it does yet represent a term adopted into the “mainstream”. It has not yet been added into most published dictionaries (I was not personally able to find one dictionary that had added it in as part of the American English language).

Finally I close by pointing out that from a linguistic standpoint it doesn’t make much sense for one sub-culture to tell another culture that a use of an adopted word is “incorrect”. When for one, when a word is adopted into another language it rarely brings in the exact same syntax or use that it originally had in the setting of its original language (languages do not all share the same definitions, syntax, or grammar, etc). Words usually develop new or altered definitions when adopted into a new language. Not all words are fully adopted into the “language” or into every “sub-culture” using the language. It may only be used by a very small portion of society, as a slang, argot or jargon. Manga and manwha act as fine examples of this fact. One has been adopted into the mainstream even to the point of making into English dictionaries (although it has not been updated to show modern uses of the term in society), while the other has not yet been acknowledged by the “mainstream”, i.e is not yet part of the "standard" English.

This editorial has been brought to you by Baggins (talk) 08:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I apoligize if some of the history is off, it was the best I could do based on information I looked through. Secondly, I'd also like to point out that wikipedia avoids using terms such as incorrect/correct/true/untrue for defining use of terms. Because definitions are defined by cultures, and may vary geographically. It is certainly not NPOV to use such terms for what is a difference in linguistic use.Baggins (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)