Talk:Dragon Ball/Archive 1

From Talk:Dragon Boy
The information I present in this article come from two sources: Toriyama's World website and an interview with Akira Toriyama about Dragon Ball where he mentions Dragon Boy as a "trial run" manga for the later series. Toriyama's World lists only two chapters completed, but the manga does not "end" and there may have been more chapters-- but I don't think so as it would have been at least listed in his one-shot compilation. So, I present that this information is close to correct but may have gaps and that if anyone knows better to please update it accordingly. JRP 16:43, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * For all intents and purposes Dragon Boy was finished. Most of the manga published in Fresh Jump are often yomikiri or one-shot mangas that serve to test the idea for a possible serialization. If a pilot is successful, it may be picked up for serialization in the Weekly Shonen Jump. If not, the author can simply end the story with another one-shot or two. Sometimes, the serialized version are drastically different from the pilots and don't follow the same continuity. Jonny2x4 03:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Money
They made over 3 billion what? US Dollars? Please make this clear.

Zeni -Dark Dragon Flame 10:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Other film
What about this one, from 1996? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX38JOO1lTY Brutannica (talk) 08:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's the Wiki: Dragon Ball: The Magic Begins Brutannica (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragonball (2009) film
I really don't think adding a link to the Dragonball (film) article, when the Dragonball article redirects to the disambiguation page, should be considered controversial in the least. The movie is named "Dragonball". I'd understand if it had some sort of subtitle, like the other films, but the simple fact is that typing the name of the movie takes you to a disambiguation page that doesn't include the movie directly, and requires a minimum of three more clicks to reach.

I also highly object to arbitrarily issuing any sort of vandalism warnings simply for editing the page without first discussing it on the talk page. I have a registered account, and I meet the requirements to edit the page as outlined in the semi-protected template on the page.WtW-Suzaku (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Please calm down. That warning was to let you know that discussion is preferred over any instance. Now regarding the film, why only Dragonball (film) and not the others? Just because of a redirect? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Dragonball is the name of the film. The others have subtitles, for example, Dragon Ball Z: Super Android 13!. If one wants to view the Dragon Ball Z: Super Android 13! article, they will be taken directly to it, with no redirects or disambiguations involved. However, if someone wishes to go to the article for the film called Dragonball, they have to navigate additional links to get to the film, which is exceptionally ironic, as none of the other official Dragon Ball media is even actually spelled that way.
 * In fact, considering that, it might be better to move Dragonball (film) to Dragonball and include a in the article.
 * Also, I'm perfectly calm, and I'd like to (politely and calmly) let you know that you should exercise more caution before telling someone to "calm down", as it can actually upset or provoke someone who isn't upset, despite perceptions (which can easily be mistaken when interpreting only text). WtW-Suzaku (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That hatlink is inappropriate, as this page is titled "Dragon Ball". You have good reasons for Dragonball (film) to be listed on the dab. Guess it can be re-added. I'll undo myself. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review Alert
I've nominated a related page, Dragon Ball (manga) for peer review, and would welcome constructive criticism. --- Krezos (talk) 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: how many seasons are there?
I know the sagas but not the seas ns.were the sagas the seasons? if so it'll take forever to get every episode on dvd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.154.1 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Try surfing through Category:Dragon Ball sagas. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Power Level
Hey all! I've been wondering. Maybe there should be like an article or something in here about power levels. Like, explaining the origin of power levels, how Akira Toriyama, the Dragon Ball author, got the idea for power levels, and the list of all the power levels read throughout the series, demonstrating how their strength increases with training and near-death experiences, not forgetting how the power levels differentiate between the manga, anime and the Daizenshu. Anyone think that's a good idea? Son Gohan (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be a good idea. Maybe I could start an article on that. Jimblack (talk) 04:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack


 * Please see this and this before doing so. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that there are more "deletes", but how bout we have a new process. i'll start an article on it and if you think it isn't important, you can delete it, but if you think it is, we'll continue on with it. i think that's fair. Jimblack (talk) 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Power Level Article
Guys, we should start some discussion and make improvements to the power level article. Jimblack (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Android 18 Article
Hey guys, maybe we should make a full article about Android 18. I mean, she is of course Krillin's wife and we did make an article about Young trunks and goten. maybe we should make an article about android 18. Jimblack (talk) 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: Satanism?
In the T.V. series that I have watched (in Latin America) there seem to be elements of "satanism" in the plot, like several characters with a shape traditionally attributed to Satan in the Western culture, the number 666 in a car, or the name Mr. Satan for one of the characters. Is there an explanation of this issue? I came to the article for more information about it, but there doesn't seem to be any. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JavOs (talk • contribs) 23:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The saiyans in DBZ are often named after vegetables. Kakarot - Corot Radditz - Radish... Vegeta Brolli etc. so is dragonballz vegetalblist? I would say that its just an example of DBZ being a quirky anime —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachang (talk • contribs) 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not a satanic show, but a certain character and his daughter (Hercule) have the family name 'SATAN'. Probably something of irony because within the show he is a hero, but to viewers he is a complete jerk...atleast until further episodes. The 666 is to represent the car being his. It's just his character, don't worry. Also, if when mean characters with the shape attributed to Satan within western culture, what can you expect? Most of those characters (that you are talking about) are evil and live within HFIL, or DBZ's variant of hell. To be fair, many beings are angels or angelic, including the series main character after he dies. And in the culture the creator grew up in, many icons and architectures have demonish traits, even though they could just be mythical creatures (Dragons and all that). So to summarize, it ain't satanic. And it better not be referenced in that light in the future. --SxeFluff (talk) 07:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: What happened?
This article is crap. I know there alot of useless information in some of the originals but come on, who keeps delting everything? Im not saying this article needs to be a point by point guide but it needs alot more information than this and whenever I try to add stuff it is deleted rather than improved. more info is needed. Arguments? jwhyte1 —Preceding comment was added at 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I was just about to ask why this article got crapped down. WTF? Imma get to the history and revert if thats all good with in yalls neighborhood.--SxeFluff (talk) 07:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Nevemind, can't. UGGG, this article blows even worse!--SxeFluff (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The old version was pure OR and unsourced. Its also been cleaned up in preparation to be merged. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The post ws not uncivil or claiming to own the article i am fead up seeing you ruin article for no reasons, dragonball z should not be merged with dragonball there enterily serparate shows but you clearly have no knlowledge of the show. i am agree clean up articles but when you go to the poitn of just using wikipedia rules ro ruin something then your purist who own hads one thing on there mind do it your way or no other wa without havinga middle ground to make tihng to wikipedia standards but also to provide the most correct information and not what you see it as, as someone who knows nothing on the subjects —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 11:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was, not that this one is much better in terms of civility, mor grammar. And the merge has already been agreed to by consensus, and will happen. It is not significantly different series and does not qualify for having a separate article. Just because I haven't read every chapter of the manga or watched every episode does not mean I am not able to work on the article, nor that I know nothing about the subject (and telling someone not to edit an article because they don't know anything about it is a claim of ownership under the guidelines). I don't read Shonen Jump, but its now a C class article and well on its way to being a B and a future GA or FA, through my efforts. I didn't get most of the middle because of all the bad spelling and hideous grammar, so no reponse there. Will note, however, that Wikipedia is not about providing "correct" information, but "verifiable" information, and there is a difference. If you can't provide a RELIABLE source, not just "because I said so", it isn't verifiable and has no place here. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 11:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

...I don't want it merged, I just want t back up to a good class article and alot more info. Verifiable or whatever, just get it down please. I'm not gonna do it cuz I'm lazy :]--70.132.195.158 (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is being merged. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree the anime and manga should never have been merged in the first place. The anime is three full-fledged television series, with details and plot lines that were never included in the manga.  There are over 500 episodes in the three animes and it's simply ridiculous to think that even a brief summary can be confined to a subsection in a manga article.  The articles may have been unorganized before, but so much good material has been removed that this can no longer be called encyclopedic at all.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.93.25 (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus disagrees with you. No good material was removed at all, only pure, unsourced original research and fan theories. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No offense, but that's a load of BS. All that's left of Dragon Ball Z is three little paragraphs.  Before, there were multiple articles detailing the plot of the series, the DVD releases, the major and minor sagas, the voice actors and the characters.  I won't lie and say all of it had sources cited, but a great deal of it did, and it would have been much more reasonable to go through and patch up the loose ends than to remove everything.  (And ironically, the three paragraphs that remain are unverified.)  It's been totally butchered to an appalling degree.  The old articles need to be restored.  I'll fix their problems myself when that's done.72.160.93.25 (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That isn't going to happen. The sagas were removed months ago as they replicated the episode page - totally unnecessary. Voice actors and characters are in the character lists which have not been removed at all. The DVD releases are in the episode lists where they belong. In this merger, again, the only thing "lost" was having the information spread across four articles and better focused here. The problems with them have been fixed by merging similar articles back together. The next step, once the final merge is done, will be to clean up, source, and expand this article per the to do list above. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It needs to happen. The saga pages summarized the plots of the sagas - that way a reader wouldn't have to read 90 episode summaries to get an overview of a saga's plot.  They were no more "unnecessary" than the rest of the encyclopedia.  I'm unable to find any information about voice actors for any but a few characters who have articles dedicated to them, nor can I find anything about the DVD releases in the episode lists.  I'm amazed how much the situation has deteriorated since I first read the articles a few months ago.72.160.93.25 (talk) 03:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * An article of pure plot isn't acceptable, hence their all being removed. If the character lists are missing voice info, that's a clean up task for that list. The episode lists may be missing DVD info right now because they are a horrible mess and still being cleaned up. Its a transition, so there will be construction dust for awhile. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm upset about this.....yes, the articles are all one, but they are...nothing, like, at all.....such a shame...from being such a nice article in 2006, the DBZ part has been reduced to this...and now...I strongly doubt that anybody is going to build it back to what it was supposed to be... user:domkippy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.165.73 (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dragon Ball is a high priority topic for the Anime and manga project. Soon as editors aren't being distracted by lengthy discussions (like the one below), lots of work will be done on this article to get into much better shape. See the big to do list above to see everything planned. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus my ass. I'm sorry, but this merge thing was proposed before. Twice. And turned down before. Twice. Some of us just have a life outside of this site and can't be around every time someone comes along wanting to do something stupid like this. *sigh* Well, with luck I'll be finished with my re-writing of the DBZ article before too much longer and this nonsense can be fixed. Xyex (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Rewrite it you want to waste the effort. The merge had consensus and still has it, and attempts to undo despite knowing that will be viewed as being disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't have consensus and it never did or it would have occured long ago. Consensus was to fix up the existing pages.  The very fact that there's even a debate here now, with so many involved against the current state, is evidecen that the consensus is not in your favor.  As well, any attempts at improving Wikipedia are not vadalism.  Any claims by you of disruption on such matter as a proper article will be viewed as a case of WP:OWN and disruptive.  Consensus is against you and has been since before you came along.  Though I am starting to doubt if it's even worth it at this point.  Wikipeida was a great idea but it's starting to collapse as is evident by how easy it is for the minority to seize control of something as big as this. Oh, and real mature nominating the Moonrise article for AfD as revenge for calling you out on your lack of true consensus.Xyex (talk) 10:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it has! Wikipedia doesn't need biased fan little theories made by you and your friends from daizenshuu ex or MFG. Dragon ball articles must have official information like manga and daizenshuu. Now people can see official sources thanks to these guys.Saxnot (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge
I have proposed that Dragon Ball (anime) be properly merged back here to Dragon Ball (manga). I can not see a single valid reason these two should be separated. They are not significantly different in terms of characters, story, etc, and their separation like this violates WP:MOS-AM. This article also needs a massive clean up and rewrite to bring it inline with the MoS. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The thing is this: the anime adaptation of this manga is split in Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z. The DB articles were structured this way because it is easier for the editors involved (and the readers). If we're merging on the grounds that the plot and characters are the same, then Dragon Ball Z must be merged, too. Merging only Dragon Ball (anime) seems wrong because the DB TV series only adapts roughly half of the manga (again, the other half is adapted as DBZ).--Nohansen (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, let me add that the DB articles seem poorly organized. I don't see why Dragon Ball is a disambiguation page when all articles mentioned (expect one) are DB-related. Dragon Ball should be the main article, not Dragon Ball (franchise), with a hatnote pointing readers to Freescale DragonBall. That's what I think.--Nohansen (talk) 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Believe me, I agree there. The DB articles are a mess. Every series has 2, if not 3 episode lists, the all have a lot of excessive OR and redundant stuff, etc. You are probably right, and Dragon Ball Z should be included (and maybe Dragon Ball GT?). I'd also support putting the merged form at Dragon Ball with the appropriate hat note.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Unlike DBZ, DBGT is a separate production not adapted from Toriyama's manga. So I don't think it should be merged here.--Nohansen (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the merger, the removal of the disambiguation page, hatnote proposal, and that "Dragon Ball" should be used over "Dragon Ball (franchise)". Wouldn't it be best if we combined the Dragon Ball manga and anime articles (except for Dragon Ball GT) to the franchise page? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * That sounds about right to me. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Col, could you update those merge tags to reflect my idea? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * All done. I pointed the discussion here since its already on going. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. You sure are quick to handle these things ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, things have certainly changed since I last commented. I'm not sure about merging the franchise, manga, and two anime articles... mainly because it seems kinda messy in my mind, can't picture it. But if there's a clean, organized way of doing it, count with my vote.--Nohansen (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe similar changes will happen to the Sailor Moon articles. If you ask me, this is the best thing we can accomplish now. If anything gets bloated, unmerging is always possible. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it can be done, relatively easily actually. Most of the articles seem to repeat the same stuff in slightly different ways. The merged article will likely need a little clean up and trimming, though if merged carefully, it shouldn't be to bad. If I can, I may try working on a merged version in my user space, to help if consensus is a go. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)


 * So Dragon Ball (manga), Dragon Ball (anime), Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball (franchise) should be merged together, but Dragon Ball GT be kept seperate? I think Dragon Ball GT should be part of the merger. It is part of the series, although only supervised, not actually written, by Akira Toriyama. --- Krezos Farland (talk) 08:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree, from what I've read on the series. While it isn't based on the manga specifically, I couldn't tell that it was significantly different either? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Think it's safe to say that Dragon Ball GT should be merged too. When you think about it, this series is just another continuation, and it's too short (shorter than the previous works). What do you say Collectonian? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I can really see both sides. I'm still leaning towards a merge, though, as it is a direction continuation, and really no different from, say, the Gunslinger Girl seasons, with the second one done by a totally different company. I'm just not seeing that much unique information that would cause a size issue at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

DBGT is too much. At least the DB TV series and DBZ are directly adapted from Toriyama's manga. But GT is a different beast altogether, a spin-off, created by Toei. I don't think merging GT is necessary or beneficial.--Nohansen (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the merge. The DBGT article lacks production and reception section and need a nice clean up.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * DBGT is not an entirely different story, it is a continuation of DBZ. Akira Toriyama actually sstated that he liked GT's story. --- Krezos Farland (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I support the Merge of Dragon Ball GT, however, I noticed from the history page that the DBZ article has useful information before you just tore it asunder (Even those that are SOURCED). Are you actually SETTING things up for a merge, hmm?? ZeroGiga (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that if they are to be merged, EVERYTHING has to be put into it. Every single one of the articles mentioned. But the problem is, the 2008 version of the Dragon ball Z page is just too short, and I think that if it is reverted back to an earlier, longer, 2007 version, it will be too long to merge...so, if we expand the articles, no, if we leave them too short, yes. Ironic, but necessary. domkippy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Domkippy (talk • contribs) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Update
I've done the first merge, of franchise, followed by a ton of clean up. I removed a lot of unsourced claims and obvious OR/personal opinions. Meanwhile, anyone want to tackle cleaning up the Dragon Ball template and merging in the Dragon Ball characters template? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean. Redirect cleanup? Alas, I'm more worried about the histories of the pages. We'll need to request history merges after this is all done. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Redirect clean up, and merge in the character sections. It will no more later, as the ep lists are also cleaned up. Not sure on the best way to fix it though to match the new article structure, though maybe it should wait till all done. But something to think about either way, to fix the organization.  Yeah, at least a merge of the franchise history would be good. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Manga article merge done. I've moved this discussion here with a redirect on the old talk page that will come straight here to keep the convo going. The rest of the discussions from that talk page have been archived to a named archive linked to in the new archive box above. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z merge completed. Anyone who has read most/all of the manga series want to tackle fixing up this articles plot to cover the entire series? Its kinda piece meal right now from the Dragon Ball manga and Z articles. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't we do it like the Yu-Gi-Oh! article? Where the main page mainly talks about the manga with links to all its different anime/spin-off series. See for it yourself.---Yottamol (talk) 01:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nope, that one seriously needs fixed too. Will alert the project to see if anyone wants to tackle it since I'm already dealing with both DB and One Piece. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What the hell
why does dragon ball z lead here? That makes no sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.180.89 (talk) 09:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It doesn't, the Dragon Ball manga does. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Dragon Ball Z does lead here. I think it's pretty clear that a group of biased deletionists have gotten together and are getting a kick out of throwing DB/DBZ material out the window.  Fortunately I still have the old articles; I'll try to get things back up and in order when I have a little time.72.160.93.25 (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, you meant redirect. As per above it was merged here by consensus. And no, you will not "get things back." Reverting a merge done by consensus is considered vandalism, just so you know. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I quote Wikipedia's policy directly, "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." In any event the complaints make it pretty obvious that this was not a community consensus at all.72.160.93.25 (talk) 10:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Complaints from one or two does not negate the consensus above nor the consensus of the project. And undoing a merge based on consensus after being warned not to do it is vandalism as it is being deliberately disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Just changed to that both Dragon Ball Z and Dbz would redirect to the Dragon Ball Z sub-heading. Please tell me if this is OK. --Yottamol (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While normally this would be done, having DBZ go straight to the one named section seems detrimental to the readers as it is based on the manga and DBZ is just the anime name for part of the adaptation. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, shouldn't the redirecting phrase under Dragon Ball Z: "DBZ" redirects here. For the meteorological term, see dBZ (meteorology). be put on top of the page?--Yottamol (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is embarassing. Dragonball Z was the second biggest anime in America, after Pokemon, for YEARS. And what does it get on wikipedia? Three paragraphs. Because a deletionist decides "hey, I'm going to butcher this featured article because of my sourcing fetish." Just tag the unsourced statements, and someone will GET sourcing from, say, the official site. This will NEVER become featured again, unless you stop being so anal and rule-obsessive. J&#39;onn J&#39;onzz (talk) 19:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * DBZ's article was not a featured article, so incorrect statement number 1. Number 2, it was merged here properly by consensus because there is no valid reason at all to separate it from its manga origins, which are also highly popular. Number 3, watch the incivility and personal attacks. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Collectonian, these guys are just wasting your time (and theirs). You gave good reasoning in your edit summaries when you redirected the pages. These complainers are very much aware of it. Just ignore them. That's why I have refrained from commenting here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't agree more with Adroa. You few users act as though your own private consensus matters more than the community consensus.  And it's not a waste of time.  Wikipedia is based on the community, not a few individuals.  Repairs aren't vandalism; but deleting valid information because you don't like it certainly is.  And the fact that you completely ignore Wikipedia's vandalism policy indicates to me that you are the vandal, not those who try to fix the damage you've done.  And I will fix these articles some time this week.  In the meantime I suggest you review Wikipedia's policies.  You are not the whole community.72.160.93.25 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know. I should just ignore them, but unfortunately they will likely keep it up unless more project members tell them that yes, it was by consensus, and no it will not be undone. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The new page is dissapointing no matter how powerful ignoring reality makes you feel. It leads to nowhere(for example characters), or it incorrectly refers to parts of different series as being one. You can't argue with the fact that dragonball chapters are NOT the same as Dragonball Z chapters, they might be in Japan but in the english translation (English Wikipedia after all), they are different manga series. Saying that merging three different and I stress DIFFERENT series into one is stupid, espicially when the series are on such a large scale. Saying that Dragonball Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT should all be merged together is like saying all of the matrix movies should be under one title. As it stands you might as well just list all the series in the continuity and leave it at that as this page provides little to NO useful information on any of its intended subjects. Not to mention that Dragonball GT is not even by the same person. Putting dragonball GT in here, well we might as well merge this article with a Journey to the west. That is after all what dragonball was based off of. You are obviously more concerned with your own ideas and authority than community consensus as clearly more than just a few people think this is stupid. There's obviously some issue about this article, because this change has been met with a rather large backlash, so instead of ignoring, you could at least consider that your decision is absolute. I agree that the Dragonball articles were a tad shoddy, but that insenuates fixing them and not annihilating all usefullness in the articles. And yes I do know that I am wasting my time; however I can't just let you run amuck on your little power trip without at least saying something.Adroa (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right. And our complaints are no waste of time.  They indicate very plainly that the individuals responsible for these deletions are, as you said, on a power trip.  Fortunately, Wikipedia policy is on the side of the majority.  I'm digging up my material and will try to get this ironed out soon.72.160.93.25 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (sigh) I am more on your side and am equally dismayed by the wholesale removal of material. The best you can do is provide references for material - any decent magazines, books etc. to back up notability will be extremely helpful. The current climate has a rough consensus for sourcing thus. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are a waste of time, as would be any attempt to "restore" the old articles. You are right, Wikipedia policy is on the side of the majority, and that is that the same series be covered in the same article, and that unsourced material should generally not be included in a merger unless there is a reasonable expectation sources exist. Also, your canvas attempts are interesting, as you have, in fact, canvassed more supporters of the merger (and your attempt to label a consensus based merge as vandalism is not very AGF nor civil. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say that the Dragon Ball chapters are the Dragon Ball Z chapters. Even though the manga series is published as two separate series in North America, it was still made as one series by the original author, not to mention that even the English manga of DBZ volumes acknowledge that (under the volume number of DBZ, it also lists the total volume number of DB). But other than that, I don't see why we couldn't have separate links to the different anime series, as they WERE made as separate series, even in Japan. I had asked about it above, citing Yu-Gi-Oh!'s example, but apparently that's wrong also, and needs to be fixed. I'm just wondering where I can find the consensus on the merger. --Yottamol (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * See above, as well as simultaneously occurring merges in One Piece, Naruto, and Sailor Moon. There is also project consensus. If the project didn't agree with the merge, it wouldn't have happened, period. There is no reason to have them separate. They are the same story, same characters, etc. The differences are minor. Per our WP:MOS, we do not do separate articles unless the works are significantly different. These are not. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. Your ignorance of them shows exactly why you're making such rash decisions.  By your standards, all of the books in the Bible should be condensed into one article.  Each Star Wars movie should be a subheading on a single Star Wars page.  All of the Nintendo video game consoles should be confined to one entry.  This is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary.  It's okay to give a subject some breathing room.  I think it's time you took a step back and realized that far more people disagree with you than agree.  That is the consensus.72.160.93.25 (talk) 03:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they aren't, not by our standards. And sorry, but you are the one who needs to step back and realize you will not get your way no matter how much you argue as if you are multiple people. Consensus was clear above and is still clear. You are the only one really arguing against the merge. One other IP who has only made one comment, one SPA, and a single editor who made false claims of it being featured before the merge. Meanwhile, the merge was supported by SEVEN established editors, many of whom are from the Anime and manga project or DBZ task force. The Anime and manga project is fully aware of this merge and has been since it was done. No objections from the project at all. So no, far more people agreed with the merge than have actually agreed with you. Only three established editors have even partially supported you, and of those, none of them actually pointed to any policy or guideline to support the claims that they should be separate, while the merge is fully supported by Wikipedia guidelines and policies. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Practice what you preach and stop it with the bald-faced lies. There were a total of three people (including yourself) above who actively agreed with the merge - a couple more thought it would be acceptable if certain conditions were met (but those conditions have not been met).  Even now, I count eight objectors to the merge - more than the five supporters even if you count the ones who wanted other conditions met.  And the project specifically states that "each story arc in Dragon Ball Z at least will be split into 4 pages" among other requirements.  You have removed that material, going directly against the project's directions.  I have notified several administrators of your tampering.  I suggest you back off before you get yourself in any deeper than you have.72.160.93.25 (talk) 06:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Either you are deliberately skipping people to try to make up a consensus against the merge, or you are just not counting correctly. Read above again. All the editors there are established editors. Oh yeah, and go read WP:CIVIL sometime before you continue with the name calling and threats. The DB "project" is not a project, itis a task force under the anime and manga project and therefore anything it does is subject to oversight by the Anime and manga project and must follow all of the Anime and manga project guidelines and its MoS. An outdated task force page means nothing at all. Even its talk page shows consensus against things listed there because no one bothered to update it. However, since you complained about the lost sagas in your "friendly notice" you might want to check the task force talk page where there was  consensus to get rid of all of the pure saga discriptions in favor of proper episode lists. Also, among those agreeing with the merge are a few folks from the DB task force. I know you went and left notes with several admins, and I've noticed they have all ignored you complaining so far, which I really should do instead of continuing to waste my fingers on you. The merge has consensus, but by all means, continue wasting your times with false, pointless threats and attempts to claim that you have a consensus of one. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't skip anything at all - I counted again and my count is accurate. Also, I never called you any names or threatened you at all.  You just changed the project page to suite your own opinion - that is not consensus, and honestly is a very shoddy, obvious attempt at deception.  (It shows up in the history when you do that, BTW.)  I also see no mention in either project page of eliminating the saga descriptions.  The only mention of them at all was that there should be at least four for DBZ - but you just deleted that information without warrant.  Aside from the couple users who agreed with you, your entire rationale seems to be completely imaginary.


 * My messages to the administrators were left only hours ago - hardly enough time to assume they're ignoring us at all. You are obviously not going to be reasoned with.  Hopefully one of the administrators or someone with more Wiki-expertise can fix this mess.  If they don't get around to it, like I said I'll work on it later this week.  Go ahead and ignore me.  It's not like you haven't been ignoring me and everyone else who's been objecting since this whole thing started. 72.160.93.25 (talk) 08:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a whole huge thread on the task force talk page about getting rid of the saga pages in favor of the regular episode pages. I updated the project per its own talk page and consensus seen here and in other articles that I have nothing to do with. Sorry, but I feel pretty confident that none of the administrators will "fix this mess" because there is nothing to fix. Whether you like it or not, the merge was by consensus and your complaining about it won't change that. And with that, I'm done hitting my head against a brick wall. Just so yu know, though, two of the three administrators have been quite active since you left your message. And you can "work" on it all you want. Attempts to undo the merge will simply be reverted as they were properly done per consensus. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Those brick walls have a negative impact on decision-making skills. A consensus of a few individuals does not override the consensus of the community as a whole.  You're unwillingness to listen to any opinion other than your own makes it abundantly clear that this has been nothing but, as Adroa said, a power trip.  I see from your user information that you have a history of conflicts like this and I do hope you consider the possibility that your approach (which comes across as self-righteous and stubborn) may be at the root of the problem.  If I was as outnumbered as you on this discussion, I would yield to the community, even if I felt strongly about my view on the matter.  It's not always easy, but it makes things go much more smoothly.  I guess I can't force you to behave that way though.  Peace. 72.160.93.25 (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't a case of a few individuals overriding the consensus of the community - exactly the opposite. The mergers were discussed, and all experienced editors were given opportunity to voice opinions. Ultimately, consensus was achieved. You seem to disagree with that consensus, and you certainly have that right...but when you change things, be aware that you will be the individual going against the consensus of Wikipedia at large. Collectonian is like any experienced editor - she knows a lot about what she is doing, and doesn't waste much time explaining it to inexperienced editors. This often leads to bruised feelings, but rest assured, we are aware of what she is doing, we do reign her in if she goes too far, and we don't want to bruise anyone's feelings. This merger would not have been allowed to happen in the first place if it did not have consensus. Doceirias (talk) 09:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Also keep in mind that it is not necessary for every member of the community to chime in with their support opinion to establish consensus, since silence is assumed to be an automatic support. — Dino guy  1000  16:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Doceirias and Dinoguy1000 for your tactful comments. I sincerely recognize that you two are trying to calm the situation. I did see the editors that approved of the merge and to a certain extent I understood their reasoning - enough that I did not disagree with the merge before it happened, though I wasn't particularly supportive of it. But the result leaves much more to be desired than I ever imagined. This was more of a series of deletions than any kind of merge. Pages and pages of material on (what is most likely) the second most popular anime in the US has been reduced to a three paragraph subsection and an episode list.

It's only been a few days, and already there are eight complaints. (Thus, I hardly feel like a lone "individual going against the consensus of Wikipedia at large".) Another friend I was talking with called it "disgraceful" and "unforgivable" and felt it reflected badly on Wikipedia as a whole, and I tend to agree. This enormous subject has been whittled down to practically nothing, and the one responsible behaves like she thinks she's perfect and any action she takes is simply irrevocable. (That alone probably irritates me more than what's happened to the subject's material.)

If there was still a decent amount of information on the subject, I would not be this upset, even with the merge in place. But as things stand, it truly is a gross oversimplification of an epic series of animes. I highly doubt that all three shows can be adequately covered within the Dragon Ball manga article without turning it into a mess (particularly DBGT), but if someone with more time and expertise than me worked on overhauling it to restore some of the information that was lost, I would feel much better about giving it a chance. It's just embarrassing in it's present state though and I don't feel right leaving it this way. 72.160.93.25 (talk) 21:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is not so good as it should but what was the important and useful information that was deleted? I only remember lots of overdetailed paragraphs of plot and many unsourced info or directly original research. The old articles could be taken by anybody to deletion due to it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The plot of the first two animes (which used to span 25 articles) has been condensed into two (short) paragraphs. Twenty-five articles may have been excessive, but having the plots of two of the most popular and long-running animes in history stuffed into two little paragraphs is a joke.  DVD releases are barely mentioned.  Censorship isn't discussed at all.  The Garlic Jr. saga, and many other differences in the anime aren't even mentioned in the Differences in anime adaptations section.  Many pertinent links to other Dragon Ball related articles have been left out.  (There's not even a link to the episode lists for the animes.)  The major cast isn't listed.  And on the character reference pages, many voice actors have been left out, even if the character they portray has an entry.  (Previously this was not an issue, since a detailed table of most characters and voice actors was included on the respective anime articles.)  All of this information was there before, and while it may have needed some cleaning up and verification, it was certainly useful, and would be included on any other serious article on a subject like this.


 * Just look at Star Trek: Enterprise (as an example). Compare the length of that article and the length of the Dragon Ball manga article.  Now consider that Star Trek: Enterprise was a single, canceled series that lasted 98 episodes and its overall plot was fairly basic.  In contrast, the Dragon Ball manga article is supposed to somehow summarize a 325 chapter manga and three anime TV series based on it (but with added plot lines not featured in the manga), which lasted over 500 episodes.  And the DB page is shorter.  Admittedly, Dragon Ball's plot is somewhat simpler than Star Trek: Enterprise's.  But when you're summarizing the plot in an overview, all the little details that made Star Trek more complex don't get included anyway.  It seems pretty darned unbalanced as it stands now. 72.160.93.25 (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Uh, it's actually 519 chapters + 1 special chapter. But yeah, I mean the Japanese Wikipedia pages on Dragon Ball are clearly divided into different articles, with the manga being the main one and separate articles on the different anime series. Still, if all anime and manga articles on the English Wikipedia are being reformatted like this one, I suppose it would only be appropriate for Dragon Ball to follow suit, to have a standardized Wiki page. I just hope that more information will be added. --Yottamol (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We should look good articles and featured articles as examples. The characters voice actors can be shown in their respective character lists. Obviously the plot needs to be expanded but not so long, just telling the important points. Just take a look at Serial Experiments Lain or .hack//Sign. Well those are short series, the only example of a long series I can give you is Rurouni Kenshin, thought its not GA or anything.Tintor2 (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The lack of voice actors on the character list don't have anything to do with the merging at all. If its missing, go complain over there because obviously someone hasn't bothered to add it (or, OMG, actually do some editing and add them yourself). Cast lists by themselves never go in anime articles. The plot here was taken from the merged articles, within reason. Don't blame me for the lack of decent plot summaries in the actual articles rather than the down right ridiculous 25 pages of plot which were axed weeks, if not months, ago. There is a link to the episode list in the infobox, but I've added it to the article as it was indeed missing. If the editors who actually work on expanding and sourcing arguments weren't so busy having to deal with talk page arguments (or who hadn't been chased away from it all together from being tired of having their watchlists flooded by this discussion), maybe all of it would have been fixed by now. The merge is done. The next step is cleaning up what's left, expanding all of the sections, and adding sources as needed. If/When this arguing is done, that is, so there is energy left enough to do the lengthy amount of work required. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:18, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Cast lists never go in anime articles? I have no desire to get in another heated debate with you, but I see no such rule in the anime project page, and articles such as Pokémon (anime) do not follow that convention either.  In the case of DB/Z/GT, I do believe a separate cast list is reasonable, but don't say never unless it's really never.  And as I said, the merge itself is not the big problem; it's the fact that so little was merged and so much was discarded.  That includes the cast list and voice actors among many other things.  It seems a more sensible move would have been to put all the information from the to-be-deleted articles in its new home articles before deleting it.  That would certainly have alleviated much of the concern we're experiencing now.  (Put on the space suit before opening the airlock, if an analogy helps, eh?)  That way, while the migration was in progress, at least we could have old material instead of none.


 * Honestly, I'll accept some of the blame for our argument, but your unwillingness to consider that you might be even slightly responsible for this whole mess isn't helping one bit. We aren't the ones who threw away the material without moving it somewhere else.  (And now that it's been deleted, that task will be much more tedious.)  Don't go chastising us because we weren't prepared to fill a gaping hole that none of us anticipated. 72.160.93.25 (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm upset about this.....yes, the articles are all one, but they are...nothing, like, at all.....such a shame...from being such a nice article in 2006, the DBZ part has been reduced to this...and now...I strongly doubt that anybody is going to build it back to what it was supposed to be... user:domkippy


 * Congratulations, this article is now useless. Your little committee has agreed on merging these articles because you are too damn lazy to clean up the problems. You know why people are complaining? Because the information has been deleted, information that we want to know. All you are doing is following the rules like a pack of do-gooders that have to have everything their way. NO-ONE is going to use this article anymore since you clamped down onto it like babies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.204.122 (talk) 09:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have only a few things to say — the article is a work in progress. It is not done yet. It will not be left like this. Have look when it is done, you might be amazed. G.A.S 13:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well perhaps you should have improved the existing articles, and then merged them, rathe than the other way around. As it stands they are useless for any significant information on many of the intended subjects.  My point is you should never take a step backward.  Your proposed plan would have worked the exact same if you merged the articles after improving them, rather than removing any useful information.  Like I said, as it stands, this article sucks and I can think of no good reaso as to why this is ANY better than the three separate articles that existed previously.Adroa (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree wholeheartedly. It seems like the editors here have gotten more interested in writing and enforcing rules than actually contributing.  Wikipedia has really gone downhill.  Maybe we should just replace the whole Dragon Ball page with a link to the Dragon Ball wiki.  At least then there would be some acknowledgment that the article here has become substandard.72.160.96.228 (talk) 08:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Merging
Merging these articles was a horrible idea. So much content and info is lost. Whoever had the idea was wrong. Disturbed92893 (talk) 09:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As has already been noted umpteen times before, no VALID, SOURCED data was lost. Fancruft, rumors, and unsourced stuff was the only thing not merged. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I hear you Disturbed92893. The only ones who have really supported the merge are a handful of editors who like to parade around acting important.  For a more credible project, there's always the Dragon Ball wiki though.  I don't think the situation here at Wikipedia is going to improve any time soon.  There are just too many people like Collectonian who would rather destroy than create.  (I suppose it's always been easier to do the former than the latter.)  Even now, she still claims that no sourced material was lost, and just looking at the pages' histories will show that that's nothing but a lie.  It's like I said, Wikipedia, or at least this area of it, has really gone downhill over the past few months. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The easiest way to reverse the merge is by adding useful and referenced information until a section (as an example Dragon Ball Z) is just to big to be only a section in the article and it deserves an article of it's own, anything else will probably be considered vandalism or original research and deleted.-Grizzly Sigma (talk) 23:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You keep claiming that and have to actually show any specific, reliably sourced content that was lost in the merge. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've already highlighted several areas. One of many, many examples:  DVD releases.  The English DBZ releases were chock-full of valid sources, and each release was covered.  For some reason, all of that information got obliterated in one of your edits.  You claimed in the edit that the information belonged in the episode list.  But oddly enough, you neglected to move it over there, instead presuming that it was worthless and throwing out all the time and research that someone went to to put that together.  It'd be neat if you actually thought about contributing (and no, mass-deletion is not a contribution) and improving these articles instead of cutting off Wikipedia's nose to spite its face. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * That was answered. DVD info goes in the episode list. Thanks for telling me what I presume. You're wrong, as usual, but that's neither here no there. The episode lists need massive clean up, which is still in progress, and the reason the DVD info hasn't been included there. And FYI, I've contributed far more than you ever had, with multiple B class, GA, and FA articles and an Featured Topic. If you are gonna whine and sling mud, at least make it accurate mud. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just said that you had said it belonged in the episode list. At least read my whole comment before you try to argue with it.  My point was that you removed massive amounts of valid information, rather than moving it to an appropriate place, hence cutting off Wikipedia's nose to spite its face.  As we've already stated, why was all this information removed before there was something better to replace it?  It's far better to have material that needs a little work than no material at all.  And for your information, you have no idea who I am, or how much I've contributed, and as such you have no business whatsoever claiming that you've contributed more than I.  (Your superior, "Oh, I've done B class, GA, and FA articles" attitude is really not helping the situation either.)  But, even if you had written every article on Wikipedia, it would bare little relevance to the fact that your recent actions (which have been deletions, not contributions) have been poorly received, and not without reason.  Oh yeah - and I thought you were going to ignore us.  Something about a brick wall? 72.160.96.228 (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, back to ignoring the non-editing brick wall. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 09:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Now who's calling who names? :D But I certainly will work on improving the article when its lock is lifted.  It's just funny, you mess it up and then get mad at us for not fixing it, when we can't fix it.  Sounds like you want both sides of the debate to be miserable. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 18:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not made at you for not fixing it. I don't think I'd want to see what your idea of "fixing" would be. I just don't like people complaining when they have done no actual work towards any of the articles at all. Reminds me of those folks who complains about congress and the president, but who haven't even bothered to register to vote, much less actually cast one. The article will be fixed up, as time goes on and REAL sources are found. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, okay, you're not mad at us for not fixing them. I guess I just got that mistaken impression back when you said, "OMG, actually do some editing and add them yourself".  But I'm curious, how did you determine that we who are complaining did no work towards any of the articles?  I myself have made additions to and rewritten sections in several DB articles.  Also, in what way were the old sources fake (as opposed to REAL)?  All this time that people have been complaining, the old material could simply have been left in place while new, "REAL" material was gathered.  Instead, we now have three paragraphs to describe the second largest anime in the country, and a lot of unhappy people. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Fansites are not reliable sources, period. All sources must meet WP:RS. Being the "second largest anime in the country" doesn't mean it actually needs tons and tons more info. Almost any length manga and anime series can have its real world aspects discussed in about the same amount of space. The plot needs work, but folks have been working there. Unsourced fancruft has no place here and it was properly removed during a merge. If you want to claim its factual and verifiable, go find the sources to back it up. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So... FUNimation, The Official Dragon Ball Z website and Pioneer are all just fan sites? 72.160.96.228 (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing "lost" (except the DVD listings before you harp on that again) was sourced to either of those. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I'm willing to agree that there was a lot of unsourced data on the original pages, but most of it was correct. This would logically warrant referencing all the material rather than deleting it.  My point is that there is CERTAINLY enough pertinent, encyclopedia worthy information involved in each of the original series that warrants separate pages.  As far as "doing any actual work" goes there is no point in it as at this point any work done in a direction you don't totally agree with will simply be deleted, so the first objective is to work out this little disagreement first.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adroa (talk • contribs) 07:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Being correct or not is irrelevant, it must be verifiable. If the sources exist, there was more than enough time for people to find and fix (and still is...no one has yet to produce a single source to back up any of the supposedly factual data). And no, each of the original series do not warrant separate pages. There is ONE main Dragon Ball series, the manga. The anime series are all adaptations, except for GT which is still considered an adaptation as it continues where the manga ended and the two anime series. And you are correct, unsourced fancruft won't be allowed, even if the articles had been kept separate. They will remain as a single article, which is appropriate and in keeping with project consensus and all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I originally made that table for the re-mastered collection. The way the page is set up now, there isn't a place to put it. I used the official site to make it and get the info. I still think merging was a bad idea. Disturbed92893 (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As noted above, the DVD table will eventually be put in the episode list. If you want to go ahead and put it in List of Dragon Ball episodes, go ahead as long as it is sourced. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

@Collectonian: And so why was the DVD information (which you've finally conceded was sourced) removed? I freely admit the articles needed sources in many places, but deleting the information was just silly. A truly productive course of action would have been to add sources, like Adroa said. Why, just a few revisions ago, you yourself added incorrect (and as such, unverifiable) information to the DB plot summary (which was fortunately fixed by Dinoguy1000), so why are you being so critical of the old material which, while unverified, was at least accurate? 72.160.96.228 (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually no, I didn't concede it was sourced, I said what it may have been. And false on the plot summary. The summary was perfectly accurate. Dinoguy didn't "fix" it, he expanded upon it and added more details. It was completely verifiable as it was summarized from Manga Design (source #2). I just didn't put a source tag on it because *gasp* non-interpretative plot summaries don't require in-line citations. It was accurate, whether you like it or not, but I guess you have to keep finding some reason to complain to keep yourself happy or something. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your plot summary was inaccurate. In it, you said, "To bring him [Goku's surrogate Grampa Gohan] back from the dead, Goku goes on a journey in search of the Dragon Balls."  There is no indication in the manga or the anime that this was the reason Goku joined in searching for the Dragon Balls.  Instead, in both cases, Bulma persuaded Goku to go along so he could see more of the world, because it was what Gohan would have wanted.  So, like I said, ease off the old material - at least it was correct.  You honestly haven't made it difficult at all for me to find reasons to complain, and it doesn't make me the least bit happy.  Part of being a good editor is learning to accept criticism without lashing out at your critics. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 00:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Then blame a nationally published book for having an incorrect summary. And sorry, I only accept criticism from people I can have respect for, not anonymous folks who just sit and nitpick and waste everyone's time so those who actualyl do work lose the energy to actually work on the article. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree they should have been merged, if we kept DBZ at it's own article, people could get easily confused. Now we can explain the fact that the manga was split in two in order to avoid confusion. –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 03:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * @J U M P G U R U: I respect your opinion, though I don't entirely agree with it. Your point is valid, but I tend to feel that there's just too much material to keep confined in a single article, which could also be confusing.  Perhaps if more material had been truly merged instead of thrown out we'd have a better idea of whether I'm right or not.  In any case, thank you for stating your reasons for feeling the way you do instead of attacking mine. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It should be in one article, so just live with it.


 * 1) Wikipedia has not gone downhill.
 * 2) You have only edited this talk page, and have not ever edited a DB article. So what you have said before was a lie.
 * 3) Linking this page to Wikia is horrible idea and would get deleted instantly, and would be considered vandalism.
 * 4) We're focusing on rules so much we aren't contributing anymore, makes no sence. Also being a good editor, is following the rules, rules mean everything on Wikipedia, and that's how great articles are made.
 * 5) I think we should be kinder to you, and keep in mind that you can become a good editor too. : ) –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * @Collectonian: Then it appears your source isn't as worthy of being used as credible verification as you thought. As always, you're not to blame for the mistakes you make.  Us lower lifeforms that haven't had need for a user account could never hope to measure up to your perfection and infallibility.  (Though I don't think I want to at all, given that they allow for incorrect information to hold a place here.)  And I'll point out once again that I have contributed to DB articles in the past, though I'm starting to wonder if there's a point to doing it again.  You're the one wasting your time, not me.  I haven't pointed a gun to your head and forced you to argue with me.  In fact, I could have sworn you said you were going to ignore us twice, but you still seem to keep showing up.  It wouldn't upset me in the least if you did just ignore us.  In fact, I think it would be nice if you ignored the whole subject and let those of us who actually know the material work on it for a while.  Maybe with a lot of time and effort we can make the articles encyclopedic again. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 05:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Its a nationally published book. That it made a minor error in summarizing such a lengthy series in a few sentences does not make it less reliable. And sorry, but no, you won't be ignored if you try to undo the merge that you've already been told by MULTIPLE editors, not just me, had and continues to have consensus. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So... why did you bother saying you were ignoring us if that was never your intention in the first place? Make up your mind and do what you've decided to do - that does seem to be what you excel at. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Undo the merge!
i say we undo the merge and fix up the problems with the old stuff Recbon (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It isn't going to happen. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Consensus is not immutable, and this seems like as good a proposal as any. Let's see what the

community as a whole has to say. I'm in favor of it because of the abysmal coverage of the current article. If, when the old articles are sourced, organized and cleaned up, there is still so little material that it can all be summarized on one page, then it could be merged. If someone who can still edit the article made a note of this suggestion in the anime sections it would probably be good. I can do it when the lock is lifted if no one else has. 72.160.96.228 (talk) 11:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No it isn't "as good a proposal as any." Its already been covered within the last week that the consensus to merge is valid and that it HAS consensus. Get over all ready, gravy. You hate it so damn much, go to the DB wikia. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Since this whole mess started I've been contributing over there regularly. It's nice to be part of a worthwhile project.  Unfortunately it doesn't seem like that's what this part of Wikipedia is anymore. 207.118.67.139 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Recbon, ideally what you suggest would happen, but these days in Wikipedia everyone is lazy. The day people on Wikipedia actually decide to pick Clean Up over Delete or Merge is the day hell freezes over, and trust me, you'll have little luck fighting it. Just do what everybody else does and mindlessly roll with consensus, and you'll have a nice time here.-- Koji Dude  (C) 15:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A few comments:
 * 72.160.96.228, you have said at least twice that you've worked on the DB articles in the past. However, your contributions show you've only ever edited this talk page - have you previously edited under a username or a different IP address?
 * Many of you who disagree with the merge are complaining about "deleted" material. I would like to stress that unless an entire article gets deleted, all information is still present in its history. The DVD info that people are complaining was properly sourced but got deleted anyways? Guess what, it's still there (at least, I assume that's the information you're complaining about, it's the only DVD tables I could find in any page history).
 * The merge can be undone if a given section gains a sufficient amount of properly sourced, nontrivial information. Because of the close relationship of the Dragon Ball manga and the DB and DBZ anime (and, to a lesser extent, DBGT), it's doubtful this will ever happen, but it's still a possibility.
 * You're also complaining about the amount of information that got "lost" in the merge. Once again, it's not gone for good, all the information is still present in page histories, and furthermore, you've been told multiple times that you're welcome to properly source the material and add it back in as appropriate. Granted, at the moment the article is semi-protected, but you can still post reliably sourced info on the talk page to be added into the article by a registered user, or you can register for your own account and not have to wait for either the protection to expire or someone else to add the info.
 * KojiDude made a comment about everyone being lazy. I certainly can't speak for everyone, but I am lazy, and yet I'm still taking the time to write out this response to several complaints. It would be far easier, and faster, for me to just ignore this conversation altogether, especially considering the length of my watchlist and the limited amount of time I have to go through it. If you notice a given piece of information is missing from the article, complaining that it got removed isn't going to spur me to find a reliable source and add it back in; it would be far easier for you, who actually wants it back in the article, to properly source it and add it yourself. I've got better things to do with my time.
 * I hope that this will answer at least some of your complaints, and maybe even inspire some of you to stop complaining and actually try contributing to the article for a change. — Dino guy  1000  17:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks...and what do ya know...it was totally unsourced like everything else. Still, I've shoved it into the Episode list until it can be fixed up. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * @Dinoguy1000: Thanks for the clear and tactful analysis of the situation.  Just to answer your question, yes I've done edits under a different IP.  (My IP is not static and has even changed over the course of this discussion.)  I know the material wasn't lost utterly and completely, but to anyone who just reads current article revisions, it is gone.  I'm lazy too, and seeing so much material (which represented a lot of time and hard work) removed was really demoralizing.
 * Collectonian has just been going on and on asserting that the undoing merge "isn't going to happen" (which I was happy to hear you say is not necessarily the case) and acting like her opinion is law, as though she is the sole person making decisions around here. That alone has irritated me more than all the merging and deletion.  I can see she's still ignoring the obvious sources in the old articles' DVD release sections, but maybe I can restore those to their new home some time this week since that article hasn't been locked like the main one.
 * I actually did try to edit the main article with a new account, but it appears newly registered users are blocked as well? No big deal though - it won't matter in a couple days when the lock is lifted anyway.  This whole situation has just been really depressing to me (and to quite a few others as well, it appears), since the old articles, while not perfect, were pretty well done, and it's really unlikely that anyone will have motivation to build them back up again with what's happened here.  I know I don't.  And then there's a certain user who acts like we're inferior because we don't agree with her, which adds insult to injury. 207.118.67.139 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should put the page under a major edit so people are encouraged to add more information. We can slowly add the stuff that was lost back to the page. If anyone agrees add a major edit template. Disturbed92893 (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) All right, I suspected that was the case, and it's a very good reason to register. Semi-protecting articles means that only autoconfirmed accounts can contribute to them; for an account to be autoconfirmed, it must be at least four days old and have made at least ten edits (I probably should have mentioned this above).
 * Collectonian has been, and continues to be, more-or-less right concerning the merge. It is very unlikely that it will ever be undone, but guidelines/policy does provide for it just in case. Project consensus is, in general, that seperate articles for different media adaptations of a series are not necessary if there are no significant changes in plot, settings, characters, etc. between the adaptations. Dragon Ball's manga and anime versions are more similar to each other than similar media adaptations from other series which are also discussed on the same article. The most likely split candidate I can see at this time would be for DBGT, but any possibility for it is still far off in the future and still requires the addition of a great deal more properly sourced, nontrivial content. It's unfortunate that you've been so disenchanted, if you were willing to put forth the same effort to contributing to the article as you have been in arguing with Collectonian, I think you could help greatly improve it. — Dino guy  1000  22:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, well like I said, I haven't been able to edit the article yet, so I figured this was the best place to discuss the problem. Thanks for at least discussing the possibilities regarding the subject though, and what needs to be done for them to happen.  It's a nice break from what's been shoved in my face since I got here. 72.160.105.253 (talk) 04:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * i think it would be good if we can get the old stuff and find the sources and we could put that in the new article and maybe get it in separate articles again when theres more stuff! Recbon (talk) 06:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Not going to happen because the old stuff had no actual sources. Can't find sources for people's personal opinions and made up stuff. Its far more productive to go find sources about DB and add purely verifiable information in, rather than waste time and effort trying to find sources for fancruft. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Saying "it's not going to happen" over and over isn't helpful. If that's all you have to say, it would be better not to comment. Give them a chance and let them make their "major edits" first, then you can beat their morale to death with a wooden stick. WP:CCC, btw.-- Koji Dude  (C) 15:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Neither is them complaining over and over again that they don't like it. If that's all they have to say, they should give the article a chance to actually be finished in its new form rather than waste everyone's time reading their whining. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You do realize he said the same thing I did, just with more patience? The merge is EXTREMELY unlikely to be undone, and the spinout option is highly unlikely to be applicable here at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 07:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously guys, this arguing is all just a waste of time. Couldn't this time have been used to improve the article? And another thing, if anyone disagrees with the merger why not be brave and begin a new survey? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * On that, we agree...very much a waste of time, and a flooding of ye ole watchlist. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * "flooding of ye ole watchlist", LOL, that's true! But I mean seriously, this is stupid, we're agueing because some IP (that abviosly doesn't know a drop about Wikipedia) want's to split this back so he can get information he wanted three weeks ago on the DBZ page. >_< –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like the argument turned into a discussion way back when Dinoguy1000 started talking and Collectonian stopped. (It's not like patience is a bad thing BTW.) Of the last seven comments, the only two that didn't seem to be an attempt to reignite that old argument were KojiDude's and Sesshomaru's.  If the rest of you want the argument to go (or rather stay) away, stop doing everything you can to provoke the people who don't agree with you. 72.160.105.253 (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * yes we want to put more good stuff in the articles but then you say that its not going to happen!Recbon (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a user of fr.wikipedia, I'm not aware of every single policiy here, but it seems to me this merger was a very bad idea. I had never seen in my entire wikipedian-life a merger made because a lot of data were unsourced. I'm surprised I have not once in this entire discussion read the word "criterias", which if I'm not mistaken are how we actually decide if a subject may exist in its own article or be merged into a more convenient article, and absolutely not the fact that there is too few data or if its quality is too bad.

Considering this, I think that having Dragon Ball Z in the same article than the manga series, and (even more for Dragon Ball GT, which is a totally distinct work from the original manga) is a joke. DBZ has its own notability, for example, many, not to say almost every video games about the franchise use the name DBZ, not DB, and there again, many fans think mainly of the DBZ anime before the manga when they hear of Dragon Ball, which proves that the anime has gained the right to have its own article.

My last point is, even if all the data that was removed from the articles during the process had to be removed, I think doing it without merging everything in the same time would have been far more judicious thant what was actually done, and now what only lasts is a terrible mess that not even the best guideline could justify. Oh, by the way, until now I kept thinking fr.wikipedia was a hideout of deletionnists, but this event makes me relativize a lot. So thanks guys! ;) PieRRoMaN 11:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * A lot of people agree with you. I think a few editors with know-how just got it into their heads that unsourced = fan-fiction and decided amongst themselves to throw the material out instead of trying to improve the situation.  The lock has finally gone away from the article, so maybe someone with some time and initiative will work on it now.  With what's happened, I kind of doubt there's a point though.  In the meantime I've been spending my editing energies over at the Dragon Ball wiki.  The articles over there need work too, but at least over there the powers that be are in favor of keeping good material.  My faith in Wikipedia has been totally shot down the tubes. -- 72.160.72.245 (talk) 21:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though I don't like how short the article has gotten with loads of information removed, I'm still willing to keep my hope up to see how much the editors can improve it. But just a question about DBZ's own notability, what else can you think of besides the usage of its name in video games? And where did you get the data that fans think of the anime before the manga? Dragon Ball fans around the world (note: not just Americans and Europeans), including those from Japan and many Asian countries (which consist of a majority of the world's population), would think of the anime before the manga? I'm not sure if I could agree with you on that, especially that personally I think of the manga before anime. What difference does the DBZ anime have from the manga, besides the addition of the letter "Z" in the end, bunch of fillers, and moving characters on a TV screen? Most of it is still exactly the same as the manga, including all the non-filler scenes, characters, and story.


 * That being said, I think that giving this article a more expansive plot summery will do. But then again, I actually still think that having separate articles for the anime series is not a bad idea (obviously not because of the reasons you listed, as I argued above). It's that I've read many articles on Wikipedia, especially those of some more expansive franchises, and Dragon Ball's pales in comparison. For such an important series in the Japanese manga/anime pop culture (DB directly influenced current popular works such as One Piece and Naruto), with the manga being one of the four best-selling series ever in Japan, with the anime having a place in the top 100 anime voted by Japanese viewers, etc. One article does not seem enough. More importantly, the Japanese Wikipedia on Dragon Ball keeps separate articles on the manga, the anime series, and even the TV specials and OVA.


 * Anyway, that's my two cents. If the article is kept this way, I'm cool with it as long as the editors can add lots more information efficiently; if the article gets separate pages, I'm also happy about it. ...So basically, I made a pointless argument. --Yottamol (talk) 15:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Other large series: Bleach - 1 main article; One Piece - 1 main article; Naruto - one main article, Sailor Moon - 1 main article (mostly, recent consensus based merge from SM project still underway). DB was the exception, not the norm, so the merging brings it inline with other expansive franchises. Popularity doesn't indicate it gets more article, but that it should (ideally) have a larger, more detailed article. The plot needs expanding, but despite several requests, no one who has read the manga seems to be willing to write it up (though maybe those folks are hiding right now...several great editors have dewatchlisted this article and declined to improve it because of all the stuff going on here). I And yes, the article does need work. If the editors who actually edit weren't having to deal with the IP attacks and SPA complaints, more work would likely have been done. I myself switched to working on the episode list clean up for awhile to break up the work, as I get stuff to put here while working on the leads for the series lists. My two anime/manga reference books are currently packed for a move, hence my not being able to add much in other sections, and all the complaining here sucks out the energy for hunting down the available reliable web sources. The Japanese wiki is a bad example, as its articles often are unsourced, have little info, and there are actually quite a few series where our articles are more detailed than theirs. Different language wikis also have different editing guidelines. We follow the English ones alone. And hey, at least your "pointless argument" was polite  :P --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yottamol, to answer your question, at least in France, while the manga was selling reasonnably, when DBZ started being broadcasted (on TF1, the first channel in France, in a TV program for children called "Club Dorothée"), it quickly became a huge success and attracted many fans, most of which where born in the mid 80'. Most of these fans watched the anime without having ever heard or cared about the manga. That's why I said a considerable amount of people know the Dragon Ball series thanks to DBZ instead of the manga. I don't know if this applies in other countries, though.
 * Anyway, it's clear to me that DB (manga), DB (anime) and DBZ (and of course DBGT) are distinct works, even if the plots and characters are not so different, but this point seems a little out of question to me. That's why having distinct articles looks totally normal to me. PieRRoMaN 01:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

i am thinking maybe we are getting enough points that the old articles can come back now and we can fix them!Recbon (talk) 10:27, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not do what i am doing and improve this article? i rather it was separate article and as collection could tell you i really have fought for it, but i am instead going to help improve this one and if in the future it is split then that would be great. just trying to give you advice.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks but the article is too bad to fix right now it seems! but most seem to agree with us. only collection really is pushing against us and gives no real reason so i think we are having consensus! plus collection just vandalized a protected page so i think she will not be on the wiki very much longer! =DRecbon (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Nothing is to bad, depends how much work you want to put into it, as i say its the best that can be doen for now.Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you don't have consensus. Its already been pointed out multiple times that the merge has the consensus of both the Anime and manga project and the DB taskforce by those members. And no I have not vandalized anything. If you continue being uncivil combined with being an SPA who acts like a sockpuppet, you are the one at risk of being blocked. I will be around a long long time, but thanks for wishing me away. It ain' tgonna happen. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 09:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * you say im uncivil but i am not! i never call you sockpuppet! and there are more reasons and people behind splitting then the merge!Recbon (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't call you a sockpuppet, I said you are acting like one. Per below, no, there are still no real reasons for a split and consensus still supports the merge. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * i guess you are alone then because all points are with us!Recbon (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Do not close this topic again saying that consensus supports splitting. As the discussion below clearly shows that consensus is to maintain the status quo for the time being. The next time you do so, it will be reported to the admin noticeboard. --Farix (Talk) 11:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * you can't change consensus with bullying us! if admin board wants to go against consensus then wikipedia is in trouble!Recbon (talk) 11:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * How is the consensus below is invalid? --Farix (Talk) 11:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * there is no consensus below and why you keep on vandalizing header???Recbon (talk) 11:59, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You are intentionally being deceitful. There was overwhelming opposition to re-split the article from a much wider range of editors commenting on the topic. Many of them are editors from WikiProject Anime and manga who are experienced enough to not let their fandom cloud their judgments. --Farix (Talk) 12:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Acutally there is a consensus below which is opposited to teh split, instead of arguing why not improve the article to the point that is becomes a size that then means it needs to split. I do not agree with the merge but i am trying to improve the articel with uueful information and sourcing it then hopefully in the future it willbe split again.Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Your attitude is much more helpful. Thanks. --Masamage ♫ 15:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

This article is ******* emberrasing.
I typed in 'dragon ball z' hoping to get an in-depth analysis on the show. Instead I get this? Whoever proposed all this should have their editing rights revoked. Hellothar999 (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If there are reliable sources providing "in-depth anaylysis" of Dragon Ball Z, by all means, please point them out so we can get to editing. Otherwise, what is here now is the same reliably sourced info that was in the previous stand alone article. Additionally, the merge was done by consensus and in keeping with Wikipedia policies. Dragon Ball Z = Dragon Ball. It having a separate name in the English manga release doesn't change that. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There are so many wikipedia articles on anime shows, why not dragon ball z? Dragon Ball Z was unarguably the most notable one out of the three, yet all I see is this little stub? Check out any other anime show and you'll see at least a seperate page about that show, not a little stub. :/ Hellothar999 (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, that stub is about the anime itself, not the content of the anime. The plot and content is covered in the character pages (or at least, it should be).-- Koji Dude  (C) 19:55, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One Piece, Naruto, etc. all have their anime counterparts in one article. Those anime with their own articles are probably original anime to begin with, not based on manga. Apparently, the aim of the Anime and Manga project is to have one article for the original format release of a series, and any adaptations that do not deviate too much from the original format will fall under the same one article. Both the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z anime are mostly the same as the original manga, so they should fall under the Dragon Ball manga article under this policy. DBGT is different, but I guess the consensus here also made it to be merged with the manga article. So there you are. BTW, what information do you need to know about the TV show that's not covered on this article? Maybe the editors will try to find cited sources and add them to the page if you tell them. --Yottamol (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Different versions of the dub
Just wondering whether there should be mention of the different versions of the dub, 3 unique ones and 5 if you include the new funimation ones, also another dub for UK and old lost dub. Apologizes if this has been mention on the article not had a chance to read it since the merge in fact do not think it was there before the merge either. If it isn't appropriate that cool just thought i ask. Also if you decide to mention the other dubs the dragonball and dragonball gt had other dub titles would it be appropriate to add them to there lists? --Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * If sourcable, all English releases should, at minimum, be mentioned. The major ones should get more in-depth coverage, as sources are available. For the episode lists, where there are multiple titles, both the edited dub title and the uncut titles are listed. However, we don't list every English title, just the first English release one, or in the case of an edited dub and uncut release, the first of each of those. List of Dragon Ball GT episodes has already been cleaned up and reflects this. The episode list leads should mention other English releases, again as is sourcable. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You seemed to have misunderstood my reply above. English releases are not discussed in separate sections. They are discussed in the appropriate media action, briefly, and neutrally, and well sourced. Each media section already has some discussion, it needs sourcing and, if information is missing, expansion. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:10, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah right apogolises then, i will contunie to source the information, i will put it in my sandbox prior to putting it here could you check it first to make sure ti is ok?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, just leave me a note when you have something ready :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote
About that, we could specify further in saying "manga and anime franchise". This is what Naruto, Kinnikuman, InuYasha, and Devilman use. I'm also considering changing the hatnote on Sailor Moon and Astro Boy to reflect the same. How about it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:59, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I think that would be good. Since hatnotes are supposed to help those who might be in the wrong place, I think it is good to clarify what kind of franchise it is. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh yeah, I just remembered that Death Note and Hellsing use the same format. So, any other hats that need reiterating before I begin? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Any at all? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any off others at the moment. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you take a look at Astro Boy? It doesn't seem to be about the whole manga and anime franchise. Then again, I could be wrong. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...looks to just be about the initial manga and anime. The second two anime series are barely even mentioned. That should probably be fixed, but for now, may want to add "initial" or "original" to the hatnote or the like. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 18:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

proposal for dbz and dbgt
I get User:AnmaFinotera point; the dbz article is more like a fan article. However, I disagree with the merging of the dbz and dbgt article. So what if we make a new (stub) article for the two, at least include a few paragraphs into those articles? Also, make some redirecting pages to the characters plot in those articles.

To be honest I never like the original dragon ball, but I know for the fact that dbz is way more popular, even though it was a continuation to the story. Yesterday when my brother asked me something about dbz, what did I do? I typed dragon ball z, but I was disappointed to see only three paragraphs about it.

After making a research on on the talk pages and related articles, I concluded that all information that some users considered lost, is actually not. All this information all over wikipedia, like character article, movies, etc.

Just think, if a new user is trying to find information on dbz, he or she is more likely to type dragon ball z in the search engine. By merging the article to this one, we are defeating the purpose of informing users. I know these users could just go to the characters list and find more information about dbz. However, we are not helping them to get to the information more easily. So I think making a new article, which includes some of the most important character plot, will be sufficient. Also, let's not forget of the popularity of dbz worldwide. This article only states the popularity of the dragon ball manga series. Furthermore, it doesn't say anything about dbz early history ( which i remember it did in its old article). User:Ricardoread —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. It completely violates WP:MOS-AM. The merge was done by consensus per project and Wikipedia guidelines. There is no valid reason to have the same series split across three articles. Character information is already properly covered in List of Dragon Ball characters. Wikipedia is not here to provide extensive plot summaries, however the relevant plot information is covered already by the THREE episode lists and the manga chapter lists. Creating new articles just to repeat the plot violates WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:FICT, and our MoS. Its completely unnecessary and would only take this article back in a bad direction. Info not brought over in the merge was not brought because it wasn't sourced. That "early history" had not a single source to back up its claims. All sourced reception info was brought in, and more is being added. It also covers all of the DB manga and anime series, not just one. Also, there is more than three paragraphs about DB Z here, that is just the anime section. Blame the redirect. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose - per all reasons stated by Collectonian above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose per reasons Collectonian stated. It was merged on consensus and doesn't need to be added back. Wikipedia should not describe every detail, anyway. Even if DBZ and DBGT articles were created, you'd only get the basic summary. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While I supported merging the DBZ and DB TV series articles with the DB manga article, it seems the tide has turned and more and more people are coming out against the merger. Given that consensus can change, maybe we should split the articles once again. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and we shouldn't worry about violating WP:MOS-AM since disagreements are not resolved by "tightly sticking to rules and procedures".

So let me add something to Ricardoread's proposal. By using the same reasoning I gave to support the merger, I say we should also split the article on the DB TV series because "merging only Dragon Ball (anime) seems wrong because the DB TV series only adapts roughly half of the manga".

Also, WP:POLLS are evil.--Nohansen (talk) 16:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it is all one series, and can be adequately covered in one article, especially with the splits we already have. Doceirias (talk) 17:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To me it soudns liek the biggest argument is to do with the manga and the tv series, maybe there should be discussion about it and no talk about the merger or split jsut talk about what you see the problem is? or in the anime manga portal side say what is right about the article? then maybe take a poll or something and see what the census is then. only a suggestion i aint getting involved with the discussion only making points in neutral fashion this time--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose This proposal does not give any explanation of potential structural problems that the article may have by covering all three of the Dragon Ball anime series and the manga. Also, the creation of sub articles without the intention of further expanding on them is simply a bad practice. Sub articles are created so that they may be expanded on later. If there is no intentions on having those articles expanded, then they shouldn't be created in the first place. In all fairness, this proposal seems to be based on the desire of DB fans to have separate articles on each aspect of their favorite television series. That is actually a poor reason to base a decision on splitting an article. That is not to say that splitting the article is a bad idea, however, WP:IWANTIT isn't a legitimate reason to advocate a split. --Farix (Talk) 17:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose Only for DBZ, but DBGT could get a separate article. The thing is, if all anime and manga articles get single-article treatments like this, we do not need to have Dragon Ball to be the special case. Remember, both DB and DBZ anime are still the based on the same manga. I really do wish, though, that the plot summary gets expanded quickly so that people would not complain about it. Is there anyone who's doing it right now? --Yottamol (talk) 18:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The plot summaries in the episode list articles? There shouldn't be excessively long plot summaries here, just a brief overview. Doceirias (talk) 20:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I feel DBGT should not have its own article because it is a relatively short series, in comparison to DB and DBZ of course. It can be summed up quite easily here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's easier and more interesting to have a central area to learn about the series as a whole. The sections work just fine, and the subpage divisions look useful too. Also, some info can go at the episode list articles. So this seems like a perfectly workable way to organize things. --Masamage ♫ 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose at this time. As I have previously stated, I'm not biased against a possible split at some point in the future, but any such possibility hinges on a sufficient amount of properly sourced, non-trivial information being added to this article first. If all of you complainers spent half the energy trying to make earnest additions and corrections to the article that you do complaining about it, it could already be up to B or even GAC level. And why does it seem like no one ever does a Google search anymore? If you're really looking for mind-numbing quantities of plot summary, character profiles, fan theories, etc, there's literally millions of fansites out there more than happy to oblige you. — Dino guy  1000  20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think this article needs a request for meditation or a survey, since it is obvious that a significant number of users disagree with the previuos consensus. Ricardoread (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We don't do "surveys" per say, and your suggestion is getting answered. Do you wish to have a mediator because everyone so far is opposing it, showing that as I stated before, upholding the previous consensus? The existance of this discussion was noted at the anime and manga project, which is the first place we go for mediation in discussions, the project that "oversees" the page. What else are you wishing to do? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I think that the consensus was made by biased users from the anime and manga project. Believe me I have no interest on anime or manga (although I used to be a fan of dbz), but I do believe in defending the users point of view in a neutral way. After reading this talk page, many users don't agree with the consensus of merging the articles. Interestingly enough, all of their complains were mostly replied by you, but also by some of the users who suported the merge (which I believe were 7 users). And yes I wish to get a mediator. Ricardoread (talk) 04:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: all of those "oppose" votes are referring to your proposal to split the articles back into separate pages. They not opposing the status quo, the previous consensus. They are in support of it. --Masamage ♫ 04:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It shows a great deal of bad faith when you declare that uninvolved editors from WP:ANIME are biased simply because they are rejecting your proposal. Asking for a third opinion is standard practice on Wikipedia. And what better group to ask for a third opinion then a subject-specific WikiProject? The discussion is not closed off to other editors based on whether they are Dragon Ball fans or members of a WikiProject. I gave my opinion as to why I thought this is a bad proposal and why the reasoning behind it is extremely weak. But instead of addressed my points, you are attempting to paint me as being bias. You can't go and say that the comments of the eight editors who have so far unanimous rejected your proposal are invalid. --Farix (Talk) 11:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears it has been proven without a doubt noone but 2 people are objecting the merge so i suggest your best epxand the current article if the current articel ever reaches a specfic size then it owuld probally need split under wikipedia rules. Andrewcrawford (talk) 13:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC) instead of trying to slow things down help improve :)

One more thing I forgot to mention. I don't see how my proposal seems to violate WP:MOS-AM. It clearly says that the plot "...should comprise a succinct description of the plot and major subplots, but please avoid excessive details of twists and turns in the story." I don't this article providing a "succinct" description of db, dbz, and dbgt. Ricardoread (talk) 04:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? I was referring to "In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise". The plot section here has nothing to do with this proposal at all. If you feel the plot section does not adequately cover all three series, expand it. That is an problem with the article needing more content, NOT a problem with the need to split them. And sorry, but "bias" from the project? There isn't any biased except that the project members do, of course, follow the MoS and Wikipedia guidelines, unlike most of the complainers who were new or unregistered readers, not editors. And BTW, that is kind of the whole point of Wikipedia projects! Per: Dispute resolution, option three is you turn to the appropriate project for help, which in this case in Anime and Manga. Now, you (and so far you alone), seem to be arguing that the project's input isn't valid and all of the opposes to your proposed resplit are somehow biased and worth less than the 4 or 5 people who voiced complaints (of which only one of which was not an SPA or anon)? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, all of you proved your point. But I'm still unease with this article. At think this article is made by and for people familiar with the dragon ball manga series. My reason is: not that many people know about the comic book. DBZ is far way well known than the whole dragon ball series alone. This article might be confusing to users unfamiliar with the comics.

Just google dragon ball. I got a result of 64,200,000, but half of them are related to dragon ball z, the tv series. Then google dragon ball z: you'll get 34,300,000 results. Almost none of the results were about dragon ball as a whole. (except wikipedia of course)

Also, think about the movies, most of them are from the dragon ball z tv series.

So like Farix said, creating separate is only to expanding them later. My question is this article going to get expanded, till it gets to a point that a needs different articles? Ricardoread (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It is highly unlikely on the expansion, as it is seriously doubtful so much reliably sourced info can be added about any of the individual anime series that the section would grow to big. You decided all those google results are only about the anime and you have decided that the manga is somehow unknown. Never mind it is one of the top selling manga series ever, and that the second part of the manga was released in the use under the name Dragon Ball Z. Those Google results also are meaningless, particularly here with the prevalence of certain lewd Dragon Ball spoofs. If you use quotes around "Dragon Ball" and search for each media, the Google results are close enough to discount any argument that the anime is somehow so much more popular than the rest. Using quotes "Dragon Ball" gets 43 million hits, BTW, not 64.2, and gets 25.5 mil, not 34.4. Your claim that none of the results for "Dragon Ball" was about the series as a whole is just plain false. It was a diverse mix of results from the series as a whole, the first series, Z, and GT. In reality, from what you yourself have said, the one showing clear bias here is you. You like the Z anime adaptation and you think its the most popular series (with no supporting evidence), so you think it deserves to be given higher relevance to its source materials and all the other adaptations. And no, this article isn't for people familiar with the manga, it is for people unfamiliar with the series at all. Dragn Ball IS a manga, whether some people know it or not. From that manga, three anime adaptations were created, along with movies, games, etc. This article properly follows the WP:MOS-AM and all relevant Wikipedia guidelines. We are an encyclopedia, not a fansite. As such, we start with the primary work, the manga, and from there discuss the adaptations, not the other way around. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 19:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This isn't working my last nerve, it's destroying it. Who ever actually wants to edit this page, just ignore whoever comments here, because we are not getting anywhere with this. Also, it's never going to stop, random IP's and other people who aren't real Wikipedians are just gonna keep complaining and try to convince us to do something that never going to happen. If you want your stupid DBZ information, go look it up somewhere else, until the article is actually finished. –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So what about other comic books, like superman, batman, spider man, etc.? Why do their tv adaptations deserve their own article? Is manga different from other comic books? Are they tv adaptation different from anime? Ricardoread (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Short answer is yes. Manga and anime is its own project with its own guidelines for articles. Comics has their own project and guidelines. TV series have their own project and guidelines. Also, many of those are vastly different works, not just the same story being retold in different media formats. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * what if we get an opinion from the WP:TV? I think db, dbz, and dbgt can be considered tv shows not just anime. Ricardoread (talk) 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, they can not. They are not american television series, they are Japanese anime series. As member of the TV project as well, I can tell you that they will defer to the Anime and manga project as this series is not within the TV project scope. Also, its unlikely they would support a split either. Though rarer in regular television series, in those few cases where a series is like Dragon Ball and each anime series is a straight continuation of the next, it is again covered in one article, not one for each series. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks to me that you are attempt to go forum shopping. --Farix (Talk) 20:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No I'm not. Let's try it. I promise that if they support the previous consensus, I'll withdraw my proposal and opinions about splitting the article. However, if they say otherwise....we'll see. Anyways, whatever the consensus I'll try to improve this article. FAIR? Ricardoread (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are. You started first by asking an admin to come "help," then you posted here. Now, you are not satisfied with the overwhelming respond by the project that this article falls under (the project that is, by Wiki standards, the "expert" in all things anime/manga), you want to ask someone else to try to find someone to support your point of view. Dragon Ball does NOT fall under the scope of the television project. It is an anime and manga article. So please just accept the now twice stated consensus and move on. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * That "help" was actually because I didn't know how some dispute work, please pardon me for that. Now I partially do. So all I'm asking to go to the television project for their opinion. That's it. If they support the anime and manga project, I promise that I'll withdraw from this discussion. Ricardoread (talk) 21:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically, this article does fall under the scope of WP:TV, insofar as it discusses a television series. However, it defers responsibility of the article to the more specialized animanga project. Regardless, though, asking for another opinion there isn't going to change anything. Please stop throwing a fit about no one agreeing with you and turn your energy towards actually contributing to the article. — Dino guy  1000  21:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ok I give up! you are right I should be focusing on contributing to the article, but anyhow, if complains still occurs on this article, the project shouldn't be so close minded on changing the consensus. Remember wikipedia is an encyclopedia for users, not for editors. It is suppose to be helpful to its users, not for the project to take control of the article and make it a bureaucracy. I CONCLUDE WITH MY DISCUSSION. Now I'll happily contribute with the project if possible. Ricardoread (talk) 00:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit confict) Those series are not doing a direct adaptations of the comics. The only thing that is consistent between the comics and the television adaptations are the characters. And even then, there are significant alterations in how the characters' behavors, relationships, and back stories. Whereas anime adaptations of manga often follow the same story lines, relationships, and maintain the characterizations. It is essentially the same story told in a different medium. Because of this, the WikiProject decided to combine manga and anime versions into one article in order to avoid duplication. --Farix (Talk) 20:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

jump guru shows why these editors are making bad edits! they think dbz info is stupid!Recbon (talk) 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I love Dragon Ball..... O_- (**coughcough but not cartoon network coughcough**)......I just wanna destroy my computer every time I see this talk page. Although maybe, just maybe Dragon Ball GT could get a separate page, I think that would be up to Collectonian, she looks like she knows what should be and what shouldn't. I don't understand why there's so much argueing and complaining here while Naruto Shippū-den got merged to the Naruto page?, no one had a problem with that. –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The same with Code Geass: R2's merge to Code Geass... just a couple of anon reverts, and then... nothing. — Dino guy  1000  18:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Exact. Just for some weird reason, it seems to be a big deal here, because a couple people wanted to find out stuff on the DBZ page, that they wanted two months ago and still want to complain so that they have it their way. –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, Jump Guru, if you really want to know why there's more opposition to this merge than there was to Naruto or Code Geass, there's a very simple, very reasonable explanation. Naruto: one manga, one show. Code Geass: one manga, one show. Dragon Ball: one manga, THREE shows. Three distinct, seperate shows that have always been marketed and released as three distinct, seperate shows. One show in particular (Dragon Ball Z) that is arguably more popular than the other two, definitly longer lasting than the other two, possibly even more popular than the manga. And this show that lasted seven years and 291 episodes is reduced to three short paragraphs. K9feline (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Wrong! Naruto: one manga, TWO anime. Code Gaess: one manga, TWO anime. Hey look, Naruto: Shippū-den seems to be a bit more popular than the original! Let's make it's own article. What did you think we were talking about this whole time? Everyone seems to get really pissed here.....really easy. -_- –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I might characterize those as being single anime series with multiple seasons in them. But see, that's the hard thing--what we think of as multiple "seasons" usually are marketed in Japan as separate series, as with the Sailor Moon anime (R, S, Supers, Stars), but then are marketed to English-speaking audiences as just one series. The big difference with Dragon Ball is that is was marketed as separate series even in this hemisphere. --Masamage ♫ 16:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Technically, Code Geass would be two anime, four manga (since the anime came first). And Naruto versus Shippūden are two distinct series, the division between the two in the manga is even sharp enough that Kishimoto could have legitimately split them in two... but now I'm just rambling. K9, if you have a problem with the DBZ section being only three paragraphs long, add more content yourself, making sure that it's properly sourced and non-trivial. This article is still very much a work in progress, and its current form is not equivalent to what its final form will be (should such a final form ever come about for whatever reason). Instead of complaining, just do something about it. — Dino guy  1000  17:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I was just thinking about something, we should do the same merge as we did to this, to Yu-Gi-Oh!. –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought the reason for th erge here was because dragonbal and dragonball z (i am ingoring gt) are teh same plit liens and characters. Yu-gi-oh, yu-gi-oh gx and yu-gioh r are all different characters so how does that fit in with the reason for this merge?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC) although i agree merge the media lists into the main articles jsut trying to understand why you think this.


 * I was talking about the first and second series. Anyway, I started a discussion on the Yu-Gi-Oh! talk. No offence, but can you try to spell a little better, I could barely read your comment. : ) –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 21:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Read my profile i am dyslexic so i spelling is near impossible for em but i do try my best to make it readable--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry! : ( I didn't know that.... –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It fine i am more annoyed people take so much offense to spelling without thinking, it like see someone with one leg and say oh you should run faster.Andrewcrawford (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that feeling, I have a few learning disabilities myself, mostly with math. :P –  J U M P G U R U  @ Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Extra Information
We all know how much valuable information was removed when the articles were merged. I am going to start adding to this article a lot now. Everyone else shoudl do the same. Disturbed92893 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, do NOT start adding in unsourced information as per the discussions above. If you can actually show any VALUABLE SOURCED information was lost, go ahead, but so far not a single person has done so. Deliberately being disruptive will only get you banned. Your creation of an entire article on the Funimation DVDs was completely and wholly inappropriate. Do not start trying to resplit this articles in such a sneaky fashion. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yea, I kinda know that, I meant adding to the plot. You really need to chill. A lot of the plot summary was removed. 76.243.209.144 (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I definately don't want a resplit. I support all the Dragon Balls articles having been merged because Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z are two seperate anime series, but there's only one manga series, just called Dragon Ball. --- Krezos Farland (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This might be in the wrong place but can someone add the Dragonball GT movie on the anime films? Dragonsblast (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It is already listed under the Specials. 132.236.64.47 (talk) 12:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone rewrite this.
Now. It is 'horrible.' There's so many sentences that aren't even in proper English. 71.60.161.100 (talk) 20:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Huh? Yes it is. The heading you just wrote "isn't proper English". –  J U M P G U R U   ■TALK■ 22:41, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "When creating the techniques, Toriyama naming all by himself except the KameHame Ha that was named by his wife when he was thinking undecisive how should the technoque from Roshi.'" This is not a grammatically correct sentence. And the heading I wrote is a command or an order--that's an acceptable sentence structure in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.60.161.100 (talk) 22:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes but it sounds rude.Tintor2 (talk) 23:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Anon-IP, if you find it to be incorrect grammar, why not just fix it, instead of demanding/ordering people to fix it on the talk page in such a rude fashion? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the article is semi-protected due to vandalism.Tintor2 (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, true, but still could have been phrased better. And I believe you tagged it before this message was posted, so it wasn't even necessary. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

"Kamehameha" or "KameHame Ha"?
What spelling do we use? It appears that the one with the source (this very article) gives "KameHame Ha". However, most Dragon Ball-related pages say Kamehameha. Which is correct? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Kamehameha :).--SkyWalker (talk) 08:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Freezer a saiyan?
there is a horrible mistake in the article, it says "Goku's father discovered that the Saiyan Frieza was planning to kill all to the other Saiyans" in the specials section, and well if you even just look at images of freezer you would notice the mistake, the editing is diasabled or at least I can't edit this page so please staff people edit that mistake


 * Then fix it.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry did not read the disabled part.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed it.--SkyWalker (talk) 08:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding anime being combined with this
Why? Is the anime not noteworthy? Is there not enough material specific to the anime to fill a reasonable length of an article? What of other animated television shows based on comics? Is X-men's cartoon not worthy of it's own article? What about Spider-man's multiple animated iterations? Why is it that Dragon Ball the cartoon doesn't deserve an article set aside from Dragon Ball the comic? I read a bit of it above there, and it seems like it was basically combined simply because the existing article about the anime was garbage. Why do this then? Wouldn't the better choice be to chop off the garbage rather than kill the beast entirely? Wouldn't it be better to cut out the crap in the anime's article and leave it as a stub so that things could be rebuilt more respectably? 24.192.245.23 (talk) 20:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Dragon Ball is not a comic, nor a cartoon. Per the anime and manga project MoS, we do not have separate articles for each media form of a series just because they exist. It has nothing to do with being "noteworthy" or not, but the lack of a need for redundancy. Most manga with anime adaptations, or visa versa, are just different forms of the same story. Unlike many American adaptations which often vastly change the story, characters, etc. For an anime and manga series to have separate articles, the versions must be significantly, sharply different. There is none of that between the Dragon Ball manga and its anime series. There is no reason not to cover them in the same article when its the same plot, same characters, same production information, etc. This is done with all anime/manga articles. What the comic project chooses to do is up to articles in their sphere and with their MoS, but they have nothing to do with this article at all.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Dragonball
OK, I just had a thought. This is currently a redirect to Dragon Ball right? While hatnoting a link to the upcoming movie would be appropriate, I was thinking that it may be a good idea to instead move Dragonball (film) to this title. Any thoughts on the subject? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...my only problem there is that the redirect has been around since 2004, pointing here since 2005, indicating to me that it is a very common misspelling of the series name. As such, it seems like most people putting in Dragonball would be looking for this rather than the film. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess. Let's see what everyone else thinks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with AnmaFinotera. It is more likely people typing in "Dragonball" are looking for the manga or the TV show. A hatnote would be better.--Nohansen (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not a misspelling of the name at all. It can be spelled either way, if you look at the Kanzenban volumes of "Dragon Ball" it appears to actually be spelled as "Dragonball". Ja? The same with "Nekomajin". : ) —  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "For the live action film based on the series see Dragonball (film)"?Tintor2 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright then, I'll put up this hatnote: . Any suggestions beforehand? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Done ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Dragon ball worldwide
Should the article have a section about the impact dragon ball made worldwide? Ricardoread (talk) 00:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's what the reception section is for. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Merger of Dragon Ball (artifact) article here
This is a good idea, since it eliminated a permanent stub article, and adds a bit more information to this one. The Dragon Balls article will not stand on its own since it doesn't have many reliable sources, so this is a good option to keep some of the information. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. That article may never survive an AFD and reception is not available since the focus of the reviews are fights, characters, etc.Tintor2 (talk) 22:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not merge Dragon Ball (artifact) with Earth (Dragon Ball). That way we don't have to make this Godzilla sized garbage dump of an article any bigger, and can keep the valuable information from both stubs.-- Koji †  22:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Earth (Dragon Ball) has the same problems.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Koji. Let's just merge these and see how it pans out. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Support with some heavy trimming. Most of what's there is excessive plot detail that isn't necessary here at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose The Dragon Ball (artifact) article is an article with lots of information, and very relevant to Dragon Ball. Why don't we merge Wolverine with X-men? --FixmanPraise me 23:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The flippin' article has two things on it. That compared to the Wolverine article are very different, as Wolverine ia a huge Marvel character has enough reliable sources to have it's own article. —  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 00:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * To be blunt, it can be merged, or it will very likely follow Earth (Dragon Ball) to deletionville. And the article doesn't have "lots of information" it has lots of plot, OR, and fancruft. Nor does a pretty easily explainable fictional element compare to a well-known fictional character with decades of history. Beyond an apples and oranges comparison there. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * merge-- FUNK A MATIC  23:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkamatic (talk • contribs)


 * Do Not Merge Honestly this shouldn't even have to be discussed at all. Killa Koz (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"Dragon Ball Z The New Special"
Here and here

I just discovered this on YouTube. It seems that it has stemmed from this website:

Here

I don't know anything about it. Think it's worth mentioning in the article? Chiefmartinez (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you were unaware, there is a page for that one, see Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!!. I think it's worth mentioning, yeah. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mid-importance?
Really? I was surprised when I saw that, then checked the article and found the header talking about how influential and popular this series is. Isn't it at least high-importance? Brutannica (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. The Wikiproject Anime/Manga defines Mid Importance as "[This] article is relatively important as it fills in some more specific knowledge of certain areas." Dragon Ball qualifies as specific knowledge. The next step up would be something like History of anime, which covers a more general area.-- Koji †  15:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, but gundam is a high-importance article....Ricardoread (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But Gundam has had a lasting impact decades after it was initially released by transforming the mecha genre. Dragon Ball hasn't had much of a lasting impact beyond its initial popularity. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Could I refute this if I could prove it's the most popular animated show worldwide?-- FUNK A MATIC  23:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Popularity has very little to with importance. Popularity, via commercial success, will only get the series up to mid-importance. It takes considerably more then popularity to get any higher in the importance scale. --Farix (Talk) 23:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true, but at the same time, the Dragon Ball series has had a fair bit of influence on the manga that has come after it. Naruto and One Piece for example draw heavily on the character of Goku. There have been references to the Dragon Ball series in many other manga as well. Admeister200x (Talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC).

Manga and Anime Differences
There are actually a surprising amount of differences between the two even the english adapted and now censored manga is different from the Anime.

Gohans attack masenko, is never named and used about once. Many filler characters such as Icarus, Trunks special actually contradicting the one shot issue "The history of Trunks" manga The anime insinuates that Kuririn and Yamcha etc stop training after they become outclassed, which is not true. ( the dailogue during the 'saiyaman saga'actually is changed to say this even though its not in the manga. The ONLY cannon bit of animation is "Bardock the father of Goku" because it contradicts nothing AND has APPROVAL and characer designs by Toriyama and his assistant. The anime even insinuates that chibi Gohan has surpassed Kuririn long before he has. Freiza doesnt say the planet will explode in five minutes and the fight is far quicker anyway. HUGE chunks of filler because the anime was made faster then the manga all of which are non cannon (and crap but thats by the by) An ENTIRE SAGA -garlic junior- did not happen. The Dragonball anime continues after the torunament and shows the wedding. There is not even a paragraph mentioning anything. In fact the stare downs and slow progression of the ANIME is the FRANCHISES biggest criticism, its not fair on the manga or accurate not to mention its much more fast paced.

If someone came onto this page as a layman they would think there was not much difference and that the anime was not utter shit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.34.148 (talk • contribs) 09:11, January 6, 2009


 * Those are all relatively minor differences, and not SIGNIFICANT enough for separate articles. There isn't a single anime adaptation that is exactly the same as its manga source at all, they all have at least some minor differences. Filler is irrelevant (as if the view of some fans of that filler). A sourced differences section is needed, but in summary, not with that kind of minute list of insignificant differences. As for the reception not being balanced, by all means feel free to provide reliable sources discussing those criticisms (note, reliable, not fansites, blogs, etc). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont really liek the merge
I dont honestly like the merge. DBZ is way more....than the lil section it was given —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramount X (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I dont honestly liek when people keep brunging up the same conversation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jump Guru (talk • contribs) 18:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC) —  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 18:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we should re-open the discussion, and it should be left open for an extended period so more people's opinions can be expressed. I check up on the site now and then (twice a month on average) and I was very surprised to find the articles merged.--  FUNK A MATIC  23:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkamatic (talk • contribs)


 * What's wrong with the way it is now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It will not be changed, period. The merge was per consensus and in compliance with Wikipedia guidelines and the WP:MOS-AM. The only reason people have given to split them is they want DBZ to have its own article in a non-neutral desire to give their own favorite series a seemingly higher relevance than it really has. However, you can NOT separate the story into chunks just because you like one over the other. The entire series is notable, as a whole, and it is the same series. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Stop reverting these and talk to me, I think I removed everything you would consider "vandalism." This article doesen't have as much information as it did about Dragonball Z and GT as they did when they were sperate. I'm sure many of the people here that oppose the merge were not even aware of it and would like a chance to try to change it back instead of you just telling everyone "It will not be changed, period." 24.77.221.155 (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * There is nothing to talk about. It won't be changed. Consensus was clear and remains clear, despite a few IPs and non-editors complaining from a fan standpoint rather than an actual Wikipedia standpoint. This article has MORE real, sourced information about the entire series than the separate ones di, not less. Does it have less fancruft and ridiculously long plot descriptions? Of course, because that doesn't belong here anyway. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Besides, "everyone's" comment is the same. It's always just "why the f■■k did you change the page you d■mmy he■d" and "Ung, all people who edit wikipeadia r gay nowadayus!". : P —  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 00:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is the first I've checked here in months. I was redirected here from "Dragon Ball Z", where I was hoping to find a list of references to it in popular culture. From what I remember of the separate articles, they did include significantly more information specific to each media adaptation. Perhaps a bit crufty, but I think too much information is preferable to too little, especially here where space is not an issue. I won't be staying around here to fight for a return to separate articles, just to make a suggestion to the regulars that you put the quality of information above dogmatic ideas about how it ought to be organized.


 * Collectonian and others, keep in mind that the strength of an argument does not rely on the status of the person making it. I have a Wikipedia account, but I usually edit without logging in for convenience. Does not logging in make my argument less valid? If not, why antagonize other IP editors? As legalistic as you seem to be, I shouldn't have to remind you to assume good faith.129.137.150.164 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That "list of references to in popular culture" was completely unsourced, meaning no one could say for sure if it was even real. You want to come here and find false or unverified information? That isn't the purpose of Wikipedia at all. No, space isn't an issue, but verifiability is. Despite what you seem to think, we HAVE put the quality of the information first, except we put it above the quantity and fan desires, rather than above "dogmatic ideas about how it ought to be organized" which has nothing to really do with it. If the information had actually been good information, it would still be here with the rest. The merging lost no verifiable information. And you lose your good faith by continuing to pepper your remarks with personal insults. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)


 * References of the type I was looking for are their own source, and I was planning to track them down myself with a list here as a guide. WP:V says, "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged...", and in this case, I don't think references in popular culture need additional verification beyond simply existing. They may have problems with notability, but that's another issue.


 * We seem to have different ideas about how information improves Wikipedia. I think it's better to have unsourced, fan-written, crufty information than little or none if everything must be sourced before inclusion. I think this because the fluid nature of Wikipedia is widely known, so anyone wanting solid evidence for something would at be looking for other sources too. Conversely, someone casually looking for information that interests them doesn't necessarily need the same quality of information. An unsourced statement would probably be helpful in the second case, and not harmful in the first. This is only my opinion, of course, and citations should obviously be added when sources are known.


 * My dictionary defines dogmatic as "inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true". This criticism was directed mostly at you, Collectonian. You have made a number of statements like, "It will not be changed, period," "There is nothing to talk about. It won't be changed," and several similar ones here and in archived discussions. This was the only remark intended for you personally, and was an observation, not an insult. Regardless, it is not your place to judge my intentions. I'm assuming that you also want to improve Wikipedia, and I'm calling attention to something that I think may be causing problems. My "legalistic" comment is similar in purpose, but not directed at you specifically. Wikipedia policies and rules are not ends themselves, but means to the end of maintaining and improving Wikipedia's value as an encyclopedia. If they produce results that many people seem to have problems with, the process should be reexamined. WP:Ignore all rules exists for a reason, after all. In the context of this discussion, this obviously relates to the merging of a number of Dragon Ball-related articles and the accompanying loss of information. Regardless of how well this process followed Wikipedia and the anime/manga project standards, and how much work you put into it, talk page comments suggest that I'm not alone in finding the current version lacking. Therefore, I think some changes are due. 71.65.89.64 (talk) 05:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, looks like even after all this time Collectonian continues to use the words unverified and unverifiable as though they are interchangeable. Sorry, anon, but this particular corner of Wikipedia is currently an oligarchy.  If you want DB info, the place to go is the Dragon Ball wiki.  It was in a shambles until this whole mess started over here a few months ago, at which time a massive number of disgruntled editors started migrating over from Wikipedia.  It's been a hard few months, but things are beginning to shape up over there.  Wish I could say the same thing has happened here. 72.160.104.171 (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I entered "Dragon Ball" for general information regarding the television series--and I got it, somewhat--but was dismayed at the general lack of information on a topic with the breadth of the Dragon Ball universe. That there exist virtually no sub-pages of the topic outside of a half dozen or so character bios is downright shocking, and I'm pressed to recall Wikipedia compressing a similarly sized fictional universe to this degree. I don't promise to have the answers, but, speaking as a casual passerby and not someone embroiled in what was obviously a heated debate, "something" is sorely missing from this article. To squash into one article something that consumes over 500 televisions episodes, almost 20 movies, 500+ manga chapters, and an ever growing list of video games seems like a hopeless pursuit.


 * In fact, I don't even think this article serves its purpose as a "fancruft free" reference as it is just too dense for the uninitiated to grasp. The "Anime Sequel" section is completely unreadable. It's the same as attempting to explain the entire arc of The Hobbit + Lord of the Rings in 50 words. In "Themes" I expected to read about the drastically changing scope of art (from chubbies to roidies), mood (from gags to body bags), and story arcs (from three in one season to three seasons for one story) but instead got some thinly veiled editorializing.


 * I instead stumbled upon the Dragon Ball Wiki, which, while somewhat raw, had some of the specific information I sought. Curious that it is not linked to here. I understand the desire of some in Wikipedia to restrain the expansion of fictional universes, but I don't understand the apprehension to guide visitors to specialized repositories that most likely contain the information sought. No, Flash-ed up promotional sites pushing Happy Meals and trading cards aren't the answer. I thought Wikipedia was about information, not advertising. Whelkman (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It fails WP:EL - it has no history of factual accuracy, stability, or any other validity. The Dragon Ball wiki is a fansite, nothing more. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just because it "has no history of factual accuracy, stability, or any other validity," doesn't mean the information there isn't accurate; and just because it's "a fansite, nothing more," doesn't mean it's not informative or useful. I haven't seen it, but based on what I've read of it here, it probably gives more of the information that people are after than the article we have here. Having possibly inaccurate information which could be improved later is better than omitting everything that's unverified. And on that subject, Collectonian has said that this article is better simply because it isn't filled with unsourced or unverified information as, from what I've read, the previously split articles were. But I disagree. I believe that it's better for everyone to gather up as much information as possible -- inaccurate or not (as long as the inaccuracies are due to misunderstanding, false assumptions, etc. rather than outright lying or pure garbage) -- because the unsourced, the unverified, and the downright crap could always be improved/deleted later. But if that information isn't allowed to be included at all for the sake of accuracy, then there won't be anything to improve. As an example, I think it would be better for someone to write the inaccurate statement that "Goku is X", and then have someone later come in and replace it with the accurate statement -- with a source -- that "Goku is Y", than to not say anything about Goku at all simply because you don't have a source. If someone writes something inaccurate in an article, then that prompts readers to correct the mistake; but if it's not there at all, then there goes your prompt -- out of sight, out of mind. NoriMori (talk) 02:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * For fans, I'm sure it is informative and useful, but it has nothing to do with Wikipedia. People want to find it, they have Google. It is not a reliable source and it fails WP:EL. This has, again, been discussed repeatedly. And sorry, but the idea of just filling an article with unsourced, unverifiable stuff is just the plain wrong attitude to bring to Wikipedia. It goes against the core guidelines and policies here, including WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:WAF. This is not the place for rumors, guesses, and personal opinions. If its worthy of inclusion in an article, it will be verifiable through reliable sources, or it doesn't belong. That isn't negotiable here per the very essence of what Wikipedia is: an encyclopedia not a fansite. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No matter what insults get flung at the DB wiki, at least there's something there to improve. And some of the editors who have been driven over there have been doing just that, rewriting the articles and adding references to doubted statements. The wiki isn't going to transform overnight, but work has been moving steadily and it will happen eventually. Rome wasn't built in a day, and having an "it better be perfect or I'm deleting it" attitude isn't conducive to a functional wiki. I'm of the opinion that an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic first and foremost, and properly styled second. Obviously my opinion differs from that of Collectonian and her little band of deletionists, but that's why I rarely visit this part of Wikipedia anymore. If administration has become so conceited that it can no longer acknowledge that dozens of continuing complaints mean something's not right, then it's time to make some changes in that department. I know it won't happen any time soon; power and nepotism have corrupted those in a position to do anything about it, but there's no point in giving people false hope that the situation here is salvageable right now. People interested in finding a usable source of DB info are better off looking elsewhere. 66.112.78.75 (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not an advertisement, if parts articles are advertising then that "information" should be deleted. Advertising is against Wikipedia's rules. About DB Wiki, you see, if it's created by a fan, it's a fan site, very simple logic. Maybe if it gets up to the point as to it meets Wikipedia's standards, then maybe it will be linked, but most likely a no. I don't think you're getting teh whole idea of what Wikipedia is all about: Wikipedia is not a website where fan can just put every detail about about Star Wars or Spider-Man or what ever the crap, it's a encyclopedia that experts use reliable sources to describe the topic. In Encyclopædia Britannica, I don't think that they gathered a bunch of fans to write about Dragon Ball inside of and especially don't think taht they mentioned fan sites and other unofficial sites in the articles. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 02:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

With all do respect, What the f**k are you thinking?
Thre is Dragon Ball the manga, Dragon Ball the anime, Dragon Ball Z the anime and Dragon Ball GT the anime. They are different stuff and they should each have it's own article. If we do this then we are going to have to merge all Transformer articles together and all the Pokemon articles together. I am completly against wikipedia "responsable" users turning well written articles into basic ideas that take all the interest and joy of reading out of it.

I suggest splitting the articles into their former glory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.127.66 (talk • contribs) 19:17, September 23, 2008


 * I suggest signing your posts.-- Koji Dude  (C) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Dragon Ball is about the franchise. Individual articles for the different anime adaptations and spin-offs could be created, but there is little difference between the series, so it is best to just keep them merged and create one really good page rather than a bunch of half-baked ones. --erachima talk 00:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * "create one really good page rather than a bunch of half-baked ones." Since the merger, this article has gone from Start-Class to— *gasp!* Start-Class!!-- Koji Dude  (C) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And your point is? That doesn't mean it has not been improved (that assessment was done in August). It is closer to the C side than it was before. :P It is better sourced than it was, though it needs more. No one seems to be ready to help with the work left to do that could get this really going, unfortunately. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * We are not getting back into this discussion! –  J U M P G U R U   ■TALK■ 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This merger is awful. Each series should have it's own article since there is so much to be said about each one. So much has been lost in this merger and now all we are left with is cliffnotes and abrigdments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Geez, this article is horrid. Next time a consensus is reached to merge an article, it should at least make sense. Next we should merge every article that has a movie and book counterpart...  Wikipedia seems to be run by a bunch of idiots... ugh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.1.176 (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * We are not idiots... ugh. If it's anyone who's the idiot it's you. IP's like you have no respect for real users who are actually trying to make this an article. Notice how the rating went from a "Start" to a "B" class. —  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 00:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the header Collectonian!! I just couldn't help but do that!! \(>o<)/ —  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * :P -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE re-spilt the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Not without a compelling reason. --Farix (Talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)\


 * How is this, Because Dragon Ball Z is more notable than Dragon Ball. Because of this, this page needs to be moved to Dragon Ball Z.  But this isn't an accurate representation of the franchise, to just have DBZ as a page for the whole thing.  Besides, Dragon Ball has enough notariety by itself.  I move for a discussion about this.  It really is ridiculous.--  FUNK A MATIC  23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That is only your personal opinion and does not reflect actual reality. Dragon Ball Z is PART of Dragon Ball, it is not a separate series nor does it have enough notability on its own to justify any kind of split. Both are fully and properly being covered in a single article, as is appropriate. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you would read the article, Collectonian, you'd find that they actually ARE separate series. And having them all merged into one makes it too long without going into enough detail for each respective series. Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z are both extremely long, as well as extremely popular, series -- and they demand and deserve their own articles. "...nor does it have enough notability on its own to justify any kind of split." Well, I think that I'll quote you again in saying, "That is only your personal opinion and does not reflect actual reality." Also, I don't agree that each series is "fully and properly being covered in a single article..." If you look at articles written about other series, you'd find that a lot more could be said about both Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z. The article for Cardcaptor Sakura -- an anime which, as far as series length, quails in comparison to either DB or DBZ on their own -- is longer than the sections for DB, DBZ, and DBGT combined. Also worth noting is that the original series Cardcaptor Sakura, and the adaptation Cardcaptors, are separate articles. Bottom line, this article is way too long, without doing each series justice. I fully support a split. NoriMori (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I have read the article, I wrote large chunks of it, but thanks anyway. They are NOT separate series, they are the same series, period. They do not" demand nor deserve their own articles. They are the same series, and nothing "deserves" anything here. Sure, you could write a whole book about the series, that doesn't mean it all belongs here. And, as FYI, Cardcaptors is being merged into Cardcaptor Sakura, just hasn't been done yet. The articles will NOT be resplit, nor is the article "too long". -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then I think you need to read it over again, because the article clearly says that they ARE separate series. And it's really a moot point anyway, as their status as either one series or separate series doesn't really affect whether they should be split or not. "They do not" demand nor deserve their own articles. They are the same series, and nothing "deserves" anything here." You really enjoy making your personal opinions look like gospel, don't you? When I say "demand" I mean that splitting them would make them more readable and would make people feel less reserved about the amount of information they decide to add. When I say "deserve" I mean that they are each long enough and notable enough to warrant having their own articles. And the fact remains that Cardcaptor Sakura is not even half as long as either DB or DBZ, but the article for it is still longer than the three sections for DB, DBZ, and DBGT combined. "...nor is the article "too long"." Wow, that whole "My opinion is fact" thing really gets on the nerves. I think it's too long, is that better? I wouldn't have a problem with it being so long, if it did each "series" justice, but I really don't think it does (and there are lots of people on this page who seem to agree). The combination of the length of the article and the lack of information makes it too wearisome. I guess instead of "long," the word I meant to use was "wearisome". It feels too long. Or rather, giving each "series" the attention it "deserves" would make it too long. Too cumbersome. I guess that's the word. It's a cumbersome article. There's too much to cover for there to be just one article. As I said before, I fully support a split. And Collectonian, if you're going to reply to this, can you try to be a bit more polite, a bit less aggressive, and a bit more...open? And a bit less...overbearing...totalitarian...or something? Seriously, I'm not trying to be insulting or cheeky or anything like that, I'm just asking, because your attitude just blows me away. NoriMori (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, considering your attitude in your first post in this topic, please do not turn around and attempt to lecture me on mine (and stick to the issues, not the editors). And no, there is nothing to be open about. The article clearly says they are the same series, with different names for some releases. Project consensus agreed that they ARE the same series, and that they should NOT have separate articles per the guidelines governing anime/manga articles. Again, the article is NOT too long. It is only slightly longer that Tokyo Mew Mew, a featured level article on a much shorter series. And none of its extra length comes from excessive content or the need to spit. Plot isn't too long, production is a nice healthy length. The anime section needs tightening up, but again, it isn't so long it needs splitting (nor would it be a valid split). Reception section actually could be expanded a bit. The article as a whole is far better than any of the splits originally were, with good summary stile sections. People should be reserved about the information they add. This is not a series guide, its an encyclopedia, its here to provide a summary, not an in-depth guide. The article is fine. It needs final clean up, it needs sourcing, it does not need to be ripped apart so fans can cruft it all up again. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think combining all 3 animes, 2 manga series, and all the other stuff makes this article cluttered. Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.224.229 (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Personally, I think it makes this article look awesome. Is your vision of un-cluttered, a really weak article with little to no sources, and one gigantic cluttered pop-cuture section, and boat-load of original research what you see as a non-cluttered article? This page was completely ignored before and the Dragon Ball Z page was the most cluttered thing of all. You're just trying to make excuses. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 04:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we try to see if consensus still supports the merge or seperation? I have read the article in its current state and found it to be severely deficient. Also, it seems as if the articles were merged because of annoyance with fans, not because they actually needed a merge. Metalb (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See the note at the top of the page. The only people calling for a split are fans wanting more plot info, which isn't going to happen. The merges were not done because of annoyances with fans, but because per our guidelines, separate articles were neither appropriate no necessary. This article is not "deficient" unless you are looking for excessive amounts of plots, for which there is a Dragon Ball wikia and plenty of fansites. Closing as this is going nowhere slowly. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

First US Dragon Ball game
Sorry to break it to whoever wrote that, but the first Dragon Ball game released in the United States was not a GBA game. The first Dragon Ball game released in the United States was in fact Dragon Ball GT: Final Bout for the Sony PlayStation in 1997, It was just reissued in 2004. A few years before the GBA game.--Ashitaka96 undefined 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Source? -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Done.Tintor2 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tintor2 and to Collectonian. For one look at the Final Bout article, two a quick search on the internet, as Tintor2 obviously did, will prove it. Whoever thought a GBA game was the first DB game to be released in the US obiously hasn't been fan very long. I never owned the US verison, but I did rent it back in the day. Before the GBA was released. I do own a Japanese import of it.--Ashitaka96 undefined 18:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * What about Dragon Power for the NES, released in 1988? Whelkman (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He has a point, Dragon Power was released even before the Dragon Ball series was released in the States. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The best I can see on that hideous video game list, Dragon Power was first being released in 1986. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, and yes that list has some major issues and hygiene problems. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I should say, 1988 US release. Whelkman (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep...that seems to be the first for both countries. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the first Dragon Ball game in the US was Dragon Power for the NES. --VitasV (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Technique named after a butterfly?
I recently found out that "Kamehameha" -- a technique in the DB franchise -- is also the name of a species of butterfly (Vanessa tameamea). If you look up "Kamehameha" on Wikipedia it'll show you other things called that, too (mostly related to Hawaii). So I came to this article to find out if the name of the technique is related to the butterfly, or any of the other things called "Kamehameha", but it didn't say (as far as I know -- I didn't read it in great detail). It just says that it was the only technique that Akira Toriyama didn't come up with himself -- his wife suggested it. Does anyone know where she got the idea for that name? If anyone is able to confirm the origin of the name as far as this technique goes, I think it would be nice if that information could be included in this article. Just a thought. :) NoriMori (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That's original research without a source, so no, it should not be added. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but he never explained it. Erudecorp ? * 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's obviously a pun on the Kamehameha kings, "kame" / "turtle", and "ha" / "wave". The butterfly connection is extremely far-fetched. Erigu (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been explained. His wife got the idea after hearing about King Kamehameha I. I thought we all knew that--it's Dragon Ball 101.--124.40.63.122 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Kai
Toei has announced in Jump that a new Dragon Ball series is coming in April. It has an official title and Logo now, Dragon Ball Kai. The best explanation for what it is, is that it's an HD Directors Cut Of DBZ. what's known is scarce, but it will be edited to "Focus more on the action" and that, to some capacity, it will be redrawn over the old animation, but what exactly will be redrawn and to what extent is entirely unknown, and all of the original Japanese Voice actors (sans the ones who've died) will be coming back to re-voice their characters. The opening theme will also be "Renewed", though what that means exactly isn't known. Even though little is known, it IS coming out, that's been confirmed, so it should be mentioned here at Wiki. Also, Toei is treating it like a new series as far as Organization goes, it's being called "Dragon Ball Kai" "ドラゴンボール改　「カイ」" Kai, meaning "Rnewed" or "Redone", so it should also be given it's own section instead of being lumped in with DBZ. Here's the source of the info while this is the source of the new title  DemonRin (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not a new series, but a digitally remastering of DBZ for HDTV. It's worth mentioning in the DBZ section, but it doesn't deserve its own section. --Farix (Talk) 12:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * They're also Recutting it to "Focus more on the Action", and "Updating" the old animation with new technology not to mention the Audio is being completely re-recorded and redone, and Toei is actually designating it with a completely Different title, Dragon Ball Kai.  Why would it get a New title if they werent considering it a new series?  Why not "Shin Dragon Ball Z" or something?  why remove the Z? DemonRin (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Marketing. But given one of the meanings of Kai is "Updated" its not really much of a title change. Nor does a title change always denote a new series. --Farix (Talk) 13:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if it's "Just Marketing" or what, but Toei is, in fact, giving it an entirely new name complete with a new Logo. since it's being recut to "Focus more on the action", it will obviously also have a different episode count and episode titles. You can't just write that off. I'm not talking writing a book about it, just one new setion in the (=) right under GT for organization's sake, and like a very small paragraph.DemonRin (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not a new series at this point. It doesn't need a new section, or anything else. It should just be mentioned in the Dragon Ball Z section as a new remastered series. Unless and until it is actually released with better sources clarifying what it is, that is all it needs. And remastered series have been given new titles before, it isn't a major deal. Its title isn't even new, just noting "Redone." --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 15:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, can it be added to the end of DBZ then, and just given the new title bolded at least sine Toei IS giving it a new name? Then, when April 5th Rolls around and we see a completely Recut series with new Episode titles listed in the Japanese Newtype under the new name, can we change it?DemonRin (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The title doesn't need to be bolded either. Considering it isn't being released till April, this seems like a lot of future telling. At most a 1-2 sentence line noting it was announced is all that is needed. Neither source actually supports your claim that it is a new series with new episodes, only that they have remastered it for HD, replaced the opening/endings, and had the actors redo the vocals. This has been done in other releases, and it is not treated separately unless it is significantly different. Its a 20th anniversary thing, so I seriously doubt they actually changed the story or anything else, only "cleaned it up" and made use of new technologies to make it look better. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 23:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We now have confirmation that the entire series' Story is being recut and restructured to make it more "Speedy" and make it line up to the Manga better. This guarantees a new Episode count and listing. The source is VJump http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/qq29/kei17/kai_high.jpg DemonRin (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It doesn't guarantee anything until it airs. It also still doesn't mean it needs another listing, particularly when it still has not aired yet. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * We're not working under a deadline, DemonRin. It won't hurt to wait and see how exactly this release unfolds before adding the information on it (but that also doesn't mean that you should refrain from posting updates here; they'll help sort it all out and source it when the release does happen). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew that if I added the information to DBK that it would get removed. Look all the stuff I added was what was confirmed by Toei and Shueisha (Weekly Shonen and V Jump). I never add mights and maybes on the grounds they confuse people. So I don't understand why removing confermed information from an article just because a bunch of editor could agree on the COA. Sarujo (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It does not need its own section at this time. It hasn't even begun airing, and right now its relying primarily on people's presumptions of what is and is not going to happen (not fully supported by the sources). Intentional or not, it is being presumed its a completely new series rather than a "remix." A redo, even with a new soundtrack, does not necessarily need another section. An appropriate length note has already been added to the article. Beyond that nothing more is really needed until it actual begins airing or more specifics are given. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * But what I added was not presumptions they were facts from Toei and Shueisha. I will admit it is a remix, but the new project is best suited instead of new series. It not like 2003 Astro Boy, New Super Android Cutey Honey, 2007 GeGeGe no Kitaro or those Dr. Slumps shows. It's more like the special edition of the Star Wars Trilogy, as Toei just cut corners and made DBZ HD friendly. Sarujo (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Which means it needs a newer section even less necessary than before. Again, until it airs in April, I don't see what the rush is. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 03:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Look I'm just upset that all that hard work I put into finding the reliable information is being rejected rather than incorperated into the place that everyone feels is appropriate. I thought I was doing a good thing. My findings came from the Jump magazines with one instance of ANN. The whole point of my adds was to removed all the speculation with bonified facts that was give from the bigwigs. Sarujo (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if you ended up doing unnecessary work to repeat what was already in the article, but the truth is all the pertinent info was already there and sourced to reliable sources based on the same magazine articles. I have added back the one statement in your version that was not already in the article with its source (with the reference mostly fixed - still needs the real title). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, it probably will do well to have a small section for it beneath the Dragon Ball Z section, namely because it's already been confirmed by V-Jump that it'll be re-edited to more closely follow the manga, and the audio will be almost completely redone and at the very least, the opening/ending themes are being completely remade. Regardless, probably the most notable thing is that upcoming Dragon Ball Z products are already being remarketed as Dragon Ball Kai products, namely Dragon Ball Z Story, which has been renamed Dragon Ball Kai: Saiyan Invasion. However, at this point, there's no need to rush things. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That last sentence regarding Dragon Ball Kai:

"A report in V Jump indicates that the episodes would be edited to more closely follow the manga, resulting in a faster moving story, and to remove."

I don't get the "to remove". Is it pertaining to filler content? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, as that isn't confirmed really. It was supposed to say "to remove damaged frames" from Sarujo's earlier edits, so fixed. :) -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To be more precise, their removing those flubs that appeared in painted cells. Dust, scratches, blotches, and the all too common "shakey camera syndrome". I wonder if their also going to fix those coloring flubs. Sarujo (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't if this is any helpful at this point but on the official website as seen here. if you highlight the new logo the following message appears:


 * "Dragon Ball Z" broadcast start 20th aniversary comemoration! To use up-to-date digital technology, Z legend revives with TV animation!! "Dragon Ball Kai" April 5, 2009 9:00 at the Fuji Telecasting Co. series broadcasting start!! (C) Bird Studio/Shueisha Publishing Co., Ltd & Fuji Telecasting Co., Toei Co., Ltd. animation

The website blog or Topics is boasting even further of new songs which will premire at the Tokyo International Anime Fair on March 20th and the vocalist will also make an appearance. Sarujo (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Their will never be enough info to warrant it's own article, the info should be merged with the DBZ section (don't know why DBZ doesn't have its own article, each of the 3 DB series has more than enough info and notability to warrant their own article and I think they should go back to separate articles).  TJ   Spyke   00:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That bad attempt at making an article has already been redirected here. A new editor who had no clue what he was doing. Any no, none of the articles have "enough" info to warrant separate articles and the whole "OMG, split them back" has been discussed to death. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Dragon Ball Z alone is notable enough to warrant its own article and finding reliable sources would be a cinch. The next time their is a discussion to revert them back to their original states (separate articles instead of crammed all together), let me know since I will fully support it.  TJ   Spyke   01:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It has absolutely nothing to do with notability in this case. Per the anime/manga guidelines, they are all the same series, and are covered under one article. You might support a split, however the project has consistently and fully supported their merging, which is why they were merged. The separate articles were nothing but long plot summaries that have no place here. This article has far more real world information than ANY of the three standalones had. That is what Wikipedia is about, the real world info, not 25 pages of plot summary. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the anime/manga project would consider them the same series (if they do), but that is ridiculous. They are part of the same canon, but are seperate series. It would be like trying to say Star Trek is just 1 long series rather than 5 separate series that are part of the same canon (there were 6 series, but the animated one is not considered canon).  TJ   Spyke   01:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * No, they are the same series. There is ONE manga series, one. The anime adaptations are based on that, except GT which is still related to it. They are all the same characters, same basic story, just a continuing advancing plot. That is why we have one character list, because it is all the same. This is applied to all anime/manga articles that have multiple adaptations, including renames/new names. Unless there are significant differences between adaptations, we do not consider them separate and they are all covered in a single article. Star Trek is separate series because they all have different primary characters and different focuses (and they are TV series, not anime/manga, which is a different set of guidelines). The only arguements generally made for splitting is people wanting to put in more plot summary (which isn't appropriate either way) or just loving Z and hating to acknowledge that its related to the rest for some odd reason I just can't fathom. It be like loving Star Trek TNG and wanting to deny Star Trek ever existed. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 01:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You have to realize that this article is not about the anime series, but the manga series. The anime adaptions are mentioned as part of the broader topic of the manga. The anime adaptations do not differ significantly from the manga storyline, so per WP:MOS-AM, they are covered by one article instead of having separate anime and manga articles. --Farix (Talk) 13:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never been saying DBK needs it's own ARTICLE, just it's own titled section of this Article like Z and GT have now. Also, we have a Commercial now, not only does Son's Voice say this, but the words "新番組" (Shin Ban Gumi) or "New TV series".  then Son (who narrates the CM) says "New TV series: Dragon Ball Kai Begins Next Month!"  They are flat-out calling it a New series, so can we just give it it's own section now? Totally not deserving of it's own article but it's own section maybe under Z now DemonRin (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, I don't think it needs a new section. There is little to say about it that isn't already said (and FYI, linking to copyright violating videos like that is a fast track to getting banned from editing, I'd suggest you remove it). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks... I guess then wait till it comes out. DemonRin (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with AnmaFinotera  on this one.  DBK doesn't have enougt notoriety.--  FUNK A MATIC      ~talk   20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Uhh...is there a reason you copied and pasted her signature? XD –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I speak for Funk, but I would do it because I'm too lazy to type it out (most of the time I'm not, surprise surprise), and/or I'm afraid of misspelling her username (once again, most of the time I'm not). 「ダイノ ガイ 千 ？！」(Dinoguy1000) 19:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason why I shouldn't,  J U M P G U R U  ? --  FUNK A MATIC      ~talk   15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, I was just joking. I thought it was funny that you actually went out of your way to copy and paste her signature. –  J U M P G U R U   ■ ask ㋐㋜㋗ ■ 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It was just anounced in Weekly Shonen Jump that DBK is getting two new theme songs. "Dragon Soul" and "Yeah! Break! Care Break!" which will be performed by Tanimoto Takayoshi. Sarujo (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So is Dragon Ball Kai getting added otherwise I might add it in! --VitasV (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It is already added under Dragon Ball Z. Said statements already notes that it was getting new openings. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 00:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, but the question that alot of people were asking was, would there new theme songs or remasters of "Cha-La Head-Cha-La" and "Detekoi Tobikiri Zenkai Power!". Since it was uncertain prior to my above statement. But now it is definitely confirmed. It has also been anounced on the DBK website that Shunsuke Kikuchi will "not" be composer. Instead, Kenji Yamamoto will be composer on this project. Yamamoto, as some of you may recall, co-wrote many songs for DBZ and was acting composer for many of the Dragon Ball Z console video games. Sarujo (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I learned through what would be deemed unreliable source (I'm not going to lie) that each frame of this redone footage is done through what I call "digital tracing" over the excisting frame. Which is something that I myself could in my spare time on Photoshop for free. But to be more specific, their taking screenshot from maybe the negatives, digitally tracing new drawings, coloring these new "drawings" with a new pallet, and creating from scratch drawings to fill the widescreen ratio gap. As they gave away all their countless libraries of sketches and cell. So I get the same sensation on this project that I do everytime Bandai puts out another Dragon Ball video game. Same story, only with with a generationally relevant makeover. Sarujo (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, at what point was agreed to finally give DBK it's own section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarujo (talk • contribs) 14:33, April 14, 2009


 * It wasn't specifically...just got tired of dealing with it, and since it has started airing and is more specifically noted to be a "retelling using the same animation" figured might as well. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)