Jump to content

Talk:Dragon Ball/Archive 3

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

Talkarchivenav

DBZ creation

[edit]

I've gotten a third opinion on the DBZ matter and sense it seems that the page will easily survive any AFD; the page should be recreated from the sandbox. At this point a split is clearly in the best interest of Wikipedia for all the policies mentioned above. I will recreate it in about 24-48 hours if there are no pressing reasons to keep it off. Here is the prototype page: User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox. By all accounts this will easily pass AFD and meets GNG, N and warrants a separate article under DETAIL. Everything logically says that the page should be recreated; the only "MOS-AM" matter is long since dead and disproven. Stalling this out is just bad for Wikipedia; we should be improving things, not suppressing valid content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you think is best and what a large group of editors here think seem to be completely different. Regardless of "MOS-AM" no longer having a section forbidding the creation of this separate article, what should be determined is the utility of having it. Your page consists of an entirely western view point on the subject of just the anime, which honestly does encompass most of the media that's been released, but it is still an aspect of the whole that is the "Dragon Ball" topic. If someone 30 years ago had not decided to name the animated portion of Dragon Ball that covers the adult life of Son Goku and arguably more about the life of Son Gohan Dragon Ball Z we would not be discussing this would we?—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive my intrusion, but… can an article not be improved? If a primary concern is that the article focuses too much on one part of the world, couldn’t we add relevant information from other parts of the world? —Frungi (talk) 05:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It can be but there's no real utility of recreating a page just on DBZ. As it stands, the article is mostly about the American dub versions.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And correct me if I’m wrong, but those dubs are the primary form that a majority of English speakers know, and are largely responsible for the influence on English-speaking culture that the franchise has had. Given that, it seems perfectly reasonable to me to have an English-language encyclopedia article focusing on them. —Frungi (talk) 05:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The massive cast table is completely superfluous. Any information on who voices who should belong in character lists like every other article on the project. And the list of crew belongs in the infobox, and not in the main body of the article. My attempts to edit the sandbox are being met with complete opposition from ChrisGualtieri because I was tired of his comments on my talk page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
English production is just localization that can have its own section but the releases and airdates are already part of DBZ episodes and such.Lucia Black (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong; you didn't understand my words and you started to edit war in my own sandbox and on something entirely unrelated to the simple fact that the Dragon Ball Z anime is notable and meets N and GNG; which means its proper to have an article on it. The utility of having it is completely fine and a "western viewpoint" is something which Dragon Ball has as well and is unrelated to the actual question. This is clearly edit warring.[1] If you do not want to work together or cooperate than say so and do not cause unnecessary disruption or grief. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would've been better if whatever additional information was split into the Dragon Ball article and the Dragon Ball Z episode list instead. You are right that there isn't anything barring its creation now. A discussion for consensus would just be an endless cycle with the current participants. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 05:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This seems better, seeing as DBZ is just an anime.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:30, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Dragonball' the franchise passes GNG & notability. So it can have an article. DBZ (Anime) easily passes GNG & notability by itself, so it can (and should) have an article. (Its actually more notable than either the Dragonball or DBGT anime's in the west) As it stands, since 'Dragonball' as a franchise has to encompass - manga, anime, videogames, film/oav's - its already pushing the bounds of article length for readability, not to mention the quality. For a multi-medium franchise the most efficient and concise way to lay out a series of articles is to have a master article on the franchise (including summary paragraphs on the associated media) with blue links to associated articles. A good example would be the Conan the Barbarian article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons why it shouldnt is because Dragon Ball Z is only the anime adaptation of the second half of the manga. Not only that but most of the info is based on list of episodes type. So its more like pushing all mole hills into one mountain. USUALLY, media franchises are acceptable, however Anime and manga is treated differently (and for good reason). Anime and manga are commonly adapted into one another and stay incredibly faithful to the other, so much theres little change to them at all. Its so common, to separate them would be unnecessary. If you could provide an anime and manga related article, I would be more inclined to actually look at the link.Lucia Black (talk) 09:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) 1. It is an adaptation of the second half of the manga. However the anime is a distinct entity in itself. The merchandising, computer games etc are all based on the anime. Not the manga. And irrelevant anyway as that is not an argument supported by policy. Its at best, an argument based on manual of style, which leads me to 2. Explicitly covered by Local Consensus - "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." Much as they may want to, anime & manga projects can not over-ride GNG & Notability. Besides which, anime will cross paths with both TV & Film, and the wikipedia projects that govern those will have different views. Which is why we have GNG and Notability site-wide policies. Do you have an argument that is based on wikipedia policy? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This "franchise" terminology is annoying because no central anime or manga article is treated as a "franchise page". This article describes Dragon Ball and already has plenty of spun-off pages to describe more intricate aspects such as the lists of episodes of DBZ, DBGT, and DBKai. If they had not renamed the anime in 1986, this wouldn't be a discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:13, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is custom, and not policy. And customs are subject to change when needed. However that situation has come about largely because most anime/manga's dont have a cultural impact in the west/worldwide. But frankly, this discussion is pointless, see above response re local consensus. Also 'Other stuff exists', the application of which also covers attempts to prevent articles. 'We dont have a stand-alone article on 'X' so we shouldn't have it on 'X'. Although that is only a guideline. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
enough about "overriding" policies. GNG is a guideline that allows articles to be created., it does not enforce creation. Also you fall into WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST when you brought up that completely irrelevant article. It still not as independent as one makes it out to be, because even if those games were based off the anime, its based off the anime thats based off the manga, and both are incredibly faithful to one another to make any form of distinction.
If the manga was split into two separate series, then this would be alot simpler. But its not. The distinction to whether DBZ manga (localized name) should be part of the DBZ article is still a bigger issue, because the original DB article would still be missing its second half, and if it doesnt, theres the issue of DBZ info being on DB page. Being merged is the best of both worlds.Lucia Black (talk) 09:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was an example of how it can be done and done well, simply and easy for the reader to find the appropriate info. The simplest way would be to have 'Dragonball' franchise, Dragonball - manga, and separate Dragonball and DBZ anime articles. It was not an argument that it must be done. But you are totally correct GNG and N allow articles to be created. So we are in agreement the article can be created. Good. Now we can get back to work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:00, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stay civil. Your tone is not welcomed. Regardless, youre completely missing the point. GNG (not N), are just guidelines and it covers general article creation, that if pass may be made into an article. However, it doesnt concern splits.

ChrisGualtieri is still makjng this article but at the same time, consensus (even if it is local or not) are already pointing out how superfluous the proposed article is. Most of the info makjng this article is info best suited for the list of DBZ info. And some are just overly detailed to make certain pieces of info seem like its key info, when, although it is relevant, could be worded more direct.

We're not closing the idea, but at the same time theres a better way to proving an article is needed by expanding this article. To want a split and only expand the english production (which barely coers anything worth keeping on the main article) isnt enough.

And to split dragon ball manga aswell? Expansionism is what it is. Because the info of DBZ still exist in wikipedia, its just not completely in its own article. Why create 2 more low-quality articles for the sake of 1 article? Ok, if youre serious about this, the only way to prove it is now creating a sandbox for manga article and an anime article. But thats still a bargain as video games are difficult to say "based Ion the anime" because its still directly based on the manga aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 10:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no consensus to not have the article. In fact, if you consider the comments at Talk:Dragon Ball Z consensus is generally that it should have an article. Once you take arguments based on wikipedia guidelines and policies into account. As it was only merged based on an erroneous application of the MOS-Anime, it should have been de-merged straight away. However since Chris has re-written the article, its more efficient to make that one live and merge anything from Dragonball into it if relevant and not duplicated. I have yet to see you provide an argument based on policy or guidelines. At the moment its just 'we dont want it'. Which is not an acceptable reason. Do you have a policy or guideline based reason for not wanting a DBZ article, taking into account is individual and demonstrable notability? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow that's not how Wikipedia works and we decided that months ago. Just because consensus on one part of the project changed does not mean it completely reverses any decisions made by that previous consensus. And the only suitable guideline here would be WP:CFORK. Chris has gathered up plenty of content to construct a DBZ page but none of it is unique from what's on this one. It's be more worthwhile to move anything useful to List of Dragon Ball Z episodes rather than recreating a page that people decided wasn't necessary previously.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad you agree consensus can change. Its clear from this page and the Talk:Dragon Ball Z that there should be a separate article. Which certainly does supersede a years old erroneous decision to merge based on an ill-thought out guideline. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have a few people there who suddenly latched onto a 3 year old thread who don't cite policy and people here who disagree. You just don't get to completely reverse a decision because the reasoning, at the time, has since been decided as wrong. Chris's proposed version has too many flaws (an American-centric view for a work of Japanese fiction, coverage of topics that belong on other pages to start with) that are suitable for splitting off from this page. And I have my suspicions that many of the citations come from this article, but are the ones that do not concern the other adaptations.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So first it was because it wasnt according to the anime MOS, then when that was shot down, it was because 'things are not done that way', and now editors opinions that disagree with yours do not matter? Where would you like to move the goalpost to next? Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point you're trying to make here. The opinions raised on the DBZ talk page do not seem to cite any policy and they were not privy to the RFC that took place here and are therefore unrepresentative of any group seeking a page, as they are discussing the topic on what was and is currently a redirect that no one was really looking at until now.
Also, I think you need to stop referring to the previous decision as "erroneous". Just because there was something on WP:MOS-AM that requested that separate pages on each adaptation of the central subject be avoided and that was decided to be against the spirit of the essay WP:CREEP, it does not invalidate the decision made here previously.—Ryulong (琉竜) 11:32, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you do not. They do not need to 'cite' policy as they are referring to general notability and sourcing. Which is all that is needed for an article to exist. It is not necessary to link those to the relevant pages except for total newcomers. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong those supports on that other talk page were editors replying to the merge post that was poorly laid out on this page; their comments count and so do the arguments of every editor from the archives. The merge never should have been done, but the past is past, the work before you now is superior to the 2008 one; and frankly; emotional arguments and upholding flawed, disproven or strawman arguments should not prevent the creation of the page. That is what was decided at the VPP, a "manual of style" cannot override local consensus. And you are right; the "list of episodes" content on "English Dub History" is proper in a DBZ article; it is not proper on a list of episodes. I can keep adding to the sandbox article; I got plenty more sources and material; but for a starting point; it seems plenty fine to exist in mainspace now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

chris, did you ignore what we been saying? Your proposed article does not meet satisfactory level because A) most of the english info is suited for lost of dragon ball Z episodes. and it doesnt even seem you and death are in the same page as your article is still trying to make the manga part of dragon ball z. I feel like every relevant point weve made isnt addressed.
lets ignore the fact that mos exist. Because it has nothing to do with MOS or rhat "weve been doing this for years and because of that we dont want to change".
problem with this proposed article is that its yoyr sandbox, we cant work on it or change it to be more open to a split. It has to be your way and if consensus doesnt like it, then whats next? Keep trying to pish the flawed article down consensus' throat?Lucia Black (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, your opinion runs counter to policies and guidelines and you agreed the subject meets N and GNG; that is the requirement for its own article; it ins own right. Secondly; that part of MOS-AM is gone; removed it myself after the RFC was closed with clear consensus. If you ignore the fact that "we've done it this way for years" then you clearly are against Ryulong's arguement. Thank you for agreeing; because it seems to have been part of your own arguments as well.
As for "my sandbox"; I requested him not to edit war my sandbox; it is unrelated to any issue and when it goes live then the BRD process still defines interactions regarding it. If you have issues; how about you tell me the changes or flaws; as I am still working on it and if you don't like that, how about fixing it in mainspace then? Because at this point it is obvious it meets stand-alone article requirements and the moving of the goal-posts is a stalling tactic to try and kill it like politicians do. Wikipedia does not work this way; the article does not need to be GA or FA to go live. It'd pass AFC in a heartbeat; as you are both experienced editors; you know the only real challenge would be a AFD. Over two dozen editors have supported its own article for years; 8 of them in the RFC alone; an issue over perceived and undisclosed "content flaws" are not a reason to keep the entirety off Wikipedia. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
youre ignoring the very reason why were against it because you think that guidelines are equal to a policy. The GNG has N but youre also ignoring the two Gs aswell. GNG doesnt enforce an article to be created or split.
Im still focused on the issues of the process being done. If it would be made, it would be made under your flawed version. We have to do things the right way to build consensus, but we cant if the proposed article is limited to you. I suggest moving this to an open sandbox so that all editors can controbute. It will help you prove your point and prove our point. But right now consensus isnt against policy. Policy recognizes unique cases that sometimes cant allow split.
I dont want to hear the "your against pokicy" discussion. Its not true, and you know it. im mentioning real issues here. Ignore them or accept them.Lucia Black (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed or not; you could still edit it or try to AFD it if you really think it is "non-notable". Your own comments prove that it meets N and GNG; which by their very definition are the requirements for a stand alone article. So recreating it is completely fair. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If we consider dragon ball z as a general article, yes. But its not, its too connected to the original media, so any form of legacy and spin off is part of the original media's aswell. What it needs is more independent info that can separate it from this article. Which at the moment is limited to list of DBZ info.Lucia Black (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect; SPINOFF and DETAIL and SIZE matter for this. Currently, a wealth of English localization material is in the sandbox, this is not on Dragon Ball. It doesn't even detail the different versions, censorship or history. You seem to forget Dragon Ball Z's legacy is making "Dragon Ball" popular. The cancellation of the Dragon Ball and the cuts by Saban alone are worthy of note and are important to anyone wanting to understand the anime. And that's just two examples of why the article is needed. Its completely fine; and I am not going to wreck this article to prove it to you; the sandbox is larger then this article. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but half of it is making unfo more superfluous than it really is. Either we have an open sandbox or you add the info, but we cant be limited to how you want the article to be. I would be more onboard of a split if we did things right. And no its not fine.Lucia Black (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chris, you've basically been saying that the English dub of DBZ is what made DB popular in the US and the ways the adaptation was changed from the source material requires coverage. This western viewpoint does not deserve its own article, so you still don't have consensus to create this version of the article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Really man, why did you go and do that? We've been pointing out the various flaws with your proposed version, mainly in that 90% of it focuses on the English dub and its popularity in the west rather than any sort of reception it may have received in Japan other than what appears to be a single sentence regarding Kai's ratings. What you have created is not an article on "Dragon Ball Z" as a whole. It is an article on Dragon Ball Z in the Anglosphere and partly in the Hispanosphere.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An article does not need to give a complete world view from its very beginning; there is plenty at JA wiki to add, but it lacks a lot of sources which I want. This is not a valid reason to prevent it from mainspace. As an experienced editor; you know this. You hate being cited or quoted policy; but the absence of the information is more along the lines of "i hadn't done everything yet", but with the way it is going the article is nearing GA status and still doesn't in mainspace exist yet because of your baseless rejections. This is a stalling tactics because you cannot and will not cite issues to actually address them... but I'm going to add the Japanese ratings and reception now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a Japanese subject should most definitely provide a Japanese point of view before every single English adaptation is discussed in excruciating detail. You are providing undue weight to the American release. Most of the article is about the American dubs and how they were censored rather than being any sort of discussion on the original Japanese version. There are two sentences about the Japanese Kai broadcast and that is it. In its current state it should not be in the main space.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok chris, lets play this scenario: you make this article into namespace, with all the flaws we considered. Now the artixle is no longer in your space and an t one can fix it the way they see it. And seeing how you disagreed with us about the article, youre not going to be happy that most of the info will be moved to the list of DBZ episodes and shortened to its appropriate weight.

And then after all that, we will see a very scarce article waiting for you to add the info you wanted, but other editors see this as proving their point to merge back and it will be merged back. Im proposing a non-user dominated sandbox for dbz so we can figure out what you supprt-splitters want and what would at least be appropriate in the eyes of the opposers so they can become supporters. But you cant stop going to policy. You know as well as I do, the GNG doesnt support a split.Lucia Black (talk) 03:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To ChrisGualtieri, and anyone else who may be involved with the creation of a DBZ article: I propose waiting to create the actual article in mainspace until it’s ready. Having looked over the sandbox version, I’m forced to agree that there is currently too much emphasis on the localized releases, and/or not enough on the original production and the reception and impact in the series’ home region. If the article is sufficiently comprehensive, I don’t see any reasonable person objecting to its official creation. But right now, it isn’t. —Frungi (talk) 03:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To everyone, including Chris: DBZ is clearly notable enough on its own merits for its own article, so now it’s just a matter of collaborating to improve the work in progress. Let’s all try to get along and add different kinds of useful content to it, and not delete each others’ contributions just yet, okay? —Frungi (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The original Japanese production? I'd need some Japanese sources to be translated for that and I don't think I can personally do that without access to the Japanese books. Actually... I just was researching the "Showdown" aspect and found only on real "hit", seems the "Showdown" was the VHS release is really Rivals. "September 25, 2001 – Babidi: Rivals (214-216 US / 229-231 JP)" Thanks to a post on Kansenshuu.[2] It released the same time as the other, but it seems like an error, I'll make a note for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually... it can't be Rivals. Anime nation and ANN point to the same information from Funimation for this release.[3][4] So I'm sure it exists. The UPC is also different its "704400031038" but I see some crossing with "Rivals" so I am not sure where that comes from. Also... Anime fringe has it listed.[5] I might need to dig more... but I am not sure what it contains. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Found it... Showdown changed to Rivals as a last minute title change is seems; the release contained 3 episodes each and they are concurrent. Rivals' release date is September 25 2001, the same as Showdown's release date and contains the same three episodes. I put in a note, but I cannot write refs within a note... So I might need to be creative to list it in the article. Any suggestions? An now that I've added the ratings, you want more Japanese production stuff, right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

break

[edit]

IAgain, this would be better if we had a non-user restrricted sandbox. Any form of revert would be less personal, and consensus for the layout can be better without Chris having the final say. Its too limiting to "collaborate" in this matter.Lucia Black (talk) 05:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then make your own. I've added another 11 references and still got a ways to go, I'm adding production information now and filling out the other sections to make them more balanced. Remember, you can't expect anyone else to do things for you. I look forward to seeing your version. As I've gone and added and continue to add lots of information you thought was lacking. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isnt about making "mine" or "yours", its about making one open to all and not limited to yours. If I do make one for every1, be prepared that all relevant you add to yours will be added to the other version aswell. This isnt to show off which one is better. Im proposing a way to collaborate between opposing and supporters. But you just want things your way.Lucia Black (talk) 06:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's what merge history is for; ain't it? As long as our contributions get credit, I'll be fine since my piles of sources require digging and such; some are lost to me through the 404ing of the internet which has made me work hard to find and repost mirrors or other ways to verify said content. Two Jump sources I cannot find the online mirrors for... which is why I hesitated on the Japanese source material; I did find the old interviews, Psaros sorta is saving everyone's butts on this because his role as a fan has established a means and way to source and provide a service to the community. As a scholar of anime; its difficult to try and re-piece information you already know on Wikipedia. I can get into some really small minutiae as well; right down to the aspect and frame issues; without proper context and understanding of "why" that matters is a bit of a stretch because RSes exist (as the source material), but it is rare to see secondary sources which assert the claim and provide screenshot evidence as proof of it. I might push it to 100 references or more tomorrow; then I will probably start building out the plot or something; targeting 700 words or so. I hope I don't end up making a case for Kai to have its own page... that production history is very unusual and complex... I'll need at least 3 paragraphs or more to simply explain to the casual reader why Kai's changes are a big deal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh...forget it. Theres no collaborating with you even if an entire group is against you.Lucia Black (talk) 06:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe try editing his sandbox? Looking through the sandbox edit history, the only attempts at collaboration that I see are my and User:Only in death’s copy-editing, and repeated mass deletions by Ryulong. Or has Chris said at some point that he doesn’t want anyone else contributing content or altering layout? —Frungi (talk) 07:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gave reasons as to why I deleted two of the sections but he just reverted me regardless.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I mean adding new content rather than removing someone else’s. Haven’t seen any attempts at that, let alone objections. —Frungi (talk) 07:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The oppossers have a point, that most of DBZ info is mainly just releases and english localization. We made it clear this info is best suited in the list of DBZ episodes. We need info that cant be moved Lucia Black (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new sandbox for every1

[edit]

I created a new sandbox for every1. I donr own it, this is for every1 and my vote will not be the final say. So therefore, consensus and progress can be quicker. Basically copied chris's info but will need an overhaul the link is Talk:Dragon Ball Z/sandbox.Lucia Black (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't put sandboxes in the mainspace. Also, Lucia, maybe you should refrain from editing while you're without your computer.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(To Lucia) Uh no; you are not copying my work wholesale to compete. You can do your own research and you can do it your own way. I simply refuse to be stripped of actual attribution. If my article is so flawed it cannot even be included then you have the burden of fixing it yourself and not ripping off someone else's work with no intention of giving credit. You are planning to "make consensus" the same as before and marginalize my role as was done previously. It has to be hist-merged. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:04, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not histmerge your sandbox with the one she just made?—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was about to ask the same. That is how histmerge works, isn’t it? —Frungi (talk) 07:07, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or we just delete it and just let us edit yours.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I posted this on my own Talk earlier, but: I’ve made a proposal above which I believe is the ideal way to go about building up that unfinished article at the moment without stepping too hard on anyone’s toes. I figure excess information can be removed when it’s so gorram full of useful and relevant information that Chris himself will feel the need to trim what he’s added. No one has reacted to that suggestion, not even to argue for early mass deletions, so I would be interested to hear people’s thoughts. —Frungi (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
itll look like a mess if we dont move it to its proper list articles if thats considered deleting. But there needs to be compromise. Only focusing on adding isnt enough. It has to be well organized so more info can be added better. The point is to prove to the opposers that there is enough independent info to make an article, but this version only proves to make molehills (releases and tidbit of localization) into molehills (having their own section and explained in overly detail and delaying way.)Lucia Black (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or merge yours with this own. So that were not restricted to your preferences.Lucia Black (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look at what you caused, Lucia.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Im not going to focus on something so trivial ryulong. Youre free to edit that version. You dont have to make a big deal out of everything. Its "literally" nothing of an issue. If you have some other beef with the page. Please just be straight about it.Lucia Black (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, just to let people know... if you want the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and Wikipedia:Third opinion are always options as far as getting more non-involved parties to come into this and debate. (I notice that one was created for the mainspace article creation specifically, but I've asked that they look into this discussion and mediate as well.) Now I know I'm going to be stirring up some hornets on here by saying this, but offhand I will say one thing: When you create something on Wikipedia, you pretty much hand over free reign for it to be used and edited. Chris, you created your page with the intent to put it into the mainspace. Now, there is a sort of etiquette to editing userspaces. It's generally frowned upon to edit userpages without the user's request. The reason I posted Lucia's is because given that she created a copy of Chris's version to edit, I assumed that she would be OK with people coming on to edit. However, there's really no rule against editing another person's userspace pages. The only page that is considered to be completely off limits is another user's basic identification page. For example, User:Tokyogirl79 shouldn't be edited, but User:Tokyogirl79/Geek Parade (webcomic) would be relatively free game. My personal rule of thumb is that other edits are welcome, but if the other person finds it disruptive then they are welcome to ask you to stop. However very technically this is not an official rule and is considered to be etiquette. Now when it comes to copying content, there's not really any rule against that. There's nothing that says that someone can't take a copy into their own userspace to work on. It does go slightly against etiquette, but there's nothing wrong with someone doing this. If someone is claiming semi-ownership over a userspace copy and only wants certain edits to come through while they work on their draft, then it's perfectly reasonable to create a copy. Just not in the mainspace like it was. There's now a copy in Lucia's userspace for her and others to edit. I say that both people work on a version and then if/when a consensus comes on making a separate page, both will have something to pull from if it does get created. Offhand, I do have to say that while Chris's copy looks good in some ways, the article is far too focused on the English dub and puts too much weight on it. I would recommend looking into the history of the show as a whole and minimizing the English dub's part of the article. The English dub is only a very, very small portion of DBZ's broadcasting history. Think of it this way: imagine that someone created this and put a predominant emphasis on the Spanish dub. You'd be scratching your head as to why they needed a blow by blow history of the Spanish dub and airing history. Some mention of the release is good, but you've got to remember that you have to be concise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Chris doesn't have any problem with people editing his sandbox. Wholesale removal of sections and edit warring over it however is understandably not collaborative. Consensus already exists for a separate page. See above discussion and that at Talk:Dragon Ball Z. There is nothing preventing people from adding more material to balance out the info on the English dub. However as most easily accessible sources (and the main reason for its notability) are related to its Western broadcast, this bias will still always exist to an extent.
Chris is far nicer than me. The only reason I have not moved it to mainspace and requested a hist-merge afterwards is in deference to his feelings that it needs more work. Still if the stonewalling continues I might do it anyway and ask his forgiveness afterwards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you have to be nice from now on. None of this uncivility and spearheading. Also, we need a good clean article. Im going to say there is no consensus at this point. Because just splitting it wouldnt do us anygood. Itll just make us work on it even harder. A sandbox is good to take our time and actually make quality article. This whole "alliance" thing you got going on isnt really a secret either. I am still against split, but I will support if more independent info can be found to make dbz more independent from db. But at the moment theres still no consensus on how the layout shoild be. If we split it now, we'll only bringing up another heated debate.Lucia Black (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to the above - I initially welcomed them to edit the sandbox; Ryulong refused to discuss, deleted the talk page discussion from his talk page and went about edit-warring the section even when I asked him not to because he wouldn't discuss or be collaborative. Ryulong knows this, but refused to stay off at my request and removed the material again with the edit summary of "no".[6] That's rude and further creating a problem. Secondly; I have every reason to be upset if Lucia ends up using my work without crediting me by the very policies of Wikipedia. That large sandbox contains a lot of work and research I did; I do not want my changes to be entirely uncredited there suddenly is "consensus" to have it in mainspace. I've pointed out that I want it to be GA or FA class; yes the article is a dumping ground for a lot of ideas and a lot of it could be cleaned up and combined; but it is far easier to trim selectively with the wealth of information already present. Dragon Ball Z has been shown in over 40 countries and I do want to cover a lot of information with a proper worldview, but who knows... WP:DETAIL says that if things got really in-depth, as the material often goes, a "English production history of Dragon Ball Z" could be made. I still have loads more information on Kai and dubbing itself to add. Is it all necessary on one single page? No. I think Wikipedia's article should be a source of pride over variants like "Wikia". At the end of the day; I want my work to be credited where credit is due; much of the material I have is not something which Lucia herself believes even exists. We had this discussion once; she doesn't believe information exists on anime to such a scale; she even rejected arguments about sexuality and philosophy as it applies to another series... but they exist. They ironically exist for Dragon Ball Z as well... but that's another issue. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well now I'm discussing. The cast table needs to go; all of that information belongs on the character list or on character articles. The crew information needs to be in the infobox and not in a section all to itself. There needs to be less focus on the American releases. As it stands, this sandbox does not contain an article on "Dragon Ball Z". It has an article on "Dragon Ball Z in the west". Unless more weight is given to the Japanese release the information in your sandbox belongs split up elsewhere on the project rather than in a standalone article.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A smaller cast list should be acceptable per WP:CASTLIST; I know there is issues with the size and formatting, and it needs to include Kai, but many of these actors have pages of their own and a selection of key roles should be included. As for the production crew... I agree, I just haven't done it yet. Still this seems like a flimsy pretext to keep the article from being in mainspace. I've added numerous sources and details for Japanese production; much of the English dub history came from that not-so-list of Dragon Ball Z episodes which should not have English dub history on it. A list is meant to be a list; not a additional spot to stick the English dub history. That's why I added it to the sandbox; it only makes sense do to so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be in the massive table form that you've made it in.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
“I have every reason to be upset if Lucia ends up using my work without crediting me by the very policies of Wikipedia”—Again, wouldn’t WP:HISTMERGE take care of that? —Frungi (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked the flow; axed out Ryulong's issues; split the history section and the "home release" is the only bloated section right now; but the re organization exposes other areas lacking in content. Aside from the fact that ~35% of the page length is references and notes I think this continues to be more and more important for the mainspace. And yes; histmerge is what I want; from my original sandbox. I've been continuing to tinker with it, but User:ChrisGualtieri/sandbox5 is basically where everyone's criticisms ended up with it right now. I still have a fair amount of work to do. Why can we not just make this in mainspace, histmerge and continue to work on it there? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Anyone? No comments about this? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The manga section is superfluous. "DBZ" was an anime and not a manga. The adult Goku parts of the manga were still "Dragon Ball" in Japan.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:23, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And DBZ is a manga in the USA; I don't see how addressing this otherwise confusing point is better then not addressing it. When something is confusing, you address it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are still presenting the information in a false manner and it's not relevant to this article which for all intents and purposes should be just about the bajillion episode anime series. Any and all release information about the manga should remain on the Dragon Ball page and all we have to do on this page is note that the manga was retitled in the United States.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:36, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not "presenting information in a false manner" because the information presented is true. None of this matters one bit about the page going live or not; you can do as you wish there; but the DBZ manga matter was part of the criticism that I had to integrate to cover the scope of "Dragon Ball Z". Its time to stop playing games and nitpicking; the NA release and EU releases are directly tied to the success of the Anime. I was planning on adding the Animanga as well to round it out. Even these got international releases like this French release from Glenat.[7] I much rather include the manga and the animanga in a section when it goes live, but you know... its not perfect, its just a ground work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:02, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You will not be pleased if we move it to the mainspace because alot more overhaul would be done. By what I believe Ryulong meant is that your info is overly detail and presented in superfluous matter, its not that the info isnt true, its just presented in a way that makes it bigger than what it really is, no doubt to make the subject big enough to have their own sections. Similar to how attempting to expand info on a not so well covered topic to keep a barely related image.Lucia Black (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ryulong made a highly inflammatory and a patently false allegation. Neither of you have put any work into this article at all. None of these reasons are valid to keep it off mainspace. I had to include the manga for scope; but now you want it gone? I've addressed everyone's concerns, but this is not a GA or FA, you had your chance to make your peace with it. So at this point you can fix it yourself and put forth your own article. You keep moving the goal post for this; it's been over a month, you've had your chance. If you have issues, you will have to AFD it as per proper procedure. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you k ow what chris, do what you want. All im going to say is that there is no consensus to move your version into the mainspace, even DBZ supporters such as frungi doesnt believe so.Lucia Black (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion. I'll recreate it per my own assertions along with support from ComputerJA, Smtchahal, Triesault, Icarus of old, Luka1184, Calathan and 3O's like Indeath and Tokyogirl who have generously given their time to finding a solution to this problem. The article never got a formal AFD; if you have an issue with it, please take it there where even more eyes can comment on its inclusion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and Lucia, thank you, you've helped and inspired me to follow through with something. We may not agree; but this allows the greater community to do something beyond what I can do alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:16, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My feelings still stand, so its best to stick to tye main topic and not talk about me. This isnt an opinion either, several other editors have said the same thing. Third opinion is about having literally, a third opinion, we have more than 3. And its split between opposers and supporters. An article does not need to be AfD to revert a heavily flawed rendition, its like trying to game the system. But im not going to argue or go to another pointless DRN, I realized I make more GAs when self-proclaimed experts dont get in the way. So if Dragon ball doesnt make it to GA, at least its not me. So good luck to all who trying to make this into GA. Honestly, compared to how video games pass GAs, and how anime and manga pass them, the anime and manga tend to have a much and probably unrealistic higher standard. So thats probably what needs to be addressed.Lucia Black (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

[edit]

I suggest that we should change article's title to Dragon Ball (franchise). Eguaroc (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. I just put it up for GAN after fixing the plot and sourcing out the materials, with the anime split off we can definitely have this be a great introductory page to all things Dragon Ball without getting bogged down in the specifics of the individual works. The manga will be more difficult to split off without getting the Japanese sources and I do have my box set of GT that I recently purchased, the September 2010 Funimation release, so I can probably pull some good material from that for FA level or at least the list of episodes. The other pages need a good amount of work, but DBZ is also GA level, so at least progress is being made. Thanks for helping out with the content issues Eguaroc. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

[edit]

Why did you remove the GT plot summary, its 64 episodes, over 26 hours of runtime and its sorta canon. The movies are standalone works whereas GT is a major addition to the media. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Summary is of the original work. If we were to consider GT canon, then that would mean all the filler of the first two anime are canon as well, which would mean the character Garlic Jr. (who has his own "saga") is canon, which would then mean that the first Z movie is canon because that is where he originates. Actually, unlike GT and all the other movies, Battle of Gods is "sorta canon", it is officially set between the last two chapters of the manga. Xfansd (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

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

Reviewer: ComputerJA (talk · contribs) 21:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and just as a quick note since this is a peer review of sorts, any pressing issues can be near immediately addressed within the next 48 hours if you have any major concerns. The anime content was recently split off to its own article just prior to the nomination with Dragon Ball Z being the first, the manga may also be applicable and greatly condense some of the page as well. The goal of getting this as the first GA for a topic overview of a complex body of works is very important to me and I will do everything I can to balance the content needs as per your suggestions if you find anything lacking or out of place. For instance I had added a brief section on GT's plot and the standalone films, but that was removed for preference to the Toriyama "canon".[8] If you prefer it back in, I'd gladly do so. I have the materials to address almost any issue on hand. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review

[edit]

Overall, a very good article. Most of the article is well-written, properly sourced, and thorough. I want to thank all the editors who have contributed to make this project possible. The DB series marked my life as a child, and I am glad I have the opportunity to review this. Now, below are some of my concerns before the article passes. This is the first part of the review; I will also be checking sources for accuracy and if they are reliable, but this is the larger chunk of the review. Thanks for your work on this one! ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:21, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]
  • in the United Kingdom by Gollancz Manga, and Australia and New Zealand by Madman Entertainment. – This is not cited anywhere in the body paragraphs.
    Fixed, can't believe I missed this. Cited in body now with new Nook distribution by Viz for the UK as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Plot

[edit]
  • Together they go on a quest to find the seven Dragon Balls (ドラゴンボール?), which grant the user any wish they desire before spreading back out across the world – Consider revising to “the seven Dragon Balls, which have the ability to grant a wish to anyone who collects all seven of them before spreading back out across the world."
  • leading to confrontations with the desert bandit Yamcha – The sentence is too long. Consider adding a period to “across the world” and starting the next one with: “Their journey in search of the Dragon Balls leads to confrontations with the desert bandit Yamcha, who later …”
  • and Pilaf, who is also collecting them – Please update to “and Pilaf, a small imp-like emperor who wishes to collect the Dragon Balls and rule the world.
  • After you are done making these updates, please add semicolons (;) after the description of each person.
  • Kuririn is killed after the tournament and Goku chases after the killer – Consider changing chases to goes.
  • youth before destroying Shenlong – Who is Shenlong? Readers unfamiliar with DB will not know who he is.
  • Goku just narrowly wins before quickly leaving with Chi-Chi – Please remove the just.
  • who surprised him by also competing and maintaining he keeps the promise he made to her as children. – Maintaining he keeps the promise does not sound right. Please consider revising. In addition, is the promise marriage? Consider adding that for readers unfamiliar with DB.
  • Goku meets his older brother Raditz – Please add Raditz arrival to Earth. Readers unfamiliar with DB might not understand why Goku’s past was not revealed until now.
  • However, Goku is revived a year later by the Dragon Balls, after training in the afterlife, with the North Kaiō, in order to save the Earth from Nappa and the Saiyan prince Vegeta – Please rephrase to “However, Goku is revived a year later by the Dragon Balls. In the afterlife, Goku trained with the North Kaiō deity in order to save the Earth from Nappa and the Saiyan prince Vegeta.” Also please add, if possible, why the Saiyans went to Earth in the first place.
  • However, they learn that Piccolo and Kami are extraterrestrials called Namekians – Who are "they"?
  • the latter of which teams up with the heroes to fight the Ginyu Force – Explain what the Ginyu Force is, perhaps by adding “the Ginyu Force, an elite squadron under the tutelage of Freeza.”
  • avenges the lives of billions across the galaxy. – I know the Plot section does not need a source, but are you sure Freeza killed billions across the galaxy? I do not remember anything regarding this figure, but maybe you can check for me.
  • are drawn into yet another fight for the universe against a magical being named Majin Boo – This could be trimmed to “are drawn into another fight against a magical being named Majin Boo”.
  • after numerous battles and the destruction of the Earth, Goku destroys Boo having borrowed energy from everyone on the newly revived Earth – I think you should mention the Genki Dama, the attack he used to kill him. Consider changing to “after numerous battles that led to the destruction of Earth, Goku destroys Boo by killing him with the Genki Dama, a powerful attack that borrowed the energy from all human beings on the newly revived Earth," or something similar.
  • Ten years later, at another Tenkaichi Budōkai, Goku meets Boo's human reincarnation, Oob. Leaving the match between the two of them unfinished, Goku takes Oob away on a journey to train him. – Please mention that Oob is not evil. Readers unfamiliar with DB might think that Goku’s decision to train him is illogical.

Production

[edit]
  • Toriyama has admitted several times that he didn't plan out the details of the story – Change to did not.
  • resulting in strange occurrences and discrepancies later in the series – Not needed but do you have access to the sources? I think adding some of the major discrepancies would be interesting.

Manga

[edit]
  • Written and illustrated by Akira Toriyama, Dragon Ball was initially serialized in the manga anthology Weekly Shōnen Jump starting on December 3, 1984 – Why is Akira linked here and not on the Production section? Consider removing the link here and adding it on the section above per WP:OVERLINK.

Media

[edit]
  • The Dragon Ball manga was licensed for release in English in North America by Viz Media which has released all 42 volumes – Sentence does not flow well with release being used twice. Consider rephrasing to “… Viz Media, which has

TV appearances and other animations

[edit]
  • referred to as Dream 9 Toriko & One Piece & Dragon Ball Z Super Collaboration Special!! aired April 7, 2013 – Correct to "on April 7, 2013."
  • called Dragon Ball Online is currently playable. It has been stated that Akira Toriyama has been working on character designs for this project for several years, and the game is available in Japan and South Korea – Since when? Please add the release date. Maybe Toriyama is done doing the character designs.
     Done Since the DBO Korean servers are shutting down I made that referenced but dropped the Toriyama character designs, while credited as the source of the material, the dead link seems odd to say that his designs were in production for 5 year prior to even the alpha/beta test. The article on it is rather poor and all non-English, so this may have to do for context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:20, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Collectable cards

[edit]

Reception

[edit]
  • "when Dragon Ball came out, a fair number of shonen manga starred manly, built heroes, like City Hunter and Fist of the North Star, but Dragon Ball started a trend towards cartoonishness that continues to this day.", "And if it doesn't look like an appropriate art style for a gritty action series, that's because it isn't. The first great thing about Dragon Ball is that it's an action manga drawn by a gag manga artist.” – Though I did enjoy the other quotes, I think this can be paraphrased per WP:QUOTES.
  • using dramatic pacing and over the top martial arts action - Fix to over-the-top.
  • Ridwan Khan from Animefringe.com commented the manga to have a "chubby" art style but as the series continued it gets more refined with the characters leaner and more muscular. – Fix to “commented that the manga had a “chubby” art style but as the series continued the characters got more refined, leaner, and more muscular.
  • He also noted he preferred the manga versions of the series to their animated counterparts that make the story slower and pointless – Not sure what this means but consider changing to: “to their animated counterparts, who he believes make the story slower and pointless.”
  • compared to how Funimation "throws in useless dialogue" into their English dub of the anime. – Please link Funimation.
  • Also noted was the fact that Viz decided to stop censoring the series – Add "they" at the beginning.
  • "There is just a wider tolerance for sexuality in Japan. It usually is played out humorously and perhaps titillating in a mild way. It's just a difference in cultural sensibilities." – I usually think that quotes should be used when there is no other way to say it without making it lose its meaning. Can you please paraphrase this in your own words? Overuse of quotes per WP:QUOTEFARM.
  • although they admitted they would rather not, they had done so to keep wide distribution – The second part seems like a run-on. Perhaps adding a period after no
  • "Shows like Naruto, YuYu Hakusho, and Bleach are what they are because of the groundwork laid down by DBZ and the formulas it established, formulas which were subsequently borrowed, exploited, and expanded upon by other creators. To deny that is to be stubbornly short-sighted." – This is a stand-alone quote and might be considered unencyclopedic per WP:LONGQUOTE. Please revise.
  • On the second paragraph of the Anime seems to have a bit overuse of quotes. Paraphrase the ones you feel most comfortable with. Also, please fix the “you to believe.",[106] only” by closing the sentence or removing the period.
  •  Done Agreed on quite a few points. Napier is also difficult to understand without proper context, so I just limited it to differences in culture as the Japanese views on sexuality and crude humor does not need to be discussed in this section. Actually, if I did so I would need another book of mine which shows that nudity is not for sexual arousal, but instead for crude humor or drama. The Freeza matter is resolved as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, nice job, Chris. Thank you for addressing the concerns above. I'll be reviewing sources for accuracy and be posting if I have any concerns. After that, the article will be ready. Should not take me too long. Thanks again, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 08:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the pass.[9] ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Dragon Ball (anime)

[edit]
There is a clear consensus, that Dragon Ball (anime) shouldn't be merged into this article. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The separate article on the anime is entirely superfluous and it was only created by a single editor who decided that it should be done since Dragon Ball Z was recreated. Much of the article unnecessarily puts focus on the English language broadcasts, and a lot of the content is better suited for either this page or List of Dragon Ball episodes. I attempted to suggest this at WP:Articles for deletion/Dragon Ball (anime), but my long-standing dispute with ChrisGualtieri and the clear misinterpretation of the intent of the AFD (along the lines of "How dare someone try to delete an article on this clearly notable subject") derailed any possibility of that discussion coming to fruition.

And just to be clear, here are the reasons the merge should probably happen:

  • Any plot summary of the anime is identical to any plot summary of the manga.
  • The American dub should not have that much prominence in an article and is most definitely a case of WP:UNDUE.
  • The cast list is wholly unnecessary and easily duplicated at List of Dragon Ball characters
  • DVD and VHS releases belong on List of Dragon Ball episodes
  • Reception of the TV series is already covered on Dragon Ball because this unmerge was malformed in the first place

—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose - "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." It is not a valid rationale to merge on the basis of being an adaptation. UNDUE is a viewpoint, yet more sources are in English to cover the content, but I have provided Japanese sources and am seeking more - but this is not a problem or merge reason. The cast list is not at the giant list of characters, nor should it be. It covers the major characters of the adaptation in an accessible format. Its removal would only scatter the information needlessly. List of Dragon Ball episodes is an episode list - not a means to squirrel away release information to eliminate this article. And the reception needs expansion, but what of the other 20kb of content? Given the lack of arguments for merging at the AFD and the support of keeps which specifically cite a reason - I can conclusively say that merging this article to three or four pages would offer no tangible improvement of any form. 10000 people view this article a month and giving information on just this adaptation is its reason for existence. It makes no sense to scatter the information all over the place. A merger would only result in a negative impact upon readers and the growth of content. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CFORK still holds as most articles on this project cover both. The fact that Dragon Ball (anime) is just full of English language sources is problematic. And lists of episodes across the project and not just in anime articles feature information on the DVD releases. There were plenty of arguments at AFD in favor of the merge. You just chose to ignore them and others criticized the choice of AFD as the venue for this discussion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We just had this conversation at the AFD. [10] As I said there, there is enough valid information to have its own article just as Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT do. Very notable anime. Dream Focus 06:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The AFD closed as no consensus without any prejudice against a subsequent merge discussion. This should have been done in the first place, but ChrisGualtieri demanded that AFD be the venue rather than a talk page discussion.　And there were just as many views for those who favored merging as there were people who believed that the pages should not have been merged or put up for deletion.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:09, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well now everyone can come here and have the exact same conversation yet again, with the same results. Dream Focus 07:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that it is the proper venue and the page does not say "DELETION" at the top, it might be different.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It is a Start Class Article. Why would you want to get rid of one with sufficient info? --(B)～（ー．ー）～(Z) (talk) 09:42, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't follow your reasoning here. All of the information is already found on this page and on others, aside from whatever was added during the AFD. It's better suited for other pages and for this page to cover the manga and anime rather than just the manga.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There have been Featured lists which have been merged before. Classes don't matter. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe your call for merging to "trump reason" shows you have a critical misunderstanding. You say "Content Fork" but fail to point out an issue; it is pretty clear that this content is not an exact duplicate of another topic. The article is a specific examination of a show that contains more than 60 hours of viewing material. By your argument the movies are "content forks" and should not exist either. What is written is that articles should be written in summary style and go from broad to specific if necessary. This article is written in summary style and a list of episodes should not hold censorship specifics, casting, or reception. Your last sentence does not make grammatical sense - are you suggesting that "List of Dragon Ball episodes" take this page's content? And if so, wouldn't that make it no longer a list? Do you intend to say that "List of Dragon Ball episodes" should be merged here? Please clarify, because I cannot understand what you are writing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:37, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Content fork is the issue. The majority is easily summarized and fits perfectly well into the main dragon ball article. And no, List of Dragon Ball episodes should not merged here, (although it would solve the problem of "content fork" but it just means more redundant info such as plot, so its a temporary fix that only goes halfway to solve disputes between editors, it will not accomplish anything else) the problem of saying such an article is that it will eventually just lead to be merged back and become what we see. All you have to do is actually consider what this article accomplishes. Cast information fits perfectly fine in the Character list as its most relevant there. Releases and generic production info goes into List of Episodes. Censorship is not exclusive to the anime, in fact the manga also has been censored and had received coverage on it. So the only thing making this independent is reception which is made up two 1/2 paragraphs. and production.
we shouldn't try to make unnecessary forks and merges. we had it right the first time. and this is something not new to WP:ANIME.Lucia Black (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Too much overlap with Dragon Ball, under speedy deletion there is a criteria for articles that duplicate an existing topic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:36, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm generally of the opinion that subtopics of larger topics should be given their own page when the subtopic is sufficiently notable and there is enough information about the subtopic to write an additional article (as opposed to only giving the subtopic its own article when there is too much information to fit in a single article). There appears to be enough content here to support a separate article, so I'm in favor of having a separate article. Calathan (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many don't know this but thats why theres subjects such as WP:CFORK and WP:NOPAGE. Most of the information isn't new, and its just been superfluously expanded to stuff no GA or featured article of WP:A&M standard would have. WIkipedia recognizes series that are "technically" notable, but aren't necessarily independent enough to be their own. The plot follows exactly the manga exactly.
It's just superfluous to have one.Lucia Black (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CFORK isn't relevant here, since the article's isn't another take on the same topic, but instead a subtopic. WP:NOPAGE is relevant, but it basically just says to use judgment in deciding when to split articles. Basically, it is saying people should decide on a case by case basis whether a subject is better covered in one article or multiple articles. I think in this particular case, the subject could be reasonably covered either in one article or in multiple articles. I personally like having two articles as I think being able to provide extra details is good in this particular case. Calathan (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But its still relevant to WP:GNG. Why does bleach anime article provided "needed" context? I can already tell you that having it merged will keep less redundant and superfluous information.Lucia Black (talk) 00:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOPAGE is basically saying that just because there's enough to consider it notable, it doesn't mean that its necessary, or optimize information by splitting. the majority of the current information is just hashing out the other articles.Lucia Black (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NOPAGE is not a rationale for deletion; its intention is to inform editors that just because a split could be made - it need not be done if the resultant page is either extremely short or going to be a permanent stub. NOPAGE states, "Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub." That is clearly not the case here and the fact it is discussing permanent stubs is indicative that your NOPAGE argument is not applicable or intended to be a means to call for its deletion. Your definition of "redundant and superfluous" would result in merging Harry Potter movies to the books because its even more faithful than the manga. The basis of your rationale simply isn't applicable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this article isn't getting AfD. its just getting merged. none of the information is gone because all of the information was hashed up in the first place. You know better than to compare the relationship between novel and film to anime and manga. you know manga and anime are more interwoven which is why WP:ANIME isn't so keen on splitting random adaptations. which is why WP:ANIME media such as manga and anime. and yes, it refers to permastubs in the end, but the advice isn't solely to permastubs.Lucia Black (talk) 03:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say, but I didn't "rehash" by pulling the books on the censorship and the Daizenshuu. And once this merge thing is over and the RFC is done with, I can hopefully add the rest of the content I am in the process of obtaining. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the majority is still rehashed. and it doesn't "need" to be over in order to do what is needed. So even if a discussion doesn't go in your favor, it shouldn't stop you from adding information.
but like i said, if you don't want editors seeing you as the "boogieman" as you put it, then a more respectful way of editing should be done. Propose the splits before making them. And if someone reverts someone elses split, that doesn't mean you get to be the third vote and end the tie, it still has to be discussed in the talkpage before anything is done.
This is called being respectful.Lucia Black (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I always believed the anime had enough merits to have its own page. 71.196.1.86 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is an a RfC, for those who want to participate. It seems to go against this merger, and if this rfc fall in that favor, it may oversee the current local consensus. so its best you all discuss your ideas in WT:ANIME so that a broader discussion can happen.Lucia Black (talk) 23:30, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jaco

[edit]

This article does not seem to mention anything about Toriyama's newest series "Jaco the Galactic Patrolman". It is revealed in the final 11th chapter to take place slightly before the start of Dragonball. More specifically, Jaco is sent to Earth to protect the people from the Saiyan Gokuu (since saiyan children are typically sent to planets in order to conquer them. Also, one of the characters Tights is the elder sister of Bulma. Gokuu, "grandfather" Gohan, and Bulma make an appearance. Perhaps someone can edit this together for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.110.115.13 (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree here. If it's written by the original author and its elements fit in perfectly to established Dragon Ball cannon, then Jaco should be included as apart of the Dragon Ball cannon. Unless something was said in a guidebook by either Toriyama or his people. Was something said that classifies the stories as two separate continuities? Sarujo (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First, this article does mention it since that ip first wrote this. Second, it doesn't fit perfectly, just like Battle of Gods (which was also written by Toriyama and stated to take place specifically between chapters 517 and 518 of DB) there are timeframe issues. It was just a fun thing for the author to do; just because he puts characters from a previous series he created into it doesn't mean its canon to the series they're from. Jaco isn't canon just like Neko Majin isn't. Considering all the crossovers canon is like trying to consider all the movies canon. Xfansd (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The same argument can be made with GT, and yet that's considered cannon (At least it did prior to Online). The source material itself, the manga, contradicts itself from time-to-time. Toriyama was known for producing his story without any real planing. So your argument that story inconsistencies prevents it from being cannon doesn't quite hold up. Sarujo (talk) 02:13, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The animes are not even in contention for being considered canon (definitely not on Wiki), this came up a few sections up at #Plot_summary. (Dragon Ball Online? A video game would never be the go to for canon anyway.) In terms of Dragon Ball canon, it is strictly about the manga. I wasn't saying that the timeline errors are the reason Jaco isn't canon, but just pointing them out cause you said it fits perfectly. DB characters appear in a single chapter of Jaco and its the last one. Here's a comment by Toriyama calling that chapter a "bonus final chapter" and the series not "a flashy manga like Dragon Ball" but a "foolish, fun story", and saying "I’ve drawn a number of similar stories, but I suppose this is kind of like [a combination] of them." [11] It is just a fun story he wanted to do, not meant to be DB canon. Xfansd (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how I'm interpreting those comments on the matter. Nowhere in that interview does it imply Jaco's cannon. It's talking about the series' satire in comparison to Dragon Ball. Calling chapter eleven a bonus doesn't imply that separate cannon. Especially when he points out that chapter eleven's purpose is to help the western reader understand reason why Jaco's story is old fashion in comparison to western interpretation of Dragon Ball's story. Again, his comments are regarding both satires of two of his works among the west. Sarujo (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hey, i dont remember "Jaco" a project in the works. well i do kinda agree with Sarajo, unless we have more information we must avoid referencing this work. 166.147.120.172 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

publication

[edit]

My edit on this page was reverted because I cited a fansite for my information that November 20th, not December 3, was the date that Dragon Ball was first published (and that May 23 was when it ended). I am a pretty new Wikipedia editor but I do have some other sources for at least the November 20th date. My question is whether or not these are considered legitimate sources:

First is a tweet by FUNimation, English distributors of Dragon Ball, stating that Dragon Ball was published on November 20. I think Tweets are considered unreliable though. https://twitter.com/FUNimation/status/535534283654725632

Next is an official site that Shueisha put up on November 20 to celebrate Dragon Ball's 30th anniversary. This seems like the closest thing to legitimate, as Shueisha is the publisher of Dragon Ball. Can we cite the existence of a website? http://db30th.com/

The people who run the fansite that I cited published an online magazine that provides the same information. Is this still not legitimate, or is an online publication citable? Allegedly, the founder of the website went to Osaka to verify the true publication date of the series. http://www.kanzenshuu.com/generalinfo/features/db30years_-_web_version.pdf?94c37f

A website that I'm not familiar with, but looks to be some sort of online website similar to Anime News Network: http://www.animeherald.com/2014/11/20/fans-celebrate-dragon-balls-30th-anniversary-art-free-stuff/

The only problem with this is that while I can verify the November 20th date, the May 23rd date is not as easily found. However, it does sort of follow that if one is true, so is the other. I feel like at least one of these sources is at least as legitimate as Weekly Shonen Jump's printed issue date; after all, it's not unheard of for magazines to print dates that do not match with their actual date of publication.

Shakuran13 (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In general, Kanzenshuu is reliable for much of the information they provide and have good insight into the actual production that would not be otherwise circulated in English. The street date vs listed date are different for magazines, but a key tenant is verifiability not truth. I do not see anyone putting forth any data to say those dates are wrong and there is good evidence that it is correct. Personally, it should be reinstated. Fansites can also be very accurate provided they have proper editorial control, another example was the Astro Boy listing which was accurate like Kanzenshuu. I do not see these dates as speculative or unreliable on this matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't recall seeing anything on any animanga project page that specifies to use either cover dates or intended release dates, except Template:Infobox animanga which says to use the date they were "originally published". Really either set of dates can be considered correct depending on how you define publication date, this is something that should be addressed by the project. As such, I have no problem using either set of dates. Just don't use fansites, that have ridiculous amounts of illegal copyright violations, to source them. Xfansd (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Xfansd, that site is not doing anything illegal and you are not in any position to state otherwise. For over 15 years the site been operated by the staff and it is well-known to Toei, this is not some Pirate-bay like site. Can you verify or disprove the dates cited? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm not going to bother asking you Xfansd. You know the information is correct, but you are objecting for the wrong reason anyways. The official sale dates were given by the site and you replaced them with the cover dates. Both are correct, but something this basic really needs a note on the article. Unless you are saying that I can't read and that Kanzenshuu is using bogus crops, the issue is over. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously can not read. I clearly stated that I'm fine with either set of dates, just not with using a fansite as the source. I'm not a law expert, but everyone learns in high school that you can't copy content from 147+ magazine/books verbatim and redistribute it. Add to that 1,000+ copyrighted images, water marking your logo on said images, and a donation link on your site to keep you doing it, yeah, your clearly breaking laws. Such sites are not acceptable as sources. Xfansd (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We link to Pirate Bay and the Silk Road, but a site that has operated for over a decade within Fair Use provisions with their own translations of Japanese-only interviews and compiled informative guides are unacceptable? Back this up with policy and prove to me they meet a criteria. Your definition eliminates everything from Anime News Network to Kotaku and I simply disagree you can play judge, jury and executioner on something as simple as pointing out release dates of the manga. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Xfansd: A website can never be illegal, only materials on it. And in this case the fan site is claiming Fair use which means that they can pretty much have which ever content on their website as they want. It's only WIkipedia that tries to keep it's fair usage to a minimum. Please read up on copyright rules in the US and about fair use and then come back here. Thank you. (t) Josve05a (c) 07:13, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Chris What do you mean by we link to those sites? In their own articles as selfsources? Sure. Is it used as a source in other articles? If so that should be addressed. Translating something doesn't mean you get to republish it and I don't see the connection to ANN and Kotaku.
@Chris and Josve Wikipedia:Verifiability#Verifiability_and_other_principles; "You can link to websites that display copyrighted works as long as the website has licensed the work, or uses the work in a way compliant with fair use." Who gets to determine the level of compliance with fair use? WP:COPYLINK; "However, if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. An example would be linking to a site hosting the lyrics of many popular songs without permission from their copyright holders. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States." This website actually does what is specifically used in this example. Xfansd (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so Kanzenshuu as a source is out (although I would argue that when websites like Crunchyroll and such post links to the e-magazine, it certainly has some legitimacy). Can I just use the real sale dates, then use the Shueisha website as a citation for the November 20th date, with the assumption that if Nov 20 is a correct date, so is May 23? Shakuran13 (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
He can argue the point, but its really moot. Kanzenshuu has a cropped (i.e. partial) scan of the 11/20 sale date for the release. The ones listed by Kanzenshuu are correct sale dates, but the cover date is also correct. So Volume 50 gives the sale date of Volume 51 and Volume 51 displays "public sale date" for stores, you could just cite them to themselves and be done with it or just note that we use "cover dates" and avoid the whole Kanzenshuu source matter. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting the dates here, I was already aware of this dating information before you made your edit and like I already said, either set can be used in my view. I just reverted it because you used a fansite and the Animanga project doesn't specify what date to go by. If you added them without a source, I would have left them like I did now. This is not just a manga magazine practice, western magazines do this too. The Weekly Shōnen Jump and Rolling Stone articles both use the date on the cover of its first issue. If someone can tell us what WP:ANIMANGA or WP:MAG considers the publication date then there would be no question.
The anniversary site is reliable for this information and says it debuted in November, but doesn't give a specific date that I see. The other dates were there without a source, so its no big deal to me if these don't have one either. Xfansd (talk) 08:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xfansd you are advancing a synthesize of policies into supporting something they do not. There is a clear difference between reproducing a work in full and creating an adaptive of new work. Not only that, you are condemning the whole of the site for some alleged issue and apparently saying this page is allowable. By your logic, if Youtube has infringing content we must block all of Youtube and cannot even link to official channels like PewDiePie or Epic Meal Time. To answer your question "Who gets to determine the level of compliance with fair use?", a legal or administrative body. The point stands that the site has been operating for 15 years and we are linking to a guide on the dates whose is purpose to document something which is not referenced in the official databooks. Since it does not meet the definition of a violation, complete song lyrics or duplication of a work, it is acceptable because it is a transformative and informative work. Instead, it seems your issue is linking to a fansite. You could instead make an argument per WP:RS, but linking to an informative guide, but you know the source is reliable and correct. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This site actually does reproduce works in full; when a magazine promotes itself as having an exclusive interview and you reprint that whole interview. You keep relating this as being the same as how we allow "linking to xxx", but those are at most in their own articles as selfsources. This is not. This is about how this site does not pass as a wikipedia reliable source for third party articles. You wanted policies, I gave them to you. I cited the policy WP:V which supersedes the guideline WP:RS. Show me the "It exists, therefore its allowed." policy, which is what you're claiming now. I don't want to keep picking apart this site, pointing out every specific thing about it. For the last time, I'm not questioning the dates. Go ahead and cite the mags themselves. Xfansd (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me see if I got your argument correct. Though you seem to not understand my argument, we need a starting point. Your position is that the entire website cannot be used because within the site is a page you find to be infringing or contain infringing content. By this argument not even the New York Times could be linked to, nor any standard sources like Anime News Network. But you know this and you are not arguing that point, because it would be silly to suggest that is the intention of your words despite you stating so. No. Your point is that because the site duplicates, in full, some "exclusive" content it cannot be linked to at all. Is that correct @Xfansd:? If it is wrong please correct me because I want to understand what your argument is. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It can not be used as a source here because WP:V says to not even link to it. That's it. Do not cite sources if there is reason to suspect copyright violations is written there. It's not even done in long-winded jargon that can be misinterpreted, so I don't know why you think I'm being shady and saying things in a roundabout way. I'm not going to say any more other than I find your assessment totally off; it is not similar to the Times or ANN, and has significantly more than one page of violations. Xfansd (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You do not intend to actually say whether or not my assessment is correct? It will make resolving misunderstandings more difficult if you will not answer whether or not I understand your argument! So, let's start with the assumption it is correct. The problem is your argument is rooted in a non-existent definition of a policy. First of all it is not WP:V you take from, it is WP:COPYLINK. Second, it is the direct linking of unambiguously infringing content and the demonstrated consensus is the full work, i.e. databases of song lyrics, pirated movies, and infringing torrent files. Third, your so-called infringement is Japanese text translated into English with an instructional purpose, which by definition is not unambiguous infringement and by definition is not duplication of material. Lastly, and most critically, the whole argument falls apart because it is not the entire website which is prevented from being linked to, but the actual content (the singular webpage) we are prevented from linking to. So it is actually covered under a fair use claim, but this fact is irrelevant because we are not linking to that "dubious" content in the first place. Your argument is based on your misinterpretation of what the policy says, combined with a misunderstanding of what the solution is and targeting something which you have incorrectly identified. All three parts of your argument fail to pass muster. Next time please try to promote amiable resolutions, your hostility is most unwelcome and unnecessary. I take no pleasure in tearing apart the argument, but you simply do not understand and have continued to make false assumptions despite my attempts to understand your argument. If I somehow have misinterpreted your argument, again, please correct me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You must be joking. I want this to be over and stop replying, but you're still not reading what I write. You wrote "You do not intend to actually say whether or not my assessment is correct?", when I clearly said "I find your assessment totally off". "Do not link to any source that violates the copyrights of others[...]" and "If there is reason to think a source violates copyright, do not cite it." I did not mistakenly take this from COPYLINK like you say, those quotes are from WP:V. Although I did cite COPYLINK earlier, that was to give an indisputable example of the site's violations because you seem to think this fansite is holy. Do the quotes say this only applies to the exact url of the specific violations of a website? No, they don't, they say the "source". Let's hop over to WP:SOURCE just to read the number three definition of a source; "the publisher of the work." Kanzenshuu is the publisher here, also known as the source we can't link to. Any hostility comes from your second reply to me which opens with "I'm not going to bother asking you" and assumed badfaith. This is the end of the discussion. Xfansd (talk) 18:26, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To me and the outside observers, there are two editors who are having a good faith discussion over a matter of policy. I am demonstrating that the website operates within fair use and does not link to any unambiguously infringing content, i.e. manga, anime, movies, games. In cases where material is used, it is under a fair-use provision and with extra care to not use "scanlations" of material. @Xfansd: it is very unhelpful to constantly assume bad-faith on part of anyone who disagrees with you. Your combative rhetoric which assumes that the site is "holy" to me is not helpful either. Please do not make borderline WP:BLP claims when you do not understand copyright. Also, please stop cherry picking sentence fragments and making irrational and incoherent arguments as if you understand them. This is not entirely your fault, you incorrectly assume that linking to a site with lyrics is inherently a copyright violation. Since 2007, there are many legal sites which use them with attribution and with permission - so even "fair use" doesn't enter the issue. Compare apples to apples, as the expression goes.

Despite saying my assumption is "totally off", you are claiming that the site is basically violating copyright by providing English translations of a Japanese interview. You make this case despite it a fair use claim being listed and the site actually providing their own translators and not allowing any "scanlations" of the material. As mentioned before, you want WP:COPYLINK for policy and not some footnote on WP:V - this site is not reproducing and distributing volumes of the manga, episodes, movies and games which falls under the provision of linking to infringing material. I consulted the arguments of two other editors in this matter and I'll gladly reach out and ask them their opinion. Also, you may know that I actually shoot down people using actual infringing materials - so don't go characterizing me as some bad-faith editor. I'd like discuss this matter with you and of what the policy and procedures state, but you do not want to seem to listen to me at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am uninvolved but I have already asked if Kanzenshuu is reliable at WP:RSN. Please discuss there. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:00, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And it seems Xfansd is going to edit war because RSN did not go in his favor. This is disruptive and unproductive since a valid citation is being removed and not replaced as asked. RSN clearly showed that the material was being used with fair-use and there was no violation. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:21, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How did the RS show anything aside from me and you saying the same things we wrote above? No one else even took part. You have perfectly indisputable sources you can use in form of the actual magazine issues, but for some reason want to use a fansite that I sufficiently gave reason to avoid. Xfansd (talk) 04:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Verification is important and should be pursued when possible, but whatever. Until you actually insert false material or damage the article in some tangible way, you are fine by me. You seem to forget that the copies of the magazines cannot be cited in the same way and it would be an incomplete citation - I've asked you to bear responsibility for your removal. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Super

[edit]

So, regarding the new anime that's on the way; currently scheduled for a July premiere in Japan [12] (link provided by FocusDetectiveHakusho). I'd suggest waiting on creating a separate article for it just yet, until at least a bit more information comes our way. ProKro (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying I just now put a red link only because I like to prevent future edits, but agree there's not enough info. Its anon ips and new users that are going to do it tho. Xfansd (talk) 16:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2015

[edit]

101.187.78.166 (talk) 03:03, 24 June 2015 (UTC) can I change some spelling mistakes?[reply]

Hi there. Would you mind telling us what those mistakes are? Thanks, Stickee (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, if by spelling mistakes you mean Freeza, Kuririn and Majin Boo and other; those are not typos. ProKro (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2016

[edit]

154.121.5.248 (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 16:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2016

[edit]

154.121.5.248 (talk) 09:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes (Talk) 16:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

[edit]

I propose that Dragon Ball (manga) be merged into Dragon Ball. I think that the content in the Dragon Ball (manga) can easily be explained in the context of Dragon Ball, and the Dragon Ball article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Dragon Ball (manga) will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. MCMLXXXIX 19:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Might be obvious considering I'm the one that split it several months ago, but I'm against merging. Looking at this page as an overview of the franchise, which it became three years ago when the anime were split out (which I was against), then Dragon Ball (manga) is a good article about one of its mediums (better than any of the anime articles) and doesn't need to be merged. I made sure beforehand that I could add enough new information solely about the manga that would warrant a split. Because of those anime splits, which was a largely unprecedented move among WikiProject Anime and manga, this article already gives some undue weight to the manga as no one went through to change it (besides a little after my split). Adding more manga-centric information is not the way to go. Xfansd (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I called for a merge because both of the main points of the articles is manga. There was no need for a split to have two manga articles based on Dragon Ball, there only should be one. MCMLXXXIX 00:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the reason for the split, but if that is the case, the lead to the Dragon Ball page needs to be written better. As someone unfamiliar with the history of the articles, it's incredibly confusing at first because at a glance, both seem to be about the manga. I suggest replacing the manga cover with the franchise logo and change the opening sentence to read "Dragon Ball is a media franchise..." instead of "Dragon Ball is a manga..." - TarkusAB 01:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could be merged, but I'd like to see the final product first. The main article has degraded since its GA nomination. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:01, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Dragon Ball is about the franchise as a whole (manga, anime, games, live-action works, etc.), while Dragon Ball (manga) is about the manga only. I think it would be better to move the manga-specific information from Dragon Ball to Dragon Ball (manga) and keep both pages. --Rob Kelk 21:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree - Like Rob Kelk said, Dragon Ball is about the franchise in general. Though there is some information about the manga, I still think that there should at least be more information on the manga in this section. But still, I think that merging the two together is a bad idea for me. --Dogemastar11 20:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree per Dragon Ball (manga) is its own entity and differs from the television series and games. --Cs california (talk) 10:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DragonBall Super - "Companion Manga"

[edit]

The phrase "companion manga," in the DragonBall super section of the article, is at this point outdated. The source is from 2015, while the anime is almost 100 episodes in, and the manga is several arcs in. They are parallel stories that tell the same narrative in two different ways. Minor evidence is here. Is there a potential user consensus on how to update this section? Sleyece (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any objection to an edit of that sentence that distinguishes the anime from the manga? I will wait for 36 server hours at least for comments. Sleyece (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take your videos for my YouTube Pos. Lion borah (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request.

[edit]

Could you please consider the series a Japanese manga and not a Japanese franchise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.80.247.35 (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take your video for my YouTube channel I will also give the disclaimer in my video that this video belongs to you. PLS. Lion borah (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon ball z

[edit]

Hi , can I take my video for my YouTube channel. PLS I will give the disclaimer that this video belongs to you. Please. Lion borah (talk) 04:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Manga-Inspired Series

[edit]

Hi, I was reading through this, and did not see the Dragon Ball Xenoverse series in 4.2, but saw it in 5.4, and was wondering if it would be classified as Manga-Inspired, as it follows all main manga plots (except the original Dragon Ball). Zdelrod82904 (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Oozaru" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Oozaru. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 20#Oozaru until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tavix (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expand : : Find all Voice actors for the anime adaptations

[edit]

good luck with that LOL Kiri621x (talk) 19:16, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to Toei Animation, Dragon Ball has sold 260 million copies

[edit]

The page is protected and I can't edit it. Dragon Ball Super has sold 260 million copies according to the Toei Animation news of May 9, 2021 (Source: https://corp.toei-anim.co.jp/en/press/press-6953497287618550869.html). Can someone change that information and put these numbers in? --Dark PikaDex (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z Kai Wikipedia article

[edit]

Hello there. Why no one realized that there's no Wikipedia article created for Dragon Ball Z Kai? Please someone help me out create it asap. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.179.28.1 (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

About licensing revenue and merchandise sales.

[edit]

Found this for toei's https://corp.toei-anim.co.jp/en/ir.html

I think this gives us a clear information of how much overseas and domestic licensing makes. Instead of relying on bandai only. Licenseglobal while useful doesn't provide by series.

Also bandai's have already uploaded new Financial results. were they updated?

https://www.bandainamco.co.jp/en/ir/library/result.html WillsEdtior777 (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changing back into Japanese manga

[edit]

Hi everyone. I suggest to change this article back into being considered a Japanese manga because if we were to still consider this to be a media franchise, many other series should also be considered that way but aren't however. Could someone please do this? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.220.13 (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is already an manga split of that, then this should be a merge request. I don’t find it necessary though. Other mainstream manga/animes like One Piece and Naruto for example are justified in being split this way too. There definitely should be a limit though. Jhenderson 777 14:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball z in Hindi

[edit]

Hindi 103.74.146.66 (talk) 09:02, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other inspirations?

[edit]

It is confirmed that Dragon Ball is inspired by Journey to the West, but what are the other inspirations?. 88.254.7.205 (talk) 16:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon ball super

[edit]

Dragon ball super should be added Creatin18 (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I noticed that in the section "Manga", subsection "reputation", the link about the 16 million copies in circulation in Italy is no longer working, for this reason I found the same article but published on another site and still working: [13]https://www.askanews.it/cultura/2021/01/13/editori-indipendenti-il-primo-per-copie-vendute-%c3%a8-star-comics-pn_20210113_00139/. Unfortunately I'm not sure I'm capable of replacing it, so I'm asking someone more experienced for this favour 88.147.74.162 (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dragon_Ball/Archive_3&oldid=1221510572"