Talk:Sailor Moon

Categories:

• Articles with WikiProject banners but without a banner shell

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.

• Alemannic
• Armenian
• Asturian
• Basque
• Bosnian
• Czech
• Georgian
• Icelandic
• Occitan
• Slovak
• Slovenian
• Tagalog

- 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. --  Denelson83  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)

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)

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)

Reference to Sailor Moon on The Price Is Right (U.S. game show)

I'm not sure if this should be mentioned in the article, but I just recalled a recent episode of The Price is Right (in the United States) that featured a cameo appearence of Sailor Moon in the 2nd showcase. If anyone else knows more about this episode, and would like to mention TPIR in the article, please feel free to do so.--70.240.230.131 (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)Chris

It's simply trivia and doesn't have a place in either article. --Farix (Talk) 11:06, 16 June 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)

a few questions

Should the first volume of the manga placed above in the infobox rather than below?

and shouldn't we use the English names? Is there some complication as to why we cant use them?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, there's no room for it in the box. It's okay next to the manga discussion.

We're using the names from the English subtitled DVDs, which is the only uncut/uncensored English publication as well as the most consistent. --Masamage ♫ 19:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

no room? we could just move the one pic in the infobox onto thee characters section. oh well, it makes sense now about the names.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

actually it doesnt make sense to have an image of the characters in the infobox. it's not as promotional as the manga cover. So the manga cover should be in the infobox and the image of the characters should be moved somewhere else. As for the characters, we must look up the official website and see what they have or choose look up what's popular within websites. I don't think that's a big deal the japanese names are usually the mroe popular. but just in case we should check the official website 24.249.176.77 (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah i feel really uncomfortable that image being in the infobox rather than the cover image. Every Manga article with an infobox image is always the manga cover. Always. i don't see why people think it's appropriate for that image to be in the infobox. that image has better use in the list of Sailor Moon Characters if ever made.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I did further look onto why people put the manga covers in the infobox, it seems that WP:BOOK insist on using the first and oldest cover fro the infobox. So i think it's enough for it to move.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC) I'm sorry but i will have to change it sooner or later, but i'll wait for anyone to disagree.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, mostly because this is an article about the entire franchise, not just the manga, so it doesn't fall under WP:BOOK. List of Sailor Moon chapters, on the other hand, does start with a cover image. --Masamage ♫ 18:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It started out as a book and it seems that the way this Article is written, the manga seems to be explained first then the other versions of it. So it's still ok to put in the Manga cover. Every other article has done it. For example, Bleach is an obvious franchise yet still uses manga cover.

WP:BOOK is just to explain that every article about a certain series must use the cover of the first promotional piece of work. They do that for game,s they do it for Anime Original series (usually) and they do it for Manga series aswell, even if they were extended to other versions. I find the image of the main characters inappropriate for the infobox. OF course the same image Can fall in The List of Sailor Moon chapters but that's a little more obvious.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hrmrmrm. I dunno. What you say makes sense, but I like what we have better. X) I think it helps to represent the franchise as a whole, by showing as many of the characters as possible. But, I'll go ahead and drop a note at the WikiProject to see what other people think, and go along with whatever is decided. --Masamage ♫ 16:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The manga is the primary work, so a cover image of a volume (preferably volume 1) is preferred. It is possible, I suppose, for local editor consensus to decide on a different image to be used, given sufficiently persuasive arguments. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm....this is tough but it does lean towards the manga cover being in the infobox. I'll wait until someone else gives another opinion on this, if no one does under a long period of time then we will place the manga cover in the infobox. Sound good everyone?Bread Ninja (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so I guess my more specific argument is, I think the first manga cover does a poor job of representing the series and franchise because it has only one person on it. The image we're using now, on the other hand, contains as many characters as possible, crowded into a tight enough space that you can see details on them without needing high-rez. It's much more revealing about what the series is about and who it contains. You can't get the whole wide-spanning franchise feeling out of one shot of one girl. This shot conveys much more information, and is therefore a more effective use of the limited amount of fair-use space we've got available. --Masamage ♫ 21:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That leans toward opinion, you don't need characters just to explain the franchise. Characters don't help represent franchises. A manga cover is the primary work that allowed all the adaptations to happen and shows the primary character (if we go by your logic). Still, the manga cover is more acceptable then character images. If the manga cover image did not exist in this article then yes, the characters could have been left, but apparently that's not the case.

a manga cover is more suitable. We've seen many articles about a manga and/or anime series where the cover of the primary work is in the infobox whether it has more characters or not. why should this article be any different?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer the current image over the manga cover because it gives a better feel for the style and (for those who understand the visual markers) genre of the series; that it also visually identifies a large part of the cast is a bonus. Arguments from guidelines are unfortunately going to run aground, because whether the article is about the manga and its adaptations or about the franchise which happened to start with a manga is an interpretation in the eye of the beholder. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Usually I'm the first to insist on the original work, but I gotta admit, this looks like exactly the kind of place to make an exception. Doceirias (talk) 20:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well TBH, I think a manga cover is warranted. However, IMO I think BOOK was not really designed with long-running graphic novels in mind. The reason they call was made is because its suppose to represent the most objective version of the author's (or equivalent's) intent. IMO for long-running series that is itself a flawed reason since often the latest one released is more representative of the vision. Indeed, in many cases for long-running series such as Sailor Moon, Dragonball, One Piece, etc the first volume can be misleading and harm the intent of the purpose its trying to portray as it usually just features the main protagonist in a series which has multiple.陣内_Jinnai 21:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

We really shouldn't choose our opinion over this. Doceirias, you didn't explain yourself much, so I'll assume you just "like it" to be an exception. The first manga cover isn't misleading, in fact the character image can fall in the Character Section. So even if the Main character only shows up in the infobox, the rest of the secondary characters still show up. It also feels like in-universe if we go by the logic of characters representing franchises other than the primary work cover.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

It's okay to have opinions, especially where the guidelines don't really match up to the reality (and sometimes when they do). I think Jinnai makes a good point about the difference between a single book and a long-running graphic novel series, especially one with spinoffs. Moving the image to the Characters section doesn't work because a) the infobox extends down below the top of that section, so it would look messy, and b) we need to limit the number of non-free media we use in any given article. Piling on the images should only be done as a last resort. --Masamage ♫ 17:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Very well, then i propose the character image to be left until the Characters article is done. After that the manga image can fall in easily without any problems. Again, placing characters to represent franchise sounds a bit in-universe style. With a long-running graphic novel it's been widely accepted to use the 1st cover. i think this is a bit melodramatic though, to say that someone will be "misled" merely because one character is shown on the cover. I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and in fact, many wiki users encourage it.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If I am understanding Quasirandom's comment correctly (and if Doceirias was working along the same line of thinking), their opposes have to do with the fact that volume 1's cover art is not representative of the series - in this case, if a volume cover is to be used, then, perhaps the cover of the final volume would be preferable? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesnt make much sense either, How would the alst help represent the series better? it's always been suitable for the first, it's always been prefered,the first promotional piece of work ever came out allows us to see how the series started out, it shows what was the original, the rest of the franchise was based off this manga, so the 1st manga cover should be acceptable. The last manga cover makes no sense.this based merely on opinion now....Again, characters representing franchise would be similar to in-universe, maybe if you had an image of all the characters together from the manga other than the anime, but isntead we shouldnt really do anything until the character article is made, until then we can move it. Maybe you should all look at Blood+, DragonBall Bleach Cardcaptor Sakura,Rozen Maiden and all those. those were franchises aswell and show the magna cover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bread Ninja (talk • contribs)

A preference is merely a preference; it is not an absolute rule. There may be a number of reasons were a different image may be chosen instead of the cover of the first volume. I have the original Japanese volumes, up to volume 16. If I had to chose a manga cover, I would pick volume 9, which illustrates all of the main Sailor Senshi. But the current image does an adequate job, so I see no reason to change it. It's not broken, so there is no reason to "fix" it. —Farix (t | c) 22:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is pretty broken. Again, your basing this off opinion. more what you like. you completely ignored my explanation. Again, anime characters to explain a whole franchise is in-universe.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You are the only editor in this entire discussion that is claiming that anything is "broken". The current image is fine as an illustration and replacing it won't improve the article. —Farix (t | c) 22:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Just putting my two bits in - having a group image also helps to illustrate the friendship theme of Sailor Moon - the literature I've seen says that a colourful and varied cast, and the strong themes of friendship was important to Sailor Moon's success. (Mangadico, Allison, Drazen and Napier particularly stick out as saying these things, but it's a recurring theme in the literature.) Having a picture of one girl doesn't show that. --Malkinann (talk) 22:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

you claim it's "fine" aswell. so by your logic, merely claimin with no facts means your nothing. I did give you sometihng, it's WP:BOOK. but yet you refuse to use it. WP:book has been used by many articles other than just books. Again, in-universe style. why wont anyone here will even 'try' to contradict that statement?

Malkinann you even proved it that the picture in the infobox will be in-universe. it's not from outside persepctive of the franchise, this is coming from the "fans"Bread Ninja (talk) 22:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is important too. Per the writing about fiction guideline, it's not in-universe to talk about the themes - it counts as "critical analysis of the subject", which is out of universe. It's also not "fans" that have written about the themes, it's academics. Are you confused by my use of the term "the literature"? "The literature" can be shorthand for saying "the academic criticism on a subject", or "the relevant field of work about something" - not the text itself. Hope this helps. :) --Malkinann (talk) 23:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

merely mentoining theme, yes, but the picture represent themes in the franchise article? no.

again, it's more preference to characters merely being in the infobox more than actually being appropriate as it is. it's preference only, they chose to ignore WP:BOOK. i will assume that only a fan would do. and let's assume that WP:BOOK doesnt cover everything. the problem is that that's all we have to allow it. I gave a good example of why the manga should be in the infobox, no one appears to contradict much. i'm assuming most of the editors here are merely going by "i like it".Bread Ninja (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:BOOK is neither a guideline nor a policy. It is a WikiProject just like WP:ANIME. WP:BOOK does offer recommendations on how they prefer articles could be organized, but these preferences are not rules. Their preferences do not override a consensus on a topic outside of their scope. Trying to pit the preferences of one WikiProject against a consensus formed by another is borderline disruptive. —Farix (t | c) 23:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

and what about in-universe style? especially how everyone here describes there reasoning, it most defintely lies within that area. the picture does not represent the franchise, it represent merely the characters in the series, nothing more. The manga cover is how it all began, how the franchise began. The characters merely show the cast. You guys (as fans) obviously see something more to these characters than someone who might have discovered this franchise recently. That's what i mean by in-universe. it's more actually a bias point of view.

but once again, i will say this. we wait until a character article comes out, until then we move this picture onto the character article, and no point having two images for both articles, we just move the manga cover onto the article. if it's merely preference than it shouldnt (as an editor) bother anyone here to be moved onto the infobox, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bread Ninja (talk • contribs) 23:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures can represent themes - granted, this image doesn't have as clearcut a case as the image on, for example, Kirk/Spock, but a group shot does give more of an idea of one of the major themes of the series (friendship) than a picture of Sailor Moon alone. The current picture is also a picture of the anime, which more people would be familiar with than the manga, and it shows the varied and colourful cast, which was a factor in Sailor Moon's success, as identified by academics who write from an out of universe perspective. We chose the current image carefully, and while consensus can change, your argumentative tone throughout this discussion not helping to convince anybody. --Malkinann (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The image is not "in-universe". It illustrates the cast, which is the central element of the entire series. The cover of the manga is not going to represent the series any better than the cast image. —Farix (t | c) 23:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

it's more of Bias point of view.

again, the character image can show what? a cast, yes. but waht else? everything else will be implied.

again, let's try to keep this as legit as we can make it. no preference that involves our opinion.

ok, let's see. sailor moon franchise, shows critical success, reception, other versions of the series, adaptatoins, and of course a small section of the cast. It would be appropriate to use manga cover #1. why? because it represents the franchise more. the manga itself its what it started.

but for a character iamge, would imply many "representations" but it will most defintely not "represent" the franchise itself. once more, and once again, manga covers how the series started, that's why it's much more preferable and appropriate to use manga cover #1 for the "franchise", the character image implies so much, it would makes sense just to move it to the possible character article, the image would represent the cast and the implied themes there. for my personal opinion, i would like to sue WP:BOOK. it's more 'encyclopedic" that way.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

i dont get it Farix. you completely supported covers being used in Gundam )) article. NOw you completely want to reject it? and you even ignore the vary WP you mentioned? it doesnt add up....Bread Ninja (talk) 00:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Masamage and Farix have already explained to you why WP:BOOK does not apply here. The cast image shows the wide and varied cast, which is one of the reasons why Sailor Moon became popular, as explained by academics, and it shows the anime style, which is more recognised than the manga, having aired in more countries than the manga was published. It's not inherently more encyclopedic to use the first cover than a group shot, and WP:NFCC says that we must pack as much value into our images as possible to comply with minimal usage. --Malkinann (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons really isn't very convincing unless you had a source saying this was true. Whether anime style is recognizable doesnt matter unless your portraying a certain character. Every anime or manga series must have had a cast that made them popular, it's a given.

look at the direction the article is going, it's not explaining the story of the series in full length or giving heavy explanation on theme, it's merely talking about the franchise as a whole. Basically focusing on critical success and reception of the series, the characters have already derived to other articles and the story seems to be cut short and explained in separate areas as well.

a group shot focus on the cast, the story, the theme, everything that is implied and all that the article isn't focusing on. And you know what, it's not even WP:BOOK, Template:Infobox animanga asks for the same guideline as well. Yes saving images is important, i was going by WP:NFCC. i already told you the image can be preserved in the infobox until the character article is made. then we can move the image there and place the manga in the infobox when we have more roomBread Ninja (talk) 15:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

So i believe everything agrees now?Bread Ninja (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bread Ninja I believe everyone but you has said that the pictures are OK as they are. --Malkinann (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dinoguy has also agreed with me, the other 3 i wont count since they stuck with pure preference, farix and you tried to add a WP but failed because it based off of preference. while i tried to look at a out of universe point of view. Jinnai also agreed although contradicted with his own opinion rather then what Wiki actually wants..

i dont see why this article should be an exception.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

the whole cast does not need to be added in the infobox. Usagi is the only character to appear in all 200 episodes of the anime, and is present in all 52 acts of the manga as well as all 51 acts of the live-action series. She is the primary character in the series and the whole franchise focuses on her. the rest of the cast are secondary characters. You all claim that the image of the entire cast represents more. but even if it did, it still doesn't match the article's point of view.

malkinann you used WP:NFCC to excuse it being in the infobox. but honestly i don't see how it helps. All NFCC said was to pack as much value that comply with minimal use. That doesn't mean the image can or cant be moved. I believe it's just fandom now. Giving an image more value than it should simply because a few of you actually like it more than the manga cover. i really should wait for others that have a more legitimate answer and not focusing on preference and implications Bread Ninja (talk) 18:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to replace the image, and your attempts to Wikilawyer is becoming disruptive. Dinoguy1000 agreed with your initial proposal, however, stated that the preference can be overwritten by a local consensus. Jinnai also weekly supported the proposal, though his reasoning was self-contradicting. On the other hand, four editors, including myself, oppose replacing the image. Whether you consider our augments valid or not is irrelevant in establishing a consensus. It's a 3 to 4 split. When there is no consensus, the status quo remains. —Farix (t | c) 21:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I am a walking paradox. :D My point is that a manga or anime image could and should be sought out that at the very least had the 5 inner senshi and tuxedo mask in it as those are the ones in every series, maybe a few others. The reason is not all of the Senshi are as important and notable for making the series popular as others. This image would be better as a suplimental image to the one already in the character page. This kind of says they are all on the same level, like all the Pokemon are important to making that series notable.

However the first manga cover is not really appopriate here, and maybe not even any manga cover, as it is clearly evidenced that the anime is more notable in English. Even Jason Thompson who reviewed the manga notes the anime's popularity supercedes the manga and his is about the only RS reviewing the manga.陣内_Jinnai 03:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not whether which part of the franchise is more famous than the other. the anime is adaptation. Manga cover would be appropriate. like i said before, it represents the starting point in the franchise. The image of the cast is much better off in the character article soon to be made. everyone could at least grasp that idea a little more. it really doesn't matter what character is on the cover or what was more famous, the original should always represent a series. though a character image shouldn't really represent franchise. when it comes to character articles it's really different, which image represents the character more, what name is more popular. that kinda of stuff. For franchise, there is more to it. the article is derived into separate areas. manga, live-action, manga. a character image is merely cast (and theme and friendship, but i'm not really going to add implications). A more suited picture would probably be a combination of manga, anime and live action DVD covers in one picture, but i doubt we will find one. a manga cover is what we have, it's volume 1 (the first) so it's appropriate to put in the infobox.

Like i said, it can stay there temporarily, but it shouldn't be a permanent image in the infobox.there is really no need to have two images floating around. One in the character section and the manga cover in the infobox.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Making compilation pictures is frowned upon by WP:NFCC. :( I still don't think that having the first manga cover in the infobox is as good as having the cast picture. --Malkinann (talk) 19:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually Bread Ninja, your wrong. What is most recognizable to the average English Wikipedian reader is most important as the one of the key functions of the infobox is to asure the reader they are in the right article. As such, when a peice of media is more well known - and documented as such by RSes that its importance has overshadowed the original work, that is what should be used as that is the most recognizable and fullfills that basic criteria of fair use for an infobox image.

As for a cast image, I do agree that a large cast list is probably better in the character article, but the first manga volume is just as bad, if not worse.陣内_Jinnai 19:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Malkinnan i didnt mean a compliation of images, i meant one image having the covers on there (like you would see the manga leaning over the DVD cases)

Jinnai, what you said is true, but it doesnt affect the article as much. The anime has been more popular, but more important, is another thing. So maybe instead of a manga cover....i would say a DVD or VHS cover, but that's only if the manga cover is not even close, and the editors would rather want a DVD/VHS cover instead when the character iamge is moved.

but i have to say it shouldnt come to that.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

So, you mean a photo which has a manga cover, an anime DVD/VHS, and a PGSM cover? I think such a photo would not be helpful, as all the cover pictures would be miniscule in the photo. We chose the cast image because we believed it to be the best image to represent Sailor Moon, and I still think that's the case. --Malkinann (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

there's more to it. you don't see how it appears as a franchise. Again, to much thought into one image. think more of an outside point of view. the character article will soon be made and the cast image will be in that article and having two images is not necessary. It would be best to keep the character image in the future LoSMC and the manga in the infobox. which wouldnt be much different. the only difference is that one is in the infobox and one is in the other. Bread Ninja (talk) 15:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I would rather not count my chickens before they're hatched, re. the as-yet hypothetical List of Sailor Moon characters. I believe the cast image is the best image to represent Sailor Moon as a franchise as it portrays the cast of the series which is one of the reasons why Sailor Moon became popular, and intimates the friendship theme of Sailor Moon - do you have any specific alternative suggestions for images? (with links to said images) --Malkinann (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

It's planned by the sailor moon group to make one. I can see it being made soon, simply rename the List of minor characters of Sailor moon to Sailor moon in general, then afterward simply add some reference to the characters already having separate articles.

Anyways, like i said, the article isn't really focusing on theme and what specific attribute sailor moon had that made it popular, it's more focusing on the critical success on it which the image isn't really that type a cover would be fine, the cover isn't misleading and the point is to show the primary work (even if the adaptation has more popularity)to base off the article. If the article was written in a different way or found more information based off of the theme and representation of the cover than yes, we could leave it there. I already gave the alternative suggestion of Sailor moon images. A VHS/DVD cover (i don't think this one will be very good idea but I'm just sending these ideas out for you) or a an image of the all the different versions but this was also turned down.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it is actually planned by the Sailor Moon group to make such a list - that item was put on the to do list by AnmaFinotera some time ago, and I can't recall if the Sailor Moon group has discussed it more recently than that. The article is about the franchise (and as Jinnai has pointed out, most of the reception is about the anime), so I feel it doesn't necessarily follow that the image that best represents the Sailor Moon series is that of the first volume of the manga. A recurring theme in the literature on Sailor Moon is that it is the large cast and many friendships shown that helped to make Sailor Moon great, and that literature is discussed both in Sailor Moon and Sailor Senshi. Do you have any specific VHS/DVD covers in mind that would be better than this image? What makes a DVD/VHS cover immediately superior to any other promotional art? --Malkinann (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Couple ideas for replacements: Series 1 PAL cover (probably best as its a first one), Sailor Moon - The Doom Tree Strikes DVD, Sailor Moon LE Box Set 2, etc.陣内_Jinnai 22:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you please provide some links Jinnai? I keep coming up with bootlegs on google images. I'm not keen on the Doom Tree Strikes cover because the art on that one isn't very good. --Malkinann (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Series 1 PAL
• Box Set II陣内_Jinnai 22:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheers. I think the Box Set II is a bootleg, because it marries the English Sailor Moon logo with art from the never-licensed Sailor Stars. Looking at the series 1 PAL, it looks like the same art as from the Doom Tree Strikes, but better-drawn. (Maybe it was traced to make the art for TDTS?) The current image also show Neptune and Uranus as a couple, which was one of the controversies about the series. --Malkinann (talk) 22:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well Neptune/Uranus controversy isn't really a part of necessity of understanding Sailor Moon or its popularity in general.陣内_Jinnai 22:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Given that we've been able to collect more information on the reception of Sailor Uranus than for any of the Guardian Senshi, I think it can't be discounted as a factor. --Malkinann (talk) 23:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it had serious effect. I don't think people in the US watched it more because of it and it was already a well known anime among young girls in English by the time the controversy came to light. Had there been no controversy, I doubt Sailor Moon's popularity would have been altered all that much. Sailor Uranus/Sailor Neptunes would have been though.陣内_Jinnai 21:13, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

i wouldn't say the artwork is very promotional. there are actually two versions of the Manga cover. One with japanese logo and another with the English one. surprisingly both were shown in japan. As for DVD/VHS covers. i was only stating those as a last resort. that's if everyone felt so incredibly strong over the manga cover, that they decide to use DVD and VHS covers instead. it really doesn't suit common manga anime article style, but then again everyone here considers it an exception for unknown reasons.

the way this conversation is going, it seems so called "popularity" is taken affect.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes are really meant for covers and Screenshots. maybe a poster of it would suit better.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

but then again everyone here considers it an exception for unknown reasons. - it's considered an exception because the anime's reception and impact are what is important in the west to the virtual exclusion of the manga. Much like why we have the anime version of Misty (Pokemon) instead of the game version.陣内_Jinnai 18:02, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

that's very common though. hardly an "exception".Bread Ninja (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

western region has always taken more popularity to anime more than manga. i dont think that will ever change.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

liberally interpreted, yes. However, my interpretation is narrower. The question I ask is "Has the anime influenced the way the western anime industry to an extent that surpasses the manga and has had or will have ripple effects that have lasted atleast a decade, if not longer?" Very few anime meet this criteria: Sailor Moon, Astroboy, Akira (film), Neon Genesis Evangelion, Dragonball Z, Naruto, Speed Racer. That's what, 7 anime out of the hundreds that have been translated. Some more had ripple effects like Inuyasha, but they weren't industry altering or like Spirited Away were originally an anime and Naruto because the manga is just as popular, if not moreso as can be attested by the sales data for manga in the west. There may be a couple more to that list, but considering the number of anime brought over, that is a very short list.陣内_Jinnai 06:18, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

we should just have general interpretations rather narrowing specific articles. especially when it's no different than other franchise articles. i never really used reception of a franchise to decide what image should be on the infobox, in fact i never seen it be done. still we have a cover already, the point is to put a cover on the infobox, not to derive so many ways to find other images for the infobox.we already have this cover, no need to find more unnecessary ones, though they are more likely to be placed than the artwork. We could use DVD covers or VHS or we could use the manga cover, or we could find the manga cover with the English sailor moon logo but it's really just time consuming and not necessary. we can do well what we have, like you said, it would be just as "bad" putting manga cover in the infobox if not worst. basically admitting/saying the manga cover can take as much value as the character artwork in the infobox and DVD/VHS cover would serve the same purpose as the manga only not from the beginning of the franchise, only in the middle. so really there is no difference using anime cover than manga. and no the reception isn't convincing me. again Anime always hits harder than manga, that's something that we have seen a lot. though the creditable list is small, generally we see it all the time. i honestly don't see how western impact has to do anything with english Wikipedia in general. unless we go by systemic biasBread Ninja (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you are underestimating the impact of SM on the English industry. It essentially made shojo a viable market for the industry and revolutionized the way people thought about manga. Before it was always harem or other perverted series, or action series mostly geared towards male audiances. With the advent of SM that changed. Every magical girl series translated into English owes at least some of its popularity to this one series; in addition the whole of shojo genre that is translated does as well. Even in Japan the series had similar ramifications. Very few anime - very few works - have this kind of Tolkien effect.陣内_Jinnai 20:29, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

you weren't comparing it by language, you were comparing it by region. Regions shouldn't affect the article in your terms. you said the anime is more notable in the western region, therefore allowing the anime artwork to be in the infobox. Still, the evidence is really far fetch just to move a simple image.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. By western i meant "English speaking western word", though I believe the same could be said for much of the rest of the world outside Japan. The evidence of its impact is well documented by multiple independent RSes and its grip the anime has had on the magical girl genre still holds tightly as well as the ability to sell expand anime to girls outside Japan is also well documented as the anime that made this happen.陣内_Jinnai 23:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

regions dont really matter. you take on a whole new vierw towards representation. basically outside the box. it's far too strange to consider reception as a valid point to represent a mere franchise. i mean yes it's far more popular, but populairty isnt why i asked the image should be moved.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:51, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. Regions do matter when it is a majority, especially when its near majority of English-speaking world, which is the case here. Only Japan, the original country, is it not. But this is not the Japanese wikipedia, it is English one one and this is based on both reception and analysis (just because the section is labeled reception doesn't mean its basically pure reception).陣内_Jinnai 20:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

do you have alink to this specifically to anime and manga? wouldnt what you say lead to systemic bias?Bread Ninja (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by a link.陣内_Jinnai 19:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Is ther a certain WP that enforces this? And you seem to avoid the acusation of systemic bias.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, no not yet as the issue has just recently really come to a head. The most recent discussion of how concensus worked in such a manner would be {{Infobox Animanga}} where it has pretty much been decided to remove non-Japanese/non-English info from the infoboxes because this is an English Wikipedia.

As to your point on systemtic bias, i was not avoiding it. I wanted you to clarrify what you meant first. In that discussion, systemic bias came up and was considered that it wouldn't harm info as long as it was mentioned in the prose and furthermore if a long list say, 5 languages was listed, perhaps only a few would need to be listed with maybe a few examples beyond English.

As this is so recent, discussion on the infobox isn't even finished, there has been no chance for a larger discussion, but having been in the project for some time its my belief that it would be the same since recpetion is almost exclusively in English, not only do to the ease of reading it, but do to the lack of reliable sources not in English.

Also i have seperated the reception in the article from the legacy aspect and its clear it is English or Japanese dominated. Which indiciates SM's most notable impact is either of those should be mentioned and since the more overwhelming change was in English due to not only popularizing the magaical girl genre, but introducing shojo manga to the west as a viable anime, studies were done the effects of the anime on children, the anime, etc.陣内_Jinnai 21:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Reception is quite easy to find and i don't see how difficult it is to find any on the japanese region.

You seem to add all these explanations but they don't affect the article much. Reception is good as a section but reception to affect the image on the infobox has hardly ever been done. i don't think it ever has. too many exceptions that many other franchise articles have ignored, so why not this one? ok maybe ignore isn't the right word, but you know what I'm saying. Honestly, these exceptions i read have never been used in any other article. Japanese manga cover is fine in the infobox because it covers the franchise article as a "franchise". the character image can cover articles as well but it would incline more to the anime and characters articles, it's not very appropriate to cover every single aspect of sailor moon series's. You all don't see the article as a whole. you all incline to the anime. we already have a cover image. it should be fine to place it in the infobox. in fact, it should be better than fine, it's been done many times. Since the article has no separate articles about sailor moon, we can't simply put a logo, so it should be a manga cover (the original, and the one that started the franchise) on the article. it does not give poor representation to the article, in fact it doesn't do any damage to it. malkinann and farix said because it wouldn't represent the "theme" and "friendship", honestly i don't even think the image was meant to represent the those aspects, it was represent the franchise. and yes I'm aware that these themes are vital to a series, but the direction of the article isn't saying it's vital. As for English, i never once seen reception affect the image of the infobox. if that were to happen then would we place a German cover of a certain mange simply because the manga was incredibly huge success in Germany? i would say original is best. the original, the source, the one that began it all. and if your worried about English affecting the article that much, all you have to do is explain what the image just like with the character image. simply say "Japanese Manga Cover of Sailor Moon". your explanations and reasoning all lies within popularity and all, but it shouldn't affect the "cover". like my example before. if hypothetically a manga was incredibly famous in a different country and had enough reception for it in english, would we simply place a manga cover in that particular language? so why would we do that for sailor moon? As for representing theme and friendship, hypothetically if a franchise mostly had nudity and blood and violence, would we add the most goriest image or artwork including nudity onto the infobox?

these "exceptions" shouldnt even exist because it doesnt make sense to use these exceptions towards sailor moon but allow other articles to ignore.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we are at a stalemate and further disussion won't produce anything more than that we agree that the image on the front page might not be the best at representing the franchise just as the first volume might not be.

As for reception, i'd say the reason its never been done is because no one has even seen a need to do so. Just because it hasn't come up before is not precident; even if it was, consensus can change.

As for the German example, no we wouldn't. This is still an English Wikipedia so the original source or an English version would still be used. However even there there might be an exception if 1 image was so iconic and it was German, that almost every RS mentioned it. That would be case that would at the very least need to be discussed. However, I know of no such case in the anime/manga because the popularity is almost always spawned in Japan or English market.

For your comparison to a nudity and blood, we might if it was essential to understanding the nature of the franchise. Wikipedia isn't censored. However, if we could get the same idea without we'd generally go with something a bit milder. However, milder isn't the same as not showing it. If nudity and gore was a central theme, some way to represent would be done.陣内_Jinnai 20:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

sigh...this is the worst...honestly, your thinking outside the box, and i think you know it. basically excusing yourself by saying i'd say the reason its never been done is because no one has even seen a need to do so. Just because it hasn't come up before is not precident; even if it was, consensus can change.

NO one has used Reception for an image because it's unreasonable nad hardly ever makes sense. and my example was perfect. saying this is English Wiki is hardly saying anything at all. Mobile Suit Gundam 00 has the same conversation. If we were to put an English cover simply because this is the English wiki than that would still lead to systemic bias. Your point of view is towards popularity and all, but that's simply not the case and isn't wiki standards. Most of Reception will be in English of course, so that would mean most of the manga covers in Japanese would have to be switched in English (which will not happen). it makes no sense to Base the image off of reception and implications.

and no, if nudity and Gore was the theme, it would not be necessary to place it in the infobox as an image. in fact, it would be unreasonable. Any implied theme would never be reasonable even if it as obvious as it gets because theme isn't something it can be merely shown in an image. Nudity and Gore would not need to be "represented", it's enough to merely mention it in the Genre section and further explained. the example was to show that most articles don't represent the "theme" of it with infobox image.

and again, the original cover always serves best in the infobox. original manga cover has no implications, it represents the starting point of the franchise by showing the very first promotional piece of the franchise. the point is to keep the franchise article "neutral" which i don't believe the character image does. The cover should be place because it's what we have and for the reasons i have constantly been saying. it's the original, it shows the starting point of the series etc. which really isn't "unreasonable" thinking. stalemate? you think outside the box while I'm trying to stick to the neutral side. the image can represent "franchise in general" but the image does not represent "Franchise Article" within wiki.

honestly, there is no real exception to sailor moon. Sailor moon is like any other franchise article so no real exception is out there. I'm starting to see a cover up of the real reason why no one wants the cover in the infobox instead of cast. because all these other reasons are viable and exceptions aren't working simply because the article is no different than the other article.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

We chose the current image carefully by consensus, prior to when many of the style guidelines you keep referencing were created. So of course we couldn't make reference to them while making the decision. While consensus can change, I don't believe it has. --Malkinann (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not coming into argue. There is no guideline the forces original (in this case Japanese) one down the throats of those doing the articles. Nor does WAF really deal with serialized works, episodically long running WAF is a also guideline, which means its used a means to "guide" not "enforce" structure and legacy (not reception) and the length of the series and its evolution are good reason to say the "guidance" isn't very good. This is why WP:ANIME does not have a clear policy on what to do with anime and manga titles other than use English or Japanese and, per policy, don't replace whatever image is placed first without a justifiable reason. That argument has been tried several time and more than just myself has shown that to have systemic bias to use the first Japanese volume and faulty logic that WAF puts out about it being the best representation of the franchise.

As for censorship, read WP:CENSOR again. If it were a book that had someone decapitating a head we'd not remove it if that was the only version available; same thing for showing nudity, full or partial. We'd only remove it is there is a viable alternative and/or its just for shock value. Infobox images serve specific purposes.陣内_Jinnai 23:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not about censorship. the example was to show that if a certain theme revolved around a franchise that even if the cover image doesn't imply it then there wont be a real reason to why to add such a horrid picture simply to represent the theme. the image is not to represent those areas. it's suppose to represent the article. the article does not focus on the characters of the franchise and does not have heavy explanation of the theme. the cover is a more promotional piece of the franchise, especially showing how it all started. though the first volume isn't enforced, it has been widely accepted by wiki. Also i have given considerable amount of reasons to why it should be placed but no one seems to contradict those ideas. they just don't agree but there's no "why" to it.

the problem with character image= all of you have said it to represent the theme of the series and the friendship and that the anime artwork is more popular therefore anime should be infobox. that would work if the article was about the anime only and in a different article outside of Wiki, but this isn't anime article, this is franchise article. too many implications on the image than all of you realize. making an image would be focusing on the fiction of the franchise (which the article is not) which would mean it's not completely at a real-world view. that's why i say it's "IN-universe" before. but now it's turned to bias point of view. The image isn't giving the article a neutral point of view.

regarding Systemic Bias. the original cover (whatever language it may be, Japanese, Korean or Chinese) is always best to represent the article. If we were to put a Cover that focuses on a specific region than that would be "systemic Bias". the first volume covers represent the starting point of a series of anime, manga whatever. the cover will allow to keep the article in a neutral POV.

that's plenty of reason to why the manga cover should be placed. no damage will be done to the article so i dont know why this is incredibly difficult for some of you to accept.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, I feel the current image represents the series better than the manga cover image. As you haven't provided any specific 'other covers', I can't really speak on why those nebulous 'other covers' aren't suitable. We chose the current image carefully by consensus - it contains Sailor Moon, Sailor Mercury, Sailor Mars, Sailor Jupiter, Sailor Venus, Sailor Chibi Moon, Sailor Uranus, Sailor Neptune, Sailor Saturn, Sailor Pluto, and Tuxedo Mask, in the more recognised style for the franchise - that of the anime. As has been mentioned previously, using the original first cover is not always best, because WP:BOOK was not designed for serial works, which are in development throughout their run. I believe it would damage the article if a suboptimal image was used (like the first manga cover you suggest). There probably isn't a 'perfect picture' that perfectly represents the Sailor Moon franchise to all people, but I believe what we've got is better than the first cover, which only depicts Sailor Moon herself. --Malkinann (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

As for the first appearance argument, i do not believe that and am contesting it on the basis of how WP:FAIR USE is worded, which itself is what the infobox image uses as part of its basis.陣内_Jinnai 02:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Break 1

you are going to have to state something new. I already said that Characters don't really represent franchise in this particular franchise article. especially since the article is not focusing on the characters or theme. you only said that it represents better because of more characters are on it. But you have yet to even try to disprove my method of reasoning. what makes your idea better than mine? i mean, it feels like i state this for nothing because no one even tries to see it from my point of view. Again, the franchise doesnt focus on what you all state. and merely going by WP:ILIKEIT seems odd. feeling needs to have the majority of reasoning (which you wasn't very affective since your reasoning would lead to systemic bias) . WP:Book may not cover on-going series (even though some happen to use it in an argument).

i think i feel like I'm the only one here trying to be neutral. but it's so hard when the majority thinks your wrong. you are all going by the fact that the image is better in the infobox merely because you all think it "Looks better" and has more "characters". i admit i like the characters image, but not on the infobox. like i said....but forget it, i tried explaining on it, but no one even tries to touch the topics i bring out. i have to talk about all of yours. so why don't you try going into my list of reasoning i have mentioned.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:49, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Also the link to the conversation that you have shown is mere speculation. you arent 100% sure at the time, but now it seems you are still. that conversation only proves my point even mroe even if it was discontinued.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

We like the current image for reasons which we have already explained to you. It was not just sentiment involved in our choice. The current image shows all of the primary characters, so it is better than an image which only shows one. I think the guideline's reasoning is too arbitrary to be useful as a decision-making tool. Jinnai just started the discussion - it will take a while for it to attract participants. --Malkinann (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

sigh....Again more characters does not equal better image. especially in the direction the article is going. but it seems everyone ignores me on that very subject and try not to counter it with another idea. instead you all use the same discussion over and over. there's not really a proper reason anymore. again, the image doesnt give the article a neutral POV.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

More characters means it's a more representative image of what Sailor Moon is about than the first book cover. The guideline seems arbitrary to me and irrelevant here. I don't understand what you're getting at when you say the image chosen isn't NPOV. NPOV says "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." - thus far, there has been comparatively little reception of the manga available to use in the article, so the picture used should be of the anime. The reception used says that Sailor Moon's strength is that there is a host of colourful characters, so a picture of them is better than a picture of the first cover of the manga. --Malkinann (talk) 21:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

ughh....i feel like every one just skimms through my comments. Anyways, you really just arent contradicting right now. again characters represents characters. the manga cover represents "franchise" in the sense that the cover is the starting point, not in the sense of WP:book or anything else (which can still fal into play). Again, it's not good to lean to a certain point of view, especially on a franchise because it has multiple series.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The shot of the characters represent what the franchise is known for - its portrayal of a colourful unique cast of friends. The manga is the lesser-known part of the franchise, and so may not be as suitable to be the lead image as a picture from the anime. WP:BOOK does not 'fall into play' here, as it is irrelevant, and was not designed for serial works. --Malkinann (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

sigh...this is why was talkinga bout systemic bias. but whatever i give up. everytime i go these certain articles wher there are large numbers of exeptions.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

That's why i was trying to find a compromise, one that would use the 5 main senshi. It still imo addresses Malkanann's concern that the first manga volume doesn't really address the themes of the series: friendship to help triumph over adversity; large group of reoccuring characters, almost all of whom are notable and peer reviewed; the impact the anime had on the industry which was more profound that the manga had on its industry (though both are still profound). Other stuff she didn't mention also comes into play such as changing art style; WP:FAIR USE for using as few copyrighted images as possible for maximum intent; that there has been given no clear indication that the original manga volume is any better than the current one and thus no good reason for changing it. This you have admitted.陣内_Jinnai 23:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, the most reoccurring character of all character is the one in the cover. again, friendship and all that does not need to represented in an image in any way. Again, the article is focusing on the critical success but at the same time we don't lean towards the popularity to the public even if that is reception. the image represents the article in general because yada yada yada.... it wouldn't be fair for the anime to cover the infobox merely because it's more popular. this is franchise, not anime, we need something that covers all series, not just the anime. the cover serves best because yada yada yada. and i say systemic bias because the reception is only to a certain region, it doesn't cover all the other regions, in fact this article should have the reception when it was originally running (japan), so we cant completely base our ideas to the reception. Yu-Gi-Oh! is a pretty good example.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

We are going in circles and I doubt we can find such a "neutral" image, except maybe from a low-quality scan of an artbook image. It may be time to seek an RfC since 3rd opinion was already tried.陣内_Jinnai 06:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

the circle is that i find reasons why it wont work, but you don't find any reasons to why my proposition. seriously though, you all say the same thing and i say the same thing, but all of you never even try to touch my topic, you all say it's better, it's better because of all this other stuff that barely affects the article. Again my view seems to be more nuetral, and the other leans a little closer to systemic biasBread Ninja (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

If you look at the talk page for Yugioh, there is a consensus there to use that image. There is not such a consensus here, nor is there likely to be. --Malkinann (talk) 20:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Your point is that if the first volume of the manga ins't used, something neutral should be found to represent the entire franchise. My suggestion was some official artwork from one of the SM artbooks out there that would depict such an image.陣内_Jinnai 03:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

again, the artwork wouldn't be much different from the anime one, but i suppose since it is from the manga (first promotional work) it could serve for the entire franchise. Right not i'm thinking about it so it might take some time to answer back>Bread Ninja (talk) 15:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Jinnai, I don't believe that an image from one of the Sailor Moon artbooks would be as appropriate to be the lead image as an image from the anime, as the anime is the better-known part of the franchise. I don't feel that any of the images that have been suggested are as good as the image that is already in the article. --Malkinann (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Malkinann, again that's leaning towards bias. though it's not bias exactly, it would lead there. this is franchise article. the point is not to represent the franchises more popular series within the franchise. the point is to find an image that could cover all of the series within the franchise, not just the anime.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand your theory of how using an image from the anime represents just the anime, whereas using an image from the manga automatically includes all of the franchise. It doesn't make sense to me. --Malkinann (talk) 17:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I've constantly explained. please dont tell me you skimmed through my comments. oh well i'll explain it again.

Anime=adaptation, in other words, not the original series. it's very difficult o make the anime the main focus yet cover all other.

Manga=Original, the starting point of all of the franchise series. it's basically what started the whole thing. if it wasn't for manga, the rest of the other series wouldn't exist. if the anime was the original, than that would it would be the other way around. and using cover would be appropriate because it's not difficult to represent and symbolize anything. the cover would represent "series" in general within franchise article.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume that I'm not reading your comments. I don't agree with you that the image needs changing at all. Your explanation doesn't make sense to me that by using a picture from the anime, the viewer automatically assumes that it only represents the anime. I am aware that the manga came first, but the anime adaptation of Sailor Moon is the more famous. The lead picture is meant to assure the reader they've arrived in the right place - by using an image from the more famous anime adaptations, we can better do that. Using the first cover of the manga, when we have a better picture that shows all the main characters, is unacceptably arbitrary to me. --Malkinann (talk) 17:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Bread Ninja, that very notion is systemic bias that somehow being the original automatically, without reservation, makes it somehow non-controversial to use to represent everything. There is no way that can really be justified as an adaptation is not the original and may (though SM isn't like that) be so vastly different that it bears only marginal relation to the original. You can't say its good for one aspect, the original work, and not for another, an adaptation, without promoting systemic bias.陣内_Jinnai 18:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Malkinann you assume simply because one is more famous than the other, than that would mean the original shouldn't be added. you do realize that logic is contradicting the majority of all other franchise articles. the lead picture IS suppose to assure people that they are in the right place. but like i said before, The manga is still pretty popular and if it were to be changed there wouldn't be any damage to the article. Also characters over covers really isn't arbitrary. i already explained myself, i gave WP, and of course many other franchise articles have done it for various reasons.

Jinnai i already explained why it should be in the infobox. please don't make me repeat all that.

EX. let's suppose there is a popular novel, a popular manga, and a popular anime, including popular live action film. Still, i the anime is technically more popular than the manga, but in order to make it official within wiki we would need a few more sources saying and if self published have 3rd or 2nd sources to back it up.

it's difficult to put into words what i'm saying so if you find any hidden meaning to what i'm saying please try to understand itBread Ninja (talk) 15:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

what I'm basically saying is that cover is more useful in a franchise article because it's not from a viewpoint that doesn't lean towards anything. and the original covers all because every single adaptation was based off of it. the covers serves to a more neutral view of the franchise instead of going by popularity and more ch aracters.

more characters =/= ultimate reason to why it should stay. and like i said before (probably the 6th time) that the image can be moved when the characters article is made. there really is no need to represent what you said fro both the franchise and characters. A cover tells people what the series actually looks like from real world view, dont you think an image of what's inside is a bit more in universe? images for in-universe subjects that are allowed to be added in, can have these images, but since the article is more of real world view, than i think a cover serves best. this isnt my ultimate reason, but i'm just saying it's considerable.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Because the anime is more famous than the manga, as shown through the reception section, it's better to have a picture from the more famous part of the franchise, to assure readers they found the right article. I don't care about the other franchise articles, you are trying to push for a change of image here for no better reason than 'the other franchise articles do it this way' - which is unacceptably arbitrary to me. It would damage the article to have the first manga cover as it is a worse representation of the series than the current image. --Malkinann (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

this is just further proof that people just skimm through my comments without reading.....sigh...malkinann, base your opinion on what i said, not what you believe i said. Bread Ninja (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Malkinann, i use other articles as examples. Anime more famous than manga, is nothing new, that always happens. why should SAIlor moon article be the exception and actually go by your system? i gave you plenty of reasons. it's up to you guys to talk about them, because I'm done contradicting your reasons.Bread Ninja (talk)

ALso more characters does not equal better than cover. Cover doenst imply any meaning, unlike the characters.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

i would like you to contradict the idea of how manga cover wouldnt work. and please use something newBread Ninja (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

BN, the problem is more than that. Yes, the anime is more famous and if that was all it was, i'd give it to you. However, there's more. The anime is also peer reviewed - ie it has been shown to be worthy of study and analysis as a historically important piece - something the manga has not (although it could in the future). Furthermore, the anime, not the manga has been noted for creating cultural phenomia around it similar to Star Trek. Finally it has been noted the manga's artstyle evolved significantly enough to warrant noting as the manga continued (there is some kind of expectation of some artistic change for long-running manga so noting such means it goes above and beyond that) which means any image, especially the first volume, cannot even represent the bredth of the manga series itself, let alone the franchise.

Seeing what otther feature/good quality articles have done is standard practice to show general consensus for why an exception should be made. I realize that ultimately they can only be used as examples because every article is unique, but they are none-the-less relevant.陣内_Jinnai 19:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

If you change what you said while I'm replying, how can I give you a proper response? That's an unfair assumption on your part, and I'm really disappointed. :( Using the first cover just because it's the first cover is unacceptably arbitrary to me, when we chose the image carefully to show the most famous of the adaptations, and to show the themes of the series. It isn't "biased" to do so, it's judgement. Currently there are no plans for a mainspace list of sailor moon characters article, so that shouldn't be counted in this discussion. Using a piece of promotional art from the series is no more in-universe than using a cover. --Malkinann (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Sigh...i gave up along time ago, but since you all insist...please note that the anime couldnt have possibly been a cultuiral phenomia without the manga. and the last part completely lost me jinnai. your last sentence was more of your view.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a view, aye, but it's shared by a number of wikipedians on how/why consensus should change. As for anime, yes it wouldn't have become said phenomia, which is why it needs to be noted and since the manga had its own impact as well, it needs to be noted in detail, which it is.陣内_Jinnai 19:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

One uses arbitrary to counter, me, i use arbitrary (apparently) and is not taken seriously....sigh...i don't know why i argue about this.

All i'm saying is

more characters does not mean superior to another image

and popularity is not something that should affect the infobox image unless the original has not received enough notable reception and critical success. but since both are pretty popular in general, then the popularity system wouldn't really affect the article. hypothetically, if there was another article called "sailor Moon" that's not part of the sailor moon series we would have to extend the sailor moon title to "sailor moon (manga)" because of obvious reasons. so an anime artwork pic still would be odd. but of course hypothetically.

a cover image would serve more as "promotional work" and yada yada....Bread Ninja (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The current image was not chosen arbitrarily. Having the first manga cover just because it's the first manga cover is too arbitrary for my liking. Having more of the main characters is better than having fewer characters, because it makes the image more representative of the franchise. We chose the image by consensus, factoring in the popularity because the picture is intended to show readers that they've arrived in the right place - so having something from the more popular of the series makes it more likely to be known to a wider group of people than a picture from the manga. Both are popular, but the anime is what's known to non-anime/manga fans. If something else was known as "Sailor Moon", it would not be as widely known as the Sailor Moon series is, it would be that article that would require a more specific title, not this one, as most people would be looking for the Sailor Moon series. The current image was made to promote Sailor Moon, why would a cover image "serve more as promotional work"? --Malkinann (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Malkinann, how many times do i have to tell you it's not just because it's first manga cover, it's because the manga serves as a real promotional piece, it shows what the series actually looks like in a real-world view. Also popularity should never serve as the way you are saying. Wiki is suppose to lean towards popularity? i don't think so. if we did that almost every anime and manga article should remove the manga. We don't go by fans original intention to look up "sailor moon" in wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The current image is as real a promotional image as the manga cover. Using the cover of the manga does not make it any more "real-world" a representation than the current image. We chose the current image by consensus, factoring in the popularity of the anime because of WP:NFCC #8. Having a picture of the most famous part of Sailor Moon as the lead picture (including all the main characters) significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, (moreso than the first manga cover) and I believe its omission (or changing to a manga picture) would be detrimental to that understanding. --Malkinann (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

sigh...you constantly say the same thing, your completely basing all of this with MORE CHARACTERS = BETTER. it most defintely does not. sure it can represent more, but for the franchise article in general i dont think it would.

NFCC isnt asking for the most famous (signigficant) to represent the image, only that it's significant in general.

still like i said hundred of times before, once the character article is made, the image can be moved there, and all that the representation that was implied can go into the characters. there is no point having so much representation in two articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:49, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sailor Moon popularised the team format with magical girls. What better way to show that than to have a picture of the team? I believe a picture of the anime is a better choice than a picture of the manga because it would be more recognisable to readers of the article. There are currently no plans to create such a character list article, so I think that changing images here based largely on the future creation of such an article is not a good idea. --Malkinann (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be bias though. to lean for a certain group that recognizes the anime, for those who have never heard of it wont be able to see recognize anime more than manga. That's the point. and my other point was to say that the anime character pics can stay temporarily, eventually it would have to be moved to a certain section or eventually just be moved out of infobox in general.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:48, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Most of the reception talks about the anime and it is more famous than the manga. Your premise that the original is always better is flawed - as the anime is the most famous of the Sailor Moon franchise, more people will recognise it than the manga. This is not bias - this is choosing the image wisely so that we can represent Sailor Moon better to people who search for it. For someone who's never before encountered Sailor Moon, the prose would be more important to them than the picture. I also don't agree with your assertion that the character picture can stay "temporarily" - I believe it's the best picture we've got to represent Sailor Moon, and so should not be deleted or moved anywhere. --Malkinann (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

your leaning for a certain group of readers. readers that already recognize the series. your terminology is way different from mine. POpularity is not where i'm going. popularity and reception just seems a bunch of biasismBread Ninja (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that someone who hasn't actually read or watched any Sailor Moon themselves would still recognise the anime moreso than the manga, as it has aired on free-to-air TV, whereas the manga has been serialised in paid-for magazines. There's more chance that someone who isn't a fan would have come across the anime than the manga. It's not biased to choose the best image for the series based on reception - it recognises that it's important to give the reader something that they can recognise - a picture from the anime. --Malkinann (talk) 22:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

MAlkinann you think about that statement carefully....either way, i already made my suggestoin, i just dont agree with your logic. i gave up along time ago.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with your logic, and more to the point, there was a consensus made early last month that the image was ok. I wish you'd heeded it and given up then. --Malkinann (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Most contributors outside of SM actually see it the same way. either way, you assume everyone has a TV or someone else. both images are as informative, so why not use the manga (original)? you put in too much assumption in your last comment. it would benefit more if it was moved to the future character section when it's made. but of course you want it there permanent.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

How can you say "Most contributors outside of SM actually see it the same way" when we've had a discussion, and plenty of people outside of WP:SM have commented? You can't say that for sure. There is a consensus here that the image is fine, and some people have agreed with me that the manga image is less informative than the anime image, so I don't know how you can believe that. Even if not everyone has a TV, even if Sailor Moon's not shown any more, casual use of the Sailor Moon iconography tends to evoke the anime style rather than the manga style. Please accept the consensus. --Malkinann (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

We can always ask for an RfC on this.陣内_Jinnai 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that really needed? A consensus was formed at the beginning of October, and I'm tired. --Malkinann (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, Bread Ninja is simply arguing for the sake of arguing, or perhaps arguing for the sake of refusing to admit defeat. The discussion was over long ago and a consensus was reached. Yet, Bread Ninja continue to argue the point even though the consensus wasn't in his favor. The recently rewrite WP:SNOWBALL pretty much explains how this can be disruptive and counter-productive. Though I should not that the original snowball class was an anti-WP:BUREAUCRACY guideline over the pointless application of process over results. A change I don't particularly agree with. —Farix (t | c) 00:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The only manga cover I could seeing being used that conveys the preveiously adressed points is this this one here However, I agree that the manga is not as well known and honestly isn't a good choice for a franchise such as this. Also, finding a good image of any of the original run of the manga is hard at this point. Reprints aren't useable as they have different covers and each one only highlights one character and that doesn't convey as many of the themes. Thirdly, I was the one that found that image if I recall....--Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 09:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The term Moonie

A search for "Sailor Moon" Moonie returns over a thousand results. Apparently the term Moonie is used by Sailor Moon fans to refer to themselves and their devotion to the series and characters. Is there any way this term can be mentioned in the article? --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you find any critical commentary or reliable third-party sources discussing this? I think probably just one or two sources is all that's necessary to merit a mention here, but not much more - have to keep in mind WP:UNDUE and all that. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I need help finding such sources. I'm good at the 'big picture' but bad at research. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really the one to ask; I'm not much good at finding sources either, and Sailor Moon is somewhat outside my range of knowledge. Masamage? AnmaFinotera? Malkinann? Anyone? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 21:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

From what I've seen, the Sailor Moon fandom is described either as plainly 'fans of Sailor Moon', or the term 'Moonie' is used with no explanation, as in this article (1999). It's still possible that an article defining the Sailor Moon Moonie could be found, though. I've left a couple of reference requests in the magazines segment of the reference library, so hopefully when they come through, there might be something there we can use. --Malkinann (talk) 23:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Moonie has bad connotations as in the religious fanatics that followed the Korean religious leader in Korea, which probably contributed to its fall in use. I don't think its notable and falls outside of the scope of these articles, since it has nothing to do with reception of the series.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a bit of looking around notes that RSes like the Toronto Star has used the term.陣内_Jinnai 18:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Used, but not explained. :( Thanks for the article, though!  :) --Malkinann (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Might be a good candidate for Moonie (disambiguation) though.陣内_Jinnai 01:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn it was on there. :P Maybe it got removed. --Malkinann (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox rendering

Is the infobox correctly rendered for everyone else? On my browser it isn't --KrebMarkt 14:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been fixed. —Farix (t | c) 14:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --KrebMarkt 16:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Speculative information

I keep seeing the following text added into this article:

"If the show does aquire a new English licence, hopefully this will be the 1st time that Sailor Stars will be dubbed in English as well as other un-dubbed material like the episodes DiC refused to dub during the 1st season."

This is nothing more than a rumour. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a crystal ball.

--  Denelson83  01:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but it has several other violations.陣内_Jinnai 05:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

SOS Controversy

There's a LOT of controversy surrounding this group & I'd asked about including them before on the NA article about Sailor Moon. I've put up a lot of information on the Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations) page, so go there for the list of reasons why the SOS info will have to be taken with a grain of salt & dealt with VERY carefully. They're infamous for their misinformation.

I deleted the info from the main page because labeling all early Sailor Moon fans as members of SOS is incorrect. Not all fans were members of SOS & they were also not the only petition group out there. They were one of the most noticeable, but not for anything good I assure you. Even during the height of their infamy they were never really taken seriously. Please see the other talk page for the info on there. I do think that SOS should be mentioned, but it needs to be very carefully done. You cannot give them credit for getting more episodes because there's no proof of that other than their claims & their claims to having first insider info & such has been debunked on more than one occasion. If anything, the SOS sort of served as a what not to do for such endeavors. Trust me- I was a big fan of SOS in the day & I saw a lot of their misinformation & tricks firsthand. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)tokyogirl79

DS

On the Sailor Moon Game page it says " On July 15, 2010, Bandai Namco Games Europe announced development of a new Sailor Moon video game for Nintendo DS, which should be released by the end of 2010" should this be mentioned on the main page. Also is there any info about the game? I cant find a page for it or any info.

Come on anyone know anything!?

Italian-only. http://www.joystiq.com/2011/01/07/sailor-moon-returns-in-italian-exclusive-ds-game/ --DQ13|Talk Contribs 01:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen screenshots. It's not that great Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

We're not here to measure its quality.陣内_Jinnai 21:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

revival

the re-licensing for germany has been confirmed. it´s by m4e which plans to publish new dvds and wants to air the anime in both pay- and free-tv. source (germam): www.pummeldex.de —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.244.172.252 (talk) 22:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Coverage

• ANN: Jason Thompson (manga)

--KrebMarkt (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Feature progress

So, how are we doing on efforts to get this article featured? --  Denelson83  18:02, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

The quality has to increase and then show stability before you can use it as a featured article. We're still short in a few areas.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Revolutionary Girl Utena

There's some stuff in the first remastered box set I can add to here (along with plenty for Utena article obviously) about SM's influences on the medium. I'm wondering if we should restructure the legacy to better differentiate the manga and anime or not.陣内_Jinnai 16:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not fond of the legacy section - I feel it splits out the reception of SM too much, especially given that we're writing a decade at least in retrospect, with more modernish sources. And then there's the bugbear that one of WP:WIAFA's unwritten rules, as far as I can recall, says 'ALL parts of the MOS must be followed' - therefore, MOS:ANIME. I tend not to care so much about structure, but I would like to see more sources in the article. Please feel free to be bold and add the sources in whatever way makes most sense to you and hopefully also readers of the article. --Malkinann (talk) 03:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Legacy does not always mean reception. That's something people don't realize. Sometimes it is, but legacy can include stuff like spinoffs or influences in other works. But, yes, I need to get back and do this when I have a bit more time.陣内_Jinnai 16:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sailor Moon Manga US revival

Sailor Moon is getting retranslated for the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

There also on sale on pre order on amazon.