Talk:Dragon Ball

From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Power Level

Hey all! I've been wondering. Maybe there should be like an article or something in here about power levels. Like, explaining the origin of power levels, how Akira Toriyama, the Dragon Ball author, got the idea for power levels, and the list of all the power levels read throughout the series, demonstrating how their strength increases with training and near-death experiences, not forgetting how the power levels differentiate between the manga, anime and the Daizenshu. Anyone think that's a good idea? Son Gohan (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. Maybe I could start an article on that. Jimblack (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

Please see this and this before doing so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that there are more "deletes", but how bout we have a new process. i'll start an article on it and if you think it isn't important, you can delete it, but if you think it is, we'll continue on with it. i think that's fair. Jimblack (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Power Level Article

Guys, we should start some discussion and make improvements to the power level article. Jimblack (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Android 18 Article

Hey guys, maybe we should make a full article about Android 18. I mean, she is of course Krillin's wife and we did make an article about Young trunks and goten. maybe we should make an article about android 18. Jimblack (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Satanism?

In the T.V. series that I have watched (in Latin America) there seem to be elements of "satanism" in the plot, like several characters with a shape traditionally attributed to Satan in the Western culture, the number 666 in a car, or the name Mr. Satan for one of the characters. Is there an explanation of this issue? I came to the article for more information about it, but there doesn't seem to be any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JavOs (talk • contribs) 23:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The saiyans in DBZ are often named after vegetables. Kakarot - Corot Radditz - Radish... Vegeta Brolli etc. so is dragonballz vegetalblist? I would say that its just an example of DBZ being a quirky anime —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachang (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not a satanic show, but a certain character and his daughter (Hercule) have the family name 'SATAN'. Probably something of irony because within the show he is a hero, but to viewers he is a complete jerk...atleast until further episodes. The 666 is to represent the car being his. It's just his character, don't worry. Also, if when mean characters with the shape attributed to Satan within western culture, what can you expect? Most of those characters (that you are talking about) are evil and live within HFIL, or DBZ's variant of hell. To be fair, many beings are angels or angelic, including the series main character after he dies. And in the culture the creator grew up in, many icons and architectures have demonish traits, even though they could just be mythical creatures (Dragons and all that). So to summarize, it ain't satanic. And it better not be referenced in that light in the future. --SxeFluff (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge

I have proposed that Dragon Ball (anime) be properly merged back here to Dragon Ball (manga). I can not see a single valid reason these two should be separated. They are not significantly different in terms of characters, story, etc, and their separation like this violates WP:MOS-AM. This article also needs a massive clean up and rewrite to bring it inline with the MoS. Thoughts? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is this: the anime adaptation of this manga is split in Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z. The DB articles were structured this way because it is easier for the editors involved (and the readers). If we're merging on the grounds that the plot and characters are the same, then Dragon Ball Z must be merged, too. Merging only Dragon Ball (anime) seems wrong because the DB TV series only adapts roughly half of the manga (again, the other half is adapted as DBZ).--Nohansen (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, let me add that the DB articles seem poorly organized. I don't see why Dragon Ball is a disambiguation page when all articles mentioned (expect one) are DB-related. Dragon Ball should be the main article, not Dragon Ball (franchise), with a hatnote pointing readers to Freescale DragonBall. That's what I think.--Nohansen (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I agree there. The DB articles are a mess. Every series has 2, if not 3 episode lists, the all have a lot of excessive OR and redundant stuff, etc. You are probably right, and Dragon Ball Z should be included (and maybe Dragon Ball GT?). I'd also support putting the merged form at Dragon Ball with the appropriate hat note.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlike DBZ, DBGT is a separate production not adapted from Toriyama's manga. So I don't think it should be merged here.--Nohansen (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merger, the removal of the disambiguation page, hatnote proposal, and that "Dragon Ball" should be used over "Dragon Ball (franchise)". Wouldn't it be best if we combined the Dragon Ball manga and anime articles (except for Dragon Ball GT) to the franchise page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Col, could you update those merge tags to reflect my idea? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

All done. I pointed the discussion here since its already on going. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You sure are quick to handle these things ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, things have certainly changed since I last commented. I'm not sure about merging the franchise, manga, and two anime articles... mainly because it seems kinda messy in my mind, can't picture it. But if there's a clean, organized way of doing it, count with my vote.--Nohansen (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe similar changes will happen to the Sailor Moon articles. If you ask me, this is the best thing we can accomplish now. If anything gets bloated, unmerging is always possible. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be done, relatively easily actually. Most of the articles seem to repeat the same stuff in slightly different ways. The merged article will likely need a little clean up and trimming, though if merged carefully, it shouldn't be to bad. If I can, I may try working on a merged version in my user space, to help if consensus is a go. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So Dragon Ball (manga), Dragon Ball (anime), Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball (franchise) should be merged together, but Dragon Ball GT be kept seperate? I think Dragon Ball GT should be part of the merger. It is part of the series, although only supervised, not actually written, by Akira Toriyama. --- Krezos Farland (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, from what I've read on the series. While it isn't based on the manga specifically, I couldn't tell that it was significantly different either? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 08:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Think it's safe to say that Dragon Ball GT should be merged too. When you think about it, this series is just another continuation, and it's too short (shorter than the previous works). What do you say Collectonian? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can really see both sides. I'm still leaning towards a merge, though, as it is a direction continuation, and really no different from, say, the Gunslinger Girl seasons, with the second one done by a totally different company. I'm just not seeing that much unique information that would cause a size issue at all. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

DBGT is too much. At least the DB TV series and DBZ are directly adapted from Toriyama's manga. But GT is a different beast altogether, a spin-off, created by Toei. I don't think merging GT is necessary or beneficial.--Nohansen (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the merge. The DBGT article lacks production and reception section and need a nice clean up.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

DBGT is not an entirely different story, it is a continuation of DBZ. Akira Toriyama actually sstated that he liked GT's story. --- Krezos Farland (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the Merge of Dragon Ball GT, however, I noticed from the history page that the DBZ article has useful information before you just tore it asunder (Even those that are SOURCED). Are you actually SETTING things up for a merge, hmm?? ZeroGiga (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that if they are to be merged, EVERYTHING has to be put into it. Every single one of the articles mentioned. But the problem is, the 2008 version of the Dragon ball Z page is just too short, and I think that if it is reverted back to an earlier, longer, 2007 version, it will be too long to merge...so, if we expand the articles, no, if we leave them too short, yes. Ironic, but necessary. domkippy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domkippy (talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Update

I've done the first merge, of franchise, followed by a ton of clean up. I removed a lot of unsourced claims and obvious OR/personal opinions. Meanwhile, anyone want to tackle cleaning up the {{Dragon Ball}} template and merging in the {{Dragon Ball characters}} template? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Redirect cleanup? Alas, I'm more worried about the histories of the pages. We'll need to request history merges after this is all done. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect clean up, and merge in the character sections. It will no more later, as the ep lists are also cleaned up. Not sure on the best way to fix it though to match the new article structure, though maybe it should wait till all done. But something to think about either way, to fix the organization. Yeah, at least a merge of the franchise history would be good. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Manga article merge done. I've moved this discussion here with a redirect on the old talk page that will come straight here to keep the convo going. The rest of the discussions from that talk page have been archived to a named archive linked to in the new archive box above. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z merge completed. Anyone who has read most/all of the manga series want to tackle fixing up this articles plot to cover the entire series? Its kinda piece meal right now from the Dragon Ball manga and Z articles. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't we do it like the Yu-Gi-Oh! article? Where the main page mainly talks about the manga with links to all its different anime/spin-off series. See for it yourself.---Yottamol (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that one seriously needs fixed too. Will alert the project to see if anyone wants to tackle it since I'm already dealing with both DB and One Piece. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: What happened?

This article is crap. I know there alot of useless information in some of the originals but come on, who keeps delting everything? Im not saying this article needs to be a point by point guide but it needs alot more information than this and whenever I try to add stuff it is deleted rather than improved. more info is needed. Arguments? jwhyte1 —Preceding comment was added at 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I was just about to ask why this article got crapped down. WTF? Imma get to the history and revert if thats all good with in yalls neighborhood.--SxeFluff (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevemind, can't. UGGG, this article blows even worse!--SxeFluff (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The old version was pure OR and unsourced. Its also been cleaned up in preparation to be merged. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 08:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The post ws not uncivil or claiming to own the article i am fead up seeing you ruin article for no reasons, dragonball z should not be merged with dragonball there enterily serparate shows but you clearly have no knlowledge of the show. i am agree clean up articles but when you go to the poitn of just using wikipedia rules ro ruin something then your purist who own hads one thing on there mind do it your way or no other wa without havinga middle ground to make tihng to wikipedia standards but also to provide the most correct information and not what you see it as, as someone who knows nothing on the subjects —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was, not that this one is much better in terms of civility, mor grammar. And the merge has already been agreed to by consensus, and will happen. It is not significantly different series and does not qualify for having a separate article. Just because I haven't read every chapter of the manga or watched every episode does not mean I am not able to work on the article, nor that I know nothing about the subject (and telling someone not to edit an article because they don't know anything about it is a claim of ownership under the guidelines). I don't read Shonen Jump, but its now a C class article and well on its way to being a B and a future GA or FA, through my efforts. I didn't get most of the middle because of all the bad spelling and hideous grammar, so no reponse there. Will note, however, that Wikipedia is not about providing "correct" information, but "verifiable" information, and there is a difference. If you can't provide a RELIABLE source, not just "because I said so", it isn't verifiable and has no place here. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 11:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

...I don't want it merged, I just want t back up to a good class article and alot more info. Verifiable or whatever, just get it down please. I'm not gonna do it cuz I'm lazy :]--70.132.195.158 (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It is being merged. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree the anime and manga should never have been merged in the first place. The anime is three full-fledged television series, with details and plot lines that were never included in the manga. There are over 500 episodes in the three animes and it's simply ridiculous to think that even a brief summary can be confined to a subsection in a manga article. The articles may have been unorganized before, but so much good material has been removed that this can no longer be called encyclopedic at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.93.25 (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus disagrees with you. No good material was removed at all, only pure, unsourced original research and fan theories. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but that's a load of BS. All that's left of Dragon Ball Z is three little paragraphs. Before, there were multiple articles detailing the plot of the series, the DVD releases, the major and minor sagas, the voice actors and the characters. I won't lie and say all of it had sources cited, but a great deal of it did, and it would have been much more reasonable to go through and patch up the loose ends than to remove everything. (And ironically, the three paragraphs that remain are unverified.) It's been totally butchered to an appalling degree. The old articles need to be restored. I'll fix their problems myself when that's done.72.160.93.25 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That isn't going to happen. The sagas were removed months ago as they replicated the episode page - totally unnecessary. Voice actors and characters are in the character lists which have not been removed at all. The DVD releases are in the episode lists where they belong. In this merger, again, the only thing "lost" was having the information spread across four articles and better focused here. The problems with them have been fixed by merging similar articles back together. The next step, once the final merge is done, will be to clean up, source, and expand this article per the to do list above. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs to happen. The saga pages summarized the plots of the sagas - that way a reader wouldn't have to read 90 episode summaries to get an overview of a saga's plot. They were no more "unnecessary" than the rest of the encyclopedia. I'm unable to find any information about voice actors for any but a few characters who have articles dedicated to them, nor can I find anything about the DVD releases in the episode lists. I'm amazed how much the situation has deteriorated since I first read the articles a few months ago.72.160.93.25 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

An article of pure plot isn't acceptable, hence their all being removed. If the character lists are missing voice info, that's a clean up task for that list. The episode lists may be missing DVD info right now because they are a horrible mess and still being cleaned up. Its a transition, so there will be construction dust for awhile. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What the hell

why does dragon ball z lead here? That makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.180.89 (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't, the Dragon Ball manga does. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z does lead here. I think it's pretty clear that a group of biased deletionists have gotten together and are getting a kick out of throwing DB/DBZ material out the window. Fortunately I still have the old articles; I'll try to get things back up and in order when I have a little time.72.160.93.25 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you meant redirect. As per above it was merged here by consensus. And no, you will not "get things back." Reverting a merge done by consensus is considered vandalism, just so you know. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I quote Wikipedia's policy directly, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." In any event the complaints make it pretty obvious that this was not a community consensus at all.72.160.93.25 (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Complaints from one or two does not negate the consensus above nor the consensus of the project. And undoing a merge based on consensus after being warned not to do it is vandalism as it is being deliberately disruptive. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just changed to that both Dragon Ball Z and Dbz would redirect to the Dragon Ball Z sub-heading. Please tell me if this is OK. --Yottamol (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

While normally this would be done, having DBZ go straight to the one named section seems detrimental to the readers as it is based on the manga and DBZ is just the anime name for part of the adaptation. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, shouldn't the redirecting phrase under Dragon Ball Z: "DBZ" redirects here. For the meteorological term, see dBZ (meteorology). be put on top of the page?--Yottamol (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is embarassing. Dragonball Z was the second biggest anime in America, after Pokemon, for YEARS. And what does it get on wikipedia? Three paragraphs. Because a deletionist decides "hey, I'm going to butcher this featured article because of my sourcing fetish." Just tag the unsourced statements, and someone will GET sourcing from, say, the official site. This will NEVER become featured again, unless you stop being so anal and rule-obsessive. J'onn J'onzz (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

DBZ's article was not a featured article, so incorrect statement number 1. Number 2, it was merged here properly by consensus because there is no valid reason at all to separate it from its manga origins, which are also highly popular. Number 3, watch the incivility and personal attacks. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, these guys are just wasting your time (and theirs). You gave good reasoning in your edit summaries when you redirected the pages. These complainers are very much aware of it. Just ignore them. That's why I have refrained from commenting here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The new page is dissapointing no matter how powerful ignoring reality makes you feel. It leads to nowhere(for example characters), or it incorrectly refers to parts of different series as being one. You can't argue with the fact that dragonball chapters are NOT the same as Dragonball Z chapters, they might be in Japan but in the english translation (English Wikipedia after all), they are different manga series. Saying that merging three different and I stress DIFFERENT series into one is stupid, espicially when the series are on such a large scale. Saying that Dragonball Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT should all be merged together is like saying all of the matrix movies should be under one title. As it stands you might as well just list all the series in the continuity and leave it at that as this page provides little to NO useful information on any of its intended subjects. Not to mention that Dragonball GT is not even by the same person. Putting dragonball GT in here, well we might as well merge this article with a Journey to the west. That is after all what dragonball was based off of. You are obviously more concerned with your own ideas and authority than community consensus as clearly more than just a few people think this is stupid. There's obviously some issue about this article, because this change has been met with a rather large backlash, so instead of ignoring, you could at least consider that your decision is absolute. I agree that the Dragonball articles were a tad shoddy, but that insenuates fixing them and not annihilating all usefullness in the articles. And yes I do know that I am wasting my time; however I can't just let you run amuck on your little power trip without at least saying something.Adroa (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)