Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragon Ball/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 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. 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)
  • 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 25th 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)

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


State here whether or not you support the move from "Son Goku" to "Goku" by stating that you either Support or Oppose this purposal; give reasons why you believe that your view is the best choice.

  • Strongly Oppose- I believe by moving the article name to "Goku", the article looses encyclopedic value as it is an informal, and shorter version of the name that the creator originally gave the character. Wikipedia is about delivering accurate information and educating the masses, and by changing original names to names that are presented solely in a single English Dub contradicts the original information given, as well as can be considered, (to an extent) cruft. --VorangorTheDemon 17:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose mainly per Vorangor. Having the Son does not take away from the article, but instead improves it by adding towards its encyclopedic value by giving the his full name, unknown to most fans. It doesn't hurt the article to include his full name, though some users may beg to differ stating that the "most common name" should be used — a statement I completely disagree with in this situation. Just leave the name as is, and just move on. A three letter name isn't going to kill anyone. // DecaimientoPoético 17:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - per VorangorTheDemon and Poetic Decay.-- bulletproof 3:16 19:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Informal? I guess calling him Bill Clinton instead of William Jefferson Clinton is informal, too? Anyway, two things you all fail to understand: Using Son Goku is advantageous for the fans, NOT non-fans. You will never know his name is Son Goku if you do not either look it up or buy the DVDs and/or mangas. And the other thing is that Son Goku is NOT the most common name. We use this guideline constantly in articles, so why should we just decide to ignore all rules when it comes to this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop being so damn stubborn about his name. You say people will "never know his name is Son Goku if you don not [look it up]." This is where Wikipedia comes in. Wikipedia is a place to inform others of facts, which is exactly what we're doing by naming his article Son Goku — his full name. And the common name card isn't going to work here, as we have several articles that do not follow this standard. Most people know Ulquiorra Schiffer from Bleach as simply Ulquiorra and don't even realize he has a last name. Wikipedia is here to inform us that he indeed has one. And how many people refer to Grimmjow as Grimmjow Jeagerjaques? Not many, I can assure you. // DecaimientoPoético 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
So you say that because other articles ignore the guideline, the guideline is now defunct? If Wikipedia is about informing others of facts, we should title Bill Clinton's article as William Jefferson Clinton. Son Goku's full name can be said in the article. But Goku is the most common name, so the article's title should be Goku. It is undeniable fact that Goku is the most common name known by fans and non-fans alike for the character. The video games don't use his full game - TCG doesn't, toys don't, and the FUNi dub doesn't. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I do wonder something. Since you like to use Clinton as an example, do you really think that Hillary Clinton is best known as Hillary Rodham Clinton? Heck, while although I realize that a great many people do know her maiden name, how confident are you that most do? Also, can you please explain, again, why the articles can't be listed as just "Clinton" or "Bush" (or "Hillary"), but this one can be listed as just, "Goku"? Bladestorm 22:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Because anyone who knows them as Clinton, Bush, or Hillary knows them as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Hillary Clinton! Are you implying that anyone who knows this character as Goku also know him as Son Goku? Also, you keep bringing up non-examples. Even if you find a million articles that use a less common name, it doesn't make the guideline defunct. That article should be at Hillary Clinton, and even if they disagree, that is not a free pass to ignore the guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
So you're saying that the Hillary Clinton article is also wrong. Maybe it would be quicker if you just linked me to the exact guideline and section that states that you must use the full name over the most common name, but only if the full name is still widely known specifically by people who aren't particularly interested in the subject of the article? Because, so far, it sounds like you're making an argument for "Son Goku" over "Son Gokou" or "Son Gokuu". ('Use Bill over William, but still include both the first and last name, regardless of whether or not a partial name is more common') So... which specific guideline are you talking about here? Bladestorm 22:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
...If you look at my examples as specifically as humanly possible, yes. My example is that the full name should NOT be the title if it's not the most common, and in this case, "Goku" by itself is not the most common. Here's a better example - Jesus. Jesus Christ isn't the name of the article or Jesus of Nazareth, even though those are two common names. Based on the most common English name guideline, Jesus was used because it is the most common. Happy with that example? Son Goku is not the most common, and I have shown that the full name is not required in the article title (more so than I did with Bill Clinton's article). - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
uh... I'm not supposed to look at them specifically? Then how am I supposed to look at them? Incidentally, he isn't listed as "Jesus Christ", because "Christ" isn't actually a name. It's a title, or description. Calling him "Jesus Christ" as the title would tend to support the view that he was the saviour. And that doesn't explain why George W Bush should be listed as such when he's very frequently referred to as just "Bush". Again, could you please refer me to the precise guideline and section that you're talking about here? Bladestorm 22:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Are you implying that someone would only know George Bush's last name? That somehow, they have never in the history of time been exposed to even his first name, even though he's commonly mentioned as George W. Bush on the news? On the radio? In comedy? In articles? On the internet? Bush is NOT the most common name given to him. GOku is. People who know him as Bush know him as George W. Bush. If you disagree, you are flat-out wrong. I don't care what you say about it, there is no way someone would know him and not know his full name unless they only heard of him through the name Bush. Son Goku is not present in the majority of media DB exists in. Not video games, the dub anime, the VHS tapes, the TCG, merchandise (such as toys), etc. Why are Son Goku and George W. Bush comparable in any way? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, I am going to refrain from addressing any more arguments until you fullfill the request: You keep citing a guideline. Where is it? Which specific guideline (and section, if applicable)? This is at least the third time I've asked you. Bladestorm 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the guideline should be Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). This really isn't about which one is the "English" name. By the way, regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton, it was decided on her talk page that more people knew her as Hillary Rodham Clinton than Hillary Clinton, so that example would only support the common name guideline, and have little to do with being the full-name. -- Ned Scott 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - Despite what some (Read: one) might have you believe, Son Goku is not a different name. It is Goku's full name. Leaving out his full name would be like renaming the Naruto Uzumaki article as Naruto. I've field tested with people I know who aren't fans of Naruto (or anime in general) and none of them knew Naruto's last name. Does that mean we should pretend he doesn't have one? Hell, I know plenty of non-Star Wars fans who don't even know who Obi-Wan is, let alone his last name. How limited of an encyclopedia would this be if we only included information that the layman is already knowledgeable with. How does one even begin to determine what that baseline would be? The fact of the matter is, Goku's family name is "Son." The dub may not say it often, but it is still there. It is obviously there on the DVD sub track. It is on the profile page at the start of every graphic novel put out by Viz. We aren't talking about using a less common spelling of his name (like Gokuu or Gokou). We are simply using his full name. The one voice against this would have us believe that the parent project is 100% on his side on this. I find this hard to believe, when the majority of the articles under their scope use character's full names. They also generally seem to have a preference for the original work (i.e. a manga before an anime adaptation). For example, on the main page of that project is a list of recognized articles. Under the GA articles, they have Makoto Kino. I watched the Sailor Moon dub for years, and she was referred to as "Lita." I don't even remember them EVER using a last name. And yet this article is considered GA and set up on a list of examples of "what to do," using the original name as it is presented in the English adaptation of the manga. There are a handful of articles that don't do this- Tekkaman Blade is sometimes in flux, and Ronin Warrios comes to mind. However, I see these minority articles to simply be ones that the main project simply hasn't addressed yet. Onikage725 20:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Will you stop saying what i'm saying?! Have I EVER stated that they're different names? No! I said that Son Goku is LESS COMMON! Jeez, what don't you get about this?! You say "well, these articles ignore this guideline, so logically, the guideline is no longer relevant!". And just because the person who analyzed the article didn't know that it wasn't the most common English name doesn't mean that the guideline is defunct. If I were there, I'd have opposed the passing of Makoto Kino as a GA, and it would've succeeded. But besides that, Makoto Kino actually has an argument to use it in that the only English names are now unofficial and unowned by anyone. However, this one has a perfectly good most-common English name that is still official, but chooses not to use it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Please tell me you're joking. You have said time and again that his way of writing his name (and other similar ones) are different names, less common names, Japanese names or JP-biased names. YOU have said this repeatedly. My point is that Son Goku vs Goku are not an issue of two different names or common/less common. It is the same name, just one leaves out his family name. For example, you stated that the manga "also uses Goku" as if to indicate two different name schemes. It is the same name, just some characters, depending on their relation to him, use his full name, his first name, or his last name. Onikage725 21:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I know it's fun to twist words around, but let's get onto a serious discussion. So what if I say "most common name is Goku"? Son Goku is a name. Goku is a first name. A first name and a full name are in the category of "names". Are you implyign that Son Goku is used more often than Goku? Are you implying that it is helpful to non-fans to use Son Goku in the title? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
When there are multiple English names, use the most common one. I'm not trying to twist your words, I'm going off what you've said. What I am trying to point out to you is that this isn't a situation where there are two different names. Goku is his (in western order) first name. Son Goku is simply the full name. Goku is not short for a longer word, as such citing William vs Bill doesn't really apply. Likewise, I fail to see any other article not use a characters full name simply because non-fans may not know the surname (the "last name" by our way of thinking). Onikage725 23:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
"If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works." Goku is common enough that it is separate. It isn't used in the dub as Son Goku's informal name, it's used as his only name in the dub, video games, TCG, merchandise, and VHS tapes. The most commonly used English version of Son Goku is Goku. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Wrong. They are mentioned in the dub as the Son family. The name is also literally drawn in on occasion by the animators. Goku IS simply his first name. The dub doesn't make note of his last often, as in western cultures we place emphasis on the first name (credit that point to someone else, above, but it was a valid one). But "Son" is still his surname. Just because it is rarely mentioned doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And I really don't understand your examples. The dub and VHS tapes are the same thing. The rarely airs on TV and the VHS tapes (hell the whole format) is out of print and all but dead. That pretty much leaves the DVDs, which are dual-language. Video and card games are two types of merchandise , and neither of which is really a valid source for us to base these articles on. Onikage725 23:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Right, because any guideline on Wikipedia suggests that we use a name ONLY because it's the full name and because it exists. Son Goku is not the most common name. That is undeniable fact. The DVDs use the English version as the PRIMARY version. Video games, TCG, VHS tapes, and other official DB-based merchandise using Goku only strengthens my argument. The anime has always used Goku and on very rare occasions, Son Goku. The official English version of the anime is the FUNimation dub, so the Japanese subtitles are far less relevant. I have Googlehits, the common name guideline, and the fact that Goku IS the most common version of the character's name in English, based on the fact that it's the primary name in all secondary merchandise based on the series. Oh, and I thought I might add - the official Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z anime web sites do not make any reference to him being Son Goku. So FUNimation lists "Goku" as his official name in the English dub. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: THIS MOVE HAS ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. A Link to the Past, in spite of being in the midst of a discussion of the topic on the Son Goku page, nevertheless listed it as an "uncontroversial move" here. Bladestorm 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Bother to read the history. I put it in contested proposals, and someone moved it there. Nice job assuming bad faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Considering when Bladestorm looked at the page it was in the uncontroversial section, and you disagreed, it's not surprising he assumed what he did. "He placed it in the incorrect section" was much more likely than "Someone must have moved it", even if it turned out to be the wrong assumption. In summary: relax. --Deskana (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Who cares what's "much more likely"? Instead of checking, Blade decided that I must be acting in deceit and I must have put it in the Uncontroversial section, even though in less than one minute, he could have checked the history and seen that it was moved into the Uncontroversial section by a different user. There's no excuse for ABF. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Nobody checks the page history every time they read something to check if it's been moved. Why don't we drop the off topic discussion and get back to the topic? --Deskana (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That's an excuse, not a valid reason, to assume bad faith. Excuses don't become reasons just because of laziness. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:29, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, drop it. --Deskana (talk) 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's get off of Bladestorm assuming bad faith and back onto the discussion. List the guidelines and policies (and no, "ignore all rules" is not applicable in this case) you are using. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is true, and I fully acknowledge, that I was wrong about Link having listed it as uncontroversial. However, I greatly resent any implication that I was assuming bad faith. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, don't get too mad if I don't recognize it's actually a really tiny goose. I'm not lazy. I didn't jump to extreme and unreasonable conclusions. But the vast majority of the time, if a person's statement is in the wrong location, it's because the author of the statement put it there. That was not the case here. I admit that. But the fact that it never even occurred to me that someone else would've inappropriately relocated it isn't proof of my being some sort of ghoul. (Possibly a dimwit. I'd disagree with you even on that, but I wouldn't be so offended) Bladestorm 21:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, however, I think both of you need to drop it. --Deskana (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Hello? What do you think that assuming bad faith is? Me putting it in the Uncontroversial section would be acting in bad faith. You assumed that I was the one who did that, and claimed that I was acting in deceit. How is that not assuming bad faith? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Next person to comment about this matter gets his comments reverted. Regardless of who's right, this page isn't for arguments. Both of you are dropping this matter. --Deskana (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Plain old Oppose - I already explained my reason on the article's talk page some time ago and I'm not interested in discussing it again. -凶 23:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning goes against established naming conventions guidelines, which states to use the most common English version of a name - which is Goku, not Son Goku. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that you are repeating the same thing over and over and over and over again? You're constantly saying the same exact thing shows a complete lack of interest in anyone else's view, opting instead for an "I'm right, you're all wrong," approach? Actually I find myself retreading the same ground nearly as much as you in my vain attempts to reason with you. So I'm done engaging you on this. The consensus is pretty clear anyway. Onikage725 23:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - per all reasons I read above and on the Goku talk page. I am going to laugh when this survey is over, as it is obvious what will happen — the article will stay as it is. Lord Sesshomaru
    • I'd laugh too if I lost despite being right. FUNimation states Goku and Gohan's official names in the English anime as Goku and Gohan, not Son Goku and Son Gohan. They have exclusive rights to release the anime (with the exception of the first thirteen episodes, which they have dual rights to along with another company). So if one of the largest distributor of Dragon Ball-anything in the US says that it's Goku and Gohan, why should we go with a lesser medium (the manga)? The manga may be better, but it's less well-known and popular. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I knew since day 1 that you were being disruptive about going for the renames. This is why I have refrained from arguing with you again and again. It just goes to show that some people are stubborn and don't change no matter what the conclusion is/was. You have neglected to get others to support your views and it proves that you don't care what others think. I understand now why you have been blocked so many times for things like this. I'm officially done with this arguement. If you attempt to move the page yourself, well, I'm sure you know what will happen next. Lord Sesshomaru
Uh... the manga isn't just better... it's also canon. And, on that subject, if it's valid that the dragon ball website (supported by funimation) calls him 'Goku', then why isn't it valid that the Viz website calls him 'Son Goku'? I mean, other than the fact that the manga, being the highest level of canon, must obviously be ignored because you have to pay for it?
Incidentally, I looked at that guideline you provided. Here's the problem, it isn't on your side. (Nor is it explicitly on our side either, for that matter) As I suspected, it deals with which spelling/version/translation to use of a name, but does not mention dropping parts of the name. In fact, there is nothing in that guideline that supports "George W. Bush" over "Bush". (That is, there's no exception made for cases where a nickname is more common, but where the alternate name is still known, but only on tuesday, yadda yadda yadda) What it does support is "Goku" over "Gokuu" or "Gokou".
More specifically, it uses Christopher Columbus as an example. It says to use "Christopher Columbus" over "Christophorus Columbus", "Cristoforo Colombo", or "Cristóbal Colón". If the debate were about "Son Goku", "Son Gokou", or "Son Gokuu", then, hands-down, this would be a very helpful guideline to refer to. As it is, it states, "use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article" (yes, I know you quoted this part as well). Taken in the context of their provided example, it states that, when presented with the name, "Son Gokū", that last 'ū' should be 'u', not 'ou' or 'uu'. But it doesn't mention dropping part of the name. And it certainly doesn't mention anything about dropping part of the name, to include only the part that's most commonly used, unless the full name is also identifiable by an unspecified percentage of readers uninterested in the topic. (In fact, I can find no mention of disclaimers referring to fans not counting) So, could you either tell me how that guideline supports simply "Bush" and "Columbus", or tell me where it provides a disclaimer for cases where shortening the name is common, but only in cases where some percentage of people are also familiar with the full name? Bladestorm 00:09, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I just want to take a sec to say thank you. I've been trying to get that across, but you did it much better. Onikage725 01:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, Funimation has the rights of the anime only within the United States of America, English is spoken WORLDWIDE, and there are several official English translations, Son Goku is his proper full name not a Japanese pronuntuation, this is the last time I say so and comment on this. -凶 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Support This isn't a vote, and I have to say that just about all of you seem clueless on how we do naming conventions and the reason we name articles in certain ways. Link can get a bit excited over some of these issues, but he's totally right about this. If Goku is simply a redirect to Son Goku, then we go and use Goku. If we use the "full name" then we still move the article, to Goku Son (Dragon Ball) per the the JA-MOS.

    Further more, the whole lot of you have been down right mean to each other in this whole issue. That, with several flawed arguments and misunderstandings of how we do things, kind of paint the picture that you guys are out of touch with the rest of the site. If that's how it is, we'll move this to an RfC format and get the thoughts of editors outside of the taskforce. While this whole issue is minor, it might be worth it simply as a learning experience for many of you, in how we deal with consensus, guidelines, and naming conventions. -- Ned Scott 00:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree totally with the mean bit. People got far too involved and ended up arguing about some totally off topic issue. Stuff like that should never happen. I was almost tempted to block people to stop them arguing. That's not good. Everyone needs to relax a notch. --Deskana (talk) 00:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. On second thought it might just be better to forget about the issue, regardless of which name is right or wrong, since it's getting so heated. With a redirect in place, it makes no technical difference where his article actually is. -- Ned Scott 00:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Granted, civility might have been strained somewhat. (Not excusing it, but this is following an incredibly long argument on the actual Son Goku page, which included arguments to the effect of "the mangas and dvds don't count as much because you have to pay for them") Back on topic (and if you really do want to just drop the topic, then we can. But this is our first chance to discuss anything with a new 'support'), I'm not sure I quite understand how the 'common names' page favours dropping part of the name. I do realize that many articles probably do drop parts of names, and yet several others don't (eg. Philip J. Fry in Futurama, Cloud Strife et al. in Final Fantasy VII, Leonard McCoy instead of just McCoy or Bones in Star Trek). I don't see anything in 'common names' that directly addresses the problem. For example, "Julius Caesar" over "Gaius Julius Caesar" (or countless other variations), and yet not simply "Caesar", even though he's very commonly referred to as just Caesar. And, actually, I'd really like a comment on "Leonard McCoy", because there's no way that's nearly as common as simply "McCoy", or even "Bones". No interest in arguing, just honest discussion. :) Bladestorm 01:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I just want to add that I'm personally sorry if I'm ignorant of certain naming conventions, but scanning any other article on a manga or anime character I didn't really see any that used a partial name simply because non-fans wouldn't know the full name. Not for nothing, but "non-fans" may not even know the character in the first place, let alone a characters surname. So I didn't really see the logic to that argument. And on using a western order of Goku Son, I wouldn't be opposed to it except that that *would* be entirely unfamiliar. The Naruto articles use that order, but so does the dub. Goku's name is never presented in western order. In the manga and the subs it is written as Son Goku, and the dub presents Son as the family's name but doesn't say Goku's full name at any one given time. I think it'd be a case of jumping from one extreme to another if we keep the full name but present it in a way deliberately different from how it has ever been officially used. Onikage725 01:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I too apologize if I was a little uncivil. There is though a way to resolve this once and for all: why not create a separate Dragon Ball WikiProject that uses only information from the English dubs? Obsessed fan-boys (and "fan-girls") can add whatever the hell they want there regarding the English dubs. I didn't just have this idea, I've read it somewhere else on a discussion, though I can't recall where at the moment. Lord Sesshomaru
But what's the difference when names are there to sort out the articles if the name you type into the search box redirects there anyway? And it's not difficult to figure out that "Goku" is "Son Goku". And if we change it to "Goku", then we'd probably have to change everything else in the article as well for consistency. (eg. Mr. Satan to Hercule, Kaiosama to King Kai, Genki Dama to Spirit Bomb). In my opinion, changing names to accomodate fans is considered cruft. Well, if you think about it, it IS cruft. Someone who stumbles upon the page and knows nothing about DBZ could probably thinks that it looks better if Goku's name as "Son" in front of it because they'll figure it's his original name. The purpose of Wikipedia is to educate people by providing reliable and accurate information, otherwise, if you aren't educating people, what's the point of having an article? And I'm sure that people are more concerned with original information, not information in the dub. This includes names of the articles. --VorangorTheDemon 01:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Thinking more about it, the name order probably would still be Son Goku simply because it's a reference to an old folklore (WP:MOS-JA#Names of historical figures). Regarding the examples Bladestorm brought up, Names like McCoy, Bones, or Caesar are currently disambiguation pages, and are basically "taken". In this situation, using a full name can act as a dismabiguator, as an alternative to using something like "Name (Star Trek character)". If someone made the argument that Goku shouldn't redirect to the DB article, or that it should be a disambiguation page, then I could see the reason for using "Son" to disambiguate the name.
I want to apologies to you guys for acting all "high and mighty" in my message. While I do think everyone here does need to be a little bit more respectful, I've all too often been in the same position as you guys, and I know how easy it is to get worked out about this kind of thing.
Since it is such a borderline issue, I can't honestly say that keeping the name one way or another would clearly violate guidelines. I personally think it's a simple issue, and that calling it Son Goku seems needlessly confusing (even if it was only to a minority of readers), but like others have said, it's not really a major confusion. -- Ned Scott 01:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, another Dragon Ball WikiProject that uses info. only from the English dubs might make the majority of anonymous users who constantly change "Son Goku" to "Goku", "Kuririn" to "Krillin", "Freeza" to "Frieza", etc., to leave these articles alone and go only there. Not a whole lot would be changed for this WikiProject Kayla, just the English-named redirects would be taken away, obviously, so that there could be articles entitled Goku, Tien Shinhan, Frieza, etc., (Majin Buu will have to be worked out somehow) that will utilise the information from the English dubs. This makes sense, right? Ned, Kayla, Onikage, Deskana, and everyone else, doesn't this sound like a great idea? I could start the Dragon Ball WikiProject page set for our English viewers limited to the dub and surely I will help out a lot, which I am more than content to do so. I need at least two things though from you guys:

  1. Support from the DB/Anime-manga members (Jimmy Wales?) to found the project
  2. A proper name for this separate WikiProject that can differentiate it from the established WP:DBZ
Ideas anyone? Lord Sesshomaru
A separate project probably isn't a good idea. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Reason being? You honestly don't think it will end (or simply shorten) the constant fan bias? Lord Sesshomaru
It seemed to work for Sailor Moon. I kinda think we should at least somehow distinguish between manga and anime. The earlier saga articles in particular use the anime, and the old dub at that. One example of differences, for example, would be Freeza's first seen attack on a Namek village. Old dub, one elder and one kid. Elder dies, kid is rescued. Anime, a few elders and two kids. Elder's systematically picked off, one kid slain by Dodoria. Manga- about the same, except Freeza kills the kid. There's also the character Appule, who is never killed on panel in the manga. In the anime, through the glory of palette-swapping, he is made into two characters and is killed twice (by Vegeta and Freeza). Onikage725 02:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Uh, is that a "Yes, I support you"? Do you find that this proposed WikiProject should be founded? If it worked for Sailor Moon, for what it's worth, I strongly believe it must be done immediately. Lord Sesshomaru
I think I suggested something like this (on a smaller scale) a few months ago, but everyone pretty much told me it was a dumb idea. --VorangorTheDemon 03:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Sailor Moon did some stuff to note the dub and the original in the way they organized articles. That is a good idea. Making a separate project to do that is not a good idea. -- Ned Scott 03:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I've suggested it a few times myself. I don't think a seperate project is relevant, but I think the articles themselves could benefit from some seperation. The manga =/= anime =/= dub. All similar, but not quite the same. Yet our articles seem to cluster all sources together into this unorganized mess at times. Onikage725 03:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
To resolve this issue, I think that we should look at some of the Sailor Moon articles and use them as "outlines" or "guides" for the Dragon Ball articles.--VorangorTheDemon 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I just looked at the Sailor Moon character article and I actually think it's great. The article name is her Japanese name, immediately stating her English name in the first paragraph (I had no idea that her name was something completely different in Japanese, however, this contrasts "Goku", whose name isn't much different then his Japanese name). --VorangorTheDemon 03:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Naming conventions (use English) says "If you are talking about a person, country, town, film, book, or video game, use the most commonly used English version of the name for the article, as you would find it in other encyclopedias and reference works. This makes it easy to find, and easy to compare information with other sources. For example, Christopher Columbus, Venice." It doesn't say to use the most commonly used English name - it says to use the most commonly used English VERSION of the name. Goku by itself is a "version" of Son Goku. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Why are you stating something different then what you stated before in all the other debates? Why did you always argue to use the most common English NAME before now? And also, to counter your arguement: If Goku is a version of Son Goku, then Son Goku is a version of Goku... so we're back to square one. --VorangorTheDemon 05:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Because I hadn't read it in ages. I interpreted it as most common English name, which it really is if looked at in simpler terms. Anyway, no, that is not so. Son Goku is the root of all Goku names. Son Goku is A version of HIS name. They are indeed both names, but one of them is the original version. I was establishing that Goku is a version of Son Goku, not that Son Goku cannot be viewed as a version and thusly cannot be used. I was showing that Goku applied to this policy, and if it is indeed the most common name, it is what should be used. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I really don't understand how a person's given name can also be considered a "version" of their full name. (In no other circumstance have we ever pretended that a given name is a "version" of a full name) That said, there really isn't any point in arguing about this. Nobody's going to convince anyone else on this, so there can't be any point in arguing. As much as you may disagree with it, the article won't be moved any time soon, as there's no consensus to move. My suggestion would be to focus on the actual content of the article if you're interested, or move on to a more worthwhile endeavour. Bladestorm 05:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Goku IS a version of Son Goku's name because he is a fictional character. The North American dub treats Goku as his official name and does not openly acknowledge his full name being Son Goku or Goku Son. That establishes Goku as a version of Son Goku. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It's not going to be moved because of more people opposing the move. There's no point in debating this anymore. And I apologize for any incivilities that I've had during any of these debates.--VorangorTheDemon 15:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. I DID show that Goku is a version of the Son Goku name, and it is the most common version, including being more common than Son Goku itself. This fact shows that Goku could and should be the name. There is no guideline-related argument for Son Goku. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) *sigh* You didn't show that 'Goku' is a version of 'Son Goku'. You merely asserted it. And no guideline you provided ever supported ejecting a person's given or family name. What's more, you're correct. It is not a vote. However, consensus does matter. You don't have consensus. By no stretch of the imagination do you have any consensus to move. You have one person who agrees with you that it should be 'Goku', but who still maintains that it's better to simply drop the subject (and acknowledges that it's borderline). That makes you the only person who actually wants to proceed with this. That doesn't inherently make you wrong, but it does firmly establish that the move won't happen. (At least, not in the immediate future) Bladestorm 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Goku is the English dub version of the character's name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No... "Goku" is the english dub version of "Gokū" (I can't use the actual japanese symbols. Don't display in my browser). "Son Goku" is the english language version of "Son Gokū". And, though you obviously have every right to continue for as long as you wish, may I ask what it is that you hope to achieve? Without consensus (and you very clearly don't have consensus), there's no way you can get the move anyways. If there won't be a move (at least, not as a result of this discussion), then what is the point? Bladestorm 16:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
A consensus does not = that the consensus will win. If all you said was I like Son Goku as the title, you wouldn't "win", because your argument was inferior. Anyway, no, the Japanese version has Goku's official name as Son Goku, while the FUNi dub has his official name as Goku - it never mentions Son Goku formally, and the official web sites call him Goku. The fact that Goku is the only name given to him in the FUNi dub shows that this is the "NA English dub version". - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Where to start... first off, you're once again merely asserting that it's a 'version'. The english version of "Son Gokū" is "Son Goku". The fact that the dub itself doesn't frequently use his whole name is irrelevant. The mangas also use his full name. It isn't that the manga has one version of his name, and the dub has another; it's that different mediums are sometimes more selective in which information they bother to include. This isn't a matter of versions or translations. It's a matter of precision.
What's more, I should hope you didn't mean to trivialize the opposing arguments, by likening them to something as simplistic as, "I like it". When people start trying to address infrequent, but still existant, mentions in the anime, dvd subtitles, official english mangas, and the website for the official english mangas, they're certainly doing more than simply stating, "I like it". I'm going to assume that you didn't intend that the way it sounded.
What's more, I don't think it's appropriate to talk about 'winning'. This isn't a competition. Some editors believe the article is best served with one title; others another. However, you know it won't be moved if you're the only person who's pushing for it to be moved (your irrelevant "I like it" analogy aside). So, again, what do you intend to accomplish when you know, with all certainty, that it won't happen as a result of this discussion? Bladestorm 17:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  1. Asserting? Are you implying that Son Goku is at all the official name of Goku in the English NA dub? You're completely sidestepping the facts - Goku is the official name of the character in the NA dub. Therefore, it is the NA dub version.
  2. Anime? Very subtle references - not even going so far as to even say what the usages of SON means. You keep going on that Son Goku is AN official version of the character's name in English, but you don't get that this isn't about what is English and what isn't. It's what is the most common English version, and I've clearly established that Goku is the "NA dub version" of the character's name.
  3. Because people refuse to understand that consensus isn't all about how many people are on your side, but the quality of your argument. If one doesn't have a guideline backing him or her up, they're far less likely to win a debate, even with consensus, than they would if they had guidelines backing them up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It's merely an assertion, because you've never cited a guideline which supports discarding a given or family name.
I imply nothing. I'm stating that "Son Goku" is the official name in the english language version of dragon ball. There's no justification (or even reason) to pick and choose which parts of the franchise 'count'. The manga sure as heck counts. The dvds count. There's absolutely no reason to only acknowledge, specifically, the televised dub. You've not done a single thing to establish that "Goku" is a version of "Son Goku". All you've done is proven that "Goku" is a version of "Gokū". In summary: You have no guideline to support discarding part of a character's legitimate english language name. You have no guideline to support discarding mangas (the highest canon, and most definitive source of information for the franchise).
But, here's the real kicker. Who decides who made the 'best' arguments? Guess what: it's consensus. Unless it goes to some sort of higher dispute resolution process, it's consensus. This isn't an AfD, where special editors have the job of weighing consensus personally. But here's the real kicker. Even if you were right, and "Goku" was technically the best name for the article, it still couldn't be moved, because the guidelines very clearly remind you that that's all they are: guidelines. They state the best actions to take most of the time, but should be afforded exceptions when that's the consensus. Since consensus is to keep the article where it is, there's no way to move it.
Here's a question: Who do you think is actually going to physically perform the move? If it's you, then it'll get reverted immediately as being against consensus. The only other person who agrees with you on the article title (very rightfully) agrees that it isn't a significant enough issue to warrant all the headache. So, seriously, who do you expect to move it against consensus? (and I think I may also be done with this issue. But, in this case, silence does not equal consensus) Bladestorm 17:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You never found a guideline that says "you have to use Son Goku". There doesn't NEED to be a guideline to support "discarding a given or family name". The guideline that says "use the most common English version of the name" is good enough - tell me, are you saying that Son Goku is the official NA dub name? Because it isn't. The only name ever told to fans to BE the name is Goku, no other name is provided as being his full name. Goku is more common, Goku is the official NA dub version of the character. Also, STOP saying that guidelines can be arbitrarily disregard guidelines when you don't like them. For one, it doesn't state that you can ignore a guideline just because a majority of people don't like it in this situation. For another, guidelines can only be disregard when there's a common sense reason to disregard them - only when it would be necessary to preserve the quality of the article. Nothing has been shown that using the less common name is advantageous to the quality of the article, but Goku is shown to be better because the guideline supports it. You may want to keep repeating it, but the fact that it is the only given name in the NA dub shows Goku as a version of the character's name. Also, if WP:DB is for using the full names, why is the article Bulma and not Bulma Briefs? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do you know what the definition of insanity is? Repeating the same thing, but expecting different results. Link, Im not saying you are insane- just pointing out that you're approach to this debate has been counter productive. If I had a buck for every time you said the exact same thing without new facts or support, expecting a different response from others, let's just say I'd probably be able to afford a PS3. Onikage725

The same thing is correct, Onikage. Goku is the NA dub version, guideline states to use the most common English version of the character's name, and I've shown that Goku is the most common English version of the character's name. It is impossible to provide better evidence that Goku is the most common name for the character, because that IS absolute proof. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
This discussion, yet again, has gotten stuck in the mud. Going nowhere by proving nothing new. As I said, there's no point in debating this anymore. The reason why I started this consensus was to prove that consensus rules. The support lost (as there are very few who support this move). Why can't we just leave it alone now? It's obvious that we're not going to reach common ground on this, as we're no more near common ground then we were a week ago. We have article guidelines in one corner, and original information in the other. Personally, I believe that original information (solid content) rules over guidelines (not solid content). --VorangorTheDemon 18:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You may create an "original content" guideline for your project if you wish, but in all scenarios, guidelines encouraging the most common English version of that character's name will trump it, solely because these guidelines apply to all projects, no matter if they want to follow them or not. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
If you can't get what you want here, then wouldn't it be easier for you to move on to the next anime project, like Sailor Moon or something? Perhaps you can get them to change the names in their articles? It's not going to change, therefore there's no more purpose in debating this. --VorangorTheDemon 18:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
He's already tried that. -- RattleMan 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
My point is that you have made the position clear dozens upon dozens of times. I fail to see how constantyl restating the same thing ad nauseam in a combative tone against every single post that expresses a differing view is even remotely conducive to the debate process. Furthermore, you your opinion automatically trumps ours, and say no logic can dictate our invoking of IAR. Yet we've stated our reasons, many of them, and cited examples of many other articles that follow the same logic and are considered fine. In this case there is a precedent set when faced with extenuationg circumstances (in this case a source that may be more recognizable but is also widely known to be highly inconsistent- that isn't bias, it is fact). You don't agree, that's perfectly fine. I encourage you, if you feel that our view is wrong and can't get support here, to seek outside opinions on the matter. But continuously asserting that everyone else's opinion is irrelevant or wrong, and constantly butting heads with everyone is NOT helping. It is why this is dragged into the muck, and people new to the discussion are put off due to this being more argument than debate. Onikage725 20:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Examples of articles not following a guideline do not matter. That just means that the editors ignored the guidelines as well. There has been no valid argument to ignore this rule - nothing has been shown that the quality would drop by following this guideline. Ignore all rules is there for the purpose of ensuring articles are not damaged by a guideline, and are only for rare exceptions. For instance, in this case, it would not be advantageous to use Goku instead of Son Goku if Goku was the only English name but was so obscure and uncommon that it would actually be disadvantageous for the reader. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
To quote you - For that fact, it won't pass as a GA until it fixes the title to be more user-friendly (among other things). This taskforce is going against both the parent project and the guideline itself. And yet said parent project has under its scope mutliple articles that have placed the adaptation of an originating manga over a more visible, yet innaccurate adaptation of a derivitive anime. And they have reached GA status. Yet you know for a fact that this could never be. My point is, we are of differing opinions. We would all appreciate it if you would stop acting like your opinion is word from the Almighty on High, and as such no other voice matters. We use that evidence, and the logic behind those decisions and ours, as reasons why following a flawed adaptation as our primary source of info would damage the articles. We feel in this case the guideline would hurt the articles, the same as you say otherwise. That's where that nifty little debate process comes in, and consensus is built on the matter. So for the love of God, would you please not respond to this with "The guidelines state etc etc etc?" We all heard you the first 6 million times you wrote it in the last couple of days. Pursue outside help if you feel this strongly about it, but stop rutting horns with everyone here, slamming your hypothetical feet while making the same assertion over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again (I should actually add a few dozen more "overs" but hopefully you get the point). I'm done now, so I suppose this is the part where you ignore every single word I wrote in lieu of telling us about the guideline again. Onikage725 22:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Duh? Because the reviewer didn't pay no mind that the article titles did not correspond with naming conventions. And my opinion almost IS from Almighty on High, because the guidelines back my opinion. The way you talk, you basically say that guidelines are irrelevant and unimportant to the project. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, Blade, I liked this comment of yours: (Incidentally, that's already a "nuff said". Since you aren't supposed to throw the rules out just because A_Link_to_the_Past doesn't like them) Funny that one who stated that he is ignoring naming conventions because he doesn't like them is criticizing someone for apparently ignoring the manual of style. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no interest in turning this into a "dragon ball/brain age" cross-article-argument. I have no desire to argue about how a single person arbitrarily discarding rules isn't the same as half a dozen editors making decisions supported by guidelines, but further backed up by the general rule of consensus. Nor am I interested in addressing your false accusations that I ever stated I was ignoring naming conventions just because I didn't like them. I never said I was ignoring the conventions at all. I sure as heck never said I was making any arguments based solely on what I personally like.
You have officially crossed the line. Never misquote me again. I stopped replying in here because you insisted upon ignoring arguments entirely, but don't ever misquote or misrepresent me again. I am done here. Misquote or misrepresent me without a diff again and it'll no longer be an issue for a project page. I am through with this. Bladestorm 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
You know what Link, cut it out. Seriously. You're quoting a guideline, not a policy. Wikipedia clearly states that we can judge such matters on a case by case basis. In this case, the consensus is that the english dub of the anime is very inconsistent, and going by it would make the articles inconsistent as well. If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them. We are of the opinion that omitting information simply because FUNimation wrote an entirely new and internally inconsistent script when dubbing the series would prevent us from improving or maintaining these articles. "Ignore all rules" means that one shouldn't follow written instructions mindlessly, but rather, one should consider how the encyclopedia is improved or damaged. As such we did not follow the guideline mindlessly, rather we decided that using an internally consistent set of correct names would improve the articles. "Ignore all rules" means that guidelines derive their power to compel, not from being written down on a page labelled "guideline", but from the consensus support that they enjoy. A consensus for a general rule is assumed to apply to a specific case, until it is clear that the consensus does not apply to the specific case. Wikipedia guidelines are not suicide pacts. In this case, consensus does not support the specific case. The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. This is probably why your constantly claiming the letter of the law here falls on deaf ears. The number one process of Wikipedia is said to be consensus. It is also said that consensus can change, and that if the result of that process differs from a rule, then the rule is outdated. Policy is subservient to product, not the other way around. I am willing to accept that this is one of many ways to interpret the rules, what I do not accept is that these rules tell us there is but one answer and that debate is pointless cuz hey- we have Guidelines. Yet even the page defining guidelines states that Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. So this "there is but one way" attitude defeats the whole process. It also strikes me as wikilawyering. Specifically Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit; Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express.
And by the way, I saw your conduct on the SM articles about naming. Statements like I could have pointed out your rampant Japanophilia, making it sound as if you showed restraint in not making that claim initially, kind of shows a side of you. You tried to take the moral high ground on insults, yet that phrase among others is pretty much how you started in when you came to this wikiproject. By way of example- I'm just a wee bit sick of Japanophiles saying "we want it this way, and since we own Wikipedia. Yet you wonder why people have trouble assuming good faith- maybe its because you haven't been assuming it of others. Onikage725 23:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


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)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dragon_Ball/Archive_4&oldid=1190107665"