Talk:Sailor Moon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:29, 27 April 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sailor Moon article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10: 90 days

Skip to table of contents

Sailor Moon was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 30, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
August 4, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
April 25, 2007	Good article nominee	Listed
July 18, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
August 13, 2009	Good article reassessment	Listed
September 29, 2013	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Anime and manga C‑class High‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cartoon Network C‑class Low‑importance

	Cartoon Network portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cartoon Network, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Cartoon Network on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Cartoon NetworkWikipedia:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkTemplate:WikiProject Cartoon NetworkCartoon Network articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sailor Moon (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sailor Moon, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Sailor MoonWikipedia:WikiProject Sailor MoonTemplate:WikiProject Sailor MoonSailor Moon articles

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Silverman, Rebecca (September 21, 2011). "Sailor Moon GN 1". Anime News Network. Template:Query web archive

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

David Auerbach (2012-07-05). "The Stupidity of Computers". n+1. Retrieved 2012-08-06. Wikipedia's coverage is heavily slanted toward subjects that its contributors specialize in, which is why the Chilean writer José Donoso's entry consists of only three paragraphs and the Japanese manga Sailor Moon's entry runs over fifty pages.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^ 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]

Revision as of 14:13, 27 April 2014 edit Jchq (talk \| contribs) 6 edits No edit summary ← Previous edit		Revision as of 18:29, 27 April 2014 edit undo Derekloffin (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 2,134 edits →‎Sailor Moon Crystal: resp Next edit →
Line 95:		Line 95:

	At what point will we give ''Sailor Moon Crystal'' it's own page? Is there any objection? [[User:Jchq\|Jchq]] ([[User talk:Jchq\|talk]]) 14:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)		At what point will we give ''Sailor Moon Crystal'' it's own page? Is there any objection? [[User:Jchq\|Jchq]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Derekloffin\|Derekloffin]] ([[User talk:Derekloffin\|talk]]) 18:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)