Talk:O-Parts Hunter/Archive 1

Names of the Angels/Devils

Most, if not all, are named after real Angels/Devils from Christianity/Judaism, and related mythologies. The romanizations used are pretty crappy. I'll fix them up and maybe make a section for the two Trees. 65.120.3.67 00:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Timeskip

Does anyone know anything about the characters post the 4 year timeskip? I saw some pictures of volume 14, the new character designs looked really great. --Jutari

666 Satan Trivia Section

Oh, first post! Yay! Anyway, does anyone think that the page deserves a trivia section, such as the ones in the Naruto pages? Just a thought... -- Sasuke-kun27 17:43, 9 July 2006

We are really trying to do away with trivia sections. They should be incorperated into the main article. See WP:Trivia.

Japanese Pronouciation

Is it Roku Roku Roku Satan? Or Roku Hyaku Roku Jū Roku Satan? Do those of you that don't know Japanese, I'm basically asking if it's Six Six Six Satan or Six-Hundred-Sixty-Six Satan. --SeizureDog 22:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually thinking it would probably said more like Surī Shikkusu (three sixs). I'm going to go ahead and use this until someone can tell me otherwise.--SeizureDog 18:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

According to what I've seen, it's "Setan Roku Roku Roku". That's how it's stated on the Japanese wikipedia article, as well. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Big Breaks

if anyone has any better ideas on how to fix this problem WITHOUT shrinking the pictures then please post them here

thanks,

Ancientanubis 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Kabbalah pic too big

hey i dont know if any bocy noticed or not but the two pictures of the kabbalah's next to the angels and demons are too big and covering up information about the angels and demons can someone replace or resize them so they fit properly--Zetsuie 01:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

the pics look just fine on my browser... it may be just because of different browsers, which one are you useing???Ancientanubis, talk 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

and i just checked it in internet explorer, it works just fine there too...Ancientanubis, talk 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

im using fire fox the problem is the picture is covering up most of the information about the angels and demons status--Zetsuie 01:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

well you must be doing something strange because it looks just fine on my browser... you useing any specific theme or what not???Ancientanubis, talk 02:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

take a screen shot or something and i'll see if i can figure something out...Ancientanubis, talk 02:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

heres a link to a picture i took i dont know if you'll be able to see it though dead link hope that helps--Zetsuie 02:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

hmm.... its hard to see but ya may have something to do with your browser, or possibly something to do with a plug in possibly, not sure... but it looks perfect on my browser(firefox)...Ancientanubis, talk 02:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You must be running in a higer resolution because I am also using Mozilla Firefox and under 1024x768, the image is to big. I am also using the standard theme, not that it really matters. Evilgohan2 20:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

ya, im using 1440x900 and it looks fine, i guess i'll shrink the table down just a bit...Ancientanubis, talk 20:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I should probably add to this... the english name for #10 displayed on the image of the true Kabbalah is incorrect, it reads Metatoron when it should read Sandalphon. 209.89.17.38 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

we're aware of that, it was a mistranslation or somethin but its the only good picture of the kabbalah from the manga... so for now (untill we can find a better pic) were gonna use that one....Ancientanubis, talk 17:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

ah well I went ahead and wrote in what was missing and fixed was was wrong Mdurrant 18:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks.....Ancientanubis, talk 19:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Pics

I recently made some changes based on the pic size in the angels and demons section. In FireFox, these pics overlap the tables. In IE, the tables themselves are out of alignment and the pics are FAR to large, taking up much space. -- Jelly Soup 23:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

yes, but you shrunk the pictures to small so i enlarged them again, and i am running firefox and the pictures look just fine so if ya can provide a screen shot i may be able to see if i can get it fixed:).....Ancientanubis, talk 00:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

and i just pulled it up in IE and it looks just fine there too....Ancientanubis, talk 00:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

i just tested all the resolutions i had available on both IE and firefox and only found problems with them clashin when on 1024x768... and the amount there is so minute that it's almost hard to tell if you just glance at it... so I'll need to kno 2 things. 1, what resolution is your monitor at. 2, what wiki theme you useing....Ancientanubis, talk 00:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

After reading the previous discussion on this issue, I see that the issue lies with me. It's the resolution and theme I'm using. Problem solved. -- Jelly Soup 00:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

references

i found a reference to cite the plot section but i dont know how to insert it so im hoping someone can help and heres the reference <copyvio link removed> --Zetsuie 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

it was already cited dude....Ancientanubis, talk 13:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

what is in your source that is of any use to this page, all it does is give a brief plot, author, artist, date released, all of this is common knowledge, and we dont really need to cite the plot... go look @ just about any major manga/anime out there(Naruto or Bleach for example) and they dont have the plot cited, i mean just because one web site says it doesnt mean we have to cite it... besides citing for manga/anime is more along the lines of citing things that happens in the manga/anime, such as this page Ancientanubis, talk

Similarities to Naruto

I think that this should either be removed completely or seriously revised...the similarities stated are incredibly general and many other manga series have a main character with something evil within them and have a time-skip.

^^ The Time skip was never mentioned in that part of the article. Re read it and make your case again, once you have facts of what your talking about.

I removed the Original Research tag for the reason that if one was to actually read all 3 mentioned mangas (Naruto, Dragon Ball, and 666 Satan), they would find that the similarities are to close to go un-mentioned. I mean, of course there are similarities to other manga, but this one is so obvious that its common knowledge amongst those whom have actually read it.Evilgohan2 00:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

well actually i think its way more similar to dbz (such as the boy and girl pair start off on an adventure in the begging and the desert background setting that has been shown repeatedly)and one piece(mainly im comparing the rock bird arc in 666satan and the Skypiea arc in one piece) than naruto. Plus bleach has the same general themes that are listed for the most part such as a main characters tragic childhood, a monster inside of the main character, an organization thats after the main character because of the monster, the ability to use the monsters power, the ability to talk with the monster, and the main characters inability to completely control the monster. if you ask me 666satan just has the same shonen formula that has been used by evey long running shonen manga series since dbz. i think the similarities that are listed right now are way too generic and should be removed or replaced with more specific similarities that are only shared between the two series.--Zetsuie 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

actually im going to go ahead and remove the similarities listed because thier isnt any citations but im leaving the section about the similarites to naruto because i think thiers some importance about seishi being accused of being a copycat of naruto but someone should add the statement Masashi Kishimoto made saying his brother didnt steal any of the ideas are concepts for 666satan from him.--Zetsuie 01:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

you dont really need citation for an overall opinion that is noticed by a group of people... instead of deleting it right away you should look for a way to cite it... thats my opinion anyway, i re-added the stuff you deleted btw because i see no reason in it bein removed...Ancientanubis, talk 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

They're generic similarities that are shared by several manga and they dont offer very much use to a reader plus im pretty sure you cant add opinion and make it appear as a face it still needs to be cited and you would need to state that there opinions--Zetsuie 01:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

you still dont do stuff around here just because you want it, it can be consitered vandalism here, and its not like you have a clean record... 2 or 3 counts of vandalism, deleting of peoples user pages, i say ya cut out and let me fix the page so it looks betterAncientanubis, talk 01:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

you want citation for some of the information, then click on the links that are associated to the bullets... theres your citation...Ancientanubis, talk 02:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes i dont mind leaving them thier for the time bieng as long as thier cited however i still think the similarities are to general and should be replaced with something more specific--Zetsuie 02:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

i dont really mean to sound like an ass, but what makes you think you can come over to this page and start bossing people around and deciding how things should be when you haven't even appeared to show interest in editing this page for less then a day....Ancientanubis, talk 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Just to be realistic, it is wrong to come in and begin throwing your weight around as if you own the article. Honestly speaking, 666 Satan has similarities to both Naruto and Dragon Ball. This goes without saying. However, removing one of them because you feel that it is not as similar is like making an article and calling it fact because it is your own opinion. Such is the reason for a general dissenting opinion of the Wikipedia by the scientific community (Trust me on that one). If you are going to remove it because it is not "properly cited" then you must remove the entire section because it just cannot be cited. You can't cite something that is being a general opinion. If you need me to make an analogy then I will but frankly, if you do not like that it states a general opinion, then thats tough. But the general opinion is that 666 Satan bears a striking resemblance to Naruto and Dragon Ball. It is that simple. Leave it as is. Evilgohan2 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

On a seperate note, please try to indent. It makes things much more coherent. I've gone ahead and done it above but please try to do it from now on. Thats too both Ancientanubis and Zetsuie. Evilgohan2 19:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the similarities area. I encourage you to look it over, but I think you will find that most of them, if not all, are correct. If not, Dragon Ball (from Bulma meets Goku to Goku meets Pan) is a long series. Knock yourself out :P Evilgohan2 19:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks E.Gohan, now zetsuie, with the kind of information we have in there now it can be cited with chapters and possibly pages which i plan on going through and doing right now... Ancientanubis, talk 20:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

hey i thought of another similar charateristic between naruto and 666satan n that they both had tournaments which originally had ten opponents and both tournaments were canceled before ending

also i'm happy with leaving it although it might be a good idea to change the name now that you've added similarities between dragon ball--Zetsuie 05:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me started on the tournament because it seemed to me like the idea was stolen from Yu Yu Hakusho's Dark Tournament. In addition, the tournament does not occur on a regular basis throughout the series nor does it play a major role in the development of the series (see Son Goku vs Piccolo in Dragon Ball). Evilgohan2 02:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As for the original reasearch tag, I'm removing it again. If someone wants to re-add it, discuss it on the talk page because it is beginning to become very annoying. Like I said, if you wish to verify the claims, go watch the videos yourself. You have a community of people whom have actually seen the show and even those who do not like it telling you the statement is correct and you keep adding it back and back. There is an attorney who does the same things, Jack Thompson. He also dodges questions. Please do not be like Jack Thompson and have an open mind as to actually not challenge truthful claims or watch (or read, if you prefer) Dragon Ball, and Naruto. But as I said before. It's a long series. Have fun. Evilgohan2 02:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's all right to make a small note of the similarities, maybe under a controversies header. I think a big list outlining all the similarities as it is right now is quite ridiculous. I've read all 3 mangas in question up to the current chapters and there definitely is inspirations that are being drawn, but the progression and content of each story is completely different... nothing deserving of an in-depth negative list, making the readers believe it's a knockoff. "Both the characters had hard childhoods", "There are several timeskips".... give me a break, I'm surprised you guys left out "They all have spikey hair and big eyes!".209.89.17.38 03:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC) (matt)

No need for personal attacks now (P.S. Most manga and anime characters have spikey hair and big eyes. It's just a trait. Big deal. Only a fool would dare post that)... Evilgohan2 19:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

yes we are aware of this, but our only problem is that(im not speaking for everyone here but just makein an assumption) we're not really as intent on fixing that section right now as we are fixin up the entire page as a whole... Ancientanubis, talk 22:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to consider similarities, how about Lucifuge's stomach to Gluttony from FMA? 130.95.106.154 03:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Now thats just getting ridiculous. Especially since its not a mainstream similarity. I have yet to hit an anime forum comparing 666 Satan to Full Metal Alchemist, but as I just posted in the 6+ sources (I say plus because I left a nice little comment in the text for someone who chooses to edit it once more), I have no trouble finding comparisons to Naruto and Dragon Ball all over the place. Of course, I have my own opinion in that the Dark Tournament was ripped straight out of Yu Yu Hakusho, but like I said, thats my opinion.Evilgohan2 03:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because FMA and 666 Satan aren't similar (I've only read FMA, but from the stuff on the wiki they're obviously not the same). But the whole "alternate dimension in some villain's stomach" is not a very common theme, unlike "big eyes spiky hair". Which is relevant to the "omg666satanisaripoff" argument, no? (Yes, I'm the same person as before) Gwendolyr 12:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I did a little organizing in this section, but honestly I think we should cut it. If not, someone eventually will. Say what you will, but the pure fact is that unless a verified source has drawn these conclusions and published them, they are by definition original research. The whole section is pure speculation. I'm not saying I disagree with them, just that we aren't supposed to be throwing our fan theories around on wiki. Every time a section like this creeps up on an anime or manga article, it is deleted soon after for violations it naturally presents. In fact I've talked myself into it. I'm taking the section out. Onikage725 17:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

And now I'm forced to present the question, what would one consider to be a verified source? I'm just saying that even a "verified source" can be subject to bias on its own part or the part of the person(s) whom consider it verifiable. In example, some may consider FOX News a verifiable source of information. Then again, after the 2000 Presidential election, some may not. There are actually two media sources in there as a source. I believe a blog is also there. In addition, multiple forums are there. Now, I'd present that argument that a concurrent user sentiment is "verifiable source" enough, and indeed is how this article ended up being changed from O-Parts Hunter to 666 Satan in the first place, but that doesn't seem to be a valid argument in this case, so I'll say this. If a credible blog isn't a "verifiable source", how about we erase every single edit on wikipedia associated with Kotaku, Game Politics, The Consumerist, etc.? And if a media site isn't a "verifiable source", then I don't know what this world is coming to. Sorry, Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein... Evilgohan2 23:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well (obviously) I didn't follow through, thinking maybe I was being rash. So allow me to rephrase. As for the accusation that the series is like Naruto, obviously that is well sourced. What I question is the list of similarites (which itself goes into a list of Dragn Ball similarities). I haven't read every source there, so I dunno if every example is on there, but there is a hidden tag encouraging other editors to add similarites which raises my doubts. I just feel that reporting an accusation and listing every percieved similarity are two different things, savvy? I don't even have a particular problem with it, but I see sections like this brought under scrutiny over and over. They always seem to get cut for being too speculative. A good example would be the article for the Eragon film. Almost anyone I've talked to thinks it was patterned too closely after Stars Wars ep IV (myself included). The article has, under reception, cited quotes of reviewers claiming as much. It does not, however, contain a list of said similarities. Likewise, the TMNT3 article once had a list of all the errors with the film that were outlined in notable web celebrity James the Nintendo Nerd's video review, and it was deleted soon after for being unencyclopedic. Onikage725 23:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I removed that tag you referred to as I can see your point with it. If you are monitoring the history page, I'm also not going to just let any old thing get on there. An anonymous user on an IP tried that and the entire section was removed.Evilgohan2 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

indeed, BTW i may be back for a while!!! but i haven't really been gone as i've been checking the history of all the 666 Satan pages:P... Ancientanubis, talk 02:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I too wish for the removal of "Similarities to (insert name of a manga series)" section. This is a manga created by Seishi, not Masashi or Akira Toriyama. If it was Masashi's or Toriyama's, THEN it would be great to compare the two (or how many one wants to compare). But he's another person, he is not his brother or neither he is his idol. He is himself and his manga should be HIS and treated that way. If you want to keep the Similarities section, lets then add for example "Similarities to Final Fantasy VII", I mean whoa, the amount of similar things in them! Nawulf 21:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

possibly, the only flaw in your logic there is Seishi Kishimoto is the younger twin brother of Masashi Kishimoto(creator of Naruto) and it has been stated in the volumes released by them that they both use to draw and gather influence from each other in there drawings, and they have both stated that they gained influence from Akira Toriyama(creator of DBZ) when they first started drawing and such... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 03:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get how it's a flaw in my logic that they are twin brothers and it has been stated in the mangas that they have been influenced by same things. That was exactly what I was saying. But does Naruto have "Similarities to 666 Satan" section? It doesn't even have "Similarities to DBZ" section. Does any other manga article here at Wikipedia have a section like that? I think that kind of section lessens the value of the original work in the eyes of the article's readers. Nawulf 19:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

the reason it has been mentioned more in here is due to the fact that 666 Satan came out after Naruto and Seishi Kishimoto has been repeatedly called a copycat, so we felt the need to include some of the similarities even thought we do not see him as one, imho he appears to have been inspired more then he has copied, Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 19:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

New name change to 666 Satan (Manga)

Ah just read the title.Sam ov the blue sand 21:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

lol, what about the title???Ancientanubis, talk 00:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Picky aren't we? Change the name to 666 Satan (Manga) so it isn't confused with 666, Number of the beast (oohh, ahhh).Sam ov the blue sand 00:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

lol, it was just an idea.... i mean its not like its a bad idea....Ancientanubis, talk 05:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"so it isn't confused with 666, Number of the beast" Wasn't that the entire point of adding the disambiguation for The Number of the Beast? There is an entirely different article for that.Evilgohan2 03:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

We have a disambiguation hatnote already, no need. --tjstrf talk 03:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Rising Popularity

Within a period of time, I have noticed a certain uproar within the internet regarding Seshi Kishimoto and his manga 666 Satan. Several new fansites have appeared, more discussion of it on fourms, and several mention of it on several anime podcasts. One could say that the world is slowly but surely increasing its awareness of the manga. And it seems that its popularity (or rather increase of it is due to manga sites such as mangarun and mangavolume)

The previous unsigned post was added by 24.186.55.182 at 18:17, 30 May 2007.

Please sign your postings... Anyway, I believe that was already noted within the article itself. Evilgohan2 21:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

sorry, for not signing my postings and all. ne wayz I believe i was the one to post that. But I felt that it was rather ignorant for me to post that without discussing it. Milchild05 )

Michael

When Cross defeated the real Michael when they went to Stea, didn't he (as in the real Michael) join the Kaballah? He did say something about that, should we add that to the Kaballah's data? I'm asking because I'm not sure if he did or didn't. Bluedragon.mist 03:33, 10 July 2007

Thanks to whoever updated it. ^.^ --Bluedragon.mist 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

About Astaroth

Is he dead because the wound wasn't healing and it seems like the nuclei was removed shouldn't he revert to a human form since usually devils cant talk or reason like him unless on the level of Satan or metatron on there own--GasSnake or Poison Oak 04:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

untill its said that "Astaroth is dead" we dont pernounce him as dead...Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 23:28, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I ask for a comfirmation of what you might think not if he is offical and should we change it or else I would have said that then I also asked: Shouldn't he change back into a human form since he can speak and usually only wild ones can't-Change is coming and potter should have died I might be Trolled and I just don't care 20:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

anime

i have not seen any confirmation anywhere about an anime so can someone please confirm or deny it because i cant read french. --Theassasin 09:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:666 Satan FUR

Template:666 Satan FUR has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Papa November 11:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Info box edits

I edited the starting date and number of volumes. On page http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/manga.php?id=3013&page=28 is said that it started in year 2001 and here http://mangahelpers.com/forums/showthread.php?p=645534#post645534 is said that with 76 chapetrs there'll be 19 volumes. The 19th book isn't out yet but it will. - Nawulf (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

In relation to the Similarities Section

As people continue to call into question the notability of the similarities section, saying the ones that are listed need to be redacted or removed altoghether, recent edits have caused me to call into action why the section is notable and needs to remain as is. As a communative effort, the wikipedia is edited by many groups. As is noted by the WikiProject 666 Satan, the section has seen many problems as such been called into question. If one is to read through the history, many persons have attempted to make edits, such as adding random things like: "There's a tournament". How many animes can you think of that have a tournament? Other things include just random bs such as a comparison of moves. These have all been removed for what are the most notable similarities which have been cited over and over and over again. Due to such and being that it has been cited on forums, many questioned the credibility of the sources. One may find through searching the wikipedia that this is not the only topic which has cited forum post. A forum post is not necessarily a bad source either. In addition, considering that the two cited news sources seem to have acknowledged these listed items, I'd say they were pretty valid. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 19:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Further more, I'd like to direct one's attention to the above topic so extensively discussed about the Similiraties discussion before. Talk:666_Satan#Similarities_to_Naruto ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 02:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The "Similarities to Dragon Ball" Section Should be Removed

The case is extremely weak and, unlike the "Similarities to Naruto" section, is uncited. Currently the case for similarity is that Jio and Ball's training under Kirin is similar to Goku and Kuririn's training under Roshi and King Kai.

• Although the first two points are valid, they're not strong.
  • The similarities between Kirin and Roshi end at the fact that they're both hermits.
  • Training with weighted backpacks isn't an idea unique to Dragon Ball and the training methods used with the backpacks aren't similar.
• The next two points aren't even valid.
  • Catching an animal is a common training method, even in America. In Rocky II Mickey has Rocky catch a chicken to increase his speed. The point of catching Jajamaru was mainly to force Jio and Ball to use team work where as catching Bubbles was a solo task.
  • Saying that Serpent Road resembles the path to Kirin's is something that must be cited or elaborated to have any validity. As it stands I fail to see how they resemble each other.
• The final point is valid although since Kirin is noted as the parallel to Roshi and not King Kai, it's weakened.

Here is a quote of this section as it appeared on November 5th, 2007 for reference:

As per the aforementioned, 666 Satan inherently shares aspects of its story with the manga series, Dragon Ball. Examples of such include, but are not limited to:

• Jio Freed and Ball were trained by someone whom was considered to be a hermit (Kirin), much like Son Goku and Kuririn were trained by the turtle hermit, Muten-Rôshi.
  • As an extension to the above, during training with Kirin, Jio Freed and Ball wore weighted backpacks on their backs, much in the same way as Son Goku and Kuririn wore weighted turtle shells while training with Muten-Rôshi.
  • In addition, Jio and Ball's first training exercise was to catch the pet of their trainer, Jajamaru, whom was very fast. This is very much in the same way Goku had to catch North Kaiō's pet monkey, Bubbles, as the first part of his training.
• On their way to see kirin, Jio and Ball had to travel along a path that resembles serpent road
• When Jio first saw Jajamaru, he mistook him for Kirin. Similarly, Goku mistook Bubbles for North Kaiō.

If this section isn't improved by December I will remove it.--Bbobjs 08:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Problem with your statement

There is one small and yet, very big problem with your statements toward the Similarities to Dragon Ball section, "Consensus". If you're adamant about it, put it forth before the WikiProject which works to maintain the article, 666 Satan. That project happens to be WP:666 Satan. Although, given the precedent established, I highly doubt it would be removed. You giving an ultimatum as such placed is entirely out of accordance with the principles established by Wikipedia and as per such, isn't even worth honoring. It is no better than all those who sought to remove the section because it was unsourced or because some of the sources were from forum topics (Which, by precedent once more, have been proven to be valid sources). So since you seem to be in the business of putting forth baseless ultimatums, I'd like to present one of my own: Please cease your pointless snipe hunt upon the article 666 Satan. If you do find it in your mind to remove the section mentioned herein, I will have no choice but to re-establish it as appointed by consensus (There's that precedent again) and to call upon an official Moderator. Thank you and have a good day. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 15:38, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I was unaware that this was the wrong way to complain. Thank you for correcting me.Bbobjs 09:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

View my talk page for a continued debate of this issue.Bbobjs (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Similarities sections seem a bit superfluous

I agree completely that there are clear similarities, however, I don't think there really need to be multi-paragraph sections comparing and contrasting this manga with other manga. In truth, you can find similarities between almost any two shounen manga, just as easily as you can compare epic poetry or heroic mythology, as there are traits, themes, and archetypes that have become standards (for example, the common loud-mouthed hero, cold rival, and female cheerleader setup). It might be better to simply state, at some point in the article, that the manga shares notable similarities with other shounen manga, such as Dragon Ball and Naruto, along with a brief explanation as to why.

Or, alternately (and this seems to be the better option), include the information as part of a "see also" section, with brief notes, linking to the respective articles for those series. For example:

Naruto - The manga created by Seishi's younger twin brother, Masashi. The two share similar artistic styles and plot elements, due in large part to the two brothers growing up together and experiencing many of the same influences.

More in-depth information on the influences of the Kishimoto twins can be included in their respective articles. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 08:43, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree, this sounds a very good option. --Nawulf (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Similarities

Why is the similarities section bigger every time I check the article? It is really superfluous. It just not right. You should not "own" the article and decide it's OK to flatten 666's value by listing every little similarity you find. (Maybe you don't think it's flattening but how about a reader who is trying to decide whether to read the manga or not: he has decided not to read "a copy of Naruto" and when he comes here... whoo boy.) This is against what the Kishimoto brothers have said: Seishi is not a copycat (only called as one by people who only see the surface of both series) and Masashi has asked people not to call Seishi a copycat. There's no point to collect the similarities, it tells nothing about 666 Satan. This should be an encyclopedia article not some fansite with everything possible considering/not considering 666 Satan, Naruto, Dragon Ball.

There are dozens of series with angsty little protagonist main character boys, 666 Satan and Naruto are not to be picked up from that mass and compared to each other just because they're made by mangaka twins.

And I want an answer that is ready to discuss in a proper manner, not just saying "NO!" without any kind of way of explaining why the section is so big and why it couldn't be smaller. And please, I'm not a native English speaker, so not complex senteces (I haven't got a clue what was explained in the earlier responses.) - Nawulf (talk) 15:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)