Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations)

Manga translators?
I noticed there is no mention of who translated the Sailor Moon manga for Mixx/ Tokyopop. Does anybody know? (or is this not relevant enough for this article?)--VArakawa (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly it's something that was only known by those within the company. I do not own the Tokyopop manga, so I can't check for details... but all I know is, i've pre-ordered the re-published MANGA that will be out in September :) & with correct translations (hopefully) all will be well. In my opinion, if the MANGA sells well this time, we might see Naoko giving the US the rights to make a proper translation of the ANIME also. ~ Fighter4luv (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There's some copies in a store I know so I can check them. Going by how quickly SM stuff goes, I'd say an anime would sell. 陣 内 Jinnai 01:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

DiC's supposade "breach of contract"
I have been asking around on this and no known Sailor Moon fan can find a source to say as such, so it has come to my attention that this information is false. If DiC had indeed breached it's contract it wouldn't have been able to distribute the Sailor Moon series on DVD in 2002 with ADV. As such I have changed the post to the following: "DiC for reasons unknown did not end up dubbing the rest of the Sailor Moon series. Cloverway Inc., the international branch of Toei Animation, the Japanese studio that produced the original version of the anime, ended up with the distribution rights to Sailor Moon S and SuperS because of the show's ongoing popularity."

If anyone finds a reliable source as to the truth of DiC actually breaching it's contract I believe it needs to stay as this as there is no proof or source that they actually breached their contract and saying so is false information. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 08:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I honestly don't think DiC breached it's contract. Otherwise, they would've LOST the franchise. All that happened was that they simply didn't get any more of it. I think they felt they had enough episodes banked up to make money off of, and felt no need to produce the last two seasons or the movies, so the license passed to Toei's US branch. What you have is fine. --Geoffman13 (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

The Movies were released 2 years after the dubbing of R, during the dubbing of S and before the dubbing of SuperS
They were all released in the year 2000 as says amazon.com: Sailor Moon R The Movie - Promise of the Rose: February 8, 2000, Sailor Moon S The Movie - Hearts in Ice: May 23, 2000, & Sailor Moon SuperS The Movie - Black Dream Hole: August 15, 2000. JamesAlan1986 *talk 08:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research
Article has loads of specific trivia where they are not supported by souces which is considered original research not only that but it also holds more sections without barely any citation at all. And some don't even have any refs. So some of thatcan be considered original research.Lucia Black (talk) 15:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I've changed the template to a refimprove - that seems more in line with what you're saying here than the OR template. --Malkinann (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I was also refering to OR. In which there is, such as sections related to alterations.Lucia Black (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Could you please be more specific? The alterations sections are reliably sourced.  --Malkinann (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No they're not.Lucia Black (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Animefringe is a reliable source, and it is used to source that section. Could you please be more specific as to what the article needs?  --Malkinann (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Due to closure of mediation...
Unfortunately, mediation had to be closed for things that couldn't be helped. Regardless, mediation itself showed a consensus to merging this with the main article. So i believe making the effort to clean up and simplify the information to merge back with the main article shouldn't be a problem even if one person opposes. What i initially thought would be simplifying and merging the manga aspects, as that is the easiest to merge back. Also the least sourced, so not alot of information is going to be saved. Would that be a good idea?Lucia Black (talk) 17:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Support - obviously, this would be a great idea. Given the fact that this has gone through several disputes and the mediation case showed a strong consensus to merge the articles into one, it's very clear that we need to clean the article up and simplify it. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * STRONG OPPOSE - Would create another situation similar to the Digimon articles and the Price is Right Pricing Game articles.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 23:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Chris
 * STRONGLY DISAGREE - Are you dumb? There is no way you should merge this article just because you think it's not necessary. It is completely necessary to not merge. DiC did so much for Sailor Moon, they saved it from another company who wanted to make Sailor Moon look like a joke and turn it into something that's called now Saban Moon. Without DiC we probably never would've gotten Sailor Moon, don't you dare merge this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LizzyMi (talk • contribs) 00:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Im starting to suspect sockpuppetry but i should give good faith. Tomballguy: what situation would that be? LizzyMi: its not the article isnt necesarry, its that its the same topic as the main article where it covers anime and manga, why separate information of english articles and so. This isnt about DiC, this is about it being the same topic. And it is a strong Point of view fork and synthesis. Please look up WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTHESIS. Plus for now we are discussing to merge it completely after we clean it up and fix it. AND this is about starting off with merging the manga section.Lucia Black (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * First of all, I don't use sock accounts. Second, the situation I'm referring to is unnecessary mass deletion/merging. Yes, this article has it's flaws, but that's no reason to merge/delete; we can still fix it, can't we?

Please, just look it into your heart to give the article another chance.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 00:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris


 * No sock-puppetry here, I can promise that. We both just share same beliefs, this is very important to the both of us. I think it's important to keep it because the english adaption for anime is a lot more different than the manga. We need it to be remembered not forgot if you merge there will be on a few short sentences on this topic. Sailor Moon mustn't be forgotten. I only recently started to watch Sailor Moon when I was a child I never watched it but I always remembered the Sailor Says at the ending of the show for watching one or two episodes at my friends house. I never saw the other side of Sailor Moon. So in conclusion it's important to keep this page because in the near future when someone wants to remember Sailor Moon they have something to remind them of what it is and was. It may have not been what people were or are looking for but it is something that was and will always be remembered. User:LizzyMi

No. You dont understand the issue of the very existence of this article. The article is about the same media. This has nothing to do with mass deletion. The article's very existence is WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTHESIS. look it up before you respond.Lucia Black (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC) The article's existent "literally" impossible to stay without failing neutral point of view. To say english version is subjectively more notable than the original version by the differences shows how bias this is. This article is all about distribution and localization of Sailor Moon media covered in the main article. Obviously cleaning up the article is part of merging it. For one has several unreliable sources and too intricate on the differences such alterations and censorship. Saban Moon is completely different and could be mentioned. If youre so worried about article count merging this with the main article will be enough to split the anime from the main article.Lucia Black (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Dully noted. Can't we still just resolve this by fixing the article instead of deleting/merging?--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 02:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris


 * I'm still not convinced. Please, just think about this very carefully... I know this article has several mistakes (such as a non-neutral point of view) within, but that's not a reason to kill it.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris
 * The existence of the article itself fails Nuetral Point of View, we can clean it up, remve intricate detail, and trivial information and it will still fail nuetral point of view. It is plenty reason to merge the article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Its like WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTHESIS was overlooked.Lucia Black (talk) 10:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Your statement (and policies you mentioned) still don't mean anything... (Serena's voice) Sorry, I refuse to give up.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 18:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris

You all are making it sound like you all just want to delete this to tick the fans off. Just because this article has some faults does not mean it should be deleted/merged, REGARDLESS of WP:POVFORK and WP:SYNTHESIS.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris
 * Support - FAR too much information is unsourced, original research, and/or unverified generalities and commentary talking on behalf of the fanbase and their reactions. I especially support this if there was prior consensus in favor it doing this as well. Sergecross73   msg me   18:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is in response to what I said, it's not that I'm trying to upset any such fanbase, it's just that unsourced, unverifiable generalities don't belong on Wikipedia. Now, if there's an article on the Yahoo News Page that documents how fans are upset, then great, include it. But when some random editor goes and takes it upon their self to speak upon "the fanbase" without any reference point, that's not acceptable. Who are they to speak for everyone else, and who's to say their interpretation was accurate?
 * My stance is, by the time all the unsourced/origina research/fan speculation is removed, the article will be significantly smaller, it'd make more sense to just merge. Sergecross73   msg me   19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And you are still upsetting ME, as part of a fanbase. We're alot stronger and powerful than Wikipedia's biased guidelines restricting free knowledge. And you know it, do you?--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 20:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris
 * I'm not sure I followed any of that actually. But in general, if you wish to accomplish anything, I'd suggest learning/following guidelines of Wikipedia, or going somewhere that has looser standards, like a Sailor Moon wikia or fansite or something. Sergecross73   msg me   21:23, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Let the real fans decide if this article should stay; most of the people who support the deletion/merging, it would appear to me, are anime purists.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris
 * This is exactly what I'm talking about; that's the mentality of a fansite or wikia. Unless you start backing up your argument with policy, or start supporting the content of the article with a lot more reliable sources, you're not going to win any arguments. Sergecross73   msg me   21:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as I have the right under the United States Constitution to allow people to have free knowledge (do not throw anything else in my face), as long as I have support from other fellow dub moonies, this article stays. May I suggest you stop arguing with me, and save the article.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 21:47, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris
 * The fact that you think that the US Constitution somehow protects this Wikipedia page's existence is so ridiculous I don't know how to respond. And so I won't. I'm done arguing such a non-sensical viewpoint. Sergecross73   msg me   22:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Tomballguy, you just dugged your own grave. Ignoring policies and relying on fanbase and somehow claim that wikipedia's policy is bias? Do you know what bias means? Because its a bit ironic for you to be claiming wikipedia's policy to be bias when you yourself hold no ground. And no, articles shouldnt exist regardless of policies. We arent here to please fanbase. Either ffollow the rules, i origially assumed good faith, but at this point you made it obviously clear its about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. So your vote is defintely not going to be considered at all.Lucia Black (talk) 22:53, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Listen now, I tried assuming good faith here myself, but everyone just kept forcing me to take extreme measures. We either save the article, or just leave it alone; it does NOT deserve to die.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris
 * You want to ignore the rules and poicies. How can we even consider what you want? Read WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Lucia Black (talk) 23:04, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Been there, done that, but it still does not convince me to drop my argument.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris
 * You have no argument...you yourself are bias, because you choose pleasing fanbase than providing the best qualty articles.Lucia Black (talk) 23:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, just give it another chance to live. I am not attacking anyone, I am not legally threatening anyone, I am just saying that Wikipedia's Policies are too restrictive on topics like this. I beg of you.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 23:10, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris

No...policies are restricting so bias articles such as these wont exist. This is definitely BAD FAITH on your part. You provide no argument and beg for it to be kkept. If you want to be a good editor then follow the policies wikipedia gives. Nuetral point of view is one of the BIGGEST aspects Wikipedia aims for, and this article interferes. Go to wikia if you want,but here no one is goiing to listen to an immature fan. And sorry if its uncivil, but its true. Its immature of you to beg editors t keep an article to please fans. You can rest assure, we are acting in good faith because we are NUETRAL despite being fans ourselves. I am done.Lucia Black (talk) 23:22, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ...(Serena's voice) I won't lose to you! (walks away)--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris

WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Tomballguy and LizzyMi's arguments are not valid. This article should be broken up and merged into Sailor Moon. The difficult part is finding someone who will do the accurately sum up parts into concise paragraphs. A lot of the trivia information can be cut from this article such as what episodes were omitted or specific edits. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 22:56, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Support merge as a content fork unnecessarily synthesising two existing articles.  Claret Ash  09:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No, this article contains with no doubt, useful info, that if merged, will only make the main article too large.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Chris


 * Doesn't matter. Useful info isn't an excuse for merge and once merged it'll be easier to split an anime article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * NO, YOUR MERGE WILL ONLY MAKE THINGS HARDER.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 04:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Chris

Harder on what/whom? You rely on subjective reasons.Lucia Black (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I came across this discussion while looking through Yahoo! Answers threads, and I came across this one, which appears to be from User:Tomballguy above. I haven't looked into the full background of this dispute, and I don't really have an opinion on this matter. However, since I read through the Y! answers thread, I thought I'd make a few observations that will hopefully help clear this issue up. Looking over the article, I agree that the article isn't written in a neutral point of view and I do see quite a few unsourced statements made throughout this article. With that said, I see that there are 64 references here, and many of the references specifically discuss the adaptations, rather than the main series. With that many references, a separate article might be warranted, if there is enough content. Adaptations of Sailor Moon might be a better title though, as it would allow the article to have a broader scope and it would be less region specific. If there isn't enough content, then it probably needs some heavy cutting before it could reasonably be merged to the main article. There are 5182 words in this article. The main Sailor Moon article has 6122 words. Directly merging the two would make the main article excessively long. Well, I hope this helps resolve this dispute. Best, Alpha_Quadrant   (talk)  03:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Incase anyone is convinced of this, the issue is content fork, there is no sources proving the english version to be significantly more important over the japanese version. While the main article covers english reception. Merging it little by little would work and "Adaptation of Sailor Moon" is still inacurate, adaptations are anime, live action series, films etc. Adaptations arent by localization and distribution. A more accurate name is Localization of Sailor Moon. Still, the issue isnt about enough content not enough to separate from the main article. One of them holds english reception and its not this one.Lucia Black (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you going to be the one who will work on the merge? A consensus to merge might be pointless if no one plans on doing the merge after all this discussion. DragonZero  ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 13:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And at the same time not supporting only leaves more damage i plan on doing it but not all at one. I will make a sandbox version of this article and fix it, and you are all welcome to contribute too but this is a lil more negative that wont move anything forward.Lucia Black (talk) 13:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @Alpha Quadrant, fair enough. Maybe I should just stop overreacting...--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Chris

I am removing merge tags
The discussion can continue. I see no need to leave the tags on for years. I don't have an opinion one way or another, but leaving them on for so long just makes WP look like we don't maintain or articles in a timely fashion. I will wait a few days for responses before removing them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Better to leave it as it is incase multiple editors manage to find a way rather than hoping they run into the discussion.Lucia Black (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't read through all the discussion. Could someone put in a nutshell why the articles need to be merged. It seems like a very tedious process, information could be deleted, and links between each article could have the same effect?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:SYNTHESIS. The article separates english localization and distribution of the same media. t treats the media as if it were different, but its not.Lucia Black (talk) 03:17, 19 May 2012 (UTC)