Talk:Dragon Ball/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

template

{{Anime and manga portal}} Can someone please add this template to the article. For some reason I can't. SonGoku786 (talk) 12:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No, as that is not a valid template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? The deletion template indicates that it's a duplicate, yet you haven't made a replacement. "Valid" is extremely vague and unhelpful. --Raijinili (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently the right thing to put is {{portalpar|Anime and Manga|Wikipe-tan without body.png}}. It's on Category:Anime and manga portal. --Raijinili (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry, I'm a bit confused - what should I do? SonGoku786 (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

There is already an official template, so your creation has been tagged for deletion. However, even the official one does not need to be added to every last anime article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd just thought I'd create the template page since there is not other template. SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Should we not get of the sub headings in "anime series"?

The article by far looks too messed up and the sub headings aren't doing anything to make the article look good. From a readers point of view it looks ugly. The sections are short. Why not get rid of the sub headings for the "Anime" series section and have just 4 paragraphs in chronological order detailing the anime series right up from Dragon Ball to Dragon Ball Kai? We could also integrate the anime films to the anime series section as they are part of it. SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 23:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Films are kept in a separate media section from anime television series as they are different types of works, and usually don't effect the anime plots. The subheaders are useful organization tools, not "messed up". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball GT plot summary

I moved the text in the "anime sequel" sub section of the plot summary to the Dragon Ball GT since I believe its completely misleading to have it there. I'm not arguing whether Dragon Ball GT is "part of the series" or whether its "canon or not", I just think that a plot summary of Dragon Ball GT is better in a section for the Dragon Ball GT than a sub-section about the manga. If we're gonna cover GT in the plot summary, we might as well cover all the animated Dragon Ball spinoffs (filler episodes, movies, TV specials, and OVAs) there too, since they're every bit part of the franchise. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it needs to be removed all together, as the episode list also covers it and, as you note, it isn't not a part of the actual manga series. I have done this and left a one line summary, which is all it should get in the main article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This left me a bit confused. Is it suitable to have the anime sequel section or not?Tintor2 (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this paragraph okay?

I've edited the article a bit and it uses some really bad english. The grammar is quite awful. I've edited the Dragon Ball Z section to this:

"Toei Animation released a second anime television series after the original Dragon Ball series had finished, called Dragon Ball Z (ドラゴンボールZ（ゼット） ,Doragon Bōru Zetto?). Picking up where the first series had left, Dragon Ball Z is adapted from the final twenty-six volumes of the hugely successful manga series. Dragon Ball Z premiered in Japan on Fuji Television on the 26 April 1989, taking over its predecessor's timeslot, and ran for 291 episodes until its conclusion on the 31 January 1996.[3][27]"

"Dragon Ball Z was liscenced by Funimation following the canceled Dragon Ball series for an English language release in North America. Ocean Group was contracted to produce an English dub track. Similar to the original dub of Dragon Ball, the Ocean Group's dub of Dragon Ball Z was heavily edited, reducing the first 67 episodes to 53. The dubbed episodes of the first saga premiered in the United States on Fox in September 1996 and ended in May 1997. The second saga premiered on the WB Television Network in September 1997, though it was eventually canceled in May 1998. This was primarily caused by low viewer ratings. Three months after, Dragon Ball Z began airing on Cartoon Network as part of the channel's new Toonami programming block. Soon after, Funimation continued dubbing the series from where the cancelled dub left off, now using its own in-house voice actors, a new musical score, and less emphasise on editing. The new dub of Dragon Ball Z ran on Cartoon Network from September 1999 to April 2003. Geneon Entertainment lost its licensing rights to the old Ocean Group dubbed episodes of Dragon Ball Z in August 2004, allowing Funimation to re-dub the first sixty-seven episodes, restore the removed content and replace the old edited version with its in-house voice cast. These episodes were aired in the summer on Cartoon Network in 2005. The Funimation dubbed episodes also aired in Canada, the UK, Australia, and the Republic of Ireland.[28][29] In the United Kingdom, the Funimation dub of episodes 107 through to the final episode were replaced with a new dubbed version. This version used a dubbed language track produced by Blue Water and dubbed by the Ocean Group."

I think this makes much more sense. The last line bothers me. I don't ever recall that 107 episodes were edited for the UK version and cut. In the UK there were 276 episodes made. Could the last sentence be a rumour? SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. Your version's grammar is worse, and do not change dates to British/International like that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

How is my version "worse"? It makes much more sense, has clauses and sub ordinate clauses, proper sentence structure and makes better sense. Please point out how mine is "worse". SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 12:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

In the UK in the middle of the trunk saga the episode wher ethen produced by another dubber i believ eit was blue water studio/ocean group it that long ago i cant remember it might even have been a french company. but the statement is true ther ewas another dub for the uk after epsisdoe 107--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Plot

On the to do list it says that the plot needs expansion. Personally, I think that the plot section is fine, it just needs citations. Does anyone think that it would be in the benifit of the article to expand it? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Going on otehr articles i am review to get a understanding of GA and FA they plot length do not seem to be much bigger so i say it probally jsut ciation myself :) however i am still inexperainced so i wouldnt take it my opinion as more than apinch of salt :)--Andrewcrawford (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Plots don't need citations. They are cited de facto to the works themselves, so in-line citations are unnecessary except in cases where interprative statements are made (which generally shouldn't be in a plot). The main thing is it complete in terms of covering the major plot points, and should a GT summary be added (as I believe it does not currently cover it? I'm inclined to say it could be a bit longer, considering Tokyo Mew Mew is a much shorter series, but has a fuller plot summary (and includes its major format sequel). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that GT should be added, as it is a good chunk of the Dragon Ball story. About the length of the article, I am a bit concerned that it might get a bit too long were we to go further in detail in terms of the plot. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Isnt the plot by definition just a summary of the article? Two reasons i ask because if it is the case then some of the article is not coverd only breifly read it so would need to review more to say excately what, teh second is jsut to clarify for myself :)--Andrewcrawford (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the lead is the summary of the article. The plot is a summary of the work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah right ok apogolise then i did misunderstand :( however i will remember for future use :) (i really need to improv emy english i had them both in reverse for some weird reason)--Andrewcrawford (talk) 22:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball AF

I put in part of an article that I was going to finish about Dragon Ball AF, the fan-made content, but it seems it was removed. I was messaged saying that it was considered vandalism. I really don't see how that would be. I have my sources and everything, I just forgot to add them. And considering it's supposed to be a continuation to where the manga left off, shouldn't it be allowed? VampireBaru (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

No, Because Dragon Ball "AF" is a fan made hoax that does not truly exist. As it is not a Dragon Ball series, it does not need its own section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You said your self it fan made under that concept dragonball rn should be included. The most it could get is a meantion to say fans tried to contunie the series with hopax but it certainly does nto deserve it own section that like saying it true--Andrewcrawford (talk) 22:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It can't be verified against reliable sources. --Farix (Talk) 23:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball AF. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 03:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

your wrong about the Children Channel of israel

the Children's Channel of israel is not connected with the Children's Channel of UK. i would liek to remove there the link to the Children's Channel of UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Play38 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Story and theme resemblances

{{editsemiprotected}} I was wondering if someone might add this info for me to the Dragon Ball page. I think it should be mentioned that the Dragon Ball story as a whole very closely resembles the basic outline of the DC comics Superman story. The reasons for this should be obvious to any Dragon Ball fan. Second, I think it should be mentioned that the Trunks saga of the Dragon Ball Z anime series somewhat resembles the outline of the Terminator movie series and contains many similar themes.

(Devinology (talk) 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC))

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. The {{editsemiprotected}} template is meant to allow non-autoconfirmed users to request specific changes. You need to provide the wording of the change that you'd like to make. A bigger problem is that those observations are original research and that isn't allowed. What you need to do is find a reliable source that makes the same observation and provide details about those sources along with the wording you want added. Again, welcome and thanks. Happy researching! Celestra (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposal that Dragon Ball GT be split (again)

It has been almost a year since the merge and I think it has been a reasonable time to see if consensus has changed.

I can say I am not the first to be shocked at the merge of Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT. I have extensively reviewed the request for the merge and believe that not only am I personally against the merge, but the merge itself seems to be a violation of WP:N. The former debate can be found here:

[1]

AnmaFinotera's argument, if I read correctly, was based on the fact that DBZ and DBGT were poorly sourced articles filled with fan cruft and that the anime had similar characters and plot therefore violated WP:MOS-AM. Unfortunately no registered editor defended this article until now. I saw that the previous debate was filled with flaming and uncivil behavior hopefully this time we can have a serious debate.

Firstly, the previous argument holds no ground. Fan cruft can be removed and a quick search can easily bring various non trivial sources (is DBZ we're talking about not some underground anime). This never have been and never well be reasons for a merge. The merge was based on the suggestion that DBZ and GT are not independent of each other. Dragon Ball Z is considered to be among the most popular an influential anime of all time. It was the primary force that introduced anime to mainstream American media not Dragon Ball.

Since its inception Dragon Ball Z has sold millions of action figures, video games, and merchandise. Games such as Dragon Ball Z: Budokai has been focused on Dragon Ball Z not Dragon Ball. Therefore Dragon Ball Z immediately establishes notability.

Secondly Dragon Ball Z has different characters and a completely different plot. The reason for the merge no longer holds any ground.

Dragon Ball Z's merge with Dragon Ball is as unwarrented as merging The Godfather Part 2 with the first one. According to this merge the The Matrix should also be merged into one article and so should any sequal for that matter.

The final reason for the split is based on the guideline that WP:Featured Article are the general guideline and expecation that each article should follow. 300 (film) which is a featured article sets the precedence that films, novels (I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings), and anime alike should have a plot summary. Because DBZ and DBGT have different plots in order for these articles to eventually meet FA criteria we are going to need to split them and work on them independently. Valoem ^talk 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

First off, we have to remember that Dragon Ball is not just an anime. It is also a Manga. By your logic, Naruto: Shippuden should have an article, which it doesn't because it is merely the anime's way of deferentiating a time skip. Dragon Ball Z is the same. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DBZ is much larger and is more influential than DB so I don't see what the issue is. By your logic Godfather series should be merged? Please explain how this differs. Valoem ^talk 23:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Again, Dragon Ball Z is simply a title that the anime uses to differentiate part one and part two of the Dragon Ball manga, similiar to how part two of Naruto is called Naruto: Shippuden. Also, the Godfather and Dragon Ball are two very different things, and in terms of article structure cannot be compared. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note here that WP:FILMS uses a different guideline. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 23:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually WP:N takes precedence over specfic anime related guidelines. Does Naruto: Shippuden have a different plot and different characters? More importantly has the characters in Naruto: Shippuden spin off action figures and video games? If not then we can not compare the two. Valoem ^talk 23:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Naruto Shippuden has many video games and other merchendise bearing its name. It does have a different plot and different characters. Thus we can compare the two. Again, Dragon Ball Z is not notable, because it is simply a title. It has the same story, plot and characters as the Manga. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the need for a split. Currently, the article succinctly covers DBZ. As DBZ is a part of Dargon Ball, it is technically the same story. ~Itzjustdrama ^{? C} 23:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that the article sufficiently references all the merchendise of the Dragon Ball francise, and the video games are covered in their own seperate articles. Frankly, a split wouldn't do much to improve the article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:19, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I check out the article it never had a page which means it did not go to AfD. Just because the article does not exist does not mean it doesn't warrant one. Therefore the series could very well be notable create it, source it, and see if it survives AfD. Valoem ^talk 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The Wire both are a series and therefore easily comparable. The Wire also has plot summary once again FA argument. Please don't say you can't compare the two there are no featured anime articles so we havelook to the next closing thing. Valoem ^talk 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

DBZ would need a plot summary which warrants its own article. Valoem ^talk 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please cite which policy stops DBZ from having it's own article? Valoem ^talk 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about policy citing. For one, there is consensus, as well as common sense behind the merge. There is nothing that could be included in a Dragon Ball Z article that could not be included in a Dragon Ball article. Also, Dragon Ball Z is simply a title that the anime uses to express the time skip that occurs between volumes 16 and 17 of Dragon Ball. The article is about Dragon Ball the media franchise, and thus, has the same plot and characters as Dragon Ball Z, because Dragon Ball Z is Dragon Ball. There is no reason to warrent a merge. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:32, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually believe it or not it is about policy. Policy allows me to act bold which as far as I can tell I could do right now and split, but I was willing to give it some time. Also WP:Consensus can change suggesting that it was common sense to merge is both abrasive and unsupported. In my opinion it is common sense that these articles should be split but that is not what WP is about is it? It is about using precendence and policy to support an argument. Consensus is not a vote because I am against the merge there is no longer consensus until my issue with the merge has been reached. Valoem ^talk 23:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I am having trouble understanding what you are talking about. Consensus can change, but has not, as the split is concerned. Also, you have not given a real reason as to why the article should be split. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Your basic argument boils down to "I like separate articles". However, the article's focus is the manga series. Therefore, it will cover the entire manga storyline, which is the same as the storyline in DB/DBZ. DBZ anime series is not a so much a sequel to DB, but a continuation of the manga's storyline under a new name. Another factor is that WP:ANIME wants to reduce duplication and repetitive information. For one, it is more difficult to keep things in sync with each other. So it encourages that the manga and their anime adaptations be covered by one article instead of across multiple articles. By creating a separate DBZ article, you will in fact duplicated much of the content in this article for no real gains other then to satisfy the egos of some DBZ fans. --Farix (Talk) 23:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with DBZROCKS and Farix, there's no urgent need for a split (not yet anyway). And when you think about it, this article isn't so long that we have to break it down or separate anything. I personally like the current layout. Valoem, the way it's organized is not that bad, really. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The one structural change I would suggest would be to move the video games, soundtracks, and artbooks from the media section into a merchandising section. --Farix (Talk) 00:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm a bad writer? I thought I clearly and repeatedly said why it should be split. Allow me to clarify:

Dragon Ball Z should be split because:

1. The series is independent of Dragon Ball.
2. Precendence in other media articles such as films, novels, and comic books all have seperate articles for sequels.
3. Feature articles suggest that DBZ needs a plot summary to reach the level FA because it has a seperate story line and characters.
4. DBZ has been repeatly featured in mainstream media and has been distinguished from one another on IMDb and Anime News Network.
5. Information regarding development history, spin offs, cast and crew, and of course plot have all been lost and could not be successfully included in the DB page.
6. Same applies for DBGT. Valoem ^talk 23:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

1. No, no it isn't, it is only different in name. It still follows the plot of the Manga.
2. It is not a sequel, in the Manga, the name is not even changed.
3. Anime and Manga are different from Movies, they are too long to thoroughly explain their plot in depth. Plot summaries are provided in episode lists.
4. Again, only in the anime, this article is about the entire media franchise.
5. Spin offs? There are none to speak of, and cast/crew information are not needed.

DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

1. Actually, DBZ isn't independent of the manga. It is a direct adaptation of the manga.
2. Other areas, such as film, novels, and comics, do not have to deal with the level of duplicate material that manga/anime articles do. It's an apples to oranges comparison.
3. Give that an overall plot summary of the entire manga series is already included, which covers DBZ as well, I don't see this as a problem towards FA candidacy.
4. How other resources outside of Wikipedia arranges their information is entirely up to them. But they don't dictate how Wikipedia organizes its information. What makes sense to ANN doesn't influences us.
5. Have you even tried?
6. GT should be taken as a separate matter because it is an original storyline and a sequel to Dragon Ball.

--Farix (Talk) 00:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You say DB is "independent of" DB. However, they're both adapted from the same manga -- in what sense then can it be independent? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The tags have been removed. The articles were merged per consensus and in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines and the WP:MOS-AM. WP:N, quite frankly, has nothing to do with the merge. Dragon Ball Z is the English name of the second half of Dragon Ball. Trying to claim one is independent of the other is absolutely ridiculous. Films use different guidelines, and as TheFarix noted is an apples != oranges comparison. The only reason this article can't meet FA criteria now is the lack of sourcing and need for copyediting. The plot is fine, and covers the entire series as far as I can tell (though one could add a sourced section of differences and one paragraph on GT if it was deemed necessary). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

DBZROCKS, your argument against the split of DBZ is strong enough. I'll focus on DBGT and split DBGT (not even made by the same person). Valoem ^talk 01:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly hope you mean you will discuss the GT split, not just do it. It was merged per the same consensus above and splitting requires a new consensus, not just doing it because you don't like there being multiple articles. It also was made "by the same person" in terms that the anime was made by the same company as the first two anime adaptations. That alone is not a valid reason to split it. It is still part of the same franchise and focuses on the same characters and general concept. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

So, based on your reasoning then, for consistency we should now merge every adapted single film or TV series into it's novel counterpart. Sounds ludicrous doesn't it? That's because - like this flawed attempt to squeeze the entire dragonball topic into a bite-size article - it IS! Both the manga AND the anime forms of Dragonball have established their own respective notability, which justifies the existence of separate articles. While the word consensus has been peppered liberally by the more hardy editors of this topic, the fact that there is sustained opposition to the current version shows that there clearly isn't a consensus. Remember, a true consensus should need no further debate! 124.176.22.35 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Obligatory section split for DBGT

Again, DBGT was merged because it is part of the Dragon Ball media franchise, which this article is about, and because it does not have enough information to carry it by itself. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

If the manga has a different name it is different. Since it passes WP:N it would warrant an immediate split. It is not even made by the same creator.Valoem ^talk 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It is still a part of the Dragon Ball franchise, regardless of whether or not Akira Toriyama was involved or not. Dragon Ball GT is not notable enough by itself. Just because it is not based on a manga does not mean that it is any more notable than the rest of the series. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it does not warrant an immediate split. Per the guidelines for anime/manga articles, franchises are covered under one article except in extremely cases, and for some theatrical film adaptations. For manga series and their anime adaptations (which GT still is, irregardless if its being unadapted from actual chapters), they are covered under one article unless there are significant differences. Notability alone does not mean something can/should be split. Consensus agreed all three should be covered in one article, per the MoS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Passing WP:N does not mean that a that subject must have a stand-alone article. It simply means that the subject may have an article. If the subject is adequately covered by another article or the resulting stand-alone article will be short or largely representative of the parent article, then there is no need to have a stand-alone article. --Farix (Talk) 02:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Stop thinking that more articles the better. The only reason that we may have a separate article for GT would be that we have too much information & materials in the article. This article is currently light-years away from that state. Can you spin-out ending with parent-article and child-article both at B Class ? I doubt you can. --KrebMarkt 06:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment You do realise even though it might pass WP:N the amount of information inside the article jsut now, would mean it could be deleted jsut as quick due to it being small and not many sources. Why not jsut expand the main article here and at the very least prove it might be justified in it own article which i doubt it will.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment There is a large amount of plot summary and development history that was involved with DBGT. DBGT was not intented to be a continuation of DBZ and desearves its own section. Lastly I am confident that I can expand the article to wp standards. Since we are suggesting DBGT does not have enough info to stand alone i recommend reverting the article and putting it for AfD. This can conclusively determine the notability of the article. Valoem ^talk 14:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

No one has questioned its notability, nor is AfD a proving ground for one editor trying to undo a merge that obviously still has consensus just because one person feels that it "deserves" its own article. AfD is also not for merge discussions. You claim there is a large amount of development history (plot summary doesn't need to be large in any article), so prove it and edit THIS article by expanding it with reliable sources rather than just throwing out claims. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the whole point. Better one correct article than 2 or 3 below the average articles. If you can build up this article with informations and materials all with references & citations to the point that people say Too much then you can start a spin-out discussion again until improve this article. --KrebMarkt 15:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would you want to put a article that is B class up for AfD? and what is there to revert? i may have misunderstood you. I have to agree with collection, if you think it can be expanded and deserve own article prove it on this.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 14:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Not this article, I said reverting DBGT redirect to the former article and then putting that article for AfD, because I still do feel it desearves a seperate article. If the consensus is a merge you can put an AfD requesting a merge such as the case of dog poop girl. The information was notable but not enough for a seperate article. Spliting DBGT would not impede this article in anyways which is way I do not understand the issue against the split. Valoem ^talk 15:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You still are not getting it. Trying to undo it then demanding it go through AfD is pointless. AfD is NOT for merge discussions, it is "Articles for Deletion" and nominations that are purely about a merge issue are not viewed kindly. Merges are done on the article talk page, as are split discussions. Both overseeing projects were notified. There is still not a single person supporting your desire to resplit these articles after a year, and you have yet to provide any actual sources, evidence, etc to show that a split is even warranted. The existing consensus is Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, and Dragon Ball GT should be covered in a single article. The requisite merges happened over a year ago, and is well established. You need consensus to resplit the article at this point, which you clearly do not have. Your views appear to based purely on your personal view of the series and what it "deserves", which of course does not dictate Wikipedia articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Regardless there would be no policy violation. Merge can be and have been decided at AfD. An AfD would also bring a large amount of new editors into the merge discussion. My request is supported by WP:N and WP policy which means if I did split against consensus, along as I can effectively expand the article and resolve its issues, I would be acting bold. I don't have time to expand and split the article until this weekend as it looks like that article requires a good deal of work. What sources are you requesting? I can easily find them if you request them. Because DBGT is notable im not sure what source you would be looking for to agree with the split. Valoem ^talk 16:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there would be a policy violation. You are basically saying you will ignore WP:Consensus (which is a policy, FYI), which is not acting bold, its acting disruptively. If you did "boldly" resplit, it would just be reverted per consensus and WP:BRD, and as the discussion has already happened, there isn't anything new to discuss. Merge "can be" a result at AfD, but an AfD is never purely for a merge or not merge discussion. Your request is against Wikipedia policy because you are effectively saying that your one opinion is more valid the previous and reestablished consensus. You don't get to just keep arguing your case at new venues until you hopefulyl get an answer you like. And, as an FYI, no AfD would not bring in a large amount of "new editors", you'd get the same group with maybe one or two more who would quickly chastize you (and likely close the AfD) for it. It has happened before, where an editor disregarded a merge and tried to take an article to AfD - it was quickly closed and they were warned for being [WP:POINT|pointy]] and disruptive when there was already an existing consensus for merge and no DELETION discussion was required. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:21, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually the link WP:BRD specifically stated that I would be compromising by adding information and that bold revert is fine as long as I do not engage in revert wars and the revert is not against wp policy. As I said I could do that not that I would because I see no reason to start drama with consensus. I am suggesting that if I do revert please review my new edit before simply reverting. What sources are you looking for? Valoem ^talk 16:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And you are being told, if you do revert, it will be reverted, period. You've already been told by multiple editors, work on THIS article, not try to go ahead with a split that has no consensus. The article here needs sources and it certainly has room for new content. Any new information needs reliable sources (you are the one who said you had information on production, et al, so it is presumed you have reliable sources providing that information). Again, if you have relevant information on any of the DB series, why not compromise by adding it here, and working to help improve this article to GA or FA level rather than continuing a path that clearly has no consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* Anyone who does that will rightfully be slapped with a trout at AfD. In fact, recreating the article just to send it to AfD would be viewed as being disruptive to illustrate a point and may result in a block. Especially when it is revealed that your reason for doing that is to see if there is a consensus to merge/split/whatever. AfD is not a place to rediscuss mergers or splits nor is it a crucible for inclusion. --Farix (Talk) 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of discussion, what would be in a GT article that is relevant, and cannot simply be added to the Dragon Ball article? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

@Valoem
I think you are very stubborn in your commitment to split at all costs. Thinking that more articles will give automatically better coverage for a manga/anime franchise is a farce. Thinking that more articles will do more justice to an oeuvre is bound to disillusion. The only thing that will do is real article editing by bringing more materials, more references and more sources. That why we are pleading for real article improvement rather than cheap Illusory feel good choice. --KrebMarkt 19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

• Firstly I did not split, I am suggesting that series development, cast and crew, and plot summary would be difficult to contain in this article especially if an anime with the notability of dbgt. I can try and added that information but it would be far too long.

However when someone say that reverting is vandalism, I disagree, that has nothing to do with the discussion, but accusing me of vandalism by reverting when I plan on improving the article is not proper. The policy from WP:BLD states:

• There is no such thing as a consensus version: Your own major edit, by definition, differs significantly from the existing version, meaning the existing version is no longer a consensus version. If you successfully complete this cycle, then you will have a new consensus version. If you fail, you will have a different kind of consensus version.

I interpret this at if I create a new version that is edited with regards to the issue previous discussed (information and organization) I would be creating a new version of the article which would need a new consensus. I am saying that if I put a lot of work into the expansion of DBGT a revert of my edit would require a new discussion as long as the version I write resolves the issues formerly discussed that resulted in the merge. If the consensus is against my version then we can simply revert it back. Regardless ill try to added this into this article later in the week and see if it over flows. I'm closing this merge discussion for now. Valoem ^talk 03:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Strong Support. alrighty then. I agree with Valoem. First off, Dragonball Z is the Title of the Anime, not the manga, and therefore, the anime should have its own article. The american people translated the second half of Dragonball as Dragonball Z. Now, as an over page, this page makes since, but since when does a small general covering of a media franchise make up for a lack of articles for the parts of the Franchise itself? We might as well make One Article ofr Lord of the Rings. Secondly, Dragonball Z really has its own Art Style, and therefor can be recognized as its own thing. Thirdly, on the Matter of Dragonball GT, it should certainly be split. It had very little to do with the original manga and is what you would call a "sequel" thirdly, just because you put a stupid box at the top of the page that says we shouldn't discuss the separation of the article, doesn't mean we cant. and thats all i can say without giving up my civility.Peace. --PopiethePopester (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your reasoning is beyond flawed. Dragonball Z is the manga, first and foremost. It has an anime adaptation, but it can not be separated just because it was renamed in the English release of the two series. This is not an article on a media franchise, it is an article on a manga series and its adaptations. Anime/manga has its own set of guidelines, and its really annoying when people keep trying to compare film articles to it. Apples and oranges. It does not have "its own art style" its the same guy doing both series. His art may have matured, but that has nothing to do with it. As for GT, it is still part of the same series, continues the same basic storyline with the same characters. It it a "sequel" but that doesn't make it dramatically different enough to warrant another article. FYI, you said thirdly twice. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Anime/manga and movies are not apples and oranges, and Dragonball is a media franchise. The anime Adaptation can be split because the Anime truly is a sequel to the original Dragonball Anime, complete with a change of Tone and emphasis. The drawing style is more realistic and resembles regular shonen manga far more than Dragonball does. This is especially evident in the anime, and its the anime that i am talking about. As for Gt, it is "beyond flawed" to put it under an article about a manga, considering it was never a manga in the first place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PopiethePopester (talk • contribs) 22:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Um, dude, if you actually read through the whole manga series from chapter 1 to chapter 519, you can see that the change of tone and drawing style is a slow changing process. It's not like in one chapter the characters all have round faces and the story is funny, and immediately the next chapter the characters grow to have sharp-edged features and muscles and the story becomes serious. If there is no distinction made between DB and DBZ and you watch the last episode of DB then the first episode of DBZ, you will not notice the difference in art style or change in tone. What you are saying is to split everything back to before the merger? Like, back to having one Dragon Ball (franchise) article, one Dragon Ball (manga) article, and separate articles for all three anime adaptations? ...I don't think it'll work with most people here. Most importantly, all other manga franchises are following this template now. For example, Naruto's anime series is split into the original Naruto and Naruto Shippuden, but they both are adapted from the same manga Naruto, and the Wikipedia article puts both anime under the manga page. So yeah...Yottamol (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it been a long time since i been writing on this stuff. Hows thing goning DBZRocks? Well before I go on I want to say I am neutral on this just here to give advice. See I can understand the ones that want to keep the articles the way they are now but the guys that wanna create a article for GT I undertand that to. If everyone stop being one sided and think you may come to a conclusion. See yes you guys are using the manga for the most part but I must say that the manga and anime are to totally different things. Anime is an adaptation meaning it is following the manga but not completely. You got to remember the anime is full with mishaps, filler arc, filler episodes, add ons and so on. No I'm not agreeing with the add GT guys just giving you a look at. Also GT being its own anime in a way does give it the right for its own article. Look I look at Wikipedia all the time and I see series with 13 to 26 episodes with there own article, some long, some very short. GT has what 62 episode and it has a lot of info but do get it twisted ladies and gents most of that info doesn't have real world content info. But does most anime with articles does? No they don't. But do to it being a franchise GT really doesn't need it own article but it, plus the other two anime sections do need some beefing up. Like the differences between DB and Z anime and the manga. Remember these are guidelines not complete rules you guys keep putting in each others faces. If you really need help ask a admin guy. But I will say I am a little disappointed that that DB articles are a shadow of their former selves but I understand the reason as people went out of control with the stuff we at the time I was editing was doing. But don't go to far merging then you will have to start adding articles again. Dragon Ball is mega franchise and deserves more than a few articles. Oh one thing I read why but WHY IS CELL ARTICLE GONE??? That was the one of the most wrong decisions I have come across while check DB out. Well Later Ladies and Gentalmen. Heat P 11:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 214.13.167.252 (talk)

The same reason goes again, where is all this extra information and soruces people who want it to be split keep saying about? if it exists expand the current setion on gt to prove it might deserve it own article, i have ye to see it being done so i say it just wants split for fans, which wikipedia is not about pleasing fans it about provide a source information jsut because db franschise is very big does not mean it needs laods of article. why the cell article go because it can easily be summarised in teh character list, ther eis very few characters that deserver there own articles, goku, vegeta, trunks, gohan are the only ones ic an think of that do. i would like to see a serapate article for dragonball, dragonball z and dragonball gt but ther eis not enough information out there to jsutify it, plus dragonball and dragonball are the same story line, dragonball gt follows on from gt in unoffical manner but still takes the same ideas--Andy Chat c 09:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That is the problem most people are to lazy to look for it so they put their own ideas and theories into an article, excepcially about 1 or two ago. There is alot of infromation on the Dragonball fanchise. Trust me look at the archives of some of the older discussion you see a lot of article that got zapped had a lot of info. GT article had a lot of info but and this may be my opinion on the matter but do to GT not being as popular as the other 2 anime people started their merge discussion because of that and this UNOFFICAL bs. That unoffical line is opinionated. You my disargee but I can prove you like I prove many back in the day that GT is and will be a offical piece of the anime versions of Dragon Ball, ask DBZRocks or anyone that be editing for more than 3 to 4 years. Now then someone thought Z was in the same boat as gt with no real info so they did the same with Z but everyone knows Z has the most infomation around the world as its the most popular of all three animes. And yes Dragonball manga and the 2 animes do follow one another but again the anime is an adaptation and know we got Kai (a remake and remix of Dragon Ball Z) and a new special that NO one knows is canon or not yet with I know has no real value besides if Vegeta has a canon younger brother which would create a new plothole if so. So to those that want to seprate the Z, GT and any other subjects into articles you need to stop being lazy and look for the stuff. Me personally you just need to read my section above but despite that I agree on the way the articles are now as most anime franchise articles are the basically the same way and it works from them. the way I wrote may make it seem othewise but it's true. My time as editor is over but I will be an advisor to anyone that needs help. And one thing Wikipedia is here to provide info but it is also to please people not just fans, if not the owner would not have made it a public edit website. Heat P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.229.97 (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

As DBZROCKS has said there is not enough information for DBGT to carry it own article, if you think it does and oyu can find realible sources, and not fan sites then expand the DBGT section and prove it, i would liek to see it have it own article but i also see the fact as a wikipedia editor the rules than govern articles and DBGT does not fit in a lot of policies to justify it own article because there not enough ifnromaiton about it and not enoguh source, you are welcome ot prove me and other AMP members wrong then your case might have more due weight to split it. (AND i said MIGHT not will)--Andy Chat c 10:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok guy I really did not back here to argue but to prove a point earlier. You seem to be reading and getting worked up about parts of what I write. Let me say this despite what I wrote and it may seem I was gearing towards supporting a new article but I am not. I alone said it to show that the supporters have good reason but I wholeheartedly agree with the way the articles are ran now. May be disappointed by some merges but they are for good reason. So in closing I may came of as a supporter but I am neutral and will be that like it was said before if they want to put it as a article go to Dragonball wiki and add it. I only said the prove there is info on GT out there so those that want it must look for it and place it correctly into an article then present it to the community. Heat P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.229.97 (talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Strong SupportRechio (talk) 02:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — Rechio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Over 9000

Over 9000 is a line from Dragon Ball:

It's OVER NINE THOUSAANNNDDDD!

and has become an established Internet meme. It probably does not need its own article, but it definitely needs a section. An elite (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It necessitates sourcing, and no, linking to copyrighted videos is not the answer. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't need a section. Being an internet meme of no significance is still irrelevant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Dragonballs own section, star configuration ect

Shouldn't the dragonballs themselves have their section in the article?

Also shouldn't the configuration of the stars be mention? Perhaps an official configuration would help since the stars shift depending on the ball and/or series. I am not sure how to source this outside of screen shots, though I know there is a way to source episodes with just the title, season, ep number and air date (and possibly where the occurrence takes place.)

While the one and three star balls stays basically the same, the other balls will often shift in how the stars are drawn. The balls will often resemble the configurations of a dice, or slightly shift to other shapes. The 5 star ball is the most ambiguous when it comes to its true configuration. It shifts from a dice configuration, to a pentagonal configuration to the configuration in this link

http://www.toptiergaming.com/dbzocg/images/carddatabase/Onset/Earth%20Dragon%20Ball%205.jpg

sometimes the 2 star ball will have the star diagonal and sometimes horizontal.

So is there a official manner in which the ball's stars are meant to be configured? If so that should be mentioned. Yami (talk) 07:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

No and no. That would be excessive plot and the do not need an entire section to explain them. The stars information you give is all WP:OR and doesn't belong in the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:21, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I vote yes to a section on the Dragonballs themselves, albeit without the original research bit, especially since there doesn't appear to be an article about them on Wikipedia yet. --Darktower 12345 08:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted as an unnotable topic, and without adding OR, all that can be said is the dragonballs exist and a one sentence summary of what they are, which is already in the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the Dragonballs are quite complicated. There are 4 different sets within Dragonball Z alone. Each set has different powers, different size, and summons a different dragon. There are a great number wishes made using them, each a crucial plot point within the series. So more can be said, but only if more people would like there to be. --Darktower 12345 16:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, more can be said, doesn't mean that more should be said. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:46, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Their rules are very trivial and are only needed in episodes and chapter list.Tintor2 (talk) 01:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Bansian fantasy

Well, the inclusion of the category makes sense so I'll be adding the bansian fantasy genre. Is that OK with everyone? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be fair, it shall be added now ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Did a commercial enterprise completely hijack this article?

No mention of censorship! No themes of sexuality! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsypoo (talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Mitsypoo (talk) 04:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Because there are no WP:Reliable sourcesTintor2 (talk) 12:23, 19 October 2009

I can see how these topics need "WP:Reliable sources," so how about a more cautious approach: simple synopsis of Japanese episodes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsypoo (talk • contribs) Mitsypoo (talk)

That would count as a synthesis of published material that advances a position.Tintor2 (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Can't the same be said for the dub version being used and passed off as the original? Mitsypoo (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

How about this regarding episode 56: "In the original airdate version, Blue asks the boy on a date and is angered by rejection whereas in the dub version Blue mistakes the boy for his little brother." Mitsypoo (talk) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It's trivial and doesn't belong in the article. —Farix (t | c) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

But the part about a little brother does??? Mitsypoo (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)"Blue meets someone who resembles his little brother." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dragon_Ball_episodes_(series)

Yes, by itself this difference is trivial, but it was the first thing I looked up because it was so wierd....and I got a hit right away so to speak. I have since noticed that major plot devices from the original airdate are excluded from the Wikepedia article. At the same time, many minor plot devices exclusive to the dub version, are part of the article...and yet the group claims "All information should be based on the original versions." It also quite clear that the synopsises are understood to be from the original Japanese airdate.Mitsypoo (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

soundtrack and dragon ball gt

Does anyone know why dragon ball had a completely different soundtrack in the U.S. and DBGT was summarized? 71.57.190.75 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Kamehameha

Why nobody mention what really means? Paranoidhuman (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

can you expand on what you mean with what it means? its fictional thing and i believe it covered what the basics of th move is, i apgoolis eif i misunderstood what oyu mean or if oyu mean sometihng different, it will help to maybe resovle and imrpove if oyu explain what oyu mean--Andy (talk - contrib) 18:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Kame = Turtle. Roshi is the Turtle Hermit, his house has Kame on the side of it.

Kamehameha basically means turtle death beam or something of the sort. It's translation has been on Wikipedia multiple times, but I'm guess that it keeps getting lost every time someone gets the urge to merge, change or other wise alter the article(s) for the series. Yami (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball izle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabuhan (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear God! What happened to the DBZ article?

When I edited under a IP, Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT were around. What is going on? Zarbon's goofy cousin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

They where merged as they do not pass notablilty to have there own articles, and fan sites do not pass reality for sources--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, "fansites"? Are you suggesting that they are fan works? Zarbon's goofy cousin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC).

Wait Dragon Ball Z is not notable enough to have it's own article? It's the most popular anime series of all time for God's sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.142.51 (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't know what "Andrew" is talking about. I vouch that we bring it back yo. Zarbon's goofy cousin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

Dragon Ball Z may be the most popular anime, but still the article did not pass WP:Notability. I think that what Andrew meant is that the old article was only sourced by fansites which are not WP:Reliable Sources. By the way, this has been discussed lots of times. Check the archives of this talk page. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for having it back. I edited Dragon Ball GT a lot with my other account, User:Recbon, although spent a better half of the year with my girlfriend Jacyntha. Sk8terhata —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC).

What??! Since when was it ok to delete dbz like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.4.56 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

When an anime series follows the same storyline as the manga, we almost always keep them together as one article to avoid duplication. So instead of having two articles on the same topic, we have one article covering all aspects of the topic. There really isn't anything that can be covered about the DBZ TV series that doesn't relate the the manga. And since the name of the manga series remains Dragon Ball from the beginning to the end, the name of this article is at Dragon Ball. —Farix (t | c) 20:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

While I still disagree with this, I will not fight tooth and claw just to bring these pages back. it is but pointless. Zarbon's goofy cousin (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC).

Consensus?!?! The anime project has been rejecting any opinions about splitting the articles. I see no consensus, just count how many complaints have been about this "consensus". 76.108.0.229 (talk) 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Then explain why the anime series should have it's own article separate from the rest of the franchise. In other words, why is having two nearly identical articles a Good Thing™? —Farix (t | c) 00:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

bring it back please. i am sure reception and other shit can be found. Sk8terhata

You didn't answer the question. —Farix (t | c) 21:24, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

what question? Sk8terhata —Preceding undated comment added 17:07, 2 December 2009 (UTC).

The one above.Tintor2 (talk) 17:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me repeat, then. Explain why the anime series should have its own article separate from the rest of the franchise. In other words, why is having two nearly identical articles a Good Thing™? Let me also add an additional question. Why should we not minimize the amount of redundant information? —Farix (t | c) 21:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is absolutely ridiculous! Using your logic, I guess EVERY movie that was ever based on a novel should be merged with it's respective counterpart. It's an argument that simply doesn't stand up. Minimizing redundancy does not require the deletion of an entire article - that's more akin to laziness than anything. 124.176.56.116 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, It is clear that dragon ball/z is above "mid importance". 71.75.237.194 (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the DBZ article is a prime example of the lazy behavior among some editors that makes me dislike Wikipedia sometimes. Instead of investing in a little elbow grease to polish and find sources for the article, some editors would rather chop down it down into an inadequate blurb - Rubbish! The DBZ anime is CLEARLY a notable topic, that should be obvious; as one of the editors described above, it's among the most popular animes around. 124.176.56.116 (talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

3 series from 2 tankobon?

the intro has "42 tankōbon have been adapted into three anime series" totally untrue, the first two series, dragon ball and dragonball z were based off the 42 tankobon, but the third, dragon ball gt was not written or adapted from any manga, simply wrote on the spot into anime. this is misleading information as users will not realize that the extreme differences between db and dbgt were not a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keibetsu (talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

GT was a spiritual adaptation of the manga and continuation of the previous two anime series, taking place in the same fictional universe/continuity and using the same characters, locations, items, and general plot devices (at least, insofar as was necessary to lead into the introduction of new characters, locations, items, and plot devices). It was, by no means, "simply wr[itten] on the spot". --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 208.124.86.54 (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with what you are saying. DBGT was an anime-only series, yes, but the characters were the same and the story is based on the manga. I just wanted to say that in a simplified way! D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 03:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball GT may not have been written "on the spot", but it certainly feels that way. There are a large number of inconsistencies with the canon that crop up in the show or were conveniently explained away in DBGT but have never been apparent anywhere else in the series. There's also the fact that Akira Toriyama wanted nothing to do with DBGT, which tells you if even the series creator wasn't concerned with it, why should we be? GT started out nicely with a genuine feel of the old Dragon Ball series, but it would later become more like DBZ with long fights and "powering up" beyond what was possible. I think the introduction of the somewhat laughably designed SSJ4 forms should have tipped people off that the show was running out of ideas to "borrow".--72.197.136.35 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Some Pictures

File:Gogeta.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor25 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

External Links

I think that this section misses the official manga websites. It only covers the anime websites. I sugest you to add http://www.shonenjump.com/ (official Shonen Jump site) and http://www.s-manga.net/ (official Shueisha site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.32.229 (talk) 22:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Over 9000

I cannot believer there is no mention fo the huge internet meme 'over 9,000' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.147.34 (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

There are not reliable sources discussing the meme. Without reliable sources, the meme should not be included in the article, or anywhere else in Wikipedia for that matter. —Farix (t | c) 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It really needs to be split

I know people have tried many times to get this article split in a way similar to what it was before and have been shut down but I really feel that we need to have this discussion again, specially because Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT are clearly different than Dragonball, not only in terms of being a whole other project involving different creative teams, but in the way that they are treated in the franchise differently because they are not the same. Each of this manga/anime series is notable on their own and having them all bundled up in the same article makes for important information that makes each series unique out of this article. The Dragonball franchise is clearly being treated like this because it's an anime. I bet you won't the merge The Total Drama series articles into one.

I mean seriously it is a fact that Dragonball Z has been way more influential in the world of pop culture that DB or DBGT. I seriously cannot understand why it is rational to not give it it's own article. It has spawned books, video games, spin-offs, and notable parodies all on it's own, literally without being attached to the original Dragonball series.

So many people are unaware of the existence of DB and DBGT and putting them in the same article as the one they do know causes for confusion and misudenstanding, specially when one of the series was not a manga and is put in an article about a manga.

If you say, you can do all of this in a special wiki you are not giving useful advice. Anyone who cares enough about the series to go to a special wiki already knows most of this information and it only really helps fanboys. It is incredibly disapointing that the administrators fail to see why something as influential and popular in the whole world as Dragonball Z does not deserve an article of it's own. - N.Flen

I don't think so. Not likely. See archive 1 and archive 2 for details. JJ98 (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It's just a matter of someone doing it. There are hundreds of references someone could bring to the table noting the cultural impact of Dragon Ball Z. The issue really is that given the distain the "anime community" in large has for the series you really have to write an exceptional article to have it survive the trial by fire it’s going to receive. Most people just don’t have the time to waste on it. Do I think Dragon Ball Z is notable enough to receive an article? Of course. Am I going to fight tooth and nail to get one made? Not likely. PeRshGo (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with the "separatists" above and in the archives. I retrospectively read through the discussion in the archives about this point and do not see any consensus at all and an abundance of flawed logic. A FEW editors do not want separate pages and their main argument against it is that it is consensus to merge, despite the fact that more people, with better arguments, want separate articles. It appears to simply be stubbornness and laziness keeping the articles together.

DBZ is a completely different sequel show to DB. Completely new and different characters, different story, different plot, different name, far different popularity/notability, the list goes on. Just because the Japanese compnay chose to use a Z instead of a 2, it apparently confuses a minority of Wikipedia editors. There are infinitely less notable pages on Wikipedia than DBZ, that have been there for years, but a few Ebullys here apparently have already decided for the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Even if there are 1 million users saying they do not want to merge the articles, they will never get consensus if they just give their opinions. Other stuff is not a justified argument.Tintor2 (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Like I said. Someone will just have to do it, and do it well. PeRshGo (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Nah, it would still go against guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion. PeRshGo (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

When did I give my opinion? Making an article of the anime series when there is already a manga one would go against guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Which one? There are often articles for every iteration of a popular series.PeRshGo (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't this said lots of times in previous discussions? Against the the anime/manga manual.Tintor2 (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

And I would argue that splitting the article is completely inline with that MOS. PeRshGo (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Ever read Wikilawyering , Tintor2, or Gaming the system?

be bold and Ignore all rules are good reads as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

As the read say, we should ignore the rules if it helps us improve, but previously the articles were in a terrible state and "do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise".Tintor2 (talk) 20:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Read it again. The MOS doesn't say that. PeRshGo (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you read it? I've just quoted it. I don't I'll be answering here since there's still no relevant point about splitting it.Tintor2 (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect Tintor2, that is absolutely ridiculous! Using that logic, I guess EVERY movie that was ever based on a novel should be merged with it's respective counterpart. It's an argument that simply doesn't stand up. Minimizing redundancy does not require the deletion of an entire article - that's more akin to laziness than anything. 121.223.189.196 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Quoting myself above, since I do not believe you actually read what I spent the time writing, "It appears to simply be stubbornness and laziness keeping the articles together." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleting the DBZ article is a prime example of the lazy behavior among some editors that makes me dislike Wikipedia sometimes. Instead of investing in a little elbow grease to polish and find sources for the article, editors like Tintor2 would rather chop down it down into an inadequate blurb - Rubbish! The DBZ anime is CLEARLY a notable topic, that should be obvious; as one of the editors described above, it's among the most popular animes around. 121.223.189.196 (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the people who want the article back work in the article, rather than commenting they want it?Tintor2 (talk) 21:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Tone in the Theme section

In the Theme section of this article, I cannot help but get the feeling that whoever wrote it has some sort of agenda. Reading through that section gives me a sense of sarcasm and perhaps even spite, as it is written with almost comical repetition. I do not urge anyone to correct it before it has been checked by someone adequate; considering English is not my first language, I might just have unsterstood it wrong.

I agree, "miraculous devices" sounds a little tongue-in-cheek. However, I think the section is just trying not to be overly plot-ridden and also not written from within the universe; it works.Mabsal (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Deus ex machina? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

DBZ Kai on The CW 4Kids

It's been announced that DBZ Kai will be on The CW 4Kids instead of Nicktoons.--72.148.3.214 (talk) 14:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it has been announced that it will air on both. ZServ (talk) 17:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from ZServ, 11 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Change "in may 2010" to on May 24th, 8:00PM EST because that is the official air date for the series in the US, which i was not able to find on Wikipedia. Just for convenience.

ZServ (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

You will need a reference to prove that, as per the rules and policies at WP:CITE. Sorry. It's just to prove that what is said in an article is true. Maybe you should try looking on official sites or something like that. Then make another edit request saying what you request to be changed again, with the web link or book as a reference. Thank you and I hope you understand. If you are unsure about anything, feel free to ask at the WP:HD (Wikipedia Help Desk). Chevymontecarlo. 18:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

http://blog.funimation.com/2010/05/dragon-ball-z-kai-on-nicktoons/ ZServ (talk) 03:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wondering about Dragon Ball on US TV

In the article, this is said: "In 1995, Funimation Entertainment acquired the license for the distribution of Dragon Ball, as well as its sequel series Dragon Ball Z, in North America....Thirteen episodes aired in syndication before Funimation canceled the project due to low ratings, switching to working immediately on the more action-oriented Dragon Ball Z.[7] In March 2001, Funimation announced the return of Dragon Ball to American television.... The redubbed episodes aired on Cartoon Network from August 2001[26] to December 2003..."

However, I watched many more than 13 episodes in the mid-to-late 90's of the Dragon Ball series (not Z) on a local station (I think WGN, but I only remember the number on my cable service) early in the mornings (premiering before Sailor Moon). I still have about 25 episodes on tape, if not more. Anyone know if maybe some other company had the rights for it during the period? I found a couple of non-citable sources online stating it started on NA TV in 1998, which would be about the period I would have been watching and recording it. I just know it was not in 2001 on Cartoon Network, as I had watched at least a lot of the series on TV long before then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.39.115 (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

is it possible you have the harmony dub???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.242.205 (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Ball in Pop Culture

I've found a lot of information. Can I make an article about it please and thank you in advance.Redbird 41 (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

If anything it should probably be a subsection of this article and you would need to be careful to make sure that it does not verge too much into the realm of trivia, in which case it would likely be removed.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 03:34, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Do we really need to know all this?

It lists everyone Goku has met. Do we really need to know that? Wernjump (talk) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

What exactly do you meant by "it"? The plot section? Considering Goku is the series' protagonist, it is not weird that the characters mentioned there are all people that he met.Tintor2 (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

End of Kai series

Saw this on Twitter recently. I also gave this link on the Kai episodes discussion page. http://www.toonzone.net/news/articles/36490/dragon-ball-kai-to-end-on-march-27-2011 --Addict 2006 16:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The that Toon Zone is quoting is actually a fan site so I don't think it can be used.--76.66.189.59 (talk) 03:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Coverage

• ANN: Jason Thompson manga

--KrebMarkt (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z

Why are all the Dragon Ball tv series covered in this article? I think, for example Dragon Ball Z, is notable enough on its own to have an article not related to Dragon Ball or Dragon Ball GT. Also, searching for Dragon Ball Z currently redirects you to List of Dragon Ball Z episodes. Just wondering why things are the way they are. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

A group of editors decided it should be merged along with nearly every other page associated with the show. No one has since been willing or able to create separate articles that can survive the intense scrutiny from those who wish to minimize the subject and its impact on Anime, and modern media in general. PeRshGo (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Low Ratings Not True

Dragonball Kai couldn't have been cancelled due to low ratings, if you check the top 10 TV rankings for any week during the shows run in Japan Dragonball Kai was always there. You can see all of them on Anime News Network, they're even all listed in the related news section on Dragonball Kai's ANN page. ZERO-ninja0 (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Remove fansite links?

I discovered that some references are linked to fansites, which are generally not reliable sources. Should we remove them or keep them? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to Daizenshuu EX, in which case there is no problem. The site is a far more reliable source of series information than this article is.

Stop removing Tienshinhan

In the plot summary it mentions Emperor Pilaf, the Red Ribbon Army, and both Piccolo's. There are five major groups or sagas in Part 1 of Dragon Ball. The five villains of those Sagas were Emperor Pilaf, the Red Ribon Army, Tienshinhan, King Piccolo, and Piccolo Jr.. He should be there.STFX1046190 (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC) On the contrary he should absolutely not be there. Tienshinhan was not a villain just a temporary rival for goku in both fighting capabilities and mentality.His behavior and actions never altered the outcomes of goku's battles or the world for that matter.Tien was bound to become a hero because of his kind heart.--MartianH (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

A question:

Why is this rated mid importance on anime/manga scale?

Dragon Ball is probably one of, if not the most well known anime/manga series outside of Japan, and a quick look at google trends shows that it has on average more searches for it than Akira, or Gundam, which are both High importance. 69.132.79.61 (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

High and Top importance are for anime or manga that have moved beyond just being popular, but have also had a lasting impact—either on its genre, critically, or culturally—decades after it was created. Gundam completely redefined its genre and Akira was one of the first anime films to receive wide spread critical acclamation outside of Japan. Currently, there is no such documentation of a similar impact by Dragon Ball. —Farix (t | c) 20:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Really? Dragon Ball has been spoofed several times in both American and Japanese Pop Culture, is credited (along with Sailor Moon) as having made Anime and Manga popular outside of Japan, and has influenced several of the most popular manga including Yu Yu Hakush, Naruto, and One Piece.STFX1046190 (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree, Dragon Ball should be rated "high". It is the most popular manga/anime around the world. On Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment's Importance scale; Gundam is used as an example for "high" because of its "Lasting impact decades after it was initially released". Dragon Ball would also fall into that category. Xfansd (talk) 03:36, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Ball should definitely be High as it defined the Shonen manga. It's the foundation on which all subsequent series have been built, and without it plenty of those we have now either would not exist at all or would be so different as to be unrecognizable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.83.6 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Anime fans by in large hate Dragon Ball in part because of its enormous long lasting popularity. PeRshGo (talk) 03:49, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

That's the silliest thing that I've ever heard. --69.136.96.78 (talk) 22:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

What is?STFX1046190 (talk) 08:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Soo... Will one of you guys bring this up to whoever makes the descion of rating the articles? 24.154.119.139 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Superman Influence

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Dragonball was heavily influenced by DC Comics Superman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herojoe1000 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

See my above comment--GroovySandwich 03:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

"Akira Toriyama is rumor to be making a new Dragon Ball series alongside mangaka Naho Ooishi, The creator of the 2008 Dragon Ball Z special "Yo! son goku and friends return". called, Dragon Ball Hoshi. Ooishi will be making a manga that continues the Z Manga past the Buu saga. It will have a newly designed Super Saiyan 4, and even a Super Saiyan 5. Akira Toriyama will be assisting her and backing off. The events in japan (earthquake, tsunami) slowed this down now Toriyama is taking care of that. It's rumor to be out later this year or early 2012"get rid of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.51.195 (talk) 04:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

A few small issues

The article doesn't seem to make clarification of dragon ball anime reception from dragon ball Z, was wondering if that can be cleared up. Also there sems to be using the word "Specials" for OVA and TV Anime films, maybe some clarification should be done.Lucia Black (talk) 21:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

AF/Hoshi

Someone needs to put up on the page about the fact that AF and Hoshi are both fake. It's confusing enough people who check facts, especially since at one point the Wikipedia article actually CONFIRMED Hoshi.

GT

Shouldnt it be mentione that most fans hate GT? Redyugioh (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

If you can properly source such a statement and write it in an encyclopedic tone, then maybe. But really the fan opinion doesn't matter as much as actual critics'--GroovySandwich 21:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

This is ridiculous this is wikipedia not a fan site.This article is based on facts not opinion, if you could find a legitimate source that implies that people hate GT then by all means add it .Be sure to note that GT was made because of fans asking for more so your statement would contradict that.--MartianH (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if it's a fact than it's a fact. lol I can't believe you two are actually implying that people DON'T hate it. Surely someone does, and I'm one of them. GT was made because fans wanted more, but it isn't more, since it wasn't made by Akira Toriyama. =) Just sayin'. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.7.157 (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 December 2011

Rodneytaylorboii (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC) AT SOME POINT YOU SHOULD MENTION THE LESS FAMOUSE CHARECTER, SUPER FELICITY.

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Viz edits

Is there a reason why the edits/censoring that Viz Media made to "Dragon Ball Z" are not mentioned? (They also censored Dragon Ball when they originally released it in 1998.) Is it due to a lack of sources? Xfansd (talk) 04:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Most likely. It must be either the censorship wasnt big enouh to b noted or not much covering it when it is.Lucia Black (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 February 2012

when it tells plot of db through the buu saga raditz is spelled readish

67.249.90.29 (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In English please--Jac16888 ^Talk 01:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Hoshi

Dragon Ball Hoshi is the series that leaves off from the Cell Saga in Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball Z Kai. It is supposed to air around the summer of 2012 or in 2013 Spring. Hoshi is believed to contain Dragon Ball Heroes clips, but is now being thought about being turned into a new series. Dragon Ball Hoshi's Main Character is Goku(as always the main character of Dragon Ball History). Also, you will notice Gohan as he is remaining in his teen form and Future Trunks is still with the group. Another feature of Hoshi is the two new characters whom's names has not been mentioned yet. The first one looks alot like Goku and has Super Saiyan Formation Hair, but the color remains black. He also has a Uniform much similiar looking to Goku's, but colors appear different such as: A Red Vest, An Orange-Yellowish Undershirt. The Other Character is also Goku-Looking, and has Super Saiyan Three Formation hair but also black, and has a Broly Like Outfit. This is Most Information best I know so far, if any other information can be posted please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.18.33 (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

we need reliable sources in order to add it in.Lucia Black (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Forget it. Hoshi is an internet hoax created from clips various Dragon Ball Heroes commercials and the Televidko game Atsumare! Goku World. And this IP is trying to perpetuate the hoax. Seriously, if this were a real project, the Jump magazines would have broke the story long ago, and the translations to these announcements would have been made available over on Daizenshuu EX and Kanzentai. This rumor is so bad that Mike LaBree bleeps anybody who mention's it on his corresponding podcast. Sarujo (talk) 14:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It should be added that Dragonball and Dragonball Z, and GT is airing on Toon Disney And Jetix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.60.235 (talk) 05:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, not a registered member. Just thought it should be pointed out the "Art Book" section is wrong. They actually released 7 of those books in Japan, not just the 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.50.3 (talk) 14:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC) HEY ---

I'll look into it.Lucia Black (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's fake, it frequently use's video's from dragonball heroes, video games. Couldn't find an official quote to deny or accept hoshi but this basically sum's it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSMkesyuB5Y Basically if you look at what the video says, where each content was stolen from then it basically proves hoshi is fake just like af, it's been a hoax for nearly as long as AF --Ronnie42 (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

But what about this video here? I think it makes a valid point as well. --Swankytank (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As non involved editor i would like to remind the user requesting this to be added that without areliable 3rd party source confirming it then it just wp:cb so please bear back to wikipedia core principles rather than bring a debate about something that might or might not be true.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

200 million copies sold worldwide?

Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68 (talk) 14:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about the part in the lead section the 200 million figure is sourced in the reception section. Also in case you are wondering the lead does not need to have a source since it is a summary of the article and should be sourced elsewhere in the article. That is the case here so there is no issue.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that the source in question though actually has different figures. It mentions 150 million in Japan and not 153 million. The bigger issue is that the source cites 300 Million worldwide and not 200 million. Due to this being a significant discrepancy the figure should be changed unless there is another source that uses the 200 million figure.--174.93.167.177 (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Filipino broadcasts

Can someone verify that the broadcasts on the two Filipino networks, GMA-7 and RPN-9, were in English? While sometimes Filipino networks does broadcast English language programs, this should always be double checked. —Farix (t | c) 11:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't fond of watching anime on local channels when I was younger, but to my knowledge, the GMA-7 broadcast was in Filipino. I know because I saw it once before, and also because all of GMA's anime broadcasts are in Filipino. As for RPN-9, I don't know. I'm too young to remember (I'm only 15). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 11:14, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

*Back after a shower* Ok, I've went ahead and removed GMA-7 as an English language broadcaster based on your comments. I'll hold out on RPN-9 for a little while longer before removing it. —Farix (t | c) 11:51, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

One question that might speed up the process. Does RPN-9 normally air programs in English? —Farix (t | c) 11:55, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, currently a channel called ETC is taking up the channel's airtime (although it is still officially RPN-9, before ETC, the channel was Solar TV). ETC is one of those local channels that mainly broadcast American shows (notably Glee and American Idol). But back in the channel's heydey, yes, the station's programs were in Filipino. That is because RPN was, and still is, owned by the Philippine government (although they are planning to privatize it). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:06, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, based on all of this, I'll remove RPN-9 as well until someone can show evidence that it was broadcast in English in the Philippines. —Farix (t | c) 12:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The Philippines did feature Dragon Ball in two networks. RPN aired Dragon Ball and the first 35 episodes of Dragon Ball Z in a locally-produced English dub, courtesy of Creative Products Corporation. The time slot was at 4:30PM on weekends, and this went on from 1995 to 1997. GMA aired Dragon Ball Z in a Tagalog dub on weekday nights starting in 2000, ending its run at 2002. Initially broadcasted at 7:00PM, but moved later to 5:30PM starting with the Buu saga. There was at one point, circa 2001, that GMA aired the original Dragon Ball. This time in Tagalog, too. GMA would also air GT in 2002 after Z's run. —User:Twelveoaks (t | c) 12:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Reception

I feel the reception section for the anime, as written, does Dragon Ball a bit of an injustice. I agree it certainly has many faults, and the positions DB/Z/GT were ranked at by IGN seem fair to me, but its popularity opened the door for countless other anime series to be successful. I can't put this in myself because of No Original Research, but I know that many consider Dragon Ball, and Dragon Ball Z significantly responsible for increasing anime popularity outside of Japan. Before DB/Z, in the states, we had no anime(if any). With the success of DBZ in the 90s, Cartoon Network via Adult Swim and Toonami added more and more anime to their lineup, and I don't think we would have ever gotten any of the other anime series if not for the success of Dragon Ball Z. Does anyone have some sources to support this?--Padenton (talk) 19:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there are sources out there. We could look for some, but usually, that kind of info is normally talking about Anime in general over DB specifically.Lucia Black (talk) 20:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Split back off

If anything, the articles for DBZ and DBGT should be restored. Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT are separate entities set within the same franchise. Having Dragon Ball Z be nothing more than a section in the main Dragon Ball article is like having Star Trek: The Next Generation be nothing more than a section in the Star Trek article. They should be split back up, there is more than enough notable content, sources, and differences. Also, it's misleading to have Dragon Ball Z redirect to Dragon Ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke (talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 April 2013‎

Why were they merged? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I need to overhaul this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is the previous discussion that caused the merge; Talk:Dragon_Ball/Archive_1#Merge. You can not "overhaul" the article by separating them without consensus, as said at the top of this talkpage. My opinion; Dragon Ball Z should definitely not be separated, it is not a "separate entity" but a very faithful adaptation of the second half of the manga; Dragon Ball GT is the only one I can see doing that for as it is an original story. The problem would be the separate GT article having enough content, TJ Spyke claims there is more than enough, however the current whole Dragon Ball article shows differently. The current GT section has 5 sources and then there's 2 about it in the reception section. Xfansd (talk) 16:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Xfansd. We should not demerge any section to a separate article without consensus. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I haven't, but quite clearly this runs afoul of WP:UNDUE as DBZ is a distinct entity and deserves its own page. Dragonball should be the franchise and the articles while connected, are excessively long and extremely notable for Dragonball, DBZ, and GT. Barely a paragraph goes for seventeen films and over what... 40 games? Though I think a redefining of what constitutes a franchise might be needed at the anime project and I'm thinking at or above 20 unique titles would qualify for franchise pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z is just the adaptation to the second half of the manga (renamed "Dragon Ball Z" in North america for obvious reasons). So splitting Dragon Ball Z may not be a good idea because its still part of the same entity. As for Dragon Ball GT, I'm unsure. I personally have nothing against a split, as long as its long enough to merit one. So probably a project page should be made to determine whether its worthy of one.Lucia Black (talk) 00:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Dragonball Z is definitely not a separate entity. GT is different but does not need a separate article. Ferocious Flying Ferrets 15:00, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah, it's a faithful adaptation and all, but it's still a whole other entity, as it is a TV production. People want to go and find an article on Dragon Ball Z on Wikipedia, so that they can find more information, like who the director(s) was, the number of episodes, the production year, airing dates etc. plus perhaps a list of differences between the manga and the anime. I bet Wikipedia has more visitors and editors than IMDb, so the majority will try to look here, and be frustrated when they can't find what they are looking for. Can you follow me? Luka1184 (talk) 00:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and started an RFC on the possible demerge. Post your thoughts there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Is it relevant to demerge Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z as separate articles?

Should Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z be de-merged and listed as separate articles? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

It holds the same plot as the manga, not only that but if people want production year, development info and airdates, they can still get it in this article.Lucia Black (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As said above Dragon Ball Z is a faithful adaptation of the latter half of the Dragon Ball manga and the way we handle that is by having one main article for the original work and have a subsection for the anime. According to WP:MOS-AM we can only separate if DBZ were very different from the manga or the article gets too long (which it hasn't). Xfansd (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

That's kind of a catch-22. If that is what you want, then shall we go with 40kb of DBZ content before we split off? Each of these articles can easily surpass that, but I'd like to point out that if I were to do such a thing.. Lucia would likely revert any changes I do dealing with the as of yet unresolved Ghost in the Shell matter. This article I mentioned in my attempt to define a formal system for franchises as I wish to define in the MOS-AM. Though to be completely fair, I've been dedicating a large amount of time to correcting, improving and detailing hentai. If I were to begin working on DBZ and GT articles it might just be easier to split the thing in advance do to the crossing of sources which will be a nightmare when we formally split them. A quick look of sources gives me 678 articles on Highbeam of which at least 200 appear viable for inclusion. Questia is not great for this but has 58 newspaper articles and a few useless book and magazine mentions, probably not worth looking into. Though its not a real concern because anime and manga centric publications detail the series quite effectively for a reception and production details. If I have the freedom to work on this, I could probably get it to GA or FA. I think if other editors want to join in and pushing the content out we should just go for it. Or if you prefer, I can link a bunch of material, but for those of you with access to Highbeam, its easier to just check it yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If I revert something, it would be only because you have no consensus to do it. Me, xfansd, Sjones, and Ferret, disagree in the split. You're getting ahead of yourself. This is to discuss whether we should split it or not. If consensus supports split, then we can discuss a plan to split.Lucia Black (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, WP:OWN and WP:IRA do not mean the same thing. I've been working on hentai because it is a key article, but in all fairness I'm done with your drama. MOS-AM does not dictate what this article will and should be and I am thinking about modifying MOS-AM and a few other things to clean it up. Oh and one more thing... WP:SIZE would make this RFC redundant if I put in the 40kb of content that they used to have. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

What's wrong with you? I made no mention of WP:OWN. there's no drama here. I didn't even mention anything about hentai articles. You're trying to overhaul all of anime/manga articles on your own. Lucia Black (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have concerns about the WP:MOS-AM, please discuss it on its own talk page or on the anime WikiProject's talk page and formulate a consensus on either of these pages. Also, Consensus can change. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:47, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

No need to demerge. The weight is okay and there is little Dragon Ball Z material available. Selecting just Dragon Ball Z and not the more independent Dragon Ball GT seems a bit subjective.Tintor2 (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• Talk:Dragon Ball Z and Talk:Dragon Ball GT have support not listed here, made through the link from the template. Secondly, WP:OWN applies to Wikiprojects, in this case WP:MOS-AM is to be used as a suggestion and not a rule of law. In fact, MOS-AM should not even dictate such things. The reason for a tied manga/anime page is that they are commonly the same, the reasoning governed by other policies. That interpretation is open to debate and the source policies are the only thing which should be considered. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I understand where you're coming from. However, I mostly agree with Tintor2 and Xfansd about the weight issue. So far, I see a little bit of a divided consensus about the issue here. However, since WP:SS and WP:SIZE are part of our concern and splitting these articles would cause controversy, I felt that the issue could be easily resolved via a proper dispute resolution discussion and discussion was necessary, according to the rules and common sense. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've personally always disagreed with WP:MOS-AM, and thought that instead articles about a manga and its anime adaptaion should be split whenever there is enough content to have two separate articles (as opposed to requiring too much content to fit in one article). However, based on the current guidelines, Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z should probably only be split if someone can write enough good content about each that the combined article would be too long. On the other hand, I think per WP:MOS-AM Dragon Ball GT should be split if someone can write enough to support an article. It is not an adaptation of the manga, and differs from Dragon Ball/Dragon Ball Z in several significant ways (e.g. new plot, some new major characters, new primary creator(s) other than Akira Toriyama, very different reception, etc.). It seems to me like exactly the sort of thing that WP:MOS-AM indicates can have a separate article. I remember several years ago that people suggested Dragon Ball GT should only be covered in the main Dragon Ball article because it wasn't independently notable, which I think is ridiculous, as it has plenty of coverage to be independently notable. I think the only reason it hasn't been split is because of a catch-22 situation kind of like what ChrisGualtieri suggested above. No one bothers to write more about it as the content will be removed for unbalancing this article, and since no one writes more about it, it never gets enough content that anyone thinks to split it. I think the solution would be for someone to write a complete Dragon Ball GT article in their user space, then start a discussion here or at WT:ANIME to see if there is consensus to put that article in mainspace. I'm not going to write such an article myself, but if someone else wrote a decent article, I would support moving it to mainspace. Likewise, I think the same idea of writing complete articles in user space would be a good approach to seeing if Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z could support separate articles, though it might be hard to get a consensus to split unless the articles clearly have enough different and high-quality content that we would want to keep it all and it couldn't all fit in one article. Calathan (talk) 03:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

It would take me to Friday to get the content for GT up, and while DBZ is a better subject I can just go about crafting that as DBZ is something I am more familiar with AND the most difficult one to split off from Dragonball without ruining it. I'll give DBZ a shot though. I'll need an admin to merge it later. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Chris, you'll also need consensus (which I see you violate repeatedly on the Ghost in the Shell articles). I'm fine with a GT article if it has enough content, but Z is another matter. The supposed Z article needs "enough different and high-quality content" to even be considered, and even then there has to be consensus to use the supposed article. I do not understand the "WP:OWN applies to Wikiprojects" comment; to change MOS you need consensus (I realize I'm coming off as consensus heavy, but this is true). Yes it is not set in stone, but we still have to follow it, and creating a separate Z article would still violate it. Nothing further should even be discussed on splitting unless MOS-AM gets changed. Xfansd (talk) 03:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Do not misunderstand me, but the relevant topic is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS which states that a local page or wikiproject cannot override community policy or guideline. Hence my proposal to change the wording of WP:MOS-AM and cite WP:SPLIT as a consensus of the community. While a relatively small matter, MOS-AM does not have the 'force of law' is a key aspect that would allow editors to invoke 'PER MOS-AM' and require arguments to be cited in policy as they should be. My sandbox will show that I can provide enough different and unique content to warrant a page. As the JP wikipedia has a decent one already to start off with. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:31, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z is just a second season/series/whatever of the anime and only exists in anime form. If anything, its usage in an article title should solely relate to either a list of episodes or the various films in the continuity that used the Z in the title (I think Battle of the Gods falls under this umbrella).—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

How would this split benefit our readers? Goodraise 12:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Attention! As stated before I am working on a SANDBOX version of DBZ not a MAINSPACE. Got it? I am not recreating the page, but it is preferable to have some ideas down. Do not discuss GITS here and those two editors do not make consensus. As noted, RFC is ongoing and the catch-22 is best handled by actually drafting something up. Something which will take me to at least friday. The MOS-AM matter is a formal proposal as noted by Sjones23, it is separate from this discussion. Okay? Clear? Good. No more drama. My response to Goodraise: It will contain a single detailed page that contains the overview of the topic with the following. The noted plot as coming from the manga, a brief character/voice actor layout of the key characters only, a section on production and release of works, censorship, reception and cultural impact. Included would be discussion relating to Funimations's heavy editing of the first two seasons and censorship of 'objectionable' content that drew some early internet criticism from people like Psaros. [2] Though The Japanese Wikipedia article gives a fair amount of detail to begin with.[3] While the List of Episodes is probably bordering on excessive, the production credits are useful, so is the original naming and details about the theme. Also even the music was a hit with the original JP theme sold 1.7 million copies, a mult-platinum level according to RIAA standards. We got plenty to work with here. Hence why I want to do a draft in my sandbox for it to preview what the page could look, later at this RFC. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No, not Ok. I'm trying to explain to you that even if your sandbox version is "good", we can not implement it. You are the one who first brought up GITS; those two editors are in agreement and tried to compromise with you to follow MOS-AM, therefore yes they are the consensus. This is relevant when this splitting relies on consensus and the person writing the separate article currently violates that and MOS-AM repeatedly. MOS-AM is a not a separate issue and you cannot not ignore it because you want to change it, we must follow it therefore currently we can not split Z.

Your proposed article will include; "The noted plot as coming from the manga, a brief character/voice actor layout of the key characters only, a section on production and release of works, censorship, reception and cultural impact.", literally all of this is in the article currently (character stuff on the characters page), that is not new content. Sure it could be expanded assuming reliable sources are found, because Psaros who simply ran a fansite is not one, but do that on this article. Again, I don't see reason to discuss this split further, unless MOS-AM is changed we can not split Z. Xfansd (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The issue with MOS-AM is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, wikiprojects cannot overturn policy and editing guidelines or say that one does not apply to them. Any MOS-AM is not a policy or guideline, it is a Manual of Style. It should not even be in there. Take your rebuttals to the RFC, this is about DBZ and make your arguments in policy. I'll start as if DBZ is a fresh new article. DBZ meets WP:GNG, WP:N, that much should be uncontested. Per WP:SS with the reason of DBZ to split from Dragonball being, "A fuller treatment of any major subtopic should go in a separate article of its own." It is not a problem with WP:CFORK because it is not a "Redundant content forks" which duplicates an existing topic, it is not a "Point of view (POV) fork". It is OK per WP:SPINOFF and is very much highlighted by WP:RELART. It is RELART which I am countering the improper citation of the Manual of Style as linked here, MOS-AM does not supercede community consensus and is out of scope. As to counter to material in Dragonball versus DBZ, the scope and coverage and detail paid attention to DBZ is scant. I will draft a preview for you to read through. Psaros is a part of DBZ history and was interviewed by Toonzone's Jacob Paschal a full 10 years later. [4] But individuals aside, the easiest way for me to counter your redundant claims is to expand them by 2-4x in a preview. I'll work on it for you later, so sorry, but please bear with me while I draft it in my sandbox. I think the policy matter would be a good base line for discussion for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

How about this. You expand this article and prove a split is necessary. The only differences are production and reception. And the list of episodes helps even further summarize, so you will only rehash those list articles.Lucia Black (talk) 05:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

That would end up ruining the flow and function of this page. You will see the page in my sandbox later on. I have nearly gathered all the materials I need to write it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it if its just expanding.Lucia Black (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

DBZ and Kai are the same thing, I intend on putting this re-release together. I have begun working on the sandbox version, but I will need to put a lot of heavy work in to the voice actor lists and stuff to get them to be adequate. Though the 4 pages of content on Dragonball about the Z material is a great start. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Sounds like you just want to milk the info out onto a whole article. Not even FMA uses voice cast list. You're really pushing the idea.Lucia Black (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Chris if you mentioned all those before that would have saved a lot of time. Seems you yourself just realized they supersede MOS, I know I did not know. However, my main concern now is if this supposed article will have enough new content, as Lucia brought up such a cast list seems quite unnecessary considering the character articles, and actual reliable sources. Claiming Psaros "a part of DBZ history" is ludicrous, he is simply a fan, same as you or I, therefore his site is nothing more than a fansite and obviously an unreliable source. Toon Zone has been named unreliable itself as seen here [5] and here [6]. Either way, that interview was conducted by a Ryan 'CastorTroy' Molina (who is also simply a fan) and is not related to Toon Zone. But that can wait until you finish your proposed article. Xfansd (talk) 01:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes.. it was pointed out at the Village Pump matter. Even still, I do not want to go against the "consensus" and want the RFC to finish. Its not about being 'right' or 'wrong', but going with established procedures. For the matter of Psaros, I'll agree till I dig up a reliable source, some of the points raised by this critic are well... accurate and are interesting to read about. I have a crude version at my sandbox, but its nothing more then the dragonball Z and kai material from the current article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Important - Per discussion in this section and the RFC on MOS-AM, found at:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_105#RFC:_WP:MOS-AM_discussions, the earlier 2008 consensus to merge Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT have been overturned by policy and reasoning under WP:CREEPY. A Manual of Style cannot impose article subject restrictions. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

No. You can't do that. Just because a new consensus has formed at VPP because it seems you blatantly asked someone to close the discussion in your favor does not overturn the consensus that formed here years ago to merge the articles. You have to come up with a new consensus to split things off.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Prior to my comments here, ChrisGualtieri restored Dragon Ball Z into a separate standalone article, as per his original intentions in this discussion, as well as removing the text from WP:MOS-AM that would have prevented it in the first place. I have reverted this so an actual discussion on the merits of splitting can be decided rather than ChrisGualtieri unilaterally changing things now that he's forced a change in the guideline.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I’m afraid I haven’t followed the debates surrounding this, but it seems to me that the result of that RfC does not mean what User:ChrisGualtieri claims it means. The removal of a restriction is not the same as approval. It simply closes off one set of arguments for or against an action; there may still be others, and those should be considered. If the consensus is against the split for any other reason, that consensus should be respected until a new one can be established. —Frungi (talk) 06:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Ryulong and Frungi. Even if you can't spell it out in the MOS, if there is a consensus not to split something, then it shouldn't be split. What was said in the MOS before was probably trying to cover a majority of cases where there were splits done against consensus.--十八 06:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This RFC and the VPP RFC are two different things. Do not confuse the two, for two different RFC were in the works and both seem fairly obvious for policy discussion. The VPP closure was obvious and the admin who closed it stated, "When consensus is obvious, there is usually not a reason for a formal closure. However, I have now closed this discussion with a summary." [7] Everyone had an opportunity at both RFC's to make their points. Consensus in the discussion and the split at Talk:Dragon Ball Z seems obvious with the lines drawn at:

Supporters:ComputerJA (talk · contribs) Smtchahal (talk · contribs), Triesault (talk · contribs), Icarus of old (talk · contribs) Luka1184 (talk · contribs) Calathan (talk · contribs) and ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) bringing up WP:SS, WP:SIZE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:DETAIL, WP:SPINOFF.

Against:Vuerqex (talk · contribs) Ryulong (talk · contribs) Lucia Black (talk · contribs) with the previous and rejected argument of WP:MOS-AM and previous consensus which directly is tied to the offending MOS-AM 'guideline'. Unknown after policy cited: Xfansd (talk · contribs)

By this RFC, we decide based upon policy and arguments from the discussion 5 years ago. The decision it "violates WP:MOS-AM" was faulty because it was never a policy and should never have been used as such; hence the RFC to overturn was concurrent with the VPP RFC on MOS-AM. If you have policy-based arguments then please present them; because by all accounts the merger was a bad idea and significantly reduces notable content and coverage of Wikipedia. I asked for both RFCs to close despite it being 'obvious' because I expected this; the opposing side has offered no policy and upholds a false one as their reasoning while supporters have given a host of policies agreed by the greater community. So far, there is no reason presented to keep the merger and policy suggests Dragon Ball Z should have its own article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You know what? Your demands that everyone's arguments be rooted in policy is really annoying. There are no other ways to present one's arguments it seems? How convenient that you had a guideline changed that automatically invalidates every argument made by the people you oppose. Then my argument would be that creating a separate article on Dragon Ball Z would be a violation of WP:CFORK, as the Dragon Ball Z anime is merely an adaptation of the second half of the Dragon Ball manga depicting Son Goku's adulthood. Just because it came out in English first does not mean it's notable on its own.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

WP:POLICY states, "Wikipedia policies and guidelines are developed by the community to describe best practice, clarify principles, resolve conflicts, and otherwise further our goal of creating a free, reliable encyclopedia." So asking for it to be made in that respect is not unusual. MOS-AM is a style guideline, it is not appropriate to dictate or overturn other policies and that is covered by LOCALCONSENSUS. So addressing your 'CFORK' argument, only two types of CFORK's are unacceptable, one is redundant and the other is POV. It is not these. It is acceptable to make the sub-article by CFORK's WP:SPINOFF. Also, Ryulong you do not seem to understand the history of Dragon Ball versus Dragon Ball Z. Dragon Ball came to America first, was canceled and with the success of Dragon Ball Z, was restarted. Viz released the Dragon Ball Z manga as it did to not confuse English readers. Though the real issue is that the Dragon Ball franchise has numerous related works in the Dragon Ball Z series which includes dozens of games and movies, live action films and a continuing legacy with the re-release of Dragon Ball Kai. If anything, Kai should be at DBZ, but DBZ should not be at Dragon Ball. Before you undid my change, you noticed 38kb of data and I hadn't even added the overview of the related Dragon Ball Z media. Three paragraphs at Dragon Ball is clearly inappropriate given no end of Dragon Ball Z coverage as a work, as a series and its continuing legacy in international culture. I'm open to arguments, but at this point there seems to be no valid reason to remain merged. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to start quoting shit at me either. I've been here long enough. What is unusual is that you won't accept any arguments that simply use rhetoric to make their point. Do we really need a separate article on Dragon Ball Z? Is the coverage here too much when the version you had dredged up was probably half cast list and partly about the other versions? It still meets the redundant aspect of CFORK in that regard.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The reason why I would appreciate a policy-based argument is because that carries additional weight. And 'rhetoric' includes making policy based arguments because I am trying to inform and persuade that my arguments have been shared and confirmed by the greater community. You do not have to cite a policy in your argument though. Also, Dragon Ball Z is not a redundant fork, the focus is on the Dragon Ball Z media. The article was far from being perfect or complete when you merged it, but the specific scope is not a problem per WP:RELART. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Z is just an extension of DB. While I will admit that there have been at least a dozen movies titled "Dragon Ball Z" and only from what I can tell 4 that were just "Dragon Ball" (als also the several hundred episodes whose titles I just fixed), it's still just the "Dragon Ball" story.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:16, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

At the time, the merge was absolutely the right thing to do, the DBZ article was mostly unsourced crap, so we can not say those who supported it then were wrong and retroactively revert their merge now simply because of recent MOS changes. But I was under the impression that Chris and whoever else wanted to, were going to create a mock-up of the proposed separate article and then everyone would convene here and see if it warranted enacting. Instead of just saying and assuming good new content can be created on DBZ, it sounds easy but I have yet to see anything close to sufficient, it seems easier to show it in a sandbox (not in actual article space). Xfansd (talk) 17:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There is olenty of info on DBZ. But most of it that is unique to DBZ is broadcast history, and animation development. And the problen is that the manga's secind have has been renamed Dragon Balk Z in english territories to comply with the anime, so a split would be complicated as it would also split the manga in half.Lucia Black (talk) 18:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been watching Chris's sandbox and looked at what he did at the now-redirect "Dragon Ball Z" and I agree that only stuff like the broadcast history and development is the unique part, which is why I concur with, I think it was Ryulong who said, that info should go in the List of episodes article. This, coupled with how thanks to the MOS change people are gonna try to create separate articles for all manga/anime, is why I don't think I will ever agree that a split is good. But if the consensus turns out to be use the proposed separate article, what can we do? As a side note and head's up, Viz is about to start a 3-in-1 volume re-release of the series and I believe they confirmed to people on Twitter that it will be the whole series under the Dragon Ball name, but haven't seen that specific bit reported by reliable media. Xfansd (talk) 19:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Policy issues aside, there’s the fundamental question: Is it a good idea? If consensus is “no, it’s a bad idea” (or if there’s no consensus), then it doesn’t matter if policy permits it or not. —Frungi (talk) 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Break

While I don't like to do lengthy posts, but I hate to remind editors of civility matters, but its getting a bit much. I do take offense to Ryulong's comments that I "forced a closed in my favor". Aside from a personal attack, this couldn't be further from the truth, the consensus was obvious at the VPP RFC and Ryulong who was in the distinct minority should refrain from baseless attacks. Secondly, I object to calling the previous work on the DBZ page 'unsourced crap'; the content may have been unsourced, but it was not incorrect. The Japanese Wiki is similar to what English wiki once was, and much of it still exists in some form at the wikia. Now, perhaps I may have misinterpreted the silence here, but Xfansd when the policy matter came up you commented that it would have spared a lot of hassle from the get go. Silence can be misleading, especially in circumstances where the previous consensus reasoning has been noted as being on a false premise and the objections to the current RFC were based on that stance and the number of !votes exceeded in support. Allow me to state some topics. I believe a split for WP:DETAIL would be in order considering this page is a franchise page. Dragon Ball Z has a lengthy history, mostly in America, and I can think of no better way to cover the important history of the development and production by providing a proper page on Dragon Ball Z as a whole. Many important things are left out and not covered at all. Dragon Ball Z is intricately tied to western audiences, after the failure of the original Dragon Ball, at what point does it deserve an article on its merits? Since I'm in the numerical minority, what are your concerns and how can I address them? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Support, but—where could it be split? In print, Dragon Ball Z is part of Dragon Ball proper. In the West (at least as far as I’m aware, having grown up watching Toonami), Dragon Ball is known primarily by either Funimation’s or Ocean’s anime dub of DBZ. If it’s done right, I could see having an article devoted to the DBZ anime and its cultural impact and such. I’m just not sure how the franchise could be split cleanly. —Frungi (talk) 03:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was planning on briefly summarizing the manga (as in my sandbox) with just the manga specifics covering the volumes and then going to detail the release from a technical stand point and address things like the censorship and the reworkings. Specifically, the anime has a bigger gap because the focus of the show was completely different and was action orientated. While still 'Dragon Ball', its history is very notable and complex enough that 3 paragraphs at this page do not provide coverage for a reader seeking out Dragon Ball Z. Its like how DBZ by 2000 made $3 billion in a decade, a major merchandising success, which had big names like Irwin toys involved. Even the deal with Burger King had 25 million toys for a three week promotion in the lead up to its peak popularity. The development and history of Dragon Ball Z alone is detailed and deep enough to warrant the article, but I did want to include mentions to the movies and games as the current article glosses over them. There is a lot I want to actually expand and develop, but I have a bit of a focus issue as I scatter my efforts quite a bit. Though in all fairness, I believe a cast list section needs to be included; preferably in a collapsed list or some form, I was thinking of working on a 'dubbing' section in which details the complex nature of the dubs and the licensing mess between the companies. This will make the article much longer, but versus not having the content or asking a 'list of episodes' to bare this inclusion seems bad form. The Dragon Ball Z article is not going to be a rehash of Dragon Ball, it is going to be a detailed and focused article on those releases and its development and history and legacy. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You requested that an archived discussion be formally closed such that you could have an excuse to change the guideline page that you so detested prior, and that did not allow you to suddenly overrule any consensus that previously had been made on this article. That is my final say on this matter.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong, you are well aware that RFC's do not have to be closed if their consensus is obvious. I asked it to be formally closed because the implications were clear. Your hostile tone and accusations are not helping resolve the dispute. Both RFC's seemed decided on policy grounds weeks before, it was only with my action that it started anew - while very late to contest, I'll hear out the concerns. I'm closing this distraction now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

"The content may have been unsourced, but it was not incorrect"; Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It had one or two sources that might pass as poor, but most of the 18 were not reliable and it had a total of 11 different issues tagged on it (such as Cleanup, etc.), that's a lot, making it a pretty dismal Wiki article. Previously I brought up MOS-AM as needing to be followed (I still stand by that, MOS-AM caters to Anime/Manga and was written by people who know the kind of issues that come up on such articles, rather than 'very general' policies for all of Wiki), but that can not be used now. I admit I don't know of any policies to quote at you now, this is what I meant by "saving time". My last comment, like I think the other editors' were, was just in response to you saying the old merge consensus was "overturned" and immediately starting to create the article, it really wasn't overturned (I don't know if that's even possible). I'm not at all saying a new consensus can't be, or hasn't already, been found to un-merge, it's just that the Village pump thing didn't overturn the previous it just removed a bit from MOS-AM. I was quiet because, as I just said, I assumed you were creating it in your sandbox and was waiting for that. Right now my only reason for being against it is that I don't think splitting off a very faithful adaptation of a manga is good, especially if there is no new content, and I currently have not seen new content. You keep saying you have all this new content to add that justifies its own article, just prove me wrong and add it in a sandbox. So far I haven't seen sources for the anime's English-language "development and production" in either draft you wrote, which would be the majority of new content. I obviously can't speak for others, but if you create the article in a sandbox so that everyone can point out things that should be added or removed, instead of having a huge overhaul in article space that can possibly drag on for weeks and lead to edit wars, maybe those who are opposed will change their opinion when they see the supposed article instead of just being against it in "theory" or whatever. Xfansd (talk) 05:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox is the current version, for anyone who wants an easy peek. I'll work on it some more later. Though List of Dragon Ball Z episodes's Dub History seems ripe for moving into the article and expanding. The MOS-AM matter is done with; the fact that you still have concerns other then it is more than fair since I haven't devoted as much time as I could have to making a sandbox. I just do not want to put in an inordinate amount of work only to be brushed off and sandboxes are not really editor collaborations. I was hoping to work on this together and hammer out something as a group. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I really stated above that I thought that Dragon Ball Z should have a separate article, just that I didn't like the guideline in MOS-AM that would prevent a separate article (and that I thought Dragon Ball GT should be split). However, after glancing at the sandbox version I think there is enough information to have a separate article for the Dragon Ball Z anime. I think the sandbox version still needs a lot of work though, and also think it is a little too focused on the US adaptation. I don't really understand why there has been so much opposition to splitting the article for the anime off though. Things like the cast and staff for the anime seems like encyclopedic content, but if we put that all in the main Dragon Ball article it would be too cluttered. So anyway, I support splitting the article once the sandbox version is worked on further. Calathan (talk) 06:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Staff stuff goes in the main infobox. Cast stuff goes on character lists. In my opinion, we should just rename List of Dragon Ball Z episodes to Dragon Ball Z and add what little information about the production and reception there while still having it act as a central episode list.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The issue is Dragon Ball Z is still a direct adaptation to the manga's second half. Any reception would be based completely on animationband art, while story making it dependent to the manga. Not only that but the manga's second half is known as Dragon Ball Z aswell so that no confusion would rise in the west. So its difficult to actually split it, even if we wanted to. Where would we draw the line? Thats why I wouldnt want a split. Leaving it metged here, solves the technical issues. If it did split, will we split the second half of the manga just because western release renamed it DBZ? If we did, there would be groups arguing over why it was split, and if we didnt put the second half, then we outcome will still be the same. To me, its not worth a split if its only going to rehash info. Its not that staff, and cast info isnt encyclopedic, but that most of the info is already split off onto their own list articles. Theres just no need to add voice cast in a main article if list of characters covers it.Lucia Black (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree on a subtle point: any mainstream reception of the story in the West is quite likely based solely on the story as portrayed in the anime (and given alongside reception of the animation, dubbing, etc.), and so would fit in an article about the anime. However, I share your concerns that it’s too inextricably tied for a clean split. —Frungi (talk) 08:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unless relevant info is already split off into its own child article. But again, that would normally work if the anime article wasnt based on any other series and even then subbing and dubbing will still be able in its respected pages. And again the differences between manga and anime arent that great to consider them two completely different things. I think reception would have to actually make some form of comparison to actually consider the manga and anime significanty different. Irs like how Sailor Moon anime series is split up into Sailor Moon R, S SuperS, and I forget the other, but all works are still following the same plot of the manga. For now, this is only hashing out what was already been split. And even then, expanding DBZ in this article wouldnt be an issue. The only way to make consensus support the split is if the "new info" aas added here first to the point where its too big, then some form of split would be allowed.Lucia Black (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm still working on it, but won't have much opportunity till later to work things into it. I disagree with Lucia, an article can warrant a split for many things, even a detailed coverage of production history and releases will probably warrant the splitting alone. The way I want to address the split is a simple one, right from the beginning, push the plot and story aspects back to their own article as they (main) off it. The anime has a definite split and production was intended as such, even the name has a bit of 'trivia' which is actually history, such as the reason why the name was chosen. Even aspects that I have begun covering, like the Dragon Ball Z merchandising had made over $3 billion in the lead up to the huge American boom. Data from search engines show that Dragon Ball Z which was more popular term than Napster and Summer Olympics and the presidential election. While not much on their own in this unfinished state, the aggregate whole goes to show how gripping the hold of Dragon Ball Z as the popular successor to Pokemon. And I hate to bloat the article out with all the Billboard top releases, but I suppose they could be worked in somehow. I much rather prefer a 100kb page that focuses on in-depth DBZ materials because the summary at this page is adequate for readers wanting an overview of 'Dragon Ball', but any reader explicitly wanting 'Dragon Ball Z' should get detailed coverage of its history, production, media and success. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh and one last thing... anyone got the Dragon Ball encyclopedia works, those books would be perfect for addressing the history. Though I'll probe the other languages for more details in a bit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Still too much of a Western viewpoint.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:50, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Which kinda makes sense, doesn’t it, for an English-language encyclopedia. Shouldn’t it be largely about the impact on the English-speaking parts of the world? —Frungi (talk) 19:35, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Not in this case. Wikipedia is universal. This viewpoint of western is far too subjective.Lucia Black (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Very well, I will add the international licensing and development sections as well. I planned on doing so anyways. Surely, that will further show the necessity of an independent article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added more content, and will be continuing to do so for some time, but I think it is about time we address a certain matter. The release history of the work. Everyone should know that Dragon Ball Z had one of the most confusing and complex release schedules in the history of anime. I'm certain that an article could probably be drummed up for that mess alone, but for now I've alluded to the problems in the sandbox, which I cite the specific instance of Funimation rushing the DVDs out as fast as possible, out of sequence. And Viz Media released Dragon Ball and DBZ titles as volumes concurrently with single chapter issues of BOTH titles in the same month. Unless I actually bug Viz about the release structure for the press releases, I doubt I'll be able to piece together that mess in its entirety. Let's not forget that I'm finding issues that are problematic in this article as a result. For instance this line, from the Dragon Ball Z subsection contains, "The series premiered in the U.S. on September 13, 1996 in first-run syndication, but also struggled to find a substantial audience during its run and was ultimately cancelled after two seasons." The official reason was lack of interest from syndication companies.[8] I've been doing a lot of factual checking while rebuilding and trying to pin down all the claims made. It seems that both the sections of compressed text have inaccuracies. Anyways... back to improving the sandbox. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Minor update. Hurray! Archive.org has just saved my butt. Remember my old issue with the notable ranter (but still self-published) Psaros? Well, I just dug up the old Toriyama site with Archive.org which features a lengthy and detailed account of the Funimation subtitles. I don't think I have to worry so much about editors disdain for Psaros as a RS. Why? Because this drama filled rant [9] contains the link to something long dead, but I found it via ANN which directly attributes it, which independently confirms the link-within as an RS.[10] Which lends credibility to anyone actually getting Psaro's other site material like this interview [11] which cites Animerica magazine, Vol. 4, No.11 (November 1996). A magazine I don't have access to. This is certainly a good discovery, wish I put more than an hour into it the last time around. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I still think new info can still be added here. Consensus wont change drastically, at the moment its about to become a close tie. If the info is added here, itll be more apparent for DBZ in need of split. I think its rather pointy to just add this "new" info onto your sandbox and not add it here. ro others it may seem like bloating up info just to make a split. Specific dates and such can be added into their respected list of DBZ eoisodes, as long as the main article gives a good summary. It just seems like we're forced to see it your way, wit j out allowing others to use the same info to show you why it can be reworked.Lucia Black (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Looking at the sandbox myself, the proposed article is innacurate and some of it is very trivial, such as what type of subtitle text they will use. And not very good organization, the sections are far too distinct when their could be better section names. Im not completely sold. Again, not alot of info is actually needed in mainspace because its far too specific. I still think adding new infi here would be the right thing to do. It makes the dispute less antagonizing because you will still prove your point, and helps both sides in deciding.Lucia Black (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, if you do not know the meaning of the words, don't use them. Your interpretation of numerous terms has been proven to be completely misunderstood. You don't understand consensus and your comment about 'pointy' is no better. Dragon Ball covers the franchise, I'm not going to bloat it and ruin the balance to push for a split. Given the circumstances that would be disruptive; working in a sandbox is not 'pointy'. Also, how is it inaccurate? Please explain to me, because this page itself I've provided a source for the inaccuracy. Onus is on you, the claimant to back it up. Secondly, I tried to work on it together in the main space, but Ryulong reverted it and I'm not keen on edit warring a developing page; so my sandbox is perfectly fine. If you have issues with the version I am working on; state them. And lastly about the details, articles can have varying degrees of detail; an article on the "Spawning behavior of the rainbow trout in Lockeup Dam" would be perfectly acceptable provided numerous reliable sources demonstrating notability and a pressing need for a split at "Lockeup Dam". While you may feel that aspects of the production are 'trivial', they serve a purpose for the reader who wants those details. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I know what I said, and I will stick by it Chris. Just because you dont understand what I mean by it, does not mean I misused the word. For one you have "Dragon Ball Z" within the section title, making it redundant. Another is not clarifying Dragon Ball Z manga. Technically the manga exists but ubder the original DB name. I find it pointy at the time because no new info is being brought here. And if Ryulong is reverting its probably because of A)its trivial such as the subtitle text. B) It can be or already is covered in another area such as list of episodes. A lot insignificant info is making your proposal bigger than it needs to be.Thheres virtually no new info on reception. A lot of the minor details also seem overly detailed in explanations.Lucia Black (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what WP:POINT is. Also, Dragon Ball Z is an offical manga, I covered it quite well thus far in the sandboxed version. Dragon Ball was a gag manga with adventure themes and its history is entirely missing so much so that I figure that the manga will eventually get its own offshoot as well. Wikipedia does not even cover the original intentions of Toriyama and the history of that work. No new information on 'reception'? What in the sandbox prototype or you mean in reality? And I'll repeat myself, provide evidence for what inaccuracies you claim. You say 'trivial' things, but they obviously aren't trivial if the matter was important enough to have numerous RSes and an official response from the production group. Though as I've pointed out, intricate detail is not prohibited so long as there is enough sources to advance that position; the individual sections are still in a state of improvement. So things can change and grow larger. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

I do, and I dont like you underminding everything just because you dont know why I used it. End of discussion for that topic. And what multiple sources? Dont confuse multiple sources for the same topic rather than multiple sources for a single piece of info. Some of the subtitle info is relevant, but theres the subtitle color issue that doesnt really inform the reader much about anything. The innacuracy is that DBZ manga doesnt exist in Japan. It does, just under the original name. It can be clarified in a much simpler way. Theres hardly any new reception info in the article. Also, there cant be just a manga article. Its like your trying to pull off the same dispute with Ghost in the Shell by attempting to split it all out of the main article. Like I said, if new info is found add it here, if it gets removed, its most likely for a good reason. So if it gets removed here, how can you prove a DBZ article is warranted?Lucia Black (talk) 14:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC).

Hey, WP:BURDEN's note applies to you. You have to articulate specific problems that justify its exclusion. The Dragon Ball Z manga exists; I gave specific instances backed by reliable sources as to the reasoning, the marketing and simultaneous release of Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z titles by Viz. I am not reinventing the wheel or merging the plot into the proposed article; I am instead providing accurate and verifiable information about the publication of the Dragon Ball Z manga. I refuse to allow this to become a proxy for the GITS dispute; if that is your intention please remove yourself from this discussion. If there is a problem with my sandbox and the material is sourced, please back up your assertions. I see no reason for the Dragon Ball Z manga releases to not be covered; the argument 'it doesn't exist in Japan' is an example of an invalid argument because it does exist in North America and Germany (Carlsen). [12] If you want a proper worldview, the DBZ manga releases need to be covered. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

And one final note. Let's not bloat this 'discussion out' because you are not backing up your arguments, the discussion is just going to drive any sensible reader away with a wall of text. The sandbox article looks like it could justify a mainspace release by this point; it has a ways to go before I am content with it though. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The source highlighting how viz promotes DBZ doesnt state anything at all of DBZ, home media sounds more like an opinion or an opinio N of someone else. Its not really stating the info correctly. More like a copy and paste job.And the use of ANN's wiki page as a source doesnt help at all. Theres no specific info. Also ANN's wiki page cannot be used as a source, only the news of ANN is deemed reliable as only actual writers post news. But overall, most of the info is just blowing up/regas j ing the info we already have.Lucia Black (talk) 16:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Here are some of my issues with the sandbox currently. Toriyama.org was not an official site of the series, it was a fan site (partly?) run by the guy who did the subtitles for Funi. ANN is reliable, but not it's encyclopedia pages as everyone can edit it as stated at Template:Ann. And early in ANN's existence it did report on fan sites of various anime but that doesn't mean those sites now pass as reliable for Wiki. So I would say Toriyama.org can be used for giving Simmons' recount on the subtitles, but not for anything else. This [13] source doesn't have this quote "More action-packed than the stories of Goku's youth, Dragon Ball Z is pure adrenaline, with battles of truly Earth-shaking proportions!" The subtitles stuff doesn't need its own section, and we don't need to know about their colors. Merchandising can all be one section, and I know your still working on them, but currently Ratings, Critiques, and Cultural Impact and Legacy can all be one section too. The T.H.E.M. Anime Review and IGN reviews are not about Z. How can we say that the internet searches for Dragon Ball Z are about the anime and not Viz's manga? It seems more-likely, but we shouldn't just assume it. Xfansd (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Xfansd, I will fix the issues, I copied and pasted some of the critic in from this page, probably wasn't a good idea as I snagged the GT one as well, must have saved without rechecking them first. This was the ref. [14] which I crossed with this ref. [15] Sorry for the mistake. Toriyama.org seems to also have been run with some of the production elements from Funimation... so I guess I'll do a little digging. All those years ago it was the place for information and I will be pulling some more from the site as a result, they host translations of the interviews and some great information for character pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

On a much more serious note, I realized why my previous post didn't come out as being... right. Lucia Black has again refactored my post as evidenced in this diff.[16] Lucia, you were just warned about your behavior in the ANI and you continue to deliberately alter the posts of others. RexxS gave you a strong warning, which seems a bit dramatic for a singular incident, but you have a noted history of altering other people's posts. You were warned by RexxS for this one.[17] And I was concerned about the last time you did this at the VPP with my post.[18] To alter the meaning of the text from 'not backing up your comments' to 'now backing up your comments' put a different tone and alters what I said. You are not allowed to do this. Stop doing it. You cannot blame your smart phone, you are purely responsible and I let the last several times slide, but since RexxS's warning you have only gotten worse. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

It was an accident. You dont get to decide what was deliberate. Amd knowing full well I have issues with a smartphone, you can let me know when it happens, rather than getting high strung and poisoning the discussion. Im done with this attitude of yours. Your mood on wikipedia changes on a whim. You get me blocked and during my block you have the nerve to comment and say you "praised" me? Im done with this. You choose to poison the discussion.

So here's my final comment. Your proposed article will only cause confusion. Dragon Ball Z is mainly the second half of the manga put in anime form. To include the second half of the manga simply for being rebranded and same with Dragon Ball Kai. Your proposed article ignores the list of episodes and only rehashes it. Why not add this new info in the article? If you add bit by bit, it wont get deleted all at once because most of it can still stay in the article.Lucia Black (talk) 03:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Add Category:Anime series based on manga

Add Category:Anime series based on manga to this article.

From the article itself:

The 42 tankōbon have been adapted into two anime series produced by Toei Animation: Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, which together were broadcast in Japan from 1986 to 1996 --108.211.193.185 (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. || Tako (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)