Talk:Super Saiyan

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Archived latest SSJ discussion

The talk page was getting overly too long. If you would like to continue past conversations or have something to discuss about the current article, please do so below. Thank you. Heat P 06:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Bebi Vegeta or Baby Vegeta?

Which one to use? I've always used Bebi, not Baby. Baby for the main article is understandable because that's what most English speaking people know him as, but not in descriptions because I thought we use Japanese names as much as we could. The reason why I bring this up is because I recently changed Baby to Bebi, but a user reverted. --Majinvegeta 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I reverted your edit for consistancy reasons. If the main article is Baby, then the most obvious name to use in all other articles is Baby. We use Son Goku and Son Gohan over Goku and Gohan on all Dragon Ball pages; we use Kuririn over Krillin; and we use Muten-Rôshi over Master Roshi. // DecaimientoPoético 01:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

~.^ Well......Shouldn't the page name be changed, since "Baby" is not his name, it's "Bebi". If what you say is true, then we should change the page name to Bebi because it is his original Japanese name, my example extends to the name of the Goku article, being that his Japanese name IS indeed Son Goku. So shouldn't the page name be changed to Bebi if we use the Japanese names on all others? --Majinvegeta 15:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the name-changing to the rest of the community. I don't care much for what we name the articles, though I wish we could decide on one single language to name the characters from. // DecaimientoPoético 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It was decided by consensus that we move the page to Baby. If you want it moved back to Bebi, start another move discussion--$UIT 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know that there was a consensus. Oh well, guess we could keep it the way it is, I just thought it was odd because every other article has the Japanese name. It's not really a big issue though. --Majinvegeta 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, we go by consistency, so we should use the japanese name, since FUNimation has a way of translating things so that the translation loses its meaning. I say we use Bebi. It'll cause less confusion between the kid vegeta we see in flashbacks in DBZ, and the possessed Vegeta we see in GT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.183.44.106 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Kid Vegeta was never called Baby Vegeta.--$UIT 19:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe not, but atleast when someone sees "Bebi vegeta" they know its not Vegeta as a baby.71.183.44.106 20:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bebi is just how the Japanese pronounce Baby (I think... correct me if I'm wrong).--$UIT 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is there a dicsussion on Bebi or Baby on the Super Saiyan talk page? Move it to Baby/Bebi's article. When the problem is fixed there then go to other articles and fix the same problem then. Thank you. Heat P 05:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason it's here is because it is "Baby Vegeta" under the Super Saiyan 4 section. I changed it to Bebi, but Poetic Decay reverted. That's why it's here, but I agree, it should be on the Baby page. --Majinvegeta 06:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

So is it going to be Baby or Bebi? If it isnt going to be Bebi, can someone explain to me why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.183.44.106 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

LSSJ

Does anybody have an actual source on this? Whenever I ask, the most I'm usually told on other sites is that the Daiz' uses the phrase "Densetsu no Supa Saiya-jin" (Legendary Super Saiyan). So what I want to know is if anyone has that page from the sourcebook and can translate it, cuz that phrase gets used alot in movie 8 to describe what Broly is as an individual (as opposed to a specific description of a transformation). Likewise, unless the Daiz' says it, the bit about his speed is original research. Aside from dodging that one flurry from Piccolo and Goku, he basically takes everything else on the chin with a laugh, and pretty much clotheslines and ki blasts his way through the fight. Trunks is said to suffer speed loss when he fought Cell, and in the first half of the fight he looks a hell of a lot faster than most anything Broly did. I'd just like to see a source on that section. Onikage725 01:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I do not have the Dai books with me in Iraq but I do have them and Densetsu in japanese mean tradition, legend, or folklore. So in translation, Densetsu no Supa Saiya-jin is translated into two titles, Super Saiyan of Legend(or Folklore) or Legendary Super Saiyan. Same as the SNES japanese game titled Supa Saiya-jin Densetsu is Super Saiyan Legend. So the title basically Vegeta and Paragus gave Broly is indeed Legendary Super Saiyan. As for the speed thing it is a iffy iffy thing. Broly does seem to move slow but when compared to the others in the fight who as well is fighting at what seems a slow pace Broly does seem to move at a faster pace them the others. But I understand you on wanting a source and sorry, if I was home I could give it but as me being out here I can't at this time but since I have looked over the book many times I can say that Densetsu no Supa Saiya-jin can mean one of the two titles, the most common the Legendary Super Saiyan or Super Saiyan of Legend. But as Densetsu no is before Supa Saiya-jin in Broly's title as it is used after in the SNES game then it is more likely that when translated it english they used the Legendary Super Saiyan translation as the title.Heat P 03:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree on the translation, its the context I question- that of Broly's SSJ state being given its own name. The term used is the one they use in the movie for Broly. However, they are saying "he is the legendary Super Saiyan," rather than "he has transformed into the legendary Super Saiyan form," or something like that. And for speed, Broly's style seems more akin to Super 13 (and noone ever says he got faster). In fact, Broly seems noticeably faster in his combat style, or at least more agile, before hulking out (when he attacks Goku at night, early movie 10 if I recall though it has been awhile).

PS take care of yourself in Iraq. Are you in the service?

Onikage725 21:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I'm in the service and thanks of the support we need it. Back to the subject at hand. I think I get what you are saying. But as the movie goes on they begin to say that when Broly transforms into that state or form that is titled LSSJ now. But Broly all together is the Densetsu no Supa Saiyajin not just that bulky form. We as well as most people, Fan and official folks alike. just use the title for the bulked up form. To show the difference between the actual normal super saiyan forms, Grade 2 and 3 to the Bulk LSSJ from, the Dai book I believe number 7 gave that form the title but only to show the difference. Broly as a whole is the Legendary Super Saiyan.

Speed thing, as I said that is a iffy iffy thing because I will agree that it does look like he is slower but there are times in the movie where he seems very nimble and agile. But if you had a form that was imperveace to nearly any of you ememys attack would use speed to bet them or power? See Trunks' Grade 3 (USSJ) form was strong enough to hurt Cell so that is why Cell to advantage of the speed factor but when you can't be hurt by any of your enemys attack (hell he took a seemly Chou Kamehameha inches away at full power without finching) even their speed would not help the factor out as seen when Vegeta finally attacked Broly. He used speed but Broly was unaffected. So as for the speed issues that is a hard depate there. Heat P 02:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree Heat, I actually don't really recall any info on LSSJ's speed. I myself don't have Diazenshuus, but I have talked to other people who do. I think the info about his speed should be removed until we find a source. PS: Be careful In Iraq Heat, okay? If you ever just wanna chat one on one: thesuperelitesaiyan@zoomshare.com. :). Heck! If anyone wants to talk, it's my email. Take care! --MajinVegeta 22:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should contact User:Julian Grybowski. He is part of the daizex.com site we've been using to cite most of our articles. Julian and VegettoEX are on Wikipedia already but VegettoEX hasn't been active here for quite some time. I believe he can be reached at VegettoEX@aol.com or through the forums on his site. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Source Change

I think it would be wise to change the source of Super Saiyan Transformations, Daizenshuu EX has several flaws that I can note. First off, they refer to Giji (False) Super Saiyan as "Quasi" Super Saiyan, refer to original Super Saiyan as SSJ1, and they use anime info, and don't go by the manga info for transformation. I am thinking about changing the source as soon as I find a good Super Saiyan guide. Opinions? --MajinVegeta 01:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Saiyanredhair.jpg

Image:Saiyanredhair.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

dates

seeing the change to the fourth paragraph of text for this article, the dates for all official parts should be included, or an article should be made specifically for both the anime and the manga. this should be done to all information that changes between the anima and manga or the content is biase to one side of the story and not remaining neutral --Ditre 02:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it's biase, because it is what it is. I included the discrepencies a while ago, but someone decided that it should be erased and changed to the 30 year period, which according to the manga and the corresponding episode, the 30 year period is inaccurate. Also we should note that the manga is the higest level of canon (I know that we aren't supposed to talk about canon and non-canon here, but I firmly believe that this conversation warrents a mention of it), and Toriyama had direct connection to the manga, as opposed to the movies where he did not. Both the manga and corresponding anime episode (DBZ episode 2) states that Planet Vegeta was destroyed roughly 3 years before Raditz's arrival on Earth. And most of the movies aren't even consistent with the timeline of Dragon Ball, therefore I believe that the anime series date and the manga date should be used as dates and time periods are quite often mixed and tweaked in the movies. And this goes for all the Dragon Ball related movies, not only the ones in question. --MajinVegeta 22:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Once every thousand years, or just 1,000 yrs since the last Super Saiyan?

I have read through the mangas and watched the anime (Japanese) and I don't think that it states that a Super Saiyan emerges every thousand years, I believe it states that it had been a thousand years since the last Super Saiyan. If this is the case, then it does not mean that a Super Saiyan emerges EVERY millenia. Anyone care to elaborate? --MajinVegeta 03:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

From the manga (most canon of sources) volume 8 (DB #24) page 52, Vegeta says "They say a Super Saiyan appears only once in a thousand years... I've always said it was just a myth... and I was sure that even if it were possible... the only warrior who could possibly become one... was me!" I'm changing it back.Detective X 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But, does that constitute every thousand years? That's my question. --VorangorTheDemon 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In order for the thousand years factor of the myth to hold any ground, it would have had to at least happened twice or more in the so-called past, no? Just saying...Detective X 05:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just wondering because before it said, "every thousand years", and I also did not believe that it ever stated that.--VorangorTheDemon 05:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

This myth doesn't seem to hold because there was more than just one super saiyan in the time of Dragon Ball: Goku,Vegeta,Trunks,Gohan,Goten,Goku Jr.,Vegeta Jr. That myth is pretty much out the window. --(unsigned)

I agree. However, it was introduced as a legend, and its deteriorating status as a legend (due to more people gaining access to it) is already noted in the article. --VorangorTheDemon 15:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Add a "regular form"?

I was just wondering if we should add a "Regular Form" to the list, because I feel that if you don't, it's kinda like cruft. You don't really know what's going on if you aren't a fan. Suggestions? --VorangorTheDemon 22:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Explanation in "Ki" needed

We need an explanation on what exactly ki is because the transformations don't make sense then. The first time Ki is mentioned in the article is in the False Super Saiyan section, and there's no explanation to what it is. --VorangorTheDemon 15:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Merging

This topic and the Oozaru topic could possibly be merged into a "Saiyan Transformation" article. --74.194.118.12 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC) or --JeremyStalnaker 20:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason behind this is Oozaru and Super Saiyan are both the same subject, which is Saiyan transformation. They can be placed together collectively because of this into a more convenient page. The separation isn't required at all. --JeremyStalnaker 12:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Super Saiyan 2 Future Gohan

Should Future Gohan be listed as a SSJ2? He transformed into one during his time in the Dead Realm in Dragon Ball Z: Shin Budokai - Another Road. While I understand that the video games hold the lowest form of canon, however, like the movies the game tells an original story. Unlike the majority of the movies, the game's story could be squeezed into the actual time line like Bojack Unbound & Wrath of the Dragon. Since info from the movies, such as False Super Saiyan & Legendary Super Saiyan are included, would it be okay to add Future Gohan to the list? 4.252.208.180 22:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Future Gohan = Gohan. // DecaimientoPoético 22:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

True Poetic Decay, but also Gohan in the alternate timeline never achieved Super Saiyan 2. --VorangorTheDemon 21:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the entire first post of this discussion is how he did achieve Super Saiyan 2 and whether or not it should be added to the article due to the source.4.252.214.238 07:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. It's a video game, DBZ video games can't be used as reference because it isn't real information. I think it was in Budokai 3 Future Trunks also had access to Super Saiyan 2. that doesn't mean that they achieved it in the series or that it states anywhere else that they did. It's not in the Daizenshuus (Official Dragon Ball guides certified by Toriyama himself), A simple video game appearence doesn't change the facts.--VorangorTheDemon 19:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty much futile to hope someone actually reads the first post about how the game tells an original story not canon to the manga or anime in the same way the movies are and how the movie info is inserted anyway and such.

Why Future Gohan wasn't added to the list and Future Trunks was

Future Gohan is not historically individual enough to be considered separate from Gohan of the primary timeline. Both of the Trunks characters have enough individual info to be considered separate characters, even though they are genetically the same person. Also if you want to add Future Gohan to the list, then we'd also have to add Future Goku and Future Vegeta for consistency. They, technically speaking, are part of that time line as well. Not to mention the link that was provided leads to the regular Gohan article anyway, there's no sense in having two separate links for the same article. --VorangorTheDemon 09:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Future Gohan had a lot more 'impact' and a longer appearance compared to Future Vegeta. But you have a good point, answer me this: were you trying to gel the point where Trunks was able to travel through time, meet his younger self in several succession allowing him to be listed as an individual? Because I could clearly understand that, case closed. --Seong0980 15:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is true, but that wasn't my point exactly. My point was that the two characters (even though they are genetically the same person) have been brought up completely different, have fought completely different battles, lived in a completely different environment for their entire lives, which does in turn make them individual characters. Gohan's environment was only different for the time after the Freeza saga, which makes him some-what separate, but not entirely considering that the most important chunk of his life was completely identicle to his character from the primary timeline. --VorangorTheDemon 02:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that was pretty well put. --Seong0980 22:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)