Talk:Dragon Ball Z

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dragon Ball Z article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4

	Dragon Ball Z is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 11, 2006 Peer review Reviewed July 26, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed September 30, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted Current Status: Former featured article candidate

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Dragon Ball work group.

This is not a forum for general discussion of where you can find the Ocean dub. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

Contents 1 Can some DBZ Movies be canon? 2 I thought it was Frieza 3 Article Cropped 4 Saga suggestions 5 Deletion of Content Discussion 5.1 Section break 1 5.2 Section break 2 5.3 Section break 3 5.4 Section break 4 5.5 Section Break 5 5.6 Section Break 6 5.7 Section Break 7 6 Suggestion for Reordering or Reediting this site 7 More info on the DBZ movie 8 Link fix in the article 9 DBZ LAM Fan objection 10 Comedy? 11 Own DVD Page 12 Dragonball Z is action based. It is not Dragonball. 13 Fair use rationale for Image:Dragonballz.jpg 14 Dragon Ball Z Season Box Set Subtitles 15 Locked for editing? 16 DVD Removal 17 Peer Review Alert 18 how many seasons are there? 19 Power Level

[edit] Can some DBZ Movies be canon?

I've been wondering. I know DBZ movies aren't supposed to be canon, but I've noticed that there may be ways. A lot of Movies could take place in the Android and Cell Saga. Though the frequent use of the Dragon Balls might propose some issues.

-Dead Zone- could take place in the Android/Cell saga, either in the beggining or when the Z-fighters are preparing to fight Cell. Though ignoring costumes, use of tequniques or other slight details. -Worlds Strongest- Somewhere near Dead Zone. Ignoring same things.

-Tree of Might- Same as World's Strongest.

-Lord Slug- Same as World's Strongest.

-Cooler's Revenge- Again, same as World's Strongest.

-Return of Cooler- AGAIN, same as World's Strongest.

-Super Android 13!- Early Android saga.

-Broly: The Legendary Super Saiyan- Android/Cell saga (Noticing a pattern?)

-Bojack Unbound- After Cell Saga.

-Broly-Second Coming- Somewhere in Buu saga.

-Bio-Broly- Same as Broly-Second Coming.

-Fusion Reborn- Probably never, but mabye I just can't think of anything.

-Wrath of The Dragon- After Buu Saga.

I know that that was totally vague, but could someone who actually owns them, review the movies and try to find if some really could fit in. Thanks a lot.

[edit] I thought it was Frieza

not "Freeza" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.197.70 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

While the FUNi dub does use Frieza it is and... odd change. Everyone and everywhere else uses "Freeza". (EDIT: I need to stop making posts while half asleep. Formatting fixed (I think).)

[edit] Article Cropped

why is most of the info in this article gone? it really doesn't even talk about the show in general. whats up? Schaef Dogg 04:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, rather than actually looking for sources for information, the self-appointed DBZ Wikipolice have decided to take the lazy way out and simply delete everything that doesn't have a source. That's why this article is cropped worse than a Season Set.Kendamu (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is horrible! I came to this page to get information on the anime, to refresh my memory for a project that a few of my friends and and I am putting together. Now this page is next to useless! What do people expect to happen? We cite every single episode for a plot summary? Ridiculous! If you want to change the page, cite the information yourself, instead of just deleting it all, and don't turn around and say "You do it," as I'm not the one who haphazardly deleted the majority of the page. The goal of Wikipedia is to help the community by providing information, not delete it just because it hasn't been cited yet. Cite the information! If it's possible to restore the page to it's previous state, I hereby request it be done, and the community to come and try to cite as much information as possible/needed. Chihuahuaking88 (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

In the meantime, you can still use this page for your project. Just look at the article history and go back to whatever time you think is best. -- RattleMan (talk) 07:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I must thank you, as I never knew this was here. ^.^ This should make it relatively easy to find deleted information and put it back, cited where appropriate. I'd do some myself, but I've yet to fully read up on the concise rules on doing so.

[edit] Saga suggestions

There should be a Garlic Junior Saga. If you don't want to take the time to create a Garlic Junior Saga page, then consider adding it to the end of the Freeza Saga or the beginning of the Cell Saga. Also, you have clustered up the sagas. It should be spread out a bit, as the Dragonball has it. For instance. Sayain Saga, Namek Saga, Ginyu Force Saga, Freeza Saga, Garlic Junior Saga, Android Saga, Cell Saga, Babidi Saga, and then finally the Majin Buu saga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.132 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Content Discussion

I have deleted almost everything in the DBZ page which included series and plot information that was not sourced per WP:V policy, and I've done the same for Son Goku and Yamucha. I will continue to remove every sentence and paragraph from all Dragon Ball-related pages that violates WP:OR, WP:NEU, WP:VERIFY and any other policy. Any assistance would most definitely be great. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also notable to add that all of the Dragon Ball Z Saga pages will be merged into four articles. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have no objections. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than just deleting information, why don't you find verification or citation for said information? Deleting information from Wikipedia because no citation was recorded defeats the purpose of using Wikipedia as reference guide.Kakomu 18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that there's jack for verifiable info on canon stuff. Pretty much the only thing that we have are the mangas, which actually have contradictions insode themselves. That both makes these articles impossible to edit and ultimately dooms them to never make GA. No one has the Daizenshuu (because it's super rare) and most interviews with Toriyama are long gone. --VorangorTheDemon 01:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel comfortable re-including the information back in so long as it doesn't violate any of the said policies. I won't get rid the content if it is backed-up at least by reliable sources. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In otherwords you've decided that policy requires every sentence/statement to be individually referenced?--Marhawkman 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying every single little event, however, most of it does need citations. For example, dates, quotes, story & plot occurrences. Cases such as voice actors, OSTs and video games don't need a ref if those articles are already sourced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this have something to do with removal of "attack lists"? Those are simply the DBZ equivalent of a powers and abilities section.--Marhawkman 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, a list of attacks needs to be confirmed per WP:VERIFY. I realized that the Dragon Ball pages will never be good articles unless a lot of this stuff is sourced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't simply listing episodes that they were used be sufficient?--Marhawkman 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but wouldn't it be better to reference manga volumes? I don't object to citing anime episodes, however. Whatever works, long as we don't break any policy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Either or both works for me. It doesn't really matter to Wiki policy as long as it is an official(IE first party) source.--Marhawkman 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad we could come to terms. You're welcome to help in the mass removal of original content or, if you'd prefer, cite the most appropiate locations. By the way, if you do reference the manga, could you cite the page(s)? Most seem to forget about this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean page in volume? I probably won't cite the manga, but the page/volume numbering might be different in english and Japanese versions.--Marhawkman 00:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys are going overboard on deleteing to a point that everything is being reduced to one or two sentences. In the end the links are meaningless because they say absolutely NOTHING about the subject if you find something that is to lengthy abbreviate it if you find something with out a reference find the source and jot down the references. User:Shinobigai —Preceding comment was added at 17:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, It's Sesshomaru's doing. He doesn't seem to understand the policy.--Marhawkman 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:REF, it will teach you how to reference pages. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And then read: WP:When_to_cite If Sesshomaru keeps up what he's doing I'm gonna have to report it as vandalism.--Marhawkman 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See bad faith. Also that is an essay, not a policy that overcomes others. Complain all you want, I'm abiding by WP:V and WP:OR. Look at what happened to D.L. Hughley. No one complained there, the DBZ article is no different. And no offense guys, but they're policies, they can not be ignored. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I AM assuming good faith. However, your demonstrated lack of understanding of policy has caused me to conclude you don't know what you're doing. OR and V DO NOT state that every tiny comment in an article needs to be individually referenced. It is permissable to simply use a list of anime episodes as a reflist.--Marhawkman 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Must I say it again? Of course anime episodes can be utilised as refs, I just think sourcing manga chapters/pages are more informal. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with getting manga pages as a source. For that people would actually have to have the manga. BTW even though you CLAIM to not be advocating that every tiny edit needs to be seperately sourced, that's pretty much what you've done. you deleted everything without a ref tag. Whether it had a stated source or not.--Marhawkman 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And YES WP:IGNORE does specifically state that POLICIES don't have to be rigidly followed. Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means your edits have been VERY detrimental to the to the articles you've edited and you've gone against wp:consensus the entire time.--Marhawkman 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What consensus? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has nothing to do with voting. It is the shared opinion of users regarding a subject. No one has agreed that your decision to remove the information was the right one. AND yes following consensus is part of policy.--Marhawkman 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok what I am about to say will sound mean and emotionless please do not take offense. First off Marhawk, there is no real consensus on your side. Only a bunch of users and IPs with nothing more to say than I Don't Like it have a problem with this. I really don't see why we are arguing about this, the Dragon Ball Z article has been terrible, and Sesshomaru is only getting rid of all the crap (sorry about the harsh language) that has been plaguing this article for months. Now the article is fresh for a rewrite that can actually give the reader more information than when the Funimation dub started and when the box sets are coming out. Sorry for having to make such harsh comments. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely said. Data that gets removed doesn't dissapear forever (unless deleted by an admin.), I don't understand why some people exaggerate stuff. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely said, DBZROCKS, as well. Greg Jones II 23:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(OVERLY LONG) Listen guys To me DB characters as well as most anime, manga and other Asian based fictional characters on Wikipedia will never get a GA rating because to tell there stories and the bios of fictional people it will always come out to a in-universal type of article and there is not too many things in the US about Asian author and Mangaka (Manga artist). I have sat here somedays on my computer tried to write and rewrite Goku and Gohan's article before tackling them and bringing it to Wiki but no true real world stuffs really comes out. Of course Goku does have much influence outside of DB but it is usually in other piece of fiction. Some time ago the articles were ok but then the articles started to get overly long. Then Cruft started to show up and with that and the thing with in-universe reference something had to be done. Thats why many of the editors had to come to some agreement to shorten the article to remove the cruft and most in-universe text. But even with the Daizenshuu (DB universe encyclopedias) volumes (which I do have a few) it still will not give you the reference you really need as they are not published in the US and are rare to come by as Vorangor said before. I know it took me years to get the volumes I got. And being so rare and not in the US language it will be hard for others to find what they are looking for so the true and only real references in the US is the US Viz version of the mangas as the first and Funimation subtitled version of the anime as the second. We are not offical translator, most of us can't even read japanese, chinese or korean so things like offical names and stuff should not really be argued anymore. Stuff like when did Goku first us the Kamehameha should not be hard to find to reference. Stuff like what volume or chapter did Piccolo merge with Kami should be hard to find. So if you have a problem with something that need referencing and you don't have the manga well do one of a few things. Go on line google DB mangas and you find them there, Go the Books a Million or some comic book store in your area and buy it, or ask a friend that may have it or go to a user page and ask them. This arguing over references and policies is really getting old fast. To let you know a lot of policies and guidelines have a policy, essay, and guideline that seems to have the condradict, or is the complete opposite meaning and effect to something a editor may work on. And do not talk about canon please. I just brought that up for a reason as many anime follow a manga but to let it be known a lot of mangas are following or going off of a anime. So when someone says something like vegeta wasnt a SSJ2 fighting buu in the anime but he was in the manga, do one of two things. Go with what came first (the manga or anime), or if there is still a disagreement just put a reference or a line in the article telling the public of this and not argue over it. I understand the others too as a lot of info has be deleted but they have to understand too that this is an encyclopedia and not Dragon Ball only website and not all the information on a character has to be listed only the important and major event things. Heat P 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, what are you tryin to say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok in short. I say using Daizenshuu books as reference should not be used since they are very rare only a few are out in the world now and are not pubilshed in the english language or released in the stated so the manga and anime should be the only real source unless interview like the ones in Shonen Jump can be used. Second there is no real way of saying this but in-universe text is really the only way to tell fictional character bio's. Ya I should let the admin know this but it is causing too much arguments over something so trival. Also if (no offense to anyone) someone is going to use a policy or guideline to fight a arguement, research every aspect of that policy and not a few sentences. And as I said in the last part of my above statement. The opposers of shorten the articles needs to know that this is not a DragonBall website, it is a everything encyclopedia. There is a DragonBall Wiki site for every last bit of info on DB. Only the most important information is needed on this one but to the editors a lot of the articles are miss much info or does not really read right. That is what I was getting at.Heat P 02:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you all the way. Since this is the case, we should only use the manga, both fansubbs and Viz', since they're practically the only reliable sources. The English dubs are also out of the question since they err on a lot of things. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Fansubs are NOT considered Reliable(by Wiki policy). The dub doesn't have as many changes as you seem to be implying. This situation requires using as many FIRST party sources as possible. The dub, while it might differ somewhat, is treated as a first party source.--Marhawkman 10:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep claiming "Wiki policy" but you haven't referenced which one(s). All of the English dubs ruined the anime, much like 4Kids "destroyed" One Piece. I was implying that I'd rather we use any if all manga sources than anything of the anime, which contradicts the manga in several ways. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See: Primary source, WP:PSTS and WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

All Fan translations are non-authoritative, and are at best Tertiary sources. Whether or not a dub is considered authoritative depends on the quality. the Funi dub had far fewer errors/changes than the Ocean Group dub. If you have specific reasons for Not considering it authoritative then please list them.--Marhawkman 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

All three items you've demonstrated don't back up anything you claimed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• The Daizenshuu books are a great source of information that can be sited as long as it is translated correctly and that what ever unique info placed on these pages from Daizenshuu states that it came from that source. Many articles use foreign publication all the time especially when most of the valid information cant be found in English. This is also the case with Dragon Ball because the vast majority of the info is in Japanese. Just because its not in English doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And omitting it would be against the whole idea of what wikipedia is an "everything" encyclopedia. Also there should be an article or brief explanation of the differences between Daizenshuu books and US DragonBall just so people know its out there. Besides that I support everything that Heat P said in his statement above. Supersaiyengoku 16:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Heat P actually said to not use the Daizenshū since they're extremely rare in the U.S. We should utilize the most reliable information available, of course, this discludes any English dubs. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey I'm not saying Daizenshū are not reliable source worldwide I am just saying that they really should not be used as a reference because of the rarity of the books. Where will you find someone with the entire 7 volume set translated correctly? See I have a few that where published in Germany ( I got them when I was stationed there )so I know the info most people get from them are true but this is not the german wiki site. So do to that even if you can go search the internet for passages from the books do to translation problem to US english

there is not real way for the rest of the John Q public to go out there and find these books to search or reference something they want to know. Only the most loyal of Dragon Ball fans will try their hardest to find that info. So the most reliable sources for Dragon Ball is the manga 1st then the anime. Heat P 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From the guideline (which is NOT an essay as was said earlier)-

When a source may not be needed

• General common knowledge – Statements that everyone recognizes as true. Example: "Paris is the capital of France."
• Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions".
• Plot of the subject of the article - If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information.
• Text–source relationship – The maximum distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment. The source of the material should always be clear. If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious. Editors should exercise caution when rearranging cited material to ensure that the text-source relationship isn't broken.
• Where summary style is being used – The Summary style policy says there is no need to repeat all of the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point.

So... were more references preferable, even needed? Sure. But is the answer to assume that anything without a little blue number behind it needs deletion? Clearly not. Onikage725 17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Take this for instance, how is DBZ anymore notable than D.L. Hughley? Did you see what happened to his article? I don't see any complainers there, but plenty here. Goes to show that fans want their junk back. The information isn't lost forever, go ahead and re-add it but if it violates WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and/or WP:NEU I will remove it again. Please reference what needs to be referenced, and that includes a lot of stuff, not every single thing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

didn't I already explain this? Your interpretation is ridiculous. The DL Hughley article is completely irrelevent(as explained elsewhere). You're not helping. Referencing things that "need referenced" is vague at best. In this case, I'd say that nothing needs to be specifically referenced. Why? It's an article about fiction written in the past tense. Most contentious information would be essentially fan-theories, and inappropriate for Wiki. And yes the policy on references does allow for a list of episodes to be used at the end of the article and sparsely linked to in the article.--Marhawkman 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Please look at the information I took the time to post Sesshomaru. I tried to present actual, Wikipedia-backed information. A guideline directly related to the issue is more relevant than what happened to a completely unrelated article. Specifically read "Subject-specific common knowledge," "Plot of the subject of the article," and "Where summary style is being used." By way of example, under censorship the article says the following- When it was marketed in the US, the distribution company FUNimation alongside with Saban decided to initially focus exclusively on the young children's market, because the anime market was still small compared to the much larger children's cartoon market. To handle the dialogue, voice actors from the Ocean Group were hired. What kind of source would you propose for this? The comparison of the anime market/US children's cartoon market is a little speculative but it is also 100% true. Do we really need to search the web for some crap to say that anime was niche in the early 90's? I'm sure it could be found. That they focused on kids, one need only cite an episode from those airings. They aired in early morning children's blocks and contained heavy content edits. The Ocean Group wouldn't need any source beyond the end credits (if a reference on that would even be needed at all). That's kind of my point on how a lot of this stuff, while it could be cleaned up and written with less speculation, does NOT qualify as blatant fancruft. Onikage725 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break 1

Has been completely destroyed. It sucks, it doesnt even have any information on the storyline or anything. The standards of the Dragonball articles have fallen dramatically and are very poor to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.197.68 (talk • contribs)

Yea, The article was better before after this user Sesshomaru nukes everything. --SkyWalker 19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Complain all you guys want, I'm simply following WP:V and WP:OR. Look at what happened to D.L. Hughley. No one complained there, the DBZ article is no different. And no offense guys, but they're policies, they can not be ignored. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See above^--Marhawkman 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Must I say it again? Of course anime episodes can be utilised as refs, I just think sourcing manga chapters/pages are more informal. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a WP:DICK but Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a policey. However, it completely doesn't apply here. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That is true. However it is true, because the articles weren't violating policy to start with.--Marhawkman 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was not in direct violation of Wikipedia Policey but it was terrible. It was just a long article that just explained every release date for every Funimation box set. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is actually not about this article specifically. Sessh lobotomized multiple article related to DBZ.--Marhawkman 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound as if I'm vandalising. Well, time to cut more unsourced bunk. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problems with it if your edits were being made to improve the articles. but you've gone to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point you've almost completely removed several of the character pages for no reason other than your misguided interpretation of policy.--Marhawkman 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this whole sorry incident has done nothing to improve the image that wiki users are nothing but tireless nit-pickers, who would rather follow their policies to an obsessive degree than write a good article. Sure this follows your strict interpretation of policy Sesshomaru, but the fact of the matter is, this article is now terrible (IMO) because of it! Instead of tearing the article to pieces, maybe it would be better to improve this article by either finding sources or rewriting it. The Real Mr Snrub 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I love DBZ and would like to see improvement on this article (See Reediting article below). But reviewing the history of this article, related articles, and the talk pages of those who have edited it at one time or another has made me afraid of even trying to contribute to a better DBZ page. I am even afraid of expressing this opinion right now. Everyone who has tried to better this page has been harassed, blamed for vandilizing, and even blocked etc. I can garentee that if your not careful of what you do or say someone will find a way to block you. Its ugly but its true. Even the most experienced Wiki user could be confronted with headaches for just touching this site. Lets try to get along. With love and concern of my fellow editors, Demon Lord Naraku 10:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break 2

A debate has sprung up regarding the implementation of wp:v and wp:or in regards to procedure for removing information that doesn't have references. In particular, whether all statements need to be referenced individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marhawkman (talk • contribs)

I went through and looked at the history, and went through each section that was removed:

1. History: Deals almost exclusively with localization issues, which probably should be cited. Sentences like "severe restrictions were put in place for a cable program." go uncited and unexplained, while the entire "creative changes" section/sentence starts with "The FUNimation version is noted for" but doesn't attribute the noting.
2. Filler: The article suggests the infamously lengthy fight sequences were caused by the need for filler. If possible, this should be cited.
3. VHS/DVD releases: The material covered here probably ought to go under the history section, and cited, because the bulk of it deals with the Pioneer -> FUNimation differences.

In short, go out and find sources, then come back and reintroduce/rewrite the material that was there. And then write some more, like a critical reception section, how it impacted the industry, etc, etc. Nifboy 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I didn't explain it well, but the RFC was about this and the sub-articles.--Marhawkman 10:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break 3

Ok, this is why I've pretty much been a ghost around here lately. Everything goes from one extreme to the other. I understand the need for citing sources, and the fight against cruft and original research... but it is ridiculous that one of the longest-running and most well-known animes ever has had its Wikipedia entry reduced to this. A brief introduction followed by a list of songs featured in the series and two more lists for cast and staff? Round this off with a paragraph on the live-action film that we aren't even sure is off the ground yet and I'd say we have a vastly improved article now </sarcasm>. Whatever happened to lists = bad? Why do these comprise the bulk of the article while actual information (that, granted, needed cleanup and sourcing) gets arbitrarily deleted? Not only do most sub articles on DBZ get reduced to near-stub status, but now the MAIN article? Someone explain this to me. I know it needed copy-editing, sources, and removal of cruft, but what we have here now is honestly only worthy of an AfD or RM request. There is NOTHING worthwhile in this article (nor up to any standards).Onikage725 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See the above for the reasons. Greg Jones II 11:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, but I don't buy that everything in the article was completely impossible to verify. Simple deletion of everything but some lists did not improve the article's quality. I'm not assuming bad faith or saying this was anyone's intention. It just seems like we went from one extreme to the other. If a series like Death Note can have a sourced article, it seems like DBZ could. And all but deleting the article instead of looking at things like Animerica, Shonen Jump, ANN (just a few things off the top of my head), and even the FUNi and Atari websites and notable sites like Daizex for some citations or citable info seems to me like cutting off our nose to spite our face. Onikage725 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How is DBZ anymore notable than D.L. Hughley? Did you see what happened to his article? I don't see any complainers there, but plenty here. Goes to show that fans want their junk back. The information isn't lost forever, go ahead and re-add it but if it violates WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and/or WP:NEU I will remove it again. Please reference what needs to be referenced, and that includes a lot of stuff, not every single thing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk edits) 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to pop in here, I believe that Wikipedia rules are stricter on verifiability for biography articles than any others. DBZ is fictional; you can't really compare the two. -- RattleMan 07:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still original content. Shouldn't be too hard to source what may need to be sourced, and the information isn't lost for good. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There are different guidelines for writing biographies on real people and writing articles on works of fiction. Comparing an anime to a stand-up comedian is apples and oranges. There's also the notion that what works for article X doesn't necessarily mean it applies to article Y. Every article should be judged and edited on its own merits. You'll notice the rules usually state to weigh issues on a case by case basis. Wikipedia also strives on building consensus. Remember the core argument against ALttP and others on naming conventions? This is obviously a contentious issue, so blanket deletion of the whole article (and by this logic, the lists might as well be deleted too, leaving us with an opening paragraph and a mention of the supposed live action film) is not the best immediate solution IMHO. Onikage725 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have undone your ridiculous edit to the page. Naming conventions have absolutely nothing to do with material that violates the verifiability and original research policies. Most from WP:WPDB supported my reasons for the mass removal of unsourced data, and WP:OR is a reason enough to take such an action without needing to alert others. Did you even read this and this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes... Ive left comments. You've even responded. You know damn well I've read the discussions. Why are you acting like a sarcastic jerk? Onikage725 20:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Onikage725, WP:CIVIL. Greg Jones II 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Onikage725, I suggest you read up on WP:NPA as well. As much as you disagree with a person adhering to policies, there is no right to start name-calling. Highly innappropiate, please be more mature in the future. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I told you Im done here. But for the record, dont exhibit this condescending attitude, ignore anything I say, behave in a contentious manner (i.e calling edits "ridiculous" and asking me to read a discussion you KNOW I've read) and then throw the incivility card. That said I already told you in no uncertain terms I no longer care about the outcome. So back off. Onikage725 01:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to upset you, Onikage725. I will let you go. Greg Jones II 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the rules regarding OR? Something is only considered original research if it represents a point of view without sources backing it. NOT EVERY LINE IN AN ARTICLE NEEDS IT'S OWN REF TAG.--Marhawkman 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, but then again, we have gone over this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, we did. But as I pointed out before, what you're saying and what you're doing don't match. You say you're not going to wipe out everything without a ref tag, but you have gone and done exactly that.--Marhawkman 11:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like we have the world against a single, self-righteous clean-up man, here. The point of Wikipedia articles is to inform the reader about the subject of the article. Not only this main page, but virtually every DBZ article has been so radically minimized that they convey practically no information about the show anymore. This page doesn't even say what DBZ is ABOUT, other than a cursory mention that it involves Goku's "adult life" - as if that's informative in the slightest. It is literally a cast and song list, which are both totally useless. Any random fan site would provide better factual information, plus analysis and interpretation, than this purported encyclopedia article. Such extreme editing nullifies the entire purpose of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.97.140 (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

People are right when they say this crusade is getting ridiculous when it comes to deleting plot summaries, ie "what the article is about", if it is "not sourced".

As others have pointed out, we have enough policies and guidelines saying there is no need for citation with plot summaries:

• When a source may not be needed: " Plot of the subject of the article - If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information."
• Primary information: "The term primary information describes information that can only be taken from primary sources, i.e. the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction (e.g. another episode of the same series). Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source"

In these condition, I really cannot understand why this passage was deleted :

The series continues the adventures of Goku as an adult who, along with his companions, defend the Earth and many other planets against various villains. While the original Dragon Ball anime followed Goku through childhood into adulthood, Dragon Ball Z is a continuation of his adulthood life, but at the same time parallels the maturation of his first child, Gohan, as well as the slow evolution of his rival, Vegeta from evil to good. The separation between the series is also significant as the later series takes on a more dramatic and serious tone.

It is merely a plot summary, based only on the primary source, and doesn't contain any analysis on the source material. It merely states facts from the manga/anime. Only the last sentence may require precise examples of the "more dramatic and serious tone", since there's an hint of opinion/judgment.

It was just useless and counterproductive of Sesshomaru (and it may even be seen as provocative) to remove that.

In consequence, I'm going to reintegrate the paragraph I've quoted, since it's strictly a plot summary, as per the "when to cite" guideline, and if Sesshomaru has a problem with that, he'll have to provide precise, very clear and undisputable policy elements saying plot summaries must be sourced before doing any revert.

And finally, I agree with him when he says that sections about releases, interpretations, explanations of editorial choices etc, have to be sourced. But of course, the way he handled all this was just clumsy, counterproductive, and deprived of any common sense.Folken de Fanel 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you did and I don't have any qualms, this article really needs citation-style refs though. Example, how do we know that DBZ aired from 04/26/89 - 01/31/96? That needs to be sourced ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take one minute to throw this out- http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=244&page=25. That took like... I dunno.. a minute to find. Wasn't that more productive than deletion? How about as a suggestion saying which things are in dispute and deciding what does and does not need a source. And for what does, if one is available or if the info should be rewriten or deleted. That would be more productive and beneficial to the article than deleting most of it. That said, I'm out. Onikage725 12:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well.... that's what the wikipedia rules say you should do. However Sessh seems to have either missed or ignored that part.--Marhawkman 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The time you waste criticizing others was the time you could have used to improve Wikipedia. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I don't get Sessh- the rampant attitude. Your attitude of late has bordered on WP:OWN, you leave these curt little replies that ignore any point made (for example this little exchange that ignored my valid proposal, or your edit summary telling me to see WP:REF because I made a simple mistake and didn't see that the air date was listed twice- and to my knowledge, WP:REF doesnt make issue of citing in infobox vs citing in article), remove and/or ignore comments, etc. You've been highly critical of others. And I recall when another user was presenting himself in much the same way as you currently are, you began scheming with another user about how to have him removed from Wikipedia. Yet now you get uppity of a little criticism? I think myself and a few others would appreciate it if you spent a little less time acting like your shit doesn't stink and a little more time working with your fellow editors towards a consensus on what is obviously a contested issue.

Ironically enough, WP:REF does identify itself as a guideline, and does list alongside under relevant policies WP:IAR. I do find it funny how you earlier identified it as a policy, and stated that IAR has no merit towards it. Maybe I'm not the only one who should bone up on the rules. Sorry to criticize when I could be using this time to improve Wikipedia, but I do feel that hypocrisy damages the Wikipedia process (most importantly, the policy of building consensus.Onikage725 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't number consensus, then I don't know what is. Are you implying that I'm someone you know? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Number consensus? Ryu-chan agreed (DBZROCKS' comment was a sidenote about the merging of the Saga articles, not on this article). Kakomu spoke against the deletion and suggested looking for citations. Vorangor mentioned that finding refs would be hard. Marhawkman disagreed and you two went around about it for awhile. Shinobigai was against it. After more arguing, DBZROCKS supported the deletion, stating it was terrible and fresh for a rewrite. Greg Jones praised his response (as did you). Heat had a comment that, from what I can tell, isn't for or against deletion of the majority of the article, and is instead trying to explain to people the nature of sourcing this stuff and what the problems that arise are about. He goes on to add that the article needs to be shortened and trivial stuff should be on the DB Wiki, but that alot of stuff tends to go missing with the shortenings.Then we have another argument on sources, fansubs or dubs, etc. Supersaiyengoku says the Daizenshuu shouldn't be discounted as a source. This was discussed a little bit. I copied text from the guideline on when a source isn't needed (which itself included note of a policy on summary style), and voiced an opinion that the article needs trimming and better souricing, but outright deletion of the whole body of text. You compared it to DL Hughely and said "fans want their junk back."

So explain to me how this is a clear consensus? The only thing clear to me is that it is a debated topic that hasn't reached any sort of resolution short of you deciding to enforce your will on any who disagree. It seems to me that of the contributors to the discussion, there's a 50/50 split for/against with 3 others expressing views related the topic but not specifically stating on if this should or should not have all been deleted. 4 vs 4 with 3 neutral does not = consensus, my friend.Onikage725 14:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR - that should explain why I did what I did. And what is with the long replies fom other users these days? Why can't people say what they need to say in a paragraph or two, really. No offense, but I think you and the other opposers are too attached to original research. As said earlier, it shouldn't be difficult finding sources if the information I deleted was supposedly verifiable. Enough of this, we have to improve this article and fill it with verified data ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't you looking for verified data, then ? It would be much better than disrupting Wikipedia with controversial comment deletions...Folken de Fanel 21:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Onikage, there is no clear consensus to remove such a large amount of content. Whats more, those policies you cite Sesshomaru in no way justify the non-specific, whole sale deletion of content which you are doing, you must challenge suspect content first by bringing it to the talk page for discussion. Based on the lack of consensus and policy grounds for this wholesale removal, I will reinstate the content shortly, then we can work together to source any challenged content. The Real Mr Snrub 23:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This user, The Real Mr Snrub (talk • contribs • logs), appears to be a single-purpose account. Please see the user's contributions for evidence. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have proof of this beyond the fact that his account is new? People start editing every day, and we are supposed to welcome and encourage them. Onikage725 16:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki-warning: whoever adds that cruft back again in the page without sourcing a significant amount of content will receive {{uw-unsourced}} templates. I will eventually add references myself in due time. Meanwhile, I'd like for the opposers to have patience, it's going to go through a change. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Now THAT is a clear violation of WP:OWN. We've had enough patience with you. If you feel the need to add "unsourced" templates, fine. As long as you don't continue these wholesale deletions.--Marhawkman 11:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN has absolutely nothing to do with this. I rather we do "wholesale deletions" of fancruft and original content than get the page all messy and cluttered with {{citation-needed}} tags. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the point of WP:OWN, you'd rather, but it doesn't seem to be shared by everyone here, to say the least. And trying to intimidate people who would not agree with you with threats of "unsourced" templates (or trying to prevent people to express a different opinion than yours by deleting their comments) is precisely a case of WP:OWN.

You don't seem to want to listen to others. Pretty much everyone here agrees that these articles generally lack sources, however we have all found your actions pointless and more confusing and disruptive than positive for the articles. Look at the facts, your wholesale deletion policy has lead you to blindly delete even perfectly valid paragraphs not even needing sourcing, and the only effect of your behavior here was to create more fights than ever. Your actions have failed because things got deleted, but not sourced.

People here all know articles require sources, this has not been questionned, but all want a new start, because you handled all this in a very clumsy way, and you spent more time fighting and threatening people not agreeing with you than actually adding sources. It would indeed be a case of WP:OWN if a user like you maintained, by any means, a way of handling the article that the majority has obviously rejected.Folken de Fanel 09:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sessh, I just want to point something out. Your deletions and "this is the way it is gonna be" responses has led to a borderline edit war and talk page arguments. When you asked for a source on something specific, one was swiftly found. Which of those two examples was most productive? Again I suggest that we restore the article and handle sections case by case. We could search together for sources, rewrite what could be written better, delete blatant OR, and decide what falls into things that dont need a citation. Keep in mind that this state of the article would be intimidating for incoming editors. It has been suggested this is fresh for a rewrite. This now requires an editor who may otherwise improve a section to commit to writing a whole article on the subject. And who is to say it won't face the same exact problems? This won't stay stub-sized forever, and these issues will have to be addressed at some point. At the risk of sounding harsh, you can't hide behind the delete key forever.Onikage725 00:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it would be much more productive this way. I for one will be happy to help out with sourcing/rewriting where I can. The Real Mr Snrub 02:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus, Onikage (and others), I am abiding by policies like WP:V and WP:NOR. Not sure why WP:OWN was brought up. DBZROCKS, Ryu-chan and I agreed, wholeheartedly, that data which is unsourced would have to be removed. We're gonna have to concur on something, but placing original content and stuffing up the page with every possible genre & category is not going to solve anything. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest the opposers read this. I know I'm doing the right thing, unsourced content will always be a no-no. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you read all of this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oni Kimon (talk • contribs) 17:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It could use a few improvements, but it presents the information nicely and most importantly prevent the inf from cluttering the main page.--Marhawkman 11:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section break 4

According to WP:Lead section, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Aside from stuff like vital statistics (i.e. Dragon Ball Z aired from this date to this date), the information in the lead should be a summary of the information in the main article; a "concise overview of the article", not the only place that information appears in the article.

The point I'm getting to is... There should be a plot summary section within the article itself, as is standard for basically all fiction articles in Wikipedia (go on, check as many as you like), and only then does a shorter plot summary make sense in the lead section. Philip Reuben 19:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read the above sections (especially "What in the...") to figure out what's going on. -- RattleMan 19:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The above is my contribution to that argument. Just an observation, not a reponse to anyone in particular or an invitation for a massive debate. A plot summary section in the body of the article, without any particular referencing (the work itself is the source), is standard across Wikipedia, so it baffles me that it would have been removed from this article. And, as I said, the way the article is structured now contradicts the style guideline about article leads. I think policy is clearly on the side of those who want a bit more detail in this article, even if there obviously needs to be as much sourcing as possible for things that don't relate directly to the plot. Philip Reuben 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break 5

Hello everybody:) I'm SJP and I have been at wikipedia for a year. As of this moment I have over 15.5K edits on english wikipedia. I mediated my first case in December of 06 for AMA, but I am not a very active mediator. I have only taken 4-5 cases. As a mediator, it is not my job to get involved in the dispute/advocate a side. I'm here to stay neutral, and help you help your selves reach a compromise.

I would like to give you all some words of advice, which I expect you all to follow. They will help you all reach a compromise more quickly than if you did not follow them. My first piece of advice is that you not comment on the editors:just comment on the content. As WP:NPA says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Secondly, stay civil. In other words, no rude comments, no judgemental edit summaries, no belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice, no ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another, no starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but...", no lies, and no name calling. Also, please remember that you do not own the article. Thanks for your time:)--SJP 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break 6

Page has been reverted again. The answer to lack of sources is find them and add them, not deleting the article. All information present in the article is accurate, therefor sources exist for the information, the job is to add them, not vadilise the page. Revert the change again and you WILL be reported for vandalism.Xyex 20:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I was the one who reverted the page. The reason is that the content was deleted was not just because it was unsourced for so long, but it was because the information was not what was needed on this article. It was mostly paragraph opon paragraph of box set information. This is not content that should be the bulk of the article. Also, User:Sesshomaru is not vandalising Wikipedia, only trying to improve it, threatining him with being reported of vandalism is violation of WP:FAITH which states that we should assume fellow wikipedians are trying to help wikipedia, not hurt it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to assume anyone is 'helping' by removing all information. The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information, not remove it. Simply deleting the information IS vandalism, plain and simple. Unsourced information? Alright, fine, source it. Do not remove it simply because you are too lazy to locate sources that do exist for the information. Is the article in need of some clean-up? Sure. But there aren't many articles that aren't. Before you go around 'helping' by removing 90% of an article and leaving it in state that is no longer a valid article why don't you put some effort into improving it? If the article is reverted to lists again I'll submit it for deletion as it no longer serves a purpose, the inforamtaion present in those lists is all found in other articles dedicated to that information.Xyex 23:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to provide information; it's to provide a solid encyclopedia. Removing bad content is a perfectly valid method for achieving that goal. I would most definitely not recommend that you put the article up for deletion; disrupting to prove a point is frowned upon here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Correction to my previous post. I was in rush. I didn't mean that I would submit it for deletion but that it *should* be submitted for deletion as the article, in it's current list state, does not meet wikipeida's guidelines. And also, you contradicted yourself. An encyclopeida IS a source of information. That is the goal of wikipeida, providing solid information on subjects. *Deleting* information that is solid, instead of providing sources for said information goes against the very concept of the site. All I ask is that people stop being lazy and actually *improve* the site instead of hindering its progress. But if someone else wont then fine, come December when I should have more free time I'll do it myself from the ground up.Xyex 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Part of working in a collaborative environment is working together to achieve a common goal (here, the improvement of the article). In these situations, just reverting edits isn't very productive (and neither is making wide-ranging insults like calling everyone lazy).
I'd also like to point out that I didn't contradict myself. Information is just that, information, and is inherently neutral; sometimes the best way to improve the quality of a page is to remove content (sometimes it can be cruft, or sometimes it can be spun out into a separate article). EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing valid information isn't productive either. If I'm not mistaken the entier purpose of the DBZ article is to cover the details of the sereis as a whole, in an overview fashion. This is exactly what the original article did. Yes, it could have used a few more source citations. Does that validate deleting everything? No, it does not. Is it lazy to simply remove information instead of spending the time to cite these source (which would not be all that hard to find in the first place)? Yes. The information present on the page was neutral, some of the reasons for its removal, however, were not. DBZROCKS has cited the focus on the FUNimation version as a reason for his removal of the information.
Also, for the record, I'd like to point out I am collaberating here. I just happen to be the current person stepping up to try and fix the article after the others have gotten feedup with dealing with individuals here. I am far from the only person who thinks the removal of 90% of the article is a serious problem. Did the article need some improvements, sure, but there's not a single article on the site that doesn't. Simply removing information gets us nowhere. Especially when such removal is far from the concensus.
I used to think Wikipedia was a worthwhile endevour but if the belief of the admins is truly that unwaranted removal of information is better than improving it than perhaps I was wrong. Oh, and you did contradict yourself. You expressly stated that providing information isn't the purpose of Wikipedia right before saying it's pupose is to be an encylopedia, which means its purpose is to provide information.Xyex 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This hasn't been a very collaborative environment lately, and Xyex's action and stance is no more bold than the others of the opposing side. Sesshomaru and the others were bold, but WP:BRD, a supplement to the consensus policy, suggests a simple process-

1. Boldly make the desired change to the page.
2. Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change!
3. If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change.

The initial deletion would be step 1. The outcry on the talk page and reverts would be step 2. Discussion would be step 3. A number of us have been asking, begging, or demanding for compromise in the form of going case by case to see what the deleters specifically find at fault (as you can see, info has been "allowed" back in, showing that indisputably good info was indiscriminately removed to begin with) so we could decide what needs deleting and what just needs a source or a rewrite. For example, we've already been able to agree that a chunk of the intro best belongs under "History." Also, when it was brought up that the air dates were unsourced, a source was quickly supplied. I find those last two examples to be supportive of the WP:BRD (and thus WP:CON) process, while the other approach to be a case of WP:OWN cloaked behind WP:BOLD. I don't mean that as a personal attack, nor do I think it is the intent. I'm just stating how it comes off. Any dissenting voice (which, as I analyzed in detail when called out on this earlier, is at LEAST half of the people involved) has been summarily shut down or ignored in some cases. On the flip side, some of us have grown frustrated and taken just as resolute a stance. I think we all need to back down a bit and work together on improving the article. An edit war serves noone and will only lead to well-meaning contributors being blocked.Onikage725 08:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to add that we all agree on one basic thing- the article needs work. We all agree that info needs to be sourced, rewritten so that it complies with what doesnt need sourcing, or otherwise deleted. The dispute is on how best to go about that. I would like to just re-urge everyone to remember that building consensus is the key to the Wikipedia process. Likewise, as stated in the second Pillar of Wikipedia, When a conflict arises as to which version is the most neutral, declare a cool-down period and tag the article as disputed; hammer out details on the talk page and follow dispute resolution. Onikage725 09:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Xyex, remember to assume good faith. Even if you have reason to believe bad faith, do not say your oppinion. Accusations of bad faith do not help. Also, comment on the content, not on the contributers. Cheers!--SJP 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes calling someone out on something is the only way to get anything done. The "Oh, everything's sunshine and rainbows" attitude only gets you so far when you're dealing with individuals who have crossed the lines into WP:OWN and WP:WL.Xyex 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Its policy to discuss the content and not the editors. Please follow it. When you comment on the editors you will only make things worse. If you talk about the content on the otherhand you will make things better over time. If you feel the inability to follow this policy, than feel free to take a break from this dispute. Thanks for your time:)--SJP 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel that I can understand Xyex's frustration. Maybe people don't realize this, but the "corporate" speak (i.e. so-called polite chastising) can come off as condescending. In some cases hypocritical. One example is when I made an edit and was told to experiment in the sandbox. How is that assuming good faith? That's the standard bit of text often quoted to IP addresses who mess up articles out of ignorance or inexperience, not something one would use as part of an editorial disagreement. Another example, SJP, would be how you're coming off. This is an observation, not an attack, but what you just said to Xyex seems to be "if you don't change your tune, then you need to go away. Thanks! :)" But what is odd is that this has gone on both sides. One user was basically accused of being a sockpuppet simply for being new and disagreeing with the "blanket deletion" camp. I was told an edit I made was "ridiculous." We've been called "fanboys" who simply want "their cruft back" here and on various talk pages, despite stating numerous times that this isn't our intent and we just want to discuss which info is in question before deleting ALL of it and leaving only a selection of lists that go against format policy. One user has said in discussion elsewhere about this dispute that "Xyex poses a problem" and that his edits are "junk." At one point I was asked sarcastically if I'd read a previous discussion that the user knew I had read , as we had interacted in said discussion. We face sarcasm, derision, and dismissal here, on our talk pages, and behind our backs, and no one else seems to give a damn. Yet the minute we reciprocate, the incivility card drops real fast. Frankly, it is a little one-sided. Onikage725 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

What I am trying to say is that it is best for this dispute to not comment on the contributers, but instead comment on the content. Usually name calling does not help situations, and policy does not allow for name calling. What I am saying to Xyex is that it is best for him to comment on the content and not the contributers. I'm sorry for not being clear enough.--SJP 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Anger is a strong emotion. It is very powerful, and when angry, I believe it is in or nature to act in ways we would not usually act. I have observed this in others, and in myself. I can sense Xyex is angry, so I suggested that he take a break if he feels he needs too. Sometimes, it is best to just take a break from a dispute for a while. Cheers!--SJP 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not angry, just frustrated. Sesshomaru and DBZROCKS have both been coming across, both here and on various user talk pages, as though they are the wiki police and any changes not approved by them are junk. A simple look at a few talk pages shows clear evidence of this and yet we are the ones being talked to about policy. The difference is that we're being up front about the issue while they're doing it where it's not as easily noticed. If this is wiki's policies at work then the policies are in need of some repair.Xyex 06:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't normally get involved with wikipedia articles, but after stumbling across this one tonight, all I have to say is wow. I have been reading some of the posts on this page and will have to agree with Xyex, this is vandalism. Over looking the text that wasn't sighted (yet true none the less), removing of almost all the sagas?!?! That alone discredits the person that made the edit. I understand that you are trying to make this page purely factual, but it is now to a point why it is not only untrue, it is completely useless. I believe that the page should be reverted and locked, or just deleted (even if it is a little extreme) since it tells nothing of use now. Rpgking4 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, my next step, if people continuously refuse to identify what content is in question and insist on deleting all of it, will be to propose a merger of both series' anime articles to the main Dragon Ball article (the one on the manga). The anime could go under "Other Media" or "Adaptations." I don't think this is necessary, but if all it is going to be is 3 paragraphs and some lists, then this no longer meets the criteria of an article. Onikage725 07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you, before you edit the article, get consensus to edit. Discusion is better than edit warring. Cheers!--SJP 11:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You should bring that up with Sesshomaru then, as he was the original source of the edit without consensus (cropping the article into nearly nothing). All edits since then have been attempts to revert to the consensus that have been thwarted by Sesshomaru and DBZROCKS because they, and they alone, do not agree.Xyex 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Usually you should be bold in your editing, but in disputes, that is not best.--SJP 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's why I brought up WP:BRD. make the bold edit. See if it is reverted. Discuss amongst the interested parties to reach comprimise. The "D" in the process here somehow became "revert the revert and insinuate vandilism." I'm just saying that to illustrate why we've grown frustrated. Onikage725 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

We should just have a vote on which solution is the best, between mass deletion without any attempt at sourcing, or maintaining the article with its "disputed" content and gradually source it with the participation of all people involved in the DB project.Folken de Fanel 12:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea.--SJP 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section Break 7

Since it's coming to a vote, here's the section for that. Since this is a complex subject, a simple yes or no is probably inadequate.--Marhawkman 18:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we don't vote on everything. Consensus can not override standard policies like WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

One user cannot own articles and decide for others, moreover when they are all against him. There is a moment when a single user cannot ignore what all the others can say any longer.

Consensus is "an inherent part of the wiki process" and is no more, but no less important than other rules. If you don't have the consensus with you, there's no way you can continue to artificially block this article. There is also a "distinction between unresolved good-faith concerns over a reasonable or policy related matter, and disruptively trying to enforce an individual view".

Quoting external essays not having anything to do with Wikipedia or this debate, and pointlessly insisting on rules that everyone agrees on, but altogether failing to answer concerns about the way to apply them, is certainly not helping us to go forward.

Sesshomaru, I think you should stop coming for a day or two, and instead think about your motivations: are you here to fight to death just for the sake of having it your own way, or are you here to actually help others to source this article ? If you just think about it calmly and without constantly provoking people who don't agree with you and claiming that "you're just right" and that we don't have our say, then there is a chance this debate can be peaceful again.

Voting will hopefully end this sterile polemic, and this talk won't be any longer on how a single user is claiming the ownership of an article, threatening his opposers while not doing anything to improve the article, but finally on how to efficiently source this article. It will establish the reasonable way of dealing with this article without creating any more rants.Folken de Fanel 21:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

This is out of hand. First, there was more wrong with the content then it just being unsourced, it was also completely irrelevant. Seriously, this articles's purpose is definitally in question. This article was originally just a bunch of text that told about the american version of Dragon Ball and all of the "uncut" box sets. Seriously, Dragon Ball Z is just the original story, with a Z next to it. This should really just be in an article called Dragon Ball Anime or something of that sort. Dragon Ball Z is just to much to cope with here, I mean it is the name of the Japanese anime and the american anime, the n manga, but not the japanese manga. Seriously, this page has only attracted vandalism and pointless arguments. For funimation's releases of Dragon Ball, why not just give an Americanisation of Dragon Ball (yes I know that has a spelling error)? Also you can't say that Sesshomaru is owning the article, he is only making sure it is improved instead of being left back in its terrible condition. Has Sess, said "Hey This is my article, you are not qualified to edit it" or anything like that? No, of course not, he is simply trying to improve it, instead of just leaving it there like it is. We should be colaberating on how to make the article better, not to judge another user and tell him how he is "messing up the article". DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would have to say yes, he has. Not in those specific words but but he's made it abundantly clear that if your opinion is not the same as his then it is 'junk'. And any edits made can 'simply be reverted'. Wiki policy is not to be enforced by the letter, it is there as guidelines to use to know when an article needs improvement. Consensus, as is obvious by the backlash from simply outright deleting the information, is that deleting the information is not the proper course of action for the situation. And still he insists on doing it his way and his way only.Xyex 00:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sesshomaru said : "This is a wiki-warning: whoever adds that cruft back again in the page without sourcing a significant amount of content will receive uw-unsourced templates" and has reverted several times edits from others, back to his version. Blatant case of OWN.

Also, DBZROCKS, I guess you consider DBZ plot to be irrelevant to a DBZ article, then ? Folken de Fanel 00:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And that was the point behind the poll. to find out what people think is the best way to improve the article.--Marhawkman 22:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

DBZROCKS' brought up a good point; perhaps it would be best to combine this article into Dragon Ball (anime). Any other ideas? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

that's not what this vote is about. make your own if you want to collect opinions there.--Marhawkman 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no vote, its the same discussion, the same users, the same points being brought up. Ok, basically, you do not like that Sesshomaru deleted a bunch of terribly written, unsourced content that had been on the article for too long. Why would anyone want this stuff back, no offense but besides making references to policey, none of you have stated what you want, and until we do, this discussion is going no where. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Sesshomaru removed DBZ plot summary. Wikipedia requires this stuff to be back.Folken de Fanel 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I did not remove any plot summary, see here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk •

edits) 22:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes you did [1].Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You had my back in the disagreements with ALttP, so you of all should know I grow cross when I have to continuously repeat myself. I've said how I think we should handle this in plain english more than once. And it basically boils down to this- the article needs work. So let's work on it. However, this "trimmed" version is NO better. An opening paragraph and a section of lists is no more in keeping with policy. It is simply jumping from one extreme to another, except now any editor besides us who may have found a source or rewritten a poor section (or any other way it could be improved) will likely now simply laugh at how ridiculous wiki is for information. Honestly, check some forums out there. As far as Dragon ball is concerned, they think we're a joke. Other anime articles seem to be pretty stable. When something needs to go, it is either fixed so that it meets criteria or merged into a more appropriate article or portion of the article. Most of the time, article integrity is not damaged. For some reason, we here in DB-land move in extremes. We've gone from having way too much superfluous information to having next to none at all.

PS Damn DBZROCKS, your restructure really through me through a loop :p Onikage725 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

What I want is the article returned to its original state so that actual work can be done on it. As it stands now there is nothing to work on. At least with it still in one piece information can be fixed, trimmed, and citations added (or citation needed tags were applicable). Complete removal of the article is only detrimental.Xyex 04:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, let's just merge the page and get it over with. I did what I did because it is my duty to be WP:BOLD, not to violate WP:OWNERSHIP. Who supports a merger to Dragon Ball (anime)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Support I did suggest it after all. Think about it. Dragon Ball Z would be mentioned as the name for what is the second part of Dragon Ball in the anime. It would also be mentioned as the name for the american version of the second part of Dragon Ball which would fit neatly into a Americanisation of Dragon Ball section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support I always forget to say it myself. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Support - Some of the staff members both worked on Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball, but I support this move as per all of the above to be consolidated and be consistent with the manga in general. Greg Jones II 01:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I can neither support nor oppose this in good faith until this sourcing matter reaches a compromise. Dragon Ball's parent manga article, the only one of the lot that seemed to be halfway where it should be, is now precisely one opening paragraph and a quote. DBZ and GT are all but non-existent. I'm Surprised Dragon Ball (anime) hasn't been reduced to the same, since its bulk is simply on the US release and edits (which DBZROCKS just recently cited as one of his major problems with this article). The only article with anything really left is the one on the whole franchise. But given that it is in need of more sources, and the actions of late have been to disregard citation needed tags and talk page discussion in favor of deletion, I imagine that too will soon disappear. So I ask you three, what does it matter merging any of the articles if none of them say anything worthwhile to begin with? 0 x 2 or 3 still = 0. Onikage725 02:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I will remove fan bunk from the other Dragon Ball-related pages in due time, just be patient. Onikage, it seems you hold a grudge against the supporters. May I ask why? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am in agreement with Onikage, and Sesshomaru's comment only gives me more pause. What is the point in merging the articles if that one will just be chopped into non-existance as well? Also, Sesshomaru, you can not claim WP:BOLD as a defense. Using WP:BOLD as a defense requires WP:BRD to be supported but you completely ignored the D and simply reverted back to 'your' version of the article. I have no faith that the same will not occur in the subsequent merged article.Xyex 05:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. See Onikage and Xyex's comments. BTW Sesh, refering to the current articles as "fan bunk" is considered uncivil behaviour.--Marhawkman 11:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, quote Marhawkman: "refering to the current articles as "fan bunk" is considered uncivil behaviour." Goes to show how much the fans love original content. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment As is insinuating that my motivations stem not from a desire to improve Wikipedia but rather from a personal grudge. We all agree that the articles need work, sourcing, and cruft-removal. Where we disagree is that while you guys want to hold the shift key and highlight/delete the body of any article that isn't riddled with little blue numbers, we want to actually find those sources, rewrite questionable sections, etc. I simply think it is more productive to be objective and look at things case by case, as well as build consensus. Again I refer to WP:BRD. Be bold, as you have been. Then, see if it is reverted, as it has been numerous times. At this point, you are not supposed to revert the reversion. You are supposed to identify the parties in opposition and begin discussion, debate, compromise, etc. The last step was ignored, and it has lead to this drawn out situation. Having mentioned this numerous times while calling for some form of compromise, I have been continually ignored. I don't hold a grudge against you guys, but it does disturb me that you think WP:BOLD allows you to ignore Wikipedia policies and guidelines on consensus and dispute resolution. WP:BRD is itself tied in with WP:BOLD, which I find ironic.Onikage725 12:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose We have all agreed that the article need to be sourced. However, "sourcing" is NOT blindly removing perfectly valid content that do not even need sources. Claiming the ownership of the article has also not helped the sourcing in anyway.
  Remember, we do not vote about the need of sourcing in this article, we all agree about it, so it's useless to keep using sourcing as a pretense. We're voting about Sesshomaru's behavior.Folken de Fanel 16:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, not sure what you have against me, I'm really trying to improve the articles by taking off useless information. I've done nothing wrong here, except somehow anger a few people. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Could you explain me how a DBZ plot summary would be "useless" ? Everything you've done here was wrong, first you removed perfectly valid content with no justification whatsoever, then you started an edit war when people tried to cancel your disruptive edits, then you started to attack people, deleting their comments, then you actually threatened people who did not agree with you. And you're just pretending not to see what the others have written here...Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually liked the articles the way they were. They had so much useful information in them, such as the Season Box Sets, Fillers, etc... If we merge them, it'd be a very long article, which will cause more problems for more people. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

comment that's a very good point. The original reason for having three articles in the first place was that a single article would have been too long.---- Marhawkman (talk) 19:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So is anyone ever going to revise it

• Oppose After some more thought on this I've decided I'm against a merger. Ryu brings up a good point, a merged article would be too long. What is need is the restoration of the original article and a careful comb through to remove extra information and apply source citations (or citation needed tags) where needed.-- Xyex (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose This is absurd. Claiming the dub is not a reliable source makes no sense. If the official english language version of Dragon Ball Z is not reliable enough for the official english language version of Wikipedia, I just don't know what to say. If you want to talk about the Japanese version, go over to the Japanese version of Wikipedia. A merger would be even more fancrufty. Would the average American really know that DBZ and DB were originally the same show in Japan? No, they wouldn't care. And that would cause an even bigger debacle than this article faced. Also, is there any proof Lord Sesshomaru is real? Keep in mind, English sources don't work. We need the JAPANESE mother of Lord Sesshomaru to say that Lord Sesshomaru does indeed exist and she needs to type out the confirmation on the internet. :-PJ'onn J'onzz (talk) 01:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think you read this section. It seems you opposed without being completely aware of the situation. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I would assume, considering he posted in this dissucsion, that he has read it.Xyex (talk) 06:13, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Why would anyone want the article(s) (article if DB/Z/GT all become one) in the state they are now? They are completely useless. In my opinion, we should restore the original and work as a team to source everything. With the 10 or so of us here it shouldn't take long.... Rpgking4 (Rpgking4) 05:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment What the hell? Just because I haven't run into any other power hungry people I felt that I should take a stand against means I'm not qualified to make my own stand here? That is rubbish. I have been a member (lurker) for at least a year now and I as far as I'm aware wiki doesn't have anything against lurkers, unless I do what you have done here: vandalism. This discussion alone has given me a bad vibe about being a member of wikipedia if policy on the site can't stop the vandalism done on this page by someone trying to basically own it. Don't get so pig headed when people have other opinions. If I need to go make a few insignificant/off the wall comments in other pages to have an opinion, fine, I'll do that. But why should I make edits if I am not as knowledgable in the subject as the person that originally wrote the article (for an example of where this happened see the DBZ wiki page). Rpgking4 (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Rpgking4, please read WP:NPA. Greg Jones II 20:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment I find it amusing that you'd call Rpgking4 out on that but ignore all the previous atttacks by Sesshomaru. And I think, at this point, It's pretty clear that consensus is against the merge.Xyex (talk) 00:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment While Rpgking4's comment did breach civility, so too did Sesshomaru's. I bring this up because it is not the first time in this discussion it has happened. There is nothing wrong with a newcomer, or in this case someone who watched things before getting involved. They are in fact encouraged, and we as experienced editors are tasked by the guidelines to be supportive. Sessh, you should only strike their comments if you have legit reason to believe they have done something wrong. Rpgking4's suggestion did not violate anything and was perfectly rational. I suggest reading WP:BITE. I have removed the slash unless you have proof of sockpuppetry or anything of the sort. Likewise, Rpgking4, emotions have been running high in this dispute. I'm guilty of blowing my top at points too. But this doesn't help anything and leads to a circle of incivility. Keep your cool, even if you feel slighted. Onikage725 (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I have provided evidence of possible sockpuppetry. See the link I left there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, an account being new or having a low number of contributions does not automatically mean sockpuppetry. I highly doubt if he'd said "yea we should merge" you'd be throwing around red flags. Unless you can tie it to another users account, your simple disdain for a new user disagreeing with you is not sufficient - and just a little rude. Onikage725 (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, just as a notice, the Dragon Ball Z main article has been now protected. Greg Jones II 22:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have removed Sesshomaru's false and ludicrous accusations of "sockpuppetry". Sesshomaru, losing ground in a debate is not a valid reason to disrupt it by slandering your opposers. The next time I see a comment deletion or defacement from you, you'll receive Template:Uw-tpv1. Please debate without trying to harm others.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your templates don't scare me, really now. If you read the diff, you'll notice that it was actually 65.146.153.153 who made the comment, not Rpgking4. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not here to scare you, only to make you realize there are limits to your behavior, and that Wikipedia won't accept your attacks on others. There is no "sockpuppetry" involved here, so don't try to argue about that.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the anon accidentally signed off as another user? If it's not sockpuppetry, I'd like to know what what this is called. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It never occured to you that Rpgking4 was the IP, and that he had just forgotten to log on ? That he has used his IP, while signing with his own legitimate username, doesn't correspond at all with the dissimulation of identity implied by the term "sockpuppetry", when a user creates an entirely different account. That Rpgking4 himself answered to your defacing his comment should have settled the matter long ago.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment J'onn J'onzz, what you fail to understand is that FUNimation made DBZ a completely different show. In a way, the americanized it. For instance, when Krillin (or Kuririn in the Japanese dub) was about to finish Vegeta with Yajirobe's sword, Goku said if he killed him, he'd be just as bad. And that he needs a second chance so he can change. In the original Japanese version, Goku says to spare Vegeta because he wants to fight him again. This is one of the more noticable changes they did. The original was only used once though, and that was in Dragon Ball Z Budokai's Story Mode. Because of things like that, it's not noticable. And you saying that "the Average American wouldn't care if it came from Japan" isn't relevant. Our information has to be faithful to the original. The english dubs aren't. And with you're comment, you were being incivil. You should be careful what you say and how you say. If not, someone might report you to an admin. Just a warning. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

as a rebuttal to Ryu-Chan, WP pages require a real world point of view. In this case that would seem to dictate not using one version of the anime over the other. In the example you cited that would mean putting a note in the article explaining what the difference was. Not much at all, just a sentence or two.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Ok I am seriously confused here. People, what was on this page before was not viable content it was just a long and uneeded indepth explaination of every single box set that has ever been on the face of the earth. Dragon Ball Z means a veriaty of things in the Dragon ball, merging some of the content too different places would make the content less confusing, not more confusing. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment We've lost this battle, DBZROCKS, the article can keep its crap for all I care. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Allelujiah.Oni Kimon (talk) 20:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose I hate Lord Sesshomaru. Enough said.
• Enormous Oppose Holy god, I come to this article for some voice actor information and I find this? It's like babies playing internet bureaucracy. Dragonball and Dragonball Z, despite sharing characters and a time line, are two entirely different series and should be treated as such with their own articles. DBZ is one of the most notable anime in history, so why don't you try making the article reflect that? Damn, people. - The Norse (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Dragon Ball Z is different to Dragon Ball. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newman123 (talk • contribs) 00:44, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Support Pretty much any move that reduces the amount of self-generated pop-culture speculation that riddles Wikipedia is going to be an improvement. Whether that means wholesale deletion of unsourced guesswork or merger, I'm in favor. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 06:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Although it is true that Dragonball is both Dragon Ball and what we know as "Dragon Ball Z" people tend to think of the series in 3 different time frames which is DB, DBZ, and DBGT. As a result, I think it would be more accurate to just keep the pages separate, but point out that they are technically the same series instead of just merging the pages, which I doubt would help anyways sense there isn't satisfactory information on the DBZ side of things. And besides that, the two ran as completely seperate anime series even in Japan. Now it seem to me that Sesshomoru did this because he believed that this was the correct thing to do because of guidelines. However the page isn't a quality article that gives readers the unbaised information that WP aims to deliver its readers. In light of this, I would not mind being the one to rewrite the page. I am new here, so I admittedly do not know how to access guidlelines and instructions on how to write good pages, but i'd be more than happy to learn if someone could show me. And as for Sesshamoru, I ask that you could offer constructive criticism on what you think me or someone else is doing wrong and offer reasonable suggestions on how we can fix the problem instead of simply rendering all of our hard work null and void. It is my hope that we can all come together and do this for I believe that the page deserves the rewrite for being about one of the most critically acclaimed anime/manga series of its time.

I have a website based fan translated manga version of this series from the Saiyan saga all the way to the end of the Cell saga so I believe I can handle doing accurate story explanations (of course I'd need help on the Buu saga until I get the volumes for it) and hopefully fix this page along with all the other users. Just give me instructions on how to access guidelines and I'll be ready to work until we can call this a satisfactory page!

oppose that is dumb, dragon bal dbz an gt three different things. the cocepts are totally different. I can't beileive there is this much disscussion about a dbz article. People make nothing into something. this is worse then R.kelly's trapped in the closet--Suncec (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion for Reordering or Reediting this site

This articule needs to be rearranged and reedited. It gives headaches just look at it. Its basicly a collection of random information about this anime series and thrown in no real order. From the discussion found on this page It'll probably be best to just start from fresh with a neutral over all discription of the anime with references from reliable source (make sure you read the how to write a reference articles) I believe I've seen links to it on this page. If anyone out there is willing to pickup the project it'll be greatly appreciated. Rock on guys!!! Demon Lord Naraku 20:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh.. listen my name is Noav. I'm fairly new here, but i'd be happy to be the one to rewrite/revise this article, for I happen to like DB and I agree the page definetely needs a rewrite. Now I've read (some of) the argument, and from what I see Sesshomoru made the page the way it was because of what he thought was the right thing to do, but has angered many in doing so. It also seems that he will continue doing what he is doing, so i would like to ask him to just comment on any changes in the page and come up with some constructive criticism on anything he disagrees with instead of just deleting it so that we can start fixing this page already. Now, like I said, I'm new here so if someone could tell me how to read all the guidelines I need to read before starting this article that would be great. It is my hope that we can stop arguing and get to fixing this for I thing this manga/anime deserves the rewrite for being one of the most critically acclaimed and famous anime/manga of it's time [[User:Noav/Noav/ 21:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] More info on the DBZ movie

The movie is going to be shoot in Durango, Mexico under the direction of James Wong. The production, expected to film in 2008, plans to use the Mexiquillo Forest.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=39092

Justin Chatwin will be playing as Son Goku and James Marsters as Piccolo.

http://movies.ign.com/articles/835/835143p1.html

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2007-11-11/heroes-lee-auditions-for-dragon-ball-z-movie

http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6523

Should we add this or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't this info technically go to the Dragon Ball page? The plot as pitched tus far is DB, and James Marster's as Daimao clinches it. It seems to me that everyone is calling this the "DBZ movie" becuase the layman doesn't know any better (the first prominent source on this even says as much- and refers to it as "Dragon Ball" while questioning a lack of "Z"). Onikage725 02:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The article that I read in the Detroit Free Press (probably copied from AP) did not say James Marsters would be playing Piccolo-- it said he would be playing the villain. The article also called the movie DBZ. From those two pieces of info, I guessed JM was playing Vegeta. If it is true both that JM is Piccolo and that JM is the villain, therefore Piccolo is the villain of the film, which would be consistent with the DB title, minus the Z. (Sorry, don't know how to put my name or time of post: 1:02, 19 November 2007 EST)

It should be added it is confirmed in info. 209.244.31.48 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link fix in the article

Since some silly dispute has the article locked (I am not reading through that huge topic to check it out), can an admin make a link fix in the article? In the scetion "VHS/DVD releases", can somebody change the link [[Famicom]] to [[Nintendo Entertainment System|Famicom]]?

Oh, I also oppose the merge suggestion on the main page since DB and DBZ are seperate series. TJ Spyke 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Before this request is made, I'd like for everyone to see the DBZ post I left at WP:AN. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but what DBZ post you left at WP:ANI? It's a rather huge page to look for one post and there's no obvious place to look. Yours isn't the first or the last post on that page and I couldn't find anything on the contents list that suggested anything DBZ related. Either you need to give more specific instructions on where to find it on that page, or for whatever reason, it's just not on there. K9feline (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting the link to WP:AN, Lord Sesshomaru. It sure was heartening to see an administrator do the right thing. :) K9feline (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DBZ LAM Fan objection

Ok, I started this topic with intention to allude about massive fan objection against DBZ Live action movie. First of all, I am not writing this only because, I am extremely against DBZ LAM, I write this in the name of 90% of DBZ fans. So basically my suggestion is to add a little text about this, especially because I think it is more important and more obvious than some absolutely unconfirmed informations like "budget of over $100 million" or who is staring Goku and Piccolo... I think the best solution would be the editing of "Live-action film adaptation" post, and adding a little text about this. Or maybe even making a new individual post.

Maybe something like this: Although some expect much of DBZ live action movie, judging from massive fan objection on forums or comment boards, most of DBZ fans are against it.

Of course if this sentence is not polite enough or if grammar is bad, feel free to fix it :D

Some may not agree, and I respect their opinions, everyone have their own opinions of course, but some things are far too obvious to be skipped. The first thoughts that drops on minds of most people when they hear word "DBZ LAM" is a fan objection. Internet is overflown by comments of this kind: Oh no way! please don't make this moive!!!, OMG it's going to s*ck sooo much!!!, Nobody can ruin things like Hollywood, they are specialists!, OMG!!! IMAGINE BRAD PITT DOING KAMEHAMEHA!!! I AM GOING TO KILL MY SELF, SERIOUSLY!!! etc... BTW my comments are something like this last one, but more fierce :D

But anyway! my point is that even if most of you, here on wiki, are FOR this movie(which I hardly doubt), I think you should be fair and add at least one sentence about this fan objection. Personally I consider this as a very important information, I hope some of you agree.

Thank you for reading.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 14:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of a DB live action movie either. But on Wikipedia, we cannot taint the articles with our own subjectivities.

I've had difficulties to believe the recent reports about the movie, but I have to admit they come from reliable, renowed and professional sources. We'll see in the future if they were real or not, but currently, sites like Variety are the most reliable sources concerning movie news. If such reputed websites let these DB news be published, there's a reason (unfortunately). And there's nothing we can do about it.

For your other concerns, I'm sorry but a single user like you is not qualified to speak for the whole DBZ fan community. Your claims that "everyone" is "against" the DB movie are first unverifiable and unsubstanciated (have you counted yourself each fan reaction ?), then totally trivial and uninteresting for Wikipedia. It won't bring anything to the article, and anyway it won't stop the production the movie.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

^You pretty much misunderstood me, I never said "everyone" or that I am the only one who should decide about it, nor I ever talked in someone's name directly, I just said "in the name of 90% fans" because I am sure that they would absolutely agree with this what I do now, that's all...On the other hand if someone disagree he can post it here, and I'll respect his opinion, I don't see where is the problem? I don't know anything for sure, nor anyone else of course, but I was talking about statistics(though I don't trust statistics :D), and I can say I saw many statistic info on wikipedia, so why not here? I still think my sentence - Although some expect much of DBZ live action movie, judging from massive fan objection on forums or comment boards, most of DBZ fans are against it. is good enough and without much subjection.

I realize that my desperate-and-full-of-hatred-wish for denying this movie is too subjective of course(that's why I even use statistics as a weapon :D) but think logically - the ones who want this movie can never have bigger desire than hatred of those who desperately don't want it. That is all, everything else is ok I respect what you said and even agree with most. At least I've tried :(

And the fact that you think that this won't stop the production of the movie, is in the same time right and wrong. But like I said, I've tried silly thing... now plan B! even more silly thing :D Thank you for reading--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but your proposal really don't correspond to Wikipedia's aim. You should document a bit about Wikipedia before contributing, by reading this: Help:Contents.

No offense, but Wikipedia is not a forum and isn't meant to reflect mere forum talks between fanatics.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you believe it is entirely fair to mark this person as a fanatic.Oni Kimon (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

@Folken de Fanel, No I think I did everything by rules and I don't know why I am "making forum of this"? I just suggested, you can agree or disagree it is your decision.

I'm just explaining why your proposal can't be accepted. You talk about "statistics" but you don't have any, and on WP, contributors cannot use their own researches. Everything must come from reliable sources, and approximations like "I'm sure that" or "I think" are not reliable in anyway (so, sorry but you really don't represent 90% of the DBZ community). Besides that, as I've said, fans arguing on forums about how a movie is going to be good or bad is just not encyclopedic and has not its place here. I'm merely saying things like your sentences only have their place in forums and WP is not a forum, you can't post your own thoughts in articles. And of course, all of this is so subjective...

Please do not take offence, I'm merely explaining yo the reasons why such content cannot be included, I've nothing against you. I really think you should read the rules more carefully, so that you can better see what content is expected on WP and to help you contribute efficiently. Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

@Oni Kimon, If you mean "fanatic" like the one who will do anything for the thing he like, then it is absolutely true.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 23:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

@Folken de Fanel, I read the rules already...and I don't say you should take my own thoughts, I know wiki cannot accept that of course, I am not stupid, I just gave a suggestion to set a statistic information, and I never said I already know/have that information, I just hoped someone have...that's all. And If some official site like dragoballz.com or similar, announce information like that, or some result of voting for and against DBZ lam, whould you then agree to add it on wiki??--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comedy?

I really don't think this is comedy. Common, I got the 3rd season of Dragonball Z, and it had mostly bloody violence. I didn't laugh once.

Just because you can find something funny doesn't make it a comedy. Many lives were lost, what's so funny about that?

Seriously, I need to know how this is a comedy, this looks like a damn serious animation to me. I'm just asking, how is it a comedy? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

^It is not comedy of course, it just describes what you can see in this anime, but I agree with you, maybe it should be removed from genere list, because it may confuse many people, or maybe the best solution would be to set "comedy" on the last place in genere list.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 00:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

"describes what you can see" isn't good enough. All TV shows have their funny moments, that doesn't make them comedy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

^ Its an ACTION/COMEDY Mix, yes by the time we've gotten to season 3 the action drama side takes over more, but its still not a serious action drama for the most part. In fact, season 3 is pretty much as dark as it gets really. (talk) Laserkid (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

^I disagree it is not Action/Comedy in no way. To me comedy is 2-3% and Action 90%.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 09:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

^ I disagree with you, sure if you only count the antics of Master Roshi and the side joke gags certainly, but even when they're in the middle of fighting theres jokes here and there, particularly towards the Buu era (Great Saiyaman, Vegetto turned into a toffee ball, Majin Buu as a whole...Mister Satan...Wrong fusion fat gotenks....Goten and kid trunks' antics, Mighty Mask ect.) laserkid, Laserkid (talk) 10:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, do what you want, keep it, remove it, I'm not even watching this page, so I see no point in trying to change it. I don't care, I just wanted to point out how it's not a comedy. I have nothing else to say, have a nice day. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok I guess we see it other way. It is very funny on some parts really, that is true, but even including all jokes through whole serial I can not possibly call it Action/Comedy, because there are some genres that are more immanent than comedy...in this case I think all those genres listed on this DBZ page are more describing DBZ than comedy describes it... But that is just my point of view.--VEGETA_DTX (talk) 11:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but we need a more objective point of reference. What does Shonen Jump categorize it as?--Marhawkman (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

If you still want to know it's classified as an action manga. Thevillagecrazy (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

-_- is this why the page is protected?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No there was an edit war related to something else.--Marhawkman (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

good because fighting over this is stupid--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball is considered part comedy. Z is darker in tone. However, that may be too much of our own interpretation, as Z is simply the continuation of Dragon Ball in the original manga. For those who don't know, Toriyamas manga was Dragon Ball from Pilaf to Buu. Toei came up with Z after the Piccolo sagas to differentiate the darker storylines from the earlier stuff, and Viz seperates the manga the same way as Toei. So technically speaking, Dragon Ball is part comedy and Dragon Ball ended with Buu, not Ma Junior. Ultimately a citation on the anime would probably be best. "I didn't laugh during the Freeza saga" isn't a good enough reason, but without a source neither is anything I said to counter it really. Onikage725 11:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Comedy are only in DB, DB Movies, DBZ Movies, DBZ Specials, And DBGT. Sasuke 08:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasuke Kid (talk • contribs)

Didn't laugh in the Freeza saga? I advise you to go take a closer look at the Ginyu Tokusentai again, because those were intended as quite the ridiculous characters, no matter how much they beat up the heroes. Yes, the latter part of the DragonBall story is definitly more dramatic than the earlier material, but it's most certainly still filled with sillyness and comedy. Just look at the names of the characters introduced in the Freeza saga - named after food or slugs every single one of them. AdamantBMage (talk) 22:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree that it isn't a comedy although it is pretty funny at times, for example: pretty much every time Mr. Satan comes around.--Funkamatic (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Funkamatic, this conversation appears to be over. The prevalent genres, as of now, are action and sci-fi. See the article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Own DVD Page

I think dragon ball / z / gt should have its own dvd page, i mean other tv series have their own dvd page and they only have like 3 dvds, but dragon ball / z / gt series has 150+ dvds, please reply V_V

I agree, but you are going to have to find references to everything though (as you can see in the above posts). You also might want to wait until this page gets cleaned up. You know, one step at a time. Rpgking4 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. When it does clean up, please add this page, I will fill it out fast. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.85.224 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

If you do create such a page, it can't just be a huge plot summary. You would need to include references from reliable sources, etc--C. ROSS 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I was thinking about making a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.89.190 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonball Z is action based. It is not Dragonball.

I am going insane with the amount of information I write down gets suddenly deleted. A good idea is annihilated because some jerks do not agree. You people constantly delete 'unverified' data instead of re-writing it. Dragonball Z IS ACTION BASED!! If you want to write about Goku's adventures then head to the Dragonball article because this one focuses on the fights!! For the love of god, consider putting in a more battle based picture for DBZ instead of the childish one that's there. Also, stop deleting everything I write. If you read it you will notice it's readable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holy damn (talk • contribs) 10:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The current picture is a "cast photo" in the style of the series' opening credits, which to me seems entirely appropriate. It also represents the general colour scheme of the series much more than your replacement picture, and features a wider variety of characters (the entire cast isn't Super Saiyans...) Philip Reuben (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Philip Reuben.--Funkamatic (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Dragonballz.jpg

Image:Dragonballz.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] how many seasons are there?

I know the sagas but not the seas ns.were the sagas the seasons? if so it'll take forever to get every episode on dvd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.154.1 (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Try surfing through Category:Dragon Ball sagas. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Power Level

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