![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
{{ Anime and manga portal}} Can someone please add this template to the article. For some reason I can't. SonGoku786 ( talk) 12:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd just thought I'd create the template page since there is not other template. SonGoku786( talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The article by far looks too messed up and the sub headings aren't doing anything to make the article look good. From a readers point of view it looks ugly. The sections are short. Why not get rid of the sub headings for the "Anime" series section and have just 4 paragraphs in chronological order detailing the anime series right up from Dragon Ball to Dragon Ball Kai? We could also integrate the anime films to the anime series section as they are part of it. SonGoku786( talk • contribs) 23:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I moved the text in the "anime sequel" sub section of the plot summary to the Dragon Ball GT since I believe its completely misleading to have it there. I'm not arguing whether Dragon Ball GT is "part of the series" or whether its "canon or not", I just think that a plot summary of Dragon Ball GT is better in a section for the Dragon Ball GT than a sub-section about the manga. If we're gonna cover GT in the plot summary, we might as well cover all the animated Dragon Ball spinoffs (filler episodes, movies, TV specials, and OVAs) there too, since they're every bit part of the franchise. Jonny2x4 ( talk) 19:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This left me a bit confused. Is it suitable to have the anime sequel section or not? Tintor2 ( talk) 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the article a bit and it uses some really bad english. The grammar is quite awful. I've edited the Dragon Ball Z section to this:
I think this makes much more sense. The last line bothers me. I don't ever recall that 107 episodes were edited for the UK version and cut. In the UK there were 276 episodes made. Could the last sentence be a rumour? SonGoku786( talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
On the to do list it says that the plot needs expansion. Personally, I think that the plot section is fine, it just needs citations. Does anyone think that it would be in the benifit of the article to expand it? DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I put in part of an article that I was going to finish about Dragon Ball AF, the fan-made content, but it seems it was removed. I was messaged saying that it was considered vandalism. I really don't see how that would be. I have my sources and everything, I just forgot to add them. And considering it's supposed to be a continuation to where the manga left off, shouldn't it be allowed? VampireBaru ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
the Children's Channel of israel is not connected with the Children's Channel of UK. i would liek to remove there the link to the Children's Channel of UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Play38 ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
I was wondering if someone might add this info for me to the Dragon Ball page. I think it should be mentioned that the Dragon Ball story as a whole very closely resembles the basic outline of the DC comics Superman story. The reasons for this should be obvious to any Dragon Ball fan.
Second, I think it should be mentioned that the Trunks saga of the Dragon Ball Z anime series somewhat resembles the outline of the Terminator movie series and contains many similar themes.
( Devinology ( talk) 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. The
{{editsemiprotected}}
template is meant to allow non-autoconfirmed users to request specific changes. You need to provide the wording of the change that you'd like to make. A bigger problem is that those observations are
original research and that isn't allowed. What you need to do is find a
reliable source that makes the same observation and provide details about those sources along with the wording you want added. Again, welcome and thanks. Happy researching!
Celestra (
talk)
04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It has been almost a year since the merge and I think it has been a reasonable time to see if consensus has changed.
I can say I am not the first to be shocked at the merge of Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT. I have extensively reviewed the request for the merge and believe that not only am I personally against the merge, but the merge itself seems to be a violation of WP:N. The former debate can be found here:
AnmaFinotera's argument, if I read correctly, was based on the fact that DBZ and DBGT were poorly sourced articles filled with fan cruft and that the anime had similar characters and plot therefore violated WP:MOS-AM. Unfortunately no registered editor defended this article until now. I saw that the previous debate was filled with flaming and uncivil behavior hopefully this time we can have a serious debate.
Firstly, the previous argument holds no ground. Fan cruft can be removed and a quick search can easily bring various non trivial sources (is DBZ we're talking about not some underground anime). This never have been and never well be reasons for a merge. The merge was based on the suggestion that DBZ and GT are not independent of each other. Dragon Ball Z is considered to be among the most popular an influential anime of all time. It was the primary force that introduced anime to mainstream American media not Dragon Ball.
Since its inception Dragon Ball Z has sold millions of action figures, video games, and merchandise. Games such as Dragon Ball Z: Budokai has been focused on Dragon Ball Z not Dragon Ball. Therefore Dragon Ball Z immediately establishes notability.
Secondly Dragon Ball Z has different characters and a completely different plot. The reason for the merge no longer holds any ground.
Dragon Ball Z's merge with Dragon Ball is as unwarrented as merging The Godfather Part 2 with the first one. According to this merge the The Matrix should also be merged into one article and so should any sequal for that matter.
The final reason for the split is based on the guideline that WP:Featured Article are the general guideline and expecation that each article should follow. 300 (film) which is a featured article sets the precedence that films, novels ( I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings), and anime alike should have a plot summary. Because DBZ and DBGT have different plots in order for these articles to eventually meet FA criteria we are going to need to split them and work on them independently. Valoem talk 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The Wire both are a series and therefore easily comparable. The Wire also has plot summary once again FA argument. Please don't say you can't compare the two there are no featured anime articles so we havelook to the next closing thing. Valoem talk 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
DBZ would need a plot summary which warrants its own article. Valoem talk 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Z should be split because:
Again, DBGT was merged because it is part of the Dragon Ball media franchise, which this article is about, and because it does not have enough information to carry it by itself. DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
If the manga has a different name it is different. Since it passes WP:N it would warrant an immediate split. It is not even made by the same creator. Valoem talk 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of discussion, what would be in a GT article that is relevant, and cannot simply be added to the Dragon Ball article? DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
@Valoem
I think you are very stubborn in your commitment to split at all costs. Thinking that more articles will give automatically better coverage for a manga/anime franchise is a farce. Thinking that more articles will do more justice to an
oeuvre is bound to disillusion. The only thing that will do is real article editing by bringing more materials, more references and more sources. That why we are pleading for real article improvement rather than cheap Illusory feel good choice. --
KrebMarkt
19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
However when someone say that reverting is vandalism, I disagree, that has nothing to do with the discussion, but accusing me of vandalism by reverting when I plan on improving the article is not proper. The policy from WP:BLD states:
I interpret this at if I create a new version that is edited with regards to the issue previous discussed (information and organization) I would be creating a new version of the article which would need a new consensus. I am saying that if I put a lot of work into the expansion of DBGT a revert of my edit would require a new discussion as long as the version I write resolves the issues formerly discussed that resulted in the merge. If the consensus is against my version then we can simply revert it back. Regardless ill try to added this into this article later in the week and see if it over flows. I'm closing this merge discussion for now. Valoem talk 03:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support. alrighty then. I agree with Valoem. First off, Dragonball Z is the Title of the Anime, not the manga, and therefore, the anime should have its own article. The american people translated the second half of Dragonball as Dragonball Z. Now, as an over page, this page makes since, but since when does a small general covering of a media franchise make up for a lack of articles for the parts of the Franchise itself? We might as well make One Article ofr Lord of the Rings. Secondly, Dragonball Z really has its own Art Style, and therefor can be recognized as its own thing. Thirdly, on the Matter of Dragonball GT, it should certainly be split. It had very little to do with the original manga and is what you would call a "sequel" thirdly, just because you put a stupid box at the top of the page that says we shouldn't discuss the separation of the article, doesn't mean we cant. and thats all i can say without giving up my civility.Peace. -- PopiethePopester ( talk) 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok guy I really did not back here to argue but to prove a point earlier. You seem to be reading and getting worked up about parts of what I write. Let me say this despite what I wrote and it may seem I was gearing towards supporting a new article but I am not. I alone said it to show that the supporters have good reason but I wholeheartedly agree with the way the articles are ran now. May be disappointed by some merges but they are for good reason. So in closing I may came of as a supporter but I am neutral and will be that like it was said before if they want to put it as a article go to Dragonball wiki and add it. I only said the prove there is info on GT out there so those that want it must look for it and place it correctly into an article then present it to the community. Heat P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.229.97 ( talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support Rechio ( talk) 02:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — Rechio ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Over 9000 is a line from Dragon Ball:
and has become an established Internet meme. It probably does not need its own article, but it definitely needs a section. An elite ( talk) 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the dragonballs themselves have their section in the article?
Also shouldn't the configuration of the stars be mention? Perhaps an official configuration would help since the stars shift depending on the ball and/or series. I am not sure how to source this outside of screen shots, though I know there is a way to source episodes with just the title, season, ep number and air date (and possibly where the occurrence takes place.)
While the one and three star balls stays basically the same, the other balls will often shift in how the stars are drawn. The balls will often resemble the configurations of a dice, or slightly shift to other shapes. The 5 star ball is the most ambiguous when it comes to its true configuration. It shifts from a dice configuration, to a pentagonal configuration to the configuration in this link
http://www.toptiergaming.com/dbzocg/images/carddatabase/Onset/Earth%20Dragon%20Ball%205.jpg
sometimes the 2 star ball will have the star diagonal and sometimes horizontal.
So is there a official manner in which the ball's stars are meant to be configured? If so that should be mentioned. Yami ( talk) 07:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the inclusion of the category makes sense so I'll be adding the bansian fantasy genre. Is that OK with everyone? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be fair, it shall be added now ;) Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No mention of censorship! No themes of sexuality! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsypoo ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Mitsypoo ( talk) 04:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I can see how these topics need "WP:Reliable sources," so how about a more cautious approach: simple synopsis of Japanese episodes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsypoo ( talk • contribs) Mitsypoo ( talk)
Can't the same be said for the dub version being used and passed off as the original? Mitsypoo ( talk) 04:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
How about this regarding episode 56: "In the original airdate version, Blue asks the boy on a date and is angered by rejection whereas in the dub version Blue mistakes the boy for his little brother." Mitsypoo ( talk) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
But the part about a little brother does??? Mitsypoo ( talk) 04:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)" Blue meets someone who resembles his little brother." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dragon_Ball_episodes_(series)
Yes, by itself this difference is trivial, but it was the first thing I looked up because it was so wierd....and I got a hit right away so to speak. I have since noticed that major plot devices from the original airdate are excluded from the Wikepedia article. At the same time, many minor plot devices exclusive to the dub version, are part of the article...and yet the group claims "All information should be based on the original versions." It also quite clear that the synopsises are understood to be from the original Japanese airdate. Mitsypoo ( talk) 04:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know why dragon ball had a completely different soundtrack in the U.S. and DBGT was summarized? 71.57.190.75 ( talk) 01:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Why nobody mention what really means? Paranoidhuman ( talk) 17:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kame = Turtle. Roshi is the Turtle Hermit, his house has Kame on the side of it.
Kamehameha basically means turtle death beam or something of the sort. It's translation has been on Wikipedia multiple times, but I'm guess that it keeps getting lost every time someone gets the urge to merge, change or other wise alter the article(s) for the series. Yami ( talk) 06:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Dragon Ball izle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabuhan ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
When I edited under a IP, Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT were around. What is going on? Zarbon's goofy cousin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC).
Wait Dragon Ball Z is not notable enough to have it's own article? It's the most popular anime series of all time for God's sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.142.51 ( talk) 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I don't know what "Andrew" is talking about. I vouch that we bring it back yo. Zarbon's goofy cousin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
I'm all for having it back. I edited Dragon Ball GT a lot with my other account, User:Recbon, although spent a better half of the year with my girlfriend Jacyntha. Sk8terhata —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
What??! Since when was it ok to delete dbz like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.4.56 ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
While I still disagree with this, I will not fight tooth and claw just to bring these pages back. it is but pointless. Zarbon's goofy cousin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
Consensus?!?! The anime project has been rejecting any opinions about splitting the articles. I see no consensus, just count how many complaints have been about this "consensus". 76.108.0.229 ( talk) 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, It is clear that dragon ball/z is above "mid importance". 71.75.237.194 ( talk) 00:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleting the DBZ article is a prime example of the lazy behavior among some editors that makes me dislike Wikipedia sometimes. Instead of investing in a little elbow grease to polish and find sources for the article, some editors would rather chop down it down into an inadequate blurb - Rubbish! The DBZ anime is CLEARLY a notable topic, that should be obvious; as one of the editors described above, it's among the most popular animes around. 124.176.56.116 ( talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
the intro has "42 tankōbon have been adapted into three anime series" totally untrue, the first two series, dragon ball and dragonball z were based off the 42 tankobon, but the third, dragon ball gt was not written or adapted from any manga, simply wrote on the spot into anime. this is misleading information as users will not realize that the extreme differences between db and dbgt were not a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keibetsu ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Gogeta.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor25 ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that this section misses the official manga websites. It only covers the anime websites. I sugest you to add http://www.shonenjump.com/ (official Shonen Jump site) and http://www.s-manga.net/ (official Shueisha site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.32.229 ( talk) 22:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I cannot believer there is no mention fo the huge internet meme 'over 9,000' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.147.34 ( talk) 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I know people have tried many times to get this article split in a way similar to what it was before and have been shut down but I really feel that we need to have this discussion again, specially because Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT are clearly different than Dragonball, not only in terms of being a whole other project involving different creative teams, but in the way that they are treated in the franchise differently because they are not the same. Each of this manga/anime series is notable on their own and having them all bundled up in the same article makes for important information that makes each series unique out of this article. The Dragonball franchise is clearly being treated like this because it's an anime. I bet you won't the merge The Total Drama series articles into one.
I mean seriously it is a fact that Dragonball Z has been way more influential in the world of pop culture that DB or DBGT. I seriously cannot understand why it is rational to not give it it's own article. It has spawned books, video games, spin-offs, and notable parodies all on it's own, literally without being attached to the original Dragonball series.
So many people are unaware of the existence of DB and DBGT and putting them in the same article as the one they do know causes for confusion and misudenstanding, specially when one of the series was not a manga and is put in an article about a manga.
If you say, you can do all of this in a special wiki you are not giving useful advice. Anyone who cares enough about the series to go to a special wiki already knows most of this information and it only really helps fanboys. It is incredibly disapointing that the administrators fail to see why something as influential and popular in the whole world as Dragonball Z does not deserve an article of it's own. - N.Flen
I agree 100% with the "separatists" above and in the archives. I retrospectively read through the discussion in the archives about this point and do not see any consensus at all and an abundance of flawed logic. A FEW editors do not want separate pages and their main argument against it is that it is consensus to merge, despite the fact that more people, with better arguments, want separate articles. It appears to simply be stubbornness and laziness keeping the articles together.
DBZ is a completely different sequel show to DB. Completely new and different characters, different story, different plot, different name, far different popularity/notability, the list goes on. Just because the Japanese compnay chose to use a Z instead of a 2, it apparently confuses a minority of Wikipedia editors. There are infinitely less notable pages on Wikipedia than DBZ, that have been there for years, but a few Ebullys here apparently have already decided for the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 ( talk) 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Ever read Wikilawyering , Tintor2, or Gaming the system?
be bold and Ignore all rules are good reads as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 ( talk) 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Quoting myself above, since I do not believe you actually read what I spent the time writing, "It appears to simply be stubbornness and laziness keeping the articles together." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 ( talk) 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleting the DBZ article is a prime example of the lazy behavior among some editors that makes me dislike Wikipedia sometimes. Instead of investing in a little elbow grease to polish and find sources for the article, editors like Tintor2 would rather chop down it down into an inadequate blurb - Rubbish! The DBZ anime is CLEARLY a notable topic, that should be obvious; as one of the editors described above, it's among the most popular animes around. 121.223.189.196 ( talk) 14:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
In the Theme section of this article, I cannot help but get the feeling that whoever wrote it has some sort of agenda. Reading through that section gives me a sense of sarcasm and perhaps even spite, as it is written with almost comical repetition. I do not urge anyone to correct it before it has been checked by someone adequate; considering English is not my first language, I might just have unsterstood it wrong.
Deus ex machina? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 ( talk) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It's been announced that DBZ Kai will be on The CW 4Kids instead of Nicktoons.-- 72.148.3.214 ( talk) 14:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it has been announced that it will air on both.
ZServ (
talk)
17:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Change "in may 2010" to on May 24th, 8:00PM EST because that is the official air date for the series in the US, which i was not able to find on Wikipedia. Just for convenience.
ZServ ( talk) 17:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
http://blog.funimation.com/2010/05/dragon-ball-z-kai-on-nicktoons/
ZServ (
talk)
03:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
In the article, this is said: "In 1995, Funimation Entertainment acquired the license for the distribution of Dragon Ball, as well as its sequel series Dragon Ball Z, in North America....Thirteen episodes aired in syndication before Funimation canceled the project due to low ratings, switching to working immediately on the more action-oriented Dragon Ball Z.[7] In March 2001, Funimation announced the return of Dragon Ball to American television.... The redubbed episodes aired on Cartoon Network from August 2001[26] to December 2003..."
However, I watched many more than 13 episodes in the mid-to-late 90's of the Dragon Ball series (not Z) on a local station (I think WGN, but I only remember the number on my cable service) early in the mornings (premiering before Sailor Moon). I still have about 25 episodes on tape, if not more. Anyone know if maybe some other company had the rights for it during the period? I found a couple of non-citable sources online stating it started on NA TV in 1998, which would be about the period I would have been watching and recording it. I just know it was not in 2001 on Cartoon Network, as I had watched at least a lot of the series on TV long before then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.39.115 ( talk) 21:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
is it possible you have the harmony dub???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.242.205 ( talk) 20:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've found a lot of information. Can I make an article about it please and thank you in advance. Redbird 41 ( talk) 04:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It lists everyone Goku has met. Do we really need to know that? Wernjump ( talk) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Saw this on Twitter recently. I also gave this link on the Kai episodes discussion page. http://www.toonzone.net/news/articles/36490/dragon-ball-kai-to-end-on-march-27-2011 -- Addict 2006 16:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
-- KrebMarkt ( talk) 19:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Why are all the Dragon Ball tv series covered in this article? I think, for example Dragon Ball Z, is notable enough on its own to have an article not related to Dragon Ball or Dragon Ball GT. Also, searching for Dragon Ball Z currently redirects you to List of Dragon Ball Z episodes. Just wondering why things are the way they are. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 07:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Dragonball Kai couldn't have been cancelled due to low ratings, if you check the top 10 TV rankings for any week during the shows run in Japan Dragonball Kai was always there. You can see all of them on Anime News Network, they're even all listed in the related news section on Dragonball Kai's ANN page. ZERO-ninja0 ( talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I discovered that some references are linked to fansites, which are generally not reliable sources. Should we remove them or keep them? Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
In the plot summary it mentions Emperor Pilaf, the Red Ribbon Army, and both Piccolo's. There are five major groups or sagas in Part 1 of Dragon Ball. The five villains of those Sagas were Emperor Pilaf, the Red Ribon Army, Tienshinhan, King Piccolo, and Piccolo Jr.. He should be there. STFX1046190 ( talk) 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC) On the contrary he should absolutely not be there. Tienshinhan was not a villain just a temporary rival for goku in both fighting capabilities and mentality.His behavior and actions never altered the outcomes of goku's battles or the world for that matter.Tien was bound to become a hero because of his kind heart.-- MartianH ( talk) 00:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is this rated mid importance on anime/manga scale?
Dragon Ball is probably one of, if not the most well known anime/manga series outside of Japan, and a quick look at google trends shows that it has on average more searches for it than Akira, or Gundam, which are both High importance. 69.132.79.61 ( talk) 19:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned that Dragonball was heavily influenced by DC Comics Superman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herojoe1000 ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"Akira Toriyama is rumor to be making a new Dragon Ball series alongside mangaka Naho Ooishi, The creator of the 2008 Dragon Ball Z special "Yo! son goku and friends return". called, Dragon Ball Hoshi. Ooishi will be making a manga that continues the Z Manga past the Buu saga. It will have a newly designed Super Saiyan 4, and even a Super Saiyan 5. Akira Toriyama will be assisting her and backing off. The events in japan (earthquake, tsunami) slowed this down now Toriyama is taking care of that. It's rumor to be out later this year or early 2012"get rid of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.51.195 ( talk) 04:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to make clarification of dragon ball anime reception from dragon ball Z, was wondering if that can be cleared up. Also there sems to be using the word "Specials" for OVA and TV Anime films, maybe some clarification should be done. Lucia Black ( talk) 21:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone needs to put up on the page about the fact that AF and Hoshi are both fake. It's confusing enough people who check facts, especially since at one point the Wikipedia article actually CONFIRMED Hoshi.
Shouldnt it be mentione that most fans hate GT? Redyugioh ( talk) 21:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This is ridiculous this is wikipedia not a fan site.This article is based on facts not opinion, if you could find a legitimate source that implies that people hate GT then by all means add it .Be sure to note that GT was made because of fans asking for more so your statement would contradict that.-- MartianH ( talk) 00:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Well if it's a fact than it's a fact. lol I can't believe you two are actually implying that people DON'T hate it. Surely someone does, and I'm one of them. GT was made because fans wanted more, but it isn't more, since it wasn't made by Akira Toriyama. =) Just sayin'. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.7.157 ( talk) 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rodneytaylorboii (
talk)
01:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
AT SOME POINT YOU SHOULD MENTION THE LESS FAMOUSE CHARECTER, SUPER FELICITY.
Is there a reason why the edits/censoring that Viz Media made to "Dragon Ball Z" are not mentioned? (They also censored Dragon Ball when they originally released it in 1998.) Is it due to a lack of sources? Xfansd ( talk) 04:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
when it tells plot of db through the buu saga raditz is spelled readish
67.249.90.29 ( talk) 01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Hoshi is the series that leaves off from the Cell Saga in Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball Z Kai. It is supposed to air around the summer of 2012 or in 2013 Spring. Hoshi is believed to contain Dragon Ball Heroes clips, but is now being thought about being turned into a new series. Dragon Ball Hoshi's Main Character is Goku(as always the main character of Dragon Ball History). Also, you will notice Gohan as he is remaining in his teen form and Future Trunks is still with the group. Another feature of Hoshi is the two new characters whom's names has not been mentioned yet. The first one looks alot like Goku and has Super Saiyan Formation Hair, but the color remains black. He also has a Uniform much similiar looking to Goku's, but colors appear different such as: A Red Vest, An Orange-Yellowish Undershirt. The Other Character is also Goku-Looking, and has Super Saiyan Three Formation hair but also black, and has a Broly Like Outfit. This is Most Information best I know so far, if any other information can be posted please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.18.33 ( talk) 01:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It should be added that Dragonball and Dragonball Z, and GT is airing on Toon Disney And Jetix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.60.235 ( talk) 05:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, not a registered member. Just thought it should be pointed out the "Art Book" section is wrong. They actually released 7 of those books in Japan, not just the 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.50.3 ( talk) 14:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC) HEY ---
I'll look into it. Lucia Black ( talk) 15:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
It's fake, it frequently use's video's from dragonball heroes, video games. Couldn't find an official quote to deny or accept hoshi but this basically sum's it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSMkesyuB5Y Basically if you look at what the video says, where each content was stolen from then it basically proves hoshi is fake just like af, it's been a hoax for nearly as long as AF -- Ronnie42 ( talk) 08:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
As non involved editor i would like to remind the user requesting this to be added that without areliable 3rd party source confirming it then it just wp:cb so please bear back to wikipedia core principles rather than bring a debate about something that might or might not be true. Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68 ( talk) 14:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone verify that the broadcasts on the two Filipino networks, GMA-7 and RPN-9, were in English? While sometimes Filipino networks does broadcast English language programs, this should always be double checked. — Farix ( t | c) 11:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel the reception section for the anime, as written, does Dragon Ball a bit of an injustice. I agree it certainly has many faults, and the positions DB/Z/GT were ranked at by IGN seem fair to me, but its popularity opened the door for countless other anime series to be successful. I can't put this in myself because of No Original Research, but I know that many consider Dragon Ball, and Dragon Ball Z significantly responsible for increasing anime popularity outside of Japan. Before DB/Z, in the states, we had no anime(if any). With the success of DBZ in the 90s, Cartoon Network via Adult Swim and Toonami added more and more anime to their lineup, and I don't think we would have ever gotten any of the other anime series if not for the success of Dragon Ball Z. Does anyone have some sources to support this?-- Padenton ( talk) 19:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If anything, the articles for DBZ and DBGT should be restored. Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT are separate entities set within the same franchise. Having Dragon Ball Z be nothing more than a section in the main Dragon Ball article is like having Star Trek: The Next Generation be nothing more than a section in the Star Trek article. They should be split back up, there is more than enough notable content, sources, and differences. Also, it's misleading to have Dragon Ball Z redirect to Dragon Ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 April 2013
I've gone ahead and started an RFC on the possible demerge. Post your thoughts there. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Should Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z be de-merged and listed as separate articles? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
What's wrong with you? I made no mention of WP:OWN. there's no drama here. I didn't even mention anything about hentai articles. You're trying to overhaul all of anime/manga articles on your own. Lucia Black ( talk) 22:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Z is just a second season/series/whatever of the anime and only exists in anime form. If anything, its usage in an article title should solely relate to either a list of episodes or the various films in the continuity that used the Z in the title (I think Battle of the Gods falls under this umbrella).— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Attention! As stated before I am working on a SANDBOX version of DBZ not a MAINSPACE. Got it? I am not recreating the page, but it is preferable to have some ideas down. Do not discuss GITS here and those two editors do not make consensus. As noted, RFC is ongoing and the catch-22 is best handled by actually drafting something up. Something which will take me to at least friday. The MOS-AM matter is a formal proposal as noted by Sjones23, it is separate from this discussion. Okay? Clear? Good. No more drama. My response to Goodraise: It will contain a single detailed page that contains the overview of the topic with the following. The noted plot as coming from the manga, a brief character/voice actor layout of the key characters only, a section on production and release of works, censorship, reception and cultural impact. Included would be discussion relating to Funimations's heavy editing of the first two seasons and censorship of 'objectionable' content that drew some early internet criticism from people like Psaros. [2] Though The Japanese Wikipedia article gives a fair amount of detail to begin with. [3] While the List of Episodes is probably bordering on excessive, the production credits are useful, so is the original naming and details about the theme. Also even the music was a hit with the original JP theme sold 1.7 million copies, a mult-platinum level according to RIAA standards. We got plenty to work with here. Hence why I want to do a draft in my sandbox for it to preview what the page could look, later at this RFC. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
How about this. You expand this article and prove a split is necessary. The only differences are production and reception. And the list of episodes helps even further summarize, so you will only rehash those list articles. Lucia Black ( talk) 05:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Chris if you mentioned all those before that would have saved a lot of time. Seems you yourself just realized they supersede MOS, I know I did not know. However, my main concern now is if this supposed article will have enough new content, as Lucia brought up such a cast list seems quite unnecessary considering the character articles, and actual reliable sources. Claiming Psaros "a part of DBZ history" is ludicrous, he is simply a fan, same as you or I, therefore his site is nothing more than a fansite and obviously an unreliable source. Toon Zone has been named unreliable itself as seen here [5] and here [6]. Either way, that interview was conducted by a Ryan 'CastorTroy' Molina (who is also simply a fan) and is not related to Toon Zone. But that can wait until you finish your proposed article. Xfansd ( talk) 01:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Important - Per discussion in this section and the RFC on MOS-AM, found at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_105#RFC:_WP:MOS-AM_discussions, the earlier 2008 consensus to merge Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT have been overturned by policy and reasoning under WP:CREEPY. A Manual of Style cannot impose article subject restrictions. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
This RFC and the VPP RFC are two different things. Do not confuse the two, for two different RFC were in the works and both seem fairly obvious for policy discussion. The VPP closure was obvious and the admin who closed it stated, "When consensus is obvious, there is usually not a reason for a formal closure. However, I have now closed this discussion with a summary." [7] Everyone had an opportunity at both RFC's to make their points. Consensus in the discussion and the split at Talk:Dragon Ball Z seems obvious with the lines drawn at:
Supporters: ComputerJA ( talk · contribs) Smtchahal ( talk · contribs), Triesault ( talk · contribs), Icarus of old ( talk · contribs) Luka1184 ( talk · contribs) Calathan ( talk · contribs) and ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) bringing up WP:SS, WP:SIZE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:DETAIL, WP:SPINOFF.
Against: Vuerqex ( talk · contribs) Ryulong ( talk · contribs) Lucia Black ( talk · contribs) with the previous and rejected argument of WP:MOS-AM and previous consensus which directly is tied to the offending MOS-AM 'guideline'. Unknown after policy cited: Xfansd ( talk · contribs)
By this RFC, we decide based upon policy and arguments from the discussion 5 years ago. The decision it "violates WP:MOS-AM" was faulty because it was never a policy and should never have been used as such; hence the RFC to overturn was concurrent with the VPP RFC on MOS-AM. If you have policy-based arguments then please present them; because by all accounts the merger was a bad idea and significantly reduces notable content and coverage of Wikipedia. I asked for both RFCs to close despite it being 'obvious' because I expected this; the opposing side has offered no policy and upholds a false one as their reasoning while supporters have given a host of policies agreed by the greater community. So far, there is no reason presented to keep the merger and policy suggests Dragon Ball Z should have its own article. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 12:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
At the time, the merge was absolutely the right thing to do, the DBZ article was mostly unsourced crap, so we can not say those who supported it then were wrong and retroactively revert their merge now simply because of recent MOS changes. But I was under the impression that Chris and whoever else wanted to, were going to create a mock-up of the proposed separate article and then everyone would convene here and see if it warranted enacting. Instead of just saying and assuming good new content can be created on DBZ, it sounds easy but I have yet to see anything close to sufficient, it seems easier to show it in a sandbox (not in actual article space). Xfansd ( talk) 17:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Policy issues aside, there’s the fundamental question: Is it a good idea? If consensus is “no, it’s a bad idea” (or if there’s no consensus), then it doesn’t matter if policy permits it or not. — Frungi ( talk) 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
While I don't like to do lengthy posts, but I hate to remind editors of civility matters, but its getting a bit much. I do take offense to Ryulong's comments that I "forced a closed in my favor". Aside from a personal attack, this couldn't be further from the truth, the consensus was obvious at the VPP RFC and Ryulong who was in the distinct minority should refrain from baseless attacks. Secondly, I object to calling the previous work on the DBZ page 'unsourced crap'; the content may have been unsourced, but it was not incorrect. The Japanese Wiki is similar to what English wiki once was, and much of it still exists in some form at the wikia. Now, perhaps I may have misinterpreted the silence here, but Xfansd when the policy matter came up you commented that it would have spared a lot of hassle from the get go. Silence can be misleading, especially in circumstances where the previous consensus reasoning has been noted as being on a false premise and the objections to the current RFC were based on that stance and the number of !votes exceeded in support. Allow me to state some topics. I believe a split for WP:DETAIL would be in order considering this page is a franchise page. Dragon Ball Z has a lengthy history, mostly in America, and I can think of no better way to cover the important history of the development and production by providing a proper page on Dragon Ball Z as a whole. Many important things are left out and not covered at all. Dragon Ball Z is intricately tied to western audiences, after the failure of the original Dragon Ball, at what point does it deserve an article on its merits? Since I'm in the numerical minority, what are your concerns and how can I address them? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Not in this case. Wikipedia is universal. This viewpoint of western is far too subjective. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added more content, and will be continuing to do so for some time, but I think it is about time we address a certain matter. The release history of the work. Everyone should know that Dragon Ball Z had one of the most confusing and complex release schedules in the history of anime. I'm certain that an article could probably be drummed up for that mess alone, but for now I've alluded to the problems in the sandbox, which I cite the specific instance of Funimation rushing the DVDs out as fast as possible, out of sequence. And Viz Media released Dragon Ball and DBZ titles as volumes concurrently with single chapter issues of BOTH titles in the same month. Unless I actually bug Viz about the release structure for the press releases, I doubt I'll be able to piece together that mess in its entirety. Let's not forget that I'm finding issues that are problematic in this article as a result. For instance this line, from the Dragon Ball Z subsection contains, "The series premiered in the U.S. on September 13, 1996 in first-run syndication, but also struggled to find a substantial audience during its run and was ultimately cancelled after two seasons." The official reason was lack of interest from syndication companies. [8] I've been doing a lot of factual checking while rebuilding and trying to pin down all the claims made. It seems that both the sections of compressed text have inaccuracies. Anyways... back to improving the sandbox. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I still think new info can still be added here. Consensus wont change drastically, at the moment its about to become a close tie. If the info is added here, itll be more apparent for DBZ in need of split. I think its rather pointy to just add this "new" info onto your sandbox and not add it here. ro others it may seem like bloating up info just to make a split. Specific dates and such can be added into their respected list of DBZ eoisodes, as long as the main article gives a good summary. It just seems like we're forced to see it your way, wit j out allowing others to use the same info to show you why it can be reworked. Lucia Black ( talk) 10:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, if you do not know the meaning of the words, don't use them. Your interpretation of numerous terms has been proven to be completely misunderstood. You don't understand consensus and your comment about 'pointy' is no better. Dragon Ball covers the franchise, I'm not going to bloat it and ruin the balance to push for a split. Given the circumstances that would be disruptive; working in a sandbox is not 'pointy'. Also, how is it inaccurate? Please explain to me, because this page itself I've provided a source for the inaccuracy. Onus is on you, the claimant to back it up. Secondly, I tried to work on it together in the main space, but Ryulong reverted it and I'm not keen on edit warring a developing page; so my sandbox is perfectly fine. If you have issues with the version I am working on; state them. And lastly about the details, articles can have varying degrees of detail; an article on the "Spawning behavior of the rainbow trout in Lockeup Dam" would be perfectly acceptable provided numerous reliable sources demonstrating notability and a pressing need for a split at "Lockeup Dam". While you may feel that aspects of the production are 'trivial', they serve a purpose for the reader who wants those details. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I do, and I dont like you underminding everything just because you dont know why I used it. End of discussion for that topic. And what multiple sources? Dont confuse multiple sources for the same topic rather than multiple sources for a single piece of info. Some of the subtitle info is relevant, but theres the subtitle color issue that doesnt really inform the reader much about anything. The innacuracy is that DBZ manga doesnt exist in Japan. It does, just under the original name. It can be clarified in a much simpler way. Theres hardly any new reception info in the article. Also, there cant be just a manga article. Its like your trying to pull off the same dispute with Ghost in the Shell by attempting to split it all out of the main article. Like I said, if new info is found add it here, if it gets removed, its most likely for a good reason. So if it gets removed here, how can you prove a DBZ article is warranted? Lucia Black ( talk) 14:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC).
The source highlighting how viz promotes DBZ doesnt state anything at all of DBZ, home media sounds more like an opinion or an opinio N of someone else. Its not really stating the info correctly. More like a copy and paste job.And the use of ANN's wiki page as a source doesnt help at all. Theres no specific info. Also ANN's wiki page cannot be used as a source, only the news of ANN is deemed reliable as only actual writers post news. But overall, most of the info is just blowing up/regas j ing the info we already have. Lucia Black ( talk) 16:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Here are some of my issues with the sandbox currently. Toriyama.org was not an official site of the series, it was a fan site (partly?) run by the guy who did the subtitles for Funi. ANN is reliable, but not it's encyclopedia pages as everyone can edit it as stated at Template:Ann. And early in ANN's existence it did report on fan sites of various anime but that doesn't mean those sites now pass as reliable for Wiki. So I would say Toriyama.org can be used for giving Simmons' recount on the subtitles, but not for anything else. This [13] source doesn't have this quote "More action-packed than the stories of Goku's youth, Dragon Ball Z is pure adrenaline, with battles of truly Earth-shaking proportions!" The subtitles stuff doesn't need its own section, and we don't need to know about their colors. Merchandising can all be one section, and I know your still working on them, but currently Ratings, Critiques, and Cultural Impact and Legacy can all be one section too. The T.H.E.M. Anime Review and IGN reviews are not about Z. How can we say that the internet searches for Dragon Ball Z are about the anime and not Viz's manga? It seems more-likely, but we shouldn't just assume it. Xfansd ( talk) 16:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It was an accident. You dont get to decide what was deliberate. Amd knowing full well I have issues with a smartphone, you can let me know when it happens, rather than getting high strung and poisoning the discussion. Im done with this attitude of yours. Your mood on wikipedia changes on a whim. You get me blocked and during my block you have the nerve to comment and say you "praised" me? Im done with this. You choose to poison the discussion.
So here's my final comment. Your proposed article will only cause confusion. Dragon Ball Z is mainly the second half of the manga put in anime form. To include the second half of the manga simply for being rebranded and same with Dragon Ball Kai. Your proposed article ignores the list of episodes and only rehashes it. Why not add this new info in the article? If you add bit by bit, it wont get deleted all at once because most of it can still stay in the article. Lucia Black ( talk) 03:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Category:Anime series based on manga to this article.
From the article itself:
The 42 tankōbon have been adapted into two
anime series produced by
Toei Animation: Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, which together were broadcast in Japan from 1986 to 1996 --
108.211.193.185 (
talk)
11:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
{{ Anime and manga portal}} Can someone please add this template to the article. For some reason I can't. SonGoku786 ( talk) 12:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd just thought I'd create the template page since there is not other template. SonGoku786( talk • contribs) 16:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The article by far looks too messed up and the sub headings aren't doing anything to make the article look good. From a readers point of view it looks ugly. The sections are short. Why not get rid of the sub headings for the "Anime" series section and have just 4 paragraphs in chronological order detailing the anime series right up from Dragon Ball to Dragon Ball Kai? We could also integrate the anime films to the anime series section as they are part of it. SonGoku786( talk • contribs) 23:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I moved the text in the "anime sequel" sub section of the plot summary to the Dragon Ball GT since I believe its completely misleading to have it there. I'm not arguing whether Dragon Ball GT is "part of the series" or whether its "canon or not", I just think that a plot summary of Dragon Ball GT is better in a section for the Dragon Ball GT than a sub-section about the manga. If we're gonna cover GT in the plot summary, we might as well cover all the animated Dragon Ball spinoffs (filler episodes, movies, TV specials, and OVAs) there too, since they're every bit part of the franchise. Jonny2x4 ( talk) 19:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
This left me a bit confused. Is it suitable to have the anime sequel section or not? Tintor2 ( talk) 20:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I've edited the article a bit and it uses some really bad english. The grammar is quite awful. I've edited the Dragon Ball Z section to this:
I think this makes much more sense. The last line bothers me. I don't ever recall that 107 episodes were edited for the UK version and cut. In the UK there were 276 episodes made. Could the last sentence be a rumour? SonGoku786( talk • contribs) 23:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
On the to do list it says that the plot needs expansion. Personally, I think that the plot section is fine, it just needs citations. Does anyone think that it would be in the benifit of the article to expand it? DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 21:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I put in part of an article that I was going to finish about Dragon Ball AF, the fan-made content, but it seems it was removed. I was messaged saying that it was considered vandalism. I really don't see how that would be. I have my sources and everything, I just forgot to add them. And considering it's supposed to be a continuation to where the manga left off, shouldn't it be allowed? VampireBaru ( talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
the Children's Channel of israel is not connected with the Children's Channel of UK. i would liek to remove there the link to the Children's Channel of UK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Play38 ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
I was wondering if someone might add this info for me to the Dragon Ball page. I think it should be mentioned that the Dragon Ball story as a whole very closely resembles the basic outline of the DC comics Superman story. The reasons for this should be obvious to any Dragon Ball fan.
Second, I think it should be mentioned that the Trunks saga of the Dragon Ball Z anime series somewhat resembles the outline of the Terminator movie series and contains many similar themes.
( Devinology ( talk) 03:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC))
Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve this article. The
{{editsemiprotected}}
template is meant to allow non-autoconfirmed users to request specific changes. You need to provide the wording of the change that you'd like to make. A bigger problem is that those observations are
original research and that isn't allowed. What you need to do is find a
reliable source that makes the same observation and provide details about those sources along with the wording you want added. Again, welcome and thanks. Happy researching!
Celestra (
talk)
04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
It has been almost a year since the merge and I think it has been a reasonable time to see if consensus has changed.
I can say I am not the first to be shocked at the merge of Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT. I have extensively reviewed the request for the merge and believe that not only am I personally against the merge, but the merge itself seems to be a violation of WP:N. The former debate can be found here:
AnmaFinotera's argument, if I read correctly, was based on the fact that DBZ and DBGT were poorly sourced articles filled with fan cruft and that the anime had similar characters and plot therefore violated WP:MOS-AM. Unfortunately no registered editor defended this article until now. I saw that the previous debate was filled with flaming and uncivil behavior hopefully this time we can have a serious debate.
Firstly, the previous argument holds no ground. Fan cruft can be removed and a quick search can easily bring various non trivial sources (is DBZ we're talking about not some underground anime). This never have been and never well be reasons for a merge. The merge was based on the suggestion that DBZ and GT are not independent of each other. Dragon Ball Z is considered to be among the most popular an influential anime of all time. It was the primary force that introduced anime to mainstream American media not Dragon Ball.
Since its inception Dragon Ball Z has sold millions of action figures, video games, and merchandise. Games such as Dragon Ball Z: Budokai has been focused on Dragon Ball Z not Dragon Ball. Therefore Dragon Ball Z immediately establishes notability.
Secondly Dragon Ball Z has different characters and a completely different plot. The reason for the merge no longer holds any ground.
Dragon Ball Z's merge with Dragon Ball is as unwarrented as merging The Godfather Part 2 with the first one. According to this merge the The Matrix should also be merged into one article and so should any sequal for that matter.
The final reason for the split is based on the guideline that WP:Featured Article are the general guideline and expecation that each article should follow. 300 (film) which is a featured article sets the precedence that films, novels ( I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings), and anime alike should have a plot summary. Because DBZ and DBGT have different plots in order for these articles to eventually meet FA criteria we are going to need to split them and work on them independently. Valoem talk 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
The Wire both are a series and therefore easily comparable. The Wire also has plot summary once again FA argument. Please don't say you can't compare the two there are no featured anime articles so we havelook to the next closing thing. Valoem talk 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
DBZ would need a plot summary which warrants its own article. Valoem talk 23:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Z should be split because:
Again, DBGT was merged because it is part of the Dragon Ball media franchise, which this article is about, and because it does not have enough information to carry it by itself. DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 01:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
If the manga has a different name it is different. Since it passes WP:N it would warrant an immediate split. It is not even made by the same creator. Valoem talk 01:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
For the sake of discussion, what would be in a GT article that is relevant, and cannot simply be added to the Dragon Ball article? DBZROCKS Its over 9000!!! 19:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
@Valoem
I think you are very stubborn in your commitment to split at all costs. Thinking that more articles will give automatically better coverage for a manga/anime franchise is a farce. Thinking that more articles will do more justice to an
oeuvre is bound to disillusion. The only thing that will do is real article editing by bringing more materials, more references and more sources. That why we are pleading for real article improvement rather than cheap Illusory feel good choice. --
KrebMarkt
19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
However when someone say that reverting is vandalism, I disagree, that has nothing to do with the discussion, but accusing me of vandalism by reverting when I plan on improving the article is not proper. The policy from WP:BLD states:
I interpret this at if I create a new version that is edited with regards to the issue previous discussed (information and organization) I would be creating a new version of the article which would need a new consensus. I am saying that if I put a lot of work into the expansion of DBGT a revert of my edit would require a new discussion as long as the version I write resolves the issues formerly discussed that resulted in the merge. If the consensus is against my version then we can simply revert it back. Regardless ill try to added this into this article later in the week and see if it over flows. I'm closing this merge discussion for now. Valoem talk 03:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support. alrighty then. I agree with Valoem. First off, Dragonball Z is the Title of the Anime, not the manga, and therefore, the anime should have its own article. The american people translated the second half of Dragonball as Dragonball Z. Now, as an over page, this page makes since, but since when does a small general covering of a media franchise make up for a lack of articles for the parts of the Franchise itself? We might as well make One Article ofr Lord of the Rings. Secondly, Dragonball Z really has its own Art Style, and therefor can be recognized as its own thing. Thirdly, on the Matter of Dragonball GT, it should certainly be split. It had very little to do with the original manga and is what you would call a "sequel" thirdly, just because you put a stupid box at the top of the page that says we shouldn't discuss the separation of the article, doesn't mean we cant. and thats all i can say without giving up my civility.Peace. -- PopiethePopester ( talk) 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Ok guy I really did not back here to argue but to prove a point earlier. You seem to be reading and getting worked up about parts of what I write. Let me say this despite what I wrote and it may seem I was gearing towards supporting a new article but I am not. I alone said it to show that the supporters have good reason but I wholeheartedly agree with the way the articles are ran now. May be disappointed by some merges but they are for good reason. So in closing I may came of as a supporter but I am neutral and will be that like it was said before if they want to put it as a article go to Dragonball wiki and add it. I only said the prove there is info on GT out there so those that want it must look for it and place it correctly into an article then present it to the community. Heat P —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.229.97 ( talk) 17:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Strong Support Rechio ( talk) 02:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC) — Rechio ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Over 9000 is a line from Dragon Ball:
and has become an established Internet meme. It probably does not need its own article, but it definitely needs a section. An elite ( talk) 19:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the dragonballs themselves have their section in the article?
Also shouldn't the configuration of the stars be mention? Perhaps an official configuration would help since the stars shift depending on the ball and/or series. I am not sure how to source this outside of screen shots, though I know there is a way to source episodes with just the title, season, ep number and air date (and possibly where the occurrence takes place.)
While the one and three star balls stays basically the same, the other balls will often shift in how the stars are drawn. The balls will often resemble the configurations of a dice, or slightly shift to other shapes. The 5 star ball is the most ambiguous when it comes to its true configuration. It shifts from a dice configuration, to a pentagonal configuration to the configuration in this link
http://www.toptiergaming.com/dbzocg/images/carddatabase/Onset/Earth%20Dragon%20Ball%205.jpg
sometimes the 2 star ball will have the star diagonal and sometimes horizontal.
So is there a official manner in which the ball's stars are meant to be configured? If so that should be mentioned. Yami ( talk) 07:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, the inclusion of the category makes sense so I'll be adding the bansian fantasy genre. Is that OK with everyone? Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems to be fair, it shall be added now ;) Lord Sesshomaru ( talk • edits) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
No mention of censorship! No themes of sexuality! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsypoo ( talk • contribs) 04:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC) Mitsypoo ( talk) 04:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I can see how these topics need "WP:Reliable sources," so how about a more cautious approach: simple synopsis of Japanese episodes.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitsypoo ( talk • contribs) Mitsypoo ( talk)
Can't the same be said for the dub version being used and passed off as the original? Mitsypoo ( talk) 04:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
How about this regarding episode 56: "In the original airdate version, Blue asks the boy on a date and is angered by rejection whereas in the dub version Blue mistakes the boy for his little brother." Mitsypoo ( talk) 04:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
But the part about a little brother does??? Mitsypoo ( talk) 04:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)" Blue meets someone who resembles his little brother." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Dragon_Ball_episodes_(series)
Yes, by itself this difference is trivial, but it was the first thing I looked up because it was so wierd....and I got a hit right away so to speak. I have since noticed that major plot devices from the original airdate are excluded from the Wikepedia article. At the same time, many minor plot devices exclusive to the dub version, are part of the article...and yet the group claims "All information should be based on the original versions." It also quite clear that the synopsises are understood to be from the original Japanese airdate. Mitsypoo ( talk) 04:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know why dragon ball had a completely different soundtrack in the U.S. and DBGT was summarized? 71.57.190.75 ( talk) 01:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Why nobody mention what really means? Paranoidhuman ( talk) 17:23, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Kame = Turtle. Roshi is the Turtle Hermit, his house has Kame on the side of it.
Kamehameha basically means turtle death beam or something of the sort. It's translation has been on Wikipedia multiple times, but I'm guess that it keeps getting lost every time someone gets the urge to merge, change or other wise alter the article(s) for the series. Yami ( talk) 06:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Dragon Ball izle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabuhan ( talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
When I edited under a IP, Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT were around. What is going on? Zarbon's goofy cousin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC).
Wait Dragon Ball Z is not notable enough to have it's own article? It's the most popular anime series of all time for God's sake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.142.51 ( talk) 18:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah I don't know what "Andrew" is talking about. I vouch that we bring it back yo. Zarbon's goofy cousin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
I'm all for having it back. I edited Dragon Ball GT a lot with my other account, User:Recbon, although spent a better half of the year with my girlfriend Jacyntha. Sk8terhata —Preceding undated comment added 20:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
What??! Since when was it ok to delete dbz like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.4.56 ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
While I still disagree with this, I will not fight tooth and claw just to bring these pages back. it is but pointless. Zarbon's goofy cousin ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC).
Consensus?!?! The anime project has been rejecting any opinions about splitting the articles. I see no consensus, just count how many complaints have been about this "consensus". 76.108.0.229 ( talk) 22:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Regardless, It is clear that dragon ball/z is above "mid importance". 71.75.237.194 ( talk) 00:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Deleting the DBZ article is a prime example of the lazy behavior among some editors that makes me dislike Wikipedia sometimes. Instead of investing in a little elbow grease to polish and find sources for the article, some editors would rather chop down it down into an inadequate blurb - Rubbish! The DBZ anime is CLEARLY a notable topic, that should be obvious; as one of the editors described above, it's among the most popular animes around. 124.176.56.116 ( talk) 02:14, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
the intro has "42 tankōbon have been adapted into three anime series" totally untrue, the first two series, dragon ball and dragonball z were based off the 42 tankobon, but the third, dragon ball gt was not written or adapted from any manga, simply wrote on the spot into anime. this is misleading information as users will not realize that the extreme differences between db and dbgt were not a coincidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keibetsu ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
File:Gogeta.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raptor25 ( talk • contribs) 12:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I think that this section misses the official manga websites. It only covers the anime websites. I sugest you to add http://www.shonenjump.com/ (official Shonen Jump site) and http://www.s-manga.net/ (official Shueisha site). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.162.32.229 ( talk) 22:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I cannot believer there is no mention fo the huge internet meme 'over 9,000' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.246.147.34 ( talk) 22:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
I know people have tried many times to get this article split in a way similar to what it was before and have been shut down but I really feel that we need to have this discussion again, specially because Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT are clearly different than Dragonball, not only in terms of being a whole other project involving different creative teams, but in the way that they are treated in the franchise differently because they are not the same. Each of this manga/anime series is notable on their own and having them all bundled up in the same article makes for important information that makes each series unique out of this article. The Dragonball franchise is clearly being treated like this because it's an anime. I bet you won't the merge The Total Drama series articles into one.
I mean seriously it is a fact that Dragonball Z has been way more influential in the world of pop culture that DB or DBGT. I seriously cannot understand why it is rational to not give it it's own article. It has spawned books, video games, spin-offs, and notable parodies all on it's own, literally without being attached to the original Dragonball series.
So many people are unaware of the existence of DB and DBGT and putting them in the same article as the one they do know causes for confusion and misudenstanding, specially when one of the series was not a manga and is put in an article about a manga.
If you say, you can do all of this in a special wiki you are not giving useful advice. Anyone who cares enough about the series to go to a special wiki already knows most of this information and it only really helps fanboys. It is incredibly disapointing that the administrators fail to see why something as influential and popular in the whole world as Dragonball Z does not deserve an article of it's own. - N.Flen
I agree 100% with the "separatists" above and in the archives. I retrospectively read through the discussion in the archives about this point and do not see any consensus at all and an abundance of flawed logic. A FEW editors do not want separate pages and their main argument against it is that it is consensus to merge, despite the fact that more people, with better arguments, want separate articles. It appears to simply be stubbornness and laziness keeping the articles together.
DBZ is a completely different sequel show to DB. Completely new and different characters, different story, different plot, different name, far different popularity/notability, the list goes on. Just because the Japanese compnay chose to use a Z instead of a 2, it apparently confuses a minority of Wikipedia editors. There are infinitely less notable pages on Wikipedia than DBZ, that have been there for years, but a few Ebullys here apparently have already decided for the majority. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 ( talk) 15:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Ever read Wikilawyering , Tintor2, or Gaming the system?
be bold and Ignore all rules are good reads as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 ( talk) 20:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Quoting myself above, since I do not believe you actually read what I spent the time writing, "It appears to simply be stubbornness and laziness keeping the articles together." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 ( talk) 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Deleting the DBZ article is a prime example of the lazy behavior among some editors that makes me dislike Wikipedia sometimes. Instead of investing in a little elbow grease to polish and find sources for the article, editors like Tintor2 would rather chop down it down into an inadequate blurb - Rubbish! The DBZ anime is CLEARLY a notable topic, that should be obvious; as one of the editors described above, it's among the most popular animes around. 121.223.189.196 ( talk) 14:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
In the Theme section of this article, I cannot help but get the feeling that whoever wrote it has some sort of agenda. Reading through that section gives me a sense of sarcasm and perhaps even spite, as it is written with almost comical repetition. I do not urge anyone to correct it before it has been checked by someone adequate; considering English is not my first language, I might just have unsterstood it wrong.
Deus ex machina? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.86.230.202 ( talk) 20:39, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
It's been announced that DBZ Kai will be on The CW 4Kids instead of Nicktoons.-- 72.148.3.214 ( talk) 14:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
No, it has been announced that it will air on both.
ZServ (
talk)
17:57, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
Change "in may 2010" to on May 24th, 8:00PM EST because that is the official air date for the series in the US, which i was not able to find on Wikipedia. Just for convenience.
ZServ ( talk) 17:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
http://blog.funimation.com/2010/05/dragon-ball-z-kai-on-nicktoons/
ZServ (
talk)
03:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
In the article, this is said: "In 1995, Funimation Entertainment acquired the license for the distribution of Dragon Ball, as well as its sequel series Dragon Ball Z, in North America....Thirteen episodes aired in syndication before Funimation canceled the project due to low ratings, switching to working immediately on the more action-oriented Dragon Ball Z.[7] In March 2001, Funimation announced the return of Dragon Ball to American television.... The redubbed episodes aired on Cartoon Network from August 2001[26] to December 2003..."
However, I watched many more than 13 episodes in the mid-to-late 90's of the Dragon Ball series (not Z) on a local station (I think WGN, but I only remember the number on my cable service) early in the mornings (premiering before Sailor Moon). I still have about 25 episodes on tape, if not more. Anyone know if maybe some other company had the rights for it during the period? I found a couple of non-citable sources online stating it started on NA TV in 1998, which would be about the period I would have been watching and recording it. I just know it was not in 2001 on Cartoon Network, as I had watched at least a lot of the series on TV long before then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.67.39.115 ( talk) 21:44, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
is it possible you have the harmony dub???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.242.205 ( talk) 20:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I've found a lot of information. Can I make an article about it please and thank you in advance. Redbird 41 ( talk) 04:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
It lists everyone Goku has met. Do we really need to know that? Wernjump ( talk) 21:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Saw this on Twitter recently. I also gave this link on the Kai episodes discussion page. http://www.toonzone.net/news/articles/36490/dragon-ball-kai-to-end-on-march-27-2011 -- Addict 2006 16:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
-- KrebMarkt ( talk) 19:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Why are all the Dragon Ball tv series covered in this article? I think, for example Dragon Ball Z, is notable enough on its own to have an article not related to Dragon Ball or Dragon Ball GT. Also, searching for Dragon Ball Z currently redirects you to List of Dragon Ball Z episodes. Just wondering why things are the way they are. Toshio Yamaguchi ( talk) 07:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Dragonball Kai couldn't have been cancelled due to low ratings, if you check the top 10 TV rankings for any week during the shows run in Japan Dragonball Kai was always there. You can see all of them on Anime News Network, they're even all listed in the related news section on Dragonball Kai's ANN page. ZERO-ninja0 ( talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I discovered that some references are linked to fansites, which are generally not reliable sources. Should we remove them or keep them? Darth Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 17:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
In the plot summary it mentions Emperor Pilaf, the Red Ribbon Army, and both Piccolo's. There are five major groups or sagas in Part 1 of Dragon Ball. The five villains of those Sagas were Emperor Pilaf, the Red Ribon Army, Tienshinhan, King Piccolo, and Piccolo Jr.. He should be there. STFX1046190 ( talk) 19:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC) On the contrary he should absolutely not be there. Tienshinhan was not a villain just a temporary rival for goku in both fighting capabilities and mentality.His behavior and actions never altered the outcomes of goku's battles or the world for that matter.Tien was bound to become a hero because of his kind heart.-- MartianH ( talk) 00:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Why is this rated mid importance on anime/manga scale?
Dragon Ball is probably one of, if not the most well known anime/manga series outside of Japan, and a quick look at google trends shows that it has on average more searches for it than Akira, or Gundam, which are both High importance. 69.132.79.61 ( talk) 19:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned that Dragonball was heavily influenced by DC Comics Superman? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herojoe1000 ( talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
"Akira Toriyama is rumor to be making a new Dragon Ball series alongside mangaka Naho Ooishi, The creator of the 2008 Dragon Ball Z special "Yo! son goku and friends return". called, Dragon Ball Hoshi. Ooishi will be making a manga that continues the Z Manga past the Buu saga. It will have a newly designed Super Saiyan 4, and even a Super Saiyan 5. Akira Toriyama will be assisting her and backing off. The events in japan (earthquake, tsunami) slowed this down now Toriyama is taking care of that. It's rumor to be out later this year or early 2012"get rid of this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.51.195 ( talk) 04:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The article doesn't seem to make clarification of dragon ball anime reception from dragon ball Z, was wondering if that can be cleared up. Also there sems to be using the word "Specials" for OVA and TV Anime films, maybe some clarification should be done. Lucia Black ( talk) 21:41, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone needs to put up on the page about the fact that AF and Hoshi are both fake. It's confusing enough people who check facts, especially since at one point the Wikipedia article actually CONFIRMED Hoshi.
Shouldnt it be mentione that most fans hate GT? Redyugioh ( talk) 21:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
This is ridiculous this is wikipedia not a fan site.This article is based on facts not opinion, if you could find a legitimate source that implies that people hate GT then by all means add it .Be sure to note that GT was made because of fans asking for more so your statement would contradict that.-- MartianH ( talk) 00:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Well if it's a fact than it's a fact. lol I can't believe you two are actually implying that people DON'T hate it. Surely someone does, and I'm one of them. GT was made because fans wanted more, but it isn't more, since it wasn't made by Akira Toriyama. =) Just sayin'. ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.7.157 ( talk) 02:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rodneytaylorboii (
talk)
01:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
AT SOME POINT YOU SHOULD MENTION THE LESS FAMOUSE CHARECTER, SUPER FELICITY.
Is there a reason why the edits/censoring that Viz Media made to "Dragon Ball Z" are not mentioned? (They also censored Dragon Ball when they originally released it in 1998.) Is it due to a lack of sources? Xfansd ( talk) 04:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
when it tells plot of db through the buu saga raditz is spelled readish
67.249.90.29 ( talk) 01:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Hoshi is the series that leaves off from the Cell Saga in Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball Z Kai. It is supposed to air around the summer of 2012 or in 2013 Spring. Hoshi is believed to contain Dragon Ball Heroes clips, but is now being thought about being turned into a new series. Dragon Ball Hoshi's Main Character is Goku(as always the main character of Dragon Ball History). Also, you will notice Gohan as he is remaining in his teen form and Future Trunks is still with the group. Another feature of Hoshi is the two new characters whom's names has not been mentioned yet. The first one looks alot like Goku and has Super Saiyan Formation Hair, but the color remains black. He also has a Uniform much similiar looking to Goku's, but colors appear different such as: A Red Vest, An Orange-Yellowish Undershirt. The Other Character is also Goku-Looking, and has Super Saiyan Three Formation hair but also black, and has a Broly Like Outfit. This is Most Information best I know so far, if any other information can be posted please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.118.18.33 ( talk) 01:27, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
It should be added that Dragonball and Dragonball Z, and GT is airing on Toon Disney And Jetix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.60.235 ( talk) 05:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, sorry, not a registered member. Just thought it should be pointed out the "Art Book" section is wrong. They actually released 7 of those books in Japan, not just the 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.64.50.3 ( talk) 14:26, 16 May 2012 (UTC) HEY ---
I'll look into it. Lucia Black ( talk) 15:19, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
It's fake, it frequently use's video's from dragonball heroes, video games. Couldn't find an official quote to deny or accept hoshi but this basically sum's it up: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JSMkesyuB5Y Basically if you look at what the video says, where each content was stolen from then it basically proves hoshi is fake just like af, it's been a hoax for nearly as long as AF -- Ronnie42 ( talk) 08:26, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
As non involved editor i would like to remind the user requesting this to be added that without areliable 3rd party source confirming it then it just wp:cb so please bear back to wikipedia core principles rather than bring a debate about something that might or might not be true. Andrewcrawford ( talk - contrib) 18:06, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.179.68 ( talk) 14:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone verify that the broadcasts on the two Filipino networks, GMA-7 and RPN-9, were in English? While sometimes Filipino networks does broadcast English language programs, this should always be double checked. — Farix ( t | c) 11:08, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
I feel the reception section for the anime, as written, does Dragon Ball a bit of an injustice. I agree it certainly has many faults, and the positions DB/Z/GT were ranked at by IGN seem fair to me, but its popularity opened the door for countless other anime series to be successful. I can't put this in myself because of No Original Research, but I know that many consider Dragon Ball, and Dragon Ball Z significantly responsible for increasing anime popularity outside of Japan. Before DB/Z, in the states, we had no anime(if any). With the success of DBZ in the 90s, Cartoon Network via Adult Swim and Toonami added more and more anime to their lineup, and I don't think we would have ever gotten any of the other anime series if not for the success of Dragon Ball Z. Does anyone have some sources to support this?-- Padenton ( talk) 19:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If anything, the articles for DBZ and DBGT should be restored. Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT are separate entities set within the same franchise. Having Dragon Ball Z be nothing more than a section in the main Dragon Ball article is like having Star Trek: The Next Generation be nothing more than a section in the Star Trek article. They should be split back up, there is more than enough notable content, sources, and differences. Also, it's misleading to have Dragon Ball Z redirect to Dragon Ball. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ Spyke ( talk • contribs) 15:46, 12 April 2013
I've gone ahead and started an RFC on the possible demerge. Post your thoughts there. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:33, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Should Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z be de-merged and listed as separate articles? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 18:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
What's wrong with you? I made no mention of WP:OWN. there's no drama here. I didn't even mention anything about hentai articles. You're trying to overhaul all of anime/manga articles on your own. Lucia Black ( talk) 22:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Z is just a second season/series/whatever of the anime and only exists in anime form. If anything, its usage in an article title should solely relate to either a list of episodes or the various films in the continuity that used the Z in the title (I think Battle of the Gods falls under this umbrella).— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 04:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Attention! As stated before I am working on a SANDBOX version of DBZ not a MAINSPACE. Got it? I am not recreating the page, but it is preferable to have some ideas down. Do not discuss GITS here and those two editors do not make consensus. As noted, RFC is ongoing and the catch-22 is best handled by actually drafting something up. Something which will take me to at least friday. The MOS-AM matter is a formal proposal as noted by Sjones23, it is separate from this discussion. Okay? Clear? Good. No more drama. My response to Goodraise: It will contain a single detailed page that contains the overview of the topic with the following. The noted plot as coming from the manga, a brief character/voice actor layout of the key characters only, a section on production and release of works, censorship, reception and cultural impact. Included would be discussion relating to Funimations's heavy editing of the first two seasons and censorship of 'objectionable' content that drew some early internet criticism from people like Psaros. [2] Though The Japanese Wikipedia article gives a fair amount of detail to begin with. [3] While the List of Episodes is probably bordering on excessive, the production credits are useful, so is the original naming and details about the theme. Also even the music was a hit with the original JP theme sold 1.7 million copies, a mult-platinum level according to RIAA standards. We got plenty to work with here. Hence why I want to do a draft in my sandbox for it to preview what the page could look, later at this RFC. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:07, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
How about this. You expand this article and prove a split is necessary. The only differences are production and reception. And the list of episodes helps even further summarize, so you will only rehash those list articles. Lucia Black ( talk) 05:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Chris if you mentioned all those before that would have saved a lot of time. Seems you yourself just realized they supersede MOS, I know I did not know. However, my main concern now is if this supposed article will have enough new content, as Lucia brought up such a cast list seems quite unnecessary considering the character articles, and actual reliable sources. Claiming Psaros "a part of DBZ history" is ludicrous, he is simply a fan, same as you or I, therefore his site is nothing more than a fansite and obviously an unreliable source. Toon Zone has been named unreliable itself as seen here [5] and here [6]. Either way, that interview was conducted by a Ryan 'CastorTroy' Molina (who is also simply a fan) and is not related to Toon Zone. But that can wait until you finish your proposed article. Xfansd ( talk) 01:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Important - Per discussion in this section and the RFC on MOS-AM, found at: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_105#RFC:_WP:MOS-AM_discussions, the earlier 2008 consensus to merge Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT have been overturned by policy and reasoning under WP:CREEPY. A Manual of Style cannot impose article subject restrictions. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:40, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
This RFC and the VPP RFC are two different things. Do not confuse the two, for two different RFC were in the works and both seem fairly obvious for policy discussion. The VPP closure was obvious and the admin who closed it stated, "When consensus is obvious, there is usually not a reason for a formal closure. However, I have now closed this discussion with a summary." [7] Everyone had an opportunity at both RFC's to make their points. Consensus in the discussion and the split at Talk:Dragon Ball Z seems obvious with the lines drawn at:
Supporters: ComputerJA ( talk · contribs) Smtchahal ( talk · contribs), Triesault ( talk · contribs), Icarus of old ( talk · contribs) Luka1184 ( talk · contribs) Calathan ( talk · contribs) and ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) bringing up WP:SS, WP:SIZE, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, WP:DETAIL, WP:SPINOFF.
Against: Vuerqex ( talk · contribs) Ryulong ( talk · contribs) Lucia Black ( talk · contribs) with the previous and rejected argument of WP:MOS-AM and previous consensus which directly is tied to the offending MOS-AM 'guideline'. Unknown after policy cited: Xfansd ( talk · contribs)
By this RFC, we decide based upon policy and arguments from the discussion 5 years ago. The decision it "violates WP:MOS-AM" was faulty because it was never a policy and should never have been used as such; hence the RFC to overturn was concurrent with the VPP RFC on MOS-AM. If you have policy-based arguments then please present them; because by all accounts the merger was a bad idea and significantly reduces notable content and coverage of Wikipedia. I asked for both RFCs to close despite it being 'obvious' because I expected this; the opposing side has offered no policy and upholds a false one as their reasoning while supporters have given a host of policies agreed by the greater community. So far, there is no reason presented to keep the merger and policy suggests Dragon Ball Z should have its own article. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 12:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
At the time, the merge was absolutely the right thing to do, the DBZ article was mostly unsourced crap, so we can not say those who supported it then were wrong and retroactively revert their merge now simply because of recent MOS changes. But I was under the impression that Chris and whoever else wanted to, were going to create a mock-up of the proposed separate article and then everyone would convene here and see if it warranted enacting. Instead of just saying and assuming good new content can be created on DBZ, it sounds easy but I have yet to see anything close to sufficient, it seems easier to show it in a sandbox (not in actual article space). Xfansd ( talk) 17:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Policy issues aside, there’s the fundamental question: Is it a good idea? If consensus is “no, it’s a bad idea” (or if there’s no consensus), then it doesn’t matter if policy permits it or not. — Frungi ( talk) 22:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
While I don't like to do lengthy posts, but I hate to remind editors of civility matters, but its getting a bit much. I do take offense to Ryulong's comments that I "forced a closed in my favor". Aside from a personal attack, this couldn't be further from the truth, the consensus was obvious at the VPP RFC and Ryulong who was in the distinct minority should refrain from baseless attacks. Secondly, I object to calling the previous work on the DBZ page 'unsourced crap'; the content may have been unsourced, but it was not incorrect. The Japanese Wiki is similar to what English wiki once was, and much of it still exists in some form at the wikia. Now, perhaps I may have misinterpreted the silence here, but Xfansd when the policy matter came up you commented that it would have spared a lot of hassle from the get go. Silence can be misleading, especially in circumstances where the previous consensus reasoning has been noted as being on a false premise and the objections to the current RFC were based on that stance and the number of !votes exceeded in support. Allow me to state some topics. I believe a split for WP:DETAIL would be in order considering this page is a franchise page. Dragon Ball Z has a lengthy history, mostly in America, and I can think of no better way to cover the important history of the development and production by providing a proper page on Dragon Ball Z as a whole. Many important things are left out and not covered at all. Dragon Ball Z is intricately tied to western audiences, after the failure of the original Dragon Ball, at what point does it deserve an article on its merits? Since I'm in the numerical minority, what are your concerns and how can I address them? ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Not in this case. Wikipedia is universal. This viewpoint of western is far too subjective. Lucia Black ( talk) 20:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added more content, and will be continuing to do so for some time, but I think it is about time we address a certain matter. The release history of the work. Everyone should know that Dragon Ball Z had one of the most confusing and complex release schedules in the history of anime. I'm certain that an article could probably be drummed up for that mess alone, but for now I've alluded to the problems in the sandbox, which I cite the specific instance of Funimation rushing the DVDs out as fast as possible, out of sequence. And Viz Media released Dragon Ball and DBZ titles as volumes concurrently with single chapter issues of BOTH titles in the same month. Unless I actually bug Viz about the release structure for the press releases, I doubt I'll be able to piece together that mess in its entirety. Let's not forget that I'm finding issues that are problematic in this article as a result. For instance this line, from the Dragon Ball Z subsection contains, "The series premiered in the U.S. on September 13, 1996 in first-run syndication, but also struggled to find a substantial audience during its run and was ultimately cancelled after two seasons." The official reason was lack of interest from syndication companies. [8] I've been doing a lot of factual checking while rebuilding and trying to pin down all the claims made. It seems that both the sections of compressed text have inaccuracies. Anyways... back to improving the sandbox. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 03:19, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I still think new info can still be added here. Consensus wont change drastically, at the moment its about to become a close tie. If the info is added here, itll be more apparent for DBZ in need of split. I think its rather pointy to just add this "new" info onto your sandbox and not add it here. ro others it may seem like bloating up info just to make a split. Specific dates and such can be added into their respected list of DBZ eoisodes, as long as the main article gives a good summary. It just seems like we're forced to see it your way, wit j out allowing others to use the same info to show you why it can be reworked. Lucia Black ( talk) 10:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Lucia, if you do not know the meaning of the words, don't use them. Your interpretation of numerous terms has been proven to be completely misunderstood. You don't understand consensus and your comment about 'pointy' is no better. Dragon Ball covers the franchise, I'm not going to bloat it and ruin the balance to push for a split. Given the circumstances that would be disruptive; working in a sandbox is not 'pointy'. Also, how is it inaccurate? Please explain to me, because this page itself I've provided a source for the inaccuracy. Onus is on you, the claimant to back it up. Secondly, I tried to work on it together in the main space, but Ryulong reverted it and I'm not keen on edit warring a developing page; so my sandbox is perfectly fine. If you have issues with the version I am working on; state them. And lastly about the details, articles can have varying degrees of detail; an article on the "Spawning behavior of the rainbow trout in Lockeup Dam" would be perfectly acceptable provided numerous reliable sources demonstrating notability and a pressing need for a split at "Lockeup Dam". While you may feel that aspects of the production are 'trivial', they serve a purpose for the reader who wants those details. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 13:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I do, and I dont like you underminding everything just because you dont know why I used it. End of discussion for that topic. And what multiple sources? Dont confuse multiple sources for the same topic rather than multiple sources for a single piece of info. Some of the subtitle info is relevant, but theres the subtitle color issue that doesnt really inform the reader much about anything. The innacuracy is that DBZ manga doesnt exist in Japan. It does, just under the original name. It can be clarified in a much simpler way. Theres hardly any new reception info in the article. Also, there cant be just a manga article. Its like your trying to pull off the same dispute with Ghost in the Shell by attempting to split it all out of the main article. Like I said, if new info is found add it here, if it gets removed, its most likely for a good reason. So if it gets removed here, how can you prove a DBZ article is warranted? Lucia Black ( talk) 14:54, 28 May 2013 (UTC).
The source highlighting how viz promotes DBZ doesnt state anything at all of DBZ, home media sounds more like an opinion or an opinio N of someone else. Its not really stating the info correctly. More like a copy and paste job.And the use of ANN's wiki page as a source doesnt help at all. Theres no specific info. Also ANN's wiki page cannot be used as a source, only the news of ANN is deemed reliable as only actual writers post news. But overall, most of the info is just blowing up/regas j ing the info we already have. Lucia Black ( talk) 16:16, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Here are some of my issues with the sandbox currently. Toriyama.org was not an official site of the series, it was a fan site (partly?) run by the guy who did the subtitles for Funi. ANN is reliable, but not it's encyclopedia pages as everyone can edit it as stated at Template:Ann. And early in ANN's existence it did report on fan sites of various anime but that doesn't mean those sites now pass as reliable for Wiki. So I would say Toriyama.org can be used for giving Simmons' recount on the subtitles, but not for anything else. This [13] source doesn't have this quote "More action-packed than the stories of Goku's youth, Dragon Ball Z is pure adrenaline, with battles of truly Earth-shaking proportions!" The subtitles stuff doesn't need its own section, and we don't need to know about their colors. Merchandising can all be one section, and I know your still working on them, but currently Ratings, Critiques, and Cultural Impact and Legacy can all be one section too. The T.H.E.M. Anime Review and IGN reviews are not about Z. How can we say that the internet searches for Dragon Ball Z are about the anime and not Viz's manga? It seems more-likely, but we shouldn't just assume it. Xfansd ( talk) 16:29, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
It was an accident. You dont get to decide what was deliberate. Amd knowing full well I have issues with a smartphone, you can let me know when it happens, rather than getting high strung and poisoning the discussion. Im done with this attitude of yours. Your mood on wikipedia changes on a whim. You get me blocked and during my block you have the nerve to comment and say you "praised" me? Im done with this. You choose to poison the discussion.
So here's my final comment. Your proposed article will only cause confusion. Dragon Ball Z is mainly the second half of the manga put in anime form. To include the second half of the manga simply for being rebranded and same with Dragon Ball Kai. Your proposed article ignores the list of episodes and only rehashes it. Why not add this new info in the article? If you add bit by bit, it wont get deleted all at once because most of it can still stay in the article. Lucia Black ( talk) 03:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add Category:Anime series based on manga to this article.
From the article itself:
The 42 tankōbon have been adapted into two
anime series produced by
Toei Animation: Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, which together were broadcast in Japan from 1986 to 1996 --
108.211.193.185 (
talk)
11:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)