Talk:Codename: Sailor V

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
Wikipe-tan head.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-class on the assessment scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sailor Moon task force.

Pipe hyphen[edit]

Where are those characters at the top of the article coming from? I can't find them. --Masamage 04:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No idea. Maybe from one of the infoboxes? I'll go check. --Hanaichi 12:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it. It was the top infobox.--Hanaichi 12:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
I still can't really see where you removed it from, but I'm glad you did. :) Thanks! --Masamage 18:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Whee Scanlations Yay![edit]

I just got my hands on Scanlations of the Sailor V manga. I'll add a ton of info as soon as can get home and finish the last chapter.Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yatte! We don't need a ton of info, but some would be nice. X) --Masamage 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Well anyways, you can get the Scans for free from Sailormoonfansubs.com. You have to make an account on the fourm but thats not a big deal as it is a Sailor moon forum :P Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk)

Legal Issues?[edit]

I just saw the the Japanese Wikipedia page for Sailor V that it was changed to Codename Sailor V because the first name was already a registered trademark of the Sailor Pens company. Or something like that...

最初はこちらの作品をアニメ化する予定であったが、「セーラーV」が セーラー万年筆によって商標登録されていたため使用できず、企画が変更され生まれたものが「美少女戦士セーラームーン」である。そして 1995年には、原作に忠実な形で「コードネームはセーラーV」の OVA化(全4巻予定)が一時発表されたが、諸般の事情により制作中止となった。後に実写版の VシネマでセーラーVが主役の作品が発売された。 Although the work herewas [ animation-] due to beized at first, "Sailor V" is. Sailor Pen It is "beauty-in-the-bud fighter Sailor Moon which it could not be used since it was registered as a trademark, but the plan was changed, and was produced." and -- 1995 には -- a form faithful to an original -- "a code name being Sailor V" OVA -- although-izing (all the four-volume schedules) was announced temporarily, it became a work stop according to the various situation. It is the on-the-spot photo version behind. V cinema The leading role's work was put on the market for Sailor V.

Not the best translation but you get the idea. I don't know if there was any sources for it though... 75.45.75.183 (talk) 22:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

...Wait, are you saying that Sailor V was originally going to be called Sailor Pen?
Oh, I guess you're not. Putting that same chunk of Japanese through Google Translate gets me this:
This is the first animated film was to be, "Sailor V" is a registered trademark of Sailor Pen Co., which was not available for the project has been changed to be born "Sailor Moon". In 1995, and, faithful to the original form of "Sailor is code-named V" of the OVA (4 total volume) was temporarily released, but stopped production due to various reasons. After a live-action version of Sailor V V cinema will be released in the leading role.
Okay, so that's saying that the name Sailor V was unavailable in the first place. Interesting. And confusing. X) I think we'd probably need some sources in order to use it, but interesting nonetheless! --Masamage 23:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah translating is always confusing when its not done by a professional. Sorry, but yes it appears "Sailor V" was already a registered trademark (they probably had a pen by that name I don't know...). Anyways, the company exists and it is stated very plainly on the Japanese Wikipedia but I couldn't tell if there were any sources attached, maybe someone who can understand it better can check?75.45.75.183 (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Article Image[edit]

I just noticed we have covers of Both Volume one and 2 uploaded to the server (Volume one is on the page covering the Sailor V chapters) Do we really need both or can we choose one to put in both places? Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Volume 1 is enough for both, and the second cover doesn't add anything to the article. It may be the monitor on my laptop, but the cover of volume 1 does seem too light. When I get back from Tsubasacon, I'll rescan the cover for a better quality image. —Farix (t | c) 11:54, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Anime vs manga.[edit]

In the anime it is made clear that Sailor V was fighting in England not Japan. Also while Sailor Venus previous identity as Sailor V is mentioned little to nothing it stated about who she was fighting in the anime and no clear ties to any of the other forces is made.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Because this article is not about the Sailor Moon anime. In teh sailor V manga she never went to England and Katrina and Allen do not exist. Thus none of that is mentioned here.--Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 06:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Actually if there is enough info it could have a mention of it in some sort of legacy section.Lucia Black (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Bit relating to inclusion of Sailor V[edit]

Seems there's an unnecessary bit saying what is already said but not directly. Its done in a very trivial form. There's no need to clarify what is already clear. That section seems to sugggest something closer to sailor moon and may be bias.Lucia Black (talk) 01:58, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Anyone?Lucia Black (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what do you mean? --Malkinann (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The additional mention of it being released for the first time due to tokyopop never releasing it in english.Lucia Black (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, right! That's been highlighted in some of the reviews of Sailor V, so it warrants a mention. --Malkinann (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems bias the way its shown. I dont really see the necesity. Just an extra mention. If it was somehow reworked to have a less 1st person tone, then maybe.Lucia Black (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to be bold and reword the mention to improve any issues with neutrality - I've provided a couple of citations which talk about how it is the first time it's been published in English. --Malkinann (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Im still wondering if the necesity. I cant be bold and rework the sentence if i myelf cant see the necesity of that just because that trivial and obvious aspect is sourced. Which ANN review was rather indirect compared to manga worth reading review.Lucia Black (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
The reviews I cited there talk about how the publication of Sailor V in English is long-awaited, and highlight its importance, as did the news announcement of Sailor V's publication. --Malkinann (talk) 23:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Im not so sure. Again...the sentence looks off. The highlight of its importance looks more like a claarification.Lucia Black (talk) 00:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Comparison to Sailormoon[edit]

I move to cut since it has no references and the content is already elsewhere... It seems like OR and opinion to boot.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Some of it seems trivial but it could be sourced.Lucia Black (talk) 01:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
Since no additional references have been produced, and the only referenced piece of info is found later in the article. I am going to Be Bold and delete this section of the article.DoctorLazarusLong (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Codename: Sailor V. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2017[edit]

Remove "Canceled OVA". Reason: Self-published information (selfpub) 176.194.133.102 (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The source cited is the manga's creator, Naoko Takeuchi, in a publication of Sailor Moon vol 3. This means that it is not a self published source. —Farix (t | c) 19:42, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Nope. In Russian version the section is deleted. So, talk with Russian Wikipedia admins first. Must be also the link on the interview with the creator or other text source, not just Manga. 176.194.133.102 (talk) 17:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
What goes on at the Russian Wikipedia has nothing to do with this article. Your third sentence doesn't make any sense. Are you asserting that the commentary inserts in the tankōbon volumes are not reliable sources? —Farix (t | c) 19:03, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I said nope! The tankōbon volumes ain't reliable sources like King Pig is an character of Angry Birds. Gone. 176.194.133.102 (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
On what bases are you claiming that the tankōbon volumes are not reliable sources? They are primary sources, which is perfectly acceptable to use. —Farix (t | c) 11:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Find something else. We need information from other people, you nerd. 176.194.133.102 (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it is obvious now that you are just trolling. So we are done here. —Farix (t | c) 11:39, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
No, don't. We need more sources to set that dammit section on it! 176.194.133.102 (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. I think it's fairly clear that you will need to get consensus first. While I'm not entirely sure I subscribe to Farix's view of this situation, his is not immediately out-of-step with policy and guideline. I might recommend requesting assistance at WT:MANGA if you truly believe this information should be deleted. Izno (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)