Difference between revisions of "Talk:Prince Uranus"

From WikiMoon
Jump to: navigation, search
(A new category?)
Line 9: Line 9:
 
::::::I've fixed a few of the things you've suggested, but I've decided to keep the "backlash from the fans" line as it is.  The negative response from fans did actually happen, and while we want to achieve the most neutral side we can, neglecting to mention what impact the article had (and thus why it was worth documenting here) wouldn't be telling the whole story. --[[User:Dimentia|Dimentia]] 13:26, 16 May 2006 (MST)
 
::::::I've fixed a few of the things you've suggested, but I've decided to keep the "backlash from the fans" line as it is.  The negative response from fans did actually happen, and while we want to achieve the most neutral side we can, neglecting to mention what impact the article had (and thus why it was worth documenting here) wouldn't be telling the whole story. --[[User:Dimentia|Dimentia]] 13:26, 16 May 2006 (MST)
 
:::::::Point taken.--[[User:WikiSysop|WikiSysop]] 08:31, 17 May 2006 (MST)
 
:::::::Point taken.--[[User:WikiSysop|WikiSysop]] 08:31, 17 May 2006 (MST)
 +
 +
==A new category?==
 +
I've been pondering a new category that this article would fit into: something along the lines of 'False rumours'. The Vanessa Mae thing could go in there, as could the Lohan thing. Mind you, they would have to be reasonably oft-repeated rumours: we'd want to avoid getting swamped with every "chibichibi is uranus & diana's daughter lawls" ridiculous rumour out there. Any thoughts? [[User:Dooky|dooky]] 13:28, 5 May 2007 (MST)

Revision as of 15:28, 5 May 2007

I know people have strong feelings about this but I don't want to scare off SOS by having a lot of negative information about them here at the start. I'm hoping we can get their side of the story here, and on other things.--WikiSysop 07:44, 15 May 2006 (MST)

Agreed. In fact, I was wondering if we should implement a policy similar to Wikipedia's NPOV. It wouldn't be much use on articles directly related to the series, but for fandom stuff like this, I think it'd be prudent. Sailor Moon fandom comes with a lot of drama, and we're looking to document the history of the fandom, not reopen old wounds. I for one would be fascinated to hear an SOS comment regarding this Prince Uranus business. Dooky 07:50, 15 May 2006 (MST)
Alright. What do we have to do and how do we have to edit this accordingly?--WikiSysop 08:18, 15 May 2006 (MST)
Well here's Wikipedia's page on the policy. I guess we should make a similar page for it, along with any other policies we come up with. We shouldn't need anything quite so massive though. As regards this article, it isn't too bad as it stands, but I'll see if there's anything I can improve on. The important thing is that it doesn't look like it was written by somebody with an agenda (for or against SOS). Dooky 08:58, 15 May 2006 (MST)
I did my best to be objective in this article, but as far as finding out SOS's position, all I had to work with were negatively oriented articles from the Ken Arromdee's Sailor Moon FAQ and from the Amazoness Quartet's rants & raves. I just found the page where the Prince Uranus story used to be (they've since removed it and put in real articles confirming Uranus & Neptune's coupling) so I'll edit the article again.Dimentia 11:04, 16 May 2006 (MST)
You did a good job in writing something comprehensive and professional. I don't think any of the information in the article has to be changed but we probably want to defer the tone. Words such as "infamous" as well as "Backlash and aftermath" are highly suggestive, and there are could be more neutral ways of discussing it. Thoughts? This article is going to set the stage of discussion for other fandom events so we want to fine-tune it.--WikiSysop 11:22, 16 May 2006 (MST)
I've fixed a few of the things you've suggested, but I've decided to keep the "backlash from the fans" line as it is. The negative response from fans did actually happen, and while we want to achieve the most neutral side we can, neglecting to mention what impact the article had (and thus why it was worth documenting here) wouldn't be telling the whole story. --Dimentia 13:26, 16 May 2006 (MST)
Point taken.--WikiSysop 08:31, 17 May 2006 (MST)

A new category?

I've been pondering a new category that this article would fit into: something along the lines of 'False rumours'. The Vanessa Mae thing could go in there, as could the Lohan thing. Mind you, they would have to be reasonably oft-repeated rumours: we'd want to avoid getting swamped with every "chibichibi is uranus & diana's daughter lawls" ridiculous rumour out there. Any thoughts? dooky 13:28, 5 May 2007 (MST)