Talk:Sailor Moon/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

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

--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)
Not really sure where to place the info. It's more like analysis by production staff, not really reception. Maybe some of it can go in legacy, but others seem to be more about production commentary/analysis. The structure of the article really doesn't lend itself well to such.陣内Jinnai 22:53, 4 August 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.227.22 (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source 1. 2: There has been no such announcement that reference doesn't say it is and neither does the link to Moon-Chase which tells me that you may have mis-read the article. JamesAlan1986 *talk 14:37, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Scratch that he's talking about the manga not the anime, my bad. JamesAlan1986 *talk 15:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
We should probably be on the lookout for an anime revival though. Anime is more popular in the US and if manga sales are still decent, I'd expect the anime to follow likely by a company like Nozomi.陣内Jinnai 23:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Or Funimation. --  Denelson83  06:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd go for anything but Funimation. JamesAlan1986 *talk 17:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Production Section

Considering the anime and manga seem closely related to eachother within production, should we make a production section and leave distribution info on their respected sections? Right now the article holds a bit of repitition of codename: sailor v being the original proposal for the anime.Lucia Black (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

WP:Be bold. :) --Malkinann (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Consider. It done then.Lucia Black (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

*New* Sailor Moon Anime (and yet another release of manga) Announced

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2012-07-06/sailor-moon-manga-gets-new-anime-in-summer-2013

Causing us havoc on how to handle this... How exactly does everyone want to handle this gigantic mess that's about to come down the pipeline? We got some editing to do....--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 04:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we should just put it in the "Anime" subsection of the "Media" section. And as for the English-language manga releases, we should use "As of (MM YYYY), (XX) English-language volumes have been released" in the International Revival section. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
There will also be a third reissue of the manga, so that will also have to be addressed. I'm smelling an artbook coming too, but that's speculation on my part.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 16:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
The reissue should also be covered in the manga section. Also, I think the anime source should not be in the "International revival" section since some editors have repeatedly added duplicate information in the section (this could potentially lead into an edit war, which is forbidden). Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:38, 8 July 2012 (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)

Howard and Raj from BigBangTheory had a three-way with a sailor moon cosplayer. Put that in the pointless trivia section also — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.110.211.219 (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

A subtle problem with the opening sentence

This may not be noticeable to a lot of people, but adding “known in Japan” there could sounds a little too English-speaking centric, and I suggest that maybe we should drop that 3 words.

To explain why, please allow me to use the composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky as an example, his name is Pyotr, but in English-speaking regions publications and even modern CD recordings, his name is often anglicised as “Peter Ilyich Tchaikovsky”, which made it easier for the English speaking audience. However, it would be ridiculous to start changing his wikipeida article, writing an opening section and presenting in a way as if his real name is Peter, but only “known as Pyotr in Russia”. Even the entire world would call him by the anglicised name, it doesn't changed the fact that the man’s name is Pyotr. The current article there is doing a great job for presenting this fact correctly.

Similarly, the name of this great Japanese work is “Bishojo Senshi Sailor Moon”, the author has never officially changed its title nor removed the first half of it. Only for marketing purposes, the title is translated/modified into many different names in different countries when they exported the work (eg, “Sailer Moon in English speaking countries, “Bishojo Senshi” is used in Chinese-speaking countries, while in Korea they uses “Bishojo Senshi Sailor Moon” but written in hangul) None of these translated titles, however, should supersedes the original. I know this is the English wikipedia, but since English is the most international language on earth, we must work together to make articles that represent global perspective, not just English-speaking territory’s perspective, as per WP:WORLDVIEW.

Just to be clear, I am not suggesting to change the title of the article, because Sailor Moon is the common name, and all wikipedia are titled after their common name. I am just suggesting to modify the 1st sentence in the lead section by removing the phrase “known in Japan” and bold the original title. Probably as the following:


I know this sentence may look odd at first, especially if you have been watching/read the English version manga/anime all your life. But this make the opening more factual and encyclopedic, and is something we should work together toward for.

There are some other articles follow that format too (bolded original title, then common translated title later): Rurouni Kenshin, Full Moon o Sagashite, Shugo Chara!, Captain Tsubasa, etc. Please consider. Da Vynci (talk) 07:41, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to take a "world view" then you will still use Sailor Moon as the primary titles, not just in English speaking territories. That is because the series is only referred to as Bishōjo Senshi Sailor Moon inside Japan. World wide, it is know as Sailor Moon. Pointing to Full Moon o Sagashite, Shugo Chara!, and Captain Tsubasa are not relevant because those are the titles they are known by world wide, especially in English. I don't know so much about Rurouni Kenshin, but it should probably follow the same format used by this article. What you are suggesting is that we take a Japanese-centric view of the subject's title rather than a world wide view —Farix (t | c) 10:14, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
As I have emphasised earlier, I am suggesting we keep the title of the article with the name Sailor Moon (coz it is the common name) . But in the opening sentence the original title should be given more weight.
The English common name "Sailor Moon" already in place being used as the article's title, this version of the name is already well represented. There is no point arguing further what is the popular name. (although there's one point should be noted, and I'll do so below) The more apparent issue here is: the original title is under-represented, and how can we present it more appropriately, instead of just “other names only known in Japan”?
Writing with a world wide perspective is about taking into consideration, not only facts from English-speaking territories, but also the non-English speaking ones. If the article deals with person or works of non-English origin, due weight should be given to facts even if it is non-English in nature. There is a different between the subject’s original name and a “known as” names. Original title shouldn’t be degraded “known as” titles. (as I explained in my 1st comment, using the Russan composer example)
On a less relevant note I mentioned above and TheFarix previously ignored, it should be noted that in Korea, China, Taiwan, the then-British territory of Hong Kong includes Bishojo Senshi in their respective official translated titles (you may check their wikipedia page on those language if you can read it) , and those regions combined has the size of Europe. The next person who keep repeating "only inside Japnan it is known as Bishojo Senshi Sailor Moon, outside Japan it is known as Sailor Moon” will risk sounding ignorant.
Also, another problem with the “known in Japan as Bishojo Senshi Sailor….” line is that it makes it harder to take the article seriously, on one hand it indicates the full title is only known in Japan, and on the right hand side there is the cover, which clearly read the full title. English Wikipedia is obviously is “outside Japan” and includes the world. You notice the self-contraction?
The full title should really need to be indicated more clearly, not as something secondary. Da Vynci (talk) 02:11, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
You've actually proved my point. It isn't know by the title Bishojo Senshi Sailor Moon outside of Japan. It is know as Pretty Solder in China and Korea, and Sailor Moon everywhere else. But we don't include titles that aren't in English or in the original language. You're claiming that the title used inside Japan is the world wide title, however, your own evidence is showing the opposite. The "world wide perspective" is that Sailor Moon (and translations of it) is the title the series is best know by. —Farix (t | c) 03:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Genres

I've removed all of the genres down to Magical girl. For starters MOS:A&M limits the field to just the three most relevant genres. Second, Magical girl covers romance, adventure, and fantasy all at once, so those are redundant. Third comedy and drama are opposite genres, a work is either one or the other. But there are very few, if any, magical girl shows that doesn't use comedy. So as far as that genre goes, that is also redundant. And finally, Magical girl is the only genre that would have any support in reliable sources. The rest would not meet WP:V. —Farix (t | c) 10:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Not going to disagree with the result, but just a point: Drama and Comedy are not mutually exclusive. We even have Comedy-Drama here at wiki. In fact, I don't think you can truly say any two genera are mutually exclusive. Derekloffin (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Fan made Videos

I'm asking if it might be appropriate to mention major, well-developed fan made videos that premiered on Youtube. One video in particular is one half of the full project, and the first finished half runs for almost 1.5 hours. I have seen some posts on Wikipedia that have given mention to fan made works, so I'm wondering if it might possibly be appropriate to mention one here.~~magic713~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magic713 (talk • contribs) 00:06, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I think you need said fan works to be covered by 3rd party sources, otherwise they aren't going to meet the notability standard. Derekloffin (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 Sailor Moon Possible Delay

Don't know how credible this is, so I'll leave it to others to edit in if deemed sufficient, just providing some links below: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2013-04-27/new-sailor-moon-anime-delayed and their source: https://twitter.com/mikoruX/status/326503086719893505 Derekloffin (talk) 01:08, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

It's true actually. I have looked through Osabu's tweets and I saw his reply to the tweet that you linked to, which was simply "yes." Here's a link to confirm this: https://twitter.com/osabu8/status/327758714599768065 . 24.155.192.88 (talk) 01:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

New Musical

http://ch.nicovideo.jp/sailormoon-20th <--also announced on the official website.

It's going to be a Terazuka Revue. There will be a Q&A. Also, there is an interview with Takeuchi-sensei coming up that we may need to pay attention to for this page. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

New Sources

Not sure if you'd consider it vetted...

Girl Culture (2 volumes) by Claudia A. Mitchell and Jacqueline Reid-Walsh

Page 241-242 credits Sailor Moon to ending the "girls' comic drought" in the United States. Stating that now girls would buying more shoujo.

Catherine Driscoll Girls (2002)

"The appropriation of Asian girl culture (and by academic reference) is often an imagination of girls everywhere, but also an orientalizing opposition to the complexities of modern Western girls after feminism. Because this mode of consuming girl culture must serve as that coherence, it is not likely to embrace the contradictions of Sailor Moon...."

If you read the whole section, she says that Sailor Moon contradicts itself on feminism, however, that it may be due to the different ideals of Japanese and Western feminism.

"Creation,, Recreation, and Re-creating Identities: Performance and Interculturality in a Global Context" by Victoria Newsom and Ako Inuzuka (Sailor Moon)

Mainly focuses on the musical... Starts on Page 61 of this book:

Intercultural Communication and Creative Practice: Music, Dance, and Women's Cultural Identity

Independent of those two authors, the main book author states:

Sailor Moon Musicals are primarily produced by women, so that the productions allows critics to observe how women perceive themselves (Not a quote)

The one on Sailor Moon Musicals is thick and uses Sailor Moon as the primary source material to study gender, performance and perception of gender over time through performance. We definitely could use that paper for a lot.

Cartoon Cultures by Anne M. Cooper Chen

says that Osano Fumio left for Shounen Rival and interviewed him. That's chapter 2, page 19.

Page 27. Osano said that Takeuchi was inspired by U.S. Styles and girls who bleach their hair light in Japan, which is called Chapatsu which influenced the hair colors.

Fumio Osano graduated from Waseda University, same page (Might be useful somewhere) And started at Kodansha right after graduation. (Also states he starts work at 1pm and stops at 1 am....)

He also says that at Kodansha (Sailor Moon in this case too) starts with plot and basic script, the title and detailed contents, pencil drawings and computerization. (Might be useful) Though it is probably later, since in an interview, Takeuchi-sensei said that she used a G-pen to draw Sailor Moon and didn't use manga paper (too expensive). (Kia Asamiya interview after Sailor Moon was finished). Meaning that Toki*Meka, etc were computerized as were the re-releases.

Page 46 states that "[Stuart] Levy had no trouble acquiring the rights to the Kodansha manga while the market to manga was still nascent. The publisher undoubtedly had particularly low expectations for Sailor Moon's Prospects." (it cites Brienza, 2009, p 110.)

  • cough* though within the company as far as I know they started to produce it before getting the license... but I know that's OR. (I worked there.) If someone asked me I could say and say my sources too.)

Page 46 also credits Sailor Moon with the "manga's transition from white male comics store" Also wider distribution it credits to Borders and Barnes and Noble.

I hope that's useful somewhere...--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


Wild West Editing and need help adding something

We need to add to all lead sections of the articles per Wikipedia:Lead Sections "Contains Japanese text" template (put two curly brackets before and after the quoted text. (No periods and spaces)

And please quit the wild west editing. The project may be gone, but it should be in your best interest to find out why things were done the way they were before editing and overturning when it's often explained on the talk page and project page since we thoroughly debated it all. (Especially breaking wikipedia rules by moving pages without discussions)--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Where you trying to link to WP:LEAD? – Allen4names (contributions) 02:23, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Sailor Moon/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Let's start this off with the really obvious problem: There are literally a dozen citation needed tags. Further, the sources used include a GameFAQs search (not an RS, surely?), a twitter account (dubious, though it may, in fact, be alright if an official company or creator one), a Dave Barry article - used as if he wasn't a humourist who's schick included intentional misunderstanding, a Blogspot blog (multiple pages), and, finally, I can't find any evidence http://www.themarysue.com/ isn't a mere fansite.

I don't think it's worth reviewing this article beyond sourcing whilst the sourcing is such a major problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'll give this one more day, then I'm going to fail it for lack of interest. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Adam Cuerden. Thank you for taking the time to GAR review this article. :) I'll see what I can find to address your concern of sourcing, but it might take more than a day... Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Shall we say the 18th? Then we can do a standard GA review, and see if there's any other issues; if it's going to take extremely long, it's probably best to just demote and put it back through GAC later. Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's looking better, but I think some information was removed to get there, (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it feels rather weak on the relationship between the manga and anime now), but even at an initial check, there's still a citation needed tag, it still uses a GameFAQ search as a citation.
You did a lot of work on this, and you deserve praise for that. But I don't want to be too lenient, because, well, it's Sailor Moon. It was one of the big forces in breaking America open to anime, amongst other things, and, as such, it's a bit too iconic to not get right.
The GAN backlog might be an issue. I'd like to try to get some fresh eyes, but if it sets there more than a week or two, feel free to ask me on my talk page, and I'll review.
All that said, I'm going to wait for your response before closing. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words. I'm not the original editor who got this up to GA ages ago, and so I've realized that I don't really know enough about it to properly cover it right now without some serious research. I was a bit too hopeful, I think. :) It deserves far, far more than I'm able to give it, and I really doubt I would be able to being it back up to GA status in a week, by myself. I know that there are far more problems with it than with just the GameFAQs cite... And it's unfair to you to take up anymore of your time for something that cannot be realistically done within the time needed for a GAR. But, thank you for your time spent. It's appreciated greatly. :) Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 02:04, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
I will have to commit to working on this more myself, but I'm sorry it just isn't fair to have numerous tags up and missing sections of content on a GA. For the time being I am going to advise removing this from GA status. More has to be given to the production, which is about the manga and not the anime production. I think we are missing information on both the artbooks and completely misses out on the popular novel series, including the English ones. Mere omission of an entire medium is able to take out a GA, much less one with more than half a dozen books. The live action section doesn't even adequate coverage, just a generalization "...follows the original manga than the anime at first, but in later episodes it proceeds into a significantly different storyline from either, with original characters and new plot developments." All in all, its missing too much - even at the topic level, much less actually get into other aspects of its enduring legacy, themes and analysis. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Have the issues been fixed? If not, I recommend closing this review and delisting the article, it's been weeks.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I got horrifically busy for a bit there, and simply forgot about this. Delisted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Add Genre

I think this is obvious that the genre includes action and romance. So it can be add? Lucas two (talk) 02:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Per MOS:ANIME, Magical girl is more specific and includes action, romance, and fantasy. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Magical girl is a broad genre (ex. Nanoha includes science fantasy, and Ojamojo DoReMi includes high fantasy and not includes romance.), so I think we need the detailed genre. Lucas two (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
The problem with including "action" and "romance" is that they can be included in every magical girl series. The genres then become just clutter that don't actually identify the series any more than the "magical girl". As for specific sub-types of magical girl, have any been defined by reliable sources? —Farix (t | c) 00:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The tankōbon had said the series is "sailor suit action manga". And it's shōjo manga, this is mainly romance dominated. I think "magical girl" can be divided into to kid or young man (dark, moe, or science fantasy) roughly. Lucas two (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sailor Moon Crystal split article

This is not a split proposal (yet) but I think that, as the Sailor Moon Crystal section in this article grows, and with a second season on its way, I think that we will eventually need to have an article on Sailor Moon Crystal, split from this one and not merged with the List of Sailor Moon Crystal episodes (which also will need a separate list for each season). There's enough information for release, production, media, etc. --LoЯd ۞pεth 17:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Reassessment for Good Article status?

After re-reviewing the article several times, finding that there is not much issue that needs to be addressed, it is currently appropriate to renominate this article for Good Article status?--Loyalmoonie (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)Chris

I've put it up for a B-Class assessment and then, and then I plan to nominate it for GA status when ready. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
Since there are obvious problems like unsourced statments, it's not apt to be a GA right now, not even to be a B-class article. Some issues:
  • The part "revised dialogue and illustrations" under "Manga" section seems to be unsourced.
  • The given source doesn't say it started to be published in 1997 in Mixxzine and doesn't specify what arc was published on what magazine.
  • Not a problem at all, but the fourth paragraph of "Manga" could be gathered with American release (after all, it also a English-speaking country). Alternatively, publication on other non-English-speaking countries could be added.
  • "The series premiered in Japan on TV Asahi on March 7, 1992, and ran for 200 episodes until its conclusion on February 8, 1997" — Unsourced.
  • "Most of the international versions, including the English adaptations, are titled Sailor Moon." — Probably obvious and rather irrelevant.
  • It is not useful to have a list of voice actresses.
  • Volume Infinity information seems to be unsourced since the following source is about Materials Collection. Also, though it's fine, it would be good to have an alternative source to the books themselves.
  • La Reconquista musical sentence is unsourced.
  • I'd risk to say there were plenty of trading figures based on the series before the Megahouse release. So it's incomplete.
  • There is a mark of "original research" in "American remake". Also, I don't see where it says the pilot had 17 minutes. On the other hand, the source says it would be a pilot for Fox channel and when it was produced—you could add it. By the way, it would be preferrable to use Animefringe archives ([1], [2]) rather than the current source.
  • Current ref #45 is broken.

None of them is a big problem though, so I think this will be easy to solve. It would be a good ideia to double check references content and formatting too. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Just in case Sjones23 is interested and didn't see this. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 22:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Has there been any improvement as such?--Loyalmoonie (talk) 20:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Chris

I have been busy with other projects on Wikipedia, but I plan to work on the article when I have a chance. There is no deadline after all. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Understood. No hurries.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)Chris
  • Arc one is missing some parts of the plot, such as Endymion being an antagonist.MishaGriego (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Did Sailor Moon air on USA Network?

Guys, this edit war is getting us nowhere. For those that claim that SM DID air on USA Network, cite the info. If you can't cite your claim, don't write it into the article. Doesn't get any simpler than that. MizukaS (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Would RetroJunk be considered a reliable source? They host a old USA Network commercial announcing the broadcast of Sailor Moon.[3] Still looking for a better source, but we are digging back to 1997. —Farix (t | c) 21:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Other than the SOS page, I can't find anything else that would come close to a reliable source. Plenty of old USA network commercials announcing Sailor Moon, but citing those would be copyright violations. Then there is the SOS history page, but .... it's SOS and their antics during the 90s gives me plenty of reasons not to cite them. —Farix (t | c) 21:40, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Got a possible lead on a Newtype USA article while looking back through the afsm archives. Hopefully, I have this issue. —Farix (t | c) 22:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't have this issue as I didn't start collecting until November 2004. However @Nihonjoe: and @Shiroi Hane: are listed as having the October 2003 issue and are still active. —Farix (t | c) 22:09, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I'll see if I can dig up the issue. It's in a storage unit right now. For my reference, this is where they said the article was: "page 38, Newtype USA Volume 2, Issue 9 for September [2003]". ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:43, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
After much digging around.[4] —Farix (t | c) 22:53, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Citations Needed/ LGBT expansion

Whether the series or not was specifically an LGBT-oriented series is clearly speculative and inconclusive, given that the majority of sources do not reference the creator's (Naoko Takeuchi's) attitudes towards the topic at hand. Unless said creator has explicitly voiced her thoughts on whether Sailor Moon was in her vision LGBT-oriented or not, I must close this thread, concluding that we should not include such material in order to maintain civility on this talk page.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 19:59, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Chris

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

Citation still needed for the last sentence of the introduction "The franchise is also credited with redefining the genre, as many previous magical girls did not use their powers to fight evil and the concept is now considered one of its standard archetypes." Perhaps consider deleting the thought until an accurate source can be found ?

Also I agree with @Boaxy: Sailor Moon has a wide range of LGBT characters, but there's no mention of it in the article. Many of the only scholarly articles cited have mention of a strong LGBT presence, why omit it from the article? Anapandrade (talk) 02:51, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

  • My friend, I insist you observe this discussion from 2 years ago regarding the LGBT issue.[5] The issue came about because the (currently banned) user in question you addressed was edit warring over the categories' inclusion and resorted to name-calling and personal attacking those who disagreed with his stance. His sole explanation for the issue was because he thinks that, "Five main protagonists who each have their own individual article are homosexual," claiming that the five Inner Guardians are lesbians, which is not so. The consensus was against inclusion of any LGBT-related blurb/categories as it was not a focal point of the series, especially because it was not what the creator envisioned.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 05:18, 3 March 2017 (UTC)Chris
    • Umm, but after all we can put this category, so, as this series has became iconic in the LGBT community due to the progressive and positive image of lesbian relationships? Of course, it's silly to claim that this is a yuri series, where most of the girls are lesbians, but Sailor Moon has Haruka and Michiru as the one of the most iconic yuri couples (if not the most famous), not to mention the notable yuri subtext (especially between Rei and Minako, although they are not a couple and canonically straight). Not to mention (2) the fact that half of all famous yuri mangakas say that this anime was one of the biggest sources of inspiration for them. Solaire the knight (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
      • (1) Haruka & Michiru were the ONLY such characters created by Takeuchi herself, but not for the purpose of promoting an LGBT message. In particular, she was not particularly pleased with the other characters' sexualities being altered. Unless she's said something about it in an interview, it's not a focal point. (2) I need to see a source for that (especially for what other mangakas have said). The fandom always goes by hearsay on the LGBT matter, yet does not cite any sources from Naoko Takeuchi, herself, specifically.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 21:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)Chris
        • I did not say that there was a couple Rei x Minako in the show, or someone else are canonical lesbian except our famous couple. Moreover, I am annoyed by people who are trying to declare Rei and Minako as bisexuals because it contradicts the context and the development of their personalities. Not to mention the fact that in the context of former's chastity, the idea of ​​her bisexuality would sound like a homophobic thought that lesbian relationships are not "true romance". I just want to say that because of the positive image of one couple and the noticeable subtext in general, this manga strongly influenced a number of LGBT authors and critics. For example, I can add sources from either Okazu, or from transferred by her interviews with different yuri mangaka. Solaire the knight (talk) 16:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

user Loyalmoonie and removal of the pussy bow segment

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

User Loyalmoonie has now twice removed reference to the pussy bow as a feminist symbol in the Sailor Moon series, even though it was cited. In his second removal, he cited that I had personally attacked him and that it is a fringe theory, ("this violates WP:FRINGE & WP:PERSONAL"). I'm not sure how I personally attacked him, other than stating that his first removal was a subjective opinion. Furthermore, the first removal was not supported with any reasoning beyond, the section's being, "not necessary". Secondly, it is hard to see how the pussy bow is a fringe theory when it was supported by a source. Unless he is referring to an assumption that the characters are not wearing pussy bows, which they are obviously wearing. So, I am petitioning here for re-inclusion into the legacy section the pussy bow-feminism link for the sailor moon characters, a position, by the way, which would only promote good things for the series...Smellyshirt5 (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Did you even read the sources you added? They've got nothing to do with Sailor Moon in the first place. And even if you want to include such information on the bows, you should focus on finding a source that actually involves an interview with the higher powers of the series, such as Naoko Takeuchi, herself. If you can find something that has her expressed views on the subject at hand (from a source that does not involve fansites such as Miss Dream), then it will pass WP:FRINGE. Until then, making another revert while calling someone subjective in the edit summaries is the easiest way to get yourself blocked for violating those two policies and WP:3RR. I am sorry that it sounds unfair to you, but these requirements are necessary due to a past discussion/conflict with a (blocked) user who wouldn't stop edit warring on this article.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
You do not need a citation or an expert or even the founder to recognize that what the characters are wearing is a pussy bow. The citations state that a pussy bow is a feminist symbol. Sorry to ruin your female submissive fantasy or whatever it is. See, that might be considered a personal attack....Smellyshirt5 (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Making this edit after user Loyalmoonie closed the discussion: Why is User Loyalmoonie the only one administrating this? Why is there only one person reacting to my comment, and then the same person I am discussing this issue with, has the administrative power to shut down the conversation and close the discussion within 24 hours? I think the users on this page should review their administrative procedures so that an actual discussion can develop between one potential editor and one admin that doesn't agree with the post. ThanksSmellyshirt5 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to break into an archived talk page section, but Loyalmoonie is correct. It does not qualify for inclusion because it violates WP:FRINGE due to the nature the current addition was written. Give a verifiable source that the author's intent was to make a statement. Given that Sailor Moon originally aired 27 years ago, I doubt this was the case. Either follow Wikipedia content guidelines and provide a citation by Naoko Takeuchi as described above or stay away from contributing to this article. In both cases, don't start an edit war and follow WP:3RR. Further disruption could quality for a block. Rctgamer3 (talk) 17:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Post archive edit: Fair enough, I will no longer try to edit this article by mentioning that they wear pussy bows unless I can find a statement from the founder of the series saying they wear pussy bows. I'm sorry.Smellyshirt5 (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Other North American publishers

Found these publishers Chix Comix https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sailor-Moon-7-English-Manga-vintage-graphic-novel-Chix-Comix-Usa-American/183681413187? Mixx https://www.ebay.com/itm/Sailor-Moon-5-English-Manga-vintage-graphic-novel-Pocket-Mixx-Usa-American/143115523368? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.173.64.120 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Sailor moon English publisher

Pretty sure Tokyopop did the first few English versions of Sailor Moon in North America before they lost the license renewal to Kodansha USA if I remember — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.192.214 (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

additions to games section

I don't have copies to include a suitable level of detail, but I know that Guardians of Order published a few Sailor Moon books for their Big Eyes Small Mouth anime RPG - a core book, a bestiary of the youma from the first two or three seasons, and a "Dark Warrior Character Diary" for creating major enemies, at least. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_Order#Licensed_products https://wikimoon.org/index.php/Sailor_Moon_Role-Playing_Game_and_Resource_Book

There was also a collectible card game, mentioned on the wikimoon page linked above as being created by the same author as the RPG. https://wikimoon.org/index.php/Sailor_Moon_Collectible_Card_Game 72.70.29.204 (talk) 00:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • As much as I like knowing about those, however, we probably shouldn't include it here and put it in the related video games article, as including that here would affect the article's efforts to be renominated for Good Article status.--Loyalmoonie (talk) 06:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Confusing grammar in section: Sailor Moon Crystal

The section reads: "On July 6, 2012, Kodansha and Toei Animation announced that it would commence production of a new anime adaptation of Sailor Moon, called Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon Crystal, for a simultaneous worldwide release in 2013 as part of the series' 20th anniversary celebrations,[50][51][52] and it would closely adapt the manga than the first anime adaptation.[53]" My guess is that the last line is meant to say something to the effect that the SMC adaptation is closer to the original manga, but I don't know the subject well enough to make that assumption and fix the sentence. NoneYet (talk) 12:11, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the source material, either, but I encourage you to be bold and make the change! One way to make it clearer is to separate this fairly long run-on sentence and add the word more between "would" and "closely" in your emphasized excerpt. I'll let you change it how you see fit, but that series' is just begging for another s, so I'm going to go take care of that.
JDCAce (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

SG5

Hey, just dropping a note that I created (and then redirected) a stub article for the newly announced Sailor Moon pop group SG5. They're supposed to debut this month at Anime Expo, but since they haven't and also have basic announcement coverage, I redirected it to this article. I also created a subsection for the band under media. Not sure where else to exactly put it. It's an official collaboration and they'll put out music at some point, so kind of media? It doesn't really need its own section and it's not exactly a reception or cultural legacy thing exactly. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Also, the official name is SG5. The long version (Sailor Guardians 5) is more just of an aside. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:06, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sailor_Moon/Archive_9&oldid=1211679625"