Talk:Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) has been listed as one of the Video games 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.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy):


Please read before editing:

  • The descriptions in the Biography section concerning the events in Nibelheim are not a mistake, nor are they incorrect. The information detailed therein comes from Last Order: Final Fantasy VII and Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII, which present the current canon version of these events.
  • Any discussion of these matters should occur below.
  • Be sure to read through the topics below, and if you want to ask a team of dedicated Final Fantasy editors for input, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Final Fantasy.
  • Be sure to date any and all comments that you make in discussions, and please sign your comments using ~~~~.

Delisted good article[edit]

I've delisted this as a Good Article. The article provides very little real-world context, with an empty "Concept and creation" section underscoring this face, it is in need of verification for some statements, and the writing is not GA quality, so it fails Good Article Criteria.--Wafulz 18:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

little real-world context? IT'S A VIDEO GAME—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
There is a lot of "real-world" material out there, character development, inspiration and reception among others. See Link (The Legend of Zelda) and Dante (Devil May Cry) for example. - 03:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
This is an awful article. Articles on video game characters should be short summaries with most of the information devoted to real-world info like the game's developer or who designed the character. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 02:40, 20 June 2007
IAWTC. --Potato dude42 05:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think a good example when it comes to looking at the direction this article should be moving in is the article on Orion. Here's a proposition for the structure of this article based on that:
  • A brief in-universe overview at the beginning
  • A summary of the roles played by the character in its various video game incarnations (without going into unnecessary detail)
  • A look at the designers, artists and writers that brought the character together (naming and linking as necessary) and the various inspirations behind the character's creation (in particular, the relationship to Kabbalah and Christian mythology would be best discussed here)
  • Explorations of the academic interpretations of the role played by the character (where the bulk of the current article could be perhaps moved, given a bit of reworking to fit the new purpose; the philosophical evaluation of the Jenova/Sephiroth duality, for example, would be suitable for this section)
  • A section on critical response and appreciation of the character in relevant culture (zomg fanboi response lool)
  • An evaluation of its influence on future creative endeavour (such as Sephiroth's contribution to the success of the "long-haired pretty boy villain" character archetype)
  • A final brief piece on references made to it in the wider cultural sphere (webcomics, cartoons, succeeding Video games etc.)
It would need fleshing out, but it would do for a start. 00:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
And where do you suggest we find this information? I find it hard to believe that the people interested in this Article are going to write this stuff up. His fanbase is a (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
On another note, the Concept and creation section is merely his phisical appearence. The section either needs to be renamed or changed accordingly.Narcissus0 (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Should it be mentioned[edit]

That Clouds Omnislash spells out "I love Aeris" which is the reason you are no matter what allowed to use it in the absolute final battle.

Should this page be spoiler-tagged, or could we remove the picture of Sephiroth killing Aerith/Aeris? While the game has been out for nearly ten years now, there's still likely someone out there who doesn't know that fairly major plot point.

~ In addition, PLEASE review your facts and STOP changing Reverse Sephiroth to Rebirth. Square's official translation is Reverse, as seen in the Character collection packages and in every book created on the subject. It's easy to mistranslate, but you have to realize that it's "Reverse" and NOT "Rebirth."

    Why does Sephiroth have his own page when all the other FF characters are compiled                        together?

No i would say the reason you can use it in the final battle allowed to use it is cause it looks cool right? I mean what a way to end the game with Cloud dicing up Sephiroth with a massive combo like that. As an interesting note, the next attack will kill Sephiroth, it dosen't have to be Omnislash. the reason i know is cause when i was fighting him he attacked me first then i counter attacked (due to counter materia) which then killed him. 16:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Omnislash doesn't spell out "I love Aeris". Where and when did you see that (if at all) anywhere? And you can just counter to kill him (not due to counter materia because I didn't have it equipped and he still did it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth/Seymour-Kingdom Hearts[edit]

< Sorry...but I NEVER seen any sources confirming Seymour taking any spotlights in the game, let alone replacing Sephiroth. : < *removed*


I found this in FFWiki:


All manifestations of Sephiroth seen throughout the game — excluding flashback sequences and his real body at the Northern Crater and Core of the World — are Jenova's entire body under his control and with his appearance (the forms of Sephiroth seen from the Shin-Ra headquarters to the cargo ship that left Junon, at Nibelheim, the Temple of the Ancients, City of the Ancients, and in the Whirlwind Maze at the Northern Crater) and astral projections (the illusions seen at the Northern Crater prior to Sephiroth calling forth Meteor).

The Final Fantasy VII Ultimania Omega Guide, littered with information directly from the creators of Final Fantasy VII, stated that Sephiroth "was not content to become a mere puppet and assumed position of her mind and will." This implies that Sephiroth's appearances stem from him invoking his appearance through Jenova's cells, which are also stated to have shapeshifting properties.

In the game, Cloud's final confrontation with Sephiroth is purely mental/spiritual and takes place in the Lifestream, a final battle of wills. Sephiroth is defeated, and his soul dissolves back into the Lifestream. Even so, Sephiroth's true fate was revealed in Advent Children, as he sought to continue his "mother's" ghastly mission.

"===Sephiroth, the New Evolution of Jenova=== Sephiroth became the newest stage of evolution for Jenova, and anything "Jenova" does in the game's present day is simply Sephiroth invoking his new powers(UOG - "the will of Jenova as a human is the result of it consuming Sephiroth's spirit"). When Sephiroth came into the picture, the minds of the two joined, and Sephiroth made himself the core of the viral entity that Jenova was, with his ambitions being fueled by its parasitic instincts and his desire to destroy all the humans he despised. Thus, his will manifested through Jenova's extensive psionic powers.

All of it is confirmed by the UOG, and it's official. Because of that I will post it in the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

If no one have anything to say, I will post the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Although this would seem broadly accurate, it is not the case that the relation is entirely one of subjugation of one power by another. Both VII and Advent Children have shown that what we understand to be the Sephiroth that threatens the world is reliant on Jenova's physical presence in order for his influence to be tangible. At the same time, it's worth remembering that Sephiroth's Jenova "heritage" has a large influence on his personality during Crisis Core (which could be understood as the "consuming of Sephiroth's spirit" to which the UOG refers), and that this provides the inspiration for his resolve to travel to the Promised Land through the lifestream. To call the human Sephiroth the "Core" of this merger is to miss the point that the two develop a symbiotic relationship, wherein the distinction between them becomes incredibly fuzzy.
Rather than saying that Sephiroth becomes a sort of Jenova mkII through his acceptance of Jenova's influence, which is one abstract way of looking at it, the full truth might be more clearly expressed if we say instead that the result of the gradual synthesis of the human will of Sephiroth and the instinctively parasitic life-form Jenova is a separate and distinct personality that emerges from the constructive tension between these two aspects of the collective; a personality that is referred to as Sephiroth throughout the events of Meteorfall and the recurrance of Geostigma as a result of the relative familiarity of those who confront it with its human aspect. 23:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

This entire section is a bunch of speculation that, at least given the evidence presented, is not given nearly enough support to state it as matter-of-factly as it is. Taking a single sentence from one source, and extrapolating it into an entire theory about the basic mechanics of a game universe (or any universe), just doesn't work. As such, I'm deleting the section from the article until someone can either find hard evidence to prove all of the statements within it, or present it as a theory and then state alternate theories to counter it. Agharo 02:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

While indeed JENOVA and Sephiroth were interdependent and alternately manifestations of eachother, it is, in an artistic stroke of genius trademark to Final Fantasy, presented in a way which has to be experienced through the game to understand. You could, I suppose, publish within the article, what has been said by the creators and whatnot given proper sources, but there is most likely a more suitable area within the network of FFVII-related articles of the Wiki to put it, perhaps in a JENOVA article, or an article relating to the storyline of the game itsself. Sephiroth, whether he is a manifestation of J or vise vera, is well described in this article without. non-user guest dickersonal

Last Order retconed by Crisis Core[edit]

Well Crisis Core is being played, and it's been confirmed by players and myself, to have Last Order completely retconed.

Sephiroth is tossed into the Mako pit by Cloud. Tifa doesn't wake up to have that touching reunion with Cloud either.

I won't change the article or anything because I figure you editors should talk about it and discuss it first. However, I just thought you should know, Last Order has been retconed. 19:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Makoeyes987

Here's a battle of the Nibelheim massacre from Crisis Core66.76.60.163 08:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Makoeyes987


User with IP address made several nonsense edits about Stage6 usernames on this, and Cloud Strife's Wiki page - reverted Kakarott 04:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone seems to have added something about George Bush near the top of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


This article needs a major revamp. It is very messy, both grammatically and content wise. The introductory section is almost a page long by itself. Im working on revamping it in my sandbox editor. If wikipedians want to help, a development section needs to be written with citations. Actually citations would be great for everything as there are not too many here. This can be great article if we work together! : ) EDIT: So, if I get this straight, Last Order and Before Crisis are the canonical versions of the FFVII story now? My Sandbox - Noj r (talk) 05:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, according to the Official guide book that came with the Potion (77777 limited edition), AC, BC, CC and DC are all canonical. MythSearchertalk 06:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will leave Crisis Core out of the character biography because it has not been released in the states yet. It can be added later. EDIT: I have revamped the Sephiroth article, and I doubt many will object to its changes. The page was an absolute mess. It still needs lots of work.

  • The "development and Appearances" subsection needs to be written and cited
  • CITATIONS! This page is in desperate need of them, any help would be appreciated. I have already corrected some false statements and added citations to some.

Anyway, thanks for the help. - Noj r (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have time to go through the article for now, if you can list it here in a short bulletin form, I will see if the ultimania guide I mentioned above got what you want. (There is no cn tag in the article as well) or you can do so in my talk page, since I don't watch other character pages except Cloud, Tifa and Aerith. MythSearchertalk 14:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help. The main problem with this artcle is the lack of real-world information on the character. If the Ultimania guide says anything about Tetsuya Nomura's role in designing Sephiroth, his inspirations, Sephiroth's development as a character in general, that would be great. I can take care of citing the character biography, but a development section needs to be made with real-world information and citations. If the ultimania guide doesnt say anything along those lines, then you dont have to worry about it. - Noj r (talk) 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sephiroth-killing-aerith.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Sephiroth-killing-aerith.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Is it known why Cloud and Sephiroth both have one wing? Dio Only Uses a Knife (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

From what I know, Cloud doesn't have a wing outside of Kingdom Hearts. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 21:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's was used in Kingdom hearts to show that in a way, Sephiroth was a part of Cloud. His Left wing, was associated with Sephiroth's right wing. Ofcourse, only the 'dark' Cloud had a wing...and that was only in Kingdom Hearts.-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamer X 31 (talkcontribs) 17:04, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If you play Crisis Core, you will understand that is was, in the case of sephiroth, genesis, and angeal, a result of their testing. In Kingdom Hearts, it is purely artistic that Cloud has one, as the tests he and Zack underwent after the supposed defeat of Sephiroth at Nibelhiem were of a different nature which is insinuated to have lacked the side-effects of previous tests (Angeal, Genesis, and Sephiroth are all results of different tests, apparently the wing thing was a repeated error resulted from an inability to heal flesh wounds which wasn't discovered until Angeal cut Genesis while intervening in a duel between sephiroth and genesis. it had been discovered and addressed by Shinra by the time Cloud and Zack were taken from Nibelhiem). Non-user guest dickersonal


In regard to the caption of the image on this article and on Cloud Strife. Let's get this straightened out. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC))

The anon's edits to Sephiroth and Cloud were mucho better. I've seen many articles format their articles in this form. I really don't understand why these should be counted as vandalism. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 23:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
—I would like to point out that User:CIreland has deemed the edits by both parties as not vandalism. If I may ask, what about the omission of the word "artwork" do you consider to be better. (Guyinblack25 talk 23:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC))
I beg your pardon? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 23:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You stated that the edits done by the anon were better. The main difference was that the word "artwork" was removed from the caption. I'm asking if you could clarify what about that do you feel makes it better. I only ask so that the answer be listed for others. (Guyinblack25 talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The anon's version was this on Sephiroth and this on Cloud; IMO, the word "artwork" is just unnecessary and the designer's name should be wiki-linked because that follows the same formatting seen on several other articles, like the Dragon Ball, Bleach and Naruto-related ones. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 00:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont' see the need of wikilinking to Nomura as his name is wikiliked in the "designer" parametre. Whether "artwork" should be included or not is not really a big deal. I, personally, think it should be there, because it displays the artwork of Sephiroth and Cloud, not the in-game super deformed or FMV versions of them. In conclusion, I would like to say that there should be a concensus for these changes, even though they're minor, as a lot of other FF character articles have the first caption. The Prince (talk) 11:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. These changes should apply for the other FF characters as well. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 15:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Given the number of FF characters and similar video game character articles, perhaps this discussion moved to the VG Project's talk page so a consensus can be reached. (Guyinblack25 talk 15:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
Whatever seems best I guess. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 05:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


I've failed this as it requires substantial rewrites to meet criteria.

  • Lead - first paragraph is fine. Second paragraph should be reorganized, with the voice actors before the reception, and something on the conception, since it is not summarized.
  • Concept and creation - needs expansion, and there are unsourced statements ("..and it is said that it can only be wielded by Sephiroth. ") et al
  • Appearances - while the appearances in other media is a bit long, otherwise the length is fine. But it lacks any context to someone who hasn't played the game. I have no clue what's going on starting with "Notions of Sephiroth's apparent death are put into question"... wtf? What apparent death? See Master Chief (Halo) for an example of appearances.
  • Musical themes - interesting, but full of random sources. Why does a fan creation on OCRemix merit mention?
  • Reception - anything on merchandise? I would hope there is more on the character out there, but its decent.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Combining appearances[edit]

Not all into one, of course, but just into Final Fantasy VII, Related Final Fantasy VII appearances, and Other appearances. The rest of the character profiles for FFVII have this format. The Cloud, Aerith, and Tifa articles work great, with Aerith's having a GA status; The Tifa and Cloud articles are both B-class. The Vincent and Zack articles are both Start status, but Zack is fairly new and Vincent's article just needs tons of work with out-of-universe context. Anyway, with a little condensing, the article will look cleaner and the DoC appearance wont have to be put under Appearances in other media. But before I started, I wanted the go-ahead from this article's editors, as this article is B-class and the change isn't exactly small, I guess. I could also try condensing the Other appearances section.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to the lack of response, I'm going ahead and doing it. If someone dislikes it so much, then they can change it. The section still need some work, and I don't know much about his Before Crisis role, so I'll just mention what I know about it and leave it at that.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


Final Fantasy VII was released in 1997. Crisis Core was released a decade later in 2007. Thus Sephiroth appeared in Crisis Core after appearing in Final Fantasy VII. The Appearances section currently does not reflect that. Kariteh (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The release date and the fact that it is a prequel can be mentioned in the paragraphs, however that is no reason to tag the entire article as "in-universe" particulary after the major trimming that was done. Now since Sephiroth doesn't appear until mid-point in FF VII the current format serves better to explain his "apparent death", it would make no sense mentioning it in two different sections. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because you have a different opinion doesn't mean the other opinion "makes no sense". The real world ordering is recommended by guidelines, specifically Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). This makes particularly more sense because Last Order and Crisis Core give us different accounts of the same fictional events. The current article tried to somehow reconcile the anime and the game, but it shouldn't. See this paragraph from the link:
For example, if a fictional TV detective loses a partner in the line of duty, taking an in-universe perspective will obscure whether this occured in the backstory, the pilot or the main series. If the partner died in the pilot, but is the subject of little-known prequel novels, then an in-universe perspective may describe the partner in excessive detail. If later episodes have events which suggest the dead partner never existed, this is impossible to describe from an in-universe perspective, and editors will have to try to explain away such continuity errors themselves, leading to original research.
Last Order and Crisis Core are two versions of the same fictions. They should be presented in the order in which they were released because there simply isn't any other way to do it correctly (we can't assume one of the two versions is "real" and the other is "false"; they're both fictional). Furthermore, while I hate to take other articles as examples to follow (because of Wikipedia:Other stuff exists), I would like to point out that even the Star Wars articles follow this logic and deal with the classic trilogy before the prequel trilogy. Kariteh (talk) 15:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
You are not understanding me, Crisis Core and Last Order are indeed different and they are separately descibed, my post was refering to repeating the incident as it occurs in Crisis Core and the original Final Fantasy VII twice since the incident is is virtually unchanged in both, its just a matter of working with the language which is something that I haven't done yet. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Final Fantasy VII should be the first work described in the Appearances section. Crisis Core should be described after. Kariteh (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
If you see the failed GAN you will notice the problem with that, Sephiroth is kept misterious the entire first half of FF VII, mentiong his "apparent death" in the opening is incoherent. - Caribbean~H.Q. 15:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, Sephiroth is kept mysterious at first, that's why the section should explain that he was kept mysterious at first. Then it can mention that a portable game released ten years later expanded on the character's background story. It's only incoherent if you describe things from an in-universe perspective. Kariteh (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Just mention at the beginning of the FFVII paragraph that Sephiroth was thought to have been killed or give a little background. Then, later in the Appearances section, describe Crisis Core, Last Order, and all of his other Compilation appearances. If it would make people happy, I'll go through and change it to mention that he was apparently killed. Then Crisis Core can be moved. If we did that, though, we'd also have to go back to the last format wherein there isn't an FFVII Film section, but a Compilation section just as all of the other FFVII characters have. It'd also be a place to put his DoC appearance; it's small, but it matters somewhat.WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Waait. Confusing sentence[edit]

"Aerith succeeds in summoning Holy, but Jenova, while in the appearance of Sephiroth, kills her before it can be activated. The white materia remains active, but unused. Later, Cloud procures the black materia, but is manipulated against his will into surrendering it to Sephiroth, who then summons Meteor and barricades himself inside Northern Crater, waiting for its arrival."

It just said that Jenova took that shape of Sephiroth and killed Aerith, but then it says he barricades himself?? This implies to me that after Areith was killed he actually went to the Northern Crater, then sealed himself. But am FMV shows (and implies) that the real Sephiroth was there the entire time. And I swear during the game one of the characters say something about it (its been a while since I've played the game)

Someone clarify this please in the article (and maybe a pic of him in the northern crater?)!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Concept and creation thing[edit]

In the concept and creation section, it has a [citation needed] thing after "long sword, and it is said that it can only be wielded by Sephiroth."... I think it mentions that in the instruction booklet? -- (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. I added the ref. Thanks for pointing that out. The Prince (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


'Sephiroth kills Aerith in an iconic scene'. With pictures, too? Gee, thanks. Could someone who knows how to do this please put a spoiler tag up there? The big red 'Spoilers from the games plot' thingy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't do spoiler tags. And, uh, it's such a famous spoiler that even non-gamers know it...also, it's been eleven years...Loveはドコ? (talkcontribs) 00:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Try and be more welcoming, Urutapu. This person obviously doesn't know how Wikipedia works, and to get sarcastic remarks like this thrown in his/her face isn't helpful. Be more civil in your comments next time. Thanks. The Prince (talk) 08:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Ignoring the comment from Urutapu, thanks for clearing that up, Prince. It's evident that people not thoroughly aware of Wiki policies and workings aren't welcome here, even with good intent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverse Sephiroth is correct[edit]

Reverse Sephiroth has been the official romanization for a very, very long time now - please stop changing it back to Rebirth. You may not like the name as much as Rebirth, but like the defunct Seraph Sephiroth, it's the correct way. Simply look at the FF Creatures lists, cards, etc. for proof. I have repeatedly sited various official works only to have them removed because someone doesn't want to accept it. -- (talk) 23:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As I suggested below, it's a matter of intent versus execution. (I'm not responsible for any of those edits.) The lack of katakana distinction between the phonemes for 'b', 'f', and 'v'; for 's' and 'th'; and imprecise transliterations of vowels in general is to blame. The official material may perpetuate the established translation to be consistent, but it makes little sense. Clearly the "Rebirth" and "Savior/Seraph" interpretations are more in line with the quasi-religious theme. In any case, I would refer to both interpretations when introducing them, and in later occurrences continue with your preferred interpretation for brevity's sake. Kind of like how one would use both a full name and its abbreviation. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 13:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Wiki is an encyclopedia, don't perpetuate false knowledge. You should only use the official name. Fandom names should only be mentioned once if extremely popular, but throughout the article, you should use the official name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


Wouldn't know where to find evidence, but could "Safer Sephiroth" be a mistranslation of "Savior Sephiroth"? It would seem to fit the angelic theme more appropriately, and is also not nearly as awkward. — Nahum Reduta [talk|contribs] 12:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Probably not. "Safer Sephiroth" is almost certainly a distortion of "Sefer Sephiroth", which is pronounced exactly the same, means "book of emanations" and is the title of a Kabbalistic work. —chaos5023 (talk) 20:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

The Character's Character[edit]

Did this page ever have a section for Sephiroth's personality and character? His motivations, background? I think it should have one. (Momus (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC))

It's original research, so ultimately it shouldn't. The Prince (talk) 21:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

"Distinguishing Genuine Sephiroth" section: Dispute[edit]

First of all, my choice on the tag was only because I could not find another tag that properly explained the issue; if there is one, then I'd appreciate it if someone could replace that current tag with a more appropriate one. Now, onto the issue. The section itself is a basic plot summary, and revolves soley around his clones. A separate section devoted to part of the game, and more of a minor issue at that, is not needed and violates Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines#Inappropriate content. The fifth on the list states that Excessive fictional details should be avoided, meaning that the plot summary should explain that character's role in the game, but not go beyond that. Though this does not go along with any guideline, Cloud Strife and Aerith Gainsborough follow that same set-up and are the only GA FFVII character pages. They have no other section about Cloud's identity crisis or Aerith's state after Zack's death which leads to some feelings for Cloud, and those are both key points within the game series.

However, I am not entirely opposed to removing all of the information. I'm opposed to having a section holding only that information. I believe that the section could be properly merged into the plot summary (with some editing, of course), and this article is in great need of more sourcing. I do apologize for removing that content soon after it was added, though. I probably should have tried more to merge it then outright remove it. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in my response. I was engaged in other affairs. When I finished the message I decided to publish here, I noticed that Wikipedia Administrator Sephiroth BCR has deleted the disputed contents, accusing us for publishing Original Research and Unsourced Fancruft. I contacted him and politely explained to him that according to the code of conduct, the correct way of resolving such disputes is to challenge them by appropriate tags like {{Unsourced}} and so on. He in turn undid my message, "claiming that he does not have to listen to such nonsense", thus insulting us all.
I'm afraid because he is an Administrator we cannot oppose him or he will abuse his administrative powers to harass us both. Fleet Command (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
The entire section is original research. You're synthesizing plot details without source, which is explicitly not allowed per WP:NOR. On top of that, that section would be unnecessary in any case as undue weight on the plot details of one game he's involved in. Do not add the section back in. Furthermore, I reverted your message because you listed a ridiculous list of demands that I have no obligation whatsoever to follow. Trying to be courteous instead of listing inane demands will help your interactions with others in the future. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings, my dear friend. Indeed, you are unprecedented.
  • Oh, were they so faulty? Then why did you not follow the instructions of WP:Notability? Did you alert me? Did you tagged them with appropriate templates, such as {{OR}}, {{Original research}}, {{unsourced}} or {{fact}}? Did you?
  • Was I not really courteous? Is it uncourteous to greet you first? Is it uncourteous to call you "Fellow Wikipedian" or call you with full name? Beyond all, is it uncourteous to mind your reputation and ask you to undo your misbehavior before anyone takes notice? Or did I call you names? Did I employ any obsene word? Did I even use colloqual language? Indeed, if I was really impolite, why would you resort to deleting my message by Undoing it?
  • Let us assume that my demands (to use {{OR}}, {{Original research}}, {{unsourced}} or {{fact}}, as stated in their help documents) were indeed mad. Could you not have kindly responded "I'm afraid your requests are so and so"? Do you think it is indeed courteous to delete my message while citing it: "Reverted 2 edits by FleetCommand; Don't have to listen to this nonsense. using TW"?
Well then, my friend. I'm leaving you, your beloved article and our dear fellow Wikipedian WhiteArcticWolf alone. From now on, I'm going to forget any grudge towards you. If I have really been uncourteous, then I beg your forgiveness. Take care, Sephiroth BCR. Best wishes, Fleet Command (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
WP:BOLD, WP:NOT#BURO, WP:IAR. I don't have to follow your silly procedure to remove anything; if I believe it to be in violation of our policies and guidelines, I can remove the material. It has nothing to do with me being an administrator: any user can do this. And WP:NOTE has nothing to do with article content. Nothing. Its only purpose is to determine the suitable of subjects to have articles and nothing more. As for your discourteous comments to me, you felt suited to characterize my edits as "misconduct" and "indequate" and your tone was extremely condescending. I'm not a random new user that needs everything enunciated for them. Comment in a professional manner without the excessive condescension. Furthermore, you demanded that I revert my edits and threatened me with arbitration. That's a threat, not any type of civil discourse whatsoever. I don't have to entertain nonsense like that on my talk page, and it's my discretion to host whatever conversations I want on it per WP:TALK. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
FleetCommand, ff you feel that an administrator is abusing their powers then you can report them. However, I feel that it is within Sephiroth BCR's duties to do such a thing. Disputes seem to usually be about biased information (not fictional material). The dispute occured after I removed material, and there really wasn't much to dispute over. I was within my boundaries in removing your information, just as it is within his. Paragraphs are removed all the time (just recently I did so). Expecting to tag every trivia section, non-notable character section, etc, that isn't vital to the article is silly.
As for accusing me...I was the one who removed it in the first place and believe Sephiroth BCR is correct. I'e seen him around the Anime and Manga wikiproject (which I frequent), where he has done some great contributions. I've never seen him abuse his powers, and he's always acted pretty nicely. I don't see how he would harass either of us, and I do believe your comments on my talk page fall under that category anyway. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm very sorry to have written with such an angry tone with you, WhiteArcticWolf. Although, please do note that I kept it quiet and did as much as I could to maintain your reputation, until now which you yourself made it public. Please understand that your action was incredibly offending. Do you not understand that I am capable of being as much (and even much more) sensitive than you are? Exterminating what I passionately spent hours to write? For days I was not calm enough to follow up with an apology message. Although, right now, you look like an angel in comparision to our dear Administrator. So be it: I was an animal. I am sorry. Requesting forgiveness.
Nonetheless, I was here in good faith, hoping to improve an article pertaining to a masterpiece which was on the verge of failing notability. I sought to improve an article yet instead of simply telling me off, you did what is analogous to slaping me across the face. Have fun with your beloved article. I'm not editing it anymore.
As for Sephiroth BCR, I was very polite to him. I spoke with reason to him and recommended the same resolution that I did to you. Yet he reverts my message in his talk page, citing: "(Reverted 2 edits by FleetCommand; Don't have to listen to this nonsense. using TW)". Why erasing the message while he could have used it as a piece of evidence? With all due respect, I do not feel that it is within Sephiroth BCR's duties to do such a thing as turning the Wikipedia into an Encyclopedia which only you two can edit.
Due to having Administrative privileges, he can prevent me from even giving him the civil Option #3 of resolving our dispute. I'm not going to request an arbiteration right now or take any other hostile action. But discresion is the better part of valor. Right now, I have taken screenshots from discussion pages, his talk page and corresponding history logs and have ensured that everything is readable. I'm digitally signing all these material for better value as evidence. I have also created local copies of Arbiteration references, including their email addressing and mailing list. I'm leaving you, him and your beloved article alone. But I'll keep these pieces of evidence in case you guys didn't leave me alone.
So, let there be peace between use. Best wishes, Fleet Command (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry for actually stating so, but it felt degrading and rude. I myself made it public that I shouldn't have removed the content without talking to you and should have tried more to edit them. I've apologized. I understand that (even if it was not considered misconduct) I hadn't acted correctly. I don't want either of is to share the blame by ourselves, because to an extent we are both at fault for the entire situation. So, yes, was I did was respectful on a more human level, and I do deeply regret not informing you or brining it up on the talk page first. I can understand your reaction, and don't feel the need to take any action against it. Overall, the reaction wasn't incredibly bad either, considering how others can act incredibly bad. As for his reasoning for removing it, I cannot say it was the best way to phrase it, and it probably would have been better to reply and explain.
I don't want there to be any more of this dispute, either, and I am fine with leaving things as they once were. Good luck with the evidence and any future editing. I rather we not hold anything against each other, too. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 2010[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Google web searches indicate one possible primary topic, Google scholar and book searches indicate a different possible primary topic, no consensus on which one to use, so disambiguation page remains at the base name. JHunterJ (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)Sephiroth — Per my arguments at Talk:Sephiroth, this article is the primary topic users are likely to be searching for when entering "Sephiroth" into Wikipedia, and should hence be the main article with a hat note to Sephirot, rather than having Sephiroth as a dab page as at present. —me_and 12:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. Per Wikipedia:Disambiguation, a disambiguation page is unnecessary when there are only two uses (and especially so when only one of the uses is at the ambiguous title). Powers T 13:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support unless someone can provide evidence that a person typing Sepiroth is more likely to be mispelling Speirot than looking for the character it seems like an easy case.-- (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Sephiroth is not a misspelling of Sephirot, it is an alternate transliteration, and a very common one (the Ashkenazic one, to be precise). Because the Ashkenazic transliteration was the most accessible one in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, nearly the entire corpus of Western occultism that references the sephirot spells the word "sephiroth". Which is how the FF7 developers wound up using the word, since random out-of-context words from Western occultism are totally cool in Japan. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment (leaning towards support) – Sephiroth is the plural of Sephirot, but the fact that we have nothing on the Judaism aspect compels me to support moving the plural to the eponymous FF7 antagonist. –MuZemike 08:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Are you sure Sephirot is singular? The article treats it as plural. Powers T 14:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
      • They're both plural. Sephiroth and sephirot are different transliterations of the same word. Sephirah is the singular. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak no move. (I'm unsure what the opposite of support is). I understand the rational that you give people what they are looking for but I still feel that the more encyclopedic topic should be the primary and that the pop-culture should give way to the historically notable. Joe407 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Violent oppose. The idea of displacing the Kabbalistic concept in favor of a pop culture character named in an offhand reference to it nauseates me. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    Such a move is simply acknowledging that the majority of Wikipedia users will be looking for the pop culture character, not the Kabbalistic concept. That may indeed be nauseating, but to me the role of Wikipedia is to be dispassionate in all things. Regardless of what we'd like, most users will be looking for the FF7 character, and it is not for us as editors to claim their desires are invalid. —me_and 20:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    I had to step away from this one for a couple days, recognizing that argumentum ab nauseam, as I previously employed, and "over my broken, charred, smoking dead body" are not greatly valid debate points. Let me state up front that I absolutely believe that proponents of this move are doing no more than you say: attempting to apply WP:PRIMARYTOPIC as written, in good faith. Any ire that bleeds through my text is something I wish to reserve for the situation, not its participants. So, okay, actual points:
    1. I'm not convinced that Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) as a destination so greatly exceeds that of Sephirot (Kabbalah) as to support invoking WP:PRIMARYTOPIC; Jappalang's research on this is heartening. Even if WP:PRIMARYTOPIC were appropriate, though, it's a guideline that's meant to be applied with some measure of common sense, regarding which see following points.
    2. To execute this move would be an example of systemic bias so egregious as to be laughable. This is, quite frankly, the kind of thing that Wikipedia does that gets it humiliated in the press — pushing aside a concept with millennia of history behind it, under a spelling that's been the predominant English transliteration for most of the time that there has been a language identifiable as English, in favor of a video game character named, for no particular reason, after that concept in 1997. It would be like moving Emperor Palpatine to Emperor and moving the current article to Emperor (political office) (which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC may in fact call for, as written).
    3. As Jappalang notes, and as illustrated by previous, this would also be an over-the-top example of WP:RECENTISM.
    4. The fact that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC could be interpreted as calling for this result at all means, to me, that something is deeply wrong with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and I presently intend to pursue this.
    5. I feel absolutely comfortable invoking WP:IAR to override WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in this case. The reason to ignore all rules is to build a better encyclopedia, and I absolutely believe that while a better pop culture database might point you to Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) in preference to Sephirot (Kabbalah), a better encyclopedia will not.
    So, yeah. I really don't think we should do this one. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    I'll answer your points in turn, although first of all, thanks for tackling the arguments here so well.
    1. I personally do think WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies here. Looking at actual hits using, Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) sees considerably more traffic than Sephirot, about double and occasionally up to about triple the numbers.
    2. Yes, this is clearly an example of WP:BIAS. That's merely an observation of Wikipedia, though, not a policy, and bias need only be avoided when it threatens NPOV; one does not necessarily imply the other.
    3. Yes, this is clearly also an example of WP:RECENTISM. Again, that's just an observation of Wikipedia, and not in and of itself a policy. If we apply primarytopic now, the cost of moving the articles around if and when the religious concept is more popular is minimal.
    4. I disagree with your interpretation of primarytopic, but that's a discussion to have on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation.
    5. Talking about WP:IAR, everything gets that much more interesting. Essentially, we're asking what's better for the encyclopaedia: to give users the information they're probably after with the minimum of effort, or to try to give the impression Wikipedia is more high-brow than perhaps it is/to educate users a little in passing/to emulate the values behind traditional encyclopaedias.
    This last point is the one closest to swaying me, and I'm still not sure exactly what I think results in the better Wikipedia. The hits categorically show the FF7 character being of more interest to Wikipedia users than the religious concept, and part of me thinks we should give users what they're after. On the other hand, giving priority to the concept seems more encyclopaedic in the traditional sense to me than than letting FF7 take the fore, and that sort of decision may even change what people do look for on Wikipedia in the long run.
    me_and 19:54, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    Since you mention policy vs. essays a couple times, I'll mention here that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not policy, it's a guideline. This isn't to say guidelines lack weight, but they do not have the force of policy. While WP:BIAS is an essay, there is considerable consensus across Wikipedia that systemic bias should be avoided when possible, as represented by things like the existence of WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. (And WP:CONSENSUS, on the other hand, is policy.) —chaos5023 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    Ah, I hadn't realised PrimaryTopic isn't policy. Thanks for pointing that out. —me_and 10:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Sephiroth is the plural of another heavily used Sephardic transliteration (the other is Sepirot) [corrected per Chaos5023's explanation below]. Compared to 47,000 hits on Google Books for 'Sepiroth -"final fantasy"',("final+fantasy"&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&pws=0 — copy and paste, the markup here refuses to acknowledge the "+-") the fictional character garnered 224 hits.[1] On Google Scholar, this is 1,850 ("final+fantasy"&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0&pws=0) vs 49[2]. Academic and long-time focus remains on the religious terminology rather than the fictional character that has a video game following rather than wide community recognition. A simple look through on Google search reveals much of the hits are on fansites/forums that are temporal in nature (WP:RECENTISM). Cutting down the fan chatter reveals 905,000 for the fictional video game character ("final+fantasy"+OR+"FF")&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&fp=f2f2a30b21942d5f&pws=0) and 1,090,000 on Sephiroth terminology not associated with him.( Calling for a long-standing term to be re-directed to a video game character of around 10 years is WP:RECENTISM (if anything, Sephiroth should redirected to Sepirot with a hatnote in the religious term's article to direct those looking for the character to this article). Jappalang (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    If there's no consensus for this move, I'd certainly support redirecting Sephiroth to Sephirot with a hat note to Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), as you describe. —me_and 23:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
    I support the current dab setup on Sephiroth, really. Sephirot is now, with the "downfall" of Ashkenazic transliteration in favor of Israeli-driven Sephardic transliteration, generally considered the "best" transliteration of the word, so between that and the search destination argument, I think it's vaguely appropriate to route people coming on the word the way it's being done presently. —chaos5023 (talk) 16:52, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    Noting here again, just for the record, that Sephiroth is not the plural of Sephirot; they are the same word, in two different transliterations. Sephirah is the singular of this word. —chaos5023 (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    Looking at, regardless of what Google says, Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) has been consistently getting around twice as many hits as Sephirot. —me_and 20:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    Looking at the number of hits of a Wikipedia article is meaningless (see also WP:POPULARPAGE). WP:RECENTISM and fanboy-ism makes such figures unreliable gauges of what the world views as the primary usage of a term. Jappalang (talk) 04:51, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
    I disagree. Due to the current dab setup, any hits for one article are almost certainly going to be for people looking for that article, and the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline refers to "the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box", not what the general world view of the primary usage is. You may want to ignore PrimaryTopic, but given that guideline, I don't think these numbers are "meaningless". —me_and 10:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the Sephiroth page is now rightfully a disambiguation page differentiating between the two meanings. Sephirot (Kabbalah) is surely as notable as any latter-day shtick! IZAK (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
    On what grounds do you assert that Sephiroth is rightfully a disambiguation page? The core of this discussion is that Sephiroth should not be a disambiguation page, and should instead point directly to Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). —me_and 12:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment there is a related move at Talk:Sephirot (Kabbalah). (talk) 14:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose To even consider giving a character in a video game (not even the protagonist!) preference over an important religious concept is depressing. Clear case of Wikipedia's systemic bias. --JaGatalk 16:25, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral Sorry, I thought the intention was to have Sephiroth as the primary and Sephirot redirect to it, leaving Sephirot (Kabbalah) where it is. But now there's the question of whether the alternate spelling should redirect to Sephirot or be replaced by the FF article. I tend to support this move, but there are good arguments against, so I'm going Swiss. --JaGatalk 23:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment we could do this, with a "not to be confused" template on each:
Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)Sephiroth
Sephirot (Kabbalah)Sephirot
--JaGatalk 16:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That's precisely what's being proposed, isn't it? Powers T 16:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Between this proposal and the one on Sephirot (Kabbalah), yes, it is. I believe this should be considered a "support" !vote. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 16:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
That's exactly my intention. I'd have grouped the move suggestions, but Sephirot (Kabbalah) was just Sephirot at time of this move proposal; IZAK moved it earlier today, and I proposed moving it back. —me_and 17:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Although I'm very reluctant to claim we should assume this should be seen as a support !vote since JaGa voted oppose just above :) —me_and 17:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, yeah, I see that now. I guess it's just a comment like it says on the label, then. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the status quo is fine. But in favour of a move: the game character gets 15x more hits.[3] [4]. Rd232 talk 21:06, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Oppose to avoid recentism and systemic bias in our choice of preferences. The comparative internet savvy-ness of FF fans over Kabbalists shouldn't overrule common sense. Unless and until Final Fantasy bypasses the Kabbalah in its overall cultural impact and scale in global human knowledge, the default target should be the Kabbalah concept. See also the discussion on Java here.--Carwil (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Our naming guidelines are based on taking readers to what they're most likely seeking, not based on the relative importance of the articles in question. Powers T 13:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia aspires to be a universal reference tool for all humanity, not just for whatever set of internet searchers currently exist (Readers≠Internet searchers). To do so we have to confront and deal with the difference between the two. See the essay Wikipedia:Systemic bias.--Carwil (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
        • The systemic bias document applies to article content, not article naming. For article naming, our primary metric has always been what do our readers want to see when they type in this title? Powers T 15:35, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Sephiroth of Final Fantasy is derivative of the kabbalistic Sephirot. It seems backwards that the video game reference would trump the original source. Perhaps in this case, since there is a direct collision (where there isn't one with Sefirot and Sephirot), there should be a disambiguation page? --Xtraeme (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • According to normal reasoning at Wikipedia and policy, no, in this case there should not be a dab page because it has only two entries. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I happen to agree with Chaos5023. If WP intends to live up to the statement that WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, then a fictional character in a video game shouldn't be given recognition over the several thousand year old tradition that it borrows from. If this is to be a compromise then option (1), below, seems like a reasonable middle ground:

            Sephirot (Kabbalah) → Sephirot

        (1) Sephiroth stays as → disambiguation page
            Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) stays as → Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)
            On the disambiguation page have Sephirot (Kabbalah) as a redirect to → Sephirot

        (2) Or if Wikipedia is aiming to be more classy,
            Sephiroth redirects to → Sephirot and has a hat note to Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)

        Personally I prefer option (2) because as Yworo notes Sephiroth is common amongst Sephardi and Ashkenazi dialects. This has bled over in to many ancient and contemporary English books on the subject (google books search).
        --Xtraeme (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
        • If WP:TWODABS is going to be a big problem here, then honestly I would love to see your option #2 happen. I've supported keeping the existing dab as a reasonable-seeming middle ground, but if the existence of a two-item dab page is going to wind up bringing us back to a new iteration of this discussion, then sure, let's go straight to redirecting Sephiroth to Sephirot. The correct way to do that (well, going by how I've seen similar things done in the past, anyway) would probably be to open a counter-proposal at Talk:Sephirot and note it in this discussion. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Sepherot and Sepheroth are both equally common transliterations of the Hebrew word. The Final Fantasy character is not at all the most common reason for searching for the term. Yworo (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • What is the basis for the statement that the character is "not at all" the most common reason for searching for the term? The page about the character has about twice as many page views as does the article about the Kabbalah meaning. Besides, whether the character or the dab page page is at Sephiroth, the Kabbalah meaning is only one click away either way. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Sorry, the overwhelming majority of responses is opposed. And for good reason. I read and write Hebrew and clearly the FF character is a derivative. The word "Sephiroth" has been used in English since I think the time of Johann Reuchlin and it is just as common a referent to the Kabbalistic concept as Sephirot. In the face of clear opposition, you may not close this as "move", you are not an admin. How many clicks something gets is only part of the reasoning process for article placement. In this case, other factors outweigh it. Yworo (talk) 01:39, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment, as I've said elsewhere, here as the linguistic details: Many Hebrew words have multiple transliterations into English, due primarily to the difference in pronunciation between Sephardi and Ashkenazi dialects. The transliteration Sephiroth just as common as the transliteration Sephirot. That's why. Yworo (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict)I'm not contesting your reversal of the close, so let's not talk about that. I'm contesting the reasoning you're giving for your oppose, which I note just changed, which suggests this could be more about personal bias than reasoned basis. So let's talk about that.

      By the way, before just a few hours ago, I was completely unfamiliar with either use of either term, so no personal bias here whatsoever.

      First you said the character is "'not at all' the most common reason for searching for the term". When I asked for the basis for that claim, all that addressed that question in your response is that counting clicks is only part of the reasoning, and vaguely referring to "other factors", but not specifying what they are. You also claim that the FF character is a derivative, without providing any basis for that much less explaining how whether it's a derivative is even relevant to primary topic determination (per reading WP:PRIMARYTOPIC I don't see how it could be).

      You're apparently arguing that Sephiroth is an equally valid/frequent spelling of Sephirot, perhaps the way yogurt and yoghurt are equivalent spellings of the dairy product. However, in the case of yoghurt, both spellings are clearly indicated in the opening of the article; that is not the case here. At google scholar, I get about 800 hits for "Sephiroth Kabbalah", while over 3,000 for "Sephirot Kabbalah". At google books the ratio is also about 4:1 in favor of Sephirot: 41,300 for "Sephirot Kabbalah" and 10,400 for "Sephiroth Kabbalah".

      Finally, you never addressed my point above about whether the character or the dab page page is at Sephiroth, the Kabbalah meaning is only one click away either way. This is why I thought the suggestion above, to recognize that each use is the primary topic for one of the two spellings, and to have hatnotes to the other per WP:TWODABS, is the perfect solution.

      In short, your objection makes no sense to me. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

      • That's because Kabbalah is also transliterated differently in the other dialect. Try sephiroth qabalah, which gets 20,700 gHits and 3,250 books on Google Books. Yworo (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Support. If nothing else, per WP:TWODABS (see #Discussion below). But also noting that the fictional character does meet primary topic criteria according to page view counts, and that the spelling with the h (Sephiroth) is used to refer to the Kabbalah usage much less often (about 4 times less often) than is Sephirot (for which the Kabbalah usage is clearly primary). So it just makes sense to have the two articles at the two plain names, with hatnotes to each other. This is exactly the situation WP:TWODABS addresses in order to avoid creating (or, as in this case, retaining) unhelpful dab pages like this. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I should note that I previously closed this discussion with a decision to move the article to Sephiroth, but this was contested and reversed because I'm not an admin. That's fair enough, but I stand by my original reasoning, with the caveat that no one until Yworo until after my decision mentioned that Sephiroth was an alternative spelling for Sephirot. So I repeat my decision for the record:

The result of the move request was: Move to Sephiroth. The objections seem to be conflating Sephirot (no h) and Sephiroth (has an h). There is no conflict since one ends with an h and the other does not. To handle misspellings, each has a hatnote to the other, so no need for any dab pages. Per separate discussion Sephirot (Kabbalah) is being moved to Sephirot. See also WP:TWODABS.

Given the new evidence about Sephiroth being an alternative spelling for Sephirot, I would change my wording somewhat, to be more in line with my Strong Support decision above (to emphasize WP:TWODABS more), but my decision would still be to move. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:36, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, so we've got one strong support, one violent oppose, two support, and five oppose. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not policy, it's a guideline. Consensus overules it, even if your interpretation of it were accurate, which it isn't. Looks like 6 oppose to 3 support, or a 2/3 majority against the move, which is a consensus. Yworo (talk) 03:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a democracy. Consensus is not determined by counting votes. The arguments must make sense. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Sure, and it may just be because I'm making several of them, but a lot of the opposing arguments make a lot of sense to me. While headcount isn't everything, neither is it the case that what we say here only counts if we can justify it in terms of the codified consensus in policy and guidelines; consensus can change, and the fact that such extensive opposition is turning up to what looks like, from the point of view of legalistic bureaucratic application of top-down prescriptive policy, minor housekeeping chores, should be making bells go off that maybe there are important concerns that existing codified consensus is failing to address in this case. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm completely confused about the use of the box here. Are you suggesting you can still move to close, despite quite substantial opposition and still not being an admin?--Carwil (talk) 03:16, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, no. I just used the box for emphasis. Some one else will close. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)


Yworo, I quote from WP:TWODABS, which is on the deletion policy page:

As a general rule, if there is only one other topic besides the primary one, then no disambiguation page is created – it is sufficient to have a hatnote on the primary topic article pointing to the other topic.

In this case there is only one other topic, so why have a dab page with two entries? What is so special about this situation that WP:IAR needs to be invoked to ignore policy? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:20, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

In a nutshell, the systemic bias and recentism concerns. It's pretty much all down to whether one thinks that's a big deal in this case. I happen to. —chaos5023 (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Are you saying "systemic bias and recentism" is the reason to ignore policy in this case? I don't understand. How is Wikipedia improved (which is what must justify invoking WP:IAR) by having a 2-entry dab page here? --Born2cycle (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I've gone on about this at tl;dr length above, but I'll reiterate. It is improved by avoiding completely displacing an article about a millennia-old concept, under the spelling which was the predominant English transliteration for most of the period of history in which there has been an English language, in favor of a video game character that was named utterly at random after that concept in 1997. It is my strong feeling that this helps maintain an appearance and actuality that WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than, not to put too fine a point to it, a pop culture database run by JRPG fanboys with all the sense of history of a mayfly that's been heavily dosed with MDMA. —chaos5023 (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I'll also note again that WP:DAB (of which WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS are both parts) is not policy, it is a guideline, so we're not even so much ignoring it as choosing not to apply it in a situation where slavish adherence generates negative unintended consequences. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see what happened. You mistook WP:D's hatnote, which points to WP:Deletion policy, as meaning that the page you were on was the deletion policy page. WP:D is the disambiguation guideline page; please take a closer look at it and note the project templates. —chaos5023 (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's the mistake I made. I'm surprised you figured that out!

Anyway, okay, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODABS are "only" guidelines, but arguments based in guidelines should carry much more weight than arguments which are essentially rationalizations of WP:JDLI, which, as far as I can tell, is all that's been offered from the oppose side in this discussion. You still need a good reason to ignore those rules, even if they're "just" guidelines, and expressing opinion that has no basis in policy, guidelines or conventions is not that.

When it comes to how articles are named, whether you like it or not, Wikipedia is a pop culture database in that it gives preference based on popularity. That's why the determining criteria for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is how likely something is to be the subject being sought when the term in question is entered in the Search box, which is a pure indicator of popularity.

There are really only three possibilities for Sephiroth:

  1. Sephiroth is a redirect to Sephirot (the Kabbalah usage), which is either consistent with, or in violation of, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, depending on whether the Kaballah usage meets the criteria to be the primary topic for Sephiroth. Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) remains as is, with a hatnote to Sephirot. This would also meet WP:TWODABS, but no one has even hinted, much less argued, that the Kabbalah usage meets the primary topic criteria for "Sephiroth", or even that it is a more popular use of the term than is the FS character.
  2. Sephiroth remains a 2-entry dab page in clear violation of WP:TWODABS.
  3. The article on the FS character is moved to Sephiroth and the hatnote redirects to Sephirot per WP:TWODABS (presuming the FS character is the popular use of the term, which has not been challenged).
There simply is no basis in Wikipedia policy, guidelines or conventions to go with (2) in order to "maintain an appearance and actuality that WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than, not to put too fine a point to it, a pop culture database". Although WP:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia is referenced in those words, nothing there actually applies to this situation, except perhaps an interpretation of the title wording itself which is not supported by the text.

WP:JDLI#Title discussions puts it thusly:

To decide how articles are to be titled purely on the basis of what is merely popular or interesting to whatever small group of editors happens to be around at the time that a discussion is had, is to head down the road of balkanizing Wikipedia article titles. Wikipedia's editing community comprises a broad spectrum of people from around the world, and what is uninteresting and dislikable to some is of vital interest to others. It is neither productive nor desired to have multiple groups of editors trying to out-"vote" one another, treating editorial decisions on titles as popularity contests. We have had experience of this in years gone by, and it did not lead to the betterment of the encyclopaedia. Arguments about how articles should be named should reflect how subjects are called in sources and the other principal naming criteria specified at WP:TITLE and general naming guidelines like WP:DISAMBIGUATION. Consensus is determined not by the percentage of the participants in support or opposed to a given position, but by the quality of the arguments posted, evaluated in terms of how well they are based in policy, guidelines and conventions.

What I'm not seeing on the oppose side here are arguments "based in policy, guidelines and conventions." --Born2cycle (talk) 06:14, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
As I've noted before, while WP:BIAS and WP:RECENTISM are merely essays, there is considerable consensus across Wikipedia that systemic bias should be avoided whenever we may reasonably do so — check the membership list of WP:WikiProject Countering systemic bias if you like. WP:CONSENSUS is a policy, so there you go. —chaos5023 (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
RE: "... how articles should be named should reflect how subjects are called in sources and the other principal naming criteria." I think this is simple as far as WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is concerned. It's been said before, and I'll say it again, "Yworo notes Sephiroth is common amongst Sephardi and Ashkenazi dialects. This has bled over in to many ancient and contemporary English books on the subject (google books search)." Very few if any of the books in that list discuss Sephiroth the FF character. This is even more evident in a Google scholar search. Since Wikipedia is about reliable sources (WP:RS). Overwhelmingly when Sephiroth is used in a scholastic and academic manner, it's almost always in the Kabbalistic sense not in reference to the video-game character. That said I would argue for bullet #1.
  1. Sephiroth is a redirect to Sephirot (the Kabbalah usage), which is either consistent with, or in violation of, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, depending on whether the Kaballah usage meets the criteria to be the primary topic for Sephiroth. Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) remains as is, with a hatnote to Sephirot. This would also meet WP:TWODABS, but no one has even hinted, much less argued, that the Kabbalah usage meets the primary topic criteria for "Sephiroth", or even that it is a more popular use of the term than is the FS character.}}
--Xtraeme (talk) 07:15, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

The TWODABS rule only applies when there's a primary topic - it doesn't say you can never have have a two-entry dab page. I don't know which (if any) meaning of Sephiroth is primary, but I would say that there's no reason to deviate from the normal rule here - if we decide there's a primary topic, then use a hatnote with no dab page, but if we decide there's no primary topic, then use a dab page. (And as usual when there are only two subjects, we should be more inclined to identify one of them as the primary topic rather than neither, since the hatnote solution doesn't cost anyone an extra navigation step.) --Kotniski (talk) 10:38, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.


I came here to check if Sephiroth was left-handed as I always thought but someone sent me a message like this:

"Ambidextrous I think. S-E always has contradictions, so I just think he's ambi." (S-E as Square Enix)

"I've got an official S-E poster on my wall, right next to my computer of him with his Masamune in his right arm. AND he shows proficiency with them both in many fight scenes throughout CC.

In FF7 there are many scenes where he uses only his right hand. I used to pass these off as flaws on the developer's side." (CC as Crisis Core).

So could someone confirm this true or false? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Based on a Google image search, he usually holds the sword in his left hand. It's reasonable to assume that a supersoldier like him would be ambidextrous, either through training or birth. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Requested Move 2013[edit]

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: no move; redirect Sephiroth to Sephirot. That the Final Fantasy character may be the only topic under the spelling Sephiroth does not necessitate that it be at Sephiroth. The question is about which topic, wherever it may be situated, satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (There are numerous examples of this issue; e.g. USA does not redirect to the USA Network.) That erroneous point actually accounts for a decent number of the supporting remarks here.

It goes without saying (although it has been said) that the Jewish Sephirot satisfies WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term "Sephiroth" at least on the historical significance level. Whether it meets that in terms of usage is a different story. Unfortunately, I think the Google figures are difficult to take a face value. It is natural, for example, that Google Books would have far more results about the Kabbalah subject, as it is less likely a book would be written about a Final Fantasy character and because the catalog of books extends back decades before the character was even created. That being said, although "sephirot" may be the more common spelling of the term today (I'm not making a decision on a SephirotSephiroth move, to be clear), the various references to Google Books show that the term "sephiroth" is still widely used in contemporary sources to refer to the Kabbalah subject. It's not as if that spelling is archaic.

So, regardless of which topic may dominate the term over the past fifteen years, we certainly see that the Kabbalah topic satisfies the historic criterion. It seems reasonable to give deference to that historical significance, just as we have done on similar topics like this (e.g. Avatar, as mentioned), especially since, as noted in this RM discussion and in this article, the character's name is a derivative of the Kabbalah topic. -- tariqabjotu 06:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

– It's been nearly three years since the declined move discussion. Sephiroth is a disambiguation with only has four terms: one of which is an unnotable term for Tales of the Abyss and another is for Sefira at Counting of the Omer, which is kind of a long shot for Sephiroth. The character itself also has twice as many views than Sephirot DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:53, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

User:DragonZero since this is in fact a multi move and move of [{Sephiroth]] won't be picked up automatically on Alerts at WP Judaism you should probably notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism manually of the proposed move. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed the move request to be a multi-move. :) ·Salvidrim!·  12:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - This seems logicial to me, as long as the article has a disambiguation link at the top, it should be without issue. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:38, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose - per WP:DAB the use of Sephiroth in printed sources (see Google Books) refers to the actual Sephiroth, not a role playing character in a barely-notable and non-encyclopaedic role playing game. The fact that we have our Sephiroth article at the equally valid spelling of Sephirot doesn't change this fact. Fantasy/game/anime culture which picks up random Hebrew words doesn't displace those terms from Judaic usage. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The RM is also malformatted because a multiple move SephirothSephiroth (disambiguation) is required, although maybe that should happen anyway, and instead Sephiroth redirect to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC Sephirot. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I am confused then as to why, as it seems the Kabbalah article has by far more claim on Sephiroth, the term Sephiroth doesn't redirect to Sephirot, and have a small disambiguation page link under its title. It seems this would be most appropriate, and I think people keep bringing up this topic because no article occupies the Sephiroth space. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I strongly object to your characterization of Final Fantasy VII as "barely-notable and non-encyclopedic". It's one of the few video games that have had such a humonguous impact that I would say it easily belongs in any encyclopedia, Wikipedia or otherwise. :) ·Salvidrim!·  01:54, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, that obviously expresses my own personal prejudice against video games as encyclopaedia material but even without my frusty fossilism 71,700 GB hits for the main Jewish meaning vs 835 for ["Final Fantasy" + Sephiroth] make this move a non-starter. Even if it was carried by WP:local consensus it is so out of line with print sources that it would probably be overturned at Move Review. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The titles are similar, but a search engine test makes the primary topic for "Sephiroth" very clear: the FF character occupies all of the top hits. There is also an order of magnitude more links for the character association. Additionally, the character article receives twice the traffic of the Kabbalah article. The use of keeping the dab page is questionable, holding a negligible proportion of hits. That the Google Books search shows more "Sephiroth" hits for the Kabbalah meaning is true, but I don't think it trumps the term's clear common association with the character, and hatnotes are designed to address any confusion that would come from a mismatch. From these results, it would also appear that FFVII (of the whole series) is quite the opposite of "barely" notable. czar · · 03:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd also like to add Breaker and Breakers are completely different, even with one letter of spelling difference. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 04:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
What has breakers got to do with this, and if you're pointing that out, isn't "The Breakers" also completely different? unlike what you're demonstrating on the other move request. -- (talk) 04:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Here is what "The Breaker Disambiguation" had. The Breaker comic, the redirect to an author for the novel The Breaker, The mansion The Breakers with an s, The rockband The Breakers, with an s, and some song the Breakers with an S. Having only two true "The Breaker" the disambiguation page shouldn't be there. Breakers already has the rest of those disambiguation. Meanwhile, "Breaker" is completely different from "The Breaker". You don't have to bring that move discussion here, I stopped caring about it. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:03, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Adding an "s" to the page would have fixed your issues, and if you didn't what to discuss it, you shouldn't hve brought it up. -- (talk) 06:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I didn't even make a relations to that move request. I was only stating how one letter can make those words really different and that those two articles were what came to mind. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 06:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

*support If they had the same spelling, I'd oppose for the reasons given by the opposers above, but given that the primary spellings are different and hatnote here redirects to the other, I see no compelling reason this article shouldn't be moved to Sephiroth. The DAB page seems pretty redundant as well. Of the other two options, one is a pretty different spelling, and the other seems to be non-notable. Sailsbystars (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Sailsbystars, they do have the same spelling, that's why 71,700 GB hits for the Jewish Sephiroth (with th) outnumber 835 for the game character. There are another 14,000 for the Sephirot spelling (I don't know why its at the less common spelling). In ictu oculi (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
If you can push Sephirot to Sephiroth, I don't mind. Having one of the two being main is better than a disambiguation. Currently as it stands, they are spelt differently. Don't bite me. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 08:44, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
DragonZero, my apologies that wasn't meant to sound bitey. Sorry. Okay, I have entered into RM an additional RM template (directing here) at Talk:Sephirot for SephirothSephiroth (disambiguation) which is part of your/DragonZero's move proposal and also SephirotSephiroth which is in effect a counter-proposal prompted by Sailsbystars comment on the spelling and Judgesurreal777 comment "I think people keep bringing up this topic because no article occupies the Sephiroth space" - I personally am neutral on these options, but remain strongly opposed to the move per comment, though this video game isn't even close to the Avatar (film) decision. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that's a fairly persuasive argument with good evidence regarding the relative notability of the terms and spellings. Out of curiosity, why wasn't the current Sephirot article at Spehiroth (Kebbalah) or some such given that Sephiroth is the main spelling in English-language sources? Sailsbystars (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi, can't answer that. Many en.wp rabbinical/kabbalah articles are at North African Hebrew spellings despite Ashkenazi Hebrew spellings being more common in English sources. It may just reflect en.wp's editor demographic, honestly don't know. Only know that Sephiroth considerably outnumbers both the Sephardi spelling and the video game character to occupy WP:PRIMARYTOPIC slot. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support removal of DAB by redirect to Sephirot or move of Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). The DAB page has four links, Sephirot (valid), Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) (valid), Tales of the Abyss (has no mention of "Sephiroth", so doesn't meet MOS:DABMENTION and shouldn't be listed), and Counting of the Omer (only relevant via Sephirot). That's two valid links, so a DAB page is unnecessary. Put some actual content there (I don't mind which, but a redirect to Sephirot would seem to make more sense and satisfy most of the arguments here) and hatlink to the other article. —me_and 11:11, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the move as stated. Sephiroth ought to be the location of the material currently at sephirot, not an article on this character, and not a dabpage. (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment on Kabbalah usage, intended as a response to the rationale posited at Talk:Sephirot#Requested_move_2013 (Sephirot → Sephiroth) but directed here to discuss. I don't know where the 71,000/835 numbers are from without a source, but I found the Google Books numbers closer to 13,500 (or fewer) and 1,190. I've never seen the Google Books number of hits used to indicate anything more than generally, and even then, it's usually the main search hits. By that metric, "sephirot" appears as the common Kabbalah spelling over "sephiroth" with nearly twice the hits, and Google even autocorrects to the first spelling. I don't see the case for "2.3x more common", and I don't think the Google Books search methodology is sound if used as an indicator on its own. (Also is "educational significance" intended to mean that Kabbalah articles are more encyclopedic or educational than noteworthy fictional characters?) Showing a Kabbalah scholar preference for one term over the other would be more convincing. I couldn't find this from my own readings. A Google Scholar search puts them at similar usage: sephirot, sephiroth. Additionally, it would appear that unless a clear case is made for one spelling's usage over another, the article defaults back to the spelling of editing consensus, where "sephirot" traces back to before 2010 move requests. Lastly on this point, the main case I can see made for the spelling is "sephiroth" (for Kabbalah) as a plural of "sephirot", and beyond the aforementioned case made, the singular title is preferred unless there is a case for using the plural as the title. As for the dab page (second move proposal), I don't think it's necessary (as laid out by "Me and" in the main move discussion), and it can be subsumed by a hatnoted full article. czar · · 16:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Long tails on Google Books searches are often ghosts, yes, introducing "are" narrows it down.
Ashkenazi plural "Sephiroth are" = 3,600
Sephardi plural "Sephirot are" = 502
Clearly Sephiroth should be at the Ashkenazi (European) transliteration not the Sephardi (North African) transliteration for en.wp
As regards the final fantasy numbers
Sephiroth "Final Fantasy" -LLC -Wikipedia = 660
Sephiroth Judaism/Kabbalah/Jewish/rabbi -LLC -Wikipedia 23,400
Which makes it evident that as long or short as the GB ghost tail may be any search method is still going to have Ashkenazi Sephiroth (even not counting Sephardi Sephirot) as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in printed sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, with all the usual "Not to be confused with yadda yadda" on both pages. The Kabbalistic concept is staying at "Sephirot" and we should avoid parenthetical dab where possible, so the character should sit at his actual name "Sephiroth". Google hits and whatnot shouldn't even factor into this discussion. Trying to squat on both pages is just greedy. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose. As before: Sephiroth is the Ashkenazic spelling of Sephirot, and was the primary English transliteration of that term for most of the time there has been a language identifiable as English, only recently being displaced by the Sephardic transliteration as a result of the cultural influence of the state of Israel. It is of sufficient historical and encyclopedic significance that it should not be taken over by a video game character, because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a pop culture reference. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:17, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose – It's quite evident that the character was named after another term, even if the creators might not have considered the meaning. The original term has priority over the character, so the disambiguation should remain at Sephiroth (or better yet, Sephiroth should redirect to Sephirot and the disambiguation be moved to Sephiroth (disambiguation)). --Article editor (talk) 23:37, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per Axem Titanium's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Sjones23/User:Axem Titanium, NB it is not a given that Sephirot is staying at Sephardi spelling, a move to the more common Ashkenazi spelling is also proposed. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly what more readers want when they type in "Sephiroth" with an "h". Isn't that what the stats mean? Red Slash 10:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:TWODABS. This is a rather forced dab page; there should just be Sephiroth and Sephirot, linked through hatnotes. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
@User:Red Slash can you please link to WP:AT policy on what to do when page views contradict use in printed sources? (if we followed page views no Britannica topic with a video game character named after it would be a en.wp WP:PRIMARYTOPIC)
fwiw, if it were the other way around, you'd have very few about video game characters. Also your example makes Sephiroth sound significantly less notable than he is, in specific. czar · · 03:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll do one better, In ictu oculi. I'll link to Sephirot, which is spelled without the final "h". Come on, this is not a straight-up comparison like most other moves are. This is complicated by the fact that the concept, a doubtlessly more long-term significant article, has a completely WP:NATURAL current location. We are not comparing whether the character has primary topic over the concept, we are comparing whether it has primary topic over a minority spelling of the concept. Check the permanent version--there's a hatnote, but the lede doesn't mention "Sephiroth" even as being a potential alternate spelling. Red Slash 07:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry RedSlash but how does that explain how the video game character passes WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when Sephiroth "Final Fantasy" -LLC -Wikipedia = 660 vs Sephiroth Judaism/Kabbalah/Jewish/rabbi -LLC -Wikipedia 23,400? The only evidence that has been offered for the move is "page views" 1200 views per day vs. 600 views per day. Which means 2x as many users are interested in video games as Judaica (hardly surprising). But where in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does it say 1200 vs 600 in page views trumps 23,400 vs 660 in printed sources? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Nowhere, but it also doesn't say the reverse for Google Livres: Wikipedia:Primarytopic#Determining_a_primary_topic. It's a guideline to find consensus, not a hard metric. czar · · 17:12, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, perhaps many of the Google Books sources say "Sephirot, also spelled 'Sephiroth" and then continue to use "Sephirot" throughout. Even our current article does that. Again, your position is valid and defensible, but it looks like "Sephiroth" is not that common of a spelling. And again, if this move is carried out, nobody is inconvenienced. People looked for Sephirot as a concept by typing in "Sephiroth", unlikely as that may be, are still exactly one click away, just like they are right now. That to me is reason enough to support a move. Red Slash 22:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Why would they? No they don't. WP:PRIMARYTOPIC when Sephiroth "Final Fantasy" -LLC -Wikipedia = 660 vs Sephiroth Judaism/Kabbalah/Jewish/rabbi -LLC -Wikipedia 23,400? The clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here is 23,400 vs 660 in printed sources. No body yet in this discussion has cited any guideline or policy for ignoring 23,400 vs 660 in printed sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:59, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
@User:BDD variant of same question; what about the evidence that says that in printed sources - rather than page views - "Sephiroth" refers to the original encyclopaedic subject? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - If the name Sephiroth clashed with the common spelling of Sephirot then I may have !voted differently but, as it stands, Sephiroth is a minor spelling of Sephirot. Put a hat note on each article referring to the other and get rid of the DAB page as proposed. Also, WP:GOOGLETEST is hardly a valid metric. Cabe6403 (TalkSign) 08:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Suppport per a number of the other support arguments above. A hatnote seems sufficient. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment sorry, but it has to be noted, an awful lot of support voters appear connected with WP Video games, and relisting isn't likely to change that. The clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in books is 23,400 for the Jewish meaning vs 660 for the game character in printed sources, but the demographic of Google Books and en.wp are very different. My sympathies are with any admin trying to close this, but WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has this conflict:

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to usage, if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.

A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

In ictu oculi (talk) 06:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment There appears to be almost unanimous consensus for getting rid of the DAB page; the contention is over what Sephiroth should point to instead. My feeling (I've not reviewed thoroughly, and likewise pity the admin who closes this and needs to do so) is that there's stronger desire overall to have this as a redirect to Sephirot than to have Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) moved there. That said, if this is closed as no consensus, I'll open an RFC straight away to list the different options; hopefully the different format for an RFC will make it easier to establish consensus. —me_and 13:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Proposed solution: Support for Sephiroth to be moved to Sephiroth (disambiguation) since there are several articles with this name. However, simultaneously Oppose any change or move for Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) that is fine just as it is, since the word Sephiroth alone is written like that as another way of writing Sephirot or Sefirot in accepted scholarship as the scholarly transliteration into English of the 3,000 year old Hebrew language word ספירות that a neutral DAB page can contain as a referring to Sephirot (without the "h" or Sefirot) as it now does on WP. It makes no sense that a latter-day "game boy" character can abrogate a classical Hebrew word that is also classically associated with a central notion in the classical Jewish Kabbalah and was maybe even plagiarized from there by the shrewd creators of latter-day fantasy games that WP should not endorse in any way, either directly or implied. IZAK (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nuke the dab page and redirect this alternative spelling to the main topic Sephirot, relying on the existing hatnotes. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - I can see, perhaps, a chance that video game players might be among the individuals most likely to seek out the word Sephiroth right now, given their degree of reliance on wikipedia and the internet in general for information. It would be interesting to see what the grokse results are for both pages. Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism/Popular pages lists the Judaic Sephiroth as getting around 17,000 hits, which is about half of the total of the least visited page on the Video games projects' similar list. This article isn't on that list, but it might still, maybe, get more hits than the Judaic article. Having said that, I think that WP:RECENTISM might apply as well here. My choice would be to nuke the dab page and have the Judaic article the one with the title "Sephiroth" or "Sephirot", with the other word being a redirect to it. That page would also have a hatnote linking to this page. It could well be, in time, that perhaps the popularity and amount of discussion of video games, or television programs, or other sources might well in the future make it the case that those topics are among both the most-written about, and most often searched for, but I don't think we have gotten to that point yet. Based on the data available to me, the proposal made here and earlier by Axel seems the most reasonable one. There is another, related, discussion about whether Sephiroth or Sephirot is the preferable title for the Judaic article, but I don't think that this is necessarily the best place to discuss that separate matter. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Nuking the DAB page[edit]

Just creating a section here as there seems to be support for this, but I wanted to break it out from the main RM discussion. See me_and's comments above for a good discussion of the rationale.

  • Support Sailsbystars (talk) 13:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support I actually thought this was implied by the move before it was just added to the docket (that the dab page would be overwritten). My rationale is similar to Me and's above. czar · · 16:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, the dab page has only 2 valid links, which can easily be covered by hatnotes. Axem Titanium (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support- It seems clear that the Sephiroth article page is highly coveted real estate, and should not be home to a DAB page. It should either be the video game character, or a redirect to Sephirot, which would then hold a link to a disambiguation page. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I support making Sephiroth redirect to Sephirot with a hatnote "Sephiroth" redirects here. For the video game character, see Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). I strongly oppose any other method of getting rid of the dab page. —chaos5023 (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support moving Sephirot to Sephiroth with a hatnote to Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). (talk) 22:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, was me… forgot to log in, sorry. Goldenshimmer (talk) 22:35, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support deleting the dab page per reasonings by Judgesurreal777 and Axem Titanium. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Red Slash 10:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:TWODABS. This is a rather forced dab page; there should just be Sephiroth and Sephirot, linked through hatnotes. --BDD (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support - per Axem. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Support for Sephirot or even Sefirot remaining as is. It's just a case of "six of one and half a dozen of the other". It's just a transliterated Hebrew language word ספירות in any case.IZAK (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
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.

"Sephirot" and "Sephiroth"[edit]

The usage of Sephirot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Sephiroth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are under discussion at talk:Sephirot -- (talk) 12:27, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  • No, they're being discussed here, on this page. --Article editor (talk) 23:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)


ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sephiroth (Final Fantasy)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 02:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll be taking this one. Give me a bit of time to review the material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):


Symbol support vote.svg · Symbol oppose vote.svg · Symbol wait.svg · Symbol neutral vote.svg

Bad prose in the lede: "Character designer Tetsuya Nomura wanted his role in the story to be different from other Final Fantasy villains, while his design was intended to contrast directly with that of the game's main character, Cloud Strife." - Does not provide context or clarity with the "while" suggesting the opposite of the other villains. Does not provide information on why he is different or why it matters.


"His Japanese voice actor is Toshiyuki Morikawa;[1] in English, he was first voiced by Lance Bass in Kingdom Hearts and by George Newbern in all his subsequent appearances." - Another jarring usage and semi-colon error.


"In Final Fantasy VII, Sephiroth is the result of an experiment by the megacorporation Shinra, in which they injected him with cells from the extraterrestrial lifeform Jenova when he was still a fetus." - In Final Fantasy VII? As opposed to a different history in other media? Needs clarity in the lede.


" Upon discovering this, Sephiroth decides to follow what he believes to be his destiny, and become a god, taking control of the Planet, whilst Cloud and the game's other protagonists attempt to stop him." Initial wording is lacking - "his destiny" is a bit of a twist from his mentality as well.


"Sephiroth has been well-received within the video game community, and is regularly featured in top positions on many top list of video game villains and Final Fantasy characters." - The "many top list of video game villains" is a wording problem.


More examples, "His name comes from Kabbalah, in which the ten sephirot on the Tree of life represent the ten attributes through which God can reveal himself." - Do you mean "the Kabbalah"? Missing 'the'.


Others like "Sephiroth was initially going to be Aerith Gainsborough's sibling with their hair resembling one another." are awkwardly worded.


Quite a few examples exist, but outside of the lede I cannot be overly harsh. As a whole it is problematic.

Made a few fixes, phrasing seems to be getting better with a lot of sentence rewrites.

One additional note: Could you please address the "Safer Sephiroth" translation issue for the English release. This, like other instances of awkward translation, Wikia has coverage of this and it is not a good thing if this is overlooked. [5] - But this is more of a critical issue that goes above and beyond the necessary requirements of a GA.

I would, but I have not been able to find a reliable source discussing the issue, and the final fantasy wikia, though most likely true, has no source listed for its description. If you have one or know of one, let me know and I'll add it whenever you find it.

Moving along... How is, a blog, meet a RS? I'd like some justification here for its inclusion.

Anoop Gantayat is the purveyor of the site, and is a former writer for IGN who started the website to inform people about japanese related video gaming news that would otherwise stay untranslated. I has since stopped doing it, but the archive of articles is still up. Since he wrote for IGN, the blog is considered by Wikiproject Video Games as a reliable source.

Two dead links, ref 50 and 57.

Archived, so fixed.

Placing on hold for fixes. A quick copy edit and a few minor issues and this will pass. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll just reply about It is run by Anoop Gantayat who was a journalist from IGN, so it passes Self Published Source. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 19:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Ok! All issues resolved! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Very well. Passed! Congrats. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:38, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment this seems to have failed stability, since there's a rename request open. Promotion should have waited until after the naming issue was resolved. -- (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
There's no edit war or content dispute and renaming doesn't affect the article's content, so stability isn't an issue. czar · · 06:11, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. The choice was mine to make and the article content is stable. I will not fail or hold an article because some discussion is ongoing, the burden is unstable from day to day, and that was not the case by the definition listed in the criteria. If you read the GA criteria notes it clearly states, "Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing), and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold." - The move request is a proposal and only impacts the location of the page and not its content. That is why; I didn't do this all "willy-nilly". I go by the definition of the criteria and do not assert my own. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:18, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

One-winged Angel plagiarized?[edit]

Hi, something has been bugging me for awhile, and hopefully someone can answer. I know Nobuo said One-winged Angel was inspired by the various artists, but I don't believe it. One-winged Angel sounds like an exact copy of various songs from the Omen... particularly the song "The Alter" in fact, every part of One-winged Angel can be found in The Omen's 1976 soundtrack. The ONLY difference is the lyrics. I know sampling small bits from other songs isn't an issue, but copying an entire soundtack, with the only original content being lyrics? (talk) 01:15, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:24, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This page is pointless[edit]

Just as it says. He has a page on the FF wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sephiroth (Final Fantasy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)