Talk:Trunks (Dragon Ball)/Archive 2

Merge Request
As you may have read in the "Changes" section above I tried to merge Future Trunks into this article and rewrote the whole thing from scratch and several hours later had it all reverted and was scolded for actions I believe are admiral. Now any editor will be quick to call what did vandalism. But it wasn't, it was bringing information together of two incarnations together into one article about a character that has two known personas. As I stated above, they are not two persons or people. They are merely two incarnations one character and therefore do not merit as two separate articles as seen here. Their personalities are somewhat different but when you think about it that is really a trivial matter. As people our personalities change regardless of our environment, our experiences, or simply as we get older. So, who's to say that either incarnation could become like the other as time went by in the unchronicled stories. Plus the fact that they live in different environments is also trivial as either entities could have easily moved into an environment much like the other without knowing it. In short, they are nothing more than two entities of one characters which is really the real subject of the matter, one character, two entities.

What would hold as two articles would be either:


 * They are addressed by different names within the story. Say if Future Trunks accidentally gave out his name to Present Bulma. Causing her to name her son something else because she wanted to be original, and keeping with the undergarment puns she chose "Skivvy".
 * They have a radically different physical appearances. Things like scars, birthmarks, Prosthetics, eye patch, facial hair, different skin completions. If Future Trunks had Yamucha-esk scars and a bright bronze complexion.
 * Either one were to have a different blood parent. Like in the case of Cable. If say Son Goku fathered Future Trunks before he succumbed to his heart virus.

As stated above, there are plenty of other character articles that features sections on each incarnation of one character. As they are articles about multiple incarnations of one character regardless of how great the differences are. In short, the two Trunks articles don't hold up by themselves as they are simply two halves of one article. In the end feel that my merge and rewrite was a much better plan than the proposal to move everything to the List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball article. Either way, I've decided to take Sesshomaru's advice and start this survey. Due to the out rage my changes to the articles. Sarujo (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Survey
''Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.
 * Support per nominator. Explanation is here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see what the big deal is wtih leaving them seperate articles. Future Trunks and Present Trunks are two totally different people, with different lives. Future Trunks for sure has enough information to stay it's own article, the other one should be merged with the Saiyans list.-- Koji Dude  (C) 22:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose I would leave them as seperate articles, because they are different people from different timelines . The other examples, the people are from the same time. LegoKontribsTalkM 23:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Koji and Lego. Much like Cable and Nate Grey, they deserve different articles. Thanos6 (talk) 23:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Ok first off, what happens in one life is a trivial matter as anything that happens to Future Trunks could happen to Present Trunks and vice-versa. Second, timelines are completely irrelevant as it doesn't change the cold hard fact of who they are. They are Trunks the half-Saiyan son of Prince Vegeta Bulma Briefs and a heir of the famous Capsule Corporation empire. Who fights evil powerful villains. They shoot ki blasts, transforms into a Super Saiyan and owns a sword. So at any point did any of those traits not apply to either incarnation? Also LegoKTM, the examples I used do feature character in alternate realities and timeline is simply just a fancy term for alternate reality. Regardless of what the incarnations are they still are listed along with the other incarnations that they share their name and likeness with in the article that bear that character's name. Otherwise, keeping them separate will only be fancruft. Sarujo (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who they are. It matters what happens to them in their respective lives. Like the Fourth Doctor and the Fifth Doctor (who actually happen to be the same person in the same timeline) are kept seperate, these should be too. Like I said, I've no problem with merging Trunks to the Saiyans list, but Future Trunks has more than enough information to stay it's own article.-- Koji Dude  (C) 00:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, there is NO--SUCH--THING as BLOODY FANCRUFT! Thanos6 (talk) 00:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support first of all I would like to say that yes, they are from different timelines, but they are the same "person". And well, in the end Trunks is not even a person, it is an element of fiction and its two incarnations share the same characteristics and features. If some "Characterization" or "Physical appearance" section is going to be created, both articles would get the same (repeated) information. The Future Trunks article has a section with lots of stuff about both Trunkses that would be useful if both characters are listed under the same article. And, most important, both share the same name, both are "Trunks", so it is reasonable to put both characters together under this article, with a section first for the future Trunks (because he appeared first in the story), and then a section for the present Trunks. -- LøЯd  ۞pεth  01:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How could characterization possibly be the same? All they have in common, basically, is that they're nice people.  Otherwise, totally different.  One is moody and serious, one is a happy-go-lucky prankster.  One's closest relationship was with Gohan as a mentor, one's was with Goten as the best of friends, etc, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thanos6 (talk • contribs)
 * Them being the same person has nothing to do with it. Read my comment above. They're lives are entirley different, regardless of physical appearence.-- Koji Dude  (C) 02:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To KojiDude, And I suppose that the "Wikipedia:Fancruft" article is just a figment of my imagination. Plus, off the record, yelling never solved any dispute. So I'd appreciated it if you or anybody else for that matter to keep attitudes in check. I have "Wikirage" too, but you do read me trying to metaphorically strangle anybody here. All yelling does is show ignorance. And you don't want that kind of halo over your head around here.
 * Now, in a matter like this the who of a subject is always of the most importance. The case of the incarnations of the Doctor having their individual articles is that their differences are so drastic, that every person both real of fictional can't help but treat them their own person even though it the same entity. With Trunks that not the case. They look and sound the same but their personalities differ only slightly. One's an Introverted thinker, the other's Extroverted goof off. There's nothing drastic about that. Saying it is, is like saying that if I were an important character in a story and the me in another reality took a liking to this girl, while the me over here didn't, at that moment. That would qualify the two me's be come my own character. In short their difference are not drastic enough to classify them two people. But as incarnations of the character named Trunks. I stand by my statement that personality is still trivial as the Tenth Doctor personality change over the course of his adventures. I reiterate, in life a person's personality changes whether it be environment, age, or the company we keep. With that said, either personality of Trunks' incarnation's could become like the other at any point in their lives.
 * To Lord Opeth, I apreciate you conment, but I was well aware that He's a fictional character. I didn't need the reality check, I'm not 5.Sarujo (talk) 02:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not Koji; my tildes didn't go through for some reason. And yes, we have an article on Fancruft.  We also have an article on the Flat Earth, Planet X, and the Pacific Northwest tree octopus.  Doesn't make them real.  And their personalities do not differ slightly.  I'm a fan of both Dragonball and Doctor Who, and the differences between the versions of Trunks are no more nor less radical than the incarnations of the Doctor. Thanos6 (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, Sarujo, you're taking this way too seriously. Where did I yell at you? I didn't say anything that was even close to being aggresive. Where the hell did you get strangling from? WP:AGF maybe? Anyway, Trunks and Future Trunks have the same personality differences that you said make the Doctors seperate articles, like Thanos said.-- Koji Dude  (C) 03:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment To answer your question KojiDude, the key word I used in my statement was "Metaphorically" I.E. the word strangle was intended as a "metaphor" to humorously accent the situation just like the word "Wikirage". Second, one of the earliest lessons that is taught about writing online whether it be in e-mails, chat rooms, or discussions (like this one) is that words, sentences and paragraphs in all capitals represent yelling, shouting, and harsh lecturing regardless of whether or not it was it follow with an exclamation point. So you see, as inocent as the statement might have been, it came out as belligerent yelling, and using dashes between words didn't help matters either as it gave the illusion of of a harsh lecturing like when a person tell another "Do you understand me" or "Do I make myself clear". Also, claiming an established tern is myth doesn't make any less real. It is the very thing that all Wikipedia work projects stated not to do. Fancruft is by definition trivial information that the casual reader wouldn't give two clicks about. Which in reality, is something every last one of us is guilty of at some point or another. We really don't have to add details to either one or two articles detailing the differences of two incarnations regardless of the extremity. But we do it anyway as we feel it added strength to what we feel is an established article. Truth is, their not necessary details. As all that needs to be said is this, Trunks is known by two incarnations, the well known one comes from what was a fictional possible future, the other exists in the fictional present day. One is a tactful introvert, the other's a goof off extrovert. Yet, overall they are heroes who fight evil and protect humanity.
 * Now which brings me to my question, and this is a genuine question. Baring references and sources for right now. If their differences are as great as you all are implying, then why wasn't their a separate article with an in depth analysis discussing the matter created the moment these two were created or shortly afterwards? Now, I may sound sarcastic and if I do I apologize. But, I ensure you this is a genuine question. Your implications are that there are thousands of details that makes Present Trunks and Future Trunks so unique from each other. But on the Future Trunks article there is only a small paragraph posing the question if the two were to meet face-to-face. The truth here is the Doctor's ten incarnations aren't good comparasen to Trunk's mere two. As the Doctor is simple a guy to regenerates into something new everytime he "dies". A more relative comparasen would be the incarnations of fictional character Quinn Mallory of Sliders fame. Sarujo (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because someone claims something exists doesn't mean it does. Wikipedia may claim there is such a thing as fancruft; I disagree.  And re: a section on the differing characterizations, there's quite a few explanations.  One is that, simply, just because something is unwritten about does not mean it's unimportant.  For example, there's no article on most of South Carolina's constitutional officers, but they're not uninmportant.  Also, editors may feel that it is unnecessary; their characteristics are listed throughout their respective articles, and that would be needless duplication.  And re: Quinn Mallory, I see no problem with an article for every single incarnation. Thanos6 (talk) 05:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Again I ask, if the difference is so great why isn't there an article with an in depth analysis discussing the matter in full detail, since you all claim the differences are so radical there shouldn't any problem in producing an article (with the exception of references and sources) that helps your claim. Things like their names, who their parents are, their races, physical appearances, the sound of their voices, their manor of speaking whether it be diction or ascents, their manors, their ki techniques, their style of marshal arts, their preferences in various adequate and inadequate things, their physical mannerisms, their beliefs, their intelligence levels or I.Q., their sense of humor, their relationships with everybody they've ever come in contact with. So since they differ in all these categories then you shouldn't have a problem list them here or in a new article. Otherwise, it just supports my argument that their are nothing more than simple incarnations of one fictional identity. Just like pre and post crisis Superman and every incarnation of Optimus Prime. Now that I think about it, I suppose your going to also say that "Cross Epoch Trunks" shouldn't be include in a Trunks article as well as he has a set of black horns on his head.
 * And as for the whole fancruft thing, I suggest we take this to the proper discussion box and strike it from this survey/discussion. As that argument is getting us way off on another tangent. Sarujo (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Where did I use caps, and where did I italisize things? I used italics on "who", that's it. But anyway, since you seem so intent on receiving attitude here, I'll give you some. How about instead of bitching about the articles, you try and make some changes? You act like we're expected to improve the article on every note you bring up — yet you don't intend on doing anything to help it yourself. They do differ in those categories, but I have what's called "a life". I don't spend all of my time wondering wether or not a Dragon Ball Z article is thorough enough on Wikipedia. You think the article is in bad shape? Fix it. Don't take the short cut and merge it just because you're lazy.-- Koji Dude  (C) 20:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If you'll look back, when I made my changes to those articles people complained and reverted what I added without a second glance. And if I do it again they'll revert it again. The fact that your challenging me to make changes is quite a facetious thing to say. As you know how fruthless it is to do it as they will be reverted, as you already know what changes I'll make to them. Now I'm fully convinced that nobody read what wrote on that article, if anybody has I apologize to them in advance. And a merger is not a lazy way out, separation to show mere differences is.
 * Also, I don't want anybody's attitude, otherwise I wouldn't have said what I said. I never said anything about italics. And now scrolling back I can see that the line was still directed at you KojiDude. The real all cap and dash culprit knows who they are, quote:
 * "Also, there is NO--SUCH--THING as BLOODY FANCRUFT!".
 * So, I apologize for not clarifing to begin with. It would help if the typing box didn't look like one big mass of words. So lets just get back to the real issue here please. Sarujo (talk) 21:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The argument "they are very different" seems to be incoherent with other changes that have been made in DB related articles, especially Majin Boo's article and Android #17's section. Majin Boo's article presents 2 characters (Kid Boo and Mr. Boo) as a same entity, even when they are indeed separated, clearly differentiated characters (much more than Trunks and Trunks). Same with Android #17, there are actually 3 different characters there as well: the first one appeared in the Cell Saga, the second is the one created by Dr. Gero and Dr. Myu, and the third one is the Super Android #17, an entity different in background, name, appearance, and power. So, to be consistent with this, both Trunkses should be merged in one article but with different sections to avoid confusions like those in Boo's or #17's articles. -- LøЯd  ۞pεth  00:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment That's what I did, and people still complained about it. First I wrote overall appearance, next Future Trunks section, then Present Trunks section, then Abilities section, something about the trademark sword, on to reception, then Trunks in other media, and finally the references list. I really don't see why anybody would hate what I wrote unless they really didn't read it at all before they reverted it. Sarujo (talk) 01:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because the duplicate 17 is a very very minor character, especially in comparison to both versions of Trunks. As for Buu, go ahead, make multiple articles. Thanos6 (talk) 01:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Make multiple articles of Buu? There's no need to go that far now. They haven't been around so long that they need to be separated. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Buu's didn't have very much airtime individually compared to Trunks and Future Trunks. Wouldst be a bad idea to seperate those.-- Koji Dude  (C) 18:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Time? Future Trunks appeared only in the Cell Saga, and Fat Boo appeared in Boo and Baby saga, so if we are considering characters according to time, then we definitely should retrieve not only Fat Boo's article, but also ChiChi, Oolong, Kaioh, Yajirobee, Chaoz, and many many more. But it is not obviously the case. We can add another example with Future Gohan: it is exactly the same case as both Trunkses: both Gohans come from different timelines; one of them does not have any siblings and the other does, one of them has both arms and the other only one, both differ in hair-style, etc. But in the end, they are still a same entity called Gohan, as there's still only one entity called Trunks with to different incarnations, one from the future and one from the present. Obviously both of them have different backgrounds because it would be needless to introduce the same story for the present Trunks or to introduce a future one. But as they are indeed the same fictional character with a "timeline difference", then a shared article is more than reasonable and it would also be useful to avoid people trying to merge them into lists of characters. -- LøЯd  ۞pεth  02:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think we SHOULD have individual articles on all those characters. Thanos6 (talk) 07:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not a DB fan page, this is an encyclopedia. All those characters are not Notable in the real world, despite being important within the series and having long appearances. And that's also why, for encyclopedic purposes, getting together all content about Trunkses would be professional and also consistent with other DB articles. -- LøЯd  ۞pεth  16:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is fluid and completely, utterly subjective, and hence should never be taken into consideration. Verifiability, and that's all. Thanos6 (talk) 17:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with you Lord Opeth, I couldn't have said that better myself. Sarujo (talk) 16:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * t(-.-t)


 * Comment Alright you, giving the finger is not cool. Either you give a civil coment pertaing to this survey/discussion or don't add anything at all. Sarujo (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Braille F6.svg]][[Image:Braille U.svg]]-- Koji Dude  (C) 20:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

(talk) 19:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The same goes for the use of braille or sign language to send out obscenities. Your not help your's, Thanos6's, or Lego's case. Furthermore, it only shows that you've ran out of arguments to back your claim and now your resorting to personal attacks to intimidate me. That's only going to alienate this survey from other Wikipedians, so please stop . Sarujo (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, somebody thinks awfully highly of themselves. "He's insulting me, that must mean I'm too smart for him!"; Maybe I just don't like you, so I think it's funny to irritate you? When someone insults you, it's entirley possible that it might be because you're a jackass. But, jumping to the egotistical conlcusion that it means they fear you and you're smarter than them is a nice way to handle it too.-- Koji Dude  (C) 04:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per norm. Trunks in general is one character, like Future Gohan and Son Gohan for instance.  U z E E  23:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What about Kal-L and Kal-El? The "same person" but, like the versions of Trunks, definitely not the same character.  (And for the record, I think the versions of Gohan also deserve separate pages) Thanos6 (talk) 10:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Why would there need to be separate articles for Son Gohan? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Because they're two separate individuals in two separate universes. Thanos6 (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no need to split them up. Future Gohan hasn't made that many appearances. Like UzEE put it above, it's still a character regardless of showing up in different continuities. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet he HAS made appearances. Even one would be enough. Thanos6
 * Support-- FUNKAMATIC  (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, it appears that all my efforts might be in vain. As TTN is rallying to have both Trunks' merged into the the "List of Dragon Ball characters" article. Their response was that they were against the two Trunks articles being merged as it would become, to put it in their words "a mess". Honestly, have they even tried to see what a Trunks article with both incarnations featured would look like? Oh well, I had a feeling that it was all going to come down to both articles getting redirect into a list. But my plain was to help save the one article and prevent a redirect from occurring by sacrificing the other to help establish nobility for the character. It appears that Thanos wants everyone to believe that nobility is not important with their remark "Notability is fluid and completely, utterly subjective, and hence should never be taken into consideration. Verifiability, and that's all.", but the truth is that nobility is the most important aspect of any article. That's a fact that AnmaFinotera reminded me, and I only wish I remembered it sooner. Verifiability is only a small factor in what makes an article reach at least GA. Any claim can be verified, but what makes that claim important to the subject when it is verified? Ultimately, what both these articles are currently lacking are real world content. To quote AnmaFinotera "...their importance to the franchise is completely irrelevant. It is the existance of extensive real world reliable sources that discuss the character conception/creation, and third-party reliable sources that can be used to give the article a full and proper reception section." I was hopping that with the one article there would be just enough nobility to allow the article to stay. Sarujo (talk) 04:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, "real world reliable sources" don't matter at all; or at the very least, they SHOULDN'T. Thanos6 (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Folks, this discussion has been moved to here. So this discussion should be continued from there. Sarujo (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The discussion has come to a consensus and the decision was to merge. Everybody else had amble opportunity to respond to this failed to do so. As a result the one who apposed were classified as agreed by default. Which is a shame as I was hoping they would appear on that talk page and explain why they want the two articles merged, but oh well. At least now I feel that the subject here has more going for that it did before which I also feel help hold it up as it's own article. Sarujo (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Trunks In Other Media
Should I mention that DragonQuest 7 or 8 has a character that resembles Future Trunks alot. If so should I add it? I seen a dragonQuest commerical on TV and it shown the characters, one of them looked alot like Trunks. I believe it was 8, but I am not truly sure. Kagemaru the Ninja of the Shadows (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)--Kagemaru the Ninja of the Shadows (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That's nothing special, as many characters in other media by Akira Toriyama look alot alike. And it's only natural for them to look alike since they are produced by Akira Toriyama. The only reason Ackman was worth mentioning was because there was lot of simularaties. As if Trunks might have had some influence in Ackman's creation. Sarujo (talk) 05:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)