Talk:Sailor Moon (English adaptations)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
- Could you please be more specific? The alterations sections are reliably sourced. --Malkinann (talk) 11:02, 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...
Time to move on and deal with this later if it's needed. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
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)
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)
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'm a Graduate! (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Chris
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)
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)
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)
Harder on what/whom? You rely on subjective reasons.Lucia Black (talk) 11:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I am removing merge tagsThe 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)
|
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |