Talk:Golden Boy (manga)

Golden Boy (manga) was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 10, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
June 20, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

First header

I propose this to be the centre page for both the manga, and the animation.

I doubt there is enough information available to split the page into seperate pages for anime and manga.

--Onizuka-gto 14:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. - Phorque (talk · contribs) 10:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA on hold

This article will be put on hold (for 7 days) until these minor adjustments can be made :

1. Well written? Pass

2. Factually accurate? Pass

3. Broad in coverage? Pass

4. Neutral point of view? Pass

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images? Pass

Additional comments :

The editors could add on the setting, where does it take place and when does it take place?
Is there a reason behind the fact that only 10 volumes where made?
Could we have a spoiler warning sign before the OVA subsection?

Lincher 18:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why there's only ten volumes, and I addressed the other issues. I don't see yet why you thought the manga image did not add significantly to the article. It's not a controversial fair use image and seeing as this article is based primarily on the manga, I don't see how an image demonstrating the aspect of the mangaka's drawing style doesn't add to the article. But whatever. I put it in the magaka's article. - Phorque 20:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel the image qualifies fair use then bring it back on the article's page. I just thought that the place it was and the caption it had doesn't add to the text ... though this is my opinion. Lincher 21:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA re-review

This article has been modified according to the comments left on the talk page and is now a Good Article. Lincher 22:06, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article had been vandalized...someone Please change the title back to where they were...

68.206.24.9 03:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trigun

The main character Kintaro is similar in a few ways to Vash from Trigun. Instead of the reputation as a legendary gunman, Kintaro is seen as a pervert. Both are negative first impressions before getting to know the character as more moral then common people. Both main characters have excellent combative skill, a good understanding of the human mind, extremely kind to everybody, etc. (bishonen traits). The only major difference is the setting and genre (action vs. ecchi). Could this be included somehow? Just how poetry should be read in light of other poetry, I believe manga is the same.

I think it better to avoid comparisons without quality citations. Otherwise, the article risks charges of original research.--Monocrat 15:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pornographic

Ok, this has been on the page for a while now, but the comment about the manga becoming pornographic is an odd one. For one, it cites a passing reference in some ANN news blurb, which really isn't very credible. And another, I've now had the fortune of seeing the manga in person. I saw nothing pornographic in it. I don't think volume 2 is really any different from volume 1 in any significant way. Later on the manga does get more serious and there is some sex, but it's way less explicit than anything considered pornography by any reasonable standard. And much, much less frequent. The idea of a manga "becoming" pornographic is a pretty wild one in the first place. It was published in a periodical anthology just like anything else. The fact that the article doesn't even correctly site the source, calling it "almost pornographic," is pretty telling. Any objections to removing this?--61.202.57.241 (talk) 00:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to keep it in a weakened form, perhaps with weakened wording?--Monocrat (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review dump

THEM: [1]
Mania.com: v1 (Beveridge), v1, v2, Collection

Toilet image

I question whether File:Goldenboy toiletfetish.jpg is really needed in this article. No reference is made in the article to this image and it seems pretty unnecessary to me. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 17:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion takes place here. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 15:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Golden Boy (manga). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:34, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]