Talk:Dragon Ball

Merge

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

Resolved

 – Consensus was to merge Dragon Ball (anime), Dragon Ball (manga), Dragon Ball GT, and Dragon Ball Z to Dragon Ball and the merge has been completed.

I have proposed that Dragon Ball (anime) be properly merged back here to Dragon Ball (manga). I can not see a single valid reason these two should be separated. They are not significantly different in terms of characters, story, etc, and their separation like this violates WP:MOS-AM. This article also needs a massive clean up and rewrite to bring it inline with the MoS. Thoughts? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is this: the anime adaptation of this manga is split in Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z. The DB articles were structured this way because it is easier for the editors involved (and the readers). If we're merging on the grounds that the plot and characters are the same, then Dragon Ball Z must be merged, too. Merging only Dragon Ball (anime) seems wrong because the DB TV series only adapts roughly half of the manga (again, the other half is adapted as DBZ).--Nohansen (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, let me add that the DB articles seem poorly organized. I don't see why Dragon Ball is a disambiguation page when all articles mentioned (expect one) are DB-related. Dragon Ball should be the main article, not Dragon Ball (franchise), with a hatnote pointing readers to Freescale DragonBall. That's what I think.--Nohansen (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, I agree there. The DB articles are a mess. Every series has 2, if not 3 episode lists, the all have a lot of excessive OR and redundant stuff, etc. You are probably right, and Dragon Ball Z should be included (and maybe Dragon Ball GT?). I'd also support putting the merged form at Dragon Ball with the appropriate hat note.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unlike DBZ, DBGT is a separate production not adapted from Toriyama's manga. So I don't think it should be merged here.--Nohansen (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the merger, the removal of the disambiguation page, hatnote proposal, and that "Dragon Ball" should be used over "Dragon Ball (franchise)". Wouldn't it be best if we combined the Dragon Ball manga and anime articles (except for Dragon Ball GT) to the franchise page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Col, could you update those merge tags to reflect my idea? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

All done. I pointed the discussion here since its already on going. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. You sure are quick to handle these things ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, things have certainly changed since I last commented. I'm not sure about merging the franchise, manga, and two anime articles... mainly because it seems kinda messy in my mind, can't picture it. But if there's a clean, organized way of doing it, count with my vote.--Nohansen (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe similar changes will happen to the Sailor Moon articles. If you ask me, this is the best thing we can accomplish now. If anything gets bloated, unmerging is always possible. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be done, relatively easily actually. Most of the articles seem to repeat the same stuff in slightly different ways. The merged article will likely need a little clean up and trimming, though if merged carefully, it shouldn't be to bad. If I can, I may try working on a merged version in my user space, to help if consensus is a go. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So Dragon Ball (manga), Dragon Ball (anime), Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball (franchise) should be merged together, but Dragon Ball GT be kept seperate? I think Dragon Ball GT should be part of the merger. It is part of the series, although only supervised, not actually written, by Akira Toriyama. --- Krezos Farland (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, from what I've read on the series. While it isn't based on the manga specifically, I couldn't tell that it was significantly different either? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 08:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Think it's safe to say that Dragon Ball GT should be merged too. When you think about it, this series is just another continuation, and it's too short (shorter than the previous works). What do you say Collectonian? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can really see both sides. I'm still leaning towards a merge, though, as it is a direction continuation, and really no different from, say, the Gunslinger Girl seasons, with the second one done by a totally different company. I'm just not seeing that much unique information that would cause a size issue at all. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

DBGT is too much. At least the DB TV series and DBZ are directly adapted from Toriyama's manga. But GT is a different beast altogether, a spin-off, created by Toei. I don't think merging GT is necessary or beneficial.--Nohansen (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the merge. The DBGT article lacks production and reception section and need a nice clean up.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

DBGT is not an entirely different story, it is a continuation of DBZ. Akira Toriyama actually sstated that he liked GT's story. --- Krezos Farland (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the Merge of Dragon Ball GT, however, I noticed from the history page that the DBZ article has useful information before you just tore it asunder (Even those that are SOURCED). Are you actually SETTING things up for a merge, hmm?? ZeroGiga (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that if they are to be merged, EVERYTHING has to be put into it. Every single one of the articles mentioned. But the problem is, the 2008 version of the Dragon ball Z page is just too short, and I think that if it is reverted back to an earlier, longer, 2007 version, it will be too long to merge...so, if we expand the articles, no, if we leave them too short, yes. Ironic, but necessary. domkippy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domkippy (talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Update

I've done the first merge, of franchise, followed by a ton of clean up. I removed a lot of unsourced claims and obvious OR/personal opinions. Meanwhile, anyone want to tackle cleaning up the {{Dragon Ball}} template and merging in the {{Dragon Ball characters}} template? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. Redirect cleanup? Alas, I'm more worried about the histories of the pages. We'll need to request history merges after this is all done. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Redirect clean up, and merge in the character sections. It will no more later, as the ep lists are also cleaned up. Not sure on the best way to fix it though to match the new article structure, though maybe it should wait till all done. But something to think about either way, to fix the organization. Yeah, at least a merge of the franchise history would be good. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Manga article merge done. I've moved this discussion here with a redirect on the old talk page that will come straight here to keep the convo going. The rest of the discussions from that talk page have been archived to a named archive linked to in the new archive box above. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z merge completed. Anyone who has read most/all of the manga series want to tackle fixing up this articles plot to cover the entire series? Its kinda piece meal right now from the Dragon Ball manga and Z articles. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't we do it like the Yu-Gi-Oh! article? Where the main page mainly talks about the manga with links to all its different anime/spin-off series. See for it yourself.---Yottamol (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that one seriously needs fixed too. Will alert the project to see if anyone wants to tackle it since I'm already dealing with both DB and One Piece. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:43, 11 July 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.

What the hell

why does dragon ball z lead here? That makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.180.89 (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't, the Dragon Ball manga does. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z does lead here. I think it's pretty clear that a group of biased deletionists have gotten together and are getting a kick out of throwing DB/DBZ material out the window. Fortunately I still have the old articles; I'll try to get things back up and in order when I have a little time.72.160.93.25 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you meant redirect. As per above it was merged here by consensus. And no, you will not "get things back." Reverting a merge done by consensus is considered vandalism, just so you know. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I quote Wikipedia's policy directly, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." In any event the complaints make it pretty obvious that this was not a community consensus at all.72.160.93.25 (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Complaints from one or two does not negate the consensus above nor the consensus of the project. And undoing a merge based on consensus after being warned not to do it is vandalism as it is being deliberately disruptive. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just changed to that both Dragon Ball Z and Dbz would redirect to the Dragon Ball Z sub-heading. Please tell me if this is OK. --Yottamol (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

While normally this would be done, having DBZ go straight to the one named section seems detrimental to the readers as it is based on the manga and DBZ is just the anime name for part of the adaptation. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, shouldn't the redirecting phrase under Dragon Ball Z: "DBZ" redirects here. For the meteorological term, see dBZ (meteorology). be put on top of the page?--Yottamol (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is embarassing. Dragonball Z was the second biggest anime in America, after Pokemon, for YEARS. And what does it get on wikipedia? Three paragraphs. Because a deletionist decides "hey, I'm going to butcher this featured article because of my sourcing fetish." Just tag the unsourced statements, and someone will GET sourcing from, say, the official site. This will NEVER become featured again, unless you stop being so anal and rule-obsessive. J'onn J'onzz (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

DBZ's article was not a featured article, so incorrect statement number 1. Number 2, it was merged here properly by consensus because there is no valid reason at all to separate it from its manga origins, which are also highly popular. Number 3, watch the incivility and personal attacks. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Collectonian, these guys are just wasting your time (and theirs). You gave good reasoning in your edit summaries when you redirected the pages. These complainers are very much aware of it. Just ignore them. That's why I have refrained from commenting here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Adroa. You few users act as though your own private consensus matters more than the community consensus. And it's not a waste of time. Wikipedia is based on the community, not a few individuals. Repairs aren't vandalism; but deleting valid information because you don't like it certainly is. And the fact that you completely ignore Wikipedia's vandalism policy indicates to me that you are the vandal, not those who try to fix the damage you've done. And I will fix these articles some time this week. In the meantime I suggest you review Wikipedia's policies. You are not the whole community.72.160.93.25 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I know. I should just ignore them, but unfortunately they will likely keep it up unless more project members tell them that yes, it was by consensus, and no it will not be undone. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The new page is dissapointing no matter how powerful ignoring reality makes you feel. It leads to nowhere(for example characters), or it incorrectly refers to parts of different series as being one. You can't argue with the fact that dragonball chapters are NOT the same as Dragonball Z chapters, they might be in Japan but in the english translation (English Wikipedia after all), they are different manga series. Saying that merging three different and I stress DIFFERENT series into one is stupid, espicially when the series are on such a large scale. Saying that Dragonball Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT should all be merged together is like saying all of the matrix movies should be under one title. As it stands you might as well just list all the series in the continuity and leave it at that as this page provides little to NO useful information on any of its intended subjects. Not to mention that Dragonball GT is not even by the same person. Putting dragonball GT in here, well we might as well merge this article with a Journey to the west. That is after all what dragonball was based off of. You are obviously more concerned with your own ideas and authority than community consensus as clearly more than just a few people think this is stupid. There's obviously some issue about this article, because this change has been met with a rather large backlash, so instead of ignoring, you could at least consider that your decision is absolute. I agree that the Dragonball articles were a tad shoddy, but that insenuates fixing them and not annihilating all usefullness in the articles. And yes I do know that I am wasting my time; however I can't just let you run amuck on your little power trip without at least saying something.Adroa (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. And our complaints are no waste of time. They indicate very plainly that the individuals responsible for these deletions are, as you said, on a power trip. Fortunately, Wikipedia policy is on the side of the majority. I'm digging up my material and will try to get this ironed out soon.72.160.93.25 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) I am more on your side and am equally dismayed by the wholesale removal of material. The best you can do is provide references for material - any decent magazines, books etc. to back up notability will be extremely helpful. The current climate has a rough consensus for sourcing thus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are a waste of time, as would be any attempt to "restore" the old articles. You are right, Wikipedia policy is on the side of the majority, and that is that the same series be covered in the same article, and that unsourced material should generally not be included in a merger unless there is a reasonable expectation sources exist. Also, your canvas attempts are interesting, as you have, in fact, canvassed more supporters of the merger (and your attempt to label a consensus based merge as vandalism is not very AGF nor civil. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that the Dragon Ball chapters are the Dragon Ball Z chapters. Even though the manga series is published as two separate series in North America, it was still made as one series by the original author, not to mention that even the English manga of DBZ volumes acknowledge that (under the volume number of DBZ, it also lists the total volume number of DB). But other than that, I don't see why we couldn't have separate links to the different anime series, as they WERE made as separate series, even in Japan. I had asked about it above, citing Yu-Gi-Oh!'s example, but apparently that's wrong also, and needs to be fixed. I'm just wondering where I can find the consensus on the merger. --Yottamol (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

See above, as well as simultaneously occurring merges in One Piece, Naruto, and Sailor Moon. There is also project consensus. If the project didn't agree with the merge, it wouldn't have happened, period. There is no reason to have them separate. They are the same story, same characters, etc. The differences are minor. Per our WP:MOS, we do not do separate articles unless the works are significantly different. These are not. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are. Your ignorance of them shows exactly why you're making such rash decisions. By your standards, all of the books in the Bible should be condensed into one article. Each Star Wars movie should be a subheading on a single Star Wars page. All of the Nintendo video game consoles should be confined to one entry. This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. It's okay to give a subject some breathing room. I think it's time you took a step back and realized that far more people disagree with you than agree. That is the consensus.72.160.93.25 (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No, they aren't, not by our standards. And sorry, but you are the one who needs to step back and realize you will not get your way no matter how much you argue as if you are multiple people. Consensus was clear above and is still clear. You are the only one really arguing against the merge. One other IP who has only made one comment, one SPA, and a single editor who made false claims of it being featured before the merge. Meanwhile, the merge was supported by SEVEN established editors, many of whom are from the Anime and manga project or DBZ task force. The Anime and manga project is fully aware of this merge and has been since it was done. No objections from the project at all. So no, far more people agreed with the merge than have actually agreed with you. Only three established editors have even partially supported you, and of those, none of them actually pointed to any policy or guideline to support the claims that they should be separate, while the merge is fully supported by Wikipedia guidelines and policies. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Practice what you preach and stop it with the bald-faced lies. There were a total of three people (including yourself) above who actively agreed with the merge - a couple more thought it would be acceptable if certain conditions were met (but those conditions have not been met). Even now, I count eight objectors to the merge - more than the five supporters even if you count the ones who wanted other conditions met. And the project specifically states that "each story arc in Dragon Ball Z at least will be split into 4 pages" among other requirements. You have removed that material, going directly against the project's directions. I have notified several administrators of your tampering. I suggest you back off before you get yourself in any deeper than you have.72.160.93.25 (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Either you are deliberately skipping people to try to make up a consensus against the merge, or you are just not counting correctly. Read #Merge above again. All the editors there are established editors. Oh yeah, and go read WP:CIVIL sometime before you continue with the name calling and threats. The DB "project" is not a project, itis a task force under the anime and manga project and therefore anything it does is subject to oversight by the Anime and manga project and must follow all of the Anime and manga project guidelines and its MoS. An outdated task force page means nothing at all. Even its talk page shows consensus against things listed there because no one bothered to update it. However, since you complained about the lost sagas in your "friendly notice" you might want to check the task force talk page where there was consensus to get rid of all of the pure saga discriptions in favor of proper episode lists. Also, among those agreeing with the merge are a few folks from the DB task force. I know you went and left notes with several admins, and I've noticed they have all ignored you complaining so far, which I really should do instead of continuing to waste my fingers on you. The merge has consensus, but by all means, continue wasting your times with false, pointless threats and attempts to claim that you have a consensus of one. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't skip anything at all - I counted again and my count is accurate. Also, I never called you any names or threatened you at all. You just changed the project page to suite your own opinion - that is not consensus, and honestly is a very shoddy, obvious attempt at deception. (It shows up in the history when you do that, BTW.) I also see no mention in either project page of eliminating the saga descriptions. The only mention of them at all was that there should be at least four for DBZ - but you just deleted that information without warrant. Aside from the couple users who agreed with you, your entire rationale seems to be completely imaginary.

My messages to the administrators were left only hours ago - hardly enough time to assume they're ignoring us at all. You are obviously not going to be reasoned with. Hopefully one of the administrators or someone with more Wiki-expertise can fix this mess. If they don't get around to it, like I said I'll work on it later this week. Go ahead and ignore me. It's not like you haven't been ignoring me and everyone else who's been objecting since this whole thing started. 72.160.93.25 (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a whole huge thread on the task force talk page about getting rid of the saga pages in favor of the regular episode pages. I updated the project per its own talk page and consensus seen here and in other articles that I have nothing to do with. Sorry, but I feel pretty confident that none of the administrators will "fix this mess" because there is nothing to fix. Whether you like it or not, the merge was by consensus and your complaining about it won't change that. And with that, I'm done hitting my head against a brick wall. Just so yu know, though, two of the three administrators have been quite active since you left your message. And you can "work" on it all you want. Attempts to undo the merge will simply be reverted as they were properly done per consensus. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 08:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Those brick walls have a negative impact on decision-making skills. A consensus of a few individuals does not override the consensus of the community as a whole. You're unwillingness to listen to any opinion other than your own makes it abundantly clear that this has been nothing but, as Adroa said, a power trip. I see from your user information that you have a history of conflicts like this and I do hope you consider the possibility that your approach (which comes across as self-righteous and stubborn) may be at the root of the problem. If I was as outnumbered as you on this discussion, I would yield to the community, even if I felt strongly about my view on the matter. It's not always easy, but it makes things go much more smoothly. I guess I can't force you to behave that way though. Peace. 72.160.93.25 (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a case of a few individuals overriding the consensus of the community - exactly the opposite. The mergers were discussed, and all experienced editors were given opportunity to voice opinions. Ultimately, consensus was achieved. You seem to disagree with that consensus, and you certainly have that right...but when you change things, be aware that you will be the individual going against the consensus of Wikipedia at large. Collectonian is like any experienced editor - she knows a lot about what she is doing, and doesn't waste much time explaining it to inexperienced editors. This often leads to bruised feelings, but rest assured, we are aware of what she is doing, we do reign her in if she goes too far, and we don't want to bruise anyone's feelings. This merger would not have been allowed to happen in the first place if it did not have consensus. Doceirias (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that it is not necessary for every member of the community to chime in with their support opinion to establish consensus, since silence is assumed to be an automatic support. —Dinoguy1000 16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Doceirias and Dinoguy1000 for your tactful comments. I sincerely recognize that you two are trying to calm the situation. I did see the editors that approved of the merge and to a certain extent I understood their reasoning - enough that I did not disagree with the merge before it happened, though I wasn't particularly supportive of it. But the result leaves much more to be desired than I ever imagined. This was more of a series of deletions than any kind of merge. Pages and pages of material on (what is most likely) the second most popular anime in the US has been reduced to a three paragraph subsection and an episode list.

It's only been a few days, and already there are eight complaints. (Thus, I hardly feel like a lone "individual going against the consensus of Wikipedia at large".) Another friend I was talking with called it "disgraceful" and "unforgivable" and felt it reflected badly on Wikipedia as a whole, and I tend to agree. This enormous subject has been whittled down to practically nothing, and the one responsible behaves like she thinks she's perfect and any action she takes is simply irrevocable. (That alone probably irritates me more than what's happened to the subject's material.)

If there was still a decent amount of information on the subject, I would not be this upset, even with the merge in place. But as things stand, it truly is a gross oversimplification of an epic series of animes. I highly doubt that all three shows can be adequately covered within the Dragon Ball manga article without turning it into a mess (particularly DBGT), but if someone with more time and expertise than me worked on overhauling it to restore some of the information that was lost, I would feel much better about giving it a chance. It's just embarrassing in it's present state though and I don't feel right leaving it this way. 72.160.93.25 (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article is not so good as it should but what was the important and useful information that was deleted? I only remember lots of overdetailed paragraphs of plot and many unsourced info or directly original research. The old articles could be taken by anybody to deletion due to it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The plot of the first two animes (which used to span 25 articles) has been condensed into two (short) paragraphs. Twenty-five articles may have been excessive, but having the plots of two of the most popular and long-running animes in history stuffed into two little paragraphs is a joke. DVD releases are barely mentioned. Censorship isn't discussed at all. The Garlic Jr. saga, and many other differences in the anime aren't even mentioned in the Differences in anime adaptations section. Many pertinent links to other Dragon Ball related articles have been left out. (There's not even a link to the episode lists for the animes.) The major cast isn't listed. And on the character reference pages, many voice actors have been left out, even if the character they portray has an entry. (Previously this was not an issue, since a detailed table of most characters and voice actors was included on the respective anime articles.) All of this information was there before, and while it may have needed some cleaning up and verification, it was certainly useful, and would be included on any other serious article on a subject like this.

Just look at Star Trek: Enterprise (as an example). Compare the length of that article and the length of the Dragon Ball manga article. Now consider that Star Trek: Enterprise was a single, canceled series that lasted 98 episodes and its overall plot was fairly basic. In contrast, the Dragon Ball manga article is supposed to somehow summarize a 325 chapter manga and three anime TV series based on it (but with added plot lines not featured in the manga), which lasted over 500 episodes. And the DB page is shorter. Admittedly, Dragon Ball's plot is somewhat simpler than Star Trek: Enterprise's. But when you're summarizing the plot in an overview, all the little details that made Star Trek more complex don't get included anyway. It seems pretty darned unbalanced as it stands now. 72.160.93.25 (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's actually 519 chapters + 1 special chapter. But yeah, I mean the Japanese Wikipedia pages on Dragon Ball are clearly divided into different articles, with the manga being the main one and separate articles on the different anime series. Still, if all anime and manga articles on the English Wikipedia are being reformatted like this one, I suppose it would only be appropriate for Dragon Ball to follow suit, to have a standardized Wiki page. I just hope that more information will be added. --Yottamol (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We should look good articles and featured articles as examples. The characters voice actors can be shown in their respective character lists. Obviously the plot needs to be expanded but not so long, just telling the important points. Just take a look at Serial Experiments Lain or .hack//Sign. Well those are short series, the only example of a long series I can give you is Rurouni Kenshin, thought its not GA or anything.Tintor2 (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The lack of voice actors on the character list don't have anything to do with the merging at all. If its missing, go complain over there because obviously someone hasn't bothered to add it (or, OMG, actually do some editing and add them yourself). Cast lists by themselves never go in anime articles. The plot here was taken from the merged articles, within reason. Don't blame me for the lack of decent plot summaries in the actual articles rather than the down right ridiculous 25 pages of plot which were axed weeks, if not months, ago. There is a link to the episode list in the infobox, but I've added it to the article as it was indeed missing. If the editors who actually work on expanding and sourcing arguments weren't so busy having to deal with talk page arguments (or who hadn't been chased away from it all together from being tired of having their watchlists flooded by this discussion), maybe all of it would have been fixed by now. The merge is done. The next step is cleaning up what's left, expanding all of the sections, and adding sources as needed. If/When this arguing is done, that is, so there is energy left enough to do the lengthy amount of work required. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Cast lists never go in anime articles? I have no desire to get in another heated debate with you, but I see no such rule in the anime project page, and articles such as Pokémon (anime) do not follow that convention either. In the case of DB/Z/GT, I do believe a separate cast list is reasonable, but don't say never unless it's really never. And as I said, the merge itself is not the big problem; it's the fact that so little was merged and so much was discarded. That includes the cast list and voice actors among many other things. It seems a more sensible move would have been to put all the information from the to-be-deleted articles in its new home articles before deleting it. That would certainly have alleviated much of the concern we're experiencing now. (Put on the space suit before opening the airlock, if an analogy helps, eh?) That way, while the migration was in progress, at least we could have old material instead of none.

Honestly, I'll accept some of the blame for our argument, but your unwillingness to consider that you might be even slightly responsible for this whole mess isn't helping one bit. We aren't the ones who threw away the material without moving it somewhere else. (And now that it's been deleted, that task will be much more tedious.) Don't go chastising us because we weren't prepared to fill a gaping hole that none of us anticipated. 72.160.93.25 (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm upset about this.....yes, the articles are all one, but they are...nothing, like, at all.....such a shame...from being such a nice article in 2006, the DBZ part has been reduced to this...and now...I strongly doubt that anybody is going to build it back to what it was supposed to be... user:domkippy

Congratulations, this article is now useless. Your little committee has agreed on merging these articles because you are too damn lazy to clean up the problems. You know why people are complaining? Because the information has been deleted, information that we want to know. All you are doing is following the rules like a pack of do-gooders that have to have everything their way. NO-ONE is going to use this article anymore since you clamped down onto it like babies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.204.122 (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I have only a few things to say — the article is a work in progress. It is not done yet. It will not be left like this. Have look when it is done, you might be amazed. G.A.S 13:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps you should have improved the existing articles, and then merged them, rathe than the other way around. As it stands they are useless for any significant information on many of the intended subjects. My point is you should never take a step backward. Your proposed plan would have worked the exact same if you merged the articles after improving them, rather than removing any useful information. Like I said, as it stands, this article sucks and I can think of no good reaso as to why this is ANY better than the three separate articles that existed previously.Adroa (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. It seems like the editors here have gotten more interested in writing and enforcing rules than actually contributing. Wikipedia has really gone downhill. Maybe we should just replace the whole Dragon Ball page with a link to the Dragon Ball wiki. At least then there would be some acknowledgment that the article here has become substandard.72.160.96.228 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging

Merging these articles was a horrible idea. So much content and info is lost. Whoever had the idea was wrong. Disturbed92893 (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

As has already been noted umpteen times before, no VALID, SOURCED data was lost. Fancruft, rumors, and unsourced stuff was the only thing not merged. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I hear you Disturbed92893. The only ones who have really supported the merge are a handful of editors who like to parade around acting important. For a more credible project, there's always the Dragon Ball wiki though. I don't think the situation here at Wikipedia is going to improve any time soon. There are just too many people like Collectonian who would rather destroy than create. (I suppose it's always been easier to do the former than the latter.) Even now, she still claims that no sourced material was lost, and just looking at the pages' histories will show that that's nothing but a lie. It's like I said, Wikipedia, or at least this area of it, has really gone downhill over the past few months. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The easiest way to reverse the merge is by adding useful and referenced information until a section (as an example Dragon Ball Z) is just to big to be only a section in the article and it deserves an article of it's own, anything else will probably be considered vandalism or original research and deleted.-Grizzly Sigma (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

You keep claiming that and have to actually show any specific, reliably sourced content that was lost in the merge. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I've already highlighted several areas. One of many, many examples: DVD releases. The English DBZ releases were chock-full of valid sources, and each release was covered. For some reason, all of that information got obliterated in one of your edits. You claimed in the edit that the information belonged in the episode list. But oddly enough, you neglected to move it over there, instead presuming that it was worthless and throwing out all the time and research that someone went to to put that together. It'd be neat if you actually thought about contributing (and no, mass-deletion is not a contribution) and improving these articles instead of cutting off Wikipedia's nose to spite its face. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That was answered. DVD info goes in the episode list. Thanks for telling me what I presume. You're wrong, as usual, but that's neither here no there. The episode lists need massive clean up, which is still in progress, and the reason the DVD info hasn't been included there. And FYI, I've contributed far more than you ever had, with multiple B class, GA, and FA articles and an Featured Topic. If you are gonna whine and sling mud, at least make it accurate mud. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I just said that you had said it belonged in the episode list. At least read my whole comment before you try to argue with it. My point was that you removed massive amounts of valid information, rather than moving it to an appropriate place, hence cutting off Wikipedia's nose to spite its face. As we've already stated, why was all this information removed before there was something better to replace it? It's far better to have material that needs a little work than no material at all. And for your information, you have no idea who I am, or how much I've contributed, and as such you have no business whatsoever claiming that you've contributed more than I. (Your superior, "Oh, I've done B class, GA, and FA articles" attitude is really not helping the situation either.) But, even if you had written every article on Wikipedia, it would bare little relevance to the fact that your recent actions (which have been deletions, not contributions) have been poorly received, and not without reason. Oh yeah - and I thought you were going to ignore us. Something about a brick wall? 72.160.96.228 (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, back to ignoring the non-editing brick wall. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 09:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Now who's calling who names? :D But I certainly will work on improving the article when its lock is lifted. It's just funny, you mess it up and then get mad at us for not fixing it, when we can't fix it. Sounds like you want both sides of the debate to be miserable. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Not made at you for not fixing it. I don't think I'd want to see what your idea of "fixing" would be. I just don't like people complaining when they have done no actual work towards any of the articles at all. Reminds me of those folks who complains about congress and the president, but who haven't even bothered to register to vote, much less actually cast one. The article will be fixed up, as time goes on and REAL sources are found. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay, you're not mad at us for not fixing them. I guess I just got that mistaken impression back when you said, "OMG, actually do some editing and add them yourself". But I'm curious, how did you determine that we who are complaining did no work towards any of the articles? I myself have made additions to and rewritten sections in several DB articles. Also, in what way were the old sources fake (as opposed to REAL)? All this time that people have been complaining, the old material could simply have been left in place while new, "REAL" material was gathered. Instead, we now have three paragraphs to describe the second largest anime in the country, and a lot of unhappy people. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Fansites are not reliable sources, period. All sources must meet WP:RS. Being the "second largest anime in the country" doesn't mean it actually needs tons and tons more info. Almost any length manga and anime series can have its real world aspects discussed in about the same amount of space. The plot needs work, but folks have been working there. Unsourced fancruft has no place here and it was properly removed during a merge. If you want to claim its factual and verifiable, go find the sources to back it up. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

So... FUNimation, The Official Dragon Ball Z website and Pioneer are all just fan sites? 72.160.96.228 (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing "lost" (except the DVD listings before you harp on that again) was sourced to either of those. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I'm willing to agree that there was a lot of unsourced data on the original pages, but most of it was correct. This would logically warrant referencing all the material rather than deleting it. My point is that there is CERTAINLY enough pertinent, encyclopedia worthy information involved in each of the original series that warrants separate pages. As far as "doing any actual work" goes there is no point in it as at this point any work done in a direction you don't totally agree with will simply be deleted, so the first objective is to work out this little disagreement first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adroa (talk • contribs) 07:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Being correct or not is irrelevant, it must be verifiable. If the sources exist, there was more than enough time for people to find and fix (and still is...no one has yet to produce a single source to back up any of the supposedly factual data). And no, each of the original series do not warrant separate pages. There is ONE main Dragon Ball series, the manga. The anime series are all adaptations, except for GT which is still considered an adaptation as it continues where the manga ended and the two anime series. And you are correct, unsourced fancruft won't be allowed, even if the articles had been kept separate. They will remain as a single article, which is appropriate and in keeping with project consensus and all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I originally made that table for the re-mastered collection. The way the page is set up now, there isn't a place to put it. I used the official site to make it and get the info. I still think merging was a bad idea. Disturbed92893 (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

As noted above, the DVD table will eventually be put in the episode list. If you want to go ahead and put it in List of Dragon Ball episodes, go ahead as long as it is sourced. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 08:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@Collectonian: And so why was the DVD information (which you've finally conceded was sourced) removed? I freely admit the articles needed sources in many places, but deleting the information was just silly. A truly productive course of action would have been to add sources, like Adroa said. Why, just a few revisions ago, you yourself added incorrect (and as such, unverifiable) information to the DB plot summary (which was fortunately fixed by Dinoguy1000), so why are you being so critical of the old material which, while unverified, was at least accurate? 72.160.96.228 (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, I didn't concede it was sourced, I said what it may have been. And false on the plot summary. The summary was perfectly accurate. Dinoguy didn't "fix" it, he expanded upon it and added more details. It was completely verifiable as it was summarized from Manga Design (source #2). I just didn't put a source tag on it because *gasp* non-interpretative plot summaries don't require in-line citations. It was accurate, whether you like it or not, but I guess you have to keep finding some reason to complain to keep yourself happy or something. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 08:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Your plot summary was inaccurate. In it, you said, "To bring him [Goku's surrogate Grampa Gohan] back from the dead, Goku goes on a journey in search of the Dragon Balls." There is no indication in the manga or the anime that this was the reason Goku joined in searching for the Dragon Balls. Instead, in both cases, Bulma persuaded Goku to go along so he could see more of the world, because it was what Gohan would have wanted. So, like I said, ease off the old material - at least it was correct. You honestly haven't made it difficult at all for me to find reasons to complain, and it doesn't make me the least bit happy. Part of being a good editor is learning to accept criticism without lashing out at your critics. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Then blame a nationally published book for having an incorrect summary. And sorry, I only accept criticism from people I can have respect for, not anonymous folks who just sit and nitpick and waste everyone's time so those who actualyl do work lose the energy to actually work on the article. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree they should have been merged, if we kept DBZ at it's own article, people could get easily confused. Now we can explain the fact that the manga was split in two in order to avoid confusion. – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 03:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

@J U M P G U R U: I respect your opinion, though I don't entirely agree with it. Your point is valid, but I tend to feel that there's just too much material to keep confined in a single article, which could also be confusing. Perhaps if more material had been truly merged instead of thrown out we'd have a better idea of whether I'm right or not. In any case, thank you for stating your reasons for feeling the way you do instead of attacking mine. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It should be in one article, so just live with it.

• 1) Wikipedia has not gone downhill.
• 2) You have only edited this talk page, and have not ever edited a DB article. So what you have said before was a lie.
• 3) Linking this page to Wikia is horrible idea and would get deleted instantly, and would be considered vandalism.
• 4) We're focusing on rules so much we aren't contributing anymore, makes no sence. Also being a good editor, is following the rules, rules mean everything on Wikipedia, and that's how great articles are made.
• 5) I think we should be kinder to you, and keep in mind that you can become a good editor too. : ) – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

@Collectonian: Then it appears your source isn't as worthy of being used as credible verification as you thought. As always, you're not to blame for the mistakes you make. Us lower lifeforms that haven't had need for a user account could never hope to measure up to your perfection and infallibility. (Though I don't think I want to at all, given that they allow for incorrect information to hold a place here.) And I'll point out once again that I have contributed to DB articles in the past, though I'm starting to wonder if there's a point to doing it again. You're the one wasting your time, not me. I haven't pointed a gun to your head and forced you to argue with me. In fact, I could have sworn you said you were going to ignore us twice, but you still seem to keep showing up. It wouldn't upset me in the least if you did just ignore us. In fact, I think it would be nice if you ignored the whole subject and let those of us who actually know the material work on it for a while. Maybe with a lot of time and effort we can make the articles encyclopedic again. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Its a nationally published book. That it made a minor error in summarizing such a lengthy series in a few sentences does not make it less reliable. And sorry, but no, you won't be ignored if you try to undo the merge that you've already been told by MULTIPLE editors, not just me, had and continues to have consensus. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So... why did you bother saying you were ignoring us if that was never your intention in the first place? Make up your mind and do what you've decided to do - that does seem to be what you excel at. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Undo the merge!

i say we undo the merge and fix up the problems with the old stuff Recbon (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't going to happen. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 06:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not immutable, and this seems like as good a proposal as any. Let's see what the

community as a whole has to say. I'm in favor of it because of the abysmal coverage of the current article. If, when the old articles are sourced, organized and cleaned up, there is still so little material that it can all be summarized on one page, then it could be merged. If someone who can still edit the article made a note of this suggestion in the anime sections it would probably be good. I can do it when the lock is lifted if no one else has. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No it isn't "as good a proposal as any." Its already been covered within the last week that the consensus to merge is valid and that it HAS consensus. Get over all ready, gravy. You hate it so damn much, go to the DB wikia. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Since this whole mess started I've been contributing over there regularly. It's nice to be part of a worthwhile project. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like that's what this part of Wikipedia is anymore. 207.118.67.139 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Recbon, ideally what you suggest would happen, but these days in Wikipedia everyone is lazy. The day people on Wikipedia actually decide to pick Clean Up over Delete or Merge is the day hell freezes over, and trust me, you'll have little luck fighting it. Just do what everybody else does and mindlessly roll with consensus, and you'll have a nice time here.--KojiDude ^(C) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. 72.160.96.228, you have said at least twice that you've worked on the DB articles in the past. However, your contributions show you've only ever edited this talk page - have you previously edited under a username or a different IP address?
2. Many of you who disagree with the merge are complaining about "deleted" material. I would like to stress that unless an entire article gets deleted, all information is still present in its history. The DVD info that people are complaining was properly sourced but got deleted anyways? Guess what, it's still there (at least, I assume that's the information you're complaining about, it's the only DVD tables I could find in any page history).
3. The merge can be undone if a given section gains a sufficient amount of properly sourced, nontrivial information. Because of the close relationship of the Dragon Ball manga and the DB and DBZ anime (and, to a lesser extent, DBGT), it's doubtful this will ever happen, but it's still a possibility.
4. You're also complaining about the amount of information that got "lost" in the merge. Once again, it's not gone for good, all the information is still present in page histories, and furthermore, you've been told multiple times that you're welcome to properly source the material and add it back in as appropriate. Granted, at the moment the article is semi-protected, but you can still post reliably sourced info on the talk page to be added into the article by a registered user, or you can register for your own account and not have to wait for either the protection to expire or someone else to add the info.
5. KojiDude made a comment about everyone being lazy. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I am lazy, and yet I'm still taking the time to write out this response to several complaints. It would be far easier, and faster, for me to just ignore this conversation altogether, especially considering the length of my watchlist and the limited amount of time I have to go through it. If you notice a given piece of information is missing from the article, complaining that it got removed isn't going to spur me to find a reliable source and add it back in; it would be far easier for you, who actually wants it back in the article, to properly source it and add it yourself. I've got better things to do with my time.

I hope that this will answer at least some of your complaints, and maybe even inspire some of you to stop complaining and actually try contributing to the article for a change. —Dinoguy1000 17:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...and what do ya know...it was totally unsourced like everything else. Still, I've shoved it into the Episode list until it can be fixed up. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

@Dinoguy1000: Thanks for the clear and tactful analysis of the situation. Just to answer your question, yes I've done edits under a different IP. (My IP is not static and has even changed over the course of this discussion.) I know the material wasn't lost utterly and completely, but to anyone who just reads current article revisions, it is gone. I'm lazy too, and seeing so much material (which represented a lot of time and hard work) removed was really demoralizing.

Collectonian has just been going on and on asserting that the undoing merge "isn't going to happen" (which I was happy to hear you say is not necessarily the case) and acting like her opinion is law, as though she is the sole person making decisions around here. That alone has irritated me more than all the merging and deletion. I can see she's still ignoring the obvious sources in the old articles' DVD release sections, but maybe I can restore those to their new home some time this week since that article hasn't been locked like the main one.

I actually did try to edit the main article with a new account, but it appears newly registered users are blocked as well? No big deal though - it won't matter in a couple days when the lock is lifted anyway. This whole situation has just been really depressing to me (and to quite a few others as well, it appears), since the old articles, while not perfect, were pretty well done, and it's really unlikely that anyone will have motivation to build them back up again with what's happened here. I know I don't. And then there's a certain user who acts like we're inferior because we don't agree with her, which adds insult to injury. 207.118.67.139 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should put the page under a major edit so people are encouraged to add more information. We can slowly add the stuff that was lost back to the page. If anyone agrees add a major edit template. Disturbed92893 (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) All right, I suspected that was the case, and it's a very good reason to register. Semi-protecting articles means that only autoconfirmed accounts can contribute to them; for an account to be autoconfirmed, it must be at least four days old and have made at least ten edits (I probably should have mentioned this above).

Collectonian has been, and continues to be, more-or-less right concerning the merge. It is very unlikely that it will ever be undone, but guidelines/policy does provide for it just in case. Project consensus is, in general, that seperate articles for different media adaptations of a series are not necessary if there are no significant changes in plot, settings, characters, etc. between the adaptations. Dragon Ball's manga and anime versions are more similar to each other than similar media adaptations from other series which are also discussed on the same article. The most likely split candidate I can see at this time would be for DBGT, but any possibility for it is still far off in the future and still requires the addition of a great deal more properly sourced, nontrivial content. It's unfortunate that you've been so disenchanted, if you were willing to put forth the same effort to contributing to the article as you have been in arguing with Collectonian, I think you could help greatly improve it. —Dinoguy1000 22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well like I said, I haven't been able to edit the article yet, so I figured this was the best place to discuss the problem. Thanks for at least discussing the possibilities regarding the subject though, and what needs to be done for them to happen. It's a nice break from what's been shoved in my face since I got here. 72.160.105.253 (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

i think it would be good if we can get the old stuff and find the sources and we could put that in the new article and maybe get it in separate articles again when theres more stuff! Recbon (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen because the old stuff had no actual sources. Can't find sources for people's personal opinions and made up stuff. Its far more productive to go find sources about DB and add purely verifiable information in, rather than waste time and effort trying to find sources for fancruft. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying "it's not going to happen" over and over isn't helpful. If that's all you have to say, it would be better not to comment. Give them a chance and let them make their "major edits" first, then you can beat their morale to death with a wooden stick. WP:CCC, btw.--KojiDude ^(C) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither is them complaining over and over again that they don't like it. If that's all they have to say, they should give the article a chance to actually be finished in its new form rather than waste everyone's time reading their whining. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

You do realize he said the same thing I did, just with more patience? The merge is EXTREMELY unlikely to be undone, and the spinout option is highly unlikely to be applicable here at all. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 07:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously guys, this arguing is all just a waste of time. Couldn't this time have been used to improve the article? And another thing, if anyone disagrees with the merger why not be brave and begin a new survey? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

On that, we agree...very much a waste of time, and a flooding of ye ole watchlist. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 17:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

"flooding of ye ole watchlist", LOL, that's true! But I mean seriously, this is stupid, we're agueing because some IP (that abviosly doesn't know a drop about Wikipedia) want's to split this back so he can get information he wanted three weeks ago on the DBZ page. >_< – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 17:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like the argument turned into a discussion way back when Dinoguy1000 started talking and Collectonian stopped. (It's not like patience is a bad thing BTW.) Of the last seven comments, the only two that didn't seem to be an attempt to reignite that old argument were KojiDude's and Sesshomaru's. If the rest of you want the argument to go (or rather stay) away, stop doing everything you can to provoke the people who don't agree with you. 72.160.105.253 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

yes we want to put more good stuff in the articles but then you say that its not going to happen!Recbon (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a user of fr.wikipedia, I'm not aware of every single policiy here, but it seems to me this merger was a very bad idea. I had never seen in my entire wikipedian-life a merger made because a lot of data were unsourced. I'm surprised I have not once in this entire discussion read the word "criterias", which if I'm not mistaken are how we actually decide if a subject may exist in its own article or be merged into a more convenient article, and absolutely not the fact that there is too few data or if its quality is too bad.

Considering this, I think that having Dragon Ball Z in the same article than the manga series, and (even more for Dragon Ball GT, which is a totally distinct work from the original manga) is a joke. DBZ has its own notability, for example, many, not to say almost every video games about the franchise use the name DBZ, not DB, and there again, many fans think mainly of the DBZ anime before the manga when they hear of Dragon Ball, which proves that the anime has gained the right to have its own article.

My last point is, even if all the data that was removed from the articles during the process had to be removed, I think doing it without merging everything in the same time would have been far more judicious thant what was actually done, and now what only lasts is a terrible mess that not even the best guideline could justify. Oh, by the way, until now I kept thinking fr.wikipedia was a hideout of deletionnists, but this event makes me relativize a lot. So thanks guys! ;) PieRRo^MaN 11:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people agree with you. I think a few editors with know-how just got it into their heads that unsourced = fan-fiction and decided amongst themselves to throw the material out instead of trying to improve the situation. The lock has finally gone away from the article, so maybe someone with some time and initiative will work on it now. With what's happened, I kind of doubt there's a point though. In the meantime I've been spending my editing energies over at the Dragon Ball wiki. The articles over there need work too, but at least over there the powers that be are in favor of keeping good material. My faith in Wikipedia has been totally shot down the tubes. -- 72.160.72.245 (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Even though I don't like how short the article has gotten with loads of information removed, I'm still willing to keep my hope up to see how much the editors can improve it. But just a question about DBZ's own notability, what else can you think of besides the usage of its name in video games? And where did you get the data that fans think of the anime before the manga? Dragon Ball fans around the world (note: not just Americans and Europeans), including those from Japan and many Asian countries (which consist of a majority of the world's population), would think of the anime before the manga? I'm not sure if I could agree with you on that, especially that personally I think of the manga before anime. What difference does the DBZ anime have from the manga, besides the addition of the letter "Z" in the end, bunch of fillers, and moving characters on a TV screen? Most of it is still exactly the same as the manga, including all the non-filler scenes, characters, and story.

That being said, I think that giving this article a more expansive plot summery will do. But then again, I actually still think that having separate articles for the anime series is not a bad idea (obviously not because of the reasons you listed, as I argued above). It's that I've read many articles on Wikipedia, especially those of some more expansive franchises, and Dragon Ball's pales in comparison. For such an important series in the Japanese manga/anime pop culture (DB directly influenced current popular works such as One Piece and Naruto), with the manga being one of the four best-selling series ever in Japan, with the anime having a place in the top 100 anime voted by Japanese viewers, etc. One article does not seem enough. More importantly, the Japanese Wikipedia on Dragon Ball keeps separate articles on the manga, the anime series, and even the TV specials and OVA.

Anyway, that's my two cents. If the article is kept this way, I'm cool with it as long as the editors can add lots more information efficiently; if the article gets separate pages, I'm also happy about it. ...So basically, I made a pointless argument. --Yottamol (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Other large series: Bleach - 1 main article; One Piece - 1 main article; Naruto - one main article, Sailor Moon - 1 main article (mostly, recent consensus based merge from SM project still underway). DB was the exception, not the norm, so the merging brings it inline with other expansive franchises. Popularity doesn't indicate it gets more article, but that it should (ideally) have a larger, more detailed article. The plot needs expanding, but despite several requests, no one who has read the manga seems to be willing to write it up (though maybe those folks are hiding right now...several great editors have dewatchlisted this article and declined to improve it because of all the stuff going on here). I And yes, the article does need work. If the editors who actually edit weren't having to deal with the IP attacks and SPA complaints, more work would likely have been done. I myself switched to working on the episode list clean up for awhile to break up the work, as I get stuff to put here while working on the leads for the series lists. My two anime/manga reference books are currently packed for a move, hence my not being able to add much in other sections, and all the complaining here sucks out the energy for hunting down the available reliable web sources. The Japanese wiki is a bad example, as its articles often are unsourced, have little info, and there are actually quite a few series where our articles are more detailed than theirs. Different language wikis also have different editing guidelines. We follow the English ones alone. And hey, at least your "pointless argument" was polite :P -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Yottamol, to answer your question, at least in France, while the manga was selling reasonnably, when DBZ started being broadcasted (on TF1, the first channel in France, in a TV program for children called "Club Dorothée"), it quickly became a huge success and attracted many fans, most of which where born in the mid 80'. Most of these fans watched the anime without having ever heard or cared about the manga. That's why I said a considerable amount of people know the Dragon Ball series thanks to DBZ instead of the manga. I don't know if this applies in other countries, though.

Anyway, it's clear to me that DB (manga), DB (anime) and DBZ (and of course DBGT) are distinct works, even if the plots and characters are not so different, but this point seems a little out of question to me. That's why having distinct articles looks totally normal to me. PieRRo^MaN 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

i am thinking maybe we are getting enough points that the old articles can come back now and we can fix them!Recbon (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not do what i am doing and improve this article? i rather it was separate article and as collection could tell you i really have fought for it, but i am instead going to help improve this one and if in the future it is split then that would be great. just trying to give you advice.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

thanks but the article is too bad to fix right now it seems! but most seem to agree with us. only collection really is pushing against us and gives no real reason so i think we are having consensus! plus collection just vandalized a protected page so i think she will not be on the wiki very much longer! =DRecbon (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing is to bad, depends how much work you want to put into it, as i say its the best that can be doen for now.Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

No, you don't have consensus. Its already been pointed out multiple times that the merge has the consensus of both the Anime and manga project and the DB taskforce by those members. And no I have not vandalized anything. If you continue being uncivil combined with being an SPA who acts like a sockpuppet, you are the one at risk of being blocked. I will be around a long long time, but thanks for wishing me away. It ain' tgonna happen. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 09:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

you say im uncivil but i am not! i never call you sockpuppet! and there are more reasons and people behind splitting then the merge!Recbon (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't call you a sockpuppet, I said you are acting like one. Per below, no, there are still no real reasons for a split and consensus still supports the merge. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

i guess you are alone then because all points are with us!Recbon (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Do not close this topic again saying that consensus supports splitting. As the discussion below clearly shows that consensus is to maintain the status quo for the time being. The next time you do so, it will be reported to the admin noticeboard. --Farix (Talk) 11:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

you can't change consensus with bullying us! if admin board wants to go against consensus then wikipedia is in trouble!Recbon (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

How is the consensus below is invalid? --Farix (Talk) 11:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

there is no consensus below and why you keep on vandalizing header???Recbon (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You are intentionally being deceitful. There was overwhelming opposition to re-split the article from a much wider range of editors commenting on the topic. Many of them are editors from WikiProject Anime and manga who are experienced enough to not let their fandom cloud their judgments. --Farix (Talk) 12:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Acutally there is a consensus below which is opposited to teh split, instead of arguing why not improve the article to the point that is becomes a size that then means it needs to split. I do not agree with the merge but i am trying to improve the articel with uueful information and sourcing it then hopefully in the future it willbe split again.Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your attitude is much more helpful. Thanks. --Masamage ♫ 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Different versions of the dub

Just wondering whether there should be mention of the different versions of the dub, 3 unique ones and 5 if you include the new funimation ones, also another dub for UK and old lost dub. Apologizes if this has been mention on the article not had a chance to read it since the merge in fact do not think it was there before the merge either. If it isn't appropriate that cool just thought i ask. Also if you decide to mention the other dubs the dragonball and dragonball gt had other dub titles would it be appropriate to add them to there lists? --Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

If sourcable, all English releases should, at minimum, be mentioned. The major ones should get more in-depth coverage, as sources are available. For the episode lists, where there are multiple titles, both the edited dub title and the uncut titles are listed. However, we don't list every English title, just the first English release one, or in the case of an edited dub and uncut release, the first of each of those. List of Dragon Ball GT episodes has already been cleaned up and reflects this. The episode list leads should mention other English releases, again as is sourcable. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

You seemed to have misunderstood my reply above. English releases are not discussed in separate sections. They are discussed in the appropriate media action, briefly, and neutrally, and well sourced. Each media section already has some discussion, it needs sourcing and, if information is missing, expansion. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah right apogolises then, i will contunie to source the information, i will put it in my sandbox prior to putting it here could you check it first to make sure ti is ok?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just leave me a note when you have something ready :) -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote

About that, we could specify further in saying "manga and anime franchise". This is what Naruto, Kinnikuman, InuYasha, and Devilman use. I'm also considering changing the hatnote on Sailor Moon and Astro Boy to reflect the same. How about it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be good. Since hatnotes are supposed to help those who might be in the wrong place, I think it is good to clarify what kind of franchise it is. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 22:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I just remembered that Death Note and Hellsing use the same format. So, any other hats that need reiterating before I begin? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Any at all? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any off others at the moment. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 03:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Astro Boy? It doesn't seem to be about the whole manga and anime franchise. Then again, I could be wrong. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...looks to just be about the initial manga and anime. The second two anime series are barely even mentioned. That should probably be fixed, but for now, may want to add "initial" or "original" to the hatnote or the like. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is ******* emberrasing.

I typed in 'dragon ball z' hoping to get an in-depth analysis on the show. Instead I get this? Whoever proposed all this should have their editing rights revoked. Hellothar999 (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources providing "in-depth anaylysis" of Dragon Ball Z, by all means, please point them out so we can get to editing. Otherwise, what is here now is the same reliably sourced info that was in the previous stand alone article. Additionally, the merge was done by consensus and in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Dragon Ball Z = Dragon Ball. It having a separate name in the English manga release doesn't change that. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are so many wikipedia articles on anime shows, why not dragon ball z? Dragon Ball Z was unarguably the most notable one out of the three, yet all I see is this little stub? Check out any other anime show and you'll see at least a seperate page about that show, not a little stub. :/ Hellothar999 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, that stub is about the anime itself, not the content of the anime. The plot and content is covered in the character pages (or at least, it should be).--KojiDude ^(C) 19:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

One Piece, Naruto, etc. all have their anime counterparts in one article. Those anime with their own articles are probably original anime to begin with, not based on manga. Apparently, the aim of the Anime and Manga project is to have one article for the original format release of a series, and any adaptations that do not deviate too much from the original format will fall under the same one article. Both the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z anime are mostly the same as the original manga, so they should fall under the Dragon Ball manga article under this policy. DBGT is different, but I guess the consensus here also made it to be merged with the manga article. So there you are. BTW, what information do you need to know about the TV show that's not covered on this article? Maybe the editors will try to find cited sources and add them to the page if you tell them. --Yottamol (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

proposal for dbz and dbgt

I get User:Collectonian point; the dbz article is more like a fan article. However, I disagree with the merging of the dbz and dbgt article. So what if we make a new (stub) article for the two, at least include a few paragraphs into those articles? Also, make some redirecting pages to the characters plot in those articles.

To be honest I never like the original dragon ball, but I know for the fact that dbz is way more popular, even though it was a continuation to the story. Yesterday when my brother asked me something about dbz, what did I do? I typed dragon ball z, but I was disappointed to see only three paragraphs about it.

After making a research on on the talk pages and related articles, I concluded that all information that some users considered lost, is actually not. All this information all over wikipedia, like character article, movies, etc.

Just think, if a new user is trying to find information on dbz, he or she is more likely to type dragon ball z in the search engine. By merging the article to this one, we are defeating the purpose of informing users. I know these users could just go to the characters list and find more information about dbz. However, we are not helping them to get to the information more easily. So I think making a new article, which includes some of the most important character plot, will be sufficient. Also, let's not forget of the popularity of dbz worldwide. This article only states the popularity of the dragon ball manga series. Furthermore, it doesn't say anything about dbz early history ( which i remember it did in its old article). User:Ricardoread —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. It completely violates WP:MOS-AM. The merge was done by consensus per project and Wikipedia guidelines. There is no valid reason to have the same series split across three articles. Character information is already properly covered in List of Dragon Ball characters. Wikipedia is not here to provide extensive plot summaries, however the relevant plot information is covered already by the THREE episode lists and the manga chapter lists. Creating new articles just to repeat the plot violates WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, and our MoS. Its completely unnecessary and would only take this article back in a bad direction. Info not brought over in the merge was not brought because it wasn't sourced. That "early history" had not a single source to back up its claims. All sourced reception info was brought in, and more is being added. It also covers all of the DB manga and anime series, not just one. Also, there is more than three paragraphs about DB Z here, that is just the anime section. Blame the redirect. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose - per all reasons stated by Collectonian above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per reasons Collectonian stated. It was merged on consensus and doesn't need to be added back. Wikipedia should not describe every detail, anyway. Even if DBZ and DBGT articles were created, you'd only get the basic summary. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While I supported merging the DBZ and DB TV series articles with the DB manga article, it seems the tide has turned and more and more people are coming out against the merger. Given that consensus can change, maybe we should split the articles once again. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we shouldn't worry about violating WP:MOS-AM since disagreements are not resolved by "tightly sticking to rules and procedures".

So let me add something to Ricardoread's proposal. By using the same reasoning I gave to support the merger, I say we should also split the article on the DB TV series because "merging only Dragon Ball (anime) seems wrong because the DB TV series only adapts roughly half of the manga".

Also, WP:POLLS are evil.--Nohansen (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose - it is all one series, and can be adequately covered in one article, especially with the splits we already have. Doceirias (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

To me it soudns liek the biggest argument is to do with the manga and the tv series, maybe there should be discussion about it and no talk about the merger or split jsut talk about what you see the problem is? or in the anime manga portal side say what is right about the article? then maybe take a poll or something and see what the census is then. only a suggestion i aint getting involved with the discussion only making points in neutral fashion this time--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This proposal does not give any explanation of potential structural problems that the article may have by covering all three of the Dragon Ball anime series and the manga. Also, the creation of sub articles without the intention of further expanding on them is simply a bad practice. Sub articles are created so that they may be expanded on later. If there is no intentions on having those articles expanded, then they shouldn't be created in the first place. In all fairness, this proposal seems to be based on the desire of DB fans to have separate articles on each aspect of their favorite television series. That is actually a poor reason to base a decision on splitting an article. That is not to say that splitting the article is a bad idea, however, WP:IWANTIT isn't a legitimate reason to advocate a split. --Farix (Talk) 17:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Only for DBZ, but DBGT could get a separate article. The thing is, if all anime and manga articles get single-article treatments like this, we do not need to have Dragon Ball to be the special case. Remember, both DB and DBZ anime are still the based on the same manga. I really do wish, though, that the plot summary gets expanded quickly so that people would not complain about it. Is there anyone who's doing it right now? --Yottamol (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The plot summaries in the episode list articles? There shouldn't be excessively long plot summaries here, just a brief overview. Doceirias (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I feel DBGT should not have its own article because it is a relatively short series, in comparison to DB and DBZ of course. It can be summed up quite easily here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. It's easier and more interesting to have a central area to learn about the series as a whole. The sections work just fine, and the subpage divisions look useful too. Also, some info can go at the episode list articles. So this seems like a perfectly workable way to organize things. --Masamage ♫ 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose at this time. As I have previously stated, I'm not biased against a possible split at some point in the future, but any such possibility hinges on a sufficient amount of properly sourced, non-trivial information being added to this article first. If all of you complainers spent half the energy trying to make earnest additions and corrections to the article that you do complaining about it, it could already be up to B or even GAC level. And why does it seem like no one ever does a Google search anymore? If you're really looking for mind-numbing quantities of plot summary, character profiles, fan theories, etc, there's literally millions of fansites out there more than happy to oblige you. —Dinoguy1000 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this article needs a request for meditation or a survey, since it is obvious that a significant number of users disagree with the previuos consensus. Ricardoread (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't do "surveys" per say, and your suggestion is getting answered. Do you wish to have a mediator because everyone so far is opposing it, showing that as I stated before, upholding the previous consensus? The existance of this discussion was noted at the anime and manga project, which is the first place we go for mediation in discussions, the project that "oversees" the page. What else are you wishing to do? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I think that the consensus was made by biased users from the anime and manga project. Believe me I have no interest on anime or manga (although I used to be a fan of dbz), but I do believe in defending the users point of view in a neutral way. After reading this talk page, many users don't agree with the consensus of merging the articles. Interestingly enough, all of their complains were mostly replied by you, but also by some of the users who suported the merge (which I believe were 7 users). And yes I wish to get a mediator. Ricardoread (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: all of those "oppose" votes are referring to your proposal to split the articles back into separate pages. They not opposing the status quo, the previous consensus. They are in support of it. --Masamage ♫ 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It shows a great deal of bad faith when you declare that uninvolved editors from WP:ANIME are biased simply because they are rejecting your proposal. Asking for a third opinion is standard practice on Wikipedia. And what better group to ask for a third opinion then a subject-specific WikiProject? The discussion is not closed off to other editors based on whether they are Dragon Ball fans or members of a WikiProject. I gave my opinion as to why I thought this is a bad proposal and why the reasoning behind it is extremely weak. But instead of addressed my points, you are attempting to paint me as being bias. You can't go and say that the comments of the eight editors who have so far unanimous rejected your proposal are invalid. --Farix (Talk) 11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears it has been proven without a doubt noone but 2 people are objecting the merge so i suggest your best epxand the current article if the current articel ever reaches a specfic size then it owuld probally need split under wikipedia rules. Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC) instead of trying to slow things down help improve :)

One more thing I forgot to mention. I don't see how my proposal seems to violate WP:MOS-AM. It clearly says that the plot "...should comprise a succinct description of the plot and major subplots, but please avoid excessive details of twists and turns in the story." I don't this article providing a "succinct" description of db, dbz, and dbgt. Ricardoread (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I was referring to "In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise". The plot section here has nothing to do with this proposal at all. If you feel the plot section does not adequately cover all three series, expand it. That is an problem with the article needing more content, NOT a problem with the need to split them. And sorry, but "bias" from the project? There isn't any biased except that the project members do, of course, follow the MoS and Wikipedia guidelines, unlike most of the complainers who were new or unregistered readers, not editors. And BTW, that is kind of the whole point of Wikipedia projects! Per: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, option three is you turn to the appropriate project for help, which in this case in Anime and Manga. Now, you (and so far you alone), seem to be arguing that the project's input isn't valid and all of the opposes to your proposed resplit are somehow biased and worth less than the 4 or 5 people who voiced complaints (of which only one of which was not an SPA or anon)? -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 05:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, all of you proved your point. But I'm still unease with this article. At think this article is made by and for people familiar with the dragon ball manga series. My reason is: not that many people know about the comic book. DBZ is far way well known than the whole dragon ball series alone. This article might be confusing to users unfamiliar with the comics.

Just google dragon ball. I got a result of 64,200,000, but half of them are related to dragon ball z, the tv series. Then google dragon ball z: you'll get 34,300,000 results. Almost none of the results were about dragon ball as a whole. (except wikipedia of course)

Also, think about the movies, most of them are from the dragon ball z tv series.

So like Farix said, creating separate is only to expanding them later. My question is this article going to get expanded, till it gets to a point that a needs different articles? Ricardoread (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is highly unlikely on the expansion, as it is seriously doubtful so much reliably sourced info can be added about any of the individual anime series that the section would grow to big. You decided all those google results are only about the anime and you have decided that the manga is somehow unknown. Never mind it is one of the top selling manga series ever, and that the second part of the manga was released in the use under the name Dragon Ball Z. Those Google results also are meaningless, particularly here with the prevalence of certain lewd Dragon Ball spoofs. If you use quotes around "Dragon Ball" and search for each media, the Google results are close enough to discount any argument that the anime is somehow so much more popular than the rest. Using quotes "Dragon Ball" gets 43 million hits, BTW, not 64.2, and gets 25.5 mil, not 34.4. Your claim that none of the results for "Dragon Ball" was about the series as a whole is just plain false. It was a diverse mix of results from the series as a whole, the first series, Z, and GT. In reality, from what you yourself have said, the one showing clear bias here is you. You like the Z anime adaptation and you think its the most popular series (with no supporting evidence), so you think it deserves to be given higher relevance to its source materials and all the other adaptations. And no, this article isn't for people familiar with the manga, it is for people unfamiliar with the series at all. Dragn Ball IS a manga, whether some people know it or not. From that manga, three anime adaptations were created, along with movies, games, etc. This article properly follows the WP:MOS-AM and all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. We are an encyclopedia, not a fansite. As such, we start with the primary work, the manga, and from there discuss the adaptations, not the other way around. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't working my last nerve, it's destroying it. Who ever actually wants to edit this page, just ignore whoever comments here, because we are not getting anywhere with this. Also, it's never going to stop, random IP's and other people who aren't real Wikipedians are just gonna keep complaining and try to convince us to do something that never going to happen. If you want your stupid DBZ information, go look it up somewhere else, until the article is actually finished. – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 20:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So what about other comic books, like superman, batman, spider man , etc.? Why do their tv adaptations deserve their own article? Is manga different from other comic books? Are they tv adaptation different from anime? Ricardoread (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Short answer is yes. Manga and anime is its own project with its own guidelines for articles. Comics has their own project and guidelines. TV series have their own project and guidelines. Also, many of those are vastly different works, not just the same story being retold in different media formats. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

what if we get an opinion from the WP:TV? I think db, dbz, and dbgt can be considered tv shows not just anime. Ricardoread (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, they can not. They are not american television series, they are Japanese anime series. As member of the TV project as well, I can tell you that they will defer to the Anime and manga project as this series is not within the TV project scope. Also, its unlikely they would support a split either. Though rarer in regular television series, in those few cases where a series is like Dragon Ball and each anime series is a straight continuation of the next, it is again covered in one article, not one for each series. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me that you are attempt to go forum shopping. --Farix (Talk) 20:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No I'm not. Let's try it. I promise that if they support the previous consensus, I'll withdraw my proposal and opinions about splitting the article. However, if they say otherwise....we'll see. Anyways, whatever the consensus I'll try to improve this article. FAIR? Ricardoread (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are. You started first by asking an admin to come "help," then you posted here. Now, you are not satisfied with the overwhelming respond by the project that this article falls under (the project that is, by Wiki standards, the "expert" in all things anime/manga), you want to ask someone else to try to find someone to support your point of view. Dragon Ball does NOT fall under the scope of the television project. It is an anime and manga article. So please just accept the now twice stated consensus and move on. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That "help" was actually because I didn't know how some dispute work, please pardon me for that. Now I partially do. So all I'm asking to go to the television project for their opinion. That's it. If they support the anime and manga project, I promise that I'll withdraw from this discussion. Ricardoread (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, this article does fall under the scope of WP:TV, insofar as it discusses a television series. However, it defers responsibility of the article to the more specialized animanga project. Regardless, though, asking for another opinion there isn't going to change anything. Please stop throwing a fit about no one agreeing with you and turn your energy towards actually contributing to the article. —Dinoguy1000 21:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

ok I give up! you are right I should be focusing on contributing to the article, but anyhow, if complains still occurs on this article, the project shouldn't be so close minded on changing the consensus. Remember wikipedia is an encyclopedia for users, not for editors. It is suppose to be helpful to its users, not for the project to take control of the article and make it a bureaucracy. I CONCLUDE WITH MY DISCUSSION. Now I'll happily contribute with the project if possible. Ricardoread (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(edit confict) Those series are not doing a direct adaptations of the comics. The only thing that is consistent between the comics and the television adaptations are the characters. And even then, there are significant alterations in how the characters' behavors, relationships, and back stories. Whereas anime adaptations of manga often follow the same story lines, relationships, and maintain the characterizations. It is essentially the same story told in a different medium. Because of this, the WikiProject decided to combine manga and anime versions into one article in order to avoid duplication. --Farix (Talk) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

jump guru shows why these editors are making bad edits! they think dbz info is stupid!Recbon (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I love Dragon Ball..... O_- (**coughcough but not cartoon network coughcough**)......I just wanna destroy my computer every time I see this talk page. Although maybe, just maybe Dragon Ball GT could get a separate page, I think that would be up to Collectonian, she looks like she knows what should be and what shouldn't. I don't understand why there's so much argueing and complaining here while Naruto Shippū-den got merged to the Naruto page?, no one had a problem with that. – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 17:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The same with Code Geass: R2's merge to Code Geass... just a couple of anon reverts, and then... nothing. —Dinoguy1000 18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Exact. Just for some weird reason, it seems to be a big deal here, because a couple people wanted to find out stuff on the DBZ page, that they wanted two months ago and still want to complain so that they have it their way. – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, Jump Guru, if you really want to know why there's more opposition to this merge than there was to Naruto or Code Geass, there's a very simple, very reasonable explanation. Naruto: one manga, one show. Code Geass: one manga, one show. Dragon Ball: one manga, THREE shows. Three distinct, seperate shows that have always been marketed and released as three distinct, seperate shows. One show in particular (Dragon Ball Z) that is arguably more popular than the other two, definitly longer lasting than the other two, possibly even more popular than the manga. And this show that lasted seven years and 291 episodes is reduced to three short paragraphs. K9feline talk

I was just thinking about something, we should do the same merge as we did to this, to Yu-Gi-Oh!. – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 20:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought the reason for th erge here was because dragonbal and dragonball z (i am ingoring gt) are teh same plit liens and characters. Yu-gi-oh, yu-gi-oh gx and yu-gioh r are all different characters so how does that fit in with the reason for this merge?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) although i agree merge the media lists into the main articles jsut trying to understand why you think this.

I was talking about the first and second series. Anyway, I started a discussion on the Yu-Gi-Oh! talk. No offence, but can you try to spell a little better, I could barely read your comment. : ) – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Read my profile i am dyslexic so i spelling is near impossible for em but i do try my best to make it readable--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! : ( I didn't know that.... – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 01:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It fine i am more annoyed people take so much offense to spelling without thinking, it like see someone with one leg and say oh you should run faster.Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I know that feeling, I have a few learning disabilities myself, mostly with math. :P – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)