Talk:Tankōbon

message: In order to keep everything in one place and make one slightly larger article rather than several really small articles, I recommend that the Bunkobon article be merged into this article. --nihon 21:36, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Most bunko are not tankobon. See my comment at Talk:Bunkobon. Haeleth 23:25, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I replies over at Talk:Bunkobon, as well. :-) --nihon 23:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommend merge

message: Compilation shouldn't be linked, as the target page has nothing to do with a literary compilation. You might want to point the link to an appropriate, more specific topic. -- Mikeblas 09:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "compilation" link 

message: For Kanzenban, a split would allow a more in-depth article, and a respective link to the Japanese webpage http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/完全版コミックス 
I have no idea on how this process works.  Please feel free to add any comment.  Springbreak04 13:41, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recommended split

message: The article starts by saying that this is a Japanese term (as I had thought), but then writes it up in an odd way.
I looked at the Japanese article (for what WP is worth). This says ちなみに、海外では日本の漫画の単行本のことを｢Tankōbon｣と呼んでいる。It doesn't say which language this is in, but I'd guess that it's English. 
Is the article discussing 日本語, or 米製和語 (?), or a bit of both? I know zilch about manga but of course support the right of its anglophone aficionados to adapt Japanese words in any way they wish; however, the article shouldn't say that X is a Japanese word for Y if it isn't normally used by L1 Japanese speakers for Y. -- Hoary 06:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, what that quotation is saying is that usually in foreign countries manga tankôbon are actually called "tankôbon."  So basically, manga tankôbon are in fact tankôbon in Japanese, but so are other books that would not be called that in English.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casey J. Morris (talk • contribs) 22:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Japanese term?

message: ...because I think the article talks too much about the tankoban in manga, not the tankoban in general and in other fields. Sholokhov (talk) 15:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the terms are used in English in any other fields than about manga publication, so I think it is balanced. Perhaps a single sentence about a wider use in Japanese could be relevant. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 17:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it says "In modern Japan, though, it is most often used in reference to individual volumes of a single manga, as opposed to magazines (雑誌 zasshi), which feature multiple series," which is actually not true.  Paperback novels are also "tankobon"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.112.182.194 (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Chiming in to agree that at least the sentence in question about modern Japanese usage is completely inaccurate. It should be clarified whether the article is supposed to cover "tankobon" as a loan-word in English (evidently a term with specific relevance to English-language manga publication?), or the concept of a 単行本 as exists in Japan (a standard publishing format). If the page is meant to cover the former, it is rather confusing that the connected Japanese edition of this page gives a description for the latter (see https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%98%E8%A1%8C%E6%9C%AC , which only mentions in the last line "Books of manga are called tankobon, despite the fact that they fall under the definition of a serialized work"). As far as I can tell, the German edition seems to cover all the different use cases accurately while also keeping the English-edition detail on manga-specific usages. 157.82.194.10 (talk) 11:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Re: discussion--I realized I should be a bit more proactive and fix something I know is wrong rather than complain for others to do it, so I edited the offending sentence to at least remove "most often," which gives a false impression of Japanese usage. 157.82.194.10 (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: The content is not balanced

message: Phone books are no longer published in any one unique size. Some are large (letter-size) while I've also seem medium (maybe trade paperback size) and small (roughly digest sized) size phone-books. The phrase "phone-book size" should be replaced with an actual measurement.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.6.130 (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Manga magazines also vary in trim size, but I don't think the trim size is what the phrase is referring to. "Phone-book sized" is commonly used in discussing manga magazines to indicate that the magazines are typically very thick. Small niche magazines may be 300-400 pages and the biggest are routinely over 1000 pages per issue; combined with the thick, coarse paper used, it's not unusual for them to be up to 3 inches thick. - JRBrown (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  phone-book size? 

message: I have seen this term transcribed as both "kazenban" and as "kanzenban". Which form is more correct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowsuit Wearer (talk • contribs) 19:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter is the correct spelling. Erigu (talk) 01:44, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  完全版