Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragon Ball/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 5 |
Archive 6
| Archive 7 →


Contents

Public Service Anouncement

Recentaly I visited a site called myfavorite games. This site may have many dragon Ball related images, but it also has something else: spyware. This site has enough spy ware to make your computer so slow it would take to an hour to type this sentence. So if you do not have reliable spyware protection, please do not go to myfavorite games, it may just mess up your computer. In fact it infected my computer so bad, I am typing this from school, and not from home as usual. This public service anouncement has been brought to you by DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The merging of the Tenkaichi articles

I was being bold and merged the Tenkaichi articles into a series page, as I did with the Saiyajin Zetsumetsu Keikaku articles. Many of you will be pissed with my actions, but I'm sure some other users with common sense will side with me. Now, I did mention at Talk:List of Dragon Ball video games that I'd be doing something to this effect, but the fact none of you noticed and commented isn't exactly my problem. If any of you have something to say in disagreement about this, please calmly and civily discuss it here or on the series page's talk page instead of reverting my edits and edit warring. // DecaimientoPoético 23:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

In the Article Structure section, doesn't it say that all video games should have their own pages, or does this series not apply?--60 Delta 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
It also suggests we make chapter/volume and episode pages, but that's just ludicris. Merging into a single article when possible is recommended. // DecaimientoPoético 18:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Good job, having all these pages for each game was a bad idea. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I only wish I could do something about the character table, though. With as many characters as the series has seen, it's kind of hard to manage such a list in the article, and it has a severe toll on my computer. Still, on a whim I was gracious enough to keep the lists in the first place and took three hours of my time (not all in on shot, of course) to fix and adjust it. I'll work on a new format throughout the week if someone doesn't beat me to it. // DecaimientoPoético 02:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not pissed by your actions at all; even though I don't touch those articles, merging them is probably the best option. Also just having one character list that shows which game the character was introduced in would probably be less stressful on your comp. --VorangorTheDemon 10:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Vote on the merge

Add * Support if you agree with this move. Add * Oppose if you disagree. Please provide a brief explanation, then sign your name. 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support as merger - Bitch and complain all you want, it won't change my opinion: Merging the articles was the best option we had. The separate pages had a lot of repeated (returning characters, story mode, etc.) and unneeded (Evolution Z, options) information. In the new series page, the character tables were easily condensed into a single table that lists all appearing characters in the whole series; the gameplay section notes the notable (and only the notable) perks of gameplay, obviously; instead of having to add 'Name origin' and 'Localization differences' sections on all three pages (not saying we did), we now have it all in one convenient spot. I could go on, if I felt like doing so. // DecaimientoPoético 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - I guess it is better this way.--60 Delta 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - Agree with Poetic Decay. Also having one merged article would probably be easier to manage edit-wise, in addition to cutting down on cruft. --VorangorTheDemon 10:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Large Support Like Poetic Decay said, one can complain as much as they want but in reality the pages were more or less the same thing. I do think the Budokai games should keep their pages because there were enough differences to warrent seperate articles. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 18:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like no one opposed it, dispite all the complants. There for, it stays. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sigh, late as usual. Even if page was the same picture in the middle of a guy with his middle finger in the air, each is a separate product that deserves its own page and details such as date of release and any particular information pertaining to them. Rule should be that if Tekken gets a page for each game, DBZ does. You can keep the series article but each game should have a main article link to the original articles with full details. I'm also not exactly surprised at the responses given considering they're from the exact same people dead set on merging the contents of DBZ onto the back of a stamp and filing it away in a warehouse.Darkwarriorblake 17:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support I do agree with with some of what you said and at first I was against the merge. But reading all the arguments and whatnot, I figured that in the end, there wasn't enough information in any of the articles, especially Tenkaichi 2. You can't really compare it to Tekken. Tekken didn't start off as a anime. It started as a video game series and each articles, excluding Tekken Tag Tournament, has notible and useful information. The only way it'd be acceptable to bring the articles back is if they had more information, as well as important ones. So there, I said it. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 17:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There are articles on things that contain much less information. It isn't quantity, its quality of information present. Darkwarriorblake 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, each article doesn't have either. The only one that did was the article for the first game. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactally, the Tenkaichi games are almost identical in terms of Gameplay, they don't have any significant roster changes, And the story is based off of an anime. The Tenkaichi Games are better merged because they can be merged and still have the same ammount of information than if there were seperate articles. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Merging of Tenkaichi Games

I am really annoyed by this move, and I think there are many others are like me. Sure there might be people out there that like it this new way, but I think you can see that at least 80% of people do not. So why keep it like this? You say that all the information is still there, yet when I try and find the individual page all I find is jumbled up information all around the place and did not find the information I needed. You have un-needingly turned 3 pages of information into 3 paragraphs. I think they deserve more than that, especially with information lost, I thought this was a site to get as much information as possible, not write as least as you can. I really cannot see why you changed it and kept it like this, I personally reckon that it was a pretty stupid move. I don't see why we have to put up with this because of you. You are the one that changed it, you. It isn't even democratic, sure we get to voice our opinion but there should be a poll done, because I am sure the majority would vote to change it back. I hope you see this, and I hope you reply, and I especially hope you change it back, otherwise you should be grateful for losing a lot of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandox1 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why did you make a separate section when you could simply have replied above? Wikipedia is not a democracy. And it isn't really a vote, it's more or less a discussion, with people opposing and supporting something.--60 Delta 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Kuririn redirects to Krillin

I'm not sure if anyone brought this up before, but, as stated in the heading, Kuririn redirects to Krillin. Was there a discussion that suggested this? If so, the history for Krillin is messed up, a history merge should be done.--60 Delta 17:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Since he just did a copy paste move, why not just revert both pages? I'm gonna go do that. (EDIT: Done.)Takuthehedgehog 18:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Calling all Project Members!!!!!!

I am sure most of us here have seen the terrible shape of the Dragon Ball Z Saga articles right? Well I DBZROCKS have proposed a change. This would include

  • All Dragon Ball sagas would be merged into Dragon Ball (plot)
  • Saiyan saga shortened drastically
  • Namek Saga, Freeza saga and the Ginyu force saga unto Freeza saga
  • Android, Trunks, Imperfect/Perfect Cell sagas, Cell games saga into just Cell Saga
  • Fusion, Tournament, And related sagas into just Buu Saga
  • All Dragon Ball GT sagas into just Dragon Ball GT (plot)
  • All sagas would have 3 or so paragraphs
  • Exept for filler sagas which would simply be merged into the respective anime pages

If you would like to help (please), please go to my sandbox. Thanks!! DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, it appears to be the work of newbies and sockpuppets that trash those pages. Why not have every single plot and saga in an article entitled Dragon Ball (narrative)? Seems more informative. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Er..no? I don't understand why everyone is so dead set on reducing the entirety of Dragon Ball to a single page print-out stored in that warehouse at the end of Raiders. Maggie Simpson gets a page and whats she done thats all that important?Darkwarriorblake 10:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I believe that each saga should have its own page. I move that we vote on keeping the saga pages separate. Please vote on this asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberhawk241 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I say no as well. start with 3 pages: Dragon Ball (plot), Dragon Ball Z (plot), and Dragon Ball GT (plot). Then link to each saga individualy. We should concentrate effort on making the sagas more uniform and to the point.--Funkamatic (talk) 03:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the articles should be shortened, but not so, that it's in a single article. It'd probably be better if we put them in three articles. Dragon Ball (plot), Dragon Ball Z (plot), and Dragon Ball GT (plot). The fact is, when you think about the series, the stories too long. So it'd be too troublesome for the readers and too tiresome. That's why I suggest these three. Also, some would say that the filler saga (refering to the Garlic Jr.) don't belong, but we have to remember that the anime series is the one with saga titles, not the manga. We can add that it was indeed a filler. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 12:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The original sagas should remain, i.e. Freeza saga, Saiyan Saga, Cell and Buu Sagas. Not all this DVD making money mini-sagas. But if episodes of certain shows can get a page, an entire series of episodes deserves one.Darkwarriorblake 13:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dark Warrior. However, I also wouldn't object to the important episodes getting their own articles, like the first episode of Dragon Ball, or another example, where Goku becomes a Super Saiyan; but that could be a nightmare if we decided to make an article for every episode, considering in all three Dragon Ball series combined, there's over six hundred of them. For other metaseries like Star Trek, some of their eps have individual pages, just to use an example, one of my fav eps: Past Prologue (DS9 episode). However, I also agree that it could become crufty pretty quick if they aren't maintained well, but then again, maybe distribution of information (as in having episode articles) could make the character articles easier to maintain. So instead of explaining the details of situations, we could just direct to an episode article, people can get the details that way. --VorangorTheDemon 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
But they aren't that notable, why would we want individual episodes? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 18:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Because hes saying you make articles for NOTABLE episodes. Damn DBZRocks, youre one hell of an articlist. Hating on articles and such.Darkwarriorblake 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

But what notable episodes are there? I can't think of any that are wildly referenced in pop culture or out of Dragon Ball. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well let's see. I don't suppose the first appearance of a Super Saiyan would be of any importance. I mean its only what Super Sonic is copied from and the whole Super Saiyan thing was a huge anime culture dealie. Darkwarriorblake 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That information is in many articles already, I don't see how making an article about the episode would be needed. Example: Super Saiyan. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Articles about individual episodes will be hard to maintain within this project, not based on the episode's notability but because keeping them free of fancruft will prove a challenge. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

You're not detailing the super saiyan, youre detailing the first appearance, show an image of the appearance, how it hapenned any anything important of note. I mean its pretty much the entire crutch of the series from thereon. Darkwarriorblake 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

All of that information and more is already in the Super Saiyan article. If its about the episode, why would we just have the details of the Super Saiyan transformation? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's my fault, I didn't mean info on just the super saiyan. You're not talking about how he changes physically or any crap like that but I'd consider it an important episode so you'd say that its episode number whatever of Dragon Ball Z, brief plot summary. I dunno. However other episodes with articles do it. I'd say there are a lot of scenes which were very important in anime popular culture such as Gohan's transformation to SSJ2. Darkwarriorblake 22:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. What about character and attack first appearences or noted fights? Like episode one of DBZ being noted for introducing Gohan to the series, or DBZ episode six being noted for Goku's death against Raditz and introducing Vegeta in the series? Perhaps Dragon Ball episode 13 being noted for introducing the Kamehameha? I'm simply saying since other series can get away with having entire articles for single eps (even completely unimportant eps), why can't we? Also instead of saying that "_____ was introduced early in the series" we could say "_____ was introduced in (DBZ episode whatever)" and have the link to the page. --VorangorTheDemon 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Episodes must contain sourced production and reception details in order to stand. There is no chance at all for this series, so please do not bother. TTN 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou TTN for your always useful, productive and invested help. Darkwarriorblake 00:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

3 Dragonball articles up for AFD

These Dragonball articles up for AFD are: Muten Roshi, Bulma and Kuririn. (Duane543 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC))


Need some help

Hey there. I haven't edited Wikipedia lately. I need some help on some articles relating to all the articles. I could edit some of these pages, but I will need some advice on this problem. Any comments? Thanks. Greg Jones II 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Two comments: One, huh? and two, what is your problem exactally? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
My problems are that some articles are in an in-universe style and I want to cite references or sources per WP:CITE. Also, I need some help expanding articles if I can. Greg Jones II 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
You claim to not have edited Wikipedia lately yet your contributions say otherwise. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, actually, I have been active. If that is the case, I apologize for a part of my comment above regarding my claim not to have edited Wikipedia lately. Greg Jones II 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
No prob! If you haven't done so already, you may want to read this and this to know what's going on. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much for pointing out these facts, Lord Sesshomaru. I will go to these links you described above. Greg Jones II 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Main article

Someone want to tell me what's been going on? Why has the MAIN article for DBZ been reduced to a stub and bloated with three lists? I know it needed more sources and some rewrites, but blanket deletion has NOT improved that article in any way. And lists aren't any better than plot summaries. Someone coming to Wikipedia to research DBZ can currently only find out what the opening/closing/insert songs where for the Japanese version and who the people who made or acted in the show are. Onikage725 23:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Onikage725, see this and this to know what is going on. Thanks, Greg Jones II 11:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Solution for our saga problem

I finally got a look at the saga articles and I now I understand why so many people are conplaining. I still do agree with the merger, don't get me wrong, but the articles need to be fixed. Considering that these articles are basically about the same thing, they should have the same categories, because to be frank, it's very unorganized and unprofessional. Here's a list of things that need to be changed.

  • Longer Plot descriptions - Just as it states. The Saiyan saga's okay though. It's the best made article out of the four. Majin Buu is the worst. I also like how the other articles via Freeza and Cell saga have the plot split into the FUNimation sagas. Just add more to 'em and do the same with Majin Buu.
  • Saga airing - I think we should only put the original Japanese date instead of the U.S. date because before you know it, people will end up putting the air date from other countries like Europe and Canada.
  • Characters - I think it should be split up into three categories, even though in the Saiyan saga article it is. Heroes, Villians, and Others. Character names should be the original Japanese name, but things like God and Enma will unacceptable as they are Kami and Yama, respectively.
  • Introduction - Should be short and about three sentences. Something along the lines of "The (saga title) saga is the name of the (number of saga) saga within (which ever Dragon Ball title it is). (this next sentence is only relevant if the saga has more than one) FUNimation split this saga into (number of parts) parts; (name all the parts). This arc takes place after the (name of saga, this doesn't apply to the first saga in Dragon Ball) saga. This saga originally aired on (first date, and I don't mean only the year, I mean a specific date) to (date it ended)."
  • Episode Guide & Manga Chapters - Basically the same way that the Saiyan saga has it.

That's about it. What do you think. Oh yeah, another thing. I thought we were going to merge the Dragon Ball sagas into the Toei titled sagas and the Dragon Ball GT sagas together? What happened to that? --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, those saga articles were violating WP:NOR and WP:V policies. Sources must be placed or the unverified content may be challenged and removed on the spot. That's how policy works. Saiyan Saga has two refs but it really needs more. And about the plot mergers, I don't know what happened to that, it was DBZROCKS' idea. Maybe he changed his mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
"On the spot"? NO, you're leaving out the challenge part of challenged and removed. Chellenge means you ask about it on the talk page. THEN you delete it if people agree that it is warranted.--Marhawkman 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

They still need work. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Greg Jones II 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Ryu-chan, you actually own Daizenshū copies? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well first I would say that, the plot summaries need lots of fixing and that the episode and manga chapter guide aren't needed. Also main characters are not really needed as well. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Another issue is the verification between the original Japanese version and the Funimation version, since Funimation has been known to make minor plot changes in their dialogue especially with some of the things that I had seen in Tenchi Muyo! GXP and Yu Yu Hakusho. In most common cases people would extract this information from the DVD releases. But personally one thing I agree is long summaries that are not too detailed. -Adv193 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That is why we are using the manga instead of the anime for references. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

We still have to merge Dragon Ball and GT, so the manga wouldn't apply to GT. How exactly are we gonna merge DB anyway? By using Toei's original saga titles? --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball (plot) should do. For GT individual episodes should do for references. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Never mind the manga, I'm thinking we shouldn't trust the Daizenshū, simple. I'm considering the removal of all refs concerning it, see Heat P's replies (see the below conversation). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the Daizenshu was official information. Does anyone know a site where I can read a translated version for myself? Ryu-chan (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just because the Daizenshuu are rare doesn't mean they can't be cited. They shouldn't necessarily be the primary source, but "removal of all refs concerning (them)" is a bit extreme. Onikage725 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Wiki policy doesn't care if a book is old and hard to find. If it's an official source it's fair game. Also the "real world point of view" requirement means that anime only stuff needs to be included to prevent the article from having either a bias or an in universe perspective.--Marhawkman 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
And what anime only things do you speak of? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This is what I meant on the Dragon Ball Z discussion page. For one when I said look at a policy and guideline review the whole thing and not a sentence or two. In that same policy look under Sources in languages other than English and it will tell you the same thing I been saying about the Daizenshū books. Yes they are official but they are not published in the english language or nor have they been translated correctly into our language. And that saying about Also the "real world point of view" requirement means that anime only stuff needs to be included to prevent the article from having either a bias or an in universe perspective. What and where did you get that answer from? If you want to get the deal on this in-universe stuff go to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-9-9-07 and Wikipedia:Writing about fiction. No I am not throw policies to correct you because that saying may be right but it is to give you a better look at that in-universe and real world stuff. But Daizenshū book as I say should not be used unless there is a published translations in english and not translated by editors do translations from editors is authorized but strongly discouraged. If done by editors and I will quote it from Sources in languages other than English, "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." The info most use is not a quote from Daizebshū but there info most found on the internet from other sites that supposetly translated the books. Now it is official book and most info is true as I have a few of these books but in german (they were published in Germany) I speak and read german so I can verify that what info is true out of the books I have but I will not bo it for there is no real way for people to know what i wrote is true as it has no english translation. So without the actual quotes or a verfied english published version the info can not be trusted as actual fact to give to the general public. Heat P 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In a basic nutshell, you can't use content as a reference unless it has a official english translation, which means that the daizenshu's being not untranslated makes it so that they can't be used a reference. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Who here supports the removal of the vague Daizenshū refs on the Dragon Ball-related articles? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Support Per Heat's above comments. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support, I forgot to say this myself. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Support as per all of Heat P's comments Greg Jones II 20:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Disagree with proposal: This proposal is based on Heat P's incorrect assumptions that WP officially rejects non-english sources translated by contributors. There is just nothing of that in the policy cited by Heat P. It merely says that in the case of an absence of official english translations (and thus in a case of translations by contributors), the original version should also be cited so that readers may check by themselves the reliability of the translation. That's all. There's absolutely nothing strictly preventing the use of sources like the Daizenshuu.Folken de Fanel 21:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment However, no one has decided to translate the source, including us users. You can't just source someting without being able to back it up. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, yeah man, let's use common sense: the Daizenshū isn't a reliable source to say the least. We need sources we can trust, so others can verify them just as easily. Lord Sesshomaru (talk •

edits) 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment Well it is, its just the language barrier keeps it from being implemented. Of course if an english version was released, we could use it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment Of course, if we use common sense, we will all agree that databooks written by Toriyama and his team are perfectly reliable since they are part of the primary source discussed and partly secondary sources (because the books are mainly in-universe and contain various new details about the story, like chronologies, etc, but also contain interviews from Toriyama). The "problem" with the Daizenshu is that since they remain untranslated in english, some people here tend to talk about them without knowing what they are. Besides, the 7th Daizenshu has official french and german translations, it is thus less complicated to use it as a source since there are probably more people here speaking french/german than japanese (and euro versions of the Daiz' are a lot more easier to get). Folken de Fanel 00:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment Seeing as your user box says that you speak french, would you be willing to translate such a copy, Folken? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
          • Comment I would have no problem to do it, however maybe not the whole book as it is ~300 pages long. But yes, if we need it I'll provide a translation ^^ Folken de Fanel 13:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Support - The Daizenshū (yes however its better handled by a user with adecuate knowledge of Japanese) or the manga are the only reliable sources for in-universe content, if there is no viable English alternative for a certain element there is no policy stating that sources in other languges can't be used, its just a matter of detailing the language in the reference template wich is a feature included in Template:cite book. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Let me give you the run down on that part of that policy on using other language source as I see I have not misassume anything I wrote.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality (meaning that is the source readily and easily available? Dai books are not for english public), so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.(Now we know it was published by a credible source however as it has not been PROPERLY TRANSLATEDINTO ENGLISH by the publisher or the american rights holds (Viz manga) how is the general public going to know it is true?

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

*Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly. *Where editors (Wiki editors) use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

Now who here has the entire 7 volumes of Daizenshū to go and translate it on their own to citation the info put in the article quote by quote. Most likely a few to none of us and if someone does I bet I can count them on one hand. I read and reread that policy using my own advice and I see no incorrect assumptions. Also I said that editors can use the books for info but with a huge barrier and no corrcetly translation copies how is the general public who are not huge Dragon Ball fan going to know that info someone put on here is true? Common sense or not without a correctly translated copy of the volume you are using then it should not be used. I am not saying they can not be I am saying they should not be and if it seemed I was saying they can't I apologize. Now Folken de Fanel. if you intend to use the french version make sure you use the name and publisher of that translated book. like I got the German copies they are not call Daizenshū, the are called simply Dragon Ball and what type of book it is like the 1 volume is Dragon Ball Artbook published by the manga rights holds Carlsem Comics in Germany. Now I said enough and I Support not using Daizenshū unless the editor has the book of his or her own and not using another site like Daizen X (I think thats the name) Heat P 02:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't follow you here. The guideline only says contributor-translated foreign-language sources are accepted if readers are given the possibility of checking the original material. It does say english sources are prefered, but, strictly, nothing says english sources "should be" favoured over foreign sources, on the condition that we offer some garantees of verifiability of the original work. And particularly in cases such as ours, when foreign sources are really the only ones available, I can't see how this guideline could be used to turn down these sources. Folken de Fanel 13:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok here it goes in a nutshell. Avaliblity of the book in the US? Close to zero I can alone guess. Also It is not a guideline that is part of a policy. I again am not saying that it can't be used as a source but it is better if you use that according to that policy your own sources meaning you have the book yourself and readily have it translated and not by another fan based site as alot of info on Daizenshu is taken from. Now being that the books are not readily availible to readers to check that source of original material for themselves that is why I support not using them unless again the editor has the book in his or her own possession. Now there are many english source on Dragon Ball out there to use and can be founded in book stores or order though them. Also if you want to us a website use toei or the official Dragon Ball site if it still online to get info. Not one out of a book that most likely no one here has and to get may take some time. Now since Viz manga has the manga readily for the U.S that should be the 1st source then the anime. Daizenshū if used should be a absolute last resort being if the editor has the volume the info is needed from. Heat P 17:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. While using the Daizenshu is at best difficult, It meets wiki standards for verifiability. As I mentioned earlier, it doesn't matter if the book is hard to find. It is still an official source of information. Whether a regular user could find it or not is largely irrelevent as it's not reasonable to expect random users to be able to find the ENGLISH manga. This being said, It's probably best to use OTHER more easily verified sources whenever possible.--Marhawkman 12:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Still not listening. So tell me and the people that support it how is someone going to find out if something is true if they can't look up the source themselves? And not reasonable for readers to find the english manga? Do you shop? Do you go in book store? Viz has had the finished manga series out for sometime so it is very easy for a reader to walk into a book store and find the info if sourced though the article. And how is Daizenshū a easily verified source when it has not been published here in the United Stated of America? The manga is the first and for must on info dealing with Dragon Ball. Yes Daizenshū may meet the standard as you say but it does not meet the policy for usage in articles. You really need to read you policies. How is it for a reader in the matter of finding out if the info is valid in their own right largely irrelevent when it says in policy that if it can be found by readers so they can verify that the source material has been used correctly. You say Daizenshū books are more easily verified sources? You must have every volume translated correctly. It does matter if the book or books is readily for readers to find. If you do own any books? Then ok edit because I never said again that no one can't use it they shouldn'T vis that policy I have given but if you don't and using info from a fan based intetnet site that is speculation type of editing as it is coming from a fan website and not an official one. Official source or not by, policy it should not be used unless info is out and easy to be verify by reader and editor if they question that the source material as this is an open website where anyone can put stuff and say its sourced, or as by policy the editor has translated his or herself the book and not from another source unless official that said they have it translated. So again unless YOU have the book or books the info is out of then they should not be used.Heat P 20:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about various kind of subjects, and you can't expect casual readers to all have every books about philosophy, science, etc. That's what WP and its sourcing method are for: presenting specific and complex content to people who are not necessarily familiar with the subject.
The aim of Wikipedia sourcing is precisely to allow readers not having enough knowledge or resources on a specific subject to be able to see from where some of the content of the article originates, that the editors did not make it up. But nothing requires the sources to be commercially available to the readers.
Verifiability is not simply "commercial availability". And it's not only about the Daizenshû, the DB articles shouldn't even require the users to have the english manga.
That's just the policy: competent editors, knowing what they are doing, can use the reference they want, as long as anyone is given the possibility to verify it: casual readers can see editors did not make all that up, that it comes from real books, and don't have to go further, and competent editors can check the accuracy of the work provided by other editors, etc.
But really, absolutely nothings requires the sources in itself to be easily available to the reader, because that's Wikipedia's purpose: to offer to casual readers knowledge that they would otherwise have no mean to acquire by themselves, and thus no, WP isn't going to ask its readers to read each book cited in it, otherwise it all fails.
And that's why the foreign sources rule you are refering to, doesn't say anywhere that the source itself must be available to the readers, but merely that the quotation in its original language must be provided so that competent readers and editors can check the overall accuracy in the article if they want. There's really no more than that, so I see no reason to be opposed to the Daizenshû.
Technically, the Daizenshû absolutely does meet the policy for usage in articles. Given that we provide precise book refs, original text as said in the policy, then nothing strictly prevents the Daizenshû to be used.
I also think that the reason you're opposed to the Daizenshû, Heat P, is that you are somewhat assimilating it with speculative internet fansites. Several people here have the french and german official translations, we're not relying on fansites. Besides, only a small amount of info from the Daizenshû is going to be used. The main source remains the manga/anime, and anyway, the Daiz' is only a kind of dictionary referencing storylines and characters from the anime and manga, but it contains sometimes small new details about the chronology, etc, that are interesting.Folken de Fanel 10:19, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Finally someone can give me a really good reason why Daizenshū should be used. But I have seen many times more editors using fan sites like Daizex.com and have said they use them in there comments. Now like I said before if the editor has the copy of the books in any language and can translated them then by all means use it but I still support not to because most people believe it or not are using fan sites, mainly Daizex because they do not have the books, and fan sites say they have translated the books. For instants some info is give and it says its out of the Daizenshū but no real quote is given or in the reference spots, a page number is not given nor the right volume given which give me and others the thought to believe that the editor is just using Daizenshū name to get their info in and to get it to stick and stay so no one will edit the info. You see now why I say only if an editor has copies so the right volume and page number, plus quote is given. But thanks for someone finally given me a good reason to keep the subject.Heat P 13:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to bring this up again, but is the consensus now that we can use the Daizenshū (as long as we cite correctly)? I own the complete Daizenshū (the 7 hardcover books), am a native speaker of both English and Japanese, and have a translation certificate for Japanese-to-English (and English-to-Japanese). I'm aware that any translation by me would still count (somewhat) as original research according to Wiki policy, but it's irritating when there are mistakes in Wiki articles that the Daizenshū and the 42 volumes of the manga clearly contradict. --Egocentrism04 (talk) 17:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Well If you feel you can give us a complete translation or very close completion of what you want to edit with correct quotes then by all means you can but remember which volume (which is 7, dummy me), quote and page number then it should be ok and not like how someone had the references on Goku's page but what mistakes do you mean, (trust me I know there are a few but I can really say its right without the original volumes from Japan Dai, German and French may work but it's better from the original language) Can you give us a example of what contradict the Dai's and manga's? Heat P (talk) 03:40, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

See, guys, the problem is that you're writing articles about a foreign language comic book. While it's true that it's been officially translated into English, said translations are commercial, edited to appeal to the general public, and thus not literal enough to be trusted. There is no Dragon Ball character named "Vegerot", yet Viz found this a usable name to replace the original "Bejitto" with, as their use of the names "Vegeta" and "Kakarot" wouldn't make the "-tto" part of the name make sense. The translation put more focus on enjoyability than accuracy, as commercial translations tend to do, but the Wikipedia articles are on "Dragon Ball", not on "Viz and FUNi's commercial, English adaption of Dragon Ball", and thus the Japanese originals must always be checked for factual accuracy no matter whether any translation is available or not. If Viz translated the Daizenshū, the translation could still not be blindly trusted, since they would edit their translation in accordition to what they believe would make it sell better. The original has to be consulted to make certain that what is stated in the article does indeed reflect the ORIGINAL text, and just not an incorrect translation. That does require you to know Japanese, yes. 134.129.203.26 (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Movies

I looked over the Dragon Ball movie articles, and they are highly inconsistant with the rest of our coverage on Dragon Ball. To fix this I suggest the following changes.

  • The undubbing of all of the Dragon Ball movie pages (Krillin --> Kuririn)
  • Name changes of all dragon Ball movies to Dragon Ball Z movie 1 Dragon Ball Z movie 2 ect. This is because the japanese titles are too long.
  • The changing of all Dragon Ball specials to Dragon Ball special 1, Dragon Ball special 2 ect.
  • Having the English title on the bottom of the japanese title in the info box, so the english title is still part of the article.

Ok so put Support in bold or Oppose in bold if you disagree with this move along with your reason why (besides I don't like it). DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, but your second and third points are not good. Some people may not know what movies/specials are what by their number alone ("Dragon Ball Movie 8"). If you don't want to use a long Japanese title, then at least use a proper title that at least gives a hint of what the movie is about: the English title. "Dragon Ball Movie 6" or "The Return of Cooler"? Which one describes the movie the best? -- RattleMan 03:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that we are using the japanese version, that would be inconsistant if we kept the english title. Also other pages use this, Bleach (manga) is one example that uses numbers for its sagas and archs. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 15:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Support, DBZROCKS, I think the Naruto articles do the same. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:13, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose It's a dispute about whether to use the English names or not? It doesn't really matter. However, consistently refering to characters within English language articles by their Japanese names will confuse people unfamiliar with the subject material.--Marhawkman 14:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
How exactally will it confuse them? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 15:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If someone has only seen the English anime, that's the only name they'll be familiar with. Since this is the English Wikipedia, that's probably going to be most of the readers.--Marhawkman 12:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

okay.... how and where?--Marhawkman (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Oppose Hi, according to the Official Guidelines that you just posted (Manual of Style: Japan-related articles), Japanese names and words should be written with their English equivalents (for example, Mount Fuji rather than Fuji-san). As a personal opinion, I'd love to change everything to its original Japanese name, but that's why the Japanese Wiki exists. Official English equivalents for DBZ names do exist, even if they're terrible, so they should be used. I agree with Marhawkman that people only familiar with the English anime would be confused by the Japanese names. --Egocentrism04 (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment The japanese names I speak of are not the names as if they were in japanse, I am talking about the translation of the japanese text. Like how we would translate Rogafufuken (Yamcha's signature technique) as fist of the wolf fang gale. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I was confused because your original example (Krillin=>Kuririn) was an improper example. Anyway, WP: Tokusatsu follows the protocol that all names of techniques (such as the example you gave above, Rogafufuken) be translated into English. I don't know if WP: Anime has a similar policy, so I guess I vote for whatever the other anime pages do. --Egocentrism04 (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
This project is part of WP:Anime and manga, and yes we are translating it into english. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball GT Sagas

These are seriously out of hand. Each saga which is about 20 episodes has a 3 page summary! If we can merge the Saiyan Saga into three paragraphs, It think we can do the same for 3 small sagas. I suggest merging the Sagas with Dragon Ball GT.

If you agree with the merge, put Suppport, Strong Support ect in bold along with a good reason why the Saga's should be merged. If you disagree, put disagree, strongly disagree, anti-support ect. in bold along with a good reason why they shouldn't be merged. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is not much on Dragon Ball GT right now, so I think it would be best merged. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, okay! {^_^} Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubbed Episode Lists (esp. Dragon Ball Z)

Ref: List of DBZ (dubbed) episodes

I am concerned about how the descriptions are worded and written. Many of the descriptions end in a "red herring" sort of manner which seems irrelevant, due to the fact that it will inevitably be indicated in later episode descriptions. I believe it would make more sense to simply have proper descriptions. Thoughts? Kennedy (talk) 07:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Episode lists

After perusing Category:Lists of anime television series episodes, I noticed that the Dragon Ball, Z, and GT episode lists are separated by language, which is not necessary nor appropriate. See featured episode lists such as List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2) or List of YuYu Hakusho episodes (season 3), and the Japanese and English airing times are listed alongside each other, as well as both the English and Japanese titles. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 19:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

By all means, I support a rewrite. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Tenkaichi Budokai page

Not talking about the video games, but the world martial arts tournament. It previously redirected to Papaya island on the Earth (Dragon Ball) page. The tournament is one of the most important plot devices in the series and deserves it's own page. I'm pretty new at this so the page needs some editing. Also, if anyone feels as though it should be on another plot page, let's discuss it, but it definitely deserved more that hardly a mention on the Earth (Dragon Ball) page. Also I think the page needs to be edited for more proper "In-Universe" lingo. --Funkamatic (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Current Dragon Ball project: a hopeless cause?

Does anyone have any suggestions to save this project? I seriously feel that it's doomed if we continue to edit with the priorities that we've set. I'll be blunt, I've been here for about a year and a half and the project has seriously gone downhill since then; well actually, it improved for a while, but then after it's improvement, it was hacked to pieces. I understand that several members are only editing as to follow the rules ("policies" and "guidelines"), however, most of the problems with this project stem from information that we all know exists, but is unavailable to cite (Like the Daizenshuu for example, which NO ONE has, or even Toriyama interviews). I purpose a new way of thinking: it's the lovely policy of WP:IAR, which is also a rule of Wikipedia. Thoughts? Suggestions? Is this the right course of action? If we continue on the path that we have set for ourselves, I will probably be leaving the project. There will be no way to save it; hell, we've tried to save it and we're no closer to that goal then we were six months ago, we've actually taken a step or two back. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with the project, exactly? I feel as if I missed something--C. ROSS 20:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Most of the articles have been hacked to pieces over the past seven or eight months. There are bearly any plot summaries (because they've been removed by certian members), or general information has been removed, and the most frustrating thing about it is that they remove it immediately, dubbing it WP:OR without even trying to find reference for the new information. The Dragon Ball Z main article was denied GA status primarily for the reason of people had removed the plot summary, calling it "fan cruft" and crap like that. The editing by remaining members here now is honestly getting rediculous. It's actually making the articles worse. I don't blame prominant members like Onikage, Heat, and SUIT leaving. They probably felt the same way I do right now, so they left knowing that it couldn't be fixed. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 09:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Its because the project as is is just to unorganized. We need to do something now. Here is what I propose.

  1. Merge all Dragon Ball sagas into Dragon Ball plot. This will shorten the content and allow us to actually have a chance of a good article.
  2. Merge all Dragon Ball Z saga's into Dragon Ball part 2 plot, this will allow us to get rid of all the crappy saga article that have no chance of surviving.
  3. Get rid of any impossible to make featured articles. No. 18, No.17 are prime examples.
  4. Change all movie names to their original japanese versions (translated of course).
  5. Clean up the list pages and remove images on characters that are not really important or that have articles (Bra, Paragas etc). For henchmen, try to get an image of them all together to reduce the ammount of images.
  6. Get an article on Chi to explain the concept as it is in Dragon Ball. Naruto and other anime/manga pages have such articles. The Page could also explain some of the more important Dragon Ball techniques, such as the Genkai Dama and the Kamehameha.

Of course this is only the tip of the iceberg on what needs to be done, but so far, is eveyone with me? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, go for it DBZROCKS. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I just joined, I LOVE Dragon Ball, why the pessimism? This project is going to get some serious use in the next year because of the live-action film and many people are going to be coming here for info. Sure we could use some organization overhauls, but if someone new to the franchise came here I think they would be pretty successful in finding the info they want.--Funkamatic (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball films

For reference, I have placed merge tags on the various film articles. They do not seem to have the capability to become notable on their own, so one comprehensive List of Dragon Ball films seems like a better idea. TTN (talk) 20:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with TTN, a single article would be more informative, these movies simply do not have enough secondary information to stand on their own. Lets start a discussion for this. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Support I support this merge do to the Dragon Ball movie pages not really having enough information to stand on their own. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 13:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Support per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is taking place on Talk:List of Dragon Ball films. --Pixelface (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragonball film now has its own article

I'd just like to inform members of this work group that per WP:FUTFILMS, Dragonball is shooting and therefore has its own article. I would like people then to try and track down redirects to Dragon Ball (franchise)#Live action film and correct them. Alientraveller (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I got some of the redirects but there may still be some lingering. I also added some other links to the page (dragonball live action, ect.) I REALLY think we should start adding references from existing articles (and any new ones) to the new page when it's appropriate.--Funkamatic (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Chi article: Good Idea?

Yes right now many of you are going "No DBZROCKS, that's a terrible Idea it would be crufty and impossible to maintain". Well I have a plan that might allow this to go smoothly. Here goes:

    1. Introduction- Introduce Chi as it appears in Dragon Ball and some of its aplications
    2. Concept- Go into the concept such as what is chi, what does it do, what does it look like etc.
    3. Aplications- go into the aplications of Chi and discuss some of its more common uses (Bukujutsu would be a prime example). Also go into some of the more notable Chi techniques (Things like the Kamehameha and Genkai Dama, one time moves like Final Flash and Burning Attack would not be mentioned).
    4. Power- Go into how Chi affects a beings level of power, Scouters would also be discussed
    5. In Popular culture- Go into how Chi as portrayied in Dragon Ball appears in other media.

Some other quick notes:

  • I suggest that we do not create the page immediatally if this idea goes through, rather that we have it as a subpage so that it won't be so hard to edit with other edits from random IP's and people who are not familar with policy don't get to it immediatally. I am not suggesting that we hide it, just that we keep it on a subpage until it has reached a suitable point, like where most of the article is finished.
  • There will be no power level list because that would just be CRUFT that would hamper the article.


Anyone agree with me here or am I crazy? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


Hmmm. I like the idea that the page will be used by other franchises. We may understand the concept from a Dragon Ball point, but it would only be appropriate to have Dragon Ball's Chi as a sub-header. I'm all for simply defining the concept in a short sentence and then making the Dragon ball subheading expanded and linked to by the rest of this project.--Funkamatic (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I created this exact page a long time ago, but it was merged into Dragon Ball. I am all for bringing it back, it would only improve this project.--VorangorTheDemon (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
What would be the article's title? Chi (fiction)? Ki (Dragon Ball) wouldn't apply, I'm guessing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:13, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
No; if an article is made it would have to be at "ki". Nowhere in the entire anime do any of them ever say "chi" when referring to this concept. I can't vouch for the manga, though. -- RattleMan 03:58, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah but i think that DBZROCKS means that we make an article about chi in general and then have a dragon ball section in it. I actually throw my vote for the ki (dragon ball) article.--Funkamatic (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The manga uses the term chi. I'd rather we vote for that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
In the fan-translated manga I have, it's referred to as both in different places. Fan-translation manga is unreliable in this aspect. I have no access to the original, untranslated manga, which is why I said I can't vouch for what it actually says in there. Are you looking at an untranslated manga? -- RattleMan 22:50, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Nope, I actually own the Dragon Ball manga by Viz. In one instance during the battle between Son Goku and Piccolo Daimao for example, the demon king says chi. I'll see if I can find other pages. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I vouch for Sesshomaru. I checked the manga and King Piccolo says "chi". I think wikipedia should have a all out chi page but perhaps there should be a stand-alone Chi (Dragon Ball) / Ki (Dragon Ball)article.--Funkamatic (talk) 01:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have to disagree with this. Subs vary between translators, whether they're fan or officials, and the same goes for manga. Viz decided to translate it as chi while FUNimation translated it as ki in their subs on the anime. In reality, ki and chi are the same thing. But ki is the Japanese way of saying chi. So I'm 100 % against it for these reasons alone. And to be honest, I'm not a fan of Viz's translation of the manga, especially how they edited things out. And even the video games use the term ki also. (such as ki gauge). Some of you may not count the games as canon, because they're not, but the developers do use the anime/manga (mostly anime) for source material. Chi was only used in the english manga and nowhere else. Those are the facts I've layed down, since apparently, no one else knows any of this. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 01:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I think that Ki should be the choice, that's how it's both said and spelled in Japanese. With Dragon Ball being a Japanese series, it only makes sense. If not, how about Energy (Dragon Ball)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by VorangorTheDemon (talk • contribs) 12:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll go for Ki (Dragon Ball) or just Ki. Frankly I never even heard the word Chi before. But keeping the article as a sub would hinder its productivity. And I am also guessing that after a while, it would just be merged again like VorangorTheDemon said it was done before. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 04:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball FO

I thought someone might be interested in knowing that another AF has arrived and its called FO. But I didnt want to jump to conclusions. Thats why I mentioned this here. Oh and the article is up for deletion. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As "forum-y" as this topic is, thanks for notifying us of this article's creation. The article needs to be deleted, it's nothing more than another one of those psuedo Dragon Ball serieses that fanboys created in an attempt to revive the Dragon Ball franchise. Dragon Ball AF, Dragon Ball U, Dragon Ball X, Dragon Ball FO; they're all the same. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with VorangorTheDemon. delete it.--Funkamatic (talk) 07:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I did that already a couple of days ago, and reported the Vandal to ANI for HOAX. I think he also got indef block. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 13:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)