Talk:List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers

List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 9, 2011	Featured list candidate	Not promoted

A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 19, 2011.

The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that on two separate occasions in 2010, five One Piece releases simultaneously debuted on The New York Times Best Seller list for manga?

Anime and manga Low‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Warriors (novel series)#OEL manga series|Warriors: Ravenpaw's Path]] The anchor (#OEL manga series) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

DYK nomination[edit]

List of The New York Times Manga Best Sellers[edit]

Criticism[edit]

[1], referenced by Anime News Network
[2], referenced by Anime News Network
[3], referenced by Deb Aoki

—Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 05:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Split[edit]

Per the consensus at the FAC, I propose that this article be split into yearly lists, starting with 2009 and 2010. I propose that the prose lead-in/sum-up of each of the lists should remain here and function as the lead for the sublist, but the tables should be in the sublists.--Malkinann (talk) 06:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the FAC and where is the discussion for it? As the years go by and the list gets too big, breaking it into sub-articles makes sense. I don't see that is a problem now, but don't really care. Dream Focus 07:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the Featured List Candidate nomination for this list, it was brought up that it will become unwieldy, and the idea of creating lists by years and nominating those instead was suggested. I figure that as 2009 and 2010 are over, the lists will not change, and so it would be safe to split them off into their own articles, letting the main article act as an incubator for the current year's list. --Malkinann (talk) 07:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It will also help getting these featured, and make things easier to navigate.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]