Talk: Dragon Ball GT

DBGT is not Canon

Elman Hasa and iiindigo Zen are wrong and wont give up a losing battle.

How do you figure it's canon? DBGT now seems less canon than originally thought with the release of Dragon Ball Online and it was thought poorly of by many fans to begin with. One big reason I'd say that suggests it's not canon is the fact that Majin Buu fuses with Uub perminately, so Majin Buu doesn't really 'exist' anymore.. However in Dragon Ball Online, in the 790 Age Buu specifically exists because he creates 'Booby' and through Booby creates the Majin race.. This conflicts with Dragon Ball GT claiming that Buu fused with Uub in Age 789. Akira Toriyama seems to be working more closely with Dragon Ball Online than GT so I'd say that's pretty much a tell-tale sign of which Toriyama considers 'canon'.. But that's just my opinion. PS: Adding in two other cents, I don't in any way, shape, or form 'hate' Dragon Ball GT, I'm not saying I don't believe it's canon just because I hate it, I've watched it many times and enjoyed it for what it is.. But I think Dragon Ball GT judging by Toriyama's treatment of the subject, show, and all things involved about it that it is simply like the Dragon Ball Z movies, not meant to be 'canon', they're simply 'what if' stories, a little more Dragon Ball for us to enjoy but not part of the actual continuity. JadeTora 09:17, August 20, 2010 (UTC) Jade

There are many reasons we consider DBGT to be canon (a decision essentially up to each person individually) on this site. The most important reason it is considered canon is that it was a major anime series which was developed by a group of writers which including Toriyama, who approved of all of the major plot. Dragon Ball Online is a fairly new video game, and in the past, Dragon Ball videos games have been far less reliable in terms of accuracy than the anime, both with respect to the manga. As for using an inconsistency between DBGT and Dragon Ball Online as an argument, it works just as easily in the other direction. The same is true of inconsistencies between some movies and the anime series, and in most cases we consider the non-anime source to be some sort of alternate timeline or whatnot. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 08:01, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Toriyama has been more involved with the DBO Video Game than he was with DBGT, if that's your measure of canon, but obviously that's an extremely silly measure of canon. Toriyama also had a hand in almost every single one of the DB movies, including writing the entire plot for some, and doing all the character designs for others, but they are all considered universally non-canon. What makes GT non-canon isn't plot holes (although many of them are ignored on the official page), as those are normal for all DB series. What makes it non-canon for me is simply that it is not a serialized manga licensed by shounen jump and thus part of the print Dragon Ball franchise which the two anime only existed to mimmic. Now, that said, you people take this crap way too seriously. It's such a simple franchise, and it's full of plot holes and incosistencies anyway. It exists to be fun and explosive and silly, and if you found GT to be enjoyable, great! Consider it canon for you, and if you don't, then don't, but there will never be a consensus on this topic. Personally, my favorite thing in the DB franchise is the first two Broly movies (not counting the horrendous Bio-Broly) which is decidedly non-canon. 76.219.167.73 01:40, December 10, 2010 (UTC) naz

You have some very interesting opinions that you have stated here, and you are entitled to them. However, for the purposes of this encyclopedic site, we provide only information which is affirmed by substantial evidence, which guides us to our conventions. I hope you can enjoy the site in any case. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:08, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

toriyama worked on the art for ssj4 not the storyline —This unsigned comment was made by 109.255.12.24 (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

False, but please sign your posts anyway. -- 10X Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha ^.._.^.. _{talk .}^..._{. contrib}. 01:03, June 8, 2011 (UTC)

But it is a non canon

Dragon Ball GT was critizited by not just the fans but by other companies for thier childish fights and the goofy character designs (including trunks' character designs)thats why it was so short the ratings weren't as high as dragon ball or dragon ball Z Gohan fan101 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)gohanfan101Gohan fan101 23:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just because it is critisized dosent make it non canon u need to understand that....that like saying i dont like pokemon dimond a pearl so that it i say its not canon it dosent work that way. DBGT is Canon an if it is non canon how come i dont see DBAF characters in games because thats non canoN, but DBGT is Canon....just because it wasent as good as Dbz in your opinion or opinion in others you cannot say its non cannon....it Simply is

The fact that Dragon Ball Kai removes most of what is anime-only filler will probably mean that Dragon Ball GT will be retconned out of existence. There should not be a section cover a debate over its canonocity, but there should be a section cover the plot holes and inconsistencies.

To Everyone: Please do not remove sections from articles without consensus, with the exception of vandalism. Please keep a Neutral point of view when editing articles. Some believe GT is canon, others do not, and the article should reflect this. To voice your opinion on this matter, comment on the forum, do not change the articles. No matter how bad you think GT is, everyone is entitled to the truth. Finally, please Sign your posts, or your comments will most likely be ignored. Thank you for your cooperation. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

if you have facts and evidence that gt is or is not canon then we have the right to debate it.if we can prove that gt is or is not canon though facts then that section can be removed.as for my point is that gt is canon because some people say its because of the plot holes but i can explain alot of the plotholes.second of all people say its because there is no manga well i dont even get that one because why is the manga so important.thats like saying that becuase pan doesent go super saiyan.its just something they didnt want to do.people say akaira toryamai didnt make it so its not canon:untrue,he came up with the BASE plot and he desighned super saiyan 4 and how pan would look.so although he didnt do as much of the work as he did on z or the origanal seris he still helped make it.even though i did that im not going to delete the section because we are not gonna do that until someone wins the agruement.feel free to argue with me all you want because i want that BRING IT ON!until then THE SECTION STAYS AND REMOVE THE PART WHERE IT SAYS IT WASENT WRITTEN BY AKAIRA TORYAMAI BECAUSE HE DID COME UP WITH THE BASE PLOT!Wowfunny251andwowfunneyanderasa 15:58, March 13, 2010 (UTC)

Just because characters apear in games doesn't make it Canon, movie villains all apear in the games, but the movies are not considered canon. also while toriyama did draw the super saiyan 4 design he did little else with GT. And Wowfunny251andwowfunneyanderasa, 'the reason the manga is important is because THAT was the ORIGINAL story, the one that toriyama started, he wrote completely. the Anime is an adaption, the manga is ALWAYS important 220.237.141.80 02:48, March 19, 2010 (UTC)'

Toriyama oversaw all of GT, 220.237.141.80, you appear to be mistaken. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:30, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

"Unlike the Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, series creator Akira Toriyama had only minor involvement in the show's early stages, setting forth the initial premise of the series, as well as creating designs for most of the villains and main characters , including newcomer Giru.". Seems like you are mistaken 80.217.155.61 19:28, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

I would say GT is canon....to the anime. GT can't be canon to the manga or the original story since it wasn't created by the original creator, so it can't be canon to the original story. But to say it is not canon to the anime, that makes no sense. It exist in the anime, therefore it's canon in the animated series. Fillers are also canon to the anime since it appears in the anime, but they are not canon to the manga since they don't exist in the manga. YoungTopGunn 15:56, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Reception

This section needs to continue to be tweaked. Much of the material in this section is just an angry fan pointing out things he/she doesn't like, rather than the critical reception of the series. There need to be authorities on the matter, polls, or websites (like IGN) referenced for any of this to be valid. Unlike other articles, which can be checked by watching/reading over events, a reception section is useless without references. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 09:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

If there aren't any references made for the reception section, or reasonable explanations for why I shouldn't, I plan on deleting the marked () statements in a few days. Just figured I'd post my intent in the discussion first, so no one is surprised later. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Super Saiyan

Should it be noted that no one in the series with the exception of Goku, and later vegeta for ss4, goes beyong ss1? No one to my knowleged goes ss2 as that has lightning and spikier hair with is not seen anywhere in the entire series.

Things that don't happen usually aren't specifically included in articles. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 08:39, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Gohan and Vegeta also went SS2. It's obvious. They didn't always animate the bio-electricity, but other sources and evidence in the anime secures it. Remember Majin Vegeta had lightning in his aura? and Teen Gohan against Cell? Goku wasn't even the first to become a SS2 so your point is very flawed anyway. (Banan14kab 03:05, March 2, 2010 (UTC))

Goku did power up as a Super Saiyan 2 for a few seconds when he fought General Rilldo to repel an attack. As for Gohan and Vegeta there was no visual or verbal indication they were Super Saiyan 2. It is logical, but there is no evidence. Goku was easy to tell because of the lightning aura and spikier hair but Gohan and Vegeta never had those traits.Super Saiyan Historian 07:17, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

A plothole?

Another sort of plot hole in GT is,

When at the end of the series, and beginning of the Goku's Legacy film, where Pan is grown up, and all the Z fighters are dead, Vegeta is amongst them. Saiyans are said to live up to 1,000 years, and unless Vageta died of a disease or something, he should still be alive.

Could that be another reason why people consider GT to be non-canon? 77.97.79.63 23:30, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe he self-destructed to save the world from some threat? -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:42, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Please Read This Why Dont You Read The Aticle Entitiled "Saiyan" It Says That Saiyans Live Up To 125 Years 97.123.238.102 01:50, July 6, 2010 (UTC) Alienrun 7:50 7/5/2010

Okay I can't remember where I heard it but I was positive that I heard on Dragon Ball Z that Saiyans live up to 1,000 years. I'm aware that I was wrong about what I heard. And no, I'm not confusing this with the story of them maintaining their youthful appearance. 77.97.79.63 23:30, June 26, 2011 (UTC)

GT

GT inconsistencies: I've watched all the DVDs from DB all the way through to the end of GT(I have no life, I know). Anyway, in regards to inconsistencies over dragonball GT and the rest of the series. In no less then 4 occasions, Goku gets some or most of his spiky hair cut off due to an enemy wielding a weapon of some type, but his hair always returns to normal by the next episode/movie/appearance. So i would say that the issue about hair not changing is that it stays in the same style for their entire lives. So vegeta's hair naturally grew out into it's infamous shape, but he can easily cut it but it'll still grow back to it's original length. As well, in regards to Pilaf's return. According to Funimation (i know it's slightly flakey), Dende wished everyone on earth "except the most evil ones" back to life. So Pilaf was evil, yes we can all agree, but he certainly wasn't the _most_ evil being on the planet. His goal was to be worshipped and to rule over the world, some of the more evil beings wanted death, destruction and decay.

With the Black Star Dragonballs, they were hiding in the lookout, in dragonball Pilaf was shown to be able to disguise the dragonballs from the dragon radar in two occasions. Ingestion by King Piccolo also showed that they could hide the RADAR readings. So one can easily assume the mausoleum that Kami placed the balls in was designed to HIDE the balls forever. Pilaf himself stated it took a lot of research to figure out where they were which suggests that his own radar was useless. But there is a NEW inconsistency that I'd like to add. In dragonball, Korin explains that noone can reach the lookout unless the guardian lets them. No rocket can reach that high, no plane has enough fuel, noone who climbed up and was unwelcome saw the lookout. Pilaf and the rest should not have been able to reach the lookout at all unless Dende let them in.(Buu was an exception obviously, he was much stronger then Dende so would have been able to shakeoff anything that Dende would use to protect the lookout, Pilaf was nowhere near that powerful. - 121.44.9.164 03:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For one, Goku and Uub were training so Dende was focused on them. Another thing is if characters could fly up to the Lookout and ships can go into space, than Pilaf would have no trouble getting up there. Super Saiyan Historian 20:57, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

King Kai's explanation of Saiyan history was that the Saiyans and Tuffles shared the Planet Vegeta, not the Saiyans invading the Tuffles' planet. That would have been impossible anyway because the Saiyans did not possess the technology to travel between planets until after they destroyed the Tuffles. This inconsistency is ignored on this wiki and it shouldn't be. That was filler. No where stated in the manga and not in Dragon Ball Kai either. Its possible that GT can be right that the Saiyans migrated to Planet Tuffle and lived on the outskirts for several years. The Saiyans waged war against the Tuffles. After years of fighting, the tide turned and the moon emerged in the skyline. The Saiyans would secure an easy victory from there. Super Saiyan Historian 20:57, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

People....seriously....these little things in GT do not matter.This is way too picke.GT is still a good show.Its not like they messed everything up.most of the little plot holes can be explained anyway.Akaira toryamai did do GT's BASE plot.GT is canon regardless of inconsistencies that can be explained anyway...97.81.53.142 20:28, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

It's not canon anywhere, its full of plot holes and was not made by Akira Toriyama. I guess fan fiction is canon too? That wasn't made by AT 80.217.155.61 19:32, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Actually he did, and fan fiction is not canon. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 19:47, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to go over one plothole that everyone seems to think is 'proof' that it isn't canon. That is, Gohan wasn't 'mystic'. Mystic brings you up to your maximum power and potential. That is, he could never become any stronger, no matter how hard he trained. Remember the seven year gap between Cell and Boo? He got weaker. Now we have a ten year gap, and he gets even weaker, thus, not at his maximum power and potential, THUS, he would not be 'mystic'. Also? Fix the grammar.

You just contradicted yourself. You said that "mystic" brings you to you maximum power and potential and that he can't become and stronger. But your reason for why it's a plot hole in GT when he isn't "mystic" is that he got weaker again? That's not a plot hole. In fact, that's one of the things that makes the most sense about GT. Getting weaker, Gohan no longer had his mystic form and was forced to use the SS transformations once again. I would also challenge your view of who "everyone" is that you think also believes this. I think you need to check through facts and explanations a little closer. Dragon Ball Z GT Goku 17:55, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Also, Gohan's "full potential" had been unlocked previously by Guru, but he obviously became stronger after that. I think a lot of people never consider that Gohan's potential likely increases over time.-- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:25, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Gohan is seen going super saiyan in Wrath Of The Dragon which took place after the Buu Saga. The "mystic" is the same effect as Guru's unlock. People think that just because Elder Kai used Gohan's transformation ability to become mystic he can't become super saiyan not true. Not true, watch Wrath of the Dragon again. Gohan was mystic. He NEVER transformed into a Super Saiyan. I own the movie. Super Saiyan Historian 20:58, August 2, 2010 (UTC)

Also, it was never specifically stated that Gohan could never go Super Saiyan again. It's possible that the "Mystic form" could have simply just been a power boost and not a transformation so he could have still had the ability. 75.120.2.32 18:23, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Gohan asked Old Kai how to activate mystic and he said, just go SSJ. And we can clearly see he couldn't go SSJ. Mystic was drawn by magic, so for Gohan not having anymore for no reason really makes no sense. Also, what Guru did and what Old Kai did wasn't the same. Old Kai said only he had the ability to draw out anyone full potential, and beyond the normal limits. When goku said, that's it? We see that everday. Old Kai said, no, BEYOND the normal limits. So all Guru did was unlocked Gohan's full potential at that time, not go beyond. YoungTopGunn 16:08, February 19, 2011 (UTC)

Canonicity

Though Toriyama did not personally write GT, he did strictly oversee its production. This was the same process that was used during the production of the anime series Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z. Characters and events from GT have also been included in more recent Dragon Ball video games. With regards to inconsistencies, GT in fact has the least inconsistencies of all three anime series, making it difficult to cite the few that exist as reason for the series to be set aside as non-canon.

Who did wrote this? How can it have only "few" inconsistencies? Or Akira having "strictly" oversee its production?

Ilovefoxes 10:24, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

It's been revised by many, many users. A full list can be found in the history. See our list of inconsistencies page for details on inconsistency. Toriyama approved all of the plot of GT, which would include things like the existence of the Black Star Dragon Balls that people so often complain about. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 20:42, August 14, 2010 (UTC)

Many do not consider it canon, many do.

I belong to the group that doesn't think its canon. I don't need to say why, every reason I have was already stated above. What I'm here to say is that the GT page doesn't need anymore information about why we think its non canon. Everyone knows its a hot topic, but since the page already acknowledged that many fans consider it non canon no further information is necessary. Time is man made, so it's always 4:20 02:59, January 8, 2011 (UTC)Tokeupdude

Canon to the anime, but not the manga

I personally do not think it's considered Canon to the source material (and I think this should be noted, because that's how most encyclopedias work and it's not hard to mention that something is not canon to the source material even American Comic books do this in separating their animated universe from their source material). I think I read that it is considered an alternate future to Dragon Ball Z from TOEI so technically it is fair to say that it Canon to the cartoon, but not the manga as it was Toei's vision of the Dragon Ball GT. As for Toriyama's involvement. Well he delt mainly with a few character designs and less so on the story. In an article for Dragon Ball Online it states that it's (the game) based on the Manga universe so it actually does appear that GT is not a continuation of Dragon Ball Z in terms of the Manga, but rather just a continuation of Dragon Ball Z the Anime. Toriyama was not directly involved with GT,but Toriyama did give permission to do a third series.

Please sign all posts. Additionally, you should read out MoS, where we lay out the levels of canon as observed on the site. Finally, your information about Toei and Toriyama is not in line with information expressed by those parties, although if you present an official source we can certainly take a look. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:49, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

1000% agreed.How can anyone possibly tell you Dbgt is non canon to the anime when it even shows clips and flashbacks from db and dbz anime and refernces back to it that is completely illogical.It is a matter of fact GT is canon to the anime but NOT the manga.You can NOT say GT is non canon to all of Db just because it wasnt in the manga(Something it is not even apart of that is border line insanity) anyone with common sence knows that.Lssj4 19:02, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Dragonball GT is canon to the anime

YoungTopGunn hit the nail right on the head, each medium has its own canonicity. GT is obviously a canon contituation to the anime, the same as DBZ was to Dragonball. Whereas none of the anime only stuff is canon to the manga. Sure GT has plot holes when compared to Dragonball Z, but so does Dragonball when compared to Z, and it would be pretty ridiculous to pretend Dragonball isn't canon, and continue to support your original argument because DB and DBZ are simply known collectively as Dragonball in the manga.

Regardless of what anyone thinks of GTs actualy quality, the fact of the matter is it's still canon to the anime, and apparently to most DBZ video games too. And for what it's worth I think GT was a pretty decent anime in its own right. Sure it is terrible when compared to Dragonball and Dragonball Z but if looked at seperately it is actually a pretty mediocre anime. 77.100.175.65 05:45, July 28, 2011 (UTC)

Who wrote GT?

The writer of GT was named once, but I cannot remember his name. Am I wrong, or was it that one guy who wrote it? Think if I went Super Saiyan my goatee would grow? 21:39, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

No one knows who you mean, obviously, but in any case there was definitely a team working on plot, storyboards, scripts, etc. -- 10X Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha ^.._.^.. _{talk .}^..._{. contrib}. 21:51, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

I remember it being mentioned on a blog on this wiki, about GT. I was looking at some videos on GT, and I remember a confrence where they showed Akira Toryiama's character designs for the series, showing he had some involvment, (Yeah, he designed Vegeta with his infamous moustache.) And some other concept arts, but I can't remember the video. If I find it, I will post a link. Think if I went Super Saiyan my goatee would grow? 21:57, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Why is ice maker>cell and frieza?

Plus, how did Goku kill Cell by blowing off his torso while in the anime (and manga) he survived that, and he also killed Frieza by chopping his body in half while Freiza survived being chopped into multiple pieces in Z. At the end they get frozen by an ice maker machine wt*frick*, they can't dodge snow now? GT has 3 chromosomes.

Also, I thought once you have died, and you died again while dead, you are gone forever and nowhere. =/ not just immortal. and why is it that they have their bodies? again, i thought when you die, only specially picked people get to keep their bodies. everyone else is just a puff ball.

Don't delete this because you can't prove it wrong kids. Changed my mildly adult langauge, sorry it offended you.71.245.243.143 02:03, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

We don't mind that you're a kid, most people on the site probably are too. As far as the ice, is was special hell-ice that was intended to trap dead people, so it wouldn't make sense if they weren't stopped by it. Goku didn't kill Cell or Frieza in GT, you may have misunderstood the episode. Goku is much more powerful than either of them are (see Dragon Ball Z for details), and he happens to be much faster too by GT. Hell works differently than heaven, you can find out how this works by watching Z all the way through. -- 10X Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha ^.._.^.. _{talk .}^..._{. contrib}. 03:04, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

Um, the machine didn't only freeze dead people. And what is even more inconsistent is the fact they couldn't dodge falling snow :/. And yeah Goku killed them, they explained they came back because they were already dead, but iirc if you die when your dead in Dragon Ball you disappear, they didn't say anything about a special Hell rule. And no base Goku would never ever surpass SS2 level, not even likely he'd surpass any Super Saiyan, he couldn't lift 40 sucking tons! Toei has been known for making nonsensical filler, such as saiyan Vegeta easily destroying a planet, all the movies, pretty much every inconsistency within the Dragon Ball Z anime, Goku and Pikkon easily defeating Cell RIGHT AFTER the Cell saga. If Goku could become 10x stronger than Cell by just training a tiny bit longer in the ROSAT then he would have, Akira never had that ridiculous story telling. GT, anime filler, it is best just to ignore, since not only is it inconsistent with the manga it is inconsistent with itself.71.245.243.143 21:46, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

They explain the ice very thoroughly in the episode, and why it works on them but not Goku. It could not possibly be inconsistent since this technique only comes up during the one fight. As for hell/death, they don't explain the rule, exactly, I'm glad you figured it out. Your base Goku talk is speculation as Goku's child form's power was drastically changing due to the lack of stamina. Further, we have seen other human and saiyan characters in DBZ and DBGT surpass SS2 without transforming, both of which were weaker than Goku. Vegeta destroying a planet makes perfect sense, and is not in GT, so doesn't need mentioning on this talk page. When characters are dead their stamina is very different than when they are alive, this is explained in the latest third of DBZ. Goku states that he never planned to beat Cell, it was his intention for Gohan to do it all along. Please let me know if you have any other questions about DB, DBZ, or GT, preferably on the correct talk pages.

Your opinion about not personally liking filler and GT is fine, but please understand that it is your own, and cannot and will not be forced on others. Everyone has the right to make up their own mind about what to "ignore," and as an editor here I ensure that every article is written with a neutral point of view. -- 10X Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha ^.._.^.. _{talk .}^..._{. contrib}. 23:54, September 1, 2011 (UTC)

That may be my opinion that i don't like anime filler or GT, but it is not an opinion however that they are both incredibly inconsistant and illogical to the Dragon Ball continuity. —This unsigned comment was made by 71.245.243.143 (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

Please follow the site polices when editing. If you do things like fill your posts with profanity, edit comments that have already been replied to, and put in new comments stuck in the middle of other people's old comments, it is impossible for readers to follow the conversation and give their own input. Thank you. -- 10X Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha ^.._.^.. _{talk .}^..._{. contrib}. 02:10, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was all your post, anyway Ok so its magic ice from a magic ice machine, thats pretty silly but ok, still there was no mention of the ice being super speed, so why Cell and Frieza couldn't avoid it I'll probably just leave to heavy PIS, which GT makes heavy use of. And no you don't get it, they never said anything about a special hell rule in GT, they only stated that because they were dead they could not die again, that is inconsistent as they weren't reffering to a special hell rule, just the fact they were dead. If Goku had lack of stamina, what is saying he is multiplying his levels left and right? And no, no human or saiyan has even been shown to be above a Super Saiyan 2, let alone a Super Saiyan, unless you consider Tenshinhan pushing Cell back anything that special, if not correct me but I have never ever seen this and neither has anyone on the Daizenshuu boards, Ultimate Gohan doesn't count as having his potential unlocked only replaced the Super Saiyan transformations, and he was legions above Goku and all the other base form saiyans. No Vegeta destroying a planet does not make perfect sense given how easily he did it, at that time characters still needed to charge their attacks greatly to destroy such objects, I can probably prove this through an extensive analyzation but I won't, it is implied when Vegeta charges an attack for a while to attempt to destroy Earth, not just fire a quick blast Goku would never see coming. Goku said that, however he still fought Cell full force, otherwise he wouldn't have used IT Kamehameha, and was losing. Pretty sure he even stated he wasn't holding back. He could have gone on but he wasn't planning on it, he never held back, just wasn't planning on being the one to finish him, it could have happened however. Please let me know if you want me to correct you on anything else related to Dragon Ball kthxbai 71.245.243.143 02:15, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

It's other world ice from an other world ice machine, this is no more outlandish than any number of other world traits seen in the manga. Again, it's fine that you don't like DBGT, but this isn't an inconsistency, and your opinion would be better suited for a forum or blog, either of which you can do here. As for the hell death issue, you're just making assumptions. It can't be breaking a rule since none exists. That sentence of multiplying levels is a little ambiguous, could you be specific? Two things about the next thing you say: first, Gohan's ultimate form did not replace his Super Saiyan forms, this is a well-known fact; second, I haven't been to any Daizenshuu boards recently, but I am positive they would be upset with you for saying that they've never heard of Uub. He's from the end of DBZ, continues through DBGT, and it quite obviously stronger than SS3 Gotenks. The Vegeta thing makes sense unless you have some quotes about the consistency of that planet versus that of Earth's, which doesn't exist, so you're just speculating that all planets are the same, which they are not. Whether or not Goku fought at full force during the fight has nothing to do with his intentions while training since he made the decision even before that. The last comment is just rude, especially since you're just regurgitating your speculation and opinions in response to facts that disprove your claims. It's fine if you came to the talk page looking for answers, but please remain civil while discussing things with others. Keep in mind that this site is not the work of any individual like other Dragon Ball sites, but rather the best of countless contributions by thousands of editors.

With these things in mind I'd ask again that if you just want to hate on DBGT and talk about feelings and opinions and speculation, make a forum or blog, as talk pages are just for article formatting. Nothing except constructive suggestions about some specific part of this article belong here. -- 10X Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha ^.._.^.. _{talk .}^..._{. contrib}. 02:49, September 2, 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I see there is a feud going on here. I do not really understand what is going on but as for 71.245.243.134 and 71.245.243.143, you need to stop harassing and being disrespectful (Especially to an administrator). You can lose your editing privileges, and your computer can remain in a permanent block on your behalf. There are no opinions allowed on this site (Except for forums and blogs). But there is no need to waste the wiki's time with your choice of words and so forth. Ripto22475 00:15, September 17, 2011 (UTC)

Should I put these in the article?

Hi all. I was just wondering if anyone thinks these should go in the article when referring to the canon debate. They, along with various other sources, state that Toriyama was a writer of GT, specifically the only one prominent enough for an international credit. Thanks in advance for your opinions.

Here, we can see Toriyama is credited as the author of the Japanese anime, along with the producers, art director, scene director, character designer, series director, and background music. At the top it says "Dragon Ball GT" and at the bottom it says "Produced By Toei Animation," so this frame is not talking about the manga.

Here, Toriyama gets his separate credit for the manga.

-- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:31, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the images would be good enough to go into the article, after cropping the black bars. It would have some evidence to show what the text is saying. :) Super Saiyan Goatee ^{The world's first fully functioning cyborg assassin!} 21:35, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

That picture would be a good addition, also it would prove that GT is canon which is a bonus. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig3 21:42, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Now I remember! Its been a while since I last seen GT! But this is amazing. I guess he really did write GT. I guess this should make GT cannon then. Since he is known as the Author in the credits. Yeah I agree put it in the article this should be evidence. This should settle the cannon debate. EntertainmentFan14 21:46, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. I went ahead an added it. Jeangabin666 22:06, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

The Canon Debate-Doesn't seem resolved

I've been following the canon debate very closely regarding GT. This wiki seems to have concluded that GT is canon, but I've seen little evidence to corroborate this. Rather than shout about the low quality of GT as has been done countless times before by others here, I'd like to actually provide some objective justification for my suspiscions.

There has been an old translation of a Toriyama interview from Daizenshuu #7 that has been floating around.

Here is a link I've found to a poster who claims to have done a slightly better translation (it is the most accurate one I can find):

http://daizex.fanboyreview.net/viewtopic.php?p=456245#p456245

If anyone wants further confirmation of the existence/content of this interview, it can be found in Daizenshuu 7, specifically Shenlong Times Issue #7, which is near the end of the book (online translations of it haven't been put up by Kazentai yet). They do have the table of contents, in which Shenlong Times 7 can be seen:

http://www.kanzentai.com/trans-daiz07.php

As for the actual text of the interview (which has been copy-pasta'd online many times), here are the GT-relevant bits that can be drawn from it-I am taking these from the most accurate translation I can find, linked above:

---

First, about Dragon Ball GT

Interviewer: I'm sorry to bother you when you're so busy today... Toriyama: I'm not busy at all. I've finished my work on the Dragon Ball Daizenshuu for now, so I'm not working anymore (laugh). Interviewer: Then you must be getting a nice rest. Toriyama: Well, after I take my son to school each morning, I finally get to sleep. Right now, I'm building a new work area. So when I think about plans for it, I eventually end up pulling an all-nighter. I'm having more all-nighters than I had during weekly serialization (laugh). Interviewer: The new anime series is Dragon Ball GT, but how involved in it are you? Toriyama: I'm only a little involved. I checked the stories given by Toei Animation, and I gave a little advice. After that, I just drew a few characters and illustrations. But it's fun! It's a feeling of "Aah, so this was a possibility." Everyone at Toei Animation has really racked their brains. I really appreciate it. Wow, Gokuu turning little again. With that story, I could continue the manga serialization again... or so I say, but I actually don't have the will to draw it at all (laugh). Interviewer: Then, Toriyama-sensei would recommend GT! Toriyama: Yes! I would recommend it. As a normal viewer, I also enjoy it.

---

The next bit of evidence I'd like to offer comes from the GT Dragon Box, for which Toriyama himself wrote an introduction. Kazentai provides a pretty comprehensive synopsis of what is in the box, along with a photo shot of Toriyam's intro (in japanese) and a solid translation, which I will now copy and paste along with a link to the full page (where the image and text can be found).

---

http://www.kanzentai.com/dvd.php?id=dbox_gt

""My sincerest gratitude to all those who bought this DragonBall GT DVD box. Being a lazy bum by nature, I was absurdly happy when I managed to safely finish up DragonBall's serialization, and finally be released from Deadline Hell. The TV anime people wanted to continue for just a little bit more, but I [just couldn't do] any more than that…And so, I left the DragonBall anime completely up to the anime staff, story and all. That was "DragonBall GT".

In car lingo, GT means "Gran Turismo": a fast, high-powered car, in other words. But in this case, I had GT mean "Grand Touring", a great journey, since the scenario was that they'd be running around the universe.

For GT, all I did was just come up with the title, design the initial main cast and some of the machines, and also do a few images. However, I was able to rest easy handing things over to the excellent staff, who had continued on DragonBall for all this time. In particular, the animator Nakatsuru-kun is amazingly skilled, and mastered the peculiarities of my pictures in no time at all, to the point where there were even times when I couldn't tell whether I had drawn a certain character design, or if he had. For instance, one of Nakatsuru-kun's designs is "Super Saiyan 4", which appears in GT, and the picture above is a portrait that I drew looking off it. Did I draw it well?

DragonBall GT is a grand side-story of the original DragonBall, and it'll make me happy for us to watch and enjoy it together." - Toriyama Akira"

---

This statements seems to go well with his earlier remarks in Shenlong Times 7, and they seem to shed some light on the nature of GT's canonicity (I too view it as a side story/alternate universe, but we can save this more subjective discussion for another time).

Just a few more points to conclude this long post:

-The wiki states the following: "Akira Toriyama is credited as a writer of GT, and he strictly oversaw its production"

This seems to directly contradict Toriyama's word on the issue. Everything he has said regarding GT (in both Shenlong Times 7 and on the GT Dragon Box) implies that he was far from a "strict" overseer-in fact, he seems to quite consistently play up his laziness and unwilliness to keep writing, and notes multiple times about his relief in being able to leave nearly ALL of the work to the anime staff. He also does not indicate that he wrote any of GT, only taking credit for the title, a few images, and the initial designs of the main cast.

If he was as heavily involved as this wiki claims, where is the substantiation from Toriyama himself? Why does he not claim this?

-Toriyama has not disowned GT, and has in fact expressed positive feelings towards the series.

-The wiki goes on to say this: "some fans do not consider GT canon, most often claiming incorrectly that the series was not directly written by Toriyama."

This seems somewhat unfair, as those fans would appear to have a point. Toriyama quite clearly stated in the Dragonbox intro and in Shenlong Times 7 that he was minimally involved in the series, leaving GT almost completely up to the anime staff. I see no evidence that the series was, in fact, clearly written by him. The ending credits could just as easily be meant to credit him as the nominal "author" of dragonball (being an originator of the series), as opposed to the main writer (which he quite clearly states he is not).

-Regarding GT's inconsistencies, the wiki says: "However, GT has the least inconsistencies of all three anime series, making it difficult to cite the few that exist as a reason for the series to be set aside as non-canon."

As a critic of GT myself, I will say this: when we talk about the inconistencies of GT, we are not talking about simple animation errors (which seem to compose the vast majority of the listed inconsistencies there). We're talking about odd and inconsistent power levels, omission of certain forms/characters (ex: ssj2/mystic gohan, gotenks, etc), the appearance of clearly non-canon characters (ex: cooler), and a host of other things.

I think that, for the sake of fairness, this should be clarified, as the anti-GT position here has been far too simplified. This can be saved for another debate, if you wish.

For now, however, I would simply like to call for a clarification of this article to include some of the information I've listed here regarding Toriyama's involvement. I do not think they can continue to be omitted without compromising the integrity of the article/website, which right now simply does not seem to be telling the whole story.

Athlone McGinnis 18:50, February 21, 2012 (UTC)Athlone

Good! Just to point that "side story" does not mean "alternate universe", and also that Akira not coming up with the original GT idea does not mean "not canon"; anime-only is more appropriate. The rights for a manga or another creation does not belong exclusively to its main author. Toriyama's editors made choice for the manga before GT came out; like the introduction of 18 and 17 to replace 20 and 19 or choosing main villain's appearance (Toriyama drew several sketch for Cell and the character's definitive design was chosen by the editor, same things happened to Mr. Popo and Buu), yet all this are still considered "canon". JeangabinTalkContrib 20:52, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

I don't consider GT to be canon to the anime either, but this is more of a subjective point, I suppose. I'm going to attempt to explain my views on the whole canon debate below in response to 10xKamehameha. Athlone McGinnis 23:55, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

"This wiki seems to have concluded that GT is canon," I'm going to stop you right there and ask that you read the Manual of Style. This will show you that your conclusion is not compatible will our site's stance. After that, check out our list of inconsistencies page, which will explain the true comment about having the least inconsistencies (this is actually linked in that section of the article, too, so that readers won't have to speculate as to the meaning). As for what the word canon means, I don't think you're going to find a definition (that is, a definition from a dictionary, not Wikipedia, not a fan site) that excludes works for which the author is the the individual whose canon you are examining. When you find that, your next task will be to explain why this selective definition, in which amount of work supersedes an official title, doesn't allow parodies like Neko Majin and Dragon Ball SD, both written by Toriyama. If you check Webster, you'll find two possible definitions: "the authentic works of a writer", which will include non-Dragon Ball universe works like the unrelated one-shot Kintoki; and "a sanctioned or accepted group or body of related works", which is certainly ambiguous enough to allow all of the video games, movies, etc.

Instead of combining the two possible definitions of canon, only counting the overlap as acceptable, and then selectively removing some things you don't like from that group, I suggest you take the encyclopedic route and just say what you're trying to say. Instead of declaring things "non-canon", just say they weren't in the manga. Speaking of encyclopedic, keep in mind that original research (OR) is not allowed as a source in articles. This means that while your above work makes for a discussion point, it in no way overturns evidence from the credits of the official series. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:33, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

When talking about "canon" in my prior post, I was referring to what seemed like a very common fan definition that prioritized proximity to the source material (the manga) and relation to the original author (Toriyama). These appeared to be the main sticking points for those who continue to insist that GT is not "canon", so it appeared a safe starting point. That being said, you are correct to point out that this definition is not official or comprehensive. I'll attempt to find a more effective solution. The most efficient way to resolve the debate, in my eyes, is to eliminate links between the different forms of media (movies, GT, dragonball manga, z anime, games, etc). Each one must merely be considered canon to itself, not necessarily to everything else.

Going by this standard, The manga is canon to itself. The DB/Z anime is not canon to the manga, the games, or GT, but to itself. GT and the movies are not canon to each other or to other forms, but merely to themselves. The games follow the same paradigm. In short, each form creates its own "universe", so to speak, existing within the wider dragonball franchise. The Dragonball manga is one universe. The anime is another. GT is another, and so on so forth. This, I find, is the only way to resolve the discrepancies and inconsistencies between the different portions of the dragonball franchise, and allow them all to coexist. Of course, it is all theoretical.

As for my sources, I could use some elaboration there. I understand that the whole canon debate need not be made part of the article given its subjectivity, but I have provided a legitimate and official source (specifically, the GT dragonbox, which had already been cited within the article for the drawing of SSJ4) that seems to contradict a couple of points already made in the article. Specifically, the points regarding Toriyama's "strict oversight" of GT and "direct writing" of the script are directly contradicted by official sources written by Toriyama himself. Is that not worth looking into? Athlone McGinnis 23:55, February 21, 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that the idea of canon as it is commonly used by fans is fictitious and likely a popular misconception or distortion of the actual meaning. As such, I hope you realize that we can't refer to it on an encyclopedic web site like this one (although it's fine to chat about). As far as declaring something "canon to itself", that seems like a literally acceptable interpretation of the second applicable definition of canon as copied above, but one which makes its own use, for example "canon to the manga", redundant. It is more useful and less ambiguous to say "manga" alone. Take for instance the character Pikkon. Someone might say (1) Pikkon is not canon, (2) Pikkon is not canon to the manga, or (3) Pikkon is not in the manga. Here, (1) is not well-defined, (2) is ambiguous, and (3) is true. It's clear that (3) is not only the best choice, but the only one that can be used with confidence on an encyclopedia.

Having established that using the word canon as in "canon to the manga" really isn't useful, nor is the placement of a common fan misinterpretation on an encyclopedia acceptable, is is prudent to look at the use of canon that you haven't brought up. That is, a use of the second actual definition in reference to Dragon Ball media. This is the only correct way that the term canon can be used, and it is the basis for the system presented in our Manual of Style (have you read this document yet?).

As for breaking up the series into separate universes, this is not something suggested by any of the media, with the exceptions of things like what-if scenarios in video games. Quite the contrary, games and movies assume the existence of things like anime events even though they may not occur in those games and movies. Even more rousing, the manga makes reference to anime events such as the existence of Garlic Jr.

What I mean by "original research" not superseding official sources is that while it can be directly observed that Toriyama is credited as the author of GT, it is only speculation to take a fan-translated statement by a modest individual like Toriyama and from it infer that GT is somehow not related to Dragon Ball. Rather, we make no inferences or speculation, and instead list the facts, leaving each reader to make decisions about what is or isn't official to himself.

The only legitimate point left to be addressed is what seems like the goal of the incorrect definition of canon, which is to further the opinion of some fans that the manga is more official, truer, or better than the rest of the material. While those terms are subjective, let's examine the objective versions, keeping in mind our purely encyclopedic viewpoint. Is a manga publication more published or widespread than an anime or video game? No, it's probably more obscure. Is a manga the only thing written and endorsed by Toriyama, and would Toriyama support this viewpoint that only his and only the single earliest creation should be viewed as Dragon Ball material? No, Toriyama worked on the anime and many movies, and he has been quoted as being happy about fans enjoying non-manga material. Is the manga of a higher quality than the rest? Maybe or maybe not, but it's not our place to make this call, or to subsequently exclude information based on a yes/no decision regarding this. Ultimately, we are the Dragon Ball Wiki, not the "Dragon Ball-Toriyama-No Parodies-Wiki", and we host all official Dragon Ball info. If you're looking for a site that only has info about that one manga, you might consider creating one for that purpose (there probably already is one, in fact). -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 13:19, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

Ug, sorry for the long post. See also: User:10X_Kamehameha/Canon. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 13:25, February 22, 2012 (UTC)

SeaTerror

If it isn't created by the original creator then it isn't canon. Simple as that. I find it hilarious that you people consider this canon. You don't have to remove GT obviously. The way to do this is putting a non-canon category on the page like the OP wikia does for all of the characters and other non-canon stuff. SeaTerror 18:53, February 23, 2012 (UTC)

I started a new tab for this since it's unrelated to the above topic. And by that I mean your comment shows that you didn't read either side of the last discussion : / This is fine, but just a separate beast really. Check out the above points and you'll see that Toriyama is in fact the author of GT, your use of the word canon isn't based on a real definition, we don't consider GT canon in the way that you say we do, and non-canon is a redundant term with no place anywhere. You'll also find some very legitimate points about the fact-based version of your side of the debate by Athlone McGinnis. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:49, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

Reason for edit

I am writing here to explain my most recent edit.

The claim regarding Toriyama's strict oversight of GT is unfounded, and contradicted by the very source that the article seems to rely on.

In the second paragraph of the section entitled "Toriyama's involvement in GT and Canon debate", the following is said of Toriyama's involvement in GT:

"He drew a rough design for the GT logo, he designed the GT appearance of the series main cast, and he designed the appearances of Giru and the GT spaceship used in the Black Star Dragon Ball Saga. He also drew at least three color pictures of Goku, Pan, and Trunks adventuring on various planets (Monmaasu, Rudeeze, and an area in Hell)."

This is all confirmed primarily by the Dragonbox, as well as in interviews with Toriyama (Shenlong Times 7), but there is simply no citation for the claim that strict oversight made in the article. In fact, this is specifically contradicted by the Dragonbox (a source from which the aforementioned information and the illustration of SSJ4 in this article are drawn) along with other interviews with Toriyama, and is not confirmed by any other source.

It is my opinion that this claim should remain absent from the article until such time as confirmation of Toriyama's strict involvement can be ascertained and cited properly. As of now, it is conjecture. Athlone McGinnis 18:02, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

I have not vanadalized this article and I have given legitimate reasons for my edits. I would like an explantion for jeangabin666's continued reverts. Athlone McGinnis 18:13, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

The quote is correct as written, with the possible exception of the word "strictly." It is a subjective term so its use is always debatable. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 18:31, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Can you please point me to the source that confirms Toriyama's "oversight" of GT (enough so to clearly override his own first person rebuttal of that notion)? His own words contradict this statement (he quite explicity states that he had no role in the anime story), so I'm very interested in knowing where the opposition to my edits is coming from. Athlone McGinnis 18:36, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

It's all covered in the discussion earlier on this page. It had to due with official credits being acceptable as a source on a wiki, while original research and dubious fan translations are not. I won't bore anyone with repeating the statements, but they can be found above and reread if desired. Jeangabin666 may have other reasons, you'll have to wait for him. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 19:02, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

I read all of that a long time ago, and it does not resolve the question. Breaking down the paragraph in question makes this obvious.

1. "He drew a rough design for the GT logo, he designed the GT appearance of the series main cast, and he designed the appearances of Giru and the GT spaceship used in the Black Star Dragon Ball Saga."

No source is listed at all for this statement, though the most obvious culprit would be the GT Dragonbox (where this is explicitly stated). If material (obviously translated) from the Dragonbox can be used to draw this information, then why is it not acceptable to use it to draw other information (ex: Toriyama's stated involvement in GT)? Either the translation is usable or it isn't. Right now, it appears as though some info from the dragonbox is considered wiki worthy at anyone's discretion, while other info is not. And, if this is not in fact drawn from the GT Dragonbox, then its source ought to be listed so the distinction can be made clear. Otherwise, it is mere conjecture.

2. Toriyama is credited as an "author". That term would seem to imply that they are referring to the manga/original Dragonball story, since animes do not usually make use of "authors". "Writer" or "producer" would be the term to look for if you're trying to find the originator of the plot/concept of GT.

This sounds like a colloquialism, but in the case of written vs. animated/film productions, it makes a very significant difference. Regardless, the photos of the ending credits does not prove "strict oversight". Athlone McGinnis 21:52, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and read the talk page and you'll find your answers. Your theory about the author credit referring to the manga is disproved by the credits when looked at as a whole, rather than out of context. There is a credit for Toriyama for being the manga author, and a credit for Toriyama being the GT author. I'm not sure why you're so insistent on robbing the man of credit for a show for which he is officially credited, but you need evidence. Not conclusions you've made, not fan work, not original research or opinions. You need actual official statements. Please read the manual of style for more details. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:06, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

What part of "I read all of that a long time ago" did you not understand?

None of what you just said addresses the following:

"He drew a rough design for the GT logo, he designed the GT appearance of the series main cast, and he designed the appearances of Giru and the GT spaceship used in the Black Star Dragon Ball Saga."

I asked where this specific information regarding Toriyama's specific contributions to GT came from, a question which has not been discussed (hence my bringing it up). Jeangabin has addressed where he got the idea for the "strict supervision" claim-this is a separate issue that needs to be addressed (I'll respond to him in a moment).

If the info for Toriyama's specific contributions to the GT logo/character designs/etc mentioned above came from the Dragonbox (which I am almost certain it did), then the Dragonbox needs to be considered a valid source for this section and considered in its entirety (or, if you insist on it remaining invalid, then this information needs to be removed). At a bare minimum, this is a situation in which a clear, easily accessible sidenote needs to be made about the conflict.

If it did not come from the dragonbox, then those claims have got to be cited from a valid source.

So, where did that part of the article come from? It isn't in the ending credits and it isn't in the anime itself, so we can eliminate that. This is the question. It is simple.

As for "robbing", that's not what's happening here. Toriyama himself has already gone on the record as calling his involvement in GT minimal, comparing himself to a mere fan, and having been entirely pleased to delegate everything to the staff.

Your manual of style says that this claim cannot be put into the article because it is a 4th tier source and/or a translation, which is why I haven't bothered doing so. Just because your wiki standards do not accept its publishing, however, does not mean that it is incorrect. There is plenty of legitimate basis (much of it again sourced from Toriyama himself) for the claim that Toriyama was minimally involved in GT. Athlone McGinnis 23:21, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

The source for Toriyama supervising GT was in his bio on wikipedia, but now it is a dead link. Him being a supervisor for the series was something announced at the time when Dragon Ball GT series was first announced in 1996. JeangabinTalkContrib 22:17, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

The link is alive.

http://www.myfavoritegames.com/dragonball-z/info/AkiraToriyama.htm

That same source insists that he was "not directly involved with GT". Here is the entire paragraph in question:

"After Dragonaball Z had ended, TOEI Animation asked permission from Toriyama to continue the Dragonball trilogy with a new series called Dragonball GT. This new series aired in Japan from 1996 to 1997, and was no where near as successful. Toriyama was not directly involved with Dragonball GT, but he did supervise the development. As Toriyama's success grew he decided to open up his own studio know as Bird Studios where he was able to publish many more of his other stories and comics."

How are you going to claim "strict oversight" (as you've insisted on doing) when your own sources insist that he was not directly involved? How are you going to strictly oversee something when you aren't even directly involved with it?

That is casual reviewing/advising at best, and it was clearly done on an unofficial basis (hence the lack of direct involvement). Toriyama himself backs this view up during his interview published in daizenshuu 7, where he claims that "I'm only involved with it a little bit. I check the story that gets sent from Toei Animation, and give them some advice." (this before claiming to be "an ordinary audience member") Athlone McGinnis 23:21, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Athlone McGinnis, I am disappointed that you aren't adhering to our manual of style. The fan translations don't overrule the official media. Toriyama is listed as the author of GT, and you repeating your own conclusions and those of other fans doesn't affect this site's stance due to the policies our community has put in place. If you can find a source which takes priority over GT itself (so, it would have to be a quote in an the officially translated manga), that is the only way you make progress here. Sorry if you don't approve; you are free to suggest changes to the manual of style talk page. Also, I didn't insist on the usage of "strictly," I did the opposite. If you expect people to read your posts then you should read theirs. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:00, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

The repetition of my old conclusions in the post dated 23:21 March 12 2012 was a response to Jeangabin. He specifically claimed there that the source for his claim of Toriyama's supervision was a Toriyama bio, which I linked to. This very same source (which jean has just stated is a basis for his continued reverts of my edits) insists that Toriyama was not directly involved in GT.

This is not a matter of my adherence to the manual of style. From what I am reading here, your own sources for this article (at least, the ones that Jeangabin is taking the liberty of relying on to revert my edits) are in conflict with one another.

If you read the post closely, you would see that I did not claim that you insisted on the usage of "strictly" (we addressed that earlier). That was a response to Jeangabin's insistence on keeping that term in his reversions and its lack of substantiation in the source he cited.

Now, I need to get back to the main question that you have thus far continued to evade. I will copy the source of my contention here:

"He [Toriyama] drew a rough design for the GT logo, he designed the GT appearance of the series main cast, and he designed the appearances of Giru and the GT spaceship used in the Black Star Dragon Ball Saga."

What I have been asking you (this will be my third time posing this question) is this: What is the source for these claims? Where do they come from?

No citation is listed for them, and we know that they are not substantiated in the anime itself.

Do they come from the Dragonbox (where Toriyama makes these statements)? If they do, then your article is already relying on a fan translation (something which you keep insisting cannot be utilized in this wiki), and the rest of that translation's information needs to at least be noted somewhere. That same "fan translation" (which your article is already relying on) contradicts earlier statements in the article itself, and the MOS states that such conflicts must be noted.

If these claims are not in fact sourced from a fan translation, then the actual source needs to be listed.

Quoting your own manual of style here:

"If a more authoritative source directly conflicts with a less authoritative source, the more authoritative source is used, and a separate side note should be made about the conflict."

Your supposed "authoritative source" (the screencap of the ending credits) conflicts directly with a "less authoritative one" (which, absurdly enough, is Toriyama himself). This needs to be noted somewhere in the article in order to maintain objectivity. Athlone McGinnis 16:18, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Also, I removed the term "strictly", since 10XKamehameha has already agreed that this term is subjective. Athlone McGinnis 16:23, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

?? you're question is about Toriyama's designs for GT. It comes from various databooks and Weekly Shonen Jump issues, there are even the images themselves on the page.. JeangabinTalkContrib 17:21, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Good, as long as it is noted. Athlone McGinnis 19:27, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't evading anything, and it is a matter of adhering to the manual of style. GT is a higher priority source than quotes after the fact, even by Toriyama. For instance, if Toriyama suddenly said that Goku never learned to fly, we would have to side with the series and maintain that he could in fact fly. If you disagree, that's fine and you can bring it up on the manual of style talk page to try and have quotes take priority of the series. Additionally, it's not even a direct quote, it's an unofficial fan translation. You keep saying that Toriyama said it, but he didn't, it's second hand info through someone else. That means that it has exactly zero validity, and would be at best original research if it was brought to us by the original translator, which it wasn't. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 20:48, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

You're basically saying that the act of translation (barring the use of some "official" translator, which won't exist in this case since there's been no official translation of the gt dragonbox, daizenshuu 7, etc) invalidates Japanese source material (of a Japanese show). Indeed. There's been a lot of animosity directed towards this wiki, and I never really understood why before. I kind of get it now. I suppose there's no real point to continuing this. Hopefully curious fans in the future will at least be able to come through to this talk page and read the discussion alongside the article. Perhaps that will aid them in making more accurate conclusions for themselves. Athlone McGinnis 14:21, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Awesome ad hominem argument, very logical... anyway the problem with fan translations is that we have no way of telling whether or not what the fan is saying is true. The "quote" that you brought forward may be 100% made up, and you haven't given a reason for us to think otherwise. If there's some fan site you prefer to the wiki, that's fine, but wikis have a way of doing things that make our sites encyclopedias rather than just speculation, opinions, and hearsay. When editing the work of a community, you must respect the policies created by that community. Wikipedia does the same thing. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:53, March 14, 2012 (UTC)

Whatever you say dude. Have a good one. Athlone McGinnis 05:14, March 16, 2012 (UTC)

Previous Villains Return from Hell Deaths

I was wondering, I noticed on pages such as Dr. Myuu, Dr. Gero, General Blue, etc, they do not show their "deaths" from when they escaped Hell and were sent back. All three of these characters were shown blowing up, so I would have considered that they died again, plus, they had no halos or anything while on Earth, but when General Blue waits in line with Black, they both have halos again. Would these count as deaths or not? I may be misunderstanding it, but it's worth checking. Thanks to whoever responds. Super Saiyan GoateeSend me a message! 18:57, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

A clarification regarding GT being canon

I had a discussion with 10x kamehameha in which he told me Akira Toryiama wrote GT and "Everyone who says GT was not written by Toriyama is wrong about that 100% of the time, this is a fact", this simply isn't true all sources indicated he drew art for the show but he had no hand in its writing. I wanted to clarify this and negotiate my edits to the canon debate section. NexCarnifex 22:41, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I've also read the above discussion, Akira is not credited for writing GT though it is a product of his source material, so it doesn't suprise me they would mention him being an author in the credits, he is the author of the story they were continuing so he is an author for the series in a way. Underneath that statement that clarify they were reffering to his original works, and the clearness of this was obviously just lost in translation. To say he wrote it is simply wrong, he oversaw the production though he was not a writer. NexCarnifex 23:00, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Your information is not sourced and it is incorrect (based on it disagreeing with things that do have a source). You also misquoted be which I really do not appreciate. Toriyama is credited as the author of GT and there is a source linked above proving this. If you can find a source as official as the credits of the series itself saying that he is not the author than please present this. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:33, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

I did not misquote you I copied and pasted the quoted text straight from your talk page so you can go check this if you want. Toriyama was credited as the "original author" the wording in the translation is misleading. Here check this page: http://www.kanzenshuu.com/production/gt/ from a very reliable website based on the original dragon ball databooks the Diazenshuus. This is a wiki if you want it to be accurate don't be stubborn. NexCarnifex 00:43, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

"Original Author

The original author, or original creator, is the person who came up with the original concept for the story. In every Dragon Ball property, this credit is given to Akira Toriyama, with a sub-credit for the serialization of the manga in Shueisha’s Weekly Shōnen Jump. In the case of Dragon Ball GT this credit is listed to denote that the original series was the basis for this anime-only production, and in no way indicates that Toriyama had a lot of involvement in the series’ development or planning." - this is why he was listed in the credits as the author, don't misinterpret information just so you can say something is true when it is false NexCarnifex 00:47, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

You did and now you're lying about it. I did not say "100x wrong" like you said twice now that I did. If you would read this talk page you will see that we already know Toriyama is credited as the original author, and this is done in the credits of GT, the very series we are discussing. Then, separately, he is credited as the author of GT, again in the credits of GT. I see that you also have linked a fan site, but I am not sure why. Before you use a website, you should read the policies. Here, that includes the Manual of Style. You will find that we, along with all Wikia sites and Wikipedia, do not recognize fan sites as valid sources. Stop calling me stubborn, as resorting to personal insults is not only unproductive to the conversation here, but it also against the rules. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:22, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

That wasn't supposed to be a quote just a summary of the quote I posted right after but I removed it. He is not credited as the author of GT you are misinterpreting the credits as explained on the Kaizenshuu, a site based upon databooks and thorough research, and they did cite their sources. Well I don't know Japanese to translate myself but I know for a fact this website is the most accurate Dragon Ball database there is (can't say so much for this wiki) and they cited their sources at the top in the form of images, so if you want wrong information on the wiki because you insist misinterpreting the credits so you can say something is true when it is false, so be it, I have no authority here you do, so I guess you can decide on the accuracy of things. You're using proof that just isn't there to support a false point. NexCarnifex 01:48, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

He is credited as both, you have ignored that entirely, choosing instead to only acknowledge the original author credit. No fansites. If you find something with any trace of validity let us know. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:07, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

It appears we have someone that just can't accept the fact that GT is canon due to the biased opinion of not liking GT. He is going as far as ignoring credits which are a direct translation and should be held at a much higher regard than that of the translation of a fan website. It takes a lot of blatant ignorance to ignore proven facts like that. I find that the credits are far sufficient evidance that GT is in fact canon. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 02:20, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEsg1ms6jeI No he isn't supposed to be credited with both, he is credited with being the author, and you are misinterpreting that as being the author of the GT script which is not the case. The Japanese translation only acknowledges him as the author of the original story and this was strangely translated over to the american credits. I'm not ignoring a fact I am actually providing the truth and you can't seem to accept it, yes its a fansite but a great source of Dragon Ball information as well and they listed their sources, it may not be able to be posted as a wiki source but it certainly clears up the confusion, which they addmitedly did. Jeez, you guys just really want this to go your way, clearly the japanese translations make it clear he was not the writer. NexCarnifex 02:43, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Even the Japanese wikipedia articles on Toriyama or GT don't not include him as writer, you really think this slipped under the radar? I don't think so. NexCarnifex 03:01, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

The fact that you posted that link tells me that you're not paying attention, since we already have that info on this talk page. Further, it supports the existing facts on this site, and refutes your opinion. In both versions of the credits mentioned so far, he is credited as both the original creator of Dragon Ball, and as the author of GT. I don't disagree that he is credited as the original author, in fact I have already said that. Additionally, he is given a separate credit as the author of GT, which you haven't said a word about. What you're saying doesn't make any sense because you're ignoring the fact and just saying what you want to be true, which would only be the case if he were given one credit, and not two. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:23, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

I know it was previously posted I was posting the one I watched so you knew I watched it, yes I saw the 2 places he was mentioned as the author, I'm saying that this was clearly a translation problem as the translations of the Japanese credits show how the translatiors could have made that mistake, as he was listed as the original writer explicitely, which probably was taken simply as he was the writer. The Kaizenshuu listed all the descriptions of the credit bumps in the original Japanese credits, which are on the top of the page. Additionally, neither the Japanese page of GT or Akira himself lists him as writer, so clearly this is the case. And here you go, the actual writer according to the Japanese GT article: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%9D%BE%E4%BA%95%E4%BA%9C%E5%BC%A5 NexCarnifex 03:43, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

1 ≠ 2, I don't know how you're not getting this. Yes, he is credited as the original author. Yes, he is also credited as the author of GT. Wikipedia is not an acceptable source, even Wikipedia won't use other Wikipedia pages as a source. Please read our Manual of Style for information on sources. It frustrates me that you're wasting my time (and other readers' time as well) by not taking the time to learn basic rules here like what can be used as a source. You've still not presented a single piece of evidence that could be used on any encyclopedic site, such as any Wikia site and Wikipedia. Additionally, the fact that you are seeking evidence to try and prove your point of view tells me that you are not approaching this with a neutral point of view (also covered in the Manual of Style, and also true on every Wikia site and Wikipedia). What a good editor does is make a decision based on available information. Also, this is the last time that I'm going to bother with a full explanation, since you're not even bothering to attempt to find usable info. In the future, if you bring up a source that isn't usable, I'll just tell you to read the Manual of Style and skip the full explanation.

To summarize: read the Manual of Style, and you haven't shown any evidence that is usable on any Wikia site or on Wikipedia. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:19, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how you're not getting this, yes he is both credited 2 times, but one of them was a mistranslation of the term "creative author", he should only be credited once. This is backed up by more thorough translations of the Japanese credits and by the very Japanese GT wikipedia page, which clearly lists someone else as the writer. I will get sources later now that we have the actual author, but whether Wikipedia can be used as a source or not is besides my point, which is just that Akira is indeed not the author as the english credits misguided you to think. I'm not trying to support an opinion just vindicate what I know to be reality. NexCarnifex 14:39, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Can this be used as a source? Its a news network so I'm pretty sure it counts. It lists Aya Matsui as the screenplay writer just like every other proper Dragon Ball database or article: http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=1477

Here is another source, here it listed Aya Matsui as screenplay writer and not Akira Toriyama, just like everywhere but the mistranslated english credits, which mistook the Japanese term for creative author for simply 'author': http://webcat.adamslibrary.org/TLCScripts/interpac.dll?LabelDisplay&LastResult=ItemTitles%26Config=youseemore%26FormId=0%26Branch=,0,%26LimitsId=0%26StartIndex=20%26ItemsPerPage=10%26SortField=0%26PeriodLimit=-1%26IdIsDataNumber=0%26DataNumber=150442471%26NotAddToHistory=1%26Count=89%26ItemField=4%26SearchAvailableOnly=0%26PeriodLimit=-1&DataNumber=0&RecordNumber=319934&SearchAvailableOnly=0&FormId=0&ItemField=4&Config=youseemore&Branch=,0, NexCarnifex 21:14, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Per my previous message, please read the Manual of Style. Thank you. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:52, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/378/2343957an9iphz5.png

In case you can't read Japanese it says:

原 作 / Original Author

鳥山　明 / Toriyama Akira

He is always given credit like this for everything related to his original source material, that is what it means in Japanese, additionally it would be noted GT is based of the original Dragon Ball story. Original Japanese credit bump>translated misleading credit bump. This is what it means, whoever translated the credits to american misinterpreted the term, everywhere else it lists Aya Matsui as the writer which is the actuallity. NexCarnifex 03:11, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, we already have the info for this credit, as well as the GT author credit, on this article. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 10:13, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

This is the "GT author credit" bump, they mistraslated this credit bump and it came across as having a different meaning in the english credits, since its the only one mentioning Toriyama as the "author" in the Japanese credits. There is no Japanese credit bump stating he is the author of GT. They would need to specify the manga the story originated as well, clearly this does not specify that it is just giving Toriyama his due, that's why the american credits site he is the "author"(mistranslation of this bump) and that the story was based on the manga as well. NexCarnifex 19:47, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your theory, but it doesn't really make sense that one credit was translated into two separate credits, one correct and one incorrect. What is by far the more likely situation is that the professional television producers who make a career out of creating official media correctly translated this credit (which we know they did), as well as the rest of the credits for the various Dragon Ball series. Unfortunately fan theories alone, such as those that may be found on fan sites, your personal opinions, and any sites stating the information but sourcing one of the two previous types of hearsay cannot be used here, due to the encyclopedic nature of this site. Please understand that from the point of view of anyone reading this, you are making rather wild claims and often, such as in your last message, making absolutely no reference to anything supporting your stance. The reason is that it makes it a he-said she-said situation, with the two sides being you vs. an official publication. Unless there is an opposing claim made my another official media publication-level source, the choice of the community has been made clear in the MoS. Information without a usable source (see the MoS) is, well, useless. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 20:13, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

How many times do I have to explain this before it doesn't go straight over your head, no this bump was not "translated into two separate credits" it was mistraslated into 1 which was the one wrongly stating he was the author in the english credits, what they really meant to say was "original author" like in the Japanese credits. Both credits state that the story is based on the original one from the manga seperately. both. seperately. The pictured one has a completely different meaning than addressing what manga the story is based on, its just giving Toriyama his due, like I said, they need to do this for all things based of his works but it does not mean he is the author of GT. Now read closely, nowhere in the Japanese credits does it state Akira is the author, this is the only bump that would have given that idea, and it doesn't mean he is the author, this is not a fan theory this is a cold hard fact and is listed as such every other place but here, Toriyama is not the author you have your proof.

You think I don't have proof? Well let me direct your eyes up to the picture I recently posted. This is the only bump in the Japanese credits that lists Akira Toriyama as "the author", so clearly this is what Funimation derived their misleading bump from. It doesn't mean he is the author it just means he is credited with the original story from which the cartoon is based on. Does it list the specific manga there? No. That's why they do it later. Sorry but its quite apparent from the original credits Toryiama is NOT the author, and that's all the reliable proof you need, Sorry I repeat myself I feel like I need to.

Also, if you STILL insist Toriyama is the author of GT based on the badly translated credit bump, why would he comment in an interview that he "wished" he had come up with the idea to turn Goku into a kid? He didn't write GT, the english credits aren't the same as the original Japanese ones. NexCarnifex 23:15, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

In fact, look what I found, an interview where Toriyama explicitely states, "I'd say I'm only slightly involved. I check the story that Toei Pictures has created, and I offer some advice to them. I only did a few characters designs for them, but it's really interesting!" http://www.thegrandline.com/dbzinfo/toriyamafinale.html so there you have it from the man himself, thank you and have a nice day, oh also allow me to edit that paragraph. NexCarnifex 23:23, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Repeating your opinions and interpretations does not help, since they are not credible. This is the same as with your newest 1-person fan site link. Please read the Manual of Style before editing on this site. Reading it would probably help you to format a logical argument with a clearer meaning in terms of what a usable source is. I would also urge you to read the Rules and Standards pages, which would guide you to eliminate your very obvious and unacceptable bias. As I've noted before, searching for a source to back an opinion, rather than reading sources and making judgements based thereupon, is a definite indicator that you have a bias. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:44, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

Opinions? What opinions? Interpretations? What interpretations? Referencing the Japanese credits and what exists within them is not interpretations. The only reason you are calling me opinionated is because I have proven you wrong not by saying GT is dumb but by revealing how there was an error in the english credits. Dismissing my argument without addressing it and just saying its my opinion shows how much in denial you are. Also that interview's source is stated, You want me to go dig that up to? I don't think I should have to, the actual Japanese credits are good enough, I'd like an explanation for why they are not they preceded the english credits. My bias? I'm trying to show you something that is clearly the truth as suggested by the original credits, Toriyama himself, every single database, the Japanese language wikipeida, but most importantly the original credits which I can cite, and you are just telling me its an opinion, check yourself your cracks are showing. NexCarnifex 00:02, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

It is your opinion that there was an error in the translation, but you have given not a single valid sources to prove it. The Japanese credits do not support either case, as I have explained. Please present usable evidence if you would like to continue the discussion. For instance, I have presented an official Dragon Ball publication. If there continues to be none on your end, then the community rules are clear. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:58, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

That isn't an opinion, opinions are subjective not objective. You haven't explained why the Japanese credits do not support my case as I have explained, you misunderstood what I was saying so I cleared that up for you, but I guess you are too caught up in the idea this is somehow a subjective argument you didn't read it. Maybe you'll read it this time:

"How many times do I have to explain this before it doesn't go straight over your head, no this bump was not "translated into two separate credits" it was mistraslated into 1 which was the one wrongly stating he was the "author" in the english credits, what they really meant to say was "original author" like in the Japanese credits. Both credits state that the story is based on the original one from the manga seperately. both. seperately. The pictured one has a completely different meaning than addressing what manga the story is based on, its just giving Toriyama his due, like I said, they need to do this for all things based of his works but it does not mean he is the author of GT. Now read closely, nowhere in the Japanese credits does it state Akira is the author, this is the only bump that would have given that idea, and it doesn't mean he is the author, this is not a fan theory this is a cold hard fact and is listed as such every other place but here, Toriyama is not the author you have your proof."

The english "author" bump is supposed to be the "original author" bump, the "original author" bump is not equivalent to the credit stating the story was based on the Dragon Ball manga.

Here is the staff list from Toei's website

Original:	Akira Toriyama
	Planning:	Kenji Shimizu, Kozo Morishita
	Producer:	Koji Kaneda Seiichi Hiruta
	Series consists of:	Aya Matsui
	Series Director:	Osamu Kasai
	Character Design:	Xiang wins Nakazuru
	Art and Design:	Takashi Yoshiike
	: Music	Akatsuki people Tokunaga
	In charge of production:	Yuichi Suenaga

My browser translated it for me, Toriyama is listed as "original" as in "original author" as in,he wrote the original story the series is based upon. As you can also see "series consists of" Aya Matsui, which means he wrote it. This is from an offical and utterly reliable source. http://www.toei-anim.co.jp/tv/dragongt/staff/index.html NexCarnifex 02:00, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Your continuous insults directed at me and unnecessary sarcasm are going to lead to a warning if it continues. Quoting an entire previous response of yours and lying by saying that I didn't read it the first time is unproductive and borders on a personal attack. I have already told you that the GT credits in both languages state that Toriyama is the author of the original series, and you never needed to prove that for any reason. What you are claiming is that he did not act as an author on GT. The lack of a credit in some sources is not contradictory to other sources that do give him a credit. These things are completely compatible, this is not debatable, it is simply a fact. I provided an official source saying he is an author. You need to read the Manual of Style, identify a source which supersedes GT, and find a quote of GT not being an author. The lack of a quote supporting is compatible with a quote supporting, so arguments based on that are nonsensical in context. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:16, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

No he is not included as the author of GT in the original Japanese credits the proof is spelled out for you with a link above your comment. Now you are just being downright illogical. First and foremost, the Japanese credits are the original source and thus hold more precedent over the english credits, this is common sense. So the Japanese credits (the original credits from which the english credits were translated from, no they can't just add to them) state Toriyama was the "Original Author" (different than stating the source manga, something you still don't demonstrate an understanding of :I just an observation, not an attack) and nothing more, while the English credits for some reason state he is the "author" but do not include the "original author" credit that was present in the Japanese credits, then why doesn't it become painfully apparent that the english credits have an error due to a mistranslation of the Japanese bump that is not present and reminiscent of the english credit? Clearly Toei animation does not list Toriyama as the author, and thus he is not the author. Funimation has made mistakes in the past, and this one is in plain view, original credits>translated credits, how do you not see this? This isn't a theory, he isn't awknowledged as the author in the original credits listed on the offical website therefore if he is listed as such on translated credits they are ultimately, and undoubtedly, wrong. Additionally, NOTHING else supports the idea he had any hand in writing it, from numerous interviews to carefully researched and sourced databases, everything denies such involvment, really nothing but a mistranslated bump lists him as author which you've put all your faith in, and the japanese credits are different and list him as "original author" not simply "author" so clearly this is a mistake and its a proven one at that. Sorry but the joke is up Toriyama didn't write GT :I NexCarnifex 04:06, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Okay well find a source that agrees so we know that you're not making it up, thanks. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:35, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

How could I be making it up? I posted the link and everything. If you don't believe my translation then translate it yourself. I've provided the actual original credits, that is more than enough evidence to discredit any mistake in a translation. The original credits list Aya Matsui as the author, so that's who wrote it. NexCarnifex 04:41, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Aya Matsui is credited in the English version as well, and your browser is not a valid source, let alone a better translator than a team of professional linguists. You seem to be very confused about what a valid source is, so why don't you read the Manual of Style and tell me which sources supersede the GT credits. I'll tell you right off the bat that fan sites, your personal research, your browser, and Wikipedia aren't among them, but let me know what you find it says after reading it. You also seem to be hinting that for some reason only one person writes every television show, which is wrong. Most are written by teams. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 06:27, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

I can trust my browser translator to translate 1 word at least somewhat accurately, and "original" is no where near "author", it seems to me like you want to get rid of common sense in this debate, and no where else does it state his name in the staff credits. Yes the original Japanese credits supercede the english credits, that is common sense as they came first and the english credits are derived from them. Though they both mean the same thing nonetheless, they have to acknowledge him as the original author on everything related to his works, if Funimation wants to just say "author" then it still has the same purpose. Actually lets go and take those precious translated credits and look at that bump:

"Author: Akira Toriyama based on the Original Story"

Like in the Japanese credits they have to give him credit for the story since he started it, but they don't mean he wrote it they mean he was the author of the story its based on, if he wrote it they would have listed him as Screenplay Writer. NexCarnifex 19:08, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

They did not have to. He created the entire Dragon Ball Series. Namely, Dragon Ball, Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT. User:Ultimate Gogeta/sig11

I really do not understand the confusion here. Toriyama is stated as the author of the original jap version in the credits. NexCarnifex you claim it is mistranslated yet provide no proof it is. Yes we heard what you said about the jap version and what it has listed in its credits yet you provide no official scan where it does not state him as the author but states someone else as the author. Links to random sites and list or information from random sites with no official source rather then other sites or translations that could be 100% wrong or made up is not proof. Only actual information from the series itself or official guide books such as the Daiz or GT Perfect Files count.

Which you have given us zero information on. Unless you can prove it was mistranslated it will remain a fact. As it was in the series itself I highly doubt they would mistranslate something so important. Besides even if he did not write it based on your own comments Toei was the ones who made it and Toriyama left the seires in their hands. Therefore basically giving them the rights to do what the want and since they made GT the sequel to the last series and officialy own it as stated in the credits, Its canon, That is all that matters. Wikian13000 21:25, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

No I posted the original credits from Toei's site, they are different and do not call Toriyama the straight up "author" (which wouldn't mean he wrote the screenplay either). Though really the english credits aren't nessesarily wrong just misleading and written differently, they convey the same message as the Japanese credits, that he was the original author of the story. They give this type of credit to him for EVERYTHING Dragon Ball related, whether he wrote the story within the media or not. He is the author of the story they are continuing but he is not the Screenplay Writer of the anime, Aya Matsui is.

"Original Author

The original author, or original creator, is the person who came up with the original concept for the story. In every Dragon Ball property, this credit is given to Akira Toriyama, with a sub-credit for the serialization of the manga in Shueisha’s Weekly Shōnen Jump. In the case of Dragon Ball GT this credit is listed to denote that the original series was the basis for this anime-only production, and in no way indicates that Toriyama had a lot of involvement in the series’ development or planning."

Your interpretation of the credit holds just as much weight as someone else's, but for the sack of what's real and actual, this is from the Kanzenshuu (website based on the Daizenshuus and the most popular Dragon Ball fansite) and they've been following Dragon Ball for a very very long time. Yes it is a fansite, but you can't say your understanding of what the credits imply are above theirs unless YOU provide a source proving Akira Toriyama's involvement with the series, but I wouldn't waste my time, you won't find any. You will on the other hand find plenty of interviews where Toriyama states he did not have any involvement in the writing of the series, but they're from fansites, so clearly they are forged /sarcasm NexCarnifex 22:32, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

This arguement is rather pointless, as it's always going to end up at the same dead-end. Personally, I believe GT to be "anime-canon", although I realize this isn't something that we can use as an official term. As the credits say Toriyama is the author, I think we can just stick with that. The very fact that Toryama allowed the series to be released seems to make the series canon regardless of whether he wrote the entire thing or not. Of course, GT was very much a creation of Toei and not based of the manga, so it was probably made by a team. I feel confident that Toriyama oversaw the production of the series, and was part of this team. I recall reading an interveliw in which Toriyama makes comments on how he contributed character designs and some plot devices to GT. He then went on to call it a side-story of sorts. This may have been in the Japanese Dragon Box GT, although I have no official links so it really doesn't matter. Anyway, 10X multiple statements about the Manula still hold true. Acording to those guidelines, your sources are rather invalid. I do apologize for my lack of really adding anything into this conversation, but I couldn't help but throw my 5 cents in. User:Yamcha626/sig 23:32, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Well all I can say is Toriyama did not write GT and saying so is utterly ridiculous, nothing points to this anywhere, in interviews yes he says he contributed artistically and this is a well known fact but never does he mention writing the story in fact he holds he did not write it in an interview I posted in this discussion. It doesn't get any more reliable than the original Japanese credits and misinterpreting Toriyama's credit for being the original author of the Dragon Ball story isn't an argument, simply a misunderstanding. The english credits aren't wrong just worded differently, and they still don't mean he wrote it, just like that Japanese ones.

This aside, I demand an alternate source confirming that Toriyama's credit for "Original Author" somehow means he wrote GT, when we know it doesn't. Everywhere, interviews from magazines, databases, the original credits, make it clear Toriyama did not write the story of GT, Aya Matsui did. Now can we just all admit the truth already, this is so insane. Or support your incorrect interpretation with sources, follow the Manual! NexCarnifex 00:25, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Well it's 5 on 1 in agreement with the only official source. Looks like we have a consensus, which is that the correct decision is the existing data. Thanks for the discussion everyone. Sorry if the outcome is not what you were hoping for, but try and rest easy knowing that everyone's motive is purely to keep the site as accurate as possible. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:41, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

So since everyone here is brainwashed you just get to ignore all the facts, logic, and evidience I provided? Just like that because you say so? I should have known you'd make up rules like this. Alright dude, go on being ignorant and putting false information on the wiki, which is already universally panned by the Dragon Ball community for its unreliability. I'll say it again, you are misinterpreting the credit bump, all its doing is giving Toriyama credit for the orginial Dragon Ball story, its actually pretty evident in the bump itself:

"Author: Akira Toriyama based on the Original Story" is what it reads, and its only clearer in the original Japanese credits from which these credtis are translated from, simply reading "Original: Akira Toriyama" (hint it means he wrote the original Dragon Ball story)

He is given this credit in all his media, people who have dedicated their lives to following Dragon Ball can vouch for this.

v This is what you are getting confused about v

"Original Author

The original author, or original creator, is the person who came up with the original concept for the story. In every Dragon Ball property, this credit is given to Akira Toriyama, with a sub-credit for the serialization of the manga in Shueisha’s Weekly Shōnen Jump. In the case of Dragon Ball GT this credit is listed to denote that the original series was the basis for this anime-only production, and in no way indicates that Toriyama had a lot of involvement in the series’ development or planning."

But ok, you want to interpret something the way you want to when everything stands against it including every interview Akira has done on GT I can't stop you. Continue with your little internet cult that goes against something universally accepted as fact, continue to misinterpret "Original Author" as writing GT's script, and defend your belief by collective agreement and denial. Go ahead, you're the administrator. NexCarnifex 01:37, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

We're just doing what the rules say to do. If you want to get angry, then it's your loss. User:Yamcha626/sig 01:41, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Well constructed argument with previously cited facts from original Japanese credits to prove you are all (probably purposely) misinterpreting Toriyama's credit=/=mad, though I am frustrated you are so stubborn you ignore everything I say instead just stating "nope I'm gunna believe what I believe" and calling it a day. If you want your article to be false then ignore what I say and pull out a "u mad", if not I'd suggest opening your mind to what I've made incredibly obvious (as if it wasn't before).

Also, these are the english credits I'm thinking of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEsg1ms6jeI These are the Funimation credits and they make it awfully clear what they mean by "author". Though I do recall watching a different credits video where he was listed twice, though once with no description...hmmm, misleading setup/error? yep, don't tell me you think these credits don't count now... Now you have the Japanese credits AND the Funimation credits supporting the fact Akira Toriyama did not write GT, I can't think of any other proof I'd need to show you, I don't think professional translators would make such a mistake to forget this mysterious Toriyama credit even he denies. NexCarnifex 02:01, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Did you forget Dragon Ball Anime is based on Dragon Ball Manga, also Dragon Ball Z anime is based on Dragon Ball too. I still saw "Author: Akira Toriyama". Also regarding the Funimation credits as an error is pure speculation unless you can find a reliable source that says it was a error. This wiki uses factual information and it is a fact that English GT credits say "Author: Akira Toriyama." I guess you can go ahead and believe what you believe and we will stick to the facts given. User:SSJ4 Vegito/sig15 02:36, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Sweet fansub dude, but "PirateBeck" making subs isn't a source (he credits himself in your version as an editor). In general, when everyone else sees it one way and you are alone on the other end, you should take a step back and examine who is really the one seeing it the wrong way. Another tip is consider what you are saying, there is no reason a bunch of Dragon Ball fans would arbitrarily gang up on you in a conspiracy to add incorrect info. We are all aiming to keep this site as accurate as possible, differentiating it from fan sites with no references.

Now, I can tell you for sure that since you have no evidence, since the other side has concrete evidence, and since the consensus is that you are wrong, the article will not be changed. I guess you can keep posting here if you want, but I'm personally going to stop responding unless I see some acceptable evidence brought forward on your end. If you don't hear from me, it's safe to assume you haven't added usable evidence. Changing the article against the consensus will of course be considered vandalism and dealt with as such. Thanks and happy editing. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:42, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Either I totally misunderstand the argument here or some people misunderstand something even though they admit other things about GT. Right at the beginning I want to say, I am not one of the people who thinks GT is non-canon. I know it has never been defined but I say it has the right to be canon.

Still the whole "author debate" seems wrong to me. As said, maybe I misunderstand the debate. I think it is clear the main writer of Dragon Ball GT is Aya Matsui. That is confirmed and has been mentioned here as well. So when it comes to author of Dragon Ball GT like "writer" the author is Aya Matsui (or probably a bunch of people from studio Toei plus Akira Toriyama since he had some ideas) as well as the one who came up with the idea of Dragon Ball GT. But when the credits list Akira Toriyama as an author I am absolutely sure they mean "author" like the person who wrote and created the world originally, so the roots of Dragon Ball itself, DB and DBZ afterwards. It should be pretty clear that Akira Toriyama cannot be the writer and creator of Dragon Ball GT if Aya Matsui is and some other people. When it comes to the idea of Dragon Ball GT I don't know who actually created it like "hey, lets make a sequel called ...". But I guess that was not Akira Toriyama as he intended to end the series with vol. 42.  To mention it again, I don't mind Toei making GT and I love it as well as it is personally canon for me. And when I think about Akira Toriyama even thinking about a Dragon Ball GT manga when the series was created and him nowadays saying in one of the Battle of Gods review (while laughing) that he is glad that many authors add something to Dragon Ball even though he knows many fans don't like it it is pretty clear for me what Dragon Ball GT should be. Toei wanted it and he helped to make a sequel for the fans and I am pretty sure in 1996 they did not say "hey let's make a sequel for the fans that is just like a sequel but not really a sequel because it does not really happen in Goku's future". And as an end note, "side story" or "spin-off" does not mean "non-canon". There are various stories that have canon side stories and spin-offs. Cetra1 (talk) 17:04, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

Could you give a link to the source you are citing for Aya Matsui? Toriyama is listed as the Author in the GT credits. There is an image above. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 22:45, October 24, 2013 (UTC)

I am a bit confused. I mean, Aya Matsui was mentioned here already.

Here is a picture of the official German DVD of Dragon Ball GT, saying the script was from Aya Matsui (and yes, as said by me Akira Toriyama is also mentioned as Original Author, he was the first one in the list):

http://imageshack.us/f/202/9nql.jpg/

So the story was mainly written by Aya Matsui while the Original Author thing seems to be like a "Original Author of Dragon Ball". Hope I could clarify something here. And as said, I do like GT and I count it so acting as if it is non-canon is not the point of my post. Cetra1 (talk) 00:39, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, he wrote the script, cool. As described earlier, and seen in the images above, Toriyama is indeed credited as the original author of Dragon Ball, but he is also given a second, separate credit as the author of GT specifically. My interpretation would be that he wrote the story, and then Matsui wrote the full script. That is just my guess though. Since we are an encyclopedia, the best way for us to present info is not to guess at anything like I did there, and instead to quote sources directly. Do you feel like we are making any guesses about Toriyama in the article that aren't directly from sources? -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:59, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

I think many people here are making guesses that are not credible since that is typical for Dragon Ball (beginning with sentences like "GT is non-canon, At said that" and ending with "Gohan is the strongest unfused character, AT said that"). I am not talking about the wiki staff here, just people in general. And I also wanted to point out what Aya Matsui did to clarify things. I don't know if that helps but in the same credits I showed you Akira Toriyama got only one credit. That of the original author and no second one. While I do believe, that he had some ideas, I think you wrote it in some of those posts here, I guess we can agree that not everything can be from him since he seems to have said that he wished he would have had the idea of making Goku a kid again. Also the Battle of Gods interview with him being glad about other authors adding things to Dragon Ball seems to be reason enough to believe that there actually are other people whe really may write official things about Dragon Ball. I mean, it was the same for old movies and he said he checked the story for them so why not? From what I have read he even thinks other people make Dragon Ball better since he is not that creative when it comes to some ideas about it (my words, not exactly his own).

So to answer your questions about guessing things concerning GT, yes, I think a bit of a guess is contained (technically not guessing is impossible). When Aya Matsui is the main writer (proven as you can see and also agree with me), Akira Toriyama wanted to end the story but agreed to work partly on GT and interviews exist (I did never see the original interviews but I believe the wiki page here takes some credible translations from the internet since they mention Akira Toriyama's minor involvement in the canon debate section) about him not being as much involved in it as in DB/Z (which is just logical), plus saying things like him not having the idea of Kid Goku (which pretty much is one of the most important things about GT) it is logical to say he was not the one who wrote like a draft of the script before. I do agree with you that he had some ideas though. Cetra1 (talk) 13:47, October 25, 2013 (UTC)

Interesting ideas. We really need everything to be from a published source to put it in the article though. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:53, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

That is clear. His interviews however are officially published material, aren't they? So they combined with the rest give us some unequivocal conclusions. I can't and won't force you to change anything, however. Actually I am fine with the main page. I just wanted to add things here in the comment section. Cetra1 (talk) 02:55, October 26, 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, well your comments are duly appreciated. If you want to incorporate it into the article, it's not enough to say that interviews exist, you need to actually give a link to it (with a translation where necessary). The goal is that when ever someone reads info on the site and they don't believe it, they can click the reference link or view an official image and see with their own eyes that it is true. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:50, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not know the kanzenshuu.com/translations/ interviews are not known here. I believe that was the site. Kanzenshuu definitely translates Dragon Ball stuff (not everything 100% accurate but definitely enough for such interviews).

http://www.kanzenshuu.com/translations/daizenshuu-7-shenlong-times/

(interviewer) "With regards to the anime’s new series, Dragon Ball GT, how involved are you?"

"Toriyama
Just a little bit. I’ll check the stories that come up from Toei Animation, and give them a little bit of advice. Also, I’ve drawn just a few characters and illustrations. But it’s interesting! It feels like, “Ah, so they could do it this way”. I think everyone at Toei Animation really racked their brains. Good work. To think they’d make Goku little. With this story, I might even be able to continue the manga serialization again… though I have absolutely no intention of drawing it. (laughs)"

- Akira Toriyama, Daizenshuu 7 Shenlong Times

Hopefully I could help. I read somewhere above you do not accept fan sites (which I fully understand considering many people want to use some official material to claim their interpretation being the truth like GT not being canon or Gohan being stronger than Goku, et cetera) but maybe for interviews like that which explan some topics many want to know it is good because I am absolutely sure an officially published English translation from someone whose job it actually is does not exist. Cetra1 (talk) 17:53, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Great, that is what we would need. I agree that is it unlikely a translation would get published for everything, so in that case a fan translation is the next best thing. -- .10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 19:21, October 27, 2013 (UTC)

Dragon Ball GT Manga?

Dragon Ball GT Manga?—This unsigned comment was made by 201.95.208.61 (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

I believe GT is non canon. CertainlyNot

Who is name of Written??

Who is name of Written??—This unsigned comment was made by 201.43.62.102 (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

What?? If you mean the name of the writter, it's Aya Matsui. JeangabinTalkContrib 23:13, April 3, 2013 (UTC)

Who is name of Author?—This unsigned comment was made by 201.95.199.167 (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

Question about Name? =) 

Why is it called Dragonball "Grand tour" anyway exactly, even though it sounds kind of cool as it is, "Dragonball GT." =)? WaffleGuy26 (talk) 02:52, April 25, 2014 (UTC) 

The Grand Tour is the Galaxy Tour which is the reason why "GT" also means "Galaxy Tour".

Cetra1 (talk) 09:02, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

They take a "tour" all around the universe, visiting many planets and species. Quite grand indeed : ) -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 20:49, April 25, 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Saga Names:

didn't dragon ball gt's sagas have japanse names like dragon ball and dragon ball z's sagas? Nikon23 10:09AM 12/18/2014

Another Universe in GT

Does anyone have more details on this Trunks quote and the context within Xenoverse? Xenoverse has alternate realities and time travel, and Trunks is often involved with alternate realities and time travel, and I'd like to know if the quote is relevant or just too deeply involved with Trunks and the game's setting to be useful. The MoS states that anime takes precedence over video games anyway, but could be interesting if it has value. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 20:21, March 15, 2015 (UTC)

In Xenoverse you visit three major timelines in total.

• Main Dragon Ball Z timeline. (Raditz to Beerus)
• Future Trunks' timeline (which is connected to the main Dragon Ball Z timeline)
• Dragon Ball GT timeline
  • Future Trunks states that he himself has never visited this timeline, but at some point in it's past an alternate but almost identical Future Trunks did (as GT follows the Z anime). —This unsigned comment was made by Neffyarious (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

For what you're referring to as the "main" timeline, is that the one where enemies from the future are now disrupting the past? It seems unlikely that any timeline that a future villain travels to and disrupts, even if a future hero fixes things, could possibly be the timeline seen in the anime. Based on the 2-4 Trunks existing as a result of the anime, I think it's likely that all timelines touched by this game are separate from the main timeline. I would think that they are identical, until the game touches them and they diverge. That said, multiple timelines does not have anything to do with canon (Future Trunks and Cell as examples). -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 19:09, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

I think it means that inside the game's continuity, GT is a different, parallel continuity, while Battle of Gods is a part of the main continuity. But of course this doesn't reflect on an off-universe perspective on what is canon, otherwise it could also mean that the timeline that the what-if timeline that Piccolo absorbs Kami and then fights against the Androids and Babidi is also part of the main continuity. Sandubadear 19:18, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

What-if is an alternate reality that is made up just for fun for a game. Timelines are all part of the same universe and can be interacted with. No one is saying that Future Trunks home timeline is not canon, rather it is most definitely canon because it is in the original manga. We are confusing two issues: timelines and canon. The two are unrelated. This game interacts with different timelines than anything we see in the manga, anime, or movies, because the events happen differently. The fact that Trunks has never been to the GT timeline does not imply a divergent reality from Battle of Gods, it simply implies that GT happens at a different time, which we already knew. Remember that time travel theory in DB is that an infinite number of unique dimensions exist, and occur at slightly different times. Trunk could not travel to his own past, only to a parallel dimension that was a few years earlier. Likewise, Trunks cannot travel to his own GT period, only to an alternate universe in which GT time is parallel to his own dimension's present. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 21:38, March 16, 2015 (UTC)

The events in Xenoverse are in the main timeline, the villains damage time and then you go back and stop the changes they caused from happening, which repairs the scroll and restores the original Z timeline.

Future Trunks did not state that he has never been to the GT era of time, he states that he has never been to the timeline that GT exists in, but that at some point in that timeline's past a different Future Trunks visited it.Neffyarious (talk) 10:22, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay, got it. So it is the main timeline for the DBZ stuff, but the GT that is visited in that game is not the GT from the main timeline, it's a different timeline that is chronology further along. You know to be honest, the way they time travel in that game sounds inconsistent with time travel in the manga, since Trunks can get to different points in time within the same dimension. Trunks shouldn't be able to get to multiple points of time in the same dimension EVER, unless those points of time pass naturally wherever he is as well. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 19:36, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Actually the Time Machines used by the Time Patrol are special ones made by the Supreme Kai of Time that won't create branch timelines. Sandubadear 20:00, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

Okay got it. That's a lot better than Trunks' original one, practically speaking, imho. Trunks could actually save his own timeline with one of those. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:06, March 17, 2015 (UTC)

The Future Warrior does not even use a time machine when travelling through time in story missions, he uses the scrolls of history to transport himself back and forth.--Neffyarious (talk) 09:09, March 18, 2015 (UTC)

So the reason that Future Trunks says it's an alternate timeline, it's because GT Trunks is the same age as him, and therefore, they could be called "alternate versions" of each specific future. GT Trunks and Future Trunks are alternate versions of each other. Sandubadear 18:38, March 20, 2015 (UTC)

GT is not canon, not anymore.

Redirected to avoid duplicate discussion.

Thanks! -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:48, April 28, 2015 (UTC)

is GT in a different timeline?

i know GT non canon but Don't you think GT Could be in a different timeline? i think GT in the same timeline as coolers revenge because cooler is seen escaping hell in GT (Spice boys (talk) 17:01, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

GT canon. It is same timeline as DBZ because in the first episode of GT it says it is "5 years after" DBZ. Sandubadear 17:10, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

im confused because i thought battle of the gods was canon also cooler in GT and cooler non canon isn't he? (Spice boys (talk) 17:16, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

It's a different timeline to the "canon" one (Toriyama timeline,DB manga,DBZ manga,BoG and RoF) because SSGod is stronger than SSJ4.So it wouldn't make sense that Goku had to use SSJ4,because in his base form now he's already a Saiyan Beyong God,that it's as strong as SSGod (The book GT 100 gears later confirms that Super Vegito is stronger than a SSJ4,and BoG confirms that SSG Goku is stronger than Super Vegito).Sandubear,you can't confirm is canon,because Toriyama never used the word canon and he already said it's in a different timeline that his works.About BOG: First of all,there isn't an offical canon.You can't confirm it,it's your own opinion.Second,BoG IS in Toriyama line,and it's confirmed,it isn't a fillier.Both BOG and ROF were written by Toriyama,so there AREN´T filliers like the other movies (Broly,Cooler,etc.)Don't confuse people.And Goku can convert SSGSS (which is stronger than SSG) when he wants.Why he didn't use it against Baby? Also Toriyama stated that after RoF Goku and Vegeta will never transform again in SSJ or SSJ2.Also,I don´t understand why did you put your last message up to this one.If you don´t have arguments,don´t do that.Moflium-Devote (talk) 17:43, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

battle of gods not canon because movie. movies filler. Sandubadear 17:52, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

i Don't know if its true or not but someone on youtube comments said that toriyama in a interview said battle of the gods is canon (Spice boys (talk) 18:47, June 13, 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Gods and Resurrection F are canon, not filler (whatever Sandubadear is talking about). However, GT is a side-story to DBZ , stated by Akira Toriyama. GT is now irrelavent. Meshack (talk) 00:52, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Movies are less canon than the anime series, haven't you ever read the Manuel of Style? Sandubadear 00:56, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Those were the first 13 movies of DBZ and the 3 or 4 movies for Dragon Ball. That doesn't apply to the two new ones. Meshack (talk) 01:07, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

No, the Manuel says that all 19 of them. Sandubadear 01:12, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Link me Meshack (talk) 01:18, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Just click "Manuel of Style" in the guideline section. Sandubadear 01:20, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

where? Meshack (talk) 01:25, June 15, 2015 (UTC) It is not stated there... Meshack (talk) 01:29, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Dude srsly, have you even bothered to look at it? Here. Sandubadear 01:35, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

I did bother.  I found it but I thought you were talking about something else.

Okay... Yes, Battle of Gods and Resurrection F are movies., but it is official. Those movies aren't like the other movies. It is in the movies section, because they are movies. These movies cancelled out GT because Super Saiyan God, Beerus, Whis, Frieza, Hell (from Resurrection F) are not even in GT. I guess you aren't accepting them as canon because there hasn't been a statement saying that GT is not canon (or is) (but even though it was stated as a side-story) or because they're movies.

Is already confirmed that the tow last movies are in Toriyama's storyline.They AREN'T filliers,Toriyama writed them.That is why you don't see Gregory in BoG: for Toriyama it doesn't exist at all.IS already confirmed the two last movies are in the timeline,that's all,you can't still say "movies are filliers,they are less canon that anime".Not.They aren't.The original anime is less canon that DBKai and the two last movies.It is your problem if you don't want to accept it.But both movies are in the timeline and have being wtitten by Toriyama.That's all.Moflium-Devote (talk) 02:14, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

http://db30th.com/into/into_nenpyo.html I came across this recently, and it lists the timeline of Dragon Ball but doesn't have GT in it. The question is, is it not there because it's in a different timeline, or is it not there because it isn't relevant to the purposes of that website (e.g. placing DBS etc. in continuity). Thought I'd throw that out there.  Shakuran13' Talk' 02:53, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Toriyama's only statements on the matter said GT is "a grand side-story of the original Dragon Ball", BoG was a continuation of the the original Dragon Ball (obvious reason for this statement being that it takes place after the end of DBZ), and the movies take place in a different dimension from the manga. Any interpretation of those statements, namely saying some, all, or none of those things mean "canon" are 100% speculation by fans. Toriyama doesn't use the word canon, only fans use that word for DB media, speculation spread through rumors on forums. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:17, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

Yeah,that was what I mean.When I said "canon" I'm trying to speak about the manga storyline (I don't know how to call it).So,I mean that the two last movies are in that storyline and shouldn't be consider a fillier (And we have already see Beerus in DBSuper trailer).About the canocity,I suppose anyone can interpret it as they want.But it something is confirmed you can't say that it isn't.I don't know if I explain coreectly xD Moflium-Devote (talk) 05:49, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

If you mean something is in the manga, just say "in the manga". It's a lot simpler than people tend to make it, and it eliminates the need for the word "canon" which the creators never use. None of the movies, video games, GT, or DBS are in the manga, whereas DB and DBZ are in the manga. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:39, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

Explanation of recent edits

Just wanted to explain my recent edits in case of dispute:

1. I removed Battle of Gods and Resurrection 'F' from counter-examples to GT being non-canon due to lack of a manga because they're movies, rather than an anime series, so they don't fit.
2. I removed the part about Sabat having no authority whatsoever because although he may not have authority, he may have information that we don't. It's better to evaluate at face value.
3. I removed the part about Toei Animation stating things because it seems rather biased, and I don't think we really do the whole "OFFICIALLY CANON" thing here; preferring instead to do levels, etc.

Shakuran13' Talk' 03:07, June 15, 2015 (UTC)

I feel like the only fact that matters is that Toriyama has never declared an official canon. All these attempts by fans to piece together a puzzle with no solution just adds so much conflict and discontent among fans who could otherwise focus on how great this media empire really is. /rant -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:44, June 16, 2015 (UTC)

so which one canon GT or battle of gods? im abit confused (Spice boys (talk) 11:45, June 18, 2015 (UTC)

There is no official canon that has been declared by Toriyama or Toei. Toriyama seems to have played a bigger role in Battle of Gods, so if you have your heart set on picking one or the other, that's a reasonable way to pick. As a Wiki, we list all information from all sources, so canon doesn't play a large role in what we do. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:50, June 19, 2015 (UTC)

Dragon ball Gt officially non-canon

Since Dragon ball super is now the direct sequel to the original manga and dragon ball super has campanion manga that is writen by Akira Toriyama and illustrated by Toyatoura. And if Gt does come after DBS then there should be a mention of super saiyan God and super saiyan god super saiyan or Lord Beerus furthermore Akira Toriyama himslef called it a side story. So if that does not make dragon ball gt non canon then what does. —This unsigned comment was made by DragonAnime (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

It's useless to debate any kind of thing against GT here. 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^. sees to that (no matter how manny times he denies being biased) —This unsigned comment was made by AntiPatriot (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

Hi guys, and welcome to the site. Please read the site rules and familiarize yourself with our policies before edits, such as signing your posts rather than "anonymously" attacking other users. Let's clear some things up:

• No Dragon Ball creator, including Toriyama and Toei, has ever defined any official canon. Only fans use that term.
• Dragon Ball Super might refer to the 2 newest movies, the anime, or the manga. These sources are significantly different versions of overlapping events. If there was a canon, which there isn't, then all 3 of these media could not be in it. Using Dragon Ball Super as an argument supporting the existence of a Dragon Ball canon is highly paradoxical since it is being released with inconsistencies between the several versions of itself. The companion manga has no input from Toriyama, and is being created by Toyatoura alone as per the manga credits.
• GT was called "a grand side-story of the original Dragon Ball' by Toriyama. Toriyama did not call it unofficial, another dimensions(like the movies), and had only positive things to say about it. He had character design input, and is credited as the author of GT, although he didn't do any script writing that we know of.

Now, the only things noted above left to comment on are Super Saiyan God and Beerus. In reality, Super Saiyan God is not included because it wasn't thought of until 15+ years after the release of GT. If you feel the need to find an in-universe justification for this obviously real-world issue, then the most likely reasons are that SS4 is more powerful than SSG so Goku and Vegeta don't need it anymore, or they choose not to use the form either due to inability or not being allowed. It will be unknown whether they choose to address GT in DBS until the series is completed.

Beerus is largely the same issue. He wasn't thought up until 15 years after GT came out. I could list hundreds of examples of DB characters that do not appear in Z, and Z characters that do not appear in GT. An old character not showing up again is normal, and has nothing to do with a theoretical canon. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:58, August 2, 2015 (UTC)

Well yes, it WAS created afetrwards. Familiar with the term 'Retcon'? GT has been exactly subjugated to exactly that. And sorry if I sounded rude, but as you know, I'm not the only one with this feeling concerning you and GT. Let's just take my edit on this page saying that most incosistencies in Z come from filler and that the manga itself has next to none, which is true. You removed that without any real reason. Not to talk about that GT has more inconsistencies than this site lists, it's just that the policy, for some reason, is not listening those that have already been in Z fillers. But what has one thing to do with another?

AntiPatriot (talk) 12:13, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

DB and Z have more inconsistencies than GT, even ignoring filler. DBS has numerous inconsistencies among its 3 versions even with so little of it released so far. If inconsistencies are your decision criteria for canon, than your stance is that GT is the highest canon, and DBS is not canon because it can't even agree with itself. You can't deny the DBS is entirely inconsistent with itself. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:24, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Ball GT was called a "gaiden" (commonly translated just as spin-off) by Toriyama - which means: "a spin-off of a previously published work that is neither officially considered a sequel nor a prequel". While I guess it is ok to treat it as canon, it maybe should not be treated as highly as the other animes, since it's just a gaiden and not a full continuation or adaption.--Neffyarious (talk) 12:44, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

What are you quoting for this inaccurate definition? Seriously, that's a terrible definition, it even uses the word itself in the description. That's like me saying an anime is defined as an anime that is unofficial. It doesn't make any sense. Besides, we know that GT is obviously a sequel to DBZ. The events are official, licensed, and published, and pick up with the same characters and events that happen at the end of DBZ. It's laughable to hear you brand "unofficial" on a series acknowledged by Toriyama as having a place in his universe when you yourself call some video games official. You can't have it both ways. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:24, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Following up, I found your "definition" listed on Wikipeda, and actually only as the 5th definition. The more relevant ones were side-story, tale, anecdote, and supplement. If that's the Dragon Box quote that you're pulling "gaiden" from, then the primary source is just as likely quoting Toriyama saying GT is a sequel to the original manga as he is a "side-story". -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:24, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

Well, we don't know how long they plan to run Super or how they'll end it, so maybe there's hope for GT yet. I suggest that we try to be patient for a while, if no one minds.--Observer Supreme 13:35, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

This certainly makes sense. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:24, August 3, 2015 (UTC)

but literally, there's no way GT can exist. There are things in Super that cannot be in GT even if GT was made 15 years ago Meshack (talk) 02:26, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Super is the one that doesn't exist. Sandubadear 02:28, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

what do you mean super doesn't exist? Meshack (talk) 02:33, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

what did you mean with "there's no way GT can exist"? Sandubadear 02:35, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

• King Kai has his planet
• Super Saiyan God transformations
• Pilaf Gang are children

and there's others. also, Akira Toriyama is writing the story outline fo super and for gt, he just did character designs Meshack (talk) 02:39, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

King Kai has his planet in GT too. Like I said, maybe Super is the one that doesn't exist while GT does, because frankly this neo-Dragon Ball is way worse than GT, topkek. Sandubadear 02:46, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

In GT, King Kai is in the Other World. I like this "neo-Dragon Ball" than GT because Beerus, Whis, SSG, and it's more fun. Meshack (talk) 02:59, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

King Kai's planet is in the Other World, d'oh. He is shown in his planet in the Super 17 saga, I think. For some reason dead people can get sick. In the beginning of GT he seems to be in either Heaven or Grand Kai's planet; and the end of the Dragon saga, he is in Grand Kai's planet. Beerus and Whis are cool characters, I agree, but the lack of plot in BoG and RF is worse than GT's. And the god transformations are just crappy photoshop recolors. Sandubadear 03:04, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

i knew it was in the Other World, but i meant to say Grand Kai's planet. About the lack of plot, that's what Super is for right? Meshack (talk) 03:08, August 4, 2015 (UTC)

It's clearly no longer canon with the release of super. Why is this still a debate? —This unsigned comment was made by David Longmire (talk • contribs) Please sign your posts with ~~~~ next time!

You clearly didn't read anything above. What justification do you have for saying Dragon Ball even uses a "canon"? There is overwhelming evidence that Toriyama has no official continuity of his own, in that he has never called anything canon, unofficial, retconned, etc. He freely creates media inconsistent with itself and doesn't care. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 16:19, August 8, 2015 (UTC)

Reasoning as to how both GT and Super can both be considered canon at the same time

- There is a big time gap currently between Super and GT.  Because of this, there is a lot of things that can happen post 'Resurrection of F' that can create a bridge between Super and GT.

- Just  because Goku and Vegeta can go god-mode, doesn't mean that this transformation is guarenteed to be available to them forever.  Down the line that could prosibally lose the ability to temporarily tranform into a deity.

- I highly doubt Pilaf and his gang will want to remain children for only so long.  By use of the dragonballs or even by a different means they could either end up restoring themselves or something goes wrong and they get transformed directly into their much older versions in GT.

These are just a couple of the bigger potential inconsistances that can easily be fixed.  All the others can be fixed in simliar ways as well.  I would consider GT canon up to the point that Super begins to directly contradict GT by taking place in the same time frame.

I don't really care for GT myself, but it is in fact canon.  It seems like mostly everyone else who wants GT to be canon or wants GT to be noncanon are all completly bias.  I think both sides should spend some time playing devil's advocate.

Trizzip (talk) 16:16, September 10, 2015 (UTC)

Continuity is a bit off, but "canon" as in "officially part of the timeline", both series are. Sandubadear 16:41, September 10, 2015 (UTC)

Probably not worth addressing until after Super ends. Toriyama obviously doesn't care about inconsistencies anyway, since we have 3 conflicting versions of the Super story so far (movie, anime, and manga are all different). We have a whole article here for listing the many contradictions throughout every series. For example, in Dragon Ball Goku puts a bandit on the moon to live there for a year, then in Dragon Ball Z it's a major plot point that Goku can't breathe in space when fighting Frieza. Toriyama doesn't care. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 19:49, September 10, 2015 (UTC)

...now with Kabito Kai becoming unfused, something that DIDN'T happen in GT, its explicit that GT is a 'what if' non-canon story. Toriyama is also putting in far more work into Super than he did into GT (which wasn't a lot in comparison). Sorry you guys are in a losing battle in keeping GT's status. GT also follows the anime continuity, Super follows the manga. You don't note the difference at all.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 02:45, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

It seems more likely now that Super is not going to align with GT, although not 100% since we don't know what happens all the way through yet. In any case, none of the 3 versions of Super nor GT was based on a Toriyama manga, though they are both obviously meant as sequels to the original manga. "What-if" is a title for some video game scenarios, you're using it incorrectly. Also, you're using the term "canon" in a way that is not defined for Dragon Ball media. Before you start making judgments, why don't you take a shot at figuring out which of the 3 Super versions "counts". The conclusion is the series isn't meant to have an in-out canon. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:53, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

How are there 'three versions of Super'? There's only an anime and manga. And both have Toriyama working on them, with Toriyama being the co-writer on the manga chapters, though he is also working on the anime as well. Both anime and manga of Super are direct sequels to the Dragon Ball manga, while GT is a direct sequel to the anime. THere's a difference, especially since while in the manga there's NO 'Tuffle' storyline.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 04:05, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

You forgot the films. Toriyama is not co-writing the manga. He came us with some initial plot ideas, and now there are 3 versions. This proves there is no single "canon" from Toriyama's perspective. If there was, he'd make an effort not to make conflicting versions of it at the same time. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 06:23, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

Actually, he is co-writing the manga. He's doing it with Toyatoro and was credited as the co-author in the magazine. The plot details of all three are ultimately the same, nothing really has changed. Its still the same story being told different ways. Hell ultimately you can look at the movies as the first drafts of the new series. And it doesn't change one simple fact: Dragon Ball GT uses the Tuffle storyline. Something that was completely non-existant in the manga. Thus, Dragon Ball GT isn't in the same vein as Super which is a direct continuation of, let me repeat, the Dragon Ball Z MANGA.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 06:41, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

one thing now that is physical proof that super and gt aren't canon with each other (at least for now at my post's stamp time) is that kibito kai defused and has become east surpreme kai and kibito again so unless they fuse again, right now super and gt aren't canon with each other.0551E80Y (talk) 22:32, September 21, 2015 (UTC)

SuperSaiyaMan, your argument is full of holes. Toriyama is credited as the author of GT in the GT credits every episode. Toyatoro is the sole author of the manga, and the manga says so itself on every issue. Whatever magazine you read is wrong, out of date, or you misinterpreted it. Either way, if you say an author credit makes Super manga canon, you are saying GT is canon too. Don't be a hypocritical and say it applies to one and not the other. You argue inconsistencies don't make versions of Super non-canon, but inconsistencies do make GT non-canon. Another double standard. You say GT isn't based on the manga because it has new events in the future than are not in the manga. Super does the same thing: Super Saiyan God, Beerus, God Ki - none of which were in the original manga and yet Super is based on them. Super even says Beerus influenced King Vegeta and Frieza's family; these events weren't in the original manga but it's simply new material about past events. In the original manga Frieza destroyed planet Vegeta to prevent a Super Saiyan from existing, but in Super they rewrite it as Beerus ordering Frieza to do it. Beerus also says he wiped out the dinosaurs on Earth, despite there being dinosaurs on Earth in DB and DBZ. New series always add new elements, otherwise it wouldn't be new. I think it's clear you've decided that you don't want GT to count, and you're being unfair to try and make a point. That's fine for your opinion, but don't try to force others to agree with your bias.

0551E80Y, you're misusing the word canon. Things are not "canon to each other". Canon refers to things the author had any input in, or in modern times it can refer to an official published and professionally maintained list of "official" content. Dragon Ball does not have the latter, and most people apparently don't accept the former. What you probably mean is that they are inconsistent with one another, which as I said above we'll only know for sure once Super is completed. Keep in mind, the original manga was often inconsistent with itself. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:59, September 22, 2015 (UTC)

sigh* 20 years and this issue is still raging on i think akira and the other creators should learn to look more closely at what they write ask yourself why 'don't people accept the former' is because of those inconsitincies its like they are pulling heartstrings everytime one happens in the series the fans are disliking more and more everyone sees gt as the ultimate inconsitenty.0551E80Y (talk) 11:43, September 22, 2015 (UTC)

10X Kamehameha, Toriyama wasn't an author at ALL on GT. He was the creator of Dragon Ball, which is why he got credited. When he's listed as the 'author' in the GT's final episode in the dub, that was a error. For the Super manga, he's credited as the Co-Author, and of all the movies and Super itself, he's credited as Author. Not only that, you're confusing retcons and added plot details. GT doesn't count since it never counted. It uses ANIME-ONLY plots for it for Chirsts Sake: there's been NOTHING about the Tuffle Race in the manga, nor in Dragon Ball Minus or in the new movies, Super, etc. Thus, in the manga: Tuffles do not, and have never existed. Thus, Dragon Ball GT uses something that was never in the source material: thus...NON. CANON. How is that hard to understand, 10X Kamehameha? And why are you so damned determined in keeping GT 'canon' when plot details between it and Super changed, and the Tuffle Plotline, which was never in the manga, was one of GT's primary plot points for the Baby Saga?--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 18:12, September 22, 2015 (UTC)

It's interesting how you casually ignore the parts of what I say that prove you 100% wrong. Like how you say GT doesn't count because it added Tuffles, but Super still counts even though it added Beerus. How about how Bulma is the wrong age in Super? Must be an alternate universe from the manga (my impression of someone who believes contradictions dictate canon). You are wrong that Toriyama was only credited as the original author of GT. He was credited twice, once as the original author, and again as an author of GT. He created a few elements of the series, mostly character and location designs as opposed to the plot outline he created for Super. I'm confused as to why you ignore the fact that Toriyama is not credited as the manga co-author, and simply claim it despite it not being the case and someone else listed as the only author. Super has both retcons and inconsistencies, as well as new content: everything you for some reason hate about GT and more. Not sure why you love new cat aliens and hate new tuffle aliens, but hey it's your opinion. Just realize that your opinion defies all facts and obviously can't be forced on the readers. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:33, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Toriyama created Beerus. Bulma lied about her age. Tuffles only existed in the anime. There's a difference. And no, he was only credited as the author in GT in the DUB credits, not the original Japanese sub where he's listed just as the creator of Dragon Ball. Toriyama didn't write anything for GT, he just worked on character designs. Super? He actually wrote the story, is the co-writer of the anime and the manga, and ironed out the plots in the movies. Introducing new characters doesn't mean the same thing as using something that only existed in the anime. If Garlic Jr. was in GT, would you keep saying its the same level as the manga? Why do I keep bringing up the Tuffles? They again, were never in the manga. Not even mentioned in Dragon Ball Minus. The Tuffles never existed within manga canon, they only existed in the anime. Dragon Ball GT uses plotlines that ere only in the anime. Not in the manga. You refuse to tell the difference since you want GT to continue to be listed as its status. Due to your own inability to change things here, and your love of GT.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 02:00, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

More to the point. Toriyama is only credited as the original author of the Dragon Ball work in the Japanese cast. He never wrote anything for GT though, thus is uncreditted for that. The dub made an error (surprise surprise) and accidentally accredited him for something he had limited involvement on: http://www.kanzenshuu.com/production/gt/ . --SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 02:09, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

And while Toriyama did come up with the idea for Saiyans and Tuffles, he deliberately didn't include them in any of the work. He basically helped create a filler episode for the Dragon Ball Z anime to explain some concepts of the Saiyan's origins, but chose not to pursue them within the manga itself.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 02:13, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you're having trouble articulating your point, but please don't resort to insulting me. I'm not resistant to change, I'm resistant to restructuring a website around your incorrect opinion. I like all DB media and if you would actually read anything I've said, you know that I am NOT advocating for GT being a more official source than Super or the original manga. You said "would you keep saying its the same level as the manga", which tells me you don't understand my point of view, and you haven't even read this wiki's Manual of Style. You're arguing against a stance that I don't have! You seem impossible to reason with when you just keep repeating this nonsense you pulled out of thin air that Toriyama is the co-author of the Super manga. I pointed out that he is not the co-author, and the real sole author is listed on the first page of each chapter. Yet, you repeat yourself over and over defying this absolute fact, refusing to provide any evidence to support your stance. By the way, that Kanzenshuu link doesn't even list the writers. WOW, you state that Toriyama created the Tuffles, and yet you don't consider them a part of your view of canon. What an obvious bias for no reason. Bias is not allowed on any wiki. This conversation is quite frustrating when you (1) don't read my replies or the wiki's Manual of Style, (2) you ignore facts and repeat statements with no basis whatsoever, and (3) you deny that Toriyama's creations are a part of your personal view of canon. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:47, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

A few months ago Sandbadear said Toriyama's statements lately contain obvious errors with respect to his own creations, and thus when he says things like "18 has purple hair" we can't use it as fact. Sandubadear goes on to correctly point out that Toriyama has never said anything about canon. You responded, "He wouldn't need to. What he says and writes goes." Anything, but not Tuffles or GT characters or GT locations apparently. You are so unfairly biased. Please keep these unfair opinions to forums, blogs, and userspace, but not articles. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 06:07, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to insult you. And Toyotaro is just illustrating the Dragon Ball Super Manga, while Toriyama is the writer of it. This was confirmed in this article: http://www.idigitaltimes.com/dragon-ball-super-manga-announced-adaptation-joins-anime-arriving-july-442203 Not only that, the Tuffles were just created as a concept and concept art for the Anime by Toriyama, but he didn't use them at all in the manga, not even in the prequels of Patrolman Jaco or Dragon Ball Minus. The Anime just took it and rolled with it. The Kanzenshuu link showed how the credits of GT were presented AND clarified one thing: Toriyama was just credited as the original author. Not the plot writer of the series.--SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 06:11, September 23, 2015 (UTC)

It's fine, that got heated from both of us and it's just easier if we stick to facts, even though we're obviously both passionate about Dragon Ball and want the site to be accurate. The article you linked, which was written as an advertisement 2 months before the manga had started, does not say Toriyama is the writer and Toyotaro is the illustrator. In fact, the word illustrator is not even in the article, so it's a strange claim for you to make. First, the article says Toriyama will team up with manga author Toyotaro. Next, it says the anime producer received the plot from Toriyama. Finally, an advertisement for the anime and manga says Toriyama is the author of Super, and Toyotaro will be creating the manga. 2 months later, the manga actually started coming out, and every chapter says Toriyama is the creator of Super, and Toyotaro is the author of the manga. If we're being unbiased here and just looking at the facts, the real completed product says Toyotaro is the sole author, and nothing ever said Toyotaro is only an illustrator. We also have a direct quote saying Toriyama's real role, which was writing the plot.

Canon is defined as the body of works created by an author (its original definition anyway), and there's no reason to exclude anime created by Toriyama. I don't just think this of Tuffles, but of the Super anime as well, which has equal input from Toriyama as the Super movies and Super manga. This is why they are listed at the same canon level in the Manual of Style—they had input from Toriyama but he was not the sole author like with the original manga which stands alone at the top of the canon. The Kanzenshuu link did not clarify anything, it did not list any authors at all. It is lacking any evidence for or against Toriyama being an author of GT, unless you want to claim there were no writers at all which would be ludicrous. It doesn't matter anyway, since we agree that Toriyama's input to GT was designing the characters and locations of the series. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:33, September 24, 2015 (UTC)

i considered GT non canon because There's no way GT could fit into Super (Spice boys (talk) 01:49, September 26, 2015 (UTC) 

You... should read the conversation above. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:58, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

i know i just Don't see how GT can fit because ssjg is stronger than ssj4 because of God ki and Pilaf are kids and no ssjg and Vegeta didn't use ssjg on Baby or Super 17 and no Golden Frieza no cocoon in hell not to mention cooler in GT (Spice boys (talk) 02:09, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

Okay, you're entitled to your opinion. There's a deeper issue about how we define canon, and how to interpret 3 versions of Super, but it's a personal decision until they make an official canon. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:10, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

ok mate (Spice boys (talk) 12:01, September 26, 2015 (UTC)

Do people still consider this non-canon

Anime wise. Do they? Cause there is a crap ton pf evidence ON THIS PAGE, cause I really liked GT and it's like AT made 50% of the show, how could ppl still be butthurt, all the character designs ppl said were stupid, the plot ppl said were stupid, AT did it himself! My only guess for why GT doesn't have a manga is because AT was in mid retirement, and at time, there were no djin work for Dragon Ball, so he had nobody to draw it...   Tailsman67 ( Talk | Contribs | Edit Count )   22:02, November 8, 2015 (UTC)

GT is a side-story of Dragon Ball. It is not a continuation of the manga. However, Battle of Gods and Resurrection F are Meshack (talk) 22:12, November 8, 2015 (UTC)

From the article: "On the same Dragon Box that Toriyama illustrated the Super Saiyan 4 form, he refers to the series as "a grand side-story of the original Dragon Ball".[4] This highly controversial statement is interpreted by some fans to mean that the series is considered by Toriyama as an official continuation of his manga, and by others to mean the opposite." So the unbiased facts here are that GT is a sequel to the manga, same as Super, and Toriyama has had some involvement in both GT and Super but not as much as DB or DBZ. There are 3 versions of Super that all contradict each other, so it would be ignorant and indefensible for us to claim any one version is true while others are false, let alone that they are higher canon than other series. Toriyama doesn't care about consistency and canon, only certain fans make a big deal about it. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:53, November 11, 2015 (UTC)

Haha, so true thou.  Tailsman67 ( Talk | Contribs | Edit Count )   23:01, November 17, 2015 (UTC)

Most people do. The wiki is the only place that calls GT canon. SeaTerror (talk) 23:32, November 20, 2015 (UTC)

Any site that claims they know of some official DB canon made it up. The series creators have never published an official canon. Only Star Wars, Sherlock Holmes, and a few others have official canons. The versions of DB canon you find online are all fan interpretations. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:09, November 21, 2015 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Gt is offically non-canon

So can we put GT into the other media section of characters now? Because it's offically non-canon by Akira Toriyama and Super is considerered to be the true sequel.Gamma Venom 567 (talk) 03:48, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

do you have a source to back up your claim and a link to it? 0551E80Y (talk) 04:44, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

Gamma Venom 567, you should read our Manual of Style and this talk page to get some context. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 18:46, December 6, 2015 (UTC)

BUT GT WAS FUN!

GT is funny so don't hate on it fandom don't be mean it was hilarious seeing Goku as a kid again and it used cool ideas and music. STOP HATING ON GT IT WAS A GOOD SERIES!!

I love the Super Saiyan 4 Transformation it is unique and badass!!

The art style is really good

 Hyperactive Pikachu (talk) 18:05, January 1, 2016 (UTC)Added By HYperactive Pikachu STAY SUPER SAIYAN FOR LIFE

Plus Bulla is sexy as her mom :3

Don't forget about the people about Gogeta being stronger... and they hardly have evidence.

Toriyama's comments

The canon section in this is very biased towards GT being canon with innacurate information. My edits were made to make the post more accurate and neutral, but they were undone by someone who seems to be biased in the opposite dirrection (their name is a GT attack). 

Toriyama has never said anything to the affect of "this sereies is great", "this series feels like as if I had written it", "I quite enjoyed this series", so it is misleading to plainly say he has positive feelings toward it (in the same way he has expressed affection for the Bardock special). In that image where he draws Super Saiyan 4, he clearly states he likes the character DESIGNS BY NAKATSURU because he affectively adapted Toriyama's unique style. Other than that, he just says he appreciates the hard work of the talented staff members. Saying he is fond of the series makes it seem like he has seen every episodes, approves of the character arcs, plots, etc. Saying Toriyama directed the series is completely innacurrate as well. He is given "author" credit on almost everything, so it needs to be clarified that this doesn't indicate that he played a role in authoring the bulk of GT. 

As for the innacuracies, they were previously written in a way that gives off a stuck-up and extremely biased impression, and the content was misleading. To say GT has fewer inconsistencies than the other TV animes doesn't mean anything in the context of the series production; GT didn't have to create filler content for the plot to catch up, GT wasn't written in an as-you-go fashion, GT didn't have to worry about contradictory content coming afterwards, and GT is MUCH shorter of a series than DB or DBZ. Indicating this "fact" is pointless and divisive. 

Overall, this section (among others that I have not bothered to edit) was very misleading, innacurate, and biased towards GT being canon. Considering the fact that Super exists and all signs point to that being Toriyama's own continuation of the manga events, I think the post is better off left neutral and accurate.

-batistabus

Batistabus (talk) 08:28, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

ever wonder why gt was only 64 episodes long plus only one special? 0551E80Y (talk) 09:39, February 8, 2016 (UTC)

Batistabus, as neither this article nor the site's official stance on canon say that GT (or anything for that matter) is canon, there is obviously nothing biased in that direction. Your edits did not make the article more accurate, since you purposely removed facts, and thus introduced a bias. I don't understand how you can change "some fans do not consider" to "many fans do not consider" and not call yourself biased. Some fans say GT isn't canon because of inconsistencies, so it's very useful to point out the hole in that argument, which is that it has no more inconsistencies (less even) than DB or DBZ. We are addressing a general feeling people have, and stating that it is only a feeling and not a valid means to a conclusion. Your edit summary "Saying that the series has fewer inconsistencies than Dragon Ball and DBZ - as if that validates it as no less canon - is misleading" shows that you fundamentally missed the point (we are dismissing a misconception by stating facts)... or alternately you feel that GT is not canon due to inconsistencies so you don't want us to point out you are wrong. I think the latter is obviously the case, since you say that it having fewer inconsistencies is a "fact" in quotes. You say "Indicating this "fact" is pointless", but the paragraph in the article, which you edited to be more biased by change "some" fans to "many" fans (odd to make an editing up-playing the importance of something you claim to think is pointless), states it is worth noting since there are fans who claim GT is non-canon due to inconsistencies.

You go on to downplay Toriyama's role in GT including character designs, and try to separate it from the other series by saying it was similar, rather than the same process.

It is bizarre that you put, in quotes, ""this sereies is great", "this series feels like as if I had written it", "I quite enjoyed this series"". That wasn't in the article, nor has anyone other than you said those things. You are arguing against... yourself I suppose. You say "he has seen every episodes, approves of the character arcs, plots, etc" is in the article, which it is not. You complain about "Saying Toriyama directed the series", which the article does not say. In fact, the note about Toriyama directing is not only something you apparently imagined, but you obviously didn't read the article, which lists the actual director, series director, episode directors, Series Composition & Chief Scenario Director, Animation Directors, and Sound Director. It's honestly very hard to have a conversation with you when you are mad about wanting to remove things that aren't even said.

You say he's credited as author, but we need to make it clear that he isn't the author. It is ridiculously biased to ask for us to say something officially stated in a licensed source is invalid because... of wait you didn't give a reason. The article says "Akira Toriyama is credited as author in the ending credits of Dragon Ball GT", and gives a screenshot of that fact to prove it. If you have something that proves they fraudulently lied about that in the credits, please present it.

Your edit removed facts, added anti-GT bias, and sought to hide the true statements that remove weight from your own opinion. The point of the section is to provide neutral grounding for common misconceptions cited as reasons to ignore GT, and well as to present the evidence that supports ignoring GT. Since there is no official canon for DB, no conclusion is drawn. You removed some of the pro-GT facts to promote your own viewpoint, which you have reiterated here, capped off by your conclusion that you yourself have discarded GT in favor of Super. The truth is "canon" is an invention of fans, and is not a concept supported by Toriyama. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:22, --February 10, 2016 (UTC)

--------

The entire wording of the section makes it seem like people who dismiss GT are a minority and don't really have the grounds to think so. Whether you say "some" or "many", they're both biased. One implies few, one implies a lot, and I think the latter is more accurate. At the very least, I think the section favors GT, or very much feels like it was written by someone who does.

Saying GT is less inconsistent than the other anime series is a pointless argument when viewed in context, which is what I was saying. It has nothing to to with how I view the series. Regardless, the way the wiki definies inconsistencies is very flawed in my opinion, and this shouldn't be criteria for how valid a series is or not.

When I criticize the page as saying Toriyama directed GT, I was referring to the line that says "he oversaw the series' production", which he didn't. "Oversaw" implies a much more hands-on approach than what actually occured. His involvement with Dragon Ball GT compared to Dragon Ball/Z is NOT the same. Aside from the obvious fact that he wrote the original series, he contributed to quite a few filler moments and character designs, in addition to selecting some of the voice talent. In GT, his contributions began and ended with character designs.

I emphaseized that Toriyama was talking about character designs...because he was. In the image where he drew SS4 Goku, that is exactly what is said. He is complimenting Nakatsaru's designs; I am not making that up, and it's something that should be noted specifically on this page regardless of what you think of the rest of my edits. To simply write "Toriyama seems to have positive feelings towards his works' continuation" implies that he LIKES the series, which may or may not be true, but it is not what is said in that source. I wrote that he didn't say "this series is great/enjoyable/etc." because he has said things like that about other works...he has not spoken about GT in that way. I think it would be fair to say, in those specific situations, that he has "positive feelings" towards them, but not here. Compare what he says about GT to what he says about the Bardock special .

My changes regarding Toriyama being listed as author isn't to say that he isn't credit as author...it's to clarify what that actually means. Toriyama has been credited as author on a number of Dragon Ball productions he had little-to-no part in, which is what I was emphasizing. 

You are insisiting I am adding anti-GT bias, but I'm insisting that I am making more neutral what seems like pro-GT bias. I believe that there is no officially stated or concrete "canon" for anything Dragon Ball related outside of the original manga drawn by Akira Toriyama, so anything that I have edited/added is not driven by that notion. My comment about Super was made to imply that it's something we can confidently say Toriyama has "posistive feelings towards as his work's continuation" since he had a significant role in it's production. 

[I'm not really sure how you're supposed to post things in these wiki "talk" areas...I'm new here, so please excuse me if I did it wrong]

Batistabus (talk) 00:19, February 11, 2016 (UTC)

Your formatting here is perfect. These talk pages are for civil discussion about edit conflicts, which is what we have here.

"Some" means any amount more than one, whereas "many" means a lot. Your biased change here is unacceptable. The inconsistencies are viewed by some as a reason call GT non-canon, including yourself based on what I read from you before. We dispel this myth with facts, which is exactly what an encyclopedia should do. We're not going to remove it just because you don't want it to be true. If you dislike the way we track consistencies, you should be editing that page rather than pretending it doesn't exist.

Oversaw means oversaw, not directed, and I don't know why you still think that. He did have some hands-on interaction, as you mentioned the character design. Obviously GT did not have filler, so DBZ having Toriyama filler [citation needed] is not a comparison we can make. For what we can compare, the process was the same. From the translation link, Toriyama also named the series GT.

Toriyama came up with the title and character designs, plus additional environments, and knew great work was being done by "excellent staff". He lauds another character designer's work on the series, "animator Nakatsuru-kun is amazingly skilled, and mastered the peculiarities of my drawings in no time at all, to the point where there were even times when I couldn’t tell whether I had drawn a certain character design, or if he had." He goes on to call it "grand", and watching it makes him "happy". In fact, he literally says he "enjoys it". If you don't see this as overwhelmingly positive, then you're actively ignoring the man's own statements. Toriyama's role in Super has nothing to do with his feelings about the series positive or otherwise. Likewise, Toriyama's feelings about Super have no bearing on his feelings about GT. You do make a good point that as written in the article, there is a disconnect. He drew a picture, but we should really be referring to the quotes you highlighted (which is linked in the article already) when we make that claim.

Whether or not you feel like he was the author, it is a fact that he is indeed credited as the author. This is an important piece of information, and overrules your feelings otherwise. As an encyclopedia, we use facts, quotes, etc. and not mere feelings by fans. You can say what you think all you want, but you will never make an argument more convincing than licensed publications telling us something else. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:35, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

"...we use facts, quotes, etc. and not mere feelings by fans." Yeah, right. LOL Meshack (talk) 03:45, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

This negative comment is counterproductive. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:47, February 14, 2016 (UTC)

------------

Without a survey of the community, I suppose I cannot concretely say "many", although I expect this would be the case. In that case, I believe "a number of fans" would be more neutral than "some". 

Of course GT does not have filler, but the point is that Toriyama contributed to actual story content in the DB/DBZ anime and he did not do this as far as we know for GT. I'm glad you accept the evidence I provided from Kanzenshuu, so maybe you'll find this page helpful.

I think you're overinterpereting the quote. He says "Dragon Ball GT is a grand side-story of the original Dragon Ball, and it’ll make me happy for us to watch and enjoy it together." While I'm certainly not saying he indicates that he dislikes it in anyway, I think this is more supportive PR rather than a review of the work. Saying "I hope we can enjoy it together" is different than saying "I enjoy it". It'd be best to let the quote stand for itself, but since it is a translation done by Kanzenshuu, I don't think it would be proper to simply paste their content. My interperetation is "the staff worked really hard on this, so let's sit back and enjoy it for what it is". If I felt like Toriyama was saying he thought the plot and characters were really fun and interesting, I would be happy to acknowledge that. He only gets specific on things he appreciated when he talks about Nakatsuru. 

Yes, he is credited as author, and that is a fact. It is also a fact that he is credited as author on productions that he had little-to-no invlovelment with. Saying he is author to someone who isn't aware of that would likely give a different impression of the situation.

Anyway, thanks for acknowledging my criticisms. It left a bad impression when you undid my initial change with the comment "wrong information and clearly biased", but this is much more productive. 

Batistabus (talk) 00:01, February 15, 2016 (UTC)

I googled the word "some" and here are its uses as a determiner, which is what we are using it for (not a pronoun or adverb). "an unspecified amount or number of" or "used to refer to someone or something that is unknown or unspecified". Some is the perfect word to use, as both of its definitions match our intent.

It is true that Toriyama came up with some things in DB, DBZ, GT, and Super anime and other people came up with other things for all four of those. Which things are most important is a matter of opinion. Stating the list of his contributions, as we do in this article, is the perfect way to present the facts without drawing conclusions.

As for Toriyama's quotes, I am quoting, not interpreting. You say you "I think this is more supportive PR" and "my interperetation is", but you must not let your feelings and interpretations apply to an encyclopedia. Perhaps he was lying to increase sales, but that's absolutely not something we can guess and then stick in front of our readers as a fact. If you notice, the article now says "Toriyama has said that", which is carefully worded for a reason. It is not "Toriyama enjoys it", because that would be presuming to know his emotions. All we can do is point out what he said and link the original source, which we have done. If readers want to dig into the background info and read the entirety of the translation we used or even re-translate it themself, they are encouraged to do so.

"He is credited as author on productions that he had little-to-no invlovelment with" - what are you talking about, and what would those examples have to do with GT? Are you implying he is not the author of anything he authored? Or that he authored some things he is credited for and not others and that it is impossible to tell which? Luckily for us, all of those things are irrelevant because we say "Akira Toriyama is credited as author in the ending credits" which is literally 100% true no matter what.

The way editing works, it's likely that when you make a big change someone will find some fault with it, and then we have these talk pages to work things out. The best ways to reduce that are edit summaries (generally always a good practice), making obvious grammar/spelling/formatting edits separate from the controversial ones so people can undo and discuss selectively, and editing a lot to get to know the community and their policies. Every last wiki is a little different. There are even some where once an admin or a specially privileged regular user responds to your comment on the talk page, they "end" the discussion with a template, and you can get blocked for continuing to discuss. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:35, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, 10X about my counterproductive comment but it's true. Anyways, I don't know what this is about because I wasn't here when this started but I can see it's about Toriyama being credited as author. Toriyama is most likely credited as author because he is the author of Dragon Ball and not necessarily the author for GT. If you check this thread some one explains this in a good way Meshack (talk) 01:13, February 16, 2016 (UTC)

A lot of people think he was credited as the author of the original DB story and that is what the credits mean, but that is not true. As you can read and view screenshots for earlier on this talk page, he is actually given a credit as the original author of DB, then a separate credit as author of GT. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:35, February 18, 2016 (UTC)

Toriyama explicitly stated he only designed characters and some names in GT, he had zero contribution to the story. He even called it a side story. GT is non canon simply because it's not written by Toriyama, unlike Super which was explicitly stated to be direct continuation of the Buu arc. Anybody who thinks GT is canon is delusional Faisal Shourov (talk) 02:45, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

Wow, you obviously didn't read anything on this article or talk page. You also didn't read the Manual of Style, and your perception of the DB canon is way off. DB doesn't even have an official canon, and you're calling things non-canon. Literally nonsense. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:57, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

more proof that GT non canon

in Super the Supreme kais are unfused (Spice boys (talk) 17:09, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

So Kibito or Supreme Kai could make another set and they refuse, that isn't proof because Super isn't over yet.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  17:33,2/22/2016 

ok but i still doubt they fused (Spice boys (talk) 17:37, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

Well keep doubting and when and if they do refuse that will be one less supposed it proof that you and everyone else like you has.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  17:46,2/22/2016 

chill mate i just don't think GT canon (Spice boys (talk) 17:52, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

i don't see them fusing again because they do not like it Meshack (talk) 20:33, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

I thought GT was non-canon anyway? I seriously doubt Toriyama is going to make an effort to match up the endings. He'll probably retcon the Z ending as well. -- • Final Chidori • Talk • Contribs 21:38, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

i can't see him retconning the ending of the manga and i do not seeing him matching super and gt. the series are way too different to match. Beerus, Whis, Jaco, etc. would have to be killed. Meshack (talk) 21:41, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

Or either forgot about or disappeared.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  22:36,2/22/2016 

i don't know about ending being canon or not but why would Goku be interested in Uub when he's a ssjg? (Spice boys (talk) 22:47, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

Toriyama doesn't care about matching GT with Super, it's just fanboys with their own headcanons who refuse to accept the fact that GT is nothing but a sidestory. Toriyama never wrote GT, nor he intends to match GT with Super. That was impossible to begin with. Faisal Shourov (talk) 23:55, February 22, 2016 (UTC)

i agree and that what i mean by non canon but GT can be seen as a different dimension like the movies (Spice boys (talk) 00:39, February 23, 2016 (UTC)

Dude calls something non-canon then complains about "fanboys with their own headcanons". That is absolutely hilarious. You have a "headcanon" as you call it Faisal. The people who disagree with you are likely aware of the fact that there is no official DB canon. There is no employee to manage one like Star Wars has, and it is not as simple as it was for things like Sherlock Holmes. This is an undeniable, absolute fact. Super might or might not match up with the ending of DBZ and then the beginning of GT; it doesn't create an official, professionally managed canon either way. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:06, February 24, 2016 (UTC)

would you atleast agree that GT in a different dimension? and just because Akira doesn't say what's canon and what's non canon doesn't mean it doesn't exist, beside Akira said GT a side story that could be his way of saying non canon (Spice boys (talk) 03:09, February 24, 2016 (UTC)

It's honestly hard to say, since we don't know how the endings will line up at this point. Honestly, I don't really like the word "canon", especially in Dragon Ball, but I guess it's bound to come up in a wiki haha. I just consider it all Dragon Ball. -- • Final Chidori • Talk • Contribs 03:47, February 24, 2016 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware of, no company has used the word canon but yet every anime/manga has their own canon. Gt has been said to be a side-story and nothing more by Toriyama himself. Meshack (talk) 04:36, February 24, 2016 (UTC)

ok guys but im pretty sure anything That's not in the Manga is not canon (Spice boys (talk) 17:05, February 24, 2016 (UTC)

Meshack, side stories *can* be canon. Just because it's a side story doesn't mean it's not canon. Unless an official directly states that it's not canon, then it would be an assumption to consider it so.

Spice, something doesn't specifically have to be in the manga for it to be canon. Super (the anime) is canon.  -- • Final Chidori • Talk • Contribs 20:01, February 24, 2016 (UTC)

ok mate (Spice boys (talk) 01:25, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

Toriyama did not say "a side-story and nothing more", those are Meshack's words. Toriyama called GT a grand side-story, which was a translation of what he really said. It means it's a DB story and realistically has no relevance to the fan-concept of canon, which Toriyama doesn't seem to care about. There are plenty of franchises with an official canon. Star Wars and Sherlock Holmes come to mind. More recently, in Stephen Universe an in-universe character breaks the 4th wall by telling the audience the episode they are watching (a crossover with Uncle Grandpa) is not canon. The only thing that I'd be comfortable calling non-canon in DB are the "What-If" stories, which are literally presented as something that didn't happen, but hey what if it did? -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:55, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

i know canon doesn't really matter, what matter is if you enjoy it but still i thought the whole canon thing exist i think GT non canon, but whether GT canon or not i consider it a different dimension (Spice boys (talk) 17:10, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

Canon?

Is GT canon anymore since pilaf, mai, and shu all are children in battle of the gods and not enought time would pass for them to look as old as they do in GT?Gorea Core-X (talk) 21:28, February 26, 2016 (UTC)

its not just that 1 why wasn't ssjg used in GT? 2 why doesn't frieza use Golden form in GT? 3 why was Cooler in GT? 4 the Supreme kais are unfused in Super they not in GT 5 Gohan want's train to protect his family after frieza death in Super 6 Akira didn't write GT and Called it a side story (Spice boys (talk) 17:35, February 27, 2016 (UTC) 

It's been said countless times, "side story" =/= non-canon. -- • Final Chidori • Talk • Contribs 17:49, February 27, 2016 (UTC)

people ask the same questions Meshack (talk) 20:30, February 27, 2016 (UTC)

i didn't mean to repeat myself  if i did sorry i was using questions to Answer this guy question if that makes sense (Spice boys (talk) 23:13, February 27, 2016 (UTC)

Although we won't know until Super ends, Super will likely have some contradictions with GT. It already has contradictions with DBZ and the original manga. Inconsistencies exist internally in the original manga, plus all the anime series. They are not a good way to measure "canon". -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 18:54, February 28, 2016 (UTC)

Super is canon now

Super is the true canon continuation of the manga version of the dragon ball saga while GT takes elements from the anime filler and pre-BOG movies so that would make it a canon continuation of Toei's original anime adaption of the manga.

That's my take at least, but after seeing Super I have to say I actually prefer GT to it. Super is even more childish in its action and comic relief, the characters just don't seem themselves they seem more like parodies of their quirks from dbz rather than characters with actual complexity and reality. GT had a lot of flaws but at least the enemies weren't as stupid as Golden Frieza and this billshit, the concept of Beerus was cool enough but his character is just obnoxious and unpleasant, an unwelcome presence among the main characters as all he does is bully and push them around making them seem like little bitches especially Vegeta who's GT self would have never allowed himself to be made a fool of by a skinny little cat man. Idk but I think Akira has forgotten too much about what made his series great and his ideas for the new content just seem like insanity to me, like he's going out of his way to make things cringe worthy and the opposite of what made dbz so badass and cool.

I gotta say GT gave us refreshing story lines that felt unique and original, like the Baby saga and Shadow Dragons. I also felt pan and Goku were an endearing pair. It could have been done a lot better the fights were far too slowly paced and there were too many distractions and cut aways from the action, but the story that was there was far superior to the cluster fuck of lousy and out of character writing that is Super. If one day we had gotten a reimagining GT with better fights and pacing that would have been ideal, made it feel more like DBZ and the manga but with the same series of events leading up to the fight with Omega Shenron that would have been perfect, but no we get this trash ass shit with annoying "gods" and ridiculous shit like golden Frieza and this boring tournament with goofy competitors. I truly wish GT was canon instead at this point in time. NexCarnifex (talk) 14:09, March 14, 2016 (UTC)

Interesting opinion. In the future, please post opinions on forums, blogs, or chat. This page is for article formatting issues. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:02, March 15, 2016 (UTC)

yes i agree, beeus vs ssjg Goku fight made the universe shake gt hasn't done that to me ssjg is stronger than all gt characters (Spice boys (talk) 00:15, December 4, 2016 (UTC)

another thing both GT and Super sucks but GT sucks more imo (Spice boys (talk) 00:33, December 4, 2016 (UTC)

This is for article formatting issues.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  00:46,12/4/2016 

its a talk page, besides why can't it be both like it used too? (Spice boys (talk) 01:08, December 4, 2016 (UTC)

It was technically never supposed to be used for both. If you want to share your opinion on a topic, make a blog or post about it on the forums. This page is for article discussion only. -- • Final Chidori • Talk 01:45, December 4, 2016 (UTC)

ok (Spice boys (talk) 01:48, December 4, 2016 (UTC)

i know this isn't the place to talk about opinions, but im just going to say one more thing i change my opinion i prefer gt over Super i don't like Super (Spice boys (talk) 23:55, December 18, 2016 (UTC)

What happend to GT after the godly topic?

As we know, Goku is know on topic with Gods... so what does this mean for GT? Well, there is just mortals, proof that is the original topic before gods .... so will we see Kid Goku? Maybe.... and Super Saiyan 4 might come. Hope it doesn't offend you... also 10 years... looks like Zamasu when either 10 years or 5 years... whaddya think?

Iso33 (talk) 14:28, April 6, 2017 (UTC)

Well sadly, other than the designs, GT was NEVER canon, and i don't treat Super as canon either. Why you ask? Becuase Toriyama stated that the REAL GT would be the adventures of Mark and BuuBH Ouji (talk) 18:46, April 8, 2017 (UTC)

Actually, everything BH just said is completely wrong. Toriyama never said anything about "canon", relating to GT or otherwise. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 14:47, April 9, 2017 (UTC)

Really? Even thought Toriyama stated that he doesn't know how to deisgn personalities of nice women (which doesn't make sense, as we got Lunch's good self) so Pan would have 50% personality of her GT self, but yeah he said that GT is "a side story"BH Ouji (talk) 18:29, April 11, 2017 (UTC)

Do you even know what a side story is?  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  18:49,4/11/2017 

Pan is a brat. He says GT is a grand side story of the original manga. Sounds more like canon than non-canon to most, but In reality Toriyama didn't say anything at all about canon. By the way, if you read this article this info is already in it. You're not bringing up anything new. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:57, April 12, 2017 (UTC)

No she isn't sir, Panny is a sweet loving girl that Toei ruined

Wait, if DBGT IS canon, why Goku didn't used SSJB on Baby?BH Ouji (talk) 05:15, April 12, 2017 (UTC)

Ugh, read the Manual of Style man. Canon doesn't work that way for this series. DBS isn't over yet either. Maybe SSB goes away somehow, maybe regular SS for Goku and Vegeta uses divine power later without being blue. Maybe SSB is too much power usage for a kid body, similar to SS3. Maybe SS4 is so much stronger than SSB that it's not worth it. There's no way to make definitive statements about the ending of a series that hasn't ended yet. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 06:12, April 12, 2017 (UTC)

Now that DBS has (nearly) finished

With DB Super ending pretty soon I noticed at least the following kind of hints that the storyline from GT can still be regarded as canon:

• Majin Buu is still alive and not reborn as Uub.
• None of the characters at the end of DBS are older than they are in the beginning of DBGT.
• Super Saiyan Blue is not the new Super Saiyan 4. Goku has not reached a new Super Saiyan level that would make SS4 non-canon. Super Saiyan God is not a Super Saiyan level and becoming Super Saiyan while being SSG is basically, the way I understood it, being Super Saiyan 1, while in God-mode.
• SS4 does not appear in DBS, thus his first transformation into SS4 is not non-canon
• Golden Oozaru does not appear in DBS either.
• Frieza is still dead and I doubt he'll win the tournament or gets to do a wish.
• King Kai and his pets still have their halo.

---Zantam03 ^(Talk) 21:43, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

Kid Buu has been reborn as Uub in Super, Uub is hinted at in it. Kid Buu and Good Buu are two totally different characters.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  22:46,3/2/2018 

Ah ok, been awhile since I saw any of the older series. Seems I was misremembering stuff. I remember Good Buu dying in GT and thought Uub was reincarnated from him. Lol. But I know Kid and Good are different Buu's. I've heard the hints about Uub... but he hasn't appeared yet, which seems consistent with the timelines in Z and GT. ---Zantam03 ^(Talk) 12:01, March 3, 2018 (UTC)

You can regard whatever you like as canon. It all depends on what you use as a point of reference. Just don't project your headcanon into the articles.

Orion (T-B-C) 23:02, March 2, 2018 (UTC)

Uub first appears in DBZ, not GT. They shouldn’t be older at the end of DBS than the beginning of GT, not sure what your point is. Not sure what you’re trying to say about the SS levels. Note about SS4 in DBS doesn’t make sense chronologically and is circular logic. Same with Golden Great Ape. Yup, Frieza is still dead, so what? I think you may be a bit confused about the time periods when DBZ, DBS, and DBGT take place. Read some articles on here and it may help you out. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:32, March 3, 2018 (UTC)

You're right he does. I should've not relied on my memory that much while making this post, lol. The main point was really that many people said DBGT is not canon or not canon anymore ever since DBS came out. But DBS doesn't look like it completely ignores DBGT either. That's kinda what I tried to show with the points I made above. They could've used SS4 in DBS and it would make the appearance of SS4 in DBGT completely illogical. Same with Golden Oozaru. If Frieza was resurrected it wouldn't make sense to have him in Hell in DBGT. But he's still dead. King Kai hasn't been resurrected either. He kept his halo throughout DBS and onto GT. These are small details that imo show that while making DBS they didn't completely ignore GT. ---Zantam03 ^(Talk) 12:09, March 3, 2018 (UTC)

There are a few things that don’t currently match up, but nothing that couldn’t be resolved in an episode or two or an OVA whenever DBS ends. It will really be up the producers and Toriyama if they want to have DBS line up with the end of DBZ (such as Uub) and DBGT. With things like Super Dragon Balls out there, it would be easy to make everything match if they care to. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 17:39, March 3, 2018 (UTC)

DB/Z/GT/S have always been filled with inconsistencies. But what few things are you talking about? I feel like the Shadow Dragon Saga, y favourite saga of GT, has been hurt the most by DBS, because of the amount of wishes that were needed for the dragon balls to become corrupt..---Zantam03 ^(Talk) 17:48, March 4, 2018 (UTC)

Edit: almost forgot, but Pilaf & co are now younger than they were in GT. That's kinda a problem, but it's not like they're not there. They're alive. They can still gather the Dragon Balls in GT and make the wish. They will have to revive Android 17 though, else his appearance in GT doesn't make sense. But I think they will. ---Zantam03 ^(Talk) 18:10, March 5, 2018 (UTC)

My guess is Goku will use the Super Dragon Balls to resurrect everyone killed or erased (including whole universes). Or if Someone else gets the wish, Zeno will be so entertained by the fight that he will want to see more in the future (maybe annually?) and will bring everyone back to make it possible. Check out our List of inconsistencies article. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:21, March 7, 2018 (UTC)

The Xenoverse games have confirmed GT to be an alternate timeline, thus, there's no need for such speculations. http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/User:Ricardolindo. 

A video game is lower canon than anime series. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 04:04, March 9, 2018 (UTC)

But the Xenoverse games are known for trying to establish continuity and solving inconsistencies so I think we should accept them. They explain things such as most movies and GT as being alternate timelines and also "Episode of Bardock" as having happened due to Towa in Xenoverse 2. http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/User:Ricardolindo.

The games have their own continuity especially the Xenoverse (series) the timeline itself in the games is an alternate timeline, every version of the timeline is an alternate one in the games so therefore what the Xenoverse (series) says about GT and the movies being alternate timelines really don't carry much weight. Yes in the games you are restoring the timeline but the problem there is that you have to be added to the events to change them or they would stay the same. Also please sign your post to talk pages with four of these "~".  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  21:28,3/9/2018 

The Xenoverse series is not an alternate timeline because the Time Patrol's time traveling method does not create alternate timeline. The main parts of the Xenoverse series are in age 850 and age 852. The time traveling parts are in an altered version of the main timeline (not alternate timeline). Also, to my knowledge, it has never been said the games have their own continuity. (Sorry for editing your signature but it was impossible for me to write my answer, correctly, with it.) http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/User:Ricardolindo.

Actually yes it is because some of the characters (like Goku) does remember you later in the game because he says you look familiar. Also those altered versions of the main timeline makes them alternate timelines. Ok here is an example the original timeline where Goku died before the Androids appeared Future Trunks never went back to change history, the current main timeline he did and he is suspected to be the one to cause it to be different from his. I am not saying the main setting is an alternate timeline I am saying that the time travel parts where you go back in time to change events back that Mira, Towa, Demigra, and Fu changed. Also you shouldn't have had a problem replying because of my sig.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  23:20,3/9/2018 

Yes, but the Time Patrol's travels do not create time rings. It is thus an altered timeline not an alternate one. Also, Chronoa and Xeno Trunks have a good knowledge of all timelines' history so we should trust them. http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/User:Ricardolindo.

Uhh...actually they do. They might not create major alternate timelines, like the ones shown in Time Rings, but they tend to. Just look at the timeline where Trunks: Xeno saves Future Gohan from death, or any of the Parallel Quest missions. Yes, those are ALL alternate timelines that the Future Warrior has to clean up. SuperBen 1000000 (talk) 22:47, March 10, 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, the paralel quest timelines are side effects of the fixs the Time Patrol does in the timeline, since they are not perfect, given that the Time Patrollers were not a part of the original history.  They are not in the time scrolls and in the time rings so they are, relatively, harmless. The Time Patrol, only, keeps an eye on them to avoid criminals like the Time Breakers from sowing chaos there. As for the timeline where Xeno Trunks saves Future Gohan, that time distortion was caused by Towa's distorted time eggs and it is likely that such time distortion works the same way as the time distortions caused by the original time machines. Thus, it only increased the number of major timelines, by one, and it is likely that Chronoa allowed it to remain. http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/User:Ricardolindo.