Talk:Sailor Starlights/Archive 1

Archive 1

Princess Kakyuu

Question: why don't this article and Sailor Moon refer to Princess Kao(プリンセス華王)? KIZU 07:37, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

or Princess Kakyu(火球). Sorry, now I have the copy of these episodes. KIZU

Uh.

There is no general consensus on whether "Kou" is their first or last name . . . maybe this should be changed? I don't know, but I don't want to. ^_^

The fact that they write their names in Kanji as Seiya Kou, Taiki Kou etc which has strict rules on name order indicates their given names are Kou. GracieLizzie 16:54, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm

"Kou Seiya is performed by Shiho Niiyama, who is currently deceased." I think deletion of "currently" would be fairly reasonable, no? ~Chez

Where is this information coming from?

"references to the gods Shiva, Vishnu, and Brahma in Hinduism."

As far as I know, the names are references to various types of astronomical light.

Ken Arromdee 19:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The names themselves are not references to those gods, but I've read before that the Starlights may be based on them. Brahma is the creator (Maker), Vishnu is the preserver (Healer) and Shiva is the destroyer (Fighter.) The colors of the starlights' suits in the manga may also be a clue. Seiya's is red, the color of fire, and Shiva was associated with the element of fire. Yaten's is blue, and Vishnu's color was blue. Taiki's is brown, which is often associated with earth, and Brahma's element is earth. This may be too much speculation for this article, but if we're allowing assertions that there were other Starlights on Kinmoku or that the Starlights are simply a rehash of Haruka, I don't see why we can't include this.

Takeuchi and the anime

Takeuchi's annoyance with numerous aspects of the anime (most notably the Starlights' gender change) is often mentioned, but I've never seen any references, other than one incident where Takeuchi expressed (extremely mild) displeasure at changes to Uranus and Neptune's personalities. While I doubt this is a complete fabrication, I do suspect that it's an exaggeration: but without references it can't really be proven either way. As it stands, the first paragraph is dangerously POV-infested waters... phrases such as "cheap subversion" seem to imply a bias towards the manga version of the story. There does seem to be a tendency amongst those who prefer the manga to overstate Takeuchi's dislike of the anime, and I just want to be sure that this isn't the case here.

Certainly, this controversy (if it actually existed) deserves coverage, but placing it in the very first paragraph seems to be granting it importance that it doesn't merit. Aside from anything else, the controversy may or may not be founded on a misconception anyway - although the Three Lights appeared physically male, it was implied towards the end of the series that they were never really male, and the form was just a disguise. The article actually mentions this later on, so as it stands the whole thing is rather confusing.

Could somebody please provide some proof for this Takeuchi controversy? Otherwise it should really be removed, or at the very least toned down. Dooky 21:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a reference to the San Diego Comic Con and Artbook 5, but it's been changed from "displeasure" to "hatred" over the years, so yes, it's been overblown. Even so, it should be referenced rather than let to run wild and free. --Hitsuji Kinno 20:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Star Lights

Technically in the manga they are the 3 Sailor Lights. The Star comes from the fact that everyone gets a Star Form. Sailor Star Mercury, Star ChibiMoon, ect thanks to their Sailor Crystals. Unfortunately someone removed it because they didn't do any research into this and I'm not putting it back.

Sources please, and no fansites, thanks. They are NOT known as the "Sailor Lights". I have heard the "Star form" explanation before only ONCE, and that person had no explanation whatsoever as to why the supposed "Star" forms of the other Senshi had uniforms that mirrored Sailor Moon's next-to-last transformation in the manga and final transformation in the anime, which is NOT referred to as "Star" anything, but as "Eternal Sailor Moon". As a matter of fact, they didn't have sources to back it up, either! You'd think it would be easy, no? As in, it would be in either the manga or referenced in an art book. But I have yet to ever see anyone use any one of those as a source top back up the "Sailor Star [insert planet here]" naming scheme claim - indeed, I've yet to see a single person list any source whatsoever to back up the claim. The other Senshi are referred to with no special title, whether "Eternal" or "Star". Back it up if you're going to claim it. 169.139.190.6 22:08, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Sailor Lights" cruft is from CureWhite, who was briefly rather notorious for trying to pass fanon terms as canon. Danny Lilithborne 03:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look at it, there's nothing official to suggest the "Eternal Sailor *" or "Sailor Star *" names. I'm removing them. Danny Lilithborne 03:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Odd Revert

So, I edited the page, then someone reverted it for no stated reason. So I've reverted it back to counter this unexplained and pointless RV. would the person who did it care to explain why they felt the need to eliminate my edits? Xuanwu 20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The article the way it was was fine. Your version adds too much speculation and POV, which I felt was self-evident just by reading it. I reverted it back. Danny Lilithborne 22:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The edits afterward seem to be fine, though, so I left them. Danny Lilithborne 22:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, okay. I didn't like how several of the sentences were very clipped and short, so I tried to add material to them for the sake of readability and flow. See what you think now. I've removed fan speculation (which I thought might be relevant, since popular theories about characters usually go onto their Wiki pages) and stuck mainly to what's shown in the anime. Xuanwu 21:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New link

I would like to add a link on this page: http://www.kinmoku.net/pops/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neptunekh (talk • contribs) .

I get a 403 error when trying to access that page, and a The page isn't redirecting properly one to the site (but that may be because I am blocking scripts). Note that it has an Alexa ranking of 2,155,899; this just means it is not very visited. -- ReyBrujo 02:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add some links but Danny Lilithborne keeps deleteing them when I add them on Sailor Moon pages becuase he says Wikipedia dosen't allow fansites. What can I do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neptunekh (talk • contribs) .

Well, that's not strictly true: fansites are allowed as references, i.e., if they actually contain citeable information, or are a sufficiently comprehensive guide to the series. Character shrines don't generally qualify because their focus is too narrow. I would advise that you refrain from adding links until you understand what those links are actually there for. Also, please sign your comments as we have: putting four tildes (~~~~) after your comment will suffice, as the Wiki will replace them with an appropriate signature.  –Aponar Kestrel (talk) 14:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

But Danny Lilithborne doesn't care what kind shrine or link I put on the Sailor Moon Page. He deletes it anyway. What can I do about him? I'm not sure how to exactly sign my signature correctly.

(24.82.103.6 04:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)<UserTalk:Neptunekh/UserNeptunekh>

The sites you put up are, as he said, character shrines. It's not like I don't look at the site before I delete it. Danny Lilithborne 07:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Danny why were you deleting the sites on the Xena pages? they were none your Bussniess! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neptunekh (talk • contribs) .

Improving article quality is the business of everyone who edits Wikipedia. You're not doing yourself any favors here. Danny Lilithborne 00:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying I'm going to get banned? The user splash said I wouldn't. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neptunekh (talk • contribs) .

What? No. I'm saying you're not helping your case. It's already been explained to you why the sites you've contributed thus far are non-notable, but you keep insisting they are, and not saying anything new. If you were to accept it and continue to contribute in other ways, it would help everyone out more. Anyway, this conversation is over. Danny Lilithborne 01:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Mamoru

Is there anything in the anime saying that only Sailor Soldiers had true star seeds because I recall Princess Fireball having one and she wasn't a soldier in the anime. 66.177.3.102 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Princess Kakyuu was a sailor soldier in the manga, though... If you look here, [1], at the bottom of the page, you can see Naoko Takeuchi's notes that say that Kakyuu had a Sailor Senshi form. If you look around on that site, you can probably find a picture of her in her sailor suit. Mamoru's a bit of a mystery to me, as well, but I believe that because he loved Usagi, the rules were bent for him. - 220.237.30.150 09:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll try and find the text of the Naoko article/interview. One I had read said that Mamoru was a senshi but not a Sailor senshi --Sketchee 16:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

On Seiya/Usagi and Seiya/Kakyuu

From the manga section:

"Unlike the anime, there is no implied romance between the Starlights and any of the main cast. Seiya appears to form a bond with Usagi, but one with mainly sisterly overtones and deep respect (because Seiya knows Usagi is a Princess)."

I am not sure this statement is entirely accurate. Although they never become a couple, Seiya clearly has a crush on Usagi in the manga. In volume 17 Seiya gazes at Usagi and states that she's in an unrequited love. She also kisses Usagi twice (though Usagi does not return the kiss on either occasion.)

I think the point about Seiya and Kakyuu could use some more support instead of just being squished into the paragraph on Seiya and Michiru. If nobody minds I'll add a few things in.

--Yumecosmos

That's fanon, not canon. Fanon has no place in a wikipedia article. The kiss that Seiya is very similar to the kiss that Sailor Uranus gave when Sailor Uranus first appeared in the manga. In fact, Takeuchi stated that Seiya was based on Mamoru and Uranus in the Materials Collection. Often in Japanese culture same-sex kisses as went on between Seiya and Usagi in the manga are not considered 100% sexual, but getting into this is too heavy-handed. Please stay away from fanon. Fan speculation has no place in a Wikipedia article. --Hitsuji Kinno 20:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, true. But I think I'm going remove the bit about 'mainly sisterly overtones' because technically even that is speculation. ^^; --Masamage 03:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In Act 46 Seiya says "We are of different stations in the universe. It might be unrequited love, Seiya." How is a direct quote from the manga considered fanon? (Unless I've misunderstood what fanon is.) I am not trying to say that they are a couple in canon, but that statement seems to make it pretty clear that Seiya has feelings toward Usagi.

--Yumecosmos

Oh, cool, I didn't know about that line. So yeah, some (restrained) coverage of it would be entirely appropriate. Thanks! --Masamage 05:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• nodnod* And I totally agree on the "restrained" part. I don't think the article should go so far as to say that Seiya and Usagi are a couple, only that Seiya crushes on Usagi. I may be biased since I'm a fervent UsaMamo shipper, but I think it's fairly obvious in any version of the series who the official couple is. ^_^

Granted, the line I quoted above is from the Alex Glover translations, which I understand to have some errors. But I do read some Japanese, and own the original Japanese manga, and I checked it against the script. The word Seiya uses is "kataomoi" (片思い) which means one-sided love. (Confirmation: http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/wwwjdic.html) I probably shouldn't have brought up the Seiya/Kakyuu thing since it is pretty much entirely fanon. The only thing resembling canon support that I know of is a scene where Seiya says she likes Usagi because Usagi reminds her of Kakyuu, and Seiya's anguished expression when Kakyuu talks about her lover. Both of those could easily be interpreted in a non-romantic sense. Yumecosmos 21:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I take the manga Seiya/Usagi thing to be pretty much accurate because I recently learned that the former actually kisses the latter on the lips and says "I hope we're born again." Kinda clinches the issue for me. o_o

Agreed on the Kakyuu thing. I think just covering the fact that Seiya and Kakyuu have some kind of close bond is both appropriate and sufficient. --Masamage 21:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Someone added a merge recommendation. I agree with the merge, since I think most of the info in the Three Lights stub is in this article, anyway. Copy paste whatever isn't in here and make the other page a redirect. Xuanwu 06:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Support I also support this.--Hitsuji Kinno 20:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Support Yup~ --Masamage 03:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Several dates

I only remember one date, could we get references for these "several" dates? Also that section is very slanted towards U/S shippers. Could it be made a tad more neutral? --Hitsuji Kinno 20:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Probabaly. XD Also, it depends on how you define a 'date'. Only one was ever called that; they certainly spent a lot of time together, which is more useful information anyway. I'll adjust. --Masamage 03:32, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Hindu

I removed this, even though it's fascinating:

There is also fan speculation that the Starlights may be connected to the Hindu trinity of the creator, preserver, and the destroyer: Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva.

Whether true or not, that made me ridiculously happy. It needs a source to be in the article, though. --Masamage 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Source ;) - Malkinann 11:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Gender section

I tried to clean it up, but the gender-debate section concludes with this statement:

Their status as aliens makes analyzing their gender traits inconclusive and for the realm of fan speculation only.

Uh? That sounds like open admission that this section needs to be deleted entirely. Any opposition? --Masamage 03:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

No opposition. I'm all for it. If it's to stay, it neds to be supported by quotes and facts from the manga and anime, which can be found, but in the meantime I'd vote it down until this page can get the attention it needs. Hitsuji Kinno 04:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Let's get at least one more okay and then do it. --Masamage 15:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: I was trying to contrast the analysis of the Starlights physical gender (which is based on the anime and manga) with attempts to analyze the mental gender identities of the Starlights. Since their mental state would be purely fan spec, I did not include it and put that line to explain why it wasn't appropriate. The sentence does NOT refer to the analysis of their physical gender, since there is confusion caused by the anime and manga sources which is worth noting. Xuanwu 23:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The section is entirely OR and either needs to be sourced, or deleted. I'm for deletion. --Kunzite 00:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Sources are already there, as I've added references to the anime and manga already. Xuanwu 22:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I am, too. --Masamage 05:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I rewrote the section to change bits that Kunzite had perceived as OR (there wasn't any OR there, of course, but I can understand how it could be misread as such). The purpose of the section was to point out the ambiguity of the anime in regards to the issue, based on events and statements made in the anime. The section is now similar to the ambiguity notes present in other Wiki articles, such as the one in the Constructicons article. Pointing out how a show fails to address a certain issue (especially one as important to the dynamics of the character relationships) is important and not OR, I think. Xuanwu 02:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Starlights stronger than other Sailor Senshi?

I think the article puts too much emphasis on the Starlight's power versus the other senshis' power. It is certainly never stated that they are more powerful, and though it is true they defeat some enemies the other senshi had trouble with, I do not think this is enough proof (there are other explanations such as they know more about them, their attacks are more suitable etc.). Certainly, neither the starlights nor Princess Kakyuu are as powerful as Sailor Moon. --KagamiNoMiko 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The Starlights prove the most resilient and powerful of all the Senshi teams...

Er, no. They prove how powerful they are. There is a difference. You cannot compare the direct battles betweem the Starlights and Galaxia with the "direct battles" betwen the Senshi and Galaxia. The Inner Senshi has their starseeds taken right away. They did not get a chance to combat Galaxia and prove how poweful they are. If the Starlights had their starseeds taken away instantly (a key moment being when they were wounded in front of her queen's throne), they would of died as well. Uranus and Neptune did not "subdue after a short fight". Thay had already willingly surrendered their starseeds to Galaxia, and after a failed attempt at taking her starseed, Galaxia removed their bracelets, and without those bracelets to keep them alive without starseeds, they died. Pluto and Saturn have no place in this since they didnt even combat Galaxia in any way. Explaining how powerful the Starlights are is fine, the unjust comparisons arnt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.165.180.228 (talk • contribs)

Good points, I think your change looks just fine. Thanks! --Masamage 00:27, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Reformatting to new template rules

God, this page gives me a headache, on so many levels. First, off it has 3 Sailors that are generally mixed up with each other. This won't do. It's going to be reworked in this fashion: Main section descrbing the whole lot, who they are, etc. Individual sections with attacks, actresses to the new template assigned. The last part I have major contention with is fan speculation, or fan digging because the fans want to "defend" them. This won't do either. If you want to speculate on something, argue for a part, back it up with sources from manga, anime, and finally interviews. If you really feel like you need to "defend" them, take it to your own website, there are plenty of free space websites out there too, or even a friend can lend a bit of server space. If you fail to do so properly, it has no place on the page. Therefore, in the reworking of this page tons of info will TEMPORARILY look like it's being deleted, but trust me it'll be back and with more info, and scary backed sources with support from the manga, anime, and interviews. Take that to the Sm bank, will ya! And I'd ask for any fan speculation like Seiya and Usagi's romance, fan debates and sensitive subjects that are not supportable to go the way of the Michiru bisexuality, the Hotaru and Chibiusa romance and other ugly subjects that we haven't decided what to do with like the Sailor Cosmos Debate go the way of the Dodo bird and die for now. Wikipedia saves everything, so don't have a complete heart attack. Discuss it here and get a vote on it before adding the section back in and follow the template rules. Thank you. >.<;; God this is keeping me up. I wanted to do laundry. *grumbles* of all of the templates this one deviated waaaayyy off scale. *grumble* --Hitsuji Kinno 01:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

*headdesk* God, that was awful. I managed to cut a lot of plot info which should go into the eventual episode summaries or plot arc info. I reformatted everything for a piliminary check. I cut tons of info because, when it was boiled down the page is mostly about Seiya's romantic feelings towards Usagi. This I also cut down--you can get the idea in the first round and don't have to argue it for a whole entire section. The stuff about gender I also reworked into the first paragraph a little because I also think this is not a big issue. If someone takes up a huge issue with that redirect them to the gender identity part of wikipedia *evil grin* They can argue with the people there, and the Ranma 1/2 fandom. I cut anything that was not referenced and seemed like fan speculatuion, added a few references of my own from their original sources. If you REALLY want to bring back some part of a section you worked on, please, please lay off of spoeculation and get it from the horse's mouth. You have a choice of three basic sources, anime, manga and creators. If you CANNOT get those sources, well, I know Tadano has her own website and speaks a little English, give her a shot if she still remembers. Otherwise can it until you can find support, that's definite with quotes from the Alex Glover Translations. >.<;; I will not entertain fan notions just because a character or a set of characters or pairings happen to be your "favorites". I will ask for reversion and vote for it if I see it. This page was riddled with it worse than most of the rest of the pages. Enough to make this particular fan really want to bang her head against the wall. Fan wars is not where it's at *gets off of soapbox* I'll be reworking the profiles again. I decided to cut the variations and make it part of the initial profile since there aren't that lot of details to go in. No one panic. Don't Panic, it'll be fine... I'll work on fleshing out what was cut next and adding things that people definitely missed. *gets the page away from Seiya fans* Bad fans, find some Yaten and Taiki Fans and maybe we'll talk before you edit. *sorry if I sound cranky this page was hard to wrestle with* P.S. Taking a short break forgive me.--Hitsuji Kinno 03:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

No objections?

If there are no objections I'll start in on the other pages too. This has had about a week to be up and I haven't seen anyone swoop in and try to change things drastically. Given this, I think it would be fine to do the other pages around this format. --Hitsuji Kinno 14:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, which other pages? --Masamage 18:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The ones with multiple characters in them. For example, the Sailor Quartet/Amazones Quartet. Move the relavent attacks would be up to relevant characters, etc. So this would be the basis to start developing the other multi-character pages. (not all headings will be needed for subsequent pages, but the same general order. --Hitsuji Kinno 23:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, yeah, doing the Amazoness Quartet this way is probably all right. My favorite group-page so far is Shadow Galactica. :) But then, they're villains, so it's slightly different.--Masamage 23:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

References Clean Up

There are two types of referencing o this page, which is confusing... can't someone fix this? (I'm working on other sections). It looks like it referencing episodes... so it should be trivial to fix. We should establish how to reference episodes too. --Hitsuji Kinno 16:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)