Talk:Mana (series)/Archive 2

The following discussion is an archived move proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was to keep at current name. While we agree that "Mana series" is the natural English name of the series, and that the manual of style establishes that well known terms should stay in Japanese, there is currently no consensus for a move, and considering that "Seiken Densetsu" is a very known name in the gaming community, the article can stay at this name until a better consensus is obtained. -- ReyBrujo 02:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Move to Mana (series)

Discussion

The usage of Seiken Densetsu makes no sense anymore; the title should reflect how the series is known to English regions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. Just because Square-Enix has been tacking on subsequent headings to the series doesn't mean they're negating the prior titling. In fact, quite the opposite, as the titles still retain the original Seiken Densetsu naming, such as Seiken Densetsu: Heroes of Mana, Seiken Densetsu: Children of Mana and Seiken Densetsu: Friends of Mana, and Dawn of Mana being specifically Seiken Densetsu 4. Just because this particular Wikipedia is in English doesn't mean we should sacrifice accuracy. Ex-Nintendo Employee 06:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But the English SE never attributes Seiken Densetsu as having any involvement with any Mana games. To us, the only connections between these games' titles are Mana, and the series title should reflect that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've always known it as Seiken Densetsu, but then again, I've been around for a while so I'm set in my ways. We can always redirect Mana (series) here, though. -LichYoshi 13:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Or we can redirect Seiken Densetsu to Mana (series). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

"Seiken Densetsu" is the established name of the series. --- RockMFR 21:36, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Not in Europe, or Australia, or North America. In one gaming region out of four, two of which are bigger than it. Yes, to the people who visit the jp.wiki, the name is Seiken Densetsu. But at no point is this recognized by English gamers or even Spanish, French, German, Swedish, etc. gamers as the series name. Do you honestly believe that English-speaking gamers know the series as Seiken Densetsu more than Mana? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Again, I respectfully disagree with this part as well. While this is a Wiki that is written in the English language, the article is about a Japanese game series (the Seiken Densetsu series) that has then recieved a localization in, amongst other things, the English language. We cannot simply omit anything having to do with the Japanese in the game. What would you have Wikipedia do next, remove all information from the article itself pertaining to the game's Japanese origins? Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

At what point does catering to English readers on an English web site become anti-Japanese? Just because we don't cater to a minority here does NOT mean we are anti them. It originated in Japan, and no one cares but "Japanophiles" (for lack of a better term) and English-speaking Japanese people. However, you are in the minority. Should we call the Zelda series "Densetsu no Zelda series"? Or Animal Crossing the "Doubutsu no Mori" series? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

This is factually incorrect. It seems you are unaware of the history of this series. For years, it was referred to as "Seiken Densetsu" by magazine publications, etc. This is a case where the Japanese name is common among English speakers, not just "Japanophiles" as you say. --- RockMFR 01:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an international site, not just for the North America English speaking community. It is very easy to assume yourself as the majority of the world, but if you claim that here, please provide enough sources to say that. In fact, Hong Kong, Singapore and a lot of Asian English speaking culture still know the series as Seiken Densetsu. (Main reason being official copies distributed to these area are Japanese versions). The naming of the wiki article should reflect the most accurate term used and Seiken Densetsu is simply the original and official name published. There is no point in moving the page, simply redirect all titles people will search for the series here, and they can learn about the original name of it. MythSearcher^talk 01:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So basically, en.wiki doesn't mean English Wikipedia, but rather, "enough room for everybody" Wikipedia? It is the original JAPANESE name. Square has never at any point in the history of the series mentioned the franchise as being Seiken Densetsu in any non-Asian countries. Tell me - is the series CURRENTLY known, to any countries in Europe or North America or Australia, as Seiken Densetsu? - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Face it, there are English speakers outside of Europe or North America or Australia. And there are like half of the series not having any English translated titles mentioned in THIS article. MythSearcher^talk 08:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

You forgot "less". There are LESS English speakers outside of Europe or North America. So why should we be the jp.wiki just because some Japanese people speak English? I get a strong feeling that the population of Japan is smaller than English-speaking NA people. It is your burden to even give the slightest bit of evidence that the number of English speaking people is so great outside of NA, AU, and EU that it becomes necessary to cater to them. Is there any evidence that any single Mana game has seen a Korean release, Chinese release, or Hong Kong release? And if you think the series should be Seiken Densetsu, shouldn't you also argue that all Mana games should be Seiken Densetsu games (so FFA's article would be titled Seiken Densetsu)? And if we title the series of the Mana games as the Japanese series name, why aren't we doing the same with Animal Crossing or Zelda? - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

So, why don't you read Wiki policy on these kind of stuff? Normally, each article is treated on a case by case bases, it is just no use in saying "why did that not apply to other articles?". Also, the naming of an article come with a first come first serve bases, with most of the Seiken Densetsu game not translated, it is very hard to put up a strong case in changing the article name, especially the name you wanted to change to is not official. BTW, on a simply google test, "Seiken Densetsu" returns 283k results, but "World of Mana" only less 16k. So, do you need more prove of which one is used more? MythSearcher^talk 09:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's see... Because I said "let's call the franchise "World of Mana!" Nice job choosing one of the worst-selling Mana games. Secret of Mana? 576,000. Children of Mana? 1,440,000. Sword of Mana? 291,000. At what point does World of Mana determine that SD is known as the series' name, but the fact that three individual games have more Google hits than the Japanese name for the series doesn't matter? World of Mana isn't even USED outside of Japan, so SD basically gets mentioned in most things that World of Mana gets mentioned in. Also, nice job linking to a guideline and calling it Wiki policy. How about you link to naming conventions and read where it both says "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia" and "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize"? What evidence suggests that the Japanese name is most recognizable to a majority of English readers? Common sense suggests that Seiken Densetsu would be far LESS recognized than Mana for this series of video games. Also, onto your other points - It's NOT a first come first serve basis. Seiken Densetsu being used makes no more sense than if Doubutsu no Mori were the title of the Animal Crossing series article. They are both JUST the Japanese title. They didn't look at it and think "well you know what? Let's call it Mana/Animal Crossing instead!" They made the ENGLISH names - the names most recognizable to English readers. And your argument is structurally unsound - if we count all released/planned to be released games, English Mana games = 5, Japanese Mana games = 5. If we don't, we take one from Japanese Mana games. And how is it not official? SE's NA site referred to Dawn of Mana as being the first true MANA sequel. That alone shows that the North American division of SE packages the games as being "Mana games".

Let's just get down to business - give me a single shred of evidence that the title of Seiken Densetsu is more recognizable to English readers - despite the fact that it is never revealed as having any association to the series by Square in the games to the European, Australian, or North American readers - than Mana is? Why in the world do you insist that SD is more known to people who speak English when in only one country in the entire world is it used? - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I must say that your numbers are totally incorrect due to your not using quotation marks making them a phrase. Yes, the word Mana appeared in a lot of places, and the word Secret in more. Sword is not anything less common than these words. How convinient it is to get a lot of results that way. Also, "World of Mana" is the current compilation naming (THE WROLD of MANA) if you ever wanted the name to have official-ness in it, it should be under this name, not "Mana (series)" the name "Mana" is too ambiguous, and not to mention, all of the English titles were published in Japan, distributed in Asia under the same title "Seiken Densetsu". This is the official naming, where your arguements show no authority, officiality in anyway, at the same time created a title for a page which was not ambiguous to ambiguous, which improved nothing compared to redirecting the page "Mana(series)" to this one. According to Wikipedia policy, these kind of page moves should only be performed when the original name does not reflect any officiality or notablity. (Like if the page is being currently called "Mana games" then a move request to either "The World of Mana" or "Seiken Densetsu" would be perfectly official and notable). What you fail to see here is that not even the SE-USA call the series Mana. Yes, it contains the word Mana in every title it published in North America, but per WP:NOR, this is just pure Original Research. If you want to support your naming convention, you have to at least quote 2 reliable and verifiable sources to counter the overly powerful Official naming convention of the original publisher. Also, try to think about what do gaming magazines call the series before all the more recent games with the name Mana tag to them. None of them is going to call Seiken Densetsu and Seiken Densetsu 3 anything but by these names. MythSearcher^talk 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not evidence, but for what it's worth, Here in the UK I've always known it to be referred to as Seiken Densetsu. In fact, until this debate I'd never even heard about it being alternatively being called 'Mana', except for Secret of Mana. And to the best of my knowledge Seiken Densetsu 3 was never released in the UK, so I don't know if that affects anything The Kinslayer 11:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm slightly against a moving to Mana (series) as that titling is a bit too unspecific to me, especially since the "Mana" comes at the end of the titles, unlike most series. I would not actually expect to find this article at such a title. Also, the "Mana" title fails to include Seiken Densetsu: The Emergence of Excalibur, Final Fantasy Adventure, and Seiken Densetsu: Final Fantasy Adventure.--SeizureDog 11:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I would have to conclude that this debate has been settled. The verifiable facts at present time stand as such- the game series in question both originated in Japan and at present seems to have a number of its games fall under a nomenclature that doesn't contain the words "Mana" in the title; as SeizureDog put forth, Seiken Densetsu: The Emergence of Excalibur, Final Fantasy Adventure, and Seiken Densetsu: Final Fantasy Adventure don't contain the word, and the principal heading of the "Seiken Densetsu" moniker is the only identifier as such on games like Seiken Densetsu 3 and the Seiken Densetsu cell phone port. This article goes well beyond the limited scope of the English-language translated titles- by eliminating the Seiken Densetsu naming we erase those numerable non-english titles from the series. I'm also not convinced by A Link to the Past's assertion that the titling of Seiken Densetsu is limited to "one country in the entire world", when in previous postings it was proven otherwise. There just is not any compelling reason to move this article at this point in time. Ex-Nintendo Employee 13:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I support this summary. The Kinslayer 14:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While wikipedia settles on consesus, not a pure vote, it seems to me that we have a major consensus here. No one other than the nominator supported the move. MythSearcher^talk 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. World of Mana is the JAPANESE series name. So no, we would not use that. And not only that, but Google hits don't matter for crap in that because SD pretty much has all of World of Mana's hits, while WoM doesn't have all of SD hits.
2. And what are you talking about? I USED quotations. Don't assume that I didn't use quotations just because you don't like the outcome.
3. Actually, you're completely and utterly wrong. "Dawn of Mana, the first true Mana sequel in a decade". Exactly WHAT does Mana sequel mean? It associates all games with the Mana moniker as being "Mana games".
4. It's not the ORIGINAL name! BOTH names are official. SD wasn't replaced, it gained an equal series title. Tell me - what do you think is more recognizable to North Americans or Europeans - Mana or Seiken Densetsu?
5. What? People commonly call "The Legend of Zelda" "Zelda". Being at the end of the title doesn't mean that it can't be the franchise title.
6. You count a cancelled game? It never had the OPPORTUNITY to be out in English. And well, Ex-Nintendo Employeee, what you just argued could be used for Animal Crossing - Animal Crossing has games that aren't released in English. And Nintendo Wars? You'd have to move that. Will you give me one good reason why Animal Forest on the N64 can exist on the AC series as long as it's called AC, but the very idea of "Mana (series)" having SD games in its article cannot be done?
7. What evidence? You never showed it was released in China, Korea, Hong Kong (and no, one guy saying that it's in Korea, Hong Kong, or China is not as compelling as no listing at GameFAQs).
8. Your consensus is that we should "use the uncommon name". To the majority of English readers on Wikipedia, Seiken Densetsu means nothing to them. So to use your own argument, any game that DID come out in the US would not apply as an SD game to the majority of English readers. So why should we use it? According to SE's article on E3 2006, the series is "Mana". Therefore, "Mana" is the official title of the series in English and European countries. So Mana does not violate the "official title" rule. Secondly, it is obviously the common name to the majority of English readers, so it does not violate the "common name" rule. However, SD violates the common name rule. So tell me - which should we use, the title that violates no policies, or the title that violates one? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

In responce to points made:

1. It's only the name for the metaseries. Notice how all of the games in the series still have the "Seiken Densetsu" title in front?
2. Skip.
3. If you'd actually read you'd realize that by "true sequel" it refers to the fact that it actually has a number in the Japanse release. Seiken Densetsu 4 is the first true sequel since Seiken Densetsu 3. It has nothing to do with the "Mana" titles.
4. How can you even argue that it's not the original name? The series clearly started off with the title "Seiken Densetsu" for Seiken Densetsu: The Emergence of Excalibur.
5. Terrible example. Every game in the series starts off with "The Legend of Zelda", which is where the article is at. Not Zelda (series).
6. Animal Forest was moved due to it having an official translation and a title that is literally the same as the original. Seiken Densetsu does not translate to "mana" anything. Nintendo Wars is there due to there being no real consistancy in the series titles on either side. The only thing you could suggest it to would be Wars (series), which is just plain stupid.--SeizureDog 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
7. Even if it never recieved a specific release for another Asian country it doesn't matter as all Asian games are compatible with all Asian system and rarely are the games themselves different from each other. I own a Japanese PlayStation 2 and a Korean Metal Slug 6. Guess what? The game is still in Japanese. So any game that's been released in Japan has, in essence, been released for all of Asia.
8. It has a large enough of a geeky, Japanese-centric fanbase for it to warrent it to stay here. It's not a mainstream series enough to demand Englishfication. --SeizureDog 23:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, in JAPAN. Is Seiken Densetsu used anywhere outside of Japan?
2. So when they called it a "Mana game", they weren't referring to Mana as the series? A+ logic!
3. MANA is the original name too. In ENGLISH countries. Mana is not a replacement name. They are BOTH original, and thusly, the argument holds NO water at all.
4. People STILL call it Zelda. North Americans and Europeans, if they don't KNOW the Japanese name, don't say "hey, let's get that new Seiken Densetsu game!" They are more likely to say "let's get that Mana game!"
5. So? Are Animal Forest and Animal Crossing the same? No. By your logic, Animal Forest could not be a part of the series. And so what? You defend Nintendo Wars why? There has not been a game called Nintendo Wars ever. That is, more or less, a fan name for the series, and you defend that while attacking the idea of calling a series Mana, when most games in the series have the word Mana in the title? Why would it be stupid to choose the most consistent title?
6. And it's original research to say that the series is known in Korea or Hong Kong or China.
7. At no point is it large enough for us to say "let's ignore policy". Common name, look it up. Children of Mana has done nearly 100,000 copies in NA, a very respectable number, and Dawn of Mana capped at around 200k. At what point does that show Mana to be popular enough in Japan that we should NOT use the common name? Secret of Mana is one of the most critically acclaimed SNES games ever in North America, does that not matter whatsoever? Nintendo and Square Enix have released almost every single Mana game in the US, with the exception of two mobile games (arguably because there's no market), SD3 (because Nintendo made it difficult for them), and Dawn of Mana (which is planned to come to the US). If the franchise is not big enough to warrant proper naming, then tell me - does the same apply to games? Do you also agree that we should call Children of Mana Seiken Densetsu DS: Children of Mana? And would you look at that? Mana is used in the title, unlike earlier games in the series! So SD is the name in only one region in the world, while Mana is not only the only common phrase in the title for Europe and North America, but it is also a common phrase in the Japanese titles as well! I don't see any reason to cater to people who would in no way be confused by the name change, while calling it Seiken Densetsu serves a small minority of people. Wikipedia isn't aimed at the editors, it's aimed at the readers. What happens when someone wants to look up the Mana series? The Seiken Densetsu title means NOTHING to them. And Hell, why don't we use your argument on DQVIII? 3.8 million copies sold in Japan, 1 million everywhere else combined. Or ACWW? 2.5 million outside of Japan, 4 million in Japan. Hey, should we also go to the jp.wiki and change their Zelda TP article to the English name, since it's sold only 400k there (less than any other main Zelda ever made), while it's sold nearly 2 million everywhere else?

I am really at a loss to understand how you can argue AGAINST policy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are extremely weak. You have not shown that "Mana" is the actual name of the series - as far as I can tell, naming this article "Mana" would be entirely original research and completely novel. You have not cited any policy that is in favor of your position. You have not shown that more English speakers know the series as "Mana". --- RockMFR 04:52, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Weak? No policy? Did "using the common name" suddenly stop being policy? And I JUST did it! Several times in fact! I quoted SE calling Dawn of Mana a "MANA GAME". And so you tell me that I have to prove that more English readers know it as Mana than as SD? Just for fun, why don't you explain why you argue that, to English readers, SD is more common?

Using SD helps no one but the minority. I have a hard time seeing the weakness in that argument. The only common phrase that is seen in the series is Mana in English. Japanese people associate Mana with SD games. Americans and Europeans associate Mana with Mana games. At what point in any universe is Mana less common to ENGLISH readers?

And why don't you bother to show any research to show that more English speakers know the series as SD? Can you prove that more English speakers know Animal Crossing as Animal Crossing? Or that English speaking people know The Legend of Zelda as The Legend of Zelda? If we went on your strict usage of OR, SD couldn't even be the title. NA's SE called Dawn of Mana a Mana game. That's an official source, so it is hardly original research. No Mana games mention Seiken Densetsu in NA or EU, so only fans of the series will know that SD = the Japanese name for the series.

Seriously, why won't anyone explain why Zelda TP's jp article should be aimed at Japanese people? For every copy sold in Japan, there have been five sold everywhere else. Why is this situation different in any way? You're arguing that we should title this series based on it being SD in Japan and it being more successful in Japan AND that some games don't apply to the Mana series title, while this argument has never been successfully used - it applies to Animal Crossing, Dragon Quest, Mega Man, etc. The Battle Network series is exceptionally more popular in Japan than in NA, but is the series article "Rockman.EXE"? Do you have any precedence to argue that any of these arguments are better than the fact that Mana is the most recognizable element of the name to North Americans and Europeans? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

In all of this rather heated discussion, I think some things have been overlooked. One, if someone's wanting to look for information on the Seiken Densetsu/Mana series, they're more likely to go to an actual game page before they go to the overview page. And two, I think things are evolving. Back pre-World of Mana, we only had a handful of games that had mixed titles - some were offically "Seiken Densetsu", some were officially "Mana", and there was a majority "feel", if you will, to term it all "Seiken Densetsu". Now, as I said previously, I've pretty much always known the series as "Seiken Densetsu" and that is what I'd prefer to call it. However, I live in a PAL territory - Australia, to be exact - and to my knowledge, there's only been three games released here from the series: Secret of Mana, Sword of Mana, and Children of Mana. As you can see, that favours LTTP's argument. The general discriptor of the name is moving more towards "Mana series" than "Seiken Densetsu". Then again, more people know St Stephen's Tower as Big Ben, even though that's erroneous to refer to the whole structure as such, but Wikipedia links to a neutral name. My guess would be that "Seiken Densetsu" and "the Mana series" are both correct monikers, however, we don't have the luxury of a neutral name. My opinion is that both names are equally valid, but more people are likely to find the game by the title "Mana" than "Seiken Densetsu", especially on an website written for and by English speakers. Yes, there are people in Hong Kong and Singapore who speak English and perhaps the game is released over there as Seiken Densetsu, but I wouldn't say that English is the dominant language there - it may be official, but not dominant. Where English is the dominant language is where the game has been released as "_ of Mana" and generally, there would seem to be a greater association with "_ of Mana" than "Seiken Densetsu". I'm a keen buff of the series and if I refer to it by "Seiken Densetsu", I get blank stares. If I call it "Mana", I usually get some understanding. I guess we can blame Secret's reception for that. But on that note, look at the fact that the non-English speaking European territories, particularly Germany where Secret was well-received, calls it Secret of Mana. I'd say that both names are correct, but it's known more widely as "Mana" than "Seiken Densetsu" and as such, I think it would be better to move to that title. Perhaps in the template we can call it "Mana/Seiken Densetsu series" as a compromise, and perhaps in the first paragraph we can say that it's also known as the "Seiken Densetsu series". But that's all I'm trying to reach here. A compromise. I don't want this brouhaha to continue. -LichYoshi 06:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Multiple names in the title just doesn't work. And I've never argued that SD is unofficial - just significantly less relevant to English readers. And now I can confirm that much of Europe got a Mana game, and that AU did too. SD doesn't have any presence in Europe or any English countries, only in Japan-speaking countries. I've never implied that the title of Seiken Densetsu should be wiped from the article. But we should not say "this series is Seiken Densetsu *oh, and it's also the Mana series*". - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:11, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, the game is not only called Seiken Densetsu inside of Japan, many have told you that the official release name in Asia area is Seiken Densetsu, not Mana. We have to obtain the so called imported copy of the North America versions before we know it as X of Mana. Even newer ones got their subtitle as X of Mana, all of them still have a Seiken Densetsu title. Furthermore, do not try to argue Asia is the minority, China alone have enough people to cover the population of Europe, North America and Australia. Not English speaking? India has tons of people too. Hong Kong, Singapore both have English as one of the official languages, these are all NOT inside Japan. Secondly, when I use quotations to search in google, the numbers are far less then what you have up there, also, it is given that you are trying to use a specific game name to do the search, which is pretty funny that this does not show any prove of the notablity of the name of the series, but only that specific name. Secret of Mana itself is popular enough to spawn the game called Secret of Evermore(which is not inside the compilation), and even Japanese sites have mentioned the name within their sites because of that. We already have a page for that specific game, so it is not use in trying to say a specific game having a lot of search results. For your argument about they are both the original name, it is just funny. If you actually read the policy of renaming pages, you will find the wikipedia is in favour of staying, not moving the pages to a name that holds the same authority, especially the name you want to move to is ambiguous. It is not OR to say the game is known in China and Hong Kong, there are official releases here as well(I am from HK), you want me to scan the chinese manual included inside the game for you? And you want to call the China SE site an Original Research? Your arguements are just not getting you anywhere. You can always argue a single game is notable, but you can never counter the point that there are games explaint in this article that have NO official English version, and NOT called Mana. Given, this page is about ALL of the games in the series, including Japanese only version, and thus the naming of the title should reflect that as well. While you do not lose ANYTHING by just redirecting from the name you suggested, moving the page to that name is against policy because it improves nothing nor change anything but making it more confusing.

Furthermore, I will give you more evidence that your arguements are lacking their credibility.

1. From SE europe official game list GBA entry, we can see that only Sword of Mana is included, and said nothing about Mana game.
2. Your only true arguement lies on the Dawn of Mana page, which basically denies every game in the series within the pass 10 years truely a part of the Mana series. Thus all of the Children of Mana, Sword of Mana and Legend of Mana are not Mana series. Then this article, which contains all those games, should not be called Mana series, due to the page containing non-Mana series games in it. However, those games in Japan are clearly listed under Seiken Densetsu series, which the name of this article perfectly describe, and includes all the games that are NOT under the MAna title. While in the LoM page, it clearly states that it is a sequel to the Secret of Mana, the DoM page refuses to see it as a true sequel, too.
3. About the World of Mana is just a Japanese Compilation name, that is bluntly incorrect. With the CoM, DoM both mentioned the world of Mana.

Lastly, Only Japan uses Japanese as their official language, all other Asia countries don't. So Seiken Densetsu is not only for Japanese speaking countries, but tons of places with English as one of their official languages, too.

MythSearcher^talk 07:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Note, I said where English is dominant. Official has no clout. English is an official language of Algeria, last I heard, yet Arabic and French are the norm. -LichYoshi 07:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So, we learn English as a second language in pre-school till University, you still think that English is not dominant in Hong Kong ,Singapore and India. Hmmm...

Also, English is an international language, everybody in Asia learn it these days. You just simply suck if you do not know Enlgish around these places. MythSearcher^talk 16:18, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

So English is the #1. language in Hong Kong, Singapore, and India? I still don't see how you came up with the idea that there are probably more English-speaking people in Hong Kong, Singapore, India, Japan, and China than there are English-speaking people in Europe, Australia, and North America. It is complete original research to state such a thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not saying there are more English speakers here. I am just saying the number is not so little that you can just ignore them. Also, your arguement cannot prove the Europe SE got anything to do with the "Mana series" since they only have one game and they did not call it a mana series or mana game. So it is just all your NA evidence with one game denying a few others to be Mana games that really counts in your arguements. MythSearcher^talk 23:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have shown that Mana is THE only common phrase besides "of" in English-speaking countries. And it does not matter that EU doesn't call it a Mana game or the Mana franchise. I used SE NA calling it a Mana game as proof that the "Mana (series)" isn't original research. I have a reliable source that verifies the various games in the series to be "Mana games", and the EU site not calling Sword of Mana a "Mana game" does not invalidate my source. So I can verify that the series can be called the "Mana series" accurately, and has been done so by SE themselves. I can verify that no English-speaking countries view the series as the "Seiken Densetsu series". I can verify that you are using original research as evidence that SD should be the series title, not Mana (by saying we should assume SD is more known as the series title by English-speakers based on the fact that English is a common language in Asia). You can talk about how English is common in Asia, but you need to do better at showing that the number of English-speaking people in Asia is high enough to warrant catering to them. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you have not shown anything nor understand what the arguement here is. The Seiken Densetsu naming is not original research from the very begining, and the series contains games that is not of the Mana series. (Which is not OR but a fact) And thus the while series is called Seiken Densetsu. The games released in the NA MAY be called the Mana series (Although you can never prove that as long as you cannot have a list published by SE NA saying which is in the series and which is not, especically the page you sourced from stated specifically Dawn of Mana is the TRUE sequel in a decade, which excludes Legend of Mana, Sword of Mana and Children of Mana in the series.) However, it is a sub-set of the Seiken Densetsu series(a point you have not, and cannot counter by logic), and the naming of the page now clearly shows this. Thus, the page title should not be changed due to the sub-set status of the true Mana series (If there's any, it includes 2 games, Secret of Mana and Dawn of Mana per DoM page) It further go against your arguement when the policy in moving pages states that if the move improves nothing, and is controvesial, do not move it. MythSearcher^talk 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So just for fun - why is this "if Mana's not in the title, it's not in the franchise" only applicable to this one article? Do you argue that for ALL series pages, that Animal Forest cannot be grouped with Animal Crossing because they're different titles, or do you say "since this argument is advantageous to me in this one situation, I'll arbitrarily use it whenever it is advantageous"? Your argument of "some games can't apply because of their title" is a logic that would - I would bet everything in my possession - never be accepted as an acceptable logic by the CVG project. Also, at no point does that "true sequel" logic apply. Majora's Mask is called by Nintendo to be a side-story, so it's not a "true sequel". THAT is what Dawn of Mana is - a true sequel. Children of Mana and Legend of Mana are side stories, and Sword of Mana is a remake of a true Mana game. I still await the answer to "why do something that doesn't help the greater good - ie, helping the majority of English readers?". - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I have told you before, wikipedia does not view a group of articles as a whole project, each article needs to be treated on a case by case bases. This is mainly due to the editors of each articles are different, and consensus of different parties on different articles are different. It is no use bringing up "why did that article did not do the same" in any of these requests(move, merge, delete). For example, there are people who keep nominating Gundam related articles for deletion, and bringing up Star Wars similar related articles up is no use in the arguement in keeping articles alive. Also, moving the page does nothing to help readers. Mana (series) redirects to Seiken Densetsu, English readers can as well read the article and learn about "what they have known is just a sub-set of a meta-series". The policy is that "Moving a page only when the title is incorrect, or virtually no body uses that name(Even if the name is official)". Now, answer me, these series of games have the word "Mana" in it, but how many people is going to search for "Mana (series)" in Wikipedia instead of the full name of the game? Like "Secret of Mana"? The naming you have suggested is not going to be of Majority any how, not even English readers search for that kind of name. MythSearcher^talk 06:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't care. Let me alter my question to make it a bit harder to dodge - is this situation different from Animal Crossing's? And that's not even an argument, the "no one will search for Mana (series)". No one will search for Bowser (Nintendo), but it's not titled (or won't be any longer) King Bowser or Bowser. Same way no one will search for Banjo-Kazooie (series) or The Legend of Zelda (series). Also, tell me, what are the English titles for every single Mana/SD game released in English? It is true that SD is released in countries where English is an official - but not dominant - language. However, the official English titles for all Mana/SD games released in English have no association with the phrase Seiken Densetsu, but all have the name Mana in them (with the exception of FFA, which has been retconned by SwoM). The English titles being Mana, and not SD, is worth more than what you seem to make it out to be. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You still do not understand. No body is dodging you question, it is a fact that the policy is written this way. You have no chance if you do not try to get enough people to support you on this specific moving, no matter how you source other article namings. Like I have said, it is so simple to view it like this: "People supporting to stay is going to view the naming of pages you have listed to be at fault, to a point where they will start a propose move on them.".

While on the other hand, you keep ignoring the fact that all of the Mana sub-titled games are a part of the SD series. Why do the larger set name needs to be moved to a smaller set? The article is about EVERY single game in the SD series, not JUST the Mana sub-titled games. If we have a page without the SD games not released in English, fine, you proposal is good enough. However, what you fail to see is that SD is a larger set, and thus the naming now clearly demostrate that situation, better than naming the page as a sub-set name. BTW, Bowser example is bad, it is not called "X of Bowser" and have dozens of them, if anybody searched for Bowser, they will get to the disamb page. However, even when you have played all of those games, you are still not going to search for Mana for the game page. I can also source pages like you, the USS Montana (BB-67) is probably known better as Montana (Battleship) than BB-67, why is it not moved to that instead? Same arguement, that is why you cannot say "Why is Animal Crossing not named that way?". Simple answer: Because different editor groups choose different naming conventions. MythSearcher^talk 11:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are. You are hiding behind policy and refusing to answer a simple question. I'm asking a simple question - do you believe Animal Crossing shouldn't mention Animal Forest? And in what universe is moving to a name more familiar to people in countries where English is the dominant language considered is a move which is at fault, that we should not use a name which is proven to be legitimate for the series' name, and a name which is actually recognized by gamers in NA, the UK, and AU. To anyone in these countries, SD has no association to the Mana franchise. Mana is the only franchise involved, and it is both the highest, lowest, and medium title for the series. And I'm not asking why it's not moved, I'm asking what you think about Animal Forest being in the article, or why it's not titled Doubutsu no Mori. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, you just ignore what I have said, I have told you more than once, if you think I am not clear about it, I will be as blunt as I can be: "If a series published in NA is only a sub-set of a series published in Japan, and the article is about all of the games including the Japanese only titles, then the title of the page should reflect this and use the Japanese title if the English title is nothing similar to it, thus the English naming cannot reflect the situation of the page and should not be used." This applies to ALL games. I am not familiar with the games you have keep bringing up, but I have expressed more than once that in any similar cases, bringing up other games are not going to help because people supporting not moving the page is going to view those as needed to be moved. Can't you understand this simple idea? And for saying To anyone in these countries, SD has no association to the Mana franchise. No, you have just said something extremely wrong. Somebody in this discussion had mentioned his/her knowledge of it. Also, if SD has no association, then it is as simple as it can be, the page is about SD, not Mana (series), therefore the page is named that way. MythSearcher^talk 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you keep saying Mana is a sub-set? I propose that the article should be titled based on what the official English title is. It's not a sub-set of Seiken Densetsu, it is exactly as equal to SD. And those people know it through research, NOT because it is normal for someone who knows of the Mana series to know of its Japanese title. And I said to English readers, it has no association to the franchise. It is a name which is not familiar. Your argument that they'd be two different series if there's no association is the same with The Legend of Zelda and Densetsu no Zeruda. Densetsu no Zeruda has no association to The Legend of Zelda from the POV of English readers in English-speaking countries. Its association is limited to if you researched it, you'd know that SD is its Japanese title. And your argument of "SD covers all games, Mana only covers some" doesn't work. There is absolutely no precedence to suggest that all games in a series MUST have a similar name to be a part of said series, is there? Common name policy says we should use the common name, and using the English name is a better idea than using the Japanese name. The fact that a few games in the series don't have an association to Mana is irrelevant; it is common practice to use both English titles and to group all games shown to be a part of the franchise, regardless of a different name. Also, what reason is there to call it SD when it doesn't serve a common good other than to fit the names better, which has been shown to be unnecessary. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it a sub-set you ask? I will not list all of the games but it shows the same thing:

SD contains: Seiken Densetsu 2, Seiken Densetsu 3, where Mana (series) contains only Secret of Mana which is essencially Seiken Densetsu 2. This is called a Sub-set, in logic, the word is used when a set of things includes part of a larger set. Saying MAna series exactly equals to SD is OR, and I must take my stand point on saying that is definitely incorrect. There are no official sources saying that they are the same, or any untranslated SD games to be part of the Mana series. In fact, there are no official sources saying most of the games to be Mana series or Mana games, your arguement can barely reach its stand point on Dawn of Mana, Secret of Mana and maybe Legend of Mana, but not the ones like CoM and SwoM other than pure speculation of their names all contain the word Mana and no actual official pages listing them under that title. Its association is limited to if you researched it Which this article is for. There is absolutely no precedence to suggest that all games in a series MUST have a similar name to be a part of said series, is there? There is also no precedence of a internet before it existed, wiki as well. from the POV of English readers in English-speaking countries Wikipedia is NPOV, neutral point of view. using the English name is a better idea than using the Japanese name In your POV, yes. On the consensus of what everybody can see in this discussion, no. Obviously there are little people here think that it is a better idea, the majority thinks that it is better not moving the page, thus better to use the Japanese name. BTW, Zelda official Japanese romanization is still Zelda, so worse case it is still Densetsu no Zelda, not Densetsu no Zeruda. MythSearcher^talk 08:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the majority thinks that catering to English-speaking Asians is better than catering to every single English-dominant country in the world (and to all countries that a Mana game has been released in in Europe). Children of Mana and, IIRC, Secret of Mana have been released in both Europe and Australia. To all of the English-dominant countries in the world, Seiken Densetsu is not involved with the franchise. And as I said, at no point is FFA not affiliated. You are just trying to create inane little arguments to say that we can't "prove" that Final Fantasy Adventure is a part of Mana. Mana is the SERIES NAME. Dawn of Mana is a MANA game, implying more than one. Children of Mana is clearly in the series - developed by the same people, with similar gameplay, similar visuals, similar title. SD3 is the sequel to SD2, and SD2 is Secret of Mana. Under no common logic does SoM stop being associated with SD3 based on having a different name. And FFA was remade as Sword of Mana. And since the cell phone game is a remake of FFA (also known as SD), it is associated with the Mana franchise. And since SD3 is a sequel to SD2 (Secret), it is a part of the Mana series. And Heroes of Mana is a part of the series because it USES the title. And even if it didn't, you can't say it's not a Mana game, since it hasn't had an opportunity to become one. Also, and I know how much you hate it when I bring up this example, but if title is what matters, The Hobbit would not be considered to have any connection to the Lord of the Rings series. Basically, having a connection to a Mana game released in English automatically qualifies it as a part of the series simply because it's a part of the Japanese series. Title means SQUAT when determining which games are in the series - and by that, I mean not having the same title as another game does not cause it to not be in said franchise. Hell, as it stands, the article is inconsistent with itself - if it is indeed the Seiken Densetsu series article, why are you using titles with no association to Seiken Densetsu? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That is your speculation. The same team of people have worked on other games as well, no official sources claimed which game is inside the series and which is not. So, what about Secret of Evermore? It is not a Mana game because it does not contain the word Mana in it? It got the same team, similar game play, similar graphics, everything. Pure speculation, OR is what you are using as your arguements. The Hobbit is a part of the series, and yes, it is Lord of the Rings' prequel, officially so and there are no other naming for it. However, in this example, you are trying to name the series Middle Earth (series) because the common factor is middle earth and it is pure speculation. if it is indeed the Seiken Densetsu series article, why are you using titles with no association to Seiken Densetsu? For this question, the answer is simple. Within the article, the naming of those games are official. Each part can mention about what is the original naming in Japanese is and all have Seiken Densetsu in them. While no reliable sources claim all of these games should be called Mana series or Mana games. MythSearcher^talk 09:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The discussion regarding this matter opened on February 15. It's my opinion that four days of deliberation regarding a move is enough time to establish whether or not a consensus exists that the page should be moved. A Link to the Past, you obviously feel very strongly about this matter. However, I do not believe that at this period of time a consensus exists that moving the page is appropriate. It is therefore my recommendation that the page exist in its current form. Ex-Nintendo Employee 12:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Usually these things last for 5 days or so, until an admin step in, and admins probably will not step in until the creation of this particular page reached 5 days, or somebody notify an admin to do so. MythSearcher^talk 08:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Votes

• No Move I'm sorry but the more you talk the more it sounds like your saying 'Go with this because it's how it;s used in NA.' The Kinslayer 12:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• 60% for Move I say 60% because really I'm divided, thanks partly to nostalgia, but I favour a move slightly more than not for these two reasons:

1. The game is not franchised as Seiken Densetsu in the game regions of North America, Europe, and the latter's subsidiary Australia and New Zealand. That's 2½ game regions to the one region of Asia where it is marketed as Seiken Densetsu.

2. If we keep it along the lines that Myth suggests that we keep it as Seiken Densetsu simply for the reason that there are potentially more people in Asia who will read the article than outside it (simply and only through population), and if it would assume that, if the SD games are released and known by that name in Asia, that a game like The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker would be released there as Zeruda no Densetsu: Kaze no Takuto and I don't see that article changing to a more Nippocentric name even though that's what it's been originally released as.

Whatever the case, I'm not going to lose sleep over the issue. Either way works fine for me: I'd prefer to change the title name because it's going to be known more widely across more of the world as the Mana series than Seiken Densetsu; but, I would prefer to call the series Seiken Densetsu because that's the original name. As I said, 60-40. -LichYoshi 15:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• No move The proposed name is just a sub-set of the series mentioned in the article. MythSearcher^talk 15:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• No move As much as I value A Link to the Past's opinions on this matter, I just cannot at this time see enough evidence to support such a change. Ex-Nintendo Employee 17:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• No move. I guess we're voting now, so just making it clear that my position is to keep the article at its current location. --- RockMFR 19:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Move. I don't see why my proof that Mana is an acceptable title for the franchise, why the fact that I'm the only one with evidence does not matter. At what point have you guys shown ANY evidence that it is for the common good of English-speaking readers to use the Japanese name? Give me a single piece of good evidence that shows it to be the common name and I won't vote to move. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Wikipedia works on consensus, if you really want the page moved, you have to make people change their minds and support you. To you, the worst nightmare comes in when even half of the people converted to support you, and the other half stays the same, the propsed move will end in "No consensus" and the move will fail. No matter how I see this now, the consensus is not moving, and your arguements are really not going to make people change their minds because you cannot provide a strong case for a move due to the requested new title is just not how people will search for and you arguements only go into a sub-set of the whole series of Seiken Densetsu. (Again, having other articles being otherwise is not going to help your arguements because people supporting the stay is are just going to view those as "needed to be moved to a better title.") MythSearcher^talk 06:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Proof? You asked me for proof that Mana could work as a series title in the first place. I've done so. You said that it couldn't be called Mana because not all games in the series have the title of Mana, something I proved to be a non-issue by the simple fact that this is never a problem in ANY video game series article, and we've never chosen the Japanese name over the English name in any video game series article. And why do you keep saying it's a sub-set? To all English countries (English dominant) in the world, SD has no association to the franchise whatsoever outside of being involved with the title in another part of the world. And why wasn't a simple request fulfilled? All I asked was that you prove to me that it is necessary for the Japanese name to be used over the English name. Is that too much to ask? This vote will end either way, but you won't look so good having ignored a request for some evidence to be presented at the end. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:01, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment No, you keep ignoring how a page with all those titles not involved in the name you proposed can contain them. If you keep saying the franchise whatsoever outside of being involved with the title in another part of the world., you can create a page called Mana (series) and NOT contain any of the titles outside of the series. (Although it will be merged back to this really fast.) Using the English dominant arguement is not going to help you because moving the page simply makes the title factually incorrect since the article contains more than what the title says. MythSearcher^talk 03:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Move ALTTP has provided plenty of evidence. The name of the franchise outside of Japan is "Mana", and is what most English speakers would be familiar with. TJ Spyke 08:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
• No move Using ALTTP's arguments, the DQ series should be at Dragon Warrior (series). It's at Dragon Quest. Parodius is at Parodius (series), and not Fantastic Journey. And so forth. WP policy is to use official names if there's a split of what's well known. There's no official name for the series in English outside of one offhand promo, that anyone's brought up.

And there's one other, big thing. Every game series article called <something> (series) that I've seen is named by the first game in the series (at least, first in English, I'm getting from what I remember about Animal Crossing), even if they all have a subtitle. Here, the first game is FFA. Clearly that's not the series name... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 13:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

They did it for the sake of helping it sell. Dragon Warrior was the first name, and since it is CURRENTLY known as DQ - ie, Square Enix does not acknowledge that the franchise is "Dragon Warrior" anymore - that argument doesn't work. What a franchise USED to be called is of no relevance to what it is now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

However, it is still and always has been known as Seiken Densetsu in Asian countries. The current series is still being consistently referred to as Seiken Densetsu in Asian countries. By your logic US releases such as Final Fantasy Adventure are not valid for inclusion in the Mana series because it has no mention of Mana in the title when released in the US, and in Europe it was realeased as Mystic Quest. Yet in Asia it is prefixed as Seiken Densetsu, confirming it as part of the Densetsu series, along with every other game in the series (which are all prefixed Seiken Densetsu), which includes all Mana games, which were also called Seiken Densetsu. As can be seen by the Seiken Densetsu: FFA\Final Fantasy Adventure\Mystic Quest ambiguation above, the only thing that has consistenly remained the same in a regions naming has been Seiken Densetsu in Asia, with US and Europe release chaning names every so often.The Kinslayer 12:12, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Can you stop using a nonexistant argument? That is NOT by my logic. I have never said "The only determining factor in a series name is what it's called". It's been you guys who have been saying "well, if it doesn't share the name, it cannot in the series period!" By MY logic, the fact that there is an obvious connection - SD is connected to SD2, so logically FFA is connected to SoM. At no point does my logic support the inane idea that Dragon Warrior I-VII are not Dragon Quest games. Also, how can you even argue that the franchise "changes its name every so often"? It was FFA for one game, and then Mana games from SoM to present. How does that become "changing its name every so often"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:23, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is called speculation in wikipedia. All of the games are called Seiken Densetsu, therefore it is perfectly fine to call it the SD series. Not all of the games are called Mana, and thus the argument is not to do so here by speculating the games not called Mana be under the Mana title. How can you argue, without speculating and with full proof, that SD3 is a Mana game? It is a sequel to SD2, not SoM, yes, those 2 are essentially the same thing, but a sequel of a game series without any sequel itself might not be in the series itself. You have to understand, in wikipedia, proof means you need official or published secondary sources to prove anything. What you need to prove now is the company regconise all the non-translated games of the series are also a part of a series called Mana (No, they are not even under the Japanese The World of Mana meta title as of now.) or a non-self-publishing source saying More people uses the name Mana than SD or List of titles of all Mana games that included the non translated SD titles. These are the actual proves that can get things running, not by speculation hey, this one is under that one, that one is sequel to the other one, and that one is called by this name so all of them should be like the franchise whatsoever outside of being involved with the title in another part of the world You show no respect in the non-translated games, and do not even try to consider them when naming a page having half of the titles in the list only carries that name. If you did not say anything about screw the Japanese only titles then your choice of action made you seems to have spoken that many times. The only common factor of these games is when under the Japanese titling convention, they are all SD, this is official, proven to be not used by Japanese or Japamania only(at least for those who have played the fan translated SD3), and is nowhere near to what you have said as Nobody in the English dominant area uses that name. Also, his argument is not nonexistent, your arguments had more than once included the point of To English dominant places, people do not know the existent of the non-translated games. BTW, read the Tales of Eternia intro and tell me why it is not titled Tales of Destiny II instead. It is very simple to just say Hey, it should be moved but the proof you are showing is nowhere near wiki policy and most of your arguments are based on what is called speculation. You cannot actually prove there are more people refering to the game as Mana series or Mana game, nor prove the company officially listed everything under the Mana title including games like SD3. MythSearcher^talk 18:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I'll bring it up - NO PRECEDENCE. Can you find a case where a game is not considered a part of the series based on name alone? Or can you show a precedence to use Japanese name because it covers more games? To say that SD3 being a Mana game is OR is like saying it being an SNES game is OR. There are limits. Mana and Seiken Densetsu are the exact same franchise, so any game that can be considered an SD game can be considered a Mana game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I must say that you have no prove when saying they are the exactly the same. Why on earth did a FF sequel, SD2, or Som, not an FF game? It is sequel to a game called FF gaiden or FFA, which is a sequel to the FF series(well, not a true sequel but still can be a sequel). By your Logic, all of the SD games should be of the FF franchise since they are all sequel to one game. Face it, one game can spawn multiple franchises, saying SD3 must be a Mana game because it is sequel to SD2 which is called SoM and prequel to the single game, DoM, specifically called a Mana game is not a valid argument. In logic, a black bird can be a bird, but a bird is not always black. MythSearcher^talk 05:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

1. They remade the game and removed any association with FF whatsoever. Must they make it more clear to you so you can stop grasping at straws?
2. And here's an argument-killer - has SE called the franchise SD ever? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:48, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

1. No, they remade the game for mobile phones and still called it FFA after the SwoM.
2. Yes, all of the games are called SD, at least in Japanese. The franchise only common factor in the naming is that ALL of them consist of the name Seiken Densetsu as their main title, and all of the games are listed as the SD series under the Japanese SE page, a book published in 1996 titled Final Fantasy mention the Saga series, the Final Fantasy series and Seiken Densetsu series are targeted at three different age group, mature, average, young kids, respectively, so yes, SE(at that time Square Soft) called the franchise SD for many times officially. You have just asked something like has SE called the franchise FF ever?. MythSearcher^talk 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If Square Enix calls the original an FF game, wouldn't that mean that SD is nothing more than an FF spinoff? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If we use the logic you are using, yes. And technically, SD, I mean the SD:FFGaiden is an FF spinoff. However the series as a whole, if we look at it with real logic, no. A game can be another game's sequel, but that game can have nothing to do with the original series prequel to it. SD:FFGaiden is an FF spinoff, but then the whole series follows the SD naming convention instead of following FF's. It is officially mentioned in the Final Fantasy book I quoted up there, it was supposed to be a spinoff, and not meant to be a series, but it broke off as the SD series when SD2 was released. So basically the SD series started from SD2 and retcon SD to be the first of the series(which most game do, not many companies are going to make a game planning it to be the first one of a series). However, some FF elements can still be found inside SD, like Moggles(SD3 has a bad condition where PCs turned into Moggles). FFA is an FF spinoff, that's no doubt about it, but like I've said, the sequel of an FF game is not necessarily an FF game. Think about it genetically, the child of a black bird(FF game) is not necessarily black, but it will be a bird(a game). MythSearcher^talk 14:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

So at what point have I ever said "name is the only thing important in determining franchise"? I have never said that, and am getting... oh, let's say completely and utterly tired of you telling me what my logic is. YOUR logic is that the name of a game is the only thing that matters. Your argument is that because FF is in the title, it cannot be considered the Mana series. However, it has been retconned. In Europe, Australia, and North America, there's no FF association anymore. To Asia, not to NA or EU or AU. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Most requested moves are closed in a week, and this discussion has been going for 10 days, with no consensus on moving right now. I suggest closing this discussion for now, and opening it again in the future. -- ReyBrujo 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.