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 -- talkcontr 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. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 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?
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. -- talkcontr 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".) -- talkcontr 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. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 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? -- talkcontr 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. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 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...) -- talkcontr 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. -- talkcontr 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. -- talkcontr 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig.
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? -- talkcontr 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
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. -- talkcontr 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.
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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
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. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 20:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. :) -- talkcontr 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? -- talkcontr 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. -- talkcontr 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
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. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
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. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 17:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
I see thats a pretty good point. So I will start putting this format on the other episodes. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
Great! And now we can have lots of screencaps for the episode summaries and have many that represent each episode. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 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.
- User:SuperTiencha/sig
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? -- talkcontr 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. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 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? -- talkcontr 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? -- talkcontr 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:
The original manga
The anime
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.) -- talkcontr 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? -- talkcontr 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. -- .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:
The original manga
The anime
Movies
Authorized guides and statements
Video games
Sound about right? -- talkcontr 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. -- .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?
The original manga
The anime
Movies
Authorized guides and statements
Statements by Akira Toriyama (author of the original manga series)
Statements by Toei (producer of the anime and author of the GT portion of the series)
Authorized guides (discussion may be required to gauge relative importance)
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. :-) -- talkcontr 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
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? -- talkcontr 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. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 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. - (User:SuperTiencha/sig 13:44, November 4, 2009 (UTC))
"Mature Content Warning!"
This article contains some content involving a mature subject or situation and may not be suitable for younger audiences
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. -- talkcontr 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. - (User:SuperTiencha/sig 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? -- talkcontr 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 Meleniumshane90Meleniumshane90 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? -- .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. -- talkcontr 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. -- .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. -- talkcontr 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] -- .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. -- .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. -- .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. -- .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. -- .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)
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.
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)?
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. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 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?
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. -- .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. -- talkcontr 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 - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 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.
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. -- .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?
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 TalkContributions. 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. -- talkcontr 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 TalkContributions. 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig 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 TalkContributions. 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig 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. -- talkcontr 05:44, 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig 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. -- talkcontr 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 (talk • contribs) 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? -- talkcontr 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. -- 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. -- talkcontr 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. -- 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 TalkContributions. 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. -- 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
Since it is unconfirmed how many characters were still alive, we should probably leave it out of individual human's articles. -- 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 TalkContributions. 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. -- 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
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)
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. -- 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
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? - User:SuperTiencha/sig
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. -- 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. -- 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? -- talkcontr 22:54, January 7, 2011 (UTC)
I definitely agree with no explicit images, in fact I already thought that was the policy. -- 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. -- talkcontr 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig 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. -- 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
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. -- 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
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. -- 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig
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. -- 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. -- 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. - User:SuperTiencha/sig 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. -- 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. Shakuran13 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. -- .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. Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 00:53, April 3, 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 page • the 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(t • c) 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. JeangabinTalkContrib 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. -- 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.
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. -- 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 (talk • contribs) 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. -- 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. Chef Chicken 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? User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 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 (help forum | blog) 20:21, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
Restricting to things that are legal to post is an awesome technical feature. -- 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. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 23:18, September 25, 2012 (UTC)
As per the blog, I'm happy with everything except the technical issues. -- 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 (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. -- 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 (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)? -- 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 (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? -- 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 (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. -- 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 (help forum | blog) 00:02, September 29, 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to you and your team for the continuous technical advancements. -- 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 ThunderEdit 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. -- .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? Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 00:11, May 23, 2013 (UTC)
so how is this but how do u make it work!!! —This unsigned comment was made by Emperor Goku (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!
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. User:ThatCruelAngel/sig5 22:24, 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. User:ThatCruelAngel/sig5 22:38, 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. -- 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. -- 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.
i completely agree with SSJGOKU93 video games don't have any level of canonicity I am GokuBrolyVegeta. 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? -- 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? Buuuuuuuuuuuuuu!! 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? -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 03:03, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
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. Buuuuuuuuuuuuuu!! 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. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:41, January 9, 2014 (UTC)
if they have no use than i'm okay with itTheR--LessOne 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. TheR--LessOne 11:53, February 7, 2014 (UTC)
EDIT: and if you agree i suggest we add a link to the category ine the Community cornerTheR--LessOne 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. -- 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. TheR--LessOne 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. -- 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 TheR--LessOne 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. -- 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? -- 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? -- 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. TheR--LessOne 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. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 06:37, March 16, 2014 (UTC)
but it's a lot smaller and it looks a lot better than 280px TheR--LessOne 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. -- 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 TheR--LessOne 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(t • c) 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). -- 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.. 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(t • c) 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(t • c) 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. -- 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(t • c) 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. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 05:05, 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. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 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. -- 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. - User:PrinceZarbon/sig 18:15, September 8, 2014 (UTC)
They're broken. — A(t • c) 22:46, February 17, 2015 (UTC)
They're fine when I checked just now. It was probably a temporary update glitch or something. -- 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. -- 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? -- 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. 18:18, June 24, 2015 (UTC)
I like the idea, but you would need to categorize (manually?) all the hundreds of pictures. Sandubadear 18:37, June 24, 2015 (UTC)
We should get around to archiving this thing sometime soon. It's getting pretty big.
— A(t • c) 18:54, June 24, 2015 (UTC)
The age of the machines is near. Sandubadear 19:00, June 24, 2015 (UTC)
Bump because recent changes shenanigans. — A(t • c)
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. -- 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). 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(t • c)
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. -- 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.
DarkSeekerKotsu 06:04, June 26, 2015 (UTC)
Let's start testing out sugpages with article galleries on the pages with the biggest galleries. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:07, July 5, 2015 (UTC)
'K but
What should we put? (like the Main template, but with "Gallery: PAGENAME/Gallery" instead of "Main article:"?)
On that note, should the subpage just be the page name with /Gallery affixed?
Does this apply to all page galleries that consist of 100+ pages (besides video game articles like DBH, should character pages like Goku be included?)?
So basically we would make a page called Goku/Image Gallery which would contain every image on the wiki that has Goku in it and have a link to it on Goku's main page. I have been doing this on the Dr. Slump wiki. It is much better than having an insanely huge scroll box gallery thats hard to navigate on the bottom of the page. Also a good way to organize things. - SuperTiencha (talk) 15:30, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
Canonocity
To prepare for the three major newly released media additions to the Dragon Ball franchise, we should adjust our canon scheme to include them. On top three tiers are currently:
Okay, so you're saying we should specify exactly which manga by Toriyama are at the top. Shall we include DBS manga in the top level with the original manga? I still think other manga (parodies, other authors) should be below guides on the official media. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:28, July 5, 2015 (UTC)
Hm, not really. As said before, Toyotaro is the author of DBS manga, so at best it would fall in the same category as "manga written by someone else". Sandubadear 23:34, July 5, 2015 (UTC)
I agree.
1. manga written by Toriyama
2. other Toriyama mangas (Jaco, DB Minus, Neko Majin Z)
3. DB, DBZ, DBS, DBGT anime
4. movies, etc.
5. other mangas not written by toriyama
7. guidebooks
8. video games
9. card games Meshack (talk) 01:29, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
I also mostly agree, though I would put non-Toriyama manga above guidebooks, and secondary Toriyama manga below the original manga:
The original Dragon Ball manga written by Toriyama
Oh, and I guess we should also now include stage shows at around the bottom area.Neffyarious (talk) 06:34, July 6, 2015 (UTC)
I'm concerned about SD and Neko Majin being so high up. I'd like to put them below guidebooks due to which takes priority in a conflict. For example, the Daizenshuu explanation of Goku's first time transforming into a Super Saiyan will take priority over the SD version. As for Neko Majin, I think DBS should obviously take priority since it is a more serious take. Since the manga is case by case concerning authors and parodies, all other manga probably belongs grouped together here at the highest level, and we can deal with specific issues as they arise. I'm thinking:
I don't think we should rank other Toriyama manga below movies though, since Jaco is becoming a major character (appearing in RF and Super), and also ranking DBMinus below the Bardock special might make us look biased
So I'd say this would be better:
Toriyama's original Dragon Ball manga
DB, DBZ, DBS, and DBGT anime
Movies, OVAs, specials, and other Dragon Ball manga created by Toriyama
Guidebooks and statements by Toriyama/Toei
Other Dragon Ball manga not created by Toriyama, and statements by their authors
This way looks best in my opinion. Sandubadear 16:50, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
We could also list the Live-action movies in the bottom with "Stage shows". Sandubadear 17:35, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
could we get an example page or something? Meshack (talk) 19:37, July 7, 2015 (UTC)
I like Neffyarious' latest version too. And Sandubadear's suggestion to stick the live action films at the bottom with stage shows. They're different dimensions at best, poorly executed parodies at worst. Clearly not intended to agree with existing media. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 05:28, July 9, 2015 (UTC)
I'll update it now. As with everything on every page, we can always bring the conversation back up if someone wants later. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:11, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Super canon
As things currently stand we have the Dragon Ball Super anime ranked along with the other animes on the second highest part of the list, while the Super manga is much lower down. I don't think we should place the manga version so low. The way that Dragon Ball Super is being developed is that Toriyama creates an outline of the plot and gives it to both Toei animation and Toyotaro to animate/draw, now, the manga version would technically be more accurate as it would only feature what was in the outline, while the anime version would expand in order to go for longer. Thus, the manga version is technically more accurate to Toriyama's outline while the anime version would involve added filler. Thus, I think that it may be better if we adjust the canon to have the Dragon Ball Super manga below the original Dragon Ball manga, but above the animes.Neffyarious (talk) 09:53, August 31, 2015 (UTC)
Or perhaps have the Super anime and manga as equals.Neffyarious (talk) 10:28, August 31, 2015 (UTC)
The Super manga also has fillers, it shows Champa before he was supposed to appear. I guess considering both as equal would be best. Sandubadear 16:53, August 31, 2015 (UTC)
The DBS storyline is such a mess. I can understand adapting anime from manga and needing some filler material, but launching two at once created independently is a big headache. Neffyarious, where did you hear that Toriyama wrote outlines then handed them off? -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 18:46, August 31, 2015 (UTC)
It was said in the reveal for Super that Toriyama writes the outlines and gives them off to be adapted. The Champa appearances so far are probably not "manga filler", since Toyotaro is going off the information that he is supplied with he won't be making up his own Champa filler plotline. I think it would be best to have the manga and anime as canon equals for now, and once the Super series has progressed a fair bit further we could always re-open this discussion if we need too.--Neffyarious (talk) 09:04, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
It's not just filler, there are core events that happen differently in both versions, like the farming and alien buffet scenes. We should be very careful calling anything "filler" actually. Filler is traditionally used when the anime events move faster than the manga events, and new scenes or whole episodes are added to the anime to allow the main manga story to catch up. In this case, assuming Toriyama already gave both parties the plot outline, there is no filler in either media. Without us knowing what the outline contains or how quickly it is being written, nothing can be declared filler. Rather, we have two divergent versions of the story, with canon approximately equal to the old anime series. I'm in favor of putting both anime and manga versions at the anime canon level, and let's be careful about calling anything in DBS "filler" until we know more details about Toriyama's outline schedule and content. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 17:57, September 1, 2015 (UTC)
Ok, we'll set them as equal then, that seems best. It'll probably be a while before we know about the outline, definetley not until Super is finished anyway. It'll probably be part of some kind of "Super Daizenshuu" or something.--Neffyarious (talk) 16:34, September 4, 2015 (UTC)
Ascended Saiyan and Super Super Saiyan
The terms Ascended Saiyan and Super Super Saiyan should not be used for the titles of the forms. Those terms are wrong and were mistakes made by FUNimation when they made script changes that didn't make sense to the story. Super Super Saiyan is not even a dub term. That page shouldn't have been changed from Super Saiyan Third Grade. Super Super Saiyan wasn't even a reference in the anime. That page should go to Super Saiyan Grade 3 or Super Saiyan Third Grade. As for Ascended Saiyan, I think it should be changed because it not the official term. What does an ascended Saiyan even mean? I'm not trying to change everything regarding to the dub references but these aren't right Meshack (talk) 00:11, September 30, 2015 (UTC)
I agree, although this discussion should be (and actually is already) on the correct article talk page. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:53, September 30, 2015 (UTC)
oh. you said use the manual of style Meshack (talk) 20:02, September 30, 2015 (UTC)
Use the Manual of Style if you want an overarching change in the policy. For just one specific page use the article talk page. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:01, September 30, 2015 (UTC)
Canonicity 2.0
On the page, we have the animes more canon to the movies. I agree with that but with Battle of Gods, Resurrection F, and Dragon Ball Super, it got more complicated. I say we have Battle of Gods and Resurrection F more canon to Dragon Ball Super because it's a Z story and they came first Meshack (talk) 22:34, November 11, 2015 (UTC)
They are not Z stories, they are Super stories. And coming first has never been used to indicate canon. It's based on Toriyama's involvement. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 05:49, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
Toriyama was actually more involved with Resurrection F than Dragon Ball Super, since he wrote the entire script and designed all of the characters/forms. Perhaps we should place BoG and RF on "anime canon" level in order to avoid bias, like how we have the Bardock special and Minus as equal so that it does not appear that we are picking one version over the other.--Neffyarious (talk) 08:53, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
Also, I think we need to include the DBZ and DBGT Anime Comics as being on the same canon tier as the anime, and the Movie Anime Comics as the same tier as the movies - they are basically the same with few differences but should still be included.--Neffyarious (talk) 08:55, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
Dragon Ball "Z". I don't get why you're saying it's not a Z story when it has Z in the name and plus it tells tht stiry between the time skip. And like Neffyarious said, Toriyama-sensei is more involved in Battle of Gods and Resurrection F than the anime of Super. He just writes the story (not individual episodes) But I think they should go on the Manga level than the anime level because they have been said to be continuations of the manga Meshack (talk) 14:33, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
Jaco chapter 1 labelled as "Dragon Ball Chapter -11", top right
Considering Toriyama outright stated that - in the case of Resurrection F - he wrote the whole script and that he considered it effectively a continuation of his original manga. I would actually agree that Resurrection F (and by extension Battle of Gods) should actually be at least at a level below manga canon but above anime canon.--Neffyarious (talk) 14:49, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
Also, I realised that the Jaco the Galactic Patrolman manga may need to be labeled as manga canon, since it is outright stated to be part of the manga (for example the first chapter of Jaco is called "Dragon Ball Chapter -11", the second is "Dragon Ball Chapter -10" and so-forth). So they are actually chapters of Toriyama's Dragon Ball manga.--Neffyarious (talk) 15:43, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
Since BoG and RF occur during super, they are obviously Super stories, not DBZ. Where is this quote that Toriyama wrote all of both movie scripts? Also, it doesn't make sense to have 3 versions at the same level since they contradict each other. If we decide to no longer consider contradictions to impact canon, that would have to apply to all the media, and I think most fans feel contradictions are an issue. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 15:59, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Volume ‘F’ states that Toriyama wrote the script for RF, and has his entire script written out in it. I meant that having the three versions of the story on the same level would avoid making us look biased towards two out of the three when we have no real reason to be.--Neffyarious (talk) 16:08, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
The movies were adapted into Super. They weren't made for it. The titles clearly spell Dragon Ball Z, not Dragon Ball Super. Also, the events transpire differently in the anime and the movies:
Mai and Trunks having a relationship
Bulma's party is at capsule corp.
the fights between Beerus and the Z-Fighters and especially Goku
etc.
Toriyama has stated several times through some interviews that he was writing these as if he were continuing the manga. As for the contradictions go, there aren't any far as i'm aware of. When we classify "the movies", you're classifying Battle of Gods and Resurrection F not canon to the story like the original 13, as in the happen in "another dimension". Yes they are movies but Akira Toriyama has been heavily involved with the story of these two. He even stated to have getting carried away for created the script for BoG and he wrote the script for Resurrection F. Several characters are anime level like Gregory and Piiza. Gregory didn't appear once in Battle of Gods but the the two movies are lower than the anime... What?! Meshack (talk) 16:58, November 14, 2015 (UTC)
Meshack, are you aware that you just gave a list of differences and then said there are no differences? Guys, my main concern is that we should not have 2 different versions of the same story in the same level of canon. On a side note, it's frustrating to hear people now saying they don't care about contradictions in BoG but they use them to make cases against GT. There's a disturbing trend of whatever is the newest media being advocated as canon by fans. Sometimes there's good reason (like a Toriyama-authored script), and sometimes it's just some new video game that people don't think through before they start saying it's equal to the DB manga. Anyway, let's propose some solutions where we don't make the nonsensical claim that 2 versions of Super (and BoG and RF are absolutely 100% unquestionably Super, created a staggering 17 years after the last episode of the DBZ anime). If Toriyama wrote the script for the movies, they should probably be higher canon than the anime and manga, since those are written by others. But if we make that call, we'll inevitably have people complain later that new anime-only characters aren't at the highest level of canon. What's our preference? -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 21:17, November 15, 2015 (UTC)
I really don't know. Dragon Ball canon is not really difficult to talk about but people don't know what canon means. "Canon is the material accepted as officially part of the story in an individual universe of that story." - Wikipedia. So it's not hard to differentiate what is canon and what is not.
Dragon Ball manga (highest level; as it was created first)
Jaco the Galactic Patrolman (as Neffyarious said, Dragon Ball -11, so on and so forth. there's some relation to Dragon Ball continuity)
Dragon Ball Minus
Heya! So Goku and Friends Return!! (i'm pretty sure you can count this because of Bulma's knowledge of Vegeta's brother)
Battle of Gods and Resurrection F (heavily involved by the original author. He also said he wote these as he was continuing the manga
I don't think we should add lower levels to the canon because they don't fit with the continuity. Just my suggestion Meshack (talk) 21:48, November 15, 2015 (UTC)
10X, unfortunately there will always be people complaining about our canon system, so people will argue regardless of whether the new anime-only characters are higher than the Toriyama-scripted movies or not. Meshack, while it may be true that the likes of DBGT, the video games, etc are "less a part of the story" than material by Toriyama himself, we cannot simply ignore the, we need to integrate them in some way and so must acknowledge them on our canon hierarchy.
In light of this, after looking over everything, this is the new hierarchy I suggest:
Toriyama's original Dragon Ball manga
The Dragon Ball Z movies Battle of God and Resurrection ‘F’ (and their anime comics adaptions), and the Jaco the Galactic Patrolman and Dragon Ball Minus manga chapters
The anime series and it's adaptions:
The Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball Kai, Dragon Ball GT, and Dragon Ball Super animes
The Dragon Ball Z anime comic, the Dragon Ball GT anime comic, and the Dragon Ball Super manga
The Dragon Ball movies, and the first thirteen Dragon Ball Z movies (and their anime comics adaptions), OVA's, specials (and their anime comics adaptions), and other Dragon Ball related manga created by Toriyama (e.g. Dr. Slump and Nekomajin Z)
Authorized guides and statements as follows:
Statements by Akira Toriyama (author of the original manga series)
Statements by Toei (producer of the anime and author of the GT portion of the series)
Authorized guides (discussion may be required to gauge relative importance)
Licensed Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball related manga not created by Toriyama, and statements by their authors
Video games
Licensed collectible card games
Live action films and stage shows
There, I hope I did not miss anything. I also am not sure about putting Goku and his friends return higher than the animes; just because the events were referenced later does not necessarily mean it is same level (note how we don't have Dead Zone, Cooler's Revenge, or Wrath of the Dragon at anime level even though they are referenced in the anime). How involved was Toriyama in Goku and his friends return?--Neffyarious (talk) 07:13, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
Heya! Son Goku and Friends Return!! is written by the one who made Episode of Bardock. I don't know what he did, i might've forgotten, but there's no way Bulma would have known of Vegeta's brother without seeing him. Vegeta forgot about his brother and couldn't have told her previously. As for the movies you mentioned, that's anime filler, not the manga. So you can't take those like Goku and Friends Return. However, they did add Gregory, who is a anime filer characters. So, maybe the level as anime canon...? I suggest higher though Meshack (talk) 20:56, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
I like your list Neffyarious. My only question is can we merge items 1 and 2? They were all written 100% by Toriyama. The only difference is timing, and that someone else did the animations for the 2 movies. Also there are inconsistencies between the manga and the movies, which I'm okay with since Toriyama obviously doesn't care but usually others are not okay with that. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:16, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
i do actually like the list. to your comment, 10X, the inconsistencies are minor though Meshack (talk) 23:21, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
Merging 1 and 2 is fine actually, I was just thinking that the manga should stay on it's own tier above everything else (due to being the original source). But I suppose it makes sense to put Tier 1 and 2 together. Ok that's good, shall we implement it then?--Neffyarious (talk) 02:49, November 17, 2015 (UTC)
there's still one issue though. For the anime canon level, you can't have Dragon Ball GT and Dragon Ball Super on the same level because Goku's not a God in GT Meshack (talk) 00:19, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
Things can be on the same level even if they have inconsistencies with each other, so we can keep DBGT and DBS on the same tier if we want, Dragon Ball is full of inconsistencies, so we would need a better reason than that in order to separate DBS and DBGT, and I think it would be best to see how DBS progresses before making any decisions about what is "more canon" between it and DBGT. Until then, I'd say the list I made should work out fine.--Neffyarious (talk) 03:31, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
i'm not saying we put them on a different level completely. Having GT AND Super on the same anime canon has plot holes, not inconsistencies. How about we have two anime levels and put DB, DBZ, and DBS together and DB DBZ and DBGT together Meshack (talk) 04:21, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
I see how that could work, however DBS uses scenes from Kai in it's flashbacks, so if we do that we should have: DB, DBZ, DBGT on one level and DBZK and DBS on the other level. So something like this I suppose:
The anime series and it's adaptions:
The Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, and Dragon Ball GT animes and their anime comics adaptions
The Dragon Ball Kai anime, and the Dragon Ball Super anime and manga.
Of course we'll need to see what 10x thinks.--Neffyarious (talk) 04:33, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
yeah but you can't forget Dragon Ball for Dragon Ball Kai and Dragon Ball Super Meshack (talk) 04:55, November 18, 2015 (UTC)
The extra sorting is unnecessary and confusing. We're sorting by canon, and Toriyama had roughly the same level of input of all the anime material. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:49, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
I suppose that's true, we can continue discussion about which animes should go where once we have more information on Super. Until then, I suppose the canon table can be updated?--Neffyarious (talk) 05:23, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
i suppose. if no one else is going to comment, i guess you can do it. we all agree. Meshack (talk) 06:49, November 21, 2015 (UTC)
I suppose this means we will have to alter character pages to have the movies and recent manga in the main biography section?--Neffyarious (talk) 07:43, November 22, 2015 (UTC)
if we're going with the canon thing, yeah Meshack (talk) 00:42, November 23, 2015 (UTC)
It all belongs together in the Super section of the bios. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:00, November 25, 2015 (UTC)
i put them in the dbz section... Meshack (talk) 04:41, November 26, 2015 (UTC)
Everything from Battle of Gods up until the appearance of Uub is during Super. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:17, November 27, 2015 (UTC)
yeah but it says Z so i have to put them in the z section. it's not saying one more canon than the other Meshack (talk) 01:43, November 27, 2015 (UTC)
It says Z, but then they created an anime series called Dragon Ball Super that the movies occur during. The movies use forms from Super, and most of the movie events actually occur in anime and manga versions of Super. None of the events occur in the Z anime or manga. Battle of Gods and Resurrection F events are Super events. If you are putting Super events that also occur in those movies in the Z section of articles, stop doing so immediately. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 21:25, November 27, 2015 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Z Battle of Gods and Resurrection F happen during the ten year gap. Dragon Ball Super is its own thing. Yes they have the same events but it says Z. You can't put something tht says Z in the Super section. No it didn't happen in the manga but it's a continuation of the manga Meshack (talk) 21:57, November 27, 2015 (UTC)
It does look kind of messy having BoG and RF info and then information from BoG Saga and RF Saga right after. Perhaps we could put Super and GT in an "Anime Continuation" section just after the main biography? It would look cleaner.--Neffyarious (talk) 07:04, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
i need an example Meshack (talk) 19:17, November 28, 2015 (UTC)
http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Goku?oldid=1412820. Alternatively, we merge the movie sections with their Super equivalents, and change the name of each pages "Dragon Ball Super" section to "Dragon Ball Super era" section.--Neffyarious (talk) 03:22, November 29, 2015 (UTC)
how about the way it is now... it's not saying one is more canon than the other Meshack (talk) 04:14, November 29, 2015 (UTC)
Neffyarious, good suggestion. Merge the movie info into the Super section. The info should all be in the Super section, and only written in the article once. Meshack, writing in all caps doesn't make you seem correct if that's what you were aiming for. It makes you seem like you have no logic behind your argument, are unwilling to listen to reason, and you're just hoping that by talking "louder" everyone else will give. Speak sensibly and your comments will carry more weight. As for saying the Super events in movies aren't Super events, well sorry that's never going to be true. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 03:51, November 30, 2015 (UTC)
Meshack is not entirely wrong saying that they are Z events, but at the same time you are not wrong saying they are Super events, however they all take place in the era that Dragon Ball Super takes place in, thus titling it as "Dragon Ball Super era" would probably be the correct way of doing it.--Neffyarious (talk) 04:13, November 30, 2015 (UTC)
Or if we really wanna be technical we could split the sections even further and have a "Dragon Ball Z/Super" section after the Z section but before the Super section, which covers BoG and RF.--Neffyarious (talk) 04:13, November 30, 2015 (UTC)
10X Kamehameha, I didn't realize I was using all caps until i sent you the vandalism section and i did not feel like having it the way I normally type.
Before I read Neffyarious' comment, I was actually thinking of having Battle of Gods above the Battle of Gods Saga, so on and so forth like the way he has it. I didn't know how that would work but he figured it out. I'm okay with the Dragon Ball Z/Super section Meshack (talk) 05:19, November 30, 2015 (UTC)
I honestly think Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!! should join the mix Meshack (talk) 05:39, November 30, 2015 (UTC)
Calling it Super era seems like the same as calling it Super, but with an extra fan addition (era). If the events occur during Super, that should be the end of the issue. Yo! Son Goku etc. has nothing to do with Super. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 05:58, November 30, 2015 (UTC)
but it happens after the buu's defeat. Bulma referenced Tarble when they needed a sixth Saiyan to perform the ritual. There's no way Bulma could've known about Tarble because Vegeta never talked about him, probably forgot about him. It's part of the ten year gap Meshack (talk) 06:03, November 30, 2015 (UTC)
Mentioning Tarble proves that Yo occurred before Super, not during. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 06:12, November 30, 2015 (UTC)
so... yo! son goku and his friends return!! is a higher canon than the original 17 movies and other OVAs and specials. It should be placed at anime level Meshack (talk) 06:38, November 30, 2015 (UTC)
Yeh we did forget to finish the issue of where Goku and friends return fits, it does make sense to have Goku and friends return at around anime level canon wise - since it is definetley below the Toriyama level but is still more significant than the other specials and movies due to it's mention. Also, 10x, what do you think about having a Dragon Ball Z/Super section in-between the DBZ and DBS sections.--Neffyarious (talk) 10:09, November 30, 2015 (UTC)
Yo! isn't that big of a deal either way, I don't have much of an opinion there. BoG and RF consist of events that occur during the DBS anime. They are the same events, albeit with some variations due to the different people contributing content. However, the events are very clearly part of Super, and not part of DBZ. The only argument for saying they are Z is that they had a "Z" in the title. But when Super was created and rewrote the story, that took precedent. Let's not over complicate things. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:20, December 1, 2015 (UTC)
So you agree that Yo! can go as anime level and you like the DBZ/Super idea. Meshack (talk) 01:27, December 1, 2015 (UTC)
SO everyone agrees with this? Meshack (talk) 21:27, December 3, 2015 (UTC)
During the process, none. The story was written by Takao Koyama and the manga version made by Ooishi Naho. Some (from Kanzenshuu) say Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return was based on a script made by the author, but it seems there is no evidence, and being adapted from a script, obviously a lot of changes were made until the final version. His involvement is little to none, but since the movie (with total involvement of Akira Toriyama) Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods acknowledges its "existance" through Bulma mentioning Vegeta's brother, the OVA should be "as canon as" the manga/Movie 14 and 15. Bargeta (talk) 02:08, December 4, 2015 (UTC)
agreed Meshack (talk) 21:05, December 4, 2015 (UTC)
Toriyama apparently created the basis of the story, but that is all. The story is also referenced in BoG. However I don't think it (or it least it's animated version) should be Tier 1 canon due to the presence of Gregory (a filler character), the manga version of Goku and his friends return could be Tier 1 (as it lacks Gregory), but the animated version would need to be Tier 2.--Neffyarious (talk) 04:28, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
though the story is the same. Dragon Ball Super has the same story as Battle of Gods and Resurrection F but higher Meshack (talk) 04:32, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
Yeh, it's pretty much the same but with slight differences. So what do you all think of having the Yo! manga as Tier 1, and the Yo! special as Tier 2?--Neffyarious (talk) 05:05, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
I didn't really to have to separate them but i guess it'll work but you should remove Neko Majin Z and Dr. Slump from Canonicity. They have DB characters but it's not part of the story or any continuation Meshack (talk) 05:26, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
the Movie version of Battle of Gods and Ressurection F should be moved to the movie appearacne section on character's page. it doesn't make since having it in the Dragon Ball Z section on character's pages since we have the Dragon Ball Super section which includes Battle of Gods Saga and Resurrection F Saga. it will cause confusion that. plus it looks better
Example: Bardock the father of goku was moved to movie appearances due to Dragon Ball Minus Nikon23 21:38, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
i guess you didn't read. We are discussing the DBZ/Super section and whether Yo! should be anime level or higher Meshack (talk) 21:41, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
we are discussing mutliple things, not just one Nikon23 16:28, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
We determine canon by Toriyama's level of involvement, which is related to the actual meaning of the word "canon". References to events from other media don't raise canon level of other things, or else the movies would be "raised" to DBZ anime level by the mention of Garlic Jr.'s actions. Yo! belongs with the movies and OVA's where it currently falls since Toriyama wasn't involved at all. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 18:52, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
So I'm guessing everyone likes the DBZ/Super section? If you do, say it because the conversation started to go beyond that. Yo! has been acknowledged by Battle of Gods so wouldn't been that be higher? Meshack (talk) 19:33, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
i disagree! i do not like the DBZ/Super Section. those films need to be moved to the movie section along with the other films like how it originally was. Nikon23 21:36, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
no because it doesn't makes sense for battle of gods resurrection f to be lower than super Meshack (talk) 21:40, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
their alternative stories just like the other films. i don't see what the big deal is having them relocating into the movie section. no one complained when bardock the father of goku was relocated for Dragon Ball Minus. i just read a few bios of characters and i'm confused. the same slighty same info mentioned back to back. this is what i was talking about earlier this year. nonsense like this that causes confusion Nikon23 22:31, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
they're not alternate stories like the other films, they're the continuation of the manga. bardock - the father of Goku is not canon to the story Meshack (talk) 22:35, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
they are!!! and Bardock the father of goku is canon to the story Nikon23 22:37, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
don't have time for ignorance. Meshack (talk) 22:52, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
Nikon, canon is determined by how much input the author Akira Toriyama had, so Bardock Father of Goku is lower tier than Dragon Ball Minus. Back to the main topic, yes, I'm obviously for a Dragon Ball Z/Super section, it works pretty well on the pages as far as I can tell.--Neffyarious (talk) 04:20, December 8, 2015 (UTC)
i guess i'm with it because my idea has been completely thrown out Meshack (talk) 04:23, December 8, 2015 (UTC)
ignorance?! half of everything you're changing is ignorance. i'm done with this canon debate. i didn't come back here to get bashed Nikon23 18:03, December 8, 2015 (UTC)
everything i change is false information that shouldn't be on the wikia. that's why the wikia is hated. as for the canon debate, you came here and demanded the sections to be the way they were but that simply isn't right Meshack (talk) 04:14, December 9, 2015 (UTC)
The format of the articles has nothing to do with canon. We have already settled on a canon. The articles should be separated by chronology. DB, then DBZ, then DBS, then DBGT. What is a DBZ/DBS section? We absolutely can't combine then if that's what is being suggested. That's too confusing. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:07, December 10, 2015 (UTC)
I already explained why one detail from Yo! being mentioned in BoG does not change the canon of Yo! Canon is based on Toriyama involvement, of which there was none. Tarble's existence may be at the BoG level, but that's it. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:13, December 10, 2015 (UTC)
I agree that leaving Yo! where it is is fine. This: http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Goku?oldid=1413189 (but with the Movie and saga sections merged) is what a Dragon Ball Z/Super section would look like. It would be between the Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball Super sections, and would cover only the information that was present in both Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball Super, e.g. BoG and RF.--Neffyarious (talk) 05:17, December 10, 2015 (UTC)
The movies are really, really not part of DBZ. When they came out they were meant as some more material added to the series. But once Toriyama came up with Super and made the BoG and RF events part of Super, they no longer make sense grouping with DBZ. We can find "DBZ" written on a ton of games that cover DB and GT events, but they are still DB and GT events. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:40, December 11, 2015 (UTC)
DBS was Toei's idea not Toriyama's, Toriyama is just doing the plot for the Champa Saga onward. The BoG and RF movies are still apart of DBZ, while an adaption of them is part of DBS.--Neffyarious (talk) 04:33, December 12, 2015 (UTC)
No, the BoG and RF events do not occur in DBZ. DBZ includes the Saiyans, Frieza (the first time), Cell, and Buu as villains. DBS includes Beerus, Frieza (the second time), and Champa as villains so far. The movies only had Z in the title before those plotlines became DBS stories, which they are now officially a part of. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:12, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
I guess I see what you mean, but if this is the case then we would also need to move the "Ten years later" section of DBZ and place it after DBS.--Neffyarious (talk) 04:11, December 14, 2015 (UTC)
The 10 years later is a problem no matter what : / Super takes place in the middle of Z in that sense. Let's keep making suggestions for how to handle that. Like you said, we could put a 10 years later section for Z between DBS and GT. Another option is to have the 10 years later section before Super, and introduce our Super sections with something like, "10 years before the end of DBZ, in AGE XYZ, Beerus blah blah blah...". Something like that. What else can we try? -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:16, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. Though I think that if we add BoG and RF to DBS due to taking place in that time period, we will need to put "Ten Years after DBZ" between DBS and DBGT.--Neffyarious (talk) 08:00, December 15, 2015 (UTC)
Battle of Gods and Resurrection F should be in the Z section in my opinion because its happens in the ten year time slot. Thought it's not in original Dragon Ball Z anime form, it's still Z. Battle of Gods and Resurrection F are Toriyama's vision, his story, his plot. Dragon Ball Super has the same story from those two movies but Toei made their own version of it. If they kept the same environment, same scenes from the movies, it'll be a completely different story. Here're the different events that make these different:
Battle of Gods Saga
The location of Bulma's party is on a cruise ship instead of Capsule Corporation.
Mai and Trunks don't have a relationship.
The Pilaf Gang does not recognize Bulma and doesn't seem to notice Goten looks like Goku.
Beerus wakes up days before Bulma's party but in the movie, he wakes up on her birthday.
Beerus does not reveal Whis is his teacher to Goku and doesn't note Goku as the strongest warrior he's ever faced.
Resurrection F Saga
Captain Ginyu
Tagoma is alive longer
Captain Ginyu
Gotenks
Piccolo dying
I'm pretty sure the outcome of the Resurrection F Saga will be the same but it's different. It's not Toriyama's vision. They should not be in the same section because the events are different. Meshack (talk) 21:02, December 21, 2015 (UTC)
The events are different but only in small ways. Same as the manga and anime versions of DB and DBZ. All of Super happens in the 10 year time slot, so your argument about the movies being DBZ and the anime and manga not being DBZ because of timing is absurd and obviously invalid. Meanwhile, we have the fact that they are the same events in all the important ways. Toriyama continues to write the basic outline for the anime and manga. Fans see them as the same events because they are 99% the same, and everyone knows DBZ was created many years ago whereas Super is the more recent series starting with the movies. Super, including BoF and RF, are in their own section of Super sagas, after DBZ. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:00, December 23, 2015 (UTC)
i get that super has the same story as battle of gods and resurrection f but you can't put them in the same section. i have a solution. we ask the fans. make a poll on main page and ask what we should do. ask them if putting battle of gods and resurrection f in the dbz section is confusing or not. something on those lines Meshack (talk) 02:11, December 23, 2015 (UTC)
Article decisions are made by intellectual consensus, not popularity polls that are easily manipulated by dynamic IP's. Meshack, your last two points were easily dismissed, and you're looking for a way out now that your argument has failed. You just said "They should not be in the same section because the events are different" and now you admit "that super has the same events as battle of gods and resurrection f". Please consider what is clearest for the readers, and put aside your desire to win an argument for the sake of winning. The best way to present the info to the readers is one section, so that is how this site will operate. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 03:25, December 23, 2015 (UTC)
What do you propose? I don't agree putting Battle of Gods and Resurrection F with Super Meshack (talk) 21:59, January 2, 2016 (UTC)
I propose we follow the wishes of Toriyama, Toyotaro, Toei, Funimation, and the franchise chronology by listing BoG and RF as Super stories, even though you disagree with them. In addition to being listed as such officially in the manga and anime, it is the clearest way for readers to understand the story events. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 22:22, January 2, 2016 (UTC)
example... Meshack (talk) 22:31, January 2, 2016 (UTC)
You seem like you're asking for an example of something, but you didn't say what. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:46, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
I need a page example of what you're talking about "we follow the wishes of Toriyama, Toyotaro, Toei, Funimation, and the franchise chronology by listing BoG and RF as Super stories". Meshack (talk) 21:11, January 5, 2016 (UTC)
Every article is an example of us writing about the creators' content. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 05:55, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
you lost me. Meshack (talk) 20:47, January 7, 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how to put my last sentence in a simpler way. The articles are based on content that the media creators came up with. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 21:53, January 8, 2016 (UTC)
But "Super" anime is also written by Toriyama. And new saga completely on him. Even if Toriyama not touch scenarios to every episode - he made completely new saga for the anime, by himself, with the same level of involvements like in the movies, or even bigger. So, didn't it make anime "Super" even more canonical then movies? If Tori wrote new saga - so he clearly accept the "Super" plotlines--Date 05:36, February 8, 2016 (UTC)
Toriyama wrote the movies himself. The anime and manga are based on the plot outline from the movies, plus some additional plot outline from Toriyama. The anime and manga are being written and added to by others. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:46, February 10, 2016 (UTC)
The three sources that follow this information contradicts each other. I think the information should be separate Meshack (talk) 23:29, February 22, 2016 (UTC)
The variations are minor, and what you're saying is true of all anime adaptions of manga. To be consistent, we would need separate sections for manga and anime for all the series, even though both sections would be 99% the same in every case. Using the methods in the current Manual of Style, which is to use the highest canon source then note differences in other media, gives the exact same info as what you're proposing, but takes up half the space. It's win-win for informational content and ease of use. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:52, February 23, 2016 (UTC)
i just don't think the reference idea is a good one. there are too many conflicting things regarding the movies, the anime, and the manga Meshack (talk) 04:20, February 24, 2016 (UTC)
i saw you on a page even saying when sources conflict with each other, you list both Meshack (talk) 04:31, February 24, 2016 (UTC)
You list both, and can optionally use a reference to do so. An example without a reference would be "Goku ate strawberry ice cream (chocolate in the anime)." You don't write the whole 100-paragraph article twice with identical information except the ice cream favor. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:34, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
that cannot work with super and the movies Meshack (talk) 04:27, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to interrupt, but I think this conversation is taking way to long. For what I have read one of the reasons for this conversation is because the movies has "Z" in the name, but let's think about it like this: what if the movie was named "Dragon Ball Battle of Gods", would we placed it in the Dragon Ball section just because of the name?
Also there's a time difference the movies took place 6 years after the Buu battle, but 6 months in the DBS. If I remember correctly at the end of Dragon Ball Z, Bulma said that she hasn't seen Son Goku for 5 years. If Toriyama-sensei wants to continued the series after the Champa saga it would be better for him to go with the timeframe established in the Super series so everything connects better at the end. The Rush (Talk) 18:05, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
Super is the same time placement as the movies.
You have to read the entire thing and not just read two paragraphs from me.
Super is not over yet so that is not a contradiction about Bulma saying she hasn't seen Goku in five years
If you read the entire thing, I wnat the movies to be separated from Super because three sources, the movies, Super anime, and Super manga contradict each other drastically Meshack (talk) 20:56, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry Mr. Meshack, I read every little detail and I think while there's difference between the sources this should be added to Battle of Gods Saga or Resurrection F Saga pages. So when a fan wants to know more about this Saga they will noticed "this list" which tells the difference between the movies and anime. This will avoid adding the same info twice in a character page. Oh and sorry 4 years in the movies, my mistake.The Rush (Talk) 21:33, February 26, 2016 (UTC)
A list of differences on the movie articles is a good idea. It won't double or triple the length of every article, since again Meshack's argument applies to DB, DBZ, and Super, not just Super. It also gets rid of redundancy between articles by confining the info to one article that can be linked from other ones. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 18:50, February 28, 2016 (UTC)
It's redundant but there' more differences than the db manga and the db/dbz anime. plus they have their own manga adaptions. if it were the same, i would be okay with it but there're multiple differences, minor or major.
question: if you want to combine dbsuper and the movies so bad (even though you are rarely present), why not combine the path to power with db? Meshack (talk) 10:43, March 9, 2016 (UTC)
There are soooo many more differences between Path to Power and the manga than there are between Super anime and movies. Path to Power was made 5 years after the manga as a short adaption of a long series. The Super manga was specifically made as a followup to the movies, happening very shortly afterward in real life. The movies are in fact essential to understanding the manga, since the manga basically says "Oh yah and by the way Frieza came and fought everyone, but you already saw the movie so I'll move on to what happens next..." I've been present for over 6 years thank you very much, 5 times as long as you, not that I would bring it up if you hadn't called me out. Give a good reason worth making every article 3 times as long without adding any new information (none exists) or move on. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:54, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
Original Japanese Names
Here on the wikia, we use FUNimation's original names from the original dub for the most part. But, do you ever think that we should inform the casual fans their actual names, at least on the wikia? Before I started doing this, I thought Goku is Goku's actual name but I've been missing out and it's actually Son Goku (son being Goku's last name and Goku is his first name). I know this cause little confusion with the casual fans but I see some change with the Dragon Ball community for the most part. I see people talking about watching Dragon Ball media in Japanese and it pretty amazing how people are getting accustomed to watching it, despite the voice actors. yes, there re some fans who won't adapt to change but those fans are based o nostalgia or just ignorant. FUNimation is aware of the Dragon Ball wiki and this could possibly change the way they way they do the anime because they can see fans can adapt to the actual names of techniques and characters. In Dragon Ball Z Kai, FUNimation tried to used the names like Son Goku and Makankosappo and Kienzan. Why can't we fully adapt? These are some of the pages that should be changed. Also, we don't have to constantly use Son Goku every time we talk about Goku. We can just use Goku or Son (from time to time). But names like Freeza, we would have to do a complete switch:
FYI, those look like translated manga names, and they are obviously not written in Japanese. We list every alternate name we can find on every article. The page name is written using anime because that is the most popular way our users experienced Dragon Ball media, and therefore makes our site the easiest to use. In fact, the anime is about 8 times more popular than the manga from what we can tell (http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Dragon_Ball_Wiki:Poll_Archive#August_8.2C_2014_-_June_25.2C_2015). This site is accurate to all media because we list everything, but ease of use determines page names, not arbitrary preference in some fourm for a manga translation over an anime translation. Remember: only a minority of fans comment on online DB forums, most simply watch and enjoy the program. Hence 10,000 unique votes in the poll, but we obviously don't have 10,000 editors. Accuracy and ease of use for the readers comes before the "super fan" preference. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:23, November 16, 2015 (UTC)
English Anime Perspective First?
Well I read the manual of style and it says we should put English Dub first but in many articles things from original Japanese is used, which is fine, but it's not what the style says comes first. I would be willing to fix it if an admin gave me an ok to it. But if not, the wiki can stay somewhat inconsistent like the encyopledia website is :) I love Total Drama, GMW, and DBZ! (talk) 08:07, December 6, 2015 (UTC)
Not sure what "the encyclopedia website" is, but we follow the Manual of Style here. If you want to make an edit then go ahead, no reason to discuss first. Make the edit you want and someone will talk to you afterward if they disagree. This page is for changing the style of the entire Wiki. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:10, December 10, 2015 (UTC)
How should we set up the gallery pages? Like, what sections should we have? The obvious ones are Manga and Anime. We need to differentiate what goes where. Right now there's just the "Other Media" section. In the galleries, there are video game images there, character designs, images from promo videos so how should we categorize this? Meshack (talk) 23:00, January 16, 2016 (UTC)
Media type should be enough, are there other options? And I know I said this elsewhere, but only the very biggest articles need separate galleries. Maybe the top 10 longest articles for now. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:04, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
I have only done Goku, Vegeta, Frieza, Krillin, and Gohan. I was thinking about having a video games section and a promo section and have other media but idk. Meshack (talk) 02:47, January 17, 2016 (UTC)
Manga and Anime
With Dragon Ball Super, the manga and anime have differences between them but some elements are similar. How are we going to style the pages for Dragon Ball Super? Meshack (talk) 00:29, January 24, 2016 (UTC)
Can you be more specific about what you are asking? It isn't clear what you mean by how to style the pages. The Manual of Style already states how to handle multiple sources covering the same event. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:46, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
i mean, the manga and the anime have are similar but not the same exactly. In episode 28 of Super, Goku and Vegeta training but not sparring. However, in the fifth manga chapter, they are sparring Meshack (talk) 00:49, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
When something happens that is not a contradiction with something else, we list it. So they sparred. Reference tags are always encouraged to make the source clear. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:37, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
so just add the anime info to the page and add references? okay Meshack (talk) 01:40, January 26, 2016 (UTC)
As we all know, every image in the wiki has a File History. The File History let's you upload a new version of the image.
With the Dragon Ball series being released in DVD, Blu Ray or any other format for higher resolution, we can update every pic in the wiki with a better quality one. I believe we can avoid duplicates if we just replace the lower quality one with a higher quality one using the file history. The Rush (talk) 21:16, February 27, 2016 (UTC)
Super and the movies
The conversation will continue here about combining Super and the movies because it's not about canon anymore Meshack (talk) 17:11, March 11, 2016 (UTC)
I don't suggest/like the idea of combining Dragon Ball Super and Battle of Gods and Resurrection F plus their mangas. Combining these medias together will cause confusion because they have so many things conflicting each other and it would be more effective to separate it into Dragon Ball Super, combine the anime and manga, Battle of Gods, and Resurrection F, combining the movie and the manga.
I'm pretty sure the manual of style says combine the same information but that was only for the anime and manga of Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z because this was basically it for the series until 2013 and 2015. The Manual of style needs a series update because I'm pretty sure it hasn't been changed in a while... Meshack (talk) 04:26, March 14, 2016 (UTC)
For the nth time, stating the differences is better than tripling the size of every article. Why? Because it's faster to read and gives the same info. Your proposal has no benefit, and makes everything worse. We've already thoroughly discussed this and you haven't come up with a benefit. One time you even acknowledged that you had no reason it was better, it's just how you feel. We're not doing it. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:09, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
There is a benefit, the reader is less confused. "We're not doing it." Well, we can't do it because we have to reach a consensus. That's a rule you mentioned before. Meshack (talk) 04:17, March 15, 2016 (UTC)
How could you be confused by a sentence that literally says "in the anime, Ginyu appears" and not confused by ==Anime==Ginyu appears. Both ways are equal, except yours makes every article 3 times as long with no benefit. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:31, March 16, 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong making the articles bigger. The galleries have been removed from page to have their own pages so it can fill that space. Having to say "in the anime..." "in the manga..." "in the movie..." over and over again is unnecessary. There're like a contradiction every sentence. And we have to combine the movies, anime, and their mangas... Meshack (talk) 03:48, March 18, 2016 (UTC)
Wrong. Making the articles bigger is fundamentally against the notion of a wiki. Wiki literally means fast. What you're suggesting is slow, and with no benefit. Saying "in the manga..." The couple of times needed is a longer option, but the recommended faster way is reference tags. But you already know all this. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 15:37, March 19, 2016 (UTC)
Just because the article will be bigger, having Dragon Ball Super, Battle of Gods, and Resurrection F separate, that doesn't mean it will be harder to look for what the viewer/reader is looking for. What the reader is looking for is Battle of Gods the movie, not the arc. They want to see what happens in the movie not in a TV show they haven't seen yet. Being under two hours, the sections will only be two-five paragraphs long, that's not that much bigger. Meshack (talk) 19:11, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
What you're recommending is separating all manga, anime, and movie information. It makes the articles longer. "Just because the article will be bigger... that doesn't mean it will be harder to look for what the viewer/reader is looking for." Completely ridiculous. I have no idea why you are still arguing this point. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:13, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
No. We're talking about Super, BoG, and RF. Lol. What are you talking about? Question? Why do we document The Path to Power? It's basically the same as the manga and anime. Meshack (talk) 00:30, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
You're repeating yourself. Both questions are answered in the previous topic. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:42, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
Re: Original Material versus FUNimation information
As you can see on this thread, we have come to talk about what terms we should use and we seem to agree on what to do. Although, we do need to discuss this with admins. Meshack (talk) 19:57, March 21, 2016 (UTC)
I see 3 people chatting. The policy discussion should be here so that everyone sees it and can respond. That particular topic has been discussed many, many times before but I'm happen to have it again for the benefit of new users. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:31, March 21, 2016 (UTC)
So the discussion is about using the original names but also not letting the Funimation and Viz terms not be lost for techniques and characters. The ones who were discussing, we came up with a solution for the matter. As for techniques ONEY PUNCH came up with a section for the infobox we could do and the funi and viz terms would not be lost:
As for characters:
Page Name: Kuririn
Kanji:
Romanji:
English Name: Krillin (Reference: FUNimation Dub)
This is an example. Pretend the anime name section is for other sources the counter that name. As for Goku, instead of Son Goku, we would do Goku Son Meshack (talk) 05:55, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
Your proposal would be helpful for 4% of people, and terrible for 71%. The information is all there either way, but the articles headers and in-text reference should be useful, not obscure for the sake of petitioning purists. Reference for the percentages. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:18, March 22, 2016 (UTC)
But polls don't run the wiki... Plus, how is "Goku Son" confusing? The Manual of Style says use full name Meshack (talk) 00:23, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
Never heard of "Goku Son", I've always seen "Son Goku". Anyways, I think 10X has a point. A majority of people frequenting this wiki (who don't have accounts) are often people who've seen Funi's Z dub in the 90s and never pursued DBZ any further. Even younger people who grew up with Kai on Nicktoons will have no idea what some of these things are. If there's a way to have the names switch based on settings, I'd be totally up for that, though. -- • Final Chidori • Talk 03:17, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
I suggested "Goku Son" because usually, when Japanese names get translated over to English, the given name comes first. Anyway, if don't don't educate the ones who don't know, they'll never know Goku's full name is Son Goku (they even say Son Goku in the Kai dub so we should at least change this page name) and we should also educate the next generation of Dragon Ball fans, the ones that're coming from the Kai dub. I mean, we don't have to say SON GOKU this, SON GOKU that, when we edit. About the "settings" thing, I don't know how that would work but I am up for it if it's good.Meshack (talk) 03:48, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
Polls don't make consensus decisions, but this one is just being used as a reference. It is a FACT that most people reading this site (which is not the same as editing), watched the anime and very few read the manga. By reading the article, they are educated to all versions of the name so your concern is addressed. Using the more obscure titles as article names just makes the site hard to use, without adding any additional information at all. Since your proposal makes the Wiki harder to use with no added information, it doesn't make sense to implement. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:46, March 23, 2016 (UTC)
Exactly. That's basically what I meant to say, thanks for putting it in much better wording haha. -- • Final Chidori • Talk 01:53, March 24, 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad FC agrees with my settings idea. I know it's possible.Tailsman67( Talk | Contribs | Edit Count ) 21:38, March 28, 2016 (UTC)
What about changing Goku to "Son Goku"? Son Goku is said in Kai and that's the Funi dub... That's the only name that should be changed really and plus, it's his full name Meshack (talk) 22:49, April 3, 2016 (UTC)
Since both versions are the main English anime dub, either way fits with the MoS. From there, it's best discussed on the Goku talk page. I think either way agrees with the policy as written. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:46, April 5, 2016 (UTC)
Name Consistency
With names like Android 17 and Android 18, their names have changed in the series after the battle with Cell. Before the battle with Cell, they have been referred to as Androids and after, they have been referred to as #17 and #18. when we write their names after the Cell Saga, do we write it as No. 18, #18, Number 18, or keep it as Android 18. I'm asking this because on articles, there isn't any consistency with her name and even her brother's. Meshack (talk) 03:38, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
I see 18 and 17 as nicknames. It's just their numbers. I think we should only use 18 or Android 18, I'd personally prefer avoiding No. 18 or Number 18 because they sound off. My opinion, though, I guess. -- • Final Chidori • Talk 04:15, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
But after the Cell Saga, they aren't referred to as Android 18, they are referred to as #18, No. 18, or Number 18 but I get what you're saying Meshack (talk) 04:25, April 9, 2016 (UTC)
The best name seems to be Android 18. They are called by multiple, similar names in the series, all of which are official, but being consistent with Android 18 would be stylistically sound. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:12, April 11, 2016 (UTC)
Consistency
Everything about this wiki is inconsistent. No page is formatted the same, the names aren't the same on every page. The consistency needs to be fixed here. SSGKakarotto (talk) 07:07, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
You sir look like an editor, and therefore have the power to fix anything you like to conform with your own request. Do you have a specific request that you are in need of assistance with? (Or even a specific gripe since "everything about this wiki is inconsistent" is both vague and factually incorrect?) -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 19:35, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
Like, the section titles are inconsistent and the layout. Some characters apprar in movies first but later appear in the series, i.e Cooler. He first appears in a movie and later appears in Dragon Ball Gt. On his page layout, Cooler's revenge goes im the Films section, which is below GT. Same with video-game characters. SSGKakarotto (talk) 19:42, April 23, 2016 (UTC)
The sections being in the same order on all articles (ordered first by media type, then by in-universe chronology) is highly consistent and well-organized. If you are arguing that the sections should be chronological by character appearance, it could no longer be consistent between articles. You're arguing against the request you just made. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:45, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
If it's in chronological order, then why on the manual of style has series above movies but some character appear in movies first and later appear in the series like Cooler. SSGKakarotto (talk) 05:41, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
It's not purely chronological, you misread what I wrote. "ordered first by media type, then by in-universe chronology". -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:43, April 27, 2016 (UTC)
Could you show me an example of this? SSGKakarotto (talk) 12:29, May 2, 2016 (UTC)
Goku. Article starts with appearance and personality, both common to most if not all media, and it describes his changes as he ages. Everything else is ordered first by media type, then by in-universe chronology. We have anime (DB to GT), films (DB to GT), other manga, then video games. There is more content at the bottom that starts to get very detailed and specific like what named techniques he uses and who his voice actors have been. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:04, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
I know that but I mean, Cooler appers in a film first then in GT. SSGKakarotto (talk) 13:38, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
With Dragon Ball Super's release, we've seen plenty of fillers from Dragon Ball Z no longer fitting into the timeline, the biggest being the Other World fillers with the villains in Hell, as well as GT. I think it's safe to say there are now two versions of this series, similar to Full Metal Alchemist and Full Metal Alchemist Brotherhood. I propose we do some sort of split in a similar vain to the current continuity and original continuity articles on archiesonic.wikia.com where I'm an admin. The "original" in this case would be Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, Dragon Ball GT, and all the movies before Battle of Gods, and the "current" in this case would be Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Kai, and Dragon Ball Super as well as the newer movies. As of right now, articles are confusing due to the split between continuities and the fillers that go against Super. I myself get very confused when I look through articles to remind myself of things from older episodes and wanting to know what's actually canon. I think this is one of the best ways to fix this. Thoughts? Diamonddeath (talk) 20:04, April 25, 2016 (UTC)
Well, I think we should split articles or create alternate pages or something. But there maybe some problems with that with the other things that're on the wiki SSGKakarotto (talk) 01:16, April 26, 2016 (UTC)
I see your conclusion is based on inconsistencies between series. Did you know that the series are inconsistent with themselves? What I mean is, Dragon Ball has things that don't make sense in Dragon Ball. Kai has things that don't make sense in Kai. Super has inconsistencies with DB, DBZ, Kai, and (probably, unless things work out just right at the end) GT. Inconsistencies are abundant, but they are all very minor in the context of the overall story. Goku's still Goku, Piccolo's still a Namekian, and Mr. Satan is a strong human but weaker than a Z Fighter, etc. There have been no reboots, and no licensed content creator has used the word "canon". Claiming there are exactly two canons is a fun fan concept, but there is absolutely no official support of your claim. For more background, click here and here. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 00:54, April 27, 2016 (UTC)
Here's an internal inconsistency. when piccolo as a statue was broken by goten and trunks. he regenerated, because his head remained intact. well by that sense king piccolo should have been able to regenerate the hole in his chest made by 15 year old goku instead of exploding and would have went on to kill him thus preventing the piccolo jr saga, dbz and past it from ever happening. 0551E80Y (talk) 12:48, May 2, 2016 (UTC)
Why is it that i never hear anything about internal inconsistencies literally anywhere else? not youtube dbz vids. not db forums. not other dragon ball wikis. how come this is the only place that has picked up on it and its never brought up anywhere else on the internet? the manga has been around for over 30 years now and yet no one ever talks about them. 0551E80Y (talk) 13:07, May 2, 2016 (UTC)
Our goal is to show people facts, and in doing so we point out all sorts of info like inconsistencies, both internal and inter-series. Many people online are either trolls trying to pick fights and get attention by boldly claiming poor arguments, and similarly many YouTube creators are being bold to stay exciting and relevant. To do those things in terms of DB, they most often try and convince others that the newest video game (most common), movie, manga one-shot, or series is now the only "canon" media and anything else that has any conflicts doesn't count (quite an exciting and controversial claim to make). To make that argument, they seek out all the ways the new media they're backing (which people are now googling videos and articles about because it's the newest, greatest release) conflicts with everything earlier. Of course, they find many examples because as we've discovered there are plenty of internal and inter-series contradictions to go around. We look for everything in search of comprehensive info, they search only for relevant evidence to back a controversial claim, and thus we both find and present what we were looking for. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 01:12, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
it is so strange that this is the only place on the entire planet that has picked up on it. 0551E80Y (talk) 01:36, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
There's a difference between retcons/inconsistencies and alternate canons. While Super hasn't been stated to be separate from the same canon as GT, I think it may wind up being that way in the end. If it does, then we'll have to adjust articles accordingly. By the way, I read somewhere that King Piccolo didn't regenerate because he is a different class of Namekian. It is the same reason why Piccolo Jr. can't create offspring. I believe one was a warrior class and the other was some other one? Maybe that's just a theory, though. Diamonddeath (talk) 06:45, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
King piccolo and piccolo jr are biologically identical. regeneration is a biological trait all creatures of namekian anatomy possess. 0551E80Y (talk) 10:26, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, 10X but I think Dragon Ball is the only anime or manga you read or watch. Canon is material the creator creates to further continue the series i.e. Dragon Ball Super. Material like live action movies and video games are not canon to the manga and the mangaka did not create it. Look at the One Piece Wiki and Naruto Wiki. But this is not about canon. Splitting the articles have nothing to do with canon. Splitting the articles makes it easier for the viewer to read, not puttingDragon Ball Super and Dragon BallGt on the same timeline. SSGKakarotto (talk) 13:36, May 3, 2016 (UTC)
No no no SSGKakarotto, you've got it all wrong. Canon used to (50+ years ago) mean things that the author created, which certainly means the manga, but all the lines become blurred when the author has to team up for things like a fully animated anime and manga with the author's plot but another person's (Toyotaro in the case of Super) dialogue and illustrations. Toriyama had some involvement in GT, and some involvement in Super. Your next mistake is looking at any Wiki and assuming it is a primary source. Those Wikis have come up with their own interpretation of canon, and it has in turn become accepted by fans. The authors and content owners did no such thing. If you want to talk about canon for those series, do so with the understanding that you are spreading a fan opinion, not a fact endorsed by the mangaka, and not something official by any means. Contrast with Star Wars, this is what an official statement related to canon looks like. For more details on the DB canon and how we approach the topic here, read this. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 23:03, May 4, 2016 (UTC)
"Battle of Gods" and "Ressurrection 'F'" in Articles
I noticed while looking at the article for Vegeta that the events of Battle of Gods and Resurrection ‘F’ are listed after Dragon Ball GT. Shouldn't they be included in the Movies section in articles instead? Diamonddeath (talk) 07:34, May 26, 2016 (UTC)
Can we remove the movie section and combine with with the "Biography" section. This wiki doesn't use canon so why separate the movies from the series? I think the "Film appearances" section is useless and can cause confusion. With combining the movie section with the biography section, it could be easier than what it is now. I know some movies happen within some arcs like Dragon Ball Z: The Rebirth of Fusion! Goku and Vegeta so it would be hard now with the the sections are. But another mistake I did months ago was remove the subsections from arc. While I was on the One Piece Wiki, I've learned that those sections are needed especially or longer pages like Goku's page. I also think we should readd subsections and also, transition from saga to arcs. With the movie section, arcs would be better to use than the sagas Funimation created for Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z, and Dragon Ball GT because Funimation created more sagas than they should have when promoting these shows. I hope you agree and please, discuss this. Meshack (talk) 10:11, September 20, 2016 (UTC)
Sagas and arcs can be used interchangeably, but we use sagas since that is what Dragon Ball uses. One Piece having arcs does not matter for us. We separate info by media type for convenience, which makes sense except for manga/anime where the material is largely the same. Video games, card games, movies, and other one-offs have their own stories and therefore do not make sense to merge with the manga/anime as you suggest. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:24, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why not. I was only referring to the movies and then you go and mention others I didn't even mention. It shouldn't matter if the stories are different. Dragon Ball does not use sagas. This wiki just chooses to do whatever Funimation does and use sagas rather than arcs. they're not used interchangeably 02:30, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
the movies should just be in the movie sections and spearated from the sagas. Nikon23 03:03, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
Your justification for merging the movies into the anime is our MoS' stance on canon. This applies to all media; there is nothing special about the movies based on your suggestion. Also. FUNimation is the official, licensed English translation of the Dragon Ball anime, so it makes sense we would use their terminology. Your alternative of using One Piece terms rather than Dragon Ball terms does not make sense when we have the ideal basis already. -- 10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 03:17, September 21, 2016 (UTC)
10X, what are you talking about? The terminology is not correct. It doesn't matter if Funimation has the legal rights to the series. Sagas are long events while arcs are shorter ones. The Artificial Humans Arc is not a long event but rather short because the Cell Arc happens right during the end. I don't get why you're so hung up on Funimation but even they get translations wrong even know they "official" Meshack (talk) 18:19, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
talk contr 06:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
talk contr 08:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 02:43, March 2, 2010 (UTC)
Talk Contributions. 04:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 03:56, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
10X Ka.me.ha.me.ha ..... talk ..... contrib. 08:43, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
.10X.Ka.me.ha.me.ha.....talk.....contrib. 04:10, October 2, 2011 (UTC)
Shakuran13
This
ends
NOW!
00:53, April 3, 2012 (UTC)
Edit Countcontribs 20:41, September 30, 2012 (UTC)
I am 
GokuBrolyVegeta. 
Buu
uuu
uuu
uuu
uuu!!
02:25, December 1, 2013 (UTC)
Shakuran13' Talk' 00:03, August 9, 2014 (UTC)
Sandubadear
23:02, July 12, 2015 (UTC)
05:36, February 8, 2016 (UTC)