Jump to content

Talk:Akira Toriyama/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Akira Toriyama

Anyone know what this man is up to nowadays? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.151.226.144 (talk • contribs) .

Maybe someone can include a picture of him as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.243.7.145 (talk • contribs) .

He is doing nothing really with Bird Studio, just spending time with his family Son Goku22

Akira Toriyama is a very private person, he never talks about what he is up to, so we can never know if he is working or not. I added twice the one-shot Cashman and the 1998 Cashman (1 issue only manga) but somebody removes them. greekalien

I was attempting to remove the comment someone added to biography about the focus on sayains[sp...], not sure if i succeeded or not, i think i might have reverted it successfully, but i hope i didn't break anything else. not an expert on the more advanced features yet. i was backtracking from a comparison view, to just manually edit it out, but when i refreshed it was gone ... so ... mission accomplished i suspect [ feel free to remove this poor comment, just an explanation in the event my actions messed something unintended up.] --71.77.37.238 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Akira Toriyama is a Jehovah's Witness? That doesnt sound right considering the material he creates. —The preceding comment is by 63.144.29.9 (talk • contribs) 63.144.29.9: Please sign your posts!

What the hell?!? He's dead?

Does anyone have a link to confirm that he died today? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.52.68.44 (talk • contribs) 68.52.68.44 (UTC)

That statement was never true. I remember reading about this case years ago. Yeah, they even talked about it on DaizenshuuEX. See the link. ~I'm anonymous

Income from Dr. Slump

I remember in the last few pages of the manga Dr. Slump (Taiwan edition) There's a brief talk about the amount of income tax he had paid during the prime time of Dr. Slump in early/mid 80's. Don't quite remember the number but i think it was $500,000,000 Yens (or 1/10th of this amount). Can someone verify this and create a trivia section that include this info? Z3u2 10:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know. Sorry. ~I'm anonymous

WikiProject Biography Notes:

I looked over this as part of WP: Bio's Assessment Drive, and one of the things I noticed it was lacking was an infobox. If anyone would care to add one, the appropriate page is Template: Infobox Person. Thanks! Belril 06:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

In spite of Dragon Ball's sales

"...became a record-breaking best seller with over 120 million copies sold." Can someone reference this? I'm certain I've seen this somewhere on the internet; looking back on it, I can't seem to find it again. ~I'm anonymous

It has been taken care of. ~I'm anonymous

Blue Dragon Quote

I remember reading that that quote was misreferenced and was in fact stated not by Toriyama but by Blue Dragon's director, who is not Toriyama. —The preceding comment is by 72.70.50.238 (talk • contribs) 72.70.50.238: Please sign your posts!

All sources say it was Tori. Unless, can you provide the link(s) where it said that? ~I'm anonymous

His family

anyone know about his family? I heard he has 2 brothers and 1 sister, one of his brother is a mixed canadian-japanese? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.95.11.151 (talk • contribs).

Where'd you hear that? Sounds like a rumour. ~I'm anonymous
He has talked about his family in the tankōbon releases of Dr. Slump. He only stated that he has a younger sister. --Yottamol (talk) 19:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

GA failed

I don't think the coverage is deep enough. The biography section is under 3000 characters. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Propcycle charater design

Akira Toriyama is said to have done the character design for the flying cycling arcade game Propcycle. Anyone here have more info about this - or even want to create the Propcycle article? 124.169.175.22 (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You think the hatnote is screwy?

It reads: This article is about the manga artist. For the ophthalmologist and photographer, see Akira Toriyama (ophthalmologist).

If you don't like it, blame me. I don't know anything about this Toriyama and inferred from the start of the article that "manga artist" would be a suitable description; if you disagree, please edit accordingly. As for the second half, I'd agree that it looks screwy, but [the other] Toriyama is noted for his photography, which has no relation whatever to ophthalmology: it's very likely that people familiar with his photography would have no idea that he was an ophthalmologist.

I know next to nothing about his work as an ophthalmologist and was tempted to call him "Akira Toriyama (photographer)", but then again (i) I know little about ophthalmologists in general and (ii) he was highly decorated by the nation, perhaps as an ophthalmologist, perhaps as a bigwig in medical education, but certainly not as a photographer. (In order to get such a level of official recognition as a photographer, I think you have to put out collections of reverent depictions of Buddhist statuary or similar.) -- Hoary (talk) 05:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Reverting

Was there a point for Sesshomaru to delete major part of the article? I'm reverting it. If someone disagrees, please discuss it here before reverting so it doesn't end up in an edit war. Quispiam (talk) 11:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are violating WP:BLP. And that copyrighted image has no fair use rationale for this article, much less is it illustrating something useful. Until you add appropriate material, the edits will have to be reverted. You will be hearing from WP:BLP/N if you do this again. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree about the picture. I don't see what's wrong with the text though. Could you explain closer? And hey, there's no need for threats :) Quispiam (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This isn't like a physical threat or something. It's a warning by Wikipedia standards. You can't add whatever you "know" is true to articles. Maybe our policies WP:VERIFY and WP:ORIGINAL will enlighten you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute wait wait, wait, what? I didn't even write anything new in, except for the line "and for that he has also been referenced to in the series", about Jackie Chan, which also had a source. I just changed the order of things in the article to have them make more sense. I think you should look through this more carefully. Quispiam (talk) 09:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
All you did was produce bunk, the copy-editing itself, well, sucked. What "source" are you talking about? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

is out of order: Interview Akira Toriyama. Does anybody know an alternative? I used this a reference in the German Dragonball article as well. It was a very informative interview. Was nice, if someone could help. Thanks --Sat Ra (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Akira Toriyama the Character

Do we want 2 add any info on how he makes an android version of himself as a character that makes sporadic appearances in Dragon Ball?Gold1618 (talk) 04:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the "Tori-Bot", he appears as himself and in bird form as well. He did the same in Dr. Slump, but how is this all relevant? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Ho

I doubt it would pass notability, but even if it could, its hard to say much on a one-shot manga, especially one that would likely just barely pass.∞陣内Jinnai 05:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Disagree, It is an entirely separate work from anything and wouldn't fit merging it with anything. - SuperTiencha (talk) 16:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather than straight merge to the author, why don't we have an article for the Akira Toriyama's Manga Theater book series which all of his minor one-shots are in just like what was done with Rumiko Takahashi's Rumic Theater. The information on all the small one-shots like Wonder Island, The Adventures of Tongpoo, Dragon Boy, ect. could each have a small section on the article. - SuperTiencha (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It's better than a lot of seperate articles. It might still have notability issues, but being a list would give it more security from AfD then a bunch of stub articles.∞陣内Jinnai 02:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Ready for GA nomination?

It looks great! I'll do it if you'd like, but otherwise someone should, it looks great! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 12:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I have no experience in doing that, so if you feel it is that good, please do so. Xfansd (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
If you like, you can nominate and get the credit, and I'll support you during the review, since I have years of experience. Just add the code to the top of this page and let's do it! This article is a high priority and we need it to be GA class. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, that's very nice of you. Xfansd (talk) 17:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Akira Toriyama/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sjones23 (talk · contribs) 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article momentarily, so bear with me while I go through the article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

All right. Here's what I think of the sources:

  1. We should maintain a consistent dating format in each of the sources.
  2. All dead citations must be replaced.
  3. If there is the original date that it was first published, add it.

I will be expanding on this as I go along. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:03, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Excellent points! I checked the article, and it seems to have working reference links, original publication dates where available, and the dates are all in a year-month-day format. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Undergoing a thorough review of the GA criteria. This is how the article, as of May 12, 2013 stacks up to the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  1. Please file a copyedit at WP:GOCE.
2. Factually accurate?: Here is a couple of hints here:
  1. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed per the WP:BLP policy.
  2. Also, all publisher/work names should at least be included in the citations.
  3. Please go through and make sure citations are all formatted with information filling out fields from citation templates using WP:CIT.
  4. Please make sure no cites are just a bare link and a title.
  5. Please go through and make sure cites verify WP:V, and of course please review all cites for WP:RS standards.
  6. Please go though WP:ANIME/RS and see if there are any unreliable sources that need to be remvoed.
3. Broad in coverage?:
  1. Biography section - well sourced
4. Neutral point of view?: No NPOV issues at the present, but there may need to be some wording that should be removed per WP:WTA.
5. Article stability? Stability issues: No stability issues here so far.
6. Images?: One image used, but that would work here.
  1. File:Akira Toriyama.jpg - no issues here.

Please address these matters here as well. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I went and filed a copy edit request. I do not believe there is any unsourced BLP content likely to cause contention. Went through and added authors to the missing sources that supply them, all sources give their publisher/work and are now in citation templates. There were two fan sites used as sources that reproduced interviews with the subject, I went and changed them to the original source of the interview. I believe all the sources pass WP:V and WP:RS standards now, and none are listed at WP:ANIME/RS as unreliable. So it seems we are only waiting on a copy edit now. Xfansd (talk) 15:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
I'll copy-edit this. AmericanLemming (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

After the copy-edit

I've now close-read the article three times (once yesterday and twice today), so I think that the prose is about as good as I can make it. Two general remarks:

1. The article is quite informative and well-organized. Good job!
2. There is a fine line between following the conventions of standard formal written English and imposing one's stylistic preference on the prose of the article. Feel free to change the wording, especially if the my changes don't reflect what you're trying to say.

Then, four specific remarks regarding sentences that I found confusing and didn't know how to fix:

1. At the end of the "Success" section, you say "Toriyama's clean line and design sense..." I understand what design sense is, but what is a "clean line"?
2. At the end of the "Recent work" section, you say that exhibit moves (and will move) around. Where was it between April 15 and April 17? Were they taking it down and setting it up? And where was it from April 23 to July 27? That is, where is it now? Back in Nihonbashi?
3. Near the end of the "Style, influence and accolades" section, you have James S. Yadao mention an art shift. Essentially, was the art shift that "Dragon Ball" became more like the popular shōnen manga of the late 1980s and early 1990s, like City Hunter and Fist of the North Star?
4. At the end of the "Style, influence and accolades" section, you mention "his work" as the reason that Toriyama took second in the mangaka poll. Presumably you're refering to Toriyama's work, not Tezuka's?

That's all I've got for you to look at; the rest of the prose looks good to me. AmericanLemming (talk) 15:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

1. This "clean line" thing was there before I did a major overhaul, so I don't know what the user who added that meant. I guess we could remove the reasoning and just say he did the work for the games.
2. That exhibit info is all taken straight from the source used, during the first gap I'd assume it was moving/being taken down that type of stuff. Currently I'd say its probably just being stored somewhere until July 27, perhaps the location is booked with a different exhibit causing the large gap. But personally I don't feel the reader needs to know that, they're probably only interested in when it was on display.
3. The art shift is from "round and innocent" to "sharp angles with energy and intensity". The comparison to City Hunter etc. was made by Jason Thompson in a separate review. I do not think we can intermingle the two and imply that, by Yadao's description, Toriyama's art went from unique to that of every common shōnen manga.
4. Yes, "his work" refers to Toriyama's. Additionally, just want to point out that I believe the "highly influential and popular worldwide" part to be supported in the Japanese source with similar lines. Xfansd (talk) 17:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've taken out "clean line" and left the second two sentences alone, as you recommended. For the last one, you can decide whether or not to put "highly" back into the lead. I'm pretty new to this whole editing business, so I don't necessarily have the best feel for how things should be said. If you were to put it back in, I guess I would feel more comfortable if the phrase was in quotations marks. But you probably have a better idea of what you're doing than I do, so you can do as you like.

And with that, my copy-edit is finished. AmericanLemming (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The copyedit looks marvelous to me! I will take a look at it in a few days or so. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:38, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Final thoughts

All right. Taking a look at the article, I think it should definitely pass as a Good Article per the GA criteria. Nice work, everyone! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:59, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Minor works

Hi, people. I propose to redirect Mysterious Rain Jack, Wonder Island, Today's Highlight Island, Pola & Roid, Escape (manga), Dragon Boy, The Adventures of Tongpoo, Dub & Peter 1, and Kintoki (manga) to this page (or Akira Toriyama's Manga Theater) on the basis that all they lack WP:N. As this article is broad enough on its coverage of his works there will be no loss at all. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I say just go ahead and boldly merge them, as they all lack notability for minor works, lack referencing and just downright lack the proper structure of an article. —KirtZMessage 22:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Agreed - merge. ProKro (talk) 23:10, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Agree with these titles. If they do show independent notability later such as an English/multi-language release then they can be re-created. -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, one the basis that a suitable effort has been made to see if there are any unused sources that establish notability of the works in question first.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I think usually we need to wait more but as it seems an unanimous decision I've already redirected all them. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 00:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Is he really that well-known for Dr. Slump???

59,000 < 1.68 million Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Why not include it? Dr. Slump has a considerable following and should be mentioned. It is also the first prominent work by the author with a considerable following both domestically and internationally. There's also a reasonably encyclopedic, well-sourced, wiki article on the work, which alone proves its notability. Aside from that, it fits in the lede and without it there would be too much emphasis on Dragon Ball and that is just not encyclopedic. If you feel Dr. Slump needn't be mentioned, feel free to propose some other author's works to take its place. ProKro (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

bearly anybody in the usa has even heard of dr. slump, prolly not even otaku but constant reverts to a redirect of Dragon Ball Z: Fukkatsu whatever is bordering vandalism. stop reverting me vandal! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.26.133 (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

To the IP, please be civil. Also, ProKro, you do not have to be so haughty; admit you were in the wrong. I can even taste your cynical attitude here. Clearly, it's people like you who give wikipedia a bad name. I do agree that Dr. Slump warrants no mention in the lead paragraph, as it was never critically acclaimed in the US as much as Dragon Ball. RoaringFlamer41 — Preceding undated comment added 16:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I was hasty. I admit. The reverts were unnecessary and were made more out of frustration than anything else really, but I wasn't wrong. I made sure the redirect was included and as far as grammar is considered, blame my gnomish nature. I don't know what people are you referring to but don't link them with me, please, as I do not mean to cause havoc even when I accidentally make sloppy slip-ups. Water under the bridge. As for Dr. Slump, I don't see why not include it, regardless of its popularity. Its an article about the author and one of his first prominent breakout works must surely hold some value. If I recall correctly, it was even animated before Dragon Ball. ProKro (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the problem is exagerated by the edit message "Undid revision X by Y", which gives the appearance of an edit war that isn't really there. Consider the wording "partial revert", or something more obvious like "missing comma". As to the topic at hand, I agree with keeping mention of Dr. Slump. —WOFall (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Noted. Cheers. ProKro (talk) 17:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

gentlemen and gentlemen, ProKo has been reverted since no one here agrees with him or her. thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.26.133 (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Slump absolutely has to be mentioned. Look at it this way, if he only ever did Dr. Slump and never created Dragon Ball, 35 million copies is very successful for any manga artist. Xfansd (talk) 16:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:Xfansd: If there isn't an essay at WP:IFONLY criticizing the use of ridiculous hypotheticals in talk page discussions, there should be (and yes, I'm aware of the irony in this comment ;-) ). "If Dragon Ball never existed, he would probably still be famous for Dr. Slump" is a non-argument: the proportion of that 35 million that, like my purchases, were made by people who had only heard of him because of his later creation and whose interest was piqued by the crossover is probably unquantifiable, but can you find sales figures for Dr. Slump c.1983 to compare? 182.249.8.67 (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)
@172.56.26.133 Wow. You really gave it some time for discussion. And "ok its 3 against 1 so WP:CONSENSUS has been sought. Read the talk page you ! Ask every person in American and all they will tell you is, "Dr. Who"? haaaa.." is a bit childish if I may add. EDIT: The "...was never critically acclaimed in the US as much as Dragon Ball." argument is void. That would mean the article is leaning towards "US-centrism" and we don't want that. That'd strip the article of GA, another thing we wouldn't want :O ProKro (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:ProKro: Please refrain from ad hominem remarks against the IP that essentially amount to strawman arguments against me. This is not about Eurocentrism or Americocentrism. I am arguing from Japanese statistics. You need a reliable source (and yes, I would not only accept, but would prefer one in Japanese) that actually makes a claim like "Toriyama Akira is about as well-known for Dr. Slump as for Dragon Ball". 182.249.8.67 (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)
I haven't made any arguments against your proposal, directly or indirectly, nor did I personally attack the IP user once (who has since been banned). I simply stated that there is no need to remove Dr. Slump statement to begin with, and suggested replacing it with maybe one of more prominent of author's works. The US-centrism issue was directed at RoaringFlamer41 who argued that Dr. Slump needn't be mentioned solely because it's rather unknown in the U.S. Anyone would be hard pressed to find any reliable and verifiable source, online at least, about actual popularity of any of author's works other than Dragon Ball, therefore I assumed that that the figure of 35 million copies sold is more then enough to justify its notability. ProKro (talk) 01:08, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I already made my proposal in my initial edit: "He is best-known for Dragon Ball." Leave the mention of Dragon Quest in the following sentence, but maybe change it to "He is also known for his character designs for video games such as the Dragon Quest series and Chrono Trigger." Putting Dr. Slump or any of these other works on the same level as Dragon Ball (in the lede of this article, in terms of what this person is known for, worldwide) is a clear violation of WP:WEIGHT. And as I already pointed out, your "35 million copies" stat is biased/irrelevant, since probably 90+% of that number is post-Dragon Ball and is evidence against putting them on the same level. What about my earlier stat that in Toriyama's native language about 30 times as many websites mention the subject in relation to Dragon Ball than Dr. Slump? If you're skeptical about my blank Google search, repeat it for news sources, university domains, print sources, whatever. I guarantee you you will get similar results. 182.249.8.67 (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)
Google hits are meaningless. Recondition by reliable, third-party sources is what we go by, and he is recognized as being know for his work on Dr. Slump as I demonstrated by the link below. —Farix (t | c) 03:17, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
As I already pointed out, it's not my job to find reliable sources to contradict ProKro's complete lack of sources, and counting GBooks hits on my phone is near-impossible, but apparently only 28 GBooks results mention "Toriyama Akira" and "Slump" but not "Dragon Ball", and of these eight list Toriyama as an author and have "Dr. Slump" in the title. Of the other 20, at least three are other manga of questionable relevance and several more look like books discussing unrelated "Slump"s (what the hell is "皿スランプ"??). I'll check the corresponding, no doubt OVERWHELMING, results mentioning Toriyama and Dragon Ball but not Dr. Slump when I have time on a computer, unless someone else wants to beat me to the punch. (Of course, you are all free to not do so, and then claim I'm the one cherry-picking questionable statistics. I'm not assuming anyone will do this, just prpviding a general caution as to why you shouldn't.) 182.249.8.67 (talk) 04:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
That is certainly not concensus, and it seems that you need to read a bit on wikipedia's policies such as WP:BRD and the WP:CONSENSUS you linked. And especially WP:WAR. —WOFall (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
While Dr. Slump is not as well known as his later work, Dragon Ball, that doesn't mean that he isn't known for it. This is also a rather significant media franchise as well, producing numerous anime TV and film spinoffs and a followup manga serialization. There was even a crossover with Dragon Ball at one point of Dragon Ball's serialization. If you need conformation of this, simply look at the sources in the Dr. Slump article itself. —Farix (t | c) 18:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:TheFarix: I've read the crossover (along with virtually everything else in both mangas). This is like staying "Stan Lee is best-known for his creation of The Fantastic Four and the characters of Ronan the Accuser and Spider-Man" -- maybe a single film featuring Ronan far out-performed a film featuring Spider-Man in 2014, but putting the two characters on the same level in the article on their original creator (even if they have crossed-over several times!), let alone claiming Lee is particularly well-known for Ronan the Accuser, is patently ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
In critical circles, he is still know for that work. Even in news articles on his other works, such as this one] from Anime News Network a few months ago, he is directly associated with both Dragon Ball and Dr. Slump. This verifies that his is well known for both. Besides, your edit has been disputed by multiple editors, so you shouldn't be remaking it per WP:BRD. —Farix (t | c) 00:48, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:TheFarix: Citing one article from an (American) online fan publication is pretty meaningless when it comes to making claims about what people in the real world (as opposed to Wikipedia) knows him for. Of the first 20 results for a search of his name on Mainichi Shimbun's website, all 20 are either specifically about Dragon Ball and name him as the creator, or on largely unrelated topics and name him as "Toriyama Akira, author of the (hit) [parentheses because some articles leave out the word 大ヒット] manga Dragon Ball", and it seems none of them mention Dr. Slump even once. I could repeat this experiment for the other big newspapers. 182.249.8.67 (talk) 07:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Anime News Network is not a "meaningless fan publication". It is one of the most prestigious and respected anime news sites out there. Just because it is an English language website does not invalidate it as demonstrating that he is know for his work on Dr. Slump. As for more evidence that his is know for his work on Dr. Slump:
Your attempt to use raw Google hits as proof that he isn't know for this work just down right fallacious. —Farix (t | c) 14:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, finally checked them. I'll start by pointing out that I didn't use raw Google hits -- I checked over 80 pages from the official websites of all the major Japanese newspapers, on a search for the name of our subject. You are the one being fallacious by rooting out articles on Dr. Slump and claiming that they prove that Toriyama is best-known for Dr. Slump.
  • The two Crunchy Roll links appear to be broken, but judging by their titles they are are articles discussing Dr. Slump-related content specifically. They cannot be used as justification for your claim that 鳥山明といえば『Ｄｒ．スランプ』. You need a source (a vast multitude of sources, like the ones I presented you with) that is not about Dr. Slump, but when mentioning Toriyama describes him as the author of Dr. Slump.
  • This says nothing whatsoever about what Toriyama is known for among the general population; it is an article about two fans of Toriyama, both of whom have heard of Dr. Slump, one saying it's one of his favourites, the other (apparently) preferring Dragon Ball -- how is this relevant?
  • I don't speak Spanish, but does the title of this article translate to something like "Before Dragon Ball - the Beginnings of Akira Toriyama"? If so, is it not introducing Dr. Slump to its audience in terms of Dragon Ball? How does this help your case???
  • The reference to Toriyama in this article is similar: it describes one Japanese fan of Toriyama's works, who happens to like both Dragon Ball and Dr. Slump. So do I -- what does this prove? The author (an American writing in English, presumably for an audience similar to himself, mind you), again, assumes his audience is familiar with Dragon Ball, then connects the Dr. Slump piece with Dragon Ball by way of their common author.
  • This is not an independent source -- it mentions Toriyama once, in a citation of the LA Weekly piece I already discussed.
  • This is a blog. It's wording is suspiciously close to our current lead, and two weeks early its author explicitly cited Wikipedia. This is a vicious circle: some random IP user makes a ridiculous, unsourced claim that Toriyama is just as well-known for Dr. Slump as for Dragon Ball, his/her edit happens to survive long enough to become part of the article's "status quo", outside sources start repeating Wikipedia's claim, and then when I come along and try to fix the problem I get opposed on the basis of external sources repeating Wikipedia's current claim.
  • As for ANN... this one does not describe Toriyama as being well-known for Dr. Slump; it introduces him as "The Creator Of DRAGON BALL", and only mentions Dr. Slump as part of a chronological bibliography of his works. The other three all post-date the random IP user claiming on-wiki that Toriyama is just as well-known for Dr. Slump as for Dragon Ball, and all use the exact same wording ("Akira Toriyama (Dragon Ball, Dr. Slump)"). This makes analysis pretty straightforward. Googling this phrase on their website brought up seven hits, of which five list these two works specifically, the other two only choosing to list Dr. Slump if they also chose to include Sand Land. And guess what: three of them, including the two that list Sand Land, pre-date the IP user claiming on-wiki that Toriyama is just as well-known for Dr. Slump as for Dragon Ball, and the only pre-5/1/2012 result that lists Dragon Ball and Dr. Slump specifically is this one. Would they have mentioned Dr. Slump if Arale-chan was not clearly present in the image, making it necessary for context? The image as a whole is very clearly tilted toward Dragon Ball over Dr. Slump. If anything (and I stress that) this could only be taken as an indication that Toriyama himself considers Dragon Ball to be the more prominent of his works.
Now, this would be suspicious enough by itself, that suddenly Anime News Network started describing Toriyama as the author of "Dragon Ball and Dr. Slump" after Wikipedia introduced this description. But let's examine how many times ANN describe him as the author of Dragon Ball, with or without reference to Dr. Slump: 32. And how many times do they introduce him as the author of Dragon Ball, and not mention Dr. Slump anywhere on the page? 24. I actually don't think we should put too much weight on this fact by itself, since it is ultimately an American fanzine of which we should be skeptical. But when virtually all the independent media that can be found ("independent" here being independent of Wikipedia...) support the view that Toriyama's single most-prominent work is Dragon Ball and Dr. Slump is at best a distant second, we can't just say "our sources all come from the United States and Japan, but we must avoid systemic bias, and so we should say something different from all those sources".
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No. Toriyama has not been best known for Dr. Slump for at least 30 years. This is not "American Wikipedia" -- the fact that virtually no one in the US has heard of Toriyama PERIOD means "what Americans have heard of" should be taken with a pinch of salt either way. "鳥山といえば『ドラゴンボール』" is a phrase I have actually heard people say; "鳥山といえば『ドクタースランプ』" is something NO ONE has EVER said outside of this Wikipedia article. Dragon Quest and Chrono Trigger are both MUCH better-known (in Japan, the US, Ireland..........) and more widely-associated with Toriyama than Dr. Slump, and no one is arguing for adding those. Dragon Ball is the only thing that we can reasonably say he is "best-known for"; adding anything else to this statement would violate WP:WEIGHT. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Dragon Quest and Chrono Trigger themselves may be better known than Dr. Slump, but they are big projects where the artist is not necessarily well recognized. The notability of the connection is what we're concerned with, not just the notability of the work. Also, Dragon Quest is mentioned in that very line.
  • Dr. Slump is very much notable in its own right, and as Toriyama is the creator it's at least as relevant here as Dragon Quest.
  • The wording "best known for" doesn't imply the grammatical constraint of listing only one work, which seems to be your interpretation. I don't think anyone would argue that Dr. Slump is as well known as Dragon Ball, but it was successful and influential, and he is well known for it.
  • In my view, this is a small detail to be arguing over so fiercely (myself included), regardless of whether there's an obvious "right" answer or not. In any case, please don't continue an edit war when there's active discussion and no consensus. I will presently make a "compromise edit" that continues to include Dr. Slump, but gives greater weight to Dragon Ball. —WOFall (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
While I was agonizing over how to contort the wording, TheFarix made a simple and genius edit of simply removing the word "best". Hopefully we can agree that this sidesteps the issue. —WOFall (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
That's still a problem, because it's certainly debatable whether "Toriyama Akira is known for Dr. Slump" or "Dr. Slump is known for having been written by Toriyama Akira, who also created the wildly-popular manga Dragon Ball". Until I see a reliable source that says otherwise, my view that Dr. Slump is primarily notable for its connection to Toriyama, and not the other way around is unlikely to change. As for the video games: that's precisely why I'm NOT in favour of putting his work on the Dragon Quest franchise on par with (in the same sentence as) Dragon Ball. 182.249.8.67 (talk) 03:23, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Also, while I don't intend to edit war, I should point out that the WP:BURDEN is on the party wishing to add the information. If an unsourced, contentious claim is challenged, it should not be re-added without consensus. So far the only substantial argument that has been made in favour of the current wording has been "this product sold x units". (Factual claims like "it was his breakout work" are useless without reliable sources). Even if 2-3 users were making irrelevant strawman arguments and I was the only one arguing against the current wording, it still wouldn't matter. 182.249.8.67 (talk) 03:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I must concur with Hijiri 88/182.249.8.67. Since this the English Wikipedia, we have an audience primarily of English-language viewers, and let us not forget the editors. The Dr. Slump franchise in the US and UK alone, if ever there was, is virtually non-existent and the series goes largely unnoticed. Harmony Gold USA, in my understanding, had acquired the license to dub the anime back in the '80s. The series was never fully introduced, so it had not sought similar popularity as it did in Asia or in some third world countries. It is useless to warrant a mention in the lead paragraph, see wp:lead, which clearly tells us to express the main point at hand, which is Tori's most well known creation Dragon Ball. RoaringFlamer41 — Preceding undated comment added 10:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Given the flagrant strawmanning on the part of at least two of the people who want the article to claim he is just as well-known for Dr. Slump (most recently WOFall's above repeated accusations that I am trying to make the lead say "He is best-known for the manga Dragon Ball and the video games Dragon Quest and Chrono Trigger" or some such), I need to point this out: "No one in America has heard of Dr. Slump, and this is English Wikipedia" is NOT a part of my argument. This being English Wikipedia is completely irrelevant: we shouldn't claim "X is best-known for Y", when what we really mean is "Among English-speaking Americans, X is best-known for Y" -- especially when only a tiny minority of people who have heard of X at all are "English-speaking Americans". At least 50% of people who have heard of Toriyama are Japanese, so we should most certainly not be ignoring how the Japanese media describe him. I'm beginning to notice a trend that whenever I post external evidence such as search engine hits and newspaper articles this evidence is completely ignored by everyone else. Can I get a show of handsso I know: who here is actually able to read a newspaper article and/or our subject's name in Japanese? 182.249.8.67 (talk) 11:04, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
I am going to seriously pretend I didn't read that, Hijiri. This is the English Wikipedia. It's our job to maintain an English treasure trove of information. For heaven's sake! This isn't about the obsessive fans, it's not even about an American audience. It's about making note of what's right for this website. I, for one, will never stop following the rules. RoaringFlamer41 — Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Nope. We can't say someone is "best known for" something and mean they are best known for it among English-speaking Americans, especially when virtually no English-speaking Americans know them in the first place. The OVERWHELMING MAJORITY of people who have heard of Toriyama are not American, so there's no way we can ignore that overwhelming majority when claiming that people in general have heard of him for some particular work. It's simply factually incorrect. English Wikipedia simply means it is written in English -- the English language does not have a separate set of facts from other languages.
But that's beside the point. You and I actually agree on the wording of the article in this case.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:24, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
"virtually no English-speaking Americans know them in the first place." This claim is unsupported by the reliable sources cited above and also irrelevant because the article should not have an English-only perspective. Toriyama is know for his work on Dr. Slump in English, Spanish, and Japanese. —Farix (t | c) 14:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Can you show me a source that indicates otherwise? Are you implying that the majority of people who have heard of Toriyama are English-speaking Americans? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to every single point because this is a long and ultimately ridiculous discussion. You can argue all day about how important Dr Slump is in Toriyama's field of work but at the end of the day, Toriyama is known primarily for three works, Dragonball, his contributions to Dragon Quest/Chrono Trigger, and yes, Dr Slump. That Dr Slump is comparatively unknown to DragonBall in the west is not really problem given that usually when Toriyama is mentioned in english language articles and books, Dr Slump is listed right next to Dragonball and frequently given equal weight if the article is a general discussion of the man and not a DB article. This being English wikipedia has no bearing on weight given to any work and only affects certain logistical issues such as naming schemes. Ultimately trying to downplay Dr Slump only serves to show an obvious editing bias. Now instead of wasting all this time with such a stupid argument, maybe the time can be used to add content to the articles in question? SephyTheThird (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Per the evidence below, Dr. Slump is a very distant third even in Japan. He was primarily known for it during its original run, but this hasn't been the case for nigh on 30 years. But I very much agree with you regarding this being English having no bearing on the weight given. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

(EDIT CONFLICT) Okay, it's been more than two days since I asked those users who wish to preserve the "Dr. Slump and" wording to make a coherent argument (accusing me, an Irish person living in Japan who has never set foot in America and whose non-Japanese awareness of Toriyama's works comes almost exclusively from French sources, of Americocentrism is utterly ridiculous), present some reasonable evidence that somewhere in the world Dr. Slump is just as well-known as Dragon Ball, and indicate that they are actually capable of examining Japanese sources (at least to the point of being able to scan for the name of the subject or his prominent works). I noticed that no matter how much evidence I presented it was being completely ignored in favour of straw-man arguments about imagined ethnocentrism. In the intervening time both User:ProKro and User:TheFarix have edited Wikipedia, and both have failed to respond to me.

I went through several of the major Japanese newspapers to see which work they most associate Toriyama with, checking the first 20 hits for each; I only counted instances of Dragon Quest where there were Dr. Slump references, for comparison; I'm aware some (a minority, it seems) of these results are repeated and/or message boards rather than news articles - doesn't change the basic facts, though:

  • Mainichi: 20/20 mention Dragon Ball, 0/20 mention Dr. Slump
  • Yomiuri: 13/20 mention Dragon Ball, 2/20 mention Dr. Slump (2/20 mention Dragon Quest)
  • Sangyō Keizai: 6/10 mention Dragon Ball, 2/10 mention Dr. Slump (2/10 mention Dragon Quest)
  • (other) Sangyō Keizai: 4/8 mention Dragon Ball, 2/8 mention Dr. Slump (1/8 mention Dragon Quest)
  • Asahi: 17/20 mention Dragon Ball, 3/20 mention Dr. Slump (3/20 mention Dragon Quest)
  • Japan Times: 2/3 mention Dragon Ball, 0/3 mention Dr. Slump (1/3 mentions Dragon Quest)

That covers Japan. It seems pretty conclusive that when mainstream media outlets in Toriyama's home country discuss him, they almost always link him with Dragon Ball, and almost never link him with Dr. Slump. A lot of people have said here that in the United States (and the UK) the latter is almost completely unheard of. Can someone name me a country where Toriyama is famous for Dr. Slump?

I'm changing the wording back. Don't revert me again without addressing the evidence I raise here (and answering my question).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:43, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. Specific evidence to support the claim that he is know for his work on Dr. Slump has already been provided above. You just can't ignore it. And as I said, Google counts are irrelevant in proving anything. —Farix (t | c) 16:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ignore it. I addressed it directly. It was one article in an American online fan news site. It doesn't prove a damn thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Dude, you must be trolling. I provided links to 14 different articles. And again, Anime News Network is not a "fan news site". It is one of the most respected and reliable online news sites for anime and manga and is written by people who work in the industry or have written academic books and papers about anime and manga. You, yourself stated that, "He was primarily known for it during its original run." Being know for something isn't time relative. —Farix (t | c) 01:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Don't call me a troll. I asked for evidence, you ignored me for three days, then I make my proposed edits and provide my justification here, and you come in a matter of minutes later and post a list of articles, well above my comment where I was likely to miss it.[1] I haven't checked them yet, for this reason, but is it at all possible they were borrowing Wikipedia's description? Do any of them pre-date our current description (Dr. Slump was added on 5 January 2012)? Anyway, they are still all on a fan-site (i.e., a site meant for the consumption of fans of Japanese anime, a very niche market) rather than a mainstream media source, and so do not refute my earlier citation of the biggest newspapers in Toriyama's home country. Anyway, the statement is "he is best-known for X", not "in the early 1980s he was best-known for X" or "among American fans of Japanese anime he is bes-known for X". 182.249.54.208 (talk) 10:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
@User:TheFarix As for your repeated insistence that ANN is enough of a respected and reliable news outlet that its being written in English allows it to trump Yomiuri Shimbun, Mainichi Shimbun and Asahi Shimbun, I'd like to point out that reliable news sources don't borrow their information from Wikipedia, even when said information is a parenthetical list of an author's best-known works. And even if the non-wikisourced information was 100% accurate 100% of the time, using external websites that get their information from Wikipedia in order to maintain the Wikipedia status quo is utterly nonsensical. 182.249.134.31 (talk) 03:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Whatever your chosen justification, you appear to be deliberately forcing through your own view despite obvious consensus disagreeing. That seems to be clear cut edit warring. I would suggest you don't make such an obviously provocative edit when it's quite clear people disagree. Especially when you are telling other people not to change it back in a war of evidence proving and countering. One problem with your manner of forcing the point is that Dr Slump is an older work with less recent coverage, Dragon Ball has a much more skewed bias to it's coverage unsurprisingly.
Still, despite the suggestion that Slump isn't well represented in the US or UK you also managed to miss the entire European continent(despite talking about french sources), where Slump is available in several languages and Viz published the series in the US, and by nature of the business, the UK. Furthermore the series has a two page spread in The Rough Guide to Manga (UK), the same amount as Dragonball. 500 Manga Heroes and Villains (uk) by respected expert Helen McCarthy gives Dr Slump a sizeable amount of text right next to Dragonball on a spread about Toriyama. Manga:The Complete Guide by well respected manga expert Jason Thompson has a review that opens "A spontaneous megahit when it first appeared in 1980, Dr Slump established Toriyama as one of Japan's greatest cartoonists."
I really don't have the faintest clue as to why you are so determined to downplay the series that made his name in the first place. Dragon Ball may be more famous but that is no reason to downplay his first hit work. I'm sure I could turn up a few English language articles from magazines given enough time. There is no need to emphasise Dragon Ball as if it was his only hit.SephyTheThird (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
If it were just my view it wouldn't be supported by all the biggest newspapers in Japan. I'm not edit warring. I am trying to discuss on the talk page (hence my provide clear-cut, direct arguments here even when faced exclusively with nonsense strawman attacks and the sparsest of evidence). Every time I try to discuss on the talk page I am ignored, and every time I edit the article I am immediately reverted, with the reverter then posting an inane non-justification here. Explain to me how I am the one edit-warring. I like Dr. Slump. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:49, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm fresh to the discussion but your edit was clearly antagonistic. Making the change while still facing opposition in the discussion and then telling people they can't revert you until they prove you wrong is not exactly helping your case. While making the one edit won't get you pulled up for edit warring (that would require multiple edits) it's a blatant disregard for the discussion. I still don't understand where the entire issue has come from, this shouldn't be a controversial issue and your preferred option does nothing to improve the page. Toriyama is not a one hit wonder so why imply he is only known for one thing. Many famous mangaka are known primarily for one work, but in those cases they are typically because those other works are minor . Slump is not a minor work, and despite your attempts to suggest no one talks about Slump when talking about Toriyama, there is clearly plenty of evidence to suggest this isn't true. Also, given that the article is a GA, it's especially important that he is properly represented and choosing to bias one work is not appropriate in this case. Clearly the consensus here is that we should not bias towards one of his works, the main body of the article can do the talking regarding the finer points of each works popularity. Arguing against the consensus for such a trivial matter of semantics is a waste of everybodys time. SephyTheThird (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you seem like the kind of editor I can have an adult conversation with, and I appreciate your well-reasoned comment. Please hear me out.
I initially changed "he is best-known for Dr. Slump and Dragon Ball" to "he is best-known for Dragon Ball". The statement as originally written did not have a source, and I did not foresee my edit being controversial. I came back the next day to find my edit had not only been reverted, but there had been a, to use the technical term, fustercluck on the talk page between the reverter and an Americocentric, block-evading sockIPvandal. The reverter (who I might point out has about 1,200 edits, of which about 10 are to article talk pages -- if one of us was likely to edit war, who would it be?) had not even attempted to refute my initial argument, instead appearing to assume that I, like the sockIPvandal, was an Americocentrist. I admit this might have made me somewhat defensive (as I have repeatedly said, I'm not American, I have never set foot in America, I read both manga in French translation before I learned Japanese and moved to Japan, and these translations as far as I know predate and are independent of any prominent American version of Toriyama's works -- you can see why I might be bothered by the accusation. I should also point out that so far I'm the only one not relying exclusively on American sources: I have stuck to using sources from Toriyama's home country where, even now, probably more than 50% of all the people worldwide who "know" him live. So far no one appears to have answered me as to whether they are even capable of reading these sources.
I made my first revert at this point, since WP:BURDEN says that those who wish to add the claim need to provide the sources: I asked, and after a day received none. I was then re-reverted, and still no one addressed my evidence. I made a further request for evidence and for those in favour of the current wording to to cease with the strawman attacks and pay attention to what I was actually saying. No one responded for 60 hours, although both reverters were actively editing Wikipedia during this time. I did not touch the article until this two+ day period had passed, and then, when it appeared all parties had actually done what I asked and examined my evidence and decided I had been right, I changed it back to my preferred wording (the wording also preferred by apparently all mainstream media sources).
I did not thunk there was opposition, and so my most recent edit (if not my previous revert) can't really be called antagonistic. TheFarix, on the other hand, has now re-added an unsourced, clearly-controversial claim to the article twice, despite opposition from not only me but what I think was two other good-faith users (not counting the sockIPvandal) who happen to disagree with me on the reason why the other wording is better.
182.249.54.208 (talk) 11:01, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Firstly, this is not an accusation, but it's quite confusing that half your comments are from an IP! I did not spot that you had signed the earlier ones and the whole conversation was quite confusing for me. Secondly, as you have mentioned the strawman five times now, I must note that we are quite specifically arguing over the claim that he "is known for X and Y"; the phrase best known for is gone, and it shouldn't really factor into the discussion any more. (And while we're building straw men, sorry for my "repeated accusations that [you are] trying to make the lead say "He is best-known for the manga Dragon Ball and the video games Dragon Quest and Chrono Trigger" or some such". Sometimes I'm surprised by the words I find in my mouth.)
No, I don't speak Japanese, although I think it's irrelevant and could be categorized as an attempt to claim a monopoly of authority. "English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available", although in any case you are crossing the line between common sense and WP:SYNTH.
Most importantly, this entire argument will continue to go in circles so long as you continue to argue against "Toriyama is best-known for Dr. Slump" when the rest of us are arguing that "Toriyama is best known for Dr. Slump (and other works)". Nobody is even arguing that Dr. Slump is as well known as Dragon Ball, and I don't think that is implied by the lede. On the other hand, you would imply that almost nobody knows of Dr. Slump, which is just patently wrong. —WOFall (talk) 19:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize for my carelessness in not marking my logged-out posts. I'll be more careful. (I won't attempt to make logged-in edits from my phone, since that would make this even more of a fustercluck.)
As for "best-known for" vs. "known for", I thought I had already addressed this when you first mentioned it: it's not a substantial difference since it still puts the remote second Dr. Slump on a level with the pop culture titan that is Dragon Ball. Additionally, the discussion that has taken place since the change indicates that the original wordsmith responsible for the current wording actually considers them to be substantially the same, and believes (incorrectly) that external sources support putting the works on the same level. (The sources in fact support my claim that using online fan-targeted magazines to maintain the status quo is circular sourcing, since they are clearly mirroring Wikipedia's wording.)
I apologize if my request for a statement of Japanese proficiency looked like an argument for authority or sounded arrogant. My reasoning was this: more than one user has accused me of engaging in Americocentric reasoning here, but it seems to be the other way around, since "In Japan, Toriyama is known for Dr. Slump as well as for Dragon Ball" appears to be an opinion found in sources aimed at American anime fans, but which is out of touch with how people on the ground in Japan actually feel. I therefore saw it as necessary to consult a broad range of Japanese-language sources written-for and read-by mainstream Japanese audiences (as opposed to hardcore otaku, who of course all are familiar with both). When I cited these sources, I was either completely ignored, or accused of using blank Google searches as sources. This of course made me suspect that Farix, ProKro et al. had in fact been unable to check my sources. I am actually obliged to work under this assumption, since the only explanation other than ignorance of Japanese would be willfully ignoring the evidence in order to push a POV.
As for why WP:NONENG doesn't apply here, as I mentioned above it seems we are dealing with a popular misconception outside Japan about what aspects of Japanese popular culture are prominent in Japan as opposed to the west. No one here is arguing that Toriyama is known for Dr. Slump outside Japan, so using non-Japanese sources to support a claim about Japan, when these non-Japanese sources are contradicted by the Japanese sources, is clearly problematic. The claim in question, I might add, is not made directly in any of the sources, Japanese or otherwise. It's therefore very difficult to discuss this with other users who are, even while acting in good faith, physically incapable of examining my sources -- especially when, without even reading my sources, said users are accusing me of using blank Google hit counts.
182.249.130.22 (talk) 03:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)
Also, we need to bear in mind that no one is talking about sources for use in inline citations in the actual article. This is just for talk page discussion about a summary statement in the lead that doesn't need a specific source attached to it. 182.249.215.3 (talk) 10:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Compromise proposal

Okay, a thought just hit me, and in case others actually agree with this I wanted to get it down here before the above fustercluck gets even worse. At least two users (ProKro and Sephy) have indicated that their concern is not so much with whether Toriyama is currently known for this or that work, but that Dr. Slump, as his first major success, deserves mention in the lead. I actually agree with this in principle, I just think the current "he is known for X and Y" wording (as well as the previous "he is best-known for X and Y" wording) gives the false impression to our readers (who we have to assume have never heard of either) that they are roughly equal in their fame.

So how about this: Cut out the entire sentence as written, and replace it with some variation on After some early minor works, he first achieved mainstream recognition for his highly successful manga Dr. Slump, before going on to create Dragon Ball—his best-known work—and acting as a character designer for several popular video games such as the Dragon Quest series and Chrono Trigger.

My proposal's inclusion of Chrono Trigger (one of the first JRPGs to sell well in the west) alongside Dragon Quest might actually by somewhat Americocentric, but overall what do people think of this?

182.249.135.228 (talk) 07:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)

Interesting tidbit about where I got the idea, but also why simply copying it straight is probably a bad idea

Forgot to say: this is actually similar to how he is described in MyPedia, a Japanese print encyclopedia with an independent article on him (which is roughly the length of our lead). That article, unfortunately, appears to date not much later than 1986, or perhaps was written during Dr. Slump's original run and somewhat clumsily updated later, since it names Wonder Island as his debut, before describing Dr. Slump as a "big hit" (大ヒット) — something I don't doubt — naming the "robot girl Arale-chan" as the protagonist and mentioning its being adapted as an anime. It then states "From 1986, he began serializing Dragon Ball, which was modelled on Sun Wukong, and is also popular." (1986年からは孫悟空を下敷きにした《ドラゴンボール》を連載，これも人気を得る。), and very briefly mentions Dragon Quest. I assume we all agree that this description goes too far the other way? 182.249.135.228 (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy with something along these lines. Working from your text, I'd probably leave out the "after some early minor works" intro, and maybe replace "highly successful" with "hit" (or even no text at all), but it's fine in general. I don't care either way about Chrono Trigger. Although I can't speak for everyone, perhaps you should make the change as you see fit, and hopefully it will inspire productive counter-editing rather than a complete revert. —WOFall (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I included the "early minor works" to emphasize that Slump was not his "first" manga, just the first one that made a name for him, but I guess it's still clear. As for "highly successful", I'm not a fan of the word "hit" in encyclopedia articles (too informal) and I'm pretty sure everyone except you and me would oppose the removal of all reference to how successful it was. Let's see how the change goes, anyway. 182.249.215.32 (talk) 02:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
@User:RoaringFlamer41: Thanks! But, when you say "it's perfect", are you exaggerating when you actually mean "it's great, but could in theory be improved later and I wouldn't mind"? Or, if you literally meant "perfect", which version: the exact wording I proposed initially, the presumed ideal version according to WOFall with the word "hit" and without the minor early works, the compromise version I implemented, or the hypothetical I proposed which is any of the above but with Chrono Trigger removed? I was actually writing this tongue-in-cheek, but then I remembered that I'm still a little iffy on the CT reference myself, so if we're going to "vote" on this some feedback regarding this would be helpful. :-) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to avoid peacock words I'd prefer to remove "early minor works" and "highly successful". I'd suggest "After debuting in 1978, he first achieved mainstream recognition for manga Dr. Slump, before going on to create Dragon Ball—his best-known work—and acting as a character designer for several popular video games such as the Dragon Quest series and Chrono Trigger" or just starting from "He first achieved..." 182.249.215.32 that the first phrase was included to emphasize the fact that it is not his first manga but it's pretty clear that the sentence isn't stating it. Gabriel Yuji (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2

Hatnote for the other Akira Toriyama

The hatnote originally read: "For the ophthalmologist and photographer, see....". This directed to a single article, Akira Toriyama (ophthalmologist). This was highly unusual; but as creator of the hatnote (and of the article on the namesake), I explained it above, in "You think the hatnote is screwy?". Briefly, a single person is known as an ophthalmologist and founder of a hospital, and as an amateur photographer. People who know him as the former may well not know him as the latter, and vice versa.

On 15 January 2015, RoaringFlamer41 (indefinitely blocked soon thereafter) made the odd change of "ophthalmologist and photographer" to "visual practicioner [sic]", with the edit summary "shortened by generalizing". But (i) the ophthalmology and photography were, to the best of my knowledge, entirely separate; and (ii) "visual practitioner" is obscure and doesn't obviously mean either.

Two days later, Hijiri88 made a well-intentioned edit: "visual practicioner [sic]" to "ophthalmologist".

I am about to restore "and photographer". The result is unusual, but I announced and explained it almost seven years ago, and during this time nobody has argued against it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

@Hoary: No problems here. If I recall correctly, I just changed the wonky "visual practicioner" to the correct word without putting much thought into it (I don't think I read the other article very closely).
Sad to think this may be my last "Japanese culture" edit on Wikipedia because some ANI junkies who know nothing about Japanese culture can't tell the difference between Akira Toriyama and Daisaku Ikeda... :-(
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello. Could someone please add a photo to Akira Toriyama's article? I'm unable to do it myself. I suggest this photo to be used: https://mononokevirtual.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/akira-toriyama.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnos890 (talk • contribs) 22:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello Mlinganiso (talk) 07:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Akira Toriyama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Akira Toriyama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:29, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Akira Toriyama. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Request

I request for a better profile picture to be added to this Wikipedia article. I recommend this one: https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/smashbros/images/3/3f/Akira_toriyama_1475.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20190730210754&path-prefix=fr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.235.147.210 (talk) 13:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Changing the profile picture into "that" picture

Hi everyone. I suggest to change the profile picture into another one which suits a lot better because it's an astonishing profile picture itself. I mean this one: https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/dragonball/images/0/04/Akira_Toriyama.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20181225062806&path-prefix=es Could someone please do this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 13:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I still insist upon this topic. Could someone please take care of this? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.105.66.90 (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The image currently in the article is freely licensed and is in the public domain. Not sure about the copyright licensing of the image you suggest. Also, and no offense meant if it is your image, but the proposed "new" image has significant jpeg artifacts and noise, and color-fringe. The one currently in the article is better, IMO. What is it that you object to in the current image, it shows him in the environment of his first appearance at a US anime festival, which seems like an important historical moment. I don't object to changing the image, but to my way of thinking, it should be a freely-licensed high-quality image. Netherzone (talk) 16:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
I suggest to change it into the picture that I propose because that is the greatest profile picture of him anywhere on the Internet. If you have a good sense of criteria you will notice that. Not saying that the current picture is bad, it's just that this one is way better. Tell me either way if it's copyrighted protected and I'll understand. Please reply! Thanks! 181.12.176.175 (talk) 15:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Akira_Toriyama/Archive_1&oldid=1212520650"