This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Anime and manga/Sailor Moon page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Anime and manga: Sailor Moon Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Now that i look back on it, should the article Sailor Moon (English adaptations) and Editing of anime in American distribution exist? It looks like a compilation of localization of Sailor Moon. Maybe we could merge these or help certain parts like manga and anime to be split. but then again, the main article is in GA and if we do split information like that it could endanger it from losing GA status. Bread Ninja ( talk) 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree on the sailor moon loalization still being independent on its own....anyways...once we can clean it up we can merge it to its own respected articles. I'm sure once its cleaned up we can see the individual pieces of it to be merged to its respected series and the main manga article. As for sailor moon the information can be cleaned up aswell and it can also help on splitting out more arfticles (but then again some will feel it would harm the current article from its GA status. Stilll...somethings can be done). Bread Ninja ( talk) 16:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The topic being what exactly? The article is made up Individual topics that don't properly connect into one big article. For one, the article misuses the word adaptation. Its mainly broadcast history and alterations done of sailor moon. Two, the article merely lists specific alterations. Three, previous discussions three years ago won't help this current discussion consensus can change. My views are per GNG. But like I said...the article can help split content into its own article. Bread Ninja ( talk) 00:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The information cam help split. Did you actually review the article? Both of those articles are no good. Cleaning both of them up will only prove it. The article is a mess of individual pieces of information. Its a pile of crums of mixed topics relating to a)sailor moon (a solid topic) and b) english distribution (not sosolid).....the topic isn't even about how it was adapted. Bread Ninja ( talk) 02:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Its far from perfect....this information could help make more sailor moon daughter articles. Its just odd as heck to seperate english (in an english wiki) into one article. And again, refuse to see the point. Notable or not (at its most basic form) the information is still mergable and helping other more direct topics to be split. Saying its notable butyou seem to not understand what "individual topic" is. Bread Ninja ( talk) 02:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
To be able to split a manga an anime article. Bread Ninja ( talk) 03:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No and english adaptations is just used wrong. Sailor Moon (manga) and Sailor Moon (anime). Bread Ninja ( talk) 03:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
not anime vs manga. anime and manga; and i have looked onto them. some sources i can't read, or are in a different language. however, there are some that focus on the specific changes instead of general changes. And some are specific to one or the other. The article is just a mix of everything related to english versions of sailor moon "including" censorship and alterations. I find it odd to focus on english version in an english wiki. Bread Ninja ( talk) 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It's an article meant only for english versions in the english wiki, which in a sense, makes it out as if the english alterations weren't the norm. Again, too black and white, sources-size =/= article. the article in a sense if made up of crums. it's not a full cake nor half, rather pieces of different cakes put into one that only have one thing in common alterations of sailor moon (and distribution). Information that can be merged to other articles. But the main point is information on both manga-relateed and anime-related are there in that article that can help split off a manga-article and an anime-article of sailor moon. Bread Ninja ( talk) 21:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Well it is. And I don't buy it. Everytime you say that I get more and more convinced you haven't actually read the article. The fact that the article splits into two medias makes it that much obvious. Not only that but you're relying way to much on the source despite the fact that the article is split into two make it incredibly easy. Impractical and impossible? I think at this point I can safely say this is WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the sense that you find it "impossible" for these articles to help split into a manga article and media. The sources don't matter period. Bread Ninja ( talk) 04:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You want to see how that makes it one more step closer to splitting the article into potential sections of a full manga and anime. First broadcast and distribution of anime and manga in the article can easily make it into the episodes and manga information. Reaction to localization is reception at best mainly for the anime since I'm not seeing much from the manga. Removing the original research which is mainly a third of the article if not half. Then there's the trivial specifics the article seems to give undue weight as it doesn't properly give relevance to the topic but rather simply adds evidence of its existence. Then there's future development which contains both anime and manga tiny bits of rereleases and anime rights which can be relevant (again to anime and maga specific and potential information for the article)
Why doesn't the sources matter in this particular case? Because the sources aren't being used the way you think they are. The fact is (and this is very important) the article splits itself into ANIME and MANGA. The sources don't matter because despite what the soures say the structure of the article isn't dependent on the structure of the sources. But ill even simplify it more just to make my point clearer. Sources = sailor moon as a whole. However article splits sources to organize anime and manga separately. Its not impossible defintely not impractical. Bread Ninja ( talk) 05:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sort of. If we can clean up the article and merge distribution and release information where it should go. It would trim the article significantly and from there do more trimming by summarizing the censorship and alterations. From what I can see the anime has a better chance of getting its own article more. But yeah....that's the idea. The article looks big but once read through carefully, will be able to notice the original research and excessive detail. I was working on Stand Alone Complex, but I could trim this article first since I did a number of edits already. Bread Ninja ( talk) 10:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Merely discussing it isn't enough to prove what you say is true. And there need to be a certain number of reviews stating it. And even if it were true, the topic itself separates itself completely from the norm. The fact is it is a practical and possible choice to go along my proposal. Its bias to say english localization was the reason why sailor moon is what it is now. You have no proof of that and this is where personal thoughts are clouding your judgement. If what you said was true this would be reception information at best, not localization and alterations. But there is no reception...the only way to make it notable is moving english reception over here. Provided that they mention the english is what made sailor moon. Again....this is bias and its bias at its prime Bread Ninja ( talk) 21:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sigh......malkinann its clear as day. You're saying english adaptations had the biggest impact...but you're giving the credit to the localization. This is clearly NOT common sense at all. 3ven if what you said is true, that leaves no reason to make an article for all english broadcast history and alterations. It is undue weight. I'm positive you haven't read the article. Bread Ninja ( talk) 19:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Its bias...the reason why I believe malkinann hasn't read the article is because given the reasons she said aren't consistent to what the article is saying. The impact it had in north america is part of the main sailor moon article moving it along side localization information makes no sense. Malkinann is implying english localization is what gave fame to sailor moon in the west which doesn't matter in this case. Its bias to think it does. The article is merely broadcast history and alterations done to both anime and manga. And again their specific changes given in detail. I don't want another article discussion having similar problems. If we instead made an anime article and merged the manga information in the main article would be abetter choice. There really isn't any damage at all. Bread Ninja ( talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Not true, its a common practice. And stop calling it an adaptation. Adaptation would be a completely different version of sailor moon made by someone else, this is the same media but localized. And it most definitely is POVFORK. The article contains information that can be merged to the main article, the list of episodes/chapters. this isn't a general topic if it splits itself into two distinct medias. Bread Ninja ( talk) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Its not spinout it povfork. If it were spinout the article would have reception section. You're reasoning is very inconsistent. You rely on english localization status. The article merely gives distribution and releases best suited in list of episodes and list of chapters. The only thing left would be alterations. And a better name would've been localization of sailor moon. Bread Ninja ( talk) 23:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
All five articles on groups of villains feature large lists of their respective monsters of the day. I think that this contributes to the intricate detail tags and add little to no content to the understanding of the villain groups themselves. I suggest removing that info. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 00:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
To coordinate things, since the new series is coming, there are revisions, and people are editing willy nilly without consulting others. So having a place to coordinate might be useful. I just wish Masamage was still around... (Our pseudo president) Malkiann was second... Would the VP take over. =P (Joking, clearly) -- Hitsuji Kinno ( talk) 17:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
So, apparently there was a discussion about this characters name that determined that, because ONE English release with other translation errors rendering the character's name in one way, every single Japanese source and now a more recent official English translation rendering it differently can be thrown in a pile and ignored.
"Metalia" is a clear translation error and this needs to be fixed. There's yet another new printing of the Sailor Moon manga, the Perfect Edition, that depicts "Queen Metaria" in Latin letters, as given by the author herself. This is the third time she's done this. Here's the proof again [1]. Rebochan ( talk) 06:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on WikiProject Anime and Manga (this WikiProject's mother project) on whether or not WikiProject Sailor Moon should be marked as historical, or if the project should be merged into WikiProject Anime and manga and be turned into a task force. Any input on that discussion is welcome. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Following the closure of this discussion and an RfC, I've taken action and turned this WikiProject into a Task Force. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
WikiProject Anime and manga/Sailor Moon page. |
|
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Auto-archiving period: 60 days |
Anime and manga: Sailor Moon Project‑class | ||||||||||
|
Index
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Now that i look back on it, should the article Sailor Moon (English adaptations) and Editing of anime in American distribution exist? It looks like a compilation of localization of Sailor Moon. Maybe we could merge these or help certain parts like manga and anime to be split. but then again, the main article is in GA and if we do split information like that it could endanger it from losing GA status. Bread Ninja ( talk) 17:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
I disagree on the sailor moon loalization still being independent on its own....anyways...once we can clean it up we can merge it to its own respected articles. I'm sure once its cleaned up we can see the individual pieces of it to be merged to its respected series and the main manga article. As for sailor moon the information can be cleaned up aswell and it can also help on splitting out more arfticles (but then again some will feel it would harm the current article from its GA status. Stilll...somethings can be done). Bread Ninja ( talk) 16:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
The topic being what exactly? The article is made up Individual topics that don't properly connect into one big article. For one, the article misuses the word adaptation. Its mainly broadcast history and alterations done of sailor moon. Two, the article merely lists specific alterations. Three, previous discussions three years ago won't help this current discussion consensus can change. My views are per GNG. But like I said...the article can help split content into its own article. Bread Ninja ( talk) 00:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
The information cam help split. Did you actually review the article? Both of those articles are no good. Cleaning both of them up will only prove it. The article is a mess of individual pieces of information. Its a pile of crums of mixed topics relating to a)sailor moon (a solid topic) and b) english distribution (not sosolid).....the topic isn't even about how it was adapted. Bread Ninja ( talk) 02:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Its far from perfect....this information could help make more sailor moon daughter articles. Its just odd as heck to seperate english (in an english wiki) into one article. And again, refuse to see the point. Notable or not (at its most basic form) the information is still mergable and helping other more direct topics to be split. Saying its notable butyou seem to not understand what "individual topic" is. Bread Ninja ( talk) 02:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
To be able to split a manga an anime article. Bread Ninja ( talk) 03:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
No and english adaptations is just used wrong. Sailor Moon (manga) and Sailor Moon (anime). Bread Ninja ( talk) 03:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
not anime vs manga. anime and manga; and i have looked onto them. some sources i can't read, or are in a different language. however, there are some that focus on the specific changes instead of general changes. And some are specific to one or the other. The article is just a mix of everything related to english versions of sailor moon "including" censorship and alterations. I find it odd to focus on english version in an english wiki. Bread Ninja ( talk) 21:38, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
It's an article meant only for english versions in the english wiki, which in a sense, makes it out as if the english alterations weren't the norm. Again, too black and white, sources-size =/= article. the article in a sense if made up of crums. it's not a full cake nor half, rather pieces of different cakes put into one that only have one thing in common alterations of sailor moon (and distribution). Information that can be merged to other articles. But the main point is information on both manga-relateed and anime-related are there in that article that can help split off a manga-article and an anime-article of sailor moon. Bread Ninja ( talk) 21:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Well it is. And I don't buy it. Everytime you say that I get more and more convinced you haven't actually read the article. The fact that the article splits into two medias makes it that much obvious. Not only that but you're relying way to much on the source despite the fact that the article is split into two make it incredibly easy. Impractical and impossible? I think at this point I can safely say this is WP:IDONTLIKEIT in the sense that you find it "impossible" for these articles to help split into a manga article and media. The sources don't matter period. Bread Ninja ( talk) 04:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
You want to see how that makes it one more step closer to splitting the article into potential sections of a full manga and anime. First broadcast and distribution of anime and manga in the article can easily make it into the episodes and manga information. Reaction to localization is reception at best mainly for the anime since I'm not seeing much from the manga. Removing the original research which is mainly a third of the article if not half. Then there's the trivial specifics the article seems to give undue weight as it doesn't properly give relevance to the topic but rather simply adds evidence of its existence. Then there's future development which contains both anime and manga tiny bits of rereleases and anime rights which can be relevant (again to anime and maga specific and potential information for the article)
Why doesn't the sources matter in this particular case? Because the sources aren't being used the way you think they are. The fact is (and this is very important) the article splits itself into ANIME and MANGA. The sources don't matter because despite what the soures say the structure of the article isn't dependent on the structure of the sources. But ill even simplify it more just to make my point clearer. Sources = sailor moon as a whole. However article splits sources to organize anime and manga separately. Its not impossible defintely not impractical. Bread Ninja ( talk) 05:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sort of. If we can clean up the article and merge distribution and release information where it should go. It would trim the article significantly and from there do more trimming by summarizing the censorship and alterations. From what I can see the anime has a better chance of getting its own article more. But yeah....that's the idea. The article looks big but once read through carefully, will be able to notice the original research and excessive detail. I was working on Stand Alone Complex, but I could trim this article first since I did a number of edits already. Bread Ninja ( talk) 10:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Merely discussing it isn't enough to prove what you say is true. And there need to be a certain number of reviews stating it. And even if it were true, the topic itself separates itself completely from the norm. The fact is it is a practical and possible choice to go along my proposal. Its bias to say english localization was the reason why sailor moon is what it is now. You have no proof of that and this is where personal thoughts are clouding your judgement. If what you said was true this would be reception information at best, not localization and alterations. But there is no reception...the only way to make it notable is moving english reception over here. Provided that they mention the english is what made sailor moon. Again....this is bias and its bias at its prime Bread Ninja ( talk) 21:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
Sigh......malkinann its clear as day. You're saying english adaptations had the biggest impact...but you're giving the credit to the localization. This is clearly NOT common sense at all. 3ven if what you said is true, that leaves no reason to make an article for all english broadcast history and alterations. It is undue weight. I'm positive you haven't read the article. Bread Ninja ( talk) 19:26, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Its bias...the reason why I believe malkinann hasn't read the article is because given the reasons she said aren't consistent to what the article is saying. The impact it had in north america is part of the main sailor moon article moving it along side localization information makes no sense. Malkinann is implying english localization is what gave fame to sailor moon in the west which doesn't matter in this case. Its bias to think it does. The article is merely broadcast history and alterations done to both anime and manga. And again their specific changes given in detail. I don't want another article discussion having similar problems. If we instead made an anime article and merged the manga information in the main article would be abetter choice. There really isn't any damage at all. Bread Ninja ( talk) 22:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Not true, its a common practice. And stop calling it an adaptation. Adaptation would be a completely different version of sailor moon made by someone else, this is the same media but localized. And it most definitely is POVFORK. The article contains information that can be merged to the main article, the list of episodes/chapters. this isn't a general topic if it splits itself into two distinct medias. Bread Ninja ( talk) 22:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Its not spinout it povfork. If it were spinout the article would have reception section. You're reasoning is very inconsistent. You rely on english localization status. The article merely gives distribution and releases best suited in list of episodes and list of chapters. The only thing left would be alterations. And a better name would've been localization of sailor moon. Bread Ninja ( talk) 23:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
All five articles on groups of villains feature large lists of their respective monsters of the day. I think that this contributes to the intricate detail tags and add little to no content to the understanding of the villain groups themselves. I suggest removing that info. -- LoЯd ۞pεth 00:11, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
To coordinate things, since the new series is coming, there are revisions, and people are editing willy nilly without consulting others. So having a place to coordinate might be useful. I just wish Masamage was still around... (Our pseudo president) Malkiann was second... Would the VP take over. =P (Joking, clearly) -- Hitsuji Kinno ( talk) 17:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
So, apparently there was a discussion about this characters name that determined that, because ONE English release with other translation errors rendering the character's name in one way, every single Japanese source and now a more recent official English translation rendering it differently can be thrown in a pile and ignored.
"Metalia" is a clear translation error and this needs to be fixed. There's yet another new printing of the Sailor Moon manga, the Perfect Edition, that depicts "Queen Metaria" in Latin letters, as given by the author herself. This is the third time she's done this. Here's the proof again [1]. Rebochan ( talk) 06:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on WikiProject Anime and Manga (this WikiProject's mother project) on whether or not WikiProject Sailor Moon should be marked as historical, or if the project should be merged into WikiProject Anime and manga and be turned into a task force. Any input on that discussion is welcome. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 t c csd new 12:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Following the closure of this discussion and an RfC, I've taken action and turned this WikiProject into a Task Force. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 02:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)