Talk:Dragon Ball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Anime and manga (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
Wikipe-tan good article.png This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-class on the assessment scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Dragon Ball work group.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Dragon Ball:
Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article title[edit]

I suggest that we should change article's title to Dragon Ball (franchise). Eguaroc (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible. I just put it up for GAN after fixing the plot and sourcing out the materials, with the anime split off we can definitely have this be a great introductory page to all things Dragon Ball without getting bogged down in the specifics of the individual works. The manga will be more difficult to split off without getting the Japanese sources and I do have my box set of GT that I recently purchased, the September 2010 Funimation release, so I can probably pull some good material from that for FA level or at least the list of episodes. The other pages need a good amount of work, but DBZ is also GA level, so at least progress is being made. Thanks for helping out with the content issues Eguaroc. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot summary[edit]

Why did you remove the GT plot summary, its 64 episodes, over 26 hours of runtime and its sorta canon. The movies are standalone works whereas GT is a major addition to the media. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Summary is of the original work. If we were to consider GT canon, then that would mean all the filler of the first two anime are canon as well, which would mean the character Garlic Jr. (who has his own "saga") is canon, which would then mean that the first Z movie is canon because that is where he originates. Actually, unlike GT and all the other movies, Battle of Gods is "sorta canon", it is officially set between the last two chapters of the manga. Xfansd (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dragon Ball/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ComputerJA (talk · contribs) 21:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

  • I'll be reviewing this in the next 1-5 days! Thanks in advance for your work on this article. ComputerJA () 21:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks and just as a quick note since this is a peer review of sorts, any pressing issues can be near immediately addressed within the next 48 hours if you have any major concerns. The anime content was recently split off to its own article just prior to the nomination with Dragon Ball Z being the first, the manga may also be applicable and greatly condense some of the page as well. The goal of getting this as the first GA for a topic overview of a complex body of works is very important to me and I will do everything I can to balance the content needs as per your suggestions if you find anything lacking or out of place. For instance I had added a brief section on GT's plot and the standalone films, but that was removed for preference to the Toriyama "canon".[1] If you prefer it back in, I'd gladly do so. I have the materials to address almost any issue on hand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Review[edit]

Overall, a very good article. Most of the article is well-written, properly sourced, and thorough. I want to thank all the editors who have contributed to make this project possible. The DB series marked my life as a child, and I am glad I have the opportunity to review this. Now, below are some of my concerns before the article passes. This is the first part of the review; I will also be checking sources for accuracy and if they are reliable, but this is the larger chunk of the review. Thanks for your work on this one! ComputerJA () 03:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Intro[edit]

  • in the United Kingdom by Gollancz Manga, and Australia and New Zealand by Madman Entertainment. – This is not cited anywhere in the body paragraphs.
    Fixed, can't believe I missed this. Cited in body now with new Nook distribution by Viz for the UK as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Plot[edit]

  • Together they go on a quest to find the seven Dragon Balls (ドラゴンボール?), which grant the user any wish they desire before spreading back out across the world – Consider revising to “the seven Dragon Balls, which have the ability to grant a wish to anyone who collects all seven of them before spreading back out across the world."
  • leading to confrontations with the desert bandit Yamcha – The sentence is too long. Consider adding a period to “across the world” and starting the next one with: “Their journey in search of the Dragon Balls leads to confrontations with the desert bandit Yamcha, who later …”
  • and Pilaf, who is also collecting them – Please update to “and Pilaf, a small imp-like emperor who wishes to collect the Dragon Balls and rule the world.
  • After you are done making these updates, please add semicolons (;) after the description of each person.
  • Kuririn is killed after the tournament and Goku chases after the killer – Consider changing chases to goes.
  • youth before destroying Shenlong – Who is Shenlong? Readers unfamiliar with DB will not know who he is.
  • Goku just narrowly wins before quickly leaving with Chi-Chi – Please remove the just.
  • who surprised him by also competing and maintaining he keeps the promise he made to her as children. – Maintaining he keeps the promise does not sound right. Please consider revising. In addition, is the promise marriage? Consider adding that for readers unfamiliar with DB.
  • Goku meets his older brother Raditz – Please add Raditz arrival to Earth. Readers unfamiliar with DB might not understand why Goku’s past was not revealed until now.
  • However, Goku is revived a year later by the Dragon Balls, after training in the afterlife, with the North Kaiō, in order to save the Earth from Nappa and the Saiyan prince Vegeta – Please rephrase to “However, Goku is revived a year later by the Dragon Balls. In the afterlife, Goku trained with the North Kaiō deity in order to save the Earth from Nappa and the Saiyan prince Vegeta.” Also please add, if possible, why the Saiyans went to Earth in the first place.
  • However, they learn that Piccolo and Kami are extraterrestrials called Namekians – Who are "they"?
  • the latter of which teams up with the heroes to fight the Ginyu Force – Explain what the Ginyu Force is, perhaps by adding “the Ginyu Force, an elite squadron under the tutelage of Freeza.”
  • avenges the lives of billions across the galaxy. – I know the Plot section does not need a source, but are you sure Freeza killed billions across the galaxy? I do not remember anything regarding this figure, but maybe you can check for me.
  • are drawn into yet another fight for the universe against a magical being named Majin Boo – This could be trimmed to “are drawn into another fight against a magical being named Majin Boo”.
  • after numerous battles and the destruction of the Earth, Goku destroys Boo having borrowed energy from everyone on the newly revived Earth – I think you should mention the Genki Dama, the attack he used to kill him. Consider changing to “after numerous battles that led to the destruction of Earth, Goku destroys Boo by killing him with the Genki Dama, a powerful attack that borrowed the energy from all human beings on the newly revived Earth," or something similar.
  • Ten years later, at another Tenkaichi Budōkai, Goku meets Boo's human reincarnation, Oob. Leaving the match between the two of them unfinished, Goku takes Oob away on a journey to train him. – Please mention that Oob is not evil. Readers unfamiliar with DB might think that Goku’s decision to train him is illogical.
  • All done I think. Changed quite a bit around and tried to clear up some of it while dropping the fluff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Production[edit]

  • Toriyama has admitted several times that he didn't plan out the details of the story – Change to did not.
  • resulting in strange occurrences and discrepancies later in the series – Not needed but do you have access to the sources? I think adding some of the major discrepancies would be interesting.
  • Fixed. And those sources, no. I opted to combine the two sentences as the first is an example of the error (swapped colors) and the other is with the screen tone use. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Manga[edit]

  • Written and illustrated by Akira Toriyama, Dragon Ball was initially serialized in the manga anthology Weekly Shōnen Jump starting on December 3, 1984 – Why is Akira linked here and not on the Production section? Consider removing the link here and adding it on the section above per WP:OVERLINK.

Media[edit]

  • The Dragon Ball manga was licensed for release in English in North America by Viz Media which has released all 42 volumes – Sentence does not flow well with release being used twice. Consider rephrasing to “… Viz Media, which has

TV appearances and other animations[edit]

  • referred to as Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!! aired April 7, 2013 – Correct to "on April 7, 2013."
  • called Dragon Ball Online is currently playable. It has been stated that Akira Toriyama has been working on character designs for this project for several years, and the game is available in Japan and South Korea – Since when? Please add the release date. Maybe Toriyama is done doing the character designs.
    Yes check.svg Done Since the DBO Korean servers are shutting down I made that referenced but dropped the Toriyama character designs, while credited as the source of the material, the dead link seems odd to say that his designs were in production for 5 year prior to even the alpha/beta test. The article on it is rather poor and all non-English, so this may have to do for context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Collectable cards[edit]

  • released under Bandai. – What is Bandai?
    Yes check.svg Done Added the source from the NA release as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Reception[edit]

  • "when Dragon Ball came out, a fair number of shonen manga starred manly, built heroes, like City Hunter and Fist of the North Star, but Dragon Ball started a trend towards cartoonishness that continues to this day.", "And if it doesn't look like an appropriate art style for a gritty action series, that's because it isn't. The first great thing about Dragon Ball is that it's an action manga drawn by a gag manga artist.” – Though I did enjoy the other quotes, I think this can be paraphrased per WP:QUOTES.
  • using dramatic pacing and over the top martial arts action - Fix to over-the-top.
  • Ridwan Khan from Animefringe.com commented the manga to have a "chubby" art style but as the series continued it gets more refined with the characters leaner and more muscular. – Fix to “commented that the manga had a “chubby” art style but as the series continued the characters got more refined, leaner, and more muscular.
  • He also noted he preferred the manga versions of the series to their animated counterparts that make the story slower and pointless – Not sure what this means but consider changing to: “to their animated counterparts, who he believes make the story slower and pointless.”
  • compared to how Funimation "throws in useless dialogue" into their English dub of the anime. – Please link Funimation.
  • Also noted was the fact that Viz decided to stop censoring the series – Add "they" at the beginning.
  • "There is just a wider tolerance for sexuality in Japan. It usually is played out humorously and perhaps titillating in a mild way. It's just a difference in cultural sensibilities." – I usually think that quotes should be used when there is no other way to say it without making it lose its meaning. Can you please paraphrase this in your own words? Overuse of quotes per WP:QUOTEFARM.
  • although they admitted they would rather not, they had done so to keep wide distribution – The second part seems like a run-on. Perhaps adding a period after no
  • "Shows like Naruto, YuYu Hakusho, and Bleach are what they are because of the groundwork laid down by DBZ and the formulas it established, formulas which were subsequently borrowed, exploited, and expanded upon by other creators. To deny that is to be stubbornly short-sighted." – This is a stand-alone quote and might be considered unencyclopedic per WP:LONGQUOTE. Please revise.
  • On the second paragraph of the Anime seems to have a bit overuse of quotes. Paraphrase the ones you feel most comfortable with. Also, please fix the “you to believe.",[106] only” by closing the sentence or removing the period.
  • Yes check.svg Done Agreed on quite a few points. Napier is also difficult to understand without proper context, so I just limited it to differences in culture as the Japanese views on sexuality and crude humor does not need to be discussed in this section. Actually, if I did so I would need another book of mine which shows that nudity is not for sexual arousal, but instead for crude humor or drama. The Freeza matter is resolved as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, nice job, Chris. Thank you for addressing the concerns above. I'll be reviewing sources for accuracy and be posting if I have any concerns. After that, the article will be ready. Should not take me too long. Thanks again, ComputerJA () 08:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the pass.[2] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Jaco[edit]

This article does not seem to mention anything about Toriyama's newest series "Jaco the Galactic Patrolman". It is revealed in the final 11th chapter to take place slightly before the start of Dragonball. More specifically, Jaco is sent to Earth to protect the people from the Saiyan Gokuu (since saiyan children are typically sent to planets in order to conquer them. Also, one of the characters Tights is the elder sister of Bulma. Gokuu, "grandfather" Gohan, and Bulma make an appearance. Perhaps someone can edit this together for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.110.115.13 (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree here. If it's written by the original author and its elements fit in perfectly to established Dragon Ball cannon, then Jaco should be included as apart of the Dragon Ball cannon. Unless something was said in a guidebook by either Toriyama or his people. Was something said that classifies the stories as two separate continuities? Sarujo (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
First, this article does mention it since that ip first wrote this. Second, it doesn't fit perfectly, just like Battle of Gods (which was also written by Toriyama and stated to take place specifically between chapters 517 and 518 of DB) there are timeframe issues. It was just a fun thing for the author to do; just because he puts characters from a previous series he created into it doesn't mean its canon to the series they're from. Jaco isn't canon just like Neko Majin isn't. Considering all the crossovers canon is like trying to consider all the movies canon. Xfansd (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The same argument can be made with GT, and yet that's considered cannon (At least it did prior to Online). The source material itself, the manga, contradicts itself from time-to-time. Toriyama was known for producing his story without any real planing. So your argument that story inconsistencies prevents it from being cannon doesn't quite hold up. Sarujo (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
The animes are not even in contention for being considered canon (definitely not on Wiki), this came up a few sections up at #Plot_summary. (Dragon Ball Online? A video game would never be the go to for canon anyway.) In terms of Dragon Ball canon, it is strictly about the manga. I wasn't saying that the timeline errors are the reason Jaco isn't canon, but just pointing them out cause you said it fits perfectly. DB characters appear in a single chapter of Jaco and its the last one. Here's a comment by Toriyama calling that chapter a "bonus final chapter" and the series not "a flashy manga like Dragon Ball" but a "foolish, fun story", and saying "I’ve drawn a number of similar stories, but I suppose this is kind of like [a combination] of them." [3] It is just a fun story he wanted to do, not meant to be DB canon. Xfansd (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
That's not how I'm interpreting those comments on the matter. Nowhere in that interview does it imply Jaco's cannon. It's talking about the series' satire in comparison to Dragon Ball. Calling chapter eleven a bonus doesn't imply that separate cannon. Especially when he points out that chapter eleven's purpose is to help the western reader understand reason why Jaco's story is old fashion in comparison to western interpretation of Dragon Ball's story. Again, his comments are regarding both satires of two of his works among the west. Sarujo (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
hey, i dont remember "Jaco" a project in the works. well i do kinda agree with Sarajo, unless we have more information we must avoid referencing this work. 166.147.120.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Dragon Ball (anime)[edit]

There is a clear consensus, that Dragon Ball (anime) shouldn't be merged into this article. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The separate article on the anime is entirely superfluous and it was only created by a single editor who decided that it should be done since Dragon Ball Z was recreated. Much of the article unnecessarily puts focus on the English language broadcasts, and a lot of the content is better suited for either this page or List of Dragon Ball episodes. I attempted to suggest this at WP:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball (anime), but my long-standing dispute with ChrisGualtieri and the clear misinterpretation of the intent of the AFD (along the lines of "How dare someone try to delete an article on this clearly notable subject") derailed any possibility of that discussion coming to fruition.

And just to be clear, here are the reasons the merge should probably happen:

  • Any plot summary of the anime is identical to any plot summary of the manga.
  • The American dub should not have that much prominence in an article and is most definitely a case of WP:UNDUE.
  • The cast list is wholly unnecessary and easily duplicated at List of Dragon Ball characters
  • DVD and VHS releases belong on List of Dragon Ball episodes
  • Reception of the TV series is already covered on Dragon Ball because this unmerge was malformed in the first place

Ryulong (琉竜) 03:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose - "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." It is not a valid rationale to merge on the basis of being an adaptation. UNDUE is a viewpoint, yet more sources are in English to cover the content, but I have provided Japanese sources and am seeking more - but this is not a problem or merge reason. The cast list is not at the giant list of characters, nor should it be. It covers the major characters of the adaptation in an accessible format. Its removal would only scatter the information needlessly. List of Dragon Ball episodes is an episode list - not a means to squirrel away release information to eliminate this article. And the reception needs expansion, but what of the other 20kb of content? Given the lack of arguments for merging at the AFD and the support of keeps which specifically cite a reason - I can conclusively say that merging this article to three or four pages would offer no tangible improvement of any form. 10000 people view this article a month and giving information on just this adaptation is its reason for existence. It makes no sense to scatter the information all over the place. A merger would only result in a negative impact upon readers and the growth of content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    WP:CFORK still holds as most articles on this project cover both. The fact that Dragon Ball (anime) is just full of English language sources is problematic. And lists of episodes across the project and not just in anime articles feature information on the DVD releases. There were plenty of arguments at AFD in favor of the merge. You just chose to ignore them and others criticized the choice of AFD as the venue for this discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose We just had this conversation at the AFD. [4] As I said there, there is enough valid information to have its own article just as Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT do. Very notable anime. Dream Focus 06:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    The AFD closed as no consensus without any prejudice against a subsequent merge discussion. This should have been done in the first place, but ChrisGualtieri demanded that AFD be the venue rather than a talk page discussion. And there were just as many views for those who favored merging as there were people who believed that the pages should not have been merged or put up for deletion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    Well now everyone can come here and have the exact same conversation yet again, with the same results. Dream Focus 07:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    Now that it is the proper venue and the page does not say "DELETION" at the top, it might be different.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. It is a Start Class Article. Why would you want to get rid of one with sufficient info? --(B)~(ー.ー)~(Z) (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
    I don't follow your reasoning here. All of the information is already found on this page and on others, aside from whatever was added during the AFD. It's better suited for other pages and for this page to cover the manga and anime rather than just the manga.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
There have been Featured lists which have been merged before. Classes don't matter. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Whatever the state of the article was when this merger dispute started, as it stands now there's more than enough to justify a separate article. As discussed in the AfD, re-merging would be structurally confusing, and could lead to the unnecessary deletion of details, suppressing the development of this topic rather than facilitating it. --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merging, support Summary Style implementation of the topic. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    I don't understand what this means. Does that mean include a short section on the anime at Dragon Ball or what?—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:07, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment This page can exist without issue though I'd consider it an improvement if it was merged. Course, I have no right to say merge since I don't intend on working on this article. Why not just combine the episode list and this article into a new anime article? If the episode list is split, size shouldn't be a problem. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
    I think it'd be hard to do anything with the 300 episode long list.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Also oppose, Ryulong come on. ("The fact that Dragon Ball (anime) is just full of English language sources is problematic." what) --Niemti (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    It's called WP:UNDUE weight.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:56, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    That is viewpoints, not coverage. The article is neutral in its presentation of "views" but it is not covered uniformly and I recall the removal of non-English and non-Japanese dubs as "useless" or "unnecessary". And since when is mainly Angelo coverage a reason to delete or merge - you are in Japan, why not provide some more Japanese sources? These red herrings and strawman arguments aren't convincing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
    Because I am isolated on this tiny island despite being next to a major city.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:03, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Support + Trump reason The majority of the anime can be summarized. its a clear sign of content fork. It doesn't matter whether you believe it is or not, its clear sign of content fork. WP:UNDUE is mainly related to how we have list of Dragon Ball episodes, and that info should be properly summarized but its not. why? because its try to make itself into a separate article.Lucia Black (talk) 07:08, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe your call for merging to "trump reason" shows you have a critical misunderstanding. You say "Content Fork" but fail to point out an issue; it is pretty clear that this content is not an exact duplicate of another topic. The article is a specific examination of a show that contains more than 60 hours of viewing material. By your argument the movies are "content forks" and should not exist either. What is written is that articles should be written in summary style and go from broad to specific if necessary. This article is written in summary style and a list of episodes should not hold censorship specifics, casting, or reception. Your last sentence does not make grammatical sense - are you suggesting that "List of Dragon Ball episodes" take this page's content? And if so, wouldn't that make it no longer a list? Do you intend to say that "List of Dragon Ball episodes" should be merged here? Please clarify, because I cannot understand what you are writing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Content fork is the issue. The majority is easily summarized and fits perfectly well into the main dragon ball article. And no, List of Dragon Ball episodes should not merged here, (although it would solve the problem of "content fork" but it just means more redundant info such as plot, so its a temporary fix that only goes halfway to solve disputes between editors, it will not accomplish anything else) the problem of saying such an article is that it will eventually just lead to be merged back and become what we see. All you have to do is actually consider what this article accomplishes. Cast information fits perfectly fine in the Character list as its most relevant there. Releases and generic production info goes into List of Episodes. Censorship is not exclusive to the anime, in fact the manga also has been censored and had received coverage on it. So the only thing making this independent is reception which is made up two 1/2 paragraphs. and production.
we shouldn't try to make unnecessary forks and merges. we had it right the first time. and this is something not new to WP:ANIME.Lucia Black (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Support Too much overlap with Dragon Ball, under speedy deletion there is a criteria for articles that duplicate an existing topic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm generally of the opinion that subtopics of larger topics should be given their own page when the subtopic is sufficiently notable and there is enough information about the subtopic to write an additional article (as opposed to only giving the subtopic its own article when there is too much information to fit in a single article). There appears to be enough content here to support a separate article, so I'm in favor of having a separate article. Calathan (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Many don't know this but thats why theres subjects such as WP:CFORK and WP:NOPAGE. Most of the information isn't new, and its just been superfluously expanded to stuff no GA or featured article of WP:A&M standard would have. WIkipedia recognizes series that are "technically" notable, but aren't necessarily independent enough to be their own. The plot follows exactly the manga exactly.
It's just superfluous to have one.Lucia Black (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:CFORK isn't relevant here, since the article's isn't another take on the same topic, but instead a subtopic. WP:NOPAGE is relevant, but it basically just says to use judgment in deciding when to split articles. Basically, it is saying people should decide on a case by case basis whether a subject is better covered in one article or multiple articles. I think in this particular case, the subject could be reasonably covered either in one article or in multiple articles. I personally like having two articles as I think being able to provide extra details is good in this particular case. Calathan (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
But its still relevant to WP:GNG. Why does bleach anime article provided "needed" context? I can already tell you that having it merged will keep less redundant and superfluous information.Lucia Black (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOPAGE is basically saying that just because there's enough to consider it notable, it doesn't mean that its necessary, or optimize information by splitting. the majority of the current information is just hashing out the other articles.Lucia Black (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
NOPAGE is not a rationale for deletion; its intention is to inform editors that just because a split could be made - it need not be done if the resultant page is either extremely short or going to be a permanent stub. NOPAGE states, "Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." That is clearly not the case here and the fact it is discussing permanent stubs is indicative that your NOPAGE argument is not applicable or intended to be a means to call for its deletion. Your definition of "redundant and superfluous" would result in merging Harry Potter movies to the books because its even more faithful than the manga. The basis of your rationale simply isn't applicable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

this article isn't getting AfD. its just getting merged. none of the information is gone because all of the information was hashed up in the first place. You know better than to compare the relationship between novel and film to anime and manga. you know manga and anime are more interwoven which is why WP:ANIME isn't so keen on splitting random adaptations. which is why WP:ANIME media such as manga and anime. and yes, it refers to permastubs in the end, but the advice isn't solely to permastubs.Lucia Black (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Whatever you say, but I didn't "rehash" by pulling the books on the censorship and the Daizenshuu. And once this merge thing is over and the RFC is done with, I can hopefully add the rest of the content I am in the process of obtaining. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
the majority is still rehashed. and it doesn't "need" to be over in order to do what is needed. So even if a discussion doesn't go in your favor, it shouldn't stop you from adding information.
but like i said, if you don't want editors seeing you as the "boogieman" as you put it, then a more respectful way of editing should be done. Propose the splits before making them. And if someone reverts someone elses split, that doesn't mean you get to be the third vote and end the tie, it still has to be discussed in the talkpage before anything is done.
This is called being respectful.Lucia Black (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oppose I always believed the anime had enough merits to have its own page. 71.196.1.86 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Currently there is an a RfC, for those who want to participate. It seems to go against this merger, and if this rfc fall in that favor, it may oversee the current local consensus. so its best you all discuss your ideas in WT:ANIME so that a broader discussion can happen.Lucia Black (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


publication[edit]

My edit on this page was reverted because I cited a fansite for my information that November 20th, not December 3, was the date that Dragon Ball was first published (and that May 23 was when it ended). I am a pretty new Wikipedia editor but I do have some other sources for at least the November 20th date. My question is whether or not these are considered legitimate sources:

First is a tweet by FUNimation, English distributors of Dragon Ball, stating that Dragon Ball was published on November 20. I think Tweets are considered unreliable though. https://twitter.com/FUNimation/status/535534283654725632

Next is an official site that Shueisha put up on November 20 to celebrate Dragon Ball's 30th anniversary. This seems like the closest thing to legitimate, as Shueisha is the publisher of Dragon Ball. Can we cite the existence of a website? http://db30th.com/

The people who run the fansite that I cited published an online magazine that provides the same information. Is this still not legitimate, or is an online publication citable? Allegedly, the founder of the website went to Osaka to verify the true publication date of the series. http://www.kanzenshuu.com/generalinfo/features/db30years_-_web_version.pdf?94c37f

A website that I'm not familiar with, but looks to be some sort of online website similar to Anime News Network: http://www.animeherald.com/2014/11/20/fans-celebrate-dragon-balls-30th-anniversary-art-free-stuff/

The only problem with this is that while I can verify the November 20th date, the May 23rd date is not as easily found. However, it does sort of follow that if one is true, so is the other. I feel like at least one of these sources is at least as legitimate as Weekly Shonen Jump's printed issue date; after all, it's not unheard of for magazines to print dates that do not match with their actual date of publication.

Shakuran13 (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In general, Kanzenshuu is reliable for much of the information they provide and have good insight into the actual production that would not be otherwise circulated in English. The street date vs listed date are different for magazines, but a key tenant is verifiability not truth. I do not see anyone putting forth any data to say those dates are wrong and there is good evidence that it is correct. Personally, it should be reinstated. Fansites can also be very accurate provided they have proper editorial control, another example was the Astro Boy listing which was accurate like Kanzenshuu. I do not see these dates as speculative or unreliable on this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I can't recall seeing anything on any animanga project page that specifies to use either cover dates or intended release dates, except Template:Infobox animanga which says to use the date they were "originally published". Really either set of dates can be considered correct depending on how you define publication date, this is something that should be addressed by the project. As such, I have no problem using either set of dates. Just don't use fansites, that have ridiculous amounts of illegal copyright violations, to source them. Xfansd (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Xfansd, that site is not doing anything illegal and you are not in any position to state otherwise. For over 15 years the site been operated by the staff and it is well-known to Toei, this is not some Pirate-bay like site. Can you verify or disprove the dates cited? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I'm not going to bother asking you Xfansd. You know the information is correct, but you are objecting for the wrong reason anyways. The official sale dates were given by the site and you replaced them with the cover dates. Both are correct, but something this basic really needs a note on the article. Unless you are saying that I can't read and that Kanzenshuu is using bogus crops, the issue is over. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
You obviously can not read. I clearly stated that I'm fine with either set of dates, just not with using a fansite as the source. I'm not a law expert, but everyone learns in high school that you can't copy content from 147+ magazine/books verbatim and redistribute it. Add to that 1,000+ copyrighted images, water marking your logo on said images, and a donation link on your site to keep you doing it, yeah, your clearly breaking laws. Such sites are not acceptable as sources. Xfansd (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
We link to Pirate Bay and the Silk Road, but a site that has operated for over a decade within Fair Use provisions with their own translations of Japanese-only interviews and compiled informative guides are unacceptable? Back this up with policy and prove to me they meet a criteria. Your definition eliminates everything from Anime News Network to Kotaku and I simply disagree you can play judge, jury and executioner on something as simple as pointing out release dates of the manga. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Xfansd: A website can never be illegal, only materials on it. And in this case the fan site is claiming Fair use which means that they can pretty much have which ever content on their website as they want. It's only WIkipedia that tries to keep it's fair usage to a minimum. Please read up on copyright rules in the US and about fair use and then come back here. Thank you. (tJosve05a (c) 07:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
@Chris What do you mean by we link to those sites? In their own articles as selfsources? Sure. Is it used as a source in other articles? If so that should be addressed. Translating something doesn't mean you get to republish it and I don't see the connection to ANN and Kotaku.
@Chris and Josve Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_and_other_principles; "You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use." Who gets to determine the level of compliance with fair use? WP:COPYLINK; "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." This website actually does what is specifically used in this example. Xfansd (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so Kanzenshuu as a source is out (although I would argue that when websites like Crunchyroll and such post links to the e-magazine, it certainly has some legitimacy). Can I just use the real sale dates, then use the Shueisha website as a citation for the November 20th date, with the assumption that if Nov 20 is a correct date, so is May 23? Shakuran13 (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
He can argue the point, but its really moot. Kanzenshuu has a cropped (i.e. partial) scan of the 11/20 sale date for the release. The ones listed by Kanzenshuu are correct sale dates, but the cover date is also correct. So Volume 50 gives the sale date of Volume 51 and Volume 51 displays "public sale date" for stores, you could just cite them to themselves and be done with it or just note that we use "cover dates" and avoid the whole Kanzenshuu source matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm not doubting the dates here, I was already aware of this dating information before you made your edit and like I already said, either set can be used in my view. I just reverted it because you used a fansite and the Animanga project doesn't specify what date to go by. If you added them without a source, I would have left them like I did now. This is not just a manga magazine practice, western magazines do this too. The Weekly Shōnen Jump and Rolling Stone articles both use the date on the cover of its first issue. If someone can tell us what WP:ANIMANGA or WP:MAG considers the publication date then there would be no question.
The anniversary site is reliable for this information and says it debuted in November, but doesn't give a specific date that I see. The other dates were there without a source, so its no big deal to me if these don't have one either. Xfansd (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Xfansd you are advancing a synthesize of policies into supporting something they do not. There is a clear difference between reproducing a work in full and creating an adaptive of new work. Not only that, you are condemning the whole of the site for some alleged issue and apparently saying this page is allowable. By your logic, if Youtube has infringing content we must block all of Youtube and cannot even link to official channels like PewDiePie or Epic Meal Time. To answer your question "Who gets to determine the level of compliance with fair use?", a legal or administrative body. The point stands that the site has been operating for 15 years and we are linking to a guide on the dates whose is purpose to document something which is not referenced in the official databooks. Since it does not meet the definition of a violation, complete song lyrics or duplication of a work, it is acceptable because it is a transformative and informative work. Instead, it seems your issue is linking to a fansite. You could instead make an argument per WP:RS, but linking to an informative guide, but you know the source is reliable and correct. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

This site actually does reproduce works in full; when a magazine promotes itself as having an exclusive interview and you reprint that whole interview. You keep relating this as being the same as how we allow "linking to xxx", but those are at most in their own articles as selfsources. This is not. This is about how this site does not pass as a wikipedia reliable source for third party articles. You wanted policies, I gave them to you. I cited the policy WP:V which supersedes the guideline WP:RS. Show me the "It exists, therefore its allowed." policy, which is what you're claiming now. I don't want to keep picking apart this site, pointing out every specific thing about it. For the last time, I'm not questioning the dates. Go ahead and cite the mags themselves. Xfansd (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me see if I got your argument correct. Though you seem to not understand my argument, we need a starting point. Your position is that the entire website cannot be used because within the site is a page you find to be infringing or contain infringing content. By this argument not even the New York Times could be linked to, nor any standard sources like Anime News Network. But you know this and you are not arguing that point, because it would be silly to suggest that is the intention of your words despite you stating so. No. Your point is that because the site duplicates, in full, some "exclusive" content it cannot be linked to at all. Is that correct @Xfansd:? If it is wrong please correct me because I want to understand what your argument is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
It can not be used as a source here because WP:V says to not even link to it. That's it. Do not cite sources if there is reason to suspect copyright violations is written there. It's not even done in long-winded jargon that can be misinterpreted, so I don't know why you think I'm being shady and saying things in a roundabout way. I'm not going to say any more other than I find your assessment totally off; it is not similar to the Times or ANN, and has significantly more than one page of violations. Xfansd (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You do not intend to actually say whether or not my assessment is correct? It will make resolving misunderstandings more difficult if you will not answer whether or not I understand your argument! So, let's start with the assumption it is correct. The problem is your argument is rooted in a non-existent definition of a policy. First of all it is not WP:V you take from, it is WP:COPYLINK. Second, it is the direct linking of unambiguously infringing content and the demonstrated consensus is the full work, i.e. databases of song lyrics, pirated movies, and infringing torrent files. Third, your so-called infringement is Japanese text translated into English with an instructional purpose, which by definition is not unambiguous infringement and by definition is not duplication of material. Lastly, and most critically, the whole argument falls apart because it is not the entire website which is prevented from being linked to, but the actual content (the singular webpage) we are prevented from linking to. So it is actually covered under a fair use claim, but this fact is irrelevant because we are not linking to that "dubious" content in the first place. Your argument is based on your misinterpretation of what the policy says, combined with a misunderstanding of what the solution is and targeting something which you have incorrectly identified. All three parts of your argument fail to pass muster. Next time please try to promote amiable resolutions, your hostility is most unwelcome and unnecessary. I take no pleasure in tearing apart the argument, but you simply do not understand and have continued to make false assumptions despite my attempts to understand your argument. If I somehow have misinterpreted your argument, again, please correct me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
You must be joking. I want this to be over and stop replying, but you're still not reading what I write. You wrote "You do not intend to actually say whether or not my assessment is correct?", when I clearly said "I find your assessment totally off". "Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others[...]" and "If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it." I did not mistakenly take this from COPYLINK like you say, those quotes are from WP:V. Although I did cite COPYLINK earlier, that was to give an indisputable example of the site's violations because you seem to think this fansite is holy. Do the quotes say this only applies to the exact url of the specific violations of a website? No, they don't, they say the "source". Let's hop over to WP:SOURCE just to read the number three definition of a source; "the publisher of the work." Kanzenshuu is the publisher here, also known as the source we can't link to. Any hostility comes from your second reply to me which opens with "I'm not going to bother asking you" and assumed badfaith. This is the end of the discussion. Xfansd (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── To me and the outside observers, there are two editors who are having a good faith discussion over a matter of policy. I am demonstrating that the website operates within fair use and does not link to any unambiguously infringing content, i.e. manga, anime, movies, games. In cases where material is used, it is under a fair-use provision and with extra care to not use "scanlations" of material. @Xfansd: it is very unhelpful to constantly assume bad-faith on part of anyone who disagrees with you. Your combative rhetoric which assumes that the site is "holy" to me is not helpful either. Please do not make borderline WP:BLP claims when you do not understand copyright. Also, please stop cherry picking sentence fragments and making irrational and incoherent arguments as if you understand them. This is not entirely your fault, you incorrectly assume that linking to a site with lyrics is inherently a copyright violation. Since 2007, there are many legal sites which use them with attribution and with permission - so even "fair use" doesn't enter the issue. Compare apples to apples, as the expression goes.

Despite saying my assumption is "totally off", you are claiming that the site is basically violating copyright by providing English translations of a Japanese interview. You make this case despite it a fair use claim being listed and the site actually providing their own translators and not allowing any "scanlations" of the material. As mentioned before, you want WP:COPYLINK for policy and not some footnote on WP:V - this site is not reproducing and distributing volumes of the manga, episodes, movies and games which falls under the provision of linking to infringing material. I consulted the arguments of two other editors in this matter and I'll gladly reach out and ask them their opinion. Also, you may know that I actually shoot down people using actual infringing materials - so don't go characterizing me as some bad-faith editor. I'd like discuss this matter with you and of what the policy and procedures state, but you do not want to seem to listen to me at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am uninvolved but I have already asked if Kanzenshuu is reliable at WP:RSN. Please discuss there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And it seems Xfansd is going to edit war because RSN did not go in his favor. This is disruptive and unproductive since a valid citation is being removed and not replaced as asked. RSN clearly showed that the material was being used with fair-use and there was no violation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
How did the RS show anything aside from me and you saying the same things we wrote above? No one else even took part. You have perfectly indisputable sources you can use in form of the actual magazine issues, but for some reason want to use a fansite that I sufficiently gave reason to avoid. Xfansd (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Verification is important and should be pursued when possible, but whatever. Until you actually insert false material or damage the article in some tangible way, you are fine by me. You seem to forget that the copies of the magazines cannot be cited in the same way and it would be an incomplete citation - I've asked you to bear responsibility for your removal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)