Talk:Trunks (Dragon Ball)/Archive 1
 | This page 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. |
vote
I vote we should move this article to "Trunks (Dragon Ball)" and have that be the default, then disambiguate to "Mirai Trunks" with the alternate spelling. "Chibi" Trunks is a fan name, and by the time the character appears in Dragon Ball GT he most certainly isn't chibi anymore. Is there a better, non-fan created, name to use for Future Trunks? Does Future/Chibi Trunks names show up in the Daizenshuus? JRP 19:51, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
This article needs fixing
The article should be called Kid Trunks and he shows up in Dragonball Z so it would be Trunks Dragonball Z. Dragonball is one word. also Buu is spelled as Boo which is the Romaji. If Romaji is to be used then the alertative spellign should be used as well. there are other errors but i don't have time to find them again. (didn't feel like signing in to edit my thing)Yami (talk) 02:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Trunks was already known to be Vegeta and Bulma's child. The only people clueless about that was the characters on the show that weren't future trunks, piccolo and goku.
Trunks appears as a 8 year old boy in the Great Saiyanman Saga, not the Majin Buu Saga. Also most of that section is out of order, he was already training before his secrete was revealed.
Vegeta did not die from the aftershock of the Attack. Vegeta Was the attack itself. In the games its the aftershock but not the anime. Its only the Aftershock in the games because the player needs to be able to still fight after the move is used.
Also Gotenks showboated to much and gave Buu a chance to escape/survive. If he wasn't doing things doing what pro wrestlers and people like Mr. Satan does for show he could have won. The article makes it looks like he was weak and absorbed in battle. Buu absorbed him in a sneak attack. a piece of buu lurked around and caught Gotenks by surprise. I'm going clean up the article to the best of my abilities. I'll keep the Romaji but i will also provide the alternative spellings.Yami (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Movies
Should Trunks' stories from the movies (IE, how he got his sword) be removed? Mirai Trunks' article says nothing about any of his movie appearances, stating that after he kills Cell is the last time we see him. Since Mirai Trunks' article disregards the non-canon films, I think Trunks' article should do the same. Or vice versa.
- Are they the same Trunks? No. Mirai Trunks is prominent in different movies than the ones this Trunks is prominent in. The reason this Trunks has Wrath of the Dragon mentioned is because there's actually a conjunction between that movie and DBGT, that conjunction being Tapion's sword. That isn't the caes for Mirai Trunks, so his article doesn't have any of that. It's already established they're not the same Trunks, so what one's article does should not have any effect on the other. 63.215.27.136 04:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Power level
I've removed the info about power levels, since the author states it's not very exact, and there's no sources to even remotely verify those numbers, anyway. If a verifiable, reliable source can be shown, then and only then should it be readded. --InShaneee 05:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- There ARE no verifiable sources. Mirai Trunks's false reading of 5 right before he killed Freeza and company is the very last power level in Dragon Ball. Anything beyond that is simply guessing. Thanos6 10:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Listed moves edit
He doesn't have Burning Slash. That's Future Trunks who uses it on Freeza. This Trunks grew up in the timeline without androids and thus never learned about the attack.
Teenage picture...
OK, if Goten has baby-kid-teenager-adult, then so does Trunks. Thanos6 11:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Kamehameha?
I understand that Trunks used the Kamehameha in DBZ movie 11, but that is considered non-canon, should the Kamehameha be included in his abilities? Majinvegeta
Tail
Seeing as how he is the child of Vegeta and Bulma, that pretty much makes him the same as Gohan. Even in intermissions of DBZ; Gohan is shown with Goku with a tail. Has trunks ever been shown with a tail in that regards --198.254.16.201 12:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
- Neither Goten or either version of Trunks was shown to have a tail. Thanos6 18:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
"Super Saiyan 2"
OK, let's get this on. First off, there is absolutely no basis at all for saying Trunks and Goten went SS2 in the Room of Spirit and Time. Second, TV.com is not a reliable source because anyone can edit it without needing to provide information verification. Thanos6 17:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with the above statement. Any indication that Trunks and Goten could reach the SSj2 state while in the RoSaT is based on nothing but filler material and the non-canon material in Dragonball GT. After having a successful fusion and reaching the third SSj state, that's all Trunks and Goten bragged about. Never once is it even speculated (by themselves or others) that they had achieved another SSj state by themselves. It merits a deletion of the "Super Saiyan 2" section for both Trunks and Goten. Someone can add the sections back if they can prove their point in an intelligent way and not just add more one-sided views to Wikipedia. - Tyro_Kith, 3:42, 12 October, 2007
Whether the animators at one point intended to portray both Trunks and Goten as turning Super Saiyan 2, it appears from the guidebooks accompanying the series (manga and anime) that a) Akira Toriyama did not appear to consider this to be the case, as nowhere in the manga (which he created) nor the corresponding guides (written based on his creation, with his input) is there any mention of this, and b) it is not officially considered to be the case by the animators either- see for example the Dragonball GT Perfect File book 1, pages 65 and 68, where mention of Goten and Trunks extends only to Super Saiyan 1, and Gotenks mentioned as Super Saiyan 1 and 3. I was surprised that Vegeta also was not considered to have reached Super Saiyan 2 except for when under Babidi's influence, which disagrees with my personal thought since he seems to be SS2 against Kid Buu when Goku is charging the Spirit Bomb, but basically that is the official position in all of the books I have seen, and anything otherwise is just personal opinion (or fantasy). Don't worry though, in my mind Vegeta was Super Saiyan 2 by the end of the series, so each fan can have their own thoughts as far as I'm concerned, just thought I'd mention what the books say.
Ashiyura 00:48, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
- I say it goes, it's pretty much WP:OR and it can be briefly referenced in a section titled "abilities". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
- I don't even think that it can be added there, Trunks has never been confirmed to have achieved Super Saiyan 2. Someone added it to his Super Saiyan section, however, they also stated that there was no source for confirmation. By stating that there's no official source to confirm it, that's another phrase for "it's speculation", and that's a big no-no on Wikipedia. And you are right about the OR thing, but I'm mainly concerned about WP:V, and Wikipedia's no-speculation policy. --VorangorTheDemon 15:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
- Just for the record, I completely agree with your edit, Vorangor- I only included any mention of Super Saiyan 2 in my previous edit in hopes that it would placate Mcelite, who persisted in filling the page with nonsense on the subject despite other users removing it time after time. I hoped the mention of there being absolutely no official source would lead to a subsequent removal of the whole dratted mess, which you did, so thank you. ^^
Ashiyura 18:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Trunks SS2 DBGT.jpg
Image:Trunks SS2 DBGT.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
false info
Trunks didn't first show up in the cell saga as a baby. He showed up when Mecha Freza landed on earth as a teen, then as a baby in the Android saga.Yami (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- You're thinking of Future Trunks. Chibi Trunks, however, did first appear as an infant during the Android Saga. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Then it should be Android Saga not Cell Saga, and there are other thigns that need to be fixed on this articleYami (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Other things like what? If you let us know, we could help in fixing them.--Koji†Dude (C) 02:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I listed them at the top Yami (talk) 19:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Reception
I think the reception section should be deleted altogether. There is no evidence to back this up, plus there is not much else to add —Preceding unsigned comment added by Instagator (talk • contribs) 22:17, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Changes
I made the changes to both articles as it was just ridiculous to have two articles about one person regardless of how different their personalities are. More than likely everybody going to hate this change. Sarujo (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed we do, because they are NOT one person, they're two completely different people. Thanos6 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanos is right. Aside from that, though, you should know such a huge change would require consensus to happen. You should have suggested the Merge here first. Also, if I'm not mistaken, this issue has been discussed several times and consensus (so far) has been that Trunks and Future Trunks are two completley different people, so their articles are best left seperate.--KojiDude (C) 22:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
- Just because two incarnations of the same character comes from two different time lines does not make two different characters nor does it qualify as two articles. Both have the same face, hair, eyes, physic, voice, they have the same parents, they go by the same name, and are heroes who fight on the side of good. They only differ sightly in personality and experience. All of which can and should be summed up in one article. I mean I don't see anybody giving this kind of treatment to Future Bulma or Future Gohan. As in giving them their section in List of Humans in Dragon Ball and List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball. Did anybody even bother to read what I added, as I'm getting the impression that the answer is no, and took one look at it and removed what I wrote without giving a second glance. But lets be realistic here, the "Future Trunks" article was terrible as it unintelligent and repeats itself at various points, adding information in various wrong places, and the "Trunks (Dragon Ball)" article has next nil on it before I came along. I would understand your complaint if this had been something to the letter of blanking of the pages altogether or replacing them altogether with something like "F@#K DRAGON BALL". But it wasn't, it was bringing information together of two incarnations together into one article about a character that has two known personas. Yes, their personalities are somewhat different but when you think about it that is a really trivial matter. See, as people our personalities change regardless of our environment, our experiences, or simply as we get older. So, who's to say that either incarnation could become like the other as time went by in the unchronicled stories. Plus the fact that they live in different environments is also trivial as either entities could have easily moved into an environment much like the other wihout knowing it. In short, they are nothing more than two entities of one characters which is the real subject of the matter, one character, two entities. Saying that they are two people is like saying if I traveled back in time and met my past self that versions of me would constitute as an original unrelated character with no ties to me whatsoever. Or like saying that every version of the Sliders character Quinn Mallory he has come in contact with was some other living person. In short, keeping the Trunks articles separate will only make the articles look ignorant and trivial.
- And the last time I checked, no editor on Wikipedia needed special permission to make radical changes to articles that would help better them in the long run. It amazes me how Wikipedia can have Transformers articles and superhero articles about individual characters with sections in said article on each incarnation of that character, most of which truly are radically different people. The Robin, Prowl, Wonder Girl, and Jazz articles are examples, the Transformer ones are better. Yet this is forbidden of Trunks due to what editors think is a technicality that qualifies for separate articles and just don't want to accept that they are two portions of one article. But frankly this was a much better option than the merge with "List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball" idea that was being plugged as it was claimed that nether article had any nobility. The sooner everybody realizes that one Trunks article is better than two, the better off everyone will be otherwise this is the start of an all out war that I just don't want to see. Sarujo (talk) 12:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with this, especially since you have good reasoning. Besides, having an article about two individuals isn't unheard of (Dylan and Cole Sprouse, Wright brothers, and Hughes Brothers come to mind). I say go for it Sarujo :) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- That's the problem, I did go for it and got all my hard work reverted, a lot of people PO'd and scolding me like it was the single biggest travesty. So when I go into the article's history and retrieve the stuff it be reverted again and everybody will label it vandalism, and more than likely hold the threat of blocking me over my head. That might be a little too extreme, but that's how it appears to me. Sarujo (talk) 19:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe it'd be best if you started a survey. Who knows, opinions might change. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Take a gander at the various surveys at Talk:Burdock (Dragon Ball) and pick one of those formats. WP:AFD is possible too, however, I'm unsure which article should be tagged for deletion/merge. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- If there were any deleting, it would be Future Trunks but I'd prefer redirecting as the COA. But I'll take your advice and start a survey section, and go from there. I hope I can get everybody's attention on this. Naturally you are welcome to repeat your opinion on this matter.