Plural can be, and has been, anglicised as "mangas" (see e.g. Chambers Dictionary). The people claiming it can only be pluralised "manga" in English are presumably the same ones who would reject "cactuses" and "agendas". 184.108.40.206 20:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
This sounds like me before I had an account! You were right, me. I've added that plural back. Equinox◑ 15:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't the translations box be on the original word? ie, the Japanese entry... or on both the English and Japanese entries. 220.127.116.11 00:17, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
No. By your reasoning, we shouldn't have any English words transalted at all, since most of them come from Old English, French, Latin, or some other language. This is the English Wiktionary, so all non-English words are only translated into and only explained in English, while English words are then translated into all other words. --EncycloPetey 01:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I see why it would occur at the English entry, but why not have it at the original language? Yes, this is the English Wiktionary, but I see no reason not to have it on the original language entry as well, since it's the source term. 18.104.22.168 06:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Its better to keep all translations in one place. What if the Japanese page has the Italian, Kurdish and Portuguese translations, and the English page has the Chinese, Dutch and German translations? This situation would become too hard to handle if every word of languages other than English were translated - and it would be just annoying to the users who just want to search the translation of one word, without having to realize in which page it would be. By your reasoning, every user must know the original language of "manga" and other words to know where to look; and every editor must know all languages to make a complete list of translations in each page. Additionally, if someone who understands Japanese would like to see a proper explanation in that language with list of translations to other languages, there is already the Japanese Wiktionary. Daniel. 17:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Failure to be verified may either mean that this information is fabricated, or is merely beyond our resources to confirm. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. See also Wiktionary:Previously deleted entries.
Rfv-sense: (countable) A comic originating in Japan, regardless of the artistic style.
I seek attestation of English sense referring to any comic originating in Japan. Other online dictionaries do not seem to have this sense; see also manga at OneLook Dictionary Search. The questioned sense was introduced in diff on 7 April 2011. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:31, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a frivolous nomination and it must have taken an enormous amount of carelessness to let it go through. If anything, the entire English section needs to be rewritten to stop giving undue weight to definitions that most users of the word would find incorrect. Squeal (talk) 08:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, you have given us several references (mentions in dictionaries) but we need citations (actual uses in the real world). SemperBlotto (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Once again, this is a frivolous nomination based on ostensibly false argumentation and I'm pretty sure the "clearly widespread use" clause is in the rules for the exact purpose of stopping people from wasting their time citing every word listed (not to mention stopping people from wasting other people's time demanding citations of everything). But fine, just this once. I'm not going to run away from an opportunity to make a point. Squeal (talk) 14:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Several times I've been surprised when people here express doubts about words that seem rather ordinary to me, like “androgynously”. But don’t consider attesting them a waste of time. Doing so enriches our dictionary with more examples, making it better. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
@Squeal: The sense was requested for RFV because it contained "regardless of the artistic style" in its definition, meaning that it would refer to any comic originating from Japan, not just manga. It was to be attested that the word "manga" is used in this way, rather than referring to a comic of a particular style originating from Japan. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me that the "regardless of the artistic style" part was there solely in response to the "art style" definitions. It was irrelevant, redundant, and shouldn't be there, but it was also true and didn't change the meaning of the description. A comic from Japan regardless of artistic style is just a comic from Japan period. Squeal (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Are all comics from Japan called "manga"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes. (To be pedantic, the proper phrasing would be that they're called "manga" collectively. Or that the terms "manga" and "Japanese comic" are equivalent and interchangeable.)
Note how you have dictionary definitions stating just that without any ambiguity. If you reject even them because the phrase "Japanese comics" doesn't really have to mean comics from Japan and could possibly be referring to a specific kind of comic that just incidentally happens to be Japanese, you can just as well reject each and every use of the word under the same premise. Or every use of every definition of every word, for that matter. Squeal (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Above, you have listed definitions from 6 dictionaries. Do you agree that the definitions used in three of them--Collins, MacMillan, and Longman--suggest that "manga" does not refer to any comic from Japan but only to comic from Japan of a particular style or flavor? Furthermore, do you agree that the quotations that you have added to "manga" in diff do not show that "manga" refers to any Japanese comic stories? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Definitions from MacMillan and Longman suggest the exact opposite - they list qualities of manga other than being a Japanese comic as common but non-essential (you can tell they're not essential from the use of keywords "often" and "usually" instead of e.g. "always" or "necessarily"). They're not incorrect in doing so - they're both learner's dictionaries which strive to provide their users with more information about context and usage than a regular dictionary definitions would. In a way, by clearly listing those non-essential qualities of manga as non-essential they present an even stronger proof of their non-essentiality than definitions that do not mention them at all.
And yes, the citations I added to the "manga" page clearly show that it's understood to be a synonym for "Japanese comic" (I've chosen them for this exact purpose, after all). Do I have to explain once again how any attempt to claim otherwise can be easily reduced to absurdity? Squeal (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Ignoring your bluff and bluster, only the one that say "Manga (Japanese comics)" (2007 one) does. The 2001 one gives little indication of what manga is; it could a specialized type of Noh play for all I could tell. The 2012 one goes against your claim; "the compact manga size" implies we're talking a limited form of Japanese comics defined in part by size. It's not damning, but it's certainly indicative.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Let's get one thing straight: I'm not "bluffing", I'm just right, and this can be easily verified with minimal amount of good will. If you don't like my citations, you should just, at the very least, explicitly state what kind of citations would convince you. With the amount of use this word sees they aren't going to be hard to find - provided you're not demanding devil's proof like I think you are.
As for the current ones, the 2001 one demonstrates that the term manga alone already implies Japanese origin, the 2012 one - that Western releases (even "manga-influenced", "manga-sized" or manga-whatever) are still not manga - two points which I assumed were being contended in particular. I could not have reasonably expected the part of the part of the definition stating that manga is a comic to be challenged, could I? Regarding size, things can and do possess traits without being defined by them. Talking about "human size" or "adult size" for example in no way implies it's a part of what makes human adults human adults. Midgets are still fulfilling the definition, all things that aren't mammals of the Homo Sapiens genus still aren't. And a sentence speaking about an adult-sized mannequin placed where a human would be would not suggest that the mannequin is a human adult, but the exact opposite. Squeal (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
No one is contesting that manga are Japanese, and that they're comics. What you have to show is that all Japanese comics can be called manga. The mere fact that a quote doesn't address that isn't proof- absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. The easiest route to proving your case would be to find sufficient references to manga that are enough outside of the restricted definition to suggest that the there are no restrictions. For instance, if a Japanese publisher hired Japanese artists to create a stylistically-identical equivalent to an old Archie and Jughead comic, would that be considered manga? Chuck Entz (talk) 07:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Amusingly enough, this actually happened with Batman (one of the instances of which was recently documented in an English-language collection book with a particularly telling title "Bat-Manga!").
This lucky coincidence, however, does not change the fact that you've now explicitly demanded devil's proof from me, which I am, as a rule, not required to provide. The most absurd part - this "restricted definition" that you want me to disprove does not exist in the first place. If you're referring to "an artistic style heavily used in, and associated with, Japanese comics", it does not actually restrict anything, as it provides no characteristics that the style is supposed to have - other than being Japanese, which is something any Japanese comic fulfills simply by being Japanese. Could this be even more of a non-issue? Squeal (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
You are not required to provide anything; but we at the same time have the right to demand whatever we want. You seem to be assuming that procedural rules are in play here that aren't. I'm not an expert, but  is a link that shows some of the pages of Bat-Manga! to let others judge the artistic style.
As usually, providing a precise definition for artistic styles is hard, and a reader of that is probably going to need to read w:manga to get a better concept of what it is. But the definition is not "any Japanese comic"; it's an artistic style both "heavily used in" and "associated with" Japanese comics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure what kind of "procedural rules" you're thinking of, but what I speak of are basic norms of argumentative discourse. You are not literally "required" to follow them, but you probably should, if only to maintain a pretense of legitimacy and constructiveness. And exact precision is not necessary, start with providing any definition at all, or anything else that can be actually discussed with. (You can try to get a better concept by reading w:manga, though I'm afraid you won't find much about artistic style there, just manga being defined as Japanese comics over and over.) Squeal (talk) 17:30, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The article actually says "Manga are comics created in Japan, or by Japanese creators in the Japanese language, conforming to a style developed in Japan in the late 19th century." Is not conforming to a style saying something about style? SpinningSpark 21:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It appears to me that it refers to comics in their modern form, as opposed to all kinds of cartoons that the word stands for in its earlier original meaning (see: w:manga past the first sentence). I don't think whoever wrote it even considered it can be misinterpreted the way you do, (s)he'd probably phrase it differently otherwise. And no, it's not saying anything about the alleged style, that's kinda the point. Semantic juggling can do a lot, but not conceal inability to present a coherent definition, which is exactly why I implore you and your predecessors here to stop the former and try the latter. Squeal (talk) 09:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)