Jump to content

Talk:Dragon Ball

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.246.147.34 (talk) at 22:43, 26 January 2010 (→‎Over 9000: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAnime and manga: Dragon Ball B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Dragon Ball work group.

Kamehameha

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Dragon Ball izle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabuhan (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear God! What happened to the DBZ article?

When I edited under a IP, Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT were around. What is going on? Zarbon's goofy cousin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

They where merged as they do not pass notablilty to have there own articles, and fan sites do not pass reality for sources--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, "fansites"? Are you suggesting that they are fan works? Zarbon's goofy cousin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Wait Dragon Ball Z is not notable enough to have it's own article? It's the most popular anime series of all time for God's sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.142.51 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I don't know what "Andrew" is talking about. I vouch that we bring it back yo. Zarbon's goofy cousin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Dragon Ball Z may be the most popular anime, but still the article did not pass WP:Notability. I think that what Andrew meant is that the old article was only sourced by fansites which are not WP:Reliable Sources. By the way, this has been discussed lots of times. Check the archives of this talk page. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for having it back. I edited Dragon Ball GT a lot with my other account, User:Recbon, although spent a better half of the year with my girlfriend Jacyntha. Sk8terhata —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

What??! Since when was it ok to delete dbz like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.4.56 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When an anime series follows the same storyline as the manga, we almost always keep them together as one article to avoid duplication. So instead of having two articles on the same topic, we have one article covering all aspects of the topic. There really isn't anything that can be covered about the DBZ TV series that doesn't relate the the manga. And since the name of the manga series remains Dragon Ball from the beginning to the end, the name of this article is at Dragon Ball. —Farix (t | c) 20:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I still disagree with this, I will not fight tooth and claw just to bring these pages back. it is but pointless. Zarbon's goofy cousin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Consensus?!?! The anime project has been rejecting any opinions about splitting the articles. I see no consensus, just count how many complaints have been about this "consensus". 76.108.0.229 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then explain why the anime series should have it's own article separate from the rest of the franchise. In other words, why is having two nearly identical articles a Good Thing™? —Farix (t | c) 00:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
bring it back please. i am sure reception and other shit can be found. Sk8terhata
You didn't answer the question. —Farix (t | c) 21:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
what question? Sk8terhata —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The one above.Tintor2 (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat, then. Explain why the anime series should have its own article separate from the rest of the franchise. In other words, why is having two nearly identical articles a Good Thing™? Let me also add an additional question. Why should we not minimize the amount of redundant information? —Farix (t | c) 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, that is absolutely ridiculous! Using your logic, I guess EVERY movie that was ever based on a novel should be merged with it's respective counterpart. It's an argument that simply doesn't stand up. Minimizing redundancy does not require the deletion of an entire article - that's more akin to laziness than anything. 124.176.56.116 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, It is clear that dragon ball/z is above "mid importance". 71.75.237.194 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the DBZ article is a prime example of the lazy behavior among some editors that makes me dislike Wikipedia sometimes. Instead of investing in a little elbow grease to polish and find sources for the article, some editors would rather chop down it down into an inadequate blurb - Rubbish! The DBZ anime is CLEARLY a notable topic, that should be obvious; as one of the editors described above, it's among the most popular animes around. 124.176.56.116 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 series from 2 tankobon?

the intro has "42 tankōbon have been adapted into three anime series" totally untrue, the first two series, dragon ball and dragonball z were based off the 42 tankobon, but the third, dragon ball gt was not written or adapted from any manga, simply wrote on the spot into anime. this is misleading information as users will not realize that the extreme differences between db and dbgt were not a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keibetsu (talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GT was a spiritual adaptation of the manga and continuation of the previous two anime series, taking place in the same fictional universe/continuity and using the same characters, locations, items, and general plot devices (at least, insofar as was necessary to lead into the introduction of new characters, locations, items, and plot devices). It was, by no means, "simply wr[itten] on the spot". --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.86.54 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with what you are saying. DBGT was an anime-only series, yes, but the characters were the same and the story is based on the manga. I just wanted to say that in a simplified way! D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dragon Ball GT may not have been written "on the spot", but it certainly feels that way. There are a large number of inconsistencies with the canon that crop up in the show or were conveniently explained away in DBGT but have never been apparent anywhere else in the series. There's also the fact that Akira Toriyama wanted nothing to do with DBGT, which tells you if even the series creator wasn't concerned with it, why should we be? GT started out nicely with a genuine feel of the old Dragon Ball series, but it would later become more like DBZ with long fights and "powering up" beyond what was possible. I think the introduction of the somewhat laughably designed SSJ4 forms should have tipped people off that the show was running out of ideas to "borrow".--72.197.136.35 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some Pictures

File:Gogeta.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor25 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this section misses the official manga websites. It only covers the anime websites. I sugest you to add http://www.shonenjump.com/ (official Shonen Jump site) and http://www.s-manga.net/ (official Shueisha site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.32.229 (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Over 9000

I cannot believer there is no mention fo the huge internet meme 'over 9,000'

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragon_Ball&oldid=340224168"