Talk:Dragon Ball

Proposal that Dragon Ball GT be split (again)

It has been almost a year since the merge and I think it has been a reasonable time to see if consensus has changed.

I can say I am not the first to be shocked at the merge of Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT. I have extensively reviewed the request for the merge and believe that not only am I personally against the merge, but the merge itself seems to be a violation of WP:N. The former debate can be found here:

[1]

Collectonian's argument, if I read correctly, was based on the fact that DBZ and DBGT were poorly sourced articles filled with fan cruft and that the anime had similar characters and plot therefore violated WP:MOS-AM. Unfortunately no registered editor defended this article until now. I saw that the previous debate was filled with flaming and uncivil behavior hopefully this time we can have a serious debate.

Firstly, the previous argument holds no ground. Fan cruft can be removed and a quick search can easily bring various non trivial sources (is DBZ we're talking about not some underground anime). This never have been and never well be reasons for a merge. The merge was based on the suggestion that DBZ and GT are not independent of each other. Dragon Ball Z is considered to be among the most popular an influential anime of all time. It was the primary force that introduced anime to mainstream American media not Dragon Ball.

Since its inception Dragon Ball Z has sold millions of action figures, video games, and merchandise. Games such as Dragon Ball Z: Budokai has been focused on Dragon Ball Z not Dragon Ball. Therefore Dragon Ball Z immediately establishes notability.

Secondly Dragon Ball Z has different characters and a completely different plot. The reason for the merge no longer holds any ground.

Dragon Ball Z's merge with Dragon Ball is as unwarrented as merging The Godfather Part 2 with the first one. According to this merge the The Matrix should also be merged into one article and so should any sequal for that matter.

The final reason for the split is based on the guideline that WP:Featured Article are the general guideline and expecation that each article should follow. 300 (film) which is a featured article sets the precedence that films, novels (I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings), and anime alike should have a plot summary. Because DBZ and DBGT have different plots in order for these articles to eventually meet FA criteria we are going to need to split them and work on them independently. Valoem ^talk 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, we have to remember that Dragon Ball is not just an anime. It is also a Manga. By your logic, Naruto: Shippuden should have an article, which it doesn't because it is merely the anime's way of deferentiating a time skip. Dragon Ball Z is the same. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DBZ is much larger and is more influential than DB so I don't see what the issue is. By your logic Godfather series should be merged? Please explain how this differs. Valoem ^talk 23:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, Dragon Ball Z is simply a title that the anime uses to differentiate part one and part two of the Dragon Ball manga, similiar to how part two of Naruto is called Naruto: Shippuden. Also, the Godfather and Dragon Ball are two very different things, and in terms of article structure cannot be compared. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that WP:FILMS uses a different guideline. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 23:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually WP:N takes precedence over specfic anime related guidelines. Does Naruto: Shippuden have a different plot and different characters? More importantly has the characters in Naruto: Shippuden spin off action figures and video games? If not then we can not compare the two. Valoem ^talk 23:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Naruto Shippuden has many video games and other merchendise bearing its name. It does have a different plot and different characters. Thus we can compare the two. Again, Dragon Ball Z is not notable, because it is simply a title. It has the same story, plot and characters as the Manga. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the need for a split. Currently, the article succinctly covers DBZ. As DBZ is a part of Dargon Ball, it is technically the same story. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 23:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the article sufficiently references all the merchendise of the Dragon Ball francise, and the video games are covered in their own seperate articles. Frankly, a split wouldn't do much to improve the article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I check out the article it never had a page which means it did not go to AfD. Just because the article does not exist does not mean it doesn't warrant one. Therefore the series could very well be notable create it, source it, and see if it survives AfD. Valoem ^talk 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wire both are a series and therefore easily comparable. The Wire also has plot summary once again FA argument. Please don't say you can't compare the two there are no featured anime articles so we havelook to the next closing thing. Valoem ^talk 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DBZ would need a plot summary which warrants its own article. Valoem ^talk 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please cite which policy stops DBZ from having it's own article? Valoem ^talk 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about policy citing. For one, there is consensus, as well as common sense behind the merge. There is nothing that could be included in a Dragon Ball Z article that could not be included in a Dragon Ball article. Also, Dragon Ball Z is simply a title that the anime uses to express the time skip that occurs between volumes 16 and 17 of Dragon Ball. The article is about Dragon Ball the media franchise, and thus, has the same plot and characters as Dragon Ball Z, because Dragon Ball Z is Dragon Ball. There is no reason to warrent a merge. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually believe it or not it is about policy. Policy allows me to act bold which as far as I can tell I could do right now and split, but I was willing to give it some time. Also WP:Consensus can change suggesting that it was common sense to merge is both abrasive and unsupported. In my opinion it is common sense that these articles should be split but that is not what WP is about is it? It is about using precendence and policy to support an argument. Consensus is not a vote because I am against the merge there is no longer consensus until my issue with the merge has been reached. Valoem ^talk 23:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding what you are talking about. Consensus can change, but has not, as the split is concerned. Also, you have not given a real reason as to why the article should be split. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your basic argument boils down to "I like separate articles". However, the article's focus is the manga series. Therefore, it will cover the entire manga storyline, which is the same as the storyline in DB/DBZ. DBZ anime series is not a so much a sequel to DB, but a continuation of the manga's storyline under a new name. Another factor is that WP:ANIME wants to reduce duplication and repetitive information. For one, it is more difficult to keep things in sync with each other. So it encourages that the manga and their anime adaptations be covered by one article instead of across multiple articles. By creating a separate DBZ article, you will in fact duplicated much of the content in this article for no real gains other then to satisfy the egos of some DBZ fans. --Farix (Talk) 23:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DBZROCKS and Farix, there's no urgent need for a split (not yet anyway). And when you think about it, this article isn't so long that we have to break it down or separate anything. I personally like the current layout. Valoem, the way it's organized is not that bad, really. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The one structural change I would suggest would be to move the video games, soundtracks, and artbooks from the media section into a merchandising section. --Farix (Talk) 00:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a bad writer? I thought I clearly and repeatedly said why it should be split. Allow me to clarify:

Dragon Ball Z should be split because:

1. The series is independent of Dragon Ball.
2. Precendence in other media articles such as films, novels, and comic books all have seperate articles for sequels.
3. Feature articles suggest that DBZ needs a plot summary to reach the level FA because it has a seperate story line and characters.
4. DBZ has been repeatly featured in mainstream media and has been distinguished from one another on IMDb and Anime News Network.
5. Information regarding development history, spin offs, cast and crew, and of course plot have all been lost and could not be successfully included in the DB page.
6. Same applies for DBGT. Valoem ^talk 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. No, no it isn't, it is only different in name. It still follows the plot of the Manga.
2. It is not a sequel, in the Manga, the name is not even changed.
3. Anime and Manga are different from Movies, they are too long to thoroughly explain their plot in depth. Plot summaries are provided in episode lists.
4. Again, only in the anime, this article is about the entire media franchise.
5. Spin offs? There are none to speak of, and cast/crew information are not needed.

DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Actually, DBZ isn't independent of the manga. It is a direct adaptation of the manga.
2. Other areas, such as film, novels, and comics, do not have to deal with the level of duplicate material that manga/anime articles do. It's an apples to oranges comparison.
3. Give that an overall plot summary of the entire manga series is already included, which covers DBZ as well, I don't see this as a problem towards FA candidacy.
4. How other resources outside of Wikipedia arranges their information is entirely up to them. But they don't dictate how Wikipedia organizes its information. What makes sense to ANN doesn't influences us.
5. Have you even tried?
6. GT should be taken as a separate matter because it is an original storyline and a sequel to Dragon Ball.

--Farix (Talk) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You say DB is "independent of" DB. However, they're both adapted from the same manga -- in what sense then can it be independent? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The tags have been removed. The articles were merged per consensus and in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines and the WP:MOS-AM. WP:N, quite frankly, has nothing to do with the merge. Dragon Ball Z is the English name of the second half of Dragon Ball. Trying to claim one is independent of the other is absolutely ridiculous. Films use different guidelines, and as TheFarix noted is an apples != oranges comparison. The only reason this article can't meet FA criteria now is the lack of sourcing and need for copyediting. The plot is fine, and covers the entire series as far as I can tell (though one could add a sourced section of differences and one paragraph on GT if it was deemed necessary). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

DBZROCKS, your argument against the split of DBZ is strong enough. I'll focus on DBGT and split DBGT (not even made by the same person). Valoem ^talk 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope you mean you will discuss the GT split, not just do it. It was merged per the same consensus above and splitting requires a new consensus, not just doing it because you don't like there being multiple articles. It also was made "by the same person" in terms that the anime was made by the same company as the first two anime adaptations. That alone is not a valid reason to split it. It is still part of the same franchise and focuses on the same characters and general concept. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Obligatory section split for DBGT

Again, DBGT was merged because it is part of the Dragon Ball media franchise, which this article is about, and because it does not have enough information to carry it by itself. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If the manga has a different name it is different. Since it passes WP:N it would warrant an immediate split. It is not even made by the same creator.Valoem ^talk 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is still a part of the Dragon Ball franchise, regardless of whether or not Akira Toriyama was involved or not. Dragon Ball GT is not notable enough by itself. Just because it is not based on a manga does not mean that it is any more notable than the rest of the series. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not warrant an immediate split. Per the guidelines for anime/manga articles, franchises are covered under one article except in extremely cases, and for some theatrical film adaptations. For manga series and their anime adaptations (which GT still is, irregardless if its being unadapted from actual chapters), they are covered under one article unless there are significant differences. Notability alone does not mean something can/should be split. Consensus agreed all three should be covered in one article, per the MoS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Passing WP:N does not mean that a that subject must have a stand-alone article. It simply means that the subject may have an article. If the subject is adequately covered by another article or the resulting stand-alone article will be short or largely representative of the parent article, then there is no need to have a stand-alone article. --Farix (Talk) 02:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Stop thinking that more articles the better. The only reason that we may have a separate article for GT would be that we have too much information & materials in the article. This article is currently light-years away from that state. Can you spin-out ending with parent-article and child-article both at B Class ? I doubt you can. --KrebMarkt 06:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment You do realise even though it might pass WP:N the amount of information inside the article jsut now, would mean it could be deleted jsut as quick due to it being small and not many sources. Why not jsut expand the main article here and at the very least prove it might be justified in it own article which i doubt it will.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is a large amount of plot summary and development history that was involved with DBGT. DBGT was not intented to be a continuation of DBZ and desearves its own section. Lastly I am confident that I can expand the article to wp standards. Since we are suggesting DBGT does not have enough info to stand alone i recommend reverting the article and putting it for AfD. This can conclusively determine the notability of the article. Valoem ^talk 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No one has questioned its notability, nor is AfD a proving ground for one editor trying to undo a merge that obviously still has consensus just because one person feels that it "deserves" its own article. AfD is also not for merge discussions. You claim there is a large amount of development history (plot summary doesn't need to be large in any article), so prove it and edit THIS article by expanding it with reliable sources rather than just throwing out claims. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point. Better one correct article than 2 or 3 below the average articles. If you can build up this article with informations and materials all with references & citations to the point that people say Too much then you can start a spin-out discussion again until improve this article. --KrebMarkt 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would you want to put a article that is B class up for AfD? and what is there to revert? i may have misunderstood you. I have to agree with collection, if you think it can be expanded and deserve own article prove it on this.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not this article, I said reverting DBGT redirect to the former article and then putting that article for AfD, because I still do feel it desearves a seperate article. If the consensus is a merge you can put an AfD requesting a merge such as the case of dog poop girl. The information was notable but not enough for a seperate article. Spliting DBGT would not impede this article in anyways which is way I do not understand the issue against the split. Valoem ^talk 15:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You still are not getting it. Trying to undo it then demanding it go through AfD is pointless. AfD is NOT for merge discussions, it is "Articles for Deletion" and nominations that are purely about a merge issue are not viewed kindly. Merges are done on the article talk page, as are split discussions. Both overseeing projects were notified. There is still not a single person supporting your desire to resplit these articles after a year, and you have yet to provide any actual sources, evidence, etc to show that a split is even warranted. The existing consensus is Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, and Dragon Ball GT should be covered in a single article. The requisite merges happened over a year ago, and is well established. You need consensus to resplit the article at this point, which you clearly do not have. Your views appear to based purely on your personal view of the series and what it "deserves", which of course does not dictate Wikipedia articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless there would be no policy violation. Merge can be and have been decided at AfD. An AfD would also bring a large amount of new editors into the merge discussion. My request is supported by WP:N and WP policy which means if I did split against consensus, along as I can effectively expand the article and resolve its issues, I would be acting bold. I don't have time to expand and split the article until this weekend as it looks like that article requires a good deal of work. What sources are you requesting? I can easily find them if you request them. Because DBGT is notable im not sure what source you would be looking for to agree with the split. Valoem ^talk 16:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there would be a policy violation. You are basically saying you will ignore WP:Consensus (which is a policy, FYI), which is not acting bold, its acting disruptively. If you did "boldly" resplit, it would just be reverted per consensus and WP:BRD, and as the discussion has already happened, there isn't anything new to discuss. Merge "can be" a result at AfD, but an AfD is never purely for a merge or not merge discussion. Your request is against Wikipedia policy because you are effectively saying that your one opinion is more valid the previous and reestablished consensus. You don't get to just keep arguing your case at new venues until you hopefulyl get an answer you like. And, as an FYI, no AfD would not bring in a large amount of "new editors", you'd get the same group with maybe one or two more who would quickly chastize you (and likely close the AfD) for it. It has happened before, where an editor disregarded a merge and tried to take an article to AfD - it was quickly closed and they were warned for being [WP:POINT|pointy]] and disruptive when there was already an existing consensus for merge and no DELETION discussion was required. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the link WP:BRD specifically stated that I would be compromising by adding information and that bold revert is fine as long as I do not engage in revert wars and the revert is not against wp policy. As I said I could do that not that I would because I see no reason to start drama with consensus. I am suggesting that if I do revert please review my new edit before simply reverting. What sources are you looking for? Valoem ^talk 16:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And you are being told, if you do revert, it will be reverted, period. You've already been told by multiple editors, work on THIS article, not try to go ahead with a split that has no consensus. The article here needs sources and it certainly has room for new content. Any new information needs reliable sources (you are the one who said you had information on production, et al, so it is presumed you have reliable sources providing that information). Again, if you have relevant information on any of the DB series, why not compromise by adding it here, and working to help improve this article to GA or FA level rather than continuing a path that clearly has no consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Anyone who does that will rightfully be slapped with a trout at AfD. In fact, recreating the article just to send it to AfD would be viewed as being disruptive to illustrate a point and may result in a block. Especially when it is revealed that your reason for doing that is to see if there is a consensus to merge/split/whatever. AfD is not a place to rediscuss mergers or splits nor is it a crucible for inclusion. --Farix (Talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, what would be in a GT article that is relevant, and cannot simply be added to the Dragon Ball article? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@Valoem
I think you are very stubborn in your commitment to split at all costs. Thinking that more articles will give automatically better coverage for a manga/anime franchise is a farce. Thinking that more articles will do more justice to an oeuvre is bound to disillusion. The only thing that will do is real article editing by bringing more materials, more references and more sources. That why we are pleading for real article improvement rather than cheap Illusory feel good choice. --KrebMarkt 19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Firstly I did not split, I am suggesting that series development, cast and crew, and plot summary would be difficult to contain in this article especially if an anime with the notability of dbgt. I can try and added that information but it would be far too long.

However when someone say that reverting is vandalism, I disagree, that has nothing to do with the discussion, but accusing me of vandalism by reverting when I plan on improving the article is not proper. The policy from WP:BLD states:

• There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version.

I interpret this at if I create a new version that is edited with regards to the issue previous discussed (information and organization) I would be creating a new version of the article which would need a new consensus. I am saying that if I put a lot of work into the expansion of DBGT a revert of my edit would require a new discussion as long as the version I write resolves the issues formerly discussed that resulted in the merge. If the consensus is against my version then we can simply revert it back. Regardless ill try to added this into this article later in the week and see if it over flows. I'm closing this merge discussion for now. Valoem ^talk 03:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support. alrighty then. I agree with Valoem. First off, Dragonball Z is the Title of the Anime, not the manga, and therefore, the anime should have its own article. The american people translated the second half of Dragonball as Dragonball Z. Now, as an over page, this page makes since, but since when does a small general covering of a media franchise make up for a lack of articles for the parts of the Franchise itself? We might as well make One Article ofr Lord of the Rings. Secondly, Dragonball Z really has its own Art Style, and therefor can be recognized as its own thing. Thirdly, on the Matter of Dragonball GT, it should certainly be split. It had very little to do with the original manga and is what you would call a "sequel" thirdly, just because you put a stupid box at the top of the page that says we shouldn't discuss the separation of the article, doesn't mean we cant. and thats all i can say without giving up my civility.Peace. --PopiethePopester (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your reasoning is beyond flawed. Dragonball Z is the manga, first and foremost. It has an anime adaptation, but it can not be separated just because it was renamed in the English release of the two series. This is not an article on a media franchise, it is an article on a manga series and its adaptations. Anime/manga has its own set of guidelines, and its really annoying when people keep trying to compare film articles to it. Apples and oranges. It does not have "its own art style" its the same guy doing both series. His art may have matured, but that has nothing to do with it. As for GT, it is still part of the same series, continues the same basic storyline with the same characters. It it a "sequel" but that doesn't make it dramatically different enough to warrant another article. FYI, you said thirdly twice. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Anime/manga and movies are not apples and oranges, and Dragonball is a media franchise. The anime Adaptation can be split because the Anime truly is a sequel to the original Dragonball Anime, complete with a change of Tone and emphasis. The drawing style is more realistic and resembles regular shonen manga far more than Dragonball does. This is especially evident in the anime, and its the anime that i am talking about. As for Gt, it is "beyond flawed" to put it under an article about a manga, considering it was never a manga in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopiethePopester (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, dude, if you actually read through the whole manga series from chapter 1 to chapter 519, you can see that the change of tone and drawing style is a slow changing process. It's not like in one chapter the characters all have round faces and the story is funny, and immediately the next chapter the characters grow to have sharp-edged features and muscles and the story becomes serious. If there is no distinction made between DB and DBZ and you watch the last episode of DB then the first episode of DBZ, you will not notice the difference in art style or change in tone. What you are saying is to split everything back to before the merger? Like, back to having one Dragon Ball (franchise) article, one Dragon Ball (manga) article, and separate articles for all three anime adaptations? ...I don't think it'll work with most people here. Most importantly, all other manga franchises are following this template now. For example, Naruto's anime series is split into the original Naruto and Naruto Shippuden, but they both are adapted from the same manga Naruto, and the Wikipedia article puts both anime under the manga page. So yeah...Yottamol (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it been a long time since i been writing on this stuff. Hows thing goning DBZRocks? Well before I go on I want to say I am neutral on this just here to give advice. See I can understand the ones that want to keep the articles the way they are now but the guys that wanna create a article for GT I undertand that to. If everyone stop being one sided and think you may come to a conclusion. See yes you guys are using the manga for the most part but I must say that the manga and anime are to totally different things. Anime is an adaptation meaning it is following the manga but not completely. You got to remember the anime is full with mishaps, filler arc, filler episodes, add ons and so on. No I'm not agreeing with the add GT guys just giving you a look at. Also GT being its own anime in a way does give it the right for its own article. Look I look at Wikipedia all the time and I see series with 13 to 26 episodes with there own article, some long, some very short. GT has what 62 episode and it has a lot of info but do get it twisted ladies and gents most of that info doesn't have real world content info. But does most anime with articles does? No they don't. But do to it being a franchise GT really doesn't need it own article but it, plus the other two anime sections do need some beefing up. Like the differences between DB and Z anime and the manga. Remember these are guidelines not complete rules you guys keep putting in each others faces. If you really need help ask a admin guy. But I will say I am a little disappointed that that DB articles are a shadow of their former selves but I understand the reason as people went out of control with the stuff we at the time I was editing was doing. But don't go to far merging then you will have to start adding articles again. Dragon Ball is mega franchise and deserves more than a few articles. Oh one thing I read why but WHY IS CELL ARTICLE GONE??? That was the one of the most wrong decisions I have come across while check DB out. Well Later Ladies and Gentalmen. Heat P 11:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.167.252 (talk)

The same reason goes again, where is all this extra information and soruces people who want it to be split keep saying about? if it exists expand the current setion on gt to prove it might deserve it own article, i have ye to see it being done so i say it just wants split for fans, which wikipedia is not about pleasing fans it about provide a source information jsut because db franschise is very big does not mean it needs laods of article. why the cell article go because it can easily be summarised in teh character list, ther eis very few characters that deserver there own articles, goku, vegeta, trunks, gohan are the only ones ic an think of that do. i would like to see a serapate article for dragonball, dragonball z and dragonball gt but ther eis not enough information out there to jsutify it, plus dragonball and dragonball are the same story line, dragonball gt follows on from gt in unoffical manner but still takes the same ideas--Andy Chat c 09:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem most people are to lazy to look for it so they put their own ideas and theories into an article, excepcially about 1 or two ago. There is alot of infromation on the Dragonball fanchise. Trust me look at the archives of some of the older discussion you see a lot of article that got zapped had a lot of info. GT article had a lot of info but and this may be my opinion on the matter but do to GT not being as popular as the other 2 anime people started their merge discussion because of that and this UNOFFICAL bs. That unoffical line is opinionated. You my disargee but I can prove you like I prove many back in the day that GT is and will be a offical piece of the anime versions of Dragon Ball, ask DBZRocks or anyone that be editing for more than 3 to 4 years. Now then someone thought Z was in the same boat as gt with no real info so they did the same with Z but everyone knows Z has the most infomation around the world as its the most popular of all three animes. And yes Dragonball manga and the 2 animes do follow one another but again the anime is an adaptation and know we got Kai (a remake and remix of Dragon Ball Z) and a new special that NO one knows is canon or not yet with I know has no real value besides if Vegeta has a canon younger brother which would create a new plothole if so. So to those that want to seprate the Z, GT and any other subjects into articles you need to stop being lazy and look for the stuff. Me personally you just need to read my section above but despite that I agree on the way the articles are now as most anime franchise articles are the basically the same way and it works from them. the way I wrote may make it seem othewise but it's true. My time as editor is over but I will be an advisor to anyone that needs help. And one thing Wikipedia is here to provide info but it is also to please people not just fans, if not the owner would not have made it a public edit website. Heat P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.229.97 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As DBZROCKS has said there is not enough information for DBGT to carry it own article, if you think it does and oyu can find realible sources, and not fan sites then expand the DBGT section and prove it, i would liek to see it have it own article but i also see the fact as a wikipedia editor the rules than govern articles and DBGT does not fit in a lot of policies to justify it own article because there not enough ifnromaiton about it and not enoguh source, you are welcome ot prove me and other AMP members wrong then your case might have more due weight to split it. (AND i said MIGHT not will)--Andy Chat c 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok guy I really did not back here to argue but to prove a point earlier. You seem to be reading and getting worked up about parts of what I write. Let me say this despite what I wrote and it may seem I was gearing towards supporting a new article but I am not. I alone said it to show that the supporters have good reason but I wholeheartedly agree with the way the articles are ran now. May be disappointed by some merges but they are for good reason. So in closing I may came of as a supporter but I am neutral and will be that like it was said before if they want to put it as a article go to Dragonball wiki and add it. I only said the prove there is info on GT out there so those that want it must look for it and place it correctly into an article then present it to the community. Heat P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.229.97 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong SupportRechio (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

your wrong about the Children Channel of israel

the Children's Channel of israel is not connected with the Children's Channel of UK. i would liek to remove there the link to the Children's Channel of UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Play38 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Story and theme resemblances

{{editsemiprotected}} I was wondering if someone might add this info for me to the Dragon Ball page. I think it should be mentioned that the Dragon Ball story as a whole very closely resembles the basic outline of the DC comics Superman story. The reasons for this should be obvious to any Dragon Ball fan. Second, I think it should be mentioned that the Trunks saga of the Dragon Ball Z anime series somewhat resembles the outline of the Terminator movie series and contains many similar themes.

(Devinology (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

 Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. The {{editsemiprotected}} template is meant to allow non-autoconfirmed users to request specific changes. You need to provide the wording of the change that you'd like to make. A bigger problem is that those observations are original research and that isn't allowed. What you need to do is find a reliable source that makes the same observation and provide details about those sources along with the wording you want added. Again, welcome and thanks. Happy researching! Celestra (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Over 9000

Over 9000 is a line from Dragon Ball:

It's OVER NINE THOUSAANNNDDDD!

and has become an established Internet meme. It probably does not need its own article, but it definitely needs a section. An elite (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It necessitates sourcing, and no, linking to copyrighted videos is not the answer. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need a section. Being an internet meme of no significance is still irrelevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Kamehameha

Why nobody mention what really means? Paranoidhuman (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

can you expand on what you mean with what it means? its fictional thing and i believe it covered what the basics of th move is, i apgoolis eif i misunderstood what oyu mean or if oyu mean sometihng different, it will help to maybe resovle and imrpove if oyu explain what oyu mean--Andy (talk - contrib) 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kame = Turtle. Roshi is the Turtle Hermit, his house has Kame on the side of it.

Kamehameha basically means turtle death beam or something of the sort. It's translation has been on Wikipedia multiple times, but I'm guess that it keeps getting lost every time someone gets the urge to merge, change or other wise alter the article(s) for the series. Yami (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dragonball own section, star configuration ect

Shouldn't the dragonballs themselves have their section in the article?

Also shouldn't the configuration of the stars be mention? Perhaps an official configuration would help since the stars shift depending on the ball and/or series. I am not sure how to source this outside of screen shots, though I know there is a way to source episodes with just the title, season, ep number and air date (and possibly where the occurrence takes place.)

While the one and three star balls stays basically the same, the other balls will often shift in how the stars are drawn. The balls will often resemble the configurations of a dice, or slightly shift to other shapes. The 5 star ball is the most ambiguous when it comes to its true configuration. It shifts from a dice configuration, to a pentagonal configuration to the configuration in this link

http://www.toptiergaming.com/dbzocg/images/carddatabase/Onset/Earth%20Dragon%20Ball%205.jpg

sometimes the 2 star ball will have the star diagonal and sometimes horizontal.

So is there a official manner in which the ball's stars are meant to be configured? If so that should be mentioned. Yami (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)