Talk:O-Parts Hunter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WhisperToMe (talk | contribs) at 07:46, 10 October 2008 (→‎Is "Similar works" needed?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Part of a series on
Anime and manga
Anime
Manga
Demographic groups
Genres
People
Fandom
General
icon Anime and manga portal
WikiProject iconSquare Enix Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Square Enix, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Square Enix-related merchandise and video games 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.Square EnixWikipedia:WikiProject Square EnixTemplate:WikiProject Square EnixSquare Enix articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name Change

OLD NAME CHANGE

Requested move: 666 Satan → O-Parts Hunter —(Discuss)— "O-Parts Hunter" is the North American edition name for the series. As of 2006, this is the only English-language edition available —WhisperToMe 16:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article shouldn't be moved. 666 Satan is the title that the author himself came up with to name the series. O-Parts Hunter is just an English cover-up that VIZ felt like calling the series. I know this is an English wikipedia but that dosn't justify everything. Also, the One Piece articles seem to be based strictly on the original Japanese version of the series with a seperate article about the English adaption. More anime and manga articles should follow what One Piece did. Japanese will always be the first and original version. --SwordKirby537 01:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • So, would you rather use Pocket Monsters than Pokemon on an English-language encyclopedia? WhisperToMe 01:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your reasoning. Its just hard for me to accept the fact that this series will be edited and cut to pieces by VIZ. This is Wikipedia afterall, and not a fansite. Since I'm sure you will remain consistant on living up to Wikipedia's policies, and I would find it too troublesome to argue (you obviously have the upperhand). I'll let you call it what ever English title you feel like calling it. Just as long as information for the original verson of the manga clearly remains in the article along with the English adaption.--SwordKirby537 06:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Page moved, per the above discussion. -GTBacchus(talk) 06:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • We, on Wikipedia, will not remove or omit any information on the original version. If there are differences, the differences between the two versions will be explained. WhisperToMe 21:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, I agree. I think it should be 666 Satan. And, heck, why not change it to be Poket Monsters? That is it's proper name afterall...

--BPayne22 02:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Honestly, is should be 666Satan, O-parts hunter is a censored US release title and this article is very unlikely to be getting attention from the fans who know it as such. I imagine that by far more people are coming in looking for it as 666satan. Change it back is what I say. -- Midusunknown 11:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you say that it will be "unlikely to get attention from US fans"? WhisperToMe 17:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

personally, i feel we should be worrying less about the name of the article, and more about what SHOULD be in the articleAncientanubis 20:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Newest Name Change

well, to anyone who cares, were going to attempt to change this back to its rightful name... post here how ya feel about it

as nominator i doubt i need to share my opinion on it but i say change the name to 666 Satan as it's the accepted name of the manga from just about anyone who's ever heard of itAncientanubis 04:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • yeah, i like the name 666 Satan better, too. plus, its the title that the author chose and it fits the story better. the title o-parts hunter sounds sort of dull compared to 666 Satan. Roselia92 04:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any proof that "666 Satan" is the English name? Unless you have proof from the publisher, than policy says we stick with the official English name. TJ Spyke 10:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This proposal stems from this discussion on the user catgory Category:Wikipedians who like 666Satan. The category name for users that like this and the Wikipedia article name need to match for consistency, so please decide on one. VegaDark 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

im gona C&P a conversation from my talk page that may or may not answer that TJ

  • Is 666 Satan a translation from Japan?Sam ov the blue sand 00:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Indirectly, yes. It was done by Viz Media to avoid "certain reprocussions" from religious and parental groups. On a side note, I would indeed support it, Anubis. Evilgohan2 00:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well then yes because O parts hunter is Viz's version (An American version) so since 666 Satan is the English translation then it should be 666 Satan.Sam ov the blue sand 00:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ancientanubis 15:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Using that logic, Pokemon would be under the name Pocket Monsters. By the way, as of date. the VIZ translation is the ONLY English translation. The other worldwide editions do not matter. WhisperToMe 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And another thing O Parts Hunter is an American translation so since this is not the American Wikipedia but is the English Wikipedia then the English translation should be used. And if anyone is offended by the name, 666 Satan, then remember one of Wikipedia's policies, WP:Not.Sam ov the blue sand 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using that logic, Pokemon would be under the name Pocket Monsters. By the way, as of date. the VIZ translation is the ONLY English translation. The other worldwide editions do not matter. WhisperToMe 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (This is partially a response to T.J.'s above posed question) Which publisher? The US Publisher, VIZ Media whom changed it to "O-Parts Hunter" to effectively deter social backlash? Or do you suggest some way of contacting the Japanese publisher to find out the correct title? I personally don't see what is so difficult about believing the name should be "666 Satan" as per the fact that if you read the RAW manga as it is published, the title image is indeed "666 Satan". Long story short, change . But that's just my opinion.Evilgohan2 23:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I posted three times: Using that logic, Pokemon would be under the name Pocket Monsters. By the way, as of date. the VIZ translation is the ONLY English translation. The other worldwide editions do not matter. WhisperToMe 11:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So are you suggesting we pose a name change of that article to Pocket Monsters based on that? Or more so, change the title of the Digimon article to "Digital Monsters"? All I'm saying is that if a general fan-base wishes for something to be known as such, then let it be such. Using your same logic, Pocket Monsters is known as Pokemon because the general fan-base knows it as such and would prefer it to be called such. Digital Monsters is known as Digimon for the same reasons. Now if the general fan-base wishes for something of the same caliber to be called its correct name, then I see no reason why not to implement a change. On a side note and with a bit of digression, I'd like to point out the that VIZ Media published translation is the only OFFICIALLY published translation into English. I should also point out that the VIZ media publication is only 1 volume long as of current.Evilgohan2 15:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • " Using your same logic, Pocket Monsters is known as Pokemon because the general fan-base knows it as such and would prefer it to be called such." - No, the million dollar question is: Will the fan base be the same now that the North American, British, and Australian everyman can now buy an official release? Also, the English-language edition of O-Parts is now at Volume 2 [1] WhisperToMe 17:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you guys not get that this manga originated in Japan under a Japanese name and then the translation to the English language is 666 Satan but the American version is O Parts Hunter and if all WhisperToMe can say is Pokemon and Digimon then please remember it is nearly impossible to change every article in the English Wikipedia but we can achieve that one article at a time until all the articles follow Wiki's policies.Sam ov the blue sand 15:50, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • "if all WhisperToMe can say is Pokemon and Digimon then please remember it is nearly impossible to change every article in the English Wikipedia but we can achieve that one article at a time until all the articles follow Wiki's policies." - Listen, you should read up on some rules, such as Wikipedia:Manual of Style - Please return once your understand what we have now. WhisperToMe 17:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah huh, you could have said please. ^_^ Sam ov the blue sand 17:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Whisper, as stated above, the only reason pocket monsters and digital monsters were changed to pokemon and digimon were because that is what the fans know them as best, now lets say for example, if you do a search for "o-part hunter manga" on google's image search, you only get 3 pages with about 6 images related to the actual series (3 of which the images say 666 satan)... now lets say you do an image search for "666 satan manga", this time we get 22 images related to the series (and one of [bush] titled satan(lol)) but my point is the fans know it as 666 satan and that is why i have proposed the name change to revert what i feel is your mistake you made 5 months ago, and i'll end with a quote (which has been said but it drives my point in even further) "this is not the American Wikipedia but is the English Wikipedia then the English translation should be used." basically saying just because an American company decided to change the name to avoid people bein offended, doesnt mean we should do the same, one more quote from the catigory discussion "the translated version of the Japanese manga is 666 Satan while O Parts Hunter is an American version and this isn't the American Wikipedia, it's the English Wikipedia. And if this is offensive to anyone then remember the Wiki policy,WP:NOT#CENSOR" thank you and good night(its really noon-ish here:P)...Ancientanubis 17:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The google search does not matter unless you turn on the "English" option. - Without the English option, the search also captures French, Italian, etc. sites, which are not relevant to this discussion. WhisperToMe 23:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Wow you just quoted the the crap out of me. ^_^ Sam ov the blue sand 23:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • ya sam ik i quoted ya alot:P you had good points... and whisper, pardon my french but since i dont really care about censoring my self i'll say 2 things... first off its Ancientanubis(notice the no space) second off, i dont really care about weither or not it was english or not, the point i was proving is that NO ONE knows it as O-Part Hunter besides the tards over @ Viz who dont want to offend parents and little children, which i may add does not matter to us @ wikipedia BECAUSE of the fact that of some nice policies that have been made.... ALSO up untill now the only argument of yours that i have heard was "pocket monsters & digital monsters" you honestly sound like a parrot because that is the only argument of yours prior to your google rant, now i know that i am no admin but personally, i've heard A LOT to go towards why it should be changed, and your "pocket/digital monsters" for why it shoudn't, if you really think it should stay you should find a better argument on why it shouldn't instead of repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again... sorry, but that's just how i feel, Ancientanubis 00:33, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Current Consensus

The current views can be summarised as follows (note that this is a summary of the above, and not any kind of poll, if this summary is incorrect about your position, please change it.):

For: 6

Against: 1

Un-declared: 1


Comments based on this:

I support changing the name of the article to 666 Satan so the user category and article name will match for consistency. VegaDark 09:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep in mind i'd also like to mention that if we were to change the main article's name then the other 2 pages would have to be changed.... so ya, i just hope we dont have to have debates for that:P.... night all:P....Ancientanubis 09:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know that you should not mis-represent my stance. And, this is not being properly done. It must be listed on Wikipedia:Requested moves WhisperToMe 22:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not policy. --Kim Bruning 23:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
so we just gona chill here, or will we actually make a decision Ancientanubis 05:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
whisper, i did have it listed under the "requested moves" page, but it appears to have been removed... reguardless though, this debate has been going on for a while and we don't appear to be getting anywhere due to the opposition of changing the page... so does anyone have any ideas???? Ancientanubis 06:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How to conduct a Google test on Wikipedia

Folks, I think ancient anubis demonstrated that some people do not know about the "English" only option on google search. If you are going to judge names, please turn that option on! Also add a "-wikipedia" to take out Wikipedia hits. With that in mind...

Now, 666 Satan has three times the amount of hits of O-Parts so far, but I would conduct the same search in a month or so to see if that changed. Also, if the anime is released in English as "O-Parts Hunter", well, that would tip the scales in favor of "O-Parts Hunter" WhisperToMe 23:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, remember that Google tests are not "be it end all" for such disputes. I have seen cases where the "less popular option" was decided. WhisperToMe 23:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


    • Bit of a personal attack there, no? Evilgohan2 00:32, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A lot of people make this mistake, Evilgohan. Anubis is not the first person to do this, nor will he be the last. WhisperToMe 05:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you've seen some and so have I, they happen rarely but do happen and the dission is over in a week not a month. ^_^ Sam ov the blue sand 01:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ya, sorry about that... i had just gotten home from work so i was in a bit of a bad mood:P Ancientanubis 02:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move.

Ok, consensus seems to be to move to 666 Satan? I'll move now. --Kim Bruning 23:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, Geg, could you explain why you moved the page again? What's your reasoning? --Kim Bruning 18:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because consensus wasn't reached. As far as I can see the discussion is still going on so there's no reason to go ahead and move the article when no consenus has been reached. The Splendiferous Gegiford 19:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the discussion's been dead for about 2 or 3 days, and personally, i feel an overall agreement has been made, so i don't understand why we have 2 keep changing it, then changing it back, then changing it....Ancientanubis 22:58, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
i am SO confused, it seems like this article is changing its name every 5 minutes.... i am just so uber confused so i apologise if i say anything offensive to anyone.... this name change has jsut stressed me out a bit and i was just at work(lifeguard) to swim laps and i had 2 perform a save (save a drounding kid) when not even workin so im sorry... peace yall...Ancientanubis 23:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Geg: Are you personally in favor of the title O parts hunter? --Kim Bruning 17:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

I've added O Parts Hunter and O-PH for redirects to this page.Sam ov the blue sand 22:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to rename Characters in O-Part Hunter and List of O-Parts in O-Part Hunter as well, as requested on my talk page. I'd move them but looking at the logs it seems like this has been moved and then reverted several times. Is this decided or not? Also, I've had a request to move this to 666 Satan (manga). Is there consensus for that? VegaDark 03:06, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the other admins do not feel like the matter is resolved yet. The admins performed moving as simply user moves. WhisperToMe 03:13, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ya, i've been a bit confused on what the admins want as well.... but yes, i did ask for (manga) to be added after the name of the article as to help make things easier to organize in the long run, and also to have the other 2 pages switched from o-part to 666 satan... and what you mean by "the admins performed moving as simply user moves"...Ancientanubis 07:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's done an official close and discussion archive, so they've been effectively acting as normal editors rather than admins. --tjstrf talk 07:20, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ah, now that makes sense... but as i said earlier, no one has really said anything within the discussion for the past few days that i am aware of... so idk what we should do about that....Ancientanubis 13:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So will the articles be moved?Sam ov the blue sand 23:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... So, what to do now? WhisperToMe 19:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move it ourselves? It's not like an admin is necessary in order to move a page onto a redlink. --tjstrf talk 21:26, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll go ahead and move them myself, but I have a strange feeling it is going to be moved by someone else again... I also posted the requested move on each of their talk pages.Evilgohan2 21:32, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just move. If someone objects, you'll find out soon enough :-) --Kim Bruning 23:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Name revisited!

The publication continues under the title O-Parts Hunter - Is there still opposition against this name? WhisperToMe (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much but some fans don't care because beside of the content inside being 100% the same as the Original Japanese manga just the title 666 satan removed from any chapter artwork —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.225.161 (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seeing as the seris does not translate to "o part hunter" and its an english wiki instead of an american wiki, i dont see any real reason to change it... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 00:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the English Wikipedia, and since O-Parts Hunter is the only official English name, I think the article should be moved. Voretus (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

in my honest opinion i think it should stay the same as the name of the series is Roku Roku Roku Satan which translates to 666 Satan, not 'o-part hunter'. while the american name is changed to 'o-part hunter' it is not the translation of the name in japanese as we have discussed in previous discussions... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 19:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's the official English name, though, and the only one. Voretus (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it is the name of the series yes, BUT it is not the name as it is translated into english, which is why i feel it should stay as 666 satan, i mean we petitioned a year(ish) ago to get it changed to 666 Satan, if you feel you have a good enough argument to change it to O-part hunter then by all means petition and we will let admin decide what they wanna do with it... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 21:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my language as it would be characteristic of immaturity but I have to be highly blunt when I state the following know of no way to state it any simpler: Why the fuck are we back on this shit again?
It has already been determined multiple times that although the official title is O-Parts Hunter (as determined by Viz Media... which happens to be an American publisher and licenser of Japanese materials for marketing in America - but I believe that point is moot by now), the title by it's proper english name as accepted throughout the world is 666 Satan.
Now I hate to play the Google card but it seems to prove my point that I shall have to. If one was to google for "666 Satan fansites", you'd find... well... 666 Satan fansites in all languages including, but not limited too: French, Italian, Japanese, and English. If one, however, is to search for "O-Parts Hunter" fansites, no specific results are returned, though ironically, fansites for 666 Satan are (as is this Wikipedia entry in both situations). What most will find through discussion is that most animations and mangas are identified not by their American names but by their direct english translations (save, Pokemon, of course, whose direct english translation is Pocket Monsters).
Now this presents two points. By keeping the article named as 666 Satan, you keep name recognition - which, as we all should know since we see it play out in society on a daily basis, is everything. Additionally, you acknowledge that this is not the American Wikipedia and is the English Wikipedia.
(Side thought: To further add to the point, one will find that the french publisher of 666 Satan has kept named by it's direct english translation. How ironic (see main article for link)).ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 05:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evilgohan, you realize that this version will go on sale on Amazon.co.uk - It can be bought here: http://www.amazon.co.uk/O-Parts-Hunter-1/dp/1421508559/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206704841&sr=8-1 - So this is not just a name change affecting the US. In a moment I may do a move request. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Evilgohan, I suggest against using profanity. It will escalate personal attacks and conflicts. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way Wikipedia:Consensus can change, so we can revisit some issues over and over again. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Among the reasons why I am filing the move request is:

  • The North American publication of O-Parts Hunter is continuing
  • The books may be bought on Amazon.co.uk, so other parts of the world can enjoy them [2]
  • I do not know of any English versions that use the title 666 Satan

WhisperToMe (talk) 12:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you realize that every time you use this argument all you do is say that it is what they call it in the US, or what they call it in the UK, i just wonder how that makes a valid argument, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 12:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, we have revisited this numerous times, while it may be the name in US publication and UK publication, this is not a UK wiki or a US wiki, the name of the series is (666～サタン～, Roku Roku Roku Satan) which translates to 666 Satan, and seeing as it is not something that is abnormally hard to understand when it is translated to english i see no reason to change it as it is the proper english name, expect more explinations to ensue Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 12:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is a Wikipedia geared towards its audiences, and its audiences speak English and read English. The only versions of the story which are in English happen to be distributed in the US and the UK and happen to be called O-Parts Hunter. There is NO X-country version of the series in English with the title 666 Satan. French, Japanese, Italian, etc. are irrelevant to this Wiki as they are not in English. In addition we have a precedent of using titles used for English dubs or sub editions. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • BTW I notified the WikiProject so we can get some fresh blood in this debate. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you notice in the two aforementioned links, all are titled 666 Satan. I will also point out what we established nearly a year ago... This-is-the-en-glish-wi-ki-pe-d-ia. While we recognize that VIZ Media decided to rename said series to O-Parts Hunter, it does not negate the facts that the author intended the title to be 666 Satan, the title hence is 666 Satan, and the name is that which was termed via direct translation to the english language. It was not originally titled O-Parts Hunter. The author did not name it as such and therefore by default judgment, it cannot be termed as such. While you also mention precedent of dubbed (invalid as it is not an animation) and subbed titles, I will point out that multiple sources have titled it as 666 Satan. I'll also point out that said "fansub" groups have subbed such in multiple languages including English with the title... 666 Satan. Not O-Parts Hunter. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 13:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slight correction... It was established OVER a year ago. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 13:38, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"The North American publication of O-Parts Hunter is continuing" -- Not the American Wikipedia. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 13:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But are scanlations reliable sources for gauging distribution? Since past debates we have had increased emphasis on Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability - Unless you can prove that scanlations have a wide distribution rivaling that of official publications (news articles specifically mentioning this title as distributed help!) it will be impossible to prove that the scanlation has a significance.
"It was not originally titled O-Parts Hunter." - Strawberry 100% = Not original title. Zatch Bell! = Nope! - What in particular about O-Parts Hunter makes the original title more relevant than the English title, when compared to other works?
I wouldn't use "Wikipedia is not American" as an excuse to exclude American-based subs and dubs. Typically other Anglophone countries share American dubs, and Americans are English-speaking people while Japanese generally are not. Even if a Japanese person knows English the version of the series published in her country is Japanese and therefore irrelevant to this debate.
WhisperToMe (talk) 13:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Manga Reviews Citing The Title As 666 Satan (Note, these were found by searching Google with the queries "O-Parts Hunter Reviews" and "666 Satan Reviews"):
Otaku Times: 666 Satan (O-Part’s Hunter) Manga Review
My Free Manga: Review Manga : 666 Satan
Manga Review - 666satan (O-Parts Hunter)
There are of course, a fair amount of articles citing the title as O-Parts Hunter (including this one by IGN), but likewise, there are a fair amount citing it as 666 Satan. The point I'm making is that publication is most recognizable as 666 Satan. As you pointed out, we have the article for Zatch Bell titled as such even though it was not originally named such. As I'm sure you are more than aware as an Administrator, Name recognition is everything. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 13:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blogs are not considered Wikipedia:Reliable sources - I'm not sure if the Otaku Times is reliable or particularly important. I'd have to check out the "Otaku Times." Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whisper, so far, from my understanding the only real argument of yours as to why the article(s) should change there name is only due to the name change, which was changed due to not wanting to offend people with strong religious belief, etc etc etc, so i ask this.... What is your real angle with all of this, why you wanting this changed so baddly, altho i doubt we'll ever really find out..... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 15:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Use English - We have this guide as a compelling reason to generally use the names known by the Anglophone populace, and by official releases we have O-Parts Hunter. I mentioned the nature of some exceptions below.
AND if you really want a reason as to why it should stay, the 'US/UK' name for Saint Seiya is Knights of the Zodiac yet the name of the wiki article is still Saint Seiya due to the fact that IT IS THE ACTUAL TRANSLATED NAME!!! if anything we should call the series by the actual name Roku Roku Roku Satan, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 16:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. The Saint Seiya case is much more complicated than this. There is a specific reason why I compared O-Parts Hunter to Zatch Bell! and not to Saint Seiya. See, while the manga in the US is released as Knights of the Zodiac the uncut anime is now released separately as Saint Seiya. That was the reason why the article uses Saint Seiya. O-Parts Hunter does not have the luxury of having different versions in English with different titles. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your mention of it being uncut peaks my interest. Primarily because it affirms what Ancientanubis previously said. One may safely operate under the assumption that (and anyone who lives in the USA or watches TV knows about it's staunch religious population) VIZ Media chose to title it's translation as such to likely avoid such problems. Therefore, would it be safe to assume that if VIZ chose to release said manga quote-"uncut"-endquote, they would release it as 666 Satan? Merely food for thought. On another note, I must disagree with the notion of naming said article Roku Roku Roku Satan For two reasons: One, it is the romanization of Japanese characters thus negating the principle of the English Wikipedia and Two, it is downright tedious. Why rename it what it already is called? ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 19:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the name change reasoning, we would have to find a company document or source that explicitly states the reason if we want to include it in the article as per Wikipedia:Original research - Unless VIZ Media explicitly states that it chose the new title to appease the religious population (no matter how obvious it seems), we should not mention anything about the reasons why VIZ chose the new title. BTW, the word in the first sentence of the above paragraph should be "piques" - Yeah, sometimes similar-sounding words can be pretty deadly. ;) WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Yeah thanks for the correct spelling :P ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note, in case anyone cares... the original press release for VIZ's release of O-Parts Hunter:
O-Parts Hunter, Vol. 1 · MSRP: $9.99 · Available December 2006
Originally ominously titled 666 Satan, O-Parts Hunter is a highly anticipated series by Seishi Kishimoto. In the not too distant future, mankind battles over relics from a lost civilization. These items, known as O-Parts, contain incredible powers if wielded by the right person. Enter Jio, a young boy with a tragic past who trusts only one thing in the world: money. Little does he suspect that inside him is the potential to use O-Parts like no one else can. Jio reluctantly teams up with a young girl named Ruby, and together they go on a quest to find as many O-Parts as the can. Will Jio help Ruby realize her dream of becoming a world class treasure hunter? Will Ruby help Jio realize his dream of world domination?
Alternative Titles as listed at ANN:
  • 666 Satan
  • 666 Сатана (Russian)
  • 666 사탄 (Korean)
  • 666サタン (Japanese)
Merely more food for thought. I leave it to you to decide how to interpret it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
on top of all this Whisper, each article is sup to be looked at individually, and in an argument such as this, its not concitered wiki policy to say something along the lines of 'we should do this here because they did it there' so imho, zatch bell and strawberry are kinda outta the example list, then again thats only IMHO and neds to be verified by Gohan, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did look at it individually, and I don't have any reliable sources that say that 666 Satan is more popular than O-Parts Hunter despite the new title used in English-language editions. I am aware of the deletion debate arguments, but I have explained why O-Parts Hunter is best for this particular title (especially when compared to Saint Seiya) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose move, for all the reasons it was moved to its present title last time. Nothing has changed in real life since the last time we had this discussion, it should stay at the current title. --erachima formerly tjstrf 23:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually something did change in real life; more volumes were published under the name O-Parts Hunter. If you look at previous discussions some people reasoned to a conclusion like this: "Oh, well, if there are only two volumes published as O-Parts Hunter, why should we publish it under this name?" We are certainly past two volumes. I want to know: Why do you feel that 666 Satan is a better title than O-Parts Hunter for this specific work? And what reliable sources were used to come to that conclusion? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Looks like a passionately argued issue; I'm never in favor of name changes myself. As long as there is a redirect, and the header clearly states that this is being published under a new title, I don't see why it should not be left at the original title. Doceirias (talk) 01:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But we have to choose between the two titles; of course both have to be in the introduction but we have to pick one title to use in the article title. Anyway, as Lord Sesshomaru said below the guideline WP:MOS-AM prefers English-language publication titles. Exceptions exist but for one to argue that the original title is better he or she needs to craft a rationale derived from reliable sources. Saying "Oh, that was the original title" should not be used as an argument alone here as that does not explain why the original title is better. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super Support per WP:MOS-AM#Article names and disambiguation; use an official English title if one exists. This is why we use the Viz title Strawberry 100% and not Japan's Ichigo 100%. And the official English name for Ichigo Mashimaro is Tokyopop's Strawberry Marshmallow. Also, this is the English Wikipedia, not a fan forum for otaku or the sort. Want another precedent? Mega Man (series) is used over Rockman (series). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but in a sense, there is a difference between english and american is there not... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 03:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg your pardon? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
is there a differnce between calling it an offical english name or an official american name.... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 04:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sessh, one difference to notice between the manga cases you listed and this one is that Ichigo 100% and Ichigo Mashimaro are titles in the Japanese language, while 666 Satan is a title in English. So the issue here isn't between using English and using Japanese, but rather between using the author's English title and the licensor's English title. (This may be what Anubis is getting at as well, not sure.) --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand. 666 Satan is not the official English title, it is a English title. This is no different than the Rockman Vs. Megaman argument, a perfect sample of prededence. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Difference here: Megaman is the more used English name in the blue robot's case, while 666 Satan is the more used name in the manga's case. --erachima formerly tjstrf 04:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a Wikipedia:Reliable source regarding the idea that 666 Satan is more commonly used? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) - Believe it or not, the only English sources which support the title "666 Satan" are scanlations (like at www.onemanga.com). The guideline has specific layouts we should be coherent with. Why not use it to our advantage? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support As Sesshomaru has already noted, per the MOS we use the official English title. Now, one could argue that 666 Satan is the official English title, however, it was released in English as O-Parts Hunter and this is the title that will be most familiar to English speaking readers. The official English title refers not just to the title being in English, but to it being the title of the official English language release. Collectonian (talk) 05:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Going by Google test (and excluding Wikipedia results, of course), 666 Satan is the FAR more common title, by a factor of about 15. (666 Satan OPH) --erachima formerly tjstrf 05:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, FIRST if you are going to use a Google test you will need to set it so it only gets English results. Second Google tests are not perfect and one could argue it is not a reliable source. So a Google test is not a one all end all. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is how a Google test goes: [3]- 222,000 for 666 Satan
[4] - 40,800 for O-Parts Hunter
BUT this particular result is flawed
That is a rough estimate and doesn't address Wikipedia:Reliable sources - The sites using the former tend to be scanlations and fansites (*illegal according to Florida law, BTW*) while the sites using O-Parts Hunter tend to be of sites with higher statures (I.E. IGN - It has a review on O-Parts Hunter here [5]) I could find a Wikipedia essay page explaining the issues with Google tests as a criterion. Also the 666 Satan result has unrelated results such as this CD here [6] so its "real" count is possibly lower - Regarding Google tests read Wikipedia:Google_test#What_a_search_test_can_do.2C_and_what_it_can.27t WhisperToMe (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To also illustrate this I'll try (using English results only): [7] - 666 Satan + manga -wikipedia = 110,000
[8] - O-Parts Hunter + manga -wikipedia = 39,900
But this still does not account for the fact that many web results can be "unreliable" - Does the increased number of web results really mean that the former title is more popular? Fansites, blogs, etc do not count as reliable sources. If you search Google News (Be sure to set all dates) you will not get hits related to the series if you search "666 Satan" but of course you will get hits if you search "O-Parts Hunter." The pages in Google News tend to be Wikipedia:Reliable sources as they are media sources.
Google News search for "O-Parts Hunter" - 5 news stories [9]
Google News search for "666 Satan" - while there are 21 many results are unrelated and some mention it only as the original title of O-Parts Hunter [10]
As said on the page: "A search engine test cannot help you avoid the work of interpreting your results and deciding what they really show. Appearance in an index alone is not usually proof of anything." WhisperToMe (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whisper, WP:RS has nothing to do with this naming dispute at all, and bringing up the legality of scanlations is similarly a red herring. The questions when naming a page are the accuracy, the ambiguity, the ease of use, and the prevalence of each proposed title.
Ambiguity and ease of use can safely be disregarded as major criteria here, since both titles are unique to the series and neither is so prohibitively long as to cause major problems. That leaves us with accuracy and prevalence to decide on.
I believe that the author's chosen English title is the more accurate, and while Google testing isn't an exact science by any means, it is representative of popularity online, which is where most of the English-language manga fanbase is. --erachima formerly tjstrf 05:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's how RS related to the dispute: if one will say "666 Satan" is more popular, he will need reliable sources saying that. The page about Google search explains why Google tests can be flawed. Is this "popularity" really due to online bloggers being more vocal than people who simply buy the book at the store and read it? How do we know various websites are not made by the same people? "I believe that the author's chosen English title is the more accurate" - What do you mean by "more accurate" ? Accurate in what way? The judgment we should be making is "What title best fits an English-language audience?" - Without reliable sources and evidence of use of the name "666 Satan" we would default to "O-Parts Hunter" WhisperToMe (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

If you want cold hard stats for the offline vs. online popularity, we can get those as well! How, you ask? By checking English language sales figures and comparing them to the relative popularity of the English language scanlations.

Unfortunately, reliable source for comic, manga, and graphic novel sales icv2 doesn't make any mention of the series. That silence gives us a resounding answer in and of itself though, since it means that none of O-Parts Hunter's volumes have ever made top 100 or 300 sales for even a month in the US, whereas online it is quite popular indeed. I'll not link the download pages directly, for obvious reasons, but comprehensive manga download site mangatraders says it's their 30th most popular series out of every manga on the site, and even more popular online reader site onemanga (Alexa rank 95, before you demand a source for my claim of popularity) says it's 25th. Both of these sites refer to the series as 666 Satan.

So, in conclusion, 666 Satan is the author-selected English title of the series, and the series can be proven, by the most reliable sources available for the subjects, to be more popular in English in its scanlated than officially published forms. "666 Satan" is therefore the more recognized English title of the series, and therefore should be the title of the page on the English Wikipedia. --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. These scanlations are illegal in the State of Florida and you really shouldn't be linking to them. You could get yourself in trouble for linking to manga downloads - They are probably immensely popular as they are probably hosted in some country where the authorities do not care. Just because it is popular doesn't mean it is reliable. We want to hear from sources known for fact checking and accuray.
2. Has the scanlation distribution of this series been documented in reliable sources?
3. Scanlation sites are not reliable sources for popularity. Just because X site is popular doesn't mean the scanlation of 666 Satan on that website is as popular as the site itself.
4. We don't care about what the "author selects" - We go by our Wikipedia standards as mentioned earlier.
5. If it doesn't appear in a reliable source, don't mention it - full stop. We cannot use information from unreliable sources. How do we know the figures on the illegal websites are reliable? Also what does "their 30th most popular series out " mean in terms of traffic? How many individual people downloaded it? What I am seeing is interpretation of data that shouldn't be made. In a way it is Wikipedia:Original research - We are an encyclopedia. We rely on high-quality published sources.

WhisperToMe (talk) 07:13, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I did not link to any websites.
2. Reliable sources for the subject matter? Very yes.
3. Did you not read my post? The sites give internal popularities of the series they offer.
4. The author's selection is an important concern as regards accuracy.
5. Websites which cover manga scanlations are a reliable source for the subject matter of manga scanlations.
Additionally, I do not intend to put "666 Satan is more popular in scanlated form than published form" as a statement in the article space, so your complaint about OR is utterly immaterial, so long as the alternative is to use no evidence in this decision whatsoever. Editorial meta-decisions are based on reliable sources where available, reasonable synthesis of data (reasonableness being determined by consensus) when no traditional RS exists, and when even that is impossible, on weaker methods still, such as flat strawpolling or using the precedent set by the first editor.
In the absence of any direct reliable sources, I have made an argument based on the best available quantitative data, which I took from the most reliable available sources for the subjects at hand (VIZ does not directly publish their sales figures and there is no universal scanlation database), and did the best I could to ensure that I was comparing fairly. Is this data perfect? No, and I do not claim it to be. Is this data suggestive of a useful and relevant conclusion? Yes, it is.
So, you claim that the issue of which is the more popular English title should be solved using reliable sources, correct? Then let us see the sources which support your position. Imperfect though it may be, I have offered evidence. You have given none, and simply argued that there is room for doubt in my data. Unless you can find conflicting evidence, however, 666 Satan remains the most known English title to the best of our knowledge. --erachima formerly tjstrf 07:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our threshold for conclusion is not truth, erachima. It is Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anyhow, as per Wikipedia:Original research we cannot include unpublished claims within articles. It also shows that it is best to not use unpublished claims when disputing an article name. WP:OR says "However, even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context or to advance a position not directly and explicitly supported by the source, you are also engaged in original research;" - What I see is original research. You have abcense from top 30 sales figures in the United States and you have figures from an illegal downloading site but neither directly and explicitly support the claim that 666 Satan is more popular than O-Parts Hunter.
1. You did link to websites and the links were removed by a third party.
2. How is it a reliable source for the subject matter? WP:RS describes a reliable source as "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." - Do scanlation sites do that?
3. Why should we trust the figures? And even the figures are useless as I explain above.
4. "Additionally, I do not intend to put "666 Satan is more popular in scanlated form than published form" as a statement in the article space," But you are using it as an argument to move an article to a new name. Let's use reliable arguments and let's not use original research.
5. "(VIZ does not directly publish their sales figures and there is no universal scanlation database)" - In other words it cannot be proved. As per WP:V the criteria for inclusion is verifiability. Likewise in this debate we should stick to reliable sources and avoid original research and therefore only use reliable claims.

WhisperToMe (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The bar for inclusion, yes. But I am not suggesting we include anything. (And the absence is not from the top 30 manga, it is the top three hundred.)
What we have here is a case in which we have verifiable data from reliable sources on the subject, but which does not directly address our case. Our options are to either use that data and interpret it via consensus, or use no data and just decide based on our personal opinions. Ultimately, we're guessing either way, but an educated guess is still superior to flipping a coin.
1. That is a verifiable untruth. The only link Snowolf removed was added by a completely different editor. Check the page history. Or just see this. Only removed link was added by User:Evilgohan2.
2. The sites I mentioned are 3rd party to any specific scanlator, and have good reputations within their field.
3. Because we are making a decision on the best data available to us.
4. I'm not arguing we retitle anything. I'm arguing we maintain the status quo. You're the one with the burden of proof here.
5. If a statement is not encyclopedically verifiable, it cannot be included in the article. However, since we can verify the superiority of neither potential page title, and cannot avoid titling the page, we must make a decision using our best judgment and the best available evidence.
Now, not to be rude, but I would like to yet again point out something: You have given no evidence in support of your proposed move, from reliable sources or otherwise. Until you find some, I would appreciate it if the beggar refrained from mocking the peasant for his lack of wealth. --erachima formerly tjstrf 08:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think the point is being lost. Let's look at the words "explicitly" and "directly." Let's see what they mean, courtesy of Merriam-Webster.

  • Explicit - "fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent "
  • Direct - "2 a: stemming immediately from a source" [11]
    • What I see is an indirect argument loaded with assumptions. This is precisely what original research is.

2. Good reputations from who? I don't see press sources or research papers talking about the website. The operators of the website state the rankings themselves, and since the website itself is not a reliable source the rankings are not reliable. Even if the rankings came from another group that group would not be reliable either.

3. If that is the "best data" then we cannot use the data. As per WP:V, if you do not have a reliable source you cannot prove it and you cannot use it.

4. Also regarding Alexa rankings see Wikipedia:Google_test#Alexa_ratings

5. "I'm not arguing we retitle anything. I'm arguing we maintain the status quo. You're the one with the burden of proof here." - That is a logic error called argument from ignorance. (Penn state press talks about it here [12]) I have made my case for why the Wikipedia article should be retitled. The burden of proof for the assertion that "666 Satan" is more popular than "O-Parts Hunter" is on your posts, not mine. Now, regarding rejection of a claims for lack of verifiability we have WP:V and WP:OR as rationale, so the burden of proof is properly in place.

6. " You have given no evidence in support of your proposed move, from reliable sources or otherwise." - 1. IGN article. 2. Google News lists published news articles from reliable newspapers and magazines. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 & 2. Meanwhile, back on earth, where the relative popularity of children's comic book titles isn't Pulitzer-winning news and editors therefore must occasionally make decisions using their brains...
3. Good thing we aren't adding anything to the article then, isn't it?
4. I cited an Alexa ranking to support my personal statement that a specified website was popular, in an argument unrelated to the addition of articlespace content. This is a usage in complete accordance with all the cautions regarding Alexa usage: Alexa rankings are inaccurate below a certain level, that we are nowhere close to hitting, Alexa rankings alone cannot be proof of notability or non-notability, which I'm not attempting to prove, and Alexa rankings are inaccurate for certain subjects due to the system's Windows-centric nature, which doesn't effect this at all.
5. The burden of proof for the claim that 666 Satan is the more used title than OPH lies on me, yes, but the claim that OPH is more used lies on you, and if nothing is proven, then nothing is done and the page remains at 666 Satan.
6. Those sources cover the Viz translation, which is title O-Parts Hunter and will thus be referred to as O-Parts Hunter. The question is which title of the series the English reader of the series is more likely to recognize, and that includes scanlation readers.
Finally, let us return to the essence of the issue here: What title will best serve our readers? The original English title, chosen by the author, referring to the series in all its incarnations, used around the globe in various forms and throughout the fanbase? Or the bowdlerized title, chosen by one licensor, referring only to the specific volumes released by them, and used only by the small group that bought Viz's volumes? --erachima formerly tjstrf 10:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Uhm, we are in the real world. 2. The Alexa ranking Wikipedia page specifically said "#

  1. Alexa rankings vary and include significant systematic bias which means the ratings often do not reflect popularity, but only popularity amongst certain groups of users (See Alexa Internet#Concerns). Broadly, Alexa rates based upon measurements by a user-installed toolbar, but this is a highly variable tool, and there are large parts of the internet user community (especially corporate users, many advanced users, many open-source and non-Windows users) who do not use it and whose internet reference use is therefore ignored." and "Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so. A highly ranked web site may well have nothing written about it, or a poorly ranked web site may well have a lot written about it." (I added the emphasis)

3. Uhm, yes, and I already gave you the IGN link. I mentioned Amazon.co.uk which sells O-Parts Hunter. 4. Usually in these discussions we treat the title of the translated work as being relevant to the English-speaking audiences. We only use the original title if we specifically refer to the Japanese version. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. And as members of the real world, we must recognize that there are not reliable sources on everything, often including things that we wish there WERE reliable sources on, and occasionally including things on which we must make editorial decisions anyway. This would be one of those cases, since there is no third-party comparison of the two title usages. (Unless you count the massively unreliable Google Trends or something... which leans 100 to 1 towards 666 Satan.)
2. Right. But even if we give them an absolutely horrid confidence interval, the chance of them being wrong on the 95th most popular site in the world is going to be negligible. Much less the 40th most popular site in the United States.
3. Amazon sells the VIZ edition, and IGN reviews the VIZ edition. Of course they aren't going to mistitle the books they sell. That doesn't mean their title is the better known one though.
4. That is a logical and reasonable course of action in cases where the series was first popularized in English via official channels. However, this isn't 1995 anymore. Scans of 666 Satan were at chapter 63 of 76 before VIZ even published its first volume of the series (trivially citeable statement to multiple scanlation databases, google it yourself or ask for the link). The English fanbase was already established long before anyone stateside was even close to licensing it, and the original name has prevailed over the licensor name among the English readers for that reason.
Now, in the face of these release times (verifiable!), the relative popularity of the scanlations on leading piracy sites(verifiable!), the unremarkable popularity in print (even more verifiable!), and the one-sided Google tests (verifiabler still!) do you still wish to maintain there is even a shadow of a doubt that the VIZ title is more popular with the fans and readers? --erachima formerly tjstrf 11:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. We ignore the reliable sources rule whenever something is common sense (and therefore doesn't need to be verified) - I.E. "the earth is round" - Everyone knows the earth is round, so that bit is not likely challenged. The important part is the verifiability bit. 2. The ranking page says "Alexa rankings do not reflect encyclopedic notability and existence of reliable source material if so." - And if the site was truly that popular some news article would have been written about it. 3. The reason why "O-Parts Hunter" is preferred is because of the guideline that states that names as used in English-language editions are preferred over original Japanese names. As for actual popularity, the title(s) used in stores and websites serving the US, Canada, UK, Australia, and New Zealand become well-known. 4. But how do we know in particular 666 Satan became first well-known among Anglophones via the internet? As an example here on what to find to use as a source, this Spanish magazine says that Naruto became very popular via fansubbing [13]. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erachima, you still haven't given a good reason as to why we shouldn't follow the guideline. WP:IAR? WhisperToMe is on the ball here; if this were more like Saint Seiya`s case, then "666 Satan" would be the appropiate title. Alas, this is not the case, so use the official English title. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but Sesshomaru should we not take into account the reasons as to why they have changed the name?Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 18:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do not know exactly why the name was changed, considering we have no sources saying why. "Reasoning" why falls under original research. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
press release for VIZ's release of O-Parts Hunter:
O-Parts Hunter, Vol. 1 · MSRP: $9.99 · Available December 2006
Originally ominously titled 666 Satan, O-Parts Hunter is a highly anticipated series by Seishi Kishimoto. In the not too distant future, mankind battles over relics from a lost civilization. These items, known as O-Parts, contain incredible powers if wielded by the right person. Enter Jio, a young boy with a tragic past who trusts only one thing in the world: money. Little does he suspect that inside him is the potential to use O-Parts like no one else can. Jio reluctantly teams up with a young girl named Ruby, and together they go on a quest to find as many O-Parts as the can. Will Jio help Ruby realize her dream of becoming a world class treasure hunter? Will Ruby help Jio realize his dream of world domination?
Alternative Titles as listed at ANN:
  • 666 Satan
  • 666 Сатана (Russian)
  • 666 사탄 (Korean)
  • 666サタン (Japanese)
Merely more food for thought. I leave it to you to decide how to interpret it. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 19:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and what about this? Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 19:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for their renaming it is really not anything to consider in the argument at all. They aren't the first company to rename a title, and probably won't be the last. Tokyopop's Kimi wa Pet became Tramps Like Us. The article uses the English release name, because the English speaking world looking for that title will find Tramps Like Us on the shelf, not Kimi wa Pet. As for the Viz press release, it will be a good source for them renaming it, not why. Collectonian (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but should a redirect like we have set up now enough for that, and if we were to add different cariants of opart hunter to the redirects should it not be enough? Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 19:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the article should be using the official English release name, with 666 Satan being the redirect with an alt name template. Collectonian (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. More precedents include Astro Boy instead of Tetsuwan Atomu and, here's a better one, Kimba the White Lion over Jungle Emperor. There is plenty reason to use official English titles. It is not a question of "fan popularity" or whatnot. Again, this is the English-language Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia, not a site for otaku or fanslations. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:02, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once more I will point out name recognition. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 19:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have proof of the name recognition from a Wikipedia:Reliable source ? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
are you trying to say that a VIZ media press release is not a reliable sourse?? Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 14:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, the Viz press release confirms the rename. It does not state that the Japanese title is more well known in the English speaking world than the title they are releasing the series under.Collectonian (talk) 14:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and since when did this become a question of what it is more known as, we are debating over what would be the correct name, not what the public consiters the more popular name... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 15:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The correct name, per the MOS, is the English Viz release. Others are the ones arguing that it should be left at 666 Satan because that's the name more fans know it as. Collectonian (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
uhhhhh, i am one of those 'others' and last i checked i never said it was 'b/c more fans know it as 666 Satan'. My argument is that it is the name the author gave to the series, where as O-Part Hunter is not. PLUS i said that i'd understand if there should be a change in the article name if when translated to english it was something that did not make as much sense, BUT since it translates to 666 Satan there should be no real reason to change it... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 19:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's just it. 666 Satan is NOT the official English name, it is the translated name. The official English name, whether you agree with the renaming or not, is O-Part Hunter. By the MOS, that is the name the article should use, with appropriate mention in the lead as to the rename just as we have done with other series that have been renamed. Collectonian (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ancientanubis, Erachima, Doceirias, and Evilgohan2, can you present sourced reasons as to why we shouldn't follow this Wikipedia guideline? I'm feeling tempted to move the page, because all I see is original research coming from you four (eg, it is what the author wants, it is more common, Viz is known for censoring titles, etc.). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i say it is what the author wanted mainly due to the fact that he named the series 666 Satan, if he wanted to call it O-Part Hunters, then it would have been O Part Hunters, but seeing as the series is named 666～サタン～ which is pernounced Roku Roku Roku Satan, which is translated to 666 Satan, then im sorry but i am going to have to go under the influenc that he wanted it called 666 Satan, and even in every other coutnry where it has been released it has been called 666 Satan (in there respective languages), so what i am wondering is where do you have the audacity to say that it should be changed just because a company didnt want to piss off any one by plastering the name SATAN on the front of 19 volumes of manga... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just saying move it because of the guidelines, not because of triviality like "the name is graphic". Then should we have Kimba the White Lion moved to Jungle Emperor just because the author called it "Jungle Emperor" (ジャングル大帝, which is pronounced Janguru Taitei)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And should Tramps Like Us be moved to You're My Pet because that's what the author named it, after translation? No. We use the official English names, even when its renamed, for the first work. Collectonian (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you mean "You're My Pet"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah...that's what I get for not looking first and typing too fast. :P Collectonian (talk) 01:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ya, maybe we should, i mean if it translates to something that makes sense in english, why shouldnt we.... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you're okay with the rename? Either that or I've completely misunderstood what you just said. Reiterate? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's saying we should rename the two examples we tried to give him Kimba the White Lion and Tramps Like Us *sigh* Collectonian (talk) 01:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do all notice the glaring difference here that Kimba, Astro Boy, etc. were popularized through official translations long before the fansub and scanlation culture came into being, and thus that is their more popular English title, right?

The style guide is resoundingly clear on this: you use the more recognized title, and when the two are in comparable parlance, the official English one wins out. Every single method we have available to us which can be used for finding what title is the more recognized points heavily towards 666 Satan, and the only defense given for the popularity of O-Parts Hunter has been that I cannot prove it wrong, just support my own side of the argument.

Actually, let me ask a question here: Do those of you I'm arguing with here honestly not believe that the scanlations are more popular? If it's the former case, would you be convinced by reliable sources which affirmed the general case of scanlations being more popular than official releases when it comes to the less-spotlighted recent titles? Because I know I can find sources for that. (I'm currently trying to find a specific publisher interview online based on remembering specific snippets of conversation from it. A real pain to say the least.) --erachima formerly tjstrf 05:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, it would be best if we did not use illegal, scanlated titles, no matter who the author. And like WhisperToMe said numerous times, there is no indication per the guideline that "666 Satan" is the most well-known name to English-language speakers (probably to fans though, but I can't confirm this). The manga is sold as "O-Parts Hunter" in Canada, UK, and in the states; how can you say "666 Satan" is the more popular English name? That is still bias information, and you're not even verifying this from a reliable source. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The manual of style specifically states we are looking for the title more known to the English language readers of the series, i.e. the fans. Whether the popularity comes from legal sources or not has all of nothing to do with this discussion, unless Wikipedia:Ignoring Inconvenient Realities became policy recently when I wasn't looking.
    As for sources, I've given sources which attest to the title 666 Satan's popularity, sources which attest to the popularity of the series in scanlated form, and if I can find the above-mentioned interview, should have WP:RS evidence that superior scanlation popularity is actually the norm for less popular series, which would clinch the issue in the absence of direct evidence to the contrary. --erachima formerly tjstrf 05:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I read your google hits, however, google searches aren't everything. The guideline wants a name that is familiar to everyone, not just the fans. Using a scanlated name is definitely out of the question. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:MOS-MANGA currently says to use the name familiar to the series readers. If it doesn't actually mean that, then the MoS definitely needs to be clarified.
    Also, for series which are only partially translated, using either scanlated or Japanese names is often the only consistent method. (Remember the Naruto jutsu translation thing?) --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) - You're misinterpreting the guideline by taking it too literal. "666 Satan" is not the official English-language title. "O-Parts Hunter" is in this instance. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's grasping because you can't verify your assertion using reliable sources. We can for "O-Parts Hunter," and WP:UE stresses that we need to "use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources." Until you can do something other than show the alexa.com ranking for onemanga, then you really have no case. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 05:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
but how do you define commonly used english version of a name, i mean 666 Satan is english (unless i am mentally challenged), and japan is a big country, sold alot more copies of the volumes. and no Sesshomaru, i was saying that if the offical name of the series (official being the name the author gave to the series) translates to english in a way that makes sense why shoudl it not be kept.... but w/e, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 05:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
and also Sesshomaru, is it technically illegal prior to any licensing anywhere outside of its origional venue, and do not also make it sound like you are above reading 'illegal scanulations' as i doubt you wait for all the mangas (or animes) to be released in the US.... o well, i guess im just a fool, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ancientanubis, I have a hard time understanding you through your grammer. Can you please be more clear in your writing so I can know how to reply? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
666 Satan is in English, yes, but that's not addressing the point. If no sources that are verifiable and reliable can be provided to assert that 666 Satan is the more widely known version, then you have no argument. That it sold more copies in Japan is irrelevant because it sold here as O-Parts Hunter, and you have to assert that 666 Satan is more commonly known in English-speaking countries rather than the aforementioned title. Also, pointing towards your second post, he's pointing out that scanlations are a rather weak argument to use here because of WP:V and WP:RS, as I'm sure that nearly all of us do read scanlations. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, forget it. It's become clear to me that I'm arguing against the consensus of most of the project's active editors and seemingly under a substantially different set of premises, so any further argument would simply be a waste of energy. I'll look for that interview I mentioned anyway, though, since we can probably use it on the scanlation page if nothing else. --erachima formerly tjstrf 06:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i ask you the same then sephiroth, prove to me that o-part hunter is more widely known then 666 Satan, and if you are looking for where it is more widely sold then u should look for it world wide as it shows what it is more widely known under, say if Volume one in japan has sold more copies under 666 Satan then it has in the US under O-Part Hunters, then would that not be a some what general consensus that it is known under that name more? and yes erachima, i may be arguing against the general consensus, but until some godly figure, or Seishi Kishimoto comes down to my house and tells me that i am wrong about this, well then i just plan on arguing my point when ever i have the free time... and Sesshomaru, while my grammer might not always be the best (mainly because i dont care about my grammar as long as i get my point across) it is not that hard to understand if you take more then 2 seconds to read it Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 06:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) - First, you don't have to get all defensive on me. I was merely suggesting clarity if you want people to undertstand you. And about "name popularity", again, that's not what this is about. It's a question of what would be the best encyclopedic name for the English Wikipedia, and that would be "O-Parts Hunter", the official title that official English-language distributors released to the media. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The mere fact that it is sold here, in Canada, and in the UK as O-Parts Hunter supports my point. The onus of proof is upon you, not me, to demonstrate that 666 Satan is the more common usage to an English speaker. As to you continuing to argue, do so at your leisure. Consensus reflects my position on the matter. Concerning your grammar, I'm not going to make a big deal about it, but do not that this isn't a forum, and we appreciate good grammar for ease of conversation. You can be colloquial and occasionally utilize AIM-speak, but generally, we want our conversations to be visible and readable to anyone who cares to read them; ergo, it's a general courtesy. I won't press the point, but do take this into consideration. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 06:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works Now I'll remove some of the links and I'd and I'll ask you all to kindly refrain to linking to them. Well, good discussion ;-) Manga are definitively out of my reach :) Happy editing everybody. Snowolf How can I help? 07:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've removed only that one link. Good bye ;-) Snowolf How can I help? 07:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name Change: Requiem

Now that the name has been changed, I'd like to request assistance in the conversion of all links to O-Parts Hunter as well as all related titles and mentions. I've already started on this and the renaming of certain pages but considering the amount of people involved in the name change, I'd like to ask that others assist in the process. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② talk 13:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done: List of 666 Satan characters -> List of O-Parts Hunter characters, updated all links in Template:666 Satan, 666 Satan Angels & Demons -> O-Parts Hunter Angels and Demons, List of O-Parts in 666 Satan -> List of O-Parts in O-Parts Hunter, and 666 Satan media -> List of O-Parts Hunter chapters (which I also gave a much needed formatting fix to). That should take care of most of them. Collectonian (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Similar works" needed?

Seriously, a lot of mangas have similiarities to each other. Main characters growing up with no parents is a common cliche. And while the manga artist does happen to be the brother of the author of Naruto, that does not really justify making a full section to make it seem like O-Parts was based off of Naruto 65.12.159.223 (talk) 07:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's needed because in this case the brothers in fact influenced each other. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:O-Parts_Hunter&oldid=244327617"