Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragon Ball/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Merging the lists

I would like to work on merging the lists into either one or two articles. I would like to lean towards one, but we can split into a major and minor if we reach that point. We're going to have to shave off minor characters, condense the sort of minor ones (Ginyu Force into two paragraphs, Android 19 summed up in Gero, ect), and make sure to keep a standard for the major and secondary characters. Thoughts? TTN (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with this; the lesser the lists, the better. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I don’t see a merger to be beneficial at this point. The one or two condensed lists would be incredibly difficult to read with the amount of characters that are already in our four character lists. Organization is another thing we have to take into consideration. With each class of characters (Humans, Saiyans, etc.) having their own list articles, a better form of organization is achieved than having all characters and all list being cluttered up into one article. What we should be focusing on right now is the ridiculous amount of lists on other subjects such as games and episode lists. That merger I would support. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with bullet on the subject ('sup!). Also - even barring the shaving that's been done, such a list would be far too unwieldy to maintain and impossible to ever truly get a handle on, as it's difficult enough to put the kibosh on cruft that's being added to the individuals now. Papacha (talk) 04:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, we can move on to two lists if necessary, so size shouldn't be an issue. As for cruft, once the lists are actually cleaned and pruned, I'll probably go over them fairly often. TTN (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

As Papacha pointed out ('sup!) a list like that would be difficult to maintain. However, I'm curious to see how you might be able to make it work. Why don’t you make a sub page and see what kind of list you can come up with? -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

The different Lists were created to avoid the existence of lots of stub-ish articles about minor and non notable characters. A lists of the lists would be extremely long. It is better to have these separated, more especific topics. Keep them all. --Lord Opeth (talk) 02:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with keeping them as it is. I usually dont support mergers unless they are absolutely needed, and in the present state, I think the individual lists are pretty cluttered. So merging them into one or two lists would only increase the problems. The character lists are fine to me (but a little cleanup would do wonders) and the things that need more focus are game articles and those minor ones which we usually tend to ignore. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 09:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am Uchiha. I just started around, and I noticed the deal of these lists. On my part, I believe these listing of the important characters is short. Not enough single pages for the important characters, espically the human characters, some villians should have one page. I think the characters (including Saiyans, Nameks, Humans, Aliens, Deites, etc) should be listed among the seasons, that way the characters have can have a better look. Like the Ginyu Force, Zarbon, Dodoria, and Cui together and all other villians I didn't mention in the Namek Saga and Ginyu Saga togehter on 1 page. Get it? I believe this is the best way ti get it all down. Uchiha2452 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)Uchiha2452Uchiha2452 (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

We could have two lists:

1. List of major Dragon Ball characters
2. List of minor Dragon Ball characters

I've seen most pages do that, like the Naruto, Bleach, and YuYu Hakusho ones. I also like the way List of Love Hina characters sets it up. Thoughts anyone? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also guys, let's try to only list those who made at least two or three appearances in the series franchise (ie, don't list the farmer killed by Raditz, or anime-only characters or one-time manga characters). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said, two lists can work. The more compact and concise, the better. Though, if it'll be OK with you guys, I would like to aim for one list and split off if necessary instead of going strait to two lists. It'll help focus them better than just throwing them into two categories. TTN (talk) 14:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sold, but by all means give it a shot. Papacha (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, if it doesn't work out, we can always go back to square one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I insist that you do this in a sub page first. -- bulletproof ^3:16 22:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is, bulletproof. A sub page is even more time consuming, this action should be done ASAP. It's rather difficult to keep track of four lists, which is why I just watch the List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A sub page would give each of us a preview of what TTN intends on doing with the page without disrupting the articles in question. In a case like this where it is obvious that no solid consensus has been reached, a sub page preview should be the way to go. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Lets see a demo in the Sub page first and if it works, we can make it permanent. I actually use this technique to make major edits to pages. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 12:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is something that I threw together real quick. It shows the basic structure that I'm looking at. Neither the placement, size of the entries, or "roster" are final at this point. It's all up for changes at any time. Thoughts? TTN (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! Now all we need is merge the content from the lists onto there. 3bulletproof, you're convinced by now I hope? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:56, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, WHOA. Let's not go about patting each others' backs just yet. I've still got an inkling that even with the pruning of unnecessary characters and whatever clipping the future holds this page will be _GROTESQUELY_ large. And the amount of snips to bring it to a reasonable quota might be far from your ideal, Sess; Dragonball - even abridged - constitutes a heckuva lot more characters than most series. As you say, let's move as many characters as we can onto the page, see exactly *how* large in scope we're talkin', and move from there. Papacha (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I have gotten the most important characters, and each section will not be much larger than the filler text I have added. If you think characters are missing, it's probably just because they're the ones that are being summed up instead of being given sections. Though, feel free to list ones that you think should be included. TTN (talk) 01:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

What concerns me is that we might wind up with a resurgence of something like this. I really don't want a throw-back to the eye-sore from back in the day, give or take some aesthetics. The reason we have multiple lists in the first place is because when this was originally tried the result ran so pell-mell as to collapse on itself. Papacha (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

All we have to do is make sure that anon edits are reverted daily, so that doesn't build up. I usually prune the lists I've worked on at least once a week, so with at least five users, it should be quite easy. TTN (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't know. As Papacha said, the sub page already looks immensely large and it doesn't even have the actual content that will be used. What I don't want is a random list of characters. What we need is organization, with sections like "Saiyans", "Humans", etc separating content.-- bulletproof ^3:16 02:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the majority that aren't going to be combined into a later write-up. 'Tis far from small, or organized at the moment. @_@ Papacha (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - The only way we'll ever get a list to pass for WP:GA or WP:FA is if we combine it into one organized list. Perhaps we should create a list of major and minor characters to prevent possible overloading and see how it turns out. What we should NOT do, however, is have four lists. It's quite ridiculous, IMHO, and it is too many pages to watch. I say, we try out TTN's experiment (or mine?) and see the outcome. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but saying, "The only way we'll ever get a list to pass for WP:GA or WP:FA is if we combine it into one organized list" just isn't a valid argument. Keeping track of four pages is not an impossible task either. Stuffing all these lists into one gigantic list (or two) would be not only incredibly difficult to read but way too complicated to get to. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

When i first started reading the proposal here I wanted to keep what we already have but after looking at TTN's sandbox I think it looks pretty good. I like what we got now but this seems good too. Let's just keep in mind the main point here: to inform people looking for the information the in the easiest way.--Funkamatic (talk) 03:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure it looks better now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still against these merges. The list are already organized, a large list like that would never gain GA or FA status. --Lord Opeth (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, bulletproof16, Papacha, you guys okay with the new list for now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Still looks like a mashed up version of the lists we have now.-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid to ask, what's it going to take? I can settle for two separate lists if that's the case. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's going to be trimmed and formatted after this is accepted, so it should look better. In regards to the formatting, it's based off of List of Metal Gear Solid characters, which is the best non-article one that we have available. To organize by origin would be rather messy. If we end up needing two lists, I would rather get one done first, and then split it, so that it is definite that the list is necessary. TTN (talk) 23:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Metal Gear and its sequel have *FIVE* character pages, six if you tally in the by-game list: Classic, MGS, MGS2, MGS3, and Portable Ops. It's a perplexing example to emulate, as their editors utilize hubs as we do, just by game instead of "race", so to speak. There's grounds to argue if the characters weren't sieved by particular game that the original NEVER would have achieved featured list status. For my part I tend to doubt it, and Dragon Ball is a broader beast by far. Even following their lead, we'd need to lean more to racking the characters up by their appearances in Dragon Ball, DBZ and film. What we're doing now is or will end up more approximate to what the Naruto pages are doing: 1/2/3/4. Papacha (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I never realized that only one game was covered in that. The organization used still is a valid example, though. Anyways, it will be fine to split into major and minor characters if it's truly necessary, but we should not go into this with the mindset of splitting. Also, I'm hoping to be able to turn this into something like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and Characters of Kingdom Hearts, so it will be fine if it's a bit longer than the expected forty or fifty KB.TTN (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I don't mind if you guys want to make a go at this, but to evaluate anything you've got serious ground to cover. Until the test page is brought to whatever standard we're just going to be talking in circles about "what" we're attempting to do. Papacha (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry fellas but no consensus, no merge. Now if THIS is an attempt to bypass a consensus, believe me, there is more than enough evidence to link this fairly new account to either Sesshomaru or TTN as a meat/sock puppet. -- bulletproof ^3:16 05:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm a bit pissed off. 3bulletproof16, you are in the wrong to even think that I or TTN are engaging in sockpuppetry. Some random user starts redirecting some Dragon Ball lists and you point the finger at us? You failed to assume good faith and provide any hardcore evidence. Really, open up a WP:RFCU if you're so certain but don't just say such things. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, I've seen your contributions long enough to realize that everything TTN says, you do. Take the recent string of redirect edit warring you've engaged in the last few weeks with him [1], specifically the little disputes you had with the episode lists. I'm not saying that it is your sock Sesshomaru, but it is highly suspicious that an account that hasn't taken any part of this discussion would redirect without reason. You say it isn't yours? Fine. However, until a consensus is reached, the articles stay where they are. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"Please, I've seen your contributions long enough to realize that everything TTN says, you do." This is false, because I haven't agreed to the trimming he does to Bulbasaur, the Death Note merges, and other pages which I can't recall ATM. Why are you linking to my contributions? Inclusively, you called the user TTN's meatpuppet, again, without proof. Throwing around accusations will not demonstrate anything. For all we know, you could be the one managing the puppet and (for some reason) throwing the blame back at us. See how silly this is getting? Just back off, now, and show some of that "evidence" you claimed earlier. Oh, you guys might want to see List of Dragon Ball characters. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When exactly did this discussion end? It certainly has a long pause, but there was no actual resolution to many points. TTN (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's over, what made you think that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was responding to BP "ending" it with no consensus. TTN (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

When did I ever say the discussion had ended? I was referring to the fact that we have currently not established a consensus. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment-People from what I see, it would be a cascading merge. Some character articles are already getting merged in the List of Earthlings. That would make this one HUGE list. I think it would be impossible to maintain, especially with the daily dose of anon CRUFT we are getting. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 02:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment It'll be much easier to monitor one or two lists. Four's a little too much. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I check them all the time and I have a little over 700 pages on my watchlist.-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, that sounds exaggerated. It might not do a BIG difference, but if these pages are merged together, you'll be limited to watching only 1 (or 2) lists of Dragon Ball characters. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, and I just checked... Its actually underexaggerated. I have exactly 1,064 pages currently on my watchlist. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

we also have to keep the page size and length into consideration. A lot of users dont have Broadband, (like me) and use dial up. One (or 2) lists would take forever to load on slow bandwidth connections. And it would be (at least for me) hard to keep contributing to the lists. Another case would be users from mobile devices, like smart phones or PDAs. We have to think about every scenario possible. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

As long it it is succinct and to the point, the size is irrelevant. While it is sucky for those that have slower connections, that has no relevance here. Having less articles to watch is also irrelevant. The main point is that this series in no way requires the weight of four separate lists. One succinct and to the point list should be all that is necessary (though if we need to, we'll go to two). TTN (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so if we go with the proposed merger, where would you suggest that this list be split up? UzEE!! 00:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the question. Do you mean how it would be split if we went to two lists instead of one? It would be major and minor at that point. TTN (talk) 00:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats what I was asking. What would be the Major characters? Main characters only or Main+Secondary. I think the second one would still be an uneven division. UzEE!! 00:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent) It would be major characters plus the "main secondary characters" for the first list, and "minor secondary characters" and minor characters for the second list. That would probably split the secondary characters down the middle. TTN (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I guess it can work. We would have to sacrifice on performance big time though. UzEE!! 01:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

And because of that, it really isn't worth it. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, how would we sacrafice on preformance? Are you still dwelling on the size issue? Again, it unfortunetly doesn't really matter (see some of our FAs). If you're talking about entry size and coverage, the characters will be given their appropriate weight and we'll cover the necessary characters. TTN (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone still interested in going over this? TTN (talk) 01:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

No I was talking about the Page Size in RAW KBs. But I am willing to sacrifice that performance thing though.  UzEE  01:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not go with the merge and try it out for sometime? We keep the existing lists as Subs and restore them if we have problems with the new ones. That way we can always go back. Thoughts?  UzEE  01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it. Like I mentioned before, we can always go back to square one if these don't work out. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

A reminder due to an arbcom injunction no merges/unmerges can be performed till after arbcom. --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesnt say it also applies to merge.  UzEE  12:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would assume by the fact your not allowed to redirect or delete means that you can't merge, since after merging content you would be required to redirect the page. I would at least ask an admin or arbtrator until proceding, you know what they say better safe then sorry. --Sin Harvest (talk) 01:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess we could check with Deskana or Caribbean HQ to get their opinion. As for doing the merge, I think TTN should make the articles in his sandbox and we replace them as soon as we get the Go ahead.  UzEE  14:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Are we still interested in this? Hardly all the members showed interest in this discussion. In the end the only one objecting was bulletproof, who has seemingly retired. So I think its enough to give the idea a try. Why don't you go ahead and merge them TTN?  UzEE  13:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think that is not a good idea. The separated lists are already long, and a single list listing all the lists would be annoying. Let's do not forget Article size. While it says that lists are "Occasional exceptions", we cannot say that having this really long list of lists is "unavoidable". Wiki suggests long pages should be divided into more "specific articles" and that Readability is still the key criterion. --Lord Opeth (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The arbcom injunction is long over. These list seriously need to be merged, with the individual lists given a much needed trimming. As it is now Lists of Dragon Ball characters is absolutely useless. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If anyone is still watching this page, the lists are now small enough to be combined. TTN (talk) 12:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd still refuse a merge. It'd be really hard to decide importance without skating on the ice that covers WP:NPOV. And, (not that it makes a difference but) personally, when I look stuff up and get really long pages, I just go ask my Dad about it instead.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 14:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Before the lists are merged, the potential merger of individual characters of at least some of the remaining 17 main/major character should be discussed (again). Pan (Dragon Ball) and Muten Roshi for example are just horrible, and many of the others have only very week demonstrations of notability. If they get merged as well, then keeping at least one of the extra lists around may not be so such a bad idea after all (length). I wouldn't mind TTN taking a shot at decruftifying the individual DB character articles from PLOT and OR, as he has demonstrated some good work for other fictional works. The "final" decision about the future of the lists can be made then. (I apologize if I have missed a discussion where it was announced to leave the current individual character articles alone.) – sgeureka ^t•c 15:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be better to just have one place of discussion. Pretty much all of them besides Goku need to be merged anyways. I really can't imagine the final result being way too large. I'm eventually going to trim the current entries down even more also. TTN (talk) 19:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been reading the discussion pages, and your ideas might be better than mine, but why can't the lists be like this, Protaganists like the z fighters, bulma and chichi, Antaganists like the major villians in db, dbz, and dbgt. movie villians can just go to movie articles, and minor characters like dende, kami, ox king, and bulma's parents. Most filler characters and characters that just appeared in one or two episodes can be forgotton.--Sanji_1990 (talk) 22:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I see it now, from the amount of daily Vandalism we are getting in the lists, the best way now is to trim and merge them into Lists of Dragon Ball characters and subsequently, semi-protecting the page for some time, or maybe indefinately. That would stop the vandalism or at least bring it down considerably. I don't what you are planning now TTN, but if there were ever a good time to merge, it would be now.  UzEE  20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Can't We Use English Names?

It would make things easier, and it seems to follow the wiki guidelines. Can Anyone give me a good reason! honestly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kazaan (talk • contribs) 04:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Read this, this and this. That should answer all of your concerns. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also if you want a quick summary, try this.  UzEE  05:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge!

I see no point in merging the Dragon Ball character sections into one page. Imagine how long it would be. Isn't it better to keep things in seperate pages? Then again, if it is merged into a single page, you wouldn't have to keep going back and forth to other pages. I'm stuck on this one... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Vegetto (talk • contribs) 11:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree there should be separate pages because this one is about saiyans as a race not the list of characters. Deanostrodamus the Mystical (talk) 18:08, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Major cleanup

I realize I may be beating a dead horse here, but the Dragon Ball articles are really in a state of desperate cleanup. The dozen or so "saga" articles are plot summary and need to be done away with. The "Japanese" and "dubbed" episode lists need to be merged and split into seasons (see List of YuYu Hakusho episodes, that's three featured topics if all season articles and the actual are improved to featured list status, see Seasons of YuYu Hakusho for an example). The character articles are practically all in a state of disrepair, and the lone GA should have never passed WP:GAN because the majority of the sources fail WP:RS, aren't even properly presented using {{cite book}} or {{cite web}}, and the prose is rather poor. The four lists should be compressed into simply List of Dragon Ball characters and List of minor Dragon Ball characters (see List of Naruto characters and List of minor Naruto characters, former is currently trying for featured list status), and a great majority of the characters in these lists are utterly superfluous and should be cut out. I realize there may have been inertia here to such changes, but really, if someone AfD'd every article, I doubt a quarter would get past deletion or merging. There's a practical reality that these articles can be really improved upon, and a nice set of featured and good articles can be strewn out from the subject material. If you're disbelieving, then look at the Naruto articles, which have five featured lists, three good articles, and a featured topic (which I had a hand in creating, hence why I'm bringing these points here). Discuss. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:37, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome! Glad to have you here. Regarding the character lists, have you read the above discussion? Appears to be at a stalemate ATPIT. Some time ago, almost every character had their own page but here is the reason as to why this was changed. And as for the sagas, there have been quite a number of unfinished discussions (see archive #6). Finally, about the various episode lists, I left you a response here, which seems to have been unanswered. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion seems to be ignoring the point that 90% of these characters are utterly minor (listing all of the henchmen for every odd villain?) and should be cut. The only applicable form of opposition I see is WP:SIZE concerns and that isn't an issue after all the insignificant characters are cut. For the sagas, all I see is a load of discussions suggesting a merge to a "plot" page encompassing all of them, which just makes a big target that can be easily axed at AfD. All of them can go. I think the episode list change will be relatively uncontested. In any case, I'll wait for a bit more discussion here before doing anything. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm still pretty new here but I'll help clean up. Like (obviously) a lot of members here, I don't know much about all that technical stuff. Maybe I should do a little research. Also, I don't think that minor characters lists are that bad. Trust me, not even close to all the henchmen are listed. It's just that almost all the henchmen are characters in the Budokai Tenkaichi series and so they kind of become not so minor, aspects that Naruto and YuYu Hakusho don't have so it's kind of hard to compare them.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Budokai Tenkaichi includes a ton of characters simply because they can include a ton of characters. It doesn't make any of those characters any more important. They have practically no importance to the plot other than being filler that are killed by any of the protagonists; ergo, they don't need to be included. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to say I thought their being listed is justified, just that others here might (also perhaps the reason they think it). There is definitely an issue with the reliable sources. I'm all for getting things cleaned up around here.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sephiroth BCR; any minour character from the series should not be listed, though I could go for them being mentioned in a single section, but not listed individually. I tried cutting some minour characters before, but it was reverted. Go figure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The task more important than cleanup is keeping daily cruft out of the articles. As long as there is someone vandalizing his way around, cleanup wont do any good. We need to come up with better anti-cruft policies rather than relying on the default policies.  UzEE  11:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

May or May not be true,  UzEE , but that doesn't change the issue that Sephiroth BCR is bringing up. let's do 'em both.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

...there doesn't really need to be discussion here concerning the addition of WP:OR/excessive detail/etc. because you simply revert it. That and after all this is cleaned up and merged, you have a lot less to watch. It's no different from maintaining any other set of articles, and I'm confused as to why you're making a big deal out of it. No matter what "anti-cruft policies" you implement, you aren't going to deter people from vandalizing, and it's something we simply have to live with. Anyhow, I'll probably tackle the episode lists first sometime during the weekend. Anyone here aware of how the seasons are split up (I'll probably do the DBZ episodes first)? Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

The season splits have kind of moved around over the years. They are generally called "sagas" and the official websites (Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, and Dragon Ball GT) have lists for all three series. I could give you a hand, I may have some free time this weekend.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Count me in then! If you guys want to nail the saga pages, here they are. There is another issue though: which saga titles are we going to use? I'd go for the FUNimation titles, since they're official English names. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:38, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

FUNimation titles. The layout would be the same at List of YuYu Hakusho episodes, with split episode lists for all the seasons (or sagas); therefore, there would be List of Dragon Ball Z episodes (season x) for however many seasons we had. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

So are you going to make a page for every saga/season? I like how the List of YuYu Hakusho episodes covers both the English and Japanese episodes, essentially merging this and this. Seems functional and better observes the scope of Wikipedia and the Dragon Ball work group.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth, it would be great if you could revise those pages and turn them into featured articles. It's part of the plan, is it not? Oh and if you'd like, I can list every single title FUNi used, for consistency. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope we can get this done, as there are still editors adding sections for minour characters who had a role in a small part of the series[2]. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I still question the existence of these three items

Is there any point in having User:Supersaiyanplough/Template:DB char, Dragonbox, and Portal:Dragon Ball? Does someone see an advantage in any of these or should they be deleted? For instance, no one is contributing much to the incomplete portal I set up, not even I. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as having User:Supersaiyanplough/Template:DB char and Dragonbox is concerned, I think that they should be removed. The template isn't even used anywhere, and we can do without the Dragonbox article, or merge it in the Dragon Ball (Franchise) article. For the portal, I leave the decision to you guys because I think that we could use that if we show a bit more interest in it.  UzEE  11:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Genre discussion

There is a genre discussion back here concerning Dragon Ball. If possible, let's be done with this ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Inactive Users

Could we be a little more specific on what constitutes as "haven't edited in a while"? I'm not trying to critisize, just saying that some sort of a measurable time frame (2 weeks, a month, etc.) would be more organized. And do you guys think we should specify wether they are inactive from the project or Wikipedia all together? Nothing huge, just a little note by the name for clarification.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 04:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say inactivity from the Dragon Ball-related pages for two or more months would constitute as "inactive". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball list

Yesterday, I created List of Dragon Ball chapters, but I dont have the Viz Media edition of the volumes, so Im unable to add the chapter list or a volume title, could anybody who has a volume give a hand? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Ki or Chi

I'm started to notice that alot of articles are now refering to the energy as chi. But as far as I know, the term has been ki (Which is an alternate spelling of qi) in most Dragon Ball mediums and not chi. So why is it refered as such here? Sarujo (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the English dubs never gave it an actual name save for "spiritual power", "strength", "energy", etc., I've been under the impression that ''[[Qi|chi]]'' is the correct way to put it. It's what the Viz manga gives. Did you happen to catch this past discussion? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes and I must ask, since when did the Viz become the definitive adaptation? The last time I checked we were suppose to be using the original Japanese that Toriyama wrote and had published by Shueisha as sources since there are multiple English adaptations to the Dragon Ball franchise. Plus Viz takes liberties with terms and names just like FUNinmation has to make the story more understandible to it English speaking demographic. So we can't really go by just one adaptation. I believe that this might also be a mistranslation on Viz's part as the Japanese use the same characters in their text as the Chinese.

From the kanji article quote:

Kanji are the Chinese characters that are used in the modern Japanese logographic writing system along with hiragana, katakana, Arabic numerals, and the occasional use of the Latin alphabet. The Japanese term kanji literally means "Han characters".

From the qi article quote:

In the Japanese language, the Chinese character corresponding to qi (気) is pronounced ki.

Also you have to take in the fact in the original Japanese audio you can clearly hear them say ki (key) and not chi (chee).Sarujo (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we have to go with the English-language media (per a consensus at WP:MANGA, can't find a link to the discussion though). So "ki" can't do. The only other available use is the manga by Viz. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

'Chi' comes from old dubbed martial arts flicks. It might be based on the Cantonese pronunciation, but I don't have any way of finding out - but all those old movies used the term "chi." When Viz started translating the series, that was probably better known than it is now. Doceirias (talk) 22:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but it should be pointed out that "chi" is a Viz exclusive translation, and that in the original Japanese it is pronounced "ki". Sarujo (talk) 04:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be best if we brought this up at WT:ANIME? I mean, aside from Dragon Ball, I can come up with a handful of Viz manga that also use "chi" over "ki". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Very well, but should this be continued on the established section, or start a new section entirely?

So are you in agreement that both pronouciations should observed with a line like in the Goku article:

Goku has achieved many abilities; aside from his great strength, he also possesses super speed, reflexes, and the power to fly using chi (ki in the original Japanese), a fictional energy force in the series. Goku's signature technique is a chi energy blast called the Kamehameha, which he learned from Muten Roshi. or either

Goku has achieved many abilities; aside from his great strength, he also possesses super speed, reflexes, and the power to fly using ki (chi in the Viz adaptation), a fictional energy force in the series. Goku's signature technique is a ki energy blast called the Kamehameha, which he learned from Muten Roshi. Sarujo (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Guess you could say that, but shouldn't there be a source for it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Proof is actually needed for a naming convention? Backlinking the qi article should help back up any claim I have made about the naming convention. I mean It not like I'm saying something like "...the use of chi is a mistranslation on Viz' part" although, I have stated it was one posiblilty which fall under OR. Sarujo (talk) 01:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that chi should not be use on Dragon Ball gaming articles as neither Namco Bandai or Atari uses it. Sarujo (talk) 01:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

If the games use "ki" then I guess it's ok to have that for the games. See, "chi" should only be used if the page is manga-related. That make sense? BTW did you get to re-editing all instances of Doragonbōru to Doragon Bōru and DoragonbōruZetto to Doragon Bōru Zetto? I've gotten to a few, though didn't check Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (series) yet. You? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Makes perfect sense, but as I stated it should be pointed that chi is a Viz term with a line like, "ki (chi in the Viz adaptation)" and backlink it to the qi article for reference. Sorry for repeating myself but I had to reasure myself that we are all on the same wavelength.

I'll get back to you on the Dragon Ball romanji later in another section. Sarujo (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Goku & Saiyan Armour

Hello's.

This is just to remind anyone with the intention of editing the "Appearance" section of the page Son Goku, that Goku does wear the Saiyan Battle Armour in Dragon Ball Z - Perfect Cell Saga - Episode 139 - Saiyans Emerge

It was designed by Bulma and was based on the last original Saiyan Battle Armour worn by Vegeta. Goku uses this armour during the time he trains with Gohan in the Room of Spirit and Time (Hyperbolic Time Chamber) at Kami's Lookout (Kami's Palace), prior to the Cell Games. This is a FACT.

Feel free to verify what I say by watching the above mentioned episode from DBZ. And please dont wrongly edit out the fact from the "Appearance" section of the page Son Goku and waste everyone's time in fixing it.

--Krishvanth (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, please refer to this FAQ. I think it would answer all your questions.  UzEE  20:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Final Bout

I just thought I'd announce that I rewrote the entire Final Bout article. Sarujo (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know

There's a survey at the Trunks (Dragon Ball) article discussion page about merging the two Trunks articles into the already established "Trunks (Dragon Ball)" article. Sarujo (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh I forgot, everbody's thoughts on this matter are welcome. Sarujo (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wind the clocks back a year.

These dub and Viz fans wouldn't dare cross any of you. I mean, what happened? Did your Dragon Balls drop off? In all seriousness though, what happened to the project to get all Dragon Ball articles to use the Japanese versions terms? Did everyone just give up? Takuthehedgehog (talk) 03:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Earlier in the month a discussion started at Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Merge to look at merging some of the Dragon Ball character articles into the character list. Some closed keep, some closed as merge. Some of those merges are now being violently challenged claiming that the merges were done against consensus and demanding they be undone. There are also claims that the A&M project was not made aware of the discussion (it was) and the merges are being done in a secretive fashion. Right now, the specific closures being argued against appear to be Tien Shinhan and Cell (Dragon Ball) (none of the keeps, of course). Since there are claims that the Dragon Ball taskforce was also ignorant of the discussion, I'm posting here to invite task force comments for those who don't already watch the Anime and manga project talk page.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

More Dragon Ball character list drama

Despite the AfD closing as merge, and that AfD being upheld in a rapid fire DRV, JJJ999 is continuing to beat the proverbial dead horse and has now started a discussion to unmerge Cell (Dragon Ball) from the list. He basically discounts the overwhelming consensus from the AfD, and I personally think this is getting into the disruptive whelm. In either case, the discussion is Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Unmerge Cell. Please feel free to come by and offer your views. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

On another issue with the list is whether to consider Future Trunks and Trunks to be distinct characters or the same character. Discussion here: Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters#Trunks and Future Trunks -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball fighting game series

I think there should be one big article about DB/Z/GT fighting games, so there can be a list which covers the characters' roles in all the games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There are far too many games for that. We should just do what we did with the Tenkaichi article and merge series' together. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 19:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

DB Character merges, Revist 2

As per the closures in September, the issue of whether Frieza and Master Roshi should be merged into the character list is now being revisited. Your views would be welcomed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Introduction Section addition

Greetings, I noticed in the introduction section where DB, DBZ and DBGT's reviews are mentioned, it says "DBZ was criticised for its long repetitive fights", and neglects the fact that many have praised it for its plot twists and innovative ideas (not just fighting wise), everytime I try to add "but it was also praised for its plot twists and innovative ideas" it doesn't appear on the article, it just goes back to normal, also, I believe Bleach should be added to where it says that notable manga artists cited DB as their influence, so Tite Kubo belongs to a genration that grew up admiring Dragonball, I ask that my point be taken seriously, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raging goddess (talk • contribs) 19:26, November 7, 2008

Your changes were inappropriate and badly written, hence they were reverted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok that's fair enough but why not consider what I said and add it yourself? What's inappropriate about it? It is a well known fact that Tite Kubo was influenced by DB just as Kishimoto of Naruto and Oda of One Piece, also, DragonballZ received rave reviews when it came out and so many people praised it (though its been criticised aswell), the article ONLY mentions that it was criticised which makes it inaccurate and what matters the most in wikipedia is accurate information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raging goddess (talk • contribs) 01:09, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

"Well known fact" does not make it verifiable nor sourced. The article has what is actually sourced, not just what people think they know. Also, the lead of the Dragon Ball article DOES fairly and properly summarize its reception section, noting its popularity, high sales, and noting both the praise and criticsms. It does not "only" mention the criticisms. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:12, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

The Dragonball reception section states the T.H.E.M Anime Reviews "criticized Dragon Ball Z for having long and repetitive fights, though they remarked the show has good characterization" I've taken a look at T.H.E.M Anime Reviews and realized there is an increasingly negative look to most action animes (DBZ, Naruto, Yuyu Hakusho, Saint Seiya) be it the fighting or the story, I don't see a reason why Wikipedia which should contain formal and official information would mention a statement from a review (or rather a personally Biased opinion) that is obviously written by an anime fan not much different than ourselves, regardless if wether or not their website is noted for anime reviews, the fact remains that the review is obviously that of the "personal" opinion of the person who wrote it and as we all know "personal" opinions aren't welcome in a wikipedia topic. I ask that you take a look at the website yourself and decide because the reviewer is obviously biased, most notably when stating "There is just alot of better stuff out there.." or "The Show is mediocre at best", those kind of remarks are far from a professional reviewer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raging goddess (talk • contribs) 02:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

And? Whether you agree with them or not, T.H.E.M meets our requirements for reliable sources and is there force considered to be an authoritative source for reviews of series. Perceived biased because you disagree doesn't mean bias exists (or even that it negates their opinion). And those remarks are certainly within the realm of professional reviews. A professional reviewer doesn't only make positive comments, nor does it mean that everyone has to agree with those reviews. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Dragonball (film) and changes in notoriety discussion

The Dragonball live action film, depending on it's success, is probably going to change the notoriety of some things in the Dragon Ball world and therefore may need some attention. Ratings classes, splits, moves, ect.--FUNKAMATIC 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Its unlikely to change anything at all, much less the "notoriety of some things in the Dragon Ball world." Nor will there need to be any foreseeable need for splits, moves, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So you believe it's unlikely that a Hollywood movie will change the notoriety of some things related to Dragon Ball? Do you believe that the green goblin or Dr. Octopus from Spiderman or Scarecrow or even the joker from Batman have the same notoriety as they had previously to the recent films? Heath Ledger is nominated for an Oscar for his role as the joker. Theorize that Dragonball Evolution making several hundred million dollars, the film is a huge hit. Then the character Mai will probably have more nototiety than she did previously, being as that she is hardly mentioned on the Dragon Ball characters page under Emperor Pilaf. I believe that if the film does very well, the notoriety of many subjects of Dragon Ball will change.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 16:26, 19 February 2009 (UTC)