Talk:Dragon Ball Super: Broly

Broly article
Discussion to establish an article for Broly here. I think the creation of the article would be relevant to editors of this page. Nice4What (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Canon
this is also a warning because you are disruptively removing reliably sourced information from the article. The canon in every manga and anime is depending on whether is written by the original creator and in this case, by Akira Toriyama. The character is widely reported (for e.g. ) to be a re-working by Toriyama because it is 1) finally included in his official canon work 2) although initially designed by him, it was created by Takao Koyama whose Dragon Ball films are not considered as canon because Toriyama was not involved with the story 3) most probably the movie will be followed with manga and anime follow-up like it happened with the previous two films. Not to mention Wikipedia is edited according to RS, and not editors i.e. yours original research and personal opinion, hence edit summaries had invalid argumentation.--78.1.84.153 (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Are there any official sources proving that the other movies are not canon? The fact that the movies had a different writer does not objectively prove that they are not canon, and is in fact an opinion without any sort of official statement or sources to back it. --41.132.133.109 (talk) 12:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Canon is, what is part of the continuity of the story, the rules of the world and so on and has nothing to do with who created it. The brolymovies aren't never mentioned (outside of the trillog and a ova), doesn't fit into the timeline and so on, so no, they aren't part of the story and not part of the DB-canon, not just because toriyama didn't wrote them. --88.69.25.133 (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Plot
please stop adding too much unnecessary details to the plot section, also, removing reliable sources. The article had a WP:PLOTSUM i.e. WP:PLOTSUMNOT warning for a reason.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

no u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsbasicallyaidan (talk • contribs) 14:39, December 19, 2018 (UTC)
 * Please learn to use a signature when you finish your comment. Also, considering all three of you are new editors I advise you to read Wikipedian editing policy.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The way the plot is currently written is no good. According to WP:FILMPLOT, it needs to be between 400 and 700 words, and should avoid real-world details such as "the film takes place after" or "the film depicts" (removing this would bring it down to around 350). It also needs to be written in a fictional present tense, as further detailed in WP:FICTENSE. I'll be tagging the section for now. We should also consider removing the sources since the film is its own primary source, also as stated in WP:FILMPLOT; if not now, then when it has its North American release. User:SubZeroSilver (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The note is "are acceptable without reference... is not necessary... exceptions to the rule". The previous revision of the plot had issues with "avoid minutiae like dialogue, scene-by-scene breakdowns, individual jokes, and technical detail" (and was tagged with Template:Long plot). As the movie wasn't released in the West for the general public to see it cannot be used for now as a reliable primary source for verification. Perhaps there should be added some other info which is not too detailed to bring it to 400 words, but I don't know what info. The first two sentences could be easily moved to the LEAD as well. What would you add and change to the plot?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 07:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Citation style & Copyright & Box Office update
and other new Wikipedian editors, I advise you to read the basic editing policy and how to properly cite on Wikipedia (start from here Tutorial/Editing and Help:Editing) because if you continue to ignore the citation style used in the article and hence add references without proper citation style, as well issues with citing unreliable sources (like Twitter), then sorry, you there's a fine line before getting reported to the administrators. Your editing is making a mess which other experienced editors constantly have to fix.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, please stop copy-pasting the text from a source without quotation marks because of which you're making a serious WP:COPYRIGHT violation. Paraphrase the copyrighted text, don't copy-paste it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


 * The technical mumbo jumbo is beyond me. I can find the sources, I can plug them in and write it up but I'll have to leave it to someone else to tidy it up.


 * Why even bother? The gross just keeps up and you'll need a new reference within days of the last one anyway.Scabab (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why bother? It is too "technical"? Sorry, you're obviously not understanding and suitable for Wikipedian editing. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog or something else. You don't respect basic standard of editing. It is not others editors job to fix your laziness and ignorance in editing. For example in this update you removed a reference (!) and added a new one without a proper citaton style. In this you contradict the source(s) information (making WP:SYNTH/WP:OR claim). There's no urge for daily update of the gross per WP:RECENT (instead should be weekly), as well, you're not the only editor whose updating the article, and I'm warning you, you're not making it in a proper way and are only making other editors to waste more time than it is needed to fix it.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * if you again make such a disruptive edit, in which your summary is not a valid substantiation, after countless warnings, you will be reported to the admin's noticeboard. You started an WP:EDITWAR and instead should discuss your changes per WP:BRD here.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


 * There was no disruptive edit. The information is false. It says $54.3 million but then the reference given says $53.5 million right on it. It says it debuted in Latin America to $19.2 million...no, that was worldwide, nothing days that was just for Latin America.


 * You people are making edits with actually paying attention to the information on the pages. You're also removing the Ecuador gross despite that being given. That's what's disruptive.Scabab (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The references said $54.3 million, what are you talking about?! It is not the only reliable source to give that number.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop making OR/SYNTH daily updates (per WP:RECENTISM) which are not based on reliable secondary sources, also, the current number of $67.6 million is not substanitated by Box Office Mojo reference. Each claim on the article needs to be verified in the reference per WP:VERIFY.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I already warned you to stop making disruptive edits. There's no mention of $1.3 million raised in Ecuador in the reference, as for $53.5 million it contradicts , , !--Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

See this is why you shouldn't get involved because you're uninformed.

https://www.screendaily.com/box-office/aquaman-crosses-1bn-worldwide-update/5135754.article

"$1.3m in Ecuador"

There is no "contradiction". It was estimated to have made $54.3 million. The next day, as that same article clearly says it was updated and with actuals it did $53.5 million. If you don't know what you're on about, then why are you editing the page?Scabab (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is an obvious condradiction in reliable secondary sources. There was no estimation. That's WP:OR. You're the one who does not understand nor follow basic editing principles of Wikipedia. Stop making disruptive edits for which you didn't have any valid substantiation! You did not adress the issue I wrote. Do you understand that?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Box Office Mojo is currently not working (stating "We're in the process of updating the site right now. Try again in just a few minutes."), so your edit summary claim Box Office Mojo shows the movie at $70 million is bunk.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again the lack of knowledge is showing. It was already listed at $69.99 million BEFORE the update. Don't let your own ignorance get the in the way of information.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scabab (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I am not trusting your word, I cannot, that's not how we work on Wikipedia - the information must be verified in reliable sources. Until the update is finished the "new gross" won't be based on the source - the end. Only one whose showing ignorance is you with your violation of multiple editing policies. Learn how to edit on Wikipedia. I requested page protection.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no vandalism, the WP:VANDALISM on Wikipedia has nothing to do what you claim. Just stop making disruptive reverts, please, stop, per WP:BRD, anything, just stop...--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What you choose to trust is completely and utterly worthless, that's not how Wikipedia works. The only thing that matters are the facts. https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=dragonballzbroly.htm What gross does that say right there? Does that round up to $70 million? That is a yes or no question. Yes it does, I added in that information to the page and you continuously vandalised the page and removed factual information because you don't know any better and I do. You should not be editing this page because you are clueless on what you editing.Scabab (talk) 19:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, a beginner who obviously does not have a basic knowledge and understanding of Wikipedian editing policy should not make statements that "What you choose to trust is completely and utterly worthless" - it only confirmes you never read WP:RS. You don't make a WP:POINT revert for such a thing like a gross - there's no controversy and hurry to make that, and by the way, BOM link only now started to work, and no, $69.9 million is not $70 million because the second number cannot be verified in the source, what you claim is WP:SYNTH.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You've become irate. Box Office Mojo listed a gross of $69,989,291 which naturally rounds to $70.0 million. Despite this very clear fact, you still chose to vandalise the page multiple times by listing it's gross at $64.2 million despite that figure not being on Box Office Mojo.


 * Do not vandalise the page and replace factual information with your own false figures.Scabab (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How many times I have to tell you that link to Box Office Mojo did not work and per WP:VERIFY the gross of $69.9 million could not be verified by other editors, and that information cannot be based on editor's claim because of WP:OR? How many times I have to tell you that "vandalise" has nothing to do with Wikipedian WP:VANDALISM? Do you understand that? Have you read the WP:RS? Do you understand WP:WEIGHT? I did not add any false figure, that's another thing you made up.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No, don't lie. The link DID work, it was merely unaccessible as it was for every movie on Wikipedia for a matter of minutes while the entire site updates. Before and after the update, the same figure was given. You removed this figure entirely multiple times despite it being a legitimate source.


 * Because they stated a gross of $69.99 million and you repeatedly changed this to $64.2 million which was not it's gross and was not what was listed through the Box Office Mojo reference on the page, you were vandalizing the page. It had not grossed, nor did it say it had grossed the figure you out in. It grossed the figure that I put in and you removed it.


 * I put it $70.0 million because that was it's gross rounded up. I'll ask you again, yes or no does Box Office Mojo list the movie at $69.99 million or does it not? Either it does or it does not? If it does I was right and you were in the wrong.Scabab (talk) 20:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The link to BOM website did not work because of an update... The figure before the update was not cited on the article as well. The figure you and other editors made up could not be included in the article because it could not be verified in the source. That's the point to understand. I already wrote that the link to BOM website is not having the update issue anymore, but that does not make you right because that was not the point (WP:DONTGETIT). Also, the $54.3 million is based on Comscore and other reliable sources, stop disruptively removing them.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Compose yourself, updates happen every day on Box Office Mojo. An update is no reason to remove factual information from a page. You removed this information for the sake of a few minutes while the page updated because you were uninformed. This has nothing to do with your excuse now as you made clear on my talk page, you "didn't trust me". You removed factual information because of your own personal agenda. That is not how Wikipedia works. We don't care how you feel or what you believe. Only the facts are relevant. The $54.3 million figure was an ESTIMATE. An estimate given on Screendaily prior to them updating that figure the next day with $53.5 million. This was already explained to you. We don't need an out of date source if there is a newer one that gives the actuals instead. Why are you removing the actuals figures, which Box Office Mojo also meant by, and instead adding in estimated figures?Scabab (talk) 20:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It had nothing to do with trusting another editor...--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop backtracking, you already said "didn't trust me" so obviously it does have something to do with it. You removed what I included because you didn't trust what I'd put in only to back peddal when it turned I was yet again 100% right. You aren't an experienced editor, proven because you don't know what you're editing, youre ranting like a child and vandalising pages because of "trust". If there was no personal agenda you wouldn't have even mentioned the word trust. Legitimate sources are being added to the page and you're removing them. Stop vandilising.Scabab (talk) 20:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not backtracking, stop making up these lies. On Wikipedia we trust the reliable sources for claims, not editors - that's a fact. Your claim about personal agenda is made up. There are no "legitimate sources", only reliable or unreliable, and you are removing reliable sources and reliably sourced information. I am not doing that, you are. I am an experienced editor with over 2,600 edits, and you have only 278 edits. It speaks volumes. I am "ranting like a child" because I hate wasting my time on people who never read and are incapable of understanding basic editing policy of Wikipedia after multiple warnings and pleas.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You are back tracking because you did leave a message on my talk page about not trusting me. That is a personal agenda, don't lie.


 * Box Office Mojo is the most reliable source around for this kind of thing and yet you still removed the information that was listed on the site multiple times. That is vandilism. If they are giving a gross for the movie, then you do not remove that gross, that should not have to be explained.


 * Screen Daily is a legitimate source also and they stated it was at $53.5 million on the 14th of January and you also removed this information as well.


 * The information I removed was the estimated figures. Naturally if there are updated figures that give the actual gross then that is the gross that you list which is why I replaced the information and the source. You do not list estimates over actuals on the page. That isn't how that works.


 * Just like ranting, having personal agendas and vandilising, that is not what an editor is meant to do. Only the facts need be on the page.Scabab (talk) 21:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

in this edit you copied the text " Dragon Ball Super: Broly, which took in $2.4 million on Friday night, beating Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse ($1.7 million) for fourth place. The animated action flick debuted to a stellar $7 million on 1,250 screens Wednesday night, hauling in $12.8 million total so far " from. That's another time you violated the WP:COPYRIGHT. Stop doing that, that's a serious violation on Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Cast table
Since the cast table creates extraneous white space to the right of it with just three columns, I suggest adding a "Description" column so each character can be described in brief. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Box Office figures
Due to the vandalism or disruptive edits by Miki Filigranski, a new subject is being made to explain the grosses on the suggestion of the Admin.

On January 13th, Comscore, Deadline and Screen Daily gave an estimated worldwide figure of $54.3 million. On January 14th Screen Daily updated this gross to reflect actuals which were instead $53.5 million. This gross was later used on Box Office Mojo.

Nothing to question, nothing to debate, that is the stated gross that was given and so that information and source was used to replace the previous estimated figures for accuracy purposes.Scabab (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * More specifically, the discussion is about reaching a WP:CONSENSUS regarding, as stated, a box office figure until January 13 according to reliable secondary sources:

"In its first Latin America weekend it grossed reportedly over $6.1 million in Mexico alone, while according to Deadline Hollywood, 'Peru ($2.5M) and Argentina ($1.55M) gave Fox its biggest opening weekend ever, followed by Chile ($1.7M) with the industry’s 3rd biggest animation opening of all time. In Colombia it's Fox's 4th biggest opening weekend ever at $1.5M and in Ecuador, the Toei anime fantasy is Fox's top launch ever, and the 3rd best superhero bow, behind Avengers: Infinity War and Thor: Ragnarok'. In its 5th public weekend ending 13 January 2019, the movie grossed US$20.3 million from 17 territories, becoming the weekend's third top-grossing film in international markets, behind only Bumblebee and Aquaman, which brought the film's worldwide gross to US$54.3 million ahead of its United States premiere."

and

"...Thor: Ragnarok' with $1.3M. In its 5th public weekend ending 13 January 2019, the movie grossed $19.2 million from 17 territories, becoming the weekend's third top-grossing film in international markets, behind only Bumblebee and Aquaman, which brought the film's worldwide gross to $53.5 million ahead of its United States premiere."

According to RS listed chronologically with a date of release in discussion "References":

13 January
 * 1, 6-7) Screen International, "'Aquaman' crosses $1bn worldwide"; $53.5 million, weekend $19.2 million. The saved version at Internet Archive only shows that no initial information was included about the movie so the editor's claim about $54.3 million cannot be confirmed, but let's suppose it was really stated that. The suspicion was introduced on 14 January by the editor, but the cited source was released on 6 January which cited a much lower and older gross.


 * 3) Deadline Hollywood, "‘Aquaman’ Splashes Past $1B Worldwide; Now #2 DC Movie Ever – International Box Office"; $54.3 million, weekend $20.3 million

14 January 16 January
 * 4) PR Newswire, "Comscore Announces Official Worldwide Box Office Results for Weekend of January 13, 2019"; $54.3 million, weekend $20.3 million
 * 2) Comic Book, "'Dragon Ball Super: Broly' Global Box Office Dominates in Latin America"; As noted by Exhibtor Relations Co., the total box office for the film now sits at $54 million in total.
 * 5) Comic Book, "Dragon Ball Super: Broly Earns $54 Million Ahead of US Premiere"; According to Deadline (released on 15 January)... has already accumulated $54.3 million i.e. has accumulated close to $54M.

According to RS listed or not currently on the article:


 * Box Office Mojo, "January 11–13, 2019"; $53.5 million, weekend $19.2 million
 * Comscore, "Latest Rankings: Worldwide Box Office (Estimates) Weekend Ending January 13"; $54.3 million, weekend $20.3 million

Both BOM and Comscore, as well other box office reporting websites, have their own established credibility, and none of them has a right on "factual" information as all of them provide "estimates". On the website of BOM itself is  clearly written that the gross is an "(Estimate)". All these sources are reliable, and considering WP:WEIGHT i.e. coverage of each gross number, then $54(.3)M was more widely reported than $53.5M, which according to Wikipedian editing policy implies that one has a bit higher prominence i.e. proportional weight in RS than the other (WP:PROPORTION, WP:BALANCE), if not almost the same if is ignored Comic Book, hence both are usable for inclusion. In other words, as there included both Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic (etc.) for an average rating of critical reviews so should be included box office estimates of both BOM and Comscore - only then is established neutrality per WP:NPOV. As a minor note regarding current section's revision, the 6th and 7th source are the same and lack citation style which violates WP:CITEVAR (something I was warning and correcting editors on the article for almost a month), while movie titles of Bumblebee and Aquaman don't follow MOS:TITLE (lack italic quotation marks).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * You don't seem to follow and understand the process involved here. The original weekend estimate came down as $54.3 million worldwide on Sunday evening, that is what all of these sites then reported. Comscore, Screen Daily, Box Office Mojo, Twitter Box Office, Deadline etc. Sites like Comic Book pick up and run with that. On the Monday evening, these estimates are revised to be closer to actuals. This happens for every movie. As Screen Daily points out the revised gross ended up being lowered to $53.5 million and Box Office Mojo later changed it's gross as well which it does for every movie. It won't be exact to the dollar but it is the revised and more accurate figure available.


 * These Sources are all reliable, nobody is denying that. It's not a matter of which is more widely reported, the estimates are always reported across a much wider net than actuals. It will always be that way. It is just how the practice is done. It will happen again this weekend, a worldwide estimate will be given tomorrow followed by a revised figure on Monday (or Tuesday because it's a bank holiday) that will be closer to the real thing. That is why the information and source regarding the older initial estimated figures were replaced to match the newer revised estimate of figures. That is how it has always been done, you list the most accurate figures available.Scabab (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment on the content and not the editors. I can't accept an opinion about the revision of estimates which wasn't widely accepted and reported in the media nor such a scenario can be verified in Screen Daily or Box Office Mojo as stated. You didn't give a RS that such an opinion is valid, and I don't know about such "happening", hence someone more experienced i.e. third opinion should give their comment.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter whether you accept it or not, this is not a matter of anyone's opinion at all. These are the figures that were reported on these box office sites that know better than anybody here who could possibly comment on it. Box Office Mojo already listed the gross at $53.5 million just as Screen Daily did, are you playing this game of "Oh well it can't be proven".... because it updated since that gross and doesn't say it anymore?


 * Right now you can see that Box Office Mojo has the international gross at $65.85 million. That is widely being reported and yet in a couple days time that will change after revisions are made just the same. You being unaware of these "happenings" is what got the page locked.


 * You can see the process for any other movie. Deadline and other sites reported at Aquaman at making $27.9 million for the weekend overseas at $732.4 million in total as did Comscore, Screen Daily and more. That's the number that Box Office Mojo went with


 * https://web.archive.org/web/20190113235755/https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dcfilm0617.htm


 * The next day Screen Daily revised this gross to $29.1 million and the very next day Box Office Mojo updated their gross accordingly


 * https://web.archive.org/web/20190115154115/https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dcfilm0617.htm


 * That is what happens with every single movie that comes out including Dragon Ball Super Broly. Opinion plays no part in any of it, that is what happens.Scabab (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Just to avoid any future excuses.


 * https://www.screendaily.com/box-office/glass-clear-box-office-winner-on-891m-global-launch/5135952.article


 * Dragon Ball Super: Broly generated $5.3m from 18 for $65.9m. The film held on to number one in Chile, Peru, and Ecuador for the second weekend in a row. Mexico delivered the top result of the weekend on $1.3m for $9.5m after two sessions.


 * https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=dragonballzbroly.htm


 * Dommestic:	 $21,072,594	  24.2%
 * + Foreign:	 $65,854,981	  75.8%


 * Those are the grosses listed now before they end up changing once again in a day or two.Scabab (talk) 20:48, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I am noticing this as well. This user is making edits without any investigation in the citation link. His edits represents false and outdated information. Citations are here to justify the informations. To Miki Filigranski, Please do not make edits without further investigation and also do not remove citations without proper explanation. Sincerely,  Masum Reza (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are commenting on the editor, not the content and didn't bring anything constructive to the dispute about sourcing. There was nothing "fake and outdated", the same mistake you're doing with making WP:SYNTH information on gross combining BOM and ANT.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct. I did mix up ANN and BOM. Because that time ANN showed more updated version of worldwide gross. But in the other side, There was something that requires linking to BOM as well like gross in Japan. Sincerely,  Masum Reza  talk 21:24, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Once again the user Miki Filigranski is making disruptive edits.

As this article points out,the movie has made $72 million from Fox Markets.

https://www.screendaily.com/box-office/how-to-train-your-dragon-the-hidden-world-takes-flight-in-402m-international-session/5136453.article

Box Office Mojo's gross of $71.93 (which is merely the actual gross) is from upon Fox markets. The page includes other individual grosses from other distributors like Australia and UK but these grosses are not included with the figure that was reported by Fox.Scabab (talk) 08:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Legendary Super Saiyan status
The plot summary states that Broly transforms into his Legendary Super Saiyan form, but I don't think this form is ever named in this movie. The previous 3 non-canon movies label this as such but this movie is considered canon. This form should be unnamed until it's officially given one. DrkBlueXG (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You did see the movie right. Broly indeed transformed into a legendary super Saiyan. Sincerely,  Masum Reza  talk 21:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did see the movie. But I don't remember the form was actually named as "Legendary Super Saiyan". Just as how when Trunks transforms and fights Zamasu, that form is never called anything either. Same goes with Vegeta's Royal Blue transformation when fighting Jiren. Goku, when he tranforms, you get verbal confirmation that yes, this is Super Saiyan 1,2,3,4,Super,God,Blue,Rose. My debate here is that it is never verbally stated in the movie that it is Legendary Super Saiyan. DrkBlueXG (talk) 14:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * DragonBall Z movie advert.jpg