7,539 Pages

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alternate Timeline article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

  • Be polite
  • Assume good faith
  • No personal attacks
  • Do not bite the newcomers
  • Respond in a mature manner
  • Be welcoming
  • Maintain civility at all times
Article policies
  • No opinionated research for articles
  • Have a neutral point of view
  • Verifiability

Buu had to be dead

That is, in movie #12. It wasn't what Goku said that made that clear, but rather the fact that no one was worried about Buu. Everything on earth was fine at the time, and everything was cozy in Otherworld, so Buu had obviously been defeated. Goku's comment only made it clear that they had already fought Buu (rather than Buu never having existed or some such). Iuvenes 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't remember anyone being worried about any of the regular series villains in any of the movies... -- Nonoitall talk contr​ 08:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
What has that got to do with anything, though? Also, I worded it differently the second time I wrote it, in such a way that should have taken care of your objections. It's clear that they had already fought him, and it's also clear that Buu is not terrorizing the universe at the moment (which is why I said he had "apparently" already been defeated, and I didn't specify by who). Iuvenes 08:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
It just kinda seemed like it was implying that chronologically, the movie took place after Buu's defeat. At least I got that impression from reading it. (Also, we just don't know what the reason for their ignoring Buu was. Maybe they figured the whole Janemba problem was a bigger threat than Buu.) These movies and their inconsistencies are a bit of a pain. :-P -- Nonoitall talk contr​ 08:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Buu Is Probably Mixed Up With All The Other Villans That Were Revived Alienrun 00:25, July 5, 2010 (UTC) Alienrun 6:25 7/4/2010
But then why are Goku and Vegeta dead? They were both alive when Buu was defeated, no?
Time is man made, so it's always 4:20 01:58, January 8, 2011 (UTC)Tokeupdude

What happens to Buu in the alternate timeline?

What happens is the andriods kill everybody on earth (who knows maby Cell absorbed them) the andriods (or Cell) leaves earth to find more things to kill. So Babidi never gets energy to power Buu. Vegerot 23:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC) That makes since, but consider the fact that maybe the androids or Cell killed Babidi in their rampage. Imortality is a curse. 14:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The PSP game Shin Budokai: Another Road deals with Buu in the Future Trunks Timeline. Jehmil 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Back to the Future Theory

If Back to the Future has taught us anything, it's that going back in time and doing something to change the past can have serious reprecussions on your future. With this, I submit to you folks a silly theory for pure amusement purposes:

When Future Trunks3 went back in time to Timeline 1 and utterly destroyed Frieza1 and King Cold1, he changed that timeline to what we now know. ...of course...if that WERE true, then when he returned to HIS timeline, one would think that Androids 19 and 20 would be the ones ripping the planet a new one instead of 17 and 18... Still, just a little something to think about there. Maybe it can be worked into a rational theory. X3 ~ Doc Lithius [U|T|C] 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball clearly establishes another time travel theory, different from the Back to the Future one. Here every trip to the past creates a new timeline, and the traveller's timeline is actually never altered. So nothin in Trunk's timeline will change. In this universe, you can't change the past, you can travel to the past an create alternate universes, that's it.--Sega381 23:17, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
Or travel into already created alternate universes, by you(Trunks revisitting) or some1 else(Trunks in a universe created by Cell's travelling there).Zafoshin (talk) 20:01, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I always thought it was obvious why the Androids were different, and thought Trunks' incomprehension was just general character stupidity.  In a timeline where Trunks never traveled from the future, Frieza fights with the rest of the Z fighters.  This provides updated data to Doctor Gero on their power.  We know he's still collecting data, all the time, because Gero indicates one of his little insect drones, when talking to Goku.  Now, with the updated knowledge of how powerful the Z fighters are, Gero doesn't bother with his energy stealing models, and doesn't go out into combat, himself.  He releases a slightly earlier version of 17 and 18.  When Trunks kills Frieza, he deprives the drones of all of that delicious combat data.  Gero assumes nothing of major importance happened on Namek (he says so, himself), and decides the energy stealers would be mroe than up to the task.  This gives him extra time to work on the obedience problems that 17 and 18 have.  Given he doesn't need to deploy them so early, he probably figures he'll make them more powerful, too.  As smart as Gero is, he probably expected pockets of survivors, in his dystopia, and wanted a much stronger contingency plan to deal with a potential uprising.  It seems every time I mention this theory, people never considered it. (NoobixCube (talk) 12:31, July 23, 2016 (UTC))

Is DBZ Movie 1: Dead Zone really contradictory?

The main issue is with Krillin already meeting Gohan but then being suprised by him being Goku's son in episode 1. I think this is a small enough apparent contradiction to be explained away by something or other. Also, having the movie as canon to the anime is essential for the Garlic Jr. saga to make any sense. Jehmil 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC) User: Jehmil

Not true because the Garlic Jr. Saga was completely anime filler.

 talk contr 
SSJGoku93's user page00:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
That's why I said canon to the anime, of which the Garlic Jr. Saga is a part. Jehmil 06:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And don't mention the 'He forgot they met' theory, because that's is just impossible, who would forget their best friend has a son. It always comes up in these discussions--Rod|talk 00:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's a similar (and pretty famous) issue that has to do with when Vegeta found out that his planet had been destroyed by Frieza. Even though there's a minor contradction, the episodes are still accepted as fitting into the main continuity of the show. DBZ has a lot of little things like this and I think the general consensus is, if it isn't really a matter of two contradictory events happening at the same time (Tien being dead after the fight with Vageta but being alive for the Lord Slug movie which supposedly happens during that period, for example) then the media should be accepted into the extended (anime) canon. Jehmil 06:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Tien was not in Lord Slug. You are right about the inconsistencies but Tien was absent in Lord Slug. He was in Tree of Might though which takes place after the Saiyan Saga. Super Saiyan Historian 06:55, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Creation order for the timelines

There is no established "creation" order for the different timelines in the series. Depending a little on how one sees the timeline creation theory, there can be a few different orderings, some of them more coherent than the others, but none official anyway. Cell's trip to a past before Trunks first trip is the main cause of this confusion.

Going by the numbering on the article, timeline number 1 and 2 are clearly the "last" ones, as they depict the events in the series, and everything else regarding time travel has "already" happened in those timeline. Therefore, timelines 3 and 4 are the "first" ones, and 1 and 2 are the "second" ones. That much is clear logically. The ordering of creation of timelines 3 and 4, and betwen 1 and 2, is not that clear.

Let's start with timelines 3 and 4, which came before 1 and 2. Timeline 4 has a Future version of Trunks that travelled there; therefore, that cannot be the "original" timeline, as it has a traveller that changed the events. Timeline 3 has no travellers from the future, as far as we know. So the events in timeline 3 have not been altered by any time meddling. Therefore, timeline 3 has to be the "first" or "original" timeline, from which all the other ones, directly or indirectly, descend. As we have established that timelines 3 and 4 come before the pair 1-2, timeline 4 has to be the "second" timeline, the one that was created just after timeline 3.

So far we have that timeline 3 is the first one, then comes timeline 4; and after them, timelines 1 and 2 in no established order yet. Timeline 4 has the infamous Cell time travel, which creates the whole confusion. Cell's time travel can either create timeline 1, or timeline 2.

Let's see both cases. First let's notice that, at the time in the past where Cell arrived, timelines 3 and 4 were exactly the same; even more, they were the same timeline, as it was only a year later that Trunk's first trip to the past split them.

  • Cell's time travel created timeline 1. This would imply that he actually created a "copy" of timeline 3, with the only difference that he was there in the past, and the rest of the changes he introduced later. This only makes sense if timeline 3 was somehow completely separated from timeline 4 when it was created. Otherwise, as the base of timelines 3 and 4 is the same, Cell would have created a copy of timeline 3. Later, when this "copied" Trunk went back to timeline 3, his increased power created a new timeline that stems from timeline 3, wich is timeline 2.
  • Cell's time travel created timeline 2. As timeline 3 and 4 are the same before Trunk's trip, when Cell travelled before that, he was practically creating another branch from timeline 3, as it stems before Trunks travel to the past. But in this new timeline, timeline 2, Trunks again travelled to the past, after Cell's arrival, therefore creating timeline 1. This seems to be an easier explanation; the only inconsistency here is that, in timeline 2, Trunks should have seen the Future version of Cell, but there is no mention of that.

Even though there are strong arguments for both versions, and the second one seems more logical, there is no way to prove which "flow" those timelines took. So I think it's better to remove any information from the article about the "order" of timelines 1 and 2, as anything there would just be opinion. --Sega381 00:49, October 28, 2009 (UTC)

After spending my day reading this article, I made an account to express my viewpoint. Initially, it was exactly like Zackforester's in the alternate timeline section. But then, I realised something else is happenning, based only on what I've read on this page and no insight on episodes or other sources. I got confused reading Sega381's post in this section, so here is my attempt of the timelines' order.

From this article we must assume that time splits, because timelines are created instead of them already existing. So firstly, we have to keep in mind in our terminology, the fact that all timelines were initially one. For this purpose I introduce something I dub vectors. So, since there are 4, I will name the initial timeline vector t(1,2,3,4). For exaple, goku was born in all timelines when they were t(1,2,3,4). This means Goku(1,2,3,4) vector split into Goku(1), etc, but only after splitting into Goku(1,4) and Goku(2,3) vectors(more on that later). Since all timelines were once one, all characters in them were once one, just like this Goku example, save for the characters who were created in seperate timelines(like a child of bulma with another after vegeta's death). We have no such cases here. Since every character was one before the split it's a mistake to say that Trunks(2) arrived in t(1) and Trunks(3) in t(4), just as it is a mistake to say Goku(1) was born in t(1), when there was no t(1) when he was born. Goku(1,2,3,4) was born in t(1,2,3,4). Just as all timelines were one, so were some of them at some point, thus enabling the existance of vectos like t(1,4) and Trunks(2,3). This article makes the mistake of separating timelines and characters in them directly from (1,2,3,4) to (1),(2),(3),(4), skipping character and timeline vectors (2,3) etc, to simplify an unsimplifiable complicated matter. This is where most of the confusion comes from and maybe why Sega381 can't reach a definite conclusion here. It could only happen if time split at the exact same point into 4 timelines from a single event. Or if timelines already exist independently, but you can't have that and say they were created as I state in the beginning of this paragraph.

The vector representation is generated recursively, creating more complex vectors when a time traveller stays in a different past timeline, which then splits with him still in it. The only example and neccessity of this here, is Cell(3)'s travel to the past. We must say Goku(1,2,3,4) beat Nappa for example and not simply Goku, because there is more than one timeline that Goku ended up being a part of. This is the case with Cell(3) as well, who must be dubbed Cell[(3),(1,4)]. This, because he splits, along with the timeline t(1,4), like everyone else in a timeline split. He splits into Cell[(3),(1)] and Cell[(3),(4)], who exist in t(1) and t(4) respectivelly. More on the t(1,4) split later. 

So, lets list the timeline splits and make my case more obvious. In the end of each bullet who or/and what is directly responsible for the split is stated/repeated. This is why it happened. When it happened is also stated/repeated in the end as well:

  • t(1,2,3,4) splits to t(1,4) and t(2,3) on Cell[(3),(1,4)]'s arrival from the future in age 763. This is an event, which happens only in t(1,4) in that time and not in t(2,3), thus the split. In age 764, Trunks(2,3) first arrives in t(1,4). This would cause a split into a timeline where this visit didn't happen, but that timeline already exists(t(2,3)) from the initial split. Cell[(3),(1,4)]'s arrival from the future caused this split. When he arrived it happened.
  • t(2,3) splits into t(2) and t(3) on Trunks from uknown timeline arrival on age 764. This is an event, which happens only in t(3) in that time and not in t(2), thus the split. Trunks of an unknown timeline arrival caused this split. This is also when it happened.
  • t(1,4) splits to t(1) and t(4) on age 767. Trunks(2) and Trunks(3) travel to the past for the second time. At their arrival t(1,4) splits(not before, because based on this article the destination of time travel seems to be one specific timeline and not many). Trunks(2) is in t(1) and Trunks(3) is in t(4). This time, instead of having a timeline with a future being arriving in it and one which it does not(which was the case for the previous splits) we have two timelines with two seperate future beings arriving in them. This creates the possibillity of another uknown timeline, as is the case with Trunks' third arrival in t(1). Although the conditions are exactly the same, in t(1) cell happens and in t(4) the androids are deactivated. To say Cell[(3),(1,4)] created t(1) begs the question of why didn't the same things happen in t(4). Something just happened and cell arose, preventing the Z fighters from disabling the androinds, as their attention was elsewhere, whereas in t(4) that same something didn't occur. This split happened, because two different Trunks arrived from to different timelines. When they did, it happened.
  • t(1,4) splits to t(1) and t(4). Trunks(2,3) begins his second time travel to the past. At his arrival, or some point after, t(1,4) splits(not before, because based on this article the destination of time travel seems to be one specific timeline and not many). Trunks(2) is in t(1) and Trunks(3) is in t(4). Although the conditions are exactly the same, in t(1) cell happens and in t(4) the androids are deactivated. There is no reason for t(1) to exist(t(4) needs to, because that's when/where Trunks(3) went and t(3) definately exists). Some change just seemed to happen without different circumstances. To say cell(3) created t(1) begs the question of y didn't the same things happen in t(4). The lack of reason disturbs me...maybe I'm wrong. The exact point of t(1,4) split is when the timenlines started to differ. When something just happened and cell arose, preventing the Z fighters from disabling the androinds, as their attention was elsewhere, whereas in t(4) that same something didn't occur. It is worth to note, that t(2,3) does not split here, but just the respective trunks' start existing. At this point, they are just two seperate Trunks and their numbers are just a label signifying which timeline they will end up being a part of. It would be more accurate, but confusing, to say that they are Trunks([2,3),(1)] and Trunks[(2,3),(2)]. One could state here, that t(2) exists because Trunks(2) trained, so the split happened here. By that logic, Trunks(2) exists because Trunks(3) died, because he killed the androids, because he travelled to the past, because he is that kind of person, because he was born and brought up that way, ultimately traced back to because the big bang happened(not the super attack, the begginning of the universe). So by following that logic, the timelines already existed since the begginning of time. Perfectly viable, but not this article's approach, So, the t(2,3) split did not happen here. This split(t(1,4)'s) just happened for no reason, it could just as well not happen. The first thing, which happened differently is when it did. May have been cell absorbing cities(or being noticed doing so at least).
  • t(2,3) splits into t(2) and t(3). This happens on either Trunk(2)'s or Trunk(3)'s final arrival to the the future, whoever arrived on an earlier age. Since t(1) just happened for no reason, t(2) needn't exist as well. The other two have to, because one is the original and the other is the initial time travel destination. Either Trunks(2) or Trunks(3) caused this split, whoever arrived on an earlier age. This is also when it happpened.

So, the order of the timelines is apparent here. It is worth noting when the split happens and why are two seperate issues. I think maybe Sega381 confused the two in the previous post(which again, I don't understand because I'm prolly dumb(not even sure of that!(hey, parentheses inside parentheses, I wanna join!(this is fun :p)))). I do think, however, the article is wrong about Cell[(3),(1,4)] being the reason why t(1) and t(2) were created and Trunks(2) of t(1) as well. These timelines have no reason for existing and they could as well not have, as I explain in my bullets.  Cell[(3),(1,4)] was the reason of the initial split. Also, Cell[(3)(4)] is in t(4) with an unkown fate, something the table at the end doesn't mention.

All that remains for me to understand now, is how cell games happened in t(4), with Androinds17,18(4) being destroyed/deactivated, thus unabsorbable by Cell[(3),(4)], who is in that timeline and got there exactly because they were destroyed/deactivated in his. Thus, he shouldn't be able to achieve perfect form in t(4) either. Since the table at the end states they were likely destroyed by the blueprints, maybe it's safe to assume the Z fighters(4) botched the job after Trunks(3) left and Cell[(3),(4)] somehow absorbed them before they managed to get dectivated/destroyed, thus making the cell games happen. In fact, if the celll games happening comes from an official source, this probable explanation is a must and saying that the Androids17,18(4) were likely destroyed is wrong.

The last 2 paragraphs, along with the explanation of the time splits and use of vectors are the changes I think must be done. The current article is wrong and has holes, unless I understand something incorrectly. I am not so sure about my opinion, however, nor about how wikis work to just edit the thing. So, I will wait for further input from a more expirienced member on this, hoping that whoever wants more insight on this matter if I'm right can visit the talk page like me in the meantime.

EDIT: An edit was made to the main page, which states an uknown timeline Trunks killed Frieza and Kold of timeline 3. This in turn changes some things in this post. Still editing...

Zafoshin (talk) 19:36, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

This topic has been dead for 6 years. You might consider starting a new one if you want people to see this. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 22:50, October 14, 2015 (UTC)
Thx! I have a lot to think of this mindfck before I finish editing my post :p Then I will post a modified version on the plot holes topic, using that topic's terminology. I will also maybe post a new topic with my suggested terminology. All this will take time, because bored xD Since i have your attention though, it would be remiss of me not to point out an incosistency in the wiki. In the page of the episode of Cell's flashback, it is written under trivia, that future goku killed future frieza and future kold of timeline 3, whereas this page states unknown timeline trunks did it. After I think all these things through, I was planning on editing that.
All in all, I am kind of using this old topic to hold ppl off from seeing it until I decide it's ready. Before I thought it needed editing though, I did think ppl would see it, so thx so much for pointing this out :)Zafoshin (talk) 20:19, October 15, 2015 (UTC)

Timeline 3 is safe from the rest of the villains.

Due to the following.

  • Cell and the Androids aren't there.
  • Babidi never showed up there in the first place. Even if he did show up later no one would have enough power to ressurect Buu, so Babidi would just leave to find a planet with stronger fighters.
  • With no Android 17 on Earth there would be no way for Dr. Gero to open up a portal in hell. So no hell fighters in this timeline.
  • Since Piccolo is dead in this timeline, there are no Dragon Balls or Black Star Dragon Balls. No Black Star Dragon Balls means no Baby. No normal Dragon Balls means no Shadow Dragons.

This world is far from perfect and peaceful. There would still be bad guys like the ones who robbed the bank in Satan City, but this information is still worth stating on the page because it is unique to Timeline 3. Time is man made, so it's always 4:20 01:23, January 8, 2011 (UTC)Tokeupdude

Whoever wrote this, please sign your posts. I personally agree though (as long as it's worded accurately). -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 01:33, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I always forget to sign...and I guess you do too sometimes ;)

Also my grammar isn't the best. Someone who received a good English grade in school should put that on there. Time is man made, so it's always 4:20 01:23, January 8, 2011 (UTC)Tokeupdude

Lol you're right, I totally did. Make sure you write new messages at the bottom, too. It's all explained in the box at the top of the page. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 01:33, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Wait a minute, we can't be sure Babadi didn't show up. Even if it took him years, I doubt he would leave without the energy he needs. Also, Broly would probably destroy the galaxy without Goku and friends. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 01:41, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well Broly is a movie character, so his canon is debatable. Even though movie #8 can fit into the story, there are some inconsistancies; a common trait among the movies. I'm pretty sure Cell would have wanted a crack at Broly, Goku and Gohan would have been in Super Saiyan form the whole time as part of their training, and with a villain as powerful as Broly I think someone would have mentioned him at least once during the Cell saga (seeing as how villains such as Frieza are frequently mentioned). Do you know what I mean?
And about Buu and Babidi. Babidi doesn't seem like he would wait that long. After finding Buu's egg I think he would be too anxious to painstakingly steal the energy from all of the Earthlings when he has an advanced space ship that can zip him around the universe to more powerful planets. But hey, you could be right.
Perhaps you can abridge your info with my info and put it in the trivia section? It really belongs there, if anywhere.
Time is man made, so it's always 4:20 01:51, January 8, 2011 (UTC)Tokeupdude

Shouldn't Broly have shown up way before Trunks grew up, too? Lol, like a few weeks after the Androids? Lol what a mess. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 02:19, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

Timeline 4

I think there's a few mistakes in timeline 4. I only say this after watching DBK subbed (though I doubt those details are mistranslations). Timeline 4 seems to assume that alot of the same things happen that also occur in timeline one. HOWEVER in DB Kai at least Trunks states that there are alot of differences between his timeline and the timeline he came from including 17 and 18 being alot stronger (AND having less evil personalities) ,Goku being afflicted by the heart virus far later than he was originally, and the fact that the Androids who attacked were 19 and 20 and not 17 and 18 (though this last part may just have been something neither he nor anyone else alive in that timeline knew but that still happened). He claims that his trip alone should not have altered the timeline THAT significantly and later they discover the other time capsule and the shell of Cell. This seems to imply that the mere presence of Cell caused FURTHUR changes to the timeline than those already inflicted by Trunks. As such it becomes a bit of a grey area whether in timeline 4 Goku still suffers from the virus later, Piccolo Fuses with Kami, and certain other things happen. As Trunks did not train in the time chamber this also may or may not imly that he never actually gains the strength to actually kill the androids without some means other than strength. I say this because it seems implied that in timeline 4 Trunks and/or the Z fighters still find the blueprints for the androids and its likely the androids still get killed in that timeline. Anyway I'm just saying there's not alot of certainty as to how truly similar timelines 1 and 4 truly are (desregarding later events that directly involve cell.)Black kille 16:52, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Did Piccolo and Kami merge in this timeline? When Piccolo first asked Kami to merge with him, Kami was reluctant because he wanted to wait and see if these Androids realy were going to become the monsters from Future Trunks's timeline. It was only with the emergence of Cell did Kami consent to merge with Piccolo. However, this is the timeline where there was no Cell from a different timeline. Therefore, isn't it plausable that Kami refused to Piccolo until he observed the Androids more and before he knew it, the Z Fighters and Bulma defeated them with the controller so there was no need for them to merge anymore? NANLIT 16:31, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I just made some edits to Timelines 3 and 4 because they assume quite a bit. For one thing, it would have been impossible that the blueprints were found as the Z fighters only learned of the basement lab from Cell. This is what I proposed happened in those timelines. In timeline 4, Kami and Piccolo merge sooner since there is no Cell threat. The Saiyans still go into the Hyperbolic Time Chamber becaus even before Cell showed up, Goku and Vegeta already began considering how to ascend the Super Saiyan, but this time they're just doing it to beat the Androids. Piccolo still fights 17 where either A. He gets tired and has to quit fighting, forcing Tien to step in and save him which in turn forces Goku to use instant transmission to bail both of them out, or B. Piccolo gets luck and destroys 17 but then has to fight 18 where again A. he gets tired and Tien and Goku save him, or B. he gets luck. After Piccolo's fight with 17 Vegeta and Trunks emerge as Ascended Saiyans and then go off to destroy the Andriods (assuming Piccolo has not done so already). Goku and Gohan emerge from the Hyperbolic Time Chamber as Full Power Super Saiyans, but they don't get to fight as the Androids are already gone. Trunks then goes back to his time (Timeline 3), destroys the Androids (deactiviate could have been a euphanism for destroy), then Cell catches him off guard and kills him since if you watch the flashback of Cell killing Trunks and the fight from "Free the Future," there are several differences: 1. Trunks (timeline 3) did not expect Cell, but Trunks (Timeline 2) did, 2. In T3 Trunks was wearing civilian clothes, but in T2 he wore Saiyan armor (expecting a fight), and 3. Trunks in T3 did not go Super Saiyan, but Trunks in T2 did. In T3 Cell probably realized how strong Trunks was and took him out quickly via strangling while an unsuspecting Trunks was caught off guard and couldn't power up. I also noted that in T3 Cell was aware that Trunks killed the Androids, but in T2 he seemed surprised when Trunks told him. I know there is a bit a speculation in this summary, but what always made sense to me and if one thinks about examines the Main Timeline but ignores Cell's appearance, this seems like what would have happened. GreenDragonRanger (talk) 16:26, August 9, 2012 (UTC)

There's a bigger plot hole with Timeline 4 than anyone is realizing. Cell cannot arrive in Timeline 4 from the future in the Time Machine he stole from Future Trunks3 in an egg form because Cell3 arrives from the future in Timeline 1 in the Time Machine he stole from Future Trunks3. If the Cell Games happen in Timeline 4, there has to be an unseen and unspoken of Timeline 5 that the Cell that hosts the Cell Games in Timeline 4 came from.(Zackforester (talk) 07:03, July 8, 2015 (UTC)

It's not a plothole, we just chose not to list any of the infinitely connected timelines that don't directly touch anyone appearing in the main timeline. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 05:35, July 9, 2015 (UTC)
After spending my day reading this article, I made an account to express my viewpoint. Initially, it was exactly like Zackforester's. But then, I realised something else is happenning, based only on what I've read on this page and no insight on episodes or other sources. In short, cell arrived in timeline 1 and 4 together, which then split on trunks's arrival. This negates the need of more timelines. Explaining this further involves timeline ordering. Thus, I am going to leave a comment on the 'Creation order for the timelines' section as well and I suggest it be read in tandem with this. I am still wondering, however, how cell games came to be in timeline 4. Androids 17 and 18 were supposed to be destroyed/deactivated. To correct NANLIT's comment on this section, cell is in this timeline, just doesn't make an appearance as early. Thus yeah, the piccolo fusion must not have happenned. Zafoshin (talk) 16:44, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

Super Android 13

Just mentioning a possibility, but could the Super Android 13 movie have occured in timeline 1? The other androids seem to have been killed already(as Goku sortof alludes to this), Trunks, Goku, and Vegeta are still ordinary super saiyans, and Gohan is still NOT a Super Saiyan.Black kille 16:57, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Timeline 5

Timeline 5, this is almost the same timeline as timeline 1 but the Time Breakers invaded the timeline,Time Patrol Trunks came from this timeline and went to age 1000 to recruit fighters to defeat the Time Breakers, this timeline is related to Dragon Ball Online.

~ ~ ~ ~ zslayern 6:37 PM 7/9/2012

I don't know much about this, but I am playing xenoverse. Isn't time patrol Trunks Trunks(2), aka future Trunks? Couldn't all this happen in timeline 1?Zafoshin (talk) 19:53, August 16, 2015 (UTC)
i don't play xenoverse and i don't want to but to my knowledge Time Patrol trunks is just Future Trunks from timeline 2 Meshack (talk) 20:02, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

Two Cells!

The Cell we know best should exist in the History of Trunks timeline(Timeline 2). After all, Cell of Timeline 3 went back in time to 763. Timeline 1 and 2 were the same until Trunks arrived one year later, so there should be a Cell walking around when the Future Androids started their slaughter. Considering Cell managed to become perfect in a timeline where he also had the Z-Fighters to contend with(Timeline 1), what exactly happened to him in Future Trunks' timeline?  Redjirachi 19:48, June 6, 2014

When Cell went back all timelines were the same. On his arrival he caused a time split and the branch he was in did not include his original timeline(3). In fact, all time travels to the past seem to have different timeline begginings and destinations. Trunks and Cell traveled to the past from their timelines to different timelines. more details in the 'Creation order for the timelines' section.Zafoshin (talk) 19:47, August 16, 2015 (UTC)

What the heck with "new" timelines?!

That Cell who fought with main characters in main storyline its the First Timeline (timeline where androids rampage and Trunks go to the future and then returned and being killed) Cell, that Cell who killed Future Trunks, that Trunks who defeat androids in Second timeline.--Date450190486 18:02, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but in the manga and anime, Cell says that in his timeline, Trunks was the one who killed Frieza and Cold. Even though the one supposed to kill Frieza and those timelines is Goku. This just makes shit even more confusing, isn't it? Yakon RenderSandubadearPui Pui Render 18:30, January 23, 2015 (UTC)

The Cell we know is Cell from timeline 3. The Trunks we know is from timeline 2. Timeline 3 Cell killed Trunks from Timeline 3 because he couldn't find 17 and 18 and went to Timeline 1. Timeline 2 Trunks, after the Cell Games in timeline 1, went back to Timeline 2 and killed 17 and 18. Cell found Trunks #2 but Trunks killed him.

Yeah, that's kinda confusing. There's also a timeline 4 but that doesn't matter Meshack (talk) 06:16, July 9, 2015 (UTC) 

There seems to be a large plothole with this version of timelines

In this article, Timeline 3 (why are they not in order of creation?) is the first and original timeline, where "no time travelers arrive", yet somehow Future Trunks kills Frieza and King Cold. How is this possible?

Also, why does this timeline's Future Trunks return solely to kill Frieza? Goku had that handled in the original timeline and Trunks knew that. Why would he not warn the Z-Warriors and save Goku?

In the original timeline, Cell should be defeated by Goku, as the original timeline is (correctly) defined as the one where no time travelers arrive.

Here's how it should go. I am going to rework the numbering system because it's going to be nearly impossible to use the article's classifications, but to avoid confusion I will be using A, B, C, and D instead of 1, 2, 3, and 4. My system will be in order of creation, meaning the first use of the time machine results in B, the second in C, and the third in D.

Timeline A (T-A) is the original timeline where Goku kills Frieza, dies of the heart virus, and the Z-Warriors are wiped out except Trunks-A. This is the timeline depicted in The History of Trunks. In 784-A, Trunks-A uses Bulma's time machine to go to Age 764-B. Trunks-A returns after warning the Z-Warriors of T-B and saving Goku-B. In 785-A, Trunks-A goes back to Age 767-B to help the Z-Warriors fight the androids of T-B. He comes back with the blueprints and/or a kill-switch, and manages to disable the androids of T-A. In 788-A, Trunks-A tries to go back to to T-B, but is ambushed and killed by Cell-A, who takes the time machine to 763-C.

Timeline B (T-B) is the timeline where Future Trunks kills Frieza, but Cell has not come from the future. Trunks-A arrives here in Age 764-B, and saves the Z-Warriors from heart disease and the androids. We don't see any of this timeline in the series. Trunks-A first arrives in Age 764-B, arrives for the second time in Age 767-B, and Trunks-D arrives some time after that. Cell-B is presumably killed when the Z-Warriors find the android blueprints in Gero's basement.

Timeline C (T-C) is the timeline where Future Trunks kills Frieza while Cell is gathering energy in his larval stage. This is the "main timeline", the one we see in the majority of the show. Cell arrives in 763-C, Trunks-A first arrives in Age 764-C, arrives for the second time in Age 767-C, and Trunks-D arrives some time after that. Cell-C is killed when the Z-Warriors find the android blueprints in Gero's basement.

Timeline D (T-D) is exactly the same as T-A up until Age 785. At this point, the Trunks-A that trained in T-C with Vegeta-C in the Hyperbolic Time Chamber is significantly different than the Trunks-A that probably just watched the Z-Warriors of T-B beat the androids, or even just disabled them with a kill-switch. For ease, we will continue call the Trunks-A that visited T-B Trunks-A, and the Trunks-A that visited T-C Trunks-D. Trunks-D easily beats the androids of T-D and Cell-D.

This is the only version that fixes the major time-travel plotholes, except for one issue: Cell tells Trunks that he didn't use Trunks' cells from his fight with Frieza because he already had enough saiyan DNA, when Frieza should have been killed by Goku in the timeline the main Cell comes from. I mainly attribute this to Toriyama not having enough time to figure out exactly how the timelines would work.

WARNING: This next section might give you a headache. It's giving me one and I wrote it. It won't help you understand what I wrote above. It's also not something that should be added to the article for sure - it's just an interesting side effect of the time travel mechanic that others might enjoy reading.

Both interpretations, mine and the article's, have a problem: since every time someone time travels he returns to his own timeline from two separate and different timelines, the time travelers that returned would (or at least, could) be different entities. That means that Timeline-A should have new branching timelines created in Age 784, Age 785, and Age 788. But, it gets even more complex than that. After Age 784, there are two timelines where Trunks travels back in time in Age 785 (the "original" plus one altered one), meaning a version of Trunks goes back in time to four timelines (two new ones), in two of which Cell isn't there, and in two of which Cell is. That means four Future Trunks-es come back, creating three new timelines (the original plus three altered ones). When he travels again (or Cell does) in Age 788, they go to eight new timelines (four new ones). Cell goes to four in which Cell wasn't already there, and Future Trunks goes to the four in which Cell has already been killed (this is possible because they traveled to different years). In truth, there are 14 alternate timelines in the show, but most of them probably have nearly identical storylines.

Phew! Glad that's over. Nonprofit Prophet (talk) 07:47, September 18, 2015 (UTC)

You've struck the truth here, which is that, assuming the characters in alternate timelines act the same as the ones in the timelines we see, ALL alternate timelines are affected by time travel to some degree. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 02:37, September 20, 2015 (UTC)

In this article, Timeline 3 (why are they not in order of creation?) 

I agree mostly with your findings. The show doesn't follow the orginal timeline, or even the new timeline created by Trunks. Instead it follows the timelines created by Cell. However, I don't see the necessity of multiple timelines coming to existence when somebody travels back in time and back again. I also don't agree with Trunks-D coming back to T-B. Trunks-D has no access to T-B nor does he know it exists. My interpretation is as follows:
Trunks originally splits timeline 3 (the one that was originally supposed to happen without any time travel feedback) into timeline 3 and timeline 4 by travelling back (creating timeline 4) to help fight the androids in timeline 4 and kills them in his own timeline 3 as well.
This prompts timeline 3's Cell to kill timeline 3 Trunks to travel back to absorb him some sweet droids, creating the main timeline. In this main timeline Gohan roflstomps Cell and Trunks travels back to his timeline to defeat the androids as well as Cell, creating timeline 2.
Both versions of Trunks stem from T-A, but only the one who faces Cell and becomes Trunks-D survives the ordeal.
So basically the route of Trunks-A's time travelling is T-A -> T-B -> T-A, and after he returns he gets killed and all sayans are dead. (This would have been the end of it, if it weren't for Cell also using the time machine)
Killing Trunks allows T-A's Cell to travel back in time as well creating the route: T-A (after Trunks returns) -> T-C -> T-D. So Cell travelling back in time after killing Trunks splits T-B into T-B and T-C. Trunks-A travels to both of these, but from this point forward these Trunks' are forever different entities which we'll call Trunks-A and Trunks-D. Trunks-D travelling back from T-C splits T-A, which before this point has remained the same into T-A and T-D. Trunks-D has no capability to travel back to T-A, since T-A doesn't exist to him anymore. When Trunks-D does go back to his timeline, he does meet cell but kills him.
The moment Cell went back in time, he split Trunks into two entities, which each have their own version of the future after they travelled back in time. So T-B, after Trunks goes back to his timeline, will never get to see a Trunks after that point again, because Trunks-A is dead and Trunks-D has a different future due to Cell travelling back in time.
DrakeTM (talk) 12:37, May 2, 2019 (UTC)

This page is ridiculous

On this page, timeline 4 is no different from timeline 1, except for no apparent reason, Trunks goes back to the future in one of them and he doesn't in the other. That's just stupid. This is how it actually works, IMO:

Timeline 1 (before time travel): Goku kills Frieza and King Cold. Goku dies of a heart virus. Trunks goes back in time and creates Timeline 2. Trunks returns to this time and (somehow) kills the androids. Imperfect Cell kills Trunks and goes back in time to create timelines 3 and 4.

Timeline 2 (Created when Future Trunks arrives in the past): Future Trunks arrives and kills Frieza. After the androids are killed, Trunks returns to the original timeline and gets killed by Cell.

Timeline 3 (Created when Cell arrives in Timeline 2): Cell secretly arrives from timeline 1. Trunks kills Frieza. Cell becomes Perfect Cell. Gohan kills Cell. This is the main timeline.

Timeline 4 (Created when Trunks meets Cell in Timeline 3): Goku kills Frieza and King Cold. Future Trunks comes back to his own time after knowing Perfect Cell in timeline 3. He meets imperfect Cell and kills him.

FriedEggz1 (talk) 19:13, March 4, 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this page is ridicolous and gives theoretical information simply made up by fans--HypnoDisk (talk) 22:52, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
The person above you gave some input. This page describes actual published work, not fan theories as you assumed. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 00:15, June 28, 2016 (UTC)

"Dimension" Dilemma

So lately we've been adding a notice to pages such as Janemba stating that they are from an alternate dimension (timeline?) due to a quote by Toriyama during an interview from Daizenshuu 6.

What is your personal stance on Dragon Ball’s theatrical films, Sensei?
I take the movies as “stories in a different dimension from the main story of the comic”. I’m entirely just an audience member for them.

The question asked specifically for his personal stance on the films (as opposed to an official stance), and the interview itself is over 20 years old. I don't think we should be basing something so important off of a quote from 20 years ago about the author's personal opinion. Thoughts? -- Final ChidoriTalk 03:08, July 5, 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you Final.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  05:54,7/5/2016 
Agreed with that--Date450190486 05:57, July 5, 2016 (UTC)
i agree also. however neffy has added this to almost every move villian's page now. which i don't understand why. Nikon23 01:14, July 6, 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it matters how old the comment is. You can't prove he no longer thinks that's how it is, unless he's recently come out and said otherwise. If the original author (the original visioner of the series) says that he invisions things a certain way, then it's usually accepted that things are that way. "Word of God," so they say. TyphlosionX (talk) 01:40, July 6, 2016 (UTC)
He clearly says he takes the movies as stories in a different dimension, not that they are in a different dimension. Which proves that anyone on here taking the creator's opinion as them stating that that is how it actually is, needs to rethink the whole thing. The only way I would be ok with what Neffy is doing is if Toriyama ever comes out and says where the movies happen just like with the whole canon and non-canon bull that has been going on with the movies and the anime since the movies started and everything.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  03:03,7/6/2016 

You have a good point about how the age doesn't matter, there is indeed no way to prove if Toriyama has changed his mind. I would totally be fine with placing this all over pages if the question/answer was phrased differently, but the way it's presented is the interviewer asking for the personal opinion of the author and the author stating "I take the movies..." implying there's different ways to "take" the movies and not one canon way. Either way, I still can't agree with putting a confusing piece of information like this across tons of pages due to a single, 20 year old quote about the author's personal opinion that was (to my knowledge) never mentioned or referenced again. -- Final ChidoriTalk 04:41, July 6, 2016 (UTC)

I too agree with Final Chidori. This obscure trivia tidbit should absolutely not be in the intro text of any page. Is the main thing about Janemba that he was mentioned peripherally in a quite 20 years ago? No. The main thing about him is he is a DBZ villain from a movie. That should be the leading paragraph, not trivia. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 23:07, July 6, 2016 (UTC)
His quote is especially irrelevant now that he has commissioned 3 alternate versions of Super with no regard to one being "offcial". His quote is a mildly interesting sidenote. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 01:26, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
10X, are you suggesting that Toriyama isn't a reliable source, and he should be discredited? Just because he hasn't made the canon clear, I don't think it's right to discredit him when he decides to shed some light on what is or isn't canon in his eyes. That's what it seems you're suggesting with that second post, but maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said? TyphlosionX (talk) 21:38, July 7, 2016 (UTC)
No he is just saying that the quote is irrelevant because of the whole 3 alternate versions of Super.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  21:49,7/7/2016 
That's what I just said. He's discrediting Toriyama's quote, or should I say considering it "irrelevant," because Toriyama isn't making the canon clear (with the multiple versions of Super being his prime example) TyphlosionX (talk) 01:32, July 8, 2016 (UTC)
Calling Toriyama's quote irrelevant doesn't mean he is saying Toriyama is not a reliable source, also Toriyama's quote is his opinion which means to him the movies happen in a different dimension when he said that, but now we don't know if he still feels the same way. I am sorry to say but a lot of users on here take what Toriyama says about his opinion of the movies and gt as he is saying what is and isn't canon (which has never been used when dealing with the series except by fans) which isn't entirely true he is saying in his opinion how he feels about the stuff and what is and isn't canon to him.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  02:42,7/8/2016 
Regardless of the quote itself, and whether or not the original author's opinion on how/when something happens in his series is canon or not, when you call his quote "irrelevant," and with the context of it being irrelevant because he's commissioned three seperate versions of Super without making it clear which is official, it sounds an awful lot like you're discrediting the man because of how he handles the series' canon.
And Dragon Ball does have a "canon," regardless whether or not the creator's use the term or not. It has one automatically by canon's definition. It's just that half of it's canon isn't clear, which is why the fans try to make sense of it. Because it's canon is a mess. 
My apologies if I sound like a jerk the way I'm presenting my points, I'm just very passionate about this series, as I'm sure all of you are too. TyphlosionX (talk) 15:14, July 8, 2016 (UTC)
Yea well I think we need to get back on topic and if you want to continue this message me on my talk.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  16:15,7/8/2016 
Well, this is still on topic. We are discussing 10X's input on this subject and what he meant. But I'll stop, for now.
I don't really have anything else to add. Toriyama can apparently have what we call a "head canon" is what you all are saying, despite the fact that the "real canon" is entirely up to him, and he can change it at will. I don't really agree with that idea, but I'll play along.
At the very least, there should be mention in the movie articles, that one interpretation of the movies' events is that the movies could be taking place in another dimension, using Toriyama's Daizenshuu 6 quote as a source. Somewhere in the "Timeline Placement" section, I think. Thoughts, anyone? TyphlosionX (talk) 20:26, July 8, 2016 (UTC)

Timeline placement is not related to alternate dimensions. To add detail to my earlier statement, Toriyama has proven time and again he has no regard for keeping a single, consistent story. He has recently commissioned 3 official versions of the same general story without keeping the events strictly the same. Some characters appear in some and not in others, and deaths may or may not occur. When someone put him on the spot and pointed out to Toriyama that things didn't line up, Toriyama's answer at that moment was that he thinks it must be an alternate reality. Don't forget, the Dragon Ball manga has some events that are not only inconsistent, but obviously don't make any sense and are just there as jokes. Decomposing Toriyama's work into fixed sets and trying to shoehorn something that makes real life logical sense defies the spirit and intent of the series. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 01:24, July 10, 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that this series' continuity is convoluted, I've stated that myself earlier, and it is also true that continuity isn't the main focus of this series. Tell me something I don't know. How any of this makes Toriyama's quote irrelevant, I'm not sure. It seems you're bitter towards him and how he's handled continuity, so when he actually has input on the continuity once in a blue moon, you choose to ignore him.

That's not to say they've haven't tried to keep things consistent, like you seem to be suggesting. Granted, they manage to screw up continuity all the time anyway and create all sorts of inconsistencies, but there's plenty evidence to show that they at least try to keep things consistent.

I'm not here to argue about canon, or the lack of canon in which you seem to believe in. I'm here to discuss whether we do anything with Toriyama's quote. Dimensions are relevant to Timeline placement. If the reader wants to find out when the movie could take place, I think there should be mention somewhere that the events may not take place in the regular timeline of events, but rather an alternate timeline (or dimension, as it is referred to here) TyphlosionX (talk) 16:02, July 11, 2016 (UTC)

You claim everything is wrong, but you haven't substantiated any of what you said. You claim to know my opinions, but you're wrong. I wrote why it's obvious Toriyama doesn't care about having a single consistent story above, so if you missed it then reread. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 04:16, July 14, 2016 (UTC)
In any case, the quote should be placed as trivia for those films, not hidden. But since Super's releases are not consistent with the existence of a single "main storyline", it's not prudent to reformat the entire site around this one spur of the moment quote, nor would it be possible to do so. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 04:25, July 14, 2016 (UTC)
"You claim everything is wrong" What? All I have claimed was wrong is what you said about Toriyama's quote being irrelevant. Unless you're referring to me saying there is a canon, and that they have tried to keep things consistent. 
This site considers practically everything canon, just different levels of it. So, following this site's logic, there is a canon. 10X, are you in disagreement with the rules here? This is a talk page on how we can improve the article, not a place to discuss what is and isn't canon, especially the notion of there not being a canon at all.
And if you want to talk continuity and whether or not they try to keep things consistent, then fine. If you've been keeping up with the most recent episodes of Super, you would know that they have brought back the time machine Cell stole. A direct nod to DBZ. Not only that, they explained how Present Bulma got ahold of it. That is a prime example of the writers trying to stay consistent. Of course, they haven't made it clear which version of Super is "official," but to say they don't try to keep the continuity consistent is ridiculous.
You have yet to make yourself clear about what you mean by Toriyama's quote being irrelevant. Do you mean we should ignore it? And if so, what good reason is there to do that? Because him not declaring which version of Super is official isn't a reason as to why we would ignore this quote. TyphlosionX (talk) 15:01, July 14, 2016 (UTC)
Is it really that hard to add a sentence or two to the movie pages?TyphlosionX (talk) 15:03, July 14, 2016 (UTC)

You're way off topic and bouncing all over the place. This topic was created because users didn't want an obscure Toriyama quote stuck at the very top of many character articles. Stop putting words in my mouth. You brought up canon, then incorrectly stated my stance on it, then chastised me for discussing it which I only did to respond to you. I can either ignore your questions or answer them, so please don't complain about me listening to you unless you'd prefer we ignored you. They obviously aren't trying to keep the series consistent because they are making 3 versions at once; to claim otherwise is ridiculous. I'm not saying we ignore anything, the quote does belong as interesting trivia on the movie pages. However, it's not the single most important descriptive feature of every movie character, and as such I agree with the first 4 users in this thread. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 22:43, July 15, 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Sorry for making assumptions and misinterpreting what you said. I was out of line, so my apologies, I hope you can forgive me. You may not have answered me what you meant by irrelevant, but I'm honestly too tired of writing the same thing expecting an answer, and arguing over something so silly, so I'll just drop it. Peace and love.

It seems we both agree there should be mention of the quote, but I still think it belongs in the "Timeline Placement" section rather than "Trivia." Like I've said earlier, if it might take place outside the regular timeline of events then I think it's better to let the readers know that. It's just a couple sentences, and I feel it won't complicate things at all. TyphlosionX (talk) 01:11, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

If we abide by that one-time quote, it's not only a different timeline but also different location, different Goku and Vegeta, different Earth, different everything. The timeline section is there to help readers decide when to watch movies as they watch the series episodes, and dropping in a quote about other dimensions is going to confuse them, not inform them. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 03:56, July 16, 2016 (UTC)

Creation of new articles about these timlines

This page literally has no reason being here in the first place, since there already is a timeline page describing the alternate timelines of Universe 7 and when they happened, with more detail. I recommened that someone update this and clean it up a little bit.

SuperBen 1000000 (talk) 23:01, July 15, 2016 (UTC)


I think it's a bit early for a name change, especially since we haven't seen any other alternate timelines, nor may we ever. ~~ IST O L E T H E P I ES π 03:16, September 5, 2016 (UTC)

Extra Timelines?

Would there be extra timelines created thanks to Bardock being sent to the past and creating the legend of the Super Saiyan? Diamonddeath (talk) 08:13, September 29, 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think the whole point of that story was so that there was an explanation for the Super Saiyan legend. Unfortunately, this technically created a time loop that makes no sense. Which is why I don't take the Special that seriously.

It seems the only way new timelines are created is by the use of Trunks' time machine. Which begs the question: In Super, did Future Trunks' create a new timeline? TyphlosionX (talk) 10:22, September 29, 2016 (UTC)

It's traveling to the past that creates an alternate timeline, as Whys had explained. I'm thinking that there are now even more alternate timelines. We know that there are four extra Time Rings in Universe 6, but we don't know if all the universes share the same timeline. I was thinking they all did. Diamonddeath (talk) 18:09, September 29, 2016 (UTC)

time travel works more like multiverse theory. there are in fact two universe 7s one where goku died of a heart virus and one where goku survived it and they have their own futures. future trunks explaining it to present trunks came to a conclusion with 'they are two differen't worlds'  this picture also shows it. as both turnouts happened at the same time.  0551E80Y (talk) 07:26, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

So with this theory. bardock making the legend of the super saiyan, and vegeta's version of it being a great ape that did the transformation in the ginyu saga can both be correct. although regarding the legend it's over a thousand years old to say the least. so it's easy to presume that it could have been twisted over time as the actual memory of the event was long since lost by the time the z fighters meet frieza. 0551E80Y (talk) 07:39, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

Future Trunks count

How many of Future Trunks versions there are? I'm a bit lost

First, we got the main Future Trunks from his own timeline (N°2), who survived and appears in Super.

Then we got another Future Trunks from Cell's Timeline (N°3), who got killed by Cell, who went to the main timeline, became Perfect Cell and was killed by Super Saiyan 2 Gohan.

And recently I read that there is Trunks (of an unknown timeline), who killed Future Frieza and Future King Cold from Cell's Timeline, then this Trunks returned to his timeline but nothing else is known about him.

Thus, there were at least 3 versions of the Future Trunks, however, one of them (Cell's Timeline) was killed.

Not gonna mention Trunks from the main timeline and the one from the "Unseen" timeline (N°4) for obvious reasons.

Skarloey100 (talk) 04:53, October 4, 2016 (UTC)

The Fifth Timeline


Fifth Timeline

I've created a chart which provides a plausible explanation for where the fifth trunks came from (the one from the unknown timeline). His timeline was the original timeline. This chart is not canon of course, but it might provide a guide to find supporting evidence. BrentNewland (talk) 16:44, October 4, 2016 (UTC)
I still don't quite understand what you're getting at here. Also, I think in the timeline that Cell left behind after killing Trunks, while not confirmed, it is highly possible that Majin Buu was resurrected. Although we don't know what sort of actions the Supreme Kai took. He could have fought and died, or he could have felt no other option but to awaken Beerus. No clue. Diamonddeath (talk) 03:37, October 7, 2016 (UTC)
Where is Black Goku timeline? There are 5 timeline, "Main" (Goku is alive), "Future Trunks" (Goku died), "Cell" (Goku died), "Goku Black"(Goku died) and "Unseen"(Goku alive??). --Sharingan91 (talk) 17:26, October 9, 2016 (UTC)
Based on the wikia content, your chart is correct, but according to the series, the whole Timeline 5 analysis is wrong! (check my section down below "Timeline 5")
In fact, Trunks from the unknown timeline simply does not exist! It has no sense to exist at all. According to DBS we know for sure that the T5 is where Zamasu took Goku's body, so this timeline has to be a branch of the present timeline, and not another Trunks futureTimetravel00 (talk) 10:42, October 12, 2016 (UTC)

Black Goku Timeline

Black's timeline is the same timeline that main timeline??? I don't believe it, then there are five time lines

1. Main

2. Future Trunks

3. Cell

4. Unseen

5. Goku Black

Future Trunks never traveled at the cell's timeline, cell's timeline is the original timeline--6teen (talk) 18:41, October 10, 2016 (UTC)

There are 5 timelines, but Goku Black is not one of them. In the timeline of the Cell that came back in time, he explains that Trunks killed Frieza in his timeline, yet the androids still won and Trunks had to go back in time anyways. Since Future Trunks does not mention a younger version of himself killing Frieza, the original "prime" timeline has a time travelling Trunks, and Goku killed Frieza. --edit-- Timeline 5 is the original, unaltered, Prime timeline. BrentNewland (talk) 08:46, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

Timeline 5

According to DBS (and in common sense anyway), Timeline 5 has to be edited because is totally wrong!

There's no way that an incarnation of Trunks traveled to T3 from an unknown timeline (T5) because, according to the natural flow of events, T3 has to be the original timeline from where the other timeline generates.

Let's first think about that in common sense: why this iphotetical "incarnation of Trunks" traveled to T3, killinkg Frieza and not giving Goku the medicine? Is this not the main reason why Trunks travels to the past? We know that no interferences will occurr in that occasion, so there's no reason for Trunks to change the history only interfering to an event that will not help his future (Goku killed Frieza anyway with no serious consequences to the future).

I assume that this theory is based on the episode "His name is Cell", when Cell explains to Piccolo his origins, saying that "Dr.Gero could have used Trunks cells as well, but he got already enough super saiyans cells" showing the flashback when Future Trunks kills Frieza. But is not necessary that Cell refers to that exact moment when talking about Trunks. Remember that Trunks existed in Cell's timeline (T3) and in that timeline, the events are the same as shown in the Future Trunks Special OVA, so Trunks turned super saiyan when he was teen because of Gohan being killed by the androids. I take the flashback as a "only anime reference" when we talk about Trunks, as in that moment on the anime we don't see Future Trunks in his world when he goes ssj, other than when he kills Frieza.

The most important thing, now, is that according to Dragon Ball Super, we know for sure that the fifth timeline is the one where Zamasu took Goku's body, so Goku and the Z fighters are obliviously alive till the end of Majin Bu saga, instead the wiki seems to refer as the T5 is basically another Trunks future, but is impossible because we know that T5 is a "branch" of the present, generated "a few years back" according to Gowasu.

EDIT: I've now seen the Trunks (unknown timeline) section on the "List of tertiary characters" page, and there the explanation makes much more sense, cause is just "based on Cell's statement" and "This is most likely an oversite by Akira Toryama", so why the T5 section in this page is still like that?

Timetravel00 (talk) 10:22, October 12, 2016 (UTC)

>>"why this iphotetical "incarnation of Trunks" traveled to T3, killinkg Frieza and not giving Goku the medicine?" -- You don't know whether he did or not. Most likely explanation is that he did, but when Prime Trunks came back the second time, he was killed by the Androids. Resulting in a timeline where the Androids won but Cell still remembered Trunks killing Frieza. BrentNewland (talk) 09:04, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

>>"The most important thing, now, is that according to Dragon Ball Super, we know for sure that the fifth timeline is the one where Zamasu took Goku's body" -- No, you don't know that. In fact, the show seems to be strongly suggesting that Goku Black is the same Zamasu from the Super timeline, that Beerus aborted the entire future, and the only reason Goku Black still exists is because of the time ring. 

>>"instead the wiki seems to refer as the T5 is basically another Trunks future, but is impossible because we know that T5 is a "branch" of the present, generated "a few years back" according to Gowasu." -- I have seen nothing stating that the most recent timeline was made "a few years back", which is in itself very vague from someone who lives tens of thousands if not millions of years. As far as "T5", Timeline 5 is actually the Original, Prime timeline. Timeline 4 is the GT timeline. Goku Black came from an aborted paradoxical timeline that Beerus destroyed. As Goku Black himself said, the time ring is preventing him from being affected by Beerus. I would expect Timeline 2 to return to the state it would have been in had Goku Black not appeared in it - once Goku Black's time ring is removed or destroyed. Beerus expected the future to return to normal, I think that's what's going to happen. BrentNewland (talk) 09:04, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

It's said in the manga and anime that a version of Trunks was the one to kill Frieza in Cell's timeline. It's not a theory. That Trunks must have come from somewhere, hence Timeline 5 - the original timeline.

Goku Black comes from Timeline 1's Unaltered Timestream.--Neffyarious (talk) 11:27, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

>>"You don't know whether he did or not. Most likely explanation is that he did, but when Prime Trunks came back the second time, he was killed by the Androids. Resulting in a timeline where the Androids won but Cell still remembered Trunks killing Frieza"<< -- But you neither cannot say that for sure, as we don't have clues concerning this theory as well. Timetravel00 (talk) 14:33, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

Neither one of us can say for certain. We will know in a few episodes. BrentNewland (talk) 11:39, October 14, 2016 (UTC)

>>" I have seen nothing stating that the most recent timeline was made "a few years back", which is in itself very vague from someone who lives tens of thousands if not millions of years."<< -- Go check DBS Episode 54, minute 12:30 or somethin like that, I personally think that some dialogues aren't written with no reason, imho is important because he says exactly when the last ring popped out.Timetravel00 (talk) 14:33, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

>>"As far as "T5", Timeline 5 is actually the Original, Prime timeline. Timeline 4 is the GT timeline."<< -- Wait a minute.. this does not make any sense, GT is not canon, is stated by Toriyama that GT is a "side story" that is different from "timeline", nothing that concerns Super, that is a sequel of Z, nothing more.Timetravel00 (talk) 14:33, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

He said it is a "side story", yes. But he never said anything about it being different from a timeline. He never elaborated. BrentNewland (talk) 11:39, October 14, 2016 (UTC)

Anyway the Goku Black question is an argument of current events, so we have to wait till the anime goes on to say certain theories.

Again, I think that the actual fact with the T5 doesn't make much sense, as we already know what Trunks did the first time he goes back to the past, he killed Frieza and King Cold, then he gave the medicine to Goku, that's simply the main reason he came back to the past, so I personally support the description inside the character page: "This is most likely an oversite by Akira Toryama. Cell was present in the Main Timeline when Future Trunk kills Frieza and King Cold, as he arrived 1 year prior to Trunks' arrival, while he was burrowed underground feeding off the nutrients he may have sensed the battle between Trunks and Frieza and mistaken it for the same event in his timeline" --Timetravel00 (talk) 14:33, October 13, 2016 (UTC)

In italian DragonBallwiki, I use this diagram.[1] --Sharingan91 (talk) 16:30, October 13, 2016 (UTC)
>>"In italian DragonBallwiki, I use this diagram"<< -- Actually, I pretty agree with you, the only question here is who and how created the 5th timeline (I dont believe that Trunks created it, instead I think that somehow Zamasu managed to visit the past, killing Goku, i'm sayn "somehow" because we know that the time ring only lets you travel to the future.). (p.s. I'm Italian too!)
>>"This is most likely an oversite by Akira Toryama. Cell was present in the Main Timeline when Future Trunk kills Frieza and King Cold, as he arrived 1 year prior to Trunks' arrival, while he was burrowed underground feeding off the nutrients he may have sensed the battle between Trunks and Frieza and mistaken it for the same event in his timeline" --' ''Most Likely' - Translation: Fanon. Just another fan attempt to explain it. BrentNewland (talk) 11:39, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
My diagram was made based on events of story line.--Sharingan91 (talk) 12:22, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
>>"'Most Likely' - Translation: Fanon. Just another fan attempt to explain it"<< --  Then I think that we can determine both the suppositions as "fandom". Trunks going back, killing Frieza and then not giving Goku the medicine is a supposition that stands there only to justify that flashback, nothing more. There's no single clue or common sense on that event, and I personally think that we will got an answer to this if in DBS we will know exactly what appened on every single timeline, I really hope so. --Timetravel00 (talk) 12:55, October 14, 2016 (UTC)
>>"He said it is a "side story", yes. But he never said anything about it being different from a timeline. He never elaborated." I think that is not important, we all know for sure that GT is not canon and it does not have anything to do with Super. Moreover, according to DBS, "a ring is created when the past is changed", so again, it is not remotely possible that one timeline belongs to GT. --Timetravel00 (talk) 12:55, October 14, 2016 (UTC)

Official Timeline

Official timeline [2] and English version [3]. --Sharingan91 (talk) 17:12, October 29, 2016 (UTC)

Timeline Travels

I'm kinda having problems to understand the whole situation regarding Timelines, there's a total of 7 timelines now. I think 2 had the same flowstream as the main timeline and 4 the flowstream as Future Trunks' Timeline.

Timeline 1: Main

Timeline 2: Future Trunks (x)

Timeline 3: Cell

Timeline 4: Unseen

Timeline 5: Unknown

Timeline 6: Goku Black (x)

Timeline 7: New Future Trunks

  • Future Trunks has traveled 3 or 4 times to the past, and created the Main timeline we know.
  • Cell (3) traveled to the main Timeline after killing Trunks (3) (he could have traveled to Timeline 2 as Trunks was absent, Z-Fighters dead and the Androids were weaker).
  • Trunks (3) traveled to Timeline 4, found the android blueprints and also obtained the Control Device to shut them down in his timeline, but was killed by Cell.
  • Trunks (5) traveled to Timeline 3 to kill Future Frieza & Future King Cold and then returned to his timeline, nothing else is known about him or his timeline.
  • Zamasu (Goku Black) once fought with Goku and lost, then goes mad and kills Gowasu, steals his Time Ring, exchanges bodies with Goku and becomes Goku Black and kills everyone. Then travels to Timeline 2 because Beerus was dead and there was no interference, kills Gowasu again, allies with Future Zamasu (2), who wishes to be immortal, and then they start killing all the Supreme Kais from all universes, and by extension, the Gods of Destruction from Timeline 2. Goku Black causes havoc on Timeline 2 until Trunks goes to the main timeline and Black chases him.
  • When Future Zen-On erases Timeline 2 along Zamasu for good. Beerus and Whis traveled to the past and created Timeline 7 by warning Future Beerus about Zamasu's plans. Then Future Trunks and Future Mai went to live there, regardless of co-existing with their future counterparts. But the Z-Fighters and Future Gohan remain dead and the only survivors from Timeline 2 are Future Trunks, Mai and Zen-Oh, who went to live with Zen-Oh from the Main Timeline.

Did I miss something? Skarloey100 (talk) 20:17, November 20, 2016 (UTC)

No Deaths are Undone

Ok guys, lets get something straight:  there were absolutely no deaths that were undone with the actions of Beerus and Whis.  All that happened was that they were able to stop Zamasu in Timeline 1.  They didn't undo any deaths caused in any timelines because in those timelines, the people who died are permanentely dead.  Chichi and Goten in Timeline 6 were not brought back and were not spared due to the meddling of Beerus.  You people need to understand that.  Whenever somebody went back into the past of future, another timeline was simply created, but nobody should have been spared.  They completely messed this up, and I can barely wrap my head around it.  I mean, when was there even a mentioning of Timeline 5?  Why was that even necessary?  I don't even understand how it was that Timeline 3 was created, since there was never any period of time that the Future Trunks 3 ever came into the past.  So people, don't add that anybodies deaths were undone.  TNTDiscoCisco (talk) 21:34, November 22, 2016 (UTC)

An unnecessary additional timeline

Guys, one of these timelines is incorrect.  I can prove this because at the end of episode 67, you see Gowasu looking at the Time Rings, and there are only 5 green rings, and 1 regular colored ring, which means that there can only be 6 timelines.  Now, I don't think the reason why this happened is because Future Zen-Oh destroyed Universe 7 in Timeline 2 because I'm pretty sure that he only destroyed Universe 7, and even so, that doesn't mean he destroyed time in Timeline 2, but rather just everything in the universe for that timeline.  So one of these timelines is incorreclty added to this page.  TNTDiscoCisco (talk) 21:40, November 22, 2016 (UTC)

  • The last (seventh) timeline had not been created when Gowasu looks at the Time Rings, it is created at the end of the episode when Future Trunks and Future Mai time travel to their new future.--Neffyarious (talk) 02:08, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
  • The timeline 7 was created for a human from the universe 12


1. Main

2. Future Trunks

3. Cell

4. Unseen

5. Unknown (created for human from universe 12)

6. Goku Black

7. Second Future Trunks Trunks never killed Frieza and King Cold in cell's timeline.--6teen (talk) 14:20, November 23, 2016 (UTC)

Trunks' timeline

I'm curious... Future Zen-Oh destroyed Future Trunks' universe, right? But I wonder if Future Trunks' Other World, Heaven and Hell still exist... like, Future Other World itself still exists, or what? I wish they explained it better... HygorBohmHubner (talk) 03:18, November 23, 2016 (UTC)HygorBohmHubner

I think I read once something like "Frieza wanted to destroy Earth because he will destroy Earth's hell as well where he was imprisoned in the cocoon".

With that said, if Future Zen-Oh wiped out everything from Future Trunks' timeline, that most likely means the Other World, Hell and all those unreachable or sacred places ceased to exist. Skarloey100 (talk) 03:18, November 25, 2016 (UTC)


1. Main

2. Future Trunks

3. Cell

4. Unseen

5. Unknown (created by human from universe 12)

6. Goku Black

7. Second Future Trunks

The timeline 5 not is from Future Trunks that killed Frieza on the Cell's timeline, that never happend it has not sense this page is very very wrong6teen (talk) 14:26, November 23, 2016 (UTC)

Can we rearrange this?

I think it would be simpler if we rearrange it in order of creation.

The timeline currently listed as Timeline 5 (the one the Future Trunks who killed Frieza and Cold in Cell's timeline) came from is the "original" timeline. Thus, it's the ACTUAL Timeline 1.

The timeline currently listed as Timeline 3 (Cell's timeline) is the second timeline created. Thus, it's Timeline 2.

The timeline currently listed as Timeline 4 (the unseen timeline) is the third timeline created. Thus, it's Timeline 3.

The timeline currently listed as Timeline 1 (the main timeline) is the fourth timeline created. Thus, it's Timeline 4.

The timeline currently listed as Timeline 2 (Trunks's timeline) is the fifth timeline created. Thus, it's Timeline 5.

The timeline currently listed as Timeline 6 (Second Future Trunks) is already numbered properly.

Is anyone opposed to this order? This way, we have them in the sequence they were created. --Pluto2 (talk) 17:09, November 23, 2016 (UTC)

Is Present Zamasu Goku Black or not?

Hi, regarding the timelines and what was established in the last episode I am starting to become confused with this whole timelines set. I consider rewriting this article (what guys above this topic try to propose) quite a good idea so maybe it is good to once and for all make this particular thing clear - is Goku Black the Present Zamasu or not?

In anime it was stated/suggested twice that Goku Black is the future instance of Present Zamasu, where "future" doesn't mean any of the future timelines but the proper future of the main timeline - Bulma visualised Black's time travel on a caricatural pictures where his world was named "Present" and he went to the world named "Future" (Trunk's future). That would mean that they are basically the same person, we used to have this explained in Zamasu and Goku Black articles, but it has been changed recently by some editor. On the other hand we have this new green time ring which Gowasu inserts to the Box and Whis comments on Beerus creating new world. But again, Beerus told that when God kills God, he will be erased from the future so he will surely disappear. We know that Black didn't, but only because of the fact he had a time ring on his index finger.

And do we have now 6 or 7 timelines? Now in the article there are 6 of them, where 6th is the one Beerus created. But why should Zamasu be alive here then? And which timeline would it copy? Trunks' or Goku's?

Regards, LingVista 17:58, November 23, 2016 (UTC)   

The original flow of the main timeline was Goku Black's timeline. When Trunks arrived from his timeline, that version (which led to Goku Black) was overwritten. In the new version, Beerus killed Zamasu. Black continued to exist because he was wearing the Time Ring. If he wasn't wearing it, the moment Beerus killed Zamasu, Black would cease to exist, as it would become impossible for him to exist to begin with. The version of events where Zamasu became Black and killed Goku and his family was "replaced" by the version where Beerus killed Zamasu before the latter could become Black. This didn't create a new timeline. --Pluto2 (talk) 18:10, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
Hi, this is what I thought till the 67th episode. But Whis said that destroying Zamasu in the main timeline resulted in creation of a new green time ring. This is what makes the confusion. --LingVista 18:31, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I agree with LingVista...the rule of "a god killing another god" was supposed to have been applied, however, it didn't due to of the Time Ring, which Beerus failed to account for. Because of that, he created the 4th green time ring, which was already in the box because Black's travel to the future had already indirectly set in motion the events which would lead to it's creation. The main timeline started to diverge from Black's the moment Trunks arrived in the past, but it was completely split the moment Beerus killed Zamasu, preventing him from becoming Black. That means Black's original timeline, where Goku, Goten and Chichi are dead still exists.The General1000 (talk) 20:31, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think that the 4th green ring represents Original Unaltered Main Timeline. This particular one seems to be linked with Future Trunks timeline as it was created several years ago, whereas Goku Black was quite a fresh trouble. Besides, travelling to the future should not (as such) create a new timeline. --LingVista 21:13, November 27, 2016 (UTC)
If Whis said it created a new timeline, then why would we disregard it? That timeline would have Goku and his family dead, but potentially no more Zamasu. It certainly wasn't Future Trunks past or the main timeline we've been watching, so unless someone destroyed it that world still exists. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 21:02, November 23, 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but I guess this is Toei Animation's fault. Manga seems to directly introduce the consequences of messing with time if Beerus potentially kills (present) Zamasu. So the rule "god killing another god" and "Time Ring owner invulnerability" feature won't be even introduced there. That don't change my confusion at all though. --LingVista 21:13, November 27, 2016 (UTC)

Beerus and the 7th timeline

Hi. After deeper insight and quite recent changes to the article itself, I would like to ask why actually it is believed that the last alternate timeline, here numbered 7, has been actually created by Beerus after he literally destroyed Zamasu. I raise the question just because this would mean that Trunks will eventually end not in a copy of his world but rather a copy of Goku's world. Which to some extend makes sense as Whis told that there will be a need to dispose of Zamasu, Future Beerus will be still alive so Kaioshin will not have been already slain by Dabura.

But I thought killing Zamasu would rather "apply" Goku Black's events into reality. Still, Whis told that Beerus created a timeline where Zamasu wasn't destroyed. Confused again. LingVista 20:13, November 28, 2016 (UTC) 

It was explained in DBZ that changing the events of the present wouldn't change Future Trunks' timeline, it would just make what happened in his timeline not happen in the timeline where the events where changed. Example Android 18 became Krillin's wife in the main timeline but in Future Trunks' timeline she didn't she helped her brother kill him.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  20:15,11/28/2016 
Yes, I know. But my question was about the new timeline created by Beerus when killing Zamasu. In this article this new timeline is considered as Future Trunks' new home. So the question is, is this so? Because if it is, when and how would the 6th timeline be created? --LingVista 20:41, November 28, 2016 (UTC)

Read Timeline 6's section and that should clear your confusion up.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  21:58,11/28/2016 

Okay, one question then. If the 7th timeline (new ring) was created just after Beerus had killed Zamasu, when and how was the 6th timeline created? --LingVista 18:21, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

The 6th timeline was the unaltered flow of the main timeline. It even states that on the article.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  18:57,11/29/2016 

I know. But the thing is that - logically - if the 6th timeline even exists this one should have been created when Beerus killed Zamasu. --LingVista 19:18, November 29, 2016 (UTC)

The 7th timeline is quitely not the same as Future Trunks' was when we met him again, as: - Whis (7) is active - Beerus (7) is alive - Supreme Kai (7) is alive - Babidi (7) and Dabura (7) didn't attack Earth (yet) - Zamasu (7) didn't rebel This is really interesting, I start to think if the timeline 6 = timeline 7. --LingVista 20:35, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

In Timeline 7, they say something about stop Goku Black (Rebellious Zamasu), so he never kills Gowasu and corrupts that Zamasu's timeline. Therefore, does that Zamasu count as a good guy? Skarloey100 (talk) 22:34, November 30, 2016 (UTC)

Well, not really... They just said that Zamasu (7) would have to be stopped then before his plans would come true. Beerus (7) would be involved, most probably by killing that Zamasu. We don't know if Zamasu (7) would evolve into Goku Black. It would depend on which tomeline would be a base for the 7th timeline - the main one or something more similar to the newly destroyed Trunks' Timeline (where Goku and Z Fighters are basically dead). --LingVista 23:25, November 30, 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see because if you think about it, it was Goku Black the one that corrupted Future Zamasu. If Beerus (1) and Whis (1) travel and warn Beerus (7) about Goku Black, then Beerus (7) could seal/kill him before he kills Gowasu and convences Zamasu to join him and start the "Zero Mortals Plan". That way, they could prevent the whole problem again and have a good/neutral Zamasu with prodigious abilities, assuming Gowasu has success in fully redeem him. Skarloey100 (talk) 00:02, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
Yup, nevertheless, we know very little about the 7th timeline. The whole Black thing could probably repeat (he could go there from timeline X), but yes, Whis (1) declared he will help in getting rid of the Evil Kaioshin. Will he be good in nature? I don't think so, his attitude towards humans has always been but, yet not displayed that much. --LingVista 00:11, December 1, 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll quote what Vegeta said about Frost about no matter the universe "Frieza is still Frieza". Besides, in the show is pretty much demostrated that Zamasu's corruption was inevitable, even without Black's interference. Skarloey100 (talk) 00:28, December 1, 2016 (UTC)

The Time Rings should justify how many timelines there are, right?

There should really only be 5 or 6 timelines, as evident by the Time Rings. I say 5 or 6, because we don't know if the silver time ring represents the timeline it is in, or if it is just for time travel.

  • Timeline 1-4 we know about
  • The 6th Timeline is the one Beerus created when he killed Zamas, and where Trunks and Mai live.
  • The fifth timeline is a little wonky. It could be where a Trunks came from, but we have little to go off , other than what Cell says, which could very well have just been an error. The fifth timeline could also be the one Goku Black originally came from (what we have as unaltered Timeline 1). However, based on what is said in the show, that Goku Black survived because of him Time Ring, I don't think that should count as it's own Timeline, more of just an extension of Timeline 1. I view it as more like Whis' time travel than Trunks'.

So, it's either 5 or 6. I'm more favorable to 5, but it's up to everyone else. Dont Be a Sad Panda (talk) 23:24, April 26, 2017 (UTC)


The parts about the timelines with lower mortal level "may be erased by Zeno" is headcanon at best and fanfiction at worst. 

There's nothing to indicate that Universe 7 may be erased on the alternate timelines. Trunks timeline wasn't erased even though it happened ages later after the tournament of power, so what is the reasoning to include the statement in the page? Edgar81539 (talk) 19:12, October 31, 2017 (UTC)Edgar81539Edgar81539 (talk) 19:12, October 31, 2017 (UTC)

The saiyan race isn't extinct in any timeline

Seeing as Broly lives on a far away planet in U7, I think it's safe to say we can remove the statements claiming Saiyans are extinct in U7. Tasanox (talk) 21:24, April 3, 2019 (UTC)

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