Talk:Baby (Dragon Ball)

Concept and creation

I added this section because the concept and creation of the character needs to be discussed in the article. That's why the fiction tag is currently on top of this article. Don't delete the section just because there isn't any text there yet, I don't have the resources to provide accurate and sourced inforamtion, but it does exist. See Link (The Legend of Zelda) for what a character page should look like. Jay32183 01:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

While Link (The Legend of Zelda) looks great, it's not really possible to do the same for Baby. Link can have a 'concept and creation' section because the character 'Link' has appeared in more than one story, and it's clear that there are multiple 'Links'. To make an article about a character who is more than one person, or is portrayed several different times one needs to structure the article around how and what 'the character' is about. This is exactly how most comic book character articles are written. There's a section about each representation of the character and the article will discuss how each differed from the last.

But Baby is a different story altogether. Baby was only ever portrayed once, and then only for a relatively short time. The only non-plot information we have about him is that he was designed by Toriyama - everything else is straight from the plot information and it makes sense to keep that information in the 'biography' section. Recounting the plot needs to be told from an in-universe perspective, it would be difficult to read otherwise. Anything that can be talked about from a real-world perspective is.

I contest the use of the In Universe tag. The article clearly states he is a fictional character and talks about his concept and creation (as much as is known) in the first paragraph. The In Universe tag is meant to be used on pages that are ambiguous as to if they are referring to actual things or fictional things. If the article was written ion such a way as to suggest that Baby was actually running amok and destroying planets, then yes the article would need to be re written. But in this page it's made clear that Baby is not real, tells a bit about his concept and creation, mentions his voice actors, and then recounts the plot of the story with which he is involved. Nothing inappropriate, in my opinion. --DesireCampbell 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The in-universe tag is there because the plot is the only thing being talked about. Palpatine and Padme Amidala are both also featured character articles. Things like how the writers came up with the idea, how animators drew the character, and how the actor decided to voice the part are all things that should be talked about. Jay32183 05:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That would be great. Does that information exist for this character? --DesireCampbell 06:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it exists, it's just a matter of how hard you look for it. Searching for interviews with Toriyama would be a good start. Jay32183 06:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The only info you'll probably get is that he was designed by Akira Toriyama, which is something that's already there. They don't release info like the Star Wars people do. Nemu 06:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually searching would be more helpful than guessing. Jay32183 20:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good luck. All I've ever seen is two pages from what I can assume is the GT data book(s?) that have really no text at all on them. You'd never find AT commenting on it, so I would say you're pretty much screwed. Nemu 20:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. GT wasn't created by Toriyama (whom we could hope to find an interview with), it was created by Toei's group of staff writers. I think it's highly unlikely that there will be any interviews with them. Especially now, ten years after the fact. The only information one would find would be in the GT DragonBook, or the GT Perfect Files books. And there I doubt you'll find anything about his concept or creation.

If you can find any information Jay, then by all means include it. But I suggest taking out a section that has no information, and is unlikely to get any. --DesireCampbell 20:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If plot information is the only thing that will ever be in this article then it should probably be merged with the list of characters. Jay32183 21:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

He's large enough a character to warrant his own page. I think the 'biography' section should be trimmed considerably (if one wants a recap of the Baby arc they can read the arc summaries). But the 'Powers' and 'special attacks' sections are pretty good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DesireCampbell (talk • contribs).

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move to Baby (Dragon Ball) —Mets501 (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Bebi/Baby

There's still some debate about the name, whether the romanization should be 'Bebi' or 'Baby'. There was a Move Request that ended without concensus, and thus the page stayed at Bebi.

Here are some points on the matter:

• The name in katakana is ベビー
• If "baby" is transliterated into katakana it would indeed be ベビー
• "Baby" is the spelling used in Funimation's dub of GT, and the Blue Water dub of GT, as well as Funimation's English subtitles.
• A card and other Japanese merchandise uses the spelling as well.
• There's no information available to say if the name is indeed a pun on "baby", but there is this scene.
• WP:MOS-JA#Romanisation says we should use the original English spelling of a loan word (if this is indeed a loan from "baby")
• WP:anime#Sections says we should use official romanizations if possible

That's all I've got. Thoughts? --23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding comment is by DesireCampbell (talk • contribs) DesireCampbell: Please sign your posts!

If this is the case, then there should definitely be a poll made about this (which I shall begin now). Now, I don't want any complainers saying "POLLS ARE EVIL! POLLS ARE EVIL!" If you have something to say, please leave a comment instead of saying Polls are evil. Ok? Power level (Dragon Ball) 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" if you agree with the article being moved to Baby (Dragon Ball). If you disagree, add "* Oppose" if you want to leave the article as it is, Bebi. Your defense must be followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~ --Power level (Dragon Ball)

• Strongly Support — per DesireCampbell. It seems that the lad's done his homework and has officially convinced me about the character's hepburn/romaji name. Also enterprises advertise the character as "Baby", and I guess Toriyama intended for the villain's name to be a pun off "Baby". Power level (Dragon Ball) 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• Polls are evil. Stop making polls. Try discussing things normally like you've been told countless times. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  If you have something to add to the discussion, do so. The poll here is informal and simply a means to judge support. If you have anything constructive to say, you are more than welcome - don't just say "polls are evil". It makes you look like an idiot. If you're going to decry polling, at least offer an alternative. --DesireCampbell 04:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Gee, I wonder what "try discussing things normally" is? Is it gibberish? I can't tell. (/sarcasm) It makes you look like an idiot when you don't pick up on a two sentence suggestion, if we're going to be personally attacking one another. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 07:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  "Try discussing things normally like you've been told countless times" is condesending. Don't treat other editors like children. Secondly, if you're going to complain, interact as well. Don't just say there should be a discussion, and then refuse to discuss it. --DesireCampbell 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• It's like talking to a dry wall. Some people just don't listen. Dude, do you have anything useful to say about the Bebi article? Maybe a comment even? I mean, not everyone cares if polls are evil or not! Who began that wierd "POLLS ARE EVIL" article anyways? Power level (Dragon Ball) 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Someguy0830, try being a little less immature and please comment on the article for your opinion. Seriously, quit with the "polling is evil" trend because it doesn't help to reach a consensus at all. Power level (Dragon Ball) 16:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  Neither does polling. Polling discourages consensus because it eliminates options and is used to justify actions that don't necessarily have consensus. You use polling wherever you can and it's really quite an annoying habit. – Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  And first past the post democracy discourages being nice to those that don't vote for you. But it's better than the other alternatives we have. If you have sone other alternative to polls, then please do that. Don't simply say the poll is evil and do nothing to improve the situation. Do you have anything constructive to add at all? I brought up the discussion, Power Level thought I'd given enough evidence to warrant a quick poll of whoever was interested. Noone discouraged discussion. --DesireCampbell 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, the same way some ask you to discuss, others ask you to vote. A poll is not binding, just a way to determine consensus. If there is a clear consensus, you can guess the change is welcomed. It is a way to prevent edit wars, because instead of just being bold, you first ask others what thy think. Refusing a change because it is being discussed through a poll is just as bad as using a poll for every change you want to make. -- ReyBrujo 20:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  STROGLY Support There is no doubt in my mind the name should be "Baby" because that is the proper spelling not Bebi which is just the Japanese spelling used primarily before the dub. Akira Toriyama wants it to be spelled Baby, funimation wants it to be spelled Baby, so why don't we just spell it like it should be Baby. Super 4 Vegeta 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Support per DesireCampbell. Oh, and by the way, wether or not polls are "evil" on Wikipedia is a POV, so pushing it like that as if it were a policy isn't going to work. With all due respect, if you don't like polls, just shut the hell up and mind your own buisness. You aren't going to spread your POV on polls on the talk page of a DB Character anyway, lol.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 23:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with the fact that PL(DB) is just doing poll, after poll, after poll. Sometimes polls work. Sometimes they're just a nuisance, and it would be better to start a discussion without a poll. Nemu 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, I didn't intentionally mean to be a "nuisance" with the polling. I just thought that it would be the best way of getting more people's attention to the article and maybe give their opinions and such. I guess I'll discuss first before creating a poll, ok? --Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

When does this poll end? Super 4 Vegeta 16:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It's not a real Move Request poll. It's simply an informal poll to gauge general consensus for a 'Bebi' to 'Baby' move. Seeing as how noone opposes the idea of a move, we can make a 'non controversial Mover Request' and get it moved right away. --DesireCampbell 20:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. DesireCampbell, are you gonna ask an administrator to perform the move (as you did at Burdock (Dragon Ball)? --Power level (Dragon Ball) 02:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Did someone ask? Super 4 Vegeta 02:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment- I agree with Someguy, polls are evil.--SUIT 05:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • And that effects the article... how? This is about which name is right for the article. Not 60 Minutes with SUIT.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 06:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Support- I was gonna support anyway, besides, man, mellow out--SUIT 04:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In Universe Tag

"Bebi (FUNimation's dub: Baby) is a fictional character and major villain in the anime Dragon Ball GT."

See that there? Where it says "fictional character"? Yeah. That right there states that he is NOT an actual existing entity in the real world and is, in fact, FICTIONAL.

"I contest the use of the In Universe tag. The article clearly states he is a fictional character and talks about his concept and creation (as much as is known) in the first paragraph. The In Universe tag is meant to be used on pages that are ambiguous as to if they are referring to actual things or fictional things. If the article was written ion such a way as to suggest that Baby was actually running amok and destroying planets, then yes the article would need to be re written. But in this page it's made clear that Baby is not real, tells a bit about his concept and creation, mentions his voice actors, and then recounts the plot of the story with which he is involved. Nothing inappropriate, in my opinion." --DesireCampbell 04:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

See all of that that was said there? Yeah. In Universe tag is being used inappropriately. It will be removed again in a moment.

Daishokaioshin 05:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The article is completely written in an in-universe perspective. Only the leading is written in an out- perspective. Just an example:

Bebi is first seen by Goku, Pan and Trunks while they are on the planet M2, home of Dr. Myu. During the encounter, Bebi is still confined to a tank of liquid, where he is completing his regeneration.

An out-universe sentence would be Bebi is first introduced in Dragon Ball Z #55, chapter 13, "Bebi arrives" (1990). In that chapter, Bebi is confined to a tank of liquid, similar to the one appearing in Dragon Ball Z #30, chapter 2, "Vegeta hurts" (1988), where Vegeta regenerated himself after the battle with Freeza.

Note that the article is written with statements like "To his shock" and "To his horror", which fit better in novels but not encyclopedic articles.

If you have any doubt, just check the manual of style, especially the prose examples, and you will realize it is exactly the way this article is written. -- ReyBrujo 05:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please check the guideline again. Stating in the lead that Bebi is a fictional character is not enough to consider the article as out-universe. The full article must be written in an out-universe perspective. I repeat: a clarification in the lead stating "XXX is a fictional character" is not enough. I will restore the {{in-universe}} tag unless there is an objection, as the article is clearly written as if Bebi existed (yes, the lead is probably fine, but the rest of the article is not). -- ReyBrujo 11:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyber Saiyan?

The images of Bebi-Vegeta now seem to refer to this form by the additionl name of Cyber-Saiyan. Where did this term come from?

EDIT: Never mind, it's been fixed anyway. MightyKombat 13:22 5 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MightyKombat (talk • contribs) 16:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Baby Vegeta Golden Oozaru Super Gallick Gun.jpg

Image:Baby Vegeta Golden Oozaru Super Gallick Gun.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fancruft

Someone's really going to town with this article. They keep putting down false info that claims that Bebi's final Humanoid form has the features of a Super Saiyan 3. Now where did THAT random bit of trivia come from? I smell fancruft MightyKombat 07:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh god it's happened again! I request this page be protectd or something! MightyKombat 14:55, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

So the page is FINALLY unprotected and all of a sudden that same damn guy has started up again with his ridiculuos fancruft! I KNEW IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A PERMANENT PROTECTION! MightyKombat 16:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Adult Baby

Can someone add a picture of adult baby?

Whaddya talking about we got one already!

Oh, you mean Adult Baby who HASN'T possessed Vegeta. We'll ook into it. MightyKombat 13:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC)