Talk:Dragon Ball

With all do respect, What the f**k are you thinking?

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

Thre is Dragon Ball the manga, Dragon Ball the anime, Dragon Ball Z the anime and Dragon Ball GT the anime. They are different stuff and they should each have it's own article. If we do this then we are going to have to merge all Transformer articles together and all the Pokemon articles together. I am completly against wikipedia "responsable" users turning well written articles into basic ideas that take all the interest and joy of reading out of it.

I suggest splitting the articles into their former glory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.127.66 (talk • contribs) 19:17, September 23, 2008 (UTC)

I suggest signing your posts.--KojiDude ^(C) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball is about the franchise. Individual articles for the different anime adaptations and spin-offs could be created, but there is little difference between the series, so it is best to just keep them merged and create one really good page rather than a bunch of half-baked ones. --erachima talk 00:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"create one really good page rather than a bunch of half-baked ones." Since the merger, this article has gone from Start-Class to— *gasp!* Start-Class!!--KojiDude ^(C) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? That doesn't mean it has not been improved (that assessment was done in August). It is closer to the C side than it was before. :P It is better sourced than it was, though it needs more. No one seems to be ready to help with the work left to do that could get this really going, unfortunately. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not getting back into this discussion! – J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This merger is awful. Each series should have it's own article since there is so much to be said about each one. So much has been lost in this merger and now all we are left with is cliffnotes and abrigdments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez, this article is horrid. Next time a consensus is reached to merge an article, it should at least make sense. Next we should merge every article that has a movie and book counterpart... Wikipedia seems to be run by a bunch of idiots... ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.1.176 (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not idiots... ugh. If it's anyone who's the idiot it's you. IP's like you have no respect for real users who are actually trying to make this an article. Notice how the rating went from a "Start" to a "B" class. — J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the header Collectonian!! I just couldn't help but do that!! \(>o<)/ — J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

:P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE re-spilt the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not without a compelling reason. --Farix (Talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)\

How is this, Because Dragon Ball Z is more notable than Dragon Ball. Because of this, this page needs to be moved to Dragon Ball Z. But this isn't an accurate representation of the franchise, to just have DBZ as a page for the whole thing. Besides, Dragon Ball has enough notariety by itself. I move for a discussion about this. It really is ridiculous.--FUNKAMATIC 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That is only your personal opinion and does not reflect actual reality. Dragon Ball Z is PART of Dragon Ball, it is not a separate series nor does it have enough notability on its own to justify any kind of split. Both are fully and properly being covered in a single article, as is appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you would read the article, Collectonian, you'd find that they actually ARE separate series. And having them all merged into one makes it too long without going into enough detail for each respective series. Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z are both extremely long, as well as extremely popular, series -- and they demand and deserve their own articles. "...nor does it have enough notability on its own to justify any kind of split." Well, I think that I'll quote you again in saying, "That is only your personal opinion and does not reflect actual reality." Also, I don't agree that each series is "fully and properly being covered in a single article..." If you look at articles written about other series, you'd find that a lot more could be said about both Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z. The article for Cardcaptor Sakura -- an anime which, as far as series length, quails in comparison to either DB or DBZ on their own -- is longer than the sections for DB, DBZ, and DBGT combined. Also worth noting is that the original series Cardcaptor Sakura, and the adaptation Cardcaptors, are separate articles. Bottom line, this article is way too long, without doing each series justice. I fully support a split. NoriMori (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have read the article, I wrote large chunks of it, but thanks anyway. They are NOT separate series, they are the same series, period. They do not" demand nor deserve their own articles. They are the same series, and nothing "deserves" anything here. Sure, you could write a whole book about the series, that doesn't mean it all belongs here. And, as FYI, Cardcaptors is being merged into Cardcaptor Sakura, just hasn't been done yet. The articles will NOT be resplit, nor is the article "too long". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then I think you need to read it over again, because the article clearly says that they ARE separate series. And it's really a moot point anyway, as their status as either one series or separate series doesn't really affect whether they should be split or not. "They do not" demand nor deserve their own articles. They are the same series, and nothing "deserves" anything here." You really enjoy making your personal opinions look like gospel, don't you? When I say "demand" I mean that splitting them would make them more readable and would make people feel less reserved about the amount of information they decide to add. When I say "deserve" I mean that they are each long enough and notable enough to warrant having their own articles. And the fact remains that Cardcaptor Sakura is not even half as long as either DB or DBZ, but the article for it is still longer than the three sections for DB, DBZ, and DBGT combined. "...nor is the article "too long"." Wow, that whole "My opinion is fact" thing really gets on the nerves. I think it's too long, is that better? I wouldn't have a problem with it being so long, if it did each "series" justice, but I really don't think it does (and there are lots of people on this page who seem to agree). The combination of the length of the article and the lack of information makes it too wearisome. I guess instead of "long," the word I meant to use was "wearisome". It feels too long. Or rather, giving each "series" the attention it "deserves" would make it too long. Too cumbersome. I guess that's the word. It's a cumbersome article. There's too much to cover for there to be just one article. As I said before, I fully support a split. And Collectonian, if you're going to reply to this, can you try to be a bit more polite, a bit less aggressive, and a bit more...open? And a bit less...overbearing...totalitarian...or something? Seriously, I'm not trying to be insulting or cheeky or anything like that, I'm just asking, because your attitude just blows me away. NoriMori (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, considering your attitude in your first post in this topic, please do not turn around and attempt to lecture me on mine (and stick to the issues, not the editors). And no, there is nothing to be open about. The article clearly says they are the same series, with different names for some releases. Project consensus agreed that they ARE the same series, and that they should NOT have separate articles per the guidelines governing anime/manga articles. Again, the article is NOT too long. It is only slightly longer that Tokyo Mew Mew, a featured level article on a much shorter series. And none of its extra length comes from excessive content or the need to spit. Plot isn't too long, production is a nice healthy length. The anime section needs tightening up, but again, it isn't so long it needs splitting (nor would it be a valid split). Reception section actually could be expanded a bit. The article as a whole is far better than any of the splits originally were, with good summary stile sections. People should be reserved about the information they add. This is not a series guide, its an encyclopedia, its here to provide a summary, not an in-depth guide. The article is fine. It needs final clean up, it needs sourcing, it does not need to be ripped apart so fans can cruft it all up again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think combining all 3 animes, 2 manga series, and all the other stuff makes this article cluttered. Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.224.229 (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it makes this article look awesome. Is your vision of un-cluttered, a really weak article with little to no sources, and one gigantic cluttered pop-cuture section, and boat-load of original research what you see as a non-cluttered article? This page was completely ignored before and the Dragon Ball Z page was the most cluttered thing of all. You're just trying to make excuses. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we try to see if consensus still supports the merge or seperation? I have read the article in its current state and found it to be severely deficient. Also, it seems as if the articles were merged because of annoyance with fans, not because they actually needed a merge. Metalb (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See the note at the top of the page. The only people calling for a split are fans wanting more plot info, which isn't going to happen. The merges were not done because of annoyances with fans, but because per our guidelines, separate articles were neither appropriate no necessary. This article is not "deficient" unless you are looking for excessive amounts of plots, for which there is a Dragon Ball wikia and plenty of fansites. Closing as this is going nowhere slowly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:47, 6 February 2009 (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.

Collection, to me it looks like the only one who's happy about this article is you (and maybe you too JumpGuru :)

First US Dragon Ball game

Sorry to break it to whoever wrote that, but the first Dragon Ball game released in the United States was not a GBA game. The first Dragon Ball game released in the United States was in fact Dragon Ball GT: Final Bout for the Sony PlayStation in 1997, It was just reissued in 2004. A few years before the GBA game.--Ashitaka96 ^{| E-mail • Talk |} 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Source? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tintor2 and to Collectonian. For one look at the Final Bout article, two a quick search on the internet, as Tintor2 obviously did, will prove it. Whoever thought a GBA game was the first DB game to be released in the US obiously hasn't been fan very long. I never owned the US verison, but I did rent it back in the day. Before the GBA was released. I do own a Japanese import of it.--Ashitaka96 ^{| E-mail • Talk |} 18:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Dragon Power for the NES, released in 1988? Whelkman (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

He has a point, Dragon Power was released even before the Dragon Ball series was released in the States. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The best I can see on that hideous video game list, Dragon Power was first being released in 1986. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and yes that list has some major issues and hygiene problems. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I should say, 1988 US release. Whelkman (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep...that seems to be the first for both countries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Technique named after a butterfly?

I recently found out that "Kamehameha" -- a technique in the DB franchise -- is also the name of a species of butterfly (Vanessa tameamea). If you look up "Kamehameha" on Wikipedia it'll show you other things called that, too (mostly related to Hawaii). So I came to this article to find out if the name of the technique is related to the butterfly, or any of the other things called "Kamehameha", but it didn't say (as far as I know -- I didn't read it in great detail). It just says that it was the only technique that Akira Toriyama didn't come up with himself -- his wife suggested it. Does anyone know where she got the idea for that name? If anyone is able to confirm the origin of the name as far as this technique goes, I think it would be nice if that information could be included in this article. Just a thought. :) NoriMori (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's original research without a source, so no, it should not be added. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but he never explained it. Erudecorp ? * 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously a pun on the Kamehameha kings, "kame" / "turtle", and "ha" / "wave". The butterfly connection is extremely far-fetched. Erigu (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)