Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragon Ball/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Um...What??

Why is the Super Saiyan article now being reverted to its crufty edits? Also, is it better to have anime only Super Saiyan forms in their own section? I think it makes the article less "in-universe" because it then looks at the concept of the Super Saiyan from OOU rather then how it actually exists in the series.--VorangorTheDemon (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

A vandal IP was online last night, and I had to go over serious reverts today to fix a lot of articles. I would appreciate if someone would tell me a way to revert multiple edits by a user in a single click. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 12:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rollback, seeing the ammount of cruft this project deals with, I would recommend that some of the established users give this a try. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I got the rollback tool a few days ago. It's pretty awesome. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont have a extensive editing history so I use Twinkle right now to revert vandalism. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 04:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But the edits aren't being done by random IPs this time, it's bulletproof who's doing it. I've tried explaining the significance of editing the page the way I think it should be edited, but he doesn't agree with me and keeps reverting my edits. The main issue is that I want anime only transformations and original manga transformations to be separate, and he doesn't. I just think it looks f*cked up if the article's main subject is the Super Saiyan, but when you go down to the transformation section, it starts with Giji (False) Super Saiyan. To me, it both looks like crap and is has potential to confuse general readers. Also editing it as a single list provides a more "in-universe" look at the Super Saiyan, something that we Wikipedia editors are obligated by guidelines to avoid. Moving on, in my opinion, the Gohan article is the best character article that we have right now. It's very informative, has good refs and is the least crufty out of all of them. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to have separate sections for manga and anime only transformations simply because the differences between the manga and the anime have already been noted in the sections above, not to mention the Dragon Ball (manga) and Dragon Ball (anime)/Dragon Ball Z/Dragon Ball GT articles already linked in the page. Besides, it cannot be said that Toriyama's depiction of the subject is different than Toei's depiction as they do indeed share similarities. Listing both depictions in a single section does not give it an "In-Universe" look, and should not be an issue regardless since Policy forbids us from making references as to what is and isn’t considered Canon because of the delicacy of the issue. All of that can be straightened out in the Dragon Ball articles I listed above.-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:41, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not distinguishing canon from non-canon. It's distinguishing Toriyama's invention of the subject from Toei's interpretation. And no, it isn't clearly distinguished in the earlier sections on the page. I don't see anything that does clearly distinguish it at all. Also it is an article about a subject in a series, not a guide to that subject. That's not what Wikipedia articles are, otherwise just go to a fansite. We need to report OOU info about the Super Saiyan, not simply tell everyone the stuff that exists in the series alone. Us structuring our articles like fan page guides (the current Super Saiyan article for example) is what got us in this mess in the first place, and what downgrades all of our articles (which resulted in ton of members leaving because everyone edits the articles like a fan page and NONE of our articles are even close to FA because of this reason). I'm not trying to attack you, it's simply the way it is, you can't structure these articles like guides otherwise it's simply a page on the internet that fans can come to to indulge in their interests. It's not informative for anyone but fans, that's the point that I'm trying to convey. Also we don't need all the pictures. Again like I said, it's not a transformation guide, it's an article. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I think if we dont stop now, this page would soon heat up. I have a solution, lets vote on the matter. Should we have a single list of transformations or have two lists distinguishing the Animie and Manga transforms. Lets vote here right now, and reach a civilized consensus which everyone would agree on. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 11:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote

VorangorTheDemon suggests that the Super Saiyan article should have two lists, differentiating the manga and anime only transformations. The other approach by 3bulletproof16 is that to have a single list of all the transformations (correct this if I am wrong) for the sake of simplicity. Lets vote on the matter and reach a decision.

• Separate Lists - I would go with the idea to have separate lists. I think its more informative this way and anyone can get an overview of whats what. In other words, its a whole lot less CRUFTY. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 11:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Separate Lists - Obviously I've already made my point several times, and I agree with you completely on the cruft thing. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to look like guides, they're supposed to look like articles. Good articles fashion themselves based on OOU ("Out-of-Universe": Looking at the Super Saiyan from a real world point of veiw instead of just telling how it appears in the series as a single list would portray) The three Super Saiyan forms in question (False, Legendary, and SSj4) all were inventions by Toei in order to enhance the involvment of fans. False was originally Toei's vision of the Super Saiyan, Legendary was meant to go back to the original legend of there being a single, Legendary Super Saiyan, and Super Saiyan 4 was made simply to keep the series going. I think it is essential to keep these separate because I think it compares and contrasts Toriyama with Toei, and depicts both of their individual development of the Super Saiyan concept. It's not canon to non-canon because it's 1) not stating it, and 2) Represents both concepts equally (as "non-canon" is often regarded with less respect), which then gives the article a more OOU structure. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• Separate Lists - Sounds good to me. I'm always up for clarifying the difference between the great work of AT and what others put into it.--Funkamatic (talk) 22:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, can you clarify the problem? Are pages being changed? Is this a user problem? --72.174.170.165 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

People have recently been doing major changes without consulting anyone else. It's starting to piss me off. This is the reason why our articles are so crufty. People want everything to look more like guides and not articles, and that's not what Wikipedia is for. If you want a guide, go to a fan site, don't make them here. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Guidelines

WP:FICT has been revised

WP:FICT, the notability guideline for elements within a work of fiction (characters, places, elements, etc) has a new proposal/revision that is now live [2] Everyone is encouraged to leave feedback on the talk page. Ned Scott 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (serial works)

There is a proposal to split WP:EPISODE into a more general notability guideline, Wikipedia:Notability (serial works), and make the rest of WP:EPISODE just a MOS guideline. Please join in at WT:EPISODE#Proposed split of EPISODE and/or Wikipedia talk:Notability (serial works). -- Ned Scott 22:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding power levels to the Dragonball and Dragonball Z pages

I recommend that we add cited power levels to the Dragonball/Dragonball Z pages or else make a new page altogether for them. According to the Dragonball Wiki, the power levels they have there are cited from official sources and so I think they should be included here. They also seem to be in line with the power level readings from Pojo's site which are based off Akira Toriyama's staff. --Xander756 (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Adding power levels implies adding Fancruft. Power levels mean nothing to the readers who are unfamiliar with the series.  UzEE  01:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Aside from that, there have been two afds over this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power level (Dragon Ball) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power level (Dragon Ball) (second nomination), so I suggest not even trying it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The information here at wikipedia should not be aimed only at those unfamiliar with the series. Many who are knowledgeable in the series might be looking for a reliable source of official power levels rather than simply fan-sites. Power level is such a crucial part of Dragonball Z (no so much the original DB) that I don't see how you could ever complete encyclopedic knowledge about it without including them. --Xander756 (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thats why we have Wikia and Dragon Ball specific Wikis. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Period. -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also the reliable source as you call it relies on other reliable sources. If someone is looking for that much information, then he can just go to the original source.  UzEE  05:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Bulletproof, addition of power levels would not fit under any of the categories listed on the page you linked. Also, I can think of at least a few violations that are pages such as Project_Chanology --Xander756 (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC).

Well then take that up with those in Talk:Project Chanology. Unfortunately for you however, the subject is considered Fan-cruft by the consensus of the Wikipedia community and will therefore not be recreated. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. You can see as Sesshomaru pointed out, that it was created, and subsequently deleted twice. So there is no point at creating and article for the third time unless the Policies are changed. Since this is not the case, then we cannot add it here.  UzEE  06:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

According to the page bulletproof linked me to earlier, it claims wikipedia is not a democracy and things are not decided by voting but by discussion. What puzzles me is that in both of the deletion articles, it was taken to vote and not a discussion. Reasons for deletion were things like "it's nonsense" and contributed nothing to why. In one of the discussions, someone askes how it came to be considered fan-cruft and nobody replied to him. How can this be the consensus then when reasoning isn't even given? --Xander756 (talk) 06:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a democracy and the decision wasn't made as a result of a vote. The "nomination for deletion" pages intend for a consensus to be formed by discussion. A response such as Keep or Delete is used to confirm a participant's stance in the discussion. If it is apparent that a consensus has been formed, the discussion is closed and the page becomes subject to whatever the consensus affirmed.-- bulletproof ^3:16 06:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

In simple words, we work by a policy. It may not be the perfect thing in the world, but we use it. And it is the best way to get around many problems. And in my opinion, the consensus is not that much different than voting. The only difference is that you can always change your opinion and express the reason on your vote.  UzEE  07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And speaking of consensus bulletproof, something needs to be done about the merge discussion above. Its been around for a month now, and from what appears to me everyone has lost interest in it. What do you think?  UzEE  07:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Which discussion are you referring to?-- bulletproof ^3:16 07:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Also we don't want to feed into that "It's over 9000!!!!" crap that people keep using to vandalize the pages with. Which surprisingly, it actually wasn't over 9000. Also original PLs and dub PLs are different. Cruft is a major issue on these articles already. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I was talking about Merging the Character List issue.  UzEE  09:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on the sagas

Bringing this up on behalf of User:Sesshomaru. He and I have noticed the saga pages violate WP:PLOT, WP:FICT and are kinda crufty. My proposal is to consolidate the sagas into pages of their series, i.e. Sagas of Dragon Ball Z to better concentrate on improving them, but I believe he has his own idea. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, my idea actually was to begin a thread here. I too prefer that the saga pages are put into a single page, but not Sagas of Dragon Ball Z, but to Sagas of Dragon Ball to match its category. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I would try to just go with multiple season articles like with Naruto, and just name the arcs within them. TTN (talk) 20:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What did Naruto do? I'm not sure which article(s) you're referencing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

They split them up between multiple pages with multiple seasons per list. TTN (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should make a sandbox to see what it'll look like. TTN, could you demonstrate on yours? I still have no idea what you're proposing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Just look at the Naruto episodes and copy exactly what they are doing. That's it. Don't worry about unneeded plot pages. TTN (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Following the Naruto example isn't too bad. Though it's a little more complicated with Dragon Ball, considering there are 6 (3 for Japanese and English each) list of episodes and like 30 sagas in them. Does anyone have any references for what episodes of what saga belong to what season? --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what I've been saying. I looked (and even edited) the episode pages and I fail to see how they can be used as a basis. As far as refs can go, I don't have the slightest. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

So as far as I could get the topic, we are proposing another merge?  UzEE  04:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly, yes, but in a good way. We're trying to get rid of the saga pages here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of the saga articles go into unnecessary detail, while others are only one or two sentences. To me, the best thing to do would be two merge them into one list, or two perhaps, to better fit policy. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Burst Limit

This article has been subject to vandilism. And it's suppose to be protected. What's going on? --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Contact Deskana. He should know what to do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I have contacted Deskana here and added a protection request at WP:RFPP. Greg Jones II 20:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Burst Limit article is now semi-protected for one week. Greg Jones II 21:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That's good to hear. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm now watching the article just in case.  UzEE  14:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Theme songs

In the last hours several of these redirected pages were recreated by Sarujo,(User's contributions) now I can't recall what the desicion with these was but it certainly wouldn't hurt to create a concensus, personally I think that all of these were better in a list, wich is a format that effectively reduces the ammount of fancruft under this project's scope. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're right. The games would be better off in a single list. BTW, in case anyone wonders about the Dragon Ball nihongo changes, those were discussed on Sarujo's talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:47, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Romanization

Following is an archive of a discussion that took place here. It is only retained as a copy for the WP:DBZ. Please do not modify this. Only add comments at the end of this text.

---

I have reverted your unexplained edit to Dragon Ball GT. Why are you changing instances of "Doragon Bōru" to "Doragonbōru" and the names of several tracks pertaining to the Dragon Ball OSTs? Please reply on your talk page. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was my impression that when "ドラゴンボール" got romanized it automatically came out "Doragonbōru". Now I know that many words or sentences in katakana and hiragana don't always use blank or period spaces "･" in their text making them look like one long word. But my intention was to imitate the Japanese with the romanji, thus the romanji "Doragonbōru". Now in the English, I will go along with the spelling format as "Dragon Ball" even though others have officially wrote it as "Dragonball" and "DragonBall". To me, this is just like the whole "InuYasha", "Inuyasha", "Inu Yasha" romanization thing.

As for the soundtracks, your going to have to be alittle more specific. Sarujo (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, you're assuming that ドラゴンボール would be Doragonbōru? Have you even looked at the Japanese wiki translation for Dragon Ball? I asked about the soundtracks because you changed the romaji for pretty much all of them without leaving an edit summary. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no such thing as spacing in Japanese, so it seems like it can be shown with or without the space as romaji. I'm not sure if the Wikipedia:MOS addresses this. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have viewed the Japanese Wiki on Dragon Ball a few times and yes they do write the English title as "Dragon Ball", I do not deign this. But that still doesn't change the fact that Dragon Ball's katakana ドラゴンボール when displayed in raw romanji can be romanized as "Doragonbōru". Sarujo (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started changing instances of Doragon Bōru to Doragonbōru based on this discussion. Think you can help me get the others? I think you nailed all the soundtracks, the movies and games are pretty much the only ones left. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Just wondering if you finished the changes. Haven't heard from you man. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, for the most part I have changed most of the romanji. But there might be a few I missed. Plus I took the liberty to add the romanji in places where there wasn't any at all. I have purposely overlooked the "Legends" article for right now as I want to do an overhaul on that page, so I figured I do that in one swoop. I hope no one will object to this as with that whole Budokai Tenkaichi article fiasco, it makes one hesitant on attempting such a drastic change. Sarujo (talk) 07:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Haven't checked but did you fix all the ones categorized here? Oh and I learned that the only time there needs to be a space in between kanji is when it is a name, see MOS:JP#Names. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I had to double check those articles, and yes I have made changes where ever it was applied. Now there is still the episode list for all three series to deal with. Oh god, that's going to be a long night there.

Plus, I've finished the work to the "Legends" artical if you want to see. I may add more late, if I can find it. Sarujo (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does Legends use Doragonboru and not Doragonbōru? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I wasn't pay attention what I was doing. I tend to jump around on an article as I write it, which is probably not a good habit. But the format has been corrected now. Sarujo (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I read your update, though I believe it should be "DoragonbōruZetto", no space, like in Dragon Ball Z. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, Yeah that is the right format. But the only reason why I leave the format as "Doragonbōru Zetto" or "Doragonbōru Jītī" is due to those "geniuses" who appear out of nowhere and simply erase the whole nihongo. I ran into such a problem with the "Burst Limit" artical. I had originaly wrote the romanji as "Doragonbōru Zetto Bāsutorimitto". But the one called "Supergohan1" and some unregestered users keep coming and removing the Burst Limit romanji and just simply replacing it with the English title. Thus turning the template into "Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit (ドラゴンボールZ バーストリミット, Doragonbōru Zetto DragonBall Z: Burst Limit)". I kept reverting this and I added a hidden message asking them to goto the dissusion box and explain why they felt that the romanji didn't belong. So instead of doing this "Supergohan1" reverts the format back and leaves this in the edit summary: "Because the game is called DragonBall Z: Burst Limit". So after fighting it, I desided to just go in and split "Bāsutorimitto" to "Bāsuto Rimitto". Shortly afterwards a line was typed in the artical "OK I get it . . .". In short separating "Zetto" or "Jiti" from the rest of the title's romanji is just to ensure that the nihongo won't get torn up like with the Burst Limit title. Sarujo (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather we follow the guideline than change things to prevent arguements with other editors. Go ahead and combine the kanji, katankana, etc., and if users remove the nihongo, then revert and warn them for vandalism. I'll back you up if needed, just tell me where. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't have a problem with this. Although I'm not quite sure what the proper protocol for warning a user for vandalism since I've had to to issue it. For right now the articals that need watching over are soundtrack articals with song title that have been known by fanboys by a inaccurate or half translation. Examples of this would be any article that includes the songs "Aitsu wa Son Gokū" and "Akuariumu no Yoru".

I'll get started on the space removal on the Super Complete Collection as Columbia has just posted the tracklist for that album, and it will take the longest to fix up. Sarujo (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added the above to retain a copy of the discussion at a place which is more accessible to everyone.  UzEE  14:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandlism

A user named Namekian Lord had been vandilizing the saga pages. Can we block him or something to end it fast? --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I issued him a final warning ( {{uw-vandalism4}} ). If he still doesn't stop, then report him to the WP:AIV. If you need any help on that then just message me on my talk page. I'll report him myself.  UzEE  05:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)