Talk:Goku

Appearances in other media

This section is overlong and needs streamlining. I have noticed that this is a common occurrence within articles of fictional characters and rarely does such a long section benefit said articles. It is not necessary to note every single, minute appearance the character has made; look at Aang, Eric Cartman or Jack Sparrow for example. They all have a section dedicated to the character's appearances in other media yet they are short and to the point. They outline the characters' appearances and note the more important examples rather than devote separate sub-sections for each category that the character has popped up in. The same could be done for Goku. It isn't necessary to discuss in detail every Japanese game show he has been in; rather, the information can be more generalized while keeping the references. I have similar gripes with the 'Personality' section but I won't get into that right now. I'd like to hear from others on this matter, as I do want to improve the article but with such long, trivial "information" it won't be a good article any time soon--GroovySandwich 04:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your points. I suggests that, instead of listing every single appearance, a summary of all appearances would be better. For example, instead of a having a subsection of special events that list them all, it could be a paragraph that says that Goku has appeared in several TV shows in Japan and adding the references at the end. I would be more in favor of changing Appearances in other media to impact or Cultural impact like Jack Sparrow and Superman, both of which are featured articles. I think that you should edit the section or write a draft of it to show how it would look, but I do not know what other editors might think. Jfgslo (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I will make some attempts to clean up the section when I can but large scale trimming is not quite my forte. It will take a bit as I am focusing on other articles at the moment--GroovySandwich 05:16, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Hair terming

Is a fair assessment to refer to his hair as liberty spikes? Seeing as it is referred to as such on that article. Sarujo (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

What I wonder if the design section actually talks about Toriyama's comments regarding the design of the character, comments based on what we see or just in-universe information. If not, the in-universe information should be removed from design as it is supposed to be a subsection from the character's creation.Tintor2 (talk) 14:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Image.

Okay, so I'll bring this here. The current image is superfluous, and quite frankly confusing to any reader unfamiliar with the series. I know that Goku's got a whole bunch of different forms and that's an important plot point but the fact of the matter is that it makes no sense to an outsider. "Which one is Goku? The blond one? The one in the corner?" I know that it's explained in the text and everything but the image should reflect the character's most recognizable appearance and the current one does not do that. It's a collage of images that confuse the reader with a visual taste sensation.

Other anime character articles, for example, Naruto Uzumaki, Edward Elric, and Himura Kenshin, don't employ such a format. The point is that they use images that depict the character as they most commonly appear. And, as mentioned in the peer review, the presence of other characters in the collage image hurts the article's chances of becoming a GA (as if that's its only problem :p)--GroovySandwich 19:57, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

If I were somebody who never watched Dragon Ball, I would be confused with who is Goku. There is actually an image like that in the abilities section, so I don't see a need to place one more confusing.Tintor2 (talk) 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I have read that peer review, and being the who had put in what seems to be the most that this article has to offer, I feel the claim that was made in regards to image was a little contradictory. I mean, if we are already telling folks that he normally has a head full of bedhead liberty spikes, then image is clarified. If the reader is taking a opposite Playboy approach by only looking at the pictures, then they aren't really boning up on the subject, are they? Yet, when I uploaded that calendar litho, I was trying to detour the would be inclusionists who would try to upload image upon image just to have all form represented. That way copyright wouldn't be a problem. Now that I look at that image, I now see Chi Chi and Bardock in the image, is that the confusion of who's who?

However, if the image is really a problem as they claim then it should return to the previous one. There should be a problem with that one. Sarujo (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The description of his hair as liberty spikes doesn't really shows us who he is. if I were an outsider, then I'd still be somewhat confused by that description, as liberty spikes generally look like this and are associated with the punk crowd. An image that actually shows this common depiction is preferred, rather than one that immediately jumps into his alternate appearances without giving the reader a clear idea of what he normally looks like.

But in regards to the image, I suppose the previous image (with both kid and adult Goku) would suffice as it shows his most common incarnation(s)--GroovySandwich 20:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to get off track, but that's not a generalization of liberty spikes. They can come in various shapes and sizes. Goku's hair can be classified as such. Sarujo (talk) 15:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Voice actors

During the requested copy-edit, I've split the 'Voice actors' prose into a list of 'Child' and 'Adult' voice actors for the English-language versions. Is this the most suitable way to present the information? I may further remove text to simplify this section, but if you're happy, so am I. Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:12, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Surely there could be a better way, but a laundry list should not be that option. Sarujo (talk) 03:43, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

What is the problem with list format? Baffle gab1978 (talk) 07:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Laundry list don't come off a professional. Especially in this case when we've already broken down child and adult portrayals. However, it might be wise to not mention so many voice actors as some of the sourcing is invalid. Like for Steven Blum, it only reads Dragon Ball GT: Final Bout credits. That's doesn't work as the English cast was uncredited. Sarujo (talk) 07:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Fairy nuff, I'll leave it alone. I'm only copy-editing and I'm not an expert on the series (I've never watched it). I've seen lists elsewhere attract cruft so I understand your POV entirely. Thanks for your input. :-) Baffle gab1978 (talk) 16:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved per clear consensus that Goku is the common name. --rgpk (comment) 16:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Son Goku (Dragon Ball) → Goku – This page was moved back by Sarujo who ignored my rationale citing discussions at Character names and the following section which contained evidence Articles with names (essentially RSes). Consensus there was to change Son Goku to Goku as even in Manga: The Complete Guide the author notes he's known as "Son Goku", but then says he will refer to him as the more commonly known "Goku". When a guide devoted to Manga reception uses the anime naming because the anime's name is more well known, given the other results, that should be reason enough.

Also, the discussions do not have to take place on this page and I resent Sajuro saying the discussion NEVER took place when I told him and others where to look in the edit description (the Dragonball character page archive here. I will assume good faith and believe he did not purposefully chose to ignore it because the debate did not occur on this specific page, but there was a discussion about this (and other pages) so I want to make that clear.陣内_Jinnai 16:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support per comprehensive nomination. Simply "Goku" is the clear common name. Jenks24 (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I did look there, and I couldn't find it, I just took it as it wasn't there. You should have directly linked to it. From the way I see those discussions, there wasn't a clear decisions made, regarding arguing over Viz and Funimation. If there was, we wouldn't be having this conversation now. Yet a lot has happened since those discussions. Primarily, the Japanese terms leaking over Funimation dubs. The name Son Goku is recognize by Funimation with Dragon Box releases, and Namco Bandai game addressing him as such.

I'm opposed to any and all uses of the common name guideline simply for being a flawed golden ticket for people to push fan terms into articles, like this discussion. Also, the fact that person's address of acknowledgement is split 50-50, much like Professor Ochanomizu who has be addressed under three other names. Then there the fact that Son is a surname, so you can't expect everybody real or fake to be calling Son Goku in polite conversation. Sarujo (talk) 06:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support. Per WP:UCN and WP:ENGLISH. This has already been discussed in the past (see here and here) and it was found that Goku is the most commonly used name for the character in English-language reliable sources. I do not see any compelling reason to ignore a Wikipedia policy since reliable sources clearly show that Goku is the common name. Jfgslo (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support - Agreed, Goku is the most commonly used name--GroovySandwich^Yum. 06:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support I've done a discussion on this before. If we're going to move Son Goku to Goku, we should also do Son Gohan aswell. Goku is the most common associated. I think you need to look up the policies Sarujo.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:24, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

So we should use terms in polite conversation apposed to official English terminology? Using Son Goku would pass for use English. Sarujo (talk) 09:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, because he's not commonly known as "Son Goku" through reliable third party sources in English, we can't use son goku because he's not recognized as such in anyway. Though eve if it was used in the English version some-what. Then it would still move to "goku". The article would just mention that his full name is "Goku Son" or such. It saves time and not add in certain titles such " name 'nickname' surname" format some fans tend to go by.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

So when it introduces him, it will say Son Goku? Sarujo (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

SOmething like "Goku, known in the manga as Son Goku,..."陣内_Jinnai 15:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

• Support In accordance with WP:COMMONNAME, article names should reflect the name most commonly used by reliable English-language sources. When checking up on which name is used by such sources. It becomes very evident that they use "Goku" instead of "Son Goku", even when reviewing the manga.[1][2] —Farix (t | c) 15:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. Since the English language reliable sources uses Goku, we should move this to reflect the commonly used name. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:39, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nesty Calvo Ramirez

Why doesn't Nesty Calvo Ramirez have a page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.51.195 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

To receive an article, a subject must be proven notable through coverage in reliable third-party sources. If you can prove that that person is notable then by all means be bold and create the article--GroovySandwich^Yum. 02:02, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Well he was in Blue Gender.