Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mr Satan

This article says he's voiced by one guy in the Funi dub and another in the Ocean Group dub... surely the OG dub didn't continue past Freeza saga. If it had, surely it would have aired. Are there actually more Ocean Group episodes that we've never seen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Since we're on the subject of this character. I really would think that the title name should be Mr. Satan and NOT Hercule. Reason being is that the name Mr. Satan definitely came first. Being that this is the original, that should be in the title instead of Hercule. Its pretty obvious that "hercule" was only added because of the would be controversy Mr. Satan would have among kids and parents in the US. Type Mr. Satan on google and see what you get. After that type Hercule and see what happens.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanyomomma (talk • contribs) 20:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

We use the official English names here, per Wikipedia guidelines. Whether you agree with that name change or not is irrelevant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. And Ryanyomomma, please don't modify the names again unless you have consensus for it. Your grammar needs work too. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

your mom helped me with my grammar last night... That doesn't sound too great huh? I may display bad grammar, but you don't have to advertise it....at all. In other words, keep your comments to yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanyomomma (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I don't believe that's entirely accurate. While it is true that his name was changed to Hercule when the English dubbings were aired on Cartoon Network, the uncensored DVD and VHS versions still had it as Mr. Satan. I'm not sure what he was referred to in the English translation in the manga, but I don't see why they wouldn't leave it as Mr. Satan in there as well. So if he is referred to as Mr. Satan in both the original uncensored English dubbings of the anime and in the manga, then I'd say that this name pretty much is in his favor. And another factor in all of this would also be which name was used in the Australian, Canadian, and British airings of Dragon Ball Z, because, in case you aren't aware, the English Wikipedia does not favor words and spellings that the U.S. favors, it favors those that are favored by the majority of the world's English speaking community. So therefore, if it does turn out that the name Mr. Satan in not only the uncensored English DVDs, but also in the English manga, and in the airings of the show in other English-speaking countries, then I would say that this pretty much has Hercule beat. But I suppose I am basing this largely on assumptions, but in any case, I do feel these are valid points that should be looked into. I would look into it myself, but really don't care that much about DBZ anymore to go digging around for information on the subject. –99.20.193.88 (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be "Mr. Satan", with a note that he was referred to as "Hercule" on the Cartoon Network airings.kuwabaratheman (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

What is used in the manga? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, we use the official English names, with the English manga release taking precedence over the anime as it is the first release. So, the question is, what does the manga use? That is the term it should use, with a note regarding the original and the anime as appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall hearing that Viz used the name "Hercule Satan", but I don't have a copy of the manga to verify that. Hopefully someone else does. If we're going by the manga names used by Viz, though, why do we use "Master Roshi"?kuwabaratheman (talk) 01:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never read it myself, either, so if the manga is using something different, I'd think that should be changed as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I kind of doubt that his name was changed in the manga. They didn't censor any of sexual humor or nude scenes in the Dragon Ball manga, after all, so I can't see them censoring something as trivial as Mr. Satan's name. But again, I suppose we can't know for sure until we can get a citation from one of the English manga. –99.20.193.88 (talk) 02:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Can we settle with "Hercule Satan"? That is what he is called in the uncut DVDs and manga's ( LINK REMOVED )... I would expect fans of the series/manga's to follow suit regardless of whether its relevant on wikipedia or not. You have the freedom and the duty as fans to correct the infractions... and you know HERCULE WILL ALWAYS BE WRONG --Ryanyomomma (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not violate WP:COPYRIGHT like that. Again, what fans expect is irrelevant. The question is what name is he called in the Viz Media English release of the manga. No other versions matter. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

so we'll never go by the ORIGINAL manga? What kind of double standards are that? Might as well call Wikipedia CLOSED SOURCE and DICTATORSHIP and you might as well be a machine and not the people who are supposed to have control over these articles. --Ryanyomomma (talk) 06:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

His Japanese name is listed, appropriately. Beyond that, per Wikipedia guidelines, we use English, and the official English names take precedence. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

machine... --Ryanyomomma (talk) 06:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You know, you could both be a bit more cooperative... Per Wikipedia:Naming conventions we are to use "what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize". That is not a rule created by fanatical machine people, there's a reasoning behind it. The average guy, not the Wikipedia editing machine or the drooling Dragon Ball fanboy, is supposed to be able to easily find the information (s)he wants. Using the first English release of the primary medium (in this case the Viz Media English release of the manga) is more like a rule of thumb, an application of Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you think that in this case an exception should be made from that, go ahead and make your case. We are all reasonable people. BTW, if one can believe the Dragon Ball wikia, then his name is Hercule in the manga as well. Now, please try to play nice with each other, all three of you, OK? :) -- Goodraise (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the article soooo long?

The article is too big why not cut some stuff out or split and paste the article into 2 or 3 articles? The articles could be "main character" and "secondary characters" or "tertiary characters"? Or better yet it could be "chacters from Dragon Ball" and "Characters from DBZ" and "characters from GT". This article is too ugly and confusing. SonGoku786^{(talk • contribs)} 23:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Simple: There is not enough real-world content for two articles. -- Goodraise (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely unnecessary. Article is neither "ugly" nor "confusing". It is very clearly organized into appropriate sections. It does need some minor characters removed, but that's all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Tarble

Tarble, Vegeta's brother should be included here.He appears in Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!! Saimaroimaru 2008 (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Just because he appears in some DB media, he doens't have to be on this list. Wikipedia is not a directory. -- Goodraise (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

if you feel that way then King Cold, Pikkon, Spopovich and Brolly should not be on here. Yami (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say he should or should not be on the list. I merely stated, that appearing in some DB media is not enough reason for inclusion. Remember when Radditz landed on earth? There was this farmer guy. He appears in DB, but that doesn't mean he should be on this list! -- Goodraise (talk) 19:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

But he still plays a significant role as Vegeta's younger brother. Also this list is only for those who have appeared more then once, Turles and Lord Slug have appeared more than once you still refuse to put them. And General Blue and Captain Red, for god sakes they had entire sagas just about them and they're not even listed. Even the character Tapion, minor he may be but he also plays a significant role as he was the one who gave Trunks the sword.

I swear this whole minor rule should be checked more. --VitasV (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you're talking to me or some other editor on this page. Anyways, I'll say it again. I did not "refuse to put" any character. I only pointed something out. -- Goodraise (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

But still this whole rule with no minor characters has got to stop as there are many characters who arn't minor who arn't in and minor who play significant roles. And also how they're minor if they had less than 2 appearances is nonsence since there are few characters who have had more then one appearance and arn't added in. The whole minor rule has to stop! --VitasV (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but the rule isn't going to "stop" as it is in compliance with multiple Wikipedia guidelines. Being Vegeta's younger brother doesn't make him majorly important to the series. As relevant, he can be mentioned in Vegeta's section. One ep/chapter character just aren't notable to the series as a whole. There are many similar ones in other series and they are not listed in the higher quality lists for those series. Again, see List of Naruto characters, an FLC list. It does not have minor characters. For details on minor characters, again, there are fansites and the DB wikia. For Wikipedia, we provide summary coverage and minor characters have no place in a summary beyond their brief mentions in their appropriate episode/volume summaries. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

And there u go again with minor. Turles and Slug have appeared more than once yet they're still classified as minor. --VitasV (talk) 23:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, number of appearances alone do not make them notable. There are characters in many series who appear in almost every episode who are still minor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't make them minor. That would mean they're notable or significant. --VitasV (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't make them either. Background characters are still background characters, irregardless of number of appearances. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong.149.166.177.113 (talk) 02:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think any movie characters are better off covered in the articles of the movie where they primarily appear in (i.e: Tullece in Tree of Might, Slug in Lord Slug), that would include Tarbel. Broly could be an exception, probably Bardock too. Jonny2x4 (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

New sections

In the interest of making the article more navigatable, I suggest that we change the sections a bit. primary, secondary and other seems a bit vague. I was thinking something more tradictional along the lines of Protagonist/Antagonists/Others as seen in our list example, List of Naruto Characters. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with this idea. Also it might be wise to expand the sections on characters with articles like Goku. Sarujo (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this would be a good next step once the merge/deletion/keep discussions above close. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a format like the one in List of Naruto characters will do nicely. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

So no objections on changing the format then? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No objection here ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Crazy suggestion

I think that this list is still poor and there is no a definitive criteria for inclusion. Considering the fact that Dragon Ball has lots of characters and that Wikipedia is not a collection of information in which every single character/episode/location/object shall be mentioned, I propose the following regarding the last character discussion that has been taking place:

To avoid the recreation of sections of deleted characters (as I'm pretty sure that people will come in a couple of months looking for Nappa, Mr. Popo or Uranai Baba and trying to re-add them to the list) by transforming this list into a general index. I propose to add sections on groups of characters with similar background and one line description of the character. Something like these:

Nameks

• Guru: Oldest Namekian in existence. Gave life to at least 108. Died of old age.
• Nail: Personal bodyguard of Guru. Last fighter-class Namekian left. Fuses with Piccolo.

Frieza's acquaintances

• Dodoria: Pink, fat alien that served as Frieza's top henchmen. Killed by Vegeta.
• King Cold: Frieza and Coola's father. Accompained a now cyber-organic Frieza to Earth. Killed by Trunks.

Gero's creations

• Android #46: bla bla bla

This would include at the beginning a "Main characters" section linking to the individual character pages. A second option would be do something similar to List of Harry Potter characters, list all characters and sort them in alphabetical order. With both of this proposals, I suggest to eliminate all sections about "Other characters" and create a new article called "Secondary Dragon Ball characters" and move the characters in that section (Roshi, ChiChi, Hercule, etc.) to that article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with both suggestions. If a character is so minor all it needs is a description that short, should be removed. People possibly readding them is irrelevant, it can always be removed again (and it really doesn't happen as often as one might expect in other lists that have already had the same clean outs). Listing alphabetically would make it very unwieldy, and the preference really is for proper fictional grouping as we are aiming for here. Considering List of Harry Potter characters is an outright hideous start class list, it is not something to look at for any kind of example. List of Naruto characters is the only FL manga/anime character list (though List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters will be soon), so those are the ones we should look at for inspiration, as is being done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Raichi

I don't know why this extremely minor character is listed under the Secondary characters section. He is not notable enough even to appear in the list. More relevant characters like Mr. Popo, Uranai Baba (who had a sub-arc and played an actual role), or other movie villains have been removed, so I propose to apply the same reasoning to this incidental character, or at least move him to the Gaiden's article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with moving him to the gaiden article. Also, I think we should remove the "Truffles/Tuffles" subheader along with Dr. Raichi. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Only one problem with that. That article has long since been redirrected to the game list. Sarujo (talk) 19:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Then he can be deleted then, if the game isn't notable to have its own article, than this character from that game doesn't need his own section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

So, can we proceed with the deletion of that section? --LoЯd ۞pεth 21:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Low Quality

I must say, this article has very little information, and is of poor quality. I find it stupid that on a n article called "list of Dragonball Characters" has most of the Characters deleted. Furthermore, most of these Characters need ast least a sentnce explaination. Many Characters that redirect get no mention at all! --show the way, HadoMaru (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunate as this might be, a lot of users believe that notablilty trumps all, and thus consensus has formed to have them removed. They may have gotten a lot of reception, but most of it if not all of it comes from blogs and so forth, and so is unreliable. I hear you, but can do nothing. Sasuke9031 (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Cell

In my opinion, it's just not proper and fitting for Frieza, and Majin Buu to have their own articles, while Cell has been merged into this page. I say we should give him his own page. Care to discuss, anyone? -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Its been discussed. If you can show new evidence of notability, please do so, otherwise he doesn't need his own article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:33, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I stated above, Cell is one of the three main villains in DBZ along with Frieza, and Majin Buu. Why is it that they have their own page? Especially when Cell is more significant than Buu... -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 23:08, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Because the other two have appearances in other media, as well as a reception section to justify having articles. Cell does not have these things, which was why he had his article merged. The fact that he was important to the plot does not mean that he deserves an article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Well it was lack of (good) reception only that those 2/3 who voted merge said to merge him. Nothing really has been done to show notable reception.陣内_Jinnai 00:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

In this case, even Majin Buu shouldn't have his own article. Frieza would be the only major primary villain who appears in the most number of episodes and has the reception and appearance in other media. Majin Buu would be the same consensus as Cell really. It would be smart to fuse Majin Buu in order to avoid further complaints as well if we are going to keep Cell fused to the article as most of the secondary and tertiary characters. This would also defeat the constant argument of giving Cell his own article due to the fact that Majin Buu wouldn't have one either. In regards to his actual development, it's lesser than Cell's. Majin Buu's appearance is just as limited as Cell's in terms of episode count, and his role is lesser than Cell's in terms of a primary character. - Zarbon (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived discussions

I see that someone got the brilliant idea to archive the Deletion of character sections (Part 1, other characters). Why did this happen if not all discussions were resolved?? This must not be archived unless all discussions are resolved. --LoЯd ۞pεth 22:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

No one "got the brilliant idea", it was auto archived because of lack of activity. Easy enough to restore. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And indeed, it now has been done and a fake date added to keep it from rearchiving. Most are "resolved" though, just not enacted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:24, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When are those discussion going to be closed? --LoЯd ۞pεth 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

All but one is now closed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion In Regards to Above Mergers

One question- what form will the final decision-making take? The initial paragraph calls for discussion and asks for detailed answers, but the list is little more than a series of straw polls. Many answers list "per above user" as the only contribution to the discussion... Onikage725 (talk)

We are basically trying to reach a consensus. Characters that consensus has decided should be kept will be kept, and characters consensus has decided to be deleted (like Zarbon) will be deleted. As for the short answers, if all the short answers point in the same direction, there really is no reason to write a long answer to agree with what has already been said. However, if anyone wants to oppose consensus, a longer response would be a good idea. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has slowed here. We might want to seek some more opinions on some of the unresolved ones:

• Android #8
• Android #16
• Android #19
• Bardock
• Broly
• Cooler
• Cui
• Dodoria
• Gar
• Grandpa Gohan
• Kai
• Launch
• Porunga

陣内_Jinnai 00:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to the aforementioned, the consensus seems to be as follows, with the first vote as the primary feeling:

• Android #8 - merge / delete
• Android #16 - merge / keep
• Android #19 - merge / delete / keep (not yet)
• Bardock - merge / move
• Broly - merge
• Cooler - merge
• Cui - merge / keep / delete (not yet)
• Dodoria - merge / keep (not yet)
• Grandpa Gohan - delete/ keep
• Kai - merge
• Launch - merge / delete
• Porunga - merge

I myself am against the merger of Dodoria, Cui, and Android 19. The rest seems to be fine for merger or removal. - Zarbon (talk) 22:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with those. Simply looking at them I can say a number of them are completely mis-representing facts (FE: Grandpa Gohan has only keep or deletes, no merges) or balances those in favor of a certain direction (FE Launch has 2 merge/2 delete/2 keep).陣内_Jinnai 20:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

All closed now except Grandpa Gohan which has no consensus either way. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Grandpa Gohan's in terms of no consensus. It appears it's either keep or delete. In this scenario, we've got more important people being merged, so Grandpa Gohan is a definite merger or delete; moreso a delete. The consensus for Dodoria was not resolved, as I said, it was strictly merge and keep before delete. I requested further deliberation as he's a secondary villain in one saga. - Zarbon (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Re-organization of the list

I officially take this matter to discussion. Instead of the arbitrary "Main/Secondary/Other characters" sections, I suggest to use a more standard classification that is used in lists of characters that have achieved FA status such as List of Naruto characters, List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters or in Characters of Kingdom Hearts. The idea would be to divide the list into three sections: Main protagonists, Main antagonists and Other characters. I think that it doesn't matter at all that the Main antagonists section would feature only 4 or 5 characters (Frieza, Cell, Majin Buu, and perhaps Baby, Piccolo Daimaho or the Evil Dragons) while the Main protagonists will be 10 (everyone in the current "Main characters" section but Frieza, Cell and Buu). The Naruto and the Tokyo Mew Mew lists show only 2 antagonists, while the Kingdom Hearts list shows 4 antagonists and 10 protagonists.

Let's also take into consideration that this idea was approved in the past (see Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters/Archive 2#New sections), so let's just wait to re-confirm this idea and decide which characters would be in the "Main protagonists" and which in the "Main antagonists". The rest would be in "Other characters". --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm against the entire "main" idea due to the fact that it would leave very few people in the section entitled "main antagonists". It seems skewered and rather limited to have an entire section for just three or four characters (frieza, cell, buu, baby, etc.) listed under it. If, however, we placed the likes of Babidi, Zarbon, Ginyu Force, Dr. Gero, etc. under the main antagonists section, I'd be fine with that setup since we'd remove the villains from the other section completely as villains shouldn't be classified as "other" to begin with if we do have a section for protagonists and antagonists. - Zarbon (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, "villains" can be supporting characters rather than protagonists. Not all villains are protagonists nor are all good guys antagonists. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm...I assume you meant the opposite as usually villians are antagonist and heros are usually protagonists.陣内_Jinnai 23:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Woops...yep, I did. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I fully support this idea. That is the proper organization for a character list, not this fairly random "main" character which seems more to act as a way to highly fan favorites than actual main characters. If this list is ever going to get to potential FL status, this is a critical step it needs to undergo, switching to Protagonists, Antagonists, Supporting Characters, and (for now), minor characters. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If we get rid of the whole "main" idea and just separate into a list of protagonists and antagonists, it would make things much easier and the villains would fall under the antagonists section and the heroes would fall under the protagonists section. People in the other section would be characters like Puar and Oolong, since they pretty much constitute the people who should fall under a section called "other". I believe if we know if a character is a villain or a hero, we should place them in that section regardless of how "main" they are; it would only be proper to maintain that to a certain degree. The entire folly behind the "main" idea is that it destroys the proper attribution of supporting heroes and villains in the sections that they'd actually belong to. Puar, Oolong, Dende, etc. should be in the other section. - Zarbon (talk) 17:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It has nothign to do with "Main" (note that I didn't say that in my listing of sections, nor is that used in the lists noted above). However, just being a "hero" or "villain" does not mean a character is a protagonist or antagonist. They may simply be supporting characters. For most works, the list of protagonists and antagonists tends to be short. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's true, but only for some characters. The ones that I mentioned are actually villains and antagonists to the plot. They serve primarily to be antagonists and act as villains, so they would fall under both categories; that's why I said it's pointless to put them under the "other" section when we know their affiliation as characters, and their airtime is also substantially more than many of the people who are being deliberated on. I am referring to quite a few characters here: Zarbon, Red Ribbon Army, Dr. Gero, Garlic Jr, Ginyu Force, Evil Dragons, King Piccolo, Babidi, and Baby. They'd all fall under the antagonist as well as villain category, and aren't limited like Vegeta, 17, etc., who serve as antagonists for a short amount of time but aren't villains. Confirmed villains (antagonists) should all fall under the same category. Temporary antagonists (anti-heroes) should not. That's what I'm saying, my dear comrade. - Zarbon (talk) 21:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree about keeping Vegeta as a protagonist rather than antagonist considering how recurring he is.Tintor2 (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Moves from Secondary to Other

I carefully examined the other and secondary sections. It appears that many characters who are currently in the "secondary" are actually lesser appearing than some in the other. I assume by "other" we are referring to tertiary characters, which would be a suitable title. The characters I propose for merger with the other section from the secondary section are as follows. Votes should be cast as "keep" or "other". Keep would constitute a maintaining of the character in the secondary section and "other" would constitute that the character be brought down to the "other" section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Before we continue with this discussion... wouldn't it be more prudent to divide the list into sections with different names such as "Main protagonists", "Main antagonists" and "Other characters", in a similar fashion to FA lists of characters such as List of Naruto characters or Characters of Kingdom Hearts? --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, this list really needs reorganizing into the more appropriate and standard "Protagonists", "Antagonists", "Supporting", rather this whole "main", "secondary", "other" which seems somewhat more arbitrary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

That wouldn't particularly work because we only have about three primary antagonists on the entire page. But if we did do that, we'd have to then decipher some character affiliations (since 17 is never a villain nor an antagonist but a supporting hero after his demise and Vegeta is always a hero after the first saga). It's crucial to note that most of the primary antagonists have already been merged or deleted, so it wouldn't serve as a logical basis to do this without inserting some noteworthy ones in the antagonist section. I think that it's better if we just have a section for main, secondary, and tertiary. But this is always up for debate. - Zarbon (talk) 13:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

For deciding what side they are on, we have gone for what they mostly side with. For example in List of One Piece characters where we had similar issues with Nico Robin she was placed under the protagonist.陣内_Jinnai 19:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that the Protagonists/Antagonists/Supporting is a problem at all. That's why the "Main" or "Major" adjective should be added to protagonists and antagonists. The current "main characters" section can be kept as it is under the name of "Main protagonists", only without Frieza, Cell and Majin Buu. The "Main antagonists" section would have those three and perhaps other characters like Piccolo Daimaho, Baby, the Red Ribbon Army and the Evil Dragons, and the rest as "Other characters". --LoЯd ۞pεth 21:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In the case that we do agree upon separating from protagonist and antagonist, this destroys the entire purpose of having the other section. It would be weird to place important supporting villains or heroes in the other section. It would also be highly limited to a small number of characters on each section rather than around 10. If we can list the likes of Dr. Gero, Zarbon, Ginyu Force, Babidi, etc. in the antagonists section with Frieza, Cell, and Buu, then it would work better as we'd have completely removed the other section as well. - Zarbon (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the "Other characters" section must not disappear. Again, that's why the word "Main" should come along with the words "Protagonists" and "Antagonists", so that there only "Main protagonists" and "Main antagonists" are shown in those sections. The Main Protagonists are those characters that in the current version of the article are labeled as "Main characters", namely Goku, Bulma, Krillin, Piccolo, Gohan, Vegeta, Trunks, Goten, Yamcha and Tien. Under "Main antagonists" I suggest to include only chief villains like Frieza, Cell, Majin Buu, and perhaps Baby and King Piccolo. The rest of characters are "Other characters", that would include secondary and tertiary characters, no matter if they are supporting characters (like ChiChi, Kami, King Kai) as well as secondary antagonists (Ginyu, Gero, Zarbon, Babidi). --LoЯd ۞pεth 17:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, I'm against the entire "main" idea due to the fact that it would leave very few people in the section entitled "main antagonists". It seems skewered and rather limited to have an entire section for just three or four characters (frieza, cell, buu) listed under it. - Zarbon (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Android 17

Resolved

 – 17 moved to other

• Other - 17's appearance is limited in the saga he's in. His role is never that of a secondary character, but a tertiary character. 18 may play a greater role, both as a character and as an antagonist, but his appearance is very brief either way. Appearing in 16 episodes, all briefly but for three. His purpose as a character was, in hindsight, to betray Gero and get absorbed by Cell. The technical details of his background are never important nor integral and his minor appearance later in GT doesn't warrant for a secondary section but that for other. Due to the fact that much longer appearing antagonists have been fused with the other section, it would seem logical to fuse this one as well. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other - 17 is just not all that much part of the story at all. All he really serves to do is move Cell on to his second form. There is no reason why he should not be other other than WP:ILIKEIT, which has no relevance. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - mainly because that section also covers Super Android #17, who was a main villain in GT. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Android 18

Resolved

 – 18 kept in secondary

• Other - Android 18 was never a primary character, which we've established. Her appearance in the sagas she does appear in are always secondary. However, her overall appearance in the entire series run was never that of a secondary character but a tertiary character due to the fact that she appeared only after the second arc of DBZ. When looking at an entire series, this doesn't qualify as a secondary character. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as if we otherfy her, we might as well otherfy Krillin. She is central to his character development, moving him from just another reason to have a Krillin Owned Count (Which is 10 btw) to a real, dynamic character. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - appearing as a relevant antagonist in the Android saga and later becoming a recurring supporting presence during the rest of the series. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - For the use as plot advancement and character development she may have more than Chi Chi, though her airtime is far lower.陣内_Jinnai 07:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Babidi

Resolved

 – Babidi moved to other

• Other - Babidi's appearance in the 20 episodes he's in are never dominated by him. He's either in the background of Dabura or Majin Buu. In the case that he ever actually fights (which he doesn't) and gets slashed by Piccolo isn't enough to warrant his own section in the secondary area. His appearance in the consecutive episodes is limited to ordering Dabura or Buu. And then he's gone. And then he appears again briefly to root for Goku against Kid Buu. And that's it. If the likes of Dabura, Yakon, and Pui Pui don't constitute a mention, then Babidi at least should be moved from secondary to other without a shred of doubt as he does less than the aforementioned. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other - his role was mainly resurrect Majin Buu, no much more can be said about him. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other - per above.陣内_Jinnai 07:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Dende

Resolved

 – Dende moved to other

• Other - This character definitely belongs in the other section. He appears briefly in the Namek saga to evade Dodoria's wrath, lead Krillin to Guru, and be eliminated by Frieza. In hindsight, his role in later sagas is even lesser. He barely appears to obtain the title of Guardian of Earth and replace Kami, who had already been established. He then barely appears in the Baby Saga as a slave to Baby's will. The character's very minimal appearance ratio is lesser than that of Mr. Popo. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other - I know that "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" is not a valid argument in delete/merge discussions, but in this case it serves as a useful reference point to note that if Mr. Popo has been deleted, then a character like Dende is not that secondary, but more tertiary. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other - per above.陣内_Jinnai 19:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Kami

Resolved

 – Kami moved to other

• Other - Kami's primary appearance was in Dragon Ball when he fought against Piccolo under the guise of Hero. However, he later barely appeared... and played a very minimal role when he did, acting as a guiding light to the likes of Goku and/or Piccolo. His fusion with Piccolo in the beginning of the Cell arc defeats the purpose of keeping him as a secondary character when looking at the entire series instead of just one saga. His already limited appearance in the sagas he was in should be enough reason to bring him down to the other section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep' - after looking carefully at the rest of Secondary characters and at a character guide of my own, I think that Kami's role is relevant enough to stay as secondary. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other - Kami is important for setting up the plot, but that's about it except for his death he isn't much more than a setup character.陣内_Jinnai 07:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Pan

• Other - At first I thought this was a joke when I saw it in the secondary section. Pan doesn't appear in DB (153 episodes) or DBZ (291 episodes; only for the final 2 or so episodes). She barely appears in GT when looking at those 64 episodes as a stand-alone set. She's integral in the Machine Mutant arc but does absolutely close to nothing in the Super 17 and Shadow Dragon arcs other than triggering Goku's imminent rage for his opponents. When looking at the entire span of all three series runs, Pan is most definitely NOT a secondary character but even lesser than a tertiary character. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - a major protagonist in the GT saga. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Puar

Resolved

 – Puar moved to other

• Other or Delete - Here's another interesting case. Puar appears in the background, much like Fortuneteller Baba and Ox-King, who appear to have been removed. Puar should either be merged with the other section or removed completely due to the character's completely useless involvement as a background person who appears briefly whenever this character does appear. This is the same scenario as Baba, Ox-King, or Dr. Brief. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other but not delete - he played a background role for most of the series, but appears long enough to at least get a mention in this list. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Merge or Delete since he's a background character. Other more notable background characters have also been merged.陣内_Jinnai 07:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oolong

Resolved

 – Oolong moved to other

• Other or Delete - If this character isn't completely removed, it should be fused with the other section. Per above, the reasoning for this is the same as Puar. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other but not delete - same as Puar. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other - Oolong actually is important to note for certain plot development sections one of whom the character was already removed because they were deemed somewhat mergeable into his section and deleting both would mean some important secondary arc characters (though other in the long span of things) would be missing.陣内_Jinnai 07:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Shenron

• Other - Shenron's extremely brief appearances in the entire series run of over 500 episodes don't constitute that he be kept in the secondary section. If he appeared in 10 inconsecutive episodes and very briefly each time, the best course of action would be to fuse him with the other section if not remove him altogether. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other - makes little apperances only to grant wishes. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Secondary - He is the main focal point of so many arcs, much like Sauron is the main focal point for Lord of the Rings even though neither get much actual "screen" time.陣内_Jinnai 07:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I am disputing the resolved status on the basis of his importance to the narrative and the importance placed on other similiarly important, but not often seen, characters from other works of fiction. I believe because of his unique role the lack of input larger consensus is needed. Wikipedia is not a democracy and vote count should not be the way we decide things.陣内_Jinnai 21:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Uub

Resolved

 – Uub moved to other

• Other or Delete - Uub is a very, very minor character. He is likely lesser than a tertiary character. Due to the fact that he barely appears in the very last two or so episodes of DBZ and does close to nothing in GT except for the brief appearance against Baby and his even lesser appearance in the Super 17 saga, he doesn't constitute his own section in the secondary area. When spanning the entire series as a whole, he barely even warrants a keep. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Other - per Zarbon. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - his brief appearances can be mentioned in chapter/episode commentaries.陣内_Jinnai 07:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Suggestion - I keep my vote as "Other", but if the consensus results in "Delete" or in "Merge", I would suggest to (at least) mention him in Majin Buu's article or section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 21:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion has slowed here in regard to Pan and Android 18. Android 18 seems to be a keep for secondary. However, Pan is still up for debate due to her very limited appearance in only GT. - Zarbon (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Majin Buu merge

This article has not improved in any significant way since it was created. It currently has two minor lines of reception that may not even be worth mentioning in this article. There is no reason to keep it around anymore. TTN (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I can see a reason to try to improve it for like, maybe, a few weeks at most. Currently, if you take the time to read above discussions (feel free to weigh in), you'll see that this article is just way too big. As such, if you'd waited a few days, it would have probably gone through a major resize. As it is there is no room. I do commend you for seeing the flaws in the buu article, and encourage you to try to fix it while you wait, so that it may not even be an issue. Sasuke9031 (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned this in the above section for Cell as well, even Majin Buu shouldn't have his own article. Frieza would be the only major primary villain who appears in the most number of episodes and has the reception and appearance in other media. Majin Buu would be the same consensus as Cell really. It would be smart to fuse Majin Buu in order to avoid further complaints as well if we are going to keep Cell fused to the article as most of the secondary and tertiary characters. This would also defeat the constant argument of giving Cell his own article due to the fact that Majin Buu wouldn't have one either. In regards to his actual development, it's lesser than Cell's. Majin Buu's appearance is just as limited as Cell's in terms of episode count, and his role is lesser than Cell's in terms of a primary character. - Zarbon (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

At this point, I say merge. It has been almost a year since merging this character was last discussed, at which time it was kept to "allow time to develop". Its had plenty of time, with no significant improvement. No real-world notability has been demonstrated, now or then, and the two non-third-party sources can easily be incorporated here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Support merge - I agree with AnmaFinotera. Far more primary characters have been merged so keeping Buu's page seems nonconstructive in terms of having all the primary characters with articles. Frieza is the only primary villain who appears in the most number of episodes as well as the entire series to be noteworthy enough to have his own article at the basis that we are holding in terms of who keeps an article and who doesn't. I'm further convinced by AnmaFinotera's revelation that it's been well over an entire year of deliberation and no alterations have been made to solidify a keep for the Buu article; merging it with the page would only be proper and in accordance to current guidelines, as well as maintain that no significant improvement has been shown for Buu's having a real-world notability demonstrated. I agree with this merge. - Zarbon (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but with the patience aspect in mind. Also keep in mind that the Anti Drama Campaign is coming up soon, so they might help, seeing as how the reason that alot of these articles don't get developed is because we all, myself included, pay more attention to drama than anything else... if that campaign comes to an end without Buu improving... well... can you say FUUUUU SION HAAAAAAAAA??? Sasuke9031 (talk) 23:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Umm...what does that have to do with anything?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge - it does not matter how long Buu's article is: as has been done with other major character mergers, the information can be trimmed and merged without any problem. Time has been given to improve the article, but the subject has not managed to prove Notability by getting coverage by a vast amount of reliable secondary sources (i.e. in a real Reception section, and not just an appearance in a villain countdown), or impact in popular culture. Per Notability, as a character without such, he must be merged into this list. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, this seems to have died a while ago, so I'll go ahead with the merger for now. TTN (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Moves from Main to Secondary: Yamcha, Tien, and Goten

What do you guys think about moving Yamcha and Tien into "secondary characters"? Both of them, more notably Tien, are quickly downplayed since Piccolo Jr. appears, with even less appearances as DBZ progresses, and only cameos in GT. In the end, they are more supporting rather than protagonists. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that is something to be discussed in the above discussion.Tintor2 (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this, but Goten is even lesser in appearance due to his appearing in the last saga of Z and even lesser in GT. I'd have to say that if Tien and Yamcha are moved down, then so should Goten, to an even greater extent. Let's try and formulate a concise agreement here. I am also bringing up Pan again due to no consensus in the prior discussion. I'm hoping that a concise resolution is reached for these lesser appearing characters. - Zarbon (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Tien

• Secondary - Tien appears less as the series progresses, although he is major in the first saga. - Zarbon (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Secondary - as I proposed above. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yamcha

• Secondary - Same consensus as Tien, although also a primary character in the first saga. - Zarbon (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Secondary - as I proposed above. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Goten

• Secondary or Other - Goten's actual appearance is very, very limited in comparison to many others. In fact, it is so limited to only one saga in DBZ and later very briefly in GT. It would only be proper to move him to other, and at the very least, if not there, then to secondary. I greatly support this move more than any other. I can't see a reason to keep this character in primary other than favoritism toward Goku's entourage, or just because he's a half-Saiyan, he is otherwise very unimportant in comparison to many characters who are already in the other section, not only due to his limited appearance, but also because of his overall role in the series' entire run. - Zarbon (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
• Secondary - unlike other characters, his role was never as a protagonist of a saga or during some episodes, but was always in the role of supporting or even sidekick. However, he is not that minor to be considered "Other". --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Pan

• Other - At first I thought this was a joke when I saw it in the secondary section. Pan doesn't appear in DB (153 episodes) or DBZ (291 episodes; only for the final 2 or so episodes). She barely appears in GT when looking at those 64 episodes as a stand-alone set. She's integral in the Machine Mutant arc but does absolutely close to nothing in the Super 17 and Shadow Dragon arcs other than triggering Goku's imminent rage for his opponents. When looking at the entire span of all three series runs, Pan is most definitely NOT a secondary character but even lesser than a tertiary character. - Zarbon (talk) 21:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep secondary - a major protagonist in the GT saga. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Piccolo Daimao

Shouldn't Piccolo Daimao technically be Piccolo Daimao Sr? And shouldn't it be merged into the main article for his son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.197.214 (talk) 05:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No it's Piccolo Daimao and Piccolo Junior, and yes they should be merged together. Sarujo (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Merging Frieza

Like with Buu, the article has nothing to hold it up, and it has been that way for years. It has no reason to exist in its current form. TTN (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I disagree. I also oppose this merge more than any other. Frieza, in some instances, is a potentially main character and should always maintain an article. Unlike Buu (50 episodes) or Cell (40 episodes), Frieza (90 episodes) is a major character if ever there was one. In fact, to merge Frieza and leave people like Gohan and Krillin... would be nothing short of a crime as Frieza is not only the primary recurring antagonist, but also the one character who sets the story itself in motion, has the longest running appearance out of all antagonists/villains, and plays the largest role in the series against not one protagonist, but all protagonist, serving as the primary cause of the series in and of itself. - Zarbon (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

His role in the series is irrelevant to his having his own article. The question, as with all fictional characters, is: is there significant coverage of this character in reliable, third-party sources. That is it. His role in the story, number of episodes, etc, is not a factor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge. This is the main crux of the issue. The fact is that Frieza is currently not notable, and would be better off merged as it is right now. The DB project is not very active (probably likely due to the FICT dispute) and therefore it is highly unlikely that it will be improved. The only problem that might arise is that people will misinterpret this as a TTN merge, but I see that as a very small problem next to the even bigger problem that is Frieza's article. By all means, merge away. Sasuke9031 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose - despite being a mergist myself, I oppose this because the character has clearly passed Notability. It is not a matter of appearances in Dragon Ball, but appearances in other media outside Dragon Ball, which prove that Frieza is a character with impact in popular culture. Neither Cell nor Majin Buu managed to prove that. --LoЯd ۞pεth 02:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Lord Opeth. Even when disregarding the amount of character appearance, actual role, and storyline progression and development, Frieza has still contributed far too heavily to popular culture. We don't have to state specific instances. It is also true that neither Cell nor Buu had impact on culture like Frieza, therefore his article warrants a keep unlike any other. If there's one antagonist character in the entire DB series that needs to maintain an article, it is Frieza. - Zarbon (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose It is quite easy to find notability for such a memorable character. Why in one google search I was able to find some form of notability:

"While there are only 18 characters, DBZ fan boys will be happy to know they'll be able to assume the characteristics and abilities of some of their most beloved characters in the DBZ universe, including Goku, Gohan, Piccolo, Frieza, Trunks, Krillin, Chi-Chi, Cell, Androids 16, 17, and 18, Buu, Ultimate Gohan, King Piccolo, Videl, Demon Piccolo, Majin Buu, and the all new redesigned Cyborg (Mecha) Frieza..." [[1]] Notice the mentioning of most beloved characters. This review like others could easily add to the notability of this character, all it requires is someone to do the appropriate work to search for such articles. Considering we live in the information age, it will not be a great challenge. Try finding notability about Mortal Kombat characters, now there's a challenge. Also on pags D1 and D3 of The Ledger's December 8, 1999 paper [[2]] He is one of the reasons that DBZ was listed as a violent show for kids back then saying, and I quote: "In one recent episode, beads of sweat form on the brow of a character named Vegeta, as he is nearly strangled to death by an evil foe named Frieza. In another, Frieza uses the horns on his head to impale a good guy named Krillin through the chest." End quote. Now if causing uproar and controversy doesn't create notability, I don't know what does, since Mortal Kombat has basically lived off this type of publicity since its release. Only right that it be used for Frieza. As well as opinions on his appearance: "Little Gohan is abruptly in the icy metallic grip of one of his arch-nemeses, Frieza, a silvery androgynous giant who looks like a cross between the monster in Alien and Batman's Mr. Freeze." [[3]] Which could easily be put under the appearance section of his article. And also a list of the top 11 anime villains made by Thatdudeinsuede (an affiliate of That Guy with the Glasses) in which Frieza is ranked #6. [[4]]It doesn't require much to look for this information, but i'm not exactly dedicated to DBZ. I'm busy with a different train wreck, The Mortal Kombat articles. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you so much for this very insightful look at more reasons as to why Frieza is greatly noteworthy. I believe it has now been determined, not only to popular demand, but based on actual credentials, that Frieza's article is truly a keep, and a strong one at that. - Zarbon (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

None of those are of any worth (Really, "Thatdudeinsuede"?), so you'll need to find some sources with actual substance in order to have an argument. TTN (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Substance? It shows his notability(guideline) and it is verifiable(policy). Simply because the information is obscure, doesn't mean it does not have worth. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Frieza is the most important antagonist in the entire series (consisting of over 500 episodes including DB/Z/GT). We can't ignore the fact that all the other characters who have not been merged are protagonists and he is the only antagonist who actually deserves to have an article. We can't merge Frieza, there are more people against this merger than there are for it. He's too crucial a part of the series (not just based on appearance ratio, but actual facts where he sets the story itself into motion.) If you can note minor instances of reasons why to merge, then you need to come up with better reasons why Frieza should be merged, because at the moment, Frieza is a very strong keep, and I agree with it. - Zarbon (talk) 20:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:N is what the article needs to follow if it is to be kept. It does not meet it in any way in its current form, so it needs to be merged. You can talk about the character's importance in the series all you want, but it doesn't mean a thing. You need sources that show the importance of the character, not random mentions and trivia. TTN (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about WP:N. I'm talking about the opposition to the merger. There's more people against it than there are for it. Also, the likes of Krillin, Bulma, and Trunks have established more WP:N...? I greatly doubt it. Why don't you go ahead and propose the remaining protagonists for merger, they are less notable in many circumstances. - Zarbon (talk) 21:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

While I personally think Freiza is worthy of his own page, we have to go by WP:GNG as the WP:FICT stalled in deadlock (and frankly the current revision would fail to gain consensus). I have contended all along that the GNG does not deal adequetly with fictional elements and here's another example. He could be kept on the basis of "sheer recognizability" though. DBZ is the most prolific anime to come to west (possibly Naruto or One Piece could pass it eventually) for which the impact of Freiza for most of the storyline is a major part and it may be a case for WP:IAR, however, before invoking IAR we should get a wider consensus.陣内_Jinnai 22:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

In either circumstance [neither Naruto nor One Piece come close to DBZ's status, although both are popular] Frieza is integral moreso than any other antagonist, I'd say in all anime hands down. In the event that we do need to apply IAR, Frieza would still dominate the spectrum for being noteworthy, on any consensus. He not only appears throughout the entire storyline itself, but is a recurring antagonist (unlike others) and appears more than many primary protagonists as aforementioned Trunks (who appears after the second arc of DBZ) and Bulma (whose appearance gradually subsides as the series progresses from DB to DBZ. It is integral that we look at the entire Db/Z/GT series as a whole rather than looking at each saga separately. We can easily see, if this logic is applied, that Frieza is the most important antagonist in the series. I am leaving out my own personal opinion on the character and applying common logic to this equation. For IAR, I agree he would surpass and then some. - Zarbon (talk) 02:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

TTN, I think that references of Frieza in other media (already shown in the "Other media" section of his article), the already existing reception section and the statements added by Subzerosmokerain prove that the character passes notability. Again, it is not a matter of role in the series but impact outside the series, and Frieza has proven it. The information it out there, and there is plenty of it. I still cannot understand why you try to dismiss it. --LoЯd ۞pεth 05:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For appearances in other media, an award form NME for a Frieza AMV陣内_Jinnai 06:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just so you guys are prepared, when I clicked the link, it said "file not found." So be prepared for another dismissal. Sasuke9031 (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The link works perfectly for me. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment One possible reason people might be opposed to merging Frieza is the mode in which DBZ was produced in America at the time. I remember the first few seasons, specifically the Saiyan and Frieza sagas, were played as reruns several times before the Android, Cell (themselves played several times) and Buu sagas were released. As a result, DBZ fans naturally feel Frieza has a more important role as a villain than Cell or Buu. Not exactly. He's not quite a recurring character; he is the antagonist in the Frieza saga, he comes back for one episode to be quickly killed by Trunks, and another one episode in the underworld just to introduce an underworld rival for Goku. He was also in the Bardock OVA for a few minutes. Recurring is something a little more substantial than a few cameos. He does serve to introduce the Super Saiyan, but in the same way Cell introduces the ascended Saiyans and Buu the fusions. Granted, if it were not for him, Raditz and therefore Vegeta and Nappa never would've come to Earth; but the androids, Cell, and Buu would've have come either way (and admittedly obliterated everyone). Frieza is no more or less important to the story line than either Cell (and by extension Dr. Gero) or Buu. Don't confuse "notability" with "popularity." Hikui87 (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind the manner in which the characters were introduced to different continents. That has nothing to do with the fact that Frieza is truly much more integral in terms of canon and when anyone examines the manga. Just by looking at Toriyama's creation alone, Frieza is more important than any other antagonist in the entire manga. That's 42 volumes, and Frieza still has the most notability. Nevermind popularity, nobody is confusing popularity with notability. Some idiotic character like Broly may be more popular (for younger audiences), but Frieza is without a doubt the most influential antagonist in the series. Much more integral based on appearance ratio, and also based on being a recurring character, and having notability in other media. - Zarbon (talk) 18:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

In my case I am not confusing popularity with notability. I have stated why I consider this character passes notability: with appearances in other media, popular culture and parodies, the character is notable. --LoЯd ۞pεth 06:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Tenshinhan

Why is he Romanized as "Tien Shinhan"? Is this a Chinese rendering? The only time you really see this is in the orginal dub. Wouldn't it make more sense to use the Japanese Romanization?Hikui87 23:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hikui87 (talk • contribs)

No, because this is the English Wikipedia. We use the official English names here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

In the manga, his name is "Tenshinhan." Even in the anime, his name is just "Tien." Which is the official translation: Viz Media or Funimation? -- Hikui87 02:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hikui87 (talk • contribs)

That page doesn't show his name. If it is Tenshinhan in the manga, then that is what really should be used here, but the name used now is currently the accepted one by consensus, so would need consensus to change across the board. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

"But this time the competition is stronger than ever: Tenshinhan and Chaozu, the deadly disciples of Tsuru-Sen'nin, the Crane Hermit!" It's down the page a bit. --Hikui87 02:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hikui87 (talk • contribs)

Doh, looked right over it. So can anyone confirm that Tenshinhan is also used in the manga? Objections to changing the name to the official English name of the primary work? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

For that matter, "Chaozu" instead of "Chiaotzu." These must be the Chinese names. Silly Funimation. Hikui87 talk 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Character Names

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the names being used throughout the Dragon Ball articles for characters, and this seems to be the best place to bring up a discussion. Per WP:MOS-AM and WP:ENGLISH, all of the Dragon Ball articles should be using the official English names from the primary work, the manga, yet it appears they are using a mix of dubbed English names, fan preferred spellings based on pronunciation, and the manga names. This makes it very confusing for editors who do not read or watch the series to figure out which name is the one to be used. For example, Freeza's article is Frieza, however from my understanding the English manga uses Freeza. So why is the spelling Frieza being used instead of Freeza? Ditto the characters of Kuririn, Chaozu, Shenlong, and Kaio-sama (the apparent Viz manga spellings) over their dubbed spelling counterparts. I feel all of the articles should be updated and moved (for those with standalones) to accurately reflect the manga spelling, with the dubbed spellings noted as needed. This would be most in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines and with what is done with other articles where the dub uses different spellings (or different names all together). Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is using "fan-preferred" names, but, get this, the original Japanese names! On another note, the dubbed names are used more often and I have never seen a page using the manga names. The Viz spellings should be used throughout Wikipedia because the anime is based off the manga, not vice-versa. GT should be the only one that uses dub names since it does not have a manga counterpart. Of course, that statement is very debatable and I'm not sure even I agree with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by D4c3nt3n0 (talk • contribs) 19:59, September 19, 2009

I think the reasoning was that the anime names are much more prominent in the other Dragon Ball media. The constantly released video games and the like greatly outweigh the manga in terms of usage. TTN (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall someone metioning a discussion that lead to a consensus to use the names and spellings used in the subtitles of Funimation Entertainment's uncut releases. It's propably burried somewhere deep in the archives of some Wikiproject or Manual of Style page. *sigh* Goodraise 01:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The primary work is manga, not anime or videogames, as such the names from the manga should be used. The romanization of some of the names should not have taken some liberties with the original work of the author. For example, Frieza loses all the relations that Dragon Ball characters have with a certain theme. フリーザ has to do more with Freeza or Freezer that with Frieza (father King Cold, brother Cooler). I my opinion, all characters should be renamed as they are written in the manga, adding a small sentence about other romanizations, like with Jushin Liger. And if they have been romanized in English by the original author, that could also be used instead of the Viz manga if there is no consensus. Jfgslo (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the public are exposed to the names from funimation. Those are the ones that should be used, but due to all the confusion that is caused when more hardcore fans use the original names the characters lists should also contain other spellings. The funimation dub should be what is generally used though.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there not some sort of precedent? Is there not some sort of policy on this? Hikui87 (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy, no, but guidelines, as noted above, is that it should use the English names of the primary work within all articles, and notes on the differences in the character list as needed. For DB, that would be the manga, however others feel that the Funimation dub is more well known so it should be used. However, considering both are best sellers, I do not see the validation there anymore myself. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How could it be affirmed that the majority of the public know the names from the Funimation broadcast? Is there any source stating that? Even if that were true, Dragon Ball is known in almost all the English-speaking world, not only in the US. And that's not including the rest of the world. More importantly, the manga is the primary work, and normally the main source for most information regarding a work of fiction it's the printed work, like most American comic-book characters like Superman, Batman, Wolverine, etc.

These are the key phrases to decide what names to use:

WP:ENGLISH

"Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." I honestly don't think that reliable sources will be found about this topic, at least not like encyclopedias and reference works, which leaves us with the following policy.

WP:MOS-AM

"Characters should be identified by the names used in the official English releases of the series. If there are multiple English releases, such as both a manga and anime, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world (usually the primary work)." This is the key one. We have to decide which one has contributed more to Dragon Ball becoming known in the English-speaking world. In my opinion, it was the manga, since Dragon Ball has been known for a very long time thanks to it, and, in the US, the first broadcasts of the anime where unsuccessful while the manga was already a success, and I have the impression that it was this success with the manga that lead Funimation to keep on trying. But again, this is not definitive. We need the opinions of people from other English-speaking countries in order to have a more accurate perception.

If we want accuracy, which is also desirable by other Wikipedia policies, we should use the romanizations given by the author (Toriyama) in his Japanese works and then include the alternatives as stated in WP:ENGLISH. After all, most guidelines aren't meant to be a strict rule. But for the moment, first we have to define which one, manga or anime, helped more in making Dragon Ball known in the English-speaking world. And remember, US TV is not the whole English-speaking world. And if we go by the primary work, it's manga. Jfgslo (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Curve ball: The Viz manga is not the primary work; that would be the Shonen Jump Japanese manga. The Viz manga is translated from (based on) that. Also, the Funimation dub is not based on the English "primary work" but translated from (based on) the Toei anime, which is in turn based on the Shonen Jump manga.

My personal opinion is that the Funimation names are over-Anglicized and lose the original effect (Bloomers, Bra, Trunks, etc.), but as Funkamatic pointed out, this makes me a "more hardcore fan" and therefore invalidates my opinion.

We should definitely NOT use Toriyama's romanizations, as these are intended for the Japanese audience. Japanese uses a romanization system for itself for cultural reasons that is somewhat awkward for English speakers. This article is about the English incarnations of Dragon Ball whether we decide to use the dub or translated manga as a primary.

Also, "the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known" is very subjective. The translated manga may have come first, but it would be hard to argue that more people know DB from the manga than from the anime.

Another way to look at it is that the dub is a visual/auditory medium, whereas the translated manga is a literary medium. Written names should come from the written version. Is that a good standard to go by? Hikui87 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a curve ball at all. The manga is the primary work. The Viz manga is the primarily English translation of that work (and considered still to be the "primary work" for this purposes, a translation of it, but still for our purposes here it works...) :) In most cases, we go with the English version of the primary work. If the manga is the primary work, we look to its English version. If the anime is the primary work, we look to its English version. And so on. DB seems to be one of the few sets of anime/manga articles not following this standard. Even ones with far more drastically changed dubs are following the English manga for their articles, with the character list (and individual articles where there are any) noting that "in the English dub of the anime adaptation, the name was changed to X..." and so on. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we vote on this? I'm all for using the Viz manga names, but I'd rather not just go changing stuff. Hikui87 (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also in favor of using the Viz manga names. We should not be afraid of changing stuff. That's the purpose of these discussions, to improve current information. The only real change would be in the character articles. For example, Freeza would be the main one and Frieza now would be a re-direct, and the different alternative names would be in the first line of the article anyway, so nothing really lost. No big deal. Honestly, I don't quite understand why the anime was considered as the base for the names in the first place. It has always been pretty clear to me that the manga is the primary work and therefore it should be used as the source for this kind of data. That's the way that this kind of thing has been done not only in manga/anime articles but for almost any other work of fiction which started in printed media and then went to another. And there was no need for a vote in those cases. Jfgslo (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I however am not okay with changing the name. I believe we should look upon WP:N when naming characters. The more notable of the names should be used. As per Frieza, we should use Frieza since it is the name that appaers more often in the secondary sources within his article. Like in the article Godzilla, he has a number of aliases (aliai?) but his primary name is the more notable instead of the original Gojira. If we are to vote on this, I would oppose. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We should look at third-party English language sources to determine what names are used most. (BTW, aliases is correct. Alias has no Latin plural.) Goodraise 23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Godzilla, however, is the romanization used by the Japanese producer, and, in this case, were are not using the names that the author gives to their characters, are we?. Also, just because most people use a certain term doesn't make it "correct". Peking was much more commonly used some years ago until the Chinese government insisted that the correct romanization should be Beijing, even though a lot of people in the English-speaking world kept on using Peking for years. More importantly, how do we determine how many of these secondary sources are reliable? Just because more fan-created pages or publications use certain romanizations, doesn't make them reliable. I'm all for the sources approach but only if they are reliable. For example, if there are more fan-created sources that report a certain event or name from Harry Potter movies differently from the books, that doesn't make them more reliable. Jfgslo (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to add a little more to my first statement. While I think the manga names should be used in all articles, they still aren't the most known ones. If anything, the characters' page should use manga names, the anime use FUNimation names, and the manga pages the manga names. Also, I have just changed Hercule's name to Mr. Satan since it is the manga name and is currently being used by FUNimation in their remastered sets. However, the GT sets didn't get a revised dub so Hercule as the name was left in. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm pretty sure the remastered sets aren't being seen mainstream. The original FUNimation dub which aired in the 90's were the mainstream and most recogniable version of the sagas. Objectively, it appears to be WP:FANCRUFT. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? If so, you are very wrong. As you can see, the season sets have taken over many pages, including the film pages. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Indeed. If you can take a look at this sentence: In 2006, Funimation Entertainment remastered the episodes then began re-releasing the series in nine individual season boxsets. Notice the words boxsets. The episodes were not re-aired on any channel. To the objective eye, it remains what it was in the 90's since the remastering was not released mainstream, nor advertised publicly. You would need to dig deeper to find the existence of these boxsets, hence WP:FANCRUFT. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you make no sense. I owned the season sets and they do use Mr. Satan over Hercule. No one is talking about the episodes re-airing. I was just saying that the season sets are primarily used on Wikipedia, so what's on it should be used. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. You personally own the season sets. However, others, do not own it. Those who do not own these remasterings only remember the dub from the original FUNimation dub from its original airing on mainstream cable, i.e., the more recognizable dub. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The season sets are huge sellers, and are a reason we are finally getting the Dragon Boxes. If what you say is true, the series shouldn't be broken up into seasons in the episode lists, and, names like Tenshinhan and Chaozu shouldn't be used here. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Huge sellers where? The names are what I am regarding. We may use the boxsets for the division of the seasons. However, the more recognizable dub, the Chiaotzu, Hercule, Tien Shinhan, etc. dub must be used. More recognizable to whom you ask? Why every child who watched the original FUNimation dub in the 90's, the mainstream cable dub. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This old dub is no longer important as those releases have been canceled. Just because Z never re-aired, probably due to the fact that Cartoon Network ended the anime block, doesn't mean it is more recognizable. If the season sets are used throughout WP, every aspect of them should be used, too. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - in accordance with last year's BIG discussion at WT:ANIME. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've lost track, which position is an Oppose vote supporting? Personally, I know the anime and manga project has worked hard to create a system that applies to all titles the project supports. The most encyclopedic approach would be consistent with those standards, and use the names from the official English translation of the manga, while acknowledging that variant names exists in other media. I understand that Dragonball represents a unique circumstance, having reached a potentially wider audience than most anime, but I'm not convinced that that still remains a relevant argument, particularly with the existing, current versions of the anime hewing closer to the manga names. It seems easier and more consistent to simply follow the standards used by the project at large. Doceirias (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What discussion? What was the consensus? Hikui87 (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Given WP:MOS-AM I'd actually have to go with the Geneon or Funimations translations as when they came on when manga and anime wasn't so popular and were many young boys introductions to the world of anime. It is the anime, not the manga, that has gotten so much commentary and critism for its role in advancing a genre. History of anime#1990s confirms the anime's impact on the genre internationally.陣内_Jinnai 07:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that that article is a good source of information, as it seems to be incomplete and a little biased. A quick look at its Japanese, Spanish and German Wikipedia counterparts shows a different story about the 1990s. And I do remember a totally different situation in the 1990s than that expressed in that article, particularly with the Western market. By that logic, all articles should be based on anime, not manga, as anime will theoretically be more known than any printed work. However, that doesn't seem to apply to, let's say, The Smurfs or Harry Potter. Undoubtedly, the cartoon and films are more known in the English world and still, the base of their character articles are the printed works. Same with Batman and all other American characters and their many appearances in other media. I don't see why manga and anime are any different. Jfgslo (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, I agree, but you have to remember there are special cases. Anime which transcend their manga counterpart. Dragonball is clearly an example of that if ever there was one.陣内_Jinnai 17:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the real core of the debate. Does the Dragon Ball anime really transcend the manga version? I my opinion, no. Dragon Ball GT was not well received neither by the critics nor by the public and that was an original anime production. At the end of the "first series" (before Z), the anime was supposed to finish there, but the impact that the manga had was so strong that the anime came back in the form of Dragon Ball Z. And once the manga finished, the anime was not that important. In fact, as the years go by, less references are made about GT, the only original anime series (not counting the movies which haven't had that much of an impact except for the TV specials). Still, this mostly refers to the Japanese market, and the English Wikipedia must be based in English-related material. I would really like to hear how other English-speaking users outside of the US perceive which one has had the more influence. The Funimation broadcast covers only a part of the English-speaking world.

And I'm also in doubt of another aspect: How could we measure which one has been more influential in the English-speaking world? Do we use TV ratings, polls, DVD vs manga sales? Why would you say that the anime transcend the manga in this specific case? Normally we would do this with academic or published by respected sources material, but as I said before, I sincerely doubt that we'll find reliable sources upon these subjects. It has always been a problem for anime/manga related articles. A lot of online sources, for example, are either fan-created or rely on Wikipedia, which makes them unreliable.

If the discussion does not find a good convincing argument, a voting should be done about whether or not the anime transcends the manga or vice versa. That should avoid similar conflicts that may rise in the future. Jfgslo (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yeah that does seem to be the core. I believe we should use the original names given to any fictional character's article. But there are exceptions. Especially since the more recognizable name wasn't the original. One way we could show that the anime transcends the manga names is by looking up newspaper articles with the Anime dub or the Manga Translation. Say, if we can find more newspaper articles mentioning Frieza rather than Freeza, then the dub is used instead. If we find more newspaper articles saying Son Goku instead of Goku then Son Goku is what we should use for the page and so on. Maybe we should set it that if you can find at least 5 (or more) newspaper articles (English articles, not articles that must be translated to english because if they have to be translated, then they belong in the appropriate wikiepdia, remember this is the English Wikipedia. ) with the anime dub then that should be the name and vice versa. Sounds fair? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds okay to me. I think this is the right way to go. Why don't we try to find articles in the way you describe? I'd also like to add that they should not be from anime/manga related publications as they most likely will be aimed at an specialized market, not the general English-speaking market. Same thing with TV/Comic related publications. I would also like to see publications from England, Canada, Australia and the other English-speaking countries where Dragon Ball is known, if possible. That should give us a more appropriate general view of the English-speaking world. They must be obviously in English and must not be a translation of a foreign-language article. This is important. Remember, this is the English Wikipedia and Wikipedia's naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. We don't use Nippon-koku instead of Japan just because is the official name. Jfgslo (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that there may be a conflict with the Dragon Ball work group. In the scope section I found this:

"All information should be based on the original versions. Mainly, this will mean the Japanese versions (though at least one video game will refer to the English version). Because there are so many, no single English adaptation can be used as the English version. Besides the out-of-print adaptations, there are at least three English anime dubs and another company doing the manga, as well as another company translating the video games (which has been inconsistent at best). It would be inappropriate to pick any single distribution company over another."

Perhaps the information there is outdated, but anyway, what is the official position of the Dragon Ball work group regarding the current discussion? As it is know, the current positions, whether for the manga or the anime, are in conflict with the scope of the group. In this case, what should be the approach? Has there been a similar conflict about using English or foreign sources with task forces in other Wikipedia projects? Jfgslo (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The Dragon Ball work group must comply with the guidelines of the anime/manga project, overall Wikipedia guidelines, and the consensus here. The page is very old and while it has had some updates, that section wasn't updated to match even the last consensus that the English dub named be used. Whatever the consensus decided here is, the work group pages will be updated accordingly to properly reflect actual guidelines. If there is a conflict with a task force, it generally should follow its parent project's guidelines, and both must follow Wikipedia's overall guidelines and policies (a project can't set a guideline that conflicts with those). That said, several folks commenting here are members of either the task force or project (or both). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Well, this is awkward. Seems like the Argument was solved already.

Q: What version of the series are you following, and why?

A: Since there are so many adaptations of Dragon Ball available, we have to stick to one to avoid conflicts, and maintain a general level of agreement. For instance, a character's name varies with publisher, like Vegetto is also known as Vegerot in the Viz version of the comic. That is why we adhere to the comic and in most cases where there is conflict, we prefer the Japanese-language English subtitled version of the show.

Q: Why only follow the comic and not the show and movies?

A: This is not entirely true. The task force does follow the show, but only to a certain extent. For example, in the case of Dragon Ball GT, there is no reference from the comic available, simply because it is not based on a comic. Also, the movie and video game pages take all reference from their respective content. Only in a case of collision, we give preference to the comic as it was as the original author intended, without any potholes as there are in other media.

[[5]]

I guess there is no need for consensus since the Wikiproject has already stated that the comic should be the basis. The Viz media comic. Well, I guess this argument is over. At least make a mention of the FUNimation translation. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is always a need for consensus. Consensus is the driving force of Wikipedia (also, DB is a task force, not a project). Consensus can change and as noted above, the FAQ currently conflicts with the main task force While I agree that the FAQ more accurately reflects the guidelines regarding these issues, due to the conflicts and continuing discussion, we can't just say the argument is over. It is good to revisit the issue, if nothing else, to ensure that is still the consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm for keeping the FUNimation so that means there is no consensus. Then just disregard my last comment and I'll continue looking for newspaper articles that contain the FUNimation versions to prove that the FUNimation version is the more recognizable version of the names. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search:

Frieza: 880,000; Freeza: 385,000

Tien Shinhan dragon ball: 12,700; Tenshinhan dragon ball: 62,500

Chiaotzu dragon ball: 29,800; Chaozu dragon ball: 13,800

"dragon ball" added because of the Chinese food pages mixed in. I'm still for using the manga names though. Hikui87 (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit: This is not meant to be scientific, just a start.

Unfortunately, as WP:ENGLISH states, Google hits are an unreliable test. How many of those site are using the info from Wikipedia? Also, try these searches to see a different result:

Frieza dragon ball

Freeza dragon ball

Freezer dragon ball

Now try these searches with a "Z" or using "" with dragon ball.

Of course, you cannot use Freezer alone because that will be severely biased as that term is far more widely used than the others. But adding dragon ball makes freezer the name with more results.

As i mentioned before, fan-sites are not a reliable source of information and most likely, most of Google results come from such websites. The solution proposed by Subzerosmokerain seems to be the fairer and more reliable one at this point. Check also Wikipedia:Search engine test to see why such searches in Google are not useful for the purposes of Wikipedia, particularly the part about notability. Jfgslo (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Kuririn 347 000 / Krillin 281 000
2. Buruma 102 000 / Bulma 19 800 000
3. Son Goku 543 000 / Goku 1 340 000

Looks to me like we should take a page from the Roronoa Zoro debacle which caused the policy page to be updated and assess them all individually. No matter what you could say Bulma, FE, is just so widely known by comparison that it would fail the "most commonly used English name" even if we assume only 1% of those sites are RSes.陣内_Jinnai 05:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. If we do that, then this discussion would have to change its focus, as we would have to determine each name case by case. I'm not against that but it will take a lot more effort. It actually makes sense for some of the characters (Bulma, Trunks) but maybe not for others (Frieza/Freeza, Chiaotzu/Chaozu, for example). Still, this is an interesting proposal as it would change the current focus from anime/manga to character recognition. What do other Wikipedia contributors think? The problem with this approach would be that it could cause an inconsistency with other Dragon Ball articles and for some characters that recognition won't be as clear as with Bulma which will make really hard to determine which name to use. The advantage would be that it would use the most recognizable name for each character, regardless of the media, ending further problems with primary work. Jfgslo (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there some way to see how many times each name has been searched for? That would certainly give better results for name recognition. Hikui87 (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. But before that, there is a point regarding this approach and the main reason why I do not trust much in these search result with some names. With "Bulma", there is not doubt, after all, as far as I know, no other thing uses the term "Bulma" besides the character in Dragon Ball. However, Krillin/Kuririn is another story. The results that Jinnai presented are slightly misleading because "Kuririn" can also be used for other things not related to the Dragon Ball character, like "CoroCoroKuririn Seed Busters", or "Kuririn Pez". If we add the words "dragon" and "ball" in theory it should give us a result closer to the Dragon Ball character, right? But the results then turn in favor of Krillin. Now try to compare those results using "Dragon Ball". Now the margin has become much larger in favor of "Krillin". Try the same test with "Krilin". The word "Bulma" always keeps a large margin against "Buruma" even doing this tests. But this won't be the case for all characters, particularly those who may have a broader use in media not related to Dragon Ball. If we had a conflict with Piccolo, for example, we would have several problems as it is a real Italian word which will mean that a lot of the results would be biased. Even if we learn how to know how many times a name has been searched for, how do we discern between the searches that are looking for a similar term and the searches for the Dragon Ball character?

If we want to follow this Google hits approach, we must first determine how are we going to consider a term as not biased. The case of "Bulma" was pretty easy, as the difference is in the millions, and while the difference became smaller using "Dragon" and "ball", it was still significant to determine that it was the most commonly used term. But I am quite sure that this won't be the case for all names and thus, we need to establish some kind of protocol to make the searches as little biased as possible. This won't be a problem for some characters, but some will have it ("Goku", for example, is used in other concepts not related to Dragon Ball, like Bansha no goku). Jfgslo (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles with names

(Will add more)

• BBC
  • Goku
  • Lord Piccolo, Bulma
  • Goku, Vegeta, Cell, Friez, Buu
  • Goko
• New York Times
  • Goku, Lord Piccolo, Master Roshi
  • Goku, Lord Piccolo, Master Roshi
  • Hal Erikson
    • Buu, Vegeta, Trunks, Goten
    • Yamcha, Android 20, Goku
    • Gohan
    • Babidi
    • Cell
    • Mr. Satan, aka Hercule (literally), Videl
    • Kami, Piccolo
    • Android 18
    • Pikkon
    • Majin Buu, Babidi, Jewel, Kiela, Hercule, Mighty Mask
    • Olibu
    • Tien
    • evil Buu
    • Dabura
    • Super Namek
    • Dr. Gero
    • Yamcha
    • Supreme Kai
    • Kibito
    • Grand Kai, King Cold
    • Chi-Chi
    • Captain Ginyu
    • Dende
    • Keroni, Peroshki
    • Frieza
    • Yakon
    • Bulma
    • Lime
    • Android 19
    • Spopovitch
    • General Tao
    • Chiatzou, Shen, Mercenary Tao, Oolang, Launch, Pu'er
    • Shin
  • Jason Buchman
    • Goku, Krillin, Lord Slug
    • Tunks, Gohan
    • Goten, Taipon, Minosha
    • Cooler
  • Camilla Albertson
    • Goku, Majin Buu, Vegeta
    • Kibito Kai
    • Great Kai
    • Paragus, Broly
    • Gohan
  • Goku, Cooler, Gohan
  • Bulma, Goku
  • Lord Jaguar, Broly
  • Garlic Jr.
  • Goku
  • Dr. Wheelo, Goku, Gohan, Krillin
• The Hindu
  • Goku
  • Goku, Piccolo, Chi Chi, master Roshi (lowercase M)
• Manga: The Complete Guide
  • Jackie Chun, Gohan, Son Goku, Goku - he notes in the first line of Dragonball section his official name is Son Goku, but uses Goku for the rest of the section and the DBZ section.
• China Daily
  • Goku, Lord Piccolo, Master Roshi
  • Goku, Lord Piccolo

陣内_Jinnai 04:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sydney Morning Herald
  • Frieza, Gohan, Goku
  • Yuma, Spopovich, Babadi

Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

FUNimation Names Changes

Now that all of FUNimation's Z season sets have been released, it's time to talk about its somewhat "revised" dub. One change from the original dub I caught immediately was that "Hercule" (a FUNimation-only name) was now being addressed as his Japanese/manga name, "Mr. Satan." I have explained this many times when changing his name on the article (WP seems to follow the dub, so I thought it was appropriate), but people are complaining that since this remastered release never aired on TV, it's not worthy of a change. WTF!? They even said the season sets weren't big sellers (then why are we getting a Dragon Box release!?), so more people were familiar with the original dub. Unfortunately, the GT sets weren't revised at all I think, so the name remained "Hercule." Hercule isn't even his name in the Japanese version, it's Mark, so don't argue we can change it to "Hercule Satan." This issue might get resolved if all pages follow the manga names, but that might take forever! Any thoughts? D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, it even says this currently in the article that Mr. Satan is used in the "uncut" dub/version of the show. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Have patience. The current discussion about the names is going in another direction. Basically neither manga nor anime, but what names are more commonly used by non-anime/manga/TV/comic media. As Wikipedia polices state, when using names with different variations, we must use the most commonly used in the English-speaking world. This means, we have to check mainstream media sources where such names are used. As you can see in Jinnai's investigation, we can start seeing a pattern with some of the names. The purpose of the investigation is to know which names are more commonly used in the whole English-speaking world, not only in some parts of the US. Jinnai exemplified this with the Roronoa Zoro case, where there were also conflicting versions of the name and it was determined that the names would be revised individually. This is currently the approach with the names that we are trying to use, either for determining if the anime version has had more "impact" than the manga version (or vice versa) in the English-speaking world, or to determine the most common variation of the names, because even if it's anime the one that ends up showing greater "impact", the anime version has used several name variations for several characters, which still makes it confusing, as you just pointed out with your example.

If you believe that Mr. Satan is the most common variation used in the English-speaking world (this is the English Wikipedia after all), I suggest that you try to do what Jinnai is doing, that is, find mainstream media articles where both names are used in order to prove that it is far more common to find Mr. Satan than Hercule. I have no doubt that Mr. Satan is the most common variation in the non-English-speaking world, but I also know that most American fans knew him with the name Hercule because of the possible controversy that might have attracted "Satan" in the original broadcast. And when I mean mainstream, I do not mean anime/manga/TV/comic related publications, but more general publications like newspapers. That way you'll have a very strong argument in your favor for using Mr. Satan instead of Hercule. Try to look also for non-American mainstream sources to have a wider view of the English-speaking world. Jfgslo (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name that the author gave the character precede everything else? Regardless of the changed name being used more in this region, the fact is that Hercule is not the name that Toriyama gave him. It's Mr.Satan. Why does what the English speaking world know take precedent over what the creator of the character says his name is? This is a Japanese show. The creator is Japanese. Whatever is in the Japanese version should take precedent over anything that was changed in the English dub.

Starone (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Porunga Again

AnmaFinotera recently reverted someone's edits to the page that made a section about the Namekian dragon, Porunga. He is a character that appears in the story many times, so he should have his own section. Shenlong has one, so he should, too. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D4c3nt3n0 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the dragons could be merged in one section.Tintor2 (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he was merged into Shenlong's session per consensus above. He does not need a separate section, which is why the dragons were merged.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But, why? He isn't the same character. If it was meant to happen, why not merge them under a name like "Dragons." He isn't Shenlong, and there are different dragons in the series. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he isn't, but he is the same type of character which is why he was merged there, as he is the Namekian equivalent, but relatively minor to the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You said you aren't a DB fan, so how can you assume he is minor character? He played a big part in the Namek/Freeza arc, a smaller part in the Majin Buu arc (restoring Goku's health to fight Buu), and even made a tiny appearance in GT when he restored Earth after it exploded. In conclusion, he should have his own section or be a part of a "Dragons" section. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not have to be a fan to participate in discussions, and per the other discussions, he is a minor character overall. Being a large part in a single arc does not make him a major character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement a little, because Zarbon has a section and is really not that important besides the fact he beat the crap out of Vegeta once. Also, No. 17 has a section and he only played a big role in one arc. Again, there should just be a "Dragons" section because he is some-what important and is definitely not Shenlong and shouldn't be included in the Shenlong section. And I never said you couldn't participate in the discussion, so don't twist my words. I was just saying you assumed he was very minor and you didn't know that he was as important in an arc, just like No. 17 and Zarbon (more important actually)... and maybe Pilaf who appeared in just thirteen episodes (then again he was the first villain, so he is important...). D4c3nt3n0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Oops. I hadn't even read the section from the list when I commented here.Tintor2 (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The dragons are way too brief in their appearance. They appear once every 50 or so episodes and briefly, and Porunga's brief onscreen appearance for about 3 or 4 non-consecutive episodes amounts to what exactly? I don't see the comparison with actual characters in the series. For one, much of the primary fighters from numerous sagas have been removed already, such as Dodoria, Android 19, Dabura, etc. Why in the name of all that exists would Porunga have a section when actual appearing and fighting characters don't...? - Zarbon (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I see your point. He doesn't need his own section, but maybe rename the Shenlong section to "Dragons." They aren't the same characters so Porunga shouldn't listed under Shenlong. Also, why do the artificial humans and Freeza's men need their own section? Zarbon is probably as important as Porunga, so why can't we do this. Have a section for all the artificial humans (Dr. Gero a/k/a/ No. 20, No. 19, No. 18, No. 17, No. 16, but not Nos. 15-13), a section for all of Freeza's men (Dodoria, Zarbon, etc.), and a section for the dragons (Shenlong, Porunga, GT Shenlong, Evil Blue Shenlong that appears in the last arc of GT). D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a minor but important difference between Shenlong and Porunga, and Porunga and Zarbon: both Shenlong and Zarbon have meaningful interactions with the story as characters, while Porunga is mostly a plot device. An important part of the Freeza's saga is the duel between Vegeta and Zarbon. Shenlong is an important character that has appeared since the original Dragon Ball series and he even "dies" at some point. Porunga barely appears twice and in the manga his appearances are even less significant, important plot-wise, but insignificant nonetheless. The Androids also have a a lot of interaction, particularly 16, 17 and 18. However, I agree that, with the exception of 18, these characters would benefit from a section for their type (Freeza's underlings, Androids.) But I don't think that their GT counterparts deserve to be in the same section as Shenlong and Porunga. GT is entirely different from the rest of the series and they should have their own section. Jfgslo (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Zarbon may have been important, but as AnmaFinotera said, an importance in one arc doesn't mean he deserves his own section. Thanks for agreeing though that they should be in one section, that's it. Another thing, I wasn't talking about the evil dragons that FUNi calls the "Shadow Dragons," I was talking about the blue Shenlong that appeared when Goku and co. collected the cracked Dragon Balls. Of course, this Shenlong could also be mentioned in the Evil Dragons section since he created them from the Dragon Balls. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew you were referring to the GT Shenlongs. In my opinion, they should not be on par with Shenlong and Porunga even if they are similar. They are anime exclusive characters and have no real relationship with the original story. They have more in common with the "Shadow Dragons" than with the original dragons. That's what I meant when I said that they should not be with Shenlong and Porunga. Jfgslo (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the evil dragons, I was talking about the Shenlong that appears when Goku and the others gather the cracked Dragon Balls. He is actually Shenlong, just in an evil form. I was just saying he could go under both sections since he is Shenlong and he did bring up the evil dragons. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know you were referring to the Shenlong created by Kami-sama before separating from his evil and the Shenlong that appeared with the cracked balls. I know that the Evil Dragons and those GT Shenlongs are not the same, but I stand in the same position since GT and most things there were not created by Toriyama and many times contradict the manga. To put it bluntly, all related to GT (including the evil Shenlong) must be treated differently because that is not part of the original story by Toriyama and thus only applies to the GT anime. This is only my personal opinion, nothing more. Jfgslo (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is any change to be made, in all honesty, a GT character page should be created seperately. Dragonball is a manga by Toriyama that spanned 42 tankobon volumes, the last 26 had the Z added to them, but they were labelled as the same story by the author. GT is, at best, a non-linear continuation that would warrant its own list. On the subject of a "Dragons" section, to do that would give equal weight to both dragons, even though Shenlong was a continuing character/major plot device throughout the entire run of DB/Z. As stated, Porunga only appeared in 2 scenes in either the manga or anime. He really only merits a mention in Porunga's, or possibly Guru's section. StryyderG 17:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StryyderG (talk • contribs)

Deletion of character sections (Part 1, other characters)

The list of other characters is much too long, as are the secondary characters. Thus, I propose a discussion to decide which of these characters need deletion, which of them need to be joined into other sections, and which ones deserve to be kept. Frankly, movie villains should probably be moved to the movie article, but we'll see how that goes. Anyway on to the discussion, please state if the character should be kept, deleted, or merged into another article/section. Please provide a detailed reason for why you believe this should happen.

Touch sig to keep from archiving (remove when all discussions are done) AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Android #8

Resolved

 – deleted with mention in Gero's section

• Merge, Android #8 and pretty much all of the androids should be moved to a section entitled "Dr. Gero and his creations" or something similar. As for Android #8 himself, he is a minor, one chapter character that contributes little to the overall plot, thus the above merge. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Would really just be Dr. Gero and note any relevant creations as needed.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, one chapter character that doesn't appear to warrant mention beyond chapter summaries. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - He can be mentioned in chapter summary.じんない 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete too minor, shouldn't be mentioned here at all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't agree with merging Android 8 with Dr. Gero, considering the former predates the latter by a few years. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into a Gero's creations section or into Gero's section itself (like Tambourine or Piano in Piccolo Daimao). --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - He was crucial in the Red Ribbon arc but not afterwards. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Android #16

Resolved

 – Kept

• Merge, Again, merge to "Dr. Gero and his creations", most of the info can be kept, just shortened and under a new section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, can be a subsection under Dr. Gero is desired, but appears to notable enough. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Android 16 is probably one of the most important from a plot perspective of all the androids.じんない 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per what DBZROCKS said. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into a Gero's creations section or into Gero's section itself (like Tambourine or Piano in Piccolo Daimao). --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - 16 was only crucial in one arc and barely appeared in another. But he played a large role in the duration he was in. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Android #19

Resolved

 – deleted with mention moved into Gero's section

• Merge, Merge to "Dr. Gero and his creations", the character isn't really notable enough to stand by himself. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, to minor to mention beyond chapter/episode summaries -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - He can be mentioned in chapter summary.じんない 03:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per what DBZROCKS said. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into a Gero's creations section or into Gero's section itself (like Tambourine or Piano in Piccolo Daimao). --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - 19 was integral in the Android saga as his fight was likely the most important of the saga's battles, both against Goku and Vegeta, as well as story development. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Announcer

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Announcer does not meet notablility requirements for having a section and is to be deleted

• Delete, aside from providing commentary, this character does little to nothing to contribute to the plot, and he does not have any major relationships with any characters. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unnotable background character that does not have any actual role beyond providing commentary -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unnotable even by most fans, let alone Wikipedia standards.じんない 03:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the character appeared all throughout merely to announce fights but had no integral attachment to the plot. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bardock

Resolved

 – moved to Dragon Ball Z: Bardock - The Father of Goku

• Keep, Notable enough to have his own special, important relation with the main character. Also mentioned in the Manga, so he is not just a movie only character. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move to Dragon Ball Z: Bardock - The Father of Goku, short mention in the manga doesn't warrant inclusion here and movie/special characters should be covered in their articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - The info should be kept, but not sure how.じんない 03:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move, per above comment.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per what DBZROCKS said. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Move to the TV special (Father of Goku). --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Move or Merge - Bardock's appearance is very limited. For the duration that he appeared, he should be mentioned but either in another section or as a merge for another character's small story arc. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Broly

Resolved

 – moved to List of Dragon Ball films#Unique characters

• Merge, move to the Dragon Ball movie list. Movie related character, would be better off in the Movie section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move to movie list per DBZRocks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - The info should be kept, but not sure how.じんない 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I'd prefer not to comment on this one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Move to the movie article or section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Broly was never a primary character and for the two-and-a-half movies he appears in, he poses a brief role if any. He can be considered a tertiary character at best, and even then won't warrant a keep for his separate section. Best to mention him but not keep his own section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Bulla

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Bulla is not notable enough to have her own section in the article and is to be deleted

• Delete, minor backround character from GT. Little to no contributions to the plot, no outstanding contributions to other character's development and has no character development of her own. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with brief mention in parents section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - i think at best just a 1 sentance under her parents is fine.じんない 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - a completely tertiary character, if not lesser. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Cooler

Resolved

 – moved to List of Dragon Ball films#Unique characters

• Merge, to Dragon Ball movies. Not notable enough to stand without his two movies, has little to no character development or relevance to the anime or manga. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move to film list; doesn't existing in manga nor anime series -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - The info should be kept, but not sure how.じんない 03:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete serves no purpose. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Move to the movie article or section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - He was a primary resonance in two movies, but aside from that, doesn't pose or warrant as a primary or secondary character slot. He should be mentioned in an article to that extent, but doesn't warrant his own section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Crane Hermit

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Crane Hermit is not notable enough to have his own section and is to be deleted

• Delete Minor Dragon Ball character that has few appearances, and makes little lasting contributions to the plot. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with brief appropriate mention in students section if relevant. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - numerous unremarkable appearances without lasting impact, either through plot, gags or real-world impact, should be removed.じんない 03:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - Crane Hermit is integral to two sagas in which he appears, pertaining to the plot. However, his information is limited to that extent and should be merged if not deleted with the saga he appears in. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In list also? 118.71.83.56 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Cui

Resolved

 – Deleted

• Weak Merge The character is not very relavent by himself, but could be easily merged with a section about Freeza's minions (and titled as such). DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with brief mention in Freeza section as one of minions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete DragonZero (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with Freeza's minions.じんない 03:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete totally non-notable. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into a Frieza's minions or acquaintances section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Cui is integral to the saga he appears in. He is not only a secondary character in the manga, but also the anime. He appears prior to the Namek saga as a mysterious figure and follows throughout, even to the pre-Namek threats he gives to Vegeta, and leading to his eventual clash against Vegeta and execution. He's a secondary character in the Namek saga. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dabura

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Dabura is not notable enough to warrent his own section and is to be deleted

• Delete, Non notable Dragon Ball character that does little to contribute to the overall plot, and even as a minion of Bobidi is not that notable. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per DBZRocks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 03:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Dabura is integral to the Babidi and Majin Buu sagas, both in the manga and anime. Dabura is also the most notable of all Babidi's minions. Aside from the fact that he has a battle against Gohan and Majin Buu, his internal struggles, meditation, and further development in the series qualify him as a secondary character, not a primary, but definitely a secondary in the Buu arc. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dodoria

Resolved

 – removed and mention merged to Freeza's section

• Merge, easy merge to a section about Freeza's minions, important enough to the plot to be mentioned there. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with brief appropriate mention in Freeza's section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Freeza's minions.じんない 03:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any Frieza-related section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into a Frieza's minions or acquaintances section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Aside from Zarbon, Dodoria is the second most important and integral character in the Namek Saga. He has the most brutal battle against the Namekians, reveals further secrets to Vegeta, and chases Gohan and Krillin, not to mention the fact that he has earlier history with the elimination of Bardock's team as well as the actual level of importance he plays in the saga he's in. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Briefs

Resolved

 – Consenus is that Dr. Briefs is to be deleted, with appropriate mentions in Bulma and Android #16's sections

• Weak Delete, Dr. Briefs does make some contributions to the plot, but overall, does not make any lasting contributions. He does do more than most minor characters but not enough to deserve a section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mentions in Bulma and Android #16's sections. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - any necessary information can be added to Bulma or Android 16.じんない 03:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - he can have a small mention if he isn't deleted, in Bulma's section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Gero

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Dr. Gero is notable enough to have his own section and

• Merge, Notable enough to have a section titled "Dr. Gero and his creations", his actions have lasting effects in that he created all of the Androids, as well as Cell. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep with current name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - is there any reason to even ask if he has his own subsection which if anything will grow after this?じんない 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps include in his section the minor androids in the same way as Piccolo Daimao's minions are in his section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - To remove Dr. Gero is to remove the entire purpose of the Android saga, as well as the further installments in GT. Gero is one of the most crucial and integral secondary characters in DBZ. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Myu

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Dr. Myu is not notable enough to have his own section and is to be deleted

• Delete, He creates Baby and Super 17, but he really does nothing else but that, and he has very little backstory, and lacks relationships with other characters. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mention in Baby and Super 17's sections as his creator. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per DBZRocks.じんない 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Dr. Myuu plays a particularly important role in the saga he's in. He should be mentioned in a Machine Mutant section at the least, if his own section is deleted. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Elder Kai

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Elder Kai is to be kept as a section

• Weak keep, has notable contributions at the end of Z and at the start of GT. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up and shorten. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - his contributions are worthy of mentioning, but I don't know if he deserves his own section.じんない 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Unsure so I don't have anything to convey ATM. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Elder Kai appears only after the mid-Buu saga. Although he is integral to some degree, he doesn't warrant his own section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Emperor Pilaf

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Emperor Pilaf is to be kept as a section

• Delete, non-notable, has minor contributions in Dragon Ball, and a very minor contribution to the plot in GT, but overall has little importance. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but shorten. Seems to have appeared in more than a few episodes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep He was the main villain for the first arc and came back a few times in Dragonball. I would say he should be in the secondary characters section given his importance to the first arc and several later arcs.じんない 03:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Pilaf is very notable in the sagas he appears in. However, due to the fact that more important and much more highly integral characters are being merged, his merger in the sections appropriated with tertiary characters is better suited to his appearance. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Evil Dragons

Resolved

 – Consensus is that the Evil Dragons should maintain their own section

• Keep, They are the final villains of Dragon Ball GT, and they have their own arc, so a keep is a good idea. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable within the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable as the last enemy of the series.じんない 03:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - all the dragons were notable and should be kept. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Fortuneteller Baba

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Fortuneteller Baba is not notable enough for her own section and is to be deleted

• Delete, Only a non backround character in one Manga volume, for the rest of the series, makes no large contributions. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, unnotable; only mention needed is in chapter summaries. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Can be mentioned in chapter summary.じんない 03:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Although an entire saga is based on her name, her appearance as a background character who appears time to time doesn't necessarily warrant a keep. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Garlic Jr.

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Garlic Jr. is to be kept as there is no dicenting motion that he is not notable

• Weak Keep, notable enough to have his own movie and filler arc, but at the same time, does not make any actual contributions to the plot. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!!
• Keep, he does have an Arc named after him, so presumably at least somewhat notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above.じんない 03:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Unsure so I don't have anything to convey ATM. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per AnmaFinotera. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Garlic Junior's primary appearance in one movie, and his eventual secondary appearance in the DBZ saga at least hold a merger for him. However, he is never a primary villain nor a primary character aside from his brief appearances limited to both instances. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

General Rilldo

Resolved

 – Consensus is that General Rilldo is to be deleted as he is not notable enough to warrent his own section

• Stong Delete, Minor Dragon Ball GT villain who makes few contributions to the plot, and serves as a one-shot villain, unnotable. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per DBZRocks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 03:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Rilldo qualifies for the same treatment as Myuu. They are both integral in the saga they appear in. His fight against Goku was notable. He shouldn't be deleted but should be merged with a Machine Mutant section, the same case as Myuu. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ginyu Force

Resolved

 – Consensus is that the Ginyu force should keep its section

• Strong Keep, merge under the aformentioned section about Freeza's minions, but otherwise keep as is. Many notable contributions to the series, and are main villains for multiple volumes. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as own section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - they should have their own subsection under Freeza's minions as they are the principal villians aside from Freeza during the arc.じんない 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The Ginyu Force never plays the role of primary villains. However, as a group, they pose as secondary villains. They aren't officially aligned with Frieza's military and they aren't his minions. They are mercenaries hired by Frieza, and are ultimately integral to one saga, the Ginyu arc. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Giru

Resolved

 – Consensus is that the Giru section is to be deleted, with appriopriate mentions in the episode summaries

• Strong Delete, very minor character that has no spoken dialouge, and does nothing except to function as a Dragon Radar. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, while minor, seems to have at least some supporting role. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the info can be added in the episode summaries and if we have a section for the dragon radar somewhere, there too.じんない 03:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - Giru's appearance is very limited to a few instances in GT. In the entire story, he barely plays a tertiary role. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Gotenks

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Gotenk's section should be deleted, with appropriate mentions in Goten and Trunk's sections

• Merge, A fusion between Goten and Trunks, whose information can be placed in both of those respective characters articles, not notable enough by himself. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate notes in Goten and Trunks sections. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per above.じんない 03:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Goten and Trunks, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete very minor character, shouldn't even be noted. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Fusions are very brief in appearance. They aren't noteworthy and establish even less than the Goten and Trunks characters as stand-alone references. This is a definite delete due to its very brief appearance. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Grandpa Gohan

• Keep, major contribution to the plot in that he raises Goku, and Gohan is named after him. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete raising Goku and having Gohan named after him are not really notability factors to me. He dies quickly, then isn't seen again except for flashbacks, correct? So delete, and mention as is appropriate in Goku and Gohan's sections. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per AnmaFinotera. He is used a prop, not an actual character. His importance as an idea is needed for Goku's section and perhaps a few others like Master Roshi, but he plays no part in the storyline.じんない 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment No he actually appears as the mystery champion that Goku faces at Baba's in chapters 105-108. So he's not limited to flashbacks. Althought I know it's redundant at this point, I just thought I'd point that out. Sarujo (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That makes him at most a one-time character which is better suited to chapter summaries.じんない 21:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep what DBZROCKS said. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. "Not an actual character"?? What is he if not?? --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the extent of Grandpa Gohan's importance can easily be described in a small section under Goku's history, only to briefly serve as mentioning him. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with DBZROCKS. And besides, he appeared in the film adaptation. Sutsare (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Can we come to a consensus on this one so we can close the last remaining character?陣内_Jinnai 06:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Guru

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Guru is not notable enough to have his own section, and is to be deleted

• Delete, not very notable, dispite giving a one time power-up to two characters. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete role easily covered in chapter/episode summaries. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per AnmaFinotera.じんない 04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with the Ginyu Force section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Guru plays a minor role in the saga he's in. Aside from being a guiding light to his people and a philosophic and knowledgeable character overall, his appearance is brief. However, the events leading to his demise and his eventual acceptance of his fate are reasons why he should be mentioned in a section and not deleted completely. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Kai

Resolved

 – removed Elder Kai and Kai with partial merge to King Kai section

• Delete, King Kai can be kept for the contributions he makes to the plot, but the rest of the Kaios are filler anime characters that are very unnotable. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge some into King Kai to give explanatory info. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with Supreme Kai.じんない 04:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per DBZROCKS. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete but mention them in King Kai's section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - King Kai is highly integral, maybe more than any other Kai in the series run. The amount of his appearance, both in manga, and anime, as well as filler, is enough to at least warrant a mention of him in a section rather than completely delete him. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

King Cold

Resolved

 – Consensus is that King Cold is not notable enough to have his own section, and is to be deleted

• Strong Delete, very, very minor villain that appears in one volume, and does not even do much except get defeated by Trunks in said volume. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, DBZROCKS already said it well -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - I personally love the character of Cold. However, his appearance is very brief in the saga he's in (spanning four episodes). He can at least be mentioned in the Frieza section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

King Yemma

Resolved

 – Consensus is that King Yemma is not notable enough to have his own section, and is to be deleted

• Delete, Serves little purpose in the overall plot, provides only exposition. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete extremely minor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Yemma never plays a secondary role. He's always either a tertiary or even lesser character who briefly appears from time to time, same as the likes of Fortuneteller Baba. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Korin

Resolved

 – Consensus is that the Korin section is to be deleted

• Delete, serves little purpose in the overall plot, besides giving Goku a one-time powerup. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no need for mention beyond chapter/episode summaries. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - mention it in the chapter/episode.じんない 04:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section (if one exists). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Although he's integral to a few plots, Korin's appearance is very limited and fits under the same consensus as Fortuneteller Baba and Yemma. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Launch

Resolved

 – Deleted - if mentions appropriate in other character sections, can be added as needed

• Delete, Minor backround character that does little besides provide comic relief during Dragon Ball, and completely disappears partway through Z. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with possible very brief mention in Tien's and Roshi's sections. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. While she does do little more than provide comic relief, she is for the duration she is a part of - which is several arcs - play the role in it. The amount of rehashing plot that would need to be done - Roshi, Goku, Tien and Krillin would make it worse than leaving her in.じんない 04:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section (if one exists). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep a recurring established presence for a considerable part of the series. --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Launch should be mentioned in another section, although her appearance in later sagas is very limited. Her actual development as a character from the start accomplishes something for her role. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Marron

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Marron is not notable enough to have her own section and is to be deleted

• Delete, does nothing relavent to the plot at all. No notability besides being related to Kuririn/Krillin. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mention in Krillin and #18's section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with a brief mention in Krillin's and #18's sections.じんない 04:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Never played even a tertiary role. This character was just in the background for the sake of being there. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mercenary Tao

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Mercenary Tao is not notable enough to have his own section and is to be deleted

• Delete, minor, one chapter villain that does nothing significant in the overall plot. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, too minor, already covered in chapter summary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per aboveじんない 04:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC).
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Crane Hermit's section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Mercenary Tao is a primary character in Dragon Ball. However, his appearance ratio is diminished greatly in DBZ. For the sake of mentioning him, he should be maintained to some degree by being mentioned in a saga arc or another character's profile, such as anything in relation to the Red Ribbon Army's orders. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Merge He was significant enough to develop Tenshinhan and Chiaotzu into Z Fighters, and was mentioned in three sagas, and appeared in two sagas of Dragonball.

Mr. Popo

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Mr. Popo is to minor to have his own section and is to be deleted, with appropriate mentions in Kami's section

• Delete, Minor backround character with little significance to the plot. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, too minor. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge relevant info with Kami.じんない 04:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Kami's section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Mr Popo's not mentioned in the entire article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Popo is a secondary character whenever he actually appears and always seems to play some role. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Muri

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Muri is not notable enough to have his own section

• Delete, Very minor, character that appears in a very limited ammount of chapters. There is nothing to say about the character then the very minor contributions he makes to the plot in one volume. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete appearances too brief. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - note contribution in the chapter/episode list.じんない 04:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Muuri's purpose was to show the Namekians endurance and ability to try and withstand even against greater odds. However, his appearance is very limited and the fact that he barely appears just to get butchered by Dodoria, proves his lesser role. His further appearances after revival are extremely brief, once to allow Dende to become the Earth's Guardian, and another to help with the Dragon Ball's wishes. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Mutaito

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Mutaito is not notable enough to have his own section

• Strong Delete, Very minor character that is only very lightly expanded upon in the anime, not notable enough to have his own section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate brief mentions in Roshi and the Crane Hermit's sections. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mention in Roshi's section.じんない 04:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section, an outright removal shouldn't do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Mutaito is lesser than Crane Hermit based on appearance. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nail

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Nail's section is to be deleted, with appriopriate mentions in Piccolo's section

• Delete, serves little purpose in the overall plot than to be defeated by Freeza and fuse with Piccolo, after he fuses with Piccolo, he disapperas from the plot. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mention in Piccolo's section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per AnmaFinotera's comment.じんない 04:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Piccolo's article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Same consensus as Guru. Nail was integral in some of one saga, but limited in appearance and never a primary role. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Nappa

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Nappa's section is to be deleted

• Delete, Minor villain, that serves no purpose overall than to be defeated by Goku to show off his new power. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mention in Vegeta and Piccolo's section as warranted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per AnmaFinotera.じんない 04:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section, an outright removal shouldn't do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Served as the active antagonist for 11 chapters straight (if I did my math correctly). He was around about as long as the Ginyu, and had as much or more screen time than Cpt. Ginyu. And above there was enthusiastic votes to keep the Ginyu Force due to their roles as primary antagonists before the boss stepped in. Nappa was Vegeta's "Ginyu." Onikage725 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, except that the Ginyu force were main villains for around three volumes, while Nappa was only a major character in one. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Nappa is the most important secondary character in all of the Saiyan Saga. His role alone established the entire battle of the first saga of DBZ. Without Nappa, more than ten episodes would be thrown aside. His very essence, role, amount of appearance, and storyline constitutes the makings of a secondary character. Nappa is integral to the plot and should keep his own section without a shred of doubt. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Ox King

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Ox King's section is to be deleted, with appropiate mentions in Chi-Chi's section

• Merge, Can be mentioned in Chi-Chi's article, not notable enough on his own, and has importance in one section of one volume, and for the rest of the series, is regulated to being a backround character. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with the appropriate mention in Chi-Chi's section/article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per above.じんない 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or merge, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - Ox-King was never a primary character, always a tertiary character. His appearance was limited and the only time the storyline revolved around him was when Goku and Chi-Chi searched for the Bansho Fan and the Furnace to stop the fire from burning down his castle. However, he never appears thoroughly enough to warrant a keep. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Pikkon

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Pikkon is not notable enough to have his own section and is to be deleted

• Delete, Minor character that has very little purpose other than to pad out the anime with filler. As he is a filler character, he has no lasting effects on the plot at all. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, while being filler only is not, in and off itself, a reason to remove a character, still appears to be a minor character -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per AnmaFinotera.じんない 04:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Pikkon is so limited in his appearance of four episodes, even when not incorporating the fact that the entire saga was filler, Pikkon's importance beyond that is barely notable. He can be mentioned if there's a section of Other World contestants, but his role is strictly lesser than tertiary. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Porunga

Resolved

 – Porunga removed and merged into Shenron section

• Merge, Porunga is basically Shenlong/Shenron's Namekian counterpart, and thus, can be mentioned in his section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, maybe he his counterpart, but still distinct it seems. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and rename the section to Dragon Gods or something per the Kai/Supreme Kai.じんない 04:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Shenlong's section as the Namek variant of the dragon. --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Porunga's purpose is the same as Shenron's. He can be mentioned in a section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Raditz

Resolved

 – Consenus is that Raditz is to be deleted, with appriopriate mentions in Bardock's and Goku's sections

• Delete, Besides being the brother of the protagonist, Raditz does little more than serve as a minor, one chapter villain. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mentions in Goku and Bardock's section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 04:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section, an outright removal shouldn't do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Raditz is the first secondary villain to appear in DBZ. His role is integral to the plot, as well as the fact that his battle is a deciding one. To delete Raditz or Nappa is nothing short of a mistake. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Red Ribbon Army

Resolved

 – Consensus is that the Red Ribbon Army section is to be kept

• Strong Keep Very notable, multi-volume villains that are very notable in that they also affect Dr. Gero later in the series. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per DBZROCKS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above.じんない 04:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - General Blue, General White, Assistant Black, Commander Red, etc. all play secondary to primary roles in the sagas they are in. None of them should be deleted or merged. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Saibamen

Resolved

 – Consensus is that the Saibamen section is to be deleted as the Saibamen are not notable enough

• Strong Delete, extremely minor characters that, besides having no dialouge, serve little more purpose than to provide cannon fodder. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing more than a tool and already mention in main Saiyan article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 04:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - they can be mentioned in a small section for Nappa or Vegeta or pertaining to the Saiyan saga. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Spopovich

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Spopovich is not notable enough to warrent his own section, and is to be deleted

• Strong Delete, minor one volume villain that does very little in the overall scheme of things. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete one-time character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 04:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Spopovich's fight against Videl was important, as well as his stealing of Gohan's energy, his return to Babidi, and brutal execution at the hands of the wizard. He can at least warrant a mention if not his own section under Babidi's section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Turtle

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Turtle is to be deleted for not being notable enough to have his own section

• Strong Delete, extremely minor backround character, that serves little more purpose than to simply provide a source of comic relief. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with mention in Roshi's section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Roshi's section.じんない 04:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Roshi's section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Turtle was never a secondary or tertiary character and his extremely brief appearances from time to time don't warrant a keep. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Zarbon

Resolved

 – Consensus is that Zarbon is to be kept and can be merged, or stay a stand alone section

• Merge, More notable then Dodoria at the very least, should be merged into a section about Freeza's minions. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, has enough notability on his own for at least his own section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above.じんない 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Zarbon is the most important villain in the Namek Saga (not counting the Frieza saga). He plays more of a role than the entire Ginyu Force combined. His appearance is integral not only to Vegeta and Frieza's character arcs, but his own as a secondary character overall, both in the Bardock storyline and the Namek saga. His overall persona as a villain is second only to Frieza, who is a primary character. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tien, Yamcha, and Yajirobe are main/secondary characters

I don't understand why they're being considered secondary characters. Tien and Yamcha remained very important and major characters up until the end of the Cell Saga in which ever character that wasn't a Saiyan became a minor or secondary character (even Piccolo. If we are going to be considering Frieza, Buu, and Cell major characters. And if your going to consider Trunks, Vegeta and Bulma major characters then Tien and Yamcha should also be considered major characters since they've had about an equal amount of panel time as the previously mentioned characters. And far more panel time then any of the Saga villains. Yajirobe should also be listed as a secondary character because he's had a lot of panel time. Even more then the saga villains. Preceding unsigned comment added by Redbird 41 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 17 November 2010 (UTC)