Talk:Prince Uranus

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)

That's good. This new category could be put under the Fandom category, then. --210 20:51, 5 May 2007 (MST)

I'm not sure that we want an entire category about false rumors - the "Prince Uranus" one has some extensive history and explanation to disprove it, but the Vanessa Mae one, or the movie? I don't think there's much more that can be said about those other than, "they're not at all true." Kerochan no Miko 21:55, 5 May 2007 (MST)

Then such rumors could be just described/chronicled in their respective pages. --210 22:19, 5 May 2007 (MST)

My point was that they don't need their own pages. Kerochan no Miko 23:21, 5 May 2007 (MST)

And mine is that they could've their own pages, w/ the contents as mentioned in my last comment. --210 00:19, 6 May 2007 (MST)

But there's nothing to chronicle. Someone gave the wrong name to an mp3 and suddenly everyone thinks it's Vanessa Mae playing the violin. Someone said, "Hey, Lindsey Lohan should totally be in the movie," and some gullible person believed it. There's nowhere near enough there to make an article for each rumor. I could see one article covering all the rumors, but not individual articles for each. Kerochan no Miko 00:30, 6 May 2007 (MST)

Your one-article suggestion is also fine, as long as such rumors can also be covered. --210 00:38, 6 May 2007 (MST)

It's completely reasonable to mention some of the rumors, since they're fairly prevalent and fall under the scope of the chronicling-fandom part of the project. I just don't want to have a category full of extremely short articles about various rumors, and, as dooky mentioned, I don't want to get swamped with all the weird, stupid, and obscure ones that have inevitably cropped up. Kerochan no Miko 00:41, 6 May 2007 (MST)

Then I guess we postpone this "False Rumors" categorization until there're more articles falling into such category. And of course, those ridiculous rumors are out of the question right from the start. --210 01:27, 6 May 2007 (MST)