Talk:Dragon Ball

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez, this article is horrid. Next time a consensus is reached to merge an article, it should at least make sense. Next we should merge every article that has a movie and book counterpart... Wikipedia seems to be run by a bunch of idiots... ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.1.176 (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not idiots... ugh. If it's anyone who's the idiot it's you. IP's like you have no respect for real users who are actually trying to make this an article. Notice how the rating went from a "Start" to a "B" class. — J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the header Collectonian!! I just couldn't help but do that!! \(>o<)/ — J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

:P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 15 November 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)

Regarding anime being combined with this

Why? Is the anime not noteworthy? Is there not enough material specific to the anime to fill a reasonable length of an article? What of other animated television shows based on comics? Is X-men's cartoon not worthy of it's own article? What about Spider-man's multiple animated iterations? Why is it that Dragon Ball the cartoon doesn't deserve an article set aside from Dragon Ball the comic? I read a bit of it above there, and it seems like it was basically combined simply because the existing article about the anime was garbage. Why do this then? Wouldn't the better choice be to chop off the garbage rather than kill the beast entirely? Wouldn't it be better to cut out the crap in the anime's article and leave it as a stub so that things could be rebuilt more respectably? 24.192.245.23 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball is not a comic, nor a cartoon. Per the anime and manga project MoS, we do not have separate articles for each media form of a series just because they exist. It has nothing to do with being "noteworthy" or not, but the lack of a need for redundancy. Most manga with anime adaptations, or visa versa, are just different forms of the same story. Unlike many American adaptations which often vastly change the story, characters, etc. For an anime and manga series to have separate articles, the versions must be significantly, sharply different. There is none of that between the Dragon Ball manga and its anime series. There is no reason not to cover them in the same article when its the same plot, same characters, same production information, etc. This is done with all anime/manga articles. What the comic project chooses to do is up to articles in their sphere and with their MoS, but they have nothing to do with this article at all.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Mid-importance?

Really? I was surprised when I saw that, then checked the article and found the header talking about how influential and popular this series is. Isn't it at least high-importance? Brutannica (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not really. The Wikiproject Anime/Manga defines Mid Importance as "[This] article is relatively important as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas." Dragon Ball qualifies as specific knowledge. The next step up would be something like History of anime, which covers a more general area.--Koji† 15:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yea, but gundam is a high-importance article....Ricardoread (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

But Gundam has had a lasting impact decades after it was initially released by transforming the mecha genre. Dragon Ball hasn't had much of a lasting impact beyond its initial popularity. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Dragon Ball (artifact) article here

This is a good idea, since it eliminated a permanent stub article, and adds a bit more information to this one. The Dragon Balls article will not stand on its own since it doesn't have many reliable sources, so this is a good option to keep some of the information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. That article may never survive an AFD and reception is not available since the focus of the reviews are fights, characters, etc.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why not merge Dragon Ball (artifact) with Earth (Dragon Ball). That way we don't have to make this Godzilla sized garbage dump of an article any bigger, and can keep the valuable information from both stubs.--Koji† 22:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Earth (Dragon Ball) has the same problems.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Koji. Let's just merge these and see how it pans out. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Support with some heavy trimming. Most of what's there is excessive plot detail that isn't necessary here at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose The Dragon Ball (artifact) article is an article with lots of information, and very relevant to Dragon Ball. Why don't we merge Wolverine with X-men? --Fixman^{Praise me} 23:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The flippin' article has two things on it. That compared to the Wolverine article are very different, as Wolverine ia a huge Marvel character has enough reliable sources to have it's own article. — J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

To be blunt, it can be merged, or it will very likely follow Earth (Dragon Ball) to deletionville. And the article doesn't have "lots of information" it has lots of plot, OR, and fancruft. Nor does a pretty easily explainable fictional element compare to a well-known fictional character with decades of history. Beyond an apples and oranges comparison there. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Dragonball

OK, I just had a thought. This is currently a redirect to Dragon Ball right? While hatnoting a link to the upcoming movie would be appropriate, I was thinking that it may be a good idea to instead move Dragonball (film) to this title. Any thoughts on the subject? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...my only problem there is that the redirect has been around since 2004, pointing here since 2005, indicating to me that it is a very common misspelling of the series name. As such, it seems like most people putting in Dragonball would be looking for this rather than the film. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess. Let's see what everyone else thinks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian. It is more likely people typing in "Dragonball" are looking for the manga or the TV show. A hatnote would be better.--Nohansen (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a misspelling of the name at all. It can be spelled either way, if you look at the Kanzenban volumes of "Dragon Ball" it appears to actually be spelled as "Dragonball". Ja? The same with "Nekomajin". : ) — J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "For the live action film based on the series see Dragonball (film)"?Tintor2 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Dragon ball worldwide

Should the article have a section about the impact dragon ball made worldwide? Ricardoread (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what the reception section is for. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont really liek the merge

I dont honestly like the merge. DBZ is way more....than the lil section it was given