Talk:Dragon Ball

proposal for dbz and dbgt

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

Resolved

 – Earlier merger of Dragon Ball (anime), Dragon Ball (manga), Dragon Ball GT, and Dragon Ball Z to Dragon Ball upheld. Proposal to resplit Dragon Ball Z into a separate article opposed.

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) 01:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrong! Naruto: one manga, TWO anime. Code Gaess: one manga, TWO anime. Hey look, Naruto: Shippū-den seems to be a bit more popular than the original! Let's make it's own article. What did you think we were talking about this whole time? Everyone seems to get really pissed here.....really easy. -_- – J U M P G U R U @^{Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia} 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I might characterize those as being single anime series with multiple seasons in them. But see, that's the hard thing--what we think of as multiple "seasons" usually are marketed in Japan as separate series, as with the Sailor Moon anime (R, S, Supers, Stars), but then are marketed to English-speaking audiences as just one series. The big difference with Dragon Ball is that is was marketed as separate series even in this hemisphere. --Masamage ♫ 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Technically, Code Geass would be two anime, four manga (since the anime came first). And Naruto versus Shippūden are two distinct series, the division between the two in the manga is even sharp enough that Kishimoto could have legitimately split them in two... but now I'm just rambling. K9, if you have a problem with the DBZ section being only three paragraphs long, add more content yourself, making sure that it's properly sourced and non-trivial. This article is still very much a work in progress, and its current form is not equivalent to what its final form will be (should such a final form ever come about for whatever reason). Instead of complaining, just do something about it. —Dinoguy1000 17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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.

Extra Information

We all know how much valuable information was removed when the articles were merged. I am going to start adding to this article a lot now. Everyone else shoudl do the same. Disturbed92893 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, do NOT start adding in unsourced information as per the discussions above. If you can actually show any VALUABLE SOURCED information was lost, go ahead, but so far not a single person has done so. Deliberately being disruptive will only get you banned. Your creation of an entire article on the Funimation DVDs was completely and wholly inappropriate. Do not start trying to resplit this articles in such a sneaky fashion. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 23:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I kinda know that, I meant adding to the plot. You really need to chill. A lot of the plot summary was removed. 76.243.209.144 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I definately don't want a resplit. I support all the Dragon Balls articles having been merged because Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z are two seperate anime series, but there's only one manga series, just called Dragon Ball. --- Krezos Farland (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This might be in the wrong place but can someone add the Dragonball GT movie on the anime films? Dragonsblast (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

It is already listed under the Specials. 132.236.64.47 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This merger is awful. Each series should have it's own article since there is so much to be said about each one. So much has been lost in this merger and now all we are left with is cliffnotes and abrigdments.

Someone rewrite this.

Now. It is 'horrible.' There's so many sentences that aren't even in proper English. 71.60.161.100 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Yes it is. The heading you just wrote "isn't proper English". – J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 22:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

"When creating the techniques, Toriyama naming all by himself except the KameHame Ha that was named by his wife when he was thinking undecisive how should the technoque from Roshi.'" This is not a grammatically correct sentence. And the heading I wrote is a command or an order--that's an acceptable sentence structure in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.161.100 (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but it sounds rude.Tintor2 (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Anon-IP, if you find it to be incorrect grammar, why not just fix it, instead of demanding/ordering people to fix it on the talk page in such a rude fashion? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think the article is semi-protected due to vandalism.Tintor2 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, true, but still could have been phrased better. And I believe you tagged it before this message was posted, so it wasn't even necessary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Kamehameha" or "KameHame Ha"?

What spelling do we use? It appears that the one with the source (this very article) gives "KameHame Ha". However, most Dragon Ball-related pages say Kamehameha. Which is correct? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Kamehameha :).--SkyWalker (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Freezer a saiyan?

there is a horrible mistake in the article, it says "Goku's father discovered that the Saiyan Frieza was planning to kill all to the other Saiyans" in the specials section, and well if you even just look at images of freezer you would notice the mistake, the editing is diasabled or at least I can't edit this page so please staff people edit that mistake

Then fix it.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry did not read the disabled part.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)