FANDOM

7,349 Pages

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dragon Ball Wiki:Manual of Style page.

  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Do not bite the newcomers
  • Respond in a mature manner
  • Be welcoming
  • Maintain civility at all times

Here it is

For better or for worse, here's the revised MoS I've been adding bits and pieces to over the past weeks. It might be a little unimpressive given how long it took me to get it up here, but it still goes a bit more in-depth than our old draft does. As noted on the top of the page, this is only a proposal, so don't flip out if something doesn't look right — talk about it here and we can fix whatever needs fixing. Please discuss any changes to the policies on the manual before committing those changes to the project page.

As far as the actual policies go, I've tried to keep most of what was in the original draft, even directly copying some of it. In addition, I've added some material based on consensus that has been reached regarding several issues over the past months. (Naming, images, fan works, etc.) There were also some areas on the wiki that have been sources of inconsistency that I just arbitrarily stuck in rules about based on my whims (e.g. article names for planets and a few formatting rules) — feel free to tell me why I made the wrong choices there if you don't like them. Finally, I brought in a few other policies from Wikipedia and other wikis on Wikia that seemed pertinent.

There are also a few remaining issues that we should probably work out before we finalize this. The first is videos. I've noticed several occasions on which users have embedded various video clips into articles. For the most part, these have seemed to be fairly blatant copyright violations that likely would not fall under fair use. We certainly would want to avoid that, and even in the case of non-infringing clips (for example, authorized trailers or the temporary release of Dragon Ball: Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!! last winter) it seems to me that external links would be the least distracting way to direct users to those videos. I guess what I'm saying is that I don't see much use for embedded videos on the wiki, but that's only my view, so please share yours.

Another issue I was thinking about is anime-only material. There doesn't really seem to be a graceful way to cater to both manga purists and those who accept anime-only material as part of canon. We can either break up the manga-based content and the anime-only content and present them separately, or we can present them together in chronological order. The former way hinders flow, and the latter blurs the line between different levels of canonicity. My thought on a solution was that we could use the latter style, but introduce some sort of special formatting that could signify that a certain paragraph or statement refers to an anime-only subject. For example:

King Kai has a monkey named Bubbles, a motor-mouth grasshopper named Gregory, and owns a 50's-style red Chevrolet Sedan.

(The formatting doesn't necessarily have to look like that, and we can tidy up the code with a template, but you get the idea.) On the wiki's site notice (which is shown at the top of every page on the wiki) we could include an explanation on the formatting, or a link to an explanation. Whole articles or sections that describe an anime-exclusive subject could forgo the formatting and simply have a notice at the top of the page/section. Other ideas on how to address this issue are welcome.

Finally, there's the issue of in-universe (IU) writing vs. out-of-universe (OOU) writing. I've left the old policy pretty much intact, save for some clarifications, but in truth, the articles are currently a bit of a mishmash of IU and OOU styles. For example, many articles follow the IU style by introducing a character as though the writer lives in the DB universe. On the other hand, some articles will introduce their subject as being "a fictional character from the Dragon Ball manga and anime series" — clearly an OOU perspective. Many of the supposedly IU sections also frequently refer to episodes and sagas and other real world references, which contradicts purely IU writing style. We should clarify just how this policy is going to work.

Well that's it for my spiel. Let the deliberations commence. :-P -- Nonoitall talk contr 06:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Heya comrade. I wouldn't call this MoS unimpressive. The manual of style seems to be very well thought out. Overall, I'd say I have absolutely no qualms with what's being said here. I agree that videos should be kept out entirely due to copyright violations, we want to avoid infringement in any way possible. I've been removing videos on a monthly basis as members have kept adding them frequently (and many have been non-dragon ball related). About manga and anime differentiation, it seems to be a basic clarification in that regard, but we shouldn't split manga and anime apart, keep it on one page and have everything in chronological order, but note the anime differences on the same article. Canonicity is very important, the fact that we maintain its importance is crucial to sustaining an accurate encyclopedic resource. We're always going to improve the articles. In regards to IU and OOU writing styles, I'm not opposed to either, but feel that we should choose one and stick with it. We should definitely clarify to that end how we need the writer to introduce, refer, and convey the article's message and from what perspective, keeping the article less opinionated and more factual. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 14:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


This is looking very nice, I agree with it 100%. I'm wondering if there would be any way to possibly send this to all of the wiki's active users once it is completed, or perhaps give a nice clear link to it on the main page so that new users and veteran users alike can view it with ease. What do you think about something like that?
SSJGoku93sigpic3
 talk contr 
17:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the manual is quite good, though there are things to be improved. One topic is the IU versus OOU. I tend to prefer OOU, as sometimes it is useful or even necessary to provide a link to, for example, the episode where something happened. I guess it can be done with subtle references linking to the References section, but sometimes it may not be that easy. So usually find OOU is easier to mantain and complete. However, IU is "more fun" most of the time...

I agree, the manual looks great. Anyone who doesn't get the proper way to edit a page can lear quickly if they read Your article. CrewSoulReaper

Another point is the "Episodes, manga chapters and sagas" body layout. I think there are sections missing. For one, there is usually a "characters" section, at least in the sagas. The sagas also have an episode list. And I think there should also be a layout for movies, which is quite similar to this one, but has more sections (cast, music, and maybe cannonicity).Sega381 02:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Good suggestions! I agree with your points regarding the OOU style. (Actually with a completely OOU style we could probably do away with the "Behind the scenes" sections, since most of the information therein could be integrated into the other parts of the article.) I went ahead and adjusted the article layouts section with those suggested sections/article types — make sure and chime in if more refinement is necessary.
I agree keeping anime and manga material together seems most logical. My main rationale for suggesting some sort of formatting for anime-exclusive material is that there is a fair amount of anime-exclusive material that's mixed in with original manga material, and having to explicitly state when a particular statement is anime-only has always seemed to make the articles flow a little less smoothly, at least to me. (We end up with lots of "in the anime only" or "exclusively in the anime" statements all over the place.) If those don't bother anyone else I can live with them, but I just wanted to mention it while we're settling on policies anyway. -- Nonoitall talk contr 08:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey all I'm new to this wiki, in fact my first edits are today, but I thought I'd present an idea with regard to IU vs OOU. From editing various wikis I have come to like both methods, but I generally prefer IU mainly because I think the encyclopedia's that are written as if they were in the universe are more enjoyable to read. I'm used to referencing using the referencing section and <ref></ref> tags, however, if you would like to stay in-universe but provide an easy link to where the info is from, you could create a cite template which could be placed after the information and would provide a link to the episode/movie/manga where the info came from. For example, if you wanted to reference to the episode "Stop Vegeta Now!" you could have the information, and where you want to reference you would place {{Cite|DBZ|Stop Vegeta Now!}}, and it would look something like:
Vegeta dodged the Spirit Bomb, but Goku had Gohan hit it back at him, sending the Saiyan Prince flying into the distance. (DBZ: "Stop Vegeta Now!")
This is simlar to the Harvard style of referencing and would allow people to quickly see where the info came from. The template would have different variables so that "DBZ" could be "DB" or "Movie" or whatever you want. Anyway that's the idea, not sure how good it is, but I thought I'd put it up :-). Grunny (Talk) 10:07, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that seems to be the style of choice over at Memory Alpha and it's worked well for them. All-in-all, I can see nice things about both styles and could be swayed either way at this point, but I agree with PrinceZarbon in that we really do need to pick one and stick to it. Your point about references seems to resolve the previous issue that was mentioned regarding the IU style. That said, I guess I'm slightly leaning that direction now. Is anyone leaning with me? :-D (It would be nice to not have to introduce most articles as "_____ is a fictional _____ in the Dragon Ball manga and anime series".) -- Nonoitall talk contr 00:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we ultimately do not need to introduce characters in that manner "____ is a fictional ____ in the Dragon Ball", etc. due to the fact that it's obvious that the characters on the wiki will belong to the Db universe, it would accomplish little but state the obvious on the wiki of its very name. The best case scenario here is of course to pick one and stick to it, so we can have consistency on all the articles. But I agree that it would be nice not to mention the obvious so-and-so belongs to the Dragon Ball universe as that much must be clear to anyone on the wiki. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 00:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
One thing I'm still wondering about is what you guys think is the best way to identify anime-exclusive material. If we go with an IU style we won't be able to say things like "in the anime only" in normal text. Thoughts? -- Nonoitall talk contr 09:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
For those specific instances/characters, we would note "in the anime" at the pre-bio section. But I assume it's technically unnecessary for all the characters to have that written as it would be weird for us to make a notation for each and every character being derived from the same source and all. But whatever we do in this case, we should stick to one format. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 13:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been thinking this one over too, since it's kind of the one last issue nagging at me about the MoS. My latest idea is that, for any statement of debatable canonicity, we could have a small icon following the statement. When a user hovers his cursor over the icon, a tooltip can pop up, explaining why the canonicity is debatable. To that end, I've been brushing up on my CSS a bit so I can try my hand at making some suitable tooltips for the icons. (The standard hint-on-hover tips don't strike me as being versatile enough, since they disappear quickly, can only go up to a certain size, and can't contain links or formatting.) Anyway, if that was understandable, does it sound like an acceptable idea? (If I didn't convey the idea adequately, I'm hoping to have some actual examples to try out in the next few days, but you know how my time estimates go sometimes...) -- Nonoitall talk contr 09:28, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's my opinions. 1.) About the video thing, it is a common misconception that videos like those are copyright infringements. That idea was planted in people's heads by a bunch of flaggers out to cause trouble. No one is making any money off of them are they? And we could do the external link thing. 2.) About the anime/manga thing, there are some people here like me who have only known the anime, and if you're talking about changing their names back to the manga (like Kuririn, Freeza, etc.) then there's got to be some way anyone can look up the part they want. Maybe have the anime role as the main one, and the manga as the separate section. For example

King Cold came to Earth with Frieza. Trunks came and killed Frieza and then King Cold asked to give him his weapon. Trunks gave King Cold his sword and he attacked him with it. However, Trunks grabbed the sword and shot an energy blast through King Cold's kidney, knocking him into the wall. King Cold begged for his life, but Trunks destroyed him with an energy wave, then blew up his ship. King Cold later appeared in the Great Saiyaman Saga in Hell causing trouble with Frieza, Cell, and the Ginyu Force, but was easily defeated when Pikkon elbowed him in the stomach, and knocked him out.

(h2)In the manga(h2) In the manga, King Cold was killed by Trunks's first energy wave. Also, he never appeared in the manga after his death, as all scenes in Hell are filler material.

Something like that. 3.) As for the OOU thing, I don't read many articles about anything OOU, unless it's something like "Agent Cody Banks. During one of the scenes, you can see that Cody has two Dragonball Z posters in his room." Or "Bloody Rage". Or that one robot chicken episode. If there is a way to identify that, then I don't think it will be an inconvenience for anyone. Anyway, that's what I think on the thing.Ghostkaiba297 16:37, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

Bare in mind that there can easily be copyright infringement without there being profit. Copyright infringement occurs whenever copyrighted material is distributed or copied (which includes uploading/downloading) without the copyright holder's permission. There are a few (vague) fair use exceptions that allow people to use things like quotes, screen captures and the like. No, I don't like copyright laws in their present form one bit, but that's the state of things in many countries.
We should also remember that the naming scheme and the canonicity in the articles can be independent of each other. (We can use the familiar names from the anime to describe the manga canon.) I'm in favor of keeping the manga as the ultimate authority canonicity-wise, and making a note of areas where alternate media (such as the anime and games) conflict with it or add to it. I suppose canonicity might be another good thing to discuss and include in the MoS while we're all talking about it though. -- Nonoitall talk contr 09:36, September 11, 2009 (UTC)
1.) Downloading maybe, but uloading, no. The idea was planted by flaggers who worship Satan. 2.) My idea would be to have the anime as the main article, and a separate section for the manga and games. OR we could keep "anime" and "manga" as two separate sections of the article, like Wikimoon, or something like that, I'm not sure. We'll need something that's good for everyone, and not too confusing if you're looking for info on anime or manga specifically. As for the canonocity thing, well, I just hope that it doesn't make a rule where filler is dismissed as non-canon. (ie: Garlic Jr., Invisible Spaceship, Raiti and Zaacro, etc.) Unlike the movies, it does not have many plot holes. Ghostkaiba297 04:25, September 17, 2009 (UTC)
There can be no downloading without uploading. ;-) My feeling regarding the anime/manga material is to present the material from the manga and anime together, but to note where the anime diverges from the manga. That way, there doesn't have to be a break between the two (which would be hard to do without downplaying either the manga or the anime) and the reader can decide whether or not he wants to regard anime-exclusive material as canon or not. -- Nonoitall talk contr 07:58, September 17, 2009 (UTC)

Gogorumo

I like your Wikia

A Couple of Recommendations

On the Debut section in the infbox's for the articles I put there manga and anime debuts. Also every Biography should have a section before the saga they debuted in called Early life and tells all information revealed about them that happened before there appearance in the series (Example would be like vegeta where it should tell about vegeta's early life that was in all the flashbacks in the frieza saga). Also Movies should just be part of the biography instead of seperated after the biography due to the fact that some of them actually happen like Dead Zone should be placed just before vegeta saga. Also the Video Games section should be placed lower after Transformations and Techniques. I think a Trivia Section on episode articles is something that should be added so it can explain possible plotholes, dub errors, Early Edits, Ect. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE.

Trivia sections are part of the generic article layout, so technically every article has a place towards the end of the page for trivia information. I kind of agree with going 100% in chronological order (integrating movies into the overall biography). The only thing that concerns me a little is maintaining the distinction between material that's canon to the series and material that is exclusive to movies. This is similar to the anime-exclusive issue I mentioned above. Any thoughts on how this might be accomplished? -- Nonoitall talk contr 08:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I understand the whole thing about movie stuff but the ones that can fit definitely should go in the main biography. We can put Dead Zone before Saiyan/vegeta Saga, World's Strongest, Tree of Might and Cooler's Revenge in between the Trunks and Android Saga, Broly was confirmed to be in between the 10 days taking place before Cell, Bojack is inbetween Cell Games Saga and Great Saiyaman Saga, Broly Second Coming happens inbetween Great Saiyaman and World Tournament Saga and Wrath of the Dragon and the 2008 OVA is Post Kid Buu Saga. I think that we should seperate Kid Buu and the Post Kid Buu saga that takes place 10 years later if that character is involved in one of those movies. Also Since the 4 Dragon Ball Movies are definitly non canon they should be in their own section because the first 3 sequel each other. This may sound confusing but If you want I can make an example of the format changes. Also One last thing is on the articles for saga's I don't think it is necessary for it to list edited and unedited episodes because the older dub has been replaced and we should stick to uncut episodes only and describe early dub edits in the trivia articles for the episodes. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

I don't think any of them "fit" 100%. :-D Just about every movie has some sort of contradiction with the canon series. Even Dead Zone has the issue of Krillin meeting Gohan in the movie, when the series establishes that they first met on the day Raditz arrived. That's why I'm somewhat skeptical about mixing the two, and even if we do, there needs to be some way of indicating to the reader which material is canon to the series and which material isn't. I don't really see why we can't have a list of edited episodes on the saga pages. If this is to be an encyclopedic resource, I'd think we should cover all releases — both edited and uncut. -- Nonoitall talk contr 10:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree about putting the movies in between where they "seem" to fit inside of the sagas. This is only because they are all technically considered non canon with the exception of the 2 TV specials, Bardock: The Father of Goku and The History of Trunks. So, in my personal opinion, I believe we should keep all of the movies in there own section, clearly labeled "Movies" or something a long those lines.
SSJGoku93sigpic3
 talk contr 
17:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Another Random thing is to have a gallery to show costume changes the character has had throughout the series also this wiki isn't use the gallery feature for anything so why for this. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

Saga layout

A small thing I'd change to the Sagas layout is to put the episode list at the end, after the releases, because 1) that's where it is in the current articles, 2) seems better to me, as lists tend to interrupt the article flow, and 3) for consistency with other layouts, which have the Releases section right after the Quotes.--Sega381 17:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it would seem logical to maintain the lists at the end of each article in order to have consistency on all the saga articles. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 20:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. :) -- Nonoitall talk contr 08:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


Another couple points

I was thinking it might also be worthwhile to note that fullscreen (4:3) screenshots are preferred over widescreen (16:9) cropped ones when the original material was fullscreen. I was also wondering if you guys think an (optional) "Production" section might be good to include in the movie layout, and if so where you'd suggest inserting it? -- Nonoitall talk contr 08:43, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be pretty useful. I guess I'd put it before the releases section.--Sega381 00:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone here edited Wikipedia articles before?

Has anyone here ever legitimately edited Dragon Ball pages at Wikipedia besides me? No one here seems to know how to write articles based on Wikipedia styling and formats, but of course I'm new so I haven't met everyone yet. My main concern is getting rid of OR (Original research) which is against Wikipedia Policy. I know I seem like a bitch storming in here and hacking the pages, but this lulzy fanboy eye candy and speculation has got to stop if we're going to make this project work, and be a reliable source of easy to understand and informative articles for fans and non-fans alike. My main problem is the length of many of these articles. No one's going to sit there and read the entire Goku article, it's too long. --MistressGojira 06:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

First off, welcome to the wiki! It's always good to see someone interested in improving the polish of the articles.
While some of Wikipedia's policies have been adopted by this wiki, this is not Wikipedia. (Plenty of the wikis on Wikia wouldn't even exist if they had to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines.) Many of Wikipedia's policies, such as those regarding trivia, inferring logical conclusions based on evidence and requiring citations every other sentence, do not apply here. Being a reliable source of information is naturally a very worthy goal, but I'm pretty strongly opposed to jumping on every unsourced sentence and deleting it in the name of "reliability". IMO, this paranoid, cite-it-or-I-delete-it trend has really detracted from the informativeness of many of Wikipedia's articles — it's what motivated me to come here in the first place. Most of the frequent editors here are very knowledgeable about the series, and do a good job of preventing misinformation from being introduced into the articles.
A very sizable portion (dare I say a majority) of the unsourced material in the articles is simply "common knowledge" that has yet to have a citation added. Anyone interested in helping to include sources has my full support. (In fact, that's one of the reasons for the new MoS, as it's intended to help establish how we reference material in the DB series.) There are also many places where the information may be accurate, but the presentation is a bit on the unencyclopedic side and could use rewriting. (Often this alone will also shorten the material, as precise wording can usually get the job done in fewer words than unpolished wording.)
On the subject of Goku's article being too long, don't underestimate how much an interested person is willing to read. ;-) I got engrossed in Wookiepedia's Palpatine article (which makes our Goku article look like a stub) a while back and read almost the whole thing in one sitting. If there's a logical way to break up the material and it's really necessary, I'm all for it, but as long as the information is accurate and relevant, I don't see how there can be such a thing as "too much information" in an encyclopedia.
Anyway, that's my two cents. -- Nonoitall talk contr 12:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Nonoitall. Ghostkaiba297 16:22, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

Episode Infobox

I have made an episode Infobox and put is on the Secret of the Dragon Balls article. please tell me what you think of it if there is other Info that should be put onto it. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

I think it's a great idea. I've missed an episode infobox every time I've read an episode article. I'm not sure if the "title" image gives any useful info, though. --Sega381 05:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks good. It seems to add formatting to the article in terms of information under the screencap. I assume if it's added for one episode, it should be added to the rest of the episodes as well, along with the same formatting. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 14:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

One last thing what is everyones opinion on having the title screen as the main screencap in the box. It can become pretty boring because all of the episode title screens are just a landscape with the title name and there is tons of episodes. I thought maybe a screencap that shows the main point of the episode may be better but im fine with either. Im just wondering what do you guys think is better for the screencap infobox the title screen or an image that sums up the main point of the episode. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

An image that sums up the main point of the episode may not be a good idea for one reason: because members might not agree on which image would serve as the best to summarize an episode and would repeatedly change or alter it. But this way, we would avoid that constant change or altering by just having the title as the main for the infobox and keep many screenshots on the article itself to summarize the episode, that way we would completely avoid future changes to the infobox and have one concise setup for all the episodes, and although "boring", would serve as the same formatting, it would accomplish much in avoiding altering to the infobox, which is what we're trying to do for the most part. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 17:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see thats a pretty good point. So I will start putting this format on the other episodes. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

Great! And now we can have lots of screencaps for the episode summaries and have many that represent each episode. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 20:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Episode Quotes

On the Manuel Style article it lists a quote section in the Episode part. How would the quotes be organized. Should they be listed by the order they are said in the episode or by character. Also how would it be listed by which Dub the quote is from. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

I'd think that order of appearance would probably be simplest, and that it's probably preferable to always indicate which dub/translation the quote comes from. Anyone else have thoughts on this? -- Nonoitall talk contr 04:39, September 6, 2009 (UTC)
Episodic quotes are un-needed. We don't need to compile quotations into the articles themselves. We may, in the future, have a complete resource for quotations by seasonal breakdown. However, we don't need to have sections in corresponding articles compiled with quotes. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 14:30, September 10, 2009 (UTC)

Canonicity

I conferred with Dantman about my tooltip idea and he pointed out some complications that have prompted me to abandon that as a solution. What would you guys say to something as simple as footnotes? (See a very basic example at User:Nonoitall/Sandbox.) This also brings up the gnarly issue of how we're going to present conflicting/exclusive information. (Do we use Option 1 or Option 2 of that example? What guidelines govern that decision?) Thoughts? -- Nonoitall talk contr 02:04, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

Given that there's not a lot of talk about this subject going on, I'm going to pull a fairly arbitrary idea out from under my hat. Feel free to disagree or propose a different strategy.
Anywhere where the anime differs from the manga we should have some sort of a note, whether it's a notice in the header of an article or a footnote. In places where the manga directly conflicts with the anime (for example, Cargo's killer), the manga's account has precedence and is what will be written into the article; a note will describe the anime's account. That situation should be fairly rare, since I'm not aware of a whole lot of places where there is direct conflict. In places where the anime adds information not originally in the manga that doesn't conflict with the manga, we present the anime's account in the article and mention the difference from the manga in a note.
What do you fellows think? -- Nonoitall talk contr 09:42, January 9, 2010 (UTC)
Sounds simple and effective to me.--Sega381 19:43, January 9, 2010 (UTC)

As long as we're on the subject we might as well decide how authorized guides play into this. Extending my previous suggestion, I propose that we have three 'sources' of information that we use for in-universe material. In order of priority (first to last) they are:

  1. The original manga
  2. The anime
  3. Authorized guides and statements

Drawing from my previous proposal, if a lower priority source directly conflicts with a higher priority source, we present the information from the high priority source and make a note about the information in the lower priority source. If a lower priority source provides information that was not present in a higher priority source but does not directly conflict with that higher source, we present the lower priority source's information and make a note about the lack of information in the higher source. This goes along with our use of the Daizenshuu and GT Perfect Files to establish who used what Super Saiyan forms, for example. (Though, according to this proposal, we'd also want to note that the series itself does not directly specify all the users of the different SS classes.) -- Nonoitall talk contr 05:31, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that too. But I'm not sure where the movies and video games apply here.--Sega381 20:58, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Maybe we should position them between the #2 and #3 — or class them with authorized guides and statements? -- Nonoitall talk contr 07:36, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'd say movies, then guides, then video games, as the video games openly admit that some events within them don't actually take place. -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 09:08, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. So our revised order of sources would be as follows:

  1. The original manga
  2. The anime
  3. Movies
  4. Authorized guides and statements
  5. Video games

Sound about right? -- Nonoitall talk contr 05:46, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Statements may vary in their authority. The speaker's/writer's identity must be considered, and while something Toriyama says may overrule a guidebook written by someone else, a statement from the a writer of the guidebook (aside from the book's contents) may not. -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 06:19, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Okie dokie — good to get as specific as possible. Something along these lines then?

  1. The original manga
  2. The anime
  3. Movies
  4. Authorized guides and statements
    1. Statements by Akira Toriyama (author of the original manga series)
    2. Statements by Toei (producer of the anime and author of the GT portion of the series)
    3. Authorized guides (discussion may be required to gauge relative importance)
  5. Video games

-- Nonoitall talk contr 06:38, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

: ) -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 07:36, January 24, 2010 (UTC)

I added the canonicity guidelines to the project page, and also made one little alteration relating to source-specific articles (IE, episode articles are specific to the anime). Hopefully that will cover all the bases for the time being. :-) -- Nonoitall talk contr 10:12, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

After several comments and discussions with different contributors, and after seeing how this is handled in other Wikis, I think we should start removing the word "canon" and "canonicity" from... everywhere. We should replace it with something like "valid sources", or "valid sources for this wiki". The word "canon" is too subjective, and has a lot of emotional background for fans, who naturally try forever to find out what is "canon". We do not want to decide what is canon for this wiki, we only want to define what sources seem valid enough to include in this wiki, and what sources have preference over others for easy ordering. "Canon"... is a troublesome word. And striving for canon is fun but ultimately not the point of a wiki.--Sega381 01:25, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Character Interactions

Does anyone think it would be a good idea to have a section on character articles describinh the characters interactions with other chaaracters? Pretty much describing how certain friendships, relationships or rivalries kind of develop in the series. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

Nudity

This issue came up on one of the episode articles, and it seems to be something worth discussing here. As already discussed, fan images (with or without nudity) have no place on the main namespace articles. But, the question arises as to our stand on official images that contain nudity. My opinion is that their use should be avoided, except perhaps for areas where the nudity itself sheds substantial light on the article's subject that can't be summarized in words. (For example, when describing the Dragon Ball series as a whole, it might be appropriate to use one such image in order to convey the more controversial content in the series.)

Even in those instances, it might be best to have a thumbnail with a warning in the article that links to the actual image on a separate page. This would prevent sensitive viewers who were just browsing the articles from inadvertently stumbling on something they might consider offensive. Thoughts? -- Nonoitall talk contr 07:58, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

I've voiced myself prior in regards to this. I similarly feel we need to avoid it unless it's necessary to convey such messages in a manner that we can't through words. However, we need to clearly insert this in the MoS as a standard because we can't have it becoming a problem, and we want to avoid conflict in general, in addition to the fact that it would help us follow a standard in the future dear comrade. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 08:10, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you both. I still can imagine a situation where it's really really important and necessary to show this kind of images. But, as there could be a case, I agree with the thumbnail idea. The template proposed below looks nice, but by the time someone reads the warning, the image may have already loaded, so I'm not sure it would be very effective. --Sega381 23:28, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

I made this template would it be helpful for this sort of thing. - (Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE 13:44, November 4, 2009 (UTC))

Bulmacontent

"Mature Content Warning!"
‎This article contains some content involving a mature subject or situation and may not be suitable for younger audiences


What about something like this? -->
Explicit
About this image

An example of nudity in Dragon Ball.

--Nonoitall talk contr 13:24, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Yes, something like that seems ok.--Sega381 22:17, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
Since there weren't any objections I created a slightly modified version of that template for general use and made a note about the policy in the MoS. Feel free to voice any further concerns or suggestions. -- Nonoitall talk contr 12:24, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Music

I'm thinking that another idea for episode articles would be a list of the music of the score that was used in the episode. - (Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE 03:52, December 19, 2009 (UTC))

the gt seasons thing with baby saga not finishing IS NOT IMPORTANT READ THIS

dragonball z took 2 seasons for the freiza(also know as freezer,freeza, and freez) saga to begin off of the ginyu saga and end in the next season remastered box ounce again another case of this the cell, and majin buu saga's showing that ut doesn tmatter at all that the saga finishes 4 episodes into the next season so that must be fixed69.147.165.34 02:51, January 2, 2010 (UTC)

Shall we put this manual into effect?

It's been several months since the draft was introduced and it seems like most of the key points have been covered. How would the community feel about putting this manual into effect? Are there any gaping issues that still need resolution before we can begin officially enforcing this? -- Nonoitall talk contr 10:22, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, haven't edited in months, but I got an email of some updates, wanted to check out how my Power Level Table was going & found it mostly intact. Still funky in IE, but thats IE for you... So far everything seems spot on. I would, however, consider limiting user who don't have logins from making edits on heavily spammed pages (or all pages in general). Side-note: I still have to figure out how to import a logo sig like you have.. never looked into it. Contributions from Meleniumshane90 Meleniumshane90 Studios™ 07:48, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
I've heard a few other users request the very same thing, and I personally have seen it work well on some other wikis. Does anyone else have an opinion about possibly limiting edits to registered users only, if only for some trial period? -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 08:08, February 28, 2010 (UTC)
I'm not so sure about the approach, but I guess we could give it a try for a few days and see how it works out. Is there a mechanism available on the wiki that would allow this to be automatically enforced? On the subject of the MoS, does this really have a baring on points of style? I only ask because this might be better discussed in its own thread where it might receive more visibility and feedback. -- Nonoitall talk contr 22:42, March 1, 2010 (UTC)
Going back to the subject of this discussion, I agree that we should start enforcing the MoS. It won't harm anyone, and in the worst case, that something needs to be corrected, it will just be corrected later. So I say go ahead and let's start officialy using it.--Sega381 02:41, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the topic doesn't directly relate, but this seems to be a good place to catch the attention of a lot of people at once. If there is no mechanism for a blanket-protection of the site, then perhaps we could experiment by protecting 10-20 articles which can be considered mostly "complete", such as Goku, Vegeta, Piccolo, Frieza, etc. Changes in Kai and video games could still be added by registered users, but ideally we won't get gibberish and power-level changes that sometimes make up anon.'s entire edit history. -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:43, March 2, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something we could try out.
Since there's been ample time for anyone to bring up any objections to the MoS, I'll remove the note about it being a proposal and we can begin to officially use it on the wiki. Naturally, adjustments can still be made when needed. Hopefully this will serve to keep the articles consistent and more maintainable. -- Nonoitall talk contr 07:28, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

Verb tense

It might be a little late to bring this up, but I'm not sure if in-universe events should be in the past tense. Grammatically speaking, that's wrong, no way around it. Fictional events should always be referred to in the present tense.

"(When) Writing About Literature Use the present tense to describe fictional events that occur in the text: (This use of present tense is referred to as "the historical present.")

  • In Milton's Paradise Lost, Satan tempts Eve in the form of a serpent.
  • Voltaire's Candide encounters numerous misfortunes throughout his travels."[1] -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 10:37, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
I understand that defining the tense is important, but I think you're referring to out-of-universe articles. In-universe, it is not fiction, is what happened inside the universe as a character from inside would see it. Out-of-universe sections or articles, fit with your tense proposal.--Sega381 00:30, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
I think you may be confused. As written in the new MoS, in-universe are things like characters and techniques (fictional), and out-of-universe are things like people and manga chapters (non-fiction). Fiction should be present tense, non-fiction should be past. -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:46, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
Any thoughts on this? I think having a fundamental grammatical error in the current manual of style is a serious issue. -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:20, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
I'm still not clear about it, though I do understand what you're trying to state. Non-fiction should be past, ok. Fiction, WHEN spoken of in an out-of-universe style, should be present, check. The two examples you present fit that case. Fiction, when written in a in-universe style, I don't think there is a rule for that, we just have to define it. BUT if it is from a in-universe point of view, I think it fits better to be past when it corresponds. I'm not that convinced though, but if we're writing something from a in-universe style, like the history of a character, wouldn't putting it in present make if fiction but from a out-of-universe point of view?--Sega381 14:02, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Everything written on this site is from an "out-of-universe point of view." This is because we are not ourselves characters in the Dragon Ball universe. The thing written from an "in-universe point of view" about Dragon Ball is the character dialogue. -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 18:56, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see the issue here. You are right in that the current revision does say that in-universe topics should be written from an in-universe perspective. I think that this needs to change, and then the verb tense should shift accordingly. As an encyclopedic source, the perspective should be identical to the reader's. -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:43, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Ah, now we're understanding each other. Btw, there is a lot of talk about the in-out of universe in this same talk page. But if you're proposing to change that, let's wait for others to state their opinions.--Sega381 00:36, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

References

Family Connections

I wrote the basis of how this should be handled, figured I would inform everyone so that changes can be made if need be and mistakes altered in the event that I made any (which I'm sure I did). Please check it out if you have some time. Thanks guys.

SSJGoku93sigpic3
 talk contr 
04:19, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
I understand the logic in it, though I think it is a little too complicated. Basically, Future Gohan, Future Trunks and Future Bulma are special enough to be seen as both original and alternate timeline characters. I would have gone with a simpler way, just the alternate self plus the original timeline relation for original characters, and in the alternate, only the original self and the alternate relations. But if people is ok with treating this three characters a littl different, I guess it's ok.
I still have questions about the scope of the relations in this section. Family, usually is pretty clear. Other relations, such as leader-hechmen, mentor-student, are not so clear. Other even wider relations, such as friends, may be too much. When do we stop? What is the limit or definition of a relation? The cousin of the neighbor of the dog of my grandma, is that a relation? I think it would be nice if we could specify what relations are valid, so that the relations won't grow forever.--Sega381 01:07, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Videos on the main page?

I was wondering everyone's stance on having videos exclusively allowed on the main page. These videos would be limited to Trailers (not sure what else?). What does everyone think about this, should the MoS be revised so that videos are allowed ONLY on the main page (excluding User pages of course)?

SSJGoku93sigpic3
 talk contr 
01:29, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
I'm very much against having videos on separate random articles; we want to avoid member insertions. Maybe for the main page, it would be fine if an exception was made in the case of previews and such material. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 03:05, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree about not having them on random articles, that would just not work right. However for example, if we allow them on the main page, most likely just ONE video at a time, this could convey new material such as trailers (for example the new DBZ Kai Season One trailer). What do you think about that PZ?

SSJGoku93sigpic3
 talk contr 
03:25, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

If we were to have a videos, they would be strictly for the main page, otherwise we'd be a mess like some wiki's --Silver Sinspawn 03:29, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer linking to external videos rather than posting them on-site. -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:32, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, its cleaner for us and its better for the people who make the videos, in the sense that they get more noticed  Silver Ink (Silver Sinspawn)  ..  .. 

I'm kind of leaning toward linking to external videos as well. -- Nonoitall talk contr 06:07, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

If we can auto-link to external vids and previews for the main page, that'd be the best way to go and would avoid further insertions and confusion from members who want to try and upload vids. I agree with 10X and Nonoitall - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 16:36, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you guys, I just figured the ease of just clicking "play" would be best, and of course having a video might fancy up the main page further, but an external link works just as well.

SSJGoku93sigpic3
 talk contr 
18:30, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
In terms of us personally, having a video is going to lead to this happening about a thousand times: "Hey, why did you take down my video?" "Because they're not allowed" (Normally the convo ends here, but...) "But I saw one on the main page, that's ones still up" "I know, they're only allowed on the main page" "Are there other pages I can post videos on?" "No only the main page has videos" "How can I post a video on the main page?" "You can't edit the main page because ur not a sysop" "So where can I post my video?" "They're not allowed" This convo could go on and on, and might be a hassle on occasion for us, just a thought. -- Kamehameha.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 21:20, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't think of it that way 10X, so so true. Perhaps an external link would be the best choice? Any ideas of a good place on the main page for said link?

SSJGoku93sigpic3
 talk contr 
21:41, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
I actually never look at the main page, but I agree that an external link seems to be better.--Sega381 00:57, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

Manga Chapters

There are 508 total episodes in the Dragon Ball franchise (493 in the English dubs) and they all have their own articles. With 519 chapters in the original manga, wouldn't it be fair to have articles for each chapter as well? It seems odd that we have them arranged as the most authoritative source of information but there aren't any articles about the actual manga chapters. --==> DragonBall.Z GT Goku  Goku ssj4 gt-openingTalk Contributions. 04:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I've kind of been hoping someone with an official copy of the manga would do this for quite some time. -- Nonoitall talk contr 04:54, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I have a few places that have either official versions or what seem like very good translations. One is here http://www.dbz-zone.org/dragonball_manga.php Would it be ok to try and recruit people to help me put these up, or should I open it up to the other admins as well? --==> DragonBall.Z GT Goku  Goku ssj4 gt-openingTalk Contributions. 05:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I have all 42 volumes of the manga. PrinceZarbon told me awhile ago that manga chapters will not get there own articles and will be merged together in the List of Dragon Ball manga chapters article. I personally wouldn`t mind each individual chapter getting its own article. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE 05:17, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see. It seems like that article, when actually filled out, would get REALLY long. I can kind of understand not wanting the individual chapters having their own page for fear of stubs, but perhaps each Volume would not have the problem? --==> DragonBall.Z GT Goku  Goku ssj4 gt-openingTalk Contributions. 05:20, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Seperating them by volume is probably the best idea. They can be described indepth without being too long or short. I think we should definitly go through with this idea. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE 05:39, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. We could also have redirects for the names of individual chapters that link to the appropriate section in the volume articles. -- Nonoitall talk contr 05:44, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! I am certainly on board with this if you would like help SuperTiencha. --==> DragonBall.Z GT Goku  Goku ssj4 gt-openingTalk Contributions. 16:10, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I have created the article for the first volume titled "The Monkey King". I have made a template as well with all the titles of each of the volumes. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE 16:41, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I agree too with the Volumes idea, being the ideal balance between the two extremes mentioned above.--Sega381 01:36, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to let you who are working on the manga volumes know that I set up a new template for the chapter summary tables. Among other things, it places anchor links in the table so that we can easily link to the chapter entries within it. (I'm thinking it will also keep the article wikitext a little less cluttered too, as well as make it easier to adjust all the tables' formatting en masse if we ever decide to.) I already moved The Monkey King's episode table into the new template and will try to update the others tomorrow if someone else hasn't already. -- Nonoitall talk contr 10:26, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Copyright 01:36, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Hello people

I found this site after finding out about DBZ Kai and wanted to make a suggestion so I joined. Anyway to the point. I would suggest that the best way of getting around any possible copyright infringement on video's images etc... would be to contact the company directly and ask them either to tell you what you are allowed to use or even provide what you require including permission to do so. Just a thought.

P.S. My apologies if I got this date thing wrong. I'm a noob :-). 05:44, April 11, 2010 (BST) —This unsigned comment was made by Darkeststar (talkcontribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

Character pages layout

I may be nitpicking a little, but I'd like to have this clear: in the Characters layout section of the MoS, the Biography is stated to be separated in "Series" and "Movies". What is the idea: to have a section called "Series" and another called "Movies", or a section for each series and a section for each movie? Or both, but with the second option as subsections of the first option? I'm not sure who wrote that part, but I'd welcome some clarification (which I think should go to the MoS itself).--Sega381 03:51, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

A section for the series, and then subsections within for each of the minor sagas. (See the footnote next to that part of the layout guide.) I didn't specify anything for movies, but figured that section would probably have subsections for each movie. Also bare in mind that since those sections have an in-universe perspective, it's probably best not to name them "Series" and "Movies" but rather something appropriate to the subject in that context, just like is done with the saga section headers. We don't necessarily need to use the titles from the manual's layout section — it's a guide for layout, not section titles after all. Perhaps I should specify that on the manual? -- Nonoitall talk contr 06:07, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
I think that the more specific, the better. I think that the section titles (in general, maybe not in the case above), should be the same for each article. It's just confusing to have an article with a "History" section, other with a "Biography" section, and another with a "Background" section, all refering to the history of a character. I think the layout guide should define both the layout AND the section names, and make notices for cases where it's just describing something and not defining the actual section title.--Sega381 02:50, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Verb tense

Still waiting on some feedback for this. To reiterate, we have fictional events being referred to in the past tense, which is grammatically incorrect. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 03:56, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Hey, sorry the previous discussion you started about this escaped my notice somehow. :-D The underlying issue here is the perspective, in-universe or out-of-universe, so it's probably best to get that settled first. Then the verb tense will be a simpler issue. IU vs OOU was discussed somewhat in the first section of this talk page. There wasn't a whole lot of argument presented either way, but in the end the conversation did lean in favor of IU, so that's what stayed in the manual. IMO neither method is "right" or "wrong" — it's more a matter of preference and what works best for the wiki's subject.
I still don't care a whole lot which style is used, and won't be upset if we want to go with OOU instead, but if we are going to make changes, it's better to do it now than a few months down the road. It's also important to note that IU vs OOU is going to have some influence on how the material is laid out, so some changes may need to be made to other areas of the manual if we're going to change this. -- Nonoitall talk contr 06:24, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

I agree this should be resolved. It makes sense to me for the articles to be written from the perspective of those reading them. That is, fictional events should be written OOU (since we are not DB characters), and real events should be the ones written in IU style (in our universe, that is). This change would put actual events in past*** tense, and fictional events in the present*** tense, as would be grammatically correct were you, say, telling another individual about DB in conversation. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 06:35, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with the past tense being used for fictional events. I stand by my opinion that we should only note the things that are OOU articles instead of the ones that are IU. There are so many more IU articles than OOU ones, and I think it would clutter almost every page up. But I have to wonder, how much to we really have to worry about people taking anything IU as actual fact? This is the Dragon Ball Wikia, and the reader isn't really going to come here thinking that these are real-world characters and events, so I don't think we need to tailor the pages too much to let them know that. --==> DragonBall.Z GT Goku  Goku ssj4 gt-openingTalk Contributions. 15:52, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Shoot, I wrote that backward in my last comment. Grammatically, actual events are past tense, and fictional events are present tense. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 21:42, April 12, 2010 (UTC)


774 Age Deaths

I have seen no discussion about this topic anywhere and I would like to know the policy on the Buu Deaths. Since Everybody on Earth was killed during the buu saga do we put on every Earthlings article that they were killed in the 774 Age. Would characters shown in Dragon Ball and never seen after that would count for this? It would seem strange since some of them are old, it would be unconfirmed if they even lived up to the time of the buu saga. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

Since it is unconfirmed how many characters were still alive, we should probably leave it out of individual human's articles. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 20:22, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more correct to put that death onto the human characters, but then make a note on the characters that might not have lived up to that point? Chances are, most of the characters seen in the series up to that point on Earth would have died, aside from only a few. I think those should be the exception and not the rule. Everything with the "Places on Earth" category or with the Earth template should be counted in that as well, as they would have been destroyed when the earth blew up. Also, those places would have been destroyed when the Earth exploded in GT as well, but that's more speculative. Anyway, to clarify, I think the deaths should be noted on all characters and places EXCEPT for those deemed likely to be dead already. --==> DragonBall.Z GT Goku  Goku ssj4 gt-openingTalk Contributions. 20:54, May 10, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, putting either (1) "this character may have died," or (2) "this character may not have died" both seem speculative. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:14, May 10, 2010 (UTC)
I agree. This is just speculation, even though it may very likely be correct.--Sega381 03:29, May 12, 2010 (UTC)

So basically only characters that have shown confirmation of being alive in that year count. This seems to be the best since putting it on minor one time characters from earlier in the series would be considered speculation. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

Line breaks on talk pages

Following the talk pages can be difficult sometimes, because having no extra line breaks between posts makes it all blend into one long post. I've seen moderators and users talking about extra line breaks, and I get that they are a source of annoyance. However, there are no guidelines in the manual of style (that I could see) showing how to differentiate between comments.

To clarify, having no line breaks is fine when the preceeding or proceeding comment is indented at a different level. However, when you have two subsequent comments, they can be hard to tell apart.


Example:


This is a comment This is a comment This is a comment This is a comment This is a comment This is a comment This is a comment This is a comment This is a comment (by Commenter 1)

This is also a comment! This is also a comment! This is also a comment! This is also a comment! This is also a comment! This is also a comment! This is also a comment! This is also a comment! This is also a comment! This is also a comment! (by commenter 2)
No it's not No it's not No it's not No it's not No it's not No it's not No it's not No it's not No it's not No it's not No it's not No it's not No it's not (by commenter 1)
You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazy You must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazyYou must be crazy (by commenter 3)
That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool That looks more like spam fool (by commenter 4)

I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie I like pie (by commenter 16)

We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon!

We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! We're going to the moon! (by commenter 8)

Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!

Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!

Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!!Dragon Ball Rocks!!! (by commenter 9)


That's just an example. As comments start to get long, it's harder to differentiate between them, especially when the commentors have similar writing styles.

Some guidance would be appreciated. My suggestion is an extra line break between comments that are indented at the same level and are next to each other (i.e. "I Like Pie", "We're Going to the Moon", and "Dragon Ball Rocks" should all have an extra line break between them to show you it's a new comment.BrentNewland 03:07, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Adjacent comments should always be on separate lines, and therefore only need be separated by 1 line break. Example:

Comment 1
Coment 2

Comment 3

Comment 4

This makes it easy to tell comments apart, without all the extra line breaks. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 05:28, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Voice Actors in the Humans category

I'm wondering why all the voice actors are being put in the Humans category. It is obvious that they are humans and we already have the Real People category for them. The humans category should only be for the human characters in the Dragon Ball Universe. It's just confusing with the Real People and Human characters put together. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

I agree. At most, the "Real People" category may become a sucbategory of "Humans" (and I'm not sure I'm convinced of that), but there is no need to add both categories to an article.--Sega381 18:17, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Video Game Article Layout

When looking at the manual of style I realized that there are no guidelines for Video Game articles. Is there going to be any for them? - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

how do you

how do you put character names into pages so people can click them and how do you make pages!?!?!?!?! A saiyan warrior 18:47, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

You use two sets of brackets to add links. To make a new page, depending on your preferences, either click a button or go to the broken link of the page you want to make and edit it to create it. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 21:47, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Can you explain how o make a page a bit better A saiyan warrior 18:29, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Not an easy question to answer! Haha, at this point, I would say adding an image to any page with none would be a big help. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 21:43, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Adjustments

Since the wiki has gone through some changes over the past few months, I was thinking it might be worthwhile to make some adjustments to the MoS to better suit the wiki's new community and goals. With the spotlight being taken by various socializing features and a new user base being attracted, it would seem to make sense to ease off on some points of usage, while cracking down on others.

For example, the strict rules regarding naming conventions and in-universe vs. out-of-universe usage (which have seen lax enforcement even before this wiki's transition) may be worth eliminating. In addition, since this wiki is attracting a fairly young audience as of late, we might do well to officially prohibit explicit images and language, since this is already being done without a guideline from the MoS. Both of these steps would serve to simplify the MoS and make it more accessible to our user base. Any objections or further thoughts along these lines? -- Nonoitall talk contr 22:54, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree with no explicit images, in fact I already thought that was the policy. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:10, January 8, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, up until now, explicit images were permitted by the MoS under certain circumstances if they were not included inline in the articles, but given the way the community has shifted in the past months, I agree it would be simpler if we just did away with them here. -- Nonoitall talk contr 01:01, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Wiki vs. Dragon Ball Encyclopedia policies

I'm just wondering are both sites being run completely different. The Dragon Ball Encyclopedia has switched over to having sub names as there default setting, changing episode article titles to simply "DB 001" for example and even is including articles for each individual manga chapter. Why isn't this wiki doing that stuff. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE 07:22, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'm gonna copy-paste an explanation I gave to another user, hope you don't mind, lol: DB Wikia is the original version of this site, and puts an emphasis on ease of use through use of FUNimation names. DB Encyclopedia came to be as a result of the community at large wanting some freedom from the wikia central administration, which frequently made unwanted, unavoidable format changes, such as taking up 2/3 of the width of the page with borders and ads. The Encyclopedia also puts an emphasis on staying true to the original media through use of English subtitle names. Despite the sites being very similar, including having the same administrative staff, the Wikia is currently far more popular. As for editing, I'd say stick to whichever site you feel more comfortable with. -- SSJ4 Goku(5) 10X Ka.me.ha.me.ha ..... talk ..... contrib. 07:35, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Well i'm wondering, if for this site we can have individual articles for each manga chapters, because of all things the manga chapters should have their own articles. Articles for every single episode of the anime, edited episodes of the anime and even each Dragon Ball Kai episode gets an article but for some reason this site hasn't decided on allowing manga chapter articles yet. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

This is not forbiden, only that nobody planed to do it yet. If you want create them, you're welcome ;D Jeangabin666 08:23, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'd say don't bother. Comprehensive chapter descriptions already exist on the individual volume articles, like this one, and putting them all in separate places would just be a hassle for readers. -- SSJ4 Goku(5) 10X Ka.me.ha.me.ha ..... talk ..... contrib. 08:43, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

That's not true since those volume articles have limits and can get very messy. Look at this chapter article off of the Dragon Ball Encyclopedia, it has images, lists inconsistencies, differences from the anime and adaption and other stuff. I'm willing to put in the time for it. It disappoints me that the manga barely gets any recognition on this site when that is the primary source of the whole franchise. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

Haha well you seem pretty passionate about it, so I guess I won't stop you. If you have time though, it's a higher priority to fill in the short chapter summaries on the latter half of the volume articles, since those were ultimately left blank. -- SSJ4 Goku(5) 10X Ka.me.ha.me.ha ..... talk ..... contrib. 09:16, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

Name puns and meaning placement

I'm a bit confused of where the information for the meaning and puns for characters name goes. In some articles I either find it in the Introduction paragraph, creation & concept or trivia. Which of these sections is right. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE

It depends on the context of the pun. Sometimes it has to do with some aspect of the character, maybe even something as important as a family name, while other times it's a complete non sequitur. -- SSJ4 Goku(5) 10X Ka.me.ha.me.ha ..... talk ..... contrib. 06:38, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

We should make it more consistent. Since all the character of the series have a name pun, it souldn't be in the trivia. I'm for placing in the introduction paragraph, or in the "creation & concept" section if there is one. Jeangabin666 08:15, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Not everything in the series is a character. Names that are very important or even defining should certainly be in the intro, but other times they barely matter. For instance, the meaning of Abo's name is one of the only things about him, since he was only around for the one OVA. Additionally, his name is just about the only thing known about his development, so a section dedicated to this doesn't make sense, meaning the intro section is appropriate. For something like the Kamehameha, the name is totally unrelated to the attack, and was simply picked to be memorable, so the intro is not appropriate. Further, since there is a convenient little story about the name of the move, a development section makes sense.
I would say that a development section is the best place, but don't make one just for one pun. Additionally, the intro is a good place, but only if the name somehow contributes to the meaning of the topic, unlike the Kamehameha place. Otherwise, play it by ear, and you can always bring the topic up on the article's talk page if you're not sure and want some opinions. -- SSJ4 Goku(5) 10X Ka.me.ha.me.ha ..... talk ..... contrib. 09:06, July 30, 2011 (UTC)

Anime-only Indications

I was looking around other wikis for a while and I found that alot of them do a good job at staying true to the manga and making sure they give a strong indication of anime-only material. This wiki seems to lean alot towards the anime and easily accepts everything it has as pure fact maybe we should find some techniques for identifying anime-only material. A small idea I came up with is for sections on character articles that are filler arcs and arcs where the characters only appearances are filler maybe we can have something like this appear at the top of the section. Note: The information in this section does not apply to the original manga and may not be considered canon. - Bulma22SuperTienchaChichi01Talk ContributionsLaunchDragonBallE 00:01, October 1, 2011 (UTC)

First of all, this series has sagas, not arcs. Second, that indication is not acceptable since it directly contradicts the Manual of Style, specifically by saying that anime is not canon. Mentioning no specific sites, there are other wikis who may have a staff that does not understand what canon means. At its most narrow definition, it means everything written by an author, and most manga authors, including Toriyama, are credited as writers of the respective anime series, making then definitively canon. Other staffs run wikis which are not encyclopedic or are mistitled by hiding anime info on sites claiming to be about a specific topic, probably due to their own preference, but hurting the readers by making this choice for them. We recognize that we are not the Dragon Ball Manga Wiki, and neither are those. A wiki is meant to have all relevant info available for readers, and that would be hindered by hiding or setting aside anything not in the manga. Further, the manga is almost always (including the case of Dragon Ball) a far less popular media than the anime, making it confusing and hard to use for the majority of fans, who come to the site expecting images and names from the anime.
That having been said we do see the other side of the coin and have never omitted anything from the manga in favor of the anime, and in fact hold the manga to a higher (though not the only) level of canon. -- SSJ4 Goku(5) 10X Ka.me.ha.me.ha ..... talk ..... contrib. 00:30, October 1, 2011 (UTC)
In some cases (can't think of any now), anime seems to trump manga though. BubblesNoShakuran13Goku 20SSJ4 1 02:59, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that there are cases on the site where manga details have been omitted in favor of anime details, but that is something that is a mistake and should be corrected. In most cases of differences, the standard is to list both versions. -- Darbura1688.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:10, October 2, 2011 (UTC)

Italics

Me and November Blue think that there is no reason for relationships of characters such as "comrade" or "brother" or "wife" to be italicised. It doesn't refer to Latin or a published work, and a lot of articles don't even follow this rule anyways. Goku SS3Shakuran13Tapion with bladeThisDragonFistGokuHirudegarnMovie13endsKonatsian wizard with effectsNOW!SS3Rush 00:53, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

As Kuran pointed out, I second this. All I see that rule as is to add extra code to the article; highly unnecessary. This comment was made by the most awesome user on this wiki, November Blue (the most awesome user's talk pagethe most awesome user's contributions). 01:11, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

So...any objections? Goku SS3Shakuran13Tapion with bladeThisDragonFistGokuHirudegarnMovie13endsKonatsian wizard with effectsNOW!SS3Rush 02:00, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Give it a week or two. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 05:47, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree we should give it another week, I doubt anyone will respond. There are, really, only a handful of users here would actually edit articles; of this handful, they probably won't see this in the recent activity page, so it's pretty much useless. Just my thoughts on it, though. This comment was made by the most awesome user on this wiki, November Blue (the most awesome user's talk pagethe most awesome user's contributions). 17:42, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

It appears no one has noticed this post. What do you propose we do, Tenny? — N (tc) 16:15, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

If no one responds in a week or two it means you can assume no active users disagree (with rare exceptions like unwatched pages). I'll make the change in the Manual now. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 18:25, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Movies continuity sections

It occurs to me that the continuity section in movie pages, which is not currently in the Manual of Style at all, has an ambiguous purpose. Presently, it is being used to both place the movie in its intended place within the Dragon Ball timeline, and also to post inconsistencies about the movie. Since normal episodes have an episode number to place them in the timeline, and then all inconsistencies are put in trivia, I suggest we try and get closer to formatting consistency than we are now. Failure to do so will likely result in ongoing arguments about whether or not movies are canon taking place in the body of the article, and also confusing readers about what time period the events are meant to take place in. Whether or not things like anime, video games, movies, etc. are "official" is up to readers to decide after reading the facts, whereas which characters are alive at the time can be observed by us through direct observation, and subsequently posted as facts. Hence the need for a separation of this very confusing continuity section type. I find it self evident that there is a problem, so let's move on to possible solutions.

There is no episode number for a movie, so I suggest that we leave timeline placement as its own section, named "Timeline placement". Movies do have a trivia section, so I suggest that inconsistencies go there, as with all other types of media. This will allow for retention of all current information, as well as the removal of our own opinions/judgements in the body of the article. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:31, September 3, 2012 (UTC)

Since there were no objections for 3 weeks, I'm adding this in. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:18, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
The "inconsitencies" should not be removed from the section. An article should avoid adding trivia if it can be added in another section + it should present both opinions. People who don't agree with the placement will now edit the article continuously and add those info in the timeline section while they are already in the trivia section. ShulabyninjaJeangabinTalkContribDaburawrh 07:17, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistencies have as much to do with timeline placement as they do with every other section. If the movie didn't happen, then not only is timeline placement irrelevant, but so is the entire description of everything that (never) happened. I would suggest a movie section in the List of Inconsistencies page before throwing them all into a randomly chosen section that's been used for that purpose simply due to prior convention. Trivia is at least better than timeline, since trivia is related to the whole film whereas timeline is limited. As for people putting info in the wrong section, we just undo the edit and either move it ourselves or ask them to review the Manual of Style. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:32, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

I believe it needs to be noted that all Dragon Ball Z films depict side-stories made for entertainment purposes, and that all films have some sort of inconsistency in correlation to the manga and anime.
SSJGoku93sigpic3
 talk contr 
17:06, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Yes good point. A lot of the films and episodes series have inconsistencies with each other, and it is just an anime, not a history book. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:39, February 24, 2013 (UTC)

Videos on this wiki

Hello, I started a conversation here already, but was recommended to leave a message here as well. I wanted to ask the community if you would be willing to open up the wiki to videos. We are making a push to offer more video content and better video tools on Wikia. We are currenlty talking with funimation about accessing their content, meaning we would have a legal right to post and display their videos here. We are also talking to many other partners, as well as building out new video features. We currently have the ability to limit videos to only those premium videos that we have licensing rights to. You can check out what we curently have on our video wiki. Please let me know if the community would be interested in revisiting this conversation, and what other questions I can answer for you. —This unsigned comment was made by Sarah Manley (talkcontribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

Thanks Sarah. Don't forget that talk pages don't automatically leave your username and avatar, so you'll need to sign your posts. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:33, September 17, 2012 (UTC)
I don't know why people haven't stated their opinion here yet, but I'll gladly state my opinion. I would be willing to have videos here on the wiki. Goku Kaio-ken x2Chi-Chi Fighting PoseChef ChickenGohan SS2GotenSuperSaiyanINV 21:47, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

I am concerned that the addition of videos may lead to copyright issues, as there are websites that illegally stream videos, and we would have to make sure that added videos do not come from these websites. Is there a way we could keep that issue under control? Vegetto ssj4 gt de dairon11 by theothersmen-d3a4bd0SūpāSaiya-jinFourVegitoVegetto ssj4 by db own universe arts-d34zqe1 22:01, September 22, 2012 (UTC)

Hello, We have the ability to restrict the video content to only to videos from our video library, which is only content that we have the legal right to stream. The videos there are only videos from companies we have makde video content partnerships with, so everything is safe and sound. You can check out the wiki here, and you can do a search to see what DrgaonBall content we currently have. We are working to make partnerships with other companies, so if you know of content you would really like (or not like), just let me know! Sarah@fandom (help forum | blog) 20:21, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

Restricting to things that are legal to post is an awesome technical feature. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:35, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

That is an awesome technical feature. Since that feature solves any of my concerns I am all for video uploads as well. Vegetto ssj4 gt de dairon11 by theothersmen-d3a4bd0SūpāSaiya-jinFourVegitoVegetto ssj4 by db own universe arts-d34zqe1 23:18, September 25, 2012 (UTC)

As per the blog, I'm happy with everything except the technical issues. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:11, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Awesome - ok is there anyone else here we should ask to weigh in or can we get started in getting more video here? Sarah@fandom (help forum | blog) 00:40, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Well we're still waiting on a resolution to the issue resulting in the previously agreed upon, standing consensus, so we wouldn't move videos here until after those technical issues are resolved. The community had decided that making the site unusable for some is not worth the benefit of embedded videos, especially when video links to external sites are just one click away. Really, the only advantage to embedded videos is seeing the starting frame vs. just seeing the link name, and the loading time difference outweighs that. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 03:03, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Which issue exactly are you referring to? If its lazy loading videos in monobook, that has been confirmed to work. If you aren't seeing it, then it may be an issue with the browser or your specific setup, which we can definitely investigate further. We have done lots of work to ensure both videos and photos do not slow down page load times, so if there is specific circumstances please share them with me.
As for videos, we are getting access to content thats not always viewable in other locations. Videos help to keep folks more engaged on wikis. We are just starting to get data on videos, and have found that around 13% go on to watch a second video after the first. We hope to have more data as well as content to share in the future. Sarah@fandom (help forum | blog) 16:07, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

The issue could very well be incompatibility with popular browsers, so I would suggest having your tech team take a look at the plugins used by the lazy loading mechanism. I can verify that lazy loading does not work for MonoBook on the latest release of Mozilla Firefox, nor does it work on the latest release of Internet Explorer. I can give your team other details about those browsers if they are on systems that don't use them, just let me know what you need. I would rather see a delayed, robust release than a premature one, although that's from the consensus' mindset of the largest possible target audience.

This may be a dumb question on my part, but what is the benefit of viewers seeing video clips here rather than externally? My take on this site has always been to try and make it a tool where as many people as possible can get the most accurate topical information possible, and quickly. If videos slow down the process, I would expect there to be a clear and tangible benefit to either the accuracy or the amount of information shared, such that the slowdown is merited. Granted, this view has evolved from my experience and trying to hear from other fans about what they come here for. If the actual owners of this site have slightly different priorities, such as drawing people here and getting them to stay for longer periods of time per sitting, then I will try my best to make that my priority as well. For instance, the loading time is not an issue if we are trying to have people stay on the page for longer anyway, whereas it is a big issue if we want them to quickly find the info they need and move on. It sort of boils down to this: we want to be a fantastic reference tool, and now a source of social entertainment as well, but which do you prefer we make our number 1 priority in cases where we can't possibly choose both (like videos)? -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 19:10, September 26, 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Yes so our goal is to always increase user engagement and offer wikis tools to help them better chronicle as well as develop their content. We feel video is a way to do this, and with content from providers that aren't always available to users, we hope that we can improve video experience and content across the board. I listed a couple of other stats in my blog post here. Sarah@fandom (help forum | blog) 23:59, September 27, 2012 (UTC)

If getting people to stay longer is a little more important than being a useful reference tool, then videos sounds good. How do we change the settings to only allow uploading of the official wikia listing of licensed videos? -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:02, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

I can change a setting from our end that will adjust it. Would you like to apply it to the video embed tool found in the editor, to the related videos module (which you are considering adding?) or both? Let me know and we can get it up and running Monday. Sarah@fandom (help forum | blog) 21:45, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

I think a nice approach would be for you to go ahead and make it so that only approved videos can be uploaded or displayed in any fashion on our entire site. Then give me the links and I will distribute some notices asking users to start looking through those and seeing what there is. After that I would like to allow our community some creative space to brainstorm about where videos would be useful and entertaining, and how they would like to see them integrated. Basically a local version of the process that I'm sure your team went through as they created your tools. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:11, September 28, 2012 (UTC)

HI there, Ok I just flipped the switch so now only premium videos can be added here. You can find all of our video offerings in the Wikia Video Library. If and when you want to try out the related videos module please let me know and I can help to get it going here. Thanks so much for working with me on this. I think video will be a great addition here, and appreciate you all giving it a shot. Really made my week! Sarah@fandom (help forum | blog) 00:02, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to you and your team for the continuous technical advancements. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:31, September 29, 2012 (UTC)

I think that videos shouldn't be in articles, it's fine for blogs, but for pages pictures are just fine, besides the db videos that wikia has are just trailers, which everyone can easily watch in youtube or any other video site for that matter and is not adding any new information on the articles, nor it would help anyone to see some trailers, from the series's seasons and video games, the videos are just unnecessery, if we already have information on text and the pictures, why should we use videos, when that just doesn't add anything?--ASSJ R GThe Ultra ThunderSSGTransfo4Edit Countcontribs 20:41, September 30, 2012 (UTC)

Gallery Control

As much as I do love the gallery feature and that it can be helpful, I see that many people seem to be abusing it and uploading way too many images to them. I see lots images that are either duplicates or a slightly different movement from the same scene. A lot of these galleries have been flooded with lots of low quality images as well. Their is an abundance of images that serve no real purpose other than being another image in the gallery and don't even depict anything really notable other than being another picture of a characters face at a different angle or a characters hand is moved more to the left in this picture and so on. I feel that some of these galleries need to be downsized and should have some kind of control as too not have so many similar looking pictures or low quality images. One example that sticks out to me about this would be on The Secret of the Dragon Balls page where its gallery starts with two pictures of the same image of Mount Paozu and eight pictures of Goku's shadow practicing techniques. An ideal solution would be to downsize that to keeping 1 of the picture Mount Paozu images and keep only one of the Goku's shadow practicing techniques. - SuperTiencha (talk) 07:55, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

I agree completely, and you should feel free to remove any duplicates and near duplicates. It's not only an issue of redundant pictures, it also violates fair use laws to post more images than are necessary to convey information that cannot be demonstrated through text alone. -- Darbura1688.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 17:33, November 22, 2012 (UTC)

A section for games?

Why is there not a guideline for articles about Video Games? Goku SS3Shakuran13Tapion with bladeThisDragonFistGokuHirudegarnMovie13endsKonatsian wizard with effectsNOW!SS3Rush 00:11, May 23, 2013 (UTC)

Emperor Goku

Manual of style

manual of style

so how is this but how do u make it work!!! —This unsigned comment was made by Emperor Goku (talkcontribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

What? -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 21:43, June 28, 2013 (UTC)

Long articles

i think we should divide the long character articles  ( Goku , Vegeta , Gohan ...) like this 

58978


so what do you think GBV6 I am GBV5 GokuBrolyVegeta. GBV7

13:10, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

I briefly stated an opinion on this already, but I really should take it here. If the tabs would just link you to a section on the same page, the table of contents works, in my opinion, better since it's much more comprehensive by default. Even if the tabs link to a separate derivative page, people like me would suffer because of page loads that result from trying to get from one piece of info to the next. In short, I oppose the idea. 120px-Hammer and sickle red on transparent.svgThatCruelAngel =^.^=120px-Hammer and sickle red on transparent.svg 22:24, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

look it's like in this page here  GBV6 I am GBV5 GokuBrolyVegeta. GBV7

22:28, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

So they're all derivative pages. I still oppose this, since it is still very easy to navigate pages that have a table of contents. 120px-Hammer and sickle red on transparent.svgThatCruelAngel =^.^=120px-Hammer and sickle red on transparent.svg 22:38, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

new templates

what do you think about this GBV6 I am GBV5 GokuBrolyVegeta. GBV7 13:15, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the use of a template like this. Bans are meant to give users time to consider whether or not using our site is worth having to follow the community's policies, and to read those policies for themselves. Publicly branding those users as troublemakers would decrease the chance of reform. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:07, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

The Monkey D. Luffy article you linked needs special attention on that site because it is so long, and would take to long to load all at once. We do not have any organizational problems of that magnitude. In fact, the history tab alone on that Luffy page is longer than our entire Goku article. Realistically, summary articles of a character on a wiki (the Hawaiian word for "fast") should be shorter than our Goku article, and much shorter than the Luffy article. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:43, August 29, 2013 (UTC)

Video games as "canon"

Establishing a line of canononcity is perhaps the largest problem us Dragon Ball fans face; there's never been established canon. However, the manga and anime are without question the two major points of canonicity... even guidebooks at times create inconsistency. However, I always have and continue to see a problem with using video games as any part of "canon". If you direct your attention to Future Gohan's page, you will see within his infobox that we note his date of death, which is confirmed in both the manga and its television special, and an official date is given within the Daizenshuu, guidebooks taken very seriously by Dragon Ball fans. However, a note of his "revival" is made following his date of death. He was revived within a video game... not in the manga, nor in the anime. I believe it is absolutely unacceptable to place video game material within the same rank of manga/anime/guidebook material. This just causes great confusion and is unacceptable. We don't see Krillin as a part of Cell's family because he absorbed him in the game Dragon Ball Z: Budokai... that would just be silly. Video game material should be kept and secured only within the specific content labeled within the article, they do not apply to the vast majority of information. I also have problems with listing Vegeta, Broly, Trunks, Gohan and Gogeta as users of Super Saiyan 3.. this again is video game only. Our lines are all over the place with this... and it needs to be discussed and re-worked.

SSJGoku93sigpic3
 talk contr 
04:52, October 9, 2013 (UTC)
i completely agree with SSJGOKU93 video games don't have any level of canonicityGBV6 I am GBV5 GokuBrolyVegeta. GBV7 12:07, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Good discussion, but let's be sure we don't beg the question (the logical fallacy, not the expression). By that I man having video game-only info in an article is not an appropriate reason to be mad about having video game-only content in an article. For example, listing Broly as a SS3 user is a result of the decision, and not a reason to make the decision. Confusion between sources is solved by adding a reference tag. On the same note, the amount of fans who consider video game content to "count" or not is a result of their decision, and not a reason to make ours. We should avoid this type of "peer pressure" when an alternative method for making the decision is possible. Likewise, general feelings on the matter should not weigh in (users attempting to vote and such). Objectively, we already have levels of canon, primarily based on chronological order of publication and popularity. Video games feature many original voice actors and most follow the original story, the same process as the creation of DBZ, probably superior in terms of canonocity to GT, except for what-if scenarios. Scenarios which continue the story beyond the manga (death of Future Gohan) are more or less the same process as GT, occasionally including Toriyama's involvement in the creative process. Are there any other objective measures we can look at? -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:49, October 9, 2013 (UTC)

Old template

Originally brought up on 10X's talk page; he said to bring it here.

There is apparently an old template on some articles of le Wiki. Seen on some articles, such as Future Trunks' sword—to the far right of the top of the infobox, it denote the articles as 'Featured Articles'. Dats nice, but apparently the last featured article was added back in 2010 (that, or whoever keeps track of them gave up in 2010). Being that 2010 was three years ago, I doubt that many of these articles are still at 'Featured Article' quality, as new information is added, and may not comply well with the other information (grammar mistakes, inconsistent writing style, etc.). That and, if anyone even still looks at the Wiki's Featured Articles, they've probably grown bored, since as said, there hasn't been any new additions since 2010.

Annnnd Wiki's that have Featured Articles usually have a 'Featured Article' section on the Main Page. This Wiki has one sentence mentioning them, grouped with a bunch of other stuff. In my opinion they are really outdated and pretty much have no value as a 'Featured Article' right now. I don't think anyone even works on this project anymore. I propose removing the template from the Articles it is on and likely it's mention on the Main Page. Thoughts, anyone? SS7S1BuuSS7S2 uuuSS7S3 uuuSS7S5 uuuSS7S4 uuu!!SS7S6 02:25, December 1, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with your proposal. I am usually in favor of cleaning out old unused things. Any other thoughts? -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 03:03, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
I agreeGBV6 I am GBV5 GokuBrolyVegeta. GBV7

11:17, December 1, 2013 (UTC)

It's been over a week now; I'm going to remove the template from the articles. SS7S1BuuSS7S2 uuuSS7S3 uuuSS7S5 uuuSS7S4 uuu!!SS7S6 01:37, December 9, 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 05:50, December 12, 2013 (UTC)

Duplicates

Can we seriously start removing duplicate/near-duplicate images from galleries? They really serve no purpose. For example, this image and this image. In the case of those two, there's literally almost no difference, just the placement of a few small rocks that are barely noticeable. All it does is clog up galleries and make the images load slower :/ So...can we start removing these images, being that they're really not serving the purpose of Wikia images by illustrating anything [new]? Just wanted to know what everyone anyone thought. SS7S1BuuSS7S2 uuuSS7S3 uuuSS7S5 uuuSS7S4 uuu!!SS7S6 22:08, January 7, 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I 100% support your effort to remove duplicates from galleries. However there are mixed feelings and I am just one user, not the whole community. My reasoning is that as you said, we are on very shaky fair use grounds from a legal standpoint when we add that many images. Gallery loading times would be shorter with fewer images in the gallery, too. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:41, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

if they have no use than i'm okay with it   The         R-                              -Less      One                                             12:07, January 9, 2014 (UTC)

Active Discussions

I was thinking of making a Template that we put under heading of a talk page section or a Forum. The design should be like this Template:Mature and it will say something like this: "this is an active discussion please participate" and we should a cataegory by the same name. this will make it easier for user to know what's going on here and we could get more people participating in talk page discussions.                     The         R-                              -Less      One                                             11:53, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: and if you agree i suggest we add a link to the category ine the Community corner                                                                                                The         R-                              -Less      One                                             12:00, February 7, 2014 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is the correct place to suggest new policies, not the community corner. All discussions are active, and all users are invited to participate in all discussion. The bigger danger is that we do not want to have people vindictively ending discussions by removing the template simply because they feel it is done. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 07:32, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

Sorry i didn't know that. We could just make a rule that says the template can't be removed until "x" amount of time.                                                      The         R-                              -Less      One                                             08:55, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

This would be a nice thing to automate, like if a bot could make the template after the conversation ended for a month or something. We just have to be careful because in practice I have seen this sort of thing abused terribly by other sites. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 17:35, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

if we use it properly it won't be abused, so what do you think should we do it                                                                                                              The         R-                              -Less      One                                             19:43, February 8, 2014 (UTC)

My personal feeling is that the potential for abuse outweighs the benefit, since I have seen the abuse of a template like this get so bad that talk pages are useless and posting on them can get you blocked, and the benefit is basically a reminder to check of the date of the posts in a topic before you assume people are paying attention. Doing it manually would also be a lot of work, and we would need to carefully decide who has the power to "close" a discussion. It is a good idea if we could automate it, but I do not think the manual style is sustainable at this time. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:42, February 9, 2014 (UTC)

Red Links

A recent series of edits on the Dragon Ball GT page brought up a good point that I think should be formally discussed. In the past, the convention (not policy) has been to delete any broken links (red links that do not link to anywhere) and just turn them into normal text. If an article is ever made on that topic, then the text is made into a link afterward. However, Jean correctly pointed out that red links help identify opportunities to make articles that do not exist yet, in his case for some voice actors without articles. Clearly we should not have every article filled with red links because it will make everything look bad and frustrate new users that would constantly be getting error messages about clicking the broken links, but the awareness of a possibility to make a new article has its benefits too.

Does anyone have opinions about whether or not to allow red link in articles, or ideas for how to balance the good with the bad? -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 19:54, February 15, 2014 (UTC)

Infoxbox Image Size

All infoboxes should have the same pixel width for consistency. It used to be smaller, and is up to 280px. Someone recently started increasing them to 300px and I asked them to hold off, mainly because we should have this discussion with the whole community first. What size should all infobox images be? -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 17:53, March 15, 2014 (UTC)

i only changed the video game infoboxs because they are bigger than the normal ones and need a bigger pixel width.    The         R-                              -Less      One                                             18:35, March 15, 2014 (UTC) 

You have got that opposite. Nothings needs a bigger pixel width. The images got bigger because you manually changed it. Anyhow, don't worry about it. Let's just pick a size and stick to it. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 06:37, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

But 280px still leaves these white blanks
25856

they will be removed if we use 300px

   The         R-                              -Less      One                                             11:59, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Even 300px leave this white blanks: http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Z:_Hyper_Dimension?diff=1246745&oldid=1147148 That the infobox format that was made to leave this, not the image size. ShulabyninjaJeangabinTalkContribDaburawrh 12:04, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

but it's a lot smaller and it looks a lot better than 280px
   The         R-                              -Less      One                                             12:12, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Why does that only happen on the video game pages? We should fix whatever the glitch is rather than just giving up and making the image too big. On the Monobook skin the glitch isn't present at all. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 18:08, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

i fixed it by changing the width from 25cm to 22cm like the other infoboxs
   The         R-                              -Less      One                                             18:14, March 16, 2014 (UTC)

Real world template

This is mostly a copy-and-paste of what I wrote on Tennison's talk page, but I was wondering if it would be okay to rid the "real world" articles of this template. It works well enough on pages with little-to-no other graphics (such as Yasuhiro Nowatari), but it becomes very gaudy when it's present on articles like Masahiro Hosoda. Instead of the template, I suggest we simply add the real people category to the page if it's not already there. That way it's still identifiable as a real world article, but is left looking more professional. — N (tc) 22:45, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

I am in favor. The template is cumbersome at best and misleading at worst (as in your example, where the real world person is not Toriyama). -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:55, August 5, 2014 (UTC)

Personally I think there should still be some sort of tag to show that it's a real world article (perhaps remove the Toriyama photo), but if it's between what we have now and nothing, I suppose the current template should go.

My main concern is people thinking that less familiar real world people are part of the Dragon Ball universe, as categories are small and on the bottom of the page.. Tapion13 Shakuran13' Talk' 00:03, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

Most of the real world articles are incredibly short, and the categories can be seen without even scrolling. And even if they are further down, one look at the opening paragraph of those articles can usually tell if the article is regarding the world outside of the Dragon Ball universe. — N (tc) 00:48, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: Also, more often than not, the article has a picture of the actor/producer/artist, which is clearly a real human being to help navigate the difference between in- and out-of-universe articles. — N (tc) 04:02, August 9, 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of taking the Toriyama pic out of the template. We get the message without the confusion. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 19:07, August 10, 2014 (UTC)

I think the template looks fine on its own, with or without Toriyama in it. But when applied to pages, it makes the article look cluttered; not all articles, of course, but, like I previously linked, it just jumbles up the whole top of the article. I still feel more comfortable ridding the wiki of the template as a whole. — N (tc) 09:35, August 11, 2014 (UTC)

Critical Reception Reference Standards

It has recently been brought up that we need to define what standards to use for listing an external source for our critical reception sections. For instance, if the New York Times reviews a new DB movie, that would definitely be something worth mentioning in the article. However, if a single fan records a YouTube video of him telling you about his favorite fight seen, his recap is not worth noting on an article. Or maybe if his video gets a million views then it is... let's discuss. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 05:05, September 8, 2014 (UTC)

As a point of reference, our own "http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Forum:Top_Ten_Favorite_Characters" has over 3000 contributions from over 1000 editors, and contains top lists from some of the most fervent DB fans on the web. However, my gut says that it's not usable as a reference on an article. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 05:17, September 8, 2014 (UTC)
In regards to links from watchmojo or other sites of similar context, all I found on the MoS was "Links to videos may be provided in an article's external links or references as long as they are pertinent to the article's subject, and as long as doing so does not violate copyright laws." The links do neither of those things and they're actually quite valid as resources. I had been asked numerous times to link to them and never got a chance until now. I don't see a reason why we can't link to these as they are the most popular and official resources on the net for dragon ball top lists in specific. Please remember that although I did review the MoS, it is not set in stone. There are some minor alterations or adjustments that can be made. Additionally, the video non-usage for the website was a conflicting parallel and yet, we've gone ahead with allowing videos simply because of the policy updates of recent. Having links to certain sites wouldn't hurt the MoS nor would it detriment the wikia as an encyclopedic resource as long as we maintain the links are from sites like watchmojo, ign, wizardworld, etc. These are all official networks for resources and relative footnotes. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 18:03, September 8, 2014 (UTC)
Links to external videos are allowed in the external links and references section. For instance, a YouTube video of a publicly available trailer for a film would be an excellent addition to an article on that film. However, that is not what I meant to ask about in this topic.
The challenge we are faced with is determining which, if any, non-licensed sources are notable and reputable enough to be used in the body of an article, such as in the trivia or critical reception sections. Is IGN "good enough"? Anime News Network? A YouTube videos with 10 views? 10 million views? An review by an individual fan vs. a poll of thousands of fans? The solution may literally be a list of accepted websites.
In terms of WatchMojo, they have a single author make Top 10 videos. Isn't the character poll of thousands of fans on our main page a higher quality way of determining which characters are "best"? My gut says yes, and also says that wiki poll results shouldn't be in articles, so then neither should any lesser quality lists like the one on WatchMojo. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:42, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

Top 10 Forums

In the context of our own wikia, I have been planning to tally the totals of the following forum poll posts which I had initially made: Forum:Top Ten Favorite Characters, Forum:Top Ten Best Fights, Forum:Top Ten Most Brutal Moments, and Forum:Top Ten Most Emotional Scenes. I've very thoroughly been following them for 6 years. Upon entering the 2015 January radius, I will be applying a top 100 from each forum through tallied totals of thousands of users for our own main page. Additionally, at that time, I will be closing each of these forums and adding a link for anyone who wants to make a further submission. Each of these polls is going to serve as a template for our main page, the same way we have for the new material. This is why I need help formatting a template that will take more than just 4 slides. I need one that will allow 100 images to roll so that I can create these results in a vivid fashion for our main page. "Top 100 Dragon Ball Characters" or "Top 100 Dragon Ball Fight Scenes" as per our very own forum poll results will make for a definitive resource for our own fans and members alike. These specific forum polls were the first project I had began and hope to see to the end; generally the very purpose of my joining the wikia in its original work-in-progress stages. I must see this project to its end as I have committed to it heavily through the years. - Zarbon by raykugen-d2ygchz PrinceZarbon talk contribZarbon ava3 18:15, September 8, 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:42, September 9, 2014 (UTC)

Refs

They're broken. — A (tc) 22:46, February 17, 2015 (UTC)

They're fine when I checked just now. It was probably a temporary update glitch or something. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:13, February 18, 2015 (UTC)

Super

So are you guys going to change this up now with DBS coming out? This article confirms that Super follows the new movie timeline, so it seems like GT should probably be relegated to a secondary section while BoG and RoF should be put into the proper timeline. Jeov (talk) 14:58, May 22, 2015 (UTC)

The article you just posted doesn't say anything like what you just claimed. It says "The story of the anime is set a few years after the defeat of Majin Buu, when the Earth has become peaceful once again." That refers to the DBZ timeline, not the movies. Two paragraphs later the article mentions other, potentially unrelated 'Dragon Ball' news, that "A new film taking place after the Majin Buu Saga, Dragon Ball Z: Resurrection 'F', premiered in Japan last month."
I'd urge you to wait until the first episode comes out before suggesting a site be reworked based on speculation. It should be pretty obvious whether or not the anime references those movie events when it is released. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 16:34, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

Video Game Lists

An issue recently came up where users asked about which types of lists were good to add to a video game article, and which were too detailed in nature. I thought it would be a good idea if we came up with some guidelines to avoid that kind of uncertainty in the future, thereby making the articles more consistent with each other. This would also help to avoid situations where an editor does hard work in the first place that ends up being deleting because someone later decides it is too much detail.

The types of lists we'll have to decide to include in video game articles or not are:

  • list of playable characters (and possibly transformations)
  • list of non-playable characters (such as bosses, if applicable)
  • list of voice actors and who they portray
  • list of stages
  • list of music
  • list of items in the game (and possibly the in-game affect of the item)
  • list of dialogue spoken by every character
  • list of other specific tips (like Shenron's wishes)
  • list of playable character attributes (like moves they can use, starting HP, defense skill, etc.)
  • list of strategies to use in the game (very specific info, like how to execute a perfect block, which characters are better than others, timing instructions to avoid a boss's attack)

My suggestion is YES to the top 5 items (playable characters through music), and NO to the bottom five (list of items through strategies). The reasoning behind those preferences is that they allow someone reading the article to find out all about the game, but not how to be good at the game. When you cross the boundary into someone using a document to assist actual play, I think it is too detailed for a Wiki and they should be using a site like GameFAQs instead. Any other opinions on this? -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 16:29, June 7, 2015 (UTC)

Replacing galleries on articles with links to categories of the images instead

New idea; basically what the header says. Replace image galleries (or at least super-large ones, like the ones on the Dragon Ball Heroes article—don't click that link if your computer is from the 90's) with a link to the appropriate category. For example, with the Dragon Ball Heroes article, the gallery would be replaced with a template presenting the category "Images from Dragon Ball Heroes," or something of the like.

I thought this would be beneficial to the Wiki, given that, as said, some image galleries are quite large. Viewers visiting the pages for something like a game's release date could just look for that without having to load dozens of pictures, which I'm preeeeeetty sure bogs things down. And if they want said images, the link's right there, handily presented where they need it. Star Wars Wiki does this excellently; check out this article there for an example—go down to the 'Appearances' section and check out the template that gives a link of the relevant category page with the images.

Anemicne zipped ahead and made a simple, pretty template for it, if anyone's wondering what it would look like.

Thoughts pls. Sand bearprayview creations 18:18, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea, but you would need to categorize (manually?) all the hundreds of pictures. Yakon RenderSandubadearPui Pui Render 18:37, June 24, 2015 (UTC)
Kid Gohan mugshot (AotS)

We should get around to archiving this thing sometime soon. It's getting pretty big. — A (tc) 18:54, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

The age of the machines is near. Yakon RenderSandubadearPui Pui Render 19:00, June 24, 2015 (UTC)

Bump because recent changes shenanigans. — A (tc)

We'd have to manually monitor every edit on every single image, and there are thousands of images, quite possibly over 10 thousand. That would be the only way to make sure bad images didn't get categorized as something that an article linked to. By having the gallery as part of the article, we can easily control quality by simply monitoring the articles. I think a good alternative solution would be to move large galleries (100+ images?) to their own article, linked from the article they are currently on. that way we get the images off the article, and we maintain quality control. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:54, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

That sounds interesting, and additionally, we'd be able to keep captions for images (like "Goku firing a Kamehameha" or whatever's going on in the image). Sand bearprayview creations 16:01, June 25, 2015 (UTC)

And, you know, you can order them easier without modifying the category. It could still work if it was modified for sound files, though. — A (tc)

Well it sounds like we're all warm to the idea of making large (100+ images) galleries a separate page, linked from the article. This is a pretty significant change, so let's give it a few more days for anyone else to add their voice before we take action. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:16, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

I'm for it, because my desktop isn't even from the nineties and my computer paused to cry for a moment before opening up that page. Dark Seeker Kotsu   06:04, June 26, 2015 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.