Talk:Sailor Moon/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions about Sailor Moon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Historical note: This is the archive of Talk:Sailor Moon (anime), which article was merged with Sailor Moon. It was part of WikiProject Sailor Moon and WikiProject Anime and manga and was Start class.

Episode numberings

"Episodes #83-en through #89-en do not exist. At the start of S, the English version's episode numbers were adjusted to match those of the original Japanese version."

Is there a source for this? If so, awesome! --Masamage 19:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I got that notion from YTV's website. When SM was still on the air, YTV had a list of all of the episodes of SM in its rotation on its website. It numbered the original and R episodes from 101-182, and the S and SuperS episodes from 190-266. -- Denelson 83 21:04, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, look at that. I wonder if that's official, or just a YTV thing? I'll do a search... Maybe I can Youtube up an S-season dub episode and see if the number is listed. --Masamage 21:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The numbers weren't put into the actual episode video. YTV showed the episodes on an "as-is" basis. -- Denelson 83 21:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So I discovered. I'm looking around on Amazon, too, but all I can find is stuff being listed as "episode 4 of Sailor Moon S" and that sort of thing. --Masamage 21:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I note that YTV was the first channel to show the series. Shall we consider that official? --Masamage 20:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we should. -- Denelson 83 22:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

'Kay. I made a note of who did the renumbering, and sourced it. Later tonight I'll change List of Sailor Moon episodes to match. Thanks! --Masamage 00:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Non-NPOV

I removed the last paragraph in the blurb about the English version. It seemed rather POV, and while I agree with what it says, I see no purpose for it in the article. The omited section is repeated here just in case.

The North American version was the first experience with Sailor Moon (if not anime in general) for many anglophones, and the differences between the two versions led to much confusion. However, many fans worldwide would never have known about the series had it not reached North America, and so many regard the North American version as a mixed blessing.

DesireCampbell 140.184.32.65 21:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. You're definitely right that, without a reference, that is POV. And weasel-worded! I think it's actually true, though (and verifiable), so I'll slap a {{fact}} tag on it and we can look around for a citation. Thanks for catching that! --Masamage 00:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also in Sailor_Moon_(English_version)#Alterations. While I think it should be made clear that the English adaptation wasn't perfect, saying "there was an english version, and it sucked" is not enough. Sailor_Moon_(English_version)#Alterations at least explains that there were signifigant changes made in the English version beforehand. I'm not really sure what to do about that (I don't delve too deeply into Wikipedia). So I'll simply point you in that direction and let you 'have at it'.
DesireCampbell 140.184.32.65 16:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again; I plopped a {{fact}} tag on that one, too. I agree this needs to be fixed up, but I'm having trouble thinking of a good way to phrase it. Do you have any suggestions, maybe? --Masamage 20:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. It should be noted that there are many dissimilarities between he language versions, which has been done. But the more I think about it, even though I agree, that paragraph is POV and unnecessary. It's not "fact" it's just someone's opinion. And while it may be a valid one, shared by many, it can't be verified or referenced in any way - and so should probably be removed.
DesireCampbell 140.184.32.65 14:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sailor stars subbed?

Hi, does anyone know if there exists any dvd's of Sailor Stars with english subtitles (except for the bootlegs)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justwriting (talk • contribs)

Nope; they've never been licensed for English translation, so they don't exist except as fansubs and bootlegs. --Masamage 17:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

There's VKLL, I think they already went out of business. -- RattleMan 17:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Which are bootlegged fansubs! ^_^ Looks like they have indeed gone down, but there are various websites that offer the episodes for free download. --Masamage 18:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi I mailed some company which sells Sailor stars with subtitles. They said they are from some small studio with their own copyrights for season 5. And the box set has 12 DVDs!?! Actually I don't believe it but I'm gonna ask more. But does anyone knows if this could be the truth, about that copyright stuff? -- justwriting

Sounds extremely suspicious to me. :/ --Masamage 20:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I found this guide--does that help? --Masamage 21:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

i got stars dub dvd from uk2usa.com it has four dvds you can also get all of the sesionsSailor cuteness 20:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a bootleg. >_>;; --Masamage 01:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

eck dose that meen that the translations all wrong ?Sailor cuteness 16:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily; I've never heard of that problem with a bootleg. It's just illegally-made and illegally-sold, and your money doesn't go to anyone who helped make the series. --Masamage 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

woops if i knew that i woudent have got them Sailor cuteness 16:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

In all fairness, bootlegs are the only way for non-Japanese speaking individuals to enjoy the Sailor Stars arc of the story. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 16:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you can find fansubs for free download online. Then you at least aren't giving money to some random weirdo.

But yeah, sailor cuteness--you didn't know, so I wouldn't worry about it too much. ^_^ As long as the DVDs work, and your intentions were good, it's just on the bootleggers' heads, not on yours. --Masamage 20:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

SuperS

I've reverted this edit:

Unlike the previous three seasons, SuperS deviates from the fourth manga arc in terms of plot: besides omitting a key subplot involving the four Outer Senshi involving the return of Sailor Saturn, the series focuses mainly upon Sailor Chibi Moon as the lead with Sailor Moon herself reduced to comic relief.

SuperS is generally considered to be the least popular of the five Sailor Moon series, due to shifting focus towards Chibi-Usa and the fact that the bulk of the episodes for the series are stand-alone, resulting in a large amount of "filler" episodes between key storyline episodes. Other complaints include the omission of the Outer Senshi, which creates a continuity problem that resulted in the first six episodes of "Sailor Stars" having to resurrect various plot threads from SuperS in order to reintroduce the Outer Senshi, most notably Sailor Saturn, who returns to her proper age during the course of the SuperS manga arc.

I removed it mainly because this article is supposed to be more of an overview of the anime itself, not an analysis of any of its subcomponents. The person who added these paragraphs may be unaware that we're planning a SuperS article to cover the fourth story arc, and difference between the manga and anime, in better depth. It'll be modelled after Sailor Stars, as soon as we finish hammering that one into a shape we like. I think this kind of info, properly sourced, would be very appropriate for the SuperS article, so let's hang on to it here until we have a place for it.

Thank you for the contribution! We'd love to have your help at the WikiProject, if you're interested. :) --Masamage 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Excel Saga reference

*In an episode of the anime Excel Saga (a series notorious for it's parodies of many anime, and anime in general), the protagonist Excel is seen standing in front of a fake moon, with radishes connected to noodles atop her head to imitate Sailor Moon's hair, while she gives a dead-on clone of Sailor Moon's speech, even ending in "In the name of the moon, I shall punish you!" with Sailor Moon's signature arms cross, one hand pointing, other hand forming love sign pose.

Could it also be worth mentioning that a reason for the speech being so dead-on is because Kotono Mitsuishi is the voice actress of Excel (and Usagi)? ~ Wapiko 20:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That's only a passing reference to SM. I don't think we need to mention that here. -- Denelson 83 21:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

That was so funny, though! After Excel does her little Moon-speech, the baddies mock Excel for copying Sailor Moon, saying something like she's so old hat. Kotono Mitsuishi then speaks OOC, saying something like 'hey, I still make good money out of that!'. The dub actress said something like 'hey, I wanted that part, but they dubbed it in Canada!'. - Malkinann 21:29, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That does seem like more than a passing reference. (Unlike some of the other stuff we've got in that list.) --Masamage 22:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Robot chicken

should we put about the robot chicken parody of sailor moon in triva? ♥Eternal Pink-ready for love♥ 20:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

No, because A) most of the stuff in the trivia section needs to go away anyhow, B) I hate Robot Chicken so bad ;___;, and C) okay, the first reason was the good one. --Masamage 20:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the stuff in triva should stay to show its popularty(like in simpsons)IMAO but are there gidelines or stuff telling us to ged rid of it? ♥Eternal Pink-ready for love♥ 20:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a guideline to avoid bloated trivia sections somewheres. And yeah, some things should stay; the reference in One Week, for example, is a pretty big deal since that song was a #1 hit single. It'll take some care figuring out what stays and what goes, though. And 'trivia' is probably not a good name for the section. --Masamage 20:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

lets call it refrances mabye? ♥Eternal Pink-ready for love♥ 20:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

References is where we put our citations. X) I think the common name is "Cultural references," but there's gotta be some way to qualify that further. I don't know. --Masamage 21:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Just link to [1] and be done with it. -- Denelson 83 22:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice! That certainly covers all the parodies. The Cameos article covers the appearances of other series within SM, too. --Masamage 22:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Cameos article seems to cover or link to all of it. (But it's hard to tell. Man, Wikimoon is a mess.) --Masamage 22:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I like Robot Chicken ;_; JuJube 23:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

;______; + XP --Masamage 23:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

me to ;_; ♥Eternal Pink-ready for love♥ 09:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I dissent. Robot Chicken blasphemes SM. -- Denelson 83 01:51, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

yer but it didnt blasphmese any more then DiC did :} ♥Eternal Pink-ready for love and grace♥ 12:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Sailor Stars italy

it says it showed in italy with alterations does anyone know what they were? ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

If I remember right, they said that the Three Lights summoned up ther female twin sisters when there was fighting to be done. Which is pretty insane. o_O We should definitely find a source for that. --Masamage ♫ 20:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

OMG theres no way anyone would believe that ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 21:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Much like the Scouts being kidnapped by the Negaverse in Day of Destiny, or Amara and Michelle being Non-incenstuous cousins. X) --Masamage ♫ 22:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

even when I didnt know about the orignal I knew they where dead and not kidnapped ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 22:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, my husband says the same thing. I've never encountered anyone who saw S without knowing it was altered, though. --Masamage ♫ 23:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Is there a reason why the infobox in this Sailor Moon (anime) article is the TV infobox and not the anime infobox? Makes no sense to me... I'd change it now, but maybe you folks have a reason to keep the tv box?

I've also noticed that there is no infobox at all on the different arc articles - is this because they'd all have the same content or something? Ninja neko 05:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for this not to have the anime infobox, no. My guess is that we just didn't know about it. As for the arc articles, those cover both anime and manga, so it's unlikely that any infobox would be suitable. --Masamage ♫ 05:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You're fast :). I had the same remark for the manga article, which has a comic infobox instead of a manga infobox. For this article, would you rather have one infobox section on the entire series, or one section per arc? If you were to have an infobox on the arc articles, you could include the relevant manga arc too (if they match exactly, not too sure) - but that may become confusing.

And I'd just like to add, I've been out of the "moonie"-scene for a while now, but it's great to see all the information that is available here now (especially in comparison with the scattered info on fansites 6 years ago). The Sailor Moon wikiproject seems to be doing a great job. Ninja neko 06:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible split-merge

Now that there are some new articles, it may be a good idea to merge this article back into the main article and the various episode lists. To discuss this along with similar treatment of the manga, go here. --Masamage ♫ 17:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

In a blaze of motivation, I have just killed the entire trivia/reference in pop culture section as non-notable fancruft. Does this disturb anybody? We've been talking about it for months, so I suspect not. But you should feel free to say something if it does. --Masamage ♫ 22:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Disturb? No. Instead, I say thank you! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Reference Fix

The anime has been cited as reinvigorating the magical girl genre by adding dynamic heroines and action-oriented plots. <-- said by CLAMP after Magic Rayeearth in an interview. I'm pretty sure it showed up in a discussion about why they started the series and they specifically said that Kodansha was looking for more Magic Girl series. ^[1] You can also see it here: Magic_Knight_Rayearth#Development

When Sailor V was proposed Toei for adaptation into an anime, the concept was modified by Takeuchi so that Sailor V herself became only one member of a team.

Stick these in please for this one: ^[2] ^[3]

Some of the citation needed are kinda odd, since the article itself addresses them within the article and it's almost as if someone who didn't have time just wanted information quickly, but then that doesn't make for a smooth reading article. But if you add those two, we should get the GA rating back and I'll contest the other citations "issues." Also, I wish people wouldn't delete references without checking if they are valid first... I keep seeing that. As in clicking the link instead of deleting it wholesale. For example, deleting the Takeuchi-sensei interview, or deleting a reference to where her university is because they are too lazy to understand the map. (And then someone saying later its' not referenced... umm it was... but no one talked about it when they deleted it.)--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I double-checked the Clamp interview, and it's really vague about why Sailor Moon's success led to Rayearth as a serial. Basically, the point that "The anime has been cited as reinvigorating the magical girl genre by adding dynamic heroines and action-oriented plots." is not supported by the Clamp interview. In fact, it mentions the manga serial and not the anime. You might want to try looking in the scholarly works, though... Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

NM. I fixed it. It turns out that someone went citation crazy and then didn't read the *next* sentence where it has citations for the statements given in those two sentences. Are there any other objections? I also noticed people add citation needed for things that don't need citation--I have to wonder why. Also, people keep changing the wording without checking what the references say, willy nilly which makes this article harder to manage. For example, what read series, someone changed to anime. What read multimedia franchise was unilaterally changed to manga, though it's a poor reflection of the complete article and breaks the WP lead requirements. I wish people would put more thought and care before changing the article, by actually reading 1. the entire section at least. 2. At least the paragraph to see if it fits. This is why it got downgraded from GA, 'cause people put in things like citation needed when it doesn't need it. They add or remove words that shouldn't be removed or take out references without announcing they did so or looking at it. Please stop doing things willy nilly (like the person who got a thrill out of taking out "by Toei" when it's true and erased a problem with the article... what benefit did you get out of that sort of sabotage? *sighs*

Anyhoo, if there are no other objections to the references (legit ones where people READ the article and actually check the article without *removing* references. *cough* sabotage *cough* I'm going to remove the "Needs references tag." in a month... is that fair?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 20:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, you sound really stressed over all of this. :( Please, don't let it stress you, there are always going to be people who vandalize articles for the sheer thrill of it. If you don't mind, I can take another look at the article and check its references for reliability. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 17:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Malkiann, Masamage, and I (plus others) worked really hard to get it up to GA status (It was in rough shape before, but we organized it together...), and I provided the majority of the references (Malkiann the rest--mostly real world), but the edits made don't improve the article. I'm asking for care and thought before editing the article. We also collectively purged all of the fan websites (the ones that were not put into news outlets), which seem to keep popping up regardless even after we purged them. So more like really annoyed that what was already *good* that got us to GA status is being reverted back to a worse article because people aren't taking the time or care into thinking about their edits which is what got us broken GA status which takes time to do. Which means the painful fixing and renomination process all over again. So I'm asking the collective out there to THINK before they edit so we don't have to do a history repeat of trying to fix a GA article yet again because it got demoted. Could they please consider that? (Same as the person that changed the name of the article without the proper Wikipedia nomination process.) It's a real request. Don't waste the work that we put forward through your carelessness. 'cause the Sailor Moon project is likely to relaunch with the new anime. Particular call out to 109.149.169.221 who keeps making the article worse.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:59, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Staff for animation announced and a new poster

http://sailormoon-official.com/animation/ On Sailor Moon official, so I believe it's a good reference... who wants to add the listed staff? If you need to romanized named you can find it here: http://alicekaninchenbau.tumblr.com/post/78023195682/sailor-moon-anime-news-update (DO NOT ADD TO ACTUAL PAGE as a reference.) Also officially announced on twitter.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sailor Moon Crystal

At what point will we give Sailor Moon Crystal it's own page? Is there any objection? Jchq (talk) 14:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Until it starts airing, I don't see much point, and even then, it probably only warrants a episode list. It is actually pretty rare to give separate pages to an anime of a manga so I doubt it will ever warrant a page of its own beyond the episode list. Derekloffin (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Viz's Dub

Viz announced a new dub. http://www.hulu.com/watch/635233?playlist_id=1031&asset_scope=all According to Viz's twitter account the VA's are blessed by Takeuchi-sensei. https://twitter.com/VIZMedia/status/467454864478728192

Should be added, yes? --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, much of it has already been added to the International revival section and English adaptation section by User:Hugosworld92. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"Citation needed"

I took them out because either the reference is covering more than one line... which the poster doesn't seem to get because they aren't checking the references. Or it's self-evident (For example, someone says in a _Month_ Animax 19XX interview with Naoko Takeuchi said... you do not further proof that Naoko Takeuchi is right--she said it--you just need a link/ref to the interview). Or it says on Volume 10 of the original Sailor Moon there is Super Sailor Moon with a red background. That's self-evident. It does not need a reference. In most cases it's covering more than one line so re-referencing it for the second line is sloppy and against Wikipedia rules. Please check the references before adding "Citation needed" 'cause they CAN and will cover more than one sentence. You can reference a whole paragraph if you wish. When the claim doesn't match up, then slap it with citation needed.

If there are no objections in about a week, I'm taking off the citations needed tag at the top. Please mind your slapping down of citations needed by actually checking the citations BEFORE you slap it on the sentence.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Since there are no issues with most of the sources, I have removed the tag myself. But if there are any objections, please post them here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the anime

I provided a special page with some (not all) of the information from this article to help get a split moving along. I believe this will benefit the article's major restructuring.

Here is the link: User:Lucia Black/Sailor Moon (anime), everyone is welcome to add or restructure the article, but perhaps mention any controversial edits in the talkpage. Lucia Black (talk) 00:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm for the move.Rayayala17 (talk) 07:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Maboroshi no Ginzuisho

Should we rename the Silver Crystal as the "Legendary Silver Crystal" as written in Kodansha USA's official translation? I think we should add the "" as well because it's translated from 「幻の銀水晶」 using the 「」 in the Japanese version of the manga. You can find 「」being used in the Japanese-only text preview in the back pages of the English version of the Sailor Moon manga. 「」 is Japan's version of our English "".Rayayala17 (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You can use the {{nihongo}}} template with it. Lucia Black (talk) 07:21, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Sailor Moon Crystal as ONA

The new series Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon Crystal will premiere on internet site niconico. I think it would be best to consider it as ONA instead of TV series in the infobox. Taun The Hedgehog (talk) 10:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. I found out that the sources do not mention ONA anywhere, they mention it as a TV series which can be aired over the internet. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

On the Japanese Wikipedia Sailor Moon Crystal is a web anime (webアニメ). Here's the link... https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%BE%8E%E5%B0%91%E5%A5%B3%E6%88%A6%E5%A3%AB%E3%82%BB%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A9%E3%83%BC%E3%83%A0%E3%83%BC%E3%83%B3Crystal Rayayala17 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Other wiki's are not valid sources on wikipedia. We need an actual valid source. Derekloffin (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Alright. In the meantime, shall we just give it the neutral category of simply "anime?" Rayayala17 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

New Book as Reliable source?

I think we can use the book about the English adaptation by Roland Parliament as a reliable source. Here's the announcement link: [2]. However, we must be careful of WP:SPS and WP:V. Thoughts? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

For info on the adaptation itself it's fine, of course. I would say we can't use his, for example, in the reception. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to Move Article

I propose we rename the article from Sailor Moon to Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon. The series' original title has become more well-known and common in the English-speaking world since the early 2000s. I think it's time to accommodate this. Any objections? If not, is there an administrator who can rename the article? Rayayala17 (talk) 14:04, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Can you verify that? Lucia Black (talk) 14:37, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

ADV released the uncut Sailor Moon DVD box sets with the English title Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon right there on the box. I'll try to find a pic from a reliable source just in case. Rayayala17 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

This article should be titled with whatever the original manga was published under, as the manga is the primary work. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 15:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The title used by the majority of reliable sources is still "Sailor Moon". Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should remain at that name. —Farix (t | c) 03:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

But that is not the full name. KevinTriforce ^Talk 21:04, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

GA?

All right. I plan to make this a GA (and possibly an FA) in anticipation of the release of Sailor Moon Crystal and the rerelease of the series in North America. I plan to work on this in my sandbox and rework on it extensively in the next couple of days. For a recent example of what a GA article should look like, please see One Piece and Dragon Ball (both GAs). But I can't do this alone. If anyone would like to assist me in doing so, they are welcome to help out. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm considering one of the major splits would be the music section be merged with list of Sailor Moon soundtracks (renamed Music of Sailor Moon) and splitting the first anime as well. What are your thoughts on that? Lucia Black (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Great idea. But is it also necessary to merge the English adaptations article to here without causing any problems beforehand? Also, we may need to check the references for verifiability if no one objects. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:13, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the lead section needs to have its references removed and moved down to the body of the article, as well as a complete reorganization beginning with the manga release and storyline in the first paragraph, followed by the anime series and media franchise expansion in the second paragraph, then the English-language releases in the third paragraph and finally the reception in the fourth paragraph. We still need more information on the production, which is about the manga and not the anime production. We are also missing information on both the artbooks and completely misses out on the popular novel series, including the English ones as well, so we may need to include that as well. I'm still working on the lead in my sandbox and have now implemented some of it into the lead section of the article itself. How does it look? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

All ideas I read in this discussion sound interesting, but always bear in mind that the English adaptations article can be merged only if its number of sources is inadequate for the constitution of a stand-alone article (haven't checked the number, but I hope you have). While removing citations from the lead, remember WP:LEADCITE which says that citations can be used in the lead for potentially controversial info. Good luck with everything and can't help but let a big smile seeing one of my favourite anime being prepared for GAN. :) Hula Hup (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hula Hup: There are other issues regarding the English adaptations. for one, their not adaptations, just localization of the original media. Which leads to two: Not independently notable on their own as they rely on the original media. Lucia Black (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not advocating any specific action regarding a potential merger or removal/addition of citations from the lead, as I have no idea what is going on, I just generally mentioned what should be taken into account whatever action is taken. All the best for the GAN. Thank you. Hula Hup (talk) 21:26, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Lead section

All of the sources from the lead should be removed as they are already covered in the body of the article. We should also include some reception somehow. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

We got the lead rewritten to a reasonable length at least Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

References

All dead citations should be replaced and unreliable sources should be removed per WP:V. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The structure looks good to me. I'll see what i can do with the English adaptations. most likely, its going to have to be summarized entirely. Lucia Black (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sure, as long as there's no disruption. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

And use WebCite (or a similar site) to archive the references so you don't run into the problem of "dead" links anymore. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 06:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Plot

The plot section should be expanded to explain what happens in the end. There could also be a themes section.Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:18, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

"Together with princess's soldiers – the intelligent Sailor Mercury, psychic Sailor Mars, tomboyish Sailor Jupiter, and cheerful Sailor Venus – Sailor Moon fights evil and periodically encounters the mysterious Tuxedo Mask."

That's opinion... when you impose personality like that, that's opinion and kinda inaccurate to the Japanese POV of the characters. You have to cut it if you can't cite it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 06:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"As the series progresses, Usagi and her friends learn more and more about the enemies they face and the evil force that directs them"

Poorly worded... First of all, this isn't true in the anime. And secondly, the "evil force that directs them" is poor wording... The evil force doesn't do anything but "oppose" them. Use correct wording if you're going to change a section. If you can't improve it, leave it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 06:52, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Seriously poorly worded and written... The previous version was clear, cited and better without extraneous wording. I'm going to have to fix it. Because there are 1. three different versions of the beginning plot and not one size fits all, and the poor wording is hurting the article. It wasn't particularly broken in the first place, but when someone doesn't know all the version of the story and you present it as the singular version, it really does hurt the article. You want GA status, at least know your Sailor Moon mojo before rewriting. If you aren't sure or aren't versed, then *ask*, we can coordinate something. I want to move forward, not backward.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can fix it up, then feel free to do so. I do appreciate your interest, but my main concern here is that since the manga is the primary work (i.e. before the anime), this plot summary should be rewritten for the manga (and as a plot summary, the manga itself is the source and usually, plot summaries do not need to be cited) and we should focus on just that for the plot. We should also expand a bit how it ended too. The other summaries (i.e. anime and other works) can be covered in their respective section or in a separate article (anime or an episode list, for example). Objections? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The personalities can be retained in the lead if they are character-defining across adaptations, much like with Tenchi Muyo's Ryoko being a rebel, and Ayeka being a princess. The plot should serve as an overview of the manga series, and doesn't need to be play-by-play, and the 1990s anime adaptations could use a paragraph in that section for any radical differences in storyline as it was run simultaneously with the original run. The adaptations and remakes in the 2000s and 2010s do not need to be listed here but in the later media sections. -AngusWOOF (talk) 18:19, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Media

The media should be trimmed down, right now some of the sections are bloated and the English adaptations should be merged as well. But we have not got a consensus to merge it yet after several failed attempts. Unless someone objects, I'm going to start massively reorganizing this in the next couple of days, but attempting to be careful not to cause issues. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Coordinate before cutting please. Please. 'cause every time I return, the article seems to downgrade... and I don't get it. Either someone doesn't know their Sailor Moon well, and doesn't have the tools, or they really don't know wikipedia rules. Or both. Please discuss a little bit, because I poured a ton of work on citations, gathering materials, etc... and I rather it not get gutted to a worse level than it is. I get the desire to want to rewrite it, but seriously. After I've seen what happened to the plot section, the cutting of my references that are not fan-based and legit, I'm having less faith. I almost feel like reverting it to back when it *was* GA and just adding back the new information. If you need information, don't know Sailor Moon well, etc, at least ask?? I've watched all the versions, gathered up references, coordinated, and helped this article to its original GA status.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. It takes a lot of effort to help get the article up to GA status, mostly someone who has good writing skills and high-quality sources. It doesn't matter if one's a fan of Sailor Moon and we don't maintain ownership of the articles. Either some of the sections (the international revival section) are redundant or trimmed down to a manageable size (like for example, the anime, it's edits and everything as well). Even so, I can take it up to peer review to have it looked at. I understand where your frustrations are coming from, but it's kind of getting in the way of the discussion. Please don't over-exaggerate on the issues, as I think there are none so far. If you want to help out, then discuss the issues here. We're trying to get this article reworked and obviously, I know Sailor Moon and am a well-experienced Wikipedia user for over 6 years now, but I wanted to make it look something like a GA article (such as One Piece, Dragon Ball). My ultimate goal is to get the article up to FA status. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

International revival

This section should be combined with manga and anime. Having it like this doesn't feel encyclopedic but more like a news article we have to update frequently.Tintor2 (talk) 01:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

It's still a bit messy, but we can merge the English adaptations in with the article (if not the very least causing a bit of controversy). Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:15, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. English adaptations should also be moved considering it covers every media.Tintor2 (talk) 02:43, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think we should merge it. But, do we need a consensus to merge it unless there are any objections whatsoever? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I think thats good idea. the structure of it would be needing to be updated constantly for both media.. Lucia Black (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Redraft

As stated above, I am working on an extensive redraft in my sandbox. The models that I am also using are the GAs of other popular anime series, namely One Piece, Dragon Ball and YuYu Hakusho. My ultimate goal to get this up to at least WP:FA status as well. The model that I am going to use for the FAs are Tokyo Mew Mew, School Rumble and Madlax.

Before I take it up to GA or FA, I am planning to nominate it for peer review once the major redraft is finished up. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Sailor Senshi? Guardian Senshi?? What's Wrong With Sailor Soldier???

Why is it so insulting to properly translate Sailor Senshi to Sailor Soldier for the 90's anime and Sailor Guardian for the live-action series? Why does it have to be "Senshi," or "Sailor Senshi" or worse- "Guardian Senshi?" That's really sloppy teanslation when Japanese promotional material, merchandise and official artbooks etc. clearly translate Senshi as Soldier or Guardian? I propose we properly translate it as Sailor Soldier(s) for the 90's anime, and Sailor Guardian(s) for live-action series.Rayayala17 (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Not just the live-action. the new edition of the manga uses pretty in English uses Pretty "Guardian". Lucia Black (talk) 16:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thank you! Someone needs to change every "senshi" to Soldier or Guardian for each of its respective series.Rayayala17 (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm considering it once the anime gets split, but i'm not exactly sure its origin. Lucia Black (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The English version for the 1990's Japanese manga used "Sailor Soldier" for the English. So it would in inaccurate and would have to be noted by Wikipedia rules. BTW, it's really disheartening to see people who don't know the series editing the article, trying to get it up to GA, but without a clue of what they are doing... It was absolutely fine as GA status before, but people keep downgrading it. I'm expressing my frustration here. If you don't know the series, as in the anime, manga, and so on, then you can always ASK. Or at least look at the old project page... there are resources, references and tracking for why decisions were made and which wikipedia rules we were following. And we did that because of the haphazard editing that got the article down to a horrible state in the first place. Plus, I single handedly helped a lot of the pages get up in status, for example, my obsessive expansion of Takeuchi's page and the Chibiusa page. Ask. Seriously. You don't seem to know the series that obsessively. There are people who do and have collected sources just for this.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 06:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

If you feel your knowledge can make the article better, then by all means do the fixes that need to be done. however, do not make this about who's the bigger fan. I'm familiar with both the manga and anime fairly well. But your frustration is actually getting in the way from having a civilized discusssion. We dont need to be "obsessed" to provide quality articles. For example: I for one, despite reading Gyo and Tomie and a huge fan of them, am having difficulty finding appropriate sourcing for specific information.

if you're obsessed, great. it doesn't take a fanatic to improve an article to GA status, just someone with good writing skills and skills with finding quality sources. Right now, the issues aren't even that drastic. Please refrain from over exaggerating the issues you find. their not that bad for you to be acting like this. Lucia Black (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lucia Black on this. No one needs to be obsessive to provide quality articles. We are not downgrading it, but we are improving upon the article. I don't think it matters who is the bigger fan. I do know the series quite well also. Also, there's really no need to over-exaggerate on any issues that you may find here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 11:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Guys, I just found out I'm supposed to get consensus before changing senshi to soldier or guardian. Now, I've changed most of senshi to soldier or guardian. Does anyone have a problem with me finishing the job since I'm almost done, or should I wait for others' okay with it? Next time I'll get consensus before changing certain things.Rayayala17 (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

No objections for me. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, then! Oh, and thank you for polishing up the series storyline for me, too. I'll finish up the stories for the Dead Moon Circus and Shadow Galactica when I get a chance.

Genres

What sources are there that backs up any of the listed genres. Magical girl should be pretty easy, but the rest seem more based on original research that information that can be directly verified through reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 02:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I've discovered that the other genres were added by Chaodeknoi (talk · contribs) without any sourcing. Since these other genres were disputed before, I will remove them laving only magical girl, which is already sourced in the article. I have also went through Chaodeknoi's edit history and remove all the unsourced genres he has added to A&M articles. —Farix (t | c) 16:26, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Claim that Viz's license does not include Canada

Viz's contract stream with Hulu is exclusive to the United States, but the retail licensing includes both the US and Canada. An exceptional source will be required if their license is only for the US, which it is not. Now let's all move on and get this article up to GA status, thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Viz's press release stated that their distribution license was for all of North America, including both the US and Canada. To claim that their license is only for the US requires an exceptional source given that it directly contracts their press release. Remember that licensing is not a synonym for availability. —Farix (t | c) 02:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I would agree with that. The release is confirmed and planned by Viz Media themselves here: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/press-release/2014-05-19/viz-media-acquires-complete-sailor-moon-anime-eps-1-4-now-available-on-hulu

Viz's Sailor Moon license covers "digital streaming, EST (Electronic Sell Through) and all home media [i.e. Blu-Ray and DVD] products in the U.S. and Canada." So far, the series is being aired on Hulu and Neon Alley. But according to this interview, Charlene Ingram confirmed that Neon Alley is a network on Hulu. However, Hulu is a U.S. exclusive digital outlet and does not stream in Canada. Given the press release's details and reports of the new dub and DVD/Blu-Ray releases which will be announced very soon, it hasn't been confirmed that the series will not air nor be released in Canada. In short, the series will be released physically and digitally in both the U.S. and Canada (North America) where it will be starting with the very first episode. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Viz Media has also confirmed on Twitter that Sailor Moon will be available for streaming in Canada before their BD/DVD release. Time will tell though. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What Farix is saying though that having their licence for North America doesn't mean they will be streaming or releasing it in Canada. Lucia Black (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I know, but Viz is still working on streaming for Canada and will probably announce it soon. It's only a matter of time before Viz announces the Canadian streaming. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the word "soon" in that statement renders it invalid. It could mean "many years away", or it could mean "never". -- Denelson 83 23:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, looks like that might not be good. We already got confirmation that it is being released on Blu ray and Dvd in the U.S. and Canada, so it's only a matter of time before Viz makes some details and announcements about Sailor Moon close to the release date, eh? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

We may have to wait until Anime Revolution for Viz to make any kind of announcement regarding streaming availability in Canada. Unfortunately that's in late August, more than three months after the US release. I'm trying to persuade Viz to release it into Canada much more quickly. But note that Viz actually exited Canada five years ago. -- Denelson 83 03:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I see. After Viz makes some announcements for Sailor Moon at Anime Revolution and Anime Expo, we will make changes to the article(s) as necessary. It is no longer airing on television in North America and Optimum Productions (the ones that produced the original Canadian English dub) will have no involvement in producing the new English dub, which is now produced in Los Angeles according to this interview. FYI, Viz's announcements will be before the actual release date of the BD/DVD, which is getting quite close. It's only a matter of time. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I maintain that Viz is lying to us. I talked to a representative at Viz Media over the phone in the last month, and the information I got from that rep indicates that Viz's efforts to push this title into Canada have been completely obstructed, citing "licensing issues". -- Denelson 83 07:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

You are getting to the point to where you are becoming disruptive. There may be various issues with streaming to Canada, mainly because of Viz's streaming provider Hulu, but that doesn't mean that Viz doesn't have the license to distribute Sailor Moon in Canada. —Farix (t | c) 12:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Elaborate. What issues? There is nothing at all stopping them from streaming this title in Canada, and I am starved for information on this front right now. -- Denelson 83 16:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure he means if they have a contract with Hulu (and Hulu isn't in Canada), they may not be able to stream to Canada for that reason, even though they have the rights to do so. Derekloffin (talk) 22:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

That makes absolutely no sense. Hulu would be overstepping its jurisdiction in this case. Why would a company that only does business in one country be allowed to stop a partner from operating in a second country?! -- Denelson 83 04:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Because that's what the contract says? If Viz agreed to only stream their new series via Hulu, and Hulu isn't in Canada, and they didn't think of that beforehand, that's pretty much game.
This entire thread is basically worthless speculation though. --erachima talk 04:17, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Then that would leave both Viz and Hulu vulnerable to being sued. -- Denelson 83 04:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Sued for what? Viz probably has an exclusive streaming contract with Hulu. (Cruchyroll's steam is directly with the Japanese studio, not with Viz.) Hulu doesn't offer its streaming services to Canada—likely because of Canada's weird "not made here" laws for television media. Of course retail sales is a different matter. You're claims that Viz doesn't have a licenses in Canada revolves solely around the lack of streaming availability in Canada. However, licensing involves more than just streaming rights, and streaming is just a small portion of the total revenue earned from licensing an anime series. Retail is still the lion's share of that. —Farix (t | c) 13:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Hulu and Viz are not the same thing. Hulu does not operate in Canada, therefore its contract with Viz is not valid in Canada. Consequently there is no legal reason for Viz to not stream this title in Canada.

The whole reasoning behind my behaviour on this matter is that ever since Viz's distribution efforts for this title began on May 19, those efforts still have not succeeded in officially getting this title onto my home screen. I am being unreasonably prevented from legally enjoying this title, my only favourite title of fiction. Denelson 83 02:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If Viz's streaming contract with Hulu is exclusive, it will also affect Canada. And if Hulu isn't available in Canada, then there is nothing Viz can do on the streaming front. If they tried to stream in Canada through another provider or directly themselves, Hulu will have grounds to sue for breach of contract.

As for your personal beef with Viz, that should remain between you and them. Wikipedia is not your soapbox for precised injustices. —Farix (t | c) 14:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Farix on this one. According to this report, Viz does plan to make Neon Alley available to Canada, but until then, we will just have to wait and see if Viz will make an announcement. Then we will make changes when necessary. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that statement one bit. I have been getting many conflicting reports on this issue, and one of them says the contract between Viz and Hulu does not allow Viz to offer its titles on any other streaming service, even one that does not operate in the US, meaning that Viz's hands are tied, and Neon Alley is in fact stillborn in Canada. -- Denelson 83 07:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I simply provided a possible explanation of the Canadian streaming situation. Whether you believe it or not, it is not a bases to continue using this article as a soapbox for your personal grievances. —Farix (t | c) 11:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit

I've requested a copyedit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Sailor Moon. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Reception

Did Jason Thompson give the series 3 stars out of 4, or did he give it three-quarters of a star? Folklore1 (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph which begins with "Both the manga editorial vid" has some confusing sentences. I would like to apply some copy editing here, but I don't know what somebody wanted it to say. Sadly, it's supported by a citation with a dead link. Folklore1 (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Peer review

It looks like the previous peer review was closed without anyone commenting. If anyone objects, I'll start another peer review before I take this to GAN in the next few days. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sailor Moon Crystal

Is Sailor Moon Crystal in the same continuity of 90s TV series? If it isn't (for example, in the separate continuity, reboot, etc.), I'm going to remove Crystal's infobox from Sailor Moon (anime), and its entry from List of Sailor Moon episodes. (I'm also thinking that I could replace Sailor Moon (anime)'s infobox with Template:Infobox television.) JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 10:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't in the same continuity. It uses one closer to the manga's, although it differs from that too. However, not sure you should remove from the infobox. Perhaps given a separate category, but it shouldn't be removed as it is relevant info. Derekloffin (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say I'd remove C's infobox from the main Sailor Moon article. Anyway, I think Sailor Moon (anime) article's scope should be (and already) limited to the 90s TV show as (like what you told so) the C is in the separate continuity. (I would even rename the anime article into Sailor Moon (1992 TV series), considering subsequent S, Super S, etc. as another seasons.) JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 16:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

All right. Just going to remove Crystal's entry from the infobox at Sailor Moon (anime) (not the Sailor Moon article). (Will put a hatnote, though...) JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

"Seasons?"

Hey! I hope I'm doing this right. I tried to edit the infobox (unsuccessfully) so that above the number of episodes under the "Sailor Moon (anime)" section, there would be a number of "seasons" (though I don't know that even "season" is a perfectly accurate term for the various... well, seasons - runs, if you will).

I think this is a pretty important edit, because currently the page seems to imply that there's one giant "sailor moon anime" run from 1992-7 that has 200 episodes. This needs clarifying! Hopefully someone with adequate power can get that done! Either that, or only the 40-some episodes need to be listed under "sailor moon (anime)" (there were a lot of episodes per season in the older runs, but not 200!). I would be so mislead by that if I didn't know anything about SM - there were 5 separate runs with so many episodes each, not one sailor moon anime run with 200 episodes in it! Thanks everyone.

98.156.68.240 (talk) 11:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

(Edited "sidebar info" to "infobox" - I apologize for my ignorance of wikipedia editing terminology!) 98.156.68.240 (talk) 11:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

LGBT categories gone?

Sailor Moon is gayer than a third grade boy wearing his mothers high heels. I'm shocked that for whatever reason the LGBT categories and subgroups and lack thereof have all been removed and y'all just gonna act like that's ok. Adding them back to the general franchise article which is this, and the anime article. And I'm probably gonna stop editing articles and shit because people just remove stuff and y'all otaku's are really stupid sometimes. Boaxy (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

From my understanding, the LGBT are for series where LGBT are one of the main themes of the work. Just having an LGBT character or three doesn't mean that the category is appropriate. Thus I have reverted you addition of those categories.

- Your understanding is wrong and I'm gonna guess you know nothing of the story. Five main protagonists who each have their own individual article are homosexual. More than 90% of the villains are homosexual/transgender. The whole third season revolves around a lesbian relationship that forms. The whole fifth seasons revolves around transsexual men. I'm gonna once again undo your edits to my original one and if you still have issues you can open up a consensus. Boaxy (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
  - This is turning into an edit war. Those categories have been there for years, most of the fans are lgbt themselves, and so is most of the storyline. I'm opening up an edit consensus because you guys have amnesia or did some type of secret discussion that this show isn't lgbt related when it is.Boaxy (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Season addition

Anime Herald updated their article to clarify that there is no second season in the works for Crystal. So, let's all hold off on adding a season until we get a solid confirmation from a reliable source. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:47, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Is it relevant to include LGBT as a main theme?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus that no, LGBT should not be a "main theme". However it is not clear what this means for the categorization of the article; I see several people writing this means that the article can still be categorized as Category:LGBT-related anime and manga as that is a different question. If we still have a debate over the article's categorization, then unfortunately we need a different RFC for that, that states the question to be decided clearly. --GRuban (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Should LGBT be a main theme in Sailor Moon? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Strong yes. For reasons I already mentioned. Boaxy (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
No. In all, there were only 3 gay characters in the series and they were all side characters, Haruka Tenoh, Michiru Kaioh, and Fish Eye, the latter was killed off rather quickly in the manga and was more of a cross-dresser. The former two's sexuality was never a focal point of the series, thus why LGBT is not a main theme of the series. Trying to elevate these minor subplots into main themes is nothing more than political pandering. —Farix (t | c) 15:09, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
- I disagree. Kunzite and Zoicite are boyfriends. The Sailor Starlights use magic to transform themselves into a fake male human form boyband, but are actually women. The whole point of Wikipedia is for political pandering. Everyone who is an anime fan knows Sailor Moon is a gay series. The english dub has censored it to make it on LGBT. They make some characters related and has even cut some seasons from airing on television, rather than private DVD releases. Boaxy (talk) 06:28, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
No per TheFarix's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:46, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No - There are reliable sources connecting feminism for example, then there are LGBT related bits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
No - It unnecessarily elevates something that did not have a significant focus to begin with. --benlisquare_T•C•E 07:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm confused as to what everyone is defining as a "main theme." If you're asking if this article should have an independent subsection on sexual orientation and gender identity, then no. I don't believe there would be enough reliable sources to cover that for *this* article that is an overview of the manga (although if there *are* reliable sources actively discussing the context of orientation/gender ID as it is presented in the manga that's a different story). That being said, discussion of censorship based on orientation and gender ID for the original animated adaptation in several countries under the animation subsection currently in place is perfectly reasonable - as is *any* reliable commentary on the reception of LGBT characters under the Reception and Legacy headings. If you're questioning if this article should be included in Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies as well as having any relevant categories (such as Category:LGBT-related anime and manga), then yes of course, obviously. Any article which has significant LGBT characters (Uranus and Neptune alone qualify) would include these. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 17:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes - To my understanding, the category system is not meant for main themes, or core ideas. It simply has to be something of interest to the topic in question, and Sailor Moon I believe does qualify for such having several characters in the category, and as Bookkeeperoftheoccult noted censorship in regards to these characters. I think that is enough. Now, if someone can show an appropriate policy that contradicts this, I'd defer to that naturally. Derekloffin (talk) 05:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
No, as it is not a main theme (not even close). However, including it as Bookkeeperoftheoccult mentioned is perfectly fine because the themes are discussed here and there, and have certainly been written about in a variety of reliable sources. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
'No per Bookkeeper's comments. The series was not marketed and presented with LGBT as a main theme, and should thus be given the appropriate WP:WEIGHT. If a particular series or media within the franchise is LGBT themed, then apply it there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:10, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
No, for including it as a main theme but I don't see where LGBT was included as a main theme in this article anyway. However, it is related, as said Bookkeeper, so yes if the discussion is over this category and this WP markup. According to Yuri (genre) (sources there): Sailor Moon was "the first mainstream manga and anime series featuring a "positive" portrayal of an openly lesbian couple." Gabriel Yuji (talk) 15:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
No - I haven't had much to do with the franchise (other than watching a few episodes of Sailor Moon Crystal), but from what I know, the yuri in the series isn't really much of a contribution to the story's direction. The LGBT themes could (and should) be mentioned in this and other related articles, but it shouldn't be discussed as if they were the main theme of the series. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 14:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
Then remove the categories form Card Captora Sakura and Ranma and shit. Sailor Moon is more LGBT those anime/manga franchises are. Boaxy (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

"Sailor Moon is more LGBT [than] those anime/manga franchises are".^{[citation needed]} Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:03, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem here is there appears to be two different ideas of what this discussion is about going on. Most people are replying, rightly I think, to the 'Main Theme' notion in the section title, in which case I think they are right, no, LBGT is in no way a main theme of Sailor Moon (nor is it one for Card Captor... Ranma 1/2 maybe as whole premise of the story is about the title character switching genders all the time which I think does fall under the T part of LBGT). However, I think the intended discussion was for the category to be on this article which I don't think requires it to be a main theme at all. Derekloffin (talk) 19:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. We're having two entirely different discussions here. However, either way, the current consensus works entirely in your favor Boaxy. The original edit war that promted you to bring up this discussion in the first place was over Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies / Category:LGBT-related anime and manga, not the nature of the series' "primary theme." Those categories should be reinstated and there was never any cause to remove them in the first place, as they gave no indication of this article being presented as a LGBT-centric series - just an inclusive one. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 05:34, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on the commentary here, I'm going to restore Wikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studies / Category:LGBT-related anime and manga. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 15:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

How the hell can you determine a consensus in support of the category when every comment but two were against it? —Farix (t | c) 20:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you READ each comment posted here? As stated directly above, two entirely different threads of thought have been discussed here, with heavy emphasis that "theme" and "category" are applied differently. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult) 20:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Categorization

Now, outside of the closing, I'm going to give a general comment about categorization as an experienced editor. It's not part of the closing, and doesn't answer the categorization issue directly, as I have never watched a single full episode of Sailor Moon, and couldn't tell one sailor from another if they bit me, so don't know how LGBT-related the series is. However, in general, we do only add categories if they are "the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". In other words, is it pretty common and consistent that sources writing about the Sailor Moon series mention LGBT issues? Or is it pretty rare? That should determine the main page categorization. Traditionally more latitude has been granted to the talk page WikiProject interest categorization; in general if a WikiProject is interested in a subject, they get to put their box and category on the talk page (the only exceptions I've seen have been with WP:BLPs). --GRuban (talk) 21:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If we're basing the decision on whether or not sources that write about the subject commonly include reference to LGBT characters/relationships then yes, as shown here, here and here. Based on your rationale the category may be debatable but I see no reason to exclude the LGBT WikiProject. The Bookkeeper (of the Occult)

- This is exactly why I don't get evolved with fandoms and attach myself ot anything. Sailor moon is a LGBT anime. The categories shouldn't have any debate. Please whatever the hell you guys are thinking about doing, can you please make your mind up. I'm really upset that only one other person agreed with me. I don't even watch anime anymore because of this shit. Boaxy (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

There has been an edit war going on between Sjones23 and Dartfan20 for much of the past month. I'm not completely sure what the issue is, but the edit warring needs to stop and discussion needs to start before both of you end up blocked. –Chase (talk / contribs) 00:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I want to explain why I have been reverting before it gets any worse (disclosure: I was once blocked for edit warring nearly 5 years ago): Dartfan20, who has admitted to being a sockpuppet of the blocked user 75.82.92.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), has been adding dubious unsourced content repeatedly to this page (which includes broadcasters). The relevant SPI case can be found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dartfan20. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ditto. I can confirm everything Lord Sjones23 is saying. This has been going on for a while now, and not only on this article. But also, European Broadcasting Union, Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball (anime) among other. As I see it, it's just a clean-cut case of one editor persistently vandalizing a few articles even after being warned multiple times by multiple users. ProKro (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Sailor Moon. 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 to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC: LGBT categories?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The consensus is against inclusion. AlbinoFerret 15:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Due to the fact that many protagonists/antagonists of the franchise are LGBT, as well as many episodes dealing with LGBT issues, are the LGBT anime categories suitable for this article? Boaxy (talk) 09:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

No See all the previous comments above. Your repeated creation of RfC after RfC in order to get these categories added is becoming WP:TENDENTIOUS. —Farix (t | c) 18:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes The previous discussion above, clearly noted, was off topic and imprecise to the dispute. It was asking for main themes, not whether the categories should be applied. As I said before, I don't think it is a main theme, but I do think it qualifies as a category. Derekloffin (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Comment How should WP:CATDEF apply? I'll cite an example so that people aren't projecting their personal or current perspectives on the subject. Suppose the show has a team of ten members, two of whom are ninjas. Would that show be categorized as "Ninja-related anime and manga"? Or "Ninjas in anime and manga"? Or "Ninja anime and manga" or "Kunoichi anime and manga"? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

So based on my example, I think it would be fine to include it in the first two categories (X-related and X in anime and manga), and based on the conclusions of the previous discussion the "X anime and manga" and "X (subcategory) anime and manga)" would not apply. That it is part of Wikiproject X would be up to the project. but I think it's pertinent as the introduction and exclusion of such characters generated notable discussion in secondary reliable sources. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:01, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

`No geez this again? look at the above concensus. this is becoming WP:TENDENTIOUS. Please lock this article already. Loominginterval4545 (talk) 03:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I looked. Here, here's the closing comment: "Clear consensus that no, LGBT should not be a "main theme". However it is not clear what this means for the categorization of the article; I see several people writing this means that the article can still be categorized as Category:LGBT-related anime and manga as that is a different question. If we still have a debate over the article's categorization, then unfortunately we need a different RFC for that, that states the question to be decided clearly." So, it seems to me you're not even bothering to understand the issue here as the original discussion even the closer could see it was off topic and discussing something quite different than the issue at hand, so pointing back to it isn't relevant. If you want to vote no, that's fine, but vote no on the proper basis. Derekloffin (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Neutral But perhaps we should ask this: Is the central conflict LGBT in nature? I don't like equating gender identity & sexuality to race, but I'm forced to draw such a parallel here: Would a show whose cast is predominately white be considered to belong in white-people categories? Meanwhile, is a show whose cast is predominately black considered to belong in black-people categories? Would we categorize a show about & made by African Americans as an "African American" type show if its central themes did not include race relations? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- When in Rome. I know it sucks, but that is just how wikipedia generally is. The whole point of an encyclopedia is to be politically correct and label and get as much information on every person, place, thing or ideas possible. There aren't that many predominately black shows, so it's nice to categorize them, so putting a category of "African-American" shows, in the Cosby show article makes sense. There aren't that many LGBT related anime stories that deal with transgender issues or lesbian and homosexual romance like Sailor Moon does. So it's nice to honor that and show that Sailor Moon does fall under that circumstance. Yeah I see what you mean, I would love for people to just be people, and tv shows to just be tv shows, being that the anime community for the most part is in a bubble of sorts and uses anime to escape themselves from politically correct socialism, which is why anime is as obscure as it is. But anime like any type of culture, still falls under the sense of reality structure and if a show has lgbt characters and storylines, those categories should be added. Boaxy (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Oppose for lack of sources - Per Wikipedia:Categorization: "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." How many sources connect Sailor Moon to LGBT? It takes more than mentioning that characters are queer to say that the show includes LGBT as a theme. Should we add this category to every show with a queer character? The fact that you're getting so many opposing editors and having to redo this RFC shortly after the last one tells me that this is indeed controversial and therefore the categorization is inappropriate. PraetorianFury (talk) 23:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Controversy or homophobia?, first of all this has nothing to do with the previous dispute. That discussion was to ask if LGBT should be the main theme for Sailor Moon, and the consensus said that it wasn't. However, that discussion didn't mean that LGBT categories still couldn't be added. Hence why I started this separate discussion. I agree that the category shouldn't be added to every single show that has a LBGT character. Like shows that just have one time, or non re-curring LGBT characters or plots shouldn't be added. But every single season had some sort of main LGBT plot line, character or development. With a few main protagonists/antagonists characters being LGBT themselves. You say it's controversial to add those categories, but I say it's more homophobia. I wish people would just be honest instead of sugar coating everything. The categories should be added and I now see the only reason they are not being added is due to the fandom having bias, third party opinions over LGBT dialogue. Boaxy (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is probably one of the most liberal and politically correct places you can find on the internet. If you come here and start decrying a homophobic conspiracy, it doesn't reflect well on your objectivity. But regardless of my perception of the encyclopedia's culture, I'd be willing to change my mind if you could present sources making the connection to the LGBT community. PraetorianFury (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It IS related to the first discussion as certain proposed categories carry the "Main Theme" weight: "X anime and manga" and "X (subgenre) anime and manga". That your original proposal is vague would mean you will probably not get a consensus for this thread. I suggest you list the specific categories that would be of concern, and then have a yes/no vote on those. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 20:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You guys are making this way more complex, than it needs to be. At this point, we are climbing a mountain with our backs turned. In response to PraetorianFury, I never once said that all of wikipedia, is like that or the whole spectrum of the site is homophobic. I know that it isn't. I have a usergroup on my userpage that says I am an LGBT person, and have been since I was a young child. What I meant was, there are certain topics and users on this site, who don't wish to associate everything with the LGBT lifestyle, due to some type of homophobic belief. I have talked to many users and anime fans who say categorizing the show LGBT, even though it is as show that falls under the LGBT category, is a negative connotation and everyone will assume people who watch Sailor Moon or involved with it, are gay. Shaking my head. Sources? You won't be given any because there is no need to. Watch the series, read the articles sweetheart. Thank you though for your input. In response to AngusWOOF, No it isn't related at all. Or else I've been lied to through this whole ordeal. If it were related, then the categories would have been added. This is a separate discussion and consensus we are trying to reach. What list? There is only one category for LGBT anime and manga. Which is why I am acting all aghast over this whole situation. Either show support, give unbiased, and non discriminatory constructive input on things that weren't already established, and stop with the personal attacks, however subtle they are. I'm being civil, you can be as well. Boaxy (talk) 08:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Boaxy:, we are making this exactly complex as policy requires. We can't really start modifying the encyclopedia based on what your friends are saying or based on what a few trolls might have said. What happens when the next user comes along and has had a different experience? Because of this problem, on Wikipedia, we make our decisions based on sources. You aren't going to change any minds without them. I imagine you're thinking you're fighting the good fight. But if you really want to effect some change, it's going to take more than arguing and throwing around accusations of homophobia when you don't get your way. Why don't you try to take a few minutes and do some research, like a good journalist or writer would do? That is effectively what we are here. If you can find some good sources supporting your position, great, your opponents won't have a leg to stand on. If you can't find any sources, that should tell you something about the position you're attempting to prove. PraetorianFury (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This list when I search for "Category: LGBT anime": [3]

Category:LGBT-related anime and manga
Category:Yaoi anime and manga
Category:LGBT characters in anime and manga
Category:Transgender and transsexual-related anime and manga
Category:Yuri (genre) anime and manga
Category:LGBT-related comics
Category:Yaoi
Category:Yuri (genre)
Category:Japanese LGBT-related television programs (wasn't in direct search but has been applied on other shows)

Those are your LGBT anime categories as it stands. Note there is no Category:LGBT anime and manga. This category you are wanting to associate this show with hasn't been created. So again, I ask, what categories are you wanting Sailor Moon to be added? All of the above? The first one on the list? Or are you proposing the creation of the new category and adding Sailor Moon to that one? I'm sorry if my previous statement was interpreted as something personal. It's not meant to be. I'm just trying to be technical and precise to the discussion at hand. The difference between "LGBT anime" and "LGBT-related anime" IS the main theme implication. One word makes all the difference. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not adding any sources. There are separate character list articles, and individual articles which clearly state the LGBT themes and plot lines. I apologize. I didn't know yuri and yaoi were separate categories. I am not an anime fan, and I didn't know those two genres were that popular. To be honest if it weren't for the fact that all of you guys are so difficult, every single category with the exception of the third one could be added. I was only under the assumption the first ninth categories were available. I made a typo, I meant to type the first category. Boaxy (talk) 08:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

LGBT categories

Nothing to see here: old news. See the RfC above for what the consensus is. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So I'm adding the categories now. (Walks away slowly) Boaxy (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Totally unnecessary edits. Just because there are such characters does not mean that the series is entirely LGBT-oriented.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Chris
- So what do I do now. Sailor moon isn't apart of the LGBT culture. :(. I feel like I'm not a true Sailor Moon fan now. Sailor Moon is what caused me from not committing suicide in junior high school. Boaxy (talk) 02:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
  - Check your talk page; I will tell you something there (this isn't the place for me to place it).--Loyalmoonie (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)Chris
    - I'm trying to be civil as I'm not trying to attack anyone. I respect your character, however I disagree with your analogies. My goal is to get those categories up, your goal is to keep them down. So that is where the problem lies. The thing is we have to get this resolved. Boaxy (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I stay with my previous position. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

- It's like you guys have amnesia or there are double standards going on. Do I have to open up another consensus or whatever. Yeah I think I will. Those categories were up, and they will be up again.Boaxy (talk) 08:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

- The consensus was closed as people voted against it. No they didn't. Fuck all y'all, I don't give a fuck anymore. I don't even like Sailor Moon or anime or anything of that sort anymore. I'm adding the categories once again, and I was told if I acted belligerent again and edit warred, I would possibly be banned. I don't give a fuck anymore, I don't edit and add shit for no reason. I'm black and gay and I don't give a fuck anymore about fandoms or anything of that sort. Been a Sailor Moon fan since 1996, been on Wikipedia since 2005. Boaxy (talk) 08:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Banned from editing this article

I was told I was banned from editing any Sailor Moon article. I don't know if this applies to talk pages as well. I don't care what the consequences are. This was the final straw on the camels back and if I get blocked or banned whatever. Sailor Moon is my life and if I can't edit anything related to that, I won't be here. I'll go on youtube or conventions and shit and make my opinion known there. Boaxy (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

It applies to talk pages and any related articles. See WP:TBAN. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that sucks. Boaxy (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way, The last Airbender has LGBT categories, one character is lesbian. Sailor Moon has no LGBT categories, nine characters are lesbian, gay, transgender. You guys are beyond stupid and I consider it a disguised blessing that I'm being repressed upon. Boaxy (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

^ Oshiguchi, Takashi (1997). "Nanase Ohkawa". In Trish Ledoux (ed.). Anime Interviews: The First Five Years of Animerica, Anime & Manga Monthly (1992–97). San Francisco, California: Cadence Books. pp. 172–81. ISBN 1-56931-220-6. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |author= at position 12 (help)
^ Takeuchi, Naoko (December 18, 1993). "Vol. 1". Codename wa Sailor V Book 1. Kodansha. ISBN 4-06-322801-0.
^ Takeuchi, Naoko (September 29, 2004). "Vol. 1". Codename wa Sailor V Shinsouban Book 1. Kodansha. ISBN 4-06-334929-2.

[Animerica-1] Oshiguchi, Takashi (1997). "Nanase Ohkawa". In Trish Ledoux (ed.). Anime Interviews: The First Five Years of Animerica, Anime & Manga Monthly (1992–97). San Francisco, California: Cadence Books. pp. 172–81. ISBN 1-56931-220-6. {{cite book}}: line feed character in |author= at position 12 (help)

[2] Takeuchi, Naoko (December 18, 1993). "Vol. 1". Codename wa Sailor V Book 1. Kodansha. ISBN 4-06-322801-0.

[3] Takeuchi, Naoko (September 29, 2004). "Vol. 1". Codename wa Sailor V Shinsouban Book 1. Kodansha. ISBN 4-06-334929-2.

[1]

[2]

[3]