Talk:List of Dragon Ball Z episodes

Have their own pages!

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Saga pages removed per consensus of Anime and Manga Project and Dragon Ball taskforce in compliance with Wikipedia guideslines and policies.

Why has the original "Saiyan Saga", "Freeza Saga", etc pages been converted/directed into a list of Dragon Ball Z episodes. What the heck is going on? I wanted some more detail into the saga, but now I am left with a list of Dragon Ball Z episodes saying their titles and very little information about the episode. I'd rather have the saga pages back, if you ask me! Son Gohan (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's just a deletionist crusade embarked on by a user named Collectonian. Hopefully she will get tired of it one day, so that we can re-create the articles. If you want to ask now, try to re-write WP:FICT, but some users who tried in the past got nowhere :( this is one reason why I don't write about fiction anymore on Wikipedia. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 13:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is not a plot guide. The saga pages do not belong here, as is the consensus of the project and of Wikipedia as a whole as per every one being brought to AfD being summarily deleted. If you want that information, I'd recommend finding a Dragon Ball wiki, wikia, or fansite. Here, they violate WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. Ynhockey, your remarks border on incivility. No it is not just me "on a crusade." Plenty of support in the project for cleaning out the cruft, and fixing these pages lists to be proper Wikipedia lists of episodes. Ever stop to think that if the Anime and manga project, as a whole, didn't agree with this stuff, it wouldn't be getting done? I post about every clean up I do there, and always it gets support. No, I won't get tired of it, and if the articles are re-created, they will just be deleted again.--

[[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC) You area fiend Collectonian.

I apologize if I was incivil - however, I did mean to be critical. Many new Wikipedians who weren't around when it was new (I have actively edited since 2005, but have been a reader since before I remember), and have completely shifted Wikipedia policies and guidelines to introduce a stricter watch on what does and what does not belong on Wikipedia, completely detaching themselves from this website's original guiding principles, most importantly, that Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge, and that it is not paper. A prime example was the battle over the article Mzoli's (I'm sure you know about it, but if you don't, I'll gladly elaborate). It just so happens that you (Collectonian) have been a driving force in this deletionist drive (I like to call it a crusade), and yourself have bordered on incivility by ignoring my previous comments to your talk page, which had many arguments to keep certain articles, and in favor of keeping some types of articles in general. You will notice that the vast majority of your supporters on Wikipedia have had a similar editing pattern to yours - came suddenly around 2006 and later, and just as suddenly started editing in quantities that left everyone else stunned - thousands of edits per month. Again, I seriously hope that Wikipedia reverts to its roots and regains common sense to the benefit of all. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 16:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

If I ignored comments you left, its likely because I found them incivil (as I note at the top of my talk page, I prefer to simply not engage in such discourse when possible). Considering Jimbo Wales himself strongly supports this drive to clean up Wikipedia, and has repeatedly stated that its original purposes was NOT to be a big fan guide, I don't think you're going to see it reverting. Wikipedia, at its roots, is still an encyclopedia. Not paper doesn't mean, "fill with all the fictional plot summary we can." While you may disagree, cleaning up articles and getting them in-line with an encyclopedia, rather than fansites and series guides, is common sense and for the benefit of all as it results in Wikipedia being a better encyclopedia all around. Its sad that the "old timers" don't want to actually see the fancruft go, large amounts of which are original research and unreferenced fan theories anyway, and would rather Wikipedia continue to be an unrespected encyclopedia-wanna-be. Also, while I only started actively editing in the last year or so, I've been a registered user since 2006, and a reader longer. Only, back in 2005 and 2006, Wikipedia mostly wasn't worth bothering to read, as it had no real content, nothing referenced, etc. Now, articles are greatly improving in quality. Also, despite what you may think, I wouldn't say I was a driving force in the "deletionist drive." Many were at it before me, and when I'm gone, others will be at it after me. I'm no leader or anything like that. I'm just someone who actually wants Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, who recognizes that minute detail about every last character, and 30 different plot summaries of the same series, do not belong here.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That's the point, Wales and the other founders are strong opponents of deletionism in general. Refer to the Mzoli's debate for clarification. Just because the entire board asked to focus on quality rather than quantity, doesn't mean that they are deletionist. By quality instead of quantity, the mean just one thing: focus on improving existing articles, rather than creating new ones. The word delete doesn't come into it. A user named Access Timeco used to create a lot of useless articles on fiction which I AfD'd, and he told me 'why don't you stop deleting articles and focus on improving them instead?' - at the time I dismissed that as a newbie rant, but now I begin to understand what he meant more and more. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, Wales has already voiced his support for clearing out the fancruft and expressed his displeasure at the amount that has crept into the encyclopedia. You can dismess what I do as nothing but "deleting articles" but it is all part of my focus on improving articles. When you want to redo a room in your house, you have to first clear out the trash and stuff that doesn't belong in the room. Same as with articles. To clean it up, dump the totally unnecessary stuff, such as unverifiable stuff, excessive plot details, etc. Some stuff, move over to a more appropriate site like a specialized wiki or wikia. But it has to go before a good article can emerge. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I find it strange and insulting that you generalize everything you consider redundant as 'cruft' which needs to be cleaned up. A small amount of editors (Tjstrf, now Erachima, Mitsukai, WhisperToMe and myself) originally created almost the entire mass of Bleach-related articles, when there were only 2 (main and character list). We kept a very close watch on original research and unverified 'cruft', as you put it, and removed it with extreme prejudice. We also introduced in-universe sourcing (which is still fine, per WP:V, it just won't make anything a 'good article') and any unsourced claim was generally removed if there was the slightest dispute. In total, I think we created over 50 articles. A couple years down the road (today), and we indeed have a small amount of articles, which are poorly formatted, have enormous amounts of cruft, lack sources (other than the ones we put in, as well as some other more recent frequent contributors), and generally read/feel much worse than they used to.

Conclusion: What you say may sound well in theory, but in practice, what makes good clean articles about fiction is the attention of frequent editors, not deletionism. As an author/contributor to a featured topic, you should understand this better than anyone, as I'm sure that without you, the topic wouldn't be featured. It appears to me that what you have done so far, at least in the Bleach articles, was not to clean up anything, but instead to alienate good contributors who kept the articles clean from the start. Reviewing page histories now, I can't even see more recent Bleach contributors anymore, who may have even supported your deletionist ideology. Instead of trying to fix what isn't broken, you could seriously be creating more features lists/topics/whatever.

-- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't generalize stuff I find "redundant" as cruft, I designate excessive details, rumors, and beyond excessive plot details as cruft. The stuff you'd find in some huge fansite, not an encyclopedia. Nice final statement, in theory, however my featured article, list, and topic all started from a single fan-run article in hideous shape.[1] If I alienate editors who don't want to follow Wikipedia guidelines and only want to treat the site as a fansite, I honestly don't care. Its good for the article if they'd rather leave than actual work to improve the articles. They are broken, whether you want to see it or not. I'm not the only one to think so, as is very evident in the Anime and manga project.. Bleach is still being worked on, but so are One Piece, Naruto, and Rurouni Kenshin. I've created plenty of articles. I've also taken bad ones, ripped them down, and rebuilt them to B class and beyond. Fans bitched about the edits at Naruto, but its now B class and significantly improved. Rurouni Kenshin is also a work in progress, though further along than Bleach, and should be ready for B then a GA run soon. The truth of the matter is, there is no good reason at all that all four of those series shouldn't have been FA long ago, except no one wanted to put side their fan desires to produce quality articles. Quality does include removing excessive and unnecessary content, which Bleach has tons as shown by the successful AfDs and Prods. Suffice to say, we can keep going in circles, but it really won't make a difference as I doubt you will change your mind and I know I won't. As for this list, the episode summaries are coming. As with the other DB lists, the inappropriate splits of the Japanese and English dubbed episodes is being fixed and the lists being merged back together. The summaries for this one, are all on the dubbed list right now, but will be merged back with the rest. Same as was already done with GT. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, some people don't even know about Dragon Ball Wiki, and this may be their only source for DBZ information that they can find. Or if they can't access other sites, they have to use this one. Please just put back the pages -- there was no need for a change and you're just ruining it for everyone. Son Gohan (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

That isn't a valid reason at all for violating Wikipedia guidelines. People actually wanting that sort of info do know how to use Google to find fansites, which is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a Dragon Ball guide, its an encyclopedia providing a summation of a topic as a starting point for people to go learn more elsewhere. There was plenty of reason for change, it isn't "ruining" it for "everyone," only a few fans who have a misconception about the purpose of Wikipedia. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Future plans

Alright, so I'm working at completely redoing this article, and merging the dubbed list into it, so you can expect big changes in the future. --Hucz (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Please elaborate more on the "redoing" part? Hopefully you mean using the already redone and merged GT ep list as a model? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I'm aiming for. Thanks for the concern. --Hucz (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone could put up witch of the Uncut Season Boxes contain what Saga's and when they were/are going to be released (i used to go to the DBZ article to see when the next set was coming, but not that they gave merged all the series togther into one article, its Effed me on that). --Henshin86 (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

DVD details for all the series are currently in the main List of Dragon Ball episodes list. Its a rather sucky list, but I believe it includes the saga stuff. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Titles don't match episode descriptions

Episodes after 80 have inconsistent titles and descriptions. For example episode 125 has the title of "Androides appear" or "These guys with no fighting spirit are the artificial humans" has the description "Goku and Piccolo stop their training to learn how to drive so Chi-Chi can get a car. They maybe powerful fighters, but can they get their licences in time to continue their training?" which matches the previous episode title of "Goku's Ordeal" or "Initiation into a secret art. Goku's new tribulation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.72.57 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...things are all mixed up because of that single ep Funi apparently didn't bother licensing or is just ignoring. *blech* -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The episode is in the new box sets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.72.57 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a source for that, because Funimation's DBZ site still shows only 290 episodes. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got the box set and I'm looking at the episode now. Plus the episode was obviously shown in Japan so it's at best misleading to call the column Original episode #. Either that number should be missing entirely or the episode should inserted or the column should be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.72.57 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So it needs to be added back as ep 79, but the airdates and descriptions need to be adjusted to make sure they are with the right episodes as well. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that episode 78 is the last one to show the correct title and description because Japanese episode 79 is missing. If this episode is put back in then it should fix the Japanese episode numbering to correctly show that there are 291 episodes. I'm not sure if there's a way to automatically fix the numbering or if it has to be typed in.Wraithdart (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, there is no automatic way to do it. It has to added, then all other episodes, moved, and the descriptions checked to make sure they are on the right eps and moved as needed. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 15:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I actually went to do this just now when I realized that the current episode descriptions are wrong. The current description for Episode 79 (which should be 80) is correct for the so-called "lost episode," but wrong for the episode list as it stands. I have no clue what description may be missing that allows this to occur or where. 69.47.63.44 (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I figured out where things are going wrong. This should be mostly correct now.69.14.42.33 (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for taking the time to do all of that! :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)