Talk:Sailor Moon/Archive 8

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 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

New Game?

http://us.yesasia.com/en/PrdDept.aspx/code-j/section-games/pid-1004513672/post-y/mailtype-future_release/ Still is rumor status (i.e. don't you dare post on the official page), but it would explain the prolonged absence of Takeuchi-sensei. Does anyone have official news on this? --Hitsuji Kinno 03:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If that came out in the USA i would SOOOOOOOO buy it, I don't care what kind of game it is! But seeing as we've never seen a single SM game... *sighs*. You might want to bring this up on the video games page though. --Lego3400: The Sage of Time 15:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's already there as of yesterday or the day before, I think. And yeah, I would too. America actually has had Sailor Moon games, they've just been crappy, a la the 3D Adventures of Sailor Moon. --Masamage ♫ 17:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

lets hope this new game wont be dubed to death i dont want to help sarena beat the negaverce ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 08:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously. They can have her. --Masamage ♫ 15:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok *Ties up Serena and gives her to the villans* :P Lego3400: The Sage of Time 15:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just hoping that if it is dubbed theres a option to watch it in jappanes with ORIGNAL subs :} ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 10:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

((((((Just to inform you guys that page no longer exists by the looks of it))))) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.123.179 (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Article history

Could someone give us an 'article history' box listing the two peer reviews? I'm not sure how to do that. And if there's anything to put on the peer review pages themselves to sya they're concluded, that would be good too. --Masamage ♫ 18:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I've given it a go. Article history is really for GA and FA ratings. if we can clear up those last few things from the review, then we should nominate this for GAC. -Malkinann 22:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Japanese text template

{{Contains Japanese text}} - Don't the {{nihongo}} templates supersede this? --Masamage ♫ 17:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not if the web surfers do not have the right fonts. -- Denelson 83 20:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Its a explanation for those without the fonts. I didn't add it to anyother ones becuse i wanted to see what you thought about it. I saw it on the Naruto Article and grabbed it.--Lego3400: The Sage of Time 15:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki

5 times B. Indonesia. Probably an error in a Template.Xx236 16:10, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, weird. I can't even find Indonesia in the list of templates. o_O --Masamage ♫ 17:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a noinclude error in the main anime/manga sidebox. I moved an interwiki link into a noinclude space in one template, and that seems to have fixed it. -Malkinann 23:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ahhhh! Good call. --Masamage ♫ 23:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ready for GA nom?

Do you all think this article is ready to be a Good Article candidate? I've been thinking about it, and it seems like there's a very good chance. We do have a number of things we can add to the reception section, but while I think those will be needed for an FA nomination, I don't think they're likely to bar us from this. What do you think? Any objections? --Masamage ♫ 20:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuming no one disagrees, I'll nominate it tomorrow. I can take care of the reviewing-something-else, too, though if anyone else wants to do some additional ones that would speed up our chances. --Masamage ♫ 03:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found another review, which says that everyone else's characterisation bar Usagi's is bad, (which contradicts what we've got on the page now) the animation quality is bad, and a nice little line about it defining the magical girl genre. http://www.animeacademy.com/finalrevdisplay.php?id=189 -Malkinann 21:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

iv got to admit i do fast fowerd past the transformations and attacks sometimes :P ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 10:15, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the lead should have at least a sentence summarizing the reception. Also this statement definitely needs references: "Recurring themes include astronomy, astrology, Greek myth, Roman myth, geology, Japanese elemental themes, and schoolgirl antics." Kazu-kun 05:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well other than the schoolgirl antics (which IMHO are obvious from the school uniforms), I've linked to DIES GAUDII's intro which goes into basically all the mythology involved with SM. Kyaa the Catlord 12:28, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reference. Now, since this is the lead, and the lead is only a summary, we need this info to be elsewhere in the article; maybe we could write a "themes" section. Another possible solution is to include the themes in the "story". I have no time right now, but I'll give it a try later. Kazu-kun 17:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

A better place would be in the 'manga' section, as then Takeuchi's ties to and interest in the various themes could come into play. --Masamage ♫ 21:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved it down there and replaced the stuff in the lead with a more general summary. The manga is way more deliberate about its symbolism than the other series, so this seems pretty good for now. --Masamage ♫ 03:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, I've traded out a review for someone else (Battlefield Earth (novel)), so we're square on that account. --Masamage ♫ 19:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

GA pass

I have looked over the article and it has improved greatly since when I first helped with the peer review. All of the GA criteria have been met, so I see no reason why this article should not be GA. Some suggestions to improve quality:

Copyediting and tightening up the prose. The prose is okay, but not brilliant, and in some sections it made it difficult to read, but overall the prose was good. There are numerous single-sentence paragraphs which should either be expanded or merged with neighboring paragraphs too. Numbers between 0 and 100 should be written out in words; the convention is if the number can be written out in one or two words, then it should. Overall good work; congrats on the promotion and happy editing. --十八 06:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Wahoo! Thank you!! :D --Masamage ♫ 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Add This Reference

http://www.saveoursailors.org/

Long before the series was completed in english, the SOSH provided info on characters, episode guides, differences between the dubb & sub, live action shows, PGSM (Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon), the manga etc. & apparently still updates regularly with Sailor Moon info from Japan & around the world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.236.220 (talk • contribs).

Currently in the external links section we've got a link to the DMOZ page (which includes SOS). Can you point out anything specific on the SOS site that we could use as an inline reference (as in "Such and such happened.^[1]") either in Sailor Moon or Sailor Moon (English adaptations)? Thanks. -Malkinann 04:33, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

DVD's

If the liscence to shown Sailor Moon in america have been lapsed, does that men they can sell the DVDs? I saw them earlier today in a Hollywood Video. 71.106.88.181 01:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Syarasu

DVDs have been out for several years now. However, now that the license has expired, the DVDs are becoming rarer. -- RattleMan 01:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. They can't make more DVDs, but those who have them (including distrubutors) can still sell what they have. --Masamage ♫ 01:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

they can burn them like 100 times and sell fake ones ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 09:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

But they usually don't. If we're still talking about Hollywood Video, that is. They have too much money to risk on bootlegging. Others do not feel so limited. --Masamage ♫ 17:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

eBay does my sis bourght me the move set they couldnt be botherd to put the right move on the right disk (ie. S move disk had R on it) ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 17:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

That's why I don't buy DVD's on eBay. -- Denelson 83 19:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, no kidding. --Masamage ♫ 19:53, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that I dont buy dvds off eBay it was my sister who got them lolz. ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 20:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

XD --Masamage ♫ 20:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely Incredible

I was just browsing through various pages of my favorite animes, and I have to say that this page absolutely blows me away. The big box at the bottom used to navigate between the different articles about the subject (I don't know what it's called) is incredible. Good job to whoever built this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.154.35.219 (talk • contribs).

I apologize. I'm still learning Wikipedia syntax. ^_^ 68.154.35.219 00:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem at all! And thank Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon for the article shape :-) -- ReyBrujo 00:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It's called a "template." -- Denelson 83 01:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you for the encouragement. :) That is really nice of you to come here and say, and really unusual. The page has been built by a lot of people over the last few years; I think Denelson here has been around the longest, of those that are still around. It's really shot up in quality since WP:SM started, though. Woo teamwork~ --Masamage ♫ 03:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Question slightly out of curiosity

I dont see a "Media information" section in the article. Why is that? Is the "Media information" section like here and there (video game section)? I'm curious as to how to could a GA class article and not have this section. THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 01:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What would a "Media information" section have that the Adaptations section (and the daughter articles) don't? -Malkinann 01:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You only slightly answered my question. Your answer is that is kinda a part of the Adaptation section and daughter articles. Why not just move all that info into that section (not articles, info in main article relating to media)? THROUGH FIRE, JUSTICE IS SERVED! 17:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

He didn't answer at all, he asked you. Your answer seems to be that it wouldn't have anything new in it per se, just that we should reorganize everything. I don't see any benefit in moving everything around; the current organization makes a lot more sense to me. There's no GA or FA rule about exactly what all your sections should be named, and for good reason. --Masamage ♫ 18:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Two sections according to WP:ANIME that we don't have are a defined production section and a media information section:

Production: This is a difficult section to define, and can, if appropriate, generate several sub-sections and even whole sections. Topics that can reasonably be included are: the origins or inspirations of the subject; homages to other works or artists; notable production staff (typically: directors, leading voice actors, and sometimes producers or other personnel); music; issues arising from the transition from one medium to another (e.g.: manga to anime, anime to film, etc.) or from one language to another (such as alterations to storylines, international voice actors, air dates or dates of publication). Although this is an amorphous section, avoid making it a list of trivia. If tidbits of information cannot be cited or worked into a coherent discussion of the subject, reconsider including them.

We already kind of discuss production in each adaptation section and the daughter articles, although it probably wouldn't hurt to have more on production, and we do seek out production information. The WP:ANIME formatting guideline for Media information is

Media information: This can include lists of episodes, manga volumes, soundtracks, etc., and should be placed towards the end of the article. If these lists take up a large amount of space, consider moving them to a separate page titled List of (series) media.

So the reason why we don't have a "Media information" section is that it's just a section for lists. We already have a List of Sailor Moon episodes, which is very big, and we don't as of yet cover manga acts, but I don't want to get into soundtracks just yet, if ever. -Malkinann 22:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We are experimenting what to do with the manga, since the info is together, but the question where to place them is not clear as of yet.--Hitsuji Kinno 01:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

DiC

Along with Cardcaptor Sakura & Yu-Gi-Oh, this has to be one of the 50 worst dubbs in history; covering up lesbians by masing them as effectionate cousins, gender changes to cover up homosexual relations, music changes (though the music was good), missing episodes, one missing season, not-so-accurate translations, trying to pass off Japan as America by changing names & replacing Japanese text on buildings with english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.122.193 (talk) 03:59, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

And don't forget the plotholes! Yeah, we've worked up an outline of that madness over at Sailor Moon (English adaptations). It can't get too much more detailed without being overly long, but if you see anything major that we missed you are more than welcome to bring it up over at that talk page. --Masamage ♫ 04:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand some of the changes they made, simply because of the fact that America wasn't open to Homosexuality, and it was something parents didn't want their children to see. As for the way they went about it, it was downright strange. Mathematicus 02:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum... do you have something to add about the article? Or is it a comment?--Hitsuji Kinno 22:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Character section

Should the characters have their names written out in Japanese text? Zemalia 14:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It might make things a little crowded...? --Masamage ♫ 16:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'll go sandbox it. I'll let you know the results. Zemalia 20:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

sailor uranus and sailor neptune should have their relationship termed as girlfriends rather than partners!

or mention something about lesbian pride!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.11.208 (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2007

Its both partnership and girlfriends, I think the current statement, "finding her partner, Sailor Uranus, with whom she fell in love" is appropriate. --Cyfal (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Both characters talk about being "more than lovers", so they probably don't even call eachother their girlfriend. --Masamage ♫ 18:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

In a related note, I think Haruka's article should state that the director asked Megumi Ogata, Haruka's voice actor, to act as if Haruka and Michiru were married (source). Kazu-kun (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You can do the honours, if you'd like. --Malkinann (talk) 21:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we list the characters attacks and weapons and items instead of putting them essay form so that they are easier to read? In essay form it becomes too wordy, or just doesn't give a good description at all of the topic its describing. Its just a suggestion. --Jazz189 (talk) 21:02, 06 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean in the character articles themselves? We had it that way for a while, but alas, Wikipedia policy discourages lists and encourages prose. The exact names and types of the attacks are also considered (by those non-fans who review our articles) non-notable to the average reader, so what we do include we have to be a little sneaky with. In this specific way individual fan sites are more accessible than WP is. --Masamage ♫ 03:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

What do we need for FA?

I would like to know what's left to make this FA...? What are we missing?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The reception section needs expanding, although we have all the info we need. Also I wonder if people will object to the extensive character section; e might need to get a general List of Sailor Moon characters done before this page will be thought acceptable. I don't know. --Masamage ♫ 22:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a few paths we could take to begin preparation for a FAC - work through the items on the "To do" list (why do we care so much about Dave Barry's editorial???), look at the three anime FAs (Madlax, Serial Experiments Lain, and Excel Saga) to check if there's anything we're really missing here, use the scholarly sources more if possible, or consider if it'd be worth it to make some of the really important subarticles (I reckon Sailor Moon (manga), (anime), or (English adaptations) would be prime candidates) into GA and then rework the summary style here. -Malkinann (talk) 01:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The reception section could use some enhancement from more scholarly sources. Sailor Moon is one of the few animes that have really stirred up feedback from the academic world. In fact, Sailor Moon was a topic of discussion in one of my college sociology class. Also, the article lacks a section dedicated to the design aspects of the series. Examples would be character design, music production or themes found in the series. After referencing some of the other anime FAs, it appears as having all of those would not be a requirement; however, it could help provide some more depth to what the series is rather than how is was marketed. --JadeFox (talk) 00:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have access to more scholarly sources than the ones presently incorporated in the article? The ones I've found so far tend to focus on it as a marketing giant, and rarely cover anything after the first arc, or any history of the series in English-speaking countries post-1998. I'd be really keen to get my hands on more sources (the list up the top is kind of my wishlist, haha). -Malkinann (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

There's more design info in the Sailor Moon (manga) and Sailor Moon (anime) sub-articles. Should we include some of it here, too? --Masamage ♫ 22:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry for the length) I have readily available the Japan Pop! (sparsely used in the article) and The Worlds of Japanese Popular Culture (not used at all in article) books. I'm sure I have one or two other articles in my records from a past Japanese Cultural Interactions class I took although I can't remember if it would pertain to Sailor Moon or not. I took a quick look here: [[1]] to get a rough idea of what's out there. I have access to a couple journal databases with my school, I can see if I can pull something noteworthy. Let me know if something jumps out at you (no promises though).

As far as design info, I'm hesitant to suggest just start adding in information (afraid of bloating the article). I view the main Sailor Moon article as a sort of high level explanation of what Sailor Moon actually is with its significance on fiction, culture, and society. That being said, I'm wondering if the article should be restructured from Japanese manga, English translation, Japanese anime, English adaptation and massage the manga and the anime together. If this could be done, 'snippets' of the design aspects from the manga and anime articles could be added. I think this would flow better as well as allow the respective manga and anime articles to explain the details.

Since the anime and manga are closet in relation, a sort of Themes section could follow. My reasoning is that the other adaptations are more of a family oriented version without the secondary themes (assumption don't know for sure). After that, I feel talking about the Musical, PGSM, and Video Games should be done as is. For the most part I think the Reception is close to done. If a Themes section were added, the reception section could be enhanced to address the reaction to those themes. The biggest example I can think of is that the Themes section could contain information on the non-traditional gender roles the Sailor Moon characters play while the Reception section would specifically address the criticism (thoughts/too similar?). Of course I wouldn't suggest starting something like this unless the sources were there. I know this is potentially a large task, but I feel the existing article structure is limiting expansion. --JadeFox (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your offer of assistance. :) Just recently, I've been putting stuff about the Sailor Senshi's characters (sexuality etc.) into the Sailor Senshi article, which does use Napier's The Worlds of Japanese Popular Culture chapter. (I've spun it out from the lead and called it "Critical attention", just for lack of inspiration on my part...) An interesting thing with Allison's Japan Pop! article is that she accepts the corporate line as to why Sailor Moon failed, whereas in her "Challenge to Hollywood" paper, she is more questioning. I can't tell for sure which was published later, but I think Challenge to Hollywood might have been, cos I figure that book chapters are usually written well in advance of the book being published. Still, there may be some good stuff still in the Japan Pop chapter for the Sailor Senshi article about gender roles etc. I'm wondering if you've got access to the books Themes and Issues in Asian Cartooning: Cute, Cheap, Mad and Sexy or Gender and Power in the Japanese Visual Field??? Even old newspaper articles might be useful (English airdates etc.). I'm really not sure what you're proposing to do with this article - putting together in one section the manga, anime and the english adaptations of both??? -Malkinann (talk) 09:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why would you want to merge the manga and anime sections????? The japanese and english version are total different (changed episodes, modified plot lines, etc..) They should be treat different. If you were paying attention too the article that contains information on the english changes is up for deletion. If that goes this article is the place where that info is found then. Would you even have enough information to address the themes?? Don't forget that even the anime was stripped down from the manga in terms of lesbianism and shifted gender roles. If you want that information soo badly, add it to the anime and manga articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.148.142.159 (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Missing a genre or two?

I know magical girl and romance fit this series perfectly, but I believe it is also missing two critical others: action (not 100% sure though) and supernatural fiction (pretty sure of this). I noticed that nobody answered Masamage's question here and thought that we should get this over with. I hope all of you are familiar with WP:MOS-AM#Content, which tells us to utilize at least two or three genres for each article, however, we might consider the possibility of four. Discuss away, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:12, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone's been trying to add comedy, too, which is certainly fitting but which keeps getting reverted for reasons I haven't really kept track of. Both of those things you mention apply, although I didn't know supernatural fiction was a genre per se. I'm fine with adding these things in general, but if we have upwards of five genres in the infobox, won't it start getting crowded? Also, how do we keep the addition of particular genres from being completely subjective? --Masamage ♫ 02:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I'm thinking: [[Action genre|Action]], [[Romantic comedy film|Romantic comedy]]; [[Magical girl]] [[supernatural fiction]]

A similar format was done to Rurouni Kenshin by Erachima here and I have since followed this example. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Is everybody okay with these edits? I also plan to add categories which match my genre proposal. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine in general, but I don't feel quite like my question was answered. Why these genres in particular? A romantic comedy is very different from a romance and a comedy, as detailed in its article. How do we keep this from being totally subjective? It's possible to argue that Sailor Moon is not only magical girl, romance, comedy, action, and supernatural fiction, but that it's also bildungsroman, slice-of-life (school, friends, sports, boys, hobbies, family), surrealism (extremely bizarre monsters), drama (especially Stars), and science fiction (laboratories, time-travel, and alien attacks). Obviously there's not room for all of those, so who decides which of the possibilities are more "important" or "applicable" for any particular series? Do we have to cite an important critic who has said so, or what? --Masamage ♫ 04:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We'd have to go with our best interests in this situation. If you were asked what the three main genres (which includes categories, themes, etc.) of Sailor Moon were, what would you say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's think about it. In some cases a reference may be appropriate. It doesn't need to be an important critic though; just a reviewer would do. But puting that aside for now, I think we all can agree that SM is primarly a Magical Girl story. With that set, we can start to rule out the genres with redundant meanings, for example Supernatural fiction, as Magical already takes care of the supernatural aspects of the story. In any case, the genres of a story indicate its most prominent aspects. MG is a given, and there also Adventure. I'm not sure about Romance or Drama, as these are not main themes during the whole story. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Magical Girl is definitely the biggest one, and that can be sourced to about a million places, so no problem there. But for everything else, I just don't know. One could easily argue any of them.

To respond to Sesshomaru: if you asked me that, I would say, why three? And why me, rather than someone else? ^_^;;; And I'm really not trying to be difficult here, though I know I am--I'm just struggling with the inherent subjectivity and ORishness of genres in general. It seems like both something we need to say, and something which breaks the rules by definition. Maybe there's a WP-wide guideline about this? I'll ask around. --Masamage ♫ 05:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you guys see WP:MOS-AM#Content? I mentioned it above when I first started this whole discussion. Masamage, I asked of you three because the guideline tells us to use only two or three (which prevents bloating). And I have a question for Kazu-kun: isn't it more of an action series than adventure? We needn't worry of WP:OR for now because no articles (with the exception of Ranma ½ and maybe others) have sources confirming. I wanted to add romantic comedy because I thought it'd clear some discrepancies Mamamage had said earlier regarding comedy (and romance, I think). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Action instead of Adventure? Let's see what Wikipedia says about it. Action: "greater emphasis on exciting action sequences"; Adventure: "the protagonist or other major characters are consistently placed in dangerous situations". So, no. I think it's more of an adventure series. And no, I don't think it's a romantic comedy. All the romance in SM is dramatic, and unrelated to the comedy aspects of the series. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait, where did you read those? Also, I'd like to hear what three genre categories you believe are the most suited for this page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I read that here on wiki: Action genre and Adventure (at the bottom). And I think MG, Adventure, and Romance would suit this page good enough. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh. Now that you mention, I think you're right that adventure makes more sense than action. I mean, most of the fighting in the series is from the end of a stick with a heart at the top. Romance is definitely big, too, but it's unusual in that the romance is ongoing rather than constantly being tense and on the edge of happening. Although it's one of Usagi's biggest motivators, it's only a major plot point for the first series, and stops being a concern at all by the fourth. This makes me wonder if it counts? Any thoughts? --Masamage ♫ 06:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Superb thoughts! Here's what I'm seeing now: [[Adventure film|Adventure]]; [[Magical girl]] [[Romance film|Romance]]

The first two are a must. What do you mean romance stops being a concern by the fourth? You mean the SuperS arc? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Kazu-kun, I just realized something: is adventure by itself is a genre? If so, that article should clarify this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, because by that time the writers stop trying to play the "will they or won't they??" angle, because it's just obvious to everybody that they will and do. Usagi and Mamoru kiss and have a relationship, but it's not a plot device anymore; it's a character trait. (Actually, this is mostly just the anime, where in fact the romance stops being a subplot by end of the R series. (Also there's the one-sided romance of Stars, which may or may not count since it's never reciprocated.) In the manga, there's some discomfiture with Usagi/Haruka and Michiru/Mamoru there first, and a subplot of lack-of-communication in the fourth arc, and then he's dead in the fifth.) --Masamage ♫ 06:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean no romance? I'm curious to read Kazu-kun's response. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

About Adventure... it is indeed a genre. The Adventure article says "In the context of a narrative, the adventure genre is typically applied to works in which..." Regarding Romance, it's true that it's not a central element during the entire series, but after MG and Adventure, it's certainly the next big thing. I think that if we're aiming for three genre categories, Romance should definitely be there. Kazu-kun (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Guess I'll categorize it as a genre basing it on this discussion. Let's finish this up: what's the difference between Adventure and Adventure film? Which one applies more for SM? The page One Piece uses the latter so it might have to be changed according to what you said. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Adventure is IMO the actual genre whereas Adventure film seems to be a derivative term to identify films of the Adventure genre. SM is not specifically a film, and since we lack an Adventure (genre) article, we should go with just Adventure instead.Kazu-kun (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I have created Adventure genre, a more suited article. We can conclude with this: [[Adventure genre|Adventure]]; [[Magical girl]] [[Romance film|Romance]]

Agreed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. We can always tweak it later if we think of anything better. ^^ Oh, but you'll probably want Romance (genre) rather than Romance film. --Masamage ♫ 05:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and following the same format as Romance (genre), I moved Adventure genre to Adventure (genre). Kazu-kun (talk) 05:12, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Romance (genre) is a much better choice (I didn't know it existed). Um, if you're gonna start moving some pages, can you get the rest of these? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:18, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

That made me realize wiki should have a guideline on genre articles' titles. Oh well, feel free to move it back if you want to. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, aside from the Romance one, there's Thriller (genre), True crime (genre) and Mythopoeia (genre). We can move the pages safely. Did you want some help? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the parenthetical form is most likely the correct one, because the genre's name isn't "Romance genre"; it's just "Romance". --Masamage ♫ 05:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - Yeah, that's what I meant. We should move the others to their parenthetical forms. Do you guys want to help me nail these? Three heads are better than one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I moved only Action genre to Action (genre). I didn't move pages such as Film genre, Literary genre, Genre fiction and Music genre because these articles deal with a different concept. These are not articles about specific genres, but about characteristics and groups of genres for specific fields. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you double check? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I found Cross-genre. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did. And Cross-genre is another article we shouldn't move. Aside from that, articles that don't need disambiguation, such as Erotica and Fiction shouln't be moved either. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand, why did you change my comment? Per the guidelines, we aren't allowed to alter another user's comment(s). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll bet a virtual fudgesicle it was a copy-pasting typo. Anyway, sounds like you guys are on the ball with this. ^^ --Masamage ♫ 06:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry about that, it was as Masamage said. Kazu-kun (talk) 06:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I was hoping that was the case. So, it appears we're finished. I have to admit, I've never had this much fun talking before. Shall I do the honours in the genre box? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. ^_^ This was your initiative, after all. --Masamage ♫ 06:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I was awaiting the other person to give the go but I'll just do it now. If there are any qualms, they can be reverted and/or discussed here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the romance genre also implied by magical girl? -Malkinann (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No. For example Nanoha is a Magical Girl series and it's not Romance. Other, more typical (shoujo), examples include Akazukin Chacha, Corrector Yui, Fancy Lala, Futari wa Pretty Cure, and more (a lot more). Kazu-kun (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use images

I was afraid this would happen. But an individual picture for each of the eleven major characters listed here really is probably too much to ask for, especially since all of them are in the group shot at the top of the page.

On the other hand, because of that group photo and because each character has good images on her/his own article, linked to right next to the images we currently have, maybe it's really not so bad to remove them entirely. Any thoughts? --Masamage ♫ 02:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a good idea. In fact I think that would be a must for a possible FA nomination. Kazu-kun (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say remove them to prevent likely copyright problems. There was a similar discussion on Talk:Bleach (manga) about their images in case you guys are interested. Like you even said Masamage, the group shot at the top already depicts most of these characters. We could do like YuYu Hakusho does (see group picture). Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Do you really have to go through eleven articles to find out what each character looks like, or just one article? -- Denelson 83 04:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Anything's better than violating WP:NONFREE, if I'm understanding you correctly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I think those pics should be removed, but IMO people suggesting pic removal should give an actual explanation as to why they think so. Just saying "it's violating WP:NONFREE" is meaningless. Anyway, like Masamage has said, there's already a group shot at the top of the page. This is the issue really, as the fair use policy requires each pic to be essential to the article, and obviously pics with redundant content don't fit in this criteria. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Kazu-kun, can you comment on the above section as well? I'd like to solve both of these matters which I've been involved in. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it "fair use" to carry postings of thumbnails? This is what all the search engines do (see [2]. IMHO it would be perfectly adequate for this page to use thumbnails to help indicate which character was which. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.110.168 (talk) 17:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Reception and Influence

http://www.kicie.net/realm/naoko.htm The comment about clones... I thought it might be useful. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor development thing

Takeuchi-sensei mentioned several times how the anime influenced the manga, for example in two pictures of the artbook 1, and again in Casablanca Memories where Tomizawa's favorite flower made it in... should this be put into the article at all? Or is it too trivia-esque?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a useful fact to me. --Masamage ♫ 18:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

^^;; Where would it go? We don't really have a development section and it seems awkward in both the header and in the Manga section...--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in the manga article itself? --Masamage ♫ 17:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Umm... Where would it go there?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 03:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Venus isn't the leader of the group...

Under characters, under Minako Aino, it says Sailor Venus is the leader of the group, and that's not true. She was the first sailor to become a scout, but she isn't the leader. Sailor Moon is, or else it would be called "Sailor Venus" and not "Sailor Moon." 76.183.211.196 (talk) 04:34, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

"Scout"? What is that? JuJube (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Watch your nomenclature, anonymous. We're using original terms here.

And yes, #5 is the leader of the group of four Senshi that protect the Princess (#1), but if you consider the entire team of five, #1 is their leader, and #5 is the second-in-command. -- Denelson 83 04:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Venus is the leader of the Senshi, who are there to protect the Princess, who is Sailor Moon. She's their royal leader, but not their battle-leader. --Masamage ♫ 05:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

The anime rarely mentions it. The Manga and Live action are more specific. Sailor Moon did not exist in the silver Millenum but venus did. She was the leader. Since being reborn as Usagi, Moon became a Senshi and sorta took over direct leadership over ALL the senshi. Venus does Lead the Guardian senshi however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lego3400 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 11 March 2008

Pictures?

I think this page would benefit by having a picture of each character next to her/his name and description. I'm not a big fan and never will be. But I see their images around, and when I'm curious about a character it is usually because I have seen her, and that's what brings me here to look them up. But it is a very slow process to click on each character article just to see the picture to see that it's the one I'm looking up. The pictures are already on the individual pages, they would just need a reference from this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.174.110.168 (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, until very recently it used to have those. They were only removed because it was determined that this page had too many copyrighted images in one place (which is one of the things we have to worry about). Otherwise, yeah, it was pretty useful. --Masamage ♫ 17:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

See this consensus. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons

So, given that Sailor Moon has been compared to Barbie, Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers, Buffy and Sabrina, does anyone think we need to expand a bit on what the comparisons say? -Malkinann (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

What do the comparisons say? --Masamage ♫ 00:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Drazen evidently doesn't think much chop of the Buffy comparison, because he says it's a "female empowerment fantasy" and then says you could equally compare it to Bewitched. Plugging Buffy Sailor Moon into Google Scholar gives our good friend Victoria Newsom, with a paper that isn't citeable: Girls of power: " girl power" in Buffy the vampire slayer, Sailor Moon, and Queen Amidala from Star Wars episode one: the phantom menace. So there may be some leads there, or there may not. :/ In "Challenge to Hollywood", Allison goes Sailor Moon was said to be too different, but MMPR is just different enough - boy targetted superheroes, live action, henshin, and mecha, but changing the setting to an American one "domesticated" the difference. Allison says the companies assert that Sailor Moon was too girly and too flawed a heroine, and that the cultural differences in Sailor Moon were too great. A representative for Bandai is quoted as saying "We think American girls might move over toward Sailor Moon. Barbie is an excellent doll, but she has no story. Sailor Moon is a warrior on the side of justice. I mean, this girl is a superhero." I'll try and have another look at the Japan Pop chapter when I've time. The others are freely available online. -Malkinann (talk) 00:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Has there been any talk about Sailor Moon coming back on cartoon network?

I remember in the old days when the my old t.v line up was dragon ball,sailor moon,and then dragon ball Z.Way back when toonami was on durring weekdays.I personally miss Sailor Moon very much,and I was curious if there has been any news on SM coming back to t.v? Or anything on the dubbing of Sailor Stars?

Sailor Moon instead of Samurai Jack!

I was watching toonami a couple weeks ago.Cause I watch Naruto every Sat,and I saw Samurai Jack on at 10:30 p.m after Naruto and ben 10 alien force(great shows btw).My question is why show samurai jack instead of sailor moon? That was a bad choice on cartoon network's part.Sailor Moon suits the kind of programs toonami shows.Plus it was on their weekly line up a few years back.I want an oppinion should sailor moon be put in samurai jack's place?

DiC promo video

What was wrong with using this as a reference? --Masamage ♫ 00:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The site was not an official DiC site, making the upload a copyright violation. Per policy, such sites can not be linked to. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahhhh. Okay, thanks. (Pity, because DiC would have to be insane to post that anywhere themselves. Er...the fun kind of insane.) --Masamage ♫ 01:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Officially/Literally

With the saying, "officially translated as Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon" that doesn't make sense. The word "official" means "authorized", but "literally" means "actually", so you would be better off saying it as "literally translated as Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon", because the words "official" and "literal" are not synonyms. --PJ Pete June 28, 2008

They're not synonyms, that is true. But "official" is correct in this case, and "literal" is not. The literal translation is "pretty girl soldier," whereas the official translation--that is, the English words that are printed even on Japanese merchandise--is "pretty soldier". --Masamage ♫ 04:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge manga and anime

Note: I have copied this still-active discussion in from Talk:Sailor Moon (manga), as that article has been redirected here. The rest of the talk page now lives at Talk:Sailor Moon/Archive 6. --Masamage ♫ 19:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have tagged this article and Sailor Moon (anime) for merging back together into a single, proper article that follows WP:MOS-AM. Per the MoS, there is no valid reason these two should be separated. They have some differences, but those differences are not significant enough to warrant having the two media split, particularly when the individual anime arcs already have their own articles as well. The Sailor Moon mania has gotten rather out of hand, and I think the clean up needs to start here. Yes, SM is a huge franchise, but really...SEVEN articles just on the anime alone?? Thoughts on the suggested merge and on cleaning up the articles? Another option, and maybe the better one, is to merge this article and the anime one back to Sailor Moon as they really do not need standalone articles at all and are already pretty well covered there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The original purpose of this article was to list the manga volumes, but because that has been moved to List of Sailor Moon chapters, it may not be needed anymore after all. The left-over stuff can probably be split-merged over to that article and to the main article. Likewise with the anime one.

Please don't blame these things on "mania". It's just a remnant of an old organizational system. --Masamage ♫ 17:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd believe it wasn't "mania" if the SM project didn't continue to fight cleaning up SM articles to bring them inline with WP:MOS-AM and Wikipedia guidelines so that it could actually be the set of awesome articles it could be. Other much larger articles have been cleaned up and brought in line with much less trouble, despite being current fan favorites. SM needs a lot of work and clean up, and while this proposal seems to actually be getting some support, most doesn't. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so. If we do this it will mean kind of a rearrangement of how we're keeping things organized on the project in general. I'll work out some thoughts on that and post it to the main project page, since it affects so many articles. --Masamage ♫ 21:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I definitely support a merger. The information given in these articles can be easily mentioned in Sailor Moon. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it would, which would be good. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would support a merger to List of Sailor Moon chapters, but not one to the main Sailor Moon article for reasons of size and summary style. As the short stories are currently being covered both here and in the list of chapters, it makes sense to merge them there. -Malkinann (talk) 22:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I imagine it as a kind of split-merger in any case; a lot of the info here is already in one of those two spaces. We would divvy up the rest according to where it needed to be; discussion of manga creation at the main article, discussion of its contents at the chapter list, that sort of thing. --Masamage ♫ 22:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing in this article that is appropriate for merger to the chapter list except perhaps some basics for the lead, but those first go in the main, then the chapter list. About the only thing that "might" be mergable is the short story summaries, except of course that our chapter lists normally don't include those at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Support on this page, but I only support a merge of the anime page as long as none of the info on the music gets lost. Maybe a page for that?--Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 04:29, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now carried out the manga merge, which is by far the easier of the two. The anime will be trickier as I try to find room for the music section, but yes, it will definitely be here. Takanori Arisawa won too many awards for it not to be. :) --Masamage ♫ 19:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I brought in the music section. It has some fansite refs, but we can clean that up as we do all the others. The page is starting to get a little bit crowded, but certain other planned developments will help that a lot, such as creating the list of characters (which I'm working on) so that that section can go away. I think I'll trim down the English adaptations section for now, too, since there's somewhere else to read about that. --Masamage ♫ 23:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Its fine on the page size. As each section is rewritten and cleaned up, it will take care of itself. Also agree on need for a real character list. We'll deal with some other stuff later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Disputed tag

Why is the factual accuracy of this article disputed? This tag was added without explanation. Sure, the citations need help, but that's a different issue. What does the article say that is actually incorrect? --Masamage ♫ 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

There are quite a few "fan theories" and OR, some coming from non-RS fansites. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Like what? We can't clean them out if we don't know what they are, and you must have something specific in mind. --Masamage ♫ 17:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fansite stuff is tagged (at least, stuff that was here premerges :P). Anything whose source is question is also of disputed factual accuracy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, is that all? Okay, so let's limit the number of tags at the top of the page by having the most precisely obeyable ones up there. The Fansite sources are questioned individually and the top of the page says we need better sources, so let's remove this one since what it's talking about is being adequately expressed by the others. --Masamage ♫ 22:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Where does it say on Wikipedia:RS that fan websites are out? In fact, it doesn't even have the word "fan" on it. What it does say is if the source is considered reliable by a majority that it is permissible. Hitoshi Doi, when we aren't using him for episode summaries is reliable. He's been sourced by books and other people in the academic circle. He also is bilingual, though stronger in Japanese. He also lists his sources on his website--granted not all, but enough. Just because a website was made by a fan doesn't mean it isn't permissible. What we need to look at is if other people have sourced them as a reliable source for information. BTW, Translations are also not against copyright laws. In fact they have their own copyright on copyright.gov's explanation. As long as the original text isn't being taken wholesale and as long as the translations are the person's own, it's not a copyright violation. ^_^ Alex Glover worked for Tokyopop in a few of the products they have. Stuart Levy also approved of his translations through e-mail with me. Bu the former would put him as a good source for translation. He's not just another fan. (I also painstakingly checked his translations)...--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 22:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fansites are mostly not permissible because of WP:V#SELF, which is linked to from WP:RS. Because anyone can publish a website, it may or may not be total nonsense, and extra validation has to be given to confirm that it's reliable. Doi is okay as a source because he has received such validation from external, reliable sources, as is being discussed currently at WT:ANIME. --Masamage ♫ 22:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then the ones marked with Hitoshi Doi in the reception section as an "unreliable source" should be cut out if he's deemed reliable. Does that make any sense? I hope it does.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Aha! Yes, those were marked before the discussion at the Wikiproject. I'll clear those particular tags off now. --Masamage ♫ 06:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd also contend that reference 5 is also valid since it's sourced by academics and is printed in a legit academic magazine, making it a verified source. That's the Mary Grisby reference. That one was marked as well, despite it being referenced in several books and put in an academic journal. If you want to check me on this: [3]

Unless I'm missing something, I did not tag reference 5 (Grisby). 4 is marked, but not 5. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Creation of a new character list?

Er why is it on the To-Do list we have create a new character list as a point? I know there were concerns about our character list, but didn't we agree that all the characters there were minor because they only recurred throughout the series and that all the Sailor Senshi were notable enough to have their own articles?--Hanaichi 01:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Because there IS no List of Sailor Moon characters that all the characters, which is what there should be. Just because they have their own articles does not mean there shouldn't be a list summarizing them, along with the other major characters who aren't sailor scouts. Ideally, the minor character list would be moved to List of Sailor Moon characters, expanded, sourced, and cleaned up to be a proper, high quality list similar to List of Naruto characters and List of Fruits Basket characters (which are poised to be out first two featured character lists). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so we make a list for the major characters then link it out to the minor characters? Or we cramp everything into one list, or do something like the List of minor Rurouni Kenshin characters which doesn't have a main list either. I'm more favourable for the first option, but anything is OK. So the page would look like:

Intro, explaining characters and the minor ones.
Sailor Moon, Tuxedo Mask and Chibiusa
Inner Senshi characters
Outer Senshi characters
Starlights
Cats
Perhaps merge the arc characters which has lack of reception info here (eg, Kakyu or Galaxia)
Finally, linking to the minor characters OR we could continue the list to explain other charaters

I think that more or less summarizes it.--Hanaichi

I think we need a single character list, unless/until there are valid concerns/reasons to have "minor" characters split out, which there really isn't in this case. Naruto is just as large, if not larger having a manga series on insane length, so I can't see why SM would need two lists if Naruto doesn't. RK will have a single list, by consensus. It is currently being worked on by another editor in their sandbox for easier discussion and less time pressure. The page would have the lead, then ideally should be organized first by protagonist, antagonist, supporting, then subgroups as necessary. And yes, all characters for which notability can not be established should be merged in with a proper summary (rather than blow by blow of every little thing they did for their appearances), and of course well sourced. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is the list I have been working on: User:Masamage/List of Sailor Moon characters. I've been shaping it up based on the general appearance of several featured character lists. It would include a merge of the extant minor-chracters list, which could easily be shortened to fit in because so much of it is plot information already covered at the arc articles/episode lists.

For now I'm pretending that each of the larger villain groups, but not the smaller ones, will remain their own articles--ie. Dark Kingdom and Shadow Galactica, but not Shitennou or Animamates, and so on. We can, of course, revisit that as each of those articles gets merged together and refined down. Always a work in progress.

Meanwhile, this'll be a jumping-off point, and if we ever end up deciding that someone like Princess Kakyuu doesn't need an entire article to herself, we don't have to waste any time debating whether it's fair to put her in a list of "minor" characters. --Masamage ♫ 03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Manga Pegasus and Elios are separate entities... That may cause issues... but since there are attribution problems, I'll not edit it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 02:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The Pegasus that visits Chibiusa, which is the only one anybody really cares about it, is Helios. The "real" Pegasus is a separate entity, but he doesn't do anything important. --Masamage ♫ 14:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed a Sailormoon character list would be most helpful as there are numerous new fans that want new information’s on the Sailor sensei and old fans are constantly searching for a compilation of all the characters.Zorro444 (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Senshi. They're not teachers. -- Denelson 83 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Warriors of Legend

Is this a reliable source? If so, we can replace the Dies Gaudii link. --Masamage ♫ 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

From my understanding, it would be considered a reliable source, despite the legal issues of it being "unauthorized." May want to double check on the RS Noticeboard to see if a qualifier is needed when used, such as is done with Biographies to note "so and so said..." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

They said it's unreliable because it's self-published, unless sources can be found stating that it's accurate and factual. All I've found is this ANN article praising it. Not sure that helps. --Masamage ♫ 15:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

But ANN in turn can't be counted as reliable, since they, too, are fan-based and self-published. Plus most of the book (Warriors of Legend) relies on conjecture and Original Research.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 04:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

ANN has been agreed on as reliable by the WP:ANIME folks. I forget why. --Masamage ♫ 04:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hell, AOD is also fan based. Let's torpedo that as well. Soon we will not have any articles cause all of the references for anime come from fan created sources (well, pretty much.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Because both ANN and AoD meet all the requirements for being WP:RS, including long history of accurate reporting, heavy industry support, and being used as sources for other news sites. The only parts of either that are not RS are, of course, the forums. As well, for ANN, the main encyclopedic entires are find for "last resort" sources. Things like the trivia section, etc shouldn't be used. There is a detailed explanation on the use of ANN as a source on the project page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Replacement reference(s)

The Sailor Moon series began as a manga written and drawn by Takeuchi, the series' creator. It was an evolution from her earlier Codename: Sailor V idea, expanding the concept into a team of five girls rather than just one.[1] Recurring motifs include astronomy,[4][unreliable source?] astrology, Greek myth,[5] Roman myth, geology, Japanese elemental themes,[6] teen fashions,[5][7] and schoolgirl antics.[7] I believe we can reference the number 4 unreliable source from the author herself. Didn't she say she was influenced by Yamato? Also the artbooks and liner notes periodically talk about it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 04:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Toast of Montmartre

In AMATEUR MANGA SUBCULTURE AND THE OTAKU PANIC, written by Sharon Kinsella, she describes Sailor Moon as the toast of Montmartre - maybe this could replace the current stuff about Club Dorothee, somewhat? -Malkinann (talk) 05:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

What does that even mean? X) --Masamage ♫ 16:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It means Sailor Moon was popular in Montmartre. -Malkinann (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

As popular as toast? :D --Masamage ♫ 06:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Franchise type

I feel it's slightly disingenuous to identify SM as just an anime/manga franchise. Obviously those are the most popular parts, but it's simply not factual to make them look like the whole thing. Maybe "the anime- and manga-based franchise" or something like that? Just to help make it clear that there's a lot more going on here? --Masamage ♫ 02:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The manga is the primary work, not the anime. It is a manga and anime franchise. The rest are offshots of those two aspects. Also, the point of the hatnote is to help those who wound up here from somewhere else. It isn't intended to be a full description, but a quick one to help readers quickly identify where they are and if its where they want to be. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I just default to saying "anime and manga" in conversation because of the alphabetical order used in the WikiProject. And I do understand the hatnote's purpose, and that it should be as petite as possible; I just feel it should also be as accurate as possible and am hoping for a compromise.

The other thing is that no one here is going to be looking for some other thing called "Sailor Moon" that has nothing to do with the franchise; no such thing exists at all. If they're not looking for this page, they're looking for one of its subpages. The current emphasis seems to explain, "oh, this is the anime and manga franchise. I'm looking for that other franchise."

That's why the previous hatnote identified it as "the franchise as a whole". Not any individual facet, but the whole. Because no one will be looking for something that falls outside those two options, so that seems like a much more useful disambiguation. --Masamage ♫ 03:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm with AnmaFinotera on this. Also note that many other anime/manga articles make use of this layout (see discussion). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

With the merges, though, this page is mostly about the manga and anime...the other parts have their own subarticles, as you noted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't really change my main point, though. This article is about the whole franchise, its parts and history and development and reception and cultural influence. --Masamage ♫ 03:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. Everything in the article, except the specific adaption sections, are about the manga first, anime second. And, um, there is no history nor development info here at all. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean Masamage, but the fact remains that the main focus is on the manga and anime. Everything else is just an extension of that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

So why don't the adaptation sections count as part of the article? This is the launching-point. It has everything, and that's very important. Also, there's history/development info everywhere, peppered through every section. --Masamage ♫ 04:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree wholly about using the term "anime and manga franchise". Literally, the anime is an extension of the manga therefore one could just use "manga franchise". This would be wrong however, as the franchise collectively includes anime, manga, musicals, live action and games. The entire Sailor Moon article isn't suppose to have a main focus on manga and anime alone due to it being the most well known, that would be just close to WP:ILIKEIT (although the reason for it is because the information is readily available in English, unlike the musicals and the live action). I say we just use "franchise" to collectively include everything and avoid user confusion.--Hanaichi 12:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I could go for just "franchise". What do you say AnmaFinotera? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

That works better for me too, although I still think "the franchise as a whole" is the best way to go. --Masamage ♫ 19:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Manga franchise works for me. While "franchise" as a whole makes sense to those of us who know what it is, those who have never heard of Sailor Moon may find it confusing. Most people see franchise and they think a company franchise, not a related group of media works. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"Manga franchise" doesn't make sense; it suggests that all the component parts are manga. I think people are very unlikely to be confused by "franchise" or "franchise as a whole", because as I said, virtually nobody is going to end up at this page by sheer accident. What the franchise is is explained by reading the article itself; this is just the hatnote, and its job is not to explain the article. It's to disambiguate it. --Masamage ♫ 05:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is with the understanding of the definition of franchise? And especially the usage. American Heritage.com says:

"1. A privilege or right officially granted a person or a group by a government, especially: a. The constitutional or statutory right to vote. b. The establishment of a corporation's existence. c. The granting of certain rights and powers to a corporation. d. Legal immunity from servitude, certain burdens, or other restrictions. 2a. Authorization granted to someone to sell or distribute a company's goods or services in a certain area. b. A business or group of businesses established or operated under such authorization. 3. The territory or limits within which immunity, a privilege, or a right may be exercised. 4. A professional sports team."

I think you want definition 2. But think about it carefully, it's not a franchise created by the manga. That's an abuse of the word franchise. It's created by Takeuchi-sensei who in turn liscensed her rights to allow the production of those various media that are listed. If you want to be technical about the word franchise, it would be a media franchise created by Naoko Takeuchi.

Saying Manga franchise is an abuse of the word franchise. If you want to say it originated from the manga... that's separate from the word franchise. Franchise is all encompassing, not limiting to the creation. You can say McDonald's Franchise, for example, but the type of franchise they are is a Fast Food Franchise. If they went into the business of something like a sit and eat place, then it would be a restaurant franchise, not a Fast Food franchise. Does everyone understand the meaning of this word now? When you say franchise, and put a tag in front, the tag is a descriptor of what the franchise encompasses, not the origin thereof.

Sorry, I really have a thing for bad word usage here... You know, writer's instincts piqued by a few months of editing. If you want to say it originated from manga then the proper wording in English would be manga-originated media franchise. Got it?--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps "media franchise"? Our aim should be to keep it brief. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Media franchise would be good. --Masamage ♫ 03:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Media franchise would work for me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming this change will also be implemented with the manga-related articles mentioned here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you might want to alert the WP:Anime and Manga first? Media franchise works fine for me.--Hanaichi 04:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, did you want me to do it or can I leave it in your hands? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead please. I'm a bit tangled up in some legit affairs concerning a school and creating an article on the school, which the school doesn't want so I'm a bit busy.--Hanaichi 23:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left the note here. Do I just wait until I get an answer or may I begin the changes? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it has been a little more than a month. Think I'll go ahead and make the edits. Any thoughts before that happens? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Japanese TV category

Replying to this edit summary--all that means is that the category should be added to PGSM (which I'll do right now). We don't need to use it here; it's redundant. --Masamage ♫ 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait, no! It doesn't even need to be there, because that's in Category:Tokusatsu already. I say the category isn't needed here at all. --Masamage ♫ 16:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to ask User:Kazu-kun first? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Might as well. I left a message. --Masamage ♫ 17:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been several days; we're probably safe assuming he doesn't care at this point. We should move forward; everything can be reverted later if new arguments come to light. --Masamage ♫ 19:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. (S)he never answers back to me either. Wonder why? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Aside from that, I found that Cutie Honey is categorized as such, but Jigoku Shojo isn't. Care to take a look at them Masamage? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed the redundant cat in Cutie Honey and added Tokusatsu to Hell Girl. --Masamage ♫ 19:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Moonlight Densetsu

I just figured out how we can get around the citation problem with the theme song. Instead of citing Alex Glover, we can just change the wording to whatever the official English subs say, and cite that. Who owns the DVDs and can take care of this? --Masamage ♫ 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Just watching the first few minutes of the first episode would do it. --Masamage ♫ 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the lyrics should be posted at all. It would seem to violate WP:COPYRIGHT and seems excessive. It seems enough to me to note the song lyrics were changed but the instrumental kept, particularly when the interpretation seems based on an unreliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, rumour has it that a print magazine once lambasted the dub theme tune... [4] -Malkinann (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing where the redirects go?

Might it be better to have the Sailor Moon (manga) redirect go to List of Sailor Moon chapters and Sailor Moon (anime) go to List of Sailor Moon episodes rather than here? -Malkinann (talk) 03:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it would. They were originally series articles, not specific chapter/episode lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I agree. If any links to those redirects remain, you'll learn more about what the anime is here than at the episode list, and then you can go there from here for more info. --Masamage ♫ 17:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Ending themes?

I really think this shouldn't be a problem, but where are the information for the ending themes to Sailor Moon (the series as a whole not the first season)? There is info about the openings, but not the endings. I knew there were 5, but due to my recent watching of SuperS I am to believe that there are 6 now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.229.228 (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ending themes should be covered in the episode lists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

There were seven.

Heart Moving (C #1)
Princess Moon (C #2)
Otome no Policy (R)
Tuxedo Mirage (S)
Watashi-tachi ni Naritakute (SuperS #1)
Rashiku Ikimasho (SuperS #2)
Kaze mo Sora mo Kitto (Stars)

-- RattleMan 04:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It's in some of them but not all. R and SuperS doesn't have the themes listed. The whole reason why I brought this up is cause of the music section. It talks about the opening songs, but not the closing ones. It mentions insert songs, image songs, and battle music, but nothing about the ending songs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.193.229.228 (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

New reference needed

http://www.dicentertainment.com/corporate/ no longer points where we needed it to. How can we replace the ref stating that DiC was owned by Disney? --Masamage ♫ 19:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

*ahem* http://web.archive.org/web/20071219211247/http://www.dicentertainment.com/corporate/ :P....and updated. BTW, there is currently a discussion to split DIC Entertainment from the new Cookie Jar article. More views would be good. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:35, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Cool, I've always been hazy on how to find webarchivals. Thanks! --Masamage ♫ 03:49, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have the old URL, just go to archive.org and search for it. Usually they have some archives for it, then just look for the newest one with the info you need :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple issues?

Either the article should be demoted from GA status, or the use of {{articleissues}} on the page is outdated. I find it hard to believe that it would be neither. --Dylan620 (Home • yadda yadda yadda • Ooooohh!) 21:20, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for comment on articles for individual television episodes and characters

A request for comments has been started that could affect the inclusion or exclusion of episode and character, as well as other fiction articles. Please visit the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(fiction)#Final_adoption_as_a_guideline. Ikip (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Novel Series

What exactly are the old (light?) novel series published Mixx Readz/Tokyopop Press? Are they related media or official adaptations? Ariolander (talk) 06:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No Sailor Chiron?

I never really watched the show, but does anyone know why? I know an astrologer who really despises Chiron for some reason and loves this series, weird. Someone probably already asked but so what. --IdLoveOne (talk) 23:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean Charon? My guess is that there's not a Sailor Senshi for that because it's a satellite of Pluto. The Sailor Team only has people named after the nine planets that made up the solar system when it was created, plus Moon herself. --Masamage ♫ 02:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I mean Chiron, the centaur/comet. It's been pretty popular in astrology since its discovery, but it seems like the creator of Sailor Moon just ignored it or didn't know of it. Idk, maybe you're right and it's because it's not a planet.... --IdLoveOne (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yeah, it seems she only went with the most basic, obvious, huge astronomical features, but she still ended up with 10+ main characters. For sanity's sake, she had to stop. :) Four asteroids and Mars' moons eventually got minor characters named for them, but other than that, it's just our own planets and various fictional worlds with non-mythological names (like "Chuu" and "Cocoon"). --Masamage ♫ 01:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

French Dico Manga Coverage

Get ready Malkinann !

<ref name="Dicomanga">{{cite book | first= Nicolas | last=Penedo |page=464 | editor=Nicolas Finet | title=Dicomanga: le dictionnaire encyclopédique de la bande dessinée japonaise | publisher=Fleurus | language=French | location=Paris | isbn=978-2-215-07931-6 | year=2008}}</ref>

Nicolas Penedo, page 464:
Le succès de la série repose sur une synthèse réussie des genres "Magical girl" et "Sentai". Si la bande dessinée, pur produit shôjo, cible tout particulièrement les jeunes filles, le dessin animé, lui, peut être suivi par un large public grâce à un ton plus shônen.

"The series success is based on a successful synthesis of Magical girl and Sentai genres. While the comics/manga, purely a shojo product, is targeting specifically teenagers girls, the anime can be fellowed up by a greater public thanks to more shonen tone."

L'inclination de TAKEUCHI Naoko pour des personnages féminins crédibles, charismatiques et indépendants a été interprétée en France comme un positionnement féministe sans ambiguïté

"Naoko Takeuchi inclination for credibles, charismatics and independents characters was interpreted in France as a without ambiguity feminist position."

Comments:

I removed a part of the text that was originaly between ( ) as it is not really of the article.
Some macron are missing but French AZERTY keyboard doesn't have macron.
That as much i could translate with failing into copyvio issue and even what i translated is 1/4 of the whole article.

--KrebMarkt 07:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Squee, thank you so much! :-D Especially the stuff about the feminist reading of the manga - no wonder Sailor Moon's been called the toast of Montmatre! --Malkinann (talk) 08:43, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotation

I just removed a request for a quotation of Drazen, so here it is, from page 9: "Fast-forward to 1995, and the biggest breakthrough of that time: Sailor Moon." I found it on Google Scholar. --Masamage ♫ 17:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Polling

Notice: This article is being polled for versions in other languages. As of the last check, the interwiki links below lead to non-existent pages. Please insert in the article only those links that lead to newly-created pages.

- Denelson83 22:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

And the point and purpose of this is? You do realize there are bots that will automatically add the links as the pages are made, right? If you want to do it personally, please put this in your own workspace or something. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

One, it's to actually encourage people on these other language Wikipedias to write an article about SM; two, I've been doing this polling for months; three, I don't care about what the bots do, as I'm an advocate of the "do it manually" approach; and four, this talk page is accessed much more often than any page in my userspace. -- Denelson 83 08:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine, though seems very silly to me and nothing I've seen done on any other article. But please leave it as a normal talk page section and please stop putting it above the TOC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

If it's a normal section, it will almost certainly get accidentally archived. --Masamage ♫ 02:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

This page has no auto archiving and since no one had done an archive in a long time, that seems a slim chance at best. And if it is accidentally archived, I'm sure it will be just as quickly restored as it was done here when it was removed for seeming to have no actual purpose. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Useful quote?

"This picture was on the cover of Sailor Moon Volume 4, whose first edition sold 1,200,000 copies. During the time I was working on the picture, it was confirmed that Sailor Moon would be adapted into a musical and I met the cast who would play the Sailor Soldiers recurrently."

Confirms 2 things. 1. She met the cast and met them repeatedly. 2. The exact sales figures of Sailor Moon Volume 4 in the first run. This is from Sailor Moon Original Picture Volume 2 which interestingly enough calls Chibiusa also Chibiusagi and mentions that Chibiusa was supposed to be a serious child with only alien friends at first...--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

She mentions the Muscials in various artbooks (one mention was she had the first Tuxedo Kamen model for some of the drawings of Tuxedo mask) and at the final day performance of the the revived Eien Densetsu she actually presented Anza with flowers at the curtain call and hugged various cast members. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)