Talk:Sailor Senshi

Outer rim

Isn't the name the Outers call themselves in the anime the same as in the manga? Does it really add some extra word for 'rim'? --Masamage ♫ 21:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Dunno. Someone who actully speaks japanese would have to watch. The subs though do say there is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lego3400 (talk • contribs)

No. In both the the anime and manga they use the same term "外部太陽系 (gaibu-taiyoukei)". 外部 (gaibu) = Outer, 太陽系 (taiyoukei) = Solar System. The term "Outer Solar System" is also used in the english versions as well. For reference see Volume 9, page 13(japanese) or 15(english) and/or episode 113(japanese) or 106(english). Ruby 1x2 (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. I have corrected the article accordingly. :) Thank you! --Masamage ♫ 06:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repetition? Merge it?

This article has a few problems here and there. Is there a way we can think really hard to merge it with the Sailor Moon article or other articles? it seems to repeat a lot of information plus include fan POV, which is supposed to be out of our scope. Is there a way to take out the important info and then merge it with existing articles? Since there is a lot of talk of merging, I noticed, this article, too, could be subject to it.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Mayyyybe. It would be pretty hard, so if we did that, I'd like to do it in another "round" of merges and not try to take care of it right now with all the other stuff going on. The other thing is that this does have secondary-source information and critical reception stuff, so it really can hold its own as an article if we get it tidied up. --Masamage ♫ 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:OI does not support current image

The current image of the sailor outfit diagram does not appear to be supported by WP:OI due to it introducing specific unpublished ideas. Not only that but seems extremely unnecesary to illustrate a diagram of their uniform.Lucia Black (talk) 00:25, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Which ideas does it introduce which are unpublished? It is a free image that replaces what could be several paragraphs of discussion. --Malkinann (talk) 03:15, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Paragraphs based on what source? Images? That's not really a strong support. For the most part a diagram of the generic outfit is unnecessary. Even if an official diagram appeared it would be used only to illustrate, not to provide description within the image. A better image would show the stages of sailor moon's outfit considering her's is the only one that made it to the anime on the third stage. Overall describing the outfits in such an intricate way is unnecessary and trivial especially when there's enough images.Lucia Black (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, the unique hairstyles and earrings have been described by secondary sources. What unpublished ideas does the image introduce? Free images help people to understand concepts. --Malkinann (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Images in general help but not all are necessary, even free images. Images meant to help alongside the text. Ear rings being noted, does that make it necesary for a diagram? Seems rather fancruft to keep an image to get into detail to avoid description.Lucia Black (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The earrings and hairstyles was off the top of my head. If you would tell me which specific unpublished ideas you feel the image introduces, I might be able to point you in the right direction. If you cannot, I doubt I'll be able to help you. I would suggest you get in contact with Masamage - she would know which sources she used exactly to create the image. --Malkinann (talk) 04:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if its supported by published sources the image still puts intricate detail into one image. Let me rephrase, images are meant to compliment what we have in prose. A section completely meant for a diagram to describe and illustrate. Its more of a matter of intricate detail along with potential unpublished ideas which I see are in the areas with the word "may".Lucia Black (talk) 04:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The picture is far more succinct than putting it into words. If it is only "potential" unpublished ideas you see in the image, why did you remove it, and why can't you be specific about what the original research in the picture is? For the fourth time, what is the original research represented in this picture? --Malkinann (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Areas with "may"in their sentences. Also you're missing the point. Images compliment the text, images don't relace text. That is why images have captions. Still this appears more intricate detail issu.Lucia Black (talk) 05:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"May" is not a "word to watch". The use of the word "may" in this diagram simply indicates the variety of sailor uniforms - as a shorthand for "in some, this is true, in others, that is true" - which can be cited to the primary sources. Is the use of the word "may" your only indication of original research, or is there anything else? The diagram complements the rest of the text in the section Sailor_Senshi#Uniform_and_power-ups, and aids in comprehension. --Malkinann (talk) 05:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly because the image attempts to compliment itself with description. Differences of between 2nd and 3rd stage which text is based on image collection. The material it is made of aswell shows some signs of in-universe. And aain overall to intricate.Lucia Black (talk) 05:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The image has captions within it to aid comprehension, that's all. Do you still feel the image presents original research? --Malkinann (talk) 05:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I just mentioned the areas didn't I? Do you intentionally ignore my second point?Lucia Black (talk) 05:42, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Anything I did not specifically respond to, I did not understand. Could you please rephrase it? Do you still feel the image presents original research? --Malkinann (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ill take it as uncivility next time, if you don't undderstand then ask or else ill take it as you ignoring it. And it may be bad faith but I'm not using heavy dialogue nor vague wording and you mae no attempt to understand because you leave no responce. Yes image still has Original Research. I already answered where too. My other point, has too much intricate detail based on very little sources. We have about 2 images illustrating their uniform. We don't need one giving detail to each aspect. That's what makes this article fancruft.Lucia Black (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I genuinely have difficulty understanding you, as you don't always use correct grammar or spelling. I made no response to that point because I did not wish to risk offending you based on a misunderstanding, as has happened many times in the past. Please assume good faith. The italics are a representation of my thoughts as I read through this sentence of yours. " Differences of (what?) between 2nd and 3rd stage which text is based on image collection. (Why is it bad that it's based on the image collection?) The material it is made of aswell shows some signs of in-universe. (How is it in-universe?) And aain overall to intricate. (Is this a 'trivia' argument? In an article about a kind of soldier with a uniform, a picture of that uniform is 'trivia'? ) " Please rephrase where the image still has original research, so that I can try to understand you better.

I don't feel the image should be removed because it's 'too intricate' or 'fancruft' because some people learn through pictures, others through words, and it's a free picture. Some discussion of the fictional world is necessary in articles about a fictional subject - there is a section for critical attention which explains the Sailor Senshi's relationship to the real world. The article attempts to take a real-world perspective at all times and avoid 'fancruft'. --Malkinann (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Its trivial to make a diagram out of every piece the generic sailor senshi uniform has if we already have images of the sailor senshi. I tend to not let free images be taken lightly just because they have no copyright issues. And I also don't agree with the casual perspective of some readers needing images to describe every detail. Most images aren't being used the way this one is.

Overall 1 image of sailor moon outfit stages and a caption merely describing which stage is which shows perfect understanding and lack of intricate detail. Fictional subjects need to be treated a lot more delicately. The article is flagged with OR and lack of citation (not by me). And maybe a different approach would work in favor of the article and to me, that image promotes a lot more OR than you think. I notice quite a few articles have a lot of intricate detail, and a new approach might definitely help.Lucia Black (talk) 06:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Making a diagram can help people to understand the uniform - in science articles, diagrams are routinely used to help people understand concepts. The uniform of the Sailor Senshi is a concept, which this image helps people understand. Where is the OR in the image? --Malkinann (talk) 06:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

The comparison is like comparing an ant to a mountain. Again your view is extremely casual. You keep asking the same thing. Here's the difference between science and uniforms. Science diagrams are based on facts, this diagram is merely based on what others have said alongside images. The usage is based on subjective sources.Lucia Black (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sailor Moon Cosplay and Drawings

I think a fact or two about Sailor Moon cosplay -- "costume play," where someone dresses up as their favorite manga or anime character -- might help. I just googled "Sailor Moon cosplay" and got 2,250,000 hits -- a great many people make, buy, sell, and wear Sailor Moon costumes, not merely for Usagi but for the other Senshi as well. I personally am not a Sailor Moon cosplayer, but for the very large number of such people, this article and its labeled picture will probably be quite informative.

There are a good many detailed but unlabeled photographs of these costumes (e.g., http://www.cosplaybuy.com/sailor-moon-tsukino-usagi-cosplay-costume-p-37.html). But those are commercial sites, and doubtless the images are under copyright. So a drawing has distinct advantages in this article. People who make their own costumes will probably find the drawing much more useful than any of these photographs. So far as original images are concerned, the drawing included here seems simply to be a more detailed and labeled drawing based on some of these photographs. So the drawing can be sourced, at least in principle, to many of the existing Sailor Moon Cosplay websites.

Labels are standard in drawings, so there's nothing problematic about them.

Timothy Perper (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I've come over from the Wikipedia talk:No original research and I definitely think there looks like a problem. There need to be citations pointing out all these things, not just pictures from which people work it out. For instance is there a WP:Reliable source that points out that the back bow may be the main secondary or tertiary colour? Dmcq (talk) 17:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What difference does it make? If I said that Santa Claus has a white beard in the folklore of Santa Claus, would you ask for a reliable source for him having a white beard or would you simply look at the picture and say "Gee, he has a white beard?" Ditto for the color of the back bow in the drawings. Either it is -- or is not -- the "main secondary or tertiary" color. And that you can see without any unnecessary extra references. In plain English, the request you're making is just wasted work someone has to do, and achieves nothing at all substantive or meaningful. Assume good faith and stop wasting the time of other editors. And if you insist that an RS is necessary, then look it up yourself and don't tell other people what to do. Timothy Perper (talk) 20:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The article on Santa Claus does not specify his beard colour but it refers to the article on Sinterklaas and also the article on the poem A Visit from St. Nicholas or as we call it now 'The night before Christmas' from 1823 with the line 'And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow;'. If someone did want to put something in about the colour of his beard there are lots of books that could be cited, for instance The Magic of Santa Claus More Than Just a Red Suit page 29.

Now in the case of this article there are some very specific assertions about the outfit in the diagram, where are the citations? It is not like a case of you asserting Santa Claus has a white beard. That article does not say that and if it did it could be easily cited. Dmcq (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit conflict.

Actually, the label in the drawing says about the back bow: "The back bow may be the main, secondary, or tertiary color." That about covers the major possibilities. The word "may" can (to my mind) have two meanings. The first is "may" in the sense of "might" or "could," referring to a specific drawing or costume made by a fan or cosplayer, meaning that Cosplayer #1 made her back bow in one of those colors. The second is "may" in the sense of permission (as in saying "Yes, you may make your cosplay costume with the back bow in any of those three colors"). And now we have major nitpicking and micromanagement of details that are quite obvious. To be honest, I don't think any references, reliable or otherwise, will help one bit. This is serious overkill and, as I said, a waste of time. May I suggest instead that anyone seriously interested in improving this article (which, IMO, it needs) can find better things to improve than this? Timothy Perper (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot. If you really, really think it needs citations, well, then you can go look them up and add them yourself. Please stop telling other people what they should do. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the diagram as it looks like it is WP:Original research. Dmcq (talk) 22:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you know what consensus is? Timothy Perper (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes WP:CONSENSUS. Just like WP:Original research. See WP:CONLIMITED "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Dmcq (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OK -- sounds like, to me, that you have no consensus among editors for removing the drawing. You're acting on your own, as if you own the article. It's my understanding that there has been considerable and quite heated disagreement among editors about what the Sailor Moon articles, this one included, should and should not contain. In other words, there is no consensus about the nature of original research or POV in these articles (part of this issue is under mediation at the moment). You can "be bold" and remove material if and whenever you want, but I'm afraid = concerned that you are merely adding oil to the flames. In my opinion, your action -- although I believe you made it in all good faith -- is not helpful. I am asking you to revert your removal of the drawing, in order not to inflame matters even more. I -- personally, I mean -- will not revert you, but I think your action is unwise. I am not interested in flame warring with you. I am interested in achieving consensus and something resembling peaceful agreement and cooperation among the editors who have worked on the Sailor Moon articles for some years now. I hope that is clearer: you have the right to remove the drawing, but I think it is an unwise and non-consensual action at this point. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If I reverted myself I would be sticking quite clear and unnecessary original research into Wikipedia. I do not see why sticking it in would be helpful in any way. I am sorry if there are problems here but I do not do things which clearly conflict with policy. What is necessary to include the graphic is some citations in accord with what is said in WP:OI "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Note 'unpublished'. Dmcq (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

At the moment, it is not clear that the drawing contains original research. But that is one of the issues currently under debate. In a previous comment, I cited several websites that have photographs of various Sailor Senshi costumes that are very close to those illustrated in the drawing. So the drawing escapes, in my opinion, the accusation of containing "unpublished" ideas or arguments. When you claim that the "original research" of the drawing is "quite clear," you must justify that assertion, not merely say it is self-evidently true (because it is not), but justify the claim with a variety of sources external to Wikipedia and to your own thinking. You will have to describe in identifiable and non-trivial detail what this "original research" is -- what unpublished ideas or arguments it contains. You have not, in my opinion, provided any such justification, merely the opinion that your assertion is true. And that is unhelpful. So once again I am asking you to please revert your removal of the drawing. Timothy Perper (talk) 01:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I don't think this is going anywhere, so I'm going to remove Sailor Senshi from my watchlist. I have other things to do. I don't think that Dmcq has consensus about removing the diagram, and he hasn't explained what, if anything, is original research about the ideas or arguments in the drawing. But I also don't think that my repeating that will get us anywhere, so I'm going to stop here. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:Verifiability is a basic requirement in Wikipedia and is what lies behind the original research policy. I asked for just one bit of citation of one thing and got nothing. As the policy says 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material'. One doesn't stick things in and then challenge others to show it is wrong. Anyway I've said after this what I think can be done to rescue most of the hard work that's been put in. Dmcq (talk) 09:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't have particular problems with the diagram itself. It is the comments all round it that are problematic. What I think could be done is to label the parts rather than comment on them, i.e point out earrings, pendant, choker, bow etc. The text that is there could then be put into the article. Editing and improvement and citing of the description can then be done according to the usual procedures. Dmcq (talk) 09:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I find it lacking in evidence but the so called evidence is the mention of it. Though merely labeling it might not be a problem I still think the need for a diagram is lacking.Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

OBJECTION!

I go away for a little while and people try and stip more content out of things. Sersioulsy. Stop. Unless you're adding info or it's wrong, don't touch it. Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 02:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith and be civil. The result of the above discussion was that we should remove the photograph as it violates a fundamental policy: No original research. I have already notified the Anime WikiProject to see if other users can get involved in this matter here. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Theres no need to for this image at all. Its Original research because no source "highlights" given aspects of the source. There is already an image of the sailor senshi. Also on the note of "adding" many articles NEED trimming. We cant keep trivia, original research/unverifiable claims.Lucia Black (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Only stuff that people have thought worth noting in a reliable source is eligible to be in the article. And even if the information did have citations the way to do it would be to label the pieces in the diagram and then have the text describing them in the text where they can be edited and cited properly. The illustration without all the original research just labels would I believe be ok under WP:OI but of course there's no point unless it can accompany such cited text. Dmcq (talk) 10:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

The relevance of the image is in question. Even if it could be cited, the image would be considered trivial or unnecessary.Lucia Black (talk) 18:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I hardly see a consenuous in the above discussion. In fact I see the exact oppisite. I even see someone calling you out on not having and ignoreing the wants of the wiki-project. That's hardly a cause for a removal.Lego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, only stuff that people have thought worth noting in a reliable source is eligible to be in the article. The way to do it would be to label the pieces in the diagram. The illustration without the original research would be okay under WP:OI. As such, we should leave it out unless it can accompany such cited text. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:32, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal

This article has several issues as noted at the top of the page. Most of it is fan-cruft, overdetailed descriptions of minor stuff (such as uniforms or power guardians), similar to the former Saiyan (Dragon Ball) article. My proposal, section by section, goes as follows:

• Sailor Team (Guardian and Outer Senshi): trim to its basics and add it to the List of characters, before Mercury, Mars, Jupiter and Venus, and Uranus, Neptune, Pluto and Saturn respectively.
• Uniform and power-ups: the contents from this section are already covered in each Senshi's "Aspects and forms" section. Nothing worth saving, perhaps a general, brief description of the Sailor Fuku in the List of Sailor Moon characters.
• Variants: re-tell of Sailor Stars. Nothing worth saving.
• Sailor Princesses: the contents from this section are already covered in each Senshi's "Princess Planet" section. Nothing worth saving.
• Sailor Power Guardians: move to the list of characters.
• Sailor Crystals: in-universe cruft.
• Silver Crystal: trim and merge into the "Special powers and items" section in Usagi's article, under a whole new subsection.
• Critical attention: keep reliable sources and move section to the Legacy and Reception sections in the List of characters.

Thoughts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Some well sourced from all across the article, especially the intro, and the Sailor Team and Uniforms sections, can be placed under a "Concept and Creation" section in the List of characters. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per Lord Opeth's reasoning. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I performed the merger as suggested. I was able to create "Creation and conception", "Merchandise" and "Reception" sections in the List of Sailor Moon characters to mirror other lists of anime characters, especially List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters and List of Naruto characters, which are Featured Articles. I moved the Silver Crystal section to the "Special powers and items" in Usagi's article. The rest is cruft and repeated information from each Senshi's indiviual article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)