Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Sailor Moon

Is this correct?
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'd say the former should be merged in with the latter, but the latter also is in need of some serious cleanup. The latter should be generalized to Editing of anime and manga in American distribution as many practices overlap. The only ones that might be specific would be dubbing, music and credits. However before any merging takes place the article should be cleaned up and possible sources checked to make certain there's no OR as that article looks like a magnet for OR and NPOV violations. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  17:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I personally think it's too specific, the latter can be merged to each individual article that it relates to.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I posted a notification here and tagged the appropriate articles. Also, we must remove any unreliable sources from the article before we can merge these two. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, i don't think merging them should be done exactly. for one the latter contains mostly series-specific information rather than general. If we do clean them up, i don't think we'll see much other than series specific. Each piece of info could easily merge with their respected articles. Like sailor moon one being merged to sailor moon articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I am seriously concerned if we should check the sources on the articles for verification. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry - which articles are being proposed for merging now? --Malkinann (talk) 05:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The articles in question are Sailor Moon (English adaptations) and Editing of anime in American distribution. We are discussing if we can possibly merge the former with the latter. The Editing of anime in American distribution needs serious cleanup. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, I thought the question was now merging English adaptations with the main Sailor Moon article. I'm not sure it would be helpful to the more general article on localisation to have the Sailor Moon stuff merged into it, as it would put too much weight on the Sailor Moon stuff within the more general article.  I feel the English adaptations article meets the GNGs, as was noted during its AFD. --Malkinann (talk) 05:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see. I am also concerned that the sources contain fan sites and sites that violate WP:COPYVIO. Should we remove them or replace them with reliable sources if possible? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Darn, which ones are copyvios? I thought we'd weeded that out years ago. :P  If you're thinking of "Sailor Moon Uncensored" as a fansite, I was sure that was discussed as being acceptable somewhere - just can't think of where atm. It wasn't the RS/N.  --Malkinann (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we weeded those sources out years ago. If that's the case then, I apologize if I caused any confusion. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:41, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

break
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)


 * Sailor Moon (English adaptations) meets the general notability guidelines - why should it be merged? The anime-manga manual of style is not a notability guideline.  --Malkinann (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I had to place a break because for some reason won't let me scroll to the end. Anyways...the article. Solely based on localization of all media distributed in english merely made up of individual signs of localization and broadcast history.... Given size and reliable sources shouldn't be the only reason why an article be notable. The article mainly contains information dependent places....its not general enough. Broadcasting history and localization....I myself find it an extremely odd article...same with the other article....for example...if there was a portrayal of women in anime and manga article, merely listing women that were the lead characters in anime and manga wouldn't be enough enough to consider the topic notable. Same with this. I fear point of view on notability is too black and white.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The GNGs state that "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." The Sailor Moon English adaptations article amply meets the GNGs - it survived an AFD three and a half years ago, and it has not become less notable since then. The Manual of Style should not be an upper limit of what to include in an article, or what should be an article - the GNG and SNGs do that.  I fear your point of view on notability is too black and white - your view seems to defer to a manual of style rather than to the notability guidelines. --Malkinann (talk) 00:06, 7 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 topic being how Sailor Moon was adapted into English - as a daughter topic of both Sailor Moon and Editing of anime in American distribution. I don't understand what you mean by "the article can help split content into its own article".  --Malkinann (talk) 01:54, 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)


 * Bread Ninja, please assume good faith - I am familiar with the contents of the article, otherwise I would not be arguing so strongly that it meets the GNGs. The article does not have to be perfect in order for its topic to be notable - it just has to show notability via the GNGs, which it does, amply.  --Malkinann (talk) 02:16, 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)


 * How is it 'refusal to see the point' when I can't even understand your point? I believe you are now proposing to merge the English adaptations article into the main Sailor Moon article, but I don't understand why.  --Malkinann (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

To be able to split a manga an anime article.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I still don't understand you. --Malkinann (talk) 03:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * typo sorry. But just to make it clearer. We have a main article covering anime and manga and a daughter article covering. English distribution and alterations of anime and manga. Keywords anime manga. splitting anime and manga into two separate articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:25, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, still not getting you.... You want to split the anime and manga into different articles - like "English adaptation of Sailor Moon manga" and "English adaptation of Sailor Moon anime"? --Malkinann (talk) 03:39, 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)


 * do you understand now? We can use this information to help split into two articles focusing on the anime and on the manga.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So how would it be different from having the main article at Sailor Moon, and having two daughter articles at Sailor Moon (manga) and Sailor Moon (anime)? --Malkinann (talk) 20:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The focus would be clearer, instead of vaguely covering the sections. an article focusing on the manga, and an article focusing on the anime. that or not have them as daughter articles.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you're aiming at. You seem to be proposing splitting the main article, Sailor Moon? --Malkinann (talk) 21:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Theres enough content to make an article on the manga and on the anime separately. So why cover the entire series in such a vague way? I suggst using the content to make those articles by using both the main article and the english version information.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Some of the sources don't state that they're writing about the manga or the anime - or else they treat the franchise that surrounded Sailor Moon. It would be at the least impractical to sort out the references by anime vs manga. --Malkinann (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * some sources don't completely convince me. I think theres a way where we can merge them. once cleaned up, (removing trivial specifics that don't seem to hold up much other than the fact than just mentioning it's existence within the english versions). if we keep the main article and make it as if the anime and manga were daughter article, than overall censorship and alterations could be noted there. but anime and manga specific can make it in their own article.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * If "some" sources does not convince you, please feel free to read all the sources in the article. That's what you're asking to be done if you propose to split the article by anime vs manga. --Malkinann (talk) 21:28, 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)


 * Now you're confusing me again - was your proposal to split Sailor Moon, or Sailor Moon (English adaptations) by anime and manga? The English adaptations article focuses on the English version as a daughter article of Editing of anime in American distribution, a specific, sourced, case study.  The NEO source notes that in ways, people 'became' fans of Sailor Moon by hopping on Usenet etc. and finding out the differences between dub and original, and Patrick Drazen and Mark McHarry talk about this as well. With this kind of reliable sourcing talking about the importance of the differences, I don't see why you think it's so odd to have an article that discusses the English adaptations. --Malkinann (talk) 21:45, 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)


 * The reliable sources have discussed the English alterations as being part of the Sailor Moon phenomenon, therefore the English adaptations article meets the GNGs. Again, you seem to be proposing splitting the main article, which I've already told you is at the least impractical - it's probably impossible, as well, because some of the sources talk about Sailor Moon as a franchise.  I don't understand what benefits your proposed reorganisation would have. --Malkinann (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The SM adaptation looks like its a WP:POVFORK. There's no indication that the English adaptations are any more notable than the Japanese ones. This all looks like a big English production article giving undue weight to the English localization (more accurate term) over the original (as the Japanese production doesn't have its own article). Thus it seems to be a NPOV violation giving undue weight to the English version when its not clear that the English versions (especially the manga) had the same impact. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  22:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that jinnai. not only that, but for the reasoning of my proposal:


 * The article is split into three main sections. 1) Anime 2) Manga 3) Future Development (mix of both).Bread Ninja (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Jinnai, I feel the English adaptations article is a WP:SPINOFF rather than a POVFORK. How does it give undue weight to the English adaptations, besides the inherent problem in the English Wikipedia of an English-language bias? --Malkinann (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * then it fails common sense....the least practical choice was separating english information. When there's plenty of info allowing a manga and anime article. As to why you think its impracticle or impossible is beyond my understanding as this article doesn't follow the standard.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't feel it's against common sense to have such an article. I've already explained why I feel splitting the Sailor Moon article is at best impractical, at worst impossible, as some of the sources do not say whether they cover the manga or the anime, they simply say "Sailor Moon".  --Malkinann (talk) 04:18, 8 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)


 * Your assertion that the sources don't matter flies in the face of the verifiablility policy, the notability guidelines and Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. How is it against common sense to have an article for the English adaptations, when the English adaptations are discussed by multiple reliable sources and meet the GNGs?  How can you possibly think that I haven't read the articles when I have written parts of them?  It is not easy for the article to be split because some of the sources do not say 'I am discussing the anime' or 'I am discussing the manga'.  At best it is impractical and at worst it is impossible.  Perhaps the lead of List of Sailor Moon episodes and List of Sailor Moon manga chapters should be expanded instead of entertaining a split? --Malkinann (talk) 05:26, 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)


 * Bread Ninja, which article do you propose to split - Sailor Moon or Sailor Moon (English adaptations)? Malkinann (talk) 06:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Use what BOTH articles have to potentially spin off anime or manga, and use the info not spinned off as part of the main article. Since the manga was the original, focus the main article on the manga, while spinning out the anime info onto its own article. However I'm open to other proposals involving getting the POVFORKed article by merging the specific information to its respected articles. Using the info of both Sailor Moon and Sailor Moon (english adaptations to create either a manga centric article or an anime centric article (possibly both but the best way to end this discussion might be best working little at a time).Bread Ninja (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So, let me get this straight. It's a two-stage process, in which the first step is that Sailor Moon (English adaptations) is trimmed and merged with Sailor Moon.  The second step is spinning out a Sailor Moon (manga) and Sailor Moon (anime) article from Sailor Moon.  Is this broadly what you have in mind?  --Malkinann (talk) 10:38, 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)


 * I disagree with the idea of merging the English adaptations article to the Sailor Moon article. It is a valid spinout that is supported by the existence of several reliable sources discussing that the English adaptations, the alterations, were part of the reason why Sailor Moon became so big. The topic is notable. Even if the subject of the article is controversial, it is not automatically a POV fork - as a spinout article it simply gives greater detail than the main article can give.  --Malkinann (talk) 20:38, 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 primeBread Ninja (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Bread Ninja, there are multiple reliable sources stating it - I have given you several specific examples all through this discussion. How is it when I give you several reliable sources saying so, and back up my arguments with widely-accepted Wikipedia policies and guidelines, I have "personal thoughts" and "bias"?  Your continued insistence that there is no reception and that it is not notable is disingenuous.  --Malkinann (talk) 09:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @Malkinann - the SM adaopation article is a POVFORK rather than SPINOFF first, because it gives UNDUE emphasis to the English manga localization compared to the Japanese one when its clear the Japanese one has far greater impact than the English localization of the manga. Sources back this up and yet, the article topic struture does not since the English manga has far more emphasis placed on its localization importance to the point it gets a seperate article (or is part of one atleast). The anime localization did have a huge impact, yes, but it does not appear it had any more of an impact than the Japanese one. A spinoff on the anime would be the more logicial one given that both Japanese anime and the English localization of the anime had a huge impact. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  00:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it undue emphasis? The English adaptation had a major influence on English-language anime manga fandom because it was the first influx of girls into the fandom, as stated by Gilles Poitras, and manga itself began to be more integrated with the rest of the English bookshops (Matt Thorn) (again, placing it alongside other girls' fiction, as opposed to in the comics ghetto). --Malkinann (talk) 09:19, 9 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)


 * Bread Ninja - your assertion that I am not operating from common sense, or that I have not read the article (when I have written parts of it, how could I have not read it?) is uncivil and unhelpful to the discussion. What is "common sense" to you may not be common sense to others, as we all bring different life experiences and points of view to Wikipedia - you yourself are operating from a point of view, one which appears to be based on the anime and manga manual of style rather than the general notability guidelines.  Please assume good faith.  I am trying to understand Jinnai's explanation of the article as being undue weight.  --Malkinann (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * You can always opt for a 3rd opinion to come take a look at the article or an RfC. I highly doubt though given the evidence that they'd say that the English adapatation article is nessasary. I would tend to believe they'd agree with me on the point that gives undue weight to the English localizations considering we don't have something similar for Dragon Ball (Z) which had far more impact in the West. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  21:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The reason we don't have such an article on DBZ (or even any article for DBZ whatsoever) is because the manual of style for anime and manga does not encourage it - so people don't make such articles, even if they meet the GNGs, as Sailor Moon (English adaptations) does. This is an example of how the manual of style substitutes for a notability guideline. --Malkinann (talk) 22:37, 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)


 * Which article are you talking about now, Bread Ninja? The impact that Sailor Moon had in English-speaking countries is part of the main Sailor Moon article - and there was enough information on this so that the Sailor Moon (English adaptations) article was spun off it as a daughter article.  The English adaptations is part of what made Sailor Moon so popular in the West - reliable sources, for example Patrick Drazen and Neo imply that by discussing dub vs original, people became fans.  The existence of the article is supported by the GNGs, and therefore it should not be merged.  --Malkinann (talk) 22:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * When I looked at it, it looked like a POVFORK of what should have been a more general List of Sailor Moon media. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  22:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * It is not a POVFORK, it is a SPINOUT of the general topic in Sailor Moon about the English adaptations. Listing all the media together in one article is discouraged for SIZE reasons. --Malkinann (talk) 22:37, 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)


 * If it is a common practice, why does List of Serial Experiments Lain media redirect to List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes? Why does the MOS-AM discourage all media together in one list, if it is a common practice?  I call it an adaptation because it makes it clear as to which article I am referring to, and that was the best word we could think of when the article was created.  It was previously at (English versions), IIRC.  It is a notable SPINOUT, not a POVFORK.  It should not be merged because the topic of English adaptations of Sailor Moon (whether anime or manga) meets the GNG.  --Malkinann (talk) 23:11, 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)
 * I have brought this to the attention of Neutral point of view/Noticeboard as part of dispute resolution process since it didn't look like either side could convince the other and any attempt to merge would likely be contested. ∞ 陣  内  Jinnai  23:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep.--I&#39;m a Graduate! (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Chris

Lists of Monsters of the Day
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)
 * I removed the lists of monsters of the day. I only left the introductory paragraphs, but removed the lists of characters since they appear only in one episode each, in only one adaptation of the metaseries. Lists of characters should only contain the most prominent and recurring, but not one time appearances. Featuring every single youma, droid, etc. made the villain articles extremely long with lots of intricate detail. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  23:24, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't you think that people should know the different MotD's that appear in that show? There wasn't a problem like this for the other Tokusatsu-based shows like the Metal Heroes, the Kamen Rider Series, and the Super Sentai. Plus some of the Youma, Cardians, Droids, Daimon, and Lemures haven't had their English VAs identified. Rtkat3 (talk) 3:51, April 9 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and none of your examples have become featured articles (I wasn't even able to find the lists of MOTD you mention). The MOTD in Sailor Moon are extremely minor, belonging to only one incarnation of the series (the anime), and lasting only some minutes per episode. Those long lists of MOTD were responsible for the tags of "Multiple issues" in the articles, such as IINFO, PLOTSUMMARIZE, etc. and are not in any way as relevant as the key figures or the members of each subset of the villain groups. -- LoЯd  ۞pεth  05:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

We may need this Project group again
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)

Metalia -> Metaria
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 .Rebochan (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but it's the first version released. As well as "r/l" sound in Japanese is the SAME. We go by the first release as a rule to keep it simple instead of what we, personally judge best by our parent project and Wikipedia rules. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 18:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion regarding this WikiProject
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 tccsdnew 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)