WikiMoon:Community Portal

From WikiMoon
Revision as of 01:53, 14 March 2021 by Kerochan no Miko (talk | contribs) (Requests for Information: wow, this hasn't been updated since BaniMyu days)
(diff) ←Older revision | view current revision (diff) | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This page is for general discussion about the project. For questions about the Sailor Moon series itself, visit the Reference desk.

Old discussions on this page, which have been inactive for over a month, will be archived on a monthly basis. You can access the archives using the box below.

Community Portal Talk Archives

Page 1 2 3

To-Do List[edit]

These are the main needs of the project at the moment:

General Needs[edit]

  • Expand info in all the stub articles.
  • Summaries for the manga acts and anime and Crystal episodes that don't have them.
  • Apple Pie
  • Lyric translations for the songs that don't have any. (Translations should be your work or posted with permission.)

Requests for Information[edit]

  • Anything in the musical section, especially updating to include information on the Nelke run.
  • Information on Crystal, especially the staff and cast members that don't currently have articles.
  • Updating old information and adding more detail on the Viz dub.

Requests for Images[edit]

  • Episode screencaps for Sailor Moon SuperS
  • Replace TV-quality screencaps with DVD screencaps for PGSM acts 9-49.
  • Pictures of the MOTDs.

Articles to be Cleaned Up[edit]

Upcoming Projects[edit]

Video Game infobox?[edit]

I would like to suggest having an infobox for the video game articles, similar to the DVD or the CD ones. Ranmatanma (talk) 10:50, 7 September 2020 (EDT)

You know, that's a good point - I wonder why we don't already have one. I'll see what I can do. Kerochan no Miko (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2020 (EDT)
Thanks a lot, Kerochan! Ranmatanma (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2020 (EDT)
Finally got a minute and created this: Template:Video Game. If you can think of any other fields that should be added, let's discuss that on the talk page. (Easier to get everything set and ready before adding it to the video game articles.) Kerochan no Miko (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2020 (EDT)

Attack Names (moved from here where it was off-topic)[edit]

I just recently noticed that all the Sailor V-related articles that required it have been moved to fit the official Kodansha release. Now, I totally understand it's the official material but still, here is my real problem with that kind of renaming for those articles: official or not, these names are still translations of Japanese-spoken or partially Japanese-spoken attack. What I mean by that, is that these attacks were given English names while they are in fact NOT spoken in English or only partially so. For exemple, these katakana; (ヴィーナス・パワー 愛のクレッセント・シャワー) romanized give something like that: vinasu pawa ai no kuressento shawa. Meaning that what Sailor V actually says is Venus Power Ai no Crescent Shower.

This situation is different when the katakana give something like "kuressento bimu" (クレッセント・ビーム). It's not really a translation in this case to name the attack Crescent Beam because "kuressento" and "bimu" are NOT Japanese words but English words written in katakana. However "Ai" is NOT an English word. It is a Japanese word that is indeed usually translated as "Love" because it is generally agreed that the two words express the same emotion. But still, Sailor V did not say when using this attack either "Love" or "of Love". What she said was "Ai no", which can be translated either way ("love" or "of love").

Now, it was my deep understanding that on this wiki; accuracy always predominated over ANY translation, official or fan-based. What I mean by that is that articles such as Chou Jigen Kuukan Genshutsu and Youju no Te are not named after any sort of translation, they are named directly after the way they were written in katakana as they SHOULD be. I do not know what name the Kodansha release of the Sailor Moon manga gave to "Chou Jigen Kuukan Genshutsu" but if it is spoken in English by Sailor Mercury, then it is nothing more than a translation. And no matter how official a translation is, it is still a translation and therefore not a 100% accurate. I remember once being told that "translation is treason".

In terms of Style Guideline, I remember being told that this wiki always tries to go with the official Japanese names first. Usually, for those types of attack spoken in Japanese, the article is named in Romaji and then given a English translation in parenthesis. Example: Hana Saimin. Another question I have is; why exactly are the Kodansha releases more reliable than the Mixx Manga? I mean as far as I have seen, the Kodansha releases have ALREADY made there fair share of oblivious mistakes. I mean they change back and forth between two of their own translations for the EXACT same attack ("Venus Power: Crescent Shower of Love" and "Venus Power, Love Crescent Shower"). I mean, make up your mind Kodansha, would you? And then, they somehow find a way to get "Lurga" out of ルウガ (ruuga). And what is up with their obsession with colon?

Also, while the Kodansha is the official ENGLISH manga release, it is still a translation. I doubt that Naoko was in the room with the translators when they decided to name this attack "Venus Power, Love Crescent Shower", even less so when they translated the exact same attack as "Venus Power: Crescent Shower of Love". Therefore, my point is that it is an official North American release. It is still a translation, it is still a Dub, a NA Dub, done by someone other than Naoko. Nothing else. Besides, just because a material is considered official, doesn't mean it can't be flawed (Example: "Deth Fantom"). It also doesn't mean that it is the one we should be using (Example: "Bloody Dracul Vampir" instead of "Bloody Dracul Vampire").

That is why I was rather shocked and baffled when I saw that all these pages had been moved in such a way, completely ignoring not only the official original Japanese names, but also the previously established style guideline which has so far been mostly appropriately used for non-English (Example: "Akuryou Taisan" instead of "Evil Spirit Disperse") and partially English or rather, partially Japanese attacks like this very one (Another exemple: "Hissatsu Love-Me Moon Chain" instead of "Sure Kill Love-Me Moon Chain").

Therefore, I am not suggesting anything. I am rather simply asking to understand the logic behind those changes because other than "Kodansha is official", I have seen no other propelling arguments that support this name. On the contrary, seeing as Kodansha itself has two names for that same attack. I genuinely don't understand why we went with that name rather than what Sailor V actually says. And why are English translations (no matter how official they are supposed to be) suddenly more accurate than the original Japanese manga they are based on? Why would we go with something that is flawed when we can simply directly use the Romaji like we have been doing so far. Does anyone else understand my point? -- Sailor Simon 23:14, 17 January 2012 (EST)

I think we use the romaji only when there's no official English translation (however flawed it is) available. ; ) --210 23:07, 17 January 2012 (MST)
This is correct. Kerochan no Miko 00:01, 18 January 2012 (MST)
No, we don't. There is an official ENGLISH TRANSLATION of Chou Jigen Kuukan Genshutsu now that Kodansha has released the Sailor Moon manga in english but that doesn't change the fact that this attack is called Chou Jigen Kuukan Genshutsu and not ANYTHING else. And by the way, that answer doesn't begin to cover any of my questions. -- Sailor Simon 02:03, 18 January 2012 (EST)
Sailorsimon, speaking as a Wikimoon admin, I am telling you that this is the established style guideline for this wiki. You may not like it, but these articles were moved to fit the Kodansha translations to fit the style guidelines. If you have issues with how other articles are named, then take it up on the talk page for that particular article so it can be considered on a case-by-case basis. Kerochan no Miko 00:06, 18 January 2012 (MST)
Forgive me if I'm confused (it could have something to do with the fact that you didn't actually answered a single one of my questions), but the style guideline says and I quote: "Article titles about attacks, powers, weapons, etc. should ideally be the original name of the attack in Japanese (or in the case of Sabão Spray, Portuguese, or in the case of the Stallion Rêve, French, etc.) rather than an English-translated version of the name". What's up with that? -- Sailor Simon 02:14, 18 January 2012 (EST)
I didn't answer your questions because they were based on your mistaken assumption that we go only with the romanized titles. The line you quoted was written before the Kodansha release was even announced and was referring to the Mixx translations. I'll go fix that now that you've pointed it out to me. Kerochan no Miko 00:22, 18 January 2012 (MST)
My... could you be anymore predictable.... Anything not to be wrong. That's just... wow, honestly. And FYI, saying my question "were based on your mistaken assumption that we go only with the romanized titles" is a nothing but a lie. For instance one of my questions was simply this: why exactly are the Kodansha releases more reliable than the Mixx Manga? Which, again you fail to answer because... frankly I don't know why. -- Sailor Simon 02:30, 18 January 2012 (EST)
Sailorsimon, if you're going to resort to taking jabs at me I will simply direct you to the behavior policies and end this discussion here. Kerochan no Miko 00:32, 18 January 2012 (MST)
Honestly, all I wanted was for you to explain to me why the Kodansha releases is more reliable than the Mixx Manga and why it completely changes this particular style guideline which has been there for like ever and which I truly believed was still in use? But you chose not to answer to me. What am I supposed to think after that? Probably that you don't care about my opinion at all. That's NOT a personal attack, that is genuinely what I feel like when you leave me without answers because apparently I don't deserve them or something.
I get it. You make the calls here. That's fine. I am just someone trying to understand your reasoning because I frankly don't get it and you won't explain it to me. Why else would I ask all these different questions? Is it really too much of me to ask about the logic behind you decisions? -- Sailor Simon 02:38, 18 January 2012 (EST)
The Kodansha releases are more reliable than the Mixx manga. This isn't a point that anyone can argue; I thought it was blatantly obvious, myself. They're actually trying to be faithful to the original and not changing things or putting in blatant mistranslations and errors. No, I'm not terribly fond of some of the translations that they chose, but still, we've decided to go with this. Sometimes a decision of "because I said so" has to be made and it sort of was in this instance since nobody brought up any objections when the discussion of it was going on. I'm trying to answer you, 210 explained it to you, but apparently you're still not happy with the response because you keep arguing with me. It has nothing to do with anything personal, I gave you a response even if it wasn't the exact one you apparently wanted. Kerochan no Miko 00:46, 18 January 2012 (MST)
Reminder: I am French Canadian. I did not read any of the English releases of the manga. All I know from them is that people complain about it. Like MANY on this site, English is not my first language. I have never even seen the Kodansha releases, and even less bought them (I know, shocker). I think that's one of the main problems. You just assumed it was oblivious to everybody that it was better than the Mixx and that everybody just knew about it. I didn't, and until I found all those Sailor V articles, maybe one week ago I did not even thought it was possible to get an accurate English translation of the manga and IN FACT, seeing most of these attack names that were changed and some other mistakes still leaves me an unbeliever, in all honesty. Also, had I been around when you first brought up a suggestion to move those attack articles, you can bet I would have argued those proposals (which is pretty much what my long paragraph was all about). But as it turns out, I was busy with school and getting over the lost of my friend. So, no I was not around when those were discussed. If they even were. Just because no one was around at that time to argue against it, doesn't mean everybody or most people in fact would agree with that decision. Also, like I pointed out the style guidelines had not been modified and there was not a SINGLE notice of any kind, anywhere on any pages about the fact that you, and you alone had took the decision that we were going to go with the Kodansha releases for the attacks. HOW was I supposed to know you had taken that decision? What I am trying to do here now is understand it. Is "Because I said so" really all that you have to say to justify that decision. If so, I'm sorry but I really see more than one issue here. If you have other explanations as to why we go with these attack names, than I beseech you, please give them to me. That's why I am here in the first place. -- Sailor Simon 03:14, 18 January 2012 (EST)
You can't remind me of something I never knew to begin with, I'm afraid.
The point is, you were told by both 210 and then me that the style guidelines were a particular way. Now that I'm aware that was never changed on the actual guideline page (I had intended to do so but apparently forgot; it was discussed and debated quite a bit some time ago, hence the fact that both 210 and I knew about it, so even if you didn't see those discussions it doesn't mean they never happened) and fixed that oversight, I'm not certain what exactly the problem is. You've been given an answer, that's how things are, what else is there to discuss? Kerochan no Miko 01:18, 18 January 2012 (MST)
(I perhaps told you a thousands times or more that English was not my first language and that I was French. Remember the whole "Katsu" ordeal.) Again, correct me if I'm wrong; what you are saying to me is that you took this decision and that not only will you not give me actual reasons besides "Because I said so", you also won't even give me a chance to present opposing arguments in the hope of changing your mind because it's already made up and nothing I say, even if it makes sense will change it and that in fact, you don't even want to hear what I have to say. Is that it? That was not a rhetorical question by the way. I really want to know if still have a chance to change your mind. -- Sailor Simon 03:30, 18 January 2012 (EST)
A thousand times? I seriously doubt that. And I'm afraid I don't recall what "ordeal" you're talking about. Please stick to facts rather than exaggerating, Sailorsimon; I'm not interested in arguing with you.
I have given you answers and I'm really getting frustrated with having to repeat myself constantly. This style decision that was made by more than one user on this wiki is set and firm and will not be changed, that is correct. However, as I previously told you and is stated in the revised style guidelines, if you have issues with a specific article's title, then take it up on that article's talk page and present your particular argument for that article for discussion. If you continue to argue with me here over generalities I will no longer reply because this is completely off topic for this talk page. Kerochan no Miko 10:18, 18 January 2012 (MST)
Alright, geez sorry. Like I said I was not around when you (who is this we you keep talking about?) took that decision, sorry if I was confused by it and wanted to know where it came from in details. However, since you tell me it was discussed quite a bit while I was absent, I would just like to know where exactly the discussion took place regarding that kind of renaming. -- Sailor Simon 00:12, 19 January 2012 (EST)
It was likely me and 210, since we're the ones who are most active on the site. I can't tell you "in details" because I honestly don't recall where and when the discussions took place, but I do know it was in several places over a period of time until a general consensus for consistency was reached. Please stop reacting like I'm angry or yelling at you, because it's nothing of the sort. I'm just honestly baffled as to why anyone would even need details of why the guidelines are how they are, though, because... well, they're the guidelines and they exist because there was a need for consistency and therefore boundaries were established. That's how this stuff works. Now can we get back to just editing the wiki, already? Kerochan no Miko 22:46, 18 January 2012 (MST)


I have noticed there seems to be a pattern for the order of the sections in character articles; (anime, manga, pgsm, musical, video games). Most articles follow that pattern, only a few don't. I've check the style guidelines and there is no explicit mention about that order. Should it be considered a style guideline? It would make sense in terms of consistency. --Sailorsimon 15:32, 4 March 2012 (MST)

It's not in the guidelines because no style was ever specifically established for that. Kerochan no Miko 15:39, 4 March 2012 (MST)
Alright. Well, I think it should be established for consistency reasons. As an admin, what do you think? --Sailorsimon 17:23, 4 March 2012 (MST)
Well, logic dictates that if 99% of articles follow a particular convention and 1% don't, then the 1% should be changed to match. Kerochan no Miko 17:34, 4 March 2012 (MST)
I'm aware of that (I'm a little dumb, but I'm not that stupid), however I'm asking about this because I have been explicitly told that I should not assume anything that isn't stated anywhere and instead, I should ask about it, which is precisely what I'm doing right now. Maker, Fighter, Healer, Nephrite, Zoisite, Kunzite, Metalia, Esmeraude, Wiseman, Professor Tomoe, Tiger's Eye, Hawk's Eye are the only ones not following that order, all the other ones with these sections follow it; so it's basically more like 15%. So, should it be changed? --Sailorsimon 18:09, 4 March 2012 (MST)
It should definitely be changed, but in which direction, I'm undecided. On the one hand the manga came before the anime and so the sections should probably reflect that, but on the other, the anime generally has more canon and is probably more watched than the manga is read and whatnot, so I can see why that comes first. Anyone else have input? Kerochan no Miko 18:56, 4 March 2012 (MST)
I've no preference myself, either way is fine; it's just a question of having consistency. --Sailorsimon 18:59, 4 March 2012 (MST)
As far as the the ordering of the manga & anime sections is concerned, I don't think it needs to be one way or another, so long as they're always above the PGSM, musicals, & games sections (which should be in that order, BTW), because, like what Kerochan said above, they're similarly/equally significant & I always regard them as one category apart from the other incarnations. So my suggestion is to leave that unchanged, as I don't think we need to push consistency that far. But if you insist that there must be an ordering for the two sections, I won't object either, but I think we should go w/ the ordering which affects the least number of articles, i.e. if the anime section comes 1st in most articles, we'll go w/ that ordering. Also, I don't think this' a terribly important & urgent matter at all, so we should change it only when we've come across an article w/ the ordering that can be changed, instead of purposefully seeking out all the articles concerned & changing them all together at once. --210 01:49, 5 March 2012 (MST)
That sounds entirely reasonable to me. Kerochan no Miko 07:37, 5 March 2012 (MST)
If we're going with the ordering that affects the least article, its definitely this one; Anime, Manga, PGSM, Musicals, Games, not only for character articles, but attack articles that are big enough to require those sections also follow that pattern already, for example: Akuryo Taisan, which is why I found it so odd that those few article didn't follow it and felt the need to bring it up in the first place. I think it would only make sense to have consistency for this and, unless someone objects, I don't mind fixing the few articles I mentioned myself. --Sailorsimon 15:46, 5 March 2012 (MST)
So there're just 12 articles not following that order? That's much fewer than I thought. lol But yeah, there's no objection, & I'll also do that myself should I come across w/ one of those articles. --210 00:30, 6 March 2012 (MST)