Talk:Dragon Ball (manga)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Dragon Ball (manga) has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 26, 2017 Good article nominee Listed
August 20, 2017 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Good article

Copy-editing queries[edit]

I've made a start on the lead, but I'll wait to see what you think before I do any more. One query that I have at this point:

  • "had strong comedic aspects early in its run": (I reworded this in the copy-edit to a comedy focus) This is in the lead but does not really come across in the "Writing" section, which is where it should really be placed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
That part comes from the Critical reception section. Jason Thompson commented that Dragon Ball "turns from a gag/adventure manga to a nearly-pure fighting manga" and the comments by James S. Yadao right after that say something similar. Xfansd (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The above answer does not really address my point that it should say something about this in the writing section.
  • Before I get into the production section, I'd appreciate it if someone could look at the points I made in the FAC; some of them need to be addressed before any further copy-editing is done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I've reworked the first paragraph of production, but I think we need a little more precision on time. I've changed the first sentence to "In 1980, Akira Toriyama had created the popular manga Dr. Slump; by 1983, he wanted to end the series but his publisher Shueisha would only allow him to do so if he agreed to produce another manga for them", but I've plucked the first date from the Dr Slump page so you need to check that the source supports that date; if not, we need another source. Also, I've basically made up the 1983 date from what comes in the rest of the paragraph, but we certainly need to know when it was that he wanted to end the series, and we need a source that supports it. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
The Slump article uses the same two citations that this one does. Torishima says in citation number four on this page that Toriyama wanted to end it "after six months or so," that would make it 1980, the same year he started it. In citation number one Toriyama says he was told he could end it if he started his next work in "three months," which is exactly what he did. Slump ended in September 1984 and Dragon Ball began in December 1984, that's three months. While those specific dates are not given in citation number one, Dragon Ball's start date and Slump's end date are both sourced in their articles. 1983 needs to be removed and what follows I think should be changed to something like "if he agreed to produce another manga for them shortly after," because his agreeing to end a popular series and start a new one within only three months is unusual and the whole point that makes it interesting. Xfansd (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Just a note to say that I haven't forgotten this, and hope to get a lot more done this weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Xfansd and 1989: We need to be very careful here to say what the sources say. We need a good source to give the years and we need to include it here. It might also help if I knew what the sources do say, but I'm afraid I don't know a word of Japanese, so I'd require a little help! Sarastro1 (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The other obvious question is what he was doing for those three years until he started work on Dragon Boy? Was he just sitting and working discontentedly? Something is off about the time frame there. I'm also dubious about saying "shortly after" given that the time frame for this whole thing is years, not months. Also, if he was experimenting on other stories while Slump was ongoing, that doesn't quite work either. As I say, the timeframe needs work. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
During the years he was serializing Slump, he was creating one-shots on the side. The idea being that if a one-shot was well-received by readers, it could be developed into a serial. But Shueisha wasn't going to just let him stop Slump without a new serial ready to start in its place. It wasn't "years" tho. It was a year if you're counting when the one-shot Dragon Boy was published to when Dragon Ball started, but the serial Slump ended and its replacement serial DB started three months later. That is "shortly after." Xfansd (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Since it was serialized in a shōnen magazine, Toriyama added the idea of the Dragon Balls to give the characters a physical activity of gathering something.": I'm still struggling with this one. What is the connection between its serialisation in a shōnen magazine, and the need for a physical activity of gathering something? Do we mean that it needed some action, or a quest-like aspect, to appeal to its audience? Also, it might be worth contrasting this theme of Dragon Ball with the themes of Journey to the West, even if it's just a sentence or two comparing them. He based it on the novel, but how? In what ways? Sarastro1 (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
It originally said "Since it was serialized in a shōnen magazine, Toriyama added the idea of the Dragon Balls to give it a game-like activity of gathering something, without thinking of what the characters would wish for." So yes, it was to appeal to its child audience. It already says how the characters were loosely modeled on those of Journey to the West. I can add something like Toriyama wanted it to be like Journey to the West with its "setting always changing, different enemies popping up, different locations." That would be taken from citation number 9. It was also chosen because it is in the public domain and its Chinese setting is different from Slump's US West Coast feel, China was not a popular topic in manga at the time and would make it unique. Taken from citation one. Xfansd (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "Although he suspected the fighting genre would appeal more to its shōnen audience, Toriyama tried to stick to the Journey to the West adventure aspect by avoiding that in the beginning, which he enjoyed": This probably fits more into the section above, when we are discussing the writing. But again, we need to spell out how it compares to Journey to the West. As written, this doesn't quite make sense, and without seeing the sources, I'm not quite sure how to re-write it. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I initially had "Although he suspected battles would appeal more to its shōnen audience, Toriyama tried to stick to the Journey to the West adventure aspect which he himself enjoyed. It was only after he became tired of Torishima nagging about its popularity, that Toriyama gave in and drew more battles with the first shown Tenkaichi Budōkai." Journey to the West follows the "pilgrimage of the Tang dynasty Buddhist monk Xuanzang who traveled to the Western Regions, that is, Central Asia and India, to obtain Buddhist sacred texts." The beginning of Dragon Ball has Goku and Bulma traveling to collect the Dragon Balls, then it turns to fighting with the tournament, then goes back to the traveling and collecting with Red Ribbon Army arc, before Toriyama gave up on the "adventure" aspect and gave in to the fighting. So the "Journey to the West adventure aspect" refers to the traveling.
I wrote almost the whole article, 1989 came in and changed it in order to get a GA and FA, and made some edits I don't agree with. Most of which seem to only be a result of them not being familiar with the sources. I tried to stick to what the sources say, so I would suggest looking at this older revision Dragon Ball (manga). I'm not really invested in getting this to FA, I'm mostly just here to make sure stuff doesn't get screwed up. Xfansd (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hmm. I've no particular interest in getting involved in a dispute; before nominating for FA, the primary contributors should be consulted. Also, I've no particular interest in having to fight for every question and edit. If 1989 and Xfansd come to some sort of agreement, please let me know if you wish me to continue. A final point from a FA viewpoint: the nominator should be able to verify questions from the sources, and be able access the sources for verification purposes. If I were to continue, I would require verification from the sources for some of the questions I'm asking. (If this is nominated again, I will recuse as FAC coordinator) Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
There's no dispute. 1989 edited what GA and FA reviewers suggested, and I tweaked any edits that I felt changed to much from what was in the sources. I linked to an old revision as I naturally feel it works better and could answer some future questions you might come to, in the hope it would save time. But I agree 1989 nominated it and asked you to do this, so they should be commenting here more. Xfansd (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I will, but not this instant. I don't know the information from the offline sources, so I am unable to comment on that. Since you added the information from the offline sources, you will have to address their concerns with that text. -- 1989 00:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Super[edit]

Would it be possible to include dragon Ball super on here? The anime is a sequel to Dragon Ball and DBZ however it has its own Manga series that isn't from the original manga. Bluhaze777 (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)