Talk:Trunks (Dragon Ball)

Organization

I am wondering about the organization of the article. Perhaps there should be a global heading such as "Incarnations" underwhich their various incarnations could be listed and described. Also, there is not a clear "Plot" section. How and when does Trunks incarnate and how does this relate to the general history of Trunks?

These questions may sound silly as I am trying to understand the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I was pretty certain that the plot was clear. It's divided accordantly to relevance of both incarnations. I was trying to keep the article out of universe as much as possible as per guidelines. "As for a global heading", the names Future Trunks and Present Trunks should be enough. Sarujo (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

VERY disapointed

I'm a huge Future Trunks fan and I think it's ridiculous how he doesn't get his own article, he's a damn main character completly different from the little idiot Kid Trunks, who cares if he's only in one saga, he still did his part and deserves his own page not shared with an idiotic little character AT decided to butcher. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.248.250.235 (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, this "is" his own article. Did you not see what the heading states? Like it or not this was a unanimous decision by consensus to merge the two. Future or Present, your still talking about the same character. And why on Earth is it that whenever someone brings up Present Trunks, they always refer to the child? That "idiotic little character" as you call him, grew up in the series and was an adult in Dragon Ball GT. And after he became an adult he wasn't that much different from the other Trunks. But still, it doesn't matter how much involvement or how important a character's contribution is to a franchise. What ultimately matters is real world content. And nether stood much of chance seperatly. If things continued like they were they would have both been redirrected to the character list. This giving every fictional Tom, Dick, and Harry an individual character article has got to stop.

Also in the future, please add new sections on the bottom. Thank you. Sarujo (talk) 04:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

They are completly different characters. Future Trunks caused Bulma to give birth Trunks in another day in timelines 1(Main) and 4. Trunks of the end of dbz is maybe less arrogant but he is still completly different from Future Trunks. and GT is non canon. WillRock41 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Reception

It seems that the first paragraph is a bit off. It states that Trunks was one of the most anticipated characters, without providing any actual citations. I propose that it is removed, at least until it can be properly cited. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It was my understanding that the mention and sourcing of the teaser would help. But maybe this will help instead. If that sentence is a problem I could just hide it, but not the whole paragraph. Sarujo (talk) 01:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Its not just that one sentence, the entire paragraph is improperly sourced. For example, one of the citations states that many fans anticipated Trunks arrival in the dub, and that much fan art was submitted pertaining to it. The only source is a "Fanart Comercial Bumper". There are other instances of this throughout the paragraph, which makes much of it original reasearch, as the citations do not back up the claims it is making. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The fan art is pertaining to his absence, not to antisapation. And how is the fact that Cartoon Network addressed fans sending in Trunks fan art before he appeared (No Trunks) original research? Sarujo (talk) 03:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Because there is no reference to back up the claim. Also, the statement that he is a popular character because of toys being sent to america before he appeared is also original research, as its citation only links to an amazon.com page that displays a figure of kid trunks. It does not state that the figure was sent to america early, or that it caused his popularity. Furthermore, the statement that his prescence in the opening caused confusion amoung dub fans is also original research, as it does not have a citation. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 16:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then the paragraph should to be rewritten, not outright deleted. The Toonami fanart bummper should not be removed as it helps establishes his fanbase needs.

Okay this figure is dated 1999. Sarujo (talk) 23:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it exists doesn't mean that it caused Trunks to be well recieved by fans. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that it does. Sarujo (talk) 00:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To quote the article "Trunks is one of the more popular supporting characters in the series Because images such as the famous title card, and toys from such series as the Super Battle Collection and Super Guerriers had managed to make their way to North America prior to the releases of the official manga volume and anime episode." This states that the figures attributed to Trunk's popularity amoung fans. There is also the problem that only the figure is shown to exist, its popularity is never proven, and the "famous title card" is never poven to exist or be popular. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

So no one knows what that is? Okay, I added Funimation to the line. See, it just needs to be rewritten. Sarujo (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats not what I'm getting at, the citation doesn't properly cite why the fiqures and title card made Trunks popular amoung fans. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

For the love of... The paragraph is suppost to be in the other way around. Stating that his popularity was the contributor, and that these things were in the North American markets before his arrival. I would have never dreamed that it would me missinterpreted. But I'll just take it to my sandbox and rework it. As I stated it only needs to be rewriten. Sarujo (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC) i am also a trunks fan but a couple days ago my cousin told me he was gay? look i really dont watch dragon ball z but i play all the games but my cousin told me he was gay CAN YOU BELEIVE THAT well thats all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.27.228 (talk) 08:58, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Attacks

Burning Attack is his signiture attack, it was used more than once within the series. and regardless of whether or not they had a name in either the manga or anime, they have names now. All of the characters attacks are named, as stated by Toriyama. I purpossly left out the Heat Dome and Masenko attacks because their lack of there of. Sarujo (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

When was it used again? I only remember the one time it was used against Freeza. It doesn't really matter if its named anyway, as it has no actual plot significance. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

He used it againt #18. Plot signifigance is irelivent, most of there attacks often fail their purpose, the attack's association with the character is. But if you insist on plot signifigance, the attack was used to kill Freeza. Although it didn't directly kill him, it was used as a distraction. Sarujo (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Plot significance as in the name is actually mentioned outside of the reference books, and actually is shown to be used multiple times, and has something special about it beyond just being an energy blast. Trunks only uses it again in the anime, and even then only once. Plot significance is relevant, and is the only reason to actually have the attacks listed, wikipedia is not an indiscriminite collection of information. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

SSJ3?

It is mentioned in this that the future trunks turns SSJ3 during the Cell saga, I dont ever remember this happening in either the anime or the manga. 219.88.193.30 (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not the same thing as Goku and Gotenks' Super Saiyan 3. What Trunks achieved was the three known stages of Super Saiyan 1 or ascensions. Some have even used the term Ultra Saiyan. In this form his muscles pumped up. Sarujo (talk) 02:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Then it should be marked as SSJ stage 3, not just SSJ3. 125.237.153.49 (talk) 03:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No it states the form as third Super Saiyan grade. Which is a difference from just SS3. Also, in case you haven't noticed, we can't use SSJ. Sarujo (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Defeating Son Goten

I just rewatched their Match and Trunks actually just cheats one times more than Goten Referingn to this as several Times inst really corrcet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.127.246.198 (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Underwear

Buruma is reference to bloomers (clothing) and Trunks is reference to torankusu meaning "boxer shorts", as most Japanese people would have figured out.

I found a paper[1] someone published at the academia.edu site, and it mistakenly states that Trunks means "brief shorts". --Kiyoweap (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Image deletion nomination(s)

One or more images currently used in this article have been nominated for deletion as violations of the non-free content criteria (NFCC).

You can read more about what this means and why these files are being nominated for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#Image deletion nominations for NFCC 8 and 3a.

You can participate at the deletion discussion(s) at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2020 April 28. If you are not familiar with NFCC-related deletion discussions, I recommend reading the post linked above first.

Sincerely, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2020 (UTC)