Talk:Dragon Ball

Filipino broadcasts

Can someone verify that the broadcasts on the two Filipino networks, GMA-7 and RPN-9, were in English? While sometimes Filipino networks does broadcast English language programs, this should always be double checked. —Farix (t | c) 11:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't fond of watching anime on local channels when I was younger, but to my knowledge, the GMA-7 broadcast was in Filipino. I know because I saw it once before, and also because all of GMA's anime broadcasts are in Filipino. As for RPN-9, I don't know. I'm too young to remember (I'm only 15). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

*Back after a shower* Ok, I've went ahead and removed GMA-7 as an English language broadcaster based on your comments. I'll hold out on RPN-9 for a little while longer before removing it. —Farix (t | c) 11:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

One question that might speed up the process. Does RPN-9 normally air programs in English? —Farix (t | c) 11:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, currently a channel called ETC is taking up the channel's airtime (although it is still officially RPN-9, before ETC, the channel was Solar TV). ETC is one of those local channels that mainly broadcast American shows (notably Glee and American Idol). But back in the channel's heydey, yes, the station's programs were in Filipino. That is because RPN was, and still is, owned by the Philippine government (although they are planning to privatize it). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, based on all of this, I'll remove RPN-9 as well until someone can show evidence that it was broadcast in English in the Philippines. —Farix (t | c) 12:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Philippines did feature Dragon Ball in two networks. RPN aired Dragon Ball and the first 35 episodes of Dragon Ball Z in a locally-produced English dub, courtesy of Creative Products Corporation. The time slot was at 4:30PM on weekends, and this went on from 1995 to 1997. GMA aired Dragon Ball Z in a Tagalog dub on weekday nights starting in 2000, ending its run at 2002. Initially broadcasted at 7:00PM, but moved later to 5:30PM starting with the Buu saga. There was at one point, circa 2001, that GMA aired the original Dragon Ball. This time in Tagalog, too. GMA would also air GT in 2002 after Z's run. —User:Twelveoaks (t | c) 12:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Reception

I feel the reception section for the anime, as written, does Dragon Ball a bit of an injustice. I agree it certainly has many faults, and the positions DB/Z/GT were ranked at by IGN seem fair to me, but its popularity opened the door for countless other anime series to be successful. I can't put this in myself because of No Original Research, but I know that many consider Dragon Ball, and Dragon Ball Z significantly responsible for increasing anime popularity outside of Japan. Before DB/Z, in the states, we had no anime(if any). With the success of DBZ in the 90s, Cartoon Network via Adult Swim and Toonami added more and more anime to their lineup, and I don't think we would have ever gotten any of the other anime series if not for the success of Dragon Ball Z. Does anyone have some sources to support this?--Padenton (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are sources out there. We could look for some, but usually, that kind of info is normally talking about Anime in general over DB specifically.Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Split back off

If anything, the articles for DBZ and DBGT should be restored. Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT are separate entities set within the same franchise. Having Dragon Ball Z be nothing more than a section in the main Dragon Ball article is like having Star Trek: The Next Generation be nothing more than a section in the Star Trek article. They should be split back up, there is more than enough notable content, sources, and differences. Also, it's misleading to have Dragon Ball Z redirect to Dragon Ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 April 2013‎

Why were they merged? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I need to overhaul this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the previous discussion that caused the merge; Talk:Dragon_Ball/Archive_1#Merge. You can not "overhaul" the article by separating them without consensus, as said at the top of this talkpage. My opinion; Dragon Ball Z should definitely not be separated, it is not a "separate entity" but a very faithful adaptation of the second half of the manga; Dragon Ball GT is the only one I can see doing that for as it is an original story. The problem would be the separate GT article having enough content, TJ Spyke claims there is more than enough, however the current whole Dragon Ball article shows differently. The current GT section has 5 sources and then there's 2 about it in the reception section. Xfansd (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Xfansd. We should not demerge any section to a separate article without consensus. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't, but quite clearly this runs afoul of WP:UNDUE as DBZ is a distinct entity and deserves its own page. Dragonball should be the franchise and the articles while connected, are excessively long and extremely notable for Dragonball, DBZ, and GT. Barely a paragraph goes for seventeen films and over what... 40 games? Though I think a redefining of what constitutes a franchise might be needed at the anime project and I'm thinking at or above 20 unique titles would qualify for franchise pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z is just the adaptation to the second half of the manga (renamed "Dragon Ball Z" in North america for obvious reasons). So splitting Dragon Ball Z may not be a good idea because its still part of the same entity. As for Dragon Ball GT, I'm unsure. I personally have nothing against a split, as long as its long enough to merit one. So probably a project page should be made to determine whether its worthy of one.Lucia Black (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Dragonball Z is definitely not a separate entity. GT is different but does not need a separate article. Ferocious Flying Ferrets 15:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it's a faithful adaptation and all, but it's still a whole other entity, as it is a TV production. People want to go and find an article on Dragon Ball Z on Wikipedia, so that they can find more information, like who the director(s) was, the number of episodes, the production year, airing dates etc. plus perhaps a list of differences between the manga and the anime. I bet Wikipedia has more visitors and editors than IMDb, so the majority will try to look here, and be frustrated when they can't find what they are looking for. Can you follow me? Luka1184 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started an RFC on the possible demerge. Post your thoughts there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is it relevant to demerge Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z as separate articles?

Should Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z be de-merged and listed as separate articles? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It holds the same plot as the manga, not only that but if people want production year, development info and airdates, they can still get it in this article.Lucia Black (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As said above Dragon Ball Z is a faithful adaptation of the latter half of the Dragon Ball manga and the way we handle that is by having one main article for the original work and have a subsection for the anime. According to WP:MOS-AM we can only separate if DBZ were very different from the manga or the article gets too long (which it hasn't). Xfansd (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of a catch-22. If that is what you want, then shall we go with 40kb of DBZ content before we split off? Each of these articles can easily surpass that, but I'd like to point out that if I were to do such a thing.. Lucia would likely revert any changes I do dealing with the as of yet unresolved Ghost in the Shell matter. This article I mentioned in my attempt to define a formal system for franchises as I wish to define in the MOS-AM. Though to be completely fair, I've been dedicating a large amount of time to correcting, improving and detailing hentai. If I were to begin working on DBZ and GT articles it might just be easier to split the thing in advance do to the crossing of sources which will be a nightmare when we formally split them. A quick look of sources gives me 678 articles on Highbeam of which at least 200 appear viable for inclusion. Questia is not great for this but has 58 newspaper articles and a few useless book and magazine mentions, probably not worth looking into. Though its not a real concern because anime and manga centric publications detail the series quite effectively for a reception and production details. If I have the freedom to work on this, I could probably get it to GA or FA. I think if other editors want to join in and pushing the content out we should just go for it. Or if you prefer, I can link a bunch of material, but for those of you with access to Highbeam, its easier to just check it yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If I revert something, it would be only because you have no consensus to do it. Me, xfansd, Sjones, and Ferret, disagree in the split. You're getting ahead of yourself. This is to discuss whether we should split it or not. If consensus supports split, then we can discuss a plan to split.Lucia Black (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, WP:OWN and WP:IRA do not mean the same thing. I've been working on hentai because it is a key article, but in all fairness I'm done with your drama. MOS-AM does not dictate what this article will and should be and I am thinking about modifying MOS-AM and a few other things to clean it up. Oh and one more thing... WP:SIZE would make this RFC redundant if I put in the 40kb of content that they used to have. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? I made no mention of WP:OWN. there's no drama here. I didn't even mention anything about hentai articles. You're trying to overhaul all of anime/manga articles on your own. Lucia Black (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the WP:MOS-AM, please discuss it on its own talk page or on the anime WikiProject's talk page and formulate a consensus on either of these pages. Also, Consensus can change. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to demerge. The weight is okay and there is little Dragon Ball Z material available. Selecting just Dragon Ball Z and not the more independent Dragon Ball GT seems a bit subjective.Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Dragon Ball Z and Talk:Dragon Ball GT have support not listed here, made through the link from the template. Secondly, WP:OWN applies to Wikiprojects, in this case WP:MOS-AM is to be used as a suggestion and not a rule of law. In fact, MOS-AM should not even dictate such things. The reason for a tied manga/anime page is that they are commonly the same, the reasoning governed by other policies. That interpretation is open to debate and the source policies are the only thing which should be considered. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I understand where you're coming from. However, I mostly agree with Tintor2 and Xfansd about the weight issue. So far, I see a little bit of a divided consensus about the issue here. However, since WP:SS and WP:SIZE are part of our concern and splitting these articles would cause controversy, I felt that the issue could be easily resolved via a proper dispute resolution discussion and discussion was necessary, according to the rules and common sense. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've personally always disagreed with WP:MOS-AM, and thought that instead articles about a manga and its anime adaptaion should be split whenever there is enough content to have two separate articles (as opposed to requiring too much content to fit in one article). However, based on the current guidelines, Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z should probably only be split if someone can write enough good content about each that the combined article would be too long. On the other hand, I think per WP:MOS-AM Dragon Ball GT should be split if someone can write enough to support an article. It is not an adaptation of the manga, and differs from Dragon Ball/Dragon Ball Z in several significant ways (e.g. new plot, some new major characters, new primary creator(s) other than Akira Toriyama, very different reception, etc.). It seems to me like exactly the sort of thing that WP:MOS-AM indicates can have a separate article. I remember several years ago that people suggested Dragon Ball GT should only be covered in the main Dragon Ball article because it wasn't independently notable, which I think is ridiculous, as it has plenty of coverage to be independently notable. I think the only reason it hasn't been split is because of a catch-22 situation kind of like what ChrisGualtieri suggested above. No one bothers to write more about it as the content will be removed for unbalancing this article, and since no one writes more about it, it never gets enough content that anyone thinks to split it. I think the solution would be for someone to write a complete Dragon Ball GT article in their user space, then start a discussion here or at WT:ANIME to see if there is consensus to put that article in mainspace. I'm not going to write such an article myself, but if someone else wrote a decent article, I would support moving it to mainspace. Likewise, I think the same idea of writing complete articles in user space would be a good approach to seeing if Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z could support separate articles, though it might be hard to get a consensus to split unless the articles clearly have enough different and high-quality content that we would want to keep it all and it couldn't all fit in one article. Calathan (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It would take me to Friday to get the content for GT up, and while DBZ is a better subject I can just go about crafting that as DBZ is something I am more familiar with AND the most difficult one to split off from Dragonball without ruining it. I'll give DBZ a shot though. I'll need an admin to merge it later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris, you'll also need consensus (which I see you violate repeatedly on the Ghost in the Shell articles). I'm fine with a GT article if it has enough content, but Z is another matter. The supposed Z article needs "enough different and high-quality content" to even be considered, and even then there has to be consensus to use the supposed article. I do not understand the "WP:OWN applies to Wikiprojects" comment; to change MOS you need consensus (I realize I'm coming off as consensus heavy, but this is true). Yes it is not set in stone, but we still have to follow it, and creating a separate Z article would still violate it. Nothing further should even be discussed on splitting unless MOS-AM gets changed. Xfansd (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand me, but the relevant topic is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which states that a local page or wikiproject cannot override community policy or guideline. Hence my proposal to change the wording of WP:MOS-AM and cite WP:SPLIT as a consensus of the community. While a relatively small matter, MOS-AM does not have the 'force of law' is a key aspect that would allow editors to invoke 'PER MOS-AM' and require arguments to be cited in policy as they should be. My sandbox will show that I can provide enough different and unique content to warrant a page. As the JP wikipedia has a decent one already to start off with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z is just a second season/series/whatever of the anime and only exists in anime form. If anything, its usage in an article title should solely relate to either a list of episodes or the various films in the continuity that used the Z in the title (I think Battle of the Gods falls under this umbrella).—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How would this split benefit our readers? Goodraise 12:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Attention! As stated before I am working on a SANDBOX version of DBZ not a MAINSPACE. Got it? I am not recreating the page, but it is preferable to have some ideas down. Do not discuss GITS here and those two editors do not make consensus. As noted, RFC is ongoing and the catch-22 is best handled by actually drafting something up. Something which will take me to at least friday. The MOS-AM matter is a formal proposal as noted by Sjones23, it is separate from this discussion. Okay? Clear? Good. No more drama. My response to Goodraise: It will contain a single detailed page that contains the overview of the topic with the following. The noted plot as coming from the manga, a brief character/voice actor layout of the key characters only, a section on production and release of works, censorship, reception and cultural impact. Included would be discussion relating to Funimations's heavy editing of the first two seasons and censorship of 'objectionable' content that drew some early internet criticism from people like Psaros. [1] Though The Japanese Wikipedia article gives a fair amount of detail to begin with.[2] While the List of Episodes is probably bordering on excessive, the production credits are useful, so is the original naming and details about the theme. Also even the music was a hit with the original JP theme sold 1.7 million copies, a mult-platinum level according to RIAA standards. We got plenty to work with here. Hence why I want to do a draft in my sandbox for it to preview what the page could look, later at this RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not Ok. I'm trying to explain to you that even if your sandbox version is "good", we can not implement it. You are the one who first brought up GITS; those two editors are in agreement and tried to compromise with you to follow MOS-AM, therefore yes they are the consensus. This is relevant when this splitting relies on consensus and the person writing the separate article currently violates that and MOS-AM repeatedly. MOS-AM is a not a separate issue and you cannot not ignore it because you want to change it, we must follow it therefore currently we can not split Z.

Your proposed article will include; "The noted plot as coming from the manga, a brief character/voice actor layout of the key characters only, a section on production and release of works, censorship, reception and cultural impact.", literally all of this is in the article currently (character stuff on the characters page), that is not new content. Sure it could be expanded assuming reliable sources are found, because Psaros who simply ran a fansite is not one, but do that on this article. Again, I don't see reason to discuss this split further, unless MOS-AM is changed we can not split Z. Xfansd (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue with MOS-AM is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, wikiprojects cannot overturn policy and editing guidelines or say that one does not apply to them. Any MOS-AM is not a policy or guideline, it is a Manual of Style. It should not even be in there. Take your rebuttals to the RFC, this is about DBZ and make your arguments in policy. I'll start as if DBZ is a fresh new article. DBZ meets WP:GNG, WP:N, that much should be uncontested. Per WP:SS with the reason of DBZ to split from Dragonball being, "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." It is not a problem with WP:CFORK because it is not a "Redundant content forks" which duplicates an existing topic, it is not a "Point of view (POV) fork". It is OK per WP:SPINOFF and is very much highlighted by WP:RELART. It is RELART which I am countering the improper citation of the Manual of Style as linked here, MOS-AM does not supercede community consensus and is out of scope. As to counter to material in Dragonball versus DBZ, the scope and coverage and detail paid attention to DBZ is scant. I will draft a preview for you to read through. Psaros is a part of DBZ history and was interviewed by Toonzone's Jacob Paschal a full 10 years later. [3] But individuals aside, the easiest way for me to counter your redundant claims is to expand them by 2-4x in a preview. I'll work on it for you later, so sorry, but please bear with me while I draft it in my sandbox. I think the policy matter would be a good base line for discussion for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

How about this. You expand this article and prove a split is necessary. The only differences are production and reception. And the list of episodes helps even further summarize, so you will only rehash those list articles.Lucia Black (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That would end up ruining the flow and function of this page. You will see the page in my sandbox later on. I have nearly gathered all the materials I need to write it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it if its just expanding.Lucia Black (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

DBZ and Kai are the same thing, I intend on putting this re-release together. I have begun working on the sandbox version, but I will need to put a lot of heavy work in to the voice actor lists and stuff to get them to be adequate. Though the 4 pages of content on Dragonball about the Z material is a great start. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you just want to milk the info out onto a whole article. Not even FMA uses voice cast list. You're really pushing the idea.Lucia Black (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris if you mentioned all those before that would have saved a lot of time. Seems you yourself just realized they supersede MOS, I know I did not know. However, my main concern now is if this supposed article will have enough new content, as Lucia brought up such a cast list seems quite unnecessary considering the character articles, and actual reliable sources. Claiming Psaros "a part of DBZ history" is ludicrous, he is simply a fan, same as you or I, therefore his site is nothing more than a fansite and obviously an unreliable source. Toon Zone has been named unreliable itself as seen here [4] and here [5]. Either way, that interview was conducted by a Ryan 'CastorTroy' Molina (who is also simply a fan) and is not related to Toon Zone. But that can wait until you finish your proposed article. Xfansd (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes.. it was pointed out at the Village Pump matter. Even still, I do not want to go against the "consensus" and want the RFC to finish. Its not about being 'right' or 'wrong', but going with established procedures. For the matter of Psaros, I'll agree till I dig up a reliable source, some of the points raised by this critic are well... accurate and are interesting to read about. I have a crude version at my sandbox, but its nothing more then the dragonball Z and kai material from the current article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Important - Per discussion in this section and the RFC on MOS-AM, found at:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_105#RFC:_WP:MOS-AM_discussions, the earlier 2008 consensus to merge Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT have been overturned by policy and reasoning under WP:CREEPY. A Manual of Style cannot impose article subject restrictions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No. You can't do that. Just because a new consensus has formed at VPP because it seems you blatantly asked someone to close the discussion in your favor does not overturn the consensus that formed here years ago to merge the articles. You have to come up with a new consensus to split things off.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Prior to my comments here, ChrisGualtieri restored Dragon Ball Z into a separate standalone article, as per his original intentions in this discussion, as well as removing the text from WP:MOS-AM that would have prevented it in the first place. I have reverted this so an actual discussion on the merits of splitting can be decided rather than ChrisGualtieri unilaterally changing things now that he's forced a change in the guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I’m afraid I haven’t followed the debates surrounding this, but it seems to me that the result of that RfC does not mean what User:ChrisGualtieri claims it means. The removal of a restriction is not the same as approval. It simply closes off one set of arguments for or against an action; there may still be others, and those should be considered. If the consensus is against the split for any other reason, that consensus should be respected until a new one can be established. —Frungi (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Ryulong and Frungi. Even if you can't spell it out in the MOS, if there is a consensus not to split something, then it shouldn't be split. What was said in the MOS before was probably trying to cover a majority of cases where there were splits done against consensus.--十八 06:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This RFC and the VPP RFC are two different things. Do not confuse the two, for two different RFC were in the works and both seem fairly obvious for policy discussion. The VPP closure was obvious and the admin who closed it stated, "When consensus is obvious, there is usually not a reason for a formal closure. However, I have now closed this discussion with a summary." [6] Everyone had an opportunity at both RFC's to make their points. Consensus in the discussion and the split at Talk:Dragon Ball Z seems obvious with the lines drawn at:

Supporters:ComputerJA (talk · contribs) Smtchahal (talk · contribs), Triesault (talk · contribs), Icarus of old (talk · contribs) Luka1184 (talk · contribs) Calathan (talk · contribs) and ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) bringing up WP:SS, WP:SIZE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:DETAIL, WP:SPINOFF.

Against:Vuerqex (talk · contribs) Ryulong (talk · contribs) Lucia Black (talk · contribs) with the previous and rejected argument of WP:MOS-AM and previous consensus which directly is tied to the offending MOS-AM 'guideline'. Unknown after policy cited: Xfansd (talk · contribs)

By this RFC, we decide based upon policy and arguments from the discussion 5 years ago. The decision it "violates WP:MOS-AM" was faulty because it was never a policy and should never have been used as such; hence the RFC to overturn was concurrent with the VPP RFC on MOS-AM. If you have policy-based arguments then please present them; because by all accounts the merger was a bad idea and significantly reduces notable content and coverage of Wikipedia. I asked for both RFCs to close despite it being 'obvious' because I expected this; the opposing side has offered no policy and upholds a false one as their reasoning while supporters have given a host of policies agreed by the greater community. So far, there is no reason presented to keep the merger and policy suggests Dragon Ball Z should have its own article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You know what? Your demands that everyone's arguments be rooted in policy is really annoying. There are no other ways to present one's arguments it seems? How convenient that you had a guideline changed that automatically invalidates every argument made by the people you oppose. Then my argument would be that creating a separate article on Dragon Ball Z would be a violation of WP:CFORK, as the Dragon Ball Z anime is merely an adaptation of the second half of the Dragon Ball manga depicting Son Goku's adulthood. Just because it came out in English first does not mean it's notable on its own.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:POLICY states, "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." So asking for it to be made in that respect is not unusual. MOS-AM is a style guideline, it is not appropriate to dictate or overturn other policies and that is covered by LOCALCONSENSUS. So addressing your 'CFORK' argument, only two types of CFORK's are unacceptable, one is redundant and the other is POV. It is not these. It is acceptable to make the sub-article by CFORK's WP:SPINOFF. Also, Ryulong you do not seem to understand the history of Dragon Ball versus Dragon Ball Z. Dragon Ball came to America first, was canceled and with the success of Dragon Ball Z, was restarted. Viz released the Dragon Ball Z manga as it did to not confuse English readers. Though the real issue is that the Dragon Ball franchise has numerous related works in the Dragon Ball Z series which includes dozens of games and movies, live action films and a continuing legacy with the re-release of Dragon Ball Kai. If anything, Kai should be at DBZ, but DBZ should not be at Dragon Ball. Before you undid my change, you noticed 38kb of data and I hadn't even added the overview of the related Dragon Ball Z media. Three paragraphs at Dragon Ball is clearly inappropriate given no end of Dragon Ball Z coverage as a work, as a series and its continuing legacy in international culture. I'm open to arguments, but at this point there seems to be no valid reason to remain merged. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to start quoting shit at me either. I've been here long enough. What is unusual is that you won't accept any arguments that simply use rhetoric to make their point. Do we really need a separate article on Dragon Ball Z? Is the coverage here too much when the version you had dredged up was probably half cast list and partly about the other versions? It still meets the redundant aspect of CFORK in that regard.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I would appreciate a policy-based argument is because that carries additional weight. And 'rhetoric' includes making policy based arguments because I am trying to inform and persuade that my arguments have been shared and confirmed by the greater community. You do not have to cite a policy in your argument though. Also, Dragon Ball Z is not a redundant fork, the focus is on the Dragon Ball Z media. The article was far from being perfect or complete when you merged it, but the specific scope is not a problem per WP:RELART. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Z is just an extension of DB. While I will admit that there have been at least a dozen movies titled "Dragon Ball Z" and only from what I can tell 4 that were just "Dragon Ball" (als also the several hundred episodes whose titles I just fixed), it's still just the "Dragon Ball" story.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

At the time, the merge was absolutely the right thing to do, the DBZ article was mostly unsourced crap, so we can not say those who supported it then were wrong and retroactively revert their merge now simply because of recent MOS changes. But I was under the impression that Chris and whoever else wanted to, were going to create a mock-up of the proposed separate article and then everyone would convene here and see if it warranted enacting. Instead of just saying and assuming good new content can be created on DBZ, it sounds easy but I have yet to see anything close to sufficient, it seems easier to show it in a sandbox (not in actual article space). Xfansd (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There is olenty of info on DBZ. But most of it that is unique to DBZ is broadcast history, and animation development. And the problen is that the manga's secind have has been renamed Dragon Balk Z in english territories to comply with the anime, so a split would be complicated as it would also split the manga in half.Lucia Black (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching Chris's sandbox and looked at what he did at the now-redirect "Dragon Ball Z" and I agree that only stuff like the broadcast history and development is the unique part, which is why I concur with, I think it was Ryulong who said, that info should go in the List of episodes article. This, coupled with how thanks to the MOS change people are gonna try to create separate articles for all manga/anime, is why I don't think I will ever agree that a split is good. But if the consensus turns out to be use the proposed separate article, what can we do? As a side note and head's up, Viz is about to start a 3-in-1 volume re-release of the series and I believe they confirmed to people on Twitter that it will be the whole series under the Dragon Ball name, but haven't seen that specific bit reported by reliable media. Xfansd (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy issues aside, there’s the fundamental question: Is it a good idea? If consensus is “no, it’s a bad idea” (or if there’s no consensus), then it doesn’t matter if policy permits it or not. —Frungi (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Break

While I don't like to do lengthy posts, but I hate to remind editors of civility matters, but its getting a bit much. I do take offense to Ryulong's comments that I "forced a closed in my favor". Aside from a personal attack, this couldn't be further from the truth, the consensus was obvious at the VPP RFC and Ryulong who was in the distinct minority should refrain from baseless attacks. Secondly, I object to calling the previous work on the DBZ page 'unsourced crap'; the content may have been unsourced, but it was not incorrect. The Japanese Wiki is similar to what English wiki once was, and much of it still exists in some form at the wikia. Now, perhaps I may have misinterpreted the silence here, but Xfansd when the policy matter came up you commented that it would have spared a lot of hassle from the get go. Silence can be misleading, especially in circumstances where the previous consensus reasoning has been noted as being on a false premise and the objections to the current RFC were based on that stance and the number of !votes exceeded in support. Allow me to state some topics. I believe a split for WP:DETAIL would be in order considering this page is a franchise page. Dragon Ball Z has a lengthy history, mostly in America, and I can think of no better way to cover the important history of the development and production by providing a proper page on Dragon Ball Z as a whole. Many important things are left out and not covered at all. Dragon Ball Z is intricately tied to western audiences, after the failure of the original Dragon Ball, at what point does it deserve an article on its merits? Since I'm in the numerical minority, what are your concerns and how can I address them? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Support, but—where could it be split? In print, Dragon Ball Z is part of Dragon Ball proper. In the West (at least as far as I’m aware, having grown up watching Toonami), Dragon Ball is known primarily by either Funimation’s or Ocean’s anime dub of DBZ. If it’s done right, I could see having an article devoted to the DBZ anime and its cultural impact and such. I’m just not sure how the franchise could be split cleanly. —Frungi (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was planning on briefly summarizing the manga (as in my sandbox) with just the manga specifics covering the volumes and then going to detail the release from a technical stand point and address things like the censorship and the reworkings. Specifically, the anime has a bigger gap because the focus of the show was completely different and was action orientated. While still 'Dragon Ball', its history is very notable and complex enough that 3 paragraphs at this page do not provide coverage for a reader seeking out Dragon Ball Z. Its like how DBZ by 2000 made $3 billion in a decade, a major merchandising success, which had big names like Irwin toys involved. Even the deal with Burger King had 25 million toys for a three week promotion in the lead up to its peak popularity. The development and history of Dragon Ball Z alone is detailed and deep enough to warrant the article, but I did want to include mentions to the movies and games as the current article glosses over them. There is a lot I want to actually expand and develop, but I have a bit of a focus issue as I scatter my efforts quite a bit. Though in all fairness, I believe a cast list section needs to be included; preferably in a collapsed list or some form, I was thinking of working on a 'dubbing' section in which details the complex nature of the dubs and the licensing mess between the companies. This will make the article much longer, but versus not having the content or asking a 'list of episodes' to bare this inclusion seems bad form. The Dragon Ball Z article is not going to be a rehash of Dragon Ball, it is going to be a detailed and focused article on those releases and its development and history and legacy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You requested that an archived discussion be formally closed such that you could have an excuse to change the guideline page that you so detested prior, and that did not allow you to suddenly overrule any consensus that previously had been made on this article. That is my final say on this matter.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong, you are well aware that RFC's do not have to be closed if their consensus is obvious. I asked it to be formally closed because the implications were clear. Your hostile tone and accusations are not helping resolve the dispute. Both RFC's seemed decided on policy grounds weeks before, it was only with my action that it started anew - while very late to contest, I'll hear out the concerns. I'm closing this distraction now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"The content may have been unsourced, but it was not incorrect"; Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It had one or two sources that might pass as poor, but most of the 18 were not reliable and it had a total of 11 different issues tagged on it (such as Cleanup, etc.), that's a lot, making it a pretty dismal Wiki article. Previously I brought up MOS-AM as needing to be followed (I still stand by that, MOS-AM caters to Anime/Manga and was written by people who know the kind of issues that come up on such articles, rather than 'very general' policies for all of Wiki), but that can not be used now. I admit I don't know of any policies to quote at you now, this is what I meant by "saving time". My last comment, like I think the other editors' were, was just in response to you saying the old merge consensus was "overturned" and immediately starting to create the article, it really wasn't overturned (I don't know if that's even possible). I'm not at all saying a new consensus can't be, or hasn't already, been found to un-merge, it's just that the Village pump thing didn't overturn the previous it just removed a bit from MOS-AM. I was quiet because, as I just said, I assumed you were creating it in your sandbox and was waiting for that. Right now my only reason for being against it is that I don't think splitting off a very faithful adaptation of a manga is good, especially if there is no new content, and I currently have not seen new content. You keep saying you have all this new content to add that justifies its own article, just prove me wrong and add it in a sandbox. So far I haven't seen sources for the anime's English-language "development and production" in either draft you wrote, which would be the majority of new content. I obviously can't speak for others, but if you create the article in a sandbox so that everyone can point out things that should be added or removed, instead of having a huge overhaul in article space that can possibly drag on for weeks and lead to edit wars, maybe those who are opposed will change their opinion when they see the supposed article instead of just being against it in "theory" or whatever. Xfansd (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox is the current version, for anyone who wants an easy peek. I'll work on it some more later. Though List of Dragon Ball Z episodes's Dub History seems ripe for moving into the article and expanding. The MOS-AM matter is done with; the fact that you still have concerns other then it is more than fair since I haven't devoted as much time as I could have to making a sandbox. I just do not want to put in an inordinate amount of work only to be brushed off and sandboxes are not really editor collaborations. I was hoping to work on this together and hammer out something as a group. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I really stated above that I thought that Dragon Ball Z should have a separate article, just that I didn't like the guideline in MOS-AM that would prevent a separate article (and that I thought Dragon Ball GT should be split). However, after glancing at the sandbox version I think there is enough information to have a separate article for the Dragon Ball Z anime. I think the sandbox version still needs a lot of work though, and also think it is a little too focused on the US adaptation. I don't really understand why there has been so much opposition to splitting the article for the anime off though. Things like the cast and staff for the anime seems like encyclopedic content, but if we put that all in the main Dragon Ball article it would be too cluttered. So anyway, I support splitting the article once the sandbox version is worked on further. Calathan (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Staff stuff goes in the main infobox. Cast stuff goes on character lists. In my opinion, we should just rename List of Dragon Ball Z episodes to Dragon Ball Z and add what little information about the production and reception there while still having it act as a central episode list.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is Dragon Ball Z is still a direct adaptation to the manga's second half. Any reception would be based completely on animationband art, while story making it dependent to the manga. Not only that but the manga's second half is known as Dragon Ball Z aswell so that no confusion would rise in the west. So its difficult to actually split it, even if we wanted to. Where would we draw the line? Thats why I wouldnt want a split. Leaving it metged here, solves the technical issues. If it did split, will we split the second half of the manga just because western release renamed it DBZ? If we did, there would be groups arguing over why it was split, and if we didnt put the second half, then we outcome will still be the same. To me, its not worth a split if its only going to rehash info. Its not that staff, and cast info isnt encyclopedic, but that most of the info is already split off onto their own list articles. Theres just no need to add voice cast in a main article if list of characters covers it.Lucia Black (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree on a subtle point: any mainstream reception of the story in the West is quite likely based solely on the story as portrayed in the anime (and given alongside reception of the animation, dubbing, etc.), and so would fit in an article about the anime. However, I share your concerns that it’s too inextricably tied for a clean split. —Frungi (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless relevant info is already split off into its own child article. But again, that would normally work if the anime article wasnt based on any other series and even then subbing and dubbing will still be able in its respected pages. And again the differences between manga and anime arent that great to consider them two completely different things. I think reception would have to actually make some form of comparison to actually consider the manga and anime significanty different. Irs like how Sailor Moon anime series is split up into Sailor Moon R, S SuperS, and I forget the other, but all works are still following the same plot of the manga. For now, this is only hashing out what was already been split. And even then, expanding DBZ in this article wouldnt be an issue. The only way to make consensus support the split is if the "new info" aas added here first to the point where its too big, then some form of split would be allowed.Lucia Black (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on it, but won't have much opportunity till later to work things into it. I disagree with Lucia, an article can warrant a split for many things, even a detailed coverage of production history and releases will probably warrant the splitting alone. The way I want to address the split is a simple one, right from the beginning, push the plot and story aspects back to their own article as they (main) off it. The anime has a definite split and production was intended as such, even the name has a bit of 'trivia' which is actually history, such as the reason why the name was chosen. Even aspects that I have begun covering, like the Dragon Ball Z merchandising had made over $3 billion in the lead up to the huge American boom. Data from search engines show that Dragon Ball Z which was more popular term than Napster and Summer Olympics and the presidential election. While not much on their own in this unfinished state, the aggregate whole goes to show how gripping the hold of Dragon Ball Z as the popular successor to Pokemon. And I hate to bloat the article out with all the Billboard top releases, but I suppose they could be worked in somehow. I much rather prefer a 100kb page that focuses on in-depth DBZ materials because the summary at this page is adequate for readers wanting an overview of 'Dragon Ball', but any reader explicitly wanting 'Dragon Ball Z' should get detailed coverage of its history, production, media and success. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh and one last thing... anyone got the Dragon Ball encyclopedia works, those books would be perfect for addressing the history. Though I'll probe the other languages for more details in a bit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Still too much of a Western viewpoint.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Which kinda makes sense, doesn’t it, for an English-language encyclopedia. Shouldn’t it be largely about the impact on the English-speaking parts of the world? —Frungi (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not in this case. Wikipedia is universal. This viewpoint of western is far too subjective.Lucia Black (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I will add the international licensing and development sections as well. I planned on doing so anyways. Surely, that will further show the necessity of an independent article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added more content, and will be continuing to do so for some time, but I think it is about time we address a certain matter. The release history of the work. Everyone should know that Dragon Ball Z had one of the most confusing and complex release schedules in the history of anime. I'm certain that an article could probably be drummed up for that mess alone, but for now I've alluded to the problems in the sandbox, which I cite the specific instance of Funimation rushing the DVDs out as fast as possible, out of sequence. And Viz Media released Dragon Ball and DBZ titles as volumes concurrently with single chapter issues of BOTH titles in the same month. Unless I actually bug Viz about the release structure for the press releases, I doubt I'll be able to piece together that mess in its entirety. Let's not forget that I'm finding issues that are problematic in this article as a result. For instance this line, from the Dragon Ball Z subsection contains, "The series premiered in the U.S. on September 13, 1996 in first-run syndication, but also struggled to find a substantial audience during its run and was ultimately cancelled after two seasons." The official reason was lack of interest from syndication companies.[7] I've been doing a lot of factual checking while rebuilding and trying to pin down all the claims made. It seems that both the sections of compressed text have inaccuracies. Anyways... back to improving the sandbox. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor update. Hurray! Archive.org has just saved my butt. Remember my old issue with the notable ranter (but still self-published) Psaros? Well, I just dug up the old Toriyama site with Archive.org which features a lengthy and detailed account of the Funimation subtitles. I don't think I have to worry so much about editors disdain for Psaros as a RS. Why? Because this drama filled rant [8] contains the link to something long dead, but I found it via ANN which directly attributes it, which independently confirms the link-within as an RS.[9] Which lends credibility to anyone actually getting Psaro's other site material like this interview [10] which cites Animerica magazine, Vol. 4, No.11 (November 1996). A magazine I don't have access to. This is certainly a good discovery, wish I put more than an hour into it the last time around. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I still think new info can still be added here. Consensus wont change drastically, at the moment its about to become a close tie. If the info is added here, itll be more apparent for DBZ in need of split. I think its rather pointy to just add this "new" info onto your sandbox and not add it here. ro others it may seem like bloating up info just to make a split. Specific dates and such can be added into their respected list of DBZ eoisodes, as long as the main article gives a good summary. It just seems like we're forced to see it your way, wit j out allowing others to use the same info to show you why it can be reworked.Lucia Black (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the sandbox myself, the proposed article is innacurate and some of it is very trivial, such as what type of subtitle text they will use. And not very good organization, the sections are far too distinct when their could be better section names. Im not completely sold. Again, not alot of info is actually needed in mainspace because its far too specific. I still think adding new infi here would be the right thing to do. It makes the dispute less antagonizing because you will still prove your point, and helps both sides in deciding.Lucia Black (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, if you do not know the meaning of the words, don't use them. Your interpretation of numerous terms has been proven to be completely misunderstood. You don't understand consensus and your comment about 'pointy' is no better. Dragon Ball covers the franchise, I'm not going to bloat it and ruin the balance to push for a split. Given the circumstances that would be disruptive; working in a sandbox is not 'pointy'. Also, how is it inaccurate? Please explain to me, because this page itself I've provided a source for the inaccuracy. Onus is on you, the claimant to back it up. Secondly, I tried to work on it together in the main space, but Ryulong reverted it and I'm not keen on edit warring a developing page; so my sandbox is perfectly fine. If you have issues with the version I am working on; state them. And lastly about the details, articles can have varying degrees of detail; an article on the "Spawning behavior of the rainbow trout in Lockeup Dam" would be perfectly acceptable provided numerous reliable sources demonstrating notability and a pressing need for a split at "Lockeup Dam". While you may feel that aspects of the production are 'trivial', they serve a purpose for the reader who wants those details. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what I said, and I will stick by it Chris. Just because you dont understand what I mean by it, does not mean I misused the word. For one you have "Dragon Ball Z" within the section title, making it redundant. Another is not clarifying Dragon Ball Z manga. Technically the manga exists but ubder the original DB name. I find it pointy at the time because no new info is being brought here. And if Ryulong is reverting its probably because of A)its trivial such as the subtitle text. B) It can be or already is covered in another area such as list of episodes. A lot insignificant info is making your proposal bigger than it needs to be.Thheres virtually no new info on reception. A lot of the minor details also seem overly detailed in explanations.Lucia Black (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what WP:POINT is. Also, Dragon Ball Z is an offical manga, I covered it quite well thus far in the sandboxed version. Dragon Ball was a gag manga with adventure themes and its history is entirely missing so much so that I figure that the manga will eventually get its own offshoot as well. Wikipedia does not even cover the original intentions of Toriyama and the history of that work. No new information on 'reception'? What in the sandbox prototype or you mean in reality? And I'll repeat myself, provide evidence for what inaccuracies you claim. You say 'trivial' things, but they obviously aren't trivial if the matter was important enough to have numerous RSes and an official response from the production group. Though as I've pointed out, intricate detail is not prohibited so long as there is enough sources to advance that position; the individual sections are still in a state of improvement. So things can change and grow larger. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I do, and I dont like you underminding everything just because you dont know why I used it. End of discussion for that topic. And what multiple sources? Dont confuse multiple sources for the same topic rather than multiple sources for a single piece of info. Some of the subtitle info is relevant, but theres the subtitle color issue that doesnt really inform the reader much about anything. The innacuracy is that DBZ manga doesnt exist in Japan. It does, just under the original name. It can be clarified in a much simpler way. Theres hardly any new reception info in the article. Also, there cant be just a manga article. Its like your trying to pull off the same dispute with Ghost in the Shell by attempting to split it all out of the main article. Like I said, if new info is found add it here, if it gets removed, its most likely for a good reason. So if it gets removed here, how can you prove a DBZ article is warranted?Lucia Black (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC).

Hey, WP:BURDEN's note applies to you. You have to articulate specific problems that justify its exclusion. The Dragon Ball Z manga exists; I gave specific instances backed by reliable sources as to the reasoning, the marketing and simultaneous release of Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z titles by Viz. I am not reinventing the wheel or merging the plot into the proposed article; I am instead providing accurate and verifiable information about the publication of the Dragon Ball Z manga. I refuse to allow this to become a proxy for the GITS dispute; if that is your intention please remove yourself from this discussion. If there is a problem with my sandbox and the material is sourced, please back up your assertions. I see no reason for the Dragon Ball Z manga releases to not be covered; the argument 'it doesn't exist in Japan' is an example of an invalid argument because it does exist in North America and Germany (Carlsen). [11] If you want a proper worldview, the DBZ manga releases need to be covered. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And one final note. Let's not bloat this 'discussion out' because you are now backing up your arguments, the discussion is just going to drive any sensible reader away with a wall of text. The sandbox article looks like it could justify a mainspace release by this point; it has a ways to go before I am content with it though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The source highlighting how viz promotes DBZ doesnt state anything at all of DBZ, home media sounds more like an opinion or an opinio N of someone else. Its not really stating the info correctly. More like a copy and paste job.And the use of ANN's wiki page as a source doesnt help at all. Theres no specific info. Also ANN's wiki page cannot be used as a source, only the news of ANN is deemed reliable as only actual writers post news. But overall, most of the info is just blowing up/regas j ing the info we already have.Lucia Black (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Add Category:Anime series based on manga

Add Category:Anime series based on manga to this article.

From the article itself:

The 42 tankōbon have been adapted into two anime series produced by Toei Animation: Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, which together were broadcast in Japan from 1986 to 1996 --108.211.193.185 (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. || Tako (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)