Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragon Ball/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Proposal: Merge Broly and Coola articles

Villains who are only present in a couple of hours each worth of animation should not have their own articles, based on the apparent current standards for merging. Piccolo Diamao and Kaio-sama both have far more importance, and popularity alone should not constitute deleting articles.

Bring back King Kold's article?

I think King Kold's article is worth bringing back. While his role in the series is minimal, he's important because of who he is, Freeza's father. Any in favor? Malamockq 02:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No. -凶 02:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a vote, I'm asking for a discussion. Please give rationale behind your choice. Malamockq 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a clear explanation for his redirect already and I'm pretty sure you know it, anyways here it is He isn't notable just another filler character period or should I say it in Spanish El tipo solo es una excusa barata para adelantar la trama, I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to bring this useless pages back, for goodness sake people let them die. -凶 03:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

NO For one his role as you said is small and is not important. Just because of who he fathers means nothing. If that was the case Burdock/Bardock would need his article back because of two saiyans he is the father of and who his grandsons are and who his great granddaughter is. Many other character deserve their one article a lot more deserving the King Cold. Heat P 02:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

• No - He didn't really do anything important, other than try to bribe Trunks--$UIT 02:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No. There are plenty of other characters who have a bigger, more important role then him and they don't even have their own articles. Also there isn't enough information on him to really have an article anyway, it'll get classified as a stub. There's no reason to bring his page back, and Heat's right, who he's related to is irrelevant to his importance. --Majinvegeta 05:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Geez when I said dig it up on the talk page I didn't think you'd acctually do it. King Cold is not notable, he doesn't even fight and appears in like 2 chapters. DBZROCKS 12:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC) PS:Mega No

NO. Per reasons stated above. Also, King Cold was not a filler character because he appeared in the manga save only for a few panels. ~I'm anonymous

Strong Yes i think that he is an important character, in a way. SSJ 5 23:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

two words: Two Chapters. DBZROCKS 23:46, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "chapters" there are no chapters in an anime. He said, he's an important character. And I agree. Malamockq 00:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess you do not read the manga? (the Japanese black and white drawn comic book novels) Those have chapters with Cold is only in two or so. The only important thing Cold has done was rescue his son from death. That is it so how is he important? Just drop the discussion please. Majority rules here.Heat P 01:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes Wrong Heat P. It's not majority rule, it's a consensus. He's an important character even though his role was short. Important characters are notable. 64.236.245.243 13:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Um Malamockq, I think DBZROCKS meant manga chapters earlier, and yes there are such things as anime chapters. ;) Also, King Cold is not a notable character, just a minor one. ~I'm anonymous

Alright for anyone else still voting on this, Conisider this: All King cold did was talk to freeza about Earth, make some comments about super saiyans dodge and energy blast from trunks, try to bribe him and get killed and It all happened in like 2 chapters. DBZROCKS 21:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry 64.236.245.243, whoever you are but when voting as well as a consensus is like elections, majority does rule or have you not seen any type of voting in your life. And by the way things look, it looks like the NO's have it. King Cold is only important plot character (Not a Filler Character) he was there for a very small time is a small plot to help introduce Trunks. Nothing else. Nothing worthy of his own article. So again drop the discussion over this character with no true background, no history, no moves or technique, no other manga appearance, a fewer even more unimportant anime filler appears. So again let it be, and on the consense let me say mine again for the record. NO!!!Heat P 02:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a popular vote. It's not a democracy. Wikipedia:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_democracy End of story. 64.236.245.243 17:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

No it is not, however voting here is to reach concencus, which basically means, if 6 people say no and 3 say yes, chances are its not going to happen. Period. DBZROCKS 21:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reread that page yourself and don't give us a rule page you seemingly have not be read completely yourself. But I will agree with you that is is the end of the story and With 6 to 3 in the consense straw poll, Cold's article will stay as it is. Gone and his profile on the list of aliens page. So unless you can give us a good real reason besides who he is the father of, why he real deserves his page back, and why he is more important the other character like Chi Chi, Burdock, Gotenks only to name a few then it looks like as I said Cold is staying where he is now. Give us a really good reason or this consense will be over really soon. Have a good day.Heat P 01:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough all of you. This talk page is not for this discussion. Malamockq 02:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What discussion? The one you brought up about King Cold? That is what this consense is all about. If you can not take comment from people that is against as well as support which is what IP User 64.236.245.243 is doing for you than do not ask for it. 64.236.245.243 let myself and others know that it is a consense and not a actual voting poll which he has the right to do. And as I see it, everything so far is about supporting or against the King Cold article returning. So tell us what is enough? What is this discussion about? It seems to be about King Cold to me. Basically you ask for it, you got it. Don't try and change it now Heat P 03:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

These talk pages are not for discussing wikipedia policy. I wasn't talking directly to you, but to the IP, DBZROCKS, and you. Stick to the subject, don't get off track. Malamockq 17:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

That's cool but I can only answer for me now. I have been sticking to the subject all the while also answering IP User 64....... when he or she brought up Wiki Policies. But as for this discussion? I am done and I am still against Cold's article being brought back. The rest it now up to you and the others. Heat P 01:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No As they said, he was only in about 2 chapters in the manga. He didn't do anything important other than saving his son. Ryu-chan

We don't give an article to the father of every single person - real or fictional - just because they're their father. No. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Why are we bringing up a dead topic? TTN 21:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not that old. And every extra vote = extra incentive for anyone trying to recreate the King Cold article to not make it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it shouldn't be too late for someone to voice their opinion. While people appear to be voting above, this isn't anything official, or even a proper straw poll. That being said, Cold won't be able to hold an article. Utter lack of OOU info (except possibly a design note) and extremely minimal role. Just because his sons are notable (and Coola's notability is suspect as it is) doesn't mean he is. Sorry, but no - Onikage725 07:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Coola/Cooler

We had a big ol' discussion on what to do with Frieza/Cooler and opted for Freeza/Coola per the consensus awhile back. Someone went and arbitrarily changed it to Cooler, and I cant seem to change it back. Before going further, I just want to ask if anyone has the 5th movie DVD? How exactly is it romanized in the subs? Onikage725 14:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been wanting to know myself. I don't own the two Koola uncut DVDs but perhaps someone does? ~I'm anonymous

Yamcha → Yamucha

I figured bringing up this discussion here instead of on Yamcha's talk page. Why is the article titled Yamcha and not Yamucha? His romanized name is pronounced YAM-MU-CHA, not Yamcha; although maybe its named that because of the pun lineage from Yum cha. Far as I can remember, Yamcha is the name utilised in the English manga and most English dubs. The Japanese-audio English-subtitles use Yamucha, I call him Yamucha, and his name is pronounced Yamucha. I think I've proven my point, yep: all those who agree a move from Yamcha to Yamucha say yes. Anyone who disagrees, say no; please state a reason for why you agree/disagree. Thanks! ~I'm anonymous

No I think that Yamucha is a little underused and kind of obsucure besides. PS: has anyone gotten Cooler moved back to Coola yet? DBZROCKS 22:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No one has moved Coola back, only an admin can do that because of the creation of a redirect page, the only way we can do it is a copy-paste move and that would get us in trouble with the sysops. -凶 00:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Luckily we have Deskana for such problems :) DBZROCKS 00:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Sorry to be rude but can we get back to the proposed move of Yamcha VS. Yamucha? ~I'm anonymous
• Oh Dear God No - In every version I've seen his name is Yamcha. Only in Japan is he called Yamucha. We don't go by Japanese names... Actually we do in some cases.. But still, no--$UIT 02:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't seem really urgent, for some reason Yamcha is used broadly not only on the Funimation dub, but also on other versions that use the Japanese names more prominently take for example the Spanish (Spain not Mexico) version, there is also the fact that the pronuncition remains almost intact unlike Coola. -凶 22:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't think Yamcha is necessarily problematic. The "u's" in Furiza and Turunksu are fairly pronounced, but we go with Freeza and Trunks. Onikage725 00:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Never heard of those two Maybe thats why we don't use them, huh? :) DBZROCKS 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - I believe Onikage meant that the article's titles are named after their romanji forms, hence, the Japanese-derived names. Also guys: don't leave big spaces after a comment since it really isn't necessary. Just letting you all know. ;} ~I'm anonymous

Comment Cooler has been turned back to Coola thanks to Deskana, Anyone want to help me replace all the dub names there? DBZROCKS 01:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I can do that easily. --Deskana (AFK 47) 01:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Done, here. You may want to check that I didn't change too much. --Deskana (AFK 47) 01:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! Wow you did that before I could even say anything, you sure are fast Deskana! DBZROCKS 01:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No need for thanks, that's what I'm here for. --Deskana (AFK 47) 01:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I think it's unimportant. Not all correct romanizations of names are used on the articles anyway. A perfect example being that I've seen Goku's name spelled several different ways by Toriyama himself. I've seen: "Goku" "Gokou" (that one's the most common I've seen) "Gokuu" "Gokuh", ect. I don't even know if there's a correct way to spell these names.--MajinVegeta 06:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Support (for real this time) BLECH!!! Forgive my airhead tendancies. I originally had a whole schpiel here about Steve Simmons' subs, Japanese phonics etc. but I wound up shooting my whole argument in the foot because I was under the impression (for whatever reason not the least of which being that my memory is for shit) that Simmons used "Yamcha" in his subs. I just double checked, and he definitely uses Yamucha. My sincerest appologies for flip flopping on this one. Won't EVER happen again (I hope). Anyway, here's the highlights of my original post that reflect my current and final stance; For once I'm gonna have to disagree with my hetero life-mate Onikage725 on this. He compares the use of "Torunkusu" and "Furiza" with Yamucha, and while that's a decent enough argument at first blush, it doesn't hold up to closer scrutiny. Mainly because Furiza and Torunkusu are English (or at least English based) words with their phonetic structure altered to suit Japanese standards of speaking. In those cases, we use the proper English equivalent. So in other words, we spell "Pikoro" as "Piccolo", "Seru" as "Cell" and so on and so forth. DBZ is famously riddled with such names which is one of the primary reasons that it's such a bitch and a half to properly romanize many of them (FUNimation's hack job non-attempts being so widely accepted in the U.S. mainstream further complicates matters). However Yamucha is not one of these types of names. It is a straight Japanese name, with no basis in the English language. Therefore Yamucha is technically the more "correct" way of spelling it. Proper Japanese phonetic structure demands that there be a "u" in there. This next part is gonna be hard as hell to describe in writing without me sounding stuff out in person, but I'll give it my best shot. Attentive listeners of the Japanese version of the series may be confused by the fact that much of the time, characters seem to pronounce the name as "Yamcha". This is because with many words that either include or end in the vowel "u", the way that fluent Japanese speakers pronounce such words, they often times sound through the u very quickly, making it sound as if they are not pronouncing it at all. Yamucha is the example in question here, but other characters like Kuririn are susceptible to this as well (there are many times when it almost definitely sounds like the characters are pronouncing it "Kririn"). However the levels of this vary from speaker to speaker, depending on their accent, dialect, or just speaking style in general. So in the case of Yamucha/Yamcha, characters like Bulma seem to pronounce the name "Yamcha", while others like the series Narrator clearly sound out the full "YamUcha". But the reality is that they're ALL technically pronouncing it Yamucha. Now me personally I'm gonna go on record as saying my official vote goes towards Yamucha, because I personally think that Wiki editors should be more concerned with what's correct than what's "popularly accepted". This is an online ENCYCLOPEDIA afterall, the goal of which is to inform the uninformed, not reinforce what others already think they know. Fuad Ramses 23:51, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oppose I suppose if I must take an official stance I'll have to say the opposite and here's why. Yamucha is similar to something like Furiza, just not with English. Its the Chinese (or rather cantonese) phrase for drinking tea- "yum cha." The "u" got linked in there, and I would assume it roughly equivolent to that same accent as in my other examples. Onikage725 16:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, seems like this discussion is over. The worldly popular "Yamcha" stays. ~I'm anonymous

Newsletter?

I was wondering about a weekly newsletter. Some other projects have them so why not us? It would be interesting to have--$UIT 05:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey that sounds good I'd love to help out with that. DBZROCKS 11:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC) PS: May 9th The WikiProject Dragon Ball Newsletter is established. Also today Vegeta had multiple references added and will now be nominated for good article status.

The return of Power Level

Power level's back (the user not the article)! Celebration! DBZROCKS 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Majin Buu, Good article?

Hey everybody, I was recentally looking at Majin Buu and noticed how awesome it is now. I think it qualifies for good article status, any thoughts? DBZROCKS 22:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

No way. It has too much in-universe information, and no OOU info. It is full of crufty lists, and not enough prose. Its writing is crappy, so it needs a giant rewrite. It has few citations, which aren't that great. ...and it goes on and on. Nemu 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Guess thats a no. Wait a minute I did those Citations!:) DBZROCKS 22:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hah, I haven't looked at that article since the Wiki-Star days. Onikage725 00:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It didn't really change much since then...--$UIT 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

For an article about a fictional character: NO. I don't believe it's "good article status". It's too detailed and needs to be re-written. It needs to focus on the character's fictional info rather then if he was a real person. Toriyama's inspiration/development of the character, appearences, and perhaps media/cultural influence of the character needs to come first, then brief mentions his personal info (bio, personality, physical appearence, abilities, etc). That's how articles on fictional characters are supposed to be written. --MajinVegeta 06:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bingo, she hit the jackpot. Making references to him as "the character" when talking about him in the article will also help. -凶 07:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good I guess, as for the making of the charecter I think I can grab some pictures from Daizex. DBZROCKS 12:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

In Universe?? Fix it then

Ok I am kind of tired of it when someone whats to put a fixed article in the new Good Article review when many of us work so hard to fix it to have someone comes with a big fat NO because to them the article is not good enough because of the in universe perferences. If you, who continue to say no to them feel this way, why don't you please go on these articles and fix the articles to an out of universe perference so it can look more encylopic. This is not a personal attack on anyone just a message that if you see it is not good enough, fix it then.Heat P 04:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Broly → Broli

Broli's article is the only one that doesn't have it's name used in Daimao's subs. Could we get it moved? Takuthehedgehog 21:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I support the move. ~I'm anonymous

Support -Per conservation of the pun on brocolli. -凶 23:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That claim is not verfiable and not sufficient reason to change the name. We can only go by official spellings. In this case, the DVD's. Malamockq 02:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

No The official spelling is Broly seen on the covers of the DVD's. Malamockq 02:10, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Only in Fuimation dubs. -凶 02:14, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is the only official and legal dub allowed in America. Malamockq 02:20, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's scope is world wide that the reason we have a {{world}} tag, and worldwide Brolli is predominant. -凶 02:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wiki is indeed world wide, however official products take precidence over non-official or non-licensed products. Malamockq 20:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually in the subtitled version of the Broly movies on Funimation DVD his name is pronouced Broli just to let you know. Also offical American dubbing does not make that name his real name as for instants outside of Dragon Ball, Yugioh with the exception of Yugi and Seto in the dubbed version every ones name is from the original. Godzilla was originally call Gojira but American dubbing changed it. So actually dubbed names can not really be consider the true name unless they keep the real names with completely the same spelled name. Heat P 03:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Suport Broli is more wildly used and keeps the pun better. Also Its the only exsclusive Funimation Dubbed name left. DBZROCKS 21:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Leaning towards oppose - I've never seen his name spelled as Broli. Just Broly and, in some strange fansites, Brollee--$UIT 06:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• A definite yes. - Unlike the Yamcha/Yamucha thinger, I'm totally deadset on Broli here. I've seen the name spelled a variety of ways over the years from Broly (even pre-FUNimation), to Broli, even Brawley once. But Broli is both closest to the pun (an absolute MUST when romanizing Dragon Ball names) and as someone above noted, it's what's used in Steve Simmons' DVD subs. Besides, we've already gone through the whole "DVD cover" argument with Coola/Cooler, and Coola won out for the very same reasons I listed just now with Broli. Let's keep the consistency flowing here. Fuad Ramses 19:50, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Could we stop making the arguement that Steve Simmons made the diffinitive version of Dragon Ball here? Im only voting for Broli because its the correct way to put it and yet it doesn't make the name sound dumb (like Yamucha). DBZROCKS 21:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Noone said that. However, those of us who fight for accurate romanizations are often countered with "whats officially used." And Simmons' translations are mostly accurate and in official use. In other words, a compromise between both camps. Onikage725

Comment Jeebus, sorry. I just throw that one out a lot because I know that some of the more tenacious "pro-dub name" users tend to use the argument that we should go by FUNimation's names due to them being somehow more "official" than the original version of the series. Well Simmons' subs appear on "official" FUNimation DVDs, thus countering that argument. But you're right, in the end we argue for Japanese names because they're the proper translations. And an encyclopedia of any sort should go by what's accurate, not widely believed. It just so happens (and helps) that Simmons is a damn good translator and uses (most of) the accurate or closest to accurate romanizations that a lot of us here have been pulling for. And Broli is closer to an accurate romanization than Broly. Fuad Ramses 08:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok so is it settled? Should I go and ask Deskana to move it? DBZROCKS 12:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No it's not settled. I oppose the move. Broly is the official spelling of his name in the funimation DVD's. 64.236.245.243 14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

So? there is more to the series than Funimation, actually Funimation is just another mediocre dub. -凶 17:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should go ahead and move it. The pro-romanization group wants accuracy to the original intentions and puns and what-not. Opposers have tended to say "this is English wiki." So I'd ask if anyone here has ever had "Brocoly" with their dinner. Broccoli - "cco" = the villain in question (what with the "all Saiyans have names based on vegetables" motif). I'd point out that we aren't using "Frieza," "Cooler," "King Yemma," or referring to Goku's birth name as "Kakarot." Onikage725

That's original research. Malamockq 23:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

How Exactally is that original research? DBZROCKS 17:29, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok guys listen. Why not one or all of you just go and research the name. Simmons does do good translations but how are we actually to know they are all good translations? There are other resources and ways to find out the original romanization of many names out their. For instants Believe it or not Funimation. The distributor of now many anime ,they completely change, or rearrange character names but they do have access to the translations or can find it for you if you ask. Also e-mail Toei. they can translate you e-mail to read it and send you a reply. See unlike the Viz mangas for DB there is no real way for us alone to find out the proper way to find out by watch the sub version of DB movie DVD. Funimation sometimes go back and forth in sub version on some characters using there romanization names and american names (Kuririn/Krillin is the biggest example) So listen just investagate and research Broli and the others names being discussed on the talk page. Do not forget to give us the sources of the romanized name. Just a comment and suggetion to slow down the arguing on something like this. Remember we are not hardhead or

obsessed like many fan boys we delt with before. You guys can reason this out without dragging this to far. Heat P 02:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you meant "guys"; you better change that before you get warned for personally attacking ppl, no offense. ~I'm anonymous

Thanks I sure as He-- did not see that. My apologize to anyone that misspelled word might have offended Heat P

Well ladies and gentlemen our count comes to 5 supports and 2 oposes. Im going to get Deskana to change it. DBZROCKS 22:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. I'll get an admin to intervene if you try to make changes without reaching a consensus. 64.236.245.243 16:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Taskforce?

Our scope is kind of narrow. We only cover Dragon Ball pages. We could make this into a taskforce of the Anime and Manga WikiProject. Nothing much would change.--$UIT 18:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Hate to break the equilibrium, but the Dragon Ball related articles are what should be this project's only priority. Have you seen the Naruto articles? I've been watching some of the show on tv and it almost matches the articles on Wikipedia. I think the problem is that the DB pages are not getting much attention because it is not as recent as these newer shows: Naruto, InuYasha and Bleach. It seems that there are more users who edit the Naruto and Bleach pages then there are of Dragon Ball and InuYasha ones. Only question is: WHY? Here is a list of what I believe are the top five most contributed and referenced anime/manga articles on this encyclopedia, ranking from #5 (best) to #1 (worst):

1. Hellsing (manga)-related pages
2. InuYasha (manga)-related pages
3. Dragon Ball (manga)-related pages
4. Bleach (manga)-related pages
5. Naruto (manga)-related pages

This project should only go for Dragon Ball, nothing more; not including any other anime/manga pages. Understandable? ~I'm anonymous

That's not my point. I'm not saying we start expanding Naruto and other pages, go ahead if you want, though. That's Anime and Manga Project's job as well as the Bleach task force. I'm saying we might be better SUITed (yay, a pun) as a task force--$UIT 07:02, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with SUIT on this one. The number of Dragon Ball articles we have now is about half the amount we used to have due to the massive article merging and deleting we just went through, and as a result severely narrowed the scope of the DB WikiProject. A task force would definately be best for the Dragon Ball articles. // DecaimientoPoético 20:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactaly with all the deletions its task force time for us. One question though, can we keep our awesome introductory page? DBZROCKS 00:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, to DBZROCKS, and I now see your point SUIT. I support a Dragon Ball taskforce, if it will aid that is. ~I'm anonymous

Nothing would change. Just the WikiProject bits would be reworded to Task Force, which sounds more awesome--$UIT 03:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactally Task force sounds wayyyy cooler which totally warants the change. DBZROCKS 20:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though no one seems to disapprove of the task force idea, I'll wait until Friday (Eastern time) for people to post their final thoughts. If no one opposes the idea (simple "Don't turn it into a task force" comments will be ignored; make a real arguement if you want it to stay as it is), I'll make all the necessary changes unless someone volunteers to help. Sound okay, or do you guys have anything you want to add? // DecaimientoPoético 21:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you need help with Im sure I could (help) DBZROCKS 21:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Simple things: changing any instance of "WikiProject Dragon Ball" to "Dragon Ball task force" (or something similar to that affect), moving the article to "Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball," things like that. Nothing a 14-year-old can't handle by himself. ;) // DecaimientoPoético 21:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Well since no one seems to disaprove of the taskforce idea, I'll go ahead and move the page and make any appropriate changes. Also, someone will have to do something with Template:WikiProject Dragon Ball since taskforces don't really need them. Maybe someone can make a banner that can be merged into the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga one, like what tjstrf did for Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Bleach? // DecaimientoPoético 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa don't get rid of the template. I'll edit it to make it say task force. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say we should get rid of it; I merely suggested we merge it into the WikiProject Anime and manga one (see the banners on Talk:Bleach (manga) for an example of what I'm talking about). // DecaimientoPoético 21:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

But then we would lose the tori-bot image! Why don't we just reword the template itself? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The new Goku image

Okay, he has wings in this one. How come we never have a "normal" image? One where he isn't dead or have wings?--$UIT 18:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC) — Copy/pasted from Talk:Son Goku (Dragon Ball)

Currently there is a dispute on two Goku images: Image:SonGoku.jpg and Image:Son Goku and North Kaio in Heaven.jpg — which one serves better? SUIT thinks we should have one where he isn't dead, or depicted with wings. I've been seeing that mostly ip users were the ones whom disagreed with the image change. We need to solve this problem now before it gets out of hand. Personally, I want to keep the Goku and King Kai with wings one. Anyone else? ~I'm anonymous

Since when does Goku ever get wings? It looks fake (I'm not saying it is fake, just saying it looks fake). I think we should use the headshot until we can find a better picture. // DecaimientoPoético 21:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Poetic Decay, that image looks like fan art (pretty good fan art but fan art). I also agree that we need to revert the image back the current one is just unprofessional. DBZROCKS 22:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Update Ok peoples click this link, now scroll down to the bottom. Yep this spanish forum (at least that's what it looks like) is where Image:Son Goku and North Kaio in Heaven.jpg came from. This is starting to make it even more probable that this is a fan made image. DBZROCKS 22:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks French to me.--$UIT 22:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know really, heh. DBZROCKS

I could almost swear I've seen that image before as official promotional artwork. I just cant quite place where. All the same, am I to believe that these two images are all that we can muster for the main character of a property that has spanned a long-running manga, 3 series, and numerous video games, cards, etc? Onikage725 00:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reminder: I'm 95% sure that the Goku with wings image was actually seen in a Dragon Ball Z ending, though I'm not sure during which saga though. Regardless, I think the Goku with wings one should definitely stay; the headshot image is... too strange, and lacks quality. Anyone else agree? ~I'm anonymous

For the record I do think the picture should be changed but as for the fan art thing. Sorry DBZROCKS but it is an Akira Toriyama official work. I can't believe you guys don't remember where you seen this image. The image is in the first Daizenshuu book, artwork of Akira Toriyama (Which I know most of you dont't have) and the most common place you guys have seen this but for some reason don't remember is if you watch the end credits of the last season of DBZ (The entire Buu saga Japanese version) just as Gohan, Goten and Trunks stop run during the credits and look into the sky there is that picture of Goku and North Kaio with Goku waving Goodbye. that is where you seen the picture at. However the background is in the end credits is of Snake way and not just the big blue sky so it could be digitally removed from the original as by the outlines of Goku and Kaio. Heat P 01:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Still think it shouldn't be in the info box, Its not what Goku normally looks like. DBZROCKS 12:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone have a normal picture of what Goku looks like? Upload it and I'll fill in its fair use rationale and categorize it. ~I'm anonymous

Idea I think we need an image of Goku that isn't a full body shot, as it is kinda disorienting that is not as low quality as our current shot but still has Goku wearing his trademark Gi but not in any SSJ states and prefiribly having a shirt on. DBZROCKS 20:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Here, I believe, is a decent game-screenshot image[1]. In case the link is broken, the picture can be seen below on Goku's profile here. CAUTION: the page in French. ;} ~I'm anonymous

Hm well I don't really like it but at least its not as bad as that image we had that one time of Goku jumping. DBZROCKS 21:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone support me in uploading this image and having it stay on Goku's article BY ALL MEANS? We need a candid survey on this right now to end the "image warring". ~I'm anonymous

Nope I think a shot from the series would do much better. Also the image is to staightforward, people like stuff with more motion. DBZROCKS 22:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I somewhat agree DBZROCKS, but sometimes pics with "motion" are too weird to be appealing. Anything is better then the image that we had on there. I've hated that image since the first time whoever put it up, and I still hate it to this day. The reason why I don't like it is because the postion of his head as well as the angle is too weird on it, even though it's well drawn, it just looks really bad. I'll see if I can dig up a good Goku pic, and we don't have to have one with the newer syle of animation, I actually wouldn't mind a screenshot from the Saiyan saga if it's a good one. It just seems that no one can find a good Goku pic, and I find that really odd since he's the main character of the series. I also wouldn't mind one done by Toriyama himself for the Daizenshuus or the World Book. That one that I'm Anonymous put up is a step in the right direction. --MajinVegeta 04:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The one Im Anonymous put on seemed a little to "out there" for me. DBZROCKS 11:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but my point was that it was from the Daizenshuus. If we aren't able to find a screen that everyone agrees with, then maybe we should start looking at scans from the Daizenshuus. And to answer Suit's question about every pic being one where Goku's either dead or has wings: the answer is simple. People like the pics with the newer animation style, and in all those eps Goku is dead. I agree that "motion" is probably better, but when I go to a page, I like to see the character associating with the veiwer in some way. That's the thing that (for me) makes a good article pic, Goku isn't doing that at all in the pic that we had before the one that Anonymous added. And most of the characters in the other character articles are directly associating with the veiwer in some way. Also even though this will sound weird, I think that Goku is most recognized by his unique hair style, or at least that's how I recognize him. Goku's face means nothing to me, to an average person that comes to the article, it's not that distinguishable from the other characters therefore I don't think that a simple face shot should be used. --MajinVegeta 17:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all it is french, second we need an image the shows more than his face but without any significant weirdness, how can those be so hard to find? btw way that image is not fanart I have seen that artwork before. -凶 12:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I support Im Anonymous on uploading that other image, at least for now. It is a far better profile. It is official. Drawn by Toriyama is not important, since the article is on Goku overall and not just his manga counterpart. If im not mistaken, the current image is from filler anyway... and it really sucks, I'm sorry. It sucks almost as bad as the Kuririn image. Onikage725 13:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well thanks for the support, although it may be too late a vote. Last night, I tried to take a few screenshots of Goku from the Saiyan Saga DVD. One problem: my BMP image converter which changes the file to JPEG is busted, and I can't seem to get it work. Does anyone have any other suggestions? ~I'm anonymous

I *think* Adobe Premiere will let me take a image shot from a video file- I could rip an episode this weekend and give that a try. Onikage725 19:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Good luck to you, we need a better image. Goku deserves better than this. ;) ~I'm anonymous

Im anonymous you can send it to me. I can then e-mail it to my Dad. he can convert files to JPEC. DBZROCKS 20:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't even print screen it, let alone e-mail it. I think you meant JPEG though. ~I'm anonymous

Its not letting you right click it? DBZROCKS 21:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Well, its not letting me save it properly, as it saves a big, black blur. I'm getting my own laptop soon so I don't to deal with these bmp to jpeg converters. They're so lame. ~I'm anonymous

Hey guys, I got the S2 box set the other day. When I come across a good shot, I'll run ImToo and rip the ep and see if Adobe will let me take a screen grab. Onikage725 13:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to Crack down!

Ok this has gone on long enough I think it is time to seriously crack down on Dragon Ball articles. Many of them are ok but many lack images and good writing. I think we should assign members to specific articles to really improve certain articles, (but of course they can help with other Dragon Ball articles) not just minor editing, Im talking changing sections rewriting adding images cleaning up shorting. But in a more rapid manner than usual. Also many of our video game articles need to be "undubbed" as I would call it. Speaking of video game articles many are too short and have little more than what charecters where in the game. I think with our vast pool of 17 active users we can do better than this! Also many of our saga pages are jumbled and mess up beyond recognition (They usually don't even have images) so whos with me in totally cracking down on Dragon Ball articles? DBZROCKS 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

If you actually plan on doing that, you have to be willing to cut down on the cruft by a lot. Ability and transformation lists need to be turned into actual prose. Video game lists should be cut. Plot summaries need to be cut even more than they are right now, and they should implement a more out of universe writing style. There is also the massive need for plain old out of universe info. That and a general clean up will greatly help these. TTN 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I do plan to do that and no offense TTN but you use the words Cruft and Crufty an awful lot. DBZROCKS 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you you rather I use "pointless information", "overly described details", "information only fans need", "junk", or something like that? Cruft is a word that encompasses all of that into one neat little word. TTN 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

yeah I guess I shouldn't be picking on anyone, I do use the word Whoops a lot in my edit summaries. DBZROCKS 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Assigning members to articles sounds like WP:OWN--$UIT 03:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TTN. I've known about this excessive info for a while, just chose to not act on it and occupied myself with other articles. I think TTN pretty much summed up what has to be done on the articles. I think that the Super Saiyan one is fine, just the Character articles need help. And don't forget about these characters being fictional ones, therefore information regarding who/ what they were inspired by, name translations/ puns, design, ect. That should be the first thing in the article. Personality/ Bio come second. Perhaps we could separate their bios into three sections rather then having a section for each saga. Like for (eg. Goku) we could only mention the important events in the saga. (Personally I don't believe that his fight with Ginyu actually serves a significant purpose other then preparing him for the fight against Freeza, therefore should only be mentioned that he narrowly defeated Freeza's Ginyu force before

fighting freeza himself.) I also don't believe that we need to actually assign articles, I think we just need to keep tabs on what articles are being worked on. --MajinVegeta 07:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute there, I think there might be a solution to this, first off I think we should improve the saga pages, therefore making it easier to shorten the information in the charecter section, also maybe we could just have everyone work on one article extensively for a day and seriously improve it. DBZROCKS 12:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion, that's a start. But I also know that encylopedic format is needed for character articles, the info is all there, the sections just need to be re-arranged. It honestly only takes five minutes tops to re-arrange sections on character pages. That could be a start on the character pages, then we could edit the info later. I already started on the Goku page, and the Buu page. The appearence/ design and development is the first thing on the page, all the other stuff comes after. --MajinVegeta 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The Sagas

I was looking at the sagas pages and I noticed that shoudn't we only have the Saiyan, Freeza, Cell and Buu sagas? Because thats how it originally was right? I was Thinking we could just have those four sagas and merge the others into It and redirect them to those pages. Whatddaya think? DBZROCKS 12:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

If that happened, the pages themselves would be extremely long =P

Personally, this one is fine. VelocityEX 18:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to say, but no they're really not fine. I was actually gonna start this topic myself, but DBZROCKS beat me to it. While some other editors seem to be on an overzealous merging spree as of late, this is the one thing I really think they ought to be concerning themselves with. First off, most of these pages are dedicated to the original North American DVD releases (all fifty billion of them). This is rendered moot by the fact that these DVDs are currently being replaced with condensed box sets, and will therefore likely be out of print before long. And because they are dedicated to the U.S. DVDs, they are as of now, the only Dragon Ball pages using U.S. dub names, which we've otherwise eliminated from just about every other article.

What they REALLY should be are simply straight saga articles, with little to no ties to the DVDs. And since one of the Dragon Ball wikiproject's guidelines is not adhering to conventions set by foreign adaptations, then a good chunk of these pages really should be merged. Because prior to FUNimation's dub, no official DBZ source broke the sagas down to that ludicrous an extent. I mean seriously, the Trunks saga? What like all five episodes of it? DBZROCKS was right; originally, before FUNimations, the series was almost always broken down to just the big four: Saiyan, Freeza, Cell, and Majin Buu. And that was just for Z. Original Dragon Ball didn't really have as much of an "official" saga breakdown, but I believe it was usually broken down as Pilaf, Jackie Chun, Red Ribbon, Tenshinhan, Daimao, and Ma Junior. Or something to that effect.

Honestly with all the cruft witch hunters around here, I would think they'd be all up for merging the saga articles. And don't worry about length, as they could also go for a drastic rewriting. As is, they're almost blow by blow descriptions, which is certainly not needed. Keep them to just the essential basics, and they should be fine. I myself would be more than happy to do a lot of the heavy lifting on this myself. Set some time aside, and reorganize and rewrite them. Condense it all down to the basics. We'd just have to agree on it first. Fuad Ramses 08:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The Cpt. Ginyu Saga. Nuff' said. Is it really necessary to have a full-blown, multi-section article to state that Ginyu fought Goku, took his body, tried to take it back and wound up as a frog? What was that, 5 or 6 episodes? All because of Funimation DVD marketing? Hell it might make a lick of sense if it was the entire Ginyu arc, but because we have to split it in the middle, it doesn't even go into the other Ginyu events. While I realize this was once the split between (by dub reckoning) the Namek and Ginyu sagas, I should point out that as of the newest DVD box set, that entire arc is simply known as the end of "Season Two," and all of the eps are in the same set (it ends just after the fight with Cpt. Ginyu and the frog-switch, not just before as it previously did).Onikage725 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Videogame naming comvnetions

I see this from time to time as a point of contention, so I want to bring it up. The name's are based on the dub, but there is a reason. Unlike a main article based on the series, each of those games is tackled like its own entity (based on Dragon Ball Z). For example, the recent PS2/Wii game - we don't have an article going on Sparking! Neo. The article is on Budokai Tenkaichi 2 and the names used are the ones present in the game. Its kind of like how we call the head honcho of Shadowloo in the Street Fighter series M. Bison rather than Vega. Onikage725 16:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But is the Funimation Dub used more commonly than the original names? Like how In Dragon Ball Z ultimate battle 22 Vegetto was mistaken for Gogeta but in the article we corrected it.DBZROCKS 20:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Onikage and think we should spell names in video game articles the way they were spelled in the game itself. // DecaimientoPoético 21:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

But that would lead to errors as the games sometimes mess up names completely. DBZROCKS 21:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

True as that may be, a small note can be added to avoid confusion or curiousity as to why the names are the spelled the way they are. // DecaimientoPoético 21:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

What Im getting at is that the names should be consistant. Krillan shouldn't be a link to Kuririn. I thought the redirects were for people who spelled or worded something a differen't way. DBZROCKS 21:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be true that the Japanese names are more common, but as they said before, we should use the names provided to us in the game. And I recall that they added a sidenote on the Ultimate Battle 22 Article. Ryu Ematsu

Yes but they replaced Gogeta with Vegetto. If they remain the way they are they should have a / and the apropriate name. Also just wondering is the Funimation dub used in all versions of Dragon Ball Z games? DBZROCKS 21:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Most. For instance, the Legacy of Goku series (even though they spelled Korin's name wrong, with two r's), the Budokai series, the Tenkaichi series, Dragon Ball Z Saga's, Shin Budokai series, etc... That's just off the top of my head. Ryu Ematsu

No I mean in versions besides the U.S.A versions. DBZROCKS 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't know. I know the Canadian version uses the same names we do. Ryu Ematsu

Probably due to it being a mostly English speaking country. DBZROCKS 21:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

We were getting the Canadian version of DBZ before FUNimation decided to do the voices themselves, that's also where we got our english names from too. FUNimation just sold it until they decided to get their own inhouse voice actors. Ryu Ematsu

Well still Our wikiproject is Worldwide and if they are going to be kept Funidubbed at least we should check what names are used in the other versions by checking a reliable website other than wikipedia. DBZROCKS 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

You're only partially right. But this is the English Wikipedia, so we should keep the names the way they are in the English version of the games. Ryu Ematsu

Yes but the worldwide tag means that this is not just using the English version if the Japanese names are more commen than the Funimation Dubbed names than it will be changed like the rest of our names. DBZROCKS 22:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

My point is the articles are about the video games, not the anime or the manga. And this is the english wikipedia, so we should use the names found in the english games, not the Japanese. Ryu Ematsu

Ok maybe you didn't get what I said and I apologize. But Our Dragon Ball coverage includes all versions of Dragon Ball and GT and Z. Which means that if one version is more popular or more wildly used than it will be used (which is why Tien is Tienshinhan and such) if it so happens that Funimation dubbed names are used in most non english versions of the game than it will stay but if the original names are more common than they will be changed. DBZROCKS 23:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well that is actually not the case here. For one despite them being created in Japan the new Dragon Ball Games are Funimation push projects, not Toei. Games like the older Dragon Ball games would be ok to use the more common or translated names but not in the case of the Dragon Ball games of the last 5 to 7 years do to who is the major contributor of the game. I have played the German version of a few of these games and the names actually are of the Funimation version as they use the American version of the game with a German translation for there country and to let you know they use the actual translated names in their manga and anime version of DB for instant Majin Boo is call Damon(Demon in German) Boo in both there version of DB, and Goku is still Son Goku. But for the game they don't change a thing. So as you can see the Budokai, Tenkaichi, Shin, and the other Funimation Games are Funimation Project Games. So despite how we use their names to headline and use in articles. For thing like actual games we should go the games version of names and link them to the character's article. There people can see why the names are the way they are. Heat P 02:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems like it's been decided. Ryu Ematsu

Yeah, exactly what Heat said. Dragon Ball is long over in Japan- these knew games are basically commissioned by Funimation. Thats why the US gets most of them first, with the Japanese version coming out later with extra features (not all, like I know Super DBZ wasn't the case). Compare to say Final Fantasy- the US gets it second but usually with like an extra boss. The older games, use the original names. I would even say to use them for the ones that were brought over all late by Funimation (like UB22). And what Heat said about linking the game names to the appropriate (correctly named) article is how it is done already. So there shouldn't be too much confusion.Onikage725 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't know about other versions of the games myself, but I do know the PAL releases use the Funimation audio and names. I'm also fairly sure most other countries got country-specific dubs of (for example) "Budokai Tenkaichi," not "Sparking!" As far as I can tell, Toei distributes in Japan (and obviously has things correct, even using music from the series in the game) and Funimation is in control of the distribution everywhere else. Onikage725 20:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Muten Roshi, Bulma and Mister Satan merger

I tagged his article page like so [2]. While I agree that he is notable in the beginning of Dragon Ball for training the Z-Warriors, his role is greatly downsized as the series progresses. In DBZ, he didn't do a darn thing to enhance his role in the story, and much less did he do in DBGT. I don't know, I really think he, perhaps also Bulma and Mister Satan should be rid of having their own pages to avoid, as Nemu likes to put it, "cruft". Anyone else agree in particular? ~I'm anonymous

No. Way. Bulma Muten Roshi and Mr. Satan are important enough to warrent their own articles. Everyones role in Dragon Ball is dimished at some point. Our lists are full enough. Bulma in particular has done many notable things such as making the dragon radar, Being the mother of Trunks and the husband of Vegeta. Muten Roshi has such an enormus role in Dragon Ball deleting his page would be rediculus. Tienshinhan's role dimishes but he still has an article. Same with Yamcha. We can't delete everyones articles just because they aren't important later in the series. The only people really important at the end of Dragon Ball were all of Goku's sons, Trunks, Vegeta, Goku, Buu and the east Kaioshin. DBZROCKS 11:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

What? Are you implying that just because Roshi taught the warriors, Bulma invented the radar, and Satan did what he did means that they can keep a page? I think otherwise. Just because they did one important thing does not in any way signify their notability. I agree with what you said though about the Son Goku family, Vegeta and the others. They did a hell of a lot more (though I'm unsure about Goten, Ten, Yamucha and Trunks) to span the series. I still say at least Roshi should be merged, however, I'll tag Bulma's and Mr. Satan's articles with the merge template as well in an attempt to solve this. ~I'm anonymous

Ok, let's discuss this. Should the three humans I tagged: Bulma, Mr. Satan and Roshi, be merged to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball? ~I'm anonymous

I vote yes for Master Roshi and Bulma, and no for Mr. Satan. Ryu Ematsu

Could you explain why you want Satan to stay? ~I'm anonymous

They may as well just be merged. They probably cannot have more than a few bits of real world information. If anyone can find a number of good sources for Satan's name change, maybe that page could be turned into something decent, but that's probably unlikely. TTN 17:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In Z, he did have a significant role in defeating Buu. He got Vegeta out of the way and got the people of Earth to give their energy. He also stops Kid Buu from killing the Fat one. Er... Nevermine ^^;; Maybe he should be merged too. It is true that Yamcha and Tien's roles dimished, but they still had a role in Z. Like fighting against the Saiyans, training at King Kai's and fighting the Ginyu Force in the fillers, helping against the androids, even though they weren't much help, blasting Cell in the back in the filler, being there during the events of Buu, etc... (that's all I can think of off the top of my head). Master Roshi never fought in Z or GT. The only time he fought in Z was in the World's Strongest, and that was a movie. He also tried to fight in the Return of Cooler and got easily defeated. So, he doesn't merit an article. Mr. Satan only huge role was the final battle against Buu. Bulma's only merit is making and fixing the Dragon Radar, going to Namek, and fixing Android 16. And might I add, on Namek, she didn't really do anything. She got captured in a filler, and tried flirting with Zarbon, but that's about it. She also swapped bodies with Captain Ginyu in a filler. I guess, in the end, all three of them don't deserve one. Ryu Ematsu

Whoa people, I think we need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is supposed to look at subjects in the present tense. Sure, Muten got sidelined in Z, but he was a major character in DB (a series that spanned over 150 episodes on its own). There's a tendency with English audiences to give Z all the credit, but thats just because it got all the attention. Keep in mind that the original run went from the beginning, Pilaf to Buu (and later GT), whereas we got a chopped up Pilaf, Z up to the Ginyu fight and then a loop of such for years, then went deep into the Cell Saga before DB started its real english run. It seemed almost like a prequal side story in its presentation (what with taglines like "your favorite heroes, only smaller!"). But Dragon Ball IS the original, initial, and dcently-length series DBZ is based on (in manga Z doesnt even have that distinguishing identifier and is simply the later side of the series), and Muten IS a notable character in it. Ditto Bulma, who actually serves much the same function she always did up to the Cell Saga. Mr. Satan... I really dont think he needs an article. Minor comic relief, he doesnt need a whole article just because he gave a pep talk at the end of the Buu Saga. But I'm just saying that these articles are on Dragon Ball as a series, not on "Dragon Ball Z and others." Onikage725 20:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I don't think that "importance" is the only issue here, I think it also is the amount of information on a character. I strongly disagree that Roshi and Bulma should be merged, Roshi and Bulma both have very important roles in the series, and not only are they actually present enough in the series to have their own articles, but there's enough indirect information on them to write an article about. Roshi was very important in Dragon Ball, as was Bulma up through the middle of Z. Satan I could deal with merging him, even though he's important near the end, there isn't that much info on him to really make an article out of. --MajinVegeta 21:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, Mr. Satan doesn't have much of a role, but I couldn't stand Bulma and Roshi being merged. DBZROCKS 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Looking over those three articles (again), it appears that their bio's are too narrow and in-depth, "crufty" as it had been defined. {sighs}, I still think all three should be merged for now. Kayla (Majinvegeta) what do you oppose exactly? This isn't a survey, this is a duscussion on whether those articles can be fixed up or redirected to a list. ~I'm anonymous

I am only commenting on the rest but I do say at the less Bulma should stay. Roshi does do much during the Dragon Ball run but after the 23 Budokai other than being a spectator or sensing the fights at his house he does have little info do to his quickly dimishing role. Satan? I wont even comment on him. But Bulma plays what I will call a medium roles(Big to small to big back to small roles). In Dragon Ball she is a heavy influence not just a support character but as a main character too. Of course she is the inventor of the device that if not created none of this would be possible, the Dragon Radar. Dragon Ball her roll is dimished slightly until the Freeza saga for a while. Then her biggest contribute comes in the Andriod saga with her being Vegeta's lover (it was never comfirmed until the Buu saga they were married) and giving birth to half of the "Fusion Twins" Trunks and his little sister Bra as well as being the mother of M. Trunks. The one that conviced Goku to leave his home. She is the one with her Dad's help to fix Kami/Piccolo's ship for the trip to Namek. She is the one to identify Gero helping the Z-fighters find his lab, Ya a little to late but hey it would not DB with someone being late to fight or stop someone,(Goku is well know for that) She is the inventor of Gohan's Saiyaman uniform. And her future self created the time machine for Trunks. With just this little info on some of the things she did or help do she has done a lot in and for the series. It many seem small but it has a bigger picture towards the end. GT during the Bedi saga and towards the end of the Dragon saga she was a major contributor to Vegeta as Bebi Vegeta and as his normal self. Just like Goku, Bulma is Dragon Ball, if not for her and her Dragon Radar this manga or anime would never had exsisted. Heat P 02:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The page is indeed overwelmed with fan cruft, I don't think much will be left of it if some cleanup is done. Why does Satan has it own page anyways, cause of controversy? -凶 02:26, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Not good, not good at all. Like I kind of expected, this is going hay wire. We have people saying Bulma should stay and the other two merge; we have people saying Mister Satan should go but the other two stay; we have people saying all should go, etc., looks like I have no choice but to create a community poll below. ~I'm anonymous

Survey for merge

Here's how I see it: Add "* Support" if you agree for ALL THREE characters — Muten Roshi, Bulma and Mr. Satan — to be redirected/merged to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball. Add "* Oppose" if you disagree with ANYTHING of the merge; explicitly state your reason why, then sign your post using ~~~ or ~~~~. ~I'm anonymous

• Strong Support: My reasons were said above but I shall say it again: "CRUFT"! "CRUFT"! "CRUFT"! I see no chance of those articles recovering and becoming good articles like Son Goku, Son Gohan and djinn Boo. As I have said, redirecting all three of them and you know, giving a rather good entry summary, like Chichi's or Gyumao's, seems so much more alleviating and can avoid all that junk to be re-added by anonymous users and re-moved by other users and so on and so forth from time to time. ~I'm anonymous

• Oppose: Both Bulma and Roshi are important characters for big portions of the series, even though they are quite often side-lined later on. And I don't believe that this descision to merge is actually consistent with all the articles. What I mean is that if we merge these characters based on the claim that they can't be imporved, then we are under every justification to merge several other articles as well. I don't believe that they should be merged, Especially Bulma, who has been an important character up through the middle of Z. Not to mention there is actually enough information on those characters to have articles. However, Satan I can deal with merging, there's not a lot of information on him and he's only an important character for a very short time.--MajinVegeta 23:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to do this because some users are right about this poll and voting thing but it seems there is no other way so far.

• Oppose I oppose Bulma as well as Roshi now. Bulma's reason is up top. and Roshi's? I am with MJV. Listen, the reason these articles are cruft to anyone is because everyone, well not everyone but a majority of us editors have usually left these articles alone because of the main fighter characters and Super Saiyan articles. Leaving alone many others to be merged because of people focusing on hot spot articles. That is why a lot of articles got merged is because we got to caught up editing, fixing, and trying to stop vandalism of the DB headline characters. If some of us stop trying to always fix Vegeta, Goku, Gohan, Piccolo, Cell, Freeza and the Super Saiyan article which is usually our main focus and try to fix other articles, than some of the articles that got merged may have stayed with their own, and Bulma, Roshi and even Satan may be able to keep their articles. Think about it.Heat P 02:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - My sentiments exactly; more editors (who are usually fans) spend much of their time correcting the superheroes & supervillains articles rather than the "other ones" — this is exactly why those three should be removed from having a page — no one is willing to dedicate themsleves to characters like Bulma, Mister Satan and Muten Roshi, and therefore, crufty information is all they will receive from the usual editor. Unless we can do something of DBZROCKS' recent idea of, "he fixes/watches the Bulma article" or "she fixes/watches the Roshi one", my vote stays the same, although it is still not likely that such ownership of articles would be permitted. Get the point? ~I'm anonymous

Without Roshi there is not Kamehame ha. Without Bulma, no radar, no Dragon ball, no Trunks. Sorry Mr. Satan, I never like you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.149.103.132 (talk • contribs) 88.149.103.132 (UTC)

• Comment - 88.149.103.132, these kinds of arguements should obviously be avoided; don't say things like "Without Roshi there is not Kamehame ha... Without Bulma, no radar," etc. It's basically the same as saying "Without Kami there are no Dragon Balls, no plot" or "Without Akira Toriyama, there's no such manga", etc., sorry but it just sounds very idiotic and babyish. Please support or oppose, & then explain your reason thouroughly. Thank you. ~I'm anonymous

• Strongest oppose ever No we have deleted enough articles. Roshi and Bulma are highly promonent in Dragon Ball up to a certain point. Many Dragon Ball characters have their roles shortaned but we still have articles for them. Mr. Satan however I think warrents and article because of his promenent Buu saga role and that fact that he is in many of the movies. DBZROCKS 17:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose The three have huge roles in one part of the series or another. Bulma was one of the main (MAIN) characters in Dragon Ball, Muten Roshi had huge involvement in the series, and Mr.Satan himself had some prominence in the last part of Z. They have enough information to warrant their own pages. VelocityEX 18:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I can think of a ton of ways of improving the Roshi and Bulma articles. I agree with Heat, most people are primarily concerned with getting the major articles squared away, and haven't looked at minor character articles. Either that, or some of us (like myself) are also involved in non-Dragon Ball articles. So it's not really a matter of not having anything to contribute, it's just our main focus is elsewhere. --MajinVegeta 21:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think people are forgetting that in-series notability is only one of the criteria that a character must meet. Do we really need a detailed description of Roshi's role in the story just because he invented a staple technique that could easily be mentioned in a list entry? Anyways, to need an article, a character needs to have a good amount of possible OOU info. I really don't know the amount the main characters can possibly achieve, but I really don't see much for these three. At most, Mr. Satan's name change could possibly get him a couple of paragraphs. TTN 22:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But Roshi and Bulma have each done more then simple "staple techniques" and small mentions, especially Bulma (whose article I just fixed up some, but still needs work). And if a good amount of "OOU" info is the primary argument that you have, then we also can discuss a few other articles that I can think of at the moment. Just because a character looses their primary importance doesn't constitute to merging their articles. I guess if you want to play by that rule, then we could also discuss Yamcha, Tien, Android 18, and characters like that. Do we want to merge their articles? They're technically speaking no more important then Bulma or Roshi are, they made no major contributions to the series. Consistency is what I'm emphasizing, yet the people who are supporting this merge aren't providing it. --MajinVegeta 22:48, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is still nothing that needs to be discussed in length. Unless a character has out of universe information, it is nothing more than retelling the story in a slightly different format. That isn't encyclopedic. Merge as many characters as you would like; it can only improve thing in most cases. I'm just discussing the articles at hand, though. TTN 22:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

NO it Won't merging it makes everything worse as far as im conserned. Merging results in loss of important information and just making our lists that more diffucult to navigate. Merging results in a small paragraph of information with little of what the merged charecter did. Merging important charaters like this would only make things worse. DBZROCKS 23:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Weak Support for now -At the current condition I can't oppose in good concience, however if cleanup and some real improvements were made I would reconsider my possition. --凶 23:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But everybody's bio practically tells the story in a different way. There is no difference. I agree with DBZROCKS. Merging makes things less clear, important information is lost, especially if the character in question has directly contributed to or been involved in a big chunk of the series, even in some minor way. I am solidly against merging Bulma, firmly against merging Roshi, but I do support merging Satan. He's not truly that important anyway, and the information on him only goes a little way. There's no substantial information about him before the Cell saga. I know that you only want to focus on the articles in question TTN, but all I'm asking for is consistency when deciding what articles to merge and what articles to not merge. As I've said before, not one of the supporters is being consistent with this. Also as I've said before, Yamcha in particular should be considered if you guys are thinking about Bulma and Roshi. As far as I'm concerned, he's actually less important then Bulma is. He's made no substantial direct or indirect contributions to the series (even in Dragon Ball), and neither has Android 18. But we all know that no one is willing to merge Yamcha because of the fact that he's an original member of the Z team. But of course that's the only argument. --MajinVegeta 01:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to tell the story in ten different ways. This is an encyclopedia, so the point is to be encyclopedic. You cannot do that with just a plot summary. They need to be short and concise, and they shouldn't be the main focus of the article. That is why characters who only have plot summaries need to be merged. It's just an unneeded extension otherwise.

You can say "they're important enough" all you would like, but you're just speaking from a fan's perspective. The character's importance in the series only goes so far. TTN 01:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If that were true there would only need to be one article per anime. DBZROCKS 01:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There probably should be for most of them. Plot summaries don't count as information towards the existence an article. Their existence is determined by the article's existence, which is determined by how much non-trivial, sourced OOU info can be provided. With this series, there should probably be enough for the true main characters. TTN 01:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I would have to agree with pretty much all of TTN's statements. There is not enough out-of-universe information for these three diminished characters, and I believe there never will be. As I've said, no one wants to edit these three articles contently as they would the Z Senshi and supervillains. Why? Because no one cares enough, obviously. Assigning people to do take care of pages just sounds a bit like owning them and we don't want to imply that. I can't really speak for Tenshinhan's and Yamucha's articles since their roles decline in the story also. Don't take me wrong, I'm not saying that they should be merged too (not yet anyway). There needs to be something decided here, this talk page is getting too big. The longer this goes on, the slower it takes for the page to load...

Unless one individual or more people can dedicate themselves to completely maintaining those three articles to perfection, without others pressuring them to keep them in better shape, then I see no reason why they should be merged/redirected. Plain and simple. ~I'm anonymous

That is the problem everyone is watching every main fighter article and not contibuting to supportors. As for the plot summaries don't count as information towards the existence of an article. Well I see a lot of main fighter characters that article is nothing but a big plot summary with techniques, transformations and a few references. Their is not enough out-of-universe info for many of the main characters. But as they are the main focus and fan favorites people work on them too much. People need to stop trying to merge other articles and try to fix them first. For instants along with her plot. Bulma does have some out-of-universe info if people look for it. Like her connection as well with Son Goku to the Journey to the West story. As well as a list of her inventions (same way we use techniques for the fighters) with the refernces they come from. People I can't really fix it because of where I am at now but if I was home I would be the one to help fix her page. Stop looking at the small stuff that happened in DBZ and look at DB and DBGT. For Bulma there is a lot of info for her. Many articles have been merge not because they have little info that can't be found its because people think they can't find good and true sources and refenences on characters and get focused on the main characters leaving the others to get merged. Like Chi Chi, I was one that did not want to merge her and she had enough info on her to warrant her old article but before I could fix anything it got merged so I let if be. Also I got an example of a main fighter with actual little info and a really big plot summary. I want you to look at Future Trunks. A plot summary that is around for what? A combined 2 weeks (! day when Goku arrived back on earth and the 11 or 12 days after he arrvied and left after Cell's defeat, Not counting his future history yet) and his quick tell of history. If shorten his plot summary he be in the same place as Yamchu and Tien. But because his father is Vegeta, he is the second Super Saiyan and the first under 15 years old to become one, his early contribute to warning everyone of the future, and him being one of four to ascend pass the limits of a normal Super Saiyan, people think he is warranted an article. Same for Cell and a few others. You Guys need to think this out because other than Goku, Gohan, Piccolo, and Vegeta, by the warranted standards many of you merge supporter stand by are the only ones with warranted info to keep articles but I know nobody will not ask to merge them. Heat P 03:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Heat, you've conveyed my arguments so perfectly and identically that it's freaky. This is exactly what I was talking about: consistency. Everything that Heat said I agree with. It seems to me is that simply no one wants to work on these articles, so they use merge as an alternative. I also couldn't help but notice Uub, he doesn't actually appear much either and he's not that important. And I also agree with the Trunks thing, I have never really been in favor of two Trunks articles. They are the same person, but simply in different time lines. --MajinVegeta 03:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If no one is willing by now to fix up Bulma, Muten Roshi and Mr. Satan, then I will ask an administrator (likely Deskana) to merge those three to the earthling list. We most definitely can not have bunk articles. I could care less about Oob too; he should be merged, why didn't I see that earlier? Regardless, I'll wait 2-3 more days: if none choose to individually update those four (which now includes Oob), I'll tell Deskana to personally take care of things. ~I'm anonymous

THAT IS YA'LL PROBLEM. Work on them first. Stop trying to merge the articles. Work on them. Stop trying to merge the articles on a four day discussion. Stop trying to pressure people into fixing them in a few days. Stop being lazy and help fix it. If you want to be a editor and part of this project or taskforce as it will most likely be called soon you need to help out with article like these. As you see many are against the merging. Help out. Heat P 04:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Also from from what i can tell from this Straw Poll you started the opposers of the merging so far outnumber the supporter. think about that too. Heat P 05:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC) First off, let's be civil about this. I can't "help out" because if I were to edit those articles now or later, I'd mess up on something because I have no idea what to add to them. It's not that I'm "lazy", just unanimated about fixing them. Those articles will never be better than they are now, though that can be changed — Majinvegeta has started to clean up Bulma's article a bit. I'm giving it 2-3 days before I let Deskana suggest somethings; if it doesn't get much better by then, merge away. Or would you prefer I tag them for deletion, further letting outside users cast their votes? I'm being generous, aren't I? Though when I get responses like: "NO WAY, we've had enough pages deleted" or "If it wasn't for (so and so) that wouldn't happen" or "Stop being lazy and fix them" don't help set a balance here. I'm not trying to piss anyone off, understood? I'm just following protocal; the guidelines and policies. Personally, I don't see why someone like Bulma has a main article and Chichi, Goku's wife, doesn't. All I am saying let's wait and see. Wait, and see. ~I'm anonymous

No you good. I was not mad or anything just upset that people will not try to fix an article first and the article can be better, at less Bulma's can and I real believe her's can. As I said the only reason I am holding back on fixing it is because of...well you know. Some important characters that has been in the series (all 3 of them and special appereances elsewhere) does have enough and Bulma does. Chi Chi does too. Muten Roshi does. but others like Uub or Oob and Satan can be merge. You see you have to be able to animated to fix them. Protocal, Procedeure, and Policies (the three Ps of any company) does say if an article does not merit warrant then merge or delete it but the Ps also say that you should try and fix them first. Heat P 05:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Im anonamous being "unanimated" as you say is just another way of saying "I don't want to do it". Chi-Chi doesn't have her own article because she was a minor character who did little in respect to the series. Bulma had an important role in many of the sagas. Roshi was a highly promonent charater in Dragon Ball and Uub or Oob was very important in Dragon Ball GT. No offense but this project is here to make the articles better not delete or merge them because no one wants to work on them. DBZROCKS 11:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DBZROCKS and Heat. I actually already did moderate work to the Bulma article yesterday just incase no one has looked at it yet. I'm surprised that not many other users are contributing to this survery: like SUIT. I think he'll have some good advice. --MajinVegeta 13:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know if this little poll is still going on (haven't been here all weekend), but if so - Strongly Oppose merging Muten and Bulma, Support merging Mr. Satan as per what I said in the earlier topic. The fact that their roles diminished over time doesn't change the fact that they had major roles during large swaths of the series. This isn't a DBZ fansite, and we can't just ignore those facts. We're supposed to look at the series in the present tense, as a whole. By the logic for merging, Obi-Wan Kenobi should exist on a list, since he died early on in the second half (chronologically) of the Star Wars film series. Onikage725 17:09, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is saying that they should be merged because they're minor in the series? I don't know about other people, but I'm saying that they should be merged because they don't have a possibility of enough out of universe info to warrant an article. All we can focus on is the role in the series, which doesn't require the focus of an article. TTN 17:18, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

As was put at the start of this all- While I agree that (Muten Roshi) is notable in the beginning of Dragon Ball for training the Z-Warriors, his role is greatly downsized as the series progresses. In DBZ, he didn't do a darn thing to enhance his role in the story, and much less did he do in DBGT. I don't know, I really think he, perhaps also Bulma and Mister Satan should be rid of having their own pages to avoid, as Nemu likes to put it, "cruft". Anyone else agree in particular?

I was talking more about right now. He has developed his argument a bit more since that comment. TTN 18:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Well for one thing, I was casting my own lil vote based on the opening call to cast one. Directly under that was Strong Support: My reasons were said above but I shall say it again: "CRUFT"! "CRUFT"! "CRUFT"!. The further development of everyone's arguments in the massive wall of comments above started to lose me when ppl started bickering over who should be fixing the articles. I mean no offense to anyone by the way, I'm just clarifying what I based my comment/vote on for TTN. Onikage725 01:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I can understand many other articles being merged so I can support some of them but I am still strongly against the merging of Bulma. She may have quickly move from a main character role to a support but she has contibuted a lot to the universe of DB. As in the beginning she was a main character. It was not until the RR Army and the 22 Tenkaichi Budokai that her role started to really be downsized to Goku's far away adventures. No major effect during the rest of DB and beginning of Z but picked back up during the Namek/Freeza saga and the beginning of the Android saga. Downsized during the Cell Games. Minor active support role in the Buu saga and a major active support role after Baby's arrival on earth during DBGT during. Trust me she has the info for her article. Now this Out-of-Universe thing some are trying to say she does not have for a article as well as the others. NEW FLASH guys Goku is the only character with enough out of universe info for a article. So try to slow down with this out of universe phrase because if we are to keep using that as a arguementive way to merge characters then actually there is only 1 chracter that would remain with his own article, and that is Goku. I know out of universe is a policy but if so then every character with the exception of Goku, and possibly Vegeta, Gohan, and Piccolo would be merged or deleted including major villians and I know that is not happening.Heat P 02:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah if that was true than there would barely be any anime and manga character articles left. PS: Dig the Sig DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC) Again, comments like "Bulma has contributed a lot to the heroes so she deserves a page" should not be said since its point of view-ish and too "I like it". My point is that if you see Bulma's article, you'll notice that the stuff there can be peeled onto a list and modified. When this survey is over, I plan to get outsiders (yes, users out of WP:DBZ) to vote on whether Bulma and Muten Roshi should have their own page, or be merged. Of course the way consensus is going, Mr. Satan and Oob are going to be merged, no doubt. ~I'm anonymous

Uub sould definitally stay, he may not have had a large role in Dragon Ball Z but his GT role was very large. Also when will poeple realse that whenever you merge a character into a list, it just becomes a small bit of text resembling a stub. Minor characters should only be merged. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 11:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Take a gander at the differences between "Major characters" and "Minor characters" in this section. Just because a character did two or three important things in a series (e.g. Oob fought in the 25^th tournament in DBZ, fought sometimes in DBGT, appeared in a panel of Neko Majin Z, etc.) Point being, if the character's role in the story falls, or if they fade as background characters; that means they can't keep a page. And see this section on why I plan on having them deleted after this survey is over. So, as everyone here can see, I'm just following the rules. ~I'm anonymous

To me it seems like you're making the decision for us, and that's not cool. And going strictly by the rule of Characters fading into BG ones is probably one of the stupidest things that you can do because a most characters in the story actually fade into BG ones by the end of GT. Goten, Future Trunks, Kuririn, even Gohan and Piccolo if you really feel the desire to include GT in this discussion. If you're going to go by the rules of "characters becoming BG characters" then pretty much the only character articles that can stay is Goku and Vegeta. The problem with the Dragon Ball series is that it's just so long that lots of characters are bound to fade into the persona of BG characters. That's why I think that we need to base our descision on the character importance in the Manga, and ignore GT in the context of appearances because everybody fades in GT except Goku, Vegeta, and Kid Trunks (and Uub, but his major appearance was in GT). And no, I don't think Uub should stay, he really didn't do anything in GT either other then battle for a little bit. But still, he wasn't that important. --MajinVegeta 19:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Kayla, when you "made" me join this WikiProject I was obliged to follow the guidelines and policies for here too. If you weren't already aware, there is also a deletion policy for minor characters; and policy is what should be followed in this case. Personally, I think the only Dragon Ball characters that actually deserve a page on Wikipedia are: Goku, Kuririn, Gohan, Vegeta, Freeza, Cell, djinn Boo, and about the two Trunks — Trunks and Future Trunks — they "could" be merged as one Trunks (Dragon Ball) article, although I'm not saying they should. Yamucha and Tenshinhan should probably be merged on to a list since their role is eventually minimal in the story. Coola should be merged, Broli maybe, and that's all I can think up now. I'm sorry, Bulma and Muten Roshi have to go — their articles are way too incompetent and plot-ish to stay; they'll never be expanded like the rest of the Z-Fighters' articles. Two more days, and I'll ask someone like TTN if he can aid me in making those character's articles for deletion tags to gain outside users' opinions. ~I'm anonymous

That's what I meant about the stance on diminished roles. DB is a long series, and as editors we are supposed to look at the whole picture and view the whole thing in present tense. The two arguments for deletion have been that the articles don't take enough of an OOU stance and that the characters role's diminish over time. The second stance is a very in universe view on the matter, judging the series by its progression as if one was a viewer. By that logic, Gohan doesn't do squat in GT (and aside from one good fight with Buu basically under-performs in the Buu Saga) and Piccolo officially goes from major Goku-rival to support role after Cell takes him down. So they should lose their articles? Again I use my (chronologically-speaking) Obi-Wan parallel (by way of an example, not necessarily to say that policy on SW articles should be ours... those bastards actually keep a separate article for Anakin and Vader... but I digress), anyone who would say Muten wasn't important would be someone I claim hasn't spent much time with Dragon Ball. I can't blame anyone for that really. The way it aired in English was so backwards and didn't even start until the Cell Saga. I can accept the first argument, that the articles need work. But the other argument that seems to think importance to the DB series should be tracked by how active a character was by the Buu Saga or GT seems very, very flawed to me. Onikage725 21:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to list them for deletion, just follow the steps at WP:AfD. They're very straight forward. Another option would be WP:PM, though I don't know how much help it can be (I've never used it). TTN 21:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My God, you can't delete every character that eventually fades into the backround. Even the characters you speak of eventually fade into the backround. Merging them only loses good information. I thought the merging of Raditz and the other characters was ok but this is madness. All of the characters you mentioned are important, we can't keep deleting this, just like how some people are saying "I Like it" doesn't warrent an article, "I don't like it" doesn't warrent deleting it. I seems to me like everyone supporting all these merges keeps saying that there isn't enough "out of universe info" there is plenty, most Dragon Ball characters contain references to old folk tales, puns on various things also I would like to say that there is no deadline, meaning that the only articles that should be deleted are those that have no chance of expanding and being improved. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you actually seen any of those besides the most obvious (Goku = Sun Wukong)? AT is pretty reclusive when it comes to interviews (or most aren't translated/fakes), and I've never seen any scholarly pieces analyzing the DB universe. You're unlikely to find much, and even if you do find it, it won't fill more than a paragraph (which isn't enough). Plus, these pages most likely will never improve anyways. TTN 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

TTN they most definetally can improve, images can be added, rewriting is needed on some articles, rewording deletion of unnessesary info lots of stuff. Also I think we are giving Dragon Ball Z to much credit here. Just because a character was very important in Dragon Ball but had a slightly more minor role in Dragon Ball Z (or volumes 17-42 for you purists out there) doesn't mean that they don't warrent articles. Just like if Sasuka Uchiha from Naruto was killed or something like that in the next chapter and the naruto series continued for several more volumes they still wouldn't take his article away because he wasn't important later in the series. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

By improve, I mean get out of universe information. You can make the plot summary and general description as pretty as you would like, but it won't change much. TTN 21:32, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that the plot summary shouldn't be there? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries are fine, but they need to be much shorter, and they shouldn't be the main focus of the article. TTN 21:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So I should go ahead and put Vegeta and Gohan up for deletion then? Cuz the only character with any real world impact is Goku. Onikage725 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see the plot summaries being shorter in a lot of articles like Goku's but some of them need a little more of a plot summary. Though I think the best solution to this would be to fix the saga pages so that the plot summaries could be shortened greatally. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:39, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am abiding by key policies, nothing further. Not "because I want to". ~I'm anonymous

I went through there, and I assume you are referring to the chain that takes you to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). However I've noticed looking through the examples of article/listees their something of note. Characters like Padme (who dies halfway through the SW saga) and Star Trek's Dr. Soong (a minor character made notable for being the fictional creator of the popular Data and Lore) are considered acceptable in content for their own article. The list examples include a list of Mavericks in Mega Man X and a list of horse-varieties in Middle-Earth. I think characters like Bulma and Muten Roshi would be more comparable to the former examples (support characters who had major overall impact on the story) than the latter (compilation of minor elements- one-time boss characters and animal varieties). Onikage725 21:42, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Characters go by a series by series basis. Those are just some examples. Plus, Padme has enough OOU info to throw in-series notability out the window. And I'm going to cut down Soong (it's just ridiculous that it passed the AfD). TTN 21:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that these are more like those examples. And comparing to Padme, we already have creation/design/function info. I'm sure we could go through con notes and some interviews for Tiffany's thoughts on Bulma and how she got the role. And that costume section- hell we could note all of Bulma's varying and colorful hair styles :p I'm just saying it is easy to label something as crufty, but why don't we work together and involve others on seeing if things can be improved rather than being negative and taking the easy way. I'd also like to add that the simple fact that two decently written articles with info from different facets are under this heat while articles like Buu are not smacks of a popularity contest. I just glanced at that one and it still reads like its Wiki-Stars draft from last year. And Goku's and the others have blow-blow style plot summaries, Trunks has two articles (which is almost as inane as Anakin/Vader, but not quite)... there are other areas of greater need that don't get culled seemingly because the characters are more well liked. Onikage725 22:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

TTN took some of the words right outta my mouth. No one is dedicated enough to Roshi and Bulma, and never will be. Those pages would've been better long ago if more users cared but they're still no better than the Z Fighter's pages. I guess its safe to say Mr. Satan and Oob will be merged, and Bulma and Muten Roshi will be marked for afd. ~I'm anonymous

Really? No one is dedicated enough? Thats because the article haven't been brought to the project's attention. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Why do we have a wikiproject in the first place? Why don't you try putting these articles under scrutiny or as an article in need of cleanup and see if anything comes of it before going the route of arbitrary deletion. The first step should always be to see if an article could be improved. If you just want to go for an afd, you can do that at any time without asking our opinion really. But if you're coming to the wikiproject on the matter first, then put it under the articles to look into list and see if anyone can do anything for them. As it stands, if the Muten article goes, I'll go ahead and assume that's the way of things around here and tag Vegeta too. They really are in similar condition. Onikage725 21:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Also what about Ichigo from Bleach? No out of universe stuff there. Also your forgeting the policey that states that if a rule stops you from improving Wikipedia, Ignore it. I suggest we do this with the "out of universe" thing. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Merging plot only articles can only help this site. You may like plot summaries, but they're unencyclopedic (standing alone), and belong on Wikia. TTN 21:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The...articles aren't just plot summaries though. Why doncha go look at Buu or Freeza or Goku or Vegeta or any of them if you want to rally against drawn out plot summaries. Both articles could be expanded in their other categories, but they include them. Their plot summaries are small in comparison with most others under this project's jursidiction. The Muten article has info on his design, his voice actors (one of whom is deceased, and it notes the change), his name meaning and origin (including desing connections with notable action star Jackie Chan), a section on his function within the series, a fairly brief 3 paragraph background that DOESN'T read like a friggin blow-by-blow (unlike most of the other articles), a description of his transformation and his special abilities, and a list of his other appearences. One could also add info in that section to the Chinese-made DB movie (laughs) and change it to appearences in other media. Bulma's article is similar, though obviously no mention of abilities/transformations. Both could be expanded, but do contain plenty of content that ISN'T a flat out in-universe biography. You're insistance that it is makes me wonder if you looked at the articles or just have an opinion on the characters.Onikage725 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The information there is either OR (the break down of his name), trivial (voice actors are fine, but there is a certain point where it just becomes pointless, game list), and fan info (attacks and transformations. They need to be in prose). OOU information needs to be sourced and relevant, and in-universe info needs to be less crufty. TTN 22:48, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Son Goku (Dragon Ball). I guess we're deleting him too. All of these articles are in similar shape, all could use some attention. All I'm saying is lets use the wikiproject for what it was made for and give some attention, and then decide what should be deleted. And not for nothing, but it is real easy to say "not enough OOU" but have you looked for any, or attempted to improve the articles? I don't see your name on the edit histories for those two at all, at least not in the last few months. I've been running on here to keep up with the debate, but I did a little looking around just now myself. When I get some time, I'll add what I found (more info on the Journey to the West parallels in Toriyama's design, as well as Bulma's double meaning to the Blue Mountains (and repesective coffee bean) of Jamaica. A section on the characters inventions (as many of them had major impact on the progression of the story), expanded info on Cross Epoch, etc. If you insist on a Superman level of notability, you won't find it in any of these articles. But that doesn't mean we can't clean up and expand these entries. Onikage725 23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The possibility of the main characters gaining information is much greater than the supporting characters, so it actually worth it to wait around. There is no way to improve these articles with anything besides cruft, so there isn't a point in trying. All you have just said is OR, unless I'm missing a good number of interviews with AT or articles on the series. A section for inventions would be cruft; only a general description is needed. Cross over specifics are unneeded. The fact that he appears can be mentioned somewhere, but leave the actual information to that article. I'm not looking for FA status on these, but they should be able to reach GA status to stay, and that is very, very far off. TTN 23:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yeah I used a search engine and found a handful of interviews and articles. Not many, but it was a quick search. I also found some info on Bulma's Japanese wiki article. Again, this was like 5 minutes of research to indicate that with some work the article could be expanded. The reason I offered that challenge is because it seems you are quick to say not enough OOU or nothing but cruft can be added, but you also don't seem to want to look into the matter yourself. I'm not blaming you- there are plenty of articles on wiki and not everyone is gonna attend to them. I haven't put much work thought into these two before now either. I'm just saying, since the matter has been brought up here on the wikiproject, give them a chance. Contribute if you care so intently that they are in bad shape. Look around. If I can pull some info by throwing a couple of keywords at a few search engines over a span of 5 minutes... well I can't be the only person capable of looking crap up, ya know? And just because noone else feels like doing it (or feels that it can't be done and therefore won't try) doesn't mean we should just go say screw it and start deleting. Onikage725 01:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Care to show some links? A lot of information can be found with a simple search, but the sources have to be reliable. For all I know, you found fan sites and fake interviews. Another form of Wikipedia cannot be used as source, so unless the info is sourced there, it cannot be used here. TTN 01:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not looking to put cruft up, so when I get more time I'll look into verifiability. Like I mentioned, I've been checking in and out on the topic, and haven't had much time to sit down and fully look into all that. Sorry about that. I would add though that I'm not the only person on the wide internet who knows how to run some searches. For example, I had to call you out before you asked for links. Your first response was "pfft, cruft and OR." That doesn't go towards the wiki guidelines of improving first. Second, my Japanese is fairly limited, so my limited time wasn't enough to fully check out the other wiki article. However, you could go to the wiki main page, click over to that langauge, and look to see what links are cited on it just the same. There is also a fairly well known Shonen Jump iinterview where Toriyama references both jackie Chan and "Drunken Master" (hence why Jackie Chun is a master of Zui Quan/Tsui Ken), which I'd love to add and cite but I need to find out which volume it was first. I'm just suggesting that if you can't be arsed to look anything up yourself that you dial down the militant stance and constant shut-down attitude towards differing stances on this issue just a notch or two. You also said you were willing to give leeway to the other characters cuz of their greater potential or what have you. I'd challenege you to go do something for Buu or Vegeta, Buu in particular is in far worse condition than Roshi or Bulma. CORRECTION- apparently Buu is protected o.O

On an unrelated note- I noticed you aren't listed on the wikiproject page. how come you haven't "signed up" per se? I see you around on these pages all the time!Onikage725 01:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

They are not standing alone most of the articles have information on the characters personality appearance, techniques, name pun Ect. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I'm done discussing my thoughts here. ~I'm anonymous

Anonamous, you suggested that Trunks and Future Trunks be merged. Why? The characters are seperate enitites and unlike with Future Gohan, they existed at the same time in the same timeline, merging them would only confuse readers or anyone who doesn't worship the series. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Polls are a poor indication of consensus

Polls are evil. --Deskana (talk) 01:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That "polls are evil" article is rather strange. Last I checked, it wasn't a guideline or policy for Wikipedia, unless you want to include this article. I don't really like polls because they take a hell of a lot of time to get over. I had no choice but to go with it in this case, though I'll keep that in mind. From now on, WP:AFD should be the best way to handle these cases from here on end. ~I'm anonymous

So you'll nominate pages for deletion just so they can be merged with lists?--$UIT 03:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's the idea. I've asked the head of the WP:DBZ project Deskana. Maybe he can provide some view into this theory of mine. Your thoughts? ~I'm anonymous

I'm not the head of the project. And no, AfD isn't the best place for stuff like this. A simple discussion is. --Deskana (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, no. I meant if a discussion goes sour (as this one did) then I'll afd them instead of reffering to a poll. I'm surprised that no one is in charge of this WikiProject? Not even the user who founded the page? ~I'm anonymous

That's a bit too far, nominating them for deletion. There are other ways to solve things--$UIT 03:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Say... what? The only way I know of so far is by talking it out. If that comes to a brick wall, then outsiders need to include their thoughts on a AFD subject. You can't be more specific than that, can you? ~I'm anonymous

Nominating for deletion to force your way would be a violation of WP:POINT. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's my thought. Obviously this conversation didn't really go anywhere, but the bulk of it was like 4 of us going back and fourth yesterday- not representative of the whole project. And as the creator of the poll,, Im Anonymous should note that it did go 5/2 against (or 5/3- Nemu didn't vote but made clear a support position), so to turn around and say that its afd time against the (admittedly limited) consensus seems a little messed up. Onikage725 10:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There really doesn't seem to be much wrong with going somewhere else to gain a better consensus on the articles. This is the project for the articles, so there is some fan bias and optimism (it's good that you have hope for the articles, but it is just a little too much). Maybe something else could come before an AfD, though. TTN 10:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's really what I mean. Something else. It just seems counter-productive to come here asking for consensus on what should be done with the article, and then go for deletion procedures before the matter is resolved. I'll also admit I probably seem irritable, but that's mainly because it rubs me raw that articles like Buu and Cell are in such bad shape, articles like Broly (and I'll admit Coola, my own fondness for the character and article aside) still exist, but we've got this HUGE back and forth over these two characters should go. Feels like a popularity contest more than anything.Onikage725 11:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Onikage, and even Suit said that deletion is a bit extreme. Why'd you even start this poll Anonymous if you were pretty much planning on deleting and merging regardless of the poll result? This literally isn't even a consensus. I've spent so much time and effort on this project and then people are making plans to merge and delete certian characters. I find it quite insulting. Consistency is not something that you guys are considering, I have asked you to be consistent about this numerous times and no one is. And I didn't force you to join this project Anonymous, I presented it to you and gave you the choice to join and you did. You're the one who added your name to the list, not me. Don't go blaming this on me. I agree with what Onikage said about the Buu article (in the survey for merge article, about it being worse then the Bulma one).--MajinVegeta 17:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Blaming? I did not say such a thing at Deskana's talk post. It was sort of an obligation on my part since you placed that WP:DBZ template on my userspace without notifying me. I'm not gonna argue this insignificant discussion with you Kayla. ~I'm anonymous

You have said something about MJV making you join and I will quote you "Kayla, when you "made" me join this WikiProject I was obliged to follow the guidelines and policies for here too." your words in the above area of this discussion. It was up to you to actually join this group and you accepted the offer and left the templet on you page. Also use user names and not their real names please. I see MJV has not said anything about it but by saying their name in a conversation and not a user seems personal. Now to the AFD. Like I said before trying to force editor into fix an article before someone puts it up for deletion is wrong as hell. You can not come here start a "poll" that is not going your way, Then continue your agruement that again does not go your way, then suddenly say you are going to put it up for deletion to force the merging of this article. Also if you throw a policy at us investagate it more because for a policy on Wikipedia their is a counter policy or a loophole. I can feel you are trying to do what you feel is right but for this situation you could not be more wrong.Heat P 02:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not arguing it with you either Anonymous, but I'm also not happy when someone starts the illusion of a consensus, and not even consider the result of it. As a summary of this extremely long debate, the majority of members here don't support you, either you haven't read everyone's comments, or you're just pissed that you don't have the support that you wanted. And I'd like to seriously thank Heat for coming to my defense about what you address me by. But as "pushy" as addressing me by my real name is, I decided to let it go. I think that we should discontinue debate until we actually look at the articles and ATTEMPT to improve them; because as far as I'm concerned, this debate is going absolutely nowhere. Everyone's just going to keep going back and fourth, that solves nothing. If we can't improve these articles (which I firmly believe that we can), then I will support a merge or even a deletion. But I also want you to consider the other articles that I listed, because those characters are (truthfully speaking) no more important then Bulma or Roshi. --MajinVegeta 05:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. Prime example- Majin Buu. Once it gets unprotected, it needs serious work. And I agree about the importance too. A villain at the end of one of the series' is not necessarily *more* important than two characters who were once main characters (Muten got a saga too- the 2nd one in the series, "The Jackie Chun Saga") who maintain supporting roles for the rest of the series. Onikage725 13:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Jackie Chun Saga"? Ain't no such arc. ~I'm anonymous

Um, the second arc in the series? None of the arcs are actually named in the series' proper, and we generally referred to them by primary antagonist. FUNimation changed some and labelled a number of sub sagas (I believe the one in question is the World Tournament Saga or something like that in dub reckoning).

Is there any reason to split hairs over this though? Whether his name appeares on the cover of a box set or not, he was the primary antagonist of the saga, deciding to enter against his two pupils and knock them down a peg so that they didn't grow over-confident. Onikage725 23:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I deeply apologize if this offends you Anonymous, but to me it doesn't seem like you've read the Dragon Ball manga or even seen the original Dragon Ball series. "Jackie Chun" (Roshi) (as already stated by Onikage) is the primary antagonist in the second saga of the original Dragon Ball, anime and manga. --MajinVegeta 19:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

BT3????

Moved from: Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi 2

OMG look wha I found! http://stat.ameba.jp/user_images/dd/34/10021854159.jpg there's also a vid http://www.neoseeker.com/forums/31959/t895669-budokai-tenkaichi-3/5.htm the pic doesnt look fake so I'm assuming it's a long awaited BT3-SSJ Gokan 03:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

How do we know it's not fake? MightyKombat 17:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be real, unless these scans are really good fakes. TTN 21:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Its article time DBZROCKS 21:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Um... TTN, those are pictures of real people... Is that the point you're trying to make or is it just an accident? // DecaimientoPoético 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that two. Whats up with the "Suggestive" pose. DBZROCKS 22:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I created the page, but it looks pretty bad. I'm gonna start cleaning it up a bit and look for some more info. // DecaimientoPoético 21:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ill help with that DBZROCKS 21:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd appreciate it. // DecaimientoPoético 22:05, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Dragon Ball Z: Sparking! Meteor. There's no English title yet, so assuming it will be named Budokai Tenkaichi 3 would be original research, which is a no-no. Takuthehedgehog 16:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be my bad. I guess I got so excited about a new Tenkaichi game coming out and used to everyone on the net calling it Tenkaichi 3, I kinda made that the page name. ;) Thanks for fixing it. // DecaimientoPoético 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually you could change the name back. Atari has already named it that. Its listed on GameFAQS as BT3 with a Q4 2007 release. Also there are "Official Budokai Tenkaichi 3" threads on Atari's own forums, with screens and whatnot. Here- http://www.ataricommunity.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?s=d18335a86a610e59c365eafcc059aee8&f=630 Since Atari publishes these games stateside, I'd certainly call this verifiable evidence. Onikage725 01:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

ok Do it. DBZROCKS 01:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Beaten to it :p Onikage725 01:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sucks doesn't it? In other news I found a site that had BT3 info as early as may 19th! DBZROCKS 01:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, pretty fast, aren't I? Anyway, tell us more (I found out about the game with info from the 19th too, or maybe even earlier, but whatever). // DecaimientoPoético 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Found Out from my fave DBZ site Daizenshuu EX. DBZROCKS 02:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I havent been on Daizex in a couple of weeks (blasphemous, I know). All I know on the game is the basics- a handful of new characters, day night cycles (and that they contribute to Oozaru options), on PS2 and Wii, etc. We'll just have to keep an eye on the official sources (I'll watch the Atari forums and check on Daizex, for my part), and add anything relevant as they tell us. Onikage725 13:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Before adding anything though give me a link, either in the references or in the edit box. Because I will probably delete it on sight if there is none of that . DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd probably do the same. I mean, the game doesn't come out for a while (Autumn for Japan) and we only have a handful of sources to prove the info we added as it is. // DecaimientoPoético 20:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Seem's the game will be released during the 2007 holiday season for US. http://www.gamegrep.com/news/1936-dbz_returns_to_ps2_and_wii_with_tenkaichi_3/

Yeah, I *said* fourth quarter of '07 already (from Atari and Gamefaqs). And DBZROCKS (and others), if I put something up but forget a link, please ask me for one before deleting. I swear to you I wouldn't put anything up that I didn't get from Atari, Daizex, or a magazine preview (or an official Japanese info-release). Look at my history on the BT2 page before its release. You'll see I fight the unverified info and fan-guesses as much as anyone else. Onikage725 21:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There have been two questionable images floating around lately about two new characters. If you guys get the chance, check out the current discussion for more info. // DecaimientoPoético 01:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Seeing as though this task force's talk page is constantally reaching long page status I sugest we do two things

1. Make it so that our achives are dated (Ex: March 2007)
2. Have a seperate archive page so that the talk page isn't clogged up with all the archives. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes to number 1, no to number 2. That's what an archive box is for.--$UIT 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Romaji and Manga Naming

This is something that caught my attention and has bothered me and maybe some of you for so time and it is the issue on how to name characters. Now for a long time many of you have said we use the japanese names which I agree with since it is the original naming of the characters but the thing is the discussion are on indivdual articles on which way to use them. We need to come up with what we will use. So far we have a mixture of romaji, manga(Both English and Japanese), and english word from american anime. Now here are some characters that names are of the Romaji and manga. Also if we use manga which manga version? We use english or japanese?

• Manga--------------Romaji
• Vegeta-----Bejita
• Trunks-----Torunkusu
• Bulma------Buruma
• Yamcha-----Yamuchu
• Cell-------Seru
• Hercule(Mr Satan)--Misuta Satan
• Android----Jinzoningen(Actually Artifical Humans)
• 17---------Junanago
• 18---------Juhachigo
• Piccolo----Pikkoro
• Freeza-----Furiza
• Baby(Anime GT)--Bebi
• Broly(Movie)--Burori(Broli Subtitled)
• Oob--------Ubu(We use Uub)
• Coola(Movie)--Kura
• Dijnn Boo---Majin Boo(We use Majin Buu)
• Saiyan (English)--Saiyajin

I hope you see where I am getting at. It is something that we discuss article by article but this is a combination discussion I am starting and it need to be discussed as a whole not one by one articles at a time. As you can go through yourselves, we mix manga, romaji and english names. It is something we need to fix. Some characters romaji and manga names are ok like the Son family, Tenshinhan and a few others but the ones above have to be discussed soon.Heat P 04:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think what we generally work for is the best romanization (example, Freeza, pun on Freezer, as opposed to the romaji Furiza and the dub Frieza. Or Piccolo, named after the instrument, over Pikkoro). Basically it is a case of "what's the better English equivolent." Case by case-

• Manga--------------Romaji
• Vegeta-----Bejita - Vegeta. Pun on vegetable.
• Trunks-----Torunkusu - Trunks, obvious pun
• Bulma------Buruma - Bulma's a pun on bloomers (and unsubstatiated that also Blue Mountain coffee, I'm still looking into that). Bloomer is common online too, but doesnt work anymore than Freezer. Blooma would technically work, but Bulma is pretty much universal with English speakers (even before there was a dub) -
• Yamcha-----Yamucha - we did this one above
• Cell-------Seru - Cell obviously, named for the fact that he has others' cells/
• Hercule(Mr Satan)--Misuta Satan - We don't use Hercule anymore, we use Mr. Satan.
• Android----Jinzoningen(Actually Artifical Humans) - I actually do think we should use Artificial Humans, as they are not all Androids. We dont have a blanket english term like this. 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, they are androids. 17, 18, and 20 are cyborgs (17 and 18 for being augmented humans, 20 has an artificial body but is a human brain transplant, not entirely artificial). Cell himself is an artificially created being (though not fully human) in that he was grown and had his dna literally cobbled together, but he is not an android. He isn't robotic at all (aside from his compatibility with 17 and 18, who themselves are primarily organic with cybernetic enhancements).
• 17---------Junanago - Both of these are just the Japanese words for the number
• 18---------Juhachigo - As above
• Piccolo----Pikkoro - I mentioned this earlier
• Freeza-----Furiza - and this
• Baby(Anime GT)--Bebi - I'm neutral on this. I don't know enough on the origin of his name from the creator's view. The pronunciation is the same either way. Seems kinda like arguing Gai/Guy, y'know?
• Broly(Movie)--Burori(Broli Subtitled) - As in an earlier topic, I think it should be Broli as per the subs. The name is a pun on Broccoli, which is spelled with an "i." The "y" is a dub error kind of like the "ie" in Frieza that loses a bit of the pun.
• Oob--------Ubu(We use Uub) - Since the name is just supposed to be Buu backwards, I have no issue with Uub. Uubu is just a case of the accent we talked about earlier.
• Coola(Movie)--Kura - Coola, since it's a pun on the english word "Cooler."
• Dijnn Boo---Majin Boo(We use Majin Buu) - Majin is more appropriate than Djinn. Majin doesn't mean Djinn, it is used as a pun (it brings the word to mind and Buu shares characteristics with them). The word itself means demonic person or being if I'm not mistaken. I'd note that Vegeta in his majin state is not considered a genie. Majin is used to refer to the magic used in that arc. The stylized M adorns Bibidi and Babadi's clothing, as well as Buu's, and is branded on the heads of those who are brainwashed. M, not D. Djinn Boo just fails.

The real question with this is should we use Bibbidi, Bobbidi, and Boo. Bibidi, Babadi, and Buu are just the romaji equivolents of those words that the characters were named for. On the other hand, the romaji spellings are by and large the more commonly known ones. A subject for debate, I'd think.

• Saiyan (English)--Saiyajin - Saiyan is appropriate on paper. Just like noone bats an eyelash over saying Nameks or Namekian over Namekkusei-jin. Saiya-jin = Saiya-person, or as we could say in English a Saiyan (like a person of America is an American- very loose comparison, but it should illustrate my basic point). The only real issue with Saiyan/Saiya-jin is pronunciation as a long A or long I, but that doesn't matter in print.

Those are my thoughts anyway. Onikage725 12:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agree with all of these. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me get a better idea of what we need to do here. So by the way it looks we mostly use the manga version of the names. Unless otherwise we have to use the romaji or dubbed names. again thanks for the help undersanding this more. I just want to get this straight because we got a lot of people wanting to put the romaji characterist names for one character and starts a discussion over it. So as a whole I brought it to the table.Heat P 07:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I generally like the manga names (meaning Viz), but if we pick one blanket source I'd rather use the DVD subs. The manga has some wierd ones (Vegerot, Pocus/Pui-Pui, Cultivars/Saibaimen) and some wierd attack names (some are left (Kamehameha), some are translated with a Chinese (Chi Kung Blast) bend rather than in Japanese, or are part-way translated into English (Light of Death- a half, mish-mash translation of Piccolo's signature attack). Plus we have characters and techniques that aren't in the manga (filler, films, GT). Onikage725 13:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As just a viewer of the dragonball pages, I have found it very distracting to see the Japanese names, or the direct translations. The Manga, English, names should be used. These are the most widely known names and are most widely used in publications. Since when have we heard Master Roshi called "Muten Roshi". When have we heard Bulma called "Buruma". This is distracting, and needs to be rectified. Casey14 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What "english manga" names were you referring to? Bulma's article is named Bulma (as Toriyama has consistently spelled it himself on artwork in the manga). She is called such in all english sources- subs, dub, viz manga. Roshi is called Muten Roshi in the english manga, along with Kame-Sennin. "Master Roshi" is an error by the dub, as it basically means "Master Old Master" (Its supposed Invincible Old Master) and on the english subs. Since when have we heard him called Muten Roshi? On every properly translated source, including the one you say we should use. The only times we use a name not in use in the manga (aside from attacks) is when the manga over translates into something noones ever heard of (Pui Pui being called Pocus, for example), or if the character was never in the manga to begin with (like anime filler or movie characters). Onikage725 14:12, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Increase in Vandals

I'm pretty sure that most of you have noticed an increase in vadalism lately, I sure have. I've had to fix up the Goku article (Persistant change to Funi names), Super Saiyan article (Ascended Super Saiyan 4 and Broly is Super Saiyan 8, WTF?), Gohan (Name change to Son Gohan Jr.), and of course the persistant argument on the Vegeta article that most of you are probably aware of (Vegeta saga or Saiyan saga?). I just think that we should address this issue strictly, with possible threats of reporting (I did on the Super Saiyan article and they stopped for now). What's your opinion? --MajinVegeta 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow. I actually missed most of that... I agree with you 100% though. Onikage725 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Too Overzealous with mergers?

It doesn't seem to make much sense to have the King Piccolo article as a redirect. Coola and Broly are movie villains, and had therein had far less air time than Piccolo; Android 17 and Bebi also are (not arguably) far less influential on the series than Daimao. Whoever decided to go with the merge should do the same with all characters who are not significant. What exactly is the criteria for a character having his/her own article and being included in the template?

As far as I can tell, popularity. Like you said, 17 is a side character in the Cell saga, isnt really around that long, and has a brief revival in the middle of GT. Daimao had a greater impact to the series overall. But Daimao is from the lesser seen Dragon Ball, and the Cell Saga was the height of the dubs popularity. Easier to gain support to merge some old villain not everyone even saw than to drop the oh-so-popular android. Why do you think people want to merge Roshi when articles like Cell and Buu are in such poor condition right now? Onikage725 14:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to rename Freeza Saga to Frieza Saga

Please discuss at Talk:Freeza Saga#Requested move to Frieza Saga. –Pomte 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Renames

I've noticed a lot of proposals to rename articles to the Funimation spellings. It's kinda making me mad, I 've tried explaining that it was decided ages ago to use the Japanese names. If any of these articles get renamed, I'll be quite ripped. --MajinVegeta 22:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a knowledge database. They are not the FUNimation spellings, they are the English spellings. What YOU want is irrelevant if it's detrimental to the readers who aren't quite as big Dragon Ball fans as you are.

Trust me, I'm a lot more irritated than you are. I'm just a wee bit sick of Japanophiles saying "we want it this way, and since we own Wikipedia, the fact that Wikipedia says our way is wrong is irrelevant." - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice civil tone there. You want irritation? I'm getting sick and tired of the utter hypocrisy. They are FUNimation spellings. And one side of them. People from your camp tout the "official English names." Well guess what? FUNi's own official subs correctly spell the names (in this case, Freeza). Viz's official translation of the creator's original manga correctly spells the name Freeza. These are ENGLISH sources. FUNimation's DVD saga sets these saga articles cling to are soon to be defunct, replaced with season box sets (which are numbered, not named). Not mention sheer logic. The character's name is a pun on the word freezer. It is a an English loan word that became Furiza. Re-westernizing it does not randomly add an "i" in front of the "e." Since when in English does "ie" make a long "E" sound anyway? It's a typo, it's bad grammar, and it's used in one of 3 primary official English sources (dub-related materials). Or, as I've asked before, do you store your frozen goods in the "friezer?" This series is heavy on name puns, and we should be as true to Toriyama's intentions as possible. And the correct spelling is in use in English, so anyone who says otherwise or claims original research is ill informed. Luckily we have a whole friggin section on Freeza's article explainging the name, the pun, and its adaptation. I don't think people are as stupid as you all make them out to be. Frieza redirects to Freeza. There's a picture of him with alternate spellings, and the first section beyond the intro talks about his name. If my dub-only casual viewing kid brother doesn't find the one letter difference confusing, I think the average reader can put 2 and 2 together and still come up with 4. Afterall, we're here to inform, not push a specific adaptation. Onikage725 15:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Right - I mean, it may be the RIGHT adaption because it may be what people are USED to, but hey, who cares about the readers? All we're supposed to be doing is making a shrine for Toriyama. I guess when it comes to user friendlyness, it's only worth considering if it doesn't get in the way of your raging Japanophilia. Oh, wow, the sub versions use their Japanese names? Maybe that's because *gasp* it's a translation of what is said? And the translation would not use Goku in place of Son Goku? Also, all non-anime/manga merchandise is based on the anime. They use Goku. At no point should we use Son Goku just because VIZ uses it. The largest medium for the series in English-speaking countries is anime. The anime is larger in NA than in EU. Goku is the most well-known English name given to the character. So...

We use Goku. And before you reply with "but we want the Wiki to be convenient for our tastes!", show me a policy that says that Wikipedia is for the editors' enjoyment. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Once more your argument is ill-informed, nor does it particularly apply to the Freeza/Frieza issue. Son is the character's surname, and is aknowledged as such even in the dub (the family unit as a whole has been referred to as the Son family). Just because the dub doesn't use the surname as often as the original doesn't make the name incorrect. If you are referring to the other spellings of Goku, they all correctly romanize as "Goku." And in case you don't know, the character is directly named after Son Goku (the Japanese equivolent of Sun Wukong). And you may be interested to know that his article is named Son Goku, though he is referenced by his first name afterwards (ditto his sons). How would refusing to aknowledge the character's full name be encyclopedic? Just to, to use your own term, build a shrine to the FUNimation dub? I suppose we might as well go on to add the Dr. Gero led the Red Ribbon Army and Tao Pai Pai was a top general, as told in DBZ flashbacks by the dub. Correct information is correct information. If someone is unfamiliar with it, then look- they just learned something!

And to bring this back to Frieza- Goku's surname or no, it doesn't change the fact that Freeza was incorrectly spelled in the dub.

All we're supposed to be doing is making a shrine for Toriyama. I guess when it comes to user friendliness, it's only worth considering if it doesn't get in the way of your raging Japanophilia. Oh, wow, the sub versions use their Japanese names? Maybe that's because *gasp* it's a translation of what is said?

"Raging Japanophilia?" Maybe you should familiarize yourself with the policy on personal attacks. While you're at it, you may be interested to note that Freeza and Frieza are pronounced the same way. The problem is that the name is a loan word from English, not a Japanese word being translated. And the root word is "freeze" (or more specifically "freezer"). The FUNimation spelling, by all rights, should be pronounced with a long "I" sound. It. Is. A. TYPO. Onikage725 17:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really care much for the subject since I saw the FUNi dub first (but I still do prefer the Japanese version better), but I do have to agree that the articles should continue to use the Japanese spellings/names. The english names are already mentioned in the articles, so people shouldn't be asking to replace them with the 'english names'. That's why on the main articles, it says Anime Names and Manga Names. Ryu Ematsu

I just want to re-affirm that the names in question are in use in English. And since the anime is no longer airing regularly, and the box sets are not named by sub-saga, but are simply numbered now, what is "predominate" is a little hard to judge. The two main outlets are the DVDs (and the average person liable to buy an anime boxset is also likely to check out the original audio-heck I do, and I usually prefer a good english dub to a sub), and the manga (widely available at any major book or comic store- Barnes and Noble, Borders, Waldens, even FYE). Manga is rising in popularity, and even kids are picking them up in droves. Everytime I go to my local Borders, the manga shelves are being picked at more by groups of young teens than by "Japanophiles" or hardcore otaku or any of that sort. Onikage725 18:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason why we SHOULD use it. Who is helped? Are you saying that there's no potential reader who will be helped by using English names, but there are readers who would be? Japanese names are for the fans. The article is not written for the fans. It says to use the most common English title, and Google hits do not indicate that the manga's name is the most common English title or most well-known English title, and anecdotal evidence (your opinion on manga based on your observations) does not work on Wikipedia. When the anime was available, you could watch it on television for free (assuming you had the channel). The manga? You have to buy it to even read any of it unless you see a page of it online. Additionally, let's look at Amazon sales. The first season of Dragon Ball Z is the #1,105th DVD of the hour, and the second season is #439. The first issue of the manga is #317,051. So I have Google hits, Amazon sales, odds, and merchandise on my side. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Those DVDs are dual-language. Freeza is spelled correctly on the sub track. I don't see how that makes your case. There are a number of more radical changes you could be arguing for, name-wise. I don't see how you plan to make your case on "Frieza." Ignore pure logic all you want, but "Freeza" IS the correct ENGLISH spelling of Furiza. Frieza is not. As I said before, anyone who has completed a grade-school english course can tell you that "Frieza" would not be pronounced with a long "E" sound. And yet it is. Because it is mispelled in the dub. We have an english loan word, spelled correctly in English on official sources. So please stop telling me that I'm not using English. Dont call me a Japanophile or insist that I'm trying to have the articles in Japanese. Did I say spell it as Furiza? No? Ok then. Onikage725 20:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm solely devoted to converting the orginal Japanese information to an English adaptation for Wikipedia, not translating an adaptation that has already twisted and messed up the original information. It's more consistent to use the original information instead of using the information that is tweaked in the dub. --VorangorTheDemon 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what you are saying here is that it is inconsistent to use the dub names. Why? And no, your personal feelings are very, very irrelevant. What matters only in this discussion is "which name will the reader most understand?" - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying the casual reader won't understand "Freeza?" Hell, a non-fan won't even be able to pronounce "Frieza," given that as a English word it does not make any sense (given the correct pronunciation used in the dub in spite of the spelling). Furthermore, we have redirects, so a search for Frieza lands on Freeza. The article says in two places what the dub spelling is. There is a section on the pun and origins of the name. Noone will be confused. You really need to give people more credit. It is a one vowel difference, and a proper English spelling. It isn't rocket science. And "Frieza" doesn't remotely convey the pun. And yes, the dub is inconsistent. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be properly informed. The same adaptation that coined the spelling "Frieza" also once claimed noone truly died and that Bardock was a brilliant scientist. Later, when some of that was fixed, they still wrote themselves into a corner with almost every flashback. I mentioned the large plot holes they suggested with their Red Ribbon flashbacks. You glossed over those either because you didn't want to acknowledge them or you've never seen/read the Red Ribbon arc. All the same, the dub is unreliable, hence we don't rely on it. NOONE is served by sticking to incorrect information. Onikage725 20:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfect example: the spelling of Frieza on the boxes, and then in the subs: Freeza. Two different spellings on FUNimation licensed stuff for the same guy. Care to elaborate how that is not inconsitent? --VorangorTheDemon 20:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you even listening?! The subs are a translated version of the Japanese anime! So what's more common to someone who owns the DVD - the name used in this alternative version, or the name that's on the cover of the DVD? Being used in Japanese subtitles does not make it the most common English name! - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

News flash- the show IS a Japanese anime. Deal with it. Double flash- the old sets are not in print, in favor of sets simply numbered by season. "Someone who owns the DVD" is presumably familiar with it. We can't exactly draw a hypothetical conclusion about what audio track they prefer. I thought you were big on the "casual reader," so what does that have to do with the dedicated DVD-buying fan? It'd be easier to believe you weren't a dub-fanatic if your arguments were consistent. Onikage725 20:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm not listening, I'm reading. And I agree with Onikage, any dub is simpy an adaptation of the original, but in the case of DBZ, there are numerous tweaks that make the information inaccurate. and screaming at people just because things aren't going the way you planned is both rude and immature. Manners are important to me when I am having discussions with people, otherwise, they aren't worth my time. --VorangorTheDemon 20:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And guess what? Look at the URL. Notice how ja.wiki is inexplicably missing? Well, let me explain why... THIS IS FOR ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE! And what the Hell are you talking about? It seems that the only argument there is on your side right now is this alternate version to the English dub of the anime being on a DVD which only a fan would buy. So what, is that admission that you're seeking to serve fans and not non-fans?

Stop speaking. If you can't even do something as simple as telling me who is helped by using the Japanese name besides Japanese-speaking people and the fans, don't bother responding! All you're doing is regurgitating the same meritless argument - "TORIYAMA AM GOD SO WE GOTS 2 BE JAPANEEEESE LOL". Let me give you a hint why I'm extremely irritated:

You couldn't care less that Wikipedia is for English-speaking people.

You're even worse than the Americanophiles. At least they have a leg to stand on - at least when I argue naming conventions, they can argue it back. But you don't even do that! What single guideline or policy exists that can back up your argument? What guideline or policy implies that we should use a non-English name regardless of the fact that suitable alternatives exist?!

You still haven't explained what value there is to appealing to smaller groups - INTENTIONALLY appealing to smaller groups. And no, there's nothing that says you can just decide to not use either English name and just make Wikipedia worse for all of them and improve it for only a small sect of Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of formatting your paragraphs. And please stop yelling and insulting others or you will be reported.

Chooisng not to use "either English name?" We do use one of the accepted and official English names, and the one that happens to be correct. Please stop insisting that "Freeza" isn't English. That word is a variation/pun on the English word freezer. For the last time, "friezer" is not a word, and the dub contains a repeatedly used typo. "Freeza" can not possibly exist in that form in Japanese (hence the romaji Furiza). Your constant insistence otherwise, and you're constant yelling and overall combatitive tone are losing you any credibility you might have had. Onikage725 21:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As another voice in this discussion, even though I read very little of the current discussion (two or three comments at the most), I'll be willing to add my two cents. We should use the "official" names for the character articles. Problem is, what's official and what's not? Should we use the original Japanese names? Viz names? There are many people working here at this community with different opinions. Most people would think that since this is the English Wikipedia, it's only common sense to use the English anime names, as more people watch the series than read the manga. Others would like to disagree with statement, like arguing about the fact that there are more than one English dub than just the one FUNimation released. I'm not suggesting a vote or poll, but there has to be a better way of discussing this than having all this arguing and incivilty.

I don't even see the problem with the naming convention in the first place, though. We discussed this long ago, and it was decided to use the names we use now. // DecaimientoPoético 21:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

At what point does it matter what the community decides? Naming conventions says "use the most common English name". Son Goku is certainly not the most common. All the merchandising uses Goku. Until it can be explained why Son Goku is the most common English name, stop saying it is. Also, is there a single good reason why not a single user arguing for Japanese names has explained why it's good for the average reader? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Must I repeat myself? I already have explained that, you have not been reading. The Japanese names are more reliable because then the different English spellings are not disputed. By using the original spellings, there's not argument between what is the correct English way of spelling it. Wikipedia is not here to convey the dub, it is here to convey the original information. That's what I'm here for. I'm also not here to listen to you have a fit over the name of an article. --VorangorTheDemon 21:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful, you've composed an argument that's not enforced even the slightest bit by policy or guideline. You are actually proposing that we cater to two smaller groups over the two largest groups on Wikipedia? So basically, you admit that a significant percentage of Wikipedia is not being helped in any way possible. And Wikipedia SAYS TO USE THE MOST COMMON ENGLISH NAME. Now in your next post, tell me why Son Goku is the most common English name. And if so, why? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop using your Goku argument. Seriously. Son is his surname. Son Goku is simply his full name. That is not a case of two different names. Most people I know refer to the US president as "Bush," "President Bush," or "Dubya," yet the article is George W. Bush. Noone casually refers to him as "George W. Bush," yet we use his full name for the article. Using Goku's surname does not create a disparity with the dub. And as for going by the FUNi dub? We don't use it because it is inconsistent. Didn't say this like a thousand times? You conveniently ignore this point. Tell ya what? You comprise a list (going only by the dub) of character names that properly convey the original pun, a story synopsis that is consistent with itself (outside of the well known anime-only segments that aren't canon, obviously), and an attack list that actually makes a shred of sense while being somewhat comprehensive, and I'll believe your view and full on support it. But let me do you a favor and save you the trouble- those things I just mentioned are impossible to do using the FUNimation dub. If we change every article to reflect only the US adaptation of Dragon Ball/Z/GT, then what shred of logic we've managed to bring to these articles will pretty much disappear. Onikage725 21:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

How does it matter? I'm asking who is helped by using the Japanese name. Apparently, that is a very hard thing for you to do, since you have oh-so-subtly refused to do so. Son Goku is his surname in Japan. NOT in the US. Son Goku is never used in the official English dub, and the fact that puns may not make sense with the "new" names is wholly irrelevant. There's only two things I'm asking - do you have evidence that Son Goku is the most common English name, and who is helped by using a Japanese name? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You are simply a dub fanatic. Times change, people use different names. Gokou, Goku, Gokuu, and Gokuh, they're all the same, and from English. What's Goku today is Gokou tomorrow. It doesn't take a person with an IQ of 150 to figure out that Goku is the same character as "Son Goku". And the most common English name as opposed to the "correct" English spelling are actually different. If someone who knows nothing about the show stumbles across these articles and reads them then I don't think that they'd throw a fit if they're spelled "wrong" according to the inconsitent dub. They won't even know the difference. Freeza and Freiza are pronounced the same way, as are Kuririn and Krillin, it's the same difference. You are not considering consistency, I've been arguing original information as opposed to information in the dub. As I said before, I am not converting the inconsistent dub to an article, I am converting the original Japanese information to the article. Goku and Son Goku are not two separate names, as if we were to name the article "Zero" as that was Goku's name in the Harmony Gold Dub. We focus on convenience for everyone, not only the US as you're trying to argue. By doing so, we use the original name spellings. I don't see anyone else arguing your point, perhaps it's just that they don't care. Or they don't see a significant difference. --VorangorTheDemon 22:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, what is in question is spelling, not "names." With the exception of "Hercule" (which is Mr. Satan in the uncut DVDs), the names are the same, with the question being of proper spelling/romanization. It isn't like you want Frieza and we are using Vinny. So who does it help? Well let's see. The series is widely known for its use of puns. Many of the dub spellings ignore puns for various reasons. Here's one example. Rikum is a play on the word Kurimu- as in "cream." The english dub went with Recoome for the sole purpose of putting a graphic of two eyes in the "oo" during one of the episode titles. The US manga goes with Reacoom, a bit of a middle ground (as the word cream is present). Note, we use Reacoom, not Rikum in this case. Our goal is to be accurate to the story, but we don't ignore English. Everything we use is from one official English source or another. Now for Goku, didn't I cover this like 3 times? If you can't be bothered to actually read what I write, I'm not going to bother talking to you. I will say once more that noone is arguing that his name is Goku. Him having a last name is not "Japanese only." It's in the US manga and it's on FUNi's dvds (your seeming disdain for the sub track being irrelevant). Also, it is animated into the series, the word Son. They've alos been acknowledged by FUNimation, however rarely, as the Son family. Just because they don't use his full name as much doesn't mean he doesn't have one. You make it sound like we present him as Songoku, like all one word and its this radical thing. Son is just his last name, so calm down with that please. Onikage725 22:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't care that you don't care that any article that does not adhere to naming conventions will not be featured or even reach good article. If you wish for your own preferences to get in the way of quality, be my guest. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And you are consistently confused. Wikipedia is not about adhering to the original version. If sticking to the original names is not convenient for the reader, then we don't do it. Did you know that Bill Clinton's real name is William Clinton? And Mario's real name is Mario Mario? But do we go with them? No, becuase they aren't the most common names. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point of your argument. No one supports you on this, and it was unanomously decided long before this discussion that we were to use the Japanese names for consistency. The information in the Dub has no place in these articles simply because of inconsistency in the dub itself. By using the original information, the articles are more organized, shorter, and easier to write. You also have to notice that you have gotten your way to an extent, we we don't use "Son Goku" in the article anywhere aside from the name and the opening paragraph. It is Goku everywhere else. This also goes for Gohan and Goten. And you are avoiding the names in the subs. --VorangorTheDemon 22:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

When did I ignore the usage of Son Goku in the English subtitles (a translation of the Japanese in the Japanese version)? Why use Son Goku as the title if you don't use it throughout the article? Like I said, Goku is certainly most common. And we can't use Son Goku just because it may be his full name in English for the same reason as why we don't call Bill Clinton's article William Jefferson Clinton, and why we don't call Mario and Luigi's articles Mario Mario or Luigi Mario. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am honestly getting tired of arguing this with you, we both have been stating our arguments repeatedly, which gets us nowhere. I'm retiring from this argument simply because I'm getting sick of reading your repeated complaints about name spellings. But atleast you chilled out a bit. You've ignored the sub spellings since the first time it was mentioned. And English is not only spoken in America, it is spoken around the world. And Funimation's dub is only distributed in America at this time. Same as Canada's dub is only distributed in Canada, UK dub is only distributed in UK. I think I'm going to go and make myself a tuna sandwhich, you're arguments are pointless and begining to bore me. --VorangorTheDemon 23:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is "instead of appealing to any one of the largest groups on Wikipedia, we'll just appeal to none of them!" That's, what, definitely more than half of Wikipedia that you're alienating. What don't you get about "nowhere does it establish that you can decide to not go with any English names"? It says to use the most common English name, and instead of picking between several legitimate names, we go with one that goes against naming conventions? There is an English name, so we should use it, no matter which is used. You still have failed to explain where you picked up that you can use the JP name as an alternative when there's multiple official English names for the character. And just ignore everything I said except for the previous sentence. What establishes that you can do this? Guidelines are not there for you to arbitrarily enforce and ignore. Ignoring them will be detrimental to the quality of the articles, because in failing to be a recognizable name by any of our largest audiences, it cannot pass through the FA. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, Tuna. The reason why I argue this is because it has already been discussed a long time ago. Read the boxes at the top of this page, It's obvious that you haven't. And if you attempt to change it yourself, I can report you for vandalism. Has anyone even tried to nominate the article for FA? On what grounds is the argument "it cannot pass" valid? No one's even tried it as far as I know. --VorangorTheDemon 23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, I thought "using Japanese names when there are viable English names" is good enough reason. Just like an article must comply with WP:REF, so must an article comply with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) if it can, and Son Goku certainly can. It WILL fail the FA process. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You really need to calm down A Link to the Past before you are warned for incivility. Yes, there are one of two guidelines that can be followed: WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOS-JP. The Dragon Ball names are written in English, some even Engrish — I don't see what your arguement is. This WikiProject is just following WP:MOS-JP instead of WP:COMMONNAME. This WikiProject is the head (should I say "the brains") of the Dragon Ball-related articles. If the names are what you don't agree with, create a new discussion about major name changes, demonstrate a list of examples if you may and hear the opinions of others. Maybe the FUNimation names should be utilised, they're not though. If the rule you are abiding by is WP:COMMONNAME, which is a guideline not policy, then there is nothing being challenged here is there? If it were policy then Goku would be the title of the Son Goku (Dragon Ball) article, Frieza would be the title of the Freeza article, and so on. As this is not a policy, rather than argue discuss for something to be made here; makes things a hell of a lot easier for everyone to just talk about it. Lord Sesshomaru

That policy is for Japanese names which do not have an English alternative - the only examples they gave were titles such as kamikaze, Mt. Fuji, and anime - they didn't mention anything close to Goku vs. Son Goku. The guidelines do not clash as you seem to claim - if there are Japanese-only characters in the franchise, they get a JP name. If they have English names, for the convenience of the readers, we use English names. You may want to use it for the sake of the fans or "consistency", but that's not what Wikipedia is about. I'll get clarification, thank you. And just because they're not policies does not give you the right to ignore them whenever you want. Guidelines aren't policies because there ARE exceptions. A policy is, for instance, "copyright infringement" - that will have no exceptions. Guidelines are guides telling you how to make a good article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I still have no idea what you're talking about exactly. Why is it you are not in favour of the Anime and manga WikiProjects guidelines? They are just as official as any other guidelines. Lord Sesshomaru

Because anime and manga guidelines do not trump universal guidelines that apply to all projects. If naming conventions says to use English names but a project decides to establish guidelines that contradict it, they are far less official - are these guidelines based on a decision that included more than anime fans? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you are disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point — begin a healthy discussion instead of banter. What you are saying is untrue, "Because anime and manga guidelines do not trump universal guidelines that apply to all projects. If naming conventions says to use English names but a project decides to establish guidelines that contradict it, they are far less official ... ". Where are you basing this off on? Original thought? I did read your post here and none have responded there as of yet. Please stop being disruptive and act civil. Consider this a warning. Further continuing to disrupt the Wikipedia will result in administrative action. Lord Sesshomaru

So basically, "stop saying stuff I don't like or else I'll TELL on you neener neener!". At what point have I ever attempted to disrupt anything? By not saying "you're right, I'm wrong"? Clearly, Naming conventions trumps your own personal guidelines. I asked a question, why aren't you answering? I asked who was involved in this little guideline decision. Did you seek input from multiple communities, including posting it on the Naming conventions talk page? If not, how it is valid when all it is is a decision based on the personal feelings of the project members? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Link, everyone, calm down. Both sides seem to be.. missing the point. However, "Goku" seems to be the most commonly recognized name by English readers. WP:MOS-JP does not conflict with WP:COMMONNAME, as MOS-JP isn't even addressing the same issues that COMMONNAME is. WP:ANIME says use the most common name recognized by English readers, as well. -- Ned Scott 06:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I mean, if you were actually following MOS-JA then the article would be Goku Son. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I've since calmed down. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Does not anyone appreciate what the anime and manga wikiprojects are trying to accomplish? I guess this is what I've been attempting to say all along. One user out of at least five disagree with the use of Japanese names: the wikiprojects are trying to do their best to use the most correct name and original name, much like we do at the Dragon Ball wikia. Whatever, I don't care to continue the arguement but as long as this point is across it's fine either way. Yeah, it is safe to say now that this battle has gone on for too long and should end before a war anticipates. Lord Sesshomaru

WikiProject Anime and manga uses the name most recognized by English readers for the title of the article itself, so I'm not sure why you keep saying that. -- Ned Scott 07:02, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit conflicted — See Ned this is exactly why I lefted WP:DBZ: I don't understand you, I don't understand Link and I most definitely don't understand the rules at these anime/manga wikiprojects. If only I hadn't lefted Wikipedia two years ago and joined the DB wiki I probably would have understood everything here. Then, pray tell me, if what you say is true, why isn't Son Goku (Dragon Ball) titled Goku? Lord Sesshomaru

Maybe because of the same reason that most articles need cleanup and fixing. How things currently are is not always an endorsement of how they should be. -- Ned Scott 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm so sick of this debate. It's going nowhere. And I don't see the major issue, when you Google "Goku", the Wikipedia article for Goku comes up as a result regardless if you actually type out "Goku" or "Son Goku" into the Google search. So what's this argument proving? The "most common English name" guideline is simply a suggestive guideline that we here at the Task Force don't follow because we are more concerned with consistency then we are with the dub that creates facts out of thin air, which are contradicted later on in the series. I still stand firm by the belief that original names are the most appropriate for the articles, regardless of the guideline. As I've said before, anyone with an IQ over 4 can figure out that "Son Goku" is Goku's original name. It's not so different that a resemblence can't be seen. Also that's why there are pictures when you open the article, to show you who the character is. I'm pretty sure that people can tell who he is if they look at him. Same with Freeza, Son Gohan, Son Goten, Muten Roshi, ect. --VorangorTheDemon 07:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Consistency? I see "Goku" in the article texts, not "Son Goku". I could understand making the title of the article "Son Goku" if "Goku" was taken, as a way to disambiguate it, but right now Goku is just a redirect to Son Goku. This isn't even a different name. By not including "Son" you avoid confusion for all fans, and it's still just as accurate. Note "Son Goku" in the article itself. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, these are all minor issues anyways. If you guys really want to settle this, take the renames to WP:RM. -- Ned Scott 07:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, on Goku, I wouldn't care seeing it either way. My point is that having his full name is not "confusing." A search for Goku turns up there with a picture of him, the words Dragon Ball in the title, etc. I can't imagine someone typing "Goku," winding up there, and scratching their head thinking "who is this guy, I want the main character from DBZ!"

My point is that most articles use full names for real and fictional characters. Casually, people say Obi-wan, but the article has Kenobi. People (and the series) usually use just Naruto yet we have the Uzumaki. Yu Yu Hakusho's Kuwabara is referred to almost exclusively as such, but we use Kazuma included. The Mario counterpoint is realllly stretching it, cuz it's never used and seems more like a Nintendo inside joke. Unlike that, Son is used. It is used in the original version (which is available, subbed in English, on DVD despite what some seem to want us to believe). It is used in the manga translation. It is animated into the series (thus visible no matter what audio track you are listening to, as well as being present in the manga). It is acknoweldged as the family name in the dub. I don't remember the exact scene, cuz its been awhile (it was on TV, I dont have those DVDs though I will when the new box sets progress that far), but the announcer called them the Son family and it nearly knocked me outta my seat.

Oh, and if anyone wants another reason why I feel going by the dub will lead to inconsistencies- here's one. FUNimation makes no distinction between Kaio and Kaioshin, calling them all "Kais." They make it sound like East Kaioshin was a particularly strong Kai who became Supreme Kai (i.e. Dai Kaioshin) after Buu's rampage. The hole there being that Kaioshin are a different and higher level being than a Kaio, and also East Kaioshin never declared himself Dai Kaioshin (as far as we are told, Rou Kaioshin/Old Kai is the second Dai Kaioshin). Onikage725 11:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't finished reading this monstrosity just yet. When I do I will post my full thoughts. But I will say this for now; this is an online encyclopedia right? And the purpose of an encyclopedia is to INFORM people right? To present accurate information that may teach a person something about a particular topic that they may not have known much about before hand right? So by that reasoning, we ought to be using the CORRECT names yes? As for this "worry" that this will somehow cause "confusion" for the "average reader" (whoever the hell that is), bear this in mind; we have PICTURES OF THE CHARACTER IN QUESTION accompanying most if not all of their articles correct? And in case the character in question's name is drastically different between the two versions, we do have this nifty little feature called a redirect right? And we also almost always have a written explanation regarding information on what the dub name is, and why it's incorrect right? And to top all this off, isn't one of the Dragon Ball wikiproject's main goals to not show a preference towards one ADAPTATION over another and simply go by the original Japanese source? So then if all of what I just stated is accurate (and I'm fairly certain it is to the best of my knowledge), my question then is... what exactly is the problem? When your "average reader who knows only the dub" enters "Master Roshi" into the search bar, the redirect will take them to the Muten-Roshi article, complete with the character's portrait in plain view to inform them that yes they do have the right article, and right smack within the first few paragraphs are a full detailed explanation as to why the character's name is different from what they're used to. Now I know that if something like this were to happen then our hypothetical average reader might actually LEARN something, and thus, the primary function of an online encyclopedia would be carried out successfully. But, and forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong, but I was operating under the impression that this was a GOOD thing. Fuad Ramses 01:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The manual of style for Japane-related articles states: "An English loan word or place name of Japanese origin should be used in its most common English form in the body of an article." Wouldn't that apply here (for Freeza)? The word Freeze that he derives his name from was loaned to make Furiza. The most comman english spelling of such would retain the two "ee's." That spelling (which none of those against have been able to dispute, aside from quoting a flawed google test or saying "its official" has been able to refute) is the correct romanisation, retains the original English meaning, and is in use in 2 out of 3 primary English sources. Until someone can prove how one FUNimation set is more official than A) another FUNimation set and B) Viz, I really don't see how "Freeza" can be considered "unnofficial and Japanese." I can accept concerns that it is may be less common, but acting as if they don't exist and that anyone who says otherwise is a Japanophile really throws my head in a spin. Onikage725 01:53, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it appears that wanting English names is to be NA-biased, so why isn't it JP bias to want the Japanese names? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

How is Freeza "JP?" Is anyone pushing for Furiza or Gokuu/Gokou/Gokuh or Kulilin or anything of the sort? NO. These names are used in official English sources, and are the best transliterations and preserve the puns that were intended. It would really help me to feel you actually read my arguments if you'd stop saying we're using a "Japanese" name. I've pointed this out to you before, and I JUST pointed out in my last post which you directly replied to why "Freeza" is official and more appropriate for English readers. In fact, a non-fan won't even know how to pronounce "Frieza." Frie generally indicates a form of "Fry." This is pronounced with a long "I" and also indicates heat (the exact opposite of Freeza and his family's naming scheme). I really don't see how this is rocket science. "Freeza" is the correct transliteration of Furiza, is based on an actual and recognizable English word, and is officially used in two out of the three main sources (last I checked, Steve Simmons was still turning a paycheck). Your constant insistence that Freeza is somehow Japanese is really not helping you. The word can't even exist in that form- that's where Furiza comes in to play. And Freeza/Frieza are pronounced the same way, Freeza's just the correct spelling. Explain to me how not using proper English for a name that is just as well known and official helps the reader? Onikage725 09:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrational generalizations make wanting Freeza JP-biased. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to say this one more time, and for the last time. Freeza is not Japanese. Furiza is. Freeza is the English name in the FUNimation sub track done by Steve Simmons. It is the name used in the Viz Media translation of the manga. It also happens to be the correct way to transliterate Furiza, as it comes from the ENGLISH word "freeze," which is spelled with two e's, not "ie." I really do not know any other way to say it. If you still have the urge to write back that it is "JP" then you can save yourself the trouble, cuz it is clear we aren't able to effectively communicate with each other on this issue. Onikage725 16:16, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But it must be - if wanting to use the English name is to be NA-biased, so should wanting to use Frieza be JP-biased. Why can't I make irrational generalizations if it can be declared that I am biased? Additionally, 100% of everyone who sees Frieza in the DVD's subs is guaranteed to see Freeza on the box. 0% of everyone who sees Freeza on the box is guaranteed to see Frieza in the DVD's subs. So the only presence is in English subtitles of the Japanese version and the manga which uses translated Japanese names. You can yell "butcher" at FUNi all you want, but Freeza has more, more exposure than Frieza has. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1) You need to calm down. You reversed the names completely in that post, and really didn't make much sense. 2) Noone is calling you NA-biased, as (I really cannot believe I'm saying this again) Freeza is not a JP name and is used in 2 out of 3 official English sources. And your math is highly speculative. I could just as easily throw some hypothetical figures out there to "prove" my point. I could say that 100% of people who own the DVD have exposure to both Frieza and Freeza, while 100% of the people who have read the manga have exposure to Freeza only. I could also theorize that it is likely that as many if not more people have read the manga or even just perused at a book store than who randomly picked up a DVD, skimmed the back, and committed spellings to long term memory to the point that the smallest variation will confuse them. Though we can then even that out with videogames and toys. But this is all hypothetical and can't really be proven My point is that "Freeza" is not this mystical, unheard of, foreign, Japanese-only name that you trump it up as.

I'll also say what I said on the other site of this debate- You're going to have a hard time convincing me that anyone reaching the Freeza article will be struck numb with confusion due to the lack of an "i" when the anime wikiproject has Rei Hino, Ami Mizuno, and Makoto Kino listed as articles to reach GA status (as opposed to Raye, Amy, and Lita). As stated on the wikiproject page "The following articles reached Good Article status and should be used as references for work on other articles in order to bring them up to GA level." Considering that a number of Sailor Moon articles have reached GA status and Dragon Ball is pretty much the laughing stock of the wiki-world, I think we could do worse for a role model. Onikage725 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? There's been far more accusations that I'm NA-biased or am a FUNifan than there have been of Japanophilia.

Also, point being? I've seen many articles get GA'd when they weren't good enough. You ever see an article with a name conflict pass as an FA? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you'd care to quote me on something I've forgotten, I'm more than willing to apologize, but I seriously don't recall calling you NA-biased except maybe in response to you're constant attacks. Right from the get go you've been calling people out as "Japanophiles" or "JP-biased," accused me of waging a war, trying to "build a shrine to Toriyama," etc. You came in from the word go with a contentious attitude and unwillingness to acknowledge any point you don't like, and have slung insults and generalizations periodically. You've also said numerous times, in direct response to me saying Freeza is English and where/when it is used, that Freeza is JP. Onikage725 22:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Google test

Is there a way to make that reliable? I did a search for Freeza, and while I get a number of prominent hits, I also get some entirely unrelated links. On the other hand, a search for Frieza is just as bad. The first "Frieza" hit is our own "Freeza" article (with the hit coming from the naming section), then there is a fansite that switches between names (uses Frieza and Freeza, uses Kulilin, the admin calls himself "Freeza-sama"), absoluteanime (which is wierd for using both names and mutliple sources within its article- Kiwi, Baata, and Recoome is right there a mix of all 3 English sources), and a Faq on gamefaqs. Is there a way to run the search to weed out crud? There are so many fansites showing up, and as far as I can tell none of them know what version they want to use for naming. Onikage725 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no way to make a Google test reliable and also there is a policey that says that google tests do not assert notability. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree DBZROCKS, and the problem with searching for "Goku" on Google is that the person searching can mean either the Dragon Ball Goku, the one from the Japanese adaptation for Journey to the West, or the one from Saiyuki. Therefore I don't think that Google is a reliable source for deciding what the most commonly searched spelling of the name is. Same with Frieza, someone could be looking for those other things with the name "Frieza". I have also searched Frieza and come up with completely different results then what I was looking for. Same with Gohan, I always come up with pictures of bowls of rice.--VorangorTheDemon 21:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WTF!?

It seems with only a four user consensus some random user deleted List of Dragon Ball special abilities! All in favor of its return say I. With a reason for its return DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

You want to goto the Wikipedia:Deletion review for this. Saying "I" isn't going to do much for you. TTN 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I know that but I wanted to get concencous on wether the article should be brought back. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Shouldn't someone have mentioned this? What is with all the deletion these days. Before long we'll have the main Dragon Ball article and maybe one on Goku...Onikage725 01:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus? More like a random delete, I didn't even hear of this proposal. Who was involved in this "consensus", anyone from the Task Force? I doubt it. --VorangorTheDemon 06:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. I'd never undelete something based on a discussion on a talk page. List it on deletion review if you want. --Deskana (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I take back what I said, TTN was a member that was involved in the consensus. Regardless, I viewed their comments, and they actually were halfway reasonible. But on the other hand, I would've opposed. --VorangorTheDemon 06:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's one thing I hate about this process. You put time and effort into something. You don't look at it for a couple of days. Someone comes along and says "this article sucks/is unencyclopedic/is cruft" and throws it up for deletion/merge. Three or so days later, worldwide consensus has been established by 3-5 people who happened to notice the tag. Onikage725 09:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

There should have been a warning left here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

So everyone in the project can pile on and oppose its deletion? I understand why you feel the need to be involved in the discussion, but I also understand why someone might conveniently forget to inform you all. --Deskana (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty unfair assumption. Should the Video Game project not be told that a video game article's being deleted, or (this probably would never happen) not tell the Shakespeare WikiProject when an article in their spectrum is getting deleted? You shouldn't just assume that everyone in the project would not contribute anything. Would you assume that the Pokémon project would do that? Because they really don't - for all you know, someone had a very convincing argument that would just completely reverse the decision. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I never said they shouldn't have notified you. I just said I can understand why they might be able to conveniently forget to. There's a difference. --Deskana (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's still an argument for the DR. If there's a significant chance that a second nomination could have a different result, that would warrant it passing the DR. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there is any real need for that, as it likely won't Unless others feel strongly that it would, of course. The arguments left were fairly spot on, and I personally can't think of a particularly good counter. Especially considering that most notable characters have an article and each one has a technique list on their article. I still just would have liked it if we had been informed though. The whole debate was like four people. Shouldn't at least the anime and manga wikiproject have been notified? Onikage725 21:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Compiling sources for the characters

OK, the characters really need some sort of substance to fill their articles. Right now, we just have unsourced name puns as the only real out of universe information. Other than that, we have bloated plot summaries and cruft (abilities need to be trimmed to small paragraphs for example). We need to start of with good sources in the very least. Real interviews, non-trivial comments on the characters (not "OMG cool!" from some random magazine), and anything else like that will work. We should try to compile a decent enough starting list for now. TTN 19:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I support this idea. These articles are an embarrassment when compared to the Naruto, Bleach and One Piece articles. Lord Sesshomaru

All of those articles are pretty bad (DB just has worse writing). The all have basically nothing that's out of universe (besides a couple of points here and there), which really is the main point of quality in a fiction article. TTN 20:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And that's why I reassessed the articles. For all you know, this whole section wouldn't exist if I didn't change the assessment and bring it to TTN's attention that there's a problem with the quality. Assessments are about that - don't use them just to make it seem like you've done more for the article than you have. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've known about it, but I really haven't cared. Lately, I've been thinking about trying to get a merger going for a lot of in-universe only character articles (most of the ones in the above series). It did give me sort of a push, though. So, I really think we need to get some sources going or just merge all but Goku (though that would never actually be allowed to happen). TTN 20:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Sesshomaru has a good point with his comparisons. Looking at Naruto Uzumaki, for example, you can see the abscence of what is pretty much the bane of the DB articles- plot summaries. I'd love to take a chainsaw to those sections, but any time in the past that I have or others have it gets reverted for deleting "useful information." Onikage725 21:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Beowulph once mentioned an idea I completely support, and that is trimming the bios and leaving summaries to the Saga articles (I think I said this once before too). I also think the sagas should be condensed. We don't need one for every sub-saga necessarily. Some of these are really short and shouldn't be as detailed as they are or have their own article (I'm looking at you, Ginyu Saga). Do you guys think something like that might help? Onikage725 21:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The summaries can be cut at any time. The main things we need are good sources. If we can't find those, we may as well just cut everything. There is no point in describing a character when it isn't backed by any real world info. TTN 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Onikage, I too have suggested bios where the sagas are condensed. I think on the Vegeta article, the Saiyan and Freeza sagas were condensed into one. I haven't been there in a little while so I'm not entirely sure if it's like that anymore. I really liked that idea, it took up less space and had less pointless details. --VorangorTheDemon 23:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

And as for sources, I could flip through relevant volumes of the manga that I own. I also have the two released season box sets. I know Greg Werner's site has translations of some of the Toriyama interviews from... ok memory fails, but either the Kanzeban releases or the Daizenshuu, and a couple of the ones translated for Shonen Jump can be found online. Daizex.com also has some character creation sections and whatnot, if that helps. Onikage725 00:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Super Saiyan near FA status?

I am not the one to usually question the quality of an article for FA, but I've noticed that the Super Saiyan article hasn't really been majorly altered in quite some time. In my opinion all that's needed is spell check and more references, and I think it'd be good for nomination. There's no point in having a decent article laying around if nothing's going to be done with it. Thoughts? Suggestions? --VorangorTheDemon 20:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It's not even ready to be much more than a B (if even that high). It has no real world information and it is written mostly in an in-universe perspective. It also needs a pretty big copy-edit (removing a lot of the fancruft from it and neatening is up). TTN 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Saiyan

I was just looking at the Saiyan article and it is really a mess. My break is almost over, so I can't really sit here and do the kind of cleanup it would need... but does it really need any? Do Saiyans as a race have any real world notability? Super Saiyans maybe do. Kids dying their hair blonde and other series' doing parodies is commonplace. But this? I hate the word cruft, but I really can't think of a better term. Should this go on afd? Onikage725 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, I really can't take that damnable Buu article anymore. Can I please delete the bio, leaving links to the appropriate saga article? These things are way too long, and Buu's seems to be the longest for some reason. Onikage725 16:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

About the Saiyan article, I would support a merge into the Super Saiyan article if it was purposed. The Saiyan article could get better, but only from removing certian things and organizing it. There really isn't any real world reference to it, no body references "Saiyans" in media, but they do reference the Super Saiyan. As for the Buu saga article, I don't care what you do with it, perhaps taking a chainsaw to it is all that's needed. It's mostly cruft anyway. --VorangorTheDemon 20:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Minor techniques actually needed?

I was looking through alot of the character articles and I realized that many of the techniques listed on them would be considered cruft. I don't think the average person is gonna know (or care) what the name of an attack is that the character only uses once in the series. (eg. Vegeta's round energy rings or whatever it is). Thoughts? I think all that's needed is the signature attacks (eg. Goku: Kamehameha, Kaio Ken, Genkai dama, and the flying technique). It cuts down on cruft and space, so erasing the minor techniques benefits us in two ways, length and cruft. Suggestions? --VorangorTheDemon 20:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That's probably a good idea. A *full* list would benefit a wikia or fansite. The only question would be what criteria should we use? Piccolo, for example, has one signature he's used quite a bit that many people don't really know- his Bakurikimaha (limited DB exposure in the states combined with FUNi either not naming it or calling it Masenko-HA leads to confusion), whereas everyone is used to his two biggies from the Cell saga (the gekiretsukodan/light grenade and scattershot), but those were only done once. Onikage725 10:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but also the Bakurikimaha (as far as I can remember) was actually a technique that was mostly used by Piccolo Daimao, not Piccolo Jr. I can't really remember one instance in the original series where Piccolo Jr actually used it, even though Gohan learns it from him. I also agree about the Wikia and Fansite thing too. I don't even know if the flying technique is needed, pretty much every one knows how to do it. It's not a signature attack, if we're to lable that as a technique for each individual, we might as well lable basic energy blasts as well. --VorangorTheDemon 22:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Piccolo uses it at the very start of Z, on Raditz. While I'm pretty sure he used it in DB, I'd have to take out my DVDs to double check. It was Daimao's biggie, and as such Ma Jr.'s until he developed some newer stuff (since he was Daimao reincarnate). And since you mention it, I think some of the articles actually do list variants of your basic energy bullet under techniques. Last time I looked, Buu's list had a "if he used it, it goes on" look to it, when all we would really need for him is Henka Beam, absorption, and genocide attack, maybe kamehameha and that pissed off explosion thing he was doing all the time early on.Onikage725 11:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Vegetto

Some people are trying to get Vegetto his article back by reverting the redirectory. What should we do? Ryu

He's not really that big of a character to get his own page, and it's been decided before that he should just have an entry in a list. Say what they want, the people who want his article back aren't getting it. // DecaimientoPoético 17:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I know. They keep reverting it to his original page. Ryu

I've requested the page be fully protected to prevent this from happening again, though I'm not exactly sure how well this will work. // DecaimientoPoético 17:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Warn them first, and if they keep going, prod me to block them. This isn't necessary, yet. --Deskana (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Official 'Move to "Goku"' consensus (See Son Goku article)

This discussion is going nowhere. People are getting angry with each other, and incivil. This is not acceptable. The consensus in this matter is either "do not move" or "no consensus", so either way the move is going to happen. Everyone needs to move on. Endless discussion is a waste of time better spent doing something else. --Deskana (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

cursing in Dragon Ball

Another editor indicated that participants here might be interested in joining a discussion about the inclusion of the line "this is the first funimation dub to include cursing" in Dragon Ball Z. Interested users are welcome to discuss the issue at Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z#Recent_edit_warring. Thanks.--Chaser - T 19:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The Super Saiyan article

What happened to the categories?--$UIT 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The only category it seems to have been in previously was [[Category:Dragon Ball special abilities]], which has since been deleted. So, since the category doesn't exist, it was simply removed, I guess. I've added the "Dragon Ball" category for now. -- RattleMan 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)