Jump to content

Talk:Case Closed

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 174.91.187.135 (talk) at 22:11, 21 September 2015 (→‎Fox Kids). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleCase Closed has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 1, 2011Good article nomineeListed
Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAnime and manga GA‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title Change

Can we change the title of the page to Meitantei Conan. As it is the original title of the Japanese anime and it is the source. It was named Case Closed by Funimation after acquiring the dubbing rights for the anime and for marketing in the United States. The original anime series is continuing and the Case Closed series stopped production. Hence I believe the title Meitantei Conan is more relatable. ViSh 21:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

This has been discussed so often a header at the top was supposed to prevent more of these discussions from coming up. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea behind giving a topic a title is most usually an original context rather than a derived context. In my opinion, something that has been discussed a lot doesn't mean the discussion shouldn't happen again. ViSh 00:01, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

But Wikipedia's stance is still based on the MoS which states official English titles must be used. The series is still licensed under Case Closed by Viz and Funimation. No argument has defeated that cause yet. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is secondary to WP:TIES. The official Japanese-English title is Detective Conan, and since this topic is clearly Japan centric that should be used. The Japanese article even mentions this: "漫画・アニメともに、世界各国で翻訳・刊行・放映されている。タイトルの英語表記は『Detective Conan』で他の言語もそれに従うものだが、北米のみ『Case Closed』というタイトルになっている。" Unless it can be shown that this is not a Japan centric article the title must be changed to Detective Conan. Mojo-chan (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. Ties says use the right native English to that native article, Canadian articles would use Canadian English. It does not enforce foreign titles. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ties states that "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation." The official Japanese English title is Detective Conan. It's not a translation (which would be something like "Great Detective Conan"), it is the official Japanese English language title. It is used on official works such as the manga and in the TV series. A couple of the movies have had releases with English subtitles and they say "Detective Conan".
Furthermore Ties goes on to state that "For articles about modern writers or their works, it is sometimes decided to use the variety of English in which the subject wrote". In this case the original author wrote "Detective Conan".
Detective Conan is not an American or British subject. It should use the native English title, as Ties states, rather than the foreign title it uses now. You seem to be a bit confused on that point - Case Closed is the foreign title.
Do you have any objections? This is going to be a lot of work to fix. Mojo-chan (talk) 21:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ties doesn't apply in this situation. I'm tired of this, send a Request Move and let the more experienced editors discuss this. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No-one is compelling you to debate this. If you have nothing more to add there is no reason to respond. We have dealt with your argument and you offer none of your own ("does not apply" is not an argument). Mojo-chan (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a link to that policy of wikipedia? ViSh 01:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

On the header DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:46, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did not notice that Thanks ViSh 01:53, 9 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vish4urwish (talk • contribs)

Requested move October 2013

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. TIES really doesn't come into play here, but there's still reasonable disagreement over the subject's common name. --BDD (talk) 19:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Case Closed → Detective Conan – The Japanese English name is Detective Conan. That is the official name, given by the author. The article is about a Japanese subject, and as per WP:TIES when an English language title is given in the culture of origin and by the author it should be used. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose WP:Ties says writing style, date, and number must match their national ties, not how a title is named. This has been discussed many times, such as My Teen Romantic Comedy SNAFU as series always use their licensed names. WP:COMMONNAME, use the name most prevalent in reliable English sources. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:TIES only deals with English-speaking nations, so it's doesn't apply in this instance.--十八 04:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The policy on anime/manga naming says to use the official English titles, and Detective Conan is the official English title. The licensed version came later and is more of a derivative work, since many aspects are changed and it only contains a small subset of the original number of stories. As for Ties only dealing with English speaking nations, English is used extensively in Japan and many Japanese authors/companies do give their works official English titles. 91.84.21.205 (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am unsure where the idea that Detective Conan is the official English title has come from. The book on my bookshelf right now has Case Closed on its cover, so that's the title as far as I can see. Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look on the coverbox image which uses the Japanese cover, you'll see the Detective Conan in the red circle which is used by the author to show how he wanted the series to title to translate into English; its direct translation would be Great Detective Conan AFAIK. This is starting to get silly now. If Detective Conan is somehow chosen over the licensed title Case Closed, The World Ends with You needs to be moved to It's a Wonderful World and Kuroko's Basketball to The Basketball which Kuroko Plays, the author's attempt in translating the title. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 11:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As DragonZero points out, it is the official English title given by the author. In other cases where the author has given an English title it should also be used. I really don't see the official title being a bit awkward as an issue, and it has no relevance here at all. Mojo-chan (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DragonZero did not say that, and only stated that it was the way that the author wanted it to be translated. Also, considering the fact the DragonZero opposed the moves clearly shows that they did not believe it to be the official name.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying he doesn't oppose, merely that his arguments actually support the case for changing the title.Mojo-chan (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose:If this went through, it might open up a lot of avenues for changing the names of Japan-based films, TV series and games from their short, snappy localized titles into names that sound fine in their native language, but are rather a mouthful when translated into English. I think we should keep the president of English title first, Japanese second, unless it has no official English title. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the official English name part has always in practice been applied to commercial releases. I'm sure if it that type of determination was meant to be up to the author it would have been specified somewhere. I would not consider Detective Conan as the official English title since it has not been marketed as that in any English speaking country. Also as mentioned WP:TIES does not apply since that section states An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation, so that would not apply to Japan. To demonstrate the commercial release case it should be noted that we use Nintendo Entertainment System over Family Computer, Super Nintendo Entertainment System over Super Famicom Resident Evil over Biohazard etc, and the most relevant example O-Parts Hunter which was moved by consensus over the original Japanese title 666 Satan. I don't see anything different here.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 00:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on your definition of "English speaking". English is used extensively in Japan and most people know the meanings of many loan words, e.g. "début" and "water". The examples you give (NES/SNES and RE) don't really fit because they were given official releases in the west, so those are the official English titles. Case Closed is not even the same work, it is a derivative with many extensive changes made and covering only a tiny subset of the original material. Case Closed should at most be a section in the main Detective Conan article, detailing the differences.Mojo-chan (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Case Closed is not even the same work". Yes... it is... (Poor example but With a Bang (Case Closed)). DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The not same work argument does not work since there are far worse dubs that the official English name was not rejected due to dub quality. We did not move Zatch Bell to Gash Bell when people tried to make dub quality an argument for moving. Also just in case someone tries to bring up Cardcaptor Sakura, it was not moved from the dub name due to quality of the dub but due to the fact that the original manga was released under that name as well as uncut releases of the anime. This is also nowhere near as alter as that was either.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Detective Conan" gets about 11.9 million hits on Google. "Case Closed" only gets 4.7 million, but a significant number are unrelated. The most common name by which western, English speaking fans know the series is "Detective Conan". Mojo-chan (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Detective Conan is the most common name among English speakers. I think too much emphasis is being placed on the commercial adaptation, when there are more fansub episodes and a huge community built around them. The commetcial dub website doesn't even seem to be up any more, the citations go to archive.org. Wikipedia isn't here to support commercial interests. I can understand why some people are absinthe some strange sounding English titles but Detective Conan is fine.212.183.128.204 (talk) 14:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Case Closed is the name by which the manga most commonly known by in English as that is the title under which the manga is released under in English. Reliable English-language sources will most frequently refer to the series based on its official name in the English language market, which is the standard under which the most common name is determined. WP:TIES does not apply here as that is specifically limited to topics "that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation", and Japan is not an English-speaking nation. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me but it is actually the other way round, Detective Conan is more commonly known around the world, including the English Languge market, so WP:COMMONNAME does not support Case Closed in this case. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, Detective Conan is the most common English language title. Wikipedia is not here to make a judgement regarding fan/licensed use of the name, merely to reflect reality. Mojo-chan (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that WP:TIES was meant to apply to nations than have a different official language (like France) since that almost certainly would have been specified due to obvious confusion.--174.93.170.47 (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:TIES apply to any Article with strong ties to a language of a nation, not just official language (English Language in this case). To say, there are many polyglots around the world, particularly the English Language and the Chinese Language. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how it might be a little bit of a stretch for articles about Japanese works, but Japanese culture does make use of English in an official capacity and IMHO it is a very important part of that culture. Without going in to too much depth English is seen as kind of cool and a bit exotic, which is likely why Detective Conan was given as the official English title and is printed on books that are otherwise almost entirely in Japanese. The central character is even named after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as a tribute to his Sherlock Holmes character, and other characters are given English names. Clearly English is used by the author and thus the English title has authority.Mojo-chan (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Come on people. English titles please. If we go by the rationale that Japanese articles should use English names as set by their Japanese roots, then this entire WikiProject needs a dire rewrite. I don't see how throwing WP:TIES into the mix applies here, due to its definition. —KirtZMessage 22:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that this and other articles would need work is not a reason to ignore the rules or consensus. A mistake was made, it needs correcting. Also, how is "Detective Conan" not an English title? No-one is arguing for Japanese titles, merely the official English title as given by the author/author's publisher when available and when commonly used. I have demonstrated both these conditions apply here. Mojo-chan (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TIES apply in this case because the series is also licensed as Detective Conan in other English-Speaking Countries. The name Case Closed only apply to the United States which is against WP:NPV. Regardless, if we choose to keep the name as Case Closed with a single-sided reasoning, then this is not fair for the rest of the other readers who speaks English around the world. I did some research on the series distribution between countries. In the article, I found the statement "Due to legal considerations with the name Detective Conan, the English language release was renamed Case Closed." to be very unclear. What are the legal considerations that forced the licencor to change the name and why is the name Detective Conan being used in the United States around the 2010s as compared to then. Furthermore, I have to point out once again that the name Case Closed is only used in America, not in the United Kingdom, Australia or any other country that I know of.
This is not the American Wikipedia remember, it is the English Wikipedia; So we shouldn't use the American name Case Closed, but rather the name Detective Conan from now onwards. I'm looking for a fair method to settle this so that they won't be a future confrontation regarding this article's title again so please understand the readers. Thank you. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to state that almost everything in this article was done by me. The wording "Due to legal considerations with the name Detective Conan, the English language release was renamed Case Closed." part is exactly what the source says. You can blame Funimation for being hush hush about that. Secondly, while its been over two years since I done any research for this article, United Kingdom and Canada do use Case Closed and there are no other English localizations, aside from Animax's unknown dub, of it in existence. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that we cannot accept original research, but as a Brit I can attest to what DragonZero says as being correct in this regard. The results wielded via amazon.co.uk seem to support this as being accurate as well. Justin.Parallax (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
eBay says the opposite.Mojo-chan (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the fan translated material, which is greater in volume than the licensed material. I'm in the UK and was not even aware of the Case Closed name until I read about it on Wikipedia. Everything I own says "Detective Conan" on it, and much of it was bought from sources like Ebay or Play Asia. My local Chinese goods shop has a Detective Conan t-shirt as well, so that name definitely is used commercially here. Ultimately I don't think we can make a determination either way on this point, which is why I suggest we go with the official title given by the author and his publisher. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fan translations are irrelevant. WP:COMMONNAME is based on what the preponderance of reliable English-language sources used. Since you have not demonstrated that the preponderance of reliable English-language sources use a title other than the official English-language title, this RM isn't going to go anywhere. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree. Particularly for Japanese titles fans are very important.Mojo-chan (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TIES was written to deal specifically with WP:ENGVAR, and when it is appropriate to adhere to certain spelling conventions in Wikipedia articles. This matter relates to that policy in no way. Article titles should all meet COMMONNAME. Redirects should be used for all other aliases, and any official alternate names, including alternate titles in different markets, should be present, in bold, in the lede. VanIsaacWS Vexcontribs 11:31, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is an unusual situation, but we should still apply WP:TIES. When something's released under an English title in a major country that (1) doesn't primarily speak English, but (2) has a substantial degree of use of the language, our article about that topic has strong national ties to that country's usage. Japan is significant enough on the world stage and its use of English is significant enough that we should apply TIES here. This is very different from what would happen if a Sammarinese or Burkinabe author released something under an English title, only to see it get a different title in the USA, Canada, the UK, etc. — those countries aren't highly influential in the world, and they don't have a substantial rate of English usage, but both are true of Japan. Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's only referred as Detective Conan in the logos and is always referred as Meitantei Conan everywhere else, primary or third party. Meitantei Conan translates to Great Detective Conan. English isn't a strong presence in the series. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 03:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In conclusion, all I can say now is that if this article remains as Case Closed, it will most likely be challenged again by another user or reader because Detective Conan does surpass Case Closed from a world perspective per WP:NPV. Then again I still do not know if I should agree with Case Closed just yet because I cannot comfirm if the name is related to WP:CV in any way. I found info that the Copyright Violation had something to do with the name Conan, but I cannot verify it at all since Future Boy Conan also uses that name (except in Arab) and per WP:V it needs to be verified, otherwise the name change wouldn't make much sense to the many readers that already recognized the series as Detective Conan. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 12:23, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't just logos, Detective Conan is the official English title. All the evidence presented so far demonstrates that it is also the common name, except for the amount of material available on Amazon UK under the Case Closed name. Amazon is purely commercial though, where as a more general search on any major search engine will return considerably more results (multiple times as many) for Detective Conan. That is including all the unrelated pages that contain the rather common phrase "case closed". I don't think anyone has presented a credible argument that Case Closed is the more commonly known name. In fact I suspect it was changed to try and divert buyers from all the free DC material and fan websites already available and towards the licensee's site, and to avoid conflicts with other official English language sites using Detective Conan. Mojo-chan (talk) 23:41, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if you completely disregard licensed name usage at MoS Ani/manga, Common Name still stands. "use the name most prevalent in reliable English sources." There is a reason Kuroko's Basketball is used over Kuroko no Basket or throwing Ties outside the scope of MOS:ENGVAR and turning the article into The Basketball which Kuroko plays. Provide some reliable English sources. English reviewers use Case Closed. The English sources in the article use Case Closed. Fan translations are not credible sources by Wikipedia standards. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:33, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Despite officiality of both titles, Detective Conan is more accurate and consistent with the premise of the show than the current one. Also, many sources use the proposed name. "Case Closed" is ambiguous, even when there aren't existing articles of same name. George Ho (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Detective Conan was called Case Closed in USA but it was called Détective Conan in french and Mesterdetektiven Conan in Norway, Sweden and Denmark. Meitantei Konan is the name used to Japan. Therefore, the name Detective Conan makes more sense.--Gratus (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-English titles used in other languages is irrelevant. What is relevant is the title used by reliable English-language sources that covers the topic per WP:COMMONNAME. Also, Case Closed isn't a US-only title. It is also used in Canada, UK, and Australia, which are the other three predominant English-speaking nations. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-English titles are irrelevent but indirectly supportive. We are going by WP:COMMONNAME but we also must maintain WP:NPV. Case Closed has a lot of reliable English sources but I'm not saying that Detective Conan doesn't have any either. The point about choosing Case Closed is that it may violate WP:NPV and it is the media that determine a series notability. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 09:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Non-English sources has no baring on the article names in English. And I don't see how naming the article Case Closed would be a violation of WP:NPV. Both titles are given in the article, and this discussion is about which title is most commonly used by reliable English-language sources per WP:COMMONNAME. So far, the arguments supporting Detective Conan have been based on either personal preference or on the belief that Japanese takes supremacy regardless of which title is used by the preponderance of reliable English-language sources. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 11:41, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So is there any suggestion on how we should go about this without causing another fuss over it? WP:COMMONNAME is not the only policy that applies here, it also applies WP:NPV, WP:TIES, WP:CRITERIA and more importantly, WP:TITLECHANGES. International media recognize the title as Detective Conan but if it is based on localized media then it is Case Closed. Case Closed may violate "WP:NPV" as mentioned above, but in another way it may not violate it, depending on the scope of views. I have already mentioned that there are many polyglots around the world, so why are we basing this article, and more generally Wikipedia on the English countries; and not including certain influential countries? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 10:47, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE. I would like to regurgitate what I said in 2007, but since the OP cited WP:TIES as the main main reason, I'd like to quote the text there:

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the English of that nation. (Emphasis added)

By citing WP:TIES, the OP also implies Japan is an English-speaking nation, which is plainly ludicrous.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to what that has already been mentioned above, there are many polyglots around the world, and that includes Japan, and English is also a language taught at every elementary school in Japan, which is not ludicrous and fairly reasonable to apply WP:TIES due to their vast usage of English in the media, especially anime and manga. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The wordings of guidelines should be interpreted by the plain meaning of the word. I dare you pick 100 Wikipedians by random and ask them: "Is Japan an English-speaking country?" and more than half will get you a negative reply. Whether the language is taught as a second language is not important. The important thing is their English skills related to native speakers, and how much they use English in daily life. Based on these two factors I cannot believe, by the plain meaning of the word, Japan is an "English-speaking country."--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:19, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a discussion about what is an "English-speaking country" which worths reading.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One more discussion.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:30, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not an anime/manga fan, but would like to make one comment as an outsider. As Vanisaac mentioned above, WP:TIES relates to WP:ENGVAR to resolve disputes over which version of English to use in particular articles. If WP:TIES applies to the use of English in countries that do not have their own recognised variety of English (e.g., Japanese English), this then raises the question: which variety of English should be followed. —sroc 💬 22:59, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the outside view. The article is written in American English as it follows Viz Media and Funimation. There are no other English adaptions out there. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the predicament regarding the use of English in non-English countries. It is true that WP:TIES only applies to English-speaking countries and I'm convinced by User:Samuel Curtis's links to discussion regarding the use of WP:TIES. I do retract my statement on pointing out WP:TIES to this article and I apologize for it.
However, that doesn't explain why Case Closed is preferred over Detective Conan just yet. I respect that there are more experienced editors than many of us here and I just can't understand why we're basing discussions with emphasis on a single policy. If you can explain how Case Closed will make the article more stable, more recognizable, and more believable than Detective Conan without violating the currently applied policies, some editors and I may reconsider our views about this. If not, best I can assume is that a big discussion like this can happen a 3rd time.
This is probably my last reply on this subject for a while since I'm feeling unwell now and I need a break. Thank you for the discussion we had together. --(,･∀･)ノシ(BZ) (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Long term name consensus

I have to create a sub-section here to ask some readers and editors alike to share their opinion on the series and come up with a Semi-Permament solution to the long debate about the series. It is not a poll but rather to document opinions on how to determine the scope of our discussion so that the new editors and readers can understand our consensus.

Now regarding the discussion, we can choose between Detective Conan, the title that is internationally recognized worldwide, and Case Closed the title that is licensed and used by English countries. The talk page of this article has a long history of debates on the title and I want this to be the last if possible. Please share your solution below. Thank you. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Case Closed/Archive 2#Requested move should have been the big discussion. Summed up: the Anglosaxon countries will know the series as Case Closed because the series is still being published as such; added to the fact, this caters towards the general audience who don't know about fansubs; the writing flow would become stupid, English character names and episode names put aside for its unofficial Japanese translated names, reception would be mostly Case Closed, etc. Every single argument has been brought back full circle, further discussion would be a repeat so just let an admin come to a final decision. Here is the quote from the past closing admin. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have left it a long time before coming to a decision, and I have repeatedly studied the arguments given for and against a move. In the end, I couldn't find enough justification for a move to Detective Conan. It is not used in most English-speaking countries, for instance. The most compelling reason would be one of accuracy, since most of the episodes have not ben released under the name Case Closed, but it is clear that if official translated versions were released, they too would bear the official name Case Closed. Move requests are not votes, and much of the argumentation for the move was based on invalid arguments. This in no way entails that all the related articles must be at titles based on "Case Closed"; an article about a film which has not been released under a "Case Closed" title should remain at a "Detective Conan" title. They must be decided on a case-by-case basis. It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 10:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The statement just reminded me about the films, but I'll get to that later. More importantly, the series was originally released as Case Closed in 2003 under Funimation. Since then, releases in English by other sources are very controversial, weather as Detective Conan or Case Closed, as I don't find enough sources to prove that Funimation censored Case Closed since the DVD boxes released under Funimation bearing the name Case Closed also bears the name of Detective Conan under closer inspection. Though Funimation has rejected Detective Conan previously, the name appearing on its boxes doesn't really add-up to the censorship. I know what I did was violating WP:OR so I apologize for that but the focus now is the Title.
If the past statement by former admin Stemonitis was unable to convince many readers and editors, then reasoning can be incomprehensible in cases like this. I could just say that by WP:TITLECHANGES default it to Detective Conan due to the many conflicts regarding the title but some of the consensus still insist on Case Closed as it is an English official title per WP:COMMONNAME under the scope of the English countries. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 07:25, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I was a party of the 2007 conflict and based on current policies, I don't prefer changing as of today. As for Bumblezellio's point about Movies post-6, I would also quote WP:TITLECHANGES:

[...] Nor does the use of a name in the title of one article require that all related articles use the same name in their titles; there is often some reason for inconsistencies in common usage. For example, Wikipedia has articles on both the Battle of Stalingrad and Volgograd (which is the current name of Stalingrad). (Emphasis added)

Naturally, for any movie post-6, the Detective Conan title is the Common name and putting "Case Closed" on them is artificial. But that does not by itself justify changing the entire title.
--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:01, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The available evidence suggests that Detective Conan is the most common name. Multiple search engines show that there is vastly more English language material using that name. As Stemonitis pointed out many of the episodes and books have not been released under Case Closed at all, and in fact the amount is a small fraction.
This is clearly a contentious issue that comes up every few years, and doubtless will again. I suggest splitting the article into separate Detective Conan and Case Closed parts. These could be separate articles or just a major section on Case Closed in the main Detective Conan article. It would make the text less awkward because it wouldn't have to try and mix original/Funmation names and changes, and the limited subset of Case Closed episodes and the differing seasons could be documented separately. That would, I think, satisfy both camps.Mojo-chan (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I did not intend to change the title of the first 6 movies, just those after and this Article itself. --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting an article to circumvent WP:NC is not allowed, either.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds?Mojo-chan (talk) 22:00, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That would be Wikipedia:Content forking. The English version of this work is simply not anywhere near different from the original version to be considered a different work. The only real exception I can think of regarding a split for anime is Robotech (TV series) which was a combination of 3 separate anime series (all of which have separate articles and significant plot differences). We don't have separate articles regarding shows like Zatch Bell or anything 4 Kids ever dubbed despite the fact their English adaptions have been altered to a far greater extent than Case Closed ever was. To put it another way any split would likely be reverted very quickly.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but having it as a separate section outlining the differences would be allowed. I'm just trying to find a solution that will appease both camps, because otherwise DC is doing to be the centre of an endless struggle. Clearly the current state is unsatisfactory, so the question becomes is there a more satisfactory option? Mojo-chan (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Without reliable sources, outlining differences would be a violation of the [[WP:NOR|no original research] policies. But regardless of what you do, there will always be a perinatal debate about the article's name. You will always have a fanatical core that believe the article should be named "Detective Conan" regardless on what Wikipedia's policies and guidelines state. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a very nice thing to say. The people wanting to keep the CAse Closed name are just as fanatical :-)
The discussion has already been archived before it could be completed, so I'm going to have to do a new move request to get it moving again. I'm going to take some time to do more research and build a few more arguments. Or is there some way to undo the archival? Who decides on archival and why wasn't there any debate over it? I'm not a full time editor and for various reasons can't edit as fast as some other people, so archiving it after no-one posted for a few days doesn't give me time to interact. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it looks like it will be impossible to get any consensus at this time. I will have more time next month so will do another move request then. The case has been made now, the only thing blocking the move seems to be procedure. If anyone has any other objections or rebuttals to the points made please raise them now, as the move request window is too small to properly debate them. Please also let any other editors you know who may be interested that this is going to happen, so they can all be ready to voice their support. Mojo-chan (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Big 3rd Discussion happened too soon :( --(,･∀･)ノシ(BZ) (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better to do it now while people are engaged and the iron is hot, so to speak. Mojo-chan (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you are just going to keep waving your stick around. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to discuss. We had discussion, discussion is now over, we know you didn't get the result you wanted but please accept that the discussion is concluded for now.Justin.Parallax (talk) 22:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I have further arguments and responses to make. If you have nothing further to add that's fine, you don't have to participate, although it would be a shame if you made valid points that are then ignored because no-one reposts them. Please don't try to stifle the debate just because you fear the result may not be the one you want. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even if I wish for the title change to happen, I still have to abide by the Wikipedia policies. In other words:

If an action cannot be considered "reasonable" or "acceptable" by an objective third person, that action should not be performed. -- WP:RRULE

After I recover from my illness, I will do some other things that can be considered acceptable by many others while thoughts of Wikipedians can be processed and evolved into something better, in most cases. In the meantimes Mojo-chan, please have a nice cup of Jasmine Tea. --(,･∀･)ノシ(BZ) (talk) 10:15, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not stifling the debate, the debate was had and was concluded. If you have further arguments and responses to make, please do so, I'm interested to hear them as I'm genuinely not convinced of your claim here and further evidence would really assist in that. What I'm saying is, please recognise that for the present, a consensus could not be reached and that continuing to discuss it with have no immediate right-this-very-minute effect. But please do share them regardless. Justin.Parallax (talk) 11:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I proposed. I am preparing my detailed arguments for the next move request, which won't be for a little while. I'm not sure what you are objecting to. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So is everyone happy now? Mojo-chan (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that, as you may not be around or available the next time this comes to discussion, maybe you can post your detailed arguments now, with their citations, so that others may read them and submit them to the discussion if you yourself are unable to do so? Justin.Parallax (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's the plan. I'm going to collect some of the objections and post counter-arguments as well, since most of them have been definitively answered but there is now just so much text people keep bringing them up again and again without seeing the responses. On the other hand there seem to be advantages to keeping your cards close to your chest until the last minute. I don't like it but can't do anything about it either. I'm wondering if it might be worth getting someone higher up involved next time to make a judgement based on the rules, since consensus seems to be impossible and it is basically a technical issue.
I have been speaking to a few people and some of them said they would prefer the debate was a little later in December so is easier for them to participate fully, but another said she would prefer it to be over the new year. I suppose you can never please everyone. Mojo-chan (talk) 21:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, before we move forwards with this I think there needs to be some discussion of the tone of the prior discussions. It seems like some editors are assuming bad faith. DragonZero, your own link shows your accusation against me to be incorrect. 24.149.119.20, you would retract your original comment. Please apologise so we can continue the discussion. Mojo-chan (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Notice how the 7X.IP editor noted "did not have their post signed". It was referring to your post with the face. Move on don't demand an apology. Start another heading if you're making a discussion again. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, nobody has said anything remotely insulting. If you do wish to continue the discussion, that's up to you. All you have to do is to provide citable sources to explain why Viz Media's published title is incorrect, which I asked you to provide before and am still waiting on. If you don't want to continue, don't, but don't demand others act to encourage you to do so, as that is simply discourteous. Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:56, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize for what exactly? For pointing out that because some people stubbornly refuse to accept Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on naming policies, there will be no end to this debate? If you took offense to that, you need to step away from this topic and reflect on why you are offended by that statement. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 13:17, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm talking about the accusation that I accused people of being fanatical. I was responding to [1] and trying to diffuse the situation. I don't think posting arguments here is a good idea at this point. I already refuted the claim about Viz Media's title being the official and most common one, so what is the point of repeating it now? DragonZero, Justin.Parallax and yourself seem to be assuming bad faith. You might want to take a step back, maybe try some tea. It seems like the best thing to do is post everything in one massive dump when making the next move request.Mojo-chan (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can assure you that I am assuming only the best of faith. But Mojo, you are criticizing the tone of the discussion, and are now accusing others of bad faith. This isn't appropriate. Please consult the below diagram which may be helpful in how to respond to disputes, you are currently hovering around the yellow/orange level on this. Please try to discuss the central tenets of the discussion instead. I'd also suggest reading over the dispute resolution page and Keep calm and if you have read them before, perhaps give them a quick refresher. If you continue to make accusations of attacks then I will be happy to raise this with WP:3O to assist in finding resolution. Remember that Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. Justin.Parallax (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid.
You have already hit the ad hominem level I think, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Obviously if you want to get a 3rd opinion that is fine, but I think it would be better to wait for the next move request and just state your arguments then. That way we can have it all presented neatly and in one place, with every opportunity given for counter-argument and debate, and then get a neutral third party to comment on it. Perhaps dispute resolution would be appropriate then too.
Really, there is no need to be so patronising. Please have some respect for other editors. Can we at least agree on that? Mojo-chan (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have full respect for other editors, I have made no ad hominem or any other attack on you, and I am not being patronising. If you feel I am, that is your perogative and I regret that you feel that way, but my intentions are certainly not to belittle you. If you wish to wait to discuss this later then I have no problem with that, please do so. However, all you seem to be doing at this current time is stating that you have more sources which you are refusing to cite (claiming repeatedly that you will introduce them later), and accusing others who have disagreed with you of bad faith - it is no wonder that others are growing abrupt with you. I'd urge you to maybe step back from this discussion as I am now doing, and return later when the discussion is once again active, because your current contributions are somewhat unconstructive to what you are attempting to achieve. That's not being patronising, that's friendly and sincere advice. Justin.Parallax (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I must respectfully disagree with most of what you said there. I have already stated that I'm not going to post anything further until the next move request and I can't see any point continuing here because it's clear that there is nothing that can be said to improve the situation. As such I will withdraw for now and return next month. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm talking about the accusation that I accused people of being fanatical. I was responding to [2] and trying to diffuse the situation."
Actually, your statement is far worse than the original. The original statement was to explain why there is no permanent solution to the naming issue. You took it as an opportunity to attack those who opposed your repeated move requests[3] and now demand an apology for an offense that was never there.
This is an example of the bad faith I am talking about. I did not intend to attack anyone and cannot for the life of me see how you read what I wrote as an attack. I was simply stating an opinion and asking for advice on how to proceed. I am not demanding an apology either, merely asking for one to show some understanding and acknowledgement that offence was not intended. My primary goal is to draw a line under this and dispel any assumption of bad faith so that when you next want to respond to one of my points it is in a more calm and positive manner. I must admit, I think it is beyond my ability to do that now. Mojo-chan (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I already refuted the claim about Viz Media's title being the official and most common one"
You have presented no evidence to refute the claims. You cannot made your own claims, but not provide any evidence via reliable sources to back them up. Whether you like it or not, Viz Media's title is the official title for the English language market. And in order to succeed in renaming the article to something else, you must demonstrate that the preponderance of reliable English-language sources does not refer to the work by Viz's title. As for the claim that Viz Media's title isn't official, that is like claiming that Barak Obama is not the President of the United States because you disagree with his policies.
You can go on about how other editors who disagree with you must be doing so because they must be assuming bad faith. However, that in itself is an assumption of bad faith. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 19:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence was posted in the original discussion, you can read it above. There is more to follow next time, as I didn't have a chance to post it previously. Mojo-chan (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Break

I found out that the series is published in English in Singapore under its original name:

Does that change anything in regards to the naming consensus? @Mojo-chan: @24.149.119.20: @Justin.Parallax: @Bumblezellio: @DragonZero: @Samuel Curtis: @Justin.Parallax: WhisperToMe (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Crunchyroll + North America + Europe creates more notability than Singapore's adaptation. I'll have to fix your edits to the article if I remember later. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:08, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonZero: Continental Europe uses the original names... just the UK (and presumably Ireland) imports from the US and uses the dub names (although the only countries that release it in English in Europe are the UK/Ireland). I'll check to see if the Singapore adaptation is imported into Australia/NZ and/or India. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see Detective Conan/Case Closed on Madman Australia's list (and it looks like they do import a bunch from the US). WhisperToMe (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DragonZero: The official Shogakukan Asia page says the books are distributed in: Singapore, Malaysia, the Philippines, Brunei, Thailand, and Indonesia. From my understanding all of the products are in English. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are expecting me too answer way to quickly. Back to the original topic. The majority of English notability is towards Case Closed. Rather than going into what ifs and what nots, I'll offer my view of when the article will most likely change to Detective Conan. It's most likely when North America and the UK publishes the series under that name. I'm not enforcing anything here nor am I the cause of this. Hell, the plot was using Shinichi Kudo for months and the article could be outdated enough to lose its GA status for all I know right now. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 23:19, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry... I was just pinging all interested parties from the previous discussion so they understand that a new development has come up. Now that Singapore is using a different set of English names it may be good to go back and tally Anglophone reliable sources to confirm that they use "Case Closed" versus "Detective Conan". WhisperToMe (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't change the title of the page simply due to a different title being used in Singapore. By all means, the article could mention that the name of the product is different in other locations across the world (as are the names of most products), but this WP is english language so should 'default' to the accepted title in the USA/UK marketplace. That's my opinion still, but thanks for thinking to ask me :) Justin.Parallax (talk) 11:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Justin.Parallax: You're welcome. Shogakukan Asia's distribution network is not only Singapore, but also Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, and Brunei... essentially all English-speakers in Southeast Asia. I don't know if Detective Conan is distributed to all of these countries. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to this edit summary: "Singapore not a minority here. Keeping it as English." - I'm a bit confused by the edit summary. I still believe that the exact English releases should be specified as "North American and British": The Singaporean release does use the original name and the original characters. Singapore has a different legal system from the United States. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is a minority. The lead is for the generalized information and not the exceptions. The specified English releases had phrasing issues and disrupts the flow. Keeping it generalized is better. It's better kept within the article. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 00:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonZero: The lead should summarize the article. Even though the English-speaking populations of Singapore, the Philippines, Brunei and Malaysia combined (possibly also English speakers in Thailand and Indonesia) are a minority compared to the combined populations of the United States, Canada, and the UK, the lead in your version completely ignores the existence of the Singapore version. A person living in Southeast Asia will not even see the Singapore version. Yes, it does exist, and it should be acknowledged in the lead. That can be done unobtrusively and taking into account that it's a minority. Just say "known in Japan and Singapore as Detective Conan". Remember we also operate under the Wikipedia:Systemic bias principle, which means we need to cover the whole world. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is done within the article, but too minor for the lead. My stance is still the same, and I haven't done anything that voids the MoS. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonZero: I am asking the "Systemic Bias" WikiProject their opinion on the matter. I am also notifying the Anime WikiProject that I notified the project. If you think there needs to be more notification I may start an RFC on the lead of this article. See: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias#Case_Closed_.28Detective_Conan.29_and_titles_in_various_English-speaking_countries WhisperToMe (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the existence of the Singapore version does not suddenly mean that Detective Conan becomes the best know English name. Now if Western Europe of the States decides to use this version we would have a case.--67.68.29.99 (talk) 18:58, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@67.68.29.99: Most of Western Europe does use "Detective Conan" or variants of it. The only thing is that they're not English-speaking countries. The United Kingdom imports its release from the USA, which is why it uses Case Closed. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:26, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed lead

Based on the existence of the Southeast Asian version of the series I would like to propose this lead:

  • "Case Closed, known originally as Meitantei Conan (名探偵コナン?, lit. Great Detective Conan), officially translated as and released in Southeast Asia as Detective Conan'), is a Japanese detective manga series written and illustrated by Gosho Aoyama."

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but without that extra apostrophe. I'm not sure if the "officially translated as and" needs to be there either - its fairly obvious its translated. -- haminoon (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The lead already states that Detective Conan is the original English translation of the title. However, by inserting Southeast Asia into the lead, you make it appear that the work is only called that in Southeast Asia. —Farix (t | c) 11:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't clearly state it was the original translation and neither does the citation. How do we know the original translation wasn't Great Detective Conan? -- haminoon (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Japanese covers.[4] "Great Detective" is a literal translation of Meitantei (名探偵), which may not be all that accurate in that Google translate is as "Master Detective". —Farix (t | c) 22:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid excessive wordiness and because of the ambiguity of the literal translation, I've changed it to "Case Closed, also known as Detective Conan (名探偵コナン, Meitantei Conan), is a Japanese detective manga series written and illustrated by Gosho Aoyama."

Requested move November 2013

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Declined, speedy closed. As there was a requested move discussion which closed a mere ... few days ago, this discussion is extremely premature. I'm sorry if you disagree with the last discussion, which did indeed result in no consensus - however, it's way too early. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC) Rjd0060 (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Case Closed → Detective Conan – The common name of this work in English is Detective Conan. There is more English language material referring to it by than name than Case Closed. WP:UCN supports the move. Please note that the old discussion was closed prematurely, not everyone can edit or research responses to comments that fast. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was just closed a day ago and while the close was no consensus opening a new move 24 hours later is far to soon especially the exact same arguments were considered in the last request.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also calling anyone who disagrees with as fanatical (stated in above section) is not a good way to advance your case.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't me that called anyone fanatical! You are confusing me with someone else. Also, as I pointed out, the debate was not over, I am just a bit slow at posting. It can't be helped if it was closed prematurely.
Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy. In order for there to be a debate people must also be given the opportunity to hear the arguments before making up their minds, or at least the opportunity to change their stated positions and for a consensus to forum. I think we were getting somewhere since there now seems to be a strong case based on rules as stated. Unfortunately you have to go back and read pages of text to see it. I'll try and summarise in the next few days. Mojo-chan (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake there, I did not realize that the person who made the comment did not have their post signed so I mistakenly thought that you post was a continuation of that one.--70.49.81.26 (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Wikipedia's layout on talk pages isn't very clear. Mojo-chan (talk) 23:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was definitely Mojo-chan. 1. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 01:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was not, it was user 24.149.119.20, who I replied too with a smiley face to show that I was not upset and diffuse the situation. You can go and read it above. Mojo-chan (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making those arguments. Slow down, I can't keep posting as fast as you. I don't want to get into it here (feel free to contact me privately though) but sometimes I can't post a response for days.Mojo-chan (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I should point out that Detective Conan was the original article name. The move to Case Closed was unjustified due to lack of evidence that it is the common name. It's more like a request to revert.
A further point: WP:ON clearly states that the official title should be used. Although there is an exception for non-English titles, Detective Conan clearly is English. Mojo-chan (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You were given 12 days to make your points the last time and create a new consensus. That was plenty of time AND you participated in the discussion just about every day. You don't get extra innings just because you were unsuccessful in building a new consensus the last time. I'll also point out that Case Closed is not the official English name. Detective Conan is simply AN English name, but not the work's official one. 24.149.119.20 (talk) 11:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The common name of this work in English is Detective Conan
Does not comply with WP:Common Name which relies on reliable English sources. Japanese sources use Meitantei Conan in text. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is more English language material referring to it by than name than Case Closed.
Not in English. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that the old discussion was closed prematurely, not everyone can edit or research responses to comments that fast

No it wasn't. Requested moves usually stay open for a week. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ON clearly states that the official title should be used. Although there is an exception for non-English titles, Detective Conan clearly is English.
Not for English countries. There's a reason Kuroko's Basketball is not The Basketball which Kuroko Plays or The World Ends with You is at It's a Wonderful World. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 02:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And this is just the tip of the iceberg of reliable English-language sources that use Case Closed in isolation to reference the subject of the article per WP:COMMONNAME. Care to show your counter evidence, Mojo? 24.149.119.20 (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and please speedy close - This doesn't add anything new to the discussion, it simply resurrects it. The previous discussion gave well over the required seven days for all parties to give their side, and has been closed far too recently for this discussion to be worth resurrecting this early. Whether someone feels that they didn't get their point across adequately in time is irrelevant. As for the subject at hand, every bit of product available in the english-speaking world uses the same title, Case Closed. This has been demonstrated with the links posted immediately above. I could also snap a photo of the copy of the book on my own bookshelf, which has the words 'Case Closed' clearly printed on the cover, but that's utterly academic at this point. It doesn't matter in the slightest what people choose to call it online, the title on the books on the bookshelves has authority over that. If you feel that the title is different, please provide verifiable evidence to support this, and remember that a substantial claim requires substantial evidence. Justin.Parallax (talk) 10:59, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Genres

I added some genres to the genre section. The show clearly has loads of comic episodes, romantic moments, dramatic moments, and action scenes. The genre addition is also a good way to attract viewers. When I had first come to this page to see what the show was about, I didn't bother watching it when I saw what genres were there. I thought it was only about "detective fiction". Then my friend forced me to watch it and I loved it. It is so much more than just "detective fiction", so please let other future fans know that by leaving these genres up there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.189.53.191 (talk)

Your edits were reverted as the genres you added are unsourced and are clearly based on original research by your own comments here. —Farix (t | c) 20:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fine so if I'm able to source them they can be added? Also I didn't see any proof of sourcing for "detective fiction". Where is the source for that genre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.189.53.191 (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not just any source will do, it has to be a reliable source. WP:A&M/ORS lists several sources that have been reviewed and groups them into reliable, situational, and unreliable. If you are unsure about the reliability of a source, you can ask WP:A&M to review it.
As for the detective genre, [24] references to it as a mystery. [25] and [26] refers to a more precises genre of detective fiction. Since per MOS:A&M, we list the more specific genre and detective fiction is a sub-genre of mystery, detective fiction is what is listed in the infobox. —Farix (t | c) 03:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Kids

According to the Lost Media Wiki, Fox considered dubbing the Case Closed anime for their Fox Kids programming block back in 2000. I am unable to find much evidence, apart from the aforementioned website, to support this rumor. Can anyone confirm this? DJ Autagirl (talk) 22:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all the info you'll get. Companies are very hush hush about this kind of stuff. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What you saw on the Wikia may very well have be vandalism. —Farix (t | c) 12:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be really suspicious since airing the show without any deaths or violence would have been extremely hard to pull off.--174.91.187.135 (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Case_Closed&oldid=682156987"