Talk:Dragon Ball Z/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Dragon Ball Z. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
Dragon Ball Z Season Box Set Subtitles
In July 2007 I bought the first season of Dragon ball Z Ultimate Uncut DVD special, I noticed that the Subtitles in English Didn't show up, but the Japenese subtiles worked properly, as time went on I purcased seasons 2 and 3 also, both of which the subtiles still didn't work, I'm almost at my point, keep reading,...I haven't bought season 4 yet on DVD, so I borrowed to from a friend and his copy of season four did not have subtitles for English. My point is why is happening if on the back of the boxset it says Subtiles for "English and Japanese versions". Why shouldn't we have a section on the season boxset page that says that the subtiles for the English Revision was defuct. Prince Of All Saiyans (talk) 15:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Subtitles are only for the Japanese version..........I know it sucks, I like subtitles too can sometimes you can't hear the characters' voices...let me check the back of that box...Kongzu (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Locked for editing?
I move to delete the following sentence from the summary. It is obviously a self serving plug, and completely irrelevant to the general scope of the article. "The American themes and soundtracks were composed and produced in part by Bruce Faulconer."
And to people trying to make a wiki article into a definitive source on DBZ. Go write a book or create your own wiki site. Wikipedia is not here to write your term paper for you. If there exists no peer reviewed primary source documents in English the information is obviously outside of the scope of an encyclopedia article. IOW, do your own research.
71.231.183.12 (talk) 07:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Rotsujin
DVD Removal
I was thinking, why do we have to have so much info on the DVD section? It is the majority of the whole page, and certainly you have to agree that the DBZ DVDs are not the most important thing to write about. Now while I understand about the Dragon Boxes and Season Boxsets, I think the others are unnecessary, you can mention them, but you have to remember that this page is for DBZ newcomers, and they need to know what's currently out DVD wise, not what was out in the past. Also, I think the Season Boxset section needs a bit of a revamp. Too much talk on Season 1 and not enough about 2-possibly 9. Also, since when was the character/episode booklet a Season 1 only? I have all four and a booklet comes with everyone. Please post your opinion. (by the way I'm new, but I have worked on Dragon Ball Wiki, hence my appearance of not an amateur). Kongzu (talk) 22:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Peer Review Alert
I've nominated a related page, Dragon Ball (manga) for peer review, and would welcome constructive criticism. --- Krezos (talk) 20:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be a disambiguation page and not a redirect?
Given that there is a novel, the show, the list of shows, the games, the movies, records, and some other stuff, wouldn't this be better a a disambiguation page, instead of a redirect? This would then list all the relevant pages. And get us past the current redirect problem. Just a thought. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
- My suggested text is
- Dragon Ball may refer to:
- List of Dragon Ball Z episodes (redirect from Dragon Ball Z)
- Dragon Ball (section Dragon Ball Z)
- List of Dragon Ball video games (redirect from Dragon Ball Z: Taiketsu)
- Dragon Ball Z: Budokai (series)
- Dragon Ball Z Collectible Card Game
- Dragon Ball Z: Wrath of the Dragon
- Dragon Ball Z: Dead Zone
- Dragon Ball Z: Fusion Reborn
- Dragon Ball Z: Bio-Broly
- Dragon Ball Z: Bojack Unbound
- Dragon Ball Z: The Tree of Might
- Dragon Ball Z: Cooler's Revenge
- List of Dragon Ball Z Kai episodes
- Dragon Ball Z: Return of Cooler
- Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi (series)
- Dragon Ball Z: Sagas
- Dragon Ball Z: Lord Slug
- Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit
- Dragon Ball Z Game Music series
- Super Dragon Ball Z
- I did not put in text that might follow each of these. And in my "advanced search" of Wikipedia, that was just the first 20 that were listed. There probably are more. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 14:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
- Here is the next 20 with supporting text.
is a soundtrack series from the anime Dragon Ball Z . It was produced and released by Columbia Records of Japan from July 21, 1989 to ... 5 KB (712 words) - 12:42, 25 July 2010
or simply Dragon Ball & Dragon Ball Z as fans have come to know it by, is a five disc CD soundtrack set of the anime Dragon Ball and ... 14 KB (1,560 words) - 16:37, 13 October 2010
also known by Toei 's own English title The Strongest Guy in the World, is the second feature movie in the Dragon Ball Z franchise. ... 10 KB (1,371 words) - 22:08, 15 December 2010
Dragon Ball Z: Super Android 13!, known in Japan as. Dragon Ball Z: Kyokugen Battle! San Dai Super Saiyajin | ドラゴンボールZ 極限バトル! ... 6 KB (783 words) - 01:07, 16 December 2010
video game for the PlayStation 2 based on the anime and manga series Dragon Ball . ... It is the last Dragon Ball Z game to be released on ... 19 KB (2,789 words) - 23:09, 29 November 2010
- List of Dragon Ball characters (redirect from Bardock (Dragon Ball Z))
The Dragon Ball manga and anime series features an extensive cast of characters ... Antonelli in Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z in the ... 62 KB (9,858 words) - 18:49, 14 December 2010
is the tenth Dragon Ball Z feature movie. It was released in Japan on March 12, 1994 at the Toei Anime Fair along with the Dr. Slump ... 10 KB (1,570 words) - 22:22, 16 December 2010
Dragon Ball Z: Harukanaru Densetsu, known as. Dragon Ball Z: Harukanaru Goku Densetsu | ドラゴンボールZ 遥かなる悟空伝説 | Doragon Bōru Zetto Harukanaru ... 4 KB (620 words) - 06:32, 20 October 2010
Dragon Ball Z: Broly – The Legendary Super Saiyan, known in Japan as. Dragon Ball Z: Burn Up! A Close, Intense, Super-Fierce Battle | ... 14 KB (2,109 words) - 22:17, 16 December 2010
Dragon Ball Z: Bardock – The Father of Goku, known in Japan as. Dragon Ball Z: A Lonesome, Final Battle - The Father of the Z Warrior Son ... 7 KB (882 words) - 08:28, 13 December 2010
Dragon Ball Z: Attack of the Saiyans, known in Japan as. Dragon Ball Kai: Saiyan Invasion | ドラゴンボール改 サイヤ人来襲 | Doragon Bōru Kai Saiyajin ... 18 KB (2,641 words) - 09:27, 8 December 2010
The Dragon Ball Z: The Legacy of Goku series is a series of video game s for the Game Boy Advance , based on the popular anime series ... 8 KB (1,132 words) - 12:52, 25 November 2010
is the sixteenth installment of the Dragon Ball Z Hit Song Collection series of the anime Dragon Ball Z . It was released by Columbia ... 2 KB (251 words) - 20:27, 8 December 2010
Dragon Ball Z: Collectible Card Game is a video game for Game Boy Advance based on the Dragon Ball Z Collectible Card Game . ... 1 KB (152 words) - 01:28, 8 April 2010
is the official licenced soundtrack of the first two Dragon Ball Z video games for the PS2 and Gamecube by the same name (known as Dragon ... 7 KB (989 words) - 12:26, 8 July 2010
Dragon Ball Z is the North American title for the second part of the Dragon Ball manga , which is written and illustrated by Akira ... 73 KB (9,630 words) - 21:27, 16 December 2010
Dragon Ball Z: Tenkaichi Tag Team is an fighting video game for the Playstation Portable (PSP) video game console of the Dragon Ball Z ... 4 KB (586 words) - 04:48, 22 November 2010
is the first instalment of a soundtrack series by the same name of the anime Dragon Ball Z . It was released by Columbia Records on ... 3 KB (331 words) - 16:23, 5 August 2010
The first game, Dragon Ball Z Supersonic Warriors was developed by Arc System Works and released for the Game Boy Advance on June 22, ... 3 KB (410 words) - 06:31, 20 October 2010
despite its title, is the ninth installment of the Dragon Ball Z Hit Song Collection series of the anime Dragon Ball Z . It was released ... 4 KB (448 words) - 23:31, 2 June 2010
- This is just the next 20. And it suggests we really need to restructure this page. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 15:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
- FYI, Dragon Ball disambiguation does exist which seems woefully inadequate. 7&6=thirteen (talk) 18:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC) Stan
- If anything, the article should be restored. Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z are separate entities set within the same franchise. Having Dragon Ball Z be nothing more than a section in the main Dragon Ball article is like having Star Trek: The Next Generation be nothing more than a section in the Star Trek article. They should be split back up, there is more than enough notable content, sources, and differences. Also, it's misleading to have Dragon Ball Z redirect to Dragon Ball. TJ Spyke 15:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support separate articles. per above. I think that Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, and Dragon Ball GT should have separate articles, if the information to back them up are sufficient. We can have a Dragon Ball Z (disambiguation) page, too, for all the movies. ComputerJA (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- I support separate articles. The topic is notable enough for having an article on itself. There are enough sources available for it. smtchahal(talk) 08:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- I support separate articles I would believe that Dragon Ball Z hand has had a separate effect on society and popular enough that it should be a separate article. Was this combined recently or has it always been this way? Triesault (talk) 04:54, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm 100% in favor of separate articles. Dragon Ball Z merits more than a mere section within another article. Icarus of old (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
There's an RFC going on at Talk:Dragon Ball if anyone is interested. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Restored
The RFC at Dragon Ball and the RFC for MOS-AM overturn the previous 2008 consensus. The link to the WP:CREEPY close of MOS-AM is at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_105#RFC:_WP:MOS-AM_discussions which removes the original reason for merge. Talk:Dragon Ball also was met with consensus after WP:LOCALCONSENSUS was determined to nullify the original merger. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Reverted. An RFC in no way can overturn any previous consensuses. See Talk:Dragon Ball.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Topic focus
I believe this restored page should detail the media and adaptions explicitly labeled Dragon Ball Z. This would include links to the movies and games and a brief overview of the works. Currently, Dragon Ball is so cluttered and sort of a mess, the original franchise focus is largely intent with a few issues. I am not sure about splitting off the original anime and manga adaption, but this should be a slow process. This page has many issues to address before we start hammering over nitpicky things. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- No, you're not allowed to do that. The RFC at the village pump does not overturn any prior consensuses. That's not how things work on Wikipedia. What you have to do now is propose that there be a separate page.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
- Discussion on this split should also take place at Talk:Dragon Ball as there is an ongoing discussion there to that effect.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, this meets N and GNG which by policy are the requirements for a stand alone article. The uncontested claim alone is reason enough to exist; also SIZE, DETAIL, SPINOFF and if you wish RELART for additional reasons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- I've reverted it. There is no consensus at Talk:Dragon Ball for you to institute this version which is most definitely not about "Dragon Ball Z" as a whole but it about the west's experience with the show. All discussion on the split should be at Talk:Dragon Ball where there is ongoing discussion, rather than listening to the only person on that page agreeing with you to ignore Lucia and myself.—Ryulong (琉竜) 00:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- Once again recreated it per my own assertions along with support from the numerous RFC supporters like ComputerJA, Smtchahal, Triesault, Icarus of old, Luka1184, Calathan and some kind support from 3O's like Indeath and Tokyogirl. Any reversion because of small "content issues" are a red herring; its N and GNG for inclusion, but all the policies listed above are fairly clear. If you have an issue, take it to AFD where more eyes will be on this. No one, not even you or Lucia denies that Dragon Ball Z meets N and GNG. Not sure why this was so difficult; if you have issues, please fix them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Chris, I do not see why you've instituted your preferred version rather than the one that includes all of the criticisms and critiques that Lucia and I made on Talk:Dragon Ball. I've removed the cast section per my arguments there. The information contained within belongs on the various character lists, et al. I'm surprised you didn't copy from the sandbox you said you were going to, and I am going to make this edit for you now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I had a few things to do and a few changes to the original. I forgot to axe out the theme section, the cast and crew. I just axed the crew and you reduplicated the article. Anyways. I'll let you tinker; since we will E/C otherwise. But yeah; go ahead. I just copied so the histmerge later would be obvious instead of sandbox5 which was just the test platform for you. By all means go for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Some minor errors. Also you kept the old interwiki link system instead of whatever the new form is so I've taken care of that. I've still got issues with the manga section but I'll take care of it shortly.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:56, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- I had a few things to do and a few changes to the original. I forgot to axe out the theme section, the cast and crew. I just axed the crew and you reduplicated the article. Anyways. I'll let you tinker; since we will E/C otherwise. But yeah; go ahead. I just copied so the histmerge later would be obvious instead of sandbox5 which was just the test platform for you. By all means go for it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Chris, I do not see why you've instituted your preferred version rather than the one that includes all of the criticisms and critiques that Lucia and I made on Talk:Dragon Ball. I've removed the cast section per my arguments there. The information contained within belongs on the various character lists, et al. I'm surprised you didn't copy from the sandbox you said you were going to, and I am going to make this edit for you now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:48, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Once again recreated it per my own assertions along with support from the numerous RFC supporters like ComputerJA, Smtchahal, Triesault, Icarus of old, Luka1184, Calathan and some kind support from 3O's like Indeath and Tokyogirl. Any reversion because of small "content issues" are a red herring; its N and GNG for inclusion, but all the policies listed above are fairly clear. If you have an issue, take it to AFD where more eyes will be on this. No one, not even you or Lucia denies that Dragon Ball Z meets N and GNG. Not sure why this was so difficult; if you have issues, please fix them. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks; I haven't really dealt with that aspect yet; it could use a good copyedit. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Pojo link for verification. Okay... I'll defer to you on this one. I didn't want to surprise any readers with otherwise unverifiable information for a "book source". Thanks; I try to be exceedingly cautious about such things... to a fault sadly. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
RS on the meme
None of the material is really contentious, but I'll primary source it to end the debate. With quotes if need be. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I started to look for sources, all I found so far is the the Japanator interview mentioned in the paragraph. Nothing concrete about FUNimation and their creative decisions, though.|| Tako (bother me) || 05:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, I've cited the original media in its place, I removed some of the material until I can pin down the ads for myself. Though it seems silly as the book is not inaccurate, the primaries will count. The two versions were easy enough to cite. Though it is old, the original air date for this episode, in English was June 22, 2010.[1] Nicktoons canceled their airings some time ago. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I dunno if Screwattack, Japanator and other places, most notable being the small quarterly Shadowland Magazine (which is distributed by Barnes and Noble and other places) as having given favorable reviews to the depth and detail described. I think the book itself could be considered fine because it has garnered numerous reviews about its content, coverage and philosophy of the scene and the evolution of the meme. It is highly unusual to have a whole book written on the matter, but how often does a company make two different versions of the material for release? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why do we need to cover it anyway?—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Real-world coverage and the cultural impact. It's part of Dragon Ball Z, as much as production and release. How can we discuss how the series was received by fans, and the cultural impact without it? Fan culture /is/ a part of Dragon Ball Z, and it'd be silly not to include things that have a clear impact. I agree that the paragraph might be a bit weird in the way it's composed, but that's something that can be worked on. By the way, the Japanator interview should be reliable, it's an interview with the creator of the video that spawned the meme. What's unreliable about that? Is it just because of the site where it's published? || Tako (bother me) || 06:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- It's "real world coverage" and "cultural impact" that has never been discussed critically. And yes, it's because of the site where it was published because this meme was born before the proliferation of social media made everything more recognizable to the general public. The "over 9000" thing is so incredibly niche that it's unimportant to mention in such detail. And everything regarding the script changes should be reliably sourced and not cobbled together from differing copies of the same episode. Did the distributor say "Hey, we're going to keep in this joke"? If so, then it's worthy of note. Otherwise it's just an attempt by you to immortalize a 6 year old joke.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:58, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Real-world coverage and the cultural impact. It's part of Dragon Ball Z, as much as production and release. How can we discuss how the series was received by fans, and the cultural impact without it? Fan culture /is/ a part of Dragon Ball Z, and it'd be silly not to include things that have a clear impact. I agree that the paragraph might be a bit weird in the way it's composed, but that's something that can be worked on. By the way, the Japanator interview should be reliable, it's an interview with the creator of the video that spawned the meme. What's unreliable about that? Is it just because of the site where it's published? || Tako (bother me) || 06:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Why do we need to cover it anyway?—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- I dunno if Screwattack, Japanator and other places, most notable being the small quarterly Shadowland Magazine (which is distributed by Barnes and Noble and other places) as having given favorable reviews to the depth and detail described. I think the book itself could be considered fine because it has garnered numerous reviews about its content, coverage and philosophy of the scene and the evolution of the meme. It is highly unusual to have a whole book written on the matter, but how often does a company make two different versions of the material for release? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Fine, I've cited the original media in its place, I removed some of the material until I can pin down the ads for myself. Though it seems silly as the book is not inaccurate, the primaries will count. The two versions were easy enough to cite. Though it is old, the original air date for this episode, in English was June 22, 2010.[1] Nicktoons canceled their airings some time ago. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Funimation chose to not only advertise off the meme, but made two versions of it, the meme exists only on Kai's TV release and not the DVD release. You have something completely unusual here and it was intentional. I do not know why you are removing things which are sourced to the media itself at this point. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Analysis of the media is WP:OR. If you can find press that mentions the intentional differences then fine.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not. I suggest you re-read it. The lines are the official lines, pointing out that they are different is not OR. You are also going against BRD, I suggest you stop doing that as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Comparing two different sets of scripts without such a comparison ever being posted elsewhere on the Internet before most definitely violates WP:OR.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. It does not have to be posted on the internet. That is a terrible argument to make for removing it and labeling it as OR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- You're right. I should not have specified internet. So unless someone somewhere else before you in a reliable source has mentioned that the use of "It's over 9000" in one video release and not the other is because of the "Over 9000" meme then you cannot post anything of that sort on Wikipedia. Directly comparing two differing items without this previously published statement is considered a violation of WP:OR.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- The works themselves are reliable sources for their own scripts, lines and actions. Look, you can verify them without any outside or additional knowledge. I took straight from the script itself. You don't pull this stint with lines from video games, why pull it on this? The material itself is a reliable source for its own words per PRIMARY. I've already discussed this on the project page and unless you got a good reason why the material itself is "not a RS" than you should drop this OR bit because nothing here is OR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but no. You can say "this script says 'eight thousand'" and "this other script says 'nine thousand'". But once you personally compare the two and post it on Wikipedia then that is a violation of WP:OR. Unless someone else somewhere else has critically made this comparison before and they are publishing it in a reliable source, then you're shit out of luck here. Quoting video games does not require any sort of analysis. And if they are presenting information that cannot be directly ascertained from that single quotation, then they are violating WP:OR as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- The works themselves are reliable sources for their own scripts, lines and actions. Look, you can verify them without any outside or additional knowledge. I took straight from the script itself. You don't pull this stint with lines from video games, why pull it on this? The material itself is a reliable source for its own words per PRIMARY. I've already discussed this on the project page and unless you got a good reason why the material itself is "not a RS" than you should drop this OR bit because nothing here is OR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- You're right. I should not have specified internet. So unless someone somewhere else before you in a reliable source has mentioned that the use of "It's over 9000" in one video release and not the other is because of the "Over 9000" meme then you cannot post anything of that sort on Wikipedia. Directly comparing two differing items without this previously published statement is considered a violation of WP:OR.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong. It does not have to be posted on the internet. That is a terrible argument to make for removing it and labeling it as OR. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes it is. Comparing two different sets of scripts without such a comparison ever being posted elsewhere on the Internet before most definitely violates WP:OR.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:56, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
- It is not. I suggest you re-read it. The lines are the official lines, pointing out that they are different is not OR. You are also going against BRD, I suggest you stop doing that as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Your own answer includes: You can say "this script says 'eight thousand'" and "this other script says 'nine thousand'". That is what is being said. They are different, and I cite that they are different. You cannot just say "OR" and wipe things out which do not meet the definition of it. You called a published book OR, that's how far off on the definition you are. That book also has been reviewed by no less than 5 independent outlets and cited for its research and depth. From the lede of OR, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." This is not being done, so it is not OR. If you refer to "synth" this is covered under what synth is not. Specifically, "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. If you're just explaining the same material in a different way, there's no new thesis." So by either account, the material is fine. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if you don't understand that WP:OR and WP:SYNTH explicitly prohibit making your own conclusion from two separate reliable sources. You can say that the two versions of the episodes have different scripts, but you can't say that it means something important, particularly if a self-published eBook is the only thing to support your claim.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't analyze it or give importance to it. You already broke BRD and you removed the entire aspect of something that is well known and a popular in-joke. I've already given the arguments on the Wikiproject about the RS matter, and given the circumstances, Padula's work is likely an RS given the acceptance by the community and the positive reviews specifically covering its detail and research on the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't break BRD. Someone boldly added the section, and I reverted it, and then you began an edit war by reverting me. Just because this joke is well known does not mean it is notable. What "community" are you referring to anyway? And what sort of research is necessary to find out why "Over 9000" became popular in a niche community that he was lauded for it?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- If you are going to continue with malicious terms like "edit war" than we are done, you removed the section three times so far. One after my original creation, another after the restoration by Takuy, I addressed your concern and put it up again. I am not edit warring and your accusation of such is insulting. The joke does not need to be "notable" in its own right, we are not having an article on it, and your assertion it is "well-known" serves to validate that it should be included as under cultural impact. Why don't you read Padula's work (or the first pages on preview) and find out for yourself about it? We got numerous sources reviewing the book and giving praise for its depth in coverage. You just don't like it on this page, like your removal of the perfectly valid cast listing. You didn't help in its creation, and you seem to still be against the page's very existence. Stop removing content that is sourced and that you admit to being well-known. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- The first removal was weeks ago so it doesn't really count as edit warring and even back then all you used was a bunch of original research and this dubious source. And merely because something is well known does not mean we are required to cover it, particularly in the extensive manner in which you originally drafted. If this subject could be reliably sourced, then it should only cover the following points
- That it exists
- Its creator
- The intentional discrepancies between the dub scripts
- It's just pedantic padding to give so much detail as to the original phrasing, the initial spread, and everything else that was in the section, not even properly giving the Japanese text but some romanicized nonsense, and I haven't seen one damn source reviewing this book. You simply say it's been reviewed but I doubt that some 100 page self-published book is really going to pass for a reliable source anywhere else on this project so why should it for DBZ for all things?—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:06, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have a copy of Shadowland to give you, but Screwattack and Japanator also count as reviews. Japanator even recommended it.[2] Sorry if I did not copy the Japanese text itself and used the romaji, but that's also a non-issue. And I did detail the issues above. How was Japanator's interview with the creator not a RS anyways? I have no obligation to give you the material, only that it exists and is verifiable. You also seem to forget the primary reference was used, I did not detail it "excessively". And lastly, self-published or not, primary, secondary and "questionable" resources can be validated. Given that many dissertations and academic papers are published and count for use, I am assuming that recommended and detailed work like this passes for establishing mere background that is easily verifiable. I went to the sources to avoid your little "RS" issue, and you still are being unreasonable. And for the last time, stop abusing rollback. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- Are Screwattack and Japanator reliable sources? Why should Japanator's interview with Kajetokun be a reliable source? And WP:SELFPUBLISH says otherwise. Dissertations and academic papers go through a series of editorial review that a book on a single YouTube video did not.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I don't have a copy of Shadowland to give you, but Screwattack and Japanator also count as reviews. Japanator even recommended it.[2] Sorry if I did not copy the Japanese text itself and used the romaji, but that's also a non-issue. And I did detail the issues above. How was Japanator's interview with the creator not a RS anyways? I have no obligation to give you the material, only that it exists and is verifiable. You also seem to forget the primary reference was used, I did not detail it "excessively". And lastly, self-published or not, primary, secondary and "questionable" resources can be validated. Given that many dissertations and academic papers are published and count for use, I am assuming that recommended and detailed work like this passes for establishing mere background that is easily verifiable. I went to the sources to avoid your little "RS" issue, and you still are being unreasonable. And for the last time, stop abusing rollback. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- The first removal was weeks ago so it doesn't really count as edit warring and even back then all you used was a bunch of original research and this dubious source. And merely because something is well known does not mean we are required to cover it, particularly in the extensive manner in which you originally drafted. If this subject could be reliably sourced, then it should only cover the following points
- If you are going to continue with malicious terms like "edit war" than we are done, you removed the section three times so far. One after my original creation, another after the restoration by Takuy, I addressed your concern and put it up again. I am not edit warring and your accusation of such is insulting. The joke does not need to be "notable" in its own right, we are not having an article on it, and your assertion it is "well-known" serves to validate that it should be included as under cultural impact. Why don't you read Padula's work (or the first pages on preview) and find out for yourself about it? We got numerous sources reviewing the book and giving praise for its depth in coverage. You just don't like it on this page, like your removal of the perfectly valid cast listing. You didn't help in its creation, and you seem to still be against the page's very existence. Stop removing content that is sourced and that you admit to being well-known. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't break BRD. Someone boldly added the section, and I reverted it, and then you began an edit war by reverting me. Just because this joke is well known does not mean it is notable. What "community" are you referring to anyway? And what sort of research is necessary to find out why "Over 9000" became popular in a niche community that he was lauded for it?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't analyze it or give importance to it. You already broke BRD and you removed the entire aspect of something that is well known and a popular in-joke. I've already given the arguments on the Wikiproject about the RS matter, and given the circumstances, Padula's work is likely an RS given the acceptance by the community and the positive reviews specifically covering its detail and research on the subject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Because the interview is a reliable source about its own content, and the creator's responses. He went on record with the interview, does it matter which site? The responses are not suddenly unreliable because they were asked by Japanator's staff. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
To throw out a different idea, what about putting it in Vegeta's article? For example the Loituma Girl meme from Bleach is never mentioned in the Bleach article, but only as two sentences in Orihime Inoue's (who is featured in the meme). I think memes are freaking stupid, hate the idea on them being on an encyclopedia, just can not support putting it in the article of the source series and I don't think Over 9000 has had a large enough impact to have its own article. But I can live with it being in Vegeta's. Xfansd (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea, I like it. Though we still have the original issue here of the "reliable source" as by Ryulong. Its a simple matter, the primary source for the lines is pretty clear under the guidelines. The only other would be the book in context for the meme itself. Regardless of anyone liking it or not the meme is acknowledged and used by Funimation itself. I got videos from the conventions where they even do a bit of playing for the fans, while it does seem to wear thin at times, I really liked the voice actors source of inspiration and how they did their work. Drummond has my respect for other works as well. Though I guess the voice actor comments on their characters should be on their own respective pages. Right? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- For me it makes a big difference with it being in the character's article rather than the series', as the meme is really a minor thing in regards to the series as a whole. Not an expert on what makes one book reliable and another not, but I'm fine with using a questionable book written by a fan in a character article as long as its used for only a couple nice tidy lines and not a large piece. If it was a fan book on something other than a meme I wouldn't allow it, but for a meme I'll accept it because I don't see a well-regarded journalist writing about something so stupid. Have no idea what your talking about with regards to conventions and fans, but would definitely say actor comments on their characters should be in that character's article. Also highly doubt using 9000 over 8000 was a mistranslation, Funimation blatantly changes lines for no reason. Xfansd (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Xfansd, it really was a mistranslation. The Japanese line is 8000, the Ocean dub used 9000 and Funimation used it as well. The original media including work all say 8000. All of this is discussed in the book in relation to the original media. I should also point out the English and Japanese mangas used the line correctly as well, the English version released by Viz shown here. [3] And Padula actually wrote another book about DBZ which was well received, so its not his first one. For the context though, I just found it easier to use this source than cite all the media as I had done. The ultimate example is Kai's two versions for the show, the TV is over 9000 and the DVD is accurate. I saw some posts awhile back about Funimation's reasoning, but this is in the book as well. Hence why I wanted to use it because it cites what I lost track of. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- No no, I know 8000 is correct. What I was saying is that it wasn't an accident, they know how to speak Japanese they would not mix up two different numbers, especially since Funimation was involved with Ocean's dub, it wouldn't happen twice. They simply didn't care or, like I've seen suggested elsewhere, it simply fits the character's moving mouth better than 8000. Just like how in the scene when Vegeta creates the artificial "moon" to transform, Ocean dub has him say something like Goku's dad was the scientist who created this fake moon, which is complete BS nothing remotely like that is said in Japanese. Kind of diverging from the topic, all I was implying was I don't like how using "mistranslate" makes it seem like an accident. But if you bought the book and give your word that it calls it a mistake, then go ahead and use "mistranslation", per Wiki's verifiability not truth. Xfansd (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- He never uses the term "mistranslation", but instead cites that Funimation has years of experience and that they should have been well aware of the original lines during redubbing. The Westwood Dub also had it, but Funimation was in a different role here, but your analysis is plausible. And yes... I am aware of the other issues with the translation, the subbing and such, but the "correct vs incorrect" matter stems from the particular creation of two versions. Which Padula never really cites as Funimation having discovered an error, or thinking behind it (which I don't have any source for either), was just a bit of bad wording on my part. Which I can fix. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- No no, I know 8000 is correct. What I was saying is that it wasn't an accident, they know how to speak Japanese they would not mix up two different numbers, especially since Funimation was involved with Ocean's dub, it wouldn't happen twice. They simply didn't care or, like I've seen suggested elsewhere, it simply fits the character's moving mouth better than 8000. Just like how in the scene when Vegeta creates the artificial "moon" to transform, Ocean dub has him say something like Goku's dad was the scientist who created this fake moon, which is complete BS nothing remotely like that is said in Japanese. Kind of diverging from the topic, all I was implying was I don't like how using "mistranslate" makes it seem like an accident. But if you bought the book and give your word that it calls it a mistake, then go ahead and use "mistranslation", per Wiki's verifiability not truth. Xfansd (talk) 02:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Xfansd, it really was a mistranslation. The Japanese line is 8000, the Ocean dub used 9000 and Funimation used it as well. The original media including work all say 8000. All of this is discussed in the book in relation to the original media. I should also point out the English and Japanese mangas used the line correctly as well, the English version released by Viz shown here. [3] And Padula actually wrote another book about DBZ which was well received, so its not his first one. For the context though, I just found it easier to use this source than cite all the media as I had done. The ultimate example is Kai's two versions for the show, the TV is over 9000 and the DVD is accurate. I saw some posts awhile back about Funimation's reasoning, but this is in the book as well. Hence why I wanted to use it because it cites what I lost track of. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- For me it makes a big difference with it being in the character's article rather than the series', as the meme is really a minor thing in regards to the series as a whole. Not an expert on what makes one book reliable and another not, but I'm fine with using a questionable book written by a fan in a character article as long as its used for only a couple nice tidy lines and not a large piece. If it was a fan book on something other than a meme I wouldn't allow it, but for a meme I'll accept it because I don't see a well-regarded journalist writing about something so stupid. Have no idea what your talking about with regards to conventions and fans, but would definitely say actor comments on their characters should be in that character's article. Also highly doubt using 9000 over 8000 was a mistranslation, Funimation blatantly changes lines for no reason. Xfansd (talk) 01:22, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
GA Review
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Dragon Ball Z/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 03:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I am quickfailing this as ill prepared. I find it hard to believe that the plot of a series that spanned 98 episodes could be summarized in 4 sentences. The plot section needs extensive development. There are multiple entire sections and at least five paragraphs with no WP:ICs. There are numerous bare urls in the citations. These need to be fixed. The extensive all caps text in the citations needs to be reformatted. Please review the WP:LEAD and make sure it summarizes the whole article. No section of the article should be a surprise after reading the LEAD. These types of problems are usually indicative of much deeper problems.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Also, the external links tool to the right shows that there are a pair of seemingly dead links among the citations.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:37, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but the plot limit of 700 words is not my liking and is most definately not of my preference, but A&M editors have "consensus" and edit war to enforce it. I don't want to sound mean, but multiple issues you point out are not even in the GA criteria and most are trivial to fix and the plot issue goes straight to wider policy issues. Bare citations and other issues are indicative of major IP activity in the mean time. Could you at least try to give this a fair review and work within what was set up for MOSAM and LEAD? I went by the project's guideline because of situation and I fail to see how this counts as a proper review and seems more like a writing off without even addressing the policy and guidelines (including the MOSAM page) that supposely governs such pages. I ask that you re-open the review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am unfamiliar with a 700 word limit, but version that I reviewed was only 119 words. Note it fails WP:WIAGA 2, 3a, and as you have pointed out it may fail 5. Please don't war with me over this FAIL. If you insist that you feel the current version is GA material, please nominate this at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- I'll do that. I think some of your statements show you did not even closely read the article. Everything is quickly fixable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:13, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
- I am unfamiliar with a 700 word limit, but version that I reviewed was only 119 words. Note it fails WP:WIAGA 2, 3a, and as you have pointed out it may fail 5. Please don't war with me over this FAIL. If you insist that you feel the current version is GA material, please nominate this at WP:GAR.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- Excuse me, but the plot limit of 700 words is not my liking and is most definately not of my preference, but A&M editors have "consensus" and edit war to enforce it. I don't want to sound mean, but multiple issues you point out are not even in the GA criteria and most are trivial to fix and the plot issue goes straight to wider policy issues. Bare citations and other issues are indicative of major IP activity in the mean time. Could you at least try to give this a fair review and work within what was set up for MOSAM and LEAD? I went by the project's guideline because of situation and I fail to see how this counts as a proper review and seems more like a writing off without even addressing the policy and guidelines (including the MOSAM page) that supposely governs such pages. I ask that you re-open the review. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Cast list
The cast list is unnecessary for this article when List of Dragon Ball characters contains all of the same relevant information. I do not see anything at WP:WIAGA that says such a cast list, particularly in the format provided, is necessary, and such cast lists have previously been determined to be unnecessary and redundant on anime and manga related articles.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is the easiest way to present a lot of information in a concise and readable format. It is important to known the major cast member and in this type of article they are voice actors and the content should be presented instead of hidden away on a much larger character list. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- It is large, unwieldy, and not recommended per WP:MOSAM, as the same information is presented elsewhere. There are only a handful of articles that format this way and they have all been recently and heavily edited by you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
- Stop removing the cast list, articles need to be inclusive and a tabluated list is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason readers should have to go to two, three or a dozen other pages just to find out who played the main cast. A table is the easiest format given the number of dubs and I object to it being swapped to prose as a result. Now stop removing the content periodically; you know the removal is contentious and has been rejected on other pages. So stop doing this every month. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- It should not be on the article. It is not necessary to provide the cast for every single iteration of the dubs when the information is covered on other articles, particularly when you have a block of two tables that serve nothing but to make the page look longer.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- The cast is part of "address[ing] the main aspects of the topic". I expect a certain amount of information to be included when I look up such a work and that includes the Japanese and English credits. Perhaps we could switch out the Harmony Gold one, but the content is important. If its not going to remain as a table it will be turned into prose. This obsession over removing the cast is something that negatively impacts the article. Any calls to remove the cast should or will be summarily rejected by the community as it detracts from the topic. There is no "size" issue and that's a red herring to remove the very people who are featured prominently in the work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- It's a massive god damn table that just makes the page harder to read. And no other anime or manga article has these things other than the ones you have split off into other articles and insist on this being included. No one uses this format. There is no need to use this format. Who voiced who in the varied dubs is not "address[ing] the main aspects of the topic". You don't even address either Blue Water or Ocean Group anywhere else in the article. Why bother mentioning that they had a hand in this at all then?—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- The cast is part of "address[ing] the main aspects of the topic". I expect a certain amount of information to be included when I look up such a work and that includes the Japanese and English credits. Perhaps we could switch out the Harmony Gold one, but the content is important. If its not going to remain as a table it will be turned into prose. This obsession over removing the cast is something that negatively impacts the article. Any calls to remove the cast should or will be summarily rejected by the community as it detracts from the topic. There is no "size" issue and that's a red herring to remove the very people who are featured prominently in the work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- It should not be on the article. It is not necessary to provide the cast for every single iteration of the dubs when the information is covered on other articles, particularly when you have a block of two tables that serve nothing but to make the page look longer.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- Stop removing the cast list, articles need to be inclusive and a tabluated list is perfectly acceptable. There is no reason readers should have to go to two, three or a dozen other pages just to find out who played the main cast. A table is the easiest format given the number of dubs and I object to it being swapped to prose as a result. Now stop removing the content periodically; you know the removal is contentious and has been rejected on other pages. So stop doing this every month. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- It is large, unwieldy, and not recommended per WP:MOSAM, as the same information is presented elsewhere. There are only a handful of articles that format this way and they have all been recently and heavily edited by you.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
We can do another RFC if you want, but I am sure that listing the major cast should be required for GA and FA. If not, I would have serious questions about Wikipedia's value and depth as an encyclopedia. Though you seem to be troubled because any cast section exists at all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:32, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
- But look at the whole set of this "major cast". It can be pared down and we do not need to mention every single company that had a hand in the production. And this is covered by the character lists.—Ryulong (琉竜) 03:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- I partly agree with you. It looks a bit awkward and most of the voice actors are not relevant enough to be mentioned in the article. However, I believe the article is missing a major characters section. Ricardoread (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Which Z Fighters really count as superhero's?
Currently Vegeta is listed as one. I'm of the opinion only Gohan should count as a Superhero because of when he becomes the great Saiyaman and stops crimes. I'm sure even the relatively weaker Z fighters like Krillin would give the Justice league a run for their money; however being really powerful and saving the world is common to a lot of fictional characters. Otherwise any fictional character who saves planets would be a super hero; which means every star fleet captain or Skywalker. CensoredScribe (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
- As far as I know, none of the characters have been identified as "superheros" by reliable, third-party sources. It appears that you haven't learned your lesson the last time where you were engaging in widespread original research in categorizing articles, which resulted in your topic banned form category discussions. 24.149.117.220 (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Are you saying the wikipedia article mentioning the words superhero multiple times is sufficient for a series to be said to be about that? I think the article for the film The Crow mentioned telepathy close to five times, and dragon ball online mentions time travel multiple times. I would like to think the same rules that apply to books would apply to video games as well. CensoredScribe (talk) 03:51, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
- Who can say with authority, which fictional character is a superhero and who is not? Seems like an exercise in futility. 184.7.175.199 (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Sayians
Should link here not dragon ball since they are more relevant. --Youngdrake (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Logo
An updated version of the logo has been used on the packaging & promotional material for Battle of Gods, the video game Battle of Z, and on the poster and official website for the upcoming movie Revival of F. It can also be found in Japan-exclusive OVAs such as the 2009 Dream 9 crossover. The logo used on our wiki has been out of date for quite awhile, not to mention, it's a fan recreation with colors that are way too bright.
Funimation's dragonballz.com uses their own flat, dimmed version of the wide logo in the top left corner, but the new gradient style is displayed prominently on the main splash, and will continue to be used for their promotion of the new movie.
What's the policy on this? Should we update our fan-made Googled logo with the current official logo? Does this break some kind of style guide? FatNagger69 (talk) 10:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- No but it will fall foul of wikipedia's copyright policies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- The image used here is that of the logo used in the TV series' opening title sequence. Since this article is about, and any new films are derived from, the TV series, the original 1986-1996 logo should be used over any new variation. Xfansd (talk) 16:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Reference #75
The current reference for reference [75] links to here which redirects to the IGN homepage. The correct link is this one. I'm having a lot of difficulties trying to fix this, being the noob that I am, so I am hoping someone can correct this reference. Much appreciated. Karnage2015 (talk) 04:52, 18 January 2015 (UTC)