Talk:List of best-selling manga

Actually, I've had problems with this column since it was created a few years ago. The total circulation of a series, specifically for ongoing series, clearly becomes outdated when new volumes are published, so it seems nonsensical to me to have to divide an outdated figure into the most recent number of volumes of a series when its sales/circulation numbers reports have calculations made long before their most recent volumes release dates. This is, for example, dividing 50 million (2020 figure) into 40 volumes (as of 2023). Also, it doesn't seem appropriate, even if it's only an estimated approximation, to assume that the total figure is distributed evenly for each volume, that is to imply that each volume of a series is printed/sold in the same quantity on a regular basis, when this could not be more wrong. For all these reasons, besides the fact that I personally don't see much use for it, I think the column should be removed.

Going a little off topic, but somewhat related nonetheless, I think that notes related to magazine circulations (and the circulation tables found in articles such as Weekly Shōnen Sunday#Circulation, Weekly Shōnen Jump#Circulation figures and Weekly Shōnen Magazine#Circulation should be removed as well, since these definitely fall into WP:SYNTH territory and were the work of Maestro2016 (talk · contribs), who had created these kinds of tables and made these kinds of calculations from all kinds of sources in various articles. Xexerss (talk) 04:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

You make a good argument for removing the sales per volume column, so I think I would support that. Regarding that user, anything they've done should be removed, not just because of WP:BANREVERT but also because their misuse of sources is exactly why they were blocked. The damage done is quite severe; Akira (1988 film) and One Piece (1999 TV series) are two examples among many of articles they edited that should be cleaned up. Link20XX (talk) 04:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I personally do find value in that column, but I won't oppose it's removal if that's what the majority want. I will add my perspective and say that it provides another angle at viewing the data we provide here with added convenience. Sure, people who want that data can just do the math themselves, but having it visibly there right next to each series' entry, while also being able to easily sort everything, just adds a lot of convenience and accessibility for using that data. Pertaining to the discrepancy between volume count and older figures - I had always thought that the volume count should coincide with that of the circulation figure's source in the first place. Even without the column, for example, having OP's volume count at 108 next to a 516.6 million circulation figure already portrays the message that OP has 516.6m in circulation for 108 volumes, even though the source is for Volumes 1-103. Regarding your final point on the matter, I feel like that's already understood and implied given what an "average" is.

For the magazine circulations, as we've talked about before, I'll again state my full support for removing them. ManjirouEdits (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

@ManjirouEdits: In my opinion, if the purpose of the column is perhaps to roughly estimate the performance of a series in terms of its volumes, mentioning the number of collected volumes along with the number of copies in circulation is enough for readers to infer on their own how well a series is performing depending on the ratio between both parameters at first glance, without us, the editors, having to do any kind of calculation (i.g. a 15-volume series with 20 million copies in circulation, a 60-volume series with 20 million copies in circulation, etc.). That's why it's ideal to use updated sources as well. Now, to exemplify my problem with the column, let's say that a 20-volume series has 10 volumes with 8 million copies in circulation each; 6 with 2 million copies each, and 4 with 800,000 copies each, that means that the series has 95.2 million copies in circulation; all good with that, but the problem would be then implying that those 95.2 million copies are evenly distributed in those 20 volumes, and that there are 4.76 million copies on average for each volume, despite the real difference in the previous numbers, and is for that reason that I consider this estimate meaningless. Okay, in reality it's most likely that the number of copies per volume may not be as disparate as in my example, but it's not something we can say for sure for every series and since sources rarely give this kind of information when stating the total figures, I don't think it's our responsibility to make these estimates. For these cases, I'm more the kind of person who believes that an average without knowing the standard deviation doesn't provide valuable information, and since it's virtually impossible to know the latter, I feel the best option would be to remove the column. Not to mention as well that our list simply considers the number of collected volumes as the number of collected volumes of tankōbon editions, but the total figures from sources may be counting other editions, like bunkoban, kanzenban, wideban, etc. I mean, for practical purposes, I'm fine with using the term tankōbon as a synonym for collected volume in the article, but assuming that the copies in circulation estimated by the sources refers literally and only to tankobon editions (although this is not usually specified) and then making divisions by the number of volumes of these editions can be very inaccurate. Xexerss (talk) 09:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I could definitely agree that it's not necessary to have here. I'm just saying that personally, for me, it's really convenient being there - and I know there are people that appreciate it being there. Overall, I'm not "supporting" its removal, but I'm also not opposing it.

I understand your issue with the averages, but like I said before, I really feel like that's already implied based on what an "average" is, in and of itself. I don't think anyone is genuinely looking at, let's say One Piece for example, and thinking that, based on the average, every single OP Volume equally has exactly 4.78 million copies printed. It's not like we're giving people data that's wrong or incorrect. If a series had two volumes with Volume 1 having 10m copies & Volume 2 having 2m copies (extreme example), the average copies/volume being 6m is actually the case - not just an "estimate" anymore than the circulation figure we provide is. It does serve to represent the success of the series overall - throughout the entirety of its run - not just what it looked like at its peak or lowest. Yeah, it would be great if we were able to have information so comprehensive that we knew every single volume's circulation, sales, revenue even, etc. We'll never have that though, so these averages are the best we can use.

But again, just giving my opinion on the matter. I'm abstaining so don't let it stop you from removing it if you think that's best! ManjirouEdits (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

A bit late to answer, but there are other arguments to support the removal of that column.

In cases like "The Apothecary Diaries" or "That Time I Got Reincarnated as a Slime", we are told the number includes light novels, but the "per volume" column only considers the number of manga volumes. The average given is thus completely meaningless. And that's especially an issue for these two because the light novels should represent a large chunk of their circulation, but it's a problem that exists for a lot of other original manga. The word "series" (シリーズ) is often used to indicate that the number includes spin-offs and side-products - without explicit detailing what's included. So it could be spin-off manga, light novels, fanbooks, character books, etc. These wouldn't sell that much anyway, but they do throw a wrench into the calculation of the average.

Also, a final issue is for manga whose circulation include a worldwide number. Sometimes the split between Japan and the rest of the world is given, but sometimes it's not. We never know which country is included or when each country's data is from. Because non-Japan countries are (almost) always behind in terms of releases compared to Japan, we simply can't know how many volumes are included in the average per volume for the rest of the world.

So when "My Hero Academia" was announced to have reached 100 million in circulation in April 2024, not only did that include spin-offs, but it also included worldwide numbers. While Japan had 40 main series volumes released, the two biggest other markets (probably) included - USA & France - were at 37 & 38 volumes released respectively. As I'm writing this, the page is saying that the manga has a 2.5M average for 41 volumes - and I'm not convinced this number brings anything but confusion. Rouk' Hein (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since there appears to be no one objecting to the removal of the column, I will proceed to remove it from the article in a little while. Xexerss (talk) 21:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

one punch man 31 millions now Karvel95 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC) one punch man 31 millions nowReply

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia's best selling comic series list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_comic_series) puts Black Jack at 176 million copies sold. However this page and the Wikipedia page for Black Jack itself (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Jack_(manga) ) puts Black Jack at 50 million copies sold. Which source is correct? 50.175.126.146 (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Reply