Talk:Vegeta

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Vegeta article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

Anime and manga: Dragon Ball Mid‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Dragon Ball work group.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Its mostly cleaned up now but some cruft and badly worded sentences remain.
Copyedit : Write fictional information in present tense.
Verify : Cite the areas where needed.
Wikify : Character biography.

So let me get this straight...

Loituma is mentioned in the Orihime Inoue article...

Caramelldansen is mentioned in the Popotan article...

RickRolling is mentioned in the Rick Astley article...

The incredibly obscure "This is delicious!" and "YES! YES!" are mentioned in the M. Bison article...

But somehow, Over 9000 is not allowed to be mentioned, and there's supposedly no source, even though it's EVERYWHERE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.124.45 (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Every person and their brother is missing the point. It doen't matter how many people know about it. What matters is that it had a drastic impact on socity mainly if it's been on in the new. Rickrolling is notible because it's made national headlines with reporters even asking Astley his thoughts on the the issue. Also was joked upon at the Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade. So with that said, where has "It's over 9000" made national headlines and exposes done on CNN and HLN? The same can also be said about Loituma, Caramelldansen, and "This is delicious!". So unless proper critera appears then it has no place here. Sarujo (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the fact it was featured on the Oprah show... in a way. ANd when was "THis is delicous" featured anywhere except these here interweb tubes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.200.230 (talk) 02:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One, a source is needed for such a claim, and two, one mere claim won't be enough. Sarujo (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAPms8Tvs Arran64 (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree. If anything, make a References in Pop-Culture section. The "It's over 9000" schitck is everywhere, from television (I've seen it DOZENS of times on G4) to video games (In World of Warcraft, there is an achievement called "It;s over 9000" if you get 9 (or maybe 10) thousand achievement points. I'd say it's probably this dude's most relevant contribution to the world... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.161.187 (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why on earth

does an anime character have it's own wiki page? shouldn't all this info be cut down and put under something like "List of Dragon Ball Characters"? --208.71.221.28 (talk) 01:23, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's notable. Sarujo (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on that, there's enough coverage that this would overwhelm the list article. Plus, he's a main character. So the net result is, there's enough information about him, and he's notable enough, to have his own article. —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding, I'm out of things to say right now. Sarujo (talk) 02:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vegito or Vegetto?

Both names are used in the article and both have been used in Dragon Ball continuity, but the article does not state which is preferred. Dragon Ball fans have established that Vegito is the best, official name, as evidenced by the redirect here [1] to here [2]. I feel the article should include some mention of the preferred name and why, but I'm not certain what's the best way to include such information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.112.19 (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball Wikia should not be considered reliable on anything in any way, shape, or form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.36.249 (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over 9000/Other Media

Do all the youtube videos on 'over 9000' count as other media? If so it should be included in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.147.34 (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube videos are almost never a reliable source unless it is the channel of an establish publication or news agency, like an official NBC channel. And without reliable sources, the meme should not be included in the article, or anywhere else in Wikipedia for that matter. —Farix (t | c) 01:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So unnotable that there's a sign on the talk page telling us how unnotable it is and warning people not to add it (something that rarely appears on talk pages). This, after some extensive discussions. Christopher Connor (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gyallic Cannon is Incorrect?!

The page has a note saying not to change "any instance of the word Garlic to Galic or Galick" because "Garlic Gun is the translation of the original Japanese word" and that "Galic and Galick were coined by Funimation". This is completely wrong, however. ギャリック砲 (Gyarikki Hō) is NOT the "translation of the original Japanese word". The Japanese spelling of the English word garlic is ガーリック (gārikku). ギャリック (gyarikku) transliterates to something like gyallic. In the subtitles on FUNimation's DVDs, and in their translation of the Dragon Book, ギャリック砲 (Gyarikki Hō) is translated as Gyallic Cannon, although their English dub uses Galick Gun or something like that.

I'd like to correct this on the page, but I don't want it to get reverted because some people (who don't know Japanese) think I'm vandalizing the page. Linkdude20002001 (talk) 23:06, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it was discussed here, but based on the comment in the article, consensus was established to present Garlic Gun as the translation. Are any editors active here who'd been around long enough to remember this discussion? —C.Fred (talk) 05:34, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it either, so I'm thinking someone made that bit up... I mean, wouldn't it be in the archived talk pages? Linkdude20002001 (talk) 06:24, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'll go and change it back to the correct "Gyallic Ho". But first I shall look up what kind of consensus has been made about the spellings/terminology in general. I could'a sworn the consensus was to use Viz's spellings/terminology... But even still we've got pages like "Krillin" and "Frieza"... So why Garlic Gun? I can't believe Viz would've used such an incorrect transliteration.Linkdude20002001 (talk) 10:49, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the consensus is to use whatever gives the most results on Google. So, the attack should be called "Galick Gun".Linkdude20002001 (talk) 11:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page image

For god's sake, the aspect ratio is off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? —C.Fred (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Competitive?

The following is the last line of the first paragraph under "Creation and Conception."

'Vegeta was conceived as anti hero and main rival of Goku who with his arrogant and competitive nature is opposite to Goku's calm demeanor and lack of competitiveness as Goku only fights when absolutely necessary.'

Really? Whoever wrote this has clearly not read the comics or seen the show at all. Although Goku does have a calm demeanor, he loves to fight, and is very competitive. He is always fighting in friendly bouts, this is a constant of his personality. I recommend this sentence be altered to reflect this. Kronos o (talk) 23:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fictional"??

This entire page needs to be altered. It comes across as if DBZ isn't real. 173.249.64.220 (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It's over 9,000!" RS

I found a book "With a foreword by Ryo Horikawa, the Japanese voice of Vegeta, Dragon Ball Z “It’s Over 9,000!” When Worldviews Collide is the first e-book to explain where “It’s Over 9,000!” came from, how the original video spread to receive over 7 million views, and why it continues to be such a popular catchphrase." I would expect this counts as an WP:RS. I'll be WP:BOLD and add it in the meantime. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 03:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What? so confusing! I like lolz (talk) 03:48, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vegeta in Fantastic Four

I know full well that the image floating around the internet is not photoshopped, and there's no reason to believe that this source is unreliable, either. But, if there is still doubt, and belief that it may be photoshopped, if I find the issue and panel number and verify it myself, can we put it back in the article? Osh33m (talk) 02:54, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Osh33m: It doesn't seem to be photo-shopped but I think it lacks notability. Iady391 | Talk to me here 22:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Iady391 Vegeta in popular culture? How is it not notable? Osh33m (talk) 07:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did any reliable third-party sources mention it? If not, it isn't notable. Junkie Monkeys appears to be a random blog that fails WP:SPS. —Farix (t | c) 11:24, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's over 9000!

I think that this is a popular and notable meme which deserves its' own page.
--Iady391 | Talk to me here 12:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine where it is (in Vegeta's article). You'll need to find more information from third-party reliable sources, and not just a list of people who use it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@AngusWOOF: Are you saying it needs more source to warrant its' own page or even just on this page? Iady391 | Talk to me here 11:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It needs more notability on its own as with D'oh!, which made it into the Oxford English Dictionary. Otherwise it just gets redirected to Vegeta's page as with most catchphrases associated with a person or character. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, when even quotes like "Old soldiers never die; they just fade away" and "Ask not what your country can do for you" are mere redirects, "It's over 9000!" doesn't have an icicle's chance in hell of meeting notability requirements.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Vegeta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mania.com/10-male-headaches-anime_article_118033.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://animage.jp/old/gp/gp_1991.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://animage.jp/old/gp/gp_1992.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120612043634/http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/103/1036651p1.html to http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/103/1036651p1.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://thedaoofdragonball.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/dragon-ball-z-its-over-9000-when-worldviews-collide.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vegeta IV

Based on the Dragon Ball Super: Broly film, Vegeta is the fourth of the name (Freeza informs Paragus that 'Vegeta IV/ the fourth' is on Earth). Just a note re: this point; presumably in the not-too-distant future there will be a valid source referring to this and the fact can be included in the article.

Vegeta is great — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghizz Archus (talk • contribs) 12:14, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vegeta is great — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.41.28.41 (talk) 12:17, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image deletion nomination(s)

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 28. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:10, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]