Talk:Goku/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Images

Guess six is too much, but it appears they all serve a purpose (like the ones at Link). Well, the Super Saiyan pic could just be taken off as the link Super Saiyan already portrays them. Perhaps move the Justin Chatwin image to the actor's article? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I'd have with a move is that the image, as helpful as it is, would get deleted from that article on the grounds of WP:NONFREE. Especialy if it's placed in the infobox. One of the non-free guidelines is for the infobox is:

Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images.

However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable.

Plus you have to admit that the image would come in handy in the future when the inevitable "Goku (movie)" article is created. Sarujo (talk) 23:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A future that may come in 3 or 4 years, plus the manual of style will have to be a lot of different to make these changes, since creating "Goku (movie)" would be a total violation the mos. In my opinion one or two images from the appearances in other media, we could replace the super saiyan image with one of those that have all super saiyan states of Goku while the Genkidama could be removed since its not very hard to explain. The maximum number of images we can have is 4 to remove the tag.Tintor2 (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, what should become of the Chatwin pic for now? As for the Super Saiyan, could one of you guys come up with an image better than this one I found? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

How about this one?Tintor2 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Eh, you couldn't find a better quality image? Guess that'll do if there is no other ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)I wasn't suggesting that one should exist but one will exist by due to what I've seen in those Transformer articles. As they are now appear to be in talks to giving movie Optimus Prime, Megatron, and even Bumblebee their separate articles. Someone like you should go over there and straighten those people out and cleanup already established articles. But in response to your proposal I can live with that as the "Son Goku and Kuniko Yamada" and "Son Goku and Masaharu Miyake" images are helping out the section in spades. I would ask for you and everybody to please hold off any proposed removal of the the "Takeshi's Castle" reference until I've had time to locate something to help that out. Sarujo (talk) 23:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that from one of the Daizenshūs? Sarujo (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarujo, any ideas about the SS portrayal? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea. If I go there I think I would lose my time. The other media images should have a reliable source as well as the info in the article. The movie one is ok but the other info use youtube video which are not reliable. (maybe I missed one).Tintor2 (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, a single litho of Goku's super forms give some insight into how the powerup affect Goku physically without having to write out every detail about it. I think alot of that has been addressed on the Super Saiyan article. I'll see what I can drum up as I must insist that if a litho is used, that it must feature all four super saiyan levels to complete the set. That image only features three levels and thus is dated by now. After all as you may recall I did find the Trunks litho out of nowhere.

Tintor, You state that the YouTube links aren't reliable, but as I recall the guildlines stating that if reliable sources can not be located, what the user deems as non-reliable can be used in it's place. I really don't see how YouTube can be called unreliable, unless you are stating the fact that there's no guarantee that the vid will remain up. Then I can see it being referred as unreliable. Sarujo (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External links#Linking to YouTube, Google Video, and similar sites.Tintor2 (talk) 01:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

It was my belief that these vids were not as much as a liability, as they are out of print material. The two Panic Adventure vids features in parenthesis in the upper right corner "For YouTube". Showing that Fuji TV wanted those productions to be featured on YouTube. Sarujo (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless youtube count as an unreliable source. It would be better to find a link to the official Fuji TV website that has info about it.Tintor2 (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Does this include posibly finding the vid there and linking from that position?

You keep throwing out the word "unreliable" as if it will fail at it primary function. By definition reliability is "the ability of a person or system to perform and maintain its functions in routine circumstances, as well as hostile or unexpected circumstances." The more appropriate term would be "valid". As in "Nevertheless YouTube counts as an invalid source due to it's sketchy copyright status". Sarujo (talk) 02:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:YOUTUBE says that we shouldn't link to copyrighted material. It is likely that those videos do have a copyright claim. Let me ask User:AnmaFinotera and we'll hear what she thinks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Per both WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYRIGHT, those links are a blatant violation of Wikipedia policies and need to be removed. They were not uploaded by the license holder and are therefore illegal videos. Also, as already noted, such videos do not count as a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay everybody calm down, I've found this from Fuji TV's website. Fuji TV News from 2003 listed as (2) and this. Does this help any? Sarujo (talk) 05:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Also I'd like to share the King Odaiba Adventure (お台場冒険王, Odaiba Bōken Ou) article from Japanese Wikipedia. Sarujo (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something here, but in cases where the only easily accessible copies of something are illegal, isn't standard practice to cite the source anyway and just not link to it? For instance, manga chapters obtained in English as scanlations are commonly cited as sources, we just list them as being from the chapter or volume of the series and don't give a convenience link to a manga browser/download site.

On the general issue of the images, I'd suggest cutting it to 4 by removing the one with him as an anime commentator (he doesn't look any different) and the picture of the Genki Dama (it's not particularly well-discussed in the text). The others all appear to be fine. --erachima talk 06:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sort of, except then you aren't citing an illegal copy of it, you are citing the actual original based on your reading of the translation of it. The video itself, however it was originally presented can be used as a source. Linking to Youtube or implying how you viewed the video is the no no. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. It's a tricky issue sometimes though. For instance, I recall seeing a case (back in 06?) where there was a heated debate on the inclusion of information on a notable fan translation, as well as whether it could be linked or not. Initially it was referenced to the site of the translators, but then that got removed for copyright reasons. Then it was referenced to third party sources discussing the existence of the fan translation, but people came in arguing that those references couldn't be included because they linked to the fan translation site... and then that the information itself had to come out of the page as being unverifiable. If I recall correctly it finally ended up with the information included, followed by "" --erachima talk 06:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I removed two images. Now there should be no more issues about the image abundance. Sarujo (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sesshomaru, I have found some images of interest, but sadly they lack all four super forms in a single shot.

If that doesn't suffice, might I suggest some hodgepoging of already established single images to make one image? Much like what the now defunct "comicity.com" had back in the day. Those were some the best examples of professionalism I have ever seen. Sarujo (talk) 21:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The second diff seems like the best one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I can live with that image until an image featuring all four forms manifests itself. I also still say that the last one would look great as an infobox image.

Since I brought up "comicity.com", I've also wanted to upload the images of Vegeta and Bulma for their respectable infobox pictures I don't think that they will be any problem as "comicity.com" has been out of commission for quite some time. Any thoughts? Sarujo (talk) 22:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Having group images is a great idea, the same thing was done for List of minor Sailor Moon characters. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Bulma and Vegeta pictures I'm refering to are this and this. Sarujo (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

If they're the best ones around they'll have to do. I wonder where we can find a pic as good as this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

"Kyūtai Panic Adventure!" and "Kyūtai Panic Adventure Returns!" situation

I've desided to move my findings down here so they can be focused upon to the two Panic Adventure features.

Now, again, does any of this help out? Sarujo (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

They seem like reliable references, except the Wikipedia one. Per WP:SELF and WP:AVOID (and a bunch of other rules) we can't cite another wiki as a source. At least, that's what I've been told. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese Wiki link was for extra credit on my part. Sarujo (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, here's the history page from Star*Tech. That should help out for "Returns" as Fuji TV's site nothing on that production. Sarujo (talk) 06:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Personality

This article needs a personality section, to characterise what he's like as a person. Sarujo (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs a nearly completely overhaul. The missing personality section isn't the biggest issue :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the personailtiy and abilities section be merged together in section called attributes or characteristics. The personality would be a bit short and the abilities could be trimmed.Tintor2 (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea, abilities are abilities. Bunching two close but unrelated sections under one header just doesn't feel right. Why not have it like the Naruto Uzumaki article? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok. But the personality section may be a bit short. My idea was to keep some video games FA characters articles.Tintor2 (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)I agree, personality and abitities are two different things, a fact that some editors just aren't aware of or refuse to accept. Bridging is only going to confuse the noobie readers and skimmers. Granted the article is ruff, but that's no excuse for a lack of a personality section. I think before we add a section we need to discuss the important aspect of his personality and see if they have any merit in a the section and have those sources. Sarujo (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Infobox Issues

This article has a very big infobox that bothers the reading. For example, the voice actors and family section are already mentioned in its own section. The power level seems totally unnecesary and hard to understand to those new to the series (apart that it is used only in the Frieza and Saiyan saga). Any suggestion?Tintor2 (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

As I recall ki levels were likened to a gimic after the scouters were phased out. Although ki levels could make a come back with this new movie coming out November. But at the same time it can be viewed as fan cruft like that of how much can he lift. So let just do away with it as other characters within the franchise didn't get this kind of study. The voice actors can go too. There's just too many which is one of the quirks that has kept other section from being created in other infoboxes like catlogue numbers in album and single infoboxes. Sarujo (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The same can be said about the known relatives section as there is the family tree section near the bottom. Any thoughts? Sarujo (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, I'd say get rid of the family tree. The whole section doesn't belong in a high quality character article anyway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree on dumping the power level completely. That's little more than "fancruft" in the infobox. Some of the family stuff is excessive (daughter-in-law, father of daughter in law?). That should be reserved for immediate family: parents, siblings, children, spouses. Not the extended line. With the multiple dubs, I'm inclined to say either drop from the infobox, or only have the Japanese and current English dub, with the previous one kept to the text. Pros and cons on both there. All such changes, though, probably need to be discussed on a wider basis to ensure its kept consistent between the individual DB character articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay I ll make some changes. I suppose we would later have to select notable reltaives or sth like that.Tintor2 (talk) 20:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, Bulma and Vegeta need this attention to their infoboxes as well. Sarujo (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Also Gohan and others I think, but it would better to see if this works. Collectian, how do you think it should be?Tintor2 (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I've modified the infobox to show what I had in mind. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well you messed up in your edit, the family members are not showing up in the infobox. Sarujo (talk) 02:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? Its showing fine for me? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Guess I'm not looking at it right, oh well. The infobox seem like an ok idea the others could follow a simular example.

I don't understand how a family tree is not apropreate for an article. Unless your refering to trees like the Harper family tree which streaches the withe of an article. But I see nothing wrong with a tree as it is way better than a simple list. Sarujo (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Its an in-universe aspect of the series, and generally of little importance. Relevant relationships should be in the text as part of one of the normal character sections, rather than an extraneous plotty section (or plotty illustration). If you look at some GA anime character articles, you will not find such things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Well I go ahead and make the same changes to the other articles, if that's ok? Sarujo (talk) 03:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm finding more stuff in family like future incarnates Future Trunks and Future Gohan, and desendants of unknown ties Goku Jr. and Vegeta Jr.. Plus situation like Piccolo's father and incarnate Piccolo Daimaou. My responce would be to remove future incarnates as they are simply the same indenical person, but I'm not sure about Goku and Vegeta Jr.. What would your COA be in this situation? Sarujo (talk) 03:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Definitely remove the futures. That isn't a relative, its, at best, and alter ego. I'd also remove the "descendants." The infobox should be for the immediate relations, not some unknown level of descendant.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I worked on some articles but some article are still confusing me like Frieza, Cell, Majin Buu, and Piccolo. So I'll leave them to you. Sarujo (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

IGN ratings

Can't we use IGN characters ratings for Goku and other character articles? Currently IGN give Goku a rating of 9.5 as seen here. Sarujo (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be a reader-generated average, so I don't think it meets WP:RS. Their bio of him could itself be useful though. --erachima talk 16:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Alot of ratings that are featured on Wikipedia articles are reader-generated. But the idea was for the rating to go into the reception section to help with his impact. Sarujo (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, such ratings do not belong here as they are reader-generated and have no actual basis or quality control. Most other such ratings like that that are in Wikipedia articles also do not belong, but often get stuck in. There is a difference between an online poll system and the user polls in magazines (though I don't think the latter really adds any value to articles either) Specific IGN reviewers from their editorial staff that include character commentary can be used in the reception, but otherwise, its not WP:RS and not usable information. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Reception Idea

I was thinking that maybe the appearances in other media and reception sections could be combined in someway much like Sonic the Hedgehog (character)#Reception and legacy section in the Sonic the Hedgehog article. Any thoughts? Sarujo (talk) 23:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. They are not the same thing, and, in general, we keep them separate in well formed anime/manga character articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

USSJ & USSJ2

I recently edited in on the "Abilities" section the USSJ and USSJ2 transformations, which actually did happen in the series, both in manga and anime. However, someone has strangely deleted it, even though it is a valuable and true piece of information. Even if he only used it once to show Gohan the weakness in speed, it is still a canon transformation that he used, featured in Viz's Dragon Ball Z Volume 17 (Volume 33 of the original series). Therefore, it should be included and it is unwise for people to delete it. Son Gohan (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

They are very minor info. In fact, it should be better to only say that "Goku has achieved every Super Saiyan transformation in the series".Tintor2 (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

So why does it have information such as Goku overcoming the negative characteristics of Super Saiyan to combat Cell and him achieving the Super Saiyan 2 and Super Saiyan 3 levels. That's also minor info, but it is still information. This is supposed to be an information page, you can't just skip two levels of Super Saiyan because it's "minor info". Son Gohan (talk) 17:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The one of the "Super Saiyan 2 and Super Saiyan 3 levels" seems also minor.Tintor2 (talk) 17:46, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

does any know how to fix this Reliability issue?

This article or section may contain improper references to self-published sources. Please help improve it by removing references to unreliable sources where they are used inappropriately. (September 2008)

can we check on what is and is not Reliable? seems like a Attempt can actually improve the Article?(9000! (talk) 03:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Just Curious

Why are all of these Japanese carachters still referred to buy their Japanese name? For example, Goku has been called Goku in every form of media I have seen save one comic and when I watched one of the movies in Japanese. Emperor001 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The only ones using their Japanese-translated names are this one and Son Gohan. If a page move is what you're asking for, you will need consensus. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't asking for a page move, I was just asking. I noticed that Yu-Gi-Oh and other Japanese articles are still listed with Japanese names. Emperor001 (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Slightly OT, but the reason that Yugioh uses the Japanese names is that the English version of the Manga uses them. In most cases though dub names are used though there are exceptions often in cases where the manga or offically realeased uncut versions of the anime uses original names. --70.24.181.212 (talk) 02:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Son Goku's Name

I though I'd bring up that in many games, preferably the Super Butoden series Goku's name was written in katakana as "ゴクウ" as seen here. Which is in contrast to the use kanji "孫悟空" in most media.

The same can be said about Gohan whos name is depicted as "ゴハン" as seen here. Sarujo (talk) 23:38, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Weird Translations

I've noticed some of the translations for Goku's attacks are weird or differ from what I know them to be. Someone put "World King Fist" for the Kaioken, which I've always known it as "Fist of Worlds". Also someone put "Candy Cloud" as the translation for the Kintoun, which I've always known it as "Somersault Cloud" (Don't know if I spelled that right). Does anyone else seem to disagree with that? --71.192.15.96 (talk) 03:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Fist of Worlds" would not be a correct translation as Kaiou means does World King. Kai=World and Ou=King. Sarujo (talk) 03:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

a seperate section for the live action Goku...

is it a good idea? It would sure help people see how his character is being portrayed, what do ya' say? Kazaan (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That would be excessive detail, thus inappropriate. #Appearances in other media already takes care of that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

If we keep giving sections to unnotable character incarnations it's going to be really cluttered. The only thing we can say about that Goku is that he's a student at a local high school. That alone doesn't call for a separate section. Besides, that Goku is also focused upon in the film's article. Sarujo (talk) 06:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course we should! we do for characters like Wolverine and Spiderman, why not Goku? give me a straight answer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopiethePopester (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Those characters have notable live action incarnations, nor are the manga character articles. Wikipedia is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia. Also, the Spider-Man article does NOT have a separate section for his live action versions. Thanks anyway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

well, i didn't mean article, i meant he should have section on this page ( perhaps 'Live SAction adaptation') which would give a breif summary of what he does on the movie. --show the way, HadoMaru (talk) 21:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Live action Goku is not notable enough to have his own article. Any relevant info about him is already in the article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. It'd just be WP:CRUFT anyway ... Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's any need for a seperate section. But it couldn't hurt to expand a little the difference. Like Here, Goku is portrayed as an under confident high school student. Sarujo (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Voice Actors

I suggest that we merge the Voice Actors section back into the infobox. The section is really just a list of Goku's voice actors, which really isn't needed and seems to be more fancruft than anything else. A mention of the main voice actors in the infobox should suffice. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This may work, so long as the sources are also included, however the main ones should also be covered in the prose as part of the creation/conception information to discuss its anime adaptation. See Himura Kenshin for an example. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason why the voice actor credits were moved into a section was to reduce cluter in the infobox. It was also one of the reasons for reducing the family list to immediate members. Sarujo (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Age

Son Goku is 14 years old, as is stated in the second episode of Dragon Ball (not hearable in the English dub due to censorship). I think that information should be added somewhere. —Kloth (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? Its a trivial thing that really has no affect on the series. Fictional character ages are generally not noted because of this. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Especially when the character grows up a lot along the series. I remember that he later mentioned he was wrong and that he was in fact 12.Tintor2 (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It was my understanding that Goku was merly guessing what his age was when he said he was fourteen. Sarujo (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that age information has little to no impact in Dragon Ball. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Goku's a hundred years old.--$UIT 05:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Goku's real birthdate (which I believe is this one) is mentioned in the official daizenshuu guides. A birthdate does not affect the story in any way, but it is still good to know. Where they are mentioned in series, character pages include the year. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

B class

Personally I think that the current article is worth of B class status. However, the previous review says that there are problems with referencing and citations, as well as coverage and accuracy. I would like to ask what areas of the article lack in such regards, as well as what this article needs in order for it to reach B class, and later great article status. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 16:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:Lead, the lead would require some expansion to give a short overview of the article (2 paragraphs is okay, but considering Goku I would say 3 like seen in Sasuke Uchiha or others). If you are thinking of getting to GA, critical reception could be expanded with more reviews. The referencing from ANN encyclopedia would also need clean up, and the abilities sections seems to be overdetailed (it mentions every single move from Goku even though some are unnotable).Tintor2 (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand about the lead section, reception and the abilities, (which I did some very minor clean up to) I don't know about the clean up for the ANN encylopedia links. What exactly needs to be fixed? Also, what abilities do you think are unnotable, as the ones mentioned are pretty important. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 16:36, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

ANN encyclopedia is not a reliable source since its user edited. About abilities, I only remember janken from video games.Tintor2 (talk) 16:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Janken was Goku's main attack in Dragon Ball, though I assume that as a three punch combo, its not truly notable. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 16:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Janken was not just punches but also chops. As the attack was a reference to the game Rock, Paper, Scisors. He used it alot as a child. So it has some nobility. Even with that listed, the abillties section does not list every single attack he has ever used. I didn't add the super versions of Kamehameha and Genki Dama or Saruken just name a few. Sarujo (talk) 18:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

the Janken may have had chops as well, but the point is it had no special properties and was completely dropped about 1/8 of the way through the series. The fact that it is a reference to Rock paper scisors doesn't make it notable. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 18:18, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Never said that reference did. I was just pointing out what it was. But neither is properties, media or many uses. The fact that it was one of his main attack before Kamehameha is. You seem to have no problem removing those attacks, but let other attacks stay. Kaioken was only used during the Saiyan and Frieza saga. Yet you feel that it has more nobilty than Janken and Ryuken. Like I said there are alot of attacks featured, but not every last one. Sarujo (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I never said that the Kaioken is more notable, as I was not the person who created the section. Really, it was a only a "main attack" for all of one volume, as Goku learns the Kamehameha in volume two. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 18:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing

Is the Internet Movie data base a reliable source for citation? I've been trying to source each of the voice actors, but I can't seem to find the infomation anywhere else but on the site. link. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 16:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

No, IMDB has been rejected repeatedly as RS for the same reasons as ANN: its primarily user edited. For the voice actors, usually the episodes themselves work fine unless they aren't included in the credits list (some English releases I know "forget" to include this info). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

So just basic episode referencing citations? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 17:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, usually the first episode they appear in using {{cite episode}}. For the Japanese voices, cite the Japanese episodes, unless they are listed in the credits on the English episodes too. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary contextual prefacing

It's considered to be within the Dragonball Universe when "planets" and other materials are referenced, without invalidating the Wikipedia standards for in-Universe style writing. Someone should go through and just fix up the redundant "fictional [noun]" indicative contextual minutia perforating the article.-TAz69x (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it was that excessive. One or two places where its a little redundant, but otherwise fine. and yes, there are people who need to be told that the planet and species are fictional. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is excessive. The article starts by explaining that Goku is a character that someone created. We don't need to know that he is a fictional character from a fictional universe with a number of fictional planets. It does not matter whether people that dumb exist. 76.103.241.159 (talk) 07:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, obviously, you don't know squat about our style manual. I suggest becoming familiar with it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Telepath

Does Goku count as being categorized under "Anime and manga telepaths"? I've seen him used telepathy plenty of times, and he explicitly read Krillin's mind during the Namek Saga. Smijes08 talk, 12:05, 15 October 2009

"Plenty of times"? You will need to WP:SOURCE this factoid in the article before including such things. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The Voice Actors Section

The voice actors section is inconsistant and full of errors. It is also worded poorly, and organized poorly. I would like to fix this. I re-wrote and re-organized it to make it as easy to understand as possible, and to remove incorrect information. Linkdude20002001 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

It's been four months and no one's said a word. I'm going to go ahead and clean up the list of voice actors.Linkdude20002001 (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Vegetto

Calling Vegetto as "Vegito" is as wrong as saying "Narut". We must use American names where possible, like with "kinto-un" or "niyoi-bo", but never CHANGE a name. If you change it back to "Vegito", give us a reason first. RocketWobbuffet (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about?! We're using Japanese names too, like Son Goku, Son Gohan and Piccolo Daimao. Please, do get a consensus going for any name modifications that are to be made. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then. Let's get a consensus. I think "Vegetto" is right just because "Vegito" is wrong. Did somebody ever seen "Vegito" on Dragon Ball related products? Just some american games use "Vegito". Ok, what if I'm not american? There's nothing here that supports "Vegito". "Vegito" is as good as "George Eggplant" or "Zoomglipher" or anything else that is not supported. I think we should discuss why should we use "Vegito", and not why should we use "Vegetto".RocketWobbuffet (talk) 11:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If Vegito's name is spelt as such in the manga then we used this variation of his name and not "Vegetto". Do not make this a country issue, because it is not. And MOS:J has nothing to do with naming anime characters, the spelling is supported by the anime/manga MOS. Now the only way we will change the name is if his name is spelt as "Vegetto" in the manga and not "Vegito". 夢追人^YumeChaser 12:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It IS a country issue. I'm sure about that. I'm still waiting for a good reason to use a wrong name. RocketWobbuffet (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again per the anime/manga MOS, we will keep on using Vegito since that is the way his name is written in English. After all this is the English Wikipedia, where the English manual of style trumps another languages Wikipedia way of doing things. 夢追人^YumeChaser 18:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Then we are all wrong. Taken form WP:JA: "Characters should be identified by the names used in the official English releases of the series. If there are multiple English releases, such as both a manga and anime, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world (usually the primary work)." He is called "Vegerot" in the Viz manga, so change it to "Vegerot" if you are any consistent at all. As I said before, nothing supports "Vegito". RocketWobbuffet (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

General Style and Content Issues

This page feels like it would be horribly confusing to anyone who isn't familiar with Dragonball Z. I'd suggest adding a "written from a mostly in-universe perspective" tag to certain sections (adding the word "fictional" to every other sentence doesn't solve this).

References are made to several mechanics of the series (super saiyan, the transformation to Oozaru, Etc) in a way that would be very confusing to someone not already familiar with them. There are awkward sentences here and there (for instance, the "... to make him more original" sentence in the intro).

There are a number of statements that look like interpretations, yet they have citations associated with them. I haven't looked into these, so perhaps they are perfectly valid, but I have my doubts.

(And a side note: how is it that Goku's adoptive grandfather receives no mention at all in the relevant part of his biography? And why is that section called "plot", when many articles for fictional characters use a "fictional character biography" section to accomplish the same thing?) 209.65.62.11 (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Kamehame-Ha's Translation

Kamehame-Ha does not mean "Turtle Destruction Wave". While the "Ha" does mean wave, the "Kamehame" part is simply just sounds. It's clearly a pun on turtle (kame), but it doesn't actually say "turtle". It's kinda like saying "turtul"; it sounds the same, but the meaning is different. Attack names in Dragon Ball are either Japanese words (Makankosappo), English words (Final Flash), Japanese sounds (KAMEHAME-Ha), or "English" sounds (GYALLIC Ho). So, I would like to change the translation to an accurate one: "Kamehame Wave"Linkdude20002001 (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to mention the interview. Please cite the magazine and page number where you found it. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Toriyama Akira Super Interview - 4th Round from the Dragon Ball Daizenshuu #4 (pages 164-169):

Q: How do you think up the names for the special attacks?

A: I actually don't really like to give names to the techniques. In a battle of life and death, there's no way you can say the name of each technique. You'd be done in while yelling the technique's name. (laughs) But my editor told me it was best to give the techniques names. My wife was the one who named the Kamehameha. I was fretting, saying "Kame-sennin's special attack should be something-or-another ha, something-or-another ha..." and she said "Wouldn't Kamehameha be good?". That was good, silly, and fitted Kame-sennin's mood perfectly.

For the names of the techniques apart from the Kamehameha, I thought them all up myself. I gave them names that seemed like that particular character would think of. So with someone like Vegeta, wouldn't he name his techniques in English? (laughs) Piccolo's techniques were tasteful with kanji.

You can see it here: http://www.kanzentai.com/trans-daiz04.php?m=10&id=interview#link Linkdude20002001 (talk) 00:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

All you have proven is who though of the name. You have proven the deliberate intention or the translation. Sarujo (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

That's why I didn't post the interview originally. But just looking at the attack's name in Japanese is enough to tell you that it doesn't actually mean anything. It's written with just the Japanese sounds か (ka), め (me), は (ha), and め (me), followed by the word 波 (wave). The argument "Toriyama never said it was just sounds" can be turned around into "Toriyama never said it was "Turtle Destruction Wave", so really, it's best to just use Kamehame Wave instead of making up kanji (words) for the sounds. Linkdude20002001 (talk) 01:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)