Talk:XxxHolic/Archive name

Holic?
I thought that in an interview with Anime Insider awhile back, it was explained that the 'xxx' was just part of the logo, and the title should be pronounced as just 'Holic'. This was supposedly coming from the director of the film, not CLAMP themselves, so I'm not sure whether it's true. (Even if it is the case, it's fine to leave the xxx in the page's title, since we're supposed to use the most common name.)--Tally Solleni 02:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Holic is the title that will be used for the US video release. The xxx simply means "fill in the blank" of whatever the partiocular person who comes to Yuuko for help (or Yuuko herself) is obsessed with. Although DelRay had no trouble using xxxHolic as the title for the english release of the manga, in English the symbol XXX has an entirely different connotation, particularly where video and movies are concerned, so naturally the North Ameircan video lciensors are uncomfortable with using it. I wouldn't put it past CLAMP to be in on the joke as far as that goes.Michael Hopcroft 04:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the pronunciation is just "Holic", but pronunciation and spelling are two different things. -- Ned Scott 04:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
×××HOLiC → XXXholic — Reduction of stylized typography per WP:MOS-TM. - Cyrus XIII 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ .  Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.

Survey - in support of the move

 * 1) Support, per nom and a previous disccusion at WT:MOSTM. The rationale behind the proposed typesetting:
 * 2) *Subjected to standard English capitalization, "-HOLiC" becomes "-holic".
 * 3) *The "×××" are unnecessary, decoratively used special characters, hence they are replaced either wih "xxx" or "XXX" (the latter being the favorable choice, to avoid an all-lowercase proper noun).
 * 4) * If the full title was to be read aloud, based on the official renderings, ×××/xxx/XXX would probably be pronounced seperately ("ex-ex-ex" as opposed to something like "exsss"), hence they remain equally capitalized, like it would be done with an acronym.
 * The proposed rendering reduces stylization and eases linking to/working with the article, while keeping the initial [variable]+holic idea. The original typeset will of course still be mentioned in the article's first paragraph and/or the "Title spelling" section. - Cyrus XIII 03:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Additionally, given that "-holic" is supposed to be at least part of an English word, WP:MOS-JP also applies. - Cyrus XIII 11:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be frank, even though I believe strongly that it should be moved, I'm not sure if I agree with XXXholic. It's making it stylized still, but not in the original stylized fashion. I think it should be Xxxholic instead, to remove all styling effects. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Cyrus XIII. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk  to Nihon joe 19:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support per nom. PubliusFL 00:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Certainly we don't need those funny little special "x"s. Title of the article should be standardized. The proper title can be given in the first line of the article. BilabialBoxing 00:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. I believe that Xxxholic would be inventing a new orthography (like the "Mci" example in MOSTM). The "XXX" are clearly read as three letters, and the -holic is part of an English word. The use of the multiplication symbol (×) here would be strictly decorative. Japanese orthography is very different from English orthography, so while Clamp is certainly permitted great freedom in creating a visual design for their works, an appropriate rendering in the English Wikipedia will follow English capitalization rules. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 14:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * XXXholic would also be inventing a new format. And if you think the ××× are read as "ex ex ex" you are mistaken. They are silent. Also, English does not have rules saying that book titles cannot have words with distinctive orthography in them. If ×××HOLiC were written ×××HOLiC only on the cover, then that would be evidence it was just a decorative cover treatment and not specifically the name of the book, but that is not the case—it is also referred to as such in running text such as in the CLAMP no Kiseki books. In order to maintain NPOV, the title must be presented as-is, without passing judgment on the suitability of its style. —pfahlstrom 17:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support per Cyrus XIII.  There's no need for the funny characters in article names.--Endroit 17:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: The use of stylizations imposed by original trademark are for the owner to use and not for those who choose to report on such products, items, or titles.  Wikipedia is not an advertising vehicle for the product and should not be required to acquiesce its own style to those of the manufacturer.  Across the board there are style guides for how newspapers, encyclopedias, and other secondary and tertiary sources handle the recording of stylized names.  It is partly for readability and partly for keeping the article from looking like a press release.  I would refer people to this copy editor's opinion.  From it:
 * "But that's their trademarked name! That's what it says on their press release!"
 * The companies and their trademark lawyers want you to duplicate their capitalization. They also want you to use the trademark symbol. They also want you to use the word "brand" and a generic identifier to guard against the loss of their trademarks (journalists eat Big Macs; McDonald's lawyers might want us to eat BIG MAC® brand sandwich products). Are you going to give in to all of those demands? Do you want your stories to look like press releases?
 * You have to draw the line somewhere.
 * Tomorrow a company could incorporate with the name iNTERNETaBcDeFgHiJkLmNoPqRsTuVwXyZ.com. Or worse. Are you still going to forsake journalism in favor of logo replication? I hear Kinko's is hiring.
 * I think that makes a clear and salient point for using our own MoS which chooses not to simply acquiesce to whatever ridiculous typography comes along. It's not about not using unicode.  It's about simple readability and keeping the integrity of the article on information and not sponsorship.  This isn't a fan site.  We don't use fan site typographies.  ju66l3r 18:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you've made a case that the simple act of reporting a book's name as it really is is somehow endorsing that book or encouraging people to buy it. To simply report things as they are is the epitome of NPOV. —pfahlstrom 19:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Neutrality" means using our own style without influence from the primary source. ju66l3r 23:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not in any dictionary I'm familiar with, and not any section of WP:NPOV that I can find. But if you have something against primary sources, there are plenty of secondary sources that may be cited. —pfahlstrom 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And there are secondary sources that call it XXXholic too. To argue "neutrality" on an issue of the MoS is pointless.  ju66l3r 01:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How can you say that? NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia, and must surely trump any MoS guideline. But your statement seems like an ignorant one. Have you tried to find secondary sources that call it XXXholic? When I do a google search, of the first 100 results a grand total of one refer to "XXXholic" in the summary. A search of the google news archives reveals two. The proposed usage is far outnumbered by other options. —pfahlstrom 03:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support moving to "XXXholic" or "XXXHOLiC" (if that's the name it uses on jp.wikipedia). The current title is only an attempt to recreate their logo. There is no difference between this and the examples of what not to do on WP:MOS-TM, such as "Macy*s" and "[ yellow tail ]".  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  21:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Manual of style supports this move. As for the arguments that the manual of style is wrong or should be changed, then that should be addressed there, not here. Consistency and following current guidelines is more important than following individual preferences. Part Deux 21:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Consistency is more important than accuracy? I must disagree. I don't think the benefits of consistency outweigh the harm of perpetuating errors. —pfahlstrom 22:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note that he said "individual preferences" and not "accuracy".  x42bn6  Talk 23:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am pointing out that to ignore how a name is written is to dispense with accuracy. —pfahlstrom 00:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If everything here were to be "accurate", then we'd have articles about Macy*s, etc. I refer you to above where I quoted a pertinent copy editor's remarks.  We're building an encyclopedia, not a press release.  ju66l3r 01:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We're building an encyclopedia, not a newspaper like the one that copy editor works at. —pfahlstrom 03:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey - in opposition to the move

 * 1) I can understand changing CLAMP to Clamp, but I believe changing the title of a series is going too far. Even if it's stylized, it's the title chosen by the authors, and such it should be used. Whether you write the xs (which aren't spoken at all, btw) as xxx, XXX or multiplication signs is another matter, but there's no question as to the spelling of the "HOLiC" part. It's the same way I wouldn't dream of changing a novel's or poem's title. --KagamiNoMiko 10:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The authors of the work get the final choice in the title of their work, not us. A simple redirect will solve any browsing issues. Kyaa the Catlord 12:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the text isn't changed in the title, just the style. And we're not supposed to follow the creators' style effects for article names. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite the rules, I'd be hesistant to change the name of an author's work simply for stylistic reasons. A book's title should be sacrosanct. Kyaa the Catlord 02:38, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand where you are coming from, and I wouldn't do it if it was my personal site. But Wikipedia, partially to keep things neutral POV, and not for advertising, etc, chooses to take out stylization. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we should change MOSTM. Making unnecessary changes to the original work's title should be discouraged. Kyaa the Catlord 04:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No no, I said I wouldn't change it in my own writings, but I fully support that it is changed on wikipedia, as long as the stylized name is mentioned in the first paragraph. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose The fact that XXXholic is, as of this moment, a red link, indicates that this is surely not the correct choice, since it is by no means common. Here it is entirely clear that you have to invent a new format in order to get away from the orthography that you find so offensive. Which invented format would be best? Capitalizing one X? All three? (Why? The reason given, that ××× read aloud would be pronounced XXX, seems to be in ignorance that the ××× are meant to be silent.) Capitalizing the H or not? ×××HOLiC cannot easily be read as a word upon first glance, but that is what the title is. There's no getting away from that fact. Why did CLAMP choose such a title? As the silent ×××s represent a variable, a more expected way to represent this would perhaps be ____holic or fill-in-the-blank-holic, but that would be inventing a new format. Why did they write the latter part HOLiC? I have no idea, but I assume they have a reason. It's not Wikipedia's job to come up with that reason. It harms no one to accurately write the name of the series in its own Wikipedia article and in the articles of associated subjects. To write it some other way would be to pass judgment upon the name's viability or readability, and that would be a violation of NPOV. Some say that to write things the way their creators intend is to do advertising for them; I say this opinion is the height of POV. Simply writing something's name accurately is not advertisement. To write things as they exist in the real world is not to pass judgment on whether it's a stylistically compliant name or not, it's just to write its name. The root sentiment of NPOV demands that the name be written correctly without any stylization added or taken away to conform to someone else's idea of good style. —pfahlstrom 08:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose: All Wikipedia rules in regards to titles such as this AND CLAMP must be changed immediately to accomodate the proper spelling and title status. This includes any MOS-es that are in existance currently. This move should not go through, otherwise. Kagurae 09:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose A sufficient case for the need to override the actual title to arbitrary replacement characters has not been made. One of the blessings of the age of unicode is that we no longer need to shoehorn ourselves into decades-old ASCII conventions. Sighrik 17:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose I believe redirects already exist for the other spellings, and I see no real valid reason manual of style aside. Katsuhagi 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose The use of 'x's is misleading, as the title is not "Triple X Holic" or "Ecks Ecks Ecks Holic", but simply "Holic". The use of "×××" helps readers realize this. --SeizureDog 14:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How? I might be tempted to think it is "times times times holic" now.  In that case, it would be better to change the title to "HOLiC" or whatever capitalisation it ends up at.   x42bn6  Talk 15:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Is there a citation stating that the multiplication symbol should be used ahead of x or X? I could easily go claiming that it looks like ><><><XxHOLiC, or various replacements - but WP:NC says to avoid special characters.  This means, clearly, x or X.   x42bn6  Talk 17:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * On another note, it was proposed on frwiki fr:Discuter:XXXHOLiC and it was moved to the article with X. On jawiki, it has an X.  It's a pity our dewiki friends who have a very active Wikipedia community don't have any discussion on the naming conventions.  On ja:ノート:XXXHOLiC (translation), it appears someone has said "CLAMP reference"?  Any ideas?   x42bn6  Talk 18:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * According to comments in the Japanese discussion, it's "XXXHOLiC" in CLAMP's official website, without the funny characters.--Endroit 18:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is still different from the proposed move. My "vote" stands with the following addition, I would not be against moving to XXXHOLiC. Kyaa the Catlord 18:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My "vote" stands as well, because "HOLiC" comes from the English suffix "-holic" (-aholic in Merriam-Webster's). And that means, "XXXHOLiC" becomes "XXXholic" in English.--Endroit 19:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Or you could look in the Del Rey book, which is already in English, to see how it is represented in English. —pfahlstrom 19:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise, you would also find a representation for "THE BATMAN" in "Detective COMICS" books. (See Image:Detective27.JPG.)  But that's not correct English.--Endroit 20:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like English to me. But I think your example is hypothetical. I'm not talking about the logo; I'm talking about the copyright info page. Do you have either of those handy to verify that orthography is what they contain? —pfahlstrom 22:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Just checked the Batman paperbacks on my shelf (pretty much all the essentials by Frank Miller and Jeph Loeb) and the copyright notice in each is printed in regular caps with the exception of the respective, original publication's title, which is rendered in all-caps - go figure. - Cyrus XIII 00:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless to all of that, we have a Manual of Style. It says we don't follow trademarks, we write it according to simple rules like "no internal capitalization" except for specific examples, of which this is not one.  Legibility over authenticity.  ju66l3r 01:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's right. And I have serious doubts that an initiative to convert the renderings of all major DC and Marvel titles from title case to all-caps would go anywhere at all, even with a rationale based on consistent, official use. - Cyrus XIII 01:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole idea of legibility over authenticity suggests the system is bankrupt. But I've already discussed my feelings on that above. Anyway, in the publishing world, all caps are often used in lieu of italics. I do not suggest that every instance of all caps in publishing is meant to be understood as an essential part of the title. But I also believe that all-caps and mixed caps such as the HOLiC part of this title are different (though related) questions, and I do not believe a guideline against all caps is also a guideline against mixed caps. In fact, reading WP:MOSCAPS and WP:MOS-TM right now, neither one of them say what to do with mixed caps words such as HOLiC. They both say that proper nouns start with a capital letter, but do not say that other letters within a proper noun cannot also be capitals. —pfahlstrom 03:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To suggest that REALTOR and HOLiC, separated by a single lowercase letter, are somehow different when it comes to the guidelines is a very weak argument. The only exception for internal capital letters is when the second letter requires capitalization for correct vocal interpretation ('e-bay') or camelCase (OxyContin).  This is neither of those, so standard English rules should apply (XXXholic 'ex-ex-ex-holic').  ju66l3r 04:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that Ebay is pronounced differently from eBay? And remember, the XXX (or ×××) is silent. Anyway, I think that one lowercase letter does make all the difference in the world. All caps have been used for various things for centuries; things like deliberate lowercasing of a single letter have been popping up only in the last few decades. Established procedures for all caps cannot easily be applied to something that is not all caps. But English is a constantly evolving and very flexible language, and I believe the statistical evidence out there is showing acceptance of idiosyncratic usage of case. —pfahlstrom 04:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Let's step back from this for a moment and examine what the policy and guideline pages say. WP:BURO says "Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. Disagreements should be resolved through consensual discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures." The current discussion involves a perceived conflict between WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOS. WP:MOS says "The following rules do not claim to be the last word on Wikipedia style. One way is often as good as another, but if everyone does things the same way, Wikipedia will be easier to read and use, and easier to write and edit. These are not rigid laws: they are principles that many editors have found to work well in most circumstances, but which should be applied with flexibility." What, then, is the spirit of the MOS? Readability seems to me to be the spirit behind it. WP:MOS-TM also seems to be written primarily with readability in mind. However, is the desire to move this article based on a perceived fault of readability, or is it based on a desire to apply the guidelines as if they are rigid laws that are universally applicable? Do the editors voting in favor of this move feel that the current usage in the article hampers legibility? Would XXXHOLiC or xxxHOLiC hamper legibility any more or less than the current use? Is the legibility purportedly gained by switching to XXXholic worth the drop in the accuracy of the information? I assume good faith—using proper English is a worthy goal—but I am not sure that this seeming crusade against idiosyncratic typography is done with a complete understanding of what policy actually says. The debate that has been caused indicates that there is clearly controversy here, so I finish up with another quote: WP:NAME says "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain; if there is no other basis for a decision, the name given the article by its creator should prevail. Any effort to change between names should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and discussed on talk pages before making changes. However, rather than debating controversial names, please consider other ways to improve Wikipedia." —pfahlstrom 04:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Let me ask you a question: If you were to hand in a collaboratively authored work, say an extensive paper, be it back in school/college or now professionally, in what order would you list the names of the authors on the front page? - Cyrus XIII 10:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that brings up an interesting point. Take a look at the article's wikicode:


 * I ran a test edit changing one of the Xxx to ×××, and it sorts differently - into its own heading. Then it made me think: Would people searching for this anime via categories realise that the multiplication symbol is ordered after Z?  If so, is there a point into piping these categories with Xxx...?  I think this issue is fairly simple: If someone can provide a source stating that the name is definitely a multiplication symbol, then it should go under WP:MOS's guidelines and this discussion isn't really needed.  If there is no source saying it is a multiplication symbol, then it should be changed.  Regarding the HOLiC issue: The burden lies on the people who want it to be so because it is contra-guidelines at the moment.  As always, if someone could give a reliable source where HOLiC is used, then there should really be be no reason to dispute it as long as the source is viable. then WP:MOS should apply still.   x42bn6  Talk 15:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not quite what I was getting at, but interesting indeed. Regarding the title's second part, you do not believe that WP:MOS-JP applies? - Cyrus XIII 16:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I meant to say WP:MOS applies too.  x42bn6  Talk 18:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, to the point about the multplication symbol vs. an 'x' (regardless of case), our manual of style is also written to include what is more easy/usable not only for the reader but the editor. I couldn't even begin to tell you how to unicode a multiplication symbol and to have to do that three times if someone needs to write the name of this article is abusive to the editor and does not work to convenience of anyone.  ju66l3r 18:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:MOS-JP is just a subset of WP:MOS-TM, and besides, once xxxHOLiC was published by Del Rey (their orthography) it became an English title. But anyway, has anyone noticed that of all the examples on WP:MOS-TM, not a single one violates WP:COMMONNAME? I do not believe that WP:MOS-TM was ever meant to lead to pages that violate WP:COMMONNAME. As for the multiplication symbol, it does have some use in Japan, but almost none in the U.S. I would have no problem with moving the page to XXXHOLiC as used on clamp-net.com or xxxHOLiC as used by Del Rey. —pfahlstrom 18:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with xxxHOLiC, but not XXXHolic, which I both don't like the look of and I think distorts the title. The capital XXX also has some pornographic connotations that aren't present as much in the xxx, and frankly I think the capital letters do much aesthetically. Katsuhagi 23:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We should really not be concerned with what the letters do aesthetically. Our goal here should be to find a simple, plain rendering of the title without idiosyncratic typography. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 23:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The goal some of us have is to see that the rendering of the title is accurate as befits the subject of an article. —pfahlstrom 07:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Cyrus XIII reminded me that WP:MOS-TM is not the only MOS section to which the stylized typography discussion is relevant, and it struck me that though the subject of our dispute on this page is a trademark, it is also a book title and the title of a work of art (consumer art, specifically). So I have asked for input over at the Manual of Style (titles) page. —pfahlstrom 21:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus formed?
Can a consensus be found for a move to xxxHOLiC at this time? While the mixed capitalization is not something that I personally regard as important to the title, resolving that matter may be more an issue with first setting MOSTM to acknowledge and address the issue first. In the meantime, I think most parties involved recognize that using unicode multiplication symbols are somewhat egregious and difficult to encode for most editors. Given that a number of people opposed to the current requested move have noted above that they could agree to xxxHOLiC, I would ask for a consensus agreement on this typography with other discussion to take place after MOSTM has been discussed to a conclusion on how to address mixed capitalization. ju66l3r 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that changing it to xxxHOLiC is acceptable since there appears to be technical issues with the current name. Kyaa the Catlord 01:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise, because I strongly support a move, just not the same agreement of where to. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think xxxHOLiC is a good compromise, I'm all for that move. Katsuhagi 03:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The "×××" → "xxx" part of the move is OK with me. But the "HOLiC" → "holic" part seems non-negotiable for me, per WP:MOS-TM & WP:MOS-JA, and correct English usage.  We're not even certain if the closing admin (for the WP:RM) will consider deferring the "HOLiC" → "holic" part of this move until later.  Hence I can only agree to "xxxholic" or "XXXholic" at this point.--Endroit 03:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I prefer xxxholic myself though, but XXXholic is acceptable. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's right. "HOLiC" is simply inappropriate for an encyclopedia. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I wrote in the initial rationale, why chose an all-lowercase rendering for a proper noun/name if one starting with with (a) capital letter(s) is just as feasible? "XXXholic" retains the edge over "xxxholic" in my book, because it stays clear of any further WP:MOS-TM-related concerns. - Cyrus XIII 05:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If the closing admin does not find consensus for the current request, a new request can be made to xxxHOLiC. That is a technicality.  W**hat I am looking to do is find some semblance of consensus.  We all agree that there is a problem with the first three letter/symbols of the title as it currently stands.  I am not interested in examining the rationale, simply that nobody is any longer arguing to keep the multiplication symbols.  For this reason, let us at the very least move this article to xxxHOLiC.  Whether HOLiC or holic is more appropriate is still something that will take further discussion.  In time there may be consensus (either specifically for this article or for a greater consensus at MOSTM for a mixed capitalization decision one way or the other).  But these are separable problems and we should tackle the ones we can agree upon as a community when consensus arrives and not throw the baby out with the bathwater over technicalities in how a requested move occurs or attempting to solve every perceived issue in one sweeping solution.  I hope that everyone can see the use in moving to xxxHOLiC at this time and not arguing over the last five characters to spite a useful solution for the first three.  ju66l3r 07:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems SeizureDog is now arguing in favor of the ×××. —pfahlstrom 20:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it seems he's claiming the need for just HOLiC and still the removal of the multiplication symbols. ju66l3r 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the section below he brings up the apparent conflict with the MoS, but I was referring to his Oppose comment above. —pfahlstrom 04:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify: I'm in favor of the '×××' as I view them as special characters whose meaning change when replaced by 'xxx'. The "don't use special characters" guideline applies to characters whose meaning can be replaced without changing their meaning, but I don't see that as the case here. I perfer ×××Holic, but if we're going to be anal about what the guidelines say, I figure we might as well go all the way with Holic. In any case, I think it should be "Holic" and not "HOLiC", as the lowercase 'i' isn't that obvious in the logo and it's still perfectly identifiable in normal typeset. On a final note, if we MUST use 'x's, then it should be xxxHolic and not XXXHolic (and certainly not XxxHolic). XXXHolic looks confusing and doesn't fit what's in the logo. However, xxxHolic forces it to start off with a lowercase letter, which is something we also don't want. I guess that's just another reason why I prefer ×××Holic; neither of the triple Xs look right. The current move discussion is flawed, as there are multiple issues at hand. I think we should restart with where it should be moved and not if it should be moved.--SeizureDog 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well apparently some people have an all or nothing stance even when it is simply to overcome a technical problem. I see there is no chance of consensus being made. Kyaa the Catlord 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but I think there is consensus that it should be moved, just not where to. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but since some people can't look past their biases we can't even fix the technical problem, which is all I believe the founder of this subsection wished. Kyaa the Catlord 06:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also have no problem moving to xxxHOLiC to solve the technical problem, but it looks unlikely a consensus will be reached on the HOLiC part. —pfahlstrom 07:34, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: A major issue has been ignored here. WP:MOS-TM says Avoid using special characters that are not pronounced. This implies that the correct title would be without the "×××" or "xxx" at all, making the article just HOLiC or Holic. This obviously is a bit problematic however.--SeizureDog 14:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How so? If the multiplication symbols were replaced with a triple x (capital or not), there would be no special characters left, that would have to be avoided per WP:MOS-TM. - Cyrus XIII 15:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the title, the xxx are silent, possibly making them "special characters which are not pronounced." Yet many English or made-up-English words have silent letters—though three identical silent letters in a row is very unusual—so I'm not sure this is an issue beyond the letter of the guidelines. —pfahlstrom 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pfahlstrom. If he had chosen to use a lowercase greek rho symbol as the first letter of his username, I would still write a 'p' instead and either way his phonetic name is "fall-strom".  Replacing them with 'x' characters does not change the silentness (?) of their phonetics.  Anyone that will see it and say ex-ex-ex was going to say ex-ex-ex if they were multiplication symbols instead...except with it changed, at least they'll know how to write it without consulting a unicode guide.  ju66l3r 22:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha...actually my name is meant to be read as P. F. Ahlstrom, but I can see your point. —pfahlstrom 03:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would find "Holic" completely acceptable, provided we leave redirects in place from the alternate spellings. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Holic is the name the anime is being released under by FUNimation, but it's not the name the manga is known by. —pfahlstrom 03:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's focus the debate
We're having a problem because there's two seperate issues to discuss here. Since there are 12 different ways we can spell this manga, we should solve the two problems seperately. Once we find consensus on for each part, stick the two together and move it there.--SeizureDog 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

××× vs. xxx vs. XXX vs. none
Possible arguements and counterarguements for each version: Personally, I think that '×××' has the fewest problems, having none follows guidelines the strictest, and that 'xxx' is stylistically better than 'XXX', of which neither is really more correct by guidelines (since 'xxx' isn't a word, it's more like the 'e' in 'eBay').--SeizureDog 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * '×××' is what the title technically uses, but they are special characters.
 * 'xxx' are the normal characters that most closely fit the logo, but causes the article to start off as lowercase and implies they are pronouced.
 * 'XXX' keeps the name starting in uppercase, but does not follow what's in the logo and implies they are pronouced.
 * Since '×××' is not pronouced, they should not be written at all, but this would confuse many readers.


 * The '×××' is used neither on the Japanese nor the English website, hence that rendering appears to be an invention of a Wikipedia editor, in an effort to replicate the font used in the logo. Also, no written representation of the manga's title leaves out the variable/prefix/triple x, so either xxx or XXX seems to be the way if one does not wish to introduce a new spelling. - Cyrus XIII 21:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I see it all the time as xxxHOLiC, such as on the BMG Japan site. Still, I prefer xxx over XXX, and both are multitudes better than ×××. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Turns out you're wrong Cyrus XIII. ×××HOLiC happens to be used by a very notable online retailer that I think we all know. It also happens that there are a number of other sites that do so as well. Seems like most Japanese stores have it that way, so it's certainly not just something a user made up. Another interesting find is that Japanese weblinks usually drop the 'xxx' and just have "holic", notably at clamp-net.com/database/holic and tbs.co.jp/holic/--SeizureDog 09:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. The xxx/XXX > ××× argument still seems to be true for the official sites, but you're right, they also use only "holic" in their file/folder structures several times. - Cyrus XIII 10:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't it great how there's just virtually no consistancy with this damnable title? It's getting to the point where maybe we should just screw trying to be right and just vote on what we personally like. It's like every title is equally correct here.--SeizureDog 11:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I've checked CLAMP no Kiseki volume 10 in which this series is one of the featured titles, and it consistently writes it as xxxHOLiC throughout. The old movie site writes the movie's name both xxxHOLiC and ×××HOLiC in the copyright info at the bottom of the front page, and the manga's name as xxxHOLiC. —pfahlstrom 16:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's not pronounced at all, then we don't write it at all. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 03:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it's not merely decorative; it adds essential meaning to the title even though it's not pronounced. Wikipedia doesn't have any guideline against silent letters—there's a silent "l" in this Talk page's name for example. —pfahlstrom 16:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the "XXX" is not pronounced, "XXXholic" is meant to be the same as "_____holic" or "blank-holic" or "something-holic", etc.--Endroit 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

HOLiC vs. Holic vs. holic
What you choice here is mostly a matter of if you think 'HOLiC' is a word or suffix: The use of "HOLiC" avoids this whole complication, but if we're going to do something with it, we have to figure out which it is. Personally, since '×××' isn't a word, I see it being more of a word on its own, but there's a good case for it being a suffix as well.--SeizureDog 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 'HOLiC' most closely follows the typeset in the logo, but MOS guidelines don't care about what's in the logo.
 * 'Holic' implies it's a seperate word, but is it? Comparitable to 'phobia' being used as a word.
 * 'holic' implies it's a suffix, but is it? Comparitable to '-phobia' being used as a suffix.


 * Given the description of the title in the article, the second part indeed seems to be a suffix (as in alco/worka-holic). - Cyrus XIII 21:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I second with Cyrus XIII here. The article makes it seem like it's like a suffix, and thus should be 'holic'. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 23:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I would say the logo looks more like HoLic than HOLiC (xxxHoLic to be exact)—but I agree wholeheartedly with Wikipedia guidelines saying that logos shouldn't be interpreted as text. However, none of my earlier arguments for the name being written HOLiC were talking about the logo, and I still support that orthography for all those reasons which I won't repeat. But I have no problem with splitting the question into two like this. —pfahlstrom 03:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Since the word is simply "holic", rendered using idiosyncratic typography in the mark, we should treat it as a proper noun and render it as "Holic". &mdash;ptk✰fgs 03:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't just make up a new title. There are what appear to be the symbols which look kinda like the letter x in the title and these need to be reflected, somehow. *laugh* This is such a strange discussion. Kyaa the Catlord 05:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

When you Google for information on this series, you type "xxxholic" in some capitalization. When publishers publish information about this series, they write "xxxholic" in some capitalization. I doubt you could find a reliable source calling the series "Holic" in some capitalization, so those proposed titles don't help anything.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Preliminary move?
It's become clear that the "multiplication symbols" rendering was made up by a Wikipedia editor, and does not appear anywhere else. I've removed the uncited section of the article which claimed the "multiplication symbols" as a fact.

I'd like to suggest moving the article to "xxxHOLiC", not because I think there's any justification for spelling it that particular way, but because it's the minimal change from the current title that gets the made-up Unicode out of the article. The discussion of changing the title can, of course, continue. Are there any reasonable objections to this?

 r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I object. There's no rush to get rid of the ××× atm, there's no reason to move until the discussion is completely done. I for one, don't want to have to change all of the redirects and mentions of the series more than once. Also, you can't move to xxxHOLiC anyways, it would have to be XxxHOLiC.--SeizureDog 05:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We could use the lowercase template as is used on eBay which makes a javascript display the name correctly. —pfahlstrom 16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI: The Japanese Wikipedia has the equivalent of this template, "  " (in Japanese), at the top, although they use "XXXHOLiC" as the article title (not "XxxHOLiC").--Endroit 16:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Focusing on options with reliable sources
Okay, let's at least look at what the options are for the move. I want to make a list of proposed titles, and in what reliable source they can be found.

In other words, I want to steer the discussion away from people's personal preferences or opinions about what the title means, and toward things you can actually look up outside of Wikipedia.

After the sources, I want to include any possible conflicts the proposed title has with the Manual of Style. (Again, not with your own tastes.)

 r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  06:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * XXXHOLiC
 * Source: Clamp's Japanese web site
 * MOS objection: capitalization of "HOLiC" could be seen as spelling out a logo
 * xxxHOLiC
 * Source: Del Rey Online
 * Source: Web archive of old movie site, when naming the manga
 * Source: CLAMP no Kiseki, Vol. 10
 * Source: English manga
 * MOS objection: capitalization of "HOLiC" could be seen as spelling out a logo
 * MOS objection: begins with a lowercase letter, which should be avoided whenever possible
 * XXXHolic
 * Source: Del Rey Online
 * Source: German manga, "continued in..." page
 * xxxHOLIC
 * Source: German manga, credits page
 * MOS objection: begins with a lowercase letter, which should be avoided whenever possible
 * xxxHolic
 * Source: German manga, "read right to left" warning page
 * MOS objection: begins with a lowercase letter, which should be avoided whenever possible

I just checked the German manga, and the publisher actually uses three different spellings: --KagamiNoMiko 08:54, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * xxxHOLIC on the credits page
 * xxxHolic on the "read right to left" warning page
 * XXXHolic on the "continued in..." page


 * Great. I'm adding these up above.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should probably this whole "searching for reliable uses" thing, as this seems to be one of the most inconsistantly named series in existance, so I doubt we're going to be able to figure out what's the most common version (plus MOS might not like the most common version anyways). The 'H' never seems to always be capitalized though...so maybe we can at least ax "holic" out as an option. --SeizureDog 09:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It doesn't necessarily need to be the one that appears the most times, but whatever we end up titling the article has to appear in a reliable source. This helps us limit the options so that everyone isn't proposing their own unique spelling.
 * The idea is that so far in this discussion I've seen two valid kinds of arguments: an option can be supported by the publishers using it in official materials, and that support can be weakened if the potential title goes against the Manual of Style. Everything else reduces to WP:ILIKEIT, WP:IDONTLIKEIT, or an attempt to mirror a logo in text, none of which are valid on Wikipedia.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  16:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the logo, though, it doesn't look like HOLiC; it looks like HoLic, which is an argument against the idea that HOLiC is spelling out the logo rather than that it's the way the name is meant to be represented in plain text. Websites are also problematic since we don't know who maintains them—it's annoying that the Del Rey website is inconsistent, but that one page is the only one I can find on the site that doesn't spell it as xxxHOLiC. I would say the primary sources we would be concerned with on the English Wikipedia are the Japanese book and the English book; I just looked at the English book a few minutes ago and it's consistently xxxHOLiC as it is in the Japanese CLAMP no Kiseki volume 10 (which would be considered a reliable secondary source, since it's a nonfiction book about the CLAMP works). —pfahlstrom 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see two reasonable choices emerging from this list: "xxxHOLiC", which seems to be the most common spelling used by the publishers; and "XXXHolic", a spelling used by some publishers when they apparently can't be bothered to do the funny capitalization (and perhaps that's what the Manual of Style wants us to look for). So "xxxHOLiC" is a bit more official and "XXXHolic" is a bit more in WP style.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I could agree to the latter. - Cyrus XIII 19:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am fine with "XXXHolic" also, as well as "xxxHolic". But none of the "HOLiC" nor "HOLIC" options seem feasible per Wikipedia editing guidelines.  So my order of preference now becomes "XXXholic", "XXXHolic", "xxxHolic", "xxxholic" (in that order).--Endroit 20:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * My vote goes to XXXHolic. I'd prefer to leave the title as is, but I don't think a consensus on that is feasible. --KagamiNoMiko 22:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if they are not pronounced, I would not have a problem with "XXX", as long as we don't use the absurd rendering "HOLiC". XXXholic or XXXHolic would be fine. Holic already redirects to this article so there is no risk that people looking for "Holic" would get lost. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 23:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying that the rendering chosen by the artists is absurd isn't very NPOV. —pfahlstrom 22:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * What they use for their logotype is a very different thing from what we should use to provide a neutral rendering of the name. We use standard English orthography for trademarks. "HOLiC" is so idiosyncratic a rendering as to be absolutely over the top. That's exactly why it's an appropriate choice for a manga logotype, and exactly why it is an inappropriate choice for an encyclopedia article about the work. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 23:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a stronger consensus than I've seen here in a while. I'm going to start the move to "XXXHolic", at least on this article (others should look for incoming links to change).  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  17:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * ptkfgs, I already said that HOLiC is NOT what is used in the logo (I assume that's what you mean by "logotype." HOLiC is what is used in plain text. And this is not any kind of consensus, rspeer, but it's clear you don't care. But whatever, ignore the clearly divided straw poll above which is NOT closed and which differs only by a capital H. —pfahlstrom 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also like to point out that the citations above for XXXHolic are hardly reliable. One comes from a German manga, which has little to no relevance on this article since the xxxHOLiC does not originate in Germany and this article is not in German, and that German manga clearly shows it is not being careful about how it writes it, since it writes it three different ways. And the Del Rey site reference is not somehow more reliable than the English manga itself; whoever writes the copy for the website does not repeat the error on any of the other pages. This book is a work of art created by artists. They chose to write the title (in plain text) as xxxHOLiC. That is its name. That's just the way it is. So what if it also happens to be trademarked? As soon as something becomes trademarked, the people who invented it are marketing flunkies trying anything they can to make their "product" stick out, so we should beat their "product" down? I don't think so, and I think it is ludicrous to insist so. —pfahlstrom 03:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I continue to resist moves to anything that does not include HOLiC for reasons stated by pfahlstrom Kyaa the Catlord 03:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there any technical reasons why it needs to be in CamelCase/StudlyCaps? Or are you resisting just because that's the style used? For example, the "e" in "eBay" is an abbreviation for "Echo", so it has a reason. Actually, I can't seem to find any other articles with an almost all capped TiTLE to justify the "HOLiC".--SeizureDog 04:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That the "e" is an abbreviation for "Echo" is true, but that's not a reason for it being lowercased rather than being EBay, Ebay, E-Bay, or E. Bay. And the lack of other articles titled TiTLE does not mean that the page should not be at its correct title. —pfahlstrom 05:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

With an official typeset available, that actually harmonizes with our current Manual of Style and the overall input in this discussion (including supporters of the previously used typeset who have since agreed with the less stylized variant), I believe a good compromise that appeases both sides has been found. Hence I have honored Rspeer's request and change the remaining incoming links. I might also add that the number of redirects for this article is nothing short of staggering and the number of links to either was fairly well distributed among them. - Cyrus XIII 04:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not an official typeset. It seems you're just ignoring other comments now. —pfahlstrom 05:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. He seems to only be listening to those who agree with him. Kyaa the Catlord 05:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't really been following any of this, and just became aware of the discussion when one of the redirects that was still on my watchlist came up. Personally, just looking at the logo used in the show and manga, it looks like "xxxHolic" to me. Forget who said what, blah blah, source, just look at it and ask yourself "what does it look like?" Remember, naming conventions is more about being easily recognized rather than being "official". -- Ned Scott 05:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Ned, we're not talking about the logo, but how it is written in plain text. Do you think being easily recognized is more important than being correct? Will it be less recognizable as xxxHOLiC than it is as xxxHolic? There is also WP:COMMONNAME to consider. —pfahlstrom 05:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's unbelievably obvious that the only use for "HOLiC" is to be eye-catching. Wikipedia is not free advertising. We use standard English orthography for trademarks. That means something like "XXXHolic", "xxxHolic", or "XXXholic". &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Writing it as xxxHOLiC is not advertising. It is simply writing the name as the creators chose. As to whether the only reason they chose that was to be eye-catching, I have no idea, and do not believe it is the place of an encyclopedia to make such a judgment. —pfahlstrom 05:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's called branding. It's why SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT writes SIXAXIS in all capitals (that's the controller for the SONY PLAYSTATION&reg; 3, by the way). They created these things. We find their rendering to be out of line with standard English orthography, so we alter it. That is absolutely standard practice in any reputable style guide. It's what the New York Times does. And, if you'll read WP:MOSTM, you'll find that it's what we do too. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's called the title of the novels. If you don't like that, go edit some other articles. Kyaa the Catlord 06:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How many times do we have to say it? Wikipedia renders trademarks (such as the title of a manga/anime series) using standard English orthography. This is not an issue where you just tell people to "go away". You read the style guide and come to an understanding of why we do not simply use any RiDiCULOUS CAPiTALiZATiON that is thrown our way. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not always. I was in a discussion a while back about "iPod". Notice.. we say "iPod" in iPod... -- Ned Scott 06:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'll read the talk page of MOS-TM you'll find I have many objections to it. In this specific case, when a work of creative art uses orthography out of line with standard English orthography, purposely changing it to standard English orthography is destroying its artistic integrity. Also, we, the users, are Wikipedia, and we improve Wikipedia as we see fit. —pfahlstrom 06:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about altering a work of art. We're talking about rendering its title in a coherent, readable way in a formal discussion of the work. This is not a shrine to the work, and we are simply here to discuss it. Wikipedia must maintain a professional style if it is to be an encyclopedia at all. In formal written English, a professional style means purposely and systematically altering trademarks and titles when they invent nonstandard written forms for words. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not possible to talk professionally about something with a nonconformist title without forcing its title to conform? If that is so, there is something seriously wrong with so-called "professionalism." —pfahlstrom 06:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

To reply to pfahlstrom, WP:NC says that being more recognizable is more important than being "correct" :)-- Ned Scott 06:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm looking for a statement to that effect on the page, and can't find one, unless you mean "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists.". xxxHOLiC is the orthography used commonly by people who know what the series is, and if people don't know what it is, using the correct orthography in the article can only help educate them on it. —pfahlstrom 06:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Look, how it's written in plain text should be a secondary thought. This is a MANGA and ANIME. VISUAL, get it.... We title the article to help people find this article, that's all I'm saying (and is how we do things here on Wikipedia..) Over all, I really don't care what you guys do with the title, and this is a very silly discussion. Someone needs to make an arbitrary decision and tell everyone to shut up for our own good. -- Ned Scott 06:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. There's a reason why we don't use the "correct" title of What tнē ♯$*! Ďө ωΣ (k)πow!?.--SeizureDog 06:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I was going to say Wikipedia is not a dictatorship, but at least one source says it's a benevolent dictatorship headed by Jimbo. Anyway, I do not think any decision here should be arbitrary. I don't see how the page would be hard to find if its name is xxxHOLiC. (Disregarding the current ××× characters.) —pfahlstrom 06:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue isn't where it'll be easiest to find (as there's all them nice redirects), it's...well, I'm not quite sure what the real issue is anymore. What's official is debated, what fits MOS guidelines is debated, what's most common is debated, what looks nicest is debated....I seriously think that we should just straight up vote, because nearly all arguements are valid. Screw being "correct", and let's just figure out what the largest majority of us can stand.--SeizureDog 06:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

At least stop move-warring, alright?
I'm pretty sure it's not XXXHolic On Wheels. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this move proposal to be too debatable and unresolved to be moved by anyone other than a third-party admin. I don't agree with the ×××HOLiC title (as I like ×××Holic best), but we're not supposed to move pages until the issue is fully resolved, which I just don't feel it is. There's quite a bit of renaming involved once the issue is resolved, and we do not want to have to do that more than once. Even if we aren't going to use "the crazy title with times signs", there seems to be about equal support for both xxx and XXX. And that's not even bringing up the issue of the "Holic" part. The page isn't ready for a move. --SeizureDog 06:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like ×××HOLiC either, as I believe xxxHOLiC to be best, but as the discussion is not done, I support keeping it at the current title until it is done. (But I'm off to bed for the night; please do not assume that silence on my part means I suddenly changed my mind.) —pfahlstrom 06:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Evil polls
Ok, let's really figure out what the most people can live with. Add a Support vote to each title that you'd be fine with (do not add "Weak" or "Strong" to your support votes, this should be just a straight count). Also, please do not add "Oppose" votes; your lack of support is opposition enough. Once all (or at least most) of the people who have contributed to this debate have voted, we can tally them up and see where the middle ground is most reached. Part of the problem I think is that the scattered opinions are what people most want, and not neccessarially what they'd be ok with (which is what compromise is all about, not getting everything you want).--SeizureDog 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ×××HOLiC
 * 1) Support--KagamiNoMiko 11:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ×××Holic
 * 1) Support--SeizureDog 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * ×××holic
 * 1) Support--SeizureDog 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * XXXHOLiC
 * 1) Support--KagamiNoMiko 11:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * XXXHolic
 * 1) Support &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--KagamiNoMiko 11:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. - Cyrus XIII 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support--Endroit 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support--ju66l3r 17:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * XXXholic
 * 1) Support &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. - Cyrus XIII 11:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Endroit 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * xxxHOLiC
 * 1) Support--Ned Scott 08:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--KagamiNoMiko 11:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support —pfahlstrom 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- Kyaa the Catlord 01:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * xxxHolic
 * 1) Support--SeizureDog 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support with reservations (we're supposed to avoid using the lowercase template when possible, and there are ways to do so).  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support--Ned Scott 08:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support--KagamiNoMiko 11:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support--Endroit 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support--Katsuhagi 22:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support--ju66l3r 17:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * xxxholic
 * 1) Support. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support--Endroit 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * HOLiC


 * Holic
 * 1) Support--SeizureDog 06:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support — Athænara   ✉  09:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * holic

Comments

 * I'd like to point out that votes can't trump the requirement for reliable sources. I haven't seen a single reliable source that leaves off the "XXX", just people claiming that we should spell it that way because fans pronounce it that way.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the third-party reliable sources are in disagreement. This isn't really a claim of fact, but a style question. Those are rules we can make here. I don't think there is anyone here who would absolutely require that we drop the X's anyway. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 07:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We need to claim many times in the article that the manga has a certain title. There happen to be a few published representations of the title that also meet the Manual of Style, just like there are published references to "Macy's" as opposed to "Macy*s". I could claim that the series is named "χ⌧χℍ0Li¢", or is actually named "Bruce" but happens to have the idiosyncratic spelling xxxHoLic (you see, the xxxHo is silent, the c is soft, and the 'Li' is pronounced 'broo' by all knowledgeable fans), and either way you would rightly revert my claim as unattributable nonsense. Reliable sources still matter.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  08:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The Holic alone is just the super strict interpetation of the MOS guidelines. Doesn't mean it's good, it's just the most technically correct per MOS. And if you're arguing that the title is meant to be pronouced any other way, you're wrong.--SeizureDog 08:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Written representations of the title generally (not always, we have established that earlier) add the silent part, so since Wikipedia consists of text rather than speech, leaving it out still does not seem the favorable choice. And you're right, the "Holic" variant is not only super strict, it's also a little too much by the book, which too little consideration for the problem at hand. That's why I initially suggested "XXXholic" as opposed to "Xxxholic". - Cyrus XIII 11:55, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. The guideline needs to be changed. I think I'll bring the issue up soon.--SeizureDog 12:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that depends on how you look at the situation: If you consider the multiplication symbols to be unchangingly part of the official typeset, rather than just a fancy alternative for using three regular "x", of course, that bit of the Manual of Style applies, as we are dealing with "special characters that are not pronounced". But the majority of written representations of the title only deal in regular characters, so since there is no consistency on part of the artists and publishers, we can just chose which of the official variants better appeals to our style guidelines, leaving considerations to apply certain parts of the MoS for later (if that will be needed at all). - Cyrus XIII 12:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's a stretch to say "there is no consistency on part of the artists and publishers." The German manga is not relevant for reasons stated above, and Del Rey made a mistake on their website for the first volume, correcting that mistake for every volume thereafter. Does a single deviation count as inconsistency? I grant that in Japanese there are citations for xxx, XXX, and ×××, but HOLiC is consistent there. —pfahlstrom 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * But was I just discussing the "HOLiC" bit? - Cyrus XIII 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * So was I? The only part of my previous paragraph that didn't apply to "HOLiC" was "there are citations for xxx, XXX, and ×××." —pfahlstrom 19:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm sure, but SeizureDog and me were not discussing the title's second part at that point. - Cyrus XIII 20:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you're right. I even mentally transposed your "was I." Whoops. —pfahlstrom 20:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why we're tallying up what we're "okay with" or are willing to compromise on. A title is a title, and there's no way to compromise on a fact. If the most commonly known form of a name is different from the correct form, I've put forth a proposal on how to deal with that on the MOS-TM talk page, but I don't see that that's the case here; XXXHolic does not seem to be a more common form than xxxHOLiC. —pfahlstrom 16:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I also don't know why we're tallying this up, but for a different reason. This is a perfect example so far of why we say "voting is evil" on Wikipedia. Sometimes voting is necessary to find a consensus, but I think that's not the case here. The poll is not clearing up any sort of consensus; it has far too many options for that. SeizureDog, what are you going to do with the results? Take the option with the most votes and call it the only consensus-supported title? Point to lots of people voting for lots of different options as a sign that there wasn't really a consensus at all and therefore we have to leave the title as it is? Perhaps I sound a bit sarcastic here, but I honestly have no idea what you are trying to accomplish.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  08:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If anything, it's helped to clarify that xxxHolic and XXXHolic appear to be the only two names with enough consensus to move to either. It's also shown that twice (atm 8 vs. 4) as many people support xxxHolic over XXXholic, the initially proposed namespace by Cyrus XIII which had 9 supports, and that only one (atm) person supports the current title of ×××HOLiC when there were 7 votes against a move in the previous proposal. I was personally under the belief that more people supported the current title, but the poll has certainly cleared up that notion.
 * Polls are evil when they try to circumvent discussion, but we've had plenty of that. Don't vote on everything states that "[l]ess consensus exists about votes which regard matters of style, taste and personal preference". This very much seems to be a style issue at this point, as there seems to be few people that think that there is one, and only one, typeset that is "correct" (certainly no one has voted on just one option yet). Since there are multiple "correct" possibilities with near equal weight, the poll is justified. --SeizureDog 09:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been an excellent example of when polling is good. We have discussion along side it, and for something that is almost a minor style issue, it really helps us to resolve the issue quickly. -- Ned Scott 10:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only that, but this really isn't any different than how we normally do RMs.. -- Ned Scott 10:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No kidding, these extra polls did wonders to sort this mess out (thanks rspeer & SeizureDog!). Both remaining candidates ("xxxHolic" and "XXXHolic") aren't half-bad in my opinion, though I do share rspeer's reservations towards proper nouns which start with a lowercase letter, especially if an alternative which does not is readily available. Any comments on this from the editors who voted for "xxx" but not "XXX" respectively? - Cyrus XIII 14:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * While I voted for both and find both acceptable, I will say that it seems like a bit of undue weight to use "XXX" since it's been clearly explained above that the symbols are silent. The reason for not using the multiplication symbols is to meet MOS and ease of use, but the lowercase 'x' is the closest approximation.  To then use 'X' instead simply because proper nouns don't start with lowercase letters, seems like it's a bit of a misjustice since it's only starting with a lowercase letter because we rightly replaced symbols with characters (not letters) best approximating the symbols.  The 'x' should probably be considered immutable since it's a representation/placeholder for a symbol and not just another letter.  ju66l3r 17:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was always under the impression, that it is the other way around, that the multiplication symbol was used to emulate the font (for the letter 'x') found in the logo. - Cyrus XIII 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the logo xs look more like ×s than xs. I think a main reason SeizureDog is in favor of ××× (besides the fact that it is used sometimes in Japanese sources, as he linked above) is that it helps avoid the (not applicable to this series) connotation of triple-X-rated films. Choosing xxx over XXX helps avoid this as well, though more weakly. As for me, my reason for choosing xxxHOLiC over XXXHOLiC or ×××HOLiC is that while XXXHOLiC is used on the CLAMP website, xxxHOLiC is used in the English books and in the Japanese CLAMP no Kiseki books consistently. I don't have access to a Japanese xxxHOLiC book or I would have checked there too to see what it says. Ideally, someone should check. But the reluctance of so many Wikipedia editors here to use the correct orthography of HOLiC points to, I believe, a disheartening failure of Wikipedia as a system. I am most disappointed. —pfahlstrom 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I hadn't even considered that point, but it's a good one. XXX may mean other things, but the fact that it's next to "holic" does kinda give the impression that it stands for "Alcoholic" or "Sexaholic". The actual reason for my support of ××× was that it seems to serve grammatical purpose, rather than simply a stylistic one. --SeizureDog 04:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * pfahlstrom, that's a pretty narrow view of Wikipedia. Even if this article ended up at completely The Wrong Title (tm), it wouldn't be a "failure of Wikipedia as a system" -- you have to realize that there are many more important issues out there.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  08:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't mean to say I consider the Wikipedia system as a whole a failure. I love Wikipedia—there are so many things that Wikipedia does well, that when something pops up that the Wikipedia system fails on, it's disappointing. And there are broad issues like WP:CSB that indicate a shortcoming of Wikipedia, which are arguably much more important than getting names just so, but which people are aware of and a certain number of people are working toward improving. This issue here just happens to be one I care about, so to see its improvement so actively opposed is disheartening. —pfahlstrom 03:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * XXX is used for lots of things besides pornography. Moonshine, the Roman numeral for 30, kisses (as in XOXO), and the Vin Diesel film come to mind. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 01:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I might also add that there is no other letter (or character/symbol for that matter) that is used more often to denote a variable or unknown factor (i.e. in a mathematical equation) than X. - Cyrus XIII 02:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, X (or x) stands for many things, and so can XXX. Anyway, if it serves a grammatical purpose, I'm not sure × is any better than x, since the × in Unicode is not meant to stand for a variable but for a multiplication sign, cross product, Cartesian product, or botanical hybrid name. The variable in mathematics is mostly just the letter x, or the italicized x . But what matters more to me is what is actually used in the book. —pfahlstrom 03:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This article has been renamed from ×××HOLiC to xxxHolic as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 15:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)