Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragon Ball/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

Proposal: Merge Broly and Coola articles

Villains who are only present in a couple of hours each worth of animation should not have their own articles, based on the apparent current standards for merging. Piccolo Diamao and Kaio-sama both have far more importance, and popularity alone should not constitute deleting articles. —The preceding comment is by 141.155.119.33 (talk • contribs) 141.155.119.33: Please sign your posts!

Both of those villians are present in at least two of the movies. And it makes no difference how often they appear, it depends on their importance in the series. I agree that Coola has no real significance in the series, but Broly on the other hand is the most referenced non-series villian.--VorangorTheDemon 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
It depends on real world information. If we can give enough non-trivial development and reception information, even minor characters can have articles. These should be merged if that much isn't possible. TTN 16:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
If this helps, here's a link from Daizex with design notes and sketches from Toriyama on a number of movie projects- http://www.daizex.com/multimedia/images/character_designs/index2.shtml
Pic of Coola design's with translation- http://www.daizex.com/multimedia/images/character_designs/dbz_movie_5_toriyama/coola.jpg
Goku from movie 5 (first movie SSJ appearence)- http://www.daizex.com/multimedia/images/character_designs/dbz_movie_5_toriyama/ssj_goku.jpg
Coola's minions - http://www.daizex.com/multimedia/images/character_designs/dbz_movie_5_toriyama/coola_armored_squad.jpg
And Broli- http://www.daizex.com/multimedia/images/character_designs/dbz_movie_8_toriyama/broli.jpg
I'll admit I suck at sourcing, and don't know if that stuff is helpful enough, but everyone can take a look. Onikage725 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Those really helpful at all. They give no real insight into the thought process, and would only give a couple of sentences. You're looking for at least a couple of solid paragraphs, which requires some detailed sources. TTN 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Geez. Anything else count? Cuz if the criteria for keeping a DB character article is a couple of solid paragraphs from Toriyama, then we can go ahead and scratch the whole lot of 'em. I'll just flat out say that now. The guy's a bit of a scatterbrain. He touches on some things in the occasional interview, like what a bitch it was to draw Cell in the long run, how much he loved Piccolo as a character, what a douche Vegeta is, etc (not in those exact words obviously). I've never heard of him sitting down and tolling out some great George Lucas-esque level of insight into his characters (beyond basing most of his originals off of Journey to the West). Onikage725 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
We want a couple of solid paragraphs built with varied sources. AT doesn't have to be the only one, but we need more than simple, jotted down notes that provide nothing from him. TTN 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Do we really need articles like Broli and Coola? They're no more notable than characters like Burdock and Zarbon. They're merely supervillains that did nothing but appear in a few movies and perhaps in DBGT for no reason. I agree with the ip guy. Just merge them to their respective lists. I did the same for Mr. Satan and Oob. Every character can have their own page at Dragon Ball wiki Onikage, so use that daiex information there. Lord Sesshomaru
Hey don't single me out. I was just sharing some links to design notes in case they were helpful. I don't even edit that wikia (though I do have an account). I may tend more towards eventualism than immediatism, but I don't particularly care if these two get merged (my own fondness for the Coola article aside). Onikage725 00:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Anyone oppose if I redirect those two to their lists? Lord Sesshomaru
Nope. Fire at will. Takuthehedgehog 00:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
If Broly and Cooler keep their own articles should Garlic Jr. get one? He had his own movie and his own saga. I'm not necessarily suggesting he have one, but if Broly and Cooler are determined to be notable enough there's a pretty compelling argument that Garlic Jr. is too. --Toxicroak 09:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. I should have noticed that the decision to merge Broly/Cooler has already been reached and thus there's no point to for Garlic Jr. to have his own article. --Toxicroak 09:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey I'd say give it another day or two. The conversation went for like a day and a half and wasn't very active (the meat of it was whether or not some daizex links would help). Give some people a chance to notice this and respond. Just cuz I didn't raise an objection doesn't mean someone else doesn't know some sources. The outcome will probably ultimately be the same, but under two days seems a little quick to have reached a consensus to drop an article. And wouldn't putting them up for afd be appropriate in these situations? Onikage725 11:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the afd part, I guess that isn't really appropriate. I tagged the articles as proposed merges though (to list of Saiyans/Extraterrestrials respectively) and linked to this talk page. Onikage725 12:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


There is no reason i see for the merge for one thing the article is not a stub, secondly the notion that its not important may i remind you all that the purpose of wikipedia is to bring knowlege and information to everyone no matter if its important or not its still information pertaining to a certain subject matter. I propose that this merge proposal be deleted danieljackson 02:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. The problem with the articles is that they are covered for the most part elsewhere. Let's pick 'em apart, starting with Broli. The bulk of his article is "History" and "Forms and Transformations." History is pretty much covered on the individual articles for the films. The article adds no new perspective on the SSJ1 state that isn't covered in the Super Saiyan article, which has a more comprehensive section on the LSSJ state as well. The only new material is on Bio-Broli, but this could be merged with the movie article and/or given a sub -section to Broli's list entry. Coola seems a bit more varied, but in the end is the same. The name pun can be condensed, as the whole paragraph is lifted from the Freeza article more or less. His henchmen are covered on the list already. The section on The plot summary can be left to the two movie pages. Each video game has an article. Remove everything that isn't covered elsewhere and you have an opening paragraph and a cool picture. Onikage725 10:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge them. Neither of them were in the manga.User:Mr. Blonde 139 9:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge them. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia They are notable enough on their own. The fact that they didn't appear in the manga is UTTERLY irrelevant to wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. ED-209 prominently appeared in only one Robocop movie for example (the others were just for a few minutes or even seconds). Brolly and Koola have both appeared in more than one movie as the primary antagonist as well. Brolly appeared in 3 movies, and Koola appeared in 2. That's notable enough for their own articles. Malamockq 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Blonde, you fail to understand that whether they appear in the manga or not doesn't determine if they get an article. Notability is the main criteria. // DecaimientoPoético 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
ED-209 has an article? Haha...anyway. Hey if you know my history, I normally vote against a merge (*coughBulmacoughMutencough*), but in this instance I don't feel the articles themselves are actually needed. I could see Broli being notable enough maybe, at least in America (it seemed like the scores of Vegeta fans dumped him when the Legend came forth) but the fact is both articles in their current state are redundant. Look 'em over. Again, you know me, and I'd much rather give a decently written article the benefit of the doubt. Onikage725 11:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. User:Mr. Blonde 139 12:47 PM, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've actually got something constructive to say (I think). The Broly article contains a good deal of character information not found in the plot summaries of the movies. It's probably enough to warrant him an article, unless someone is willing to condense and revise the character information into the "List of Saiyans" list. Cooler on the other hand just has an extended plot summary for his character bio. The only section that provides information not seen elsewhere is the last paragraph of his character bio, and this could easily be incorporated into the "Return of Cooler" page. Even if he is a notable character, there's little information in his article that couldn't be found in the plot summaries for his movies. So I'd say leave Broly, but merge Cooler. Sorry if I'm being a nuisance, I'm still trying to figure out how to find valid arguments for and against articles being merged. User:Mr. Blonde 139 11:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell just happened? First, Broly was deleted and now Coola is up for deletion as well. When was it decided this is the way we'd be going about this? Restore Broly's article, take Coola off the deletion list, and leave them be. No one decided on merging them yet. // DecaimientoPoético 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah whoa... the database is locked, so can't do much now. But the merge proposal tag was taken off Coola's article and Brolli's was deleted? This was still a contested issue. Not only that, but the proposal is to merge them, not delete. Currently the only entry on Brolli is the name "Bio-Broly" on the list of Saiyans with a dead link to "main article." Not exactly what I call a merge. Onikage725 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

All this merging is stupid

I mean really, most of the articles stand alone. And as for the argument that they just retell the same thing, so does a real encyclopedia. we should make an article for each character. STOP THE MERGING —The preceding comment is by 4.161.140.4 (talk • contribs) 4.161.140.4: Please sign your posts!

You're opinion, however, lots of the characters where we suggest a merge aren't important enough in the series to have their own articles. Coola is a perfect example, along with Broly and for example, Yajirobi. None of them are important enough to have their own articles. --VorangorTheDemon 06:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
4.161.140.4, please read WP:NOTE. That should answer all your questions. Lord Sesshomaru

Pictures

Can we use no longer pictures in the list articles?--Homei 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reason being? // DecaimientoPoético 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
There can be images for the more important characters, but no gallery. See WP:FAIRUSE for information. Lord Sesshomaru

Manga vs Anime

I was thinking... what if we distinguished more between the two? It has been suggested before that we make a seperate article for the dub of the anime, but what if we just seperated the two formats? Most other articles that have a manga with anime adaptations seem to primarily focus on the manga. The big (huge) problem around here is deciding which English source is best, but the fact is we don't even distinguish between versions. A lot of these articles are a mishmash of dub, Japanese version, Viz translation, original manga, etc. Non-manga events and characters are not distinguished, manga-only events aren't even mentioned (quick examples- Dende's brother Cargo's death isn't even mentioned in the Namek saga article, let alone the manga and anime discrepency about his death; Trunks is a Super Saiyan in the future right from when we meet him in the manga, but his bio only reflects the TV special version of events). Maybe if we started by properly seperating and ordering our facts we could then worry about which adaptation each article should use on a case by case basis. It sounds a bit much, but Dragon Ball is a huge series and its history in English has been varied and confusing. Onikage725 19:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

<A very similar discussion has taken place at User talk:Snapper2#A few things. I strongly suggest that everyone who will join into this discussion read what transpired there first and then respond here.> Lord Sesshomaru

Just wanted to note that the anime is now being aired on Cartoon Network during Toonami. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not really what this topic is about, but yeah I noticed that too. That's why I corrected my statements to say barely playing or the like intead of not playing. Onikage725 05:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kamehameha article?

I was just wondering if the Kamehameha should have it's own article. I know there was a Kamehameha article a while back, but I was just thinking about it and the Kamehameha has numerous real-life references. There's actually an international Kamehameha competition that happens every year, along with numerous attacks in other animes being inspired by or parodies of it. Should there be a Kamehameha article? --VorangorTheDemon 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has anwered me, I think I'm going to start one. --VorangorTheDemon 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
You should find a good number of sources first. TTN 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Neko Majin Characters

Back when everything had its own article, I didn't really have a problem with this. However, I have a big problem with the merging of characters like Onio and Kuriza to lists of characters in Dragon Ball. They aren't Dragon Ball characters at all. They are related to cross-over characters, but they don't exist in the Dragon Ball series (certain Japanese-only video game easter eggs aside). This is like listing Goku as a Dr. Slump character because Arale saved him once in a crossover. Hell I don't even think we have Arale on our earthling list, and she actually showed up in the series proper. Onikage725 10:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Kamehameha translation

What exaclty is the translation of Kamehameha? It can't be "Turtle Destruction Wave" because "Kame" means "Divine", not "Trutle". Or is it simply called "Turtle Destruction Wave", but that's simply it's name and not it's translation? The reason I'm asking this is because we almost had an edit war on the Goku article regarding what Kame meant. I know it means divine, as in Kamekaze (Divine Wind), Kame Senin (Divine Old Master). --VorangorTheDemon 18:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, it's Kamikaze, not KameKaze. And Kame Sennin means Turtle Immortal. Ryu Ematsu
Right, Kame is turtle. You're thinking of Kami (much like Piccolo's "other" and God of the Dragon Ball Earth). And you may be thinking of Muten Roshi (Invincible Old Master). Onikage725 04:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems this is much translated: Turtle?????? Hmmm... Anyone know how to translate?

--A legend 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kamehameha means Turtle Beach Bolt. Kame covers the Turtle part, Hame covers the Beach part, and Ha can actually be translated as either Wave or Bolt, but more often than not Wave. That's why I have to laugh everytime someone quoting the dub refers to it as the "Kamehameha Wave". If it were called that in the original Japanese, it'd be Kamehamehaha. Reminds me of when people call an ATM an ATM Machine. Anyhow, Kamesenin means Turtle Hermit, same as Tsurusenin means Crane Hermit. As above, Kame = Turtle, Tsuru = Crane, Senin = Hermit. And as said above, its Kamikaze, not Kamekaze. Kaze means Wind, and Kami essentially means God, which can also be wanked into meaning "divine". And as said above, Muten Roshi means "Invincible Old Master". Hope that helps. Fuad Ramses 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A possibly more well known example of "Ha" (if anyone doubts the translation is the Hadouken. In this case, "Wave Motion Fist." Onikage725

I guess we can call it the 'Turtle Beach Wave' or 'Turtle Beach Fist', right?--The source of the cosmos... 02:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Dragon Ball

In case anyone had not noticed, I have created a portal for Dragon Ball. Before anyone features it around the Wikipedia articles, it still needs improvement; use WP:Portal or Portal:Naruto as reference for upgrades. Reason why I have gone ahead and created this was having hope and kept in mind that this might end the constant edit warring and fan-bias with "Dub names" Vs. "Japanese names" and the like. Suggestions anyone? Discuss further on the talk page there instead of here. Lord Sesshomaru

Here is the link to that talk page, Portal talk:Dragon Ball#Improvements. Cheers, Lord Sesshomaru
Onikage725, I had lefted a comment for you back at the talk page of that portal. Lord Sesshomaru


I'm in.

I'm diving headlong into this work group. I've been reading over some of the chracter information and such, and a lot of it reads terribly. Some of it seems to be blatantly copied from other sources, there are glaring spelling and grammar errors, and it just really needs to be fixed up. I can't do a whole lot of work right this minute, but I'll be giving a lot of the Dragon Ball pages a spit-shine later tonight. I'll throw up a list of the ones I've seen that really need work later on, as well. Dan 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to adress that issue now. However, I would like to know what articles that you are talking about. --VorangorTheDemon 10:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, the one that set me off, and prompted me to join this project was List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball. To be specific, "Jaga Bada", I believe.
"A "villain" in DBZ movie #11, Super-Warrior Defeat!! I'm the One who'll Win, who wants revenge on his old classmate Mr. Satan for beating him in martial arts when he was a child. He funds experiments that create Bio-Warriors, including Bio-Broly. On the left Dr. Kori ("Kori Hakase"), a scientist who assists in the creation of Bio-Broly."
That's just painful to look at. Dan 11:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How to improve our editing and the Dragon Ball articles

I was reading a lot of our articles and noticed that we are in serious need of improvements on some of them. I think it's time that we all refresh our memory by reading the guidelines on how to write good articles and go from there. Lately, I've been working non-stop on the Goku article, and I believe that it's coming along smoothly, however, more stuff and edits are needed. --VorangorTheDemon 10:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging more characters

I doubt anyone will support me on this, but I'll still bring it up. Unless we can get some out of universe information from real sources, all of the characters besides Goku need to be merged. At this point, all we're doing is retelling different parts of the series around twenty times and buffering it with some tasty cruft. That is not acceptable without suppling some sort of real world context to these. A few may have a few minor notes from AT on them, but that is not enough to hold an article. Only Goku, who has a definite development background, definite reception possibilities, and definite real world impact possibilities, is worth waiting around for. Again, I doubt anyone wants this, but please think about it. TTN 14:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll again ask for an example of what would be considered a decent article (in this genre) if you know of one. I'm asking that because it would help me (and probably alot of us) to have a point of reference. There's also the point to keep in mind that list entries have to be reasonably sized. A number of the characters in this series wouldn't fit well on a list- they'd make them too large. I also don't fully understand comments about there not being adequate real world info, because I don't know what qualifies as adequate. I've never gotten the sense from other articles and from the rule itself that there has to be "X number of references" to qualify as an article. There is info out there, but it is hard to track down. Its added as its found. Articles were written in magazines, interviews with Toriyama were translated in Shonen Jump, but we don't all have all of that readily available. I just think its rash to try and nix almost every article just because none of the VA's have appeared on Leno or Viz hasn't translated any Daizenshuu ()or anything like that).Onikage725
I don't think there are any decent anime/manga character articles. I believe a few are listed as GAs, but they probably need to be delisted (all plot from what I can remember). There is certainly potential for some (like Goku), but it is never utilized. By cutting off the plot sections and the cruft, most of these articles can easily be summed up in two to four paragraphs. None of the characters are very complicated. If you want good character examples, look under the media section of the FA list.
The information needs to be more than bits and pieces found in a Q&A column. The fact that Yamcha is based off of x doesn't get him an article. We need to be able to describe how Yamcha was built as a character (How was his personality developed?, Was his role in the series his original role?), how he has been viewed in the series (under utilized and useless?, good or bad motivations?), and how he has impacted things (popular culture, non-trivial references). That is very unlikely for all of the characters beyond Goku (who may not even reach that point himself). TTN 14:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have been working non-stop on the Goku article for almost two weeks (to someone's dismay, they pretty much told me that my edits were crap. All I have to say to them is if my edits are crap, then why don't you fix them yourself? I forget who said it.). What I think that we need to do is look at other anime articles (GA) and compare ours to theirs. By using those examples, we could improve the articles. --VorangorTheDemon 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
If you really want to improve Goku, you need to cut the plot down to three to five paragraphs, and trim the rest down in general. I don't believe we have any quality GA anime or manga characters (If there are any, they're most likely plot only ones that need to be delisted). TTN 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there are some Sailor Moon GAs, but they seem to be just sourced plot reiterations. TTN 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I think I'll cut it down. Even though this is a little off subject, I also believe that discussion should start about possibly merging Saiyan and Super Saiyan. I would really like to add a "regular form" to the Super Saiyan article, but if we do, it would no longer be about Super Saiyans, it would be about Saiyans. However, I can't help but feel that the article is incomplete with out the regular Saiyan form. --VorangorTheDemon 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this discussed before? I believe once those Dragon Ball articles are completely rewritten in encyclopedic appearance, with complete references and all, then they stay. Look at Beelzebub's and Paifu's article. If they can look like that, there should be no reason for a merger. Bulma's page is the only one that hasn't been redirected as of yet. Who will be bold enough to do that? Lord Sesshomaru

Pretty sure doing that to Bulma will get reverted, since (if I'm not mistaken) the discussion about her was in favor of keeping. Onikage725
Actually, those two examples are just sourced plot summaries. Unless they're trimmed and given real world information, they should be merged. TTN 11:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, here to give my two cents, I'm still learning how to be a good Wikipedian, so if what I say is useless, just tell me. I've noticed that the plot summaries for the sagas tend to be very broad, giving information about all the really important major events. Plot summaries in character articles tend to be more detailed, giving accounts of that character's actions in the saga. For example, Piccolo's smaller actions in the Buu arc are detailed in his character article, while they are only briefly mentioned in the saga articles. My theory is that we could detail the minor, but more important character actions in the plot summaries, and trim everything that isn't absolutely relevant out of the saga plot summaries. That makes it more encyclopedic - if someone wants a detailed run-down of Piccolo's actions in the Buu arc they can go to his page, whereas if they want a plot summary with detail given only to the major events, they can go to the saga article. That way, information is more categorical and easy to find.

One last thing - these articles have already been written, and they're there for people who want to read them. I need to ask - why do they NEED to be merged? Isn't that more time consuming (nominating, voting, condensing) than just doing a little clean-up? This is a serious question, I'm not just a fan asking for character articles to stay because I like them.

If there are any valid points in here, tell me. If what I've said is useless, just delete it. User:Mr. Blonde 139 1:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on summaries. Most of them need to be trimmed, but I don't think they need to be outright deleted and merged, relegated to a paragraph on personality. And while the Saga articles should cover the majority of the plot summary, what you said has merit. For such a long series, the potential for both lists and saga articles to blow up if everyone that isn't Goku is merged is very real. Given that the series is so long, I don't think the main characters having articles is a problem. They need cleanup, and certainly need to take a less in-universe approach to their writing, but I think nixing all of them is the opposite extreme. Onikage725 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. I do love how they invent little things like CRUFT to make things even more difficult to maintain but its still basically a big resource for information. 6-7 years ago when DBZ was at its height of popularity, the ability to come here, type in Brolly/Broli, etc and find some decent information on what they did, a pic and info on what they could do in the manga would have been substantial. Its decline in popularity isn't a reason to go deleting stuff. You think the Vegetto article is small? There are articles that basically have an album photo and a list of tracks that appear on it. At least a Vegetto article, a broly article, etc, etc have a purpose and are useful information that people can and will look up. Compared to a throwaway paragraph on a list page. No, spovovitch doesn't need his own page but this insane merging needs to stop as does this transformation/technique condensing on Goku's page. No fan, old or new is gonna read that and give a crap in the end, it provides them with no immediate information nor illustrates anything in particular about Goku.

Renaming Muten-Rôshi

Moved from: Muten-Rôshi. I'm aware this has been discussed plenty of times before, but just bear with me.

I find it strange that we use Muten-Rôshi as the article name when not once do I ever remember him being called such, even in the manga (although I only have the first four volumes of DB and 15 of DBZ). Shouldn't we be using Master Roshi - a more common name - instead? With the Son Goku article, the common name argument was completely different from this one (it was essentially an argument over using his full name or part of it), so please don't use that as an example as to why this title should remain the same. Thoughts? // DecaimientoPoético 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He's refered to as both "Muten Roshi" and "Kame-Sennin" in both the Viz manga and the Japanese subtitles on FUNimation's DVDs. Master Roshi isn't used in the manga, only the dub and video games. Takuthehedgehog 00:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I have a serious problem calling him "Master Master" (technically old master or teacher, but it can go either way). That's just silly and unencylopedic, if you ask me . And as Taku said, Muten Roshi, as well as Kame-Sennin (Turtle Immortal- remember he did drink that potion), are used in the manga as well as being the original names. Onikage725 12:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
It's been a while since I've picked up the manga (longer than I had thought, actually), so I forgot exactly what he was called and just assumed it was Master Roshi. A mistake on my part. At any rate, we should use a more common name to fans and non-fans alike. "Master Roshi" is probably his most well known name, and I'm sure "Kame-Sennin" is right up there with it. // DecaimientoPoético 14:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, here's what I like about this name over the others. Muten is more likely his name. "Master Muten" would have been a far better english title than master Roshi. Roshi comes off in the dub as his name, but it is his title signifying him as a master. Hence my "Master Master" comment. Familiar or not, it is so beyond inane that it hurts my head. By the same token, Kame Sennin (Turtle Immortal, or even the english used Turtle Hermit) while familiar, is simply another title. If we use Master Roshi we are being redundant, and basically guilty of rhetorical tautology. If we opt for Kame Sennin... hell we might as well use Jackie Chun. The only reason we use Tsuru Sennin is because we arent given a real name for him. By contrast, the dub called him Shen I believe, and we aren't using that. Onikage725 12:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd go for Muten Roshi. It's easier to type than Kamesennin or Kame Sennin and he is usually referred to as Muten Roshi-sama in the Japanese-audio of the uncut Dragon Ball DVDs, even moreso than names like "Old Timer" or "Turtle Hermit". Lord Sesshomaru
Haha "Old Timer." Ya know, I forget the dif ways people translate that one. I know in Japanese he (Goku) tends to call him/any authortive old guy "Jii-chan," which is a disrepectful yet affectionate form of Ojii-san or Grandfather. I suppose that'd basically be like calling him "gramps." Naruto does the same thing, calling Tsunade "Tsunade no Baa-chan" (Baa-chan being the short and disrespectful version of Obaasan or grandmother) and most subbers translated as "Old Lady Tsunade." In case it is worth mentioning in the Muten article, does anyone know off the top of their heads what the manga and subs use? I don't have anything on hand at the moment. Onikage725 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Viz manga: Muten-Rôshi, Kamesen'nin, Muten-Rōshi, Turtle guy, Kame-Sennin and/or Kame Sennin (unsure of these last two for Viz manga)

Japanese dialogue w/ English subs on DB DVDs: Muten Roshi, Turtle Hermit, Kamesennin, Old Timer, Turtle guy (unsure of this one for DVD) Roshi, Kame Sennin and/or Kame-Sennin (unsure of these last two for DVD)

That's about it. In both the manga and Japanese audio (with subbs), he is commonly referred to as Muten Roshi. Therefore, I'm in favour of using this common, standard and simple name. We don't need the obscure "ô", "ou" or "ō since the normalised "o" on the subtitles make the name(s) just as official as any other romanized letter.
Let's get this over with: everyone in favour of the standard name, Muten Roshi, state "support" with your reason(s). All who oppose it for another name state "oppose" with your reason(s).


It has been done, see Muten Roshi. Now all that's needed is taking care of the redirects and double redirects. Lord Sesshomaru

Toei or FUNimation's movie titles?

Should we be using FUNimation's movie and tv special titles, or should we switch to Toei's titles, as translated on the Japanese subtitle track of the movies? The dub movie titles tend to have names in them, so they'll use the dub spelling, ex: Broli movies, Burdock TV Special, Coola movies. Takuthehedgehog 05:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question, if the movie / special was officially released in the U.S., use the U.S. title. Use the original translated name if it was only given elsewhere (like Japan or China). This might solve problems in light of this. One move which I still believe should be done is Freeza Saga to Frieza Saga, but that's just my thought. Lord Sesshomaru
This is always a tricky one. My thoughts are that for the movies we should use the FUNimation titles for the article name itself, as we're dealing with single movies released straight to DVD (for the most part). I disagree on the saga articles however. Those articles detail certain arcs of the story, but I think we should go by the main original arcs. Right now it seems like we go by FUNimation box set releases, which doesn't make much sense to me. By doing so we now have many sub-saga articles to coincide with FUNimation's marketing, and the sagas themselves have seen some restructuring. Old style, season 1 (the "Saiyan Saga") ends... I forget exactly, but while everyone's getting ready to set for Namek. Now Season 1 ends with the kids and that invisible space ship. Season 2 (the "Namek Saga") started a little later, and went until Goku beats Ginyu. Season 3 started with the Cpt. Ginyu Saga. Now season 2 ends with the whole Ginyu arc, and season 3 will kick off with everyone resting at Freeza's ship. My point is that FUNimation seasons and sagas are not based on solely on story arc or even broadcast history. It has to do with what works best for marketing DVD releases. This is fine and makes sense for them financially. However it doesn't make sense for us to write encyclopedic articles on the plot of the Dragon Ball series based on one adaptations ever-changing business model. Onikage725 14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
As anal as I am about using original titles, I must admit that the English titles are much shorter and easier to type. --VorangorTheDemon 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't have to refer to them by their whole name every time we mention them. We can shorten them for passing refrences.
  • DB Movie 1: The Legend of Shenlong
  • DB Movie 2: Princess in Devil's Castle
  • DB Movie 3: Mystical Adventure
  • DB Movie 4: Path to Strength
  • DBZ Movie 1: Return Gohan
  • DBZ Movie 2: The World's Strongest
  • DBZ Moive 3: Deciding Battle
  • DBZ Movie 4: Super Saiyan Son Goku
  • DBZ Movie 5: Mightiest vs. Mightiest
  • DBZ Movie 6: 10,000,000,000 Warriors
  • DBZ Movie 7: The Three Super Saiyans
  • DBZ Movie 8: A Super-Fierce Battle
  • DBZ Movie 9: The Super Incredible Guy
  • DBZ Movie 10: The Dangerous Duo
  • DBZ Movie 11: Super Warrior Defeat
  • DBZ Movie 12: The Rebirth of Fusion
  • DBZ Movie 13: Dragon Fist Explosion
  • DBZ Special 1: The Father of Son Goku
  • DBZ Special 2: Resistance to Despair
  • DBGT Special: Goku Sidestory
Of course, other abreviations could be used also. We'd probably have to decide on one for each movie and special to stick to. Takuthehedgehog 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Human 17 & Artificial Human 18

Ok, who agrees with these new names? Since they're cyborgs, they may have to be moved to Cyborg 17 and Cyborg 18 respectively, such a long title like these look crufty. The same for Dr. Gero but, discuss away! Lord Sesshomaru

Well if I remember correctly Jinzōningen is translated in english as Artifical Human. I myself think its ok. Also if you think about it. A cyborg, be it part human or animal, and a android, which is a robot in human, animal or human like form is what the title suggest since now the cyborg is not a full human, nor organic. (think Robocop only his human face was remained.), the cyborg is artificial since it was made from organic and mechanical parts and I dont have to say anything about androids. Plus when a language is used a title (like we us android others use cyborg, etc...) the other AH in the series are titled with that title name. (Cyborg 19, Android 19, Jinzōningen #19 etc....) So to make it fair plus its tranlated correctly from Jinzōningen, Artificial Human seems to be the right chose but thats to me. Don't just look at these two you have 7 other AH. Yes technically 17, 18 and Gero (remember brain, organic) are Cyborgs and the others from what we know are Androids, but with other countries keep there titles with all the AH and do not seperate them, and the translation of Jinzōningen as I said, the best bet is to use Artificial Human. Heat P 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Heat, Artificial Human sounds okay.--$UIT 17:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jinzo/Jinzou - man-made, synthetic, artificial. Ningen - human being, man, person. Many old fansubs used to call them "man-made men." But the accepted translation (and the official one) is Artificial Human. Android is used for lip synch reasons in the dub, but we don't have a blanket term like the japanese do for synthetic beings. Jinzoningen Juunana-gou (8 syllables). Artificial Human Number Seventeen (11 syllables). Android Number Seventeen (7 syllables). Android was the obvious choice (and because the majority of Dr. Gero's creations were Androids, it was simple majority not to use Cyborg). But as for official translation- Artificial Human. Cyborg, while correct, is the product of original research. Onikage725 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Funimation's translation as "android" (as in completely mechanical) for 17 and 18 is not correct, this name is fine by me. Also if you look at it, "cyborg" has the same amount of syllables as "android", so I think that's just laziness on Funimation's part. Again, I am "anal" when it comes to names of DB characters on Wikipedia. I always try to emphasize referring to stuff in the DB universe by their literal translation, and not the half-a** Funimation titles that they are often referred by. I also agree with Onikage about "cyborg" being OR. EDIT: If you run into any "Android 20"s along the way, I think that it could also be changed for him. He is also an artifical human. --VorangorTheDemon 18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The use of the word "android" does not imply that these characters are completely mechanical. The android article states that robots are completely mechanical, cyborgs are part biological and part mechanical, and androids can be either. Answers.com defines "android" as "An automaton that is created from biological materials and resembles a human. Also called humanoid." Even if these characters were not actually androids, the most common term should still be used in the article title. Jecowa 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Calling them cyborgs isn't original research at all. Refer to DBZ manga, vol. 14, page 31. ISBN 1-59116-180-0; #17 says to #16: "You understand me, don't you, 16? You were created from a human male too." To which #16 replied, "No. I was created from nothing." #18 also says to #16, "Then you're fundamentally different from us..." Later in DBZ manga, vol. 20, page 150. ISBN 1-59116-808-2; Goku is speaking to Kuririn about #18's kid. Goku says, "I mean... how does a robot have a kid...?!" Kuririn replies to Goku, "She's not a robot. She's a cyborg!"
Here's my two cents: have #17's & #18's articles moved to their cyborg names based on this information. Now about the others, except Dr. Gero whom is also a cyborg (ie, has his human brain), title everyone else with Android, though I don't know if #8 (Eighter) was a human that died and came back to life or just your run-of-the-mill android.
Any other thoughts or concerns on what should be decided? Lord Sesshomaru 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd still say Artificial Human is fine. Differentiating between Android and Cyborg is ok with me personally, but it's going to look crufty IMO. They're almost always referred to by a blanket term. Artificial Human in the japanese scripts, Android in the dub. If I'm not mistaken, Viz uses the japanese term but tosses in little notes and dialogue here and their to help readers differentiate (basically trying to curb some of the "lost in translation" effect). Basically what I'm getting at is that while 17, 18, and 20 may be cyborgs, they are never named as such. "Artificial Human 18 is a cyborg" does not mean we should call her article "Cyborg 18." That's what I mean by original research. I'm aware that other languages have opted for cyborg (and I agree Vorangor, FUNi could have used both terms if they'd felt like it), but our only concerns here are the primary source and notable english adaptations. The original and english subs and manga use artifical human (unless I'm mistaken about Viz, I don't have any on hand), the dub uses android. Android is only semi-accurate, Artifical Human should cover everything. And should any readers be thinking of coming in with an "English Wikipedia" comment in favor of using android (haven't seen this in a bit but it still happens), just note A) noone wants "Jinzoningen" and the term is translated as Artifical Human in english sources. Onikage725 20:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Artificial Human is used in the Japanese subtitles on FUNimation's DVDs. Takuthehedgehog 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow, so you're saying that the Japanese subtitles are a direct translation of the language being spoken on the DVD? That has never happened in history of the world!
Are you saying that more people will know Android 17 and 18 as "Artificial Human 17 and 18"? No one wants Jinzoningen or Juuhachigo, what they want is for those names to be translated. I'm for the convenience of the reader, while you fight against the dub. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Quit it ALTTP. If you haven't figured it out yet, you're the only person who wants the crappy English dub information. You appear to be the only dub fanatic as well, in order to support your view you'll need more people to help establish something official. Lord Sesshomaru 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry for revealing reality to you, but welcome to it - Artificial Human 17/18 is not an official English name. No English material besides a direct translation of the Japanese names in the Japanese subtitles ever uses these names - the closest thing to it being official is it being a translation of the official Japanese names. Now, it's not the official Japanese name, but a translation. Let me count the number of people who view Wikipedia who would be helped by using an unbelievably unknown name for these characters - no one. The only people who care are you Japanophiles. The majority of people in English-dominant countries do not recognize the characters as "Artificial Human 17 and 18".
This isn't even a debate. Even if you somehow argued that Artificial Human 17 and 18 are official English names, they are so obviously not the most common ones. It's a matter of guidelines blatantly stating that AH17/18 are NOT good names for the articles, and you have completely failed to explain why this is good for non-fans or those who have only seen the dub (AKA - most of the people who know of the series, as well as the characters), so it's so obvious that it's not a case of dub fanboyism, but otakuism. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I undid the recent bad faith move attempts of #17 & #18 by A Link to the Past (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) per violating our consensus policy. He knows by now that if he does not agree with something [that has been] decided by a community, it can be changed by talking it out, not by being reckless. Lord Sesshomaru 08:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you please stop vandalizing Wikipedia by ignoring facts and deciding that it's best for the user to make the article title less convenient for the user? Android 17 and Android 18 are the most common names. It states it ever so clearly that it's best to use the most common names. There is no disputing that A17 and A18 are the most common names, and at no point can anyone show anything that would show that AH17 and AH18 are even a blip on the radar in comparison.
And this consensus of yours is bull. The fact that your only reply to opposition was telling the opposition to be quiet and that no one cared what the user had to say shows that your consensus is full of crap. Just because you ignore opposition does not mean that opposition doesn't exist, and it does NOT mean that your so-called consensus means anything at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The consensus policy is bull? ALTTP, you are well on your way of being blocked. This edit summary & comment is unacceptable. This is what I meant by you not wanting to get along with others. I have never seen such audacity before. If you're gonna keep this up I'll have to propose a ban. Despite you being blocked many, many times you haven't changed. I've contacted the WP:DBZ sysop Deskana to help handle this afffair. Lord Sesshomaru 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Bull, that's exactly what this consensus was. Is there any good reason why you ignored me and the guideline which states to use the most common English name? Let me answer that for you - no. I made a point that guidelines clearly state that this move was bad, and all you could say was "Quit it" (which I hope was "quit using facts plz". And am I to understand that one who calls my edits bad faith can complain when I call his edits bad faith? Anyway, until you actually bother to discuss this, the discussion is not over and consensus has not even come close to being found. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Frist of all, Artificial HUman is more accurate, considering the two aren't even Androids to begin with. The articial even says so. And after the Cell saga of the English dub, they stop calling then Android 18/17 and start calling them by their number. This is all plain logic. So quite trying to fight a futile battle. Ryu-chan
Accuracy doesn't matter!!! Unless you're from an alternate universe, of course. Which is more common? Look at the official Dragon Ball Z web sites, the official Dragon Ball Z merchandise, all material created because of the popularity of the series. Show me ANY piece of merchandise which calls the characters "Artificial Human 17 and 18". Wikipedia flat-out tells editors to use the most common English name. Artificial Human 17 and 18 is not the most common, and accuracy is only relevant to fans, not to the intended audience - aka, people who want to LEARN about the series. Either you find a guideline which validates ignoring the common name guideline or you stop moving the articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Well everyone else apparently wants Artificial Human also. If you don't think so, then read the whole discussion. Not only is Artificial Human more accurate, it is also in FUNimations english subtitles for the Japanese version. That's just like saying we should change Son Goku's name to Goku just because it's more common to anyone who's watched the english anime and not read the manga. On wikipedia, majority rules all. So you've lost. Ryu-chan
Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. We have guidelines in place for a reason. We use guidelines to be guided to what is good for the article. And why did you bring up accuracy? No guideline on Wikipedia even remotely implies that going with the creator's name for the character is a good idea. And yes, in FUNimation's subtitles, which are a direct translation of a Japanese name, they use Artificial Human 17. The only way that it would not be so is if the subtitles were not direct translations. But the fact that they are says that they did it because they were required to, not because they consider AH17 an official English name. Majority rules all, which is why we look at the majority - which name is more well-known (and thusly more helpful to readers) - Android 17, or Artificial Human 17? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is honestly starting to get irritation, so lets ask everyone else what they think on this issue. Ryu-chan

True, the act of ignoring anything you can't answer DOES irritate me. Answer the question this time - which is more common, Android 17 or Artificial Human 17? Don't even bother responding to me if you're going to ignore my question. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Artificial Human naturally. That's one of the reasons everybody above wanted it. Ryu-chan
Really? Why is it more common? It isn't used in the English dub, which is what most Americans and Britains see, it isn't used in merchandising, it isn't used in the English manga, it is only used in English subtitles. By that fact, it is NOT more common, and I fail to see how you could argue such a thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Add * Support if you agree with #17 and #18 being called Artificial Human 17 and Artificial Human 18 based on the information provided. Add * Oppose if you disagree if you think they should be Android 17 and Android 18 and/or have something else in mind. Please provide a brief explanation, then sign your name. 17:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

  • Speedy keep - bad faith revert by A Link to the Past (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Lord Sesshomaru 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy move - since Sesshomaru is vandal, it's only logical to NOT stay at his vandal move. He moved based on guidelines that were created by Dragon Ball fans, which directly and knowingly contradict a guideline that applies to this project. There is no official Wikipedia guideline that supports this move. And by the way, Sessy, you opened up ANY accusation of vandalism from me the moment you began to refer to my move based on official Wikipedia guidelines as a bad faith move. Are you implying that this project is above this guideline? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - In keeping with Dragon Ball task force's naming conventions. Also, Artificial Human is used more often then Android. Because simply googling "Android" or "Artificial Human" would get many off topic results, I googled "Artificial Human Dragon Ball" and "Android Dragon Ball". Artificial Human got 679,000 results. Android got 549,000 results. Takuthehedgehog 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • No project is allowed to make naming conventions which contradict Wikipedia naming conventions. And a better Google search: "Artificial Human" + "Dragon Ball" gets hundreds of thousands less Google hits than "Android" + "Dragon Ball". Also note how if you compare Artificial Human + "Dragon Ball" to Artificial Human Dragon Ball, you lose many Google hits. Remember next time to try to avoid a problem such as this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point you guys almost seem to be avoiding anything remotely used by the dub out of spite. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And one of the moves was a cut-and-paste move. Do this through WP:RM. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Is that a general statement or directed? Cuz it sounds like a fairly bad faith based stance if you mean the task force as a whole. And, if you track any similar name discussions, one could easily say the other side avoids anything that wasn't from the dub out of spite. Seriously, anything DB related that wasn't aired on Toonami falls under immediate scrutiny, and anyone who supports it is dismissed on the grounds of being a "fanboy," regardless of their reasoning. I'm not pointing a finger at you or anything, just saying that the pendulum swings both ways on these debates.Onikage725 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I propose that if Sesshomaru does not participate in the discussion, his opinion on it shouldn't count. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Link, what do you want me to say here? If I recall, you're the one who began this entire edit warring without so much as sparking a discussion on why you disagree with the names. Exactly, this is why I called bad faith on your part; you moved the names, and didn't bother to alert anyone. This reply, which you repeatedly removed, [1], [2], was not a threat. Simply, a concern of what to do if you must persist in disturbing the goal of WP:DBZ. Lord Sesshomaru 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
You join the discussion and don't discuss? And yeah, I didn't discuss - sure, I stated my reasons why I moved, but hey, since when was discussion discussing?
No one was acknowledging my comment, so I took action. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I really need someone to explain to me how FUNi's subs are Japanese and/or unnofficial (as is usually brought up in these discussions). Last I checked, I couldn't read Japanese. Yet I have no difficulty with the sub track. Also last I checked, a licensee releasing a product = official. Hell, many anime and foreign films don't even get a dub when released in an English-speaking country. This doesn't mean that there is no official release applicable to those countries simply because it was subbed into English (I guess I must have bought some form of bootleg when I bought Versus at FYE, due to its lack of a dub). Noone is pushing Jinzo-ningen, or any other Japanese term here. I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but saying things like "Artificial Human is not used in any English source" or "is Japanese" is ridiculous dub fanboyism. And since the ones making those kinds of arguments are always the first to pull the "fanboy" card, I think it is high time we start keeping some things in perspective. Onikage725 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, if we want to get technical, the most common name for them is "17" and "18" or "#17" and "#18." I don't recall if the dub used "Number" often when referring to them, but most often in the original they are simply Junana-go and Juhachi-go (#17 and #18). These designated numbers effectively become their names, whereas Jinzoningen/Artificial Human/Android/Cybrog, Mechanical Man/Man-made Man (that's all of 'em right?) is a title that is used comparatively less. I'd like to propse that we consider going by these more common useages of their names (thus eliminating any need to bicker over translation of their title classification). I'd also like to discuss this without a lengthy debate on whether "#" counts as flagrant use of the Japanese language. Onikage725 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

  1. Japanese subtitles
  1. English dub
  2. All merchandising
  3. English manga
  4. Video games
Which sounds more common?
And no, I'm sorry, but #18 is NOT more common. It is a shorthand version of Android 18. Do you see any official merchandise call her #18? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
In the series itself, Jinzo-ningen/the androids is used to describe Dr. Gero's creations as a whole. The full title is used in reference by the characters and narrator during the relatively brief arc in which they were the primary focus. Other times during that arc, outside of that for a good part of the remainder of the saga, and nearly every instance after, they are referred to by their number without the descriptive title. Kinda like how we have a Hiei article on the Yu Yu Hakusho pages, not Jaganshi Hiei. Or in DB comparisons, Piccolo rather than Piccolo Ma Junior or Piccolo Junior. The "other" Piccolo only has his title in his name to differentiate the two. Most people referring to the characters tend to just say the number as well. Onikage725 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
This is your own original research. You can show that she's sometimes known as 18, but not that it is more valid than Android 18. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually all I said was that in the show they are more commonly referred to without the title. That's not original research. There's a difference between "sometimes" and "most often." You brought up a good point about merchandise. It'd be nearly impossible to test one set over the other on a google search. What does anyone else think? Onikage725 23:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
But that cannot be verified. The fact that FUNimation treats Android 18 as her full name shows that it most likely is her full name. Additionally, there would be no disambig necessary with Android 18, as 18 is a number used for several subjects. And on top of that, there would be no confusion in using what is clearly her full name, as those who know her as 18 would most likely know her as Android 18 as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to crash the party or anything but there are a few more pressing matters that what Android 18 should be called, like the issues below. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I did some research and some of the manga (Dragon Ball manga, not the DBZ portion) and came across something interesting. Jinzōningen, as we already know, means Artificial Human. But in many other media's, they use different terms. In the Dragon Ball manga, they translated Artificial Human #8 as Mechanical Man #8, dispite the fact that he is, unlike #17 and #18, actually an Android. I think when Viz translated #17 and #18 as Android #17 and Android #18, they were trying to follow the anime. Makes sense considering they translated Jinzōningen as Mechanical Man early on. To be honest, I don't care about which names are more common. And I'd much prefer using Android's over Artificial Human, considering I saw the English dub and haven't seen many episodes in Japanese except for the first 39 (Season One Box Set) and a few movies, but I'm fighting for the more accurate name. And as stated before, #17 and #18 are cyborgs. So using Android is both illogical and unaccurate. And since everyone else has been doing a search, I decided to do one. I put in Android Dragon Ball on google and came up with 699,000 results. Then I put in Artificial Human Dragon Ball and came up with 700,000 results. Adding signs such as the plus sign will throw off the accuracy of the search. And I wanted the search to span over all of the Dragon Ball series, so I didn't add a Z or GT. Though some people write it as Dragonball, officially it's two words, so I wrote it as so. So there you have it. Artificial Human is more common than Android and Android is still not accurate. Ryu Ematsu 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
My mind is blown - I never knew that if you did an extremely vague Googlesearch, you'd end up with that! Did you ever consider searching for "Artificial Human" + "Dragon Ball" and Android + "Dragon Ball"? Didn't you ever once question why it got more hits, considering it's only used on the English subtitles on the DVDs? Also, fun fact - WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR FANS. I don't care and never will care that it's "inaccurate" to use the most helpful name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's time for me to give you a fun fact - WIKIPEDIA IS FOR EVERYONE. Every single one of us are fans. If you're not a fan, then why are you fighting so hard about it. You soyund like a fanboy. And my searches weren't vague. I didn't limit the sources I used in my search, that's why I put it like that. Whether it's official sites, or fans sites, the point of the search was to find out which one was more common. That's why I didn't use any qoutations when I searched. It would've been a vague search if I only put Android and/or Artificial Human. Now here's a list of searches for everyone.

Artificial Human = 110,000,000
Android = 4,860,000
Artificial Human Dragon Ball = 700,000
Android Dragon Ball = 699,000
Artificial Human + Dragon Ball = 700,000
Android + Dragon Ball = 699,000
Artificial Human Dragonball= 146,000
Android Dragonball = 484,000
"Artificial Human" "Dragon Ball" = 2,600
"Android" "Dragonball" = 262,000
"Artificial Human" + "Dragon Ball" = 2,600
"Android" + "Dragonball" = 262,000

As I explained before, doing such things puts limitations on the search. The plus signs don't do anything at all the search, as you can see from above. However, the qoutations limit the sources you're using to 'prove' your fact that Android is more common than Artificial Human. My search without the qoutations shows all the Dragon Ball sites that use both of them, making it more accurate. Meaning that Articial Human is indeed more common. It's kind of pathetic how only one person is fighting for a such a dumb cause. Ryu Ematsu 16:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, necessary limitations! So evil, huh? The first one is TWO WORDS without any quotations. There are going to be many, many web pages that use those two words and have neither of them be related to Dragon Ball. A 1,000 hits difference when you use four extremely common words, and a search using one less common word with two extremely common words. Why are quotations bad? If one is referring to the character of Android 18 as Artificial Human 18, there is no logical reason for them to not refer to her as "Artificial Human". Why would the two words be separated? Same goes for Dragon Ball - in a web page about Dragon Ball, the only logical assumption is that they will keep the two words as a phrase when referring to it, not put something in between. So why is something, which has never appeared on any secondary merchandise, on television, or in the manga, why is it more common? Because you twist Google hits to your advantage? Accurate Google hits show the phrase "Artificial Human" to be less common than Android, in the context of Dragon Ball. Dragon Ball didn't invent the words Artificial, Human, Dragon, or Ball, so why do you act like it's okay to do Googlesearches and no make them a phrase? Did it occur to you that Artificial and Human could be used in a web page in a different paragraph in a different context? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, guys... please. Can we resolve this conversation without going down the "screw you" path? Onikage725 16:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This tiresome arguing is starting to get on my nerves. Tell me, why are you fighting so hard for this. I mean, you changed there articles and didn't tell anyone and plus you're the only one who's fighting for it. No one agrees with you and you keep trying to fight. Majority of people already said they want Artificial Human and you keep on going. So why? Ryu-chan 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically, because you won't listen to facts, reason, logic, reality, etc., I should give up? Yes, it is hard to deal with people whose arguments are not even based on truth, but I'm not one to just bend over backwards and give up because people refuse to open their eyes and realize that Wikipedia is not a Dragon Ball fan hangout, and that the articles are for the readers, not the writers or the fans, and that the articles should teach before all else - not even appeasing anti-dub fanboys is a very high priority. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, tell me, what does it mean when you search for Artificial Human Dragon Ball and get 700,000+ hits, and then search for "Artificial Human" "Dragon Ball", and you lose almost all of those hits? It pretty much means that most of the hits from the first Googlesearch were not discussing Dragon Ball. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Disclaimer: I am about to outline my position on the matter in response to the last post. I am not attacking anyone, rather just stating a contrary opinion. Please keep any replies or rebukes (in agreement or disagreement with my comments) civil, as I will endeavor to show the same courtesy. Let's all remember these are supposed to be discussions, not fights.
I don't understand what we are "teaching" by cleaving to an adaptation (one of many) that is widely known to be inaccurate. I'll take it a step beyond 17 and 18. According to FUNimation, Cell is an android. Yet Cell was created through gene-splicing and grown like a clone. He doesn't even fit as a "bio-android" on those grounds. According to the dub, Cell's a very lifelike robot (I believe the narrator even used the word "mechanical" on one occasion). And what about the different FUNi-lead projects? Prime example- seasons 1 and 2. Saiyan Saga or Vegeta Saga? Vegeta Saga is more current, but Saiyan Saga is more well known. The more current version portrays Dende as having a brother, but the more well known version does not. Obviously I've watched the dub. This isn't about dub "hatred." It's just hard to be consistent if you're going by a adaptation of a foreign work that is not only inconsistent with the original work but also with itself. I fail to see how going by that will "teach" readers simply on the grounds that this stuff was licensed out to lunch boxes and trading cards. Onikage725 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I think we need a second opinion here, as at this rate neither of you is going to concide defeat. this entire time could of been spent improving the article in question, instead of arguing what it is to be called. We should just count this as One Change the name and One keep the name. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is EXACTLY what dub hatred is - you've basically argued that FUNimation is a bad source of information. You constantly use Viz to trump FUNi, and when they're on FUNi's side, you don't even acknowledge this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
What dub hatred do you speak of? I thought the arguement was over. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm talking to Onikage. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think that's a misconception. I'm sorry if I've come off that way, but if you were to follow my history on this series' articles you'd see I've outlined a stance of using the most correct, informative, non-contradictory information- so long as it is used in an English source (as opposed to straight Japanese- this *is* the English -language wikipedia after all). If you don't believe me, try to propose renames to Vegerott, Djinn Boo, Cultivars, or Pocus and see how quick I cite the dub. It isn't about being on sides, it's about the information and the reader. In this case, I think calling, for example, #18 an android in her title and then adding "but not really" in the first paragraph is confusing as hell for a non-fan. Onikage725 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
There's no guideline that supports "most accurate", only most common. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
You're incorrect, there is WP:MJ, which WP:WPDB adheres. Lord Sesshomaru 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Link, you've tried to turn this into a popularity contest, and dispite what you say is more common or more popular, the majority of us find Artificial Human more common. It's true that the popularity is important, Wikipedia isn't about that. It's about providing the readers with correct and accurate information and that includes using correct names. Ryu-chan 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Link has brought up many valid points, and trying to spin it off by calling it a popularity contest is just stupid. He's not doing that, he's pointing out to you, in plain English, that the majority of our readers think their names are Android ##. Accuracy has nothing to do with this, because they're not androids, or cyborgs, or anything, they're cartoon characters. The title is nothing more than a logical way for readers to find an article. Titles are not a statement of something or an endorsement of something. If these names are more "popular" than "artificial human", then that's what we go with, because that is more common.
You might have found it easy to downplay Link because he gets mad easy and has annoyed a lot of people here, but that's no reason to ignore a completely valid point. I don't like it when I see users bully other users because they're not good with words or with how they bring things up. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
See, my problem is when WP:PG is ignored in the process of trying to uphold it. WP:PG says to "edit in good faith, show civility, (and) seek consensus," yet these debates often devolve into bad faith assumptions, incivility, and "I'm right, you're wrong" stances on the issue. I also think that showing bias to one adaptation because "this is English" is a problem too. This is the English language wiki. Keyword, language. It is all too easy to have to contend with systemic bias due to the simple fact that most people editing articles of this nature are likely young males who, in the case of DB, are familiar with the US dub. But this wiki isn't a limitation from which information may come. It is the language that the articles are written in. I could fully accept the "don't use Japanese" stance if anyone wanted to use "Jinzo-ningen." But noone does. The terms "Artifical Human" and "Cyborg" have been in use in regards to these characters since before there even was a US dub. I am hard-pressed to believe that worldwide, Android enjoys greater use. I can also find nothing in the guidelines that cares about where the english word comes from (or language/country of the license holder resposible for the adaptation)- only that it is common. Now hey, I am fully willing to debate the issue, or debate interpretation of guidelines. You know why? As per WP:PG- Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, and the category page on guidelines states that they are not mandatory. Combined with the same page's listing of Wikipedia's number 1 key policy of building consensus, and the fifth pillar of Wikipedia (Wikipedia does not have firm rules), and I take severe issue with people going into a discussion and throwing down guidelines as if they were policies with the attitude that no further discussion is necessary on the matter (in some cases going so far as to insinuate that anyone who feels otherwise is a vandal). Treating guidelines as policy as a means of ignoring any attempts to discuss a matter or build consensus is not Wikipedia's stated process. Onikage725 14:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • comment Can we give this a rest already? look at all the pages we editors have spent arguing over a name for one article! Think at all the improvements we could of made to the articles were editing on! By now it is clear neither Onikage or his other arguees are going to change their votes. So why don't we just narrow this down to support or opose and explain your reason. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, my last official suggestion was to drop the title altogether (and thus the fighting over which translation of said title to use) and just go by their names of Seventeen/Eighteen or #17/#18. Obviously with a series header of (Dragon Ball). But noone else was feeling that idea. Onikage725 12:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Our jobs as wikipedians is to provide information for people who seek it. Dispite a name being the most popular doesn't matter when it's not correct. I respect FUNimation, so I'm not a dub hater. But I do hate the fact that they screwed up the transation in all three series (not as bad as 4kids though). The stories are generally the same. They could've even tried to make the translation more accurate in the Box Sets, which they didn't (I only have Season One). And we all know that they can translate accurately (as seen with anime's like Fruits Basket and Fullmetal Alchemist) so because of this, they are not a reliable source. Viz made some of FUNimations changes in the Dragon Ball Z portion of the manga while Dragon Ball barely had any changes (refering to Mr. Popo's lips and whatnot). Some of the changes I'm referring too is the fact that they called #17 and # 18 Androids, while calling #8 a Mechanical Man. This is, why would they translate it like that if #17 and #18 are actually cyborgs, while #8's an android. And stating their name as "Android", then saying they're not is contradictory. In the end, popularity of a name doesn't matter. Providing our readers with correct information is. And if memory serves right, there was another debate about a year ago for Roronoa Zoro's page arguing about whether his name should be Roronoa Zoro's or Roronoa Zolo's. Roronoa Zoro won that argument, so why can't Artificial Human win over Android? Ryu-chan 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a wonderful point about 4kids. I was just looking at some of the shows that 4Kids distributed, and each article is clearly on the original work with due notice on adaptations. You can see this on Yu-Gi-Oh, One Piece, Shaman King, Ultraman Tiga, etc. Pokemon seems to be the exception, but most Pokemon names are from the NoA game releases anyway. Original characters are kept in dub form for consistency, and conflict between NoA and 4kids is given to NoA (i.e Lorelei, noted as Kanna in japan and Prima in the anime dub). I looked at another FUNi license, Yu Yu Hakusho. Cases of basic translation goes with the dubs, but cases of error (i.e. Suzuka as Suzuki) favor the original. And just as an aside, I'm used to Suzuka as a watcher of the Yu Yu dub, but I fully agree that Suzuki is more appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Onikage725 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my point during the whole argument. I respect FUNimation as much as the next person, but as I stated before, our job is to deliver correct information. Another thing that I hated about the dubbed version of DBZ though was the Tuffle story about Planet Vegeta being destroyed(I don't know their Japanese name. it was like Tsu-something ^^;;). The Japanese version story made a lot more sense. The Endlish dub story was confusing. That's an example of this. Good example of good translation is as I stated before Fruits Basket and Fullmetal Alchemist. But overall, FUNimation did good. It would've been better if the translation was accurate though (like the english dub of Naruto). Ryu-chan 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tsufuru. And yes, I agree if for no other reason than consistency (within these articles and across Wikipedia amongst the other manga articles). I keep trying to say that if we start a precedent for dub names exclusively, where does it end? How ridiculous would it be to have a list entry on General Tao, a hired assassin with no military rank who's name was screwed up in flashback, fixed in the DB dub as Mercenary, but then re-popularized as General due to the Tenkaichi games. Onikage725 09:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As Link kept bringing up "we have to use the most used names" and whatnot. It should only go to a certain extent though. This is because sometimes the company uses different localizations. Let me give a couple examples. M. Bison, Balrog, and Vega were known as Vega, M. Bison, and Balrog respectively. This was because Capcom was afraid of being sued by Mike Tyson (which makes me wonder, why did they change three names instead of two). Overall, Japan's localization is the only one that uses those names. I'm not sure if it's the same with Akuma. A few months ago, there was a debate about Might Guy's name being Maito Gai in the article. Might Guy won not because it was the most common name, but because it was a translation of his name. I've noticed that sometimes in Japanese when people say certain english words, they usually add a "a" or an "o". That is also the same thing with the Cooler article. Even though it's Coola, it still translates as Cooler. It was also understandable for 4kids to change Zoro's name to Zolo (even though their real reason was because they didn't want him to be confused with the fencer or something like that) because in Japanese, the "l" is also an "r", kind of like how Lee's name in the Japanese version was pronounced and spelled in romanji Ri. An prime example of the "o" usage is Lloyd from Tales of Symphonia. In Japanese, his name is spelled (in romanji) and pronounced Roido. Ryu-chan 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. Now the pages are Android 17 and Artificial Human 18. Due to both redirect pages having more then one edit, they can't have articles moved to them. Once this is settled we'll need to have an admin make the necisarry moves. Takuthehedgehog 04:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I like how Sesshomaru waited until barely after I was blocked to discuss this. Great strategy - only discuss when the opposition cannot.
Anyway, my argument has NOTHING to do with popularity and everything to do with helping the reader. If the guideline were about popularity, the guideline wouldn't exist. But it does. None of your reasons explains why the guideline doesn't apply in this case. The fact that other anime editors do the same as you is irrelevant - those editors don't acknowledge the guideline, either. Your opinion of the dub has no bearing on this argument, because the quality of the dub is purely POV. So you don't like it? I see. You're within your right. But where does it say that your dislike of the dub is more important than someone's appreciation of it? If you try to override a guideline by using your opinion on the dub, you're using your POV. I find the dub to be fine, and some being incorrect translations or renamings doesn't matter in naming, as the name should be the most easily recognizable, which Artificial Human 17 is not. The fact of the matter is that in the entire English-dominant world, Android 17/18 is the most well-known names for the characters. In every single English version of every DB medium, it's the one and only name (and no, subtitles are not a "medium"). And I'm bothered that your arguments tend to involve certain mediums being more or less credible in certain debates. Several people argued that because Son Goku is used in the manga, that it's an English title and the article should use it, but now, when it uses Android 18, the manga isn't worth mentioning? Hate on the dub all you want, but the only way to explain away the manga usage of the name would be to say that the manga is not good enough of an argument, which would discredit its usage in all other debates involving it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, the Dragon Ball Z portion of the manga followed certain main changes that the anime had. And as I stated before too, one prime example is the fact that they translated Jinzōningen as Android in the DBZ part, while translating it as Mechanical Man in the DB part, which is a more accurate translation. No one was saying anything about hating the dub. All we said was FUNimation could've translated it better because of other anime's they've done. The Yamcha article should be Yamucha, but people didn't make a big deal about it because they're names are so close. Way earlier, you said that wikipedia is not a democracy. But if that were true, then why do we have votes on articles (that's right. you stated this when I started a vote)? You contradicted yourself for starting a vote on changing Son Goku (Dragon Ball) into Son Goku, dispite Son Goku (Dragon Ball) being more specific. Credibility varies from person to person, so that's why we vote on it. Throughout the article, we refer to them as #17/#18, but in the opening, we have to use the article name. This much is true. But it's even more unaccurate when the article goes as "Android #17, also known as 人造人間17号 (Jinzōningen Junanagō) in Japanese is a fictional character who first appears in the Dragon Ball manga created by Akira Toriyama, as well as Dragon Ball Z and in Dragon Ball GT." Does Android #17 translate into Jinzōningen Junanagō. In Japanese, it'd be Andoroido Junanagō. Most of the people who've watched DBZ on Cartoon Network already moved on. The people who still watch the Dragon Ball series have gotten more into anime and gotten more acquainted with the Japanese version, accepting it more. This also goes with the names too. And it's honestly pretty rare to see someone choose the dub over the original. I'm biased on that subject to be honest, but now that DBZ doesn't show on cartoon network, FUNimation should've been able to translate it more accurate and whatnot, which they chose not to do (even though they said they'd fix the translation error in the Season Boxset, which they didn't). Ryu-chan (Talk) 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are superfluous and original research. Being helpful to the reader is infinitely more important than being accurate. A mistranslation is extremely trivial, and your logic that fans have moved on is original research. Also, it isn't a democracy. No one established a vote on anything, and I most definitely did not establish a vote on Son Goku. It's called a discussion. If democracy mattered, then that would mean that if six people wanted an article to be replaced by the word penis and only five people opposed, the article should be vandalized. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Quote me: This isn't about dub "hatred." Twice now you've informed me otherwise. Please refrain from informing me what my own opinions are in direct contradiction to what I state. It's rude. And if you want to draw parallels that is fine, but insinuating that an opposing position to yours is vandilism is likewise rude. Within the confines of this discussion, noone presently involved has dropped that word. Sesshomaru did a ways back, which lead to you doing the same, and I doubt anyone could call what came of the "productive." And honestly, I think this has gone past any one of us needing to say more. Clearly more input or outside opinions are necessary. We've all made our stances known. We've made it clear we won't be wavering. The only thing left is bickering. That seems to be the way around here, but one can still hope for a little civility, neh? Onikage725 02:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, okay, so you are basically saying that no guideline will change your mind. On multiple occasions, the WP:JP guideline has been stated to NOT cover these disputes, and I'm tired of them being cited. The only relevant guideline is the "use common name guideline". Your opposition is rooted solely in your personal opinion of quality, not Wikipedia standards of quality. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not "basically saying" anything of the sort. I said don't put words in my mouth, don't insinuate vandilism when there is none taking place, and at least attempt to be civil. I also suggested that this little "discussion" (and I use the term very lightly) has moved past the productive stage and is going in circles. As usual. I've stated my position, why, and proposed a compromise. Everyone else wants to bang heads in a stalemate forever. That's fine, you all have fun. I'm done with this topic, however it works out. And for the record, Link, me pointing out to you that putting words in other peoples mouths is rude was not a cue for you to further tell me what I think and accuse me of inappropriately citing a guideline I never cited in the first place. Take that attitude and point it somewhere else. I'm not engaging you in another week or two of pointless bickering. Onikage725 01:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


"android 17" -wikipedia 57,800 hits "artificial human 17" -wikipedia 199 hits
"android 17" "dragon ball" -wikipedia 34,600 hits "artificial human 17" "dragon ball" -wikipedia 139 hits
"android 18" -wikipedia 193,000 hits "artificial human 18" -wikipedia 193 hits
"android 18" "dragon ball" -wikipedia 67,900 hits "artificial human 18" "dragon ball" -wikipedia 146 hits

Artificial Human 17 and Artificial Human 18 seem to be much less common than Android 17 and Android 18. Jecowa 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that we need to distinguish between most commonly used English Name and most commonly used name in official English references. Most English references use "Artificial Human", and not "android", even though Android could be the most common term to the general public. I think it's more appropriate to use the most commonly used name in reference, and not in casual conversation. This is an encyclopedia after all... --VorangorTheDemon 21:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Using the most commonly used name in references is NOT what an encyclopedia would do - if (and only if) most English references use Artificial Human, that shows that people with knowledge of the series prefer that title. An encyclopedia is created to help the uneducated, not the educated, and giving the title to a title less commonly used by the public helps only those who need none. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Common names says to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." It goes on to say, "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" It does not mention anything about English references. It looks as though most English speakers know these two fictional individuals as Android 17 and Android 18. Jecowa 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This sounds about right. Maybe it's time for an RM of 18's article. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello fellas and ladies. Well I am on to let something be know. Nothing against anyone AT ALL to make it perfectly clear so no one will come and try and bit me head off but this goes to to editors that are using the guidelines on common names and other things. I myself do not care much on what you name the robots (using it as a general term here) anymore, but this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia are not for general knowledge it is for complete and fact based knowledge. Per Wikipedia's on page, and I will give you the definition, that guidelines are not mandatory as you guys are making it out to be as. Here is the definition.
"A guideline is any document that aims to streamline particular processes according to a set routine. By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory (protocol would be a better term for a mandatory procedure). Guidelines are an essential part of the larger process of governance.
Guidelines may be issued by and used by any organization (governmental or private) to make the actions of its employees or divisions more predictable, and presumably of higher quality." So I know guidelines are used to help extermely but they do not have to be used as long as the information is accurate. This is not a governance or as Link said a democracy so the essential part of larger process of governance does not apply here. But can be used as the last sentence said for higher quality. But remember it is not mandatory. Thats all I wanted to say. No I am not reverting my earlier statement but now I dont care much on what you call them. Heat P 05:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines are created to establish certain levels of quality certain articles should reach. They are mandatory solely because they are not necessarily always true. An encyclopedia is created to help people learn. Are you saying that if we do not call the article Artificial Human 17, that the article is factually inaccurate because it would use the most common name (and also the most helpful name to the vast majority of readers - or as I like to call it, the better name)? If you had any guideline or policy that backed your argument, you'd have something. However, you do not. You may be able to ignore a guideline, but not for the reason that you don't want to enforce it in this case. Regardless, this is what Wikipedia states about guideline usage:
"A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."
It recommends that we use the common name, and the recommendation exists because consensus was formed. The guideline exists because of consensus, and the guideline applies to this discussion. Additionally, it states the OCCASIONAL exception. It mentions nothing about anyone being able to ignore a guideline on a whim, you have to have a reason backed by any guideline or policy on Wikipedia that would give enough leeway to ignore it. As it stands, many have stated that these articles are the exception to the rule, but have not said why. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
"...the article is factually inaccurate because it would use the most common name (and also the most helpful name to the vast majority of readers - or as I like to call it, the better name)". I would just like to state as one who has argued the other side that the reason I feel the way I do is because I disagree with the second half of your statement. Android may be the most common (at least in America, I still doubt worldwide, but I won't harp too strongly on that), but I don't see how it is the most helpful to the uneducated. Those of us in the know (for example, everyone in this debate) knows the score. We see "Android" and we know already "originally Artificial human, technically a cyborg." it is a quick leap and really isn't a big deal. That is to us already educated on the subject. Someone uneducated... I'll say my 48 year old father... let's say for some reason he has a need to see what this character is about. He would read Android in the title and think "robot." He'd probably associate with Data from Star Trek and similar types. Then we would expect him too, in the course of the reading, retroactively correct what he first thought due to an inaccurate (but common!) name. That isn't encyclopedic, and is why I argue that it should be one of those exceptions to the guideline. That's also why I keep asking you to watch your attitude. It is 100% fine that you have a different view, and feel strongly against mine/others. But shrugging off any other view leads to a limiting conversation. Things like saying there is no reason to take exception from the guideline when people have given reason upon reason upon reason (and the only objection to most has just been to re-cite the same guideline, hence why this just turns into a circular argument) is dismissive. Onikage725 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
When you say that you have doubts about "android" being the most commonly used term worldwide, do you mean among all people of the world or just English speakers? This Wiki is only concerned with what English speakers refer to people and things asWikipedia:Naming conventions. Are these characters called something other than "Android 17" and "Android 18" in the anime and manga of other English-speaking countries? The first line of the history section of Android 18 states that she is a cyborg. Your 48-year-old father would know she is a cyborg when he reads that. If we wanted to use a title that describes the subject in a way people would understand, "Cyborg 18" would be the best option as most people have probably never heard of "artificial human" before. The term sounds rather vague. People could think of in vitro fertilisation just as much as "robot" when they hear this term. These are character's names. They don't have to accurately describe the subject. We wouldn't move Donkey Kong to "Gorilla Kong" or move Toad to "Shroom." Most of Greenland is covered by a glacier while Iceland is not. That doesn't mean we should change the article titles to better describe them. Jecowa 17:50, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Link I just let you know that guidelines are not mandatory and again you contridict yourself. By say it is mandatory then putting the statement, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. is very condescending. But nice arguement but dont chop my head off now. For one I do not ignore guidelines, I do not edit anymore. I come on occasion to give advice. I do not care what name is used. For using common names is ok. But I still feel that information should be completely fact based and not common knowledge based. I do not need guidelines to prove anything or everything when the definition for it is on this website. Now how would you use guidelines and polices to back up something that guildlines are defined as? Editors are using their common sense, not everyones common senses are the same. Mine is different for others but comes to a similar point not the same but similar. Your oppossing editors use theirs to edited not just translation and other means but to were it is for the world to know. Yourself and you supporting editors are using your common senses on a level that is more close to home, use info that is more commonly used in the states and some surrounding countries. Thing is everyone who edits it is a fan of DB but some on a different level as others. Myself, I am on a level that is between translations and funimation. Some use translations others go off the knowledge used in just the states. But you all need to come to an agreement, Link just listen, this goes to others as well. I been on here arguing ang argeeing til I stop editing. I feel that I need to be netural, someone that sees both sides. I only brought up the guidelines because you and others are making it seem like its completely mandatory to use when its not I am not taking sides. Also WP:DBZ needs to come up with a straight and nice formate for who articles need to be. I look at one than go to another character and see that the articles a differnet in form. So come to an agreement and get it fixed. All this fighting and arguing is not nessesary. Heat P 08:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
This argument has been blown out of proportion, its not that hard if we think about, step one leave a note on the main project's talk page, two leave the same note on the pages being addressed (if not done already) three wait for a concensus (let at least twenty users outside of the argument express their opinions) and last let the name that wins by concensus be the page's name and add a note saying also refered to as... with the other name. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, common sense. It doesn't say "common sense or just an old reason why you may not want to use this guideline". The idea of catering to people who don't NEED to learn about the characters (those who are more in-tune with the series - the whole anti-dub stance this project has is proof of that) is not valid in any legitimate encyclopedia. The guideline can't just be ignored. Consensus exists that says it's a good guideline, and no valid reason has been provided to say that the guideline need not be used in this case. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I *just* went out of my way illustrate why I think using an inaccurate translation of the name in this case would confuse the non-fan. Your retort is that we are catering to hardcore fans (again the exact opposite of what was said). This is precisely what I mean about your dismissive attitude. Your continued mistating of other peoples intentions for them and overall rudeness and unwillingness to discuss is getting tiresome. You state They are mandatory solely because they are not necessarily always true. Yet it says on WP:PG that Guidelines are not set in stone. You say that no common sense reason exists. Other editors state why they feel it does, yet you ignore them. You say there is no basis to back disagreement with a guideline, yet the 5th pillar of Wikipedia is WP:IAR. As stated on WP:WIARM, Following the rules is less important than using good judgement and being thoughtful and considerate, always bearing in mind that good judgement is not displayed only by those who agree with you. Your typical response is that no reason to invoke said policy can warrant the following of a guideline by the letter in all cases. I think the founder of Wikipedia supporting IAR makes it a litle hard to say it can't be used. And considering your frequent breaches of WP:CIV, which is a portion of the 4th pillar as well as another policy, I find it hard to understand why someone who ignores policies as hindrances is so adamant that guidelines are the unshakeable letter of the law (superceding all discussion). Onikage725 17:40, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
When you ignore everything I say and accuse me of being uncivil, yes - we go in circles. Let's count the guidelines that support your argument. Done. None. You have nothing that backs your argument - your backing is 100% nonexistent. Am I able to ignore any guideline I want for no good reason (and no, something that has nothing to do with the quality of an encyclopedia is NOT a good reason)? No. The IAR rule says "if it prevents you from improving the quality of an article, ignore it." Are you implying that the mistranslation cannot be mentioned anywhere in the article if the title does not use the accurate translation? Are you saying that using the overwhelmingly most well-known English name for the two characters that ever existed damages the article in ANY way? The English Wikipedia exists SOLELY for English readers, and the majority of English readers come from English-dominant countries. To use a name that is used on DVDs in a secondary feature of said DVD that is only used for about three seasons of the DVDs that is never used in any English manga, anime, video game, card game, or secondary product is not for the sake of non-fans OR fans. All this "well, they'll be confused if we use the official English title in all forms of media in all English countries!" is irrelevant and false. Less interested fans will have no idea of what the name is. Anyway, and I will repeat this forever and ever, there is NOTHING but anti-dub sentiment in this move, just like every other move made to less common English names (which were done SOLELY because they're direct translations of the Japanese names). Why should I assume that this one move attempt is not anti-dub, when all moves have been (as well as your guideline for naming being COMPLETELY anti-dub and not being too shy to call for all dub names being removed)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You don't want to be accused of incivility? Try being a little civil sometimes. As far as I can trace back, your first contribution to this project was mixed with bold and cap yelling, and calling someone a Japanophile. Your attitude and overall disdain has been fairly consistent ever since. There is nothing in Wikipedia's rules that accepts this. For one who is so adamant on a guideline, I would expect you to have just a little respect for core policies. And again, your not agreeing with a view doesn't make it irrelevant. You have asked why do I think ignoring the rule is beneficial in this case. I have told you a hundred times over on each character you seek out and try to rename. Your responses are pretty much always a restatement of the guideline I say needs closer consideration this case. You add little new, and when you do I try to respond. I don't ignore anyone, so check your facts before wagging your finger around. I've stated on other similar debates and in this debate that I'm not speaking out of anti-dub sentiment. I don't know why I should have to justify to you, but I told you in the Goku debate that I have watched the whole dub, buy FUNi's DVDs, and watch both language tracks depending on mood. I restated that anti-dub was not my position very clearly and asked you not to put words in my mouth. Yet here you are again informing me of my own opinion and yet wondering why I think you're rude and uncivil. What the hell is this "my anti-dub guideline" bull? I'm the one who removed that from the damn guideline. Do a little research before shooting your mouth off at people. Onikage725 00:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I never notice you reprimanding anyone for accusing me of dub fanboyism, so just a note - I'm not about to care that you don't like me calling somebody a Japanophile. And yes, you're right - my disagreement doesn't make your argument invalid, it's the fact that your argument has no standing at all. Your argument does not at all adequately explain why these articles are the exception. If an English title of a movie is mistranslated, should we not use it and only use a direct translation of it? No. There's tons of times where this has been discussed, and accuracy has never trumped aiding the readers as being more important to an encyclopedia. Giving a less common title is rarely necessary, and your argument does a poor job of explaining why using a less common title for the article is necessary, and why the mistranslation information cannot be covered in the article if it is titled Android 18. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I reprimanded Sesshomaru and Ryu for assuming bad faith, and made a number of statements urging peace and civility addressed to all of you. The general statements here you should have been able to read, and I specifically pointed out earlier instances when you accused me of playing favorites. You actually made a snide remark about this on my talk page, and I told you directly on your talk page that I'd been talking to everyone and that I had commented the other two as well. So let's drop the outright lies on your part, ok? But you know what? Unless you lie on your userpage about your age, you're a grown man who really shouldn't be whining to me about a perceived failure on my part in regards to championing your honor. You've proven quite capable of biting someones head off if they cross you. And whether or not I run around reprimanding your detractors does not absolve you of your own responsibility to observe your conduct. I'm not your keeper, nor is anyone else, so own up to your attitude. Stop blaming your behavior on what you think everyone else has done to you. Onikage725 00:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that your entire response focuses entirely on a single sentence of my response, so I'll do one better and give a one sentence response to your lack of response to any single point I made. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
What are you, 12? You argue like my kid brother. Correction, he displays far more grace and maturity. Onikage725 01:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that because you completely ignored the actual argument in your entire response and focused exclusively on an extremely small portion of my post, you are mature. But I guess I made the mistake of realizing that only you can ignore posts (which you didn't - you simply ignored the argument and went off on a completely different tangent like Sesshomaru did). Well, I guess if not being hypocritical is immature and ignoring arguments when you can't come up with anything good to respond with is mature, I'd rather be 12. Enjoy your "adulthood". - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

section break 1

Artificial Human 18 Cyborg 18 Android 18
Title accurately describes the subject yes* yes yes†
Subject's name in the English graphic novel no no yes
Subject's name in the English animated series no no yes
Subject's name on the English DVD subtitles yes no no
Subject's Most common name in English no[3] no[4] yes[5]
Subject's official English translation no no yes[6]
Google's machine translation of "人造人間18号"[7] no no yes
* "Artificial" as in "not natural." Humans don't have robot parts by nature's design.
† The word "android" describes both completely mechanical robots and part-human cyborgs.

Am I missing any other arguments? Jecowa 09:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd question the Google translation. Their Japanese-English software is in the beta stage. The top Japanese-English translation sites translate Jinzouningen as cyborg or robot, jinzou as artificial/synthetic/man-made and ningen as human/man/person. Also, android does not refer to part-human cyborgs. A cyborg by definition is part-human. There is a class of android (bioroid) that is similar to a cyborg, but they aren't the same thing. A Biologically-based Android may have organic components, but they are still made. For example the humanoid Cylons on the current Battlestar Galactica - so close to humans that they can reproduce, yet still created and even mass-produced within certain model series, with brainwaves/personalities that can be transmitted into another body. 17 and 18 are stated to have come from human bases (i.e. birthed from a human womb), and their robotic components are augmentation. Onikage725 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
In the article we can make it clear exactly how these characters came into being. Even though these characters are cyborgs, their names are not "Cyborg 17" and "Cyborg 18." Jecowa 18:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Darn it Jecowa... your edit gave me an edit conflict :p
Anyway, in reply- this is partly why I would just as well call them by number without trying to translate Jinzoningen. For all intents and purposes, that term is tantamount to their race. It is used as a blanket term to describe all of Gero's lab creations. When simply stating a name, they usually go by their number. It was pointed out to me that Android is used on most merch. I'd offer that such descriptors often go on things like that. There are a number of toys labled "Super Saiyan Goku/Vegeta/Trunks/etc", and when in those states they are also listed by those names when selectable in many video games. I don;t know which company it was, but I've even seen a "Namek Piccolo" figure (this is a long ways back, so maybe it was an import). If we just went by their names and stopped trying to translate their category of being, this whole debate would cease. Onikage725 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
We could refer to them as "#17" and "#18" within the articles, but #17 and #18 can't be used for their article titles. The article titles would have to be disambiguated in some way. "Android 17" and "Android 18" are good choices because this is what they are called in the manga, anime, products, and on the official website. "Android 17" and "Android 18" are the names most English speakers that have heard of them know them as. Even the people that bought the DVD and chose to watch the subtitles would probably be aware that they are called "Android 17" and "Android 18" in most other English mediums of the Dragon Ball story. Most of the casual manga readers and viewers of Cartoon Network probably have never heard of "Artificial Human 17" and "Artificial Human 18." Jecowa 19:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
For a series like this, with so many characters whose names relate to other things, I don't think that's a big deal. Piccolo, Goku, and Trunks all have (Dragon Ball) in their titles. Vegeta has a link near the top to the related food article. This wouldn't be the first time a name meant something else in non-DB terms and we had to make the distinction. Onikage725 19:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. Jecowa 23:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Jecowa but that thing above is wrong. Android's are nothing more than robots that appear human. Cyborg's are robots with a human brain, which in general is what #17 and #18 are. Link keeps contradicting himself by saying that this not a popularity contest, and yet he wants the "most common name", not caring of how accurate the information is. And another thing that's contradictory is the fact that in the article, it says something along the lines of "Android #17 is not an Android, he's a cyborg." It someone 'uneducated' reads that, they're going to say "WHAT?!". And I already explained why they translated Jinzouningen as Android, which was to follow the anime because, as stated before, in the Dragon Ball portion, they translated it as Mechanical Man, dispite #8 actually being an Android. And if you honestly don't believe that, then remember that they changed Mr. Satan to Hercule to go with the anime (and for another reason we all know of). Think about that. Ryu-chan (Talk) 17:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The android article says that android can refer to beings made up of mostly organic parts, such as a human brain. This is not a popularity contest, but it is conventional to use common names for article titles. "Mechanical Man" sounds like a good name for an android to me. Proper names don't have to describe the subject. Tiger Woods is not a tiger nor any is he any type of wood, but we aren't going to move the Tiger Woods article to "Golfer Champion." Jecowa 18:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think a better point would be to argue that we don't use Eldrick Woods over Tiger. Even still, there's a difference between using a persons given vs more common stage name or nickname and choosing the best official translation for a general descriptive term. Also, there is a difference between a cyborg and a bioroid. The Android article does not cover cyborgs. Bioroids are similar to cyborgs, but the distinction is that they originate as machines (no matter how close to humans they may be diesigned, even if nearly exact), whereas a cyborg originates as a human (no matter how much he has converted into a mechanical being, even if all but his brain). Onikage725 19:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed what I said. Android's are robots that look like humans. Cyborg's are basically human's with robotic features (think Darth Vader) or a brain within a robot (think Dr. Wheelo). And the Android article clearly says: An android is a robot designed to resemble a human, usually both in appearance and behavior. Ryu-chan (Talk) 19:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I see you read the first line of the android article. The article also mentions the ambiguity of the term. Here are three examples:
  • "In other stories, authors have defined android to indicate a wholly organic, yet artificial, creation. Other definitions of android fall somewhere in between."
  • "Unlike the terms robot (a "mechanical" being) and cyborg (a being that is partly organic and partly mechanical), the word android has been used in literature and other media to denote several different kinds of artificially constructed beings"
  • "Although Karel Čapek's robots in R.U.R. (Rossum's Universal Robots) (1921)—the play that introduced the word "robot" to the world—were organic artificial humans, the word robot has come to primarily refer to mechanical humans, animals, and other beings. The term android can mean either one of these, while a cyborg ("cybernetic organism" or "bionic man") would be a creature that is a combination of organic and mechanical parts."
Jecowa 00:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It is certainly ambiguous, but it also draws a distinction between cyborgs and androids (just look at the last sentence you posted). That's why I've been talking about bioroids. That is the type of android I believe you are referring to, the primarily organic-based one. The common thing with Androids is the artificial nature of their inception. Whether mechanical, organic, or something in between, they are always created "from scratch," per se. Cyborgs, whether the product of minor bionic enhancement or total body conversion, were always once human. Compare Darth Vader to Boomer (from the modern Galactica). Anakin, a cyborg, is more machine than man. Sharon, an android, is so close to human that she could pass almost any medical exam and even had a naturally born child with a human. Onikage725 00:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Remember that Basic discussion of Speedy Keeps and Speedy moves thats at the top of the discussion? Lets go back to that. This arguement is clearly going nowhere fast. I suggest we save some time, effort and stress by just adding, move, Keep, or other to a comment and be done with it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In which episode/issue/movie is it made known that 17 and 18 were born? In Follow Dr.Gero Trunks says that Dr. Gero created Androids 17 and 18. In Nightmare Comes True Android 17 tells Dr. Gero that he gave him life. The android article says that "android" is ambiguous. It even specifically mentions androids in Dragon Ball. Jecowa 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Jecowa is making some very excellent points, and I have to agree with what he's saying here. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

You find out that they're cyborg's during the Majin Buu arc/saga. In the dub, Goku said "But how do Android's have babies." Krillin said something along the lines of "18 were once human but Dr. Gero modified her a bit (modified her a bit is a direct qoute)." In the english manga, they use the term cyborg at that part. So there you have it. It even says so in the Cyborgs in fiction artical. It says "Android 17 and Android 18, along with Android 20 from the anime-manga series Dragonball Z. Despite their confusing English dub names, they are indeed cyborgs. In the original Japanese version, these three (along with the rest of Dr. Gero's artificial creations) are referred to as jinzouningen, which is a blanket term in Japanese science fiction applying to robots and androids, as well as cyborgs. Jinzouningen is usually translated by fans to "artificial human". Freeza is also a cyborg after his defeat on Namek and is saved and rebuilt by his Father King Cold." Ryu-chan (Talk) 21:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a small note. While not in the original manga (obviously), in the Viz translation there is a note in their bios that they are cyborgs despite calling them Androids. This is similar to how they used both Hercule and Mr. Satan (I think they said Mr. Satan was a stage name). Onikage725 22:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Either way, that's enough proof. Ryu-chan (Talk) 17:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It is? I only see fan stuff. I don't see anything that is supported by a guideline or policy. Simply put, nothing you have said validates changing the most well-known name in the four biggest English countries in the entire world to a little-known name outside of the hardcore DBZ fanbase. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That was indeed proof. He asked when was it said that they were cyborgs and we gave him proof. That was not fan stuff, whether you want to believe so or not. Point is, they're cyborg's, not androids. Ryu-chan (Talk) 17:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see This Section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
And what they are has nothing to do with the encyclopedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What they are and what they've done has everything to do with it That's what makes up the encyclopedia. Our job is to give the reader correct and accurate information about whatever we're writing about. Since this is going nowhere. Why don't we just call them No. 17 (Dragon Ball) & No. 18 (Dragon Ball). That way everyone will be happy because as previously stated, after the defeat of Cell and the 7 year time gap, they stop using Artificial Human/Android. What does everyone else think. - Ryu-chan (Talk) 01:21, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Merchandising calls them Android 17 and Android 18. FUNimation clearly acknowledges their names as being Androids 17 and 18, as the only time they ever call them that is when people are using the shorthand names 17 and 18. Additionally, if your argument were worth considering, I could also say that we could change Son Goku to Goku, since Goku is a shorthand name and is often used in the anime and manga. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Ryu-chan is making a compromise. He's trying to find a name acceptable to both views. We may rather title these articles as "Android 17" and "Android 18," but settling for "No. 17 (Dragon Ball)" and "No. 18 (Dragon Ball)" will hopefully resolve this discussion. I noticed that Dr. Gero's creations do often refer to each as by just their numbers even before Cell became perfect. Jecowa 23:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
True, but that doesn't change the fact that it's simply unnecessary. This isn't a case of Jimmy Carter versus James Earl Carter, Jr., it's a case of a recognizable name vs. recognizable name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
MY GOD!!! STOP!!!!!! You guys have been at this for a month! This needs to stop right now. Instead of wasting everyone's precious time with all this arguing we will have a simple concensus vote with everyone listing Keep or Change and their reason for doing so. This arguing stops as of this post, as it has been going nowhere fast and I really don't think any of us wants to spend another month arguing about the name of an article. This is really shaping up to be on the Lamest Edit wars list. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter. If it's a vote, it won't matter, because it will "degrade" into a debate. This won't just end all because some people aren't interested. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Ryu's suggestion works for me, although I'd be tempted to go further and just say 18 (Dragon Ball), etc. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Using 18 (Dragon Ball) etc. for the article titles would be fine with me too. Though, when starting sentences with their names it might be best to use "No. 18" etc. so sentences doesn't start with numbers. (MLA says, "Do not start a sentence with a digit.")[8] Jecowa 07:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll go with that too, though I'd really like to put the No. in front because that's what they use in the english manga. So I also vote for No. 17 (Dragon Ball) and No. 18 (Dragon Ball). Ryu-chan (Talk) 16:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Since people seem to like this idea now, for accountabilities sake I'll reaffirm my preference for this as well. Specifically # (or No. I reckon would work just as well) 17/18 (Dragon Ball). Onikage725 10:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate Article for Videl

I think Videl is a pretty big topic to have its own article. The Information in the List of Earthligns article is not enough. She is one of the major characters in DBZ and so should get her own article. UzEE 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, it doesn't matter on how much info there is, it depends on how much of it is relevent to the series. Videl's character is not relevent to the series, she never was even at her introduction. Most of the info on her would fall under WP:CRUFT. --VorangorTheDemon 18:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Videl was an important character towards the Majin Sagas. If not a serperate page, then at least create a seperate article for secondary characters. Its too much cluttered over there. UzEE 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Videl does not have enough information to warrant an article. Whether she's a "major character" in DBZ (which she isn't) doesn't mean anything; what determines if a fictional character gets an article is if it has more than just a plot summary to write about. Videl has no real out-of-universe information, nor any importance aside from a small part in the DBZ storyline and being the mother of Pan. Also, as Vorangor said, most of the information we could come up with would most likely fall under WP:CRUFT.
If you wish to attempt creating a potential article for Videl, or even a List of secondary characters in Dragon Ball, you can do so at User:UzEE/Videl or User:UzEE/List of secondary characters in Dragon Ball. After doing so, you can request the page(s) be reviewed here by members of the task force and see what kind of reception you get. // DecaimientoPoético 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
She doesn't need a page, but feel free to attempt one on that sub-userpage UzEE. If it doesn't work out, she can always be merged. Lord Sesshomaru 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok Guys, I think I understand what you meant. The Article would go under WP:CRUFT. Sorry to bother you guys! And thanks for the help! UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It's not necessarily the article would be considered cruft. We're just saying that in all the time we could have improved on Videl's previous article (which was merged due to lack of out-of-universe information), we didn't, and history is more than likely possible to repeat itself. // DecaimientoPoético 00:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sci-fi in Dragon Ball anime

This has been pestering me for a long while. Although it is evident that the complete Dragon Ball (manga), DBZ & DBGT is sorted/categorized under Science fiction-related subjects; what of the first part of Dragon Ball, in this case, the Dragon Ball (anime)? In the infobox of that specific page, where it says "genre", I have long noticed that this doesn't follow the same stylistic. Why is this? Wouldn't the Dragon Ball (anime) article also be styled as Science fiction and then categorized under the same criterion? To clear up what I'm asking, Dragon Ball introduced the concept of extraterrestrial life and space travel after Part I (ie, after the 23rd tournament and later filler episodes that followed) but they did have some "sci-fi" connection or relation to the rest of the series (e.g., Dinosaurs, Goku sending Boss Rabbit to the moon, flying vehicles, out-of-this-world capsules that can contain objects, and perhaps others).

Is this information enough to sort and categorize Dragon Ball (anime) under Sci-fi subjects? Lord Sesshomaru 01:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I think this is a valid point. I never took capsule corp into account before. Dragon Ball was pretty Sci-Fi too I guess. Like General Tao! UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 23:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
How is he sci-fi? I brought this discussion up because I'm unsure of whether the first part of Dragon Ball (ie, Dragon Ball (anime)) would have to be categorized within the sci-fi territory, see Category:Science fiction anime and manga. Lord Sesshomaru 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Dragon Ball has elements of Sci-fi (space travel, flying cars, dinosaurs, aliens etc.) however the main focus of the manga/anime isn't sci-fi so I personally don't think this category fits it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what I've been thinking; the only aliens ever seen (or at least implied to be aliens) in the first part of Dragon Ball were those two characters from the Dr. Slump crossover, King Nikochan and his servant. Kami, Piccolo Daimao, and Son Goku were only revealed to be extraterrestrials in Part II (DBZ) so I'm discounting that. Overall, the focus and style isn't on any on that stuff yet those sci-fi elements are inserted in the story. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
While that first part was primarily fantasy/martial arts (with Sci Fi elements like cyborgs and Capsule Corp), we should keep in mind that Dragon Ball in its original form spans the contents of the anime's Dragon ball and Dragon Ball Z. In that regard, I would say yes, classify the whole thing as sci fi. Onikage725 23:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
What you're saying is a fundamental reality, albeit isn't a sci-fi theme supposed to be "a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology"? It is also "fiction in which science and/or technology is a key element", is it not? Dictionary.com says a number of definitions here. The series Dragon Ball eventually becomes sci-fi ploted after the first portion of the series. In other words, the arrival of Raditz, the introduction of space pirates, Son Goku's extraterrestrial past unveiled, all things brought up by Toriyama-sensei much, much later after Dragon Ball, pt. I. In other words, indeed, the onward movement of the story has those elements; however, it doesn't revolve around that sci-fi phase in Dragon Ball (anime). Any other views or suggestions on how this can be decided? Lord Sesshomaru 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The question really shouldn't be whether to remove Sci Fi from Dragon Ball but whether to add Fantasy to Z (and Supernatural to all). With the exception of the Cell Saga, Z is rooted in magic. In the Saiyan and Freeza Saga everyones still looking for the Dragon Balls to grant wishes. Characters force themselves through naturally-occuring monstrous transformations. The mystical nature of ki remains the same. Goku and others train with a god. The Garlic Jr. arc- the dead zone, the race of beings from the "devil star," the mystical water and encounter with previous gods of the earth. The Buu Saga has a wizard and a demon king trying to resurrect a being magically created from pure evil, and the local pantheons highest deities get involved. Z is quite rooted in fantasy. Likewise, Dragon Ball has enough sci fi to warrant the inclusion. Pilaf has a mech. The RR is heavily into robotics (heck, it's their scientist who causes the most sci fi-ish arc in the whole series), Tao Pai Pai converts into a cyborg, the CC has all kinds of outlandish gadgets. Capsules themselves apparently grant them seemingly limitless control over matter compression. Far more impressive than building a space ship, and we are introduced to capsules in the first episode. Onikage725 12:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, I plum forgot about Tao Pai Pai becoming a cyborg (guess that's what UzEE meant above), also the major usage of technological travel is seen. Artificial Human #8, along with the RR army and Pilaf robots are also a major factor, and with everything else aforementioned now I agree we put the sci-fi topics on Dragon Ball (anime). As for supernatural fiction and fantasy genre, yes for Dragon Ball manga & anime show but not 100% sure if its accurate for styling exclusively in the DBZ page, DBGT is even farther from those sights so an automatic no to that. Let's not forget the kemono genre, appearing very often in the beginning portion of Dragon Ball but it isn't notably demonstrated in DBZ/DBGT save for Oolong, Pu-erh, Umigame, the King of Earth, and some filler material (e.g., after escaping Piccolo a young Gohan meets orphans & one of them is a fox kid, Nappa kills off the navy military & among those soldiers was a lion humanoid, there's a cameo of an anthro bear (or was it a boar?) in The History of Trunks where #17 and #18 go to an amusement park and ride a rollercoaster. That's about all I can remember.)

Here's what I believe should be done according to the information given in the discussion:

  1. Dragon Ball (manga): add supernatural
  2. Dragon Ball (anime): add supernatural and sci-fi
  3. Dragon Ball Z: add kemono, fantasy, and supernatural even though it isn't as distinctive as the first two except for several instances
  4. Dragon Ball GT: add drama, kemono
Does anyone want to add their thoughts in light of these analogies? Lord Sesshomaru 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree (especially on the lack of need to include the anthro's past DB), except on the fantasy grounds. GT... eh, not so much. But Z is still heavily routed in mythology. Sure we take the sci fi route of outing the earth's god as an alien, but we also meet a whole extended pantheon. DB had one lower-level Kami, but Z gives us 4 Kaio's, Dai Kaio, two Kaioshin (and the others in flashback). Of course Enma Daio is important as well. On top of the magical Dragon balls we know, we get a whole new set (as well as the race of beings who made them). Garlic Jr. and his race are demonic. Bojack is demonic. Dabura is a demon king. Babidi uses magic. Buu is a magical creation, as is Hirudegaan. Most transformations in Z that occur outside of the Cell Saga (and some within) are naturally occuring and more fantastic than sci fi-oriented. There's even a whole arc (in the anime) that takes place exclusively in Heaven, a tournament held by the gods. DBZ most certainly took on more sci fi elements than DB, but the series' fantasy roots remained as well. Oddly enough, outside of the black star dragon balls (*gag*) and the concept of the Evil Shenron Saga, DB GT is almost exclusively sci fi-oriented. Onikage725 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Onikage, DBZ should probably include Mythology in mix also based mostly on all the influence all the gods there had there since almost the begining, I'm not sure about adding it on GT since all they do there is rescue Goku and make his tail grow back. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe I missed the Fantasy parts in Dragon Ball Z. It should be categorized under fantasy too. As for GT, there were references to fantasy too, like Android 17 escapes from hell, and the dead are also resurrected. But its still not the dominant over the Sci-Fi factor. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move per WP:MOS-JP#Names & WP:GOOGLE

I have requested a move/rename at this area and everyone is invited to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru 03:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure your tone is appropriate. "Much slower than expected" is a very heavy indicator of expected outcome (in this case, approval to move), that you expected this to be done over the course of a few hours. It would seem that you have clearly come here with the sole intent to canvas for votes. If you were to do this properly, you would also have notified users involved in the other concerned pages of this move. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me sum this up: I did the same for other talk pages and last night my Internet connection failed while I was editing. I'll admit that at the time I was rushed & didn't think it was "that big" of a move since it didn't occur to me that other WikiProjects would/should be involved, though meant no bad faith here. I did not even know of the existence of WP:JAPAN until after I let the members at WP:CHINA know of this and would've broaden the invitation had I not lost connection. Thanks for listening, Lord Sesshomaru 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles that need help

I have posted this to ask for some help with some articles. While many of us have been so busy with all the main charecters many pages are suffering, being edited by few good users. A list of such articles follows:

I think we need to give these articles more attention or they will only to continue to get worse. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I kinda think Pan should be merged to the list of Saiyans (I know she's major within GT, but her article is just a bloated plot summary and there really isn't anything else of relevance to add), and Oozaru maybe to the Saiyan article. What do you think? Onikage725 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I think Oozaru deserves its own article, adding it to the Saiyan page would make the page too big. Pan just needs some better writing and some more images I think she merits an article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vegeta article

I have made a drastic change to the Vegeta article. See the Vegeta Talk page for more details. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the characters

Seeing as these will never be allowed to be merged, they should at least be of some quality. Plot summaries need to be cut completely and replaced with one to three paragraphs that give a general overview of their role. Personality, appearance, forms, techniques, and anything else should be combined into a overall general description that is free of any OR and cruft. After that, any important details can be placed in new or relevant sections. Please don't say that the information is important, as it is purely fan geared information that belongs on another wiki. TTN 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I may as well just throw this out here. Another idea, though it will never be allowed to take effect, would be to merge all but Goku onto a list of the main characters. This would be the only list, and it would encompass only the most important characters. Ones like single movie villains would redirect to their respective movies, minor one arc characters would redirect to cleaned up arc articles, and the most minor ones just receive no mention at all. TTN 22:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a good idea, we have already merged most dragon ball charecters already and the merged content is usually not of the same quality as the page. We can't just keep removing more and more dragon ball pages, if we do there wont be anything left to edit. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The thing is that they certainly cannot be left in their current condition. The best case scenario is that real world information is found. That is unlikely. The next best thing is my solution up there, though that is only a temporary fix. The most realistic scenario is to completely overhaul the workings of Dragon Ball on this site. Current content could be transfered to another wiki, and the number of articles could be vastly decreased. That would be in the best interest of the site, but that would require everybody here to either fully accept it as the correct method, or we could "force" the content over to another wiki and just say 'Oh well." The first is impossible, and I would never want to try the second. So at this point, option two, trimming these way down, is the best. TTN 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
As hard as this may seem we need to get rid of the 'Attacks' sections in all the articles, and Out of Universe information is needed ASAP, I recomend begining with 'Reaction' sections. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Reaction sections? what would that entail? I suggest more Sections on the creation of the characters such as the one on Majin Buu's page. Also I think we need to not get rid of the attack sections but to rewrite them so it is in paragraph format. Also more images are needed so there is more than just a mountain of text. Also the real killer is the plot summaries, we need to shorten them and just transfer the information to the saga pages which are in great disrepair. In fact the saga pages are crappier than my baby cousins diapers at this point. the lists need more good editors editing them. Before we attack articles that are maybe C status we should focus on all of the stubs and start class articles we have. Also TTN define Cruft, you seem to avoid answering that question and when you do you define it very vaguely (no offense) DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
They would contain reception from critics and fans (back by reliable sources) and other stuff like media attention. This is unlikely for most of them. Development is fine, but you need actual sourced information. The stuff on Buu's article is just OR. The best way to clean these other than adding that information is described in my method up above. Doing it any other way really isn't going to solve anything. Cruft encompasses OR, game guide information in video games, fan based information that has no baring on the encyclopedic coverage of a topic, trivial lists, and other stuff like that. TTN 01:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agreed. The saga articles need an overhaul (and merging in my opinion, no need for all the anime DVD-set sub-sagas like "Cpt. Ginyu"). Also, we should probably re-do the attack lists, transformations, and abilities into one section in paragraph form. Look at articles on comic book characters (which is basically what these characters are) and you'll see what I mean. Onikage725 08:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a redone special attack list that is split up into different articles in alphabetical order like the naruto ninjutsu list so the list isn't that long. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 11:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
God, don't even get me started on the jutsu articles... Onikage725 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
I ment to use the format not make it incredibly long like those articles. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting started

OK, seeing as nobody is actually going to even try any time soon, I am just going to get started on cutting after I know that everybody has seen this message. I will be removing the plot, technique, transformation, and video game lists completely, and try to cut any OR as I see it. I will not be adding anything to replace it, as I don't feel like it. That is not an excuse to revert, though.

In the place of the plot sections, a very, very brief description of their role can be added. It should be three paragraphs at most for the larger characters, and one or two for the smaller characters. Techniques and transformations should be built into a general section that also encompasses their background or personality. Please don't try to argue or anything. If you like this information, I'm sure there are plenty of DB wikis ready to take it. TTN 17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

? "I will not be adding anything to replace it, as I don't feel like it" Isn't that kind of Mass deletion kind of Extreme when it could take you say 5 minutes to make it into a paragraph? Also Yes such a mass deletion of information that is good and partaining to the subject is a reason to revert. Deleting all of the stuff you described would leave nothing at all. You seem to refer to everything related to these articles as Cruft. What then would be the ideal Anime/ Manga article? As you seem to disagree with everything in the articles you should probably know what you are trying to do with them. You can't just delete an article on the grounds that its "too crufty". DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have described the ideal character article sever times: a brief, concise description of the character and their role, and real world information to make it relevant. To have that, this stuff needs to be cut, and I really don't feel like rewriting over ten articles. Seeing as none of the participants of the task force will do it willingly, I'm going to have to force it. If you want to make a resolution to work on it for a few weeks, be my guest. But please actually try to get it done. TTN 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The video game lists should probably be converted into prose...- Caribbean~H.Q. 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
There really is nothing to be said about them. It would just be a repeated paragraph throughout the various articles with slight variations. If an appearance is important enough to mention, it will probably be better placed in another section. TTN 17:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I will than. and I'll get Heat P to help with the plot summaries, hes good with that. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
If you're willing to give it a week, I've been planning to hit a few of them soon. I don't do a lot of editing aside from spot-checking errors because I work a lot and have school. School's in swing, but I after tomorrow I'm on vacation from work for two weeks. I intend to try and trim some of the superfluous content. And if you, Heat, and Rocks are willing to as well maybe we can make some headway. I don't think massive deletion with nothing in its place is the answer. Going from one extreme to the other won't work. Onikage725 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I've started heavly editing Vegeta and feel like the life has been sucked out of me. Check it out if you wish. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You're doing the complete opposite of what is necessary. The list needs to be removed, not expanded upon. At most, mentions would be fine in an reception or popular culture section. TTN 22:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm starting to trim the section down considerably. Give me about two minutes and I should be done. Please fix whatever needs to be fixed afterwords. // DecaimientoPoético 23:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
TTN What you have been insisting on is what exactally? If everything you said was carried out there would be no Dragon Ball articles, period. Everything would be merged into a small list that only said what the characters looked like and what saga's they appeared in. This is an encylopedia not a dictionary. Lists should be expanded opon and notable characters should have an article not two paragraphs on a list. What is there is not cruft though that is what you seem to call anything anime or manga related. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Also the real problem with the Vegeta article was its long plot summary. The other things are not perfect, but are definitatally not worth deleting. We need to assume that the reader has no knowlage of the subject matter. An encylopedia is for teaching people about the subject not give them a bare bones article with little information. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it focuses on the in-universe aspect rather than the real world notability of the character. Fictional characters should have concise in-universe information to help provide context to the real world information. This includes a sourced description of the character and his/her actions, description of the overall role, and things like that. Listing every minor game appearance doesn't help with that. In a popular culture section, talking about how Vegeta has been a representative in cross over games is relevant. Talking about how "In Dragon Ball Z: Budokai for the Playstation 2 and GameCube, Vegeta was playable in normal and Super Saiyan forms." is not relevant to anything. TTN 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That can be added too but there needs to be in universe information as well. Without some inuniverse information the article's focus shifts to things that are not related to the article. The cross over stuff can be put up in the opening paragraph, Also are there any Official character polls? That might be able to be put in the article. TTN maybe you could hunt down some more out of Universe infomation for the article? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
As I said, concise in-universe information is needed, but the current information is bloated, trivial, OR, and probably ten other bad things. There is little to no real world information, so I'm hoping this will eventually lead to one nice, concise featured article (like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII). TTN 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Notice all of the characters in the article have main articles. The real problem is the plot summaries which are very bad like in the case of Piccolo and Vegeta. Sources are what are needed also. Notice there isn't a lot of out of universe information in the article you used in the example. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Only two characters have articles, and both have real world information to actually require an article (though one may possibly be merged). The article also has a good balance of real world information and in-universe information, and there is a good chunk if you actually look at it. The problem with the articles is that there is no out of universe information, and that the in-universe information is essentially junk. That requires a complete overhaul, and a wake up call from this fan mentality. TTN 23:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The fact that Majin Buu appears in Neko Majin Z is out of universe. Also I am sure that if we dig trough the Daizenshuus we can find some development of some other charecters. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Its possibly out of universe (I don't count it as such), but it doesn't define notability as it is neither independent or enough to substantiate an article. The Daizenshuus will have little to nothing. TTN 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Development is out of universe. Its the only out of universe stuff in the the Final Fantesy artical you discribed which is a featured article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm saying that they cannot possibly provide anything that actually matters. Like most manga authors, AT doesn't provide his most inner thoughts in more than small spurts. Those spurts don't amount to much, so you're not going to find anything relevant. TTN 00:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
So basically your saying that We shouldn't have any dragon ball articles because there isn't enough OUI to support it. I think the case of wikipedia: Break all rules can apply here. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that the names of the games are links lets people who want to know more to follow them and find out what forms were available, story and all that miscellaneous junk that doesn't need to be here, including any more pictures than what already exist.

The games list form is they're in, what systems these are on if they want them and thats all that is needed here, not huge amounts of prose and 'selected' notable games. Darkwarriorblake 00:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a fansite. It is not here to provide the most minute details on you favorite character. As a tertiary source, it is here to provide a detailed analysis using a mix of primary and secondary sources, with secondary sources holding the utmost importance. Anything else belongs on a fansite. You guys really, really need to actually understand this. This is why I need to force this. TTN 00:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh my god! Why is everything on this page a fight? Jesus, I said I'd trim this around the weekend or next week. No one needs to "force" anything. Considering that no one wants these to be stubbed and you've stated that you "don't feel like" replacing your mass deletes with anything appropriate, this is really just a massive edit war waiting to happen. Can we please avoid that and work together rather than against each other. And I realize what I say looks like a direct hit on TTN, but aside from addressing a couple of specific comments that is meant for all. I'm about at the end of my rope with all this arguing. We have a tag at top warning editors that we basically quarrel like brats. How laughable is this "project?" Seriously? Onikage725 01:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Who's fighting? TTN I don't see how a list of games (which is encylopedic, I mean where else are you going to find that information in one place?) is making it a fan article. Please explain because its a non sensical statement. Its not "Vegeta was in thsi game and totally kicked ass, like kicked mega super saiyan majin ass and totally like rocked dude, he could also turn ssj4". Its a list of games that he has appeared in, you know, kinda like what would appear in, I dunno, an "Appearances in other media" section. Hey, thats an idea. Lets add an "Appearances in other media" section. That would solve our problem.

Oh wait...

EDIT: And it took me a good deal of time to go find all the information for several articles about what games they had and hadn't appeared in. I took a great deal of care to ensure correctness and correctly add the right formats for each game. Its not just a chunk of prose that could ignore games in the series and favour the Budokai series. It was an unbiased list of video game appearances.Darkwarriorblake 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

First off sure a list like that would be useful but see WP:USEFUL. But this is an encylopedia, and what needs to be in there is notable stuff. sure the superbutoden series is notable, but what about vegeta is notable in there? The Budokai Tenkaichi games, they had the first playable occurance of Vegeta's Oozaru form and his super vegeta form. Budokai 3 was notable as it was the first occurance of Vegeta's super Saiyan 4 form. The plan to eradicate the saiyans was notable because it was a movie like video game and vegeta was the star. also see WP:LISTS there it specifically states that imbedded lists should either have prose (text acompanying the list item in complete sentences) or just be plain and simple paragraphs. There are very few times that a regular list is exceptible, such as when there is just to much content like List of Pokemon. If you look over what I've given you it should show you that the way the section is right now is how it should be. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The video games list will certainly affect the article in any GAC, since this information is already covered in the game's article it seems reduntdant on every character's page and it will either get the GA nomination on hold or would get it directly failed. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why cannot we compromise and use prose with the list to ensure a comprehensive list while prose illuminating imporatances such as Oozaru form and what not? Darkwarriorblake 16:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Kid Buu weaker than Super Buu

I have a question...

When is it stated that Kid Buu is weaker than Super Buu? If I remember correctly, when Vegeta and Goku escaped from inside Buu's body didn't they noted that it was strange that Buu's power was getting STONGER and not weaker.

I recently got in a conflict for wanting to add Vegetto and Gotenks to the known Super Saiyan 2s section and was denied because it was said to be "unofficial" and "not stated in the Daizenshuus" despite obvious appearances that would suggest otherwise. Is it also stated that Kid Buu is weaker than Super Buu in the Daizenshuus as well? If so, where?--Lucky Mitch 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They never reached Super Saiyan 2, not even in the anime. Both of them no doubt had the ability, however, were never seen in it. The Daizenshuus are official Dragon Ball guide books certified by Toriyama himself, also the fact that unlike the anime, regular Super Saiyan and Super Saiyan 2 transformations in the mangas are easily distinguishable because of the different consistencies of the auras and the absence or presence of sparks/ bolts. The Super Saiyan's regular aura in the manga is actually gentle waves, not the blazing like in the anime. Super Saiyan 2 (and 3) in the manga has a blazing aura and blue bolts. Neither Gotenks or Vegetto ever display bolts in their auras in the manga (well actually Vegetto does the instant he transforms into a Super Saiyan, however, Toriyama stated that he did not turn Super Saiyan 2). And about the Buu thing, Super Buu's power only increased when he was turning into the bulky form of Buu, and not when he turned from bulky Buu into Kid Buu.--VorangorTheDemon 09:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
See my talk page for all the answers. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing with Kid Buu is that it is stated he was more dangerous than previous forms (due to his lack of sensibility). As for outright power... well Kid Buu + 2 Kaioshin + Goten + Trunks + Piccolo + Gohan = Super Buu's final form. As for the whole "power diluted by good" thing, that was solved when he ate himself. When Evil Buu ate Fat Buu, the resulting Super Buu was said to be "pure evil" and a "beast of destruction." And his power only went up from there. Look at Goku's reaction when facing Super Buu 2 (with Piccolo and all them). He is confident that with Gohan's help they can win. Against SB3, he was so desperate that he nearly fused with Mr. Satan. Against Kid Buu, he spurned potara and opted for a 1 on 1 battle. He bit off a little more than he could chew due to unforseen limitations with his physical body, but he still felt a lot more confident against Kid Buu than Super Buu. And at the end of the day, they don't actually say Kid Buu was stronger, so it can't really go in. Onikage725 14:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No no no. Goku was confident that he and Gohan fused could beat super buu. It was only when Buu reverted back from super Gotenks that he was confident that Gohan could handle him. But when Buu absorbed Gohan, Goku had no chance. But When they ripped out all of the people from buu he reverted back to plain Super Buu. who was still stronger than Goku and Vegeta combined. But when super Buu reverted back to Kid buu his Chi rose and then dropped to a point to where Goku says "we can take him". He was evenly matched with Super Saiyan 3 goku with goku only losing due to buu's energy being unlimited. IF you look at the evidence you can see that Super Buu is the strongest. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Why are you saying no? I don't disagree with you :p
Super Buu + Piccolo/Goten/Trunks isn't quite SB3, so I still count it as just an alternate SB2 phase (same people involved, just working power differently). And we're still talking stronger than base Super Buu, who went toe to toe with SSJ3 Gotenks. So the fact that Goku didn't think they needed to fuse to beat him even at that point shows us something. Onikage725 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onikage725 (talk • contribs) 09:09, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
It's true, Kid Buu is quite a bit weaker then Super Buu. You can see it by comparing Super Saiyan Gotenks (roughly equal in power to SSJ3 Goku) to Super Buu. He was nothing against him, that's why Gotenks had to go to 3. SSj3 Goku and Kid Buu are roughly the same, which in turn, makes SSj3 Goku, SSj Gotenks, and Kid Buu all roughly equal in power; and Super Buu is stronger then any of them since SSJ Gotenks couldn't beat him. --VorangorTheDemon 05:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Vegeta Article Disscussion

There has recentally been a discussion of what notablitity and its importance in our articles. Basically what is notable when it comes to our subject matter? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

For the Games I suggest that in the Vegeta article we just combine the games on the list by series which will clear up the article. And we should decide what games just are unotable. What makes The dragon Ball Z Budokai Tenkaichi series more important than the Super Budoten series? We need to define that right now before this is left up in the air for all of eternity. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Small question...

Future Gohan, do we remove him from the List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball? The link to Future Gohan only leads to a non-existant section of the Son Gohan article. So, do we just remove that, or do we introduce something about Future Gohan back into the Son Gohan article, or do we put something about Future Gohan in the list, or what do we do? Just kinda don't wanna leave a link to something that doesn't exist sitting around. Lychosis T/C 23:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Either mention him in the Gohan article or give him a section on the list. Maybe both?--$UIT 00:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a major issue if we were to give him a section. The only issue is there isn't much information on him other then he trained Trunks and was the only original member of the Z fighters to survive the Androids. --VorangorTheDemon 00:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how alternate versions of charecters are on their respecttive pages I think Future Gohan should have a section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragonball Z Live Action Movie

This article needs heavy wikifying and cleanup. Kariteh 21:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed the article has no sources, no pictures and has terrible grammer and spelling. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Pictures haven't been released because production hasn't started yet--$UIT 00:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Good Point. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be better to merge the page with or redirect it to Dragon Ball Z (film). The latter is better written and has more reliable sources--$UIT 04:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Martial artists uniforms

Some of the charaters in this story wear uniforms called "gi." Should "gi" be wiki-linked to judogi or Karategi. By the way, are Goku and his friends practitioners of karate, judo, or something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jecowa (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Goku and his friends fighting style isn't mentioned. In the english dub, Goku called it the Kame Sennin Style of Martial Arts. And it should just go GI and nothing more. Ryu-chan (Talk) 22:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Their fighting styles are not mentioned. Goku and the humans generally use some kind of generic martial art, while Vegeta uses no martial art at all, relying on brutal force instead (he uses headbutts, knees and elbows much more than the other characters). Kariteh 22:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! It looks like keikogi would be the generic term. Jecowa 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Large problem with all dragon Ball Articles

Plot summaries. In all of are articles the plot summaries are Outragiously long. For an Example, Look at Cell's article. The plot summary is extremely long and discribes things blow by blow energy blast by energy blast. Is there anyone who can reword these long plot summaries into something better written and shorter? Also many of our articles lack sufficent sources or lack sources period. This needs to be fixed and before we continue arguing about what Jinozen 18, Android 18, Artificial human 18, Cyborg 18 or what ever the heck you want to call her 18. This has gotten out of hand, both the articles and the disputes, before we start arguing for Weeks on what a certain article should be named, we should fix what is actually in the article as the actual 18 article is poorly maintained and in terrible shape, for proof see here. So I am asking for a least a one week cease fire on the arguing so we can do what we signed up for this wikiproject in the first place for: Impoving Dragon Ball articles. How about it? If we continue this the articles will continue to stink up wikipedia. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll get started on it. --VorangorTheDemon 00:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Saga Articles

These have gotten out of hand. First off I suggest that we convert these into 4 articles: Saiyan Saga, Freeza saga, Cell saga and Buu Saga. Having the articles in the Funimation setup that is is right now is both unweildly and Covoluted. All the info on the box sets should either be put into one article or just deleted outright. I think the GT sagas can just be combined into one article as the whole series is only 64 episodes long. The Dragon Ball sections probably need maybe two or so articles. Then after that is set we should make a three paragraph or so Summary of what happens in each saga. This would make the information much easier to comprehend and more acesible then the 15(!) or so articles of Crap we have now. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My idea of what we could do:
  • Dragon Ball - Unsure of at the moment.
  • Dragon Ball Z - Saiyan Saga (Vegeta), Namek Saga (Namek, Ginyu, Freeza), Android Saga (Trunks, Androids, Imperfect Cell, Perfect Cell, Cell Games), and Buu Saga (Great Saiyaman, World Tournament, Babidi, Majin Buu, Fusion, Kid Buu).
  • Dragon Ball GT - Simply merge all saga articles into a single saga page.
Honestly, I don't really care what happens to the saga articles, though that's mostly because I never really care enough to keep up with them. I'm clearly pro-merger (see User:Poetic Decay#Created), however; I'm also in favour of your proposal. You have my support in this. // DecaimientoPoético 19:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

How 'bout this...

Dragon Ball - Emperor Pilaf saga, Tournament saga, Red Ribbon Army saga (Red Ribbon Army, General Blue, Commander Red), Fortuneteller Baba and Tien Shinhan saga, Piccolo saga.
Dragon Ball Z - Saiyan saga (Vegeta), Namek saga (Namek, Ginyu, Freeza), Android saga (Trunks, Androids, Imperfect Cell, Perfect Cell, Cell Games), and Majin Buu saga (Great Saiyaman, World Tournament, Babidi, Majin Buu, Fusion, Kid Buu).
Dragon Ball GT - Baby saga (Black Star Dragon Ball, Baby), Super Android 17 and Shadow Dragon saga. Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 15:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think that Dragon Ball should have 3 articles. Gt should have only one. And DBZ should have four which would be Saiyan, Freeza, Cell and Majin Buu. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball has too many "sub sagas", so it's kinda hard to put them into three articles. I forgot to add in the Garlic Jr. saga. I'd have to choose Namek and Android over Freeza and Cell, respectively, because the name itself tells about the sagas as a whole. The names Freeza and Cell tell about one part of the saga. That's why they called the sagas as such in Budokai. And plus, all the saga articles are poorly written. Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I went with Freeza and Cell because the original Toei anime sagas were Saiyan, Freeza, Cell and Majin Buu. Namek and Anriod are Funimation titles. And Android isn't being used anymore in our articles. Also I really don't think the filler saga's are notable enough for mention and if they are included they should just have a section on the Dragon Ball Z page. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, but the fillers are indeed notible. I'll put it to you like this. Akira Toriyama didn't make the saga names, Toei did. The only filler saga being Garlic Jr., was about 10 episodes long, so we should go with what you said earlier and add it to the main article. Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 21:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking around at the way a lot of things are going, I think things like detailed plot synopsis is in general being cut down (this would, for example, be great for the DB wikia moreso than here). So I would suggest merging these into the respective parent series article. It is possible to summarize a story arc in 1-2 paragraphs. Look at any novel or TV series season box set (for example the DBZ season box sets).on the back they summarize the plots in a concise manner. We don't necessarily need to do a blow by blow. If we still want to go into further depth, maybe we could start doing what a lot of shows' articles do- expand the episode lists. Those are in fairly sorry shape anyway. That way you end up within one article per series having a synopsis of each episode, and therefore covering more material without having to break out many articles for sub-arcs.

As for the which arcs to cover, they go like this: Pilaf Saga (Emporer Pilaf Saga), Jackie Chun Saga (I think it was Tournament Saga), Red Ribbon Saga (Commander Red Saga, and usually the Uranai Baba Ghost Fighters/Fortune teller Baba Saga is grouped in with either this or the next one), Tsuru-sennin Asassin's Guild Saga (Tien Shinhan Saga), Piccolo Daimaou Sagao (King Piccolo Saga), Piccolo Ma Junior Saga (I think it was Piccolo Junior Saga), Saiyan Saga (Vegeta Saga), Freeza Saga (Namek, Cpt. Ginyu, and Frieza Sagas), Garlic Jr. Saga, Cell Saga (Trunks, Android, Imperfect Cell, perfect Cell, and Cell Games Sagas)... ok I'm not sure if the Anoyoichi Budokai/Afterlife Tournament are considered end of Cell, begeinning of Buu, or a seperate filler Saga of its own. Then the Buu Saga (I dont know all the FUNi ones, but I think it was Great Saiyaman, oWorld Torunament Saga, Babidi Saga, Majin Buu Saga, Fusion Saga, and Kid Buu Saga), Baby Saga (Black Star Dragon Ball and Baby Sagas), Super #17 Saga (Super Android 17 Saga), and Evil Shenron Saga (Shadow Dragon Saga). I think that's everything. Onikage725 13:21, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow

That’s all I can really say. I was all for the shortening of the character pages, but good lord! The articles are now so vague, plain, and uninformative it’s unbelievable. I don't know what you all have against long informative articles. These pages alone held so much information; you wouldn't need to look at any other site to find out any more. Now the pages are just plain and uninformative. Yes, they were poorly written, and yes, a lot of the edits were very inaccurate, but that is to be expected and eventually fixed by all yall.

Yall keep changing the names from the perfectly good English dub versions to these crummy practically unpronounceable series of letters that no one that speaks English (which is just about everyone considering this is the English version of Wikipedia) can understand. I have got to ask, what the hell do all you extreme die-hard Dragonball fans have against the English language? I know all of you speak it perfectly fine. Why not try to type the English version of the show which most English speakers have seen? The manga also has an English version now. There is no good reason for these words to me typed in their Japanese names. When I first saw the word Jinzogen or whatever the fuck that Japanese word for Android (oh wait I'm sorry, Artificial Human) was, I did not know what the article was talking about. Why you may ask? Well being a speaker of the English language, naturally I only watched the English version of the show, mostly because I could understand and comprehend what was going on. I think it is safe to assume that the vast majority of people looking up Dragonball on this, the English version of Wikipedia are the same as me. If you want to type the Japanese names so bad, got to the Japanese version of wikipedia! The vast majority of us who most commonly know the English version of Dragonball don't know what the hell you are talking about when you type in those crazy series of letters that you call "words". Or hell, why don't you just change all the articles names to say "Dragonball Z (Japanese version)".

I am not usually this bitchy about things, but for some reason this just really set me off. At first I thought this would be good, I thought the problem with the excessively long plot summaries would finally be fixed. Instead I just see that the whole Wiki Project Dragonball team has turned the whole series of articles into one giant Nazi camp. Saying this in the most honest way, you are all a bunch of die-hard fans that for some reason and I don't know why, don't like the English version of the series and don't seem to care much about if an article is accurate and informative, so long as it looks short and pretty, the whole damn thing could be a dull, uninformative, and the few facts that it does have could be vague and perhaps even completely wrong for all you care. You then quickly delete anything that goes against your twisted and not well thought out rules.

You are forgetting what Wikipedia is all about. It is about people around the world sharing their knowledge about a subject by creating and contributing to articles in this online encyclopedia so that PEOPLE WHO SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE CAN GET GOOD, FACTUAL, AND INFORMATIVE INFORMATION ON A SPECIFIC SUBJECT ALL ON ONE WEB PAGE. From what I can see now, Wiki Project Dragonball is just a small online organization full of staunch, die-hard, "stick in the mud" type fans of the Japanese version of Dragonball with similar ideals for the Dragonball pages (though they may differ in smaller matters). To me, this just sounds like a big group of people trying to be the powerful dictators of a certain subject, or a mass group of people violating WP:OWN.--Lucky Mitch 02:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


It's not all of us who are for it. Its like two, one of which thinks his will supercedes all others.Darkwarriorblake 10:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX... - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That looks like its more for articles than discussion. And its discussion that needs to occur. You know, since the edits are against any actual consensus.Darkwarriorblake 11:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

None of you seems to get the point. Wikipedia is an Enyclopedia, so the original names are beeing keep to keep them factual and in keeping with their name puns. In the video games they will be called what ever they are called in the game. If you guys don't like how these articles are being handled, feel free to join the Dragon Ball wiki, Where cruft and what ever isn't accepted here is accepted. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

First, before anything, I would like to apologize about what I typed in last night. You're right, I did not follow Wikipedia:Etiquette by being very rude, offensive and making a lot of generalizations. I'm sorry if I offended anybody. I had a long day yesterday to say the least.
However, I still think the pages now are some what dull and uninformative. While I am pleased with the shortening of the plot summaries, I think all the other things could have stayed mostly seeing as they were unique to the specific character.
In my opinion, the japanese names should be mention maybe at the begining of the article and in the "alternate names" section to preserve their originality and name puns, but for the most part, I think the names of characters and attacks should be called what they are in the english dub version seeing that this is the english wikipedia and most people would better understand the articles if they are written in the names and/or the format they know and understand best.--Lucky Mitch 02:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
What names got changed? Ive been keeping my distance 'cuz of the contention that crops up around here, but last I checked all the names were used in an official English source (be it dub, sub, or manga translation). Unless someone went around changing things to Bejita/Gokuu/Torunkuso/Buruma and such...
I'm gonna run something else by you on your talk page. If I do it here, someone in particular will probably bite my head off. Onikage725 04:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think for people to better understand the content in the articles, we should establish what should stay in the aritcles, and what stays out. The thing that I alway find it easier to use the original information that was given, and later compare/contrast other information that was introduced later. Here are some suggestions that I have:

Included

  • Name (obviously)
  • First appearence in the series
  • Physical appearence/ design (both manga and anime should be compared and contrasted)
  • Status/ role in the series (Protagonist or Antagonist? NOT A BIO, but a short sum-up of the character's role in the series)
  • Character origin/ development (Was that character inspired from a person/ other character? How did the character develop over the duration of the series?)
  • OOU ("Out Of Universe")- (cross-overs/ other appearences/ merchandise...)

Excluded

  • Character bios- They simply re-tell the story by using that character as the main focus. Also all the characters are fictional, a bio is not needed.
  • Technique/ Transformation lists- WP:CRUFT, Not important to general readers and serves no purpose in better understanding the character.
  • Fan names - "Mystic Gohan", "Ultra Super Saiyan", ect.
  • Dub references- Inaccuracies or additional information is quite often integrated into the dub.

Optional

  • Voice actors
  • Personality (Be careful, could be considered WP:OR)
  • Family Tree/ relationship with other characters (Not important, but could be useful to better understand which of the other characters have influence on that one. Of course, lists of family in the infobox would probably suffice.)

This is simply my suggestion of what to do. It's quite obvious that these articles still got a long way to go before they're ready for any kind of rating. --VorangorTheDemon 09:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey while were on this, can we look at the subject above? I was hoping I could get some concensus on changing some things. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Bio and Powers should stay... in a drastically different form. Bio's should be concise character summaries. This might be what you mean about "Role in series." Here's an example, Piccolo's bio from FUNimations's site-

Goku's one time archenemy, Piccolo is the second strongest being on the Earth. Born as a concentration of Kami's negative spirits, he has powerful energy blasts, can split into two or four separate entities, and has the ability to regenerate limbs. Originally from the far away planet Namek, Piccolo starts off fighting Goku to rule the world. When the Saiyans arrive he joins forces with Goku. At first it is an uneasy alliance, soon enough their bond becomes stronger. While training Gohan, Piccolo develops a special bond with the little boy. Through Gohan, the only person who has ever been a friend to him, Piccolo starts changing for the better. Piccolo ends up sacrificing his own life to save Gohan. While battling with Frieza, Piccolo merges with Nail, the last of the Namekian warriors. Piccolo gains Nail's ancient Namek fighting style, greatly enhancing Piccolo's powers and abilities.

I'm not saying use that (it'd be plagiarism), but something like it. Take out the ability part, use the biographical info, going even further (role in Cell and Buu sagas and GT), it wouldn't need to go beyond 2-3 paragraphs if kept in a format like what's above.

Abilities could be structured like other comic characters in prose form. Instead of two sections with lists, it could be a more comprehensive version of the type of thing mentioned in the bio above, or like western comic articles (for example, Thor's, a character with powers similar to a DBZ characters type of abilities). Onikage725 08:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

That's good Onikage, but I don't think that "powerful energy blasts" is very descriptive. Every major character has "powerful energy blasts." And by Bio, I mean the long biographies that we had for a while. I think that even a single paragraph would be sufficient to sum up the character's life, maybe two or three for Goku. One or two for the other characters. To be a good article, fictional characters can't have the bio be the main focus of the article simply because it's basically a retelling of the story that already exists, but with the character in question as the primary focus. Otherwise, having the saga/ series articles would serve no purpose. I also think that we should avoid comparing them to other characters unless that's what the original intention was, it's confusing for casual readers (eg. Comparing Piccolo to Kuririn as opposed to comparing Goku to Vegeta, which the creation of Vegeta actually originally served the purpose of creating a character from the same race that contrasted Goku in every way: physically, genetically, and behaviorally). --VorangorTheDemon 12:03, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not saying to copy verbatim from every Marvel/DC comics character's power section, or use FUNi's exact terminology. I'm just saying the format would be appropriate. These are super powered comic characters after all. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. For Db characters more focus in an abilities section would be on what their techniques are. And the kinda thing I mean for bio would be like adding that, for example, in the Cell Saga Piccolo merges with Kami, increasing his power to aid in the fight with Cell and his goal of shutting down 17/18. In the Buu Saga he becomes a mentor and teaches Goten/Trunks fusion. That sums up 2 sagas worth of Piccolo in two rough sentences.Onikage725 20:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been reviewing these issues these past few days and I can conclude that for character techniques having a list of techniques for each character is space consuming as it references every little technique that character has. A wish I have is that if possible to shorten it into a few paragraphs and just use basic information to help keep it as small as possible. I mean I've seen of how the Sailor Moon Character articles have turned out where instead of listing and describing every technique it was put into paragraph form with notes and references and all irrelevant information has been removed.

In short I would say I will accept it if the there is to be no listing of techniques, but I will point out the option of replacing a technique list with a paragraph format instead as a way of avoiding too much detail in the article, and I will not oppose any final decsions either. -Adv193 19:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Cross Epoch up for deletion

In the event anyone actually cares for the page, I have nominated Cross Epoch for deletion. I'm sure a pointless edit war would have broken out had I simply issued a speedy delete, so I opened the situation for discussion here. Details on why it's been nominated can be see on the AfD page, as well as a notice reminding you all that AfDs are not majority votes; "I like it" and "I don't like it" votes will be ignored. At any rate, participate if you wish. Happy editing! // DecaimientoPoético 20:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

One character list?

I'm thinking that we should head towards one character list that details the most important characters, while summing up the smaller ones. Characters like the tournament ones, the ones around the Lookout, the Red Ribbon Army, the Namekians, and other groups like those will only get a few quick paragraphs. Minor characters like Nappa, Zarbon, the Ginyu Force, and others will also be summed up in groups. One movie characters can just redirect to the movies, and minor, minor characters will just get nixed. Other than that, I'm not looking to merge any of the characters at this point. Thoughts? TTN 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying that we have too many lists of Dragon Ball characters? If so, I agree that the list of Earthlings in Dragon Ball should be merged with Earth (Dragon Ball). That said, we should a maximum of two lists; something akin to a list of supernatural beings in Dragon Ball and a list of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball, no more than that. One list of the major characters might be too large and too long to load for those with an Internet connection that is slower than cable (like my crappy DSL). Unless we completely list the characters that had a much bigger role than others in the series (e.g., have Dodoria, Zarbon, Ginyu, etc., listed but do not have Dodoria's men, Burdock, the minour Saiyans, etc.) then this could work out. And like you said TTN, the characters that are not as minour as the ones like Burdock, Kiwi, Monster Buyon, and others can be nixed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
How many lists do we have right now exactly? Onikage725 08:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Four it think. Now can we look at the saga article comment I made above? I'd really like to get that processed. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
There shouldn't be a need for two lists. I imagine that it should be possible to reach the article size of Characters of Final Fantasy VIII while describing the important characters. Characters like Dodoria, Zarbon, and Ginyu can easily be summed up under the header of "Freeza's minions", so they don't need to be listed. The following is what I think may work as a good amount.

Protagonists

  • Android #16 (?)
  • Android #18
  • Baba (Fighters summed up)
  • Bulma
  • Burdock (His team can be summed up here)
  • Chaozu
  • Chichi (Her father can be contained here)
  • Future Trunks
  • Kuririn
  • Mr. Satan
  • Muten Roshi (Turtle and Lunch summed up)
  • Oolong
  • Pan
  • Piccolo
  • Shenlong (the other two dragons summed up)
  • Son Gohan
  • Son Goku
  • Tenshinhan
  • Trunks
  • Uub
  • Vegeta
  • Videl
  • Yamcha (Paur can be contained here)
  • Residents of the lookout and the tower (summed up)
  • Residents of the afterlife (summed up)
  • Semi-important residents of other places, maybe “Minor characters” (Gohan’s two classmates, stuff like that, summed up)
  • Tournament fighters (summed up)

Antagonists

  • Android #17/Super 17
  • Baby (The doctor can be contained here)
  • Broly (?)
  • Cell
  • Dr. Gero (minor androids summed up)
  • Evil Dragons (summed up)
  • Freeza
  • Freeza's henchmen (Saiyans (Raditz, Nappa, as a whole), Ginyu Force, and the other ones summed up)
  • Majin Buu (Babidi can be contained here)
  • Piccolo Daimao and co (summed up)
  • Pilaf
  • Red Ribbon Army (summed up) TTN 20:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think something as truely massive as Dragon Ball should have its entirety of characters summed up in one list. I mean there is a line between to much content and none at all. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:23, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with DBZROCKS; like I said above, two lists maximum, not a major one, or three or more for that matter. TTN, that Final Fantasy article you referenced is very much over 32 kbs, we will need to keep it down to a smaller quantity so the page could load faster. This is also so those with a slow Internet connection like dial-up or DSL don't have to wait so long. Still, we can have the Earthling list integrated into Earth (Dragon Ball), and have that Saiyan list added to the list of extraterrestrials, and keep the list of supernaturals by itself. I'm considering, however, for the supernatural beings and extraterrestrial list page titles to be changed to shortened names, List of Dragon Ball apparitions and List of Dragon Ball extraterrestrials. This is easier to remember and for easier typing (e.g., see how List of Bleach shinigami and List of Bleach hollows are set up). Does anyone oppose this idea of mine? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The earthlings in Dragon Ball list is out of control long too. Three i think would be the optimal amount for this. And I appose the Supernatural beings change, I mean apparitions? I think it is better off as Super Natural beings. Also what do you guys thing of changing the saga articles as I have outlined above? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 11:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no actual limit to article size up to a certain point. Articles are split due to stylistic reasons (not being able to present the information in a decent manner due to the length) instead of its size in kb. If an article is fully presented in 70 kb, that's fine. "Characters of Dragon Ball" has a much better potential of reaching FA status than two lists have of reaching FL status. It should have enough potential creation and reception information to actually stick as an article as well. TTN 11:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually having 1 list would make it seem like a extremely forced merge. I mean Final Fantasy VIII is ONE video game. Dragon Ball would be like 3 or four Final Fantasy games in terms of size. And I can easilly dig up plenty of Character Design information for most of the list characters. the movie ones for instance are easy. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:06, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
How is it extremely forced? Can you list more than a few characters that belong in my list up above? The size of the series doesn't really factor into the the decision to make more than one character list. If you can find information for movie characters, it belongs in the movie articles anyways, as they need to be beefed up as well. TTN 15:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
I can't believe you guys don't recall the manual-of-style regarding article size I once showed you, see WP:LENGTH for why 32 kilobytes is recommended. Saying that you don't want to abide by this is like saying WP:CITE should be ignored; sourced citations make an article look better, do they not? Same goes for WP:LENGTH; not everyone has the luxury of high-speed Internet TTN, take me for instance. Cramming all that crud you want into Lists of Dragon Ball characters will not keep the manual-of-style in practice and obviously won't accomplish a feat like WP:FA. TTN, your Final Fantasy characters list is truly a horrid example of what me and DBZROCKS want to have created. BTW, what's wrong with List of Dragon Ball apparitions? It's practically the same criterion as the one we have now, aside from that, it's a hell of a lot quicker than typing List of supernatural beings in Dragon Ball, List of Dragon Ball supernatural beings, and appears less bizarre than a title like List of Dragon Ball supernaturals. Comments? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
32 kb is recommended per the fact that it is often a good size for an article. It is neither the minimum or the maximum size that an article can be (its unfortunate to those will slower internet connections, but there is little that can be done). If you look at some of our featured articles, some aren't even 32 kb, while others are fifty or sixty. It depends on how the information is managed; some will need five sub articles, while some are fine on their own. In this case, one list can do it. Characters of Final Fantasy VIII is a featured article as well, so how can you say it isn't a good example? You may not like it, but that is the premium example of a character list with real world information. TTN 20:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
You're both technically right. Size is a guideline, but it is much more lenient now than it used to be. Though article size is no longer a binding rule, there remain stylistic reasons why the main body of an article should not be unreasonably long, including readability issues. It is instead treated as a guideline, and considered on a case by case basis, depending on the nature of the article.
Now, I think the thing with Dragon Ball... looking at the anime, there are 508 episodes if my math is right (153/291/64), 17 movies, 3 TV specials, and the Playdia footage put together in what some call an OVA. There are a LOT of characters. There are likely many that don't need to be covered, but there are going to be more (even if only in a "Minor Characters" section) than in an equivalent Final Fantasy list. This series ran for over a decade. Having them all on one list would be more like trying to do a "List of characters in the Final Fantasy series." Either a majority of characters will have to be cut, or the list will have to be split.
What if we just did two lists- "List of major characters/List of Minor characters." That would be a little more out of universe than trying to sub-divide lists based on fictional criteria.Onikage725 02:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Onikage725, so long as they are not exaggeratedly large like that Final Fantasy characters list. And no TTN, it's not that I dislike long pages, but I actually think of those who share a slow connection besides myself. There is a lot that can be done to correct this problem. Just a figure but I *bet* if you were one of slow Internet users you'd concur with me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z Gaiden: Saiyajin Zetsumetsu Keikaku (series) and other video game article mergers

I've gone ahead and merged the Saiyajin Zetsumetsu Keikaku media articles into a series page, since all the articles were stubs and follow the same story anyway. The synopsis was moved from the OVA article to the series page, and all the video games (as well as the OVA itself) were listed under a History section with a brief description of each installment (these could use expansion, by the way). All there really is to add at this point would be reception for the games and possibly the OVA.

As for other Dragon Ball Z video game articles, I suggest we follow what we did with the Naruto and several Bleach games and create series articles for the smaller series (like what I've already done with the Super Gokuden and Goku RPG games). As for series with games that go into a lot more detail (i.e., the Budokai series), the articles can be kept if desired, but series pages for those as well would probably be best as well. More on this can be seen here.

As a final note, I've been debating over whether or not to merge the Dragon Ball Z Gaiden: Saiyajin Zetsumetsu Keikaku Original Soundtrack article into the series one. Not to say it couldn't survive on its own, I think it would be best to kill two birds (or in this case, five) with one stone and put all the Saiyajin media together. I thought I'd get opinions on this before I continued with the merger, however. // DecaimientoPoético 22:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I really think that the Legacy of Goku games and the Budokai games should be in one section. And when Tenkaichi 3 comes out we should merge that two. Now PLEASE can we review that saga comment I made in the above section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

FAQ?

I was thinking seening as we have many arguements being repeated, why don't we just have a FAQ, like the Super Smash Bros Brawl article? I think that would save us all some time. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am personally in favour of the idea, and am actually considering writing an FAQ for Tenkaichi 3 and other future DBZ games (assuming more will be made). However, I'm curious to know under what circumstances must an article or form of media be under to be granted an FAQ in the first place. // DecaimientoPoético 19:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Its usually when people keep changing things that have already been set in stone. Or when people continually add stuff to the article that does not belong. And Poetic Decay, what do you think of my idea with the saga articles? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually suggested something like this for the unfinished Dragon Ball portal, see this comment at UzEE's. I'd love it if you guys could support this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:07, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vegeta: Good article?

In light of the extreme overhaul on the Vegeta article, does anyone think it is Great article level? What would it take for it to be a great article? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:16, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It's far from ready. Definitely needs more cleanup and refs-_$UIT 18:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed how nice the refs made the article look, but it's still not even close to WP:GAN candidate. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Not even close, it needs a more OOU perspective. I don't think that people know what this means, so let me give an example: "Toriyama introduced Vegeta in the series in chapter ___ of the manga." We need to look at Toriyama, and how he developed the character in the series, not look at the character and how he developes in the series. see the point? (eg "Vegeta was intended to be a one time villian, but Toriyama found Vegeta a popular character, so he decided to continue with him.", not "Vegeta did _____ and then ____ and ____." or "Vegeta looks like ____". Instead we would say "Toriyama designed Vegeta to contrast the main protagonist Goku, (then you would compare and contrast the characteristics of Goku and Vegeta)). --VorangorTheDemon 00:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem would be finding a source for what you just said. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Did I miss something?

Ya I am back to help out but I need to get up to speed first. I see ever last article so far has been shorten. Good idea but bad at the same time. You have to give the readers something to work with and not just things like personality, defintion of their powers. People deserve more. Not the long summary of the history that got overboarded but something. Also we got this merging thing about Bulma and Roshi. Has that not been delt with before? Ya It can be brought up anytime, I know but It makes no sense arguing over it again. Now I read under Cleaning up the characters section DBZROCKS would like me to help with something? Well hit me up. If I am not at work or playing with my son I can help write things you guys may need. Oh before I go. I am back home safe and sound I am back to help out. Iraq a bi---! Heat P 02:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are home safe! that is great news! Anyway, as you can probably see, all of our pages have had their painfully long plot summaries deleted and replaced with something a little shorter. Of course very few of them are actually finished, any help with the plot summaries would be helpful (see Vegeta) for an example. Also many of our articles need some decent images, not the crappy kind so any of those would be great. No new characters have been merged, though Muten Roshi and Goten are looking to be in danger of it. Also on my sandbox I have made some articles for merging all of our rediculus saga articles so helping with that would be nice to. In all I'd like to welcome you back pal! DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok I see what is going on but here is where I see the biggest problem that has not been worked out. The setup of how the articles need to be. Here is what I mean. Look at the contents of the top 4 Saiyans articles.
Vegeta
Appearance
Plot Overview
Powers and Abilities
Appearnces in other media
Notes and references
Bibiography
Goku
Heritage and appearance
Character personality
Forms and transformations
Techniques and Special Abilities
Other media
Voice actors
References
External links
Gohan
Appearance
Development
History
Powers and transformations
Voice actors
References
F.Trunks
Appearance
Personality
Fictional character biography
Forms and transformations
5. Appearences in other media
5.1 Video games
Notes and references
I know some of you are working hard but you or rather now I'm back we need to come up with a set contents to work with. Just these four characters contents other then appearance is not constint. Heck not even that. Look at Goku, Heritage and appearance? Thats two or seperate sections cramed into one. So you guys see where I am going. Also little stuff like what family members needs to be in the family list. That little stuff can be worked out later, and just to say if you take out in laws like Satan or Mr Briefs, then they need to be taken out of all articles family list and not just one character (If some of you don't know what I mean? Go to Son Goku (Dragon Ball) discussion page for that. So there are a lot of main focuses to work with but getting a setup content for all the articles my help out with what is needed and what is not so a lot of the arguing and disagreements can be put to a minimum.Heat P 17:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
I really would say that Vegeta should be used as an example for the other articles to follow. The Voice actors section is unessary and should just be in the opening character template. I would say that the only character article right now that is decent enough to be read and under stood is Vegeta. Piccolo is currentally being worked on and I plan to get some of the plot summary finished today and add some references but until then, I would say vegeta is the best article we have right now in terms of characters. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 18:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Live Action film

Found this link on Daizex. http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=12002 Guh... make of it what you will. Onikage725 01:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

They're making a live-action movie?--60 Delta 05:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't know if it's confirmed or not. Just treat it as speculation until the official source (Which is Fox in this case) confirms it.75.152.207.66 03:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dragon_Ball/Archive_5&oldid=1190112194"