Jump to content

Talk:List of Dragon Ball Z episodes

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

Have their own pages!

[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Saga pages removed per consensus of Anime and Manga Project and Dragon Ball taskforce in compliance with Wikipedia guideslines and policies.

Why has the original "Saiyan Saga", "Freeza Saga", etc pages been converted/directed into a list of Dragon Ball Z episodes. What the heck is going on? I wanted some more detail into the saga, but now I am left with a list of Dragon Ball Z episodes saying their titles and very little information about the episode. I'd rather have the saga pages back, if you ask me! Son Gohan (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, it's just a deletionist crusade embarked on by a user named AnmaFinotera. Hopefully she will get tired of it one day, so that we can re-create the articles. If you want to ask now, try to re-write WP:FICT, but some users who tried in the past got nowhere :( this is one reason why I don't write about fiction anymore on Wikipedia. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:33, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because Wikipedia is not a plot guide. The saga pages do not belong here, as is the consensus of the project and of Wikipedia as a whole as per every one being brought to AfD being summarily deleted. If you want that information, I'd recommend finding a Dragon Ball wiki, wikia, or fansite. Here, they violate WP:FICT and WP:PLOT. Ynhockey, your remarks border on incivility. No it is not just me "on a crusade." Plenty of support in the project for cleaning out the cruft, and fixing these pages lists to be proper Wikipedia lists of episodes. Ever stop to think that if the Anime and manga project, as a whole, didn't agree with this stuff, it wouldn't be getting done? I post about every clean up I do there, and always it gets support. No, I won't get tired of it, and if the articles are re-created, they will just be deleted again.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if I was incivil - however, I did mean to be critical. Many new Wikipedians who weren't around when it was new (I have actively edited since 2005, but have been a reader since before I remember), and have completely shifted Wikipedia policies and guidelines to introduce a stricter watch on what does and what does not belong on Wikipedia, completely detaching themselves from this website's original guiding principles, most importantly, that Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge, and that it is not paper. A prime example was the battle over the article Mzoli's (I'm sure you know about it, but if you don't, I'll gladly elaborate). It just so happens that you (AnmaFinotera) have been a driving force in this deletionist drive (I like to call it a crusade), and yourself have bordered on incivility by ignoring my previous comments to your talk page, which had many arguments to keep certain articles, and in favor of keeping some types of articles in general. You will notice that the vast majority of your supporters on Wikipedia have had a similar editing pattern to yours - came suddenly around 2006 and later, and just as suddenly started editing in quantities that left everyone else stunned - thousands of edits per month. Again, I seriously hope that Wikipedia reverts to its roots and regains common sense to the benefit of all. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I ignored comments you left, its likely because I found them incivil (as I note at the top of my talk page, I prefer to simply not engage in such discourse when possible). Considering Jimbo Wales himself strongly supports this drive to clean up Wikipedia, and has repeatedly stated that its original purposes was NOT to be a big fan guide, I don't think you're going to see it reverting. Wikipedia, at its roots, is still an encyclopedia. Not paper doesn't mean, "fill with all the fictional plot summary we can." While you may disagree, cleaning up articles and getting them in-line with an encyclopedia, rather than fansites and series guides, is common sense and for the benefit of all as it results in Wikipedia being a better encyclopedia all around. Its sad that the "old timers" don't want to actually see the fancruft go, large amounts of which are original research and unreferenced fan theories anyway, and would rather Wikipedia continue to be an unrespected encyclopedia-wanna-be. Also, while I only started actively editing in the last year or so, I've been a registered user since 2006, and a reader longer. Only, back in 2005 and 2006, Wikipedia mostly wasn't worth bothering to read, as it had no real content, nothing referenced, etc. Now, articles are greatly improving in quality. Also, despite what you may think, I wouldn't say I was a driving force in the "deletionist drive." Many were at it before me, and when I'm gone, others will be at it after me. I'm no leader or anything like that. I'm just someone who actually wants Wikipedia to be an encyclopedia, who recognizes that minute detail about every last character, and 30 different plot summaries of the same series, do not belong here.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point, Wales and the other founders are strong opponents of deletionism in general. Refer to the Mzoli's debate for clarification. Just because the entire board asked to focus on quality rather than quantity, doesn't mean that they are deletionist. By quality instead of quantity, the mean just one thing: focus on improving existing articles, rather than creating new ones. The word delete doesn't come into it. A user named Access Timeco used to create a lot of useless articles on fiction which I AfD'd, and he told me 'why don't you stop deleting articles and focus on improving them instead?' - at the time I dismissed that as a newbie rant, but now I begin to understand what he meant more and more. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, Wales has already voiced his support for clearing out the fancruft and expressed his displeasure at the amount that has crept into the encyclopedia. You can dismess what I do as nothing but "deleting articles" but it is all part of my focus on improving articles. When you want to redo a room in your house, you have to first clear out the trash and stuff that doesn't belong in the room. Same as with articles. To clean it up, dump the totally unnecessary stuff, such as unverifiable stuff, excessive plot details, etc. Some stuff, move over to a more appropriate site like a specialized wiki or wikia. But it has to go before a good article can emerge. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find it strange and insulting that you generalize everything you consider redundant as 'cruft' which needs to be cleaned up. A small amount of editors (Tjstrf, now Erachima, Mitsukai, WhisperToMe and myself) originally created almost the entire mass of Bleach-related articles, when there were only 2 (main and character list). We kept a very close watch on original research and unverified 'cruft', as you put it, and removed it with extreme prejudice. We also introduced in-universe sourcing (which is still fine, per WP:V, it just won't make anything a 'good article') and any unsourced claim was generally removed if there was the slightest dispute. In total, I think we created over 50 articles. A couple years down the road (today), and we indeed have a small amount of articles, which are poorly formatted, have enormous amounts of cruft, lack sources (other than the ones we put in, as well as some other more recent frequent contributors), and generally read/feel much worse than they used to.
Conclusion: What you say may sound well in theory, but in practice, what makes good clean articles about fiction is the attention of frequent editors, not deletionism. As an author/contributor to a featured topic, you should understand this better than anyone, as I'm sure that without you, the topic wouldn't be featured. It appears to me that what you have done so far, at least in the Bleach articles, was not to clean up anything, but instead to alienate good contributors who kept the articles clean from the start. Reviewing page histories now, I can't even see more recent Bleach contributors anymore, who may have even supported your deletionist ideology. Instead of trying to fix what isn't broken, you could seriously be creating more features lists/topics/whatever.
-- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't generalize stuff I find "redundant" as cruft, I designate excessive details, rumors, and beyond excessive plot details as cruft. The stuff you'd find in some huge fansite, not an encyclopedia. Nice final statement, in theory, however my featured article, list, and topic all started from a single fan-run article in hideous shape.[1] If I alienate editors who don't want to follow Wikipedia guidelines and only want to treat the site as a fansite, I honestly don't care. Its good for the article if they'd rather leave than actual work to improve the articles. They are broken, whether you want to see it or not. I'm not the only one to think so, as is very evident in the Anime and manga project.. Bleach is still being worked on, but so are One Piece, Naruto, and Rurouni Kenshin. I've created plenty of articles. I've also taken bad ones, ripped them down, and rebuilt them to B class and beyond. Fans bitched about the edits at Naruto, but its now B class and significantly improved. Rurouni Kenshin is also a work in progress, though further along than Bleach, and should be ready for B then a GA run soon. The truth of the matter is, there is no good reason at all that all four of those series shouldn't have been FA long ago, except no one wanted to put side their fan desires to produce quality articles. Quality does include removing excessive and unnecessary content, which Bleach has tons as shown by the successful AfDs and Prods. Suffice to say, we can keep going in circles, but it really won't make a difference as I doubt you will change your mind and I know I won't. As for this list, the episode summaries are coming. As with the other DB lists, the inappropriate splits of the Japanese and English dubbed episodes is being fixed and the lists being merged back together. The summaries for this one, are all on the dubbed list right now, but will be merged back with the rest. Same as was already done with GT. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, some people don't even know about Dragon Ball Wiki, and this may be their only source for DBZ information that they can find. Or if they can't access other sites, they have to use this one. Please just put back the pages -- there was no need for a change and you're just ruining it for everyone. Son Gohan (talk) 15:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a valid reason at all for violating Wikipedia guidelines. People actually wanting that sort of info do know how to use Google to find fansites, which is not Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a Dragon Ball guide, its an encyclopedia providing a summation of a topic as a starting point for people to go learn more elsewhere. There was plenty of reason for change, it isn't "ruining" it for "everyone," only a few fans who have a misconception about the purpose of Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:15, 9 June 2008 (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.

Future plans

[edit]

Alright, so I'm working at completely redoing this article, and merging the dubbed list into it, so you can expect big changes in the future. --Hucz (talk) 05:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate more on the "redoing" part? Hopefully you mean using the already redone and merged GT ep list as a model? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I'm aiming for. Thanks for the concern. --Hucz (talk) 06:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe someone could put up witch of the Uncut Season Boxes contain what Saga's and when they were/are going to be released (i used to go to the DBZ article to see when the next set was coming, but not that they gave merged all the series togther into one article, its Effed me on that). --Henshin86 (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DVD details for all the series are currently in the main List of Dragon Ball episodes list. Its a rather sucky list, but I believe it includes the saga stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Titles don't match episode descriptions

[edit]

Episodes after 80 have inconsistent titles and descriptions. For example episode 125 has the title of "Androides appear" or "These guys with no fighting spirit are the artificial humans" has the description "Goku and Piccolo stop their training to learn how to drive so Chi-Chi can get a car. They maybe powerful fighters, but can they get their licences in time to continue their training?" which matches the previous episode title of "Goku's Ordeal" or "Initiation into a secret art. Goku's new tribulation" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.72.57 (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...things are all mixed up because of that single ep Funi apparently didn't bother licensing or is just ignoring. *blech* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The episode is in the new box sets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.72.57 (talk) 17:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a source for that, because Funimation's DBZ site still shows only 290 episodes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got the box set and I'm looking at the episode now. Plus the episode was obviously shown in Japan so it's at best misleading to call the column Original episode #. Either that number should be missing entirely or the episode should inserted or the column should be renamed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.72.57 (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So it needs to be added back as ep 79, but the airdates and descriptions need to be adjusted to make sure they are with the right episodes as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that episode 78 is the last one to show the correct title and description because Japanese episode 79 is missing. If this episode is put back in then it should fix the Japanese episode numbering to correctly show that there are 291 episodes. I'm not sure if there's a way to automatically fix the numbering or if it has to be typed in.Wraithdart (talk) 14:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, there is no automatic way to do it. It has to added, then all other episodes, moved, and the descriptions checked to make sure they are on the right eps and moved as needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually went to do this just now when I realized that the current episode descriptions are wrong. The current description for Episode 79 (which should be 80) is correct for the so-called "lost episode," but wrong for the episode list as it stands. I have no clue what description may be missing that allows this to occur or where. 69.47.63.44 (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I figured out where things are going wrong. This should be mostly correct now.69.14.42.33 (talk) 15:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for taking the time to do all of that! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dub and redub title

[edit]

There seems to be a erroe form episode 163 onwards "Save your Father!! Trunks' Fury, Which Scorches Even the Heavens" / "Saving Throw" the header of the coloum says dub title /re-dub title but this is in reverse as saving through is the original dub title and save your father one is the new one, this could go back as far as beging of captain ginyu saga but mos tof them titles ar ethe same apart from maybe a extra ? or ! in them--Andy (talk - contrib) 18:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on fixing the errors. And by the way, "Save your Father!! Trunks' Fury, Which Scorches Even the Heavens" is not the new dub title; it's still "Saving Throw". That insanely long English title is actually a translation of the Japanese title. Though I'd like to include the official English translations from the DVDs subtitles, none of the other Japanese anime's episode lists have translations of the Japanese titles AND dub titles. So, I'm removing them. As well as making many other minor corrections.Linkdude20002001 (talk) 12:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to fix the one title, fix it. However the rest of the edits were inappropriate and have been reversed. The list is organized by seasons per consensus. The translated titles are provided in this series (as well as on a few others) because the official English titles are very different from the originals. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we have to go by "seasons". They aren't really seasons even (though, I don't care either way). How were the rest of my edits inappropriate? I corrected MANY episodes' Japanese titles, transliterated titles, and dub titles. Also, there should not be fan translated titles on this page when there are official translations on the DVDs. I'm going to take down the fan translations, but I'll put up the official ones once I get the DVDs. I can't find my season one set, but I'll be buying FUNi's Dragon Box Z sets as they come out. If you or anyone else would like to add the official translations, that would be great.Linkdude20002001 (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The seasons are the official season divisions per Funimation, so they are the appropriate divisions to use. You may have corrected some titles (though I'd disagree that some were corrections), but you also messed up large amounts of the page. I have again reverted your edits. If you disagree with the translations (not fan translations, just translations), you need to discuss it and get consensus to remove them as the current consensus is that they DO belong in the page because of the drastic changes in the English titles. And no, this is not the only list that has done this. Again, if you want to correct only typos in the titles, that is fine. But do NOT remove the English titles nor rearrange the list without consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about how they're subsectioned. Really. The "translations" you speak of are NOT even real translations. Sometimes they are, but do you SERIOUSLY think "The Evil Magician Babidi…" is a correct translation of "Kuromaku Tōjō!! Aku no Madoushi Babidi"? And that's one of the BETTER "translations" I saw on this page. Some even had NOTHING to do with the Japanese title. Also, I KNOW of the drastic difference between Funimation's titles and the Japanese titles, but tell me... WHY do only half the episodes have these "translations"?
Another thing... Why are you changing "ō" and the like to "ou"? And "o" to "wo"? That goes against Wikipedia's rules of romanization. You don't know much Japanese do you? Listen, I'm just trying to make this list up to Wikipedia's standards.Linkdude20002001 (talk) 14:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The entire thing had to be reverted because you did massive changes all at once instead of doing just corrections in one. And yes, I know some of the romanizations are wrong, but you didn't correct just those, you also stripped out the translated titles against consensus. As I said above, do the corrections - pure corrections, by themselves, and that would be fine. Removing the translated titles is not, however, an option without a new consensus. If there are incorrect translations, those can also be corrected, but they should not be removed without consensus. And please stick to the edits rather than making personal remarks about other editors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm removing the "translated" titles so I can add real translations. The problem is, I can't put them in the same line as the dub title because sometimes they take up too much space because of alternate titles or changed titles. Is there any way I can put translations between the dub titles and romanizations? I'm sorry about the personal remark. I just didn't understand how you could possibly want me to leave those "translations" in. Anyways, is it all right if I take out the bad "translations" and and put in real ones under the dub titles? Though, I don't know how to make a new line...Linkdude20002001 (talk) 14:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For now, please do any corrections in place rather than trying to reformat the list (wrapping is fine) I've asked others to weigh in on whether the translated titles should be retained at all, so I'd rather not see you do a lot of work that gets removed if consensus does change and say take them out after all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. Thank you. I guess I'll wait and see if the translations stay or go. Personally, I'd prefer to have translations. Though I don't think it's entirely necessary thanks to Kanzentai.com, it would certainly make it more complete.Linkdude20002001 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Hmm... For starters, could someone run through the list and reorder the parameters as "EpisodeNumber", "EpisodeNumber2", "EnglishTitle", "RTitle", "RomajiTitle", "KanjiTitle", "OriginalAirDate", "FirstEngAirDate", "ShortSummary"? e.g. (with this spacing): 

{{Japanese episode list/sublist|List of Dragon Ball episodes
| EpisodeNumber   = 999
| EpisodeNumber2  = 999
| EnglishTitle    = English
| RTitle          =  ''' / "Nihongo"'''
| RomajiTitle     = Nihongo
| KanjiTitle      = 日本語
| OriginalAirDate = January 0, 2000
| FirstEngAirDate = January 0, 2000
| ShortSummary    = Stuff happens.
}}

The source is much easier to follow when the parameters occur in the same order their contents are displayed on the article and when the equals signs are lined up (whoever does this may also want to check the other DB episode lists and make the same changes if necessary). After that, have different official English releases ever had different episode titles (I mean significantly different, like 4Kids' vs. FUNi's titles on One Piece)? A quick point about parameter usage, the official titles should all be in "EnglishTitle" and the in-house translations need to all be in "RTitle". Other than that, I have the season 2 uncut box set, so I can check all those titles, but we need someone to go through and put up actual translations of each title - the translations already up shouldn't be removed in the meantime. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Using a passthrough, I've reordered the fields by order of how they appear in the template. --Farix (Talk) 20:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Farix! 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed different dub for some episodes. Episode 184 was called Children of Cell Attack when aired in Canada, the UK, the Netherlands, and possibly the US as well. FUNimation's DVD singles called the episode Cell Juniors Attack and their "season" sets called it Cell Juniors Attack!. Do we include both DVD versions of the title or just the new one? And which of the three goes under "EnglishTitle"? Linkdude20002001 (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are all the differences that minor? I mean, it's not that big a deal to jump from "Children of Cell" to "Cell Juniors". Other than that, I'm not sure if the naming conflict resolution guidelines laid out in WP:MOS-ANIME could really apply to individual episodes. At most, I think, we would need to determine which dub is probably most well-known and use the titles it offers, and alternate official titles... maybe in notes? I'm not sure, precedent really isn't very clear and there's no obvious best course of action. AnmaFinotera, any thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The original dub has to be the ones on the original dvd release in america, maybe and i say maybe put in brackets teh international difference but there minor i think for jsut about them all unless it major like junior and children. but the rredub title is the hard one because i think there 2 redub titles? so what oen to use will be hard i say use the remastered titles for the redub as i think there closist to the perfect translation as we oculd get. the only reason i brought this up was because they wher ein the wrong order is original dub title beening displayed as redub title goign on headers didnt think i get a big debate like this--[[User:Andrewcrawford|<font color="Light Blue">Andrewcrawford</font>]] ([[User talk:Andrewcrawford|<small>talk</small>]] - [[Special:Contributions/Andrewcrawford|<small>contrib</small>]]) (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, should we just ignore the the original DVD release's titles and use ONLY the season sets' titles (with exceptions for the first 67 episodes, as well as a few later episodes with significantly different titles)? Here's episode 185. Is this good?
| EnglishTitle    = Awakening [The Unleashing]
| RTitle          = &nbsp;''' / "Anger Exploding Into Power!! The Cell Juniors Destroyed"'''
| RomajiTitle     = Fukiareru Shin no Chikara!! Seru Junia Funsai
| KanjiTitle      = 吹荒れる真の力!! セルジュニア粉砕

Linkdude20002001 (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although that is a good idea you can not jsut drop the original dub title either, at the end of the day this is a list of dragonball z episodes so all should be included, slight minor changes like a misisng ? or so can be ingored to a degree it is not providing much more informaiton but wher ethe title is different even to the degree of children/ junior it should be included. i think the question is how. This is only a suggestion but maybe there should be some thought to maybe two lists? one for the orinigal dub and one for the redub? there is signfcant differences to maybe warrent a second lists but i am little dubious if it pass notable--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 08:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No on separate lists. The differences in title are not enough to justify having two lists, and this list came about, in part, from merging FOUR lists that had been made because people used one split as an excuse to make four - Japanese, dub, redub, "English". Separate lists are not used for any other series with issues like this either, and trying to do so would just be a bad idea all around. First, decide on which titles should be shown. Formatting can be worked on after that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. One list is better than two (or four). We should probably stick to Funimation's most current titles for the episodes and figure out how to include the alternate titles. Having Dub title/Alternate title/Translated title would be too confusing, I think. Maybe Dub title [Alternate title]/Translated title would be better since most episodes don't have alternate dub titles.Linkdude20002001 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
as i said i think it woudl fail notablilty so the chance of another list would be slim. i would say go with Original Dub [New dub] / Translated title then you are preserve timeline as well.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't really be preserving the timeline, though. It would have to be Translation of Japanese/Original Dub [Current Dub]. Though, I don't know if we should do it that way. And since for the first 67 episodes, there are only 53 oiginal dub titles, I think it would make more sense to use title from the current dub before the original dub. It's kind of weird seing the same title for two or three episodes in a row.Linkdude20002001 (talk) 09:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed where the title is the same do nto put the title twice, but wher ethere is a difference that is quite different ie the children / junior then put it in. but the original dub should be first because it was first, jsut because the redub is used now doesnt give it greater pirioty over the original dub, nor does hte fact the origiinal was cut down in episodes. it should go Translation/Original (New Dub) but where the title only has a minor chnage like a missing ? or so on then it best ot ingore it as it cluttters the page and makes it look daft as you said but major changes even to jsut one word are significant and importnant to the list. the list is meant to included all dragonball z titles so if there is a difference only in one word readers should know about that. also readers should know that the original dub title was hte first and the one that techincally brought dragonball z to the english speaking people and the redub was done for fans--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 11:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree with you more. I'll get to working on making sure all the Japanese titles and original/re-dub titles are 100% correct and in the format you suggested. I'll add the translations from the DVDs once the Dragon Box Z sets start coming out, but if someone with the "season" sets wants to do it now instead, that would be great.Linkdude20002001 (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I'll be using translations from Steven "Daimao" Simmons' site. They're probably the same as what he used for the DVDs, but there might be some differences. For now though, they're almost identical (if not exactly identical) to the DVDs translated titles. Steve's the guy who translated DBZ and DBGT, for those who don't know.Linkdude20002001 (talk) 09:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons' names

[edit]

Are the seasons' titles official? Funimation's DVDs use much more simpler titles like the one from the last season which they call Kid Buu.Tintor2 (talk) 00:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes as far as I can tell, it is from the official season sets they released. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The saga name are from the old dub release, the new dub has in some occassion different saga names that hwy ther emight be some confussion--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 10:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Boxes

[edit]

This message is being aimed at the user AnmaFinotera (but others can agree or disagree with me). I don't want to undo your edits, but I do want you to hear me out. First off, I am not advertising the Dragon Boxes. No page has any info on them and readers need to know what exactly a Dragon Box is. Next, DRAGON BALL and DRAGON BALL GT have not been confirmed so please stop putting it their. Only the Z series and its movies have been confirmed for releases (note: these seven volumes are only for the episodes. It's common math - 40 episodes a box times 7 volumes = 280 [which is close to 291 episodes]). I would think you of all people wouldn't put info that wasn't confirmed yet. Once again, can we put this?

In June 2009, FUNimation announced at their industrial panel at Otakon 2009 that they would be releasing the Japanese "Dragon Boxes." The Dragon Boxes were truly remastered DVD box sets released in Japan by Toei Animation. All of the three series and movies were released, however, it has only been confirmed that the Z episodes and films would be released. These new sets (covering the episodes only) will be released across seven volumes starting on November 10, 2009 and each will include a collector's booklet.

Does anyone else think this is good (another thing - this should be in its own paragraph, the other one is TOO long with this info)? DBZfan29 (talk) 17:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the other series is fine (read the release to fast), but that does NOT require readding your own unsourced original research nor inappropriately breaking it into its own paragraph. The excessive details about the sets are unnecessary. This is not a sales page. Making personal attacks does not help your case, either, as you did in your last edit summary (thank for at least including one this time). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:10, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is another discussion on the Dragon Boxes

Recent images of the Dragon Book from the first FUNimation "Dragon Box" show that the book contains translated info from the original book in Japan. They use the correct Japanese names (i.e. Tenshinhan and Freeza instead of Tien and Frieza) and divide the episodes into sagas (not story arcs, but correct numbering). For example, episodes 1-35 consist of the Vegeta saga, whereas episode 1-39 originally were a part of the Vegeta saga. I am wondering that, once the Dragon Boxes finish releasing (probably in 2011), can we divide the episodes into these correct sagas or arcs instead of the seasons (which quite honestly was pointless; why break them up into seasons when they were sagas for many years?)? And also, can we start using these Japanese names instead of the dub names. They are consistent with the manga I believe. Of course, the "Dragon Box" hasn't been releases officially and I am just working off of some pictures of the set, but I am just wondering. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split

[edit]
This discussion was advertised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga‎#List of Dragon Ball Z episodes.

This article is currently far too large at 279K per WP:SIZE. It should be subdivided into story arcs, episodes or the like. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is too long, and not it should NOT be subdivided into episodes nor story arcs. It is already being discussed by the anime and manga project on splitting it into season pages, it just hasn't been done yet because we're working out possible issues with the templates. I think that has been fixed now, though, so will check and if so will commence the split (or will once the page is unlocked). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:26, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Posted from talk page of DBZfan29 as he is currently blocked
The List of Dragon Ball Z episodes is currently in the works of being split. People suggest into episodes and story arcs, but the big guys don't think so. I think this is a great idea! Shows like CSI:NY have their own pages for all episodes of the series, so why can't anime series have separate pages? Another thing, PLEASE DO NOT SPLIT THE SERIES INTO SEASONS! Like Hujio of Kanzentai says it best, "for the love of everything holy, these are not seasons!" This was just another scheme to get people to buy their faux-"remastered" sets. THE SERIES WAS AIRED IN STORY ARCS IN JAPAN, AND FUNI STARTED WITH SAGAS BUT CHANGED TO SEASONS. Please don't make this change. Can someone stick up for me until I can edit again? I'm begging someone, DON'T MAKE SEASON PAGES!!!! DBZfan29 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia. The English license holder, Funimation, has organized the sagas into seasonal divisions for this series, therefore they are valid divisions, and make for cleaner divisions than the sagas would. No anime series are divided into episodes - individual anime episodes are rarely notable with a only a handful of exceptions. The individual episodes of CSI:NY aren't notable either, they just haven't been cleaned up and merged back to their episode lists. Bad actions and inappropriate articles in other areas are not a valid reason for replicating such actions here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree in the use of Funimation's divisions. By the way, what is kazentai?Tintor2 (talk) 16:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kazentai appears to be a DragonBall fansite. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, just a random fan spouting their opinion. --Farix (Talk) 17:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Saga division is such a fan contrived things that we should avoid them. The fact that Funimation used them at one time doesn't make them official. Another reason why the saga is a poor way to split the lists is because they are completely random in their episode count. This leaves Funimations "Season" divisions or using a full calender year (Last weekend of April to Last weekend of April). --Farix (Talk) 16:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split the page? Yes, per WP:SIZE. Split into episodes? No. Create sub-pages for independently notable episodes? Yes. Though I doubt there's many. Split by "sagas" or by Funimation's season divisions? It depends. However, before considering the first option, I have to ask: Are the divisions by "sagas" verifiable or are they original research? Goodraise 18:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's why one of the reasons I stick with the original version now. FUNi's always changing things for everyone of their releases. DBZfan29 (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sagas listed now are the ones listed by Funimation in its season box sets. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. So, there is another "saga" or "story arc" system that some editors would preferre? If so, is that system verifiable? Goodraise 18:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fans sometimes seem to try to change some of the names, disagreeing with Funimations naming method, but as far as I am aware, the only verifiable saga divisions are Funimations. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this on the anime and manga page so here is my opinion on the matter.
  • The article should be split into seasons as the article is way to big, Naruto and Bleach are split. I have an old windows browser and it took me two minutes to load the page.
  • The article should not be split into arcs as this is very complicated, the episodes don't mention when an arc starts, so the logical decision would be to split them into seperate seasons. This would be simpler and less tme consuming.

That's all I have to say. NarSakSasLee (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can edit myself, I want to say something about the split. First, FUNimation's Dragon Ball Z site still uses sagas or arc. Also, like I mentioned before, the seasons identify the sagas in the sets. The sagas are based on the original Japanese numbering, so almost all of them have good episode count. The only way I could stand this happening (I still wouldn't but this would make me a little happy)is if you mention the sagas in each season page. For example, on the season one page it should say Saiyan/Vegeta saga like on the episode list now. DBZfan29 (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The season pages would note in the lead that it contains sagas X/Y, same as the Bleach season episode lists (which are featured lists) note the arc names for each season. They will, of course, be Funimation's names, not the fan preferred ones, per their sets. FYI, Funimation's Dragon Ball Z has been shown to have errors versus its actual products, so its not a usable argument. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full proctetion

[edit]

I have requested full proctection for the article as the constant reverting to the old article by the other user is getting out of control--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's also been blocked. Originally it was indefinitely, but then the admin changed it to only 24 hours though it is a vandalism only account. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really not sure full protection is warranted, since it's only one editor making the change (but then, I don't do much with blocks and page protection for a reason). 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From wha ti have read about it full protection is for content dispute/vandlism by users, semi protection is for vandlism by ip or non register users, i think ther emore to it than that but thats what it --Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual Season Pages

[edit]

I've seen that the season pages have finally been made. I just have one correction to make on them (but don't feel I should just go and do it). Each article states "The episodes are produced by Toei Animation, and are based on the final 26 volumes of the Dragon Ball manga series by Akira Toriyama". This statement is some-what incorrect because it should say something like this instead (note: using season one as an example) - "The episodes are produced by Toei Animation, and are based on volumes 17-21 of the Dragon Ball manga series by Akira Toriyama." Please keep in mind that the series is based on those 26 volumes but not those episodes. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you check the lead, there is a hidden note asking someone to adjusted it to state the more specific volume ranges in, as I didn't know them. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll be sure to do that now. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of Dragon Ball Z episodes

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of Dragon Ball Z episodes's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AnimeEncyc":

  • From Dragon Ball: Clements, Jonathan (September 1, 2001). The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917 (1st ed.). Berkeley, California: Stone Bridge Press. pp. 101–102. ISBN 1-880656-64-7. OCLC 47255331. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  • From List of Dragon Ball characters: Clements, Jonathan (2001-09-01). The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917 (1st ed. ed.). Berkeley, California: Stone Bridge Press. pp. 101–102. ISBN 1-880656-64-7. OCLC 47255331. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fixing of japanese translated title

[edit]

most of the translated title is wrong. example is episode 199. "Nigasu na Shōri!! Kimero Chōhaya Kamehameha" (逃がすな勝利!!決めろ超速かめはめ波) it makes no sense at all for the translated name to be "Goku vs. Paiku-han, the battle continues". "勝利" can be translated to victory, and "波" can be translated to blast or wave, but these does not even appears in the translated title. there are also many other examples, but this is most obvious translated that is WRONG. maybe we should spend some time fixing up ALL of the translation. -Ragnaroknike (talk) 07:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: some of the episodes for dragon ball and dragon ball gt might also need fixing. -Ragnaroknike (talk) 07:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Over 9000! redirect

[edit]

I've noticed that 'Over 9000!' redirects to here, but nothing on the page seems to mention it. Seeing as there are entire pages devoted to Rickrolling, and pedobear, would it be to much to ask for a paragraph or even a sentense somewhere in this article to mention it, or at least change the redirect to something that mentions the meme (such as List of Internet phenomena). 124.184.78.56 (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sound track

[edit]

when funimation redubbed episodes 1-53 restoring them to 67, did bruce faulconer make a new soundtrack, or did they use the ocean dub soundtrack???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.34.20.83 (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Johnson scored the re-dub of seasons one and two.67.183.145.220 (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect should be a disambiguation page

[edit]

(Redirected from Dragon Ball Z) See discussion at Talk:Dragon Ball Z Your comments and input are invited. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Help

[edit]

What's difference uncut version (original) and edited? It's like same story, or? I know original is Japan, and edited English, but storyline of DBZ is same or? Thank you. Djole93bg (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Episode summaries from FUNimation

[edit]

These PDF files contain episode summaries by season

WhisperToMe (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball Z original episode numbering

[edit]

Hi, I see that the episode numbering throughout season 2 to 4 is starts from 1, and not continuous like from season 5. If it is handy to keep continuous and season specific episode number, a new column would be necessary. Are others agree with me? :) If yes, same edit would be necessary for season pages as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RelakS.HUN (talk • contribs) 19:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

There are links to the illegal streaming sites kissanime.com etc. I believe that these links should be removed.JPNpower (talk) 23:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notes about the Garlic Jr. Saga airdates

[edit]

I noticed that the note about Season Nomenclature states that parity only exists in one place between airdate and season denotation (namely between 194 and 195). Parity also exists between the final episode of the Frieza Saga and the first episode of the Garlic Jr. Saga. Perhaps I misunderstood which DVD release this section refers to, in which case I also have another note.

This note also groups all 10 Garlic Jr. Saga episodes together as if they aired together in a single weekly block. If you'll take a look at the original airdates just a few sections below, you'll see that "Krillin's Proposal" aired on September 1, 2001, months after the 9th episode of the Garlic Jr. Saga episodes aired. So when the Nomenclature section refers to the eight near-continuous blocks, it should say 108-116 and 117-194 even though episode 117 is considered a part of the Garlic Jr. Saga. Of course, this is all assuming that these dates are entirely accurate, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt since I didn't compile them and I trust the standards set here. Clutchins (talk) 03:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Clutchins[reply]

Corresponding Chapters

[edit]

Would if be all right if I added which Manga chapters the episodes were adapted from?97.93.115.248 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where are episodes 36-39?

[edit]

Season 1 ends with 35, and Season 2 starts with 40. I assume this is just an oversight. 00:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC) 24.18.55.240 (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons splitting into "sagas"

[edit]

Would it be all right if we tried to sort out the episodes from 9 to 16 seasons, in correspondence with the original Saga sets from Funimation? I would like to propose that instead of DVD sets of episodes, we re-sort the episodes by "Sagas" rather than "Remastered Seasons", just as with the original Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball GT. 22:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC) TheMaxM1 (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Dragon_Ball_Z_episodes&oldid=1228398348"