Talk:Death Busters

Kaori Knight

This gets reverted by well-meaning passersby often enough that we should find a source for it ASAP. --Masamage 01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Kaori Knight was shown on the box for the Irwin Toys release of the dolls (back in 1996). We know now that this was incorrect spelling, as the SMS dub series was not starting production for another 4 years. On the back of the Pioneer release of the edited version of SMS (Vol.3 "Birthday Blues"), her name is shown as KAORINITE, as it is also shown in the subtitled version of the DVDs released by Pioneer which seems to use all the dub spellings of the names (which are pretty much just an alteration of the Romanized original Japaneses names). Fighter4luv 13:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you so much. I'll change it to that effect now. --Masamage 04:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, there is no proof of Kirsten Bishop ever voicing Telulu. We are only aware of her doing the voices for Zoycite, Emerald, Kaorinite, and Badiyanu (btw, she wasn't referred to as "Queen Badiyanu" in the English version). We are still unaware of the voice actress who did Telulu, but it doesn't sound like anyone who has worked on the English Sailor Moon version previously. Fighter4luv 07:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I remember her being Badiyanu in English. o_O I'll remove Ms. Bishop from Tellu's bio, anyway. Thanks. --Masamage 20:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, the "" were only supposed to be around the "Queen" part, lol. She was referred to as Badiyanu, just not Queen Badiyanu. Fighter4luv 12:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhh! Gotcha. I'll make it happen. :) --Masamage 22:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0084113/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.199.49 (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

IMDB information is submitted by users and is not reviewed for accuracy. We've been able to prove it wrong in a few cases before. --Masamage ♫ 16:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Germatoid

We either A: Need a Section along with an image or B: Talk more about him under the Prof's Section and supply a pic. --Lego3400: The Sage of Time 16:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean Germatoid? Because there is a pic already. He's the possessed form, isn't he? --Masamage 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah him... But doesn't he leave the professor in order to attack the senshi? Lego3400: The Sage of Time 01:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

He does leave the Professor's body and attacks Uranus and Neptune. It was the first uses of "Submarine Reflection" and "Space Sword Blaster" in the anime, although they didn't use the phrases. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 15:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we have a separate section for Germatoid? His vocals during the battle with Uranus and Neptune in the Cloverway dub, he was voiced by Jeff Lumby, Tony Daniels, David Fraser, Steven Bednarski, and one other actor that has still yet to be confirmed. ~ Corza Moon (a.k.a Fighter4Luv) (talk) 10:52, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

two pics of misstress 9

i hope no one minds but i deleted one of the mistress 9 pictures because evrey other death buster had one picture and i didnt see why it need two but if any one has a problem im sorry Sailor cuteness 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. The other one is used for the Holy Grail section of the talismans, anyway. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 00:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I think it looks better now. ^^ Thanks! --Masamage 21:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Mistress 9, this info on her is incomplete:

"In anime Mistress 9's voice is played by Yuko Minaguchi."

What's wrong with that? No English actress. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ggctuk (talk • contribs) 08:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Do you who it is? 'Cause we don't. --Masamage 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like Black Ladys dub voice actress to me ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 15:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have thought it was the same as Hotaru Tomoe's voice actress, Jennifer Gould (Hope I got that right) 213.166.17.12 09:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

no SMU goes into why there diffrent people doing the Voice acting ♥Eternal Pink-Ready to fight for love and grace♥ 09:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Kaolinite

Took out this:

As opposed to the anime, which implies that she has always been a supernatural being

First, I don't see how the anime implies anything about her origins, and second, what's "supernatural" about her? - Sikon 13:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. All your edits were very helpful; thanks! :) --Masamage ♫ 15:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Images

Mistress 9 and Karoinite had only head shots so I uploaded new images for them... I'm thinking of reuploading the mistress 9 one so you can see a close up of the star on her forehead but i Wanna check with you guys before this Lego3400: The Sage of Time 02:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Those look better, thanks. I think we probably don't need the closeup one, just because we already have a shot of the symbol itself... --Masamage ♫ 04:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem.. The only thing is that i wish i could have found Kaolinite in her Black outfit... There was this really nice one but her eyes were closed so i didn't use it.Lego3400: The Sage of Time 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's good. The red sets her off from looking just like Mistress 9. :) --Masamage ♫ 15:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Pharoh 90 plan

In the english manga Pharoh 90 wanted to murge with Earth and move it to the Tau Ceti Star System is this true in the orignal version if so we should add it t the page ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 19:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The Messiah of Silence

Its quite confusing on who is really the Messiah of Silence. Is it really Mistress 9? Or Sailor Saturn? Or Pharaoh 90? I think its Pharaoh 90 since neither Saturn nor Mistress 9 obtained the power of the holy grail... Remember that the rightful messiah can use the grail's infinite power. The grail was utilized by Pharaoh 90 to gain entrance to the world.Mines32 (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a heck of a lot of cleanup, but I've always been confused about that myself. I have no idea which of those three it really is. --Masamage ♫ 16:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Same here.Mines32 (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it implyed it was Sailor Moon after she saved Saturn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.36.225 (talk) 00:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There are two Messiahs; Sailor Moon is the Messiah of Peace. --Masamage ♫ 04:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I have proposed merging the Witches 5 article into this one. If we trimmed out all the excessive plot info from both, they would both be fairly short and heavily dependent on each other, and so would be much better together. For the time being it would be sort of a subsidiary character list--once the full list is up and running we can reevaluate this. --Masamage ♫ 21:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been over a week with no responses, particularly no objections. If we go one more week and no one minds, I'll proceed with the merge. --Masamage ♫ 16:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I proceed to object - the merging will not just 'trim' the information on the Witches5, it will leave it bare and sparse. There's plenty of information for this sub-group of villains, and should be left alone. Saintvlas22 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me explain myself more clearly. According to Wikipedia policies (WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, etc.), character pages like this one are the wrong place for storyline information. There is a correct place, and that's List of Sailor Moon S episodes and List of Sailor Moon chapters (both still in progress).

Now, as it happens, the Death Busters page itself is in much worse shape than the Witches 5 page. Every character's section needs to be cleaned out, down to three or four paragraphs. In the case of, say, Kaolinite, this will be pretty drastic. But in the case of the Witches, those are already only a few paragraphs long, and probably won't require very much trimming to make them fit in nicely here. Nothing will be lost except poor phrasing and organization. Hopefully a little out-of-universe info will be added.

The major thing this merge will do is hugely improve organization. It'll include all the necessary information to understand what's going on with this villain group, but all in the same place and (hopefully) in more precise language. Right now, both articles have to refer to each other constantly, and it's very confusing if you don't know the series already. So don't worry about losing important stuff; these things just need better locations. --Masamage ♫ 17:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

And here is yet another case of roundabout logic that only makes sense to the select who are oh so very enlightened. I guess it was a stretch for me to try to say otherwise - I don't understand why you asked for objections if you're just gonna do the merge anyways. Why can't Kaolinite just get a page of her own by the way? Clearing out her already smooshed and crammed article on the Deathbusters page will make her fade away; for fans who don't know much about the season/series, it will seem that she isn't a character that is important. Every other subgroup of villains from each of the seasons has a page for them (Shittenou, Ayakashi Sisters, etc.) and I thought that this page, though in need of a cleaning, was a good idea overall. This 'organization' is the deleting of every little thing that isn't notable, or doesn't meets this policy or that policy, doesn't have fair use, has no real world criteria, blah blah blah etc. It isn't an improvement having everything crammed together with no reference or detail being included; might as well just watch the damn series yourself since you can't get any information here what with all the merging and deleting. It's quite organized and tidy - when there's NOTHING there isn't it? Saintvlas22 (talk) 18:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly coming to this discussion with a lot of anger about other situations, other discussions, and other merges. You raised a concern, and I tried to resolve it. That's what discussion is all about. If you're going to rant and rave and swear at me, we won't get anything done.

As I said, this merge will not result in "deleting everything". I like the series and these characters, and have no interest in demolishing their presence on Wikipedia. Everything "crammed together with no reference or detail" is your own fear talking; it's not what I've proposed to happen here. This will be a tidy organization with plenty of reference and plenty of detail. It will also comply with all Wikipedia's policies. We can have it both ways, and that's exactly the plan. If we leave it the way it is, eventually someone who doesn't like the series will come along to enforce policy, and they won't be interested in including details. Much better to do it ourselves.

For more of a perspective: Kaolinite did used to have her own article, and it was terrible. By consensus, it was merged in. In fact, each of the Witches 5 used to have her own withered little page, but we've found by experience that they work much better together. Combining with the Death Busters will be better yet. --Masamage ♫ 19:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how you talk about my own assumptions and fears when you so righteously accuse me of having prior anger and that I commonly don't get my way in other discussions. I guess that kind of turn-around logic gets you quite far when modifying articles and chopping things to pieces on Wikipedia. I continue to state that you're simply trimming down articles (specifically Sailor Moon articles) because that IS what you're doing. The previous Kaolinite article - you say it was deleted because it was awful. I see no sense in having it merged when it could have been simply improved. That character's entry in the Deathbuster's article is messy, vague and leaves you wondering why she is even included, hence people not understanding her character's role in the series. I also said that I liked the idea of the Witches 5 article; to clarify, I meant the collective article where all 5 are included as there wasn't enough information for just single-episode appearing villains. That article needed work, but it fit in with all the other subgroup villains. Just because you can't see the potential of the Witches 5 article, doesn't mean it can't simply be redone - no need to delete it and cram it into the main article and make it a mess, like the Kaolinite article.

I get that you like the series, but I fail to see any logic in your way of doing things - if it doesn't work out, get rid of more and more of it so it becomes 'workable'. Your assurance that you intend to keep quality information (the little that will probably remain after you are done with it) is sorely laughable. And it is not an actual discussion when you have no intention of being swayed and that you aren't open to just leaving the damn article. Saintvlas22 (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S: Oh, I'm sorry - I guess one 'swear' word equals an angry rant and tirade against your person. Next time I shall keep it less than G-rated, whatever that is... Really, stop taking things out of proportion - both with your interactions with me, and when it comes to articles.

I'm not sure what I did to deserve your hostility, but obviously we need more people involved here. I'll drop a line at the anime Wikiproject. --Masamage ♫ 20:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I am sure most of the people involved in sanctioned communities will stick together and go by the nonsense logic that is most Wikipedia policies, I don't see any point in further debate or 'discussion'. To me, it's going to be only a matter of time until it's merged/hacked/deleted, so I don't see any point in furthering this - it insults both of us to prolong any pretense of both parties engaging in any sort of mutual interest. I expect to be doused with mentionings of senseless policies, and logic that most people are unable to crack as being anything but hypocritical and self-serving. Do whatever you want, whatever you think 'benefits' and leave me out of the upcoming consensus of parroting, hypocritical yes men who drone alike in the same trains of thought. I'm sure most people will prefer personal wikis, fan sites and Sailor Moon interest websites over the dead plain that will become this particular article. Why? Because it will actually have some substance, and not try to masquerade as anything but an article written by fans about an anime series - it isn't a freaking piece of literary art. Oh, it's also quite demeaning the way you play victim, and distance yourself from anything I have actually said. Cheers, and good riddance. Saintvlas22 (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge per the anime and manga MoS, WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. The Witches 5 are a part of the Death Busters and really there is no need to keep them separate. Additionally, they are not notable on their own, having no significant coverage in reliable sources. Indeed, I suspect the Death Busters as a whole fails the same standard, but would propose doing the merge then work on building this single article up to a higher standard. If it can't be done, then revisited the idea merging this into a central List of Sailor Moon characters (along with several of the other non-notable breakouts). And Saintvlas22, whether you like it or not this IS Wikipedia, it does have standards and policies. If you want the full blown fan-oriented, plot filled stuff, you are correct, there are personal websites and SM wikis happy to cater to those desires. This, however, is not any of those. It is an encyclopedia with higher standards. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Collapsing per WP:TALK, talk pages are for discussing changes to the articles, and these comments below have nothing relating directly to the Death Busters. Arguments about how wikipedia rules are wrong should be brought to Wikipedia:Village pump or to the talk pages of the relevant rules (like WT:N the talk page of the notability guideline, for example) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric Naval (talk • contribs) 13:59, 25 October 2008

It's an online encyclopedia that seemingly anyone can edit - false advertising at it's worse by the way, as editors such as yourself deem yourself above everyone else by dictating what we can, and cannot edit. It should be 'Wikipedia: the encyclopedia anyone can edit so as as we say so'. As I expected, there isn't room for 'discussion' - it was a done deal whether anyone said anything or not - thank you for proving me correct. Maybe now you'll stop pretending like anyone else's opinion or any form of consensus actually exists? Saintvlas22 (talk) 21:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

If it'll get you to go away. You've been acting like a jerk this whole debate, and there's no reason to believe you would put your differences aside and contribute constructively before haranguing everyone else about your silly little point. So, yeah, sure, we all are conspiring against you, so could you go? JuJube (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you're conspiring against me at all - if you think I actually think enough of Wikipedia editing that I actually believe random people on the internet exist solely for the reason of being somewhat minor annoyances - then you're an idiot. I merely stated what is going on - that there is no consensus, and that asking for an opinion when you want none is insulting and frivolous. They asked if there were any objections to the merge - they already proved that they were going to do it anyways regardless, so it isn't my fault they can't deal with being called out on it. My contribution would have been to redo the Witches 5 article - since their royal Wikipedia highness' have decreed in their own heads and through idiocy of the Wikipedia policies that it will no longer exist, I can say that I'm frustrated, since their reasoning is faulty and their explanation lacking much fairness or common sense, at least to normal people. My 'silly little point' is that no, it isn't fair, it's ridiculous, and it's not my fault they can't see anyone else's point but theirs. I have as much a right to edit and contribute as they do, yet it's a member's only club apparently since they won't do much to accommodate others' ideas or opinions. So sorry if I'm not all sunshine and daisy's when addressing them - idiots deserve to be spoken to like idiots if that's how they want to act willingly. 24.83.177.183 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

That's not Wikipedia's policy, although right now I kinda wish it was since it's clear I'm talking to a massive idiot here. JuJube (talk) 00:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how applying wikipedia's policies (which were formed through long debates over the course years) would in anyway exclude the average person from editing. However, you dont get to pick and choose which policies to follow and which to ignore. All articles need to cover a given topic from a real-world context with reliable third-party sources; and when article are merged, it become much easier to do this, and thus much easier for the average reader. --Kraftlos (talk) 00:24, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well then, if I am a MASSIVE idiot, does that mean that I can at least join the club now? I'm sure I'd be very comfortable with the idiots like you. Honestly, do you even know what I was talking about? Come off it, don't entertain the thought that I'm simply a troll or whatever, and you are the righteous editor come to put me in my place. I was trying to make own voice heard, and another lemming like yourself isn't going to make me leave. Wikipedia isn't all picturesque and well oiled, and I was merely making it known that whatever policy or standard or personal behest is thrown out there in this regard, it's still idiotic and counter-productive, not including senseless as I have emphasized. It shouldn't be merged- nor should the Deathbusters article be merged. It's pathetic that that they would still do it after making a half assed attempt to justify it - leading me to read convoluted logic found in all those loopy policies is bullshit, because it does an even worse job of explaining their logic than they do. If they can't explain why it is that Witches 5 has to be merged, except to themselves, than the point is that they satisfy only their needs and have no right to take over without having made a valid point. Saintvlas22 (talk) 00:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You say merging Witches 5 will leave it "bare and sparse". That to me is only saying you don't want the fancruft gone. Nothing you've said has been anything resembling a logical argument, just token whining that "information will be want", blather about how Wikipedia isn't really the encyclopedia anyone can edit (hey, let's make it that way, who cares if vandals run amuck), and flinging attacks around wantonly. Fact is, when all the editors except one agree on a merge, and that one is an insane fan who calls anyone who disagrees with him "idiots" - we have consensus, despite your ill-reasoned "arguments" panned out over several coredumps. Now, goodbye, please. JuJube (talk) 06:11, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what fancruft is, but what I want is series information on the characters left intact. Eudial and Mimet have individual storylines and defined characters; each Witch also has a role and a manga counterpart, as well as seiyuu and seramyu credits. It makes far more sense to have a collective, stand-alone reference page for all of this information for the Witches 5. Not only that, giving them a page that redirects from the main article will lighten the load on the main article itself - it won't be crammed in there with only a vague synopsis of who does what and how they do it. As well, as a subgroup of villains, it's a lot more consistent if they have an article by themselves just like the rest (Ayakashi Sisters, Amazon Trio, etc.). The article, as I have said, needs work - I don't understand why it should be cut down and relegated to the back burner just because it needs some work. I am not a rabid fan - apparently you are the ones who have not made it clear WHY the merge should be happening. I am not unreasonable - you give me a fair argument, instead of throwing a bunch of links at me, and I will adhere to that. So far, all that is happening is people who deem themselves with more authority trying to delete a rather rough, but overall good article. A call for any objections was made - I object. I'm still objecting. Nothing has been adequately done to change that. And please halt the attempts to undermine my own point - I said that Wikipedia should be edited by anyone, as the slogan goes. I didn't say anything about having everything vandalized. It certainly gives me some insight that you think everyone is going to vandalize, and apparently only the select few (such as yourself I guess) can do any 'proper' edits around here. It certainly isn't consensus when all you have done is listened to yourself and exactly like-minded people who you know only agree with you - someone ASKED if there were objections. I find it highly unfair that they gave a question they don't want an answer to. By the way, you were the first person to explicitly cite ME as an idiot; I didn't directly reference any other user as such. Looks like you also fail at talking out of both ends of your mouth. Saintvlas22 (talk) 14:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Those are valid concerns. But you have not responded to my assurances that, if the article is merged, the information will not be hacked and slashed and decimated to fit. Instead, you have continued to object on the grounds that it will. Do you just not believe me, or what? What can be done? --Masamage ♫ 14:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's enough, from both of you! If y'all want to go back and forth, do it on your own talk pages. Let's stick to the actual issues here and lay off the name calling from both sites. Saintvlas22, to answer your question, fictional characters do not have individual articles unless they have real world notability, which is demonstrated by significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Look at List of Naruto characters, for example. Some characters have their own articles, because real world notability has been established. Their role in the series, how often they appear, etc plays no part in determining actual notability by Wikipedia standards. While Sailor Moon herself has clear real world notability (discussed in academic papers, many books, etc), and the main scouts appear to have notability, many of the rest of the characters from the series do not have such notability, neither individually nor collectively as a group (i.e. "Witches 5", "Death Busters", etc). Now, in reality, merging that page here is only the first step, because the Death Busters as a whole also does not have real world notability. Ideally, there should be a single character list for this series, rather than these numerous group lists, with only individually notable characters having an article. Irregardless of whether it is a list or an individual article, however, their role in the series is summarized to give only the main points, not a significant or detailed summary. In an individual article, the emphasis should be the real-world aspects of the character such as how the character was conceptualized and/or conceived, specific production points in going from one medium to another with the character, and how the character was received by critics. If they have had a cultural impact, been the subject of controversy, etc, that should also be covered. All, of course, from reliable sources. Now, your concerns about important information being last are certainly valid. Would it help if you could see examples of other merges that have taken place recently of individual characters being merged to a list (not quite the same as this, but a close proximity)?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

This real world notability is mind boggling in itself - no characters, groups, or events that take place within fictional works that don't have influence in the real world are not warranted a separate article, no matter how integral they are to the series - and are only relegated a passing mention, if that? No detail, no information relevant to the series or their role within? That, is probably one of the stupidest things I have heard. A fictional organization in a fictional work of art not being relevant to the real world - that's pretty much a given. They are, however, relevant to the world of fiction which they belong. As the Deathbusters/Witches 5 are the main antagonists in the S season, that should be criteria enough for a separate article. No, they don't have essays, topics and classes written about them - but anybody looking for reference to that particular season of Sailor Moon can click and see what bad guys are in it, what they have done, and what role they played. Seems like a good enough reason to me why they should have an article for themselves. I mean, they have enough information, and references abound. The notability standard of Wikipedia - I can see it being appropriate in some areas, but I fail to see why it is being implemented in such a ridiculous manner.

I have also seen plenty of the merges taken up by Wikipedia, utilizing no sense of logic in how they are done - articles that are deemed too long are discouraged, yet characters that have loads of information on them have individual pages for them deleted, and they are crammed into a HUGE, cluttered list that confuses and holds far too much. I see no advantage in looking at fictional characters in a 'real world' point of view - just why can't they be written with at least some degree of in-universe tone, so that there is insight gleaned into their roles, characters and traits? What I see now are attempts to turn character articles/lists into subjective and detached entry's that try far too hard to obtain information irrelevant to the actual work of fiction they belong to - and when it can't be found, they are deleted or taken down a notch. 24.83.177.183 (talk) 15:51, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, these are all valid complaints, but in order to keep Wikipedia running, rules have to exist. Some of them are in fact rather stupid. But in the case of individual articles, we're supposed to follow them--until they change. Just as you can't walk into an individual game of basketball and argue that double dribbling should be allowed, not much can be done about site-wide policy by disrupting one single merge discussion. But, if you want to change the rules, there are certainly places where you can talk about that, and get a lot of other people talking, too. The main place is Wikipedia:Village pump, which is provided for exactly such purposes as this. A place for everything and everything in its place.

As for this set of characters, in the case of a merge they'll still be very easy to find--exactly as easy as they are now. If someone types "Witches 5" into the search box, they'll be redirected to exactly where those characters are described, whether or not it's at their own article. Same thing if someone is looking at List of Sailor Moon S episodes and clicks on that name. Just as you describe, they'll immediately be taken to the correct place. They'll find plenty information about who these chicks are and what they're after. That won't change at all. They only difference will be that the viewer can then scroll up and down and read about Professor Tomoe and Mistress 9 in the same space. What's more, by organizing more efficiently, we won't have to have introductions to explain the premise of the season in nine or ten different places. --Masamage ♫ 16:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Seeing the Naruto characters list makes me gag - significant characters who play such a large role in the series have crappy little paragraphs describing them from a 'real world' perspective, all crammed into an inconceivabley long list. And I'm not even a fan - I just know those characters have more than enough for a page. You're right - many of the rules are stupid, not to mention redundant, paranoid and convoluted. It makes me wonder why the hell they were implemented if people can see they suck anyways; rules are built on a foundation of reason, and I am seeing none in many of the policies. I guess it's only a matter of time before it's nothing but list after list after list in regards to fictional characters - not to mention miles of text without any images. This real world bullshit is ridiculously stupid, as it was fine for years before. These feeble attempts to legitimize Wikipedia academically are pathetic and only making the enjoyable qualities that were once present lag considerable. It's an online encyclopedia people edit at their own volition - if I want a serious text, I'll look for a serious one in a real encyclopedia with credibility, not an online resource most people use to look up anime character profiles. Just seeing that they managed to win over the Naruto fans - well, may God help us all. This was a losing battle in the first place I realize. A merge is stupid , plain and simply. Just like the guidelines that call for the merge are stupid. As I said before, the farce of this being an actual piece of academia is strikingly bizarre, and they should have just stuck to what worked and what they did well. I know most people will be looking elsewhere for information on the Witches 5 - lots of better sites (Ultimate Sailor Moon Encyclopedia, Sailor Senshi Page, Sailor Moon Garden). An encyclopedia that doesn't give any information - if that's their goal, they're certainly reaching it quick. Saintvlas22 (talk) 17:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S: I just can't wait for hordes of people to jump on this and declare how much 'better' Wikipedia is now, how their rules are a necessity and haven't served to confuse and piss off a whole lot of people, and that Wikipedia has 'higher' standards than everyone actually thinks. Right now Wikipedia is like a Burger King trying to pass itself off as a steakhouse - it isn't fooling anyone, and their lame attempts to do so are just ruining what they do best already.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintvlas22 (talk • contribs) 12:01, October 24, 2008

Well, its unfortunate you feel that, but that Naruto character list is a featured list, so as a whole, Wikipedians feel it is an ideal list. And yes, wikipedia is an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit" but that is not all it is. Wikipedia:Five pillars. And just because anyone can edit it does not mean that anything goes. Everything has rules, including Wikipedia. It seems, though, that you just can't agree with Wikipedia's goals and purposes, so perhaps this isn't the place for your. Wikia is more along the lines of what you might consider the "original" wikipedia, with fewer rules and guidelines, so it might be more along the lines of what you are looking for. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I really wish people would just read what I type - I never said I didn't think rules were needed. I understand that rules lend itself to structure, and as I have said, some policies and guidelines I agree with and I find quite innovative. Others are pure garbage though, especially when they become absolute and warrant no debate based on the opinions of only a few. I don't agree with many of the policies, nor am I happy about it - just as many like me aren't as well. That Naruto character list is drivel - a bastardization of pseudo-academia and wasted effort to make it something it's not. I'm all for real world significance, but I won't be a totalitarian about it. It's a featured list that is an absolute chore to read, and was given that gold star by the mass of like minded drones who simply draw the same redundant ideas off of each other - I doubt they will EVER hear any shred of criticism that they don't want to, and that maybe, just MAYBE, some policies should be changed. And your suggestion, though received, is politely denied - I'm not going anywhere. Just because I've kicked a little sand in the space, doesn't mean I'm leaving. After all, I'm sure getting frustrated people to simply migrate over to another project would just make it easier for the control of Wikipedia to be further dominated by the likes of people who see it fit to harness absolute rule over the community. Kindly deal with it, for both our sakes. 24.83.177.183 (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to try and get the rules changed. Wikipedia:Village pump is the place to start--it certainly has a much wider readership than this talk page, and you'll get better comments. Meanwhile, if you can find just one argument against this specific merge that is within the rules and policies as they currently stand, then even if we all disagree with it we will take it as a sign that such arguments do exist, and these two articles will not be merged this weekend, but instead will be open to further debate. If you continue to only argue against the rules themselves, then no one here can help you, and the action everyone else has agreed on will proceed. But everything is reversible; if the rules eventually change, then this article will change again to follow them. Very easy to do. So if you want your voice on those other issues heard, try the Village Pump. Meanwhile, we will follow the rules. --Masamage ♫ 21:43, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I see both our time has been wasted - telling me to work within a set of rules that I have already expressed hold no actual logic or fairness within themselves is like trying to find an elephant in a haystack. It won't be there, no matter how long I try. I argue against the rules themselves because they are the problem - this article is yet another one doomed for negligent quality based on faulty standards that hold no reason - make shorter, have a work of fiction that doesn't really exist meet a quota for real world information that is impossible to find, compress everything into giant piles, delete delete delete. Said rules are made to negate arguments against them when working with issues in their dominion; it forms a very nice circle of depravity doesn't it? My stance on this ONE issue was also to illustrate that these rules are NOT infallible - you've just proven that you won't listen to anything against them as a whole, yet you will open your mind only if I can find an argument WITHIN these rules that has the purpose of canceling out any argument against them in the first place! Do you see the level of convoluted, self-containing nonsense that is present here? Trying to work with a system that is basically AIRTIGHT is impossible, hence my speaking out against them. My voice won't be heard either, and I think you know it - me venturing into the lion's den of close-minded lemmings who simply draw off each other in their righteousness will be nothing but a tiny spark to be extinguished quickly. So please don't offer pretentious, insincere grace and courtesy to me, thank you. The scenario you paint of iron headed Wikipedians who filter out anything against their precious system, and insinuating that any of their idiotic rules will actually change is just a pathetic fallacy, one I'd rather not be fed. 24.83.177.183 (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I know there's no point in telling you this, but it is possible to disagree with someone without being sarcastic, without being insincere, without swearing at them, without shouting and name-calling and making everyone around you feel as unpleasant as you possibly can. Everyone here does it all the time. People disagree with rules, and oppose merges, and make good changes. (I've been here for almost three years: the rules do in fact change.)

You obviously are not that person, and that's fine. Go ahead and don't believe a blessed word I say. Be offended. Take it all as blatant, mocking fakery. You're completely wrong about me, but it doesn't matter, because you're also a troll. Hate my guts and hate Wikipedia too, but know this: one of the rules that we spineless lemmings mindlessly follow is that people, like you, who prove themselves incapable of disagreeing without ramping right into overt, ferocious hostility are blocked from editing, because they don't do anyone or anything any good.

So. You can either stop abusing everyone and start expressing yourself rationally, or you can not participate in the project at all. Go ahead and tell all your friends what elitist tyrants we are; it doesn't matter. The simple truth is that you're a mean-spirited person and there is no room here for those. --Masamage ♫ 01:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well said... Suigetsu 02:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm being perfectly rational - you're the one who has degenerated into name calling and personal objections. I don;t hate your guts or Wikipedia as a whole; I think it can be a wonderful reservoir for information. I don't see how the way I disagree should automatically ban me from editing - I don't come into the fray with a giant, fake smile on my face so I'm instantly hostile and a troll? Please, learn to deal with the fact some people just do things differently. I'm aware I grate and I am not pleasant - i don't think I'd really relay how I feel about this situation if I was all kittens and rainbows. Honestly, just think about WHY it is I am acting this way instead of heading into the easy way out and assume I am a troll. Actually understanding the reasons behind something seem to be your downfall apparently. I have done plenty of editing here in Wikipedia - both for fiction and for other topics. As I have said, I am not some crazy Witches 5 fan who wants them to keep their own article just because - it goes much farther than that, as I oppose the moronic rules that dictates notability. I don't care how long you're been here - we work in different ways, so our outcomes will obviously be different. The Village Pump is a joke - you think I haven't tried to voice myself without a horde of self righteous editors instantly ganging up and dismissing me based on their own rabid assumptions and egocentric sense of 'duty'? You don't know anything about me, just like I don't know anything about you. Don't go calling me mean and hostile when you only see an anonymous stranger on the computer screen - that's just ridiculously immature. No, I am not mean and hostile, I just think there is rampant stupidity here - it's quite frustrating to be dismissed and not even remotely heard, based on some loaded idiots sense of bloated justice. And believe me, your assumptions are probably the worst - instantly thinking that I'm some kid who will blather on to my friends how awful everything is just shows the extent of your own insecurity and your own sense of inflated ego. Saintvlas22 (talk) 15:46, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"I am not mean and hostile, I just think there is rampant stupidity here".

How can you seriously say these two sentences together??

You don't have to smile. Frown all you want. You just have to not call people idiots to their faces. It's not that hard. --Masamage ♫ 16:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"I am not mean and hostile, I just think there is rampant stupidity here"

I can say those two together because it is what it is - I'm sure you can point out the obvious without automatically being a villain. And I have been careful not to personally start with blatant and direct name-calling - the first person who did so was JujJube, who personally cited me as an idiot - I simply returned him in kind. I don't see where I actually called you such a thing; I have mostly referenced in the hyperbole, abstract and hypothetical. Regardless of how I feel, I don't do silly name games, no matter what you want to think. I have trouble seeing where it is I actually referred to you as such, so please stop insinuating that I go about calling people anmes and 'ranting' at them. Saintvlas22 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"some loaded idiots sense of bloated justice"

....But it's not like it matters: insults in "hyperbole, abstract and hypothetical" are just as offensive. I am tired of being insulted. Other people can deal with you; I am going to work now. When I get back, I will not respond to this farce of a thread again except to talk about merging the articles. --Masamage ♫ 16:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I did not refer to you personally as an idiot - if my abstract and hypothetical references insulted you in some way when I did not mean to, that isn't my fault since you are the one who cocluded I was in some way directly talking about you. Again, you asked for any objections to the merge - I see it only becomes a farce when you don't want to deal with said objections. Saintvlas22 (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous. When you act like an obnoxious prat, and when called on it say "this is how I talk to idiots", that's how people are going to take it. It's like kicking a dog and saying "I didn't kick it, I put my leg out a bit and the dog's ass somehow ended up on my foot". Don't think you're fooling anyone with your semantics. JuJube (talk) 18:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I am not engaging in semantics of any kind - if that's how they take it, it isn't my fault they can't differentiate between my sometimes not so subtle shift and use of grammar. Again, it isn't my responsibility how they interpret things. If they want to conclude I was talking about them when I wasn't, why should I be penalized for THEIR conclusion? Saintvlas22 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

All of you, please go to User talk:Saintvlas22 to have arguments with him instead of using article talk pages for discussion that is not related to the article itself. So much off-topic text just discourages people from editing the articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

• Merge I'm hard pressed to justify why a list of 5(6?) characters should remain separate from a list of 4 other characters from the same group. Secondly, if you have an issue with a particular policy or guideline, then you should take your comments to the policy's or guideline's talk page. Complaining about how it is "unfair" or "stupid" on an obscure talk page only serves to annoy other editors, especially when you accuse them of bad faith with the initial complaint. --Farix (Talk) 20:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Using fewer images

For the other villain merges I've been proposing group shots, but in this case it's hard, because the image that shows the whole Death Busters group is this one. Not only are they spread out all over the place, but they're on a patterned background, so I can't just shuffle things around to fit better. It's a quandary.

Meanwhile, we can at least use the Witches 5 clump. I'll go ahead and do that right now because I can't sleep anyway, but sound off if you don't like something about it, 'cause that's what talk pages are for. --Masamage ♫ 08:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed Pharaoh 90, too. He's sufficiently easy to describe--as the article already does--that in my opinion there's no reason to use a copyrighted image on him. That just leaves us to lump Tomoe/Germatoid, Kaolinite, and Mistress 9 together somehow, which should be much easier. I'll work on it later. --Masamage ♫ 08:56, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! User:Lord Opeth has taken the above image and edited all the relevant characters together to create this group shot! Now it'll be much easier to use fewer images, match the format of the other villain pages, and show everyone we need to show. :) Since there haven't been problems with the other switches, I'll go ahead with this one in a few days (replacing all the other images we currently have up) unless anybody has objections. If so, speak up now! --Masamage ♫ 02:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

'Kay, it's done. Thanks again, Lord Opeth! --Masamage ♫ 03:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Souichi Tomoe

Section has been vandalised. Please revert. 91.105.9.206 (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Correction: English Voice Actress for Mistress 9

Jennifer Gould is not the English voice actress for Mistress 9. I looked it up and see that Susan Aceron is listed as the correct person who did the role. iMDB's website can be used as a correct source for citation. I'll go ahead and make the edits on the page for now, but just want to bring it up in the discussion first. Sailorsaturn (talk) 08:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Susan Aceron only voiced Trista Meioh/Sailor Pluto. I got in touch with her via her website and she stated that she only voiced "one character" she does not have a very broad voice range, so you'd be able to tell when it was her voicing. As has been discussed before, IMDB is user edited. It is far from accurate when it comes to Sailor Moon.

Also I noticed a lot of the voices that we had found to be incorrect, still listed on the page. :/ ~ Fighter4luv (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I spoke to Jen via email a few days ago (via Eric Kimmel - who played Greg in season 1), and when sending her the clips of characters she has played, she confirmed that she did not play Mistress 9, and isn't sure who did either. So, it remains a mystery for now. I'll try my best to uncover it. ~ Corza Moon (a.k.a Fighter4Luv) (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Cormorant Fishing

If you look back episode 112, you will see the principle of Daimon sucking the pure heart from a victim was based on cormorant fishing (as explained by Professor Tomoe). Do you think we should include this in Mimet's paragraph? 114.108.192.7 (talk) 19:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)