Talk:Mana (series)/Archive 3

The result was move to Mana (series). Kariteh 08:40, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Mana
Well, looking at the list of games, all have Mana in them except for two - one which is a remake of a game which, in English, the game's title was changed to include Mana, and the other which is verifiably connected to Heroes of Mana. I do believe that the strongest argument against moving to the official series title doesn't work anymore, since I've shown that all SD games can be said to be in the Mana series or connected to it gameplay-wise and plot-wise. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree The page must be moved to Mana (series). Kariteh 19:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * *Stop. ALLTP, you already HAD your say on this very topic before, and it stretched out for months, creating a wide disruption here on the talk page, so much that the page couldn't handle it and it had to be moved to its own page. That page is at Talk:Seiken_Densetsu/proposed_move_to_mana_series, and I'm sure the extensive number of editors involved (almost all of whom disagreed with you) would object to you bringing the issue up again in such a short interval. You had your say once, so please move on to other topics. Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, we had an argument in which this argument was not presented. The fact that their biggest argument is now not true goes to say that it should be moved to Mana. Naming conventions supports using the official English title, I've shown Square Enix calling the series "Mana", and no games in the series cannot be connected to the Mana series or games in it. There are no longer any rationales to use Seiken Densetsu. SD means nothing to anyone outside of Japan who hasn't read the Japanese title, but tell someone the "Mana series" in the context of video games in Japan, and since Mana has since become a part of the title, they would get an idea. And everywhere else in the world outside of Asia, Seiken Densetsu has no relevance. If their arguments go against naming conventions and their arguments aren't actually true, why was it kept at SD? I waited months since the discussion, months longer than many other people wait to DELETE an article. Considering the fact that I was bringing up a new point that has recently become true validates bringing it up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no new arguement here. The fact is all of the titles are under the SD name, but not all are under the Mana name.  Also, I see no discussion in moving from SD to SD(series), maybe it occured in the 11 days when I was out on work leave.  However, I am kinda against that move, too. MythSearchertalk 07:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No new argument? I've proven that SD3, the one single game that has no connection to the Mana series according to you, does indeed have a connection. Unless, of course, you're implying that the only factor important in determining what games can apply as a Mana game is title, with plot, gameplay, art style, and visuals meaning nothing. The only games that cannot be called a part of the "Mana franchise" if we only look at the titles are Seiken Densetsu: Final Fantasy Adventure and Seiken Densetsu 3. The first is a remake of a game that has been remade into a game with Mana in its title, and the second has a plot connection to a game that is verifiably in the Mana franchise. There are no longer any problems with moving, because the article would remain the same. If SD3 has a plot connection to a Mana game, and SDFFA is connected to a Mana game, then that means that SD3 is verifiably connected to the series. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree. I wasn't here last time when there was a vote. Wikipedia's naming convention is to use English titles when there's one available, and this is precisely the case here with Mana. This article must be named Mana (series) or we're going against the conventions. The "not all the games have Mana in their titles" argument is fallacious and is disproven by other similar cases on Wikipedia. The Akumajo Dracula series for instance is known as the Castlevania series outside of Japan; the article for this series is thus named Castlevania, even though Akumajō Dracula X Chi no Rondo was never released outside of Japan, and two games were released outside of Japan without the word "Castlevania" in their titles: Vampire Killer and Haunted Castle, both originally known as Akumajo Dracula in Japan (they're on different platforms).
 * Another example is the Mother series, which is called the EarthBound series outside of Japan and on Wikipedia even though only one game actually exists under the name EarthBound, while the two other games of the series are Japan-exclusive and are called Mother and Mother 1+2; so we actually name a series EarthBound even though only one game exists under this name (it's only because the cancelled Mother 3 had been announced in America as Earthbound 64).
 * Another example, perhaps one of the most blatant, is the Rockman series, which is called Megaman outside of Japan and on Wikipedia... Do I need to list the dozens of obscure Rockman games which were never released in America?
 * Additionally, many games which are part of the same series don't even share a similar title in Japan. As demonstrated by A Link to the Past, a name is not necessarily what defines a series. See for instance Radical Dreamers which is part of the Chrono series despite not having "Chrono" in its title, Mobile Ops: The One Year War which is part of the Gundam series despite not having "Gundam" in its title, etc. How many other examples do I need to give? Kariteh 21:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the SD-supporters are against using that "precedence". It may be true that how an article is done some way doesn't necessarily require all other articles to adhere to it, but when it's the majority of articles which do it, and which do it for the reason that the guidelines recommend it, it's not a matter of precedence, it's a matter of quality. Also, since Seiken Densetsu is a commonly used name to describe the first game by some, this article should contain (series). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, I simply stated the fact that no new arguement could be found. The new arguement basically is the same, that SD3 a part of the Mana(series).  Yes, if you start with accepting the name Mana(series) as the series name, and then back track to do all of the arguements.  However, the name Mana(series) is not the official name, nor the name Mana is official.  2 or 3 games were named as Mana series in the official sites, others were not.  The name containing the word Mana in it never qualifies as it being the official series name, like what Kariteh just said here, the naming itself can carry nothing common in the said series, yet it can be of the same series.  If ever the official naming should be used, either The World of Mana (which that name was even present in the games' website said above as being called the Mana series) or the common name Seiken Densetsu which is presented in all games.  Or, some of you can mail SE and ask about the official English naming, get a reply and post it here(assuming good faith that nobody fake one).  BTW, the question used cannot be What is the official naming convention of the Mana series.  That is a type of guidance question. MythSearchertalk 23:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I showed a link where they called Dawn of Mana a "Mana game". Ie, a game in a group of games that they've labelled Mana. Simple. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that ALTTP has demonstrated that the series of the games is (at least in the English-speaking world) denoted by the usage of Mana within the title, a move now seems appropriate. Note that the prior designation in English-speaking UK areas (Mystic Quest) is no longer used; instead, the "Mana" designation has been applied to titles in that region now. Given that particular shift, plus Kariteh's discussion... Ex-Nintendo Employee 06:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * One game has been called a Mana game, good call. There is also One game called Seiken Densetsu only, and all are originally called SD. State the officialness of the series of games is called a Mana series, simply ask SE by mailing them (Email is fine, anyone here can prove that by sending out another email at anytime). This is the simpliest way to avoid any further arguements and can prove the official naming of the series, how hard is that? MythSearchertalk 06:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That "one game" changes an awful lot, actually, because it establishes that the "Mana series" usage is canon in the English-speaking world according to Square-Enix. Given that, in said linguistical nomenclature, Secret of Mana, Children of Mana, Dawn of Mana, Legend of Mana, Sword of Mana, and all the other "World of Mana" titles fall under the same umbrella of the Mana series in the English speaking world. Bear, of course, in mind that in offical English localizations, NONE of the games have been called "Seiken Densetsu"- if anything is to be argued, it would be between "Mana Series" and "Mystic Quest" series, which are the only terms that the games have been released under in the English language. Ex-Nintendo Employee 06:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that particular One game regards it as the true sequel in 10 years and wordingly disproves other games as one of the series. Although at least Three games in the English community asks the player to experience The World of Mana and this is the current offiical series name even in Japan.  I'd say it would be perfectly fine for a series called The World of Mana to be shortened as Mana sometimes(say, Once maybe?)  MythSearchertalk 07:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, I did not agree the move until someone got an official reply from SE, I said The World of Mana is shortened for once in one game, it should not be shortened here if it is the official naming. MythSearchertalk 15:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, it does seem like consensus for my side IS increasing. Regardless, I linked to SE calling the games "Mana games". - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then would you kindly add it to the article instead of somewhere nobody can find afterwards? BTW, If the link calls the games Mana games, I move to change the title to Mana games since that reflects more officialness and is much easier to link to and searched by other users. MythSearchertalk 17:10, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to assume that you're trying to disrupt the opposing side's move target by twisting their evidence. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, assume bad faith, if your official source named the series as Mana games, then moving it to Mana (game series) and saying use official naming is just totally not applicable. No, I am not trying to twist your evidence, I am trying to find an official name that should be used and asked for actual linking in the article itself, instead of having to go through pages of discussion to find that evidence'' of yours if an arguement came up again. MythSearchertalk 03:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is a series of games. It is not as if the series is "Mana games". - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Mana games obviously contains more than one game, which means a series of games. If it is official, then why shouldn't it be used.  BTW, I have sent out the email I have mentioned up there, just wait for an official reply and see what is official. MythSearchertalk 09:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Ai yi yi. Can we just put this to bed, please? Kariteh has shown an excellent precedent and, while I am sorry to see "Seiken Densetsu" go, I support this move. Like I have said previously, the games are known more globally as Mana. Indeed, shouldn't the fact that the games are and have been continuously released by Square and Square-Enix as "Something of Mana" to dominant English-speaking (and indeed French, German, et al European markets, too) be seen as an "official" mark that all of the games of this series are referred to by the name "Mana"? Considering the set pattern, I don't think an official "Yes, this is the English name" e-mail is really necessary as the precedent is ALREADY THERE.

Secondly, as Kariteh also states, the correlation in the wider SD namefield between the "Manas" and the "non-Manas" (i.e. SD1 and 3) is strong enough to encourage their inclusion as being considered Mana games. While Seiken 3 may not have been released to the West, the fact that the game makes implicit references to Secret of Mana through plot (e.g. the Sword, the Tree), characters (e.g. the Elementals, Watts, Flammie), monsters (e.g. Rabites), gameplay (e.g. ring menu), and indeed the music (e.g. Where Angel Fear to Tread refers to Fear of the Heavens, Meridian Child refers to The Prayer of the Arctic Circle) surely makes it part of the Mana series. And, while I am not familiar with FFA/MQ/SD1 per se, the fact that it has been re-released as Sword of Mana on top of the links already in the game also make it lean that way. As Kariteh also said, just because it doesn't have "Mana" in its name despite having all of the elements of the Mana games doesn't automatically rule it out. A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet, according to Shakespeare, and we have two roses that aren't called roses but to all extents and purposes look and act like them.

Personally, I am concerned that Mythsearcher is trying to derail this move, despite all evidence pointing against his straw-clutching arguments, purely based on the base Pauline Hanson-esque rationale: "I don't like it". Actually, I would prefer, I would like, that the article is called "Seiken Densetsu" rather than "Mana" series because that's the original name, but as this is an encyclopædia written for English-speaking internet users, the majority of whom live on either side of the Atlantic Ocean, "Mana" is a more appropriate name given the audience as that is how the game has been marketed there. Just because I might like it to be one way doesn't necessarily make my preference right. I only hope that my concerns about Mythsearcher here are proven wrong. -LichYoshi 09:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem of all these patterns are speculation. I personally do not care what the title is as long as it is official, yet nobody can give an actual source stating how the officials name the franchise as a whole.  The Mana (series)  arguement is just simply not working because the given evidence in fact turned the naming to Mana games instead of Mana series or Mana game series.  What I care is how all of the so called evidence are actually a bunch of fan speculation instead of actual publication of how the official view this.  And all the supporters don't even bother to ask the officials, instead what they keep doing is hey, all of them have a common word in the title, that must be the official name, precedence of using the Official name are given, it should be used.  Not even a secondary source was given, nor any actual page move request was given like the last one.  The supporters simply moved the page, claimed there is a consensus without trying to get third party involvement.  I have given the simpliest way to get the answer, Email SE, ask for the official statement  If Mana is the official name, so be it, however, if it is not officially proven, don't look at the title, spot a similar word and claim the series is officially called that way.  I am in fact not a supporter of using the original SD name, it is just that none of the so called evidences are official and simply fan speculation according to wiki standard and thus I am against the move.  Just like the example Kariteh gave up there, Mobile Ops: The One Year War is a part of the Gundam series, unfortunely, the only common wording of most of the Gundam series is the word Mobile do you intend to go around and claim that the series is called Mobile (series) instead of Gundam (series)?  You can assume bad faith, but I am not the one who moved the page without creating a request page and moved it in the middle of a discussion.  I am simply trying to find the best answer to the question, that none of you tried to do and keep using speculated "evidence" in discussions.  All I ask of is a simple official source claiming the name of the series is called Mana or Mana series.  What I got is in fact an official source saying Mana games, which is differ from the request and shows much more validity than Mana. MythSearchertalk 10:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * MythSearcher's argumentation is legitimate, I think it just got a little misunderstood and it was thought as excessive nickpicking, even though it's not. Well, I do think the argument over the word "games" is a bit exaggerated though. It's a common noun, it's obviously not part of the title (there's no capital G); the definite article "the" isn't part of the title either, since it's just that, a definite article. Anyway, the Square Enix website refer to Sword of Mana as "the latest installment in the Mana series." It's a little outdated since several titles were of course released after Sword of Mana, but I think it confirms that "Mana" is the name and neither "games" nor "series" are part of that name. Kariteh 12:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, this is what I call real and official source. This is the first time I have seen this link in this discussion.  I have nothing against the move then. (unless the reply of the mail I sent says otherwise, but I doubt that will happen if there is already an official source stating so.) MythSearchertalk 13:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Myth, for clearing up your viewpoint, and thank you, Kariteh, for your brilliance. =P Would it be necessary to add this link into the article, and if so, how would that be possible?


 * Just as one hopefully final naming note, if the link above shows SE reference to "the Mana series", then shouldn't the article name be Mana (series) instead of Mana (game series)? Or are we awaiting the e-mail, and if so, how do we reference that, too, without it being Original Research? -LichYoshi 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Second part

 * Well, asking the officials what the name is hardly certifies as OR, it is the official statement afterall. I see no email today, I highly doubt SE will reply for now.  the Mana (X) X part only serves as a disamb. it really got nothing to do with the official naming, but Mana (game series) is really not a good title for now because the article actually cover the comic series as well.  I agree of changing it back to Mana (series) due to the above reason. MythSearchertalk 04:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Pfft... Lich, I had that EXACT argument about the "title doesn't matter" - I said "Animal Crossing series includes Animal Forest", and other such series. As well, I also linked to Dawn of Mana's official web site, which called the series the "Mana series". But apparently, precedence didn't count for anything and only Dawn of Mana is a Mana game unless I find a bunch of links where they call other games in the franchise as being in the Mana series. I don't see what's different in this argument, unless Myth accepts Sword of Mana more than Dawn of Mana. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I admit I was re-iterating, mostly. -LichYoshi 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And the different part is that you actually provided a link and he relied on everybody else finding a page not linked to on the official site? MythSearchertalk 14:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they share the same level of importance, yet you have not provided a link at all, see Talk:Seiken Densetsu/proposed move to mana series and the above, I ask for the link for more than 3 times, you have never given me ANY url links to an official site unlike lichyoshi. Also, at that time the name World of Mana(at both CoM and DoM site and the Japanese compilation site) had more references than Mana series(only at DoM and at a extremely inaccessible location that cannot be linked to at the official site) and thus I see no reason in picking up the Mana series name until there is an actual naming inside a description on the official SE site at an easily accessible location.(SwoM). MythSearchertalk 09:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Huh? So basically, he provides a link to a page at SE NA that says it's in the Mana series, and it's better because all I did is provide a link to a page at SE NA that says it's in the Mana series? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, he did better because he provided a link, you did not. What is also better is that the link is at a more accessible area. MythSearchertalk 18:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You provided the link to the Dawn of Mana page, which referred to it as a game in the Mana series. YOU provided my evidence, which is no worse than the evidence that you accepted just now. So yes, technically, you are right - I didn't provide the evidence, you gave me the link in the first place to prove my case. If the proof wasn't good then, why's it good now? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said earlier, the DoM link actually is extremely hard to link to, not even linked to from the official SE NA page, never mentioned in the official DoM page, and within that DoM ad link, there is also evidence pointing to World of Mana as the compilation naming unlike the SwoM page, which goes with the CoM and Japanese page. A single evidence that tags with a countering evidence is not strong enough to over turn the judgement at that time.  This time, a second evidence came up, did not tag with the name World of Mana thus turning the DoM evidence from a more neutral source to siding with SwoM source that together seems to over rule the less clear naming of World of Mana (also due to the crash of CoM site make the evidence supporting WoM naming gone).  So it is a matter of popularity of the name in various sources, not a single ad source with frustrating naming.  MythSearchertalk 04:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The ease of finding the link is hardly a factor in determining its verifiability. If it can be linked to in the article, give me one good reason why it's less verifiable? They're written by the same source, so both are either good sources or bad ones. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is a factor because it is in fact NOT located on the Official site of DoM nor the short game discription on the SE NA games section, and it is not the only factor I considered. Don't just read the first sentence and try to judge what others are saying, that caused a lot of problems in the last move request discussion, and will cause more it continued. MythSearchertalk 06:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The exact link you provided. Square-enix.com is not the official web site? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, tell me how on earth do you link from to that specific page.  http://www.square-enix.com/na/ is the official SE site, the games section is the official description and  is the official web-site for DoM.  For anything in DoM, this page is official, the other ad is not mention in the official DoM web-site, and not on the SE games section as well.  Know the difference between an ad and an official web-site of that game? MythSearchertalk 09:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it links to http://www.square-enix.com at the top of the page? Also: Stop while you're ahead. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, that e306 link is NOT linked from http://www.square-enix.com. It only links to http://www.square-enix.com.  That is why it carries less credit by being an simple ad.  It is not mention in the official DoM site at all, and never mentioned in the http://www.square-enix.com/na/  That page is a pure ad and not linked from the official site at all.  Also, I never said it carries no credibility, I only said it shows less authority then the official DoM site and games section desciption. MythSearchertalk 19:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, so a site owned by Square-Enix is not good enough in that situation because it's the E3 page? Look at the link. Look at the Square-Enix logo. It LINKS TO THE OFFICIAL PAGE. And it's copyright Square-Enix. And the Alexa page says they own it. And according to Alexa, NA.Square-Enix.com is the same site as www.Square-Enix.com. Your "www.square-enix.com doesn't link to the E3 page" has literally no relevance to the quality of a source. Give me a single good reason why Square-Enix's writing is a bad source for the E3 page, but is good for the SwoM page ALL because it can be accessed at www.square-enix.com. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You stil don't get it, do you? Try these words Not on the official DoM and SE NA games section is just a secondary consideration, the primary considerations is because of its frustrating reference to the World of Mana on the top and it is the single source supporting Mana series but is also the third source supporting World of Mana. MythSearchertalk 03:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * facepalm* I'd love to see any policy or guideline that suggests a source not being accessible from the main page, disregarding the fact that it fails nothing in the Reliable source policy. Of course it's not linked to - the subject is done! Why would they link to E3 2006 almost one year after the event? Also, who cares if it says World of Mana? World of Mana is an established franchise inside of the Mana franchise to group Children, Heroes, and Dawn (and possibly future games). We aren't choosing between "Mana" or "World of Mana". Seriously, give it up - your argument has no legs. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is your speculation. The World of Mana also consist of Comics, radio and such, it is the same level as Mana series as being the official name before the SwoM source.  Before the SwoM source, your argument is based on speculation of Most of the titles have Mana tag to it.  While the World of Mana name appeared in the CoM official web-site, DoM ad and as the compilation naming of the Japanese franchise page. And the World of Mana page is officially the Seiken Densetsu compilation name in Japan, how on earth can it be only CoM, HoM, DoM onward?  I never said anything about the DoM ad fails to be a reliable source, but it carries no value when on its own, without the SwoM description which clearly identifies Mana series but not World of Mana.  The reason being the World of Mana can be shortened to Mana series as well, just like most people shortens the Mobile Suit Gundam series as Gundam series(or UC Gundam specifying the timeline).  That is why the DoM series carries no value by its own, it can well be a source to prove the World of Mana should be used as the title instead of the short form Mana.  It is reasonable to shorten the title within the same page in and ad, yet it is not usual to shorten the title without a preceeded full name in front, thus the SwoM source makes more sense as an evidence than the DoM source.  And since the SwoM source supports Mana series as being the official name, the DoM ad can act as a source also supporting the naming of Mana series, overruling the less popular(due to being only a recent naming) World of Mana naming, understand?  MythSearchertalk 07:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, right. So let's see - DoM is a WoM game, and a Mana game. All games preceding the World of Mana games are Mana games. If Dawn of Mana is a Mana game, then there is nothing to say that the link affirms World of Mana as the series title. Seriously, stop flip-flopping - back then, you only accepted the source to say that the WoM games and Secret of Mana could be under the Mana title. Now, you see SwoM's page saying it, and when someone points out that the source is no worse than the one presented that you denied as being good enough, you say "nuh-uh" and give half-hearted arguments as to why. "This old, irrelevant page is not linked to anywhere on the site, so it's a bad source!" "It establishes DoM as being in the World of Mana series, so I declare it as a bad source because it affirms it as being a WoM game (even though it says it's a Mana game as well)!" If all games, including all WoM games are Mana games, then under no logical situation could WoM EVER be considered the "fleshed-out title". The article itself states WoM as being in the SD (Mana) series. At no point was my source any better or worse than this one. Just because it doesn't say "OMG, it isn't in the World of Mana franchise!!", does not and could not be interpreted as "All games in the series are in the World of Mana series!", completely disregarding that it says that it's in the Mana series. And looking closely at the link, it NEVER refers to the World of Mana series. It says "world of Mana". That's a series as much as "world of Zelda" is for Zelda. It's in the context of "the Mana universe". Even if it were referring to the series of World of Mana games, that is of no consequence. World of Mana is a group of Mana games. Until they reclassify the entire series as being in this series, World of Mana cannot be the series. Seriously, stop making excuses for your contradictions. You've never given a single reason to why my link is inferior to this - if Square Enix calling the series "Mana" was bad then, then it should be bad now. The evidence was always presented, and "coincidentally", you conceded only when you were on the losing side. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What you are doing here is twisting my words. Before the SwoM source, I never accepted the naming of Mana series as the official name, it is at best a shortened name of World of Mana and at worst a pure fan speculation.  Which are both not suited as a title of an wiki acticle.  Face it, the compilation name IS World of Mana thus it does not need to carry the word series after it to reflect its use as refering to the series as a whole.  It is different from the world of Zelda example.  In the last discussion, you asked for official naming, and no sources at that time can prove Mana series is official over World of Mana or Seiken Densetsu(which both are official in the Japanese context and the first was used in 2 SE NA pages).  After you cannot prove the officialness of Mana series you then turn to the dominant use of the words, which again cannot prove the point is superior to the official naming or get a source strong enough to even prove Mana series dominates English users. (At least 2 people were against your argument of dominancy besides me and can actually show prove of Seiken Densetsu was used in a Magazine.)
 * Logically, I have no contradiction, it is just that you cannot comprehand the whole thing together.
 * WoM = SD
 * WoM is the compilation naming
 * Games with the word Mana in it < Games titled SD, thus unless Mana series is not fan specualtion, it should not be used.
 * The official Japanese SD page is now called WoM and the official NA CoM page contains the words WoM
 * Official web-sites never used Mana series to describe a game without using World of Mana before it.
 * Mana series can be short form of World of Mana due to it being in the second paragraph in an ad. Which is commonly seen in ads, like Princess Crown being called PriCro.
 * No clear evidence showing SE uses Mana series over WoM
 * WoM is the only English name that is specified to be grouping the series as a whole
 * SwoM description specifically stated Mana series without WoM, which is not usual in shortening names.
 * Mana series name is gets official credit
 * According to wiki guidelines, dominant name should be used, thus Mana series over-rule WoM
 * Thinking if Square Enix calling the series "Mana" was bad then, then it should be bad now. just shows how unlogical your thinking is, if you have an eye witness saying the defendent may have appeared at the crime scene, the judge cannot close the case saying the defendent is guilty until stronger evidence(s) could be given, however, if another eye witness claimed the defendent in deed appeared at that time on the location of the crime and performed the crime the first witness' testimony could be used against the defendent as a secondary evidence supporting the second witness. Time does matter, and each evidence contributes towards how a conclusion was made, ignoring one and say an ambiguous one is as important is not logical.
 * Also, you denying WoM as the series name changes nothing, and cannot stop me from viewing it as an official naming that is a well place candidate along with SD as the title name of this article. Thus in my view point, I have given you why your source is inferior to Lich's more than once and a long time ago when I posted the link at that request discussion, the DoM E3 ad contains evidence pointing to WoM as well along with the CoM page and WoM official page, what contradition do you see in this arguement? It is YOU that denies WoM, not me.  Thus the so called contradiction is from YOUR "logic", not how the court works nowadays.  You can keep pointing at the defendent shouting he is guilty and show no evidence, but do not say the judge contradicts himself when he uses all evidences to prove the defendent guilty.  This is not a binary world, evidences are NOT classified as good or bad.  Things can support multiple outcomes when tagged with different other evidences.  MythSearchertalk 09:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Okay, so, if they're saying "world of Mana" as the series title in the link, then give me one good reason why they didn't capitalize the w in world. Also, how is the link not definite? What doubt is there in Square Enix calling DoM an installment in the Mana series? How is it an iffy statement? How in the universe could they even begin to make that statement clearer? They said exactly what they meant - there is absolutely NO confusion or doubt to be cast upon their statement. I'm unsure as to why calling DoM an installment in the Mana series was not "good enough" because they use the phrase "world of Mana" in the context of the Mana "universe" (an argument which you NEVER presented, ever, as being the reason you denied its usefulness until now when you were looking for an excuse for your contradiction), but when they say the EXACT same thing but don't acknowledge the "World of Mana" series, it's suddenly acceptable. Just fess up to the fact that when you could get away with it, you denied it, and when everyone is against you, you just accept it. Either you had a sudden change of heart, or you were simply interested in refusing any evidence and demanding more and more sources when anyone would agree that the source showed it enough. The question was "is Mana an acceptable name for the series?". According to SE, it is, but you steadfastly denied the notion that the link in question was good enough for whatever reason.
 * Simple, I did not notice that and nobody mentioned about it at that discussion, thus I viewed it as a W instead of a w and considered it as the same terms as World of Mana, the compilation naming, which is a logical assumption at that time. I am not you, and everything I do is simply what I have real facts on, and thus I did not change the title name to WoM in the middle of the discussion because I also have doubts in using that name.  Stop it, you are just trying to make you point in finding what I did wrong, and is not contributing to anything useful.  I made my thought process clear, and you can do whatever you like to find the tiniest mistake I made through the process.  Is it useful? No. Is it productive? No. Can it change the fact that the consensus was to not move the page at that time? No.  What I have said in the above is still valid, because it is what I have logically went through, also, from the very beginning state of the last discussion you just scroll down to the reply that I first posted the WoM official site, I have specifically mention you have to at least quote 2 reliable and verifiable sources to counter the overly powerful Official naming convention of the original publisher.  I did not have a change of heart suddenly or any other thing, it is simple because it is what I have said and I have followed from the very beginning, get 2 reliable and verifiable source to counter it  the SwoM did it, as the second source, and thus I followed my statement and accepted it as the English official name.  I opposed at the very beginning of this discussion is because you did not provide any links, which again made the mistake of hoping your opponents can find what you are talking about and I asked you twice for your precious link, but all you did was to assume bad faith and tried to attack me.  YOU are the one that detracked the discussion of how to improve the page by meaninglessly attacking who have opposed you, and provide nothing useful as source.  I have nothing personal against the move, I only ask for what I wanted, thus once the source was given, so I am happy to coop with it.  You are trying to judge others with how yourself works, that does not work at all. MythSearchertalk 10:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Simple? My point was that it didn't matter who's right in saying "they were talking about the series or not". The point IS that if they were, it would not matter in any way imaginable. Even if they were saying World of Mana, at no point could it be construed as the series name simply because they called it the Mana series. World of Mana post-dates several games in the series, while Mana can apply to all games, including the games in the World of Mana series. It is NOT an issue, because SE has not stated that the series name is World of Mana more so than it is called "Mana". And the reason I'm bringing this up is because you delayed this action for months by demanding more evidence than need be. The link I provided was definitive proof that SE calls it the Mana series, just like you asked for, and then you twisted everything around and said that because it's the first true Mana sequel, LoM, CoM, and SwoM are somehow not in the series and that I needed sources for each and every game before I can call it the Mana series. If you had not continuously demanded that I give you more than I needed to give to prove the point that calling it the Mana series is not original research, the outcome would have come much earlier. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Summary: They never mention the World of Mana series as indicated by the simple fact that they refer to "World" as a regular noun and not a proper one. Even if they did, both the link you accept and the link you then denied say the exact same thing, except one predates "World of Mana", and the other's inclusion makes no difference, since even if it does mention the World of Mana series, the simple fact that it calls it a game in the Mana series shows that Mana is the appropriate name. You never presented this argument when the link was brought up, only when you needed an excuse why the link is not a good one. Seriously, you can call my logic of "both links say the same thing and are equally reliable, so they are equally good" all you want, but that's not going to suddenly give you an excuse for delaying a debate by deliberately ignoring any and all evidence that it's the Mana series when you could get away with it. Both links were, are, and will always be just as good, and none of your half-hearted arguments will show otherwise - unless you can explain why the owners of World of Mana didn't capitalize the w. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you claim SE called the series Mana way before World of Mana? The only source calling it Mana series here is the DoM ad and SwoM description, which are both after the Japanese World of Mana page existence. (In fact, the WoM page existed BEFORE the Japanese DoM game have any info.)  All you so called sources at that time is simply all of the games got Mana tagged to it  Man, this is getting nowhere, you are twisting the timeline of everything and have NEVER tried to actually prove ANY source in your arguement.  You keep claiming you have the sources, yet you never posted ANY links, NEVER ever posted any magazine name or book ISBN nor amazon links.  The WoM site actually states it is the compilation name, your "not knowing how to read Japanese" is not an excuse that it is not there or SE never said it.  BTW, I did not delay the action, the last discussion was closed because there are a majority of people opposing the move, I am not an admin, thus I have no right to delay a move.  The others that opposes the move did not appear this time just because no actual page move request discussion page was created.  The discussion ended fast because Kariteh posted a source, not because of you immature actions that keep shouting you have the sources but never provided any.  To be blunt, you have NOT contributed to the discussion at all.  All you have done is start a discussion with your own speculation, keep shouting there are sources and provided none yourself, and blame on others that asked you for sources.  YOU are the one who delayed the page move, simply because you cannot civilly deal with discussions with people with opposing thought, all you do is just try to find what your opponent made mistake in, yet you do not try to find anything to actually prove your arguements when they are under question.  Even when the discussion should be over, thanks to others on your side of the table who dealed with the matter in a civil manner, and your opponent, me, does not go on a rage like you and is reasonable and talk with the civil people, got a source from them, shaked hands and got an agreement, you still go on a rage with no reason, and keep blaming on others for delaying the move.  You can go to the request move page and see who is doing REAL WORK instead of accusing others without trying to do real contribution.  What you do in the future is not what I can control, but I give you this advise, "If you continue using that kind of method to deal with things, no matter on the internet or in the real world, it will not get you very far, and you WILL encounter a lot of problems that you do not have to deal with if you can try to understand what others want."  MythSearchertalk 07:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, see, I'm not ignoring the opposition's evidence constantly like you did with me - why should I present the link? I was using the link that YOU provided. Was I supposed to remind you of its existence? You were obviously aware of the link. I provided a source. You are consistently failing to give a reason why the link was or is not good enough, and then saying "because I added the link, you can't say you provided evidence because I did!" You demanded more specific evidence - first it was "you don't even have proof that the series can be called Mana", and then you said "since it calls it the first true Mana game in the series in ten years, Legend of Mana and Children of Mana can't be in the series", and then demanded that before I could change to Mana, that I give a list of games in the Mana series, a list which specifies the series as being Mana. When it's you who is putting more than the reasonable burden of proof on me and accusing me of not doing my research, guess who will be the frustrated one? It's not going to be the one who's ignoring the other's evidence and then denying that the user even did any of the work he did in the first place. Am I to understand that the statement "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" and YOUR response of "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)" were never made? If they WERE made, it's pretty much proof positive that I provided a source for what I said and you were aware of my source. So basically, at that point you acknowledged its existence, but now it's "you never did any research! You never did any work or any real contributions!" Try to predict the future better, so you don't make statements that make you look bad. IE: Contradicting yourself left and right. Gotta love how one day you can acknowledge a source as being used by me to prove a point, and later say that I didn't do anything to proof what I said. And if it were World of Mana, I wouldn't care. See, I don't give preferential treatment to anything on Wikipedia except what I care about editing or discussing. You could learn a thing or two. Also, what ever happened to "Since SD3 has no association to Mana in title, we can't call it the Mana series"? Also, what happened to "The SwoM page is more acceptable, so it's better than the DoM E3 page"? It seems not that you have a legit argument, but are jumping from argument to argument, hoping one of them sticks to the wall and you can avoid looking bad in this situation (trying to pass the "you messed up" buck to me was a nice touch). - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Guess what, I provided the link using it to support World of Mana, do you really think that I will accept it as a source countering my point? If so, I suggest you to think twice.  Be reasonable, I have explaint why I provided the link and a full explanation of my process, and even if I was not present in that discussion, the result will still be no consensus instead of a move.  I brought in the SD3 fact just because you keep using your speculation on the common word as the name of the series.  Do not confuse it with any request of sources I asked you to give.  You do not heed my advise, you can still go on with your rage, but it will be as meaningless as trying to throw tissue paper against a tiger hoping to defeat it. MythSearchertalk 09:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks! I never knew that you provided the link. And who cares what you accept it as? Do you own the link? I do not believe that you own it. The fact that your evidence back fired on you (or should have) is irrelevant to its quality. Are you saying that I did not have any sources because you claim ownership of a source and demand it be used only to your advantage? You had asked for proof that it can be called the Mana series, and I provided it. Now you say "you never provided proof ever". Myth - before you criticize anyone for getting frustrated, consider that I'm actually making sure not to create utterly false statements about the frustrated person. Frustrates me that you continue to flip flop around violently in order to be completely in the right and for the other to be completely in the wrong. See, Myth, now the ball's in your court. You demanded proof from me every other minute in that discussion, now here you go. Do you have proof that the proof which I provided is a worse source than a source written by the same people for the same web site about the same thing? Be careful, wouldn't want me to actually make statements similar to your statements that I haven't provided any proof, and for them to actually be truthful in any way. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, you do not understand and have not the slightest idea here. I viewed the link as my source, you viewed it as yours, this is the fact that happened in that discussion, it cannot change the fact that in the last discussion, your poor explanation did NOT capture the hearts of a majority of participants.  It served as a source now, so what? What are you trying to proof here? Absolutely nothing.  All your babbling here is simply meaningless, you cannot comprehand what your own problem is and how things happen by a series of events.  I should probably stop after this, I see that you do not care about wasting wiki's resources and care less about the topic, all you want is have some place to use your rage on. MythSearchertalk 10:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If there was someone who was as good of a Wikipedian as you are, Wikipedia would be a bit worse off. You don't have "first dibs" to a source. You can't say that because YOU found it, only YOU can let anyone use it. You never debunked the proof that I took from it, so while I'm raging and babbling, what with my "evidence" and "logic", you're totally sensical, what with your denying of my source? You've never said why the source can't be used to my advantage - and no, you don't got dibs. Consider who's the one "raging and babbling" - shouldn't it be the one who cannot prove a single thing he says (ie, you)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is why I say you have no idea what I am talking about, and you do not try to understand it. I have mentioned it many times before, I did not view it as a source supporting your arguement, because I viewed it as a supporting source to mine as well.  No matter how you think it supports you, you cannot change this fact.  You can view this as me being wrong, however, you cannot change the fact that it is how I base my reasoning on, and what you are trying to prove here is very funny, you are trying to prove that I am not thinking what I thought.  You ask for how I base my logic on, and you are trying to say that my answer to it is wrong?  I had already admited that I did not notice it was using a w instead of a W, and you can think all you can, you can even say that it is a mistake I made, or say that my English was so bad that I cannot comprehand the difference of woM and WoM.  There is no way that I can tell you why I did not notice it was a small w, the fact is it happened, but your action here is simply meaningless, you are trying to prove that I gave you an incorrect answer on a very subjective matter: My thought process.  That is why I said you are just raging.  I gave you answer on everything you asked me, it is just that you cannot understand it due to your raging.  You are the one being sensial, this discussion should have ended 2 days ago when I agreed to the move due to the SwoM evidence, which is clearly understandable that I followed my own principle in the very beginning of all these talk Get me 2 sources and I will accept it as the title  It did not end at that time just becuase you just cannot comprehand why somebody who opposes you can follow his own principle, while you have not contributed to the discussion at all and instead never actually showed the proof that Kariteh gave.  The discussion can also well ended earlier, when you have brought my attention on the w and W.  I answered your question, and admitted I made a mistake on not noticing it before.  However, you keep babbling and raging and simply cannot accept the fact that there is actually somebody civil enough to just admit making mistakes, because you simply cannot admit yourself have made more mistakes in this discussion alone, you cannot accept others can do it.  MythSearchertalk 17:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, watch me not care. At no point shall I care that you say "because I found the source, I declare that you can't use it as one!" Are you saying that I did not take the source you provided to prove that it's the Mana series? You brought up a link which proved my point. Boo-freaking-hoo. unless you own the web site, it's fair game. What about your evidence from that web site made my evidence invalid? And wow, so you said "I want two sources!" Exactly why do I have to do that? What policy or guideline suggests that we do such a thing? So if Miyamoto said that the next Mario game will have Yoshi playable, would we need another developer to back him up? No. We do not need Square-Enix to say the exact same thing twice - unless you claim that there was reason to believe that they were lying or mistaken. The fact that I never gave the SwoM link somehow means that I have not contributed to the discussion in any way? Kariteh never showed the DoM link, either, so I suppose he didn't contribute anything, either. Instead of the fact that you made a mistake, the discussion is how you insist on declaring my contributions to this discussion "not of any worth". Yes, I guess if you demand that people follow your ficticious rulebook which lacks any backing by any policy or guideline, including "two sources needed", I didn't contribute anything. However, if we look at the actual rules and guidelines of Wikipedia, I proved my argument fine. Did you know that just because you repeat the same false statement, it doesn't mean that it'll come true? Two sources are not necessary if one is reliable. Please, read policy before you edit Wikipedia again. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I did not say you cannot use that source because I provided it, I simply stated the fact that it is obviously not convincing to me that the source is how you use it at that time, just like how it is not a convincing source of WoM to you. Do I have to repeat this again?  I answered why I did not accept the source before the SwoM link, it is What I was thinking at that time, and you are trying to do what? Proof me wrong but not on the fact that I made a mistake on not noticing the w, but because of I am wrong in telling you that your source is not convincing to me?  It is extremely funny that on a subject on how did I think, you still want to jump in and say that I am wrong in determining my own thought process.  So, you want me to continue to oppose the move or what?  I did not ask anyone else to follow my principle or rulebook, I simply stated that I followed it, and this is a discussion on moving a page.  In terms of Wikipedia, I followed the guidelines of a discussion, I stated how I think, and the consensus turns out to be no move last time and move this time, base on what information I obtained, last time obviously I did not accepted the DoM source is supporting your arguements, thus I asked for a source backing it up, because there is obviously an Official page calling the compilation name as WoM.  You can simply ignore the fact that this is a reliable source, why can't you think of it the other way around?  If you can simply not accept sources without reasons(at the begining of the discussion last time, you simply stated the WoM was not used as an official name and it returned a poor result in google), why can't I not accept them with reasons?  And why can't I accept it after more supporting factors came up?  MythSearchertalk 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * And now, you continue to say that I have not contributed anything. It's only a mistake if you own up to it - the only time that you could say I didn't contribute any proof is when you believed that my proof wasn't good enough. Now, however, the fact that you made a mistake and yet still say that I did nothing to contribute to the discussion doesn't exactly make you look good (in any way in any universe). - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will just ask you one thing: Do you think that the consensus made in the last discussion was purely my fault? From what you are talking about, it is.  The problem here is, you did NOT convince ANYONE in that discussion that source is supporting you other than the other people who was originally on your side.  I am not the only one who oppose your arguement, because originally your arguement is just a pure speculation of the common word, and that is why most people oppose it.  What you have NOT done is to logically lay out and explain all of your evidences and just repeatedly said you have them, with no useful explantion.  I know you tried to make some contribution, but the fact is that no one was convinced by you at that discussion, and I am convinced by Kariteh's link instead of any of your talking.  You notifiying me that I made a mistake at the last discussion have nothing contributing to the discussion, because it is after the agreement was made, and it is just a side note of your continuous raging about a question that I have given you answer on.  MythSearchertalk 07:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * ...Right. I did equal work to provide evidence, the source was equally good - and people didn't buy it then. I brought up naming conventions, which brought Ex-Nintendo Employee to my side. The fact that I provided a source which factually proves my case shows that I did a lot more than "try". So what, exactly, did Kariteh do? Or what did I not do? I'm not quite sure how when I got an official source which proved my case is less work than him getting an official source to prove his case. But then again, bias makes Wikipedia say crazy (read: completely and utterly illogical) things. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * At the end of these discussion, I must say that I got an official reply from SE, and here is the email I got along with my original statement.(I have to cover up the email address, please excuse that since I do not want junk mail):

Thank you for contacting SQUARE ENIX Customer Support,

We hope this letter answers your questions.

Thank you for taking the time to write to us. We regret to inform you that we do not have any kind of access to any of the information you have requested at this time. Nor do we have any information on what other resources might have that information. You can get updated information on our latest & upcoming releases from the "Latest News" portion of our website, www.square-enix.com.

We hope this information has been of assistance. Thanks, Neil- SQUARE ENIX Customer Support www.square-enix.com

-Original Message- From: XXXXX Sent: Apr 22, 2007 8:46:20 PM Subject: After Hours Request

A customer attempted to contact an agent either after hours or when no agents were logged in. Below is the customer data and their added comments.

FirstName: Benjamin LastName: Lee Department: Console Support - Chat Email: XXXXX Optional Data: To whom it may concern,

Due to an article I am involved in writing, I would need to know the official name of a series.

What is the official English name for the games originally published in Japan as Seiken Densetsu? This series should include: Final Fantasy Adventure Secret of Mana Legend of Mana Sword of Mana Children of Mana Dawn of Mana etc.

I would like to know a name that could refer to these games as a whole.

Thank you for your attention.

Benjamin H. Lee


 * So basically stating there is an official name at this time is really just arrogant, an official stated that they have no such information. One can well doubt that I have faked this email according to the previous discussion, yet anyone can send out the same mail, and should get the same result, it would be simply meaningless for me to fake one.  Although we might have a chance of making SE NA setting up an official name for the series if enough of us send out emails.  I highly doubt we have enough man power and SE NA really cared about this though. MythSearchertalk 07:14, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is in no way evidence that there is no such information. It's an automated message that, at no point, acknowledges the subject of the email. On top of that, he NEVER said "we have no such information". The only thing he EVER said was "we have no access to this information". Using a Customer Service email as proof is A. Not a reliable source for anything on Wikipedia, and B. It doesn't counter the official SwoM page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it is an automated message, why on earth does it take 3 days to reply, and, Nor do we have any information on what other resources might have that information. If the SwoM source is that important, why do they claim to have no such information?  It would be so simple for them to just ask me too look at the SwoM description.  You can think what you want, but the fact is that the official reply is still unknown instead of a simple Mana series.  And how can an official source not reliable? It is in fact verifiable (anyone can send one) and is an official reply from the official company.  What do you expect?  Even a third party magazine company publication can be used as a reliable source, an official customer service is not reliable?  So you are saying the nurse reply of what action should be taken after an operation less reliable than the reply of the patient in another room?  MythSearchertalk 09:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See, now you're using original research to declare this email not automated. You got a response from ONE person who works customer service, not the present of Square Enix - not even a staff member of the web site. The fact that they claim they cannot access any such information shows that it is automated. Duh. You make it seem like this guy is a big wig in the company, and that if another email response said differently, that it would be taken over the latter email. Give me one single piece of evidence that it's not automated. Perhaps they have a large backlog, and perhaps they did not have an answer so they gave you the same answer EVERY company gives - "automated message #412"? Trusting that you are not lying is not supported by WP:RS. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So, you are saying this is OR, hmm, why don't YOU go and ask yourself why your determining the email is automated is not OR. Yes, yes, yes, I know, you are always correct, no matter how you use speculation and OR in your statements, all you will do is just ignore it.  I simply asked you a question about how did you determine the email is automated or not The fact is that you cannot answer the question and immediately wanted to twist the logic with your own speculation and OR paragraph  to me using OR?  I get ONE reply, so what? It neither counters the current naming nor supported it, and I did not use it against the current naming nor use it as a supportive statement.  Like I said, get out of your self-centered world, the real world is not a binary place, things are not either right or wrong, things can be somewhat correct, correct to a degree, mainly incorrect or no such thing as correct or wrong, etc.  The fact is that I got an email reply like this, and in WP:RS, their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand.  Obviously, the customer service personel is much more authoritative then you, They represent the company, even if it is really just automated.(Though none of us can tell if the email is automated or not, and of course not with your poorly written speculative reasons above). MythSearchertalk 10:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, hi, so it's speculation to say that it's automated, but not to say it is? Oh, and your WP:RS comment - give me one single idea of how you will source the information. What are you going to do, put it on Geocities? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I did not say it is not automated, get over it, I simply made a trap for you to fall in, asking you how do you prove it is automated, you cannot answer the question, and fell into the trap of answering a bunch of useless OR saying why it is automated. The fun thing is, you are proud of it and tried to accuse me of using OR.  This is like the nth time I saw a happy prey, thank you for being happy after falling into my trap.  BTW, you said I wanted to make myself look good, I never thought of that, but the fact is that you are making yourself look worse the longer you try to drag this on.  How to source it is simple, add this sentence in without the nowiki tags Currently, Square-Enix North America does not have any source containing the official naming of the series nor do the customer services have any kind of access to any of the information.
 * There is no need to put the actual email on anywhere else, it is a simple matter of who said what at when. Anyone who wishes to comfirm the reliability of this source can simply email SE NA again.  If you want it to be more politically correct, simply change Square-Enix North America to Square-Enix North America Customer service. MythSearchertalk 17:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Everything needs to be sourced. Not everything, of course, but this is NOT something that cannot be sourced. Wikipedia is for READERS. Might as well tell them to email SE themselves. You cannot show that it cancels any source supporting Mana in any way imaginable because I can say "you cannot prove that it is not automated". Tell me, why is it my burden to prove this as a bad source? Even if we ignore the fact that emails, unless posted by a reliable secondary source onto a web site which the reader can access are unreliable as sources, you introduced the email. You have to affirm that it's not automated. If it is automated, then it could not be a good source. You haven't provided any reason why this is a better source. Also, why would we add a note like that? The presence of TWO sources which plain-as-day call the series "the Mana series" invalidates the note. Also, I got a message that wasn't even automated from Nintendo at one point in response to Player's Choice info for Kirby's Dream Land, who directed me to a list of PC games that does not even contain Game Boy games. That's enough to cast doubt on a vague email which doesn't even address the subject in any way and gives no definitive answer. Read WP:RS again. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I will ask you again, did I ever say I am using it to cancel any source supporting the naming of the page? No. I simply stated that I have obtained something like this, and it is from an official source.  Stop imagining things I did not speak of, and told me I said any of it.  And no, I do not have to prove the email is not automated, even automated emails are written by SE officials, and is way more authoritative than what you are talking about here.  Read the wiki guidelines and policies, in this kind of cases, wiki askes us editors to state all of the sources even if they contradict each other.  This is the NPOV policy, so simply state the naming of Mana series was found in SwoM game description and DoM ad, but the customer support email stated what it have said.  Wikipedia is for readers, let them decide what name they want to use with the sources provided in the article, it is not our concern as to whether the source was automated or you had bad experiences with Nintendo's customer support. MythSearchertalk 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It IS our concern that the readers be able to confirm that anything the article says is true. If you don't believe me (or policy), ask any admin if an email without any single source to say it's real is good enough. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That is why I said any editor can send another email to confirm that, it is totally verifiable and thus is reliable. Forgive me on clarifying things after I said I am not going to argue any more.  All I have said this time is not restating what I have said.  MythSearchertalk 07:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. I am not going to argue with you anymore, just because you cannot accept facts should not have the page move penaltied. Since everyone agreed on the move 2 days ago, I have already filed in a request, unlike someone who moved the page before consensus was made and did nothing after the consensus was made.  And thanks to somebody who keeps on raging with no reason and with no real contribution in the matter, and cannot comprehand how events go on one by one, the admin actually thought the discussion is not over yet and we'll have to wait for a few more days.  And yes, any more replying to this subject is futher delaying the move, so get over it, I know you cannot comprehand what I am saying, ALTTP, and I have no wish to restate it again and again to somebody who cannot understand the fact that others may think differently than himself, nor understand the concept of consensus.  Instead of replying this message, go and try to read what I have posted, and hopefully you can find what you are looking for.  MythSearchertalk 19:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, okay, so you will not argue. And I've read what you've said - I notice how you argue things about the source I provided that you never even alluded to initially, and that you continue to say that I failed to contribute anything because I... um, I think it was that I... um, actually, I'm a bit confused about that. Which silly, irrelevant-to-policies and guidelines argument do you subscribe to ATM? Anyway, let's look at this - sourcing is NOT FOR THE EDITORS. What would we tell readers when they look for a source? "Email them, meathead"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact is you tried, but did not convince anybody last time. The result is the most important factor in saying you did not contribute anything, well yes, you seems to have convinced Ex-Nintendo Employee, but with your common word speculation instead of any source you have provided.  It does not change the result that you did not convince him last time with the DoM page. MythSearchertalk 08:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I seeeeee. It's more like "the official, most common English title". On top of that, the fact that no one wanted to believe the source does not negate any of my contributions. It eventually was moved to Mana, so would you agree that you have contributed nothing to the entire conversation? - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you go to the request move page, you will see what I am contributing, so shut up and do some real work, not sit there and hope for things to happen while trying achive superiority over others by words. I have stated my view on this matter, gathered sources and presented them in front of everyone, answered your questions and cooperated with the move after I have agreed on the move, actually went to request the move instead of moving it to a place that is not what the discussion result is.  And explaint to the admin that the discussion is actually over.  What more contributions can one make in wikipedia?  MythSearchertalk 10:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sigh. How many times do I have to explain to you what a reliable source is? How can you affirm that this content is real besides making the readers do the work to confirm that it's true? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How many times do I have to tell you that as long as it is verifiable, it is okay to be used as a source? Is it not verifiable? No, anyone can verify it.  Am I telling everyone to verify it? No.  Even if you have included a source that is published, how can you affirm that the content is real besides making the readers buy the book and confirm it is true?  The fact that anyone can go and obtain the original source makes it verifiable, not because they have to do work that makes it not verifiable.  For example, I can quote a producer's view on the game on the book Secret of Mana Official Game Secrets ISBN-10: 1559584653, how do anyone affirm that I did not lie and just find a random book from amazon that got a little reference to the topic and pretend I said the real thing?  In fact I can even quote a Japanese or Chinese book, that will be even harder for English speakers to obtain the source than the customer email.  All sources are there to be doubted, the fact is that there must be a way to verify it, and this is perfectly verifiable, anyone can just send an email to verify what the officials have said.  Is it reliable? The customer service people might not be the best people in this area, but the fact is that they represent the company, they were authorized to answer questions, so they are authoritative, and the source is verifiable, you arguement of people needing to verify it themselves is in no excuse of it being not verifiable and reliable.  The only factor making the sources not suitable in wikipedia is the fact that including the DoM ad, the SwoM description and the email is that all of them all primary sources and are directly related to the company not published by a third-party source.  However, since it is on the subject about the official naming of a series and should not need a secondary source. MythSearchertalk 13:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A book will never, ever change. If it does, there still exists a version of it. Are you saying that if people were to email Square-Enix about this, they would get the exact same response from the exact same person? At least with a book, people can check the facts and if they're not there, they CAN say they're lying or not. No one can check if you're lying, because that's one person out of many people, and not even an important figure. Sheesh. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, so if somebody get another answer, reflect it in the article. It is a matter that can well be changed over time, the customer service does not have an answer this time, what about next time?  Yes, you can be pretty sure that it is highly likely that somebody can get another answer, but the fact still remains that the source is verifiable.  No body can check if I am lying or not(unless, of course, it is as you say, it is an automated email and we can get it everytime.)  but the source itself can be checked over and over again.  The source itself is verifiable, they represent the official SE company, so as long as they have the same information, they should give a consistant answer.  They might change, but it is like publishing volume 2 of the series.  They will have new information, and with the new information, they should be consistant until they have more new info.  It would be extremely funny that when writting an encyclopedia, you cannot ask the company about the topic.  Remember the wikipedia policy assume good faith .  Even if you do not assume good faith on me, you can still go and send your own email to check it out yourself, that is why I claimed that as a verifiable source.  You can always get back at me if you do not get the same answer in such a short period, but do not assume that a company customer service is bad just because you had bad experience with some.  As long as they represent the company, they are also authoritative figures that is a reliable source to official policies on the company.  MythSearchertalk 18:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * So basically, every time someone gets a different response we should add it? If someone got a different response, BOTH responses would be invalidated. You are completely unable to prove that this email is true. And at no point would anyone with a sense of Wikipolicy say "make the reader do extra work that might not even end up to be of any point". If you are so convinved that emails are magically verifiable on this article (but no others), go get an admin to back you up then, eh? And yes, SO LONG AS THEY GET THE SAME INFO. Ever notice that you've consistently failed to show that this email is not automated? You know what happens if it is an automated message? It means that it's not representative of SE in any way. The fact of the matter is that companies use automated emails - undeniable fact. The fact that the responding customer service rep's email was so vague as to what it was talking about that it could be literally anything related to the company. If you can't prove that this is actually representative of SE, then it's not a good source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * They provided a way to contact them, I used it, and there is no way to prove it is automated or not, even if it is automated, it is an official reply on the matter, you can keep speculate it as automated, but it cannot change the fact that you cannot prove it to be. I never ask anyone to do extra work, as long as they assume good faith.  You do not need to do extra work if you believe in a published source somebody provided, yet you can always have doubt and check it out.  It is just our duty to provide everything we have, it is the readers that will determine whether it is a useful information or not.  They do not have to go do extra work, if they are just like you, they can simply deny its accuracy by their own intelligence.  BTW, I simply provide what I got, I never ever stated to use it in the article, you asked me how do I reference it in the article, I answered, you presumed that I wanted to add it, in fact, I only provided it because I sent it out earlier, and I have already said I did it because I simply thought they will give out an answer backing up on the name Mana (series), they didn't, but it is my duty to report back what they have sent me since I told everyone that I sent out an email.  MythSearchertalk 05:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "So basically stating there is an official name at this time is really just arrogant" You put the email up, and then made this statement. What purpose other than contradicting the "officialness" of the name does that statement serve? And I really question your logic if you can honestly say that if it's an automated response that doesn't even address the subject in any way imaginable, it's still worth noting because it's from SE. If it doesn't address the subject, it's not a response. It's an official non-response. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The customer services are there to answer questions, do you expect that everything people send in will recieve an automated we don't know email? Be reasonable, it is just common sense that the customer services should answer questions that they know.  It is arrogant to say that There is an official name for the series since the customer service cannot give us a simple reply of the name.  You can claim that it is my speculation, but it is far more reasonable than assuming it is an automated email because if it is such an easy question(Asking for an official name), the customer services should be able to answer, and do not need to resolve it by an automated email.  Customer services will use automated emails or copy and pasting pre-set replies when they do not know the answer, and thus even if you did prove the email to be automated, it only further proves the official representative does not hold the answer to the question.  MythSearchertalk 07:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Should be able to answer (the simple question)". Yes, it is speculation - "should" denotes an expectation, and this is an encyclopædia: we're not after expectation, we're after fact. "Customer service should answer questions that they know" - someone in customer service can say whatever they damn well please, just like you, just like me, just like any human being. They will either do their job, or they won't. "Customer services will use automated emails or copy and pasting pre-set replies when they do not know the answer" - and I will add when they don't want to answer the question fully, or truthfully, or because they're malicious, or for whatever reason; you can't rely on just what they say, so, ergo, I would say this e-mail or contacting SE for finding out the official name does not meet the requirements of WP:RS, and it certainly creates Original Research. -LichYoshi 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Besides, at the end of the day, genuine question, is it of incredible, ultimate importance what the "official" name of the series is, when it has an "unofficial" but easily identifiable name to an English audience? And another question, does it require over 85 kilobytes of bickering back and forth, questioning motives, questioning the other person's intelligence, accusations, and general brouhaha? For crying out loud, you two, I'm currently in the middle of reading World War I and I don't know which is worse. From what I can tell amongst all the sludge I've waded through over the past week or so, both of you have agreed to the move, and that was what this argument was originally about. And as a result of all this brouhaha, the administration is not making moves to put the article in its proper place at Mana (series). In fact, I am very interested in seeing what administration has to say about this and where they would put the article because I am sick to my back teeth of all this arguing...it's on the verge of arguing for the sake of argument, not for the sake of improving this article. -LichYoshi 00:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * MythSearcher, it would be nice if you took some time to figure out just WHY the page is where it is at the moment. If you had actually taken the time to ask, you would know that its current location is where it is because Wikipedia wouldn't allow the page move by standard users, and all the more appropriate headings had all been taken. Only an Admin can put it back to where it was, so be a dear and ask one to move it, kay? Ex-Nintendo Employee 04:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It would be nicer to wait until the discussion is over and everyone actually agreed to move the page. I know that if the page originally got something in it, it is impossible to use the move function, yet the copy and paste the whole page method still works, and is simple and easy to do. MythSearchertalk 06:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's simple and easy to do, but not advisable as it destroys the page history. I was able to move Elemental spirits (Seiken Densetsu) to Elemental spirits (Mana) to reflect the change in this article, so that's how I know. However, I have changed the redirect on the current Mana (series) article to Mana (game series) as it was creating a double-redirect to Seiken Densetsu...I may have done the wrong thing by deleting the template alongside it. Maybe, though, it might work as Elemental spirits (Mana) was originally a redirect to Elemental spirits (Seiken Densetsu). However, please forgive my lack of expert Wikiknowledge. -LichYoshi 13:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Is the page history that important? Anyway, we can still obtain the history from this page after the copy and paste and redirect.  Currently there are tons of redirect on related pages, most needed to be fixed after everything settles. MythSearchertalk 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the page is history is THAT important. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)