Talk:Kamehameha

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kamehameha article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Dragon Ball Wiki? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Do not bite the newcomers Respond in a mature manner Be welcoming Maintain civility at all times	Article policies No opinionated research for articles Have a neutral point of view Verifiability

Vegeta?

When was it indicated that Vegeta could use the Kamehameha? I don't recall this. --  talk contr​ 21:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dekoshu 21:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC) In one of the PSP games for Dragonball Z?

It would be good to note which game it was next to the listing. --  talk contr​ 21:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Dekoshu 03:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC) In Shin Budokai, Vegeta performs it on Janemba. Translation:YES!

VEGETA?????

can vegeta use kamehameha?

Well if he doesn't do it in the Show, manga or a movie (Video Games don't count obviously) then I would say no.

If I remember correct, Vegeta and Goku each use the Kamehameha in Fusion Reborn. And I wouldn't be so bold as to say video games strictly do not count when considering a character's technique repertoire, but it would help to make it clear wherever appropriate that they are only shown capable of the move in a video game spin-off. Storm talk – projects 19:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Nubescout. I think that Vegeta could use a kamehameha if he wanted but dosen't since he's too proud to use a technuiqe thats the same that Kakarot uses and that he wouldn't use it unless he really had to.

you are correct my friend. Vegeta does do the attack in Fusion Reborn. However, I must agree that video games do not count as cannon since the game studios are the ones who make them (Not Toriyama or Toei etc...) and since when does Atrai decide whats canon in the Dragon Ball Universe that they had no part in creating? That makes since doesn't it?

I didn't mean to say that video games are canon when it comes to techniques not used by characters in the original series. I just meant that they're still notable on the wiki, so long as it's made clear that the character only uses the technique in a spin-off (there are examples other than strictly video games as well, such as Master Roshi using the Special Beam Cannon in Atsumare! Gokū Wārudo, which is a video game created solely using animation by Toei, similar to Shin Saiyajin Zetsumetsu Keikaku Chikyū-Hen and Uchū-Hen). Storm talk – projects 15:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right it is worth mentioning I suppose. It's just this wikia has quickly become the source to Dragon Ball so if it's listed here, fans might think it's cannon. We just have to make sure it's always clear what's real and what's not.--132.3.9.68 12:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey guys on youtube when Vegeta was Fighting a possessed gohan i notice that he used the Kamehameha becasue he drew is hands to the side and it was a smaller dark bluish white beam so i pretty much think Vegeta can use the KamehamehaStaff Sergeant Jack Jackson 00:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

It was actually a Galick Gun.

Gamewolf67 (talk) 20:29, December 14, 2012 (UTC)Gamewolf67

Super Kamehameha and Maximum Power Kamehameha

SSJ2AJB I'm confused on Super Kamehameha and Maximum Power Kamehameha. I know they're both more powerful than the normal Kamehameha, but I can't figure out which one is more powerful. Can someone tell me?

It doesn't matter.

Nubescout I think that their both at the same level of power depending on the user. If Goku used both of them they'd both be the same level of power. Master Roshi says its a maximum Kamehameha probably because he's exadurating and trying to show off his power to ladies.

I'm pretty sure that's not the case. The Super Kamehameha is more powerful than the Maximum Power Kamehameha, considering the latter was developed by Roshi before Dragon Ball begins, and by the the debut of the Super Kamehameha, Roshi had already become greatly outclassed (especially by its inventor). So technically they wouldn't be at the same level because the Maximum Power Kamehameha is a specific mastery of the technique, rather than the act of using a Kamehameha at full power (this is true at the time of its invention, but once Goku learned the Kamehameha he came to reinvent it and make its capabilities almost infinite). Storm talk – projects 14:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nabe-hame-ha

isnt this a parody?

Trivia Section

shouldn't it be mentioned that the Kamehameha Wave makes a characteristic sound when it is released?173.29.148.123 02:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

vegeta using kamehameha

Vegeta can use kamehameha.Garlic Gun is really kamehameha.U can google it or look in, i think it was, Shonen Jump 2003 volume 8.

Trunks

Trunks uses it in Bio broly and GT tried to add it but somebody removed it. Trunks should be listed.

I agree. I tried to as well. And it was removed. Movies or not, he still used it so it belongs there. TanorFaux 10:04, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Why the Lucario final smash should not be on here

Non-Dragon Ball related things should not be on here, with the exception of historical comparisons (i.e. Olibu to Hercule) and Toriyama-related things (i.e. Chrono Trigger). For this reason, a comparison to a final smash in a contemporary game should not be included. Destructivedisk 03:04, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

then alot of articles would have to lose some info but its good info so i think it should stay so keep it until someone else agrees with you User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig12 03:06, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

What other articles? The policy on here is to have only Dragon Ball-related information. Destructivedisk 03:08, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

i think future trunks and super saiyan or kakarot articles have stuff non dragon ball related (to a certain extent) so this should stay User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig12 03:09, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, but those should also probably be deleted, in all honesty. Destructivedisk 03:15, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

i think as long as the series share similarities there should be notes on the similarities of some characters or sagas or anything like that User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig12 03:17, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. After a while, it starts to make the site unencyclopedic. You could say "Krillin is similar to Don Patch from Bobobo because they are both enemies of the main character at first, and then become friends. They also both serve as comic relief." Sure, it's true and there are similarities, but it doesn't add anything. You could say "Goku and Yusuke from Yu Yu Hakusho are similar because they are both main protagonists who win tournaments.", but, once again, it doesn't add anything. I suppose it can be noted if the similarities are deliberate or stated by a creator, but two things being coincidentally similar is pointless. And don't even say "But the similarity between the two is on purpose!", because there is no proof for that. Destructivedisk 03:24, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

can you please tell me a show i have heard of User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig12 03:26, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's one. "Majin Buu is similar to Spongebob because they both inhale things and have high pitched voices." Now, it's true; the similarity is there. However, it's coincidental; as in, not on purpose. If it was on purpose or the similarities were stated by a creator, than it would be worthy of notice. However, two things being similar not on purpose is not worthy of note, as is the case with Lucario's final smash. If you can find an official statement by a creator that acknowledges the similarity, then I will agree. Until the, no. Destructivedisk 03:39, October 31, 2010 (UTC) you comparing to different types of series

So? The principal remains the same. The point is that if there is a similarity between two things, but the similarity isn't on purpose, then it doesn't matter. There's no reason to think that the similarity between Lucario's final smash and the Kamehameha is purposeful, and thus shouldn't be in the article. If it is on purpose or stated by a creator, it can be noted, however. Destructivedisk 03:39, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

no what im saying is if the 2 things are similar in there story or the things in the show or game are similar so putting spongebob with DBZ is completely stupid if we are comparing to fighting games or shows that are similar then they should be compared User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig12 03:42, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Could you rewrite that? I seriously have no idea what you just said. Destructivedisk 03:44, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Well, what other series do you know of that I could use as an example? Destructivedisk 03:53, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

naruto pokemon smash bros sonic User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig12 03:55, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at Sonic, then. "Knuckles and Vegeta are similar because they are both originally rivals with the main character, but they eventually become friends." Now, this is true; however, it is a total coincidence and thus should not be in the article. If the maker of Sonic said "Knuckles was based off of Vegeta", then it would be worthy of note. However, because that hasn't been said, we shouldn't put it on Vegeta's page. For the same reason, we shouldn't put that Kamehamaha and Lucario's final smash are similar because no statement has been made for it. That's my point. Find a statement where it says that it was on purpose and I will agree with you. Destructivedisk 04:01, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

well it could be knuckles is based off vegeta (there are so many similarities) which would be worth noting in vegeta article User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig12 04:04, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

But my point is that it is speculation. It's just a guess, and has no evidence, and thus has no reason to be in an article. Destructivedisk 04:07, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

but sonic is inspired by DBZ User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig12 04:08, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Can I have a reference? Destructivedisk 04:10, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

have you played sonic? User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig12 04:11, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I know. Super Sonic= Super Saiyan. Chaos Emeralds=Dragon Balls. other stuff too. Just forget about the Sonic example. Let's say Pokemon. You could say that the rival in the game is similar to Vegeta because they are beaten by the main character and are always trying to outdo him. It's true, but unverifiable. If it was stated by a creator it could be put in an article, but there has been no statement for kamehameha/final smash. Thus it's not okay to put it into the article. Destructivedisk 04:19, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

oh so you admit im right HAHAHAHA User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig12 04:22, October 31, 2010 (UTC) it still should be mentioned

Look, we can't decide on this, clearly. We have to consult an administrator. Could you please ask 10x Kamehameha about this? Destructivedisk 04:26, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

i wold but its your idea not mine :P User:Ultimatesupersaiyanvegito/sig12 04:28, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I will. Destructivedisk 04:31, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Airbending

In the section Evolution Kamehameha did Roshi actually say Airbending?SalmanH (Talk) 14:24, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

Yup : / -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 23:29, December 10, 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense and it's probably from Avatar TLAB (show not movie) as well but fine, thanks.SalmanH (Talk) 06:19, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Somewhat disappointing indeed. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 08:24, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

chi-chi

i remeber at one point, goten tells gohan that chi chi taught him the kamehawave. but idk if this was just filler or something does that mean chi chi could know it?

173.70.147.66 02:17, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Chi-Chi is never seen using it, or any energy move, do you know the episode? -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 07:12, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

Aren't you confusing Goten telling to Gohan that Chi-Chi trained him. Jeangabin666 18:46, January 7, 2011 (UTC)

nope. i remeber he said "She also taught me this! KAAMEEHAME-"
 

sorry, but i dont remeber what episode it is. i remeber its in the great sayiaman saga 173.70.147.66 02:18, January 9, 2011 (UTC)

number

how many times has it been fired? someone should count it

And why would that matter? :P User:Jimmykiller9/sig 02:23, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

During Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z, Goku uses Kamehameha 97 times. I do not know how many times it gets used in total. - Kill You 11:24, September 4, 2011 (UTC)

Trivia?

I found this picture online of a Legendary Pokemon named Lucario, if you look he charges his energy almost identically to the Kamehameha wave, so shold this be in trivia somewhere or not?

User:TienShinhan88/sig5 00:38, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Coincidentially, Sean Schemmel was the original voice of Lucario. And he's not a legendary Pokemon, as Cynthia has one. And as you should know, MISTER TIENSHINHAN, that there is only one of each legendary Pokemon in the world. User:Jimmykiller9/sig11 00:40, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Just googled it...^-^' wow thats lame, he used to be one right? Thats like piccolo going from demon, to slug man....Dissapointing.

User:TienShinhan88/sig5 00:43, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

He was never meant to be a legendary Pokemon, many fans just assumed that he was since he had his own movie. User:Jimmykiller9/sig11 00:44, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, well youve just ruined Lucario for me. So should we put this on the Kamehameha page? xD

User:TienShinhan88/sig5 00:46, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

If anything, this would be added to the influences on popular culture, since something happening after the series' conclusion couldn't possibly have affected it. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:28, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Running Kamehameha

Shouldn't we add a running kamehameha like the flying kamehameha their practiculy the samething goku moves while using it. even though it looks like the flying kamehameha, ordinary kamehameha-- Lead admin of this wiki 02:53, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Image

As much of how I like the current image, that image shows Goku performing a Kamehameha combined with a amount of Kaio-ken, and thus doesn't really belong as a infobox image for this page in my opinion. Any ideas/disagreements?? - SaiyanElite 12:30, August 10, 2012 (UTC)

Neutral. Lol sorry I'm not leaning either way but I didn't wanna leave you hanging : P -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 03:35, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal? Shakuran13ThisendsNOW! 04:08, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, that's appreciated. Lots of lonely messages from me still hang around other talk pages. Yes, I got some ideas, I favor these images out of the Kamehameha gallery, Yamcha is the best one in my opinion.

This image shows the launching position of the hands, and the non-boosted radius of the Kamehameha

This image shows Krillin, firing it from a good point of view in the anime

It shows Master Roshi firing the Kamehameha, I've added it for.. It's the original inventor

- SaiyanElite 11:52, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Krillin would be the only usable one of those, since Yamcha is in black and white (so we're leaving out the colors information), and Roshi is using the Original. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 20:01, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Too bad about the Yamcha one... Well, I like the Krillin one too, plus it's a non-boosted Kamehameha. - SaiyanElite 20:13, August 11, 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The list between canon and non-canon goes like this: Manga, Kai, Anime, Movies... right?

Well in this case in the manga, you cannot, obviously, hear someone say kamehameha. In the anime it is pronounced like this: kame/hame/ha with the accent where the slash is. But in Kai, they pronounce it how it is said when it is actually used: ka/me/ha/me/ha. Which one is right? "Knowledge is power. Enough to rival that of a super saiyan."-Knowlede Seeker337 (talk) 23:24, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

it is said differently many times by many people. as long as you say the whole thing then it does not matter

Quackulon The Duck Tyrant (talk) 23:29, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Ok. "Knowledge is power. Enough to rival that of a super saiyan."-Knowlede Seeker337 (talk) 23:38, September 15, 2012 (UTC)

Frieza Kamehameha

Super Dragonball Z has a special feature in the game called skill inheritence.  Meaning, that characters in the game can learn certain moves from the rest of the cast.  So, saying that Frieza can use this technique doesn't make any sense unless you plan on putting the rest of the cast of Super DBZ here as well.  But, I don't really think that would be a great idea.

Stitchking1 (talk) 07:45, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

When did Vegeta use the Kamehameha?

If he used it in Fusion Reborn, we would need a picture of it.

Gamewolf67 (talk) 20:33, December 14, 2012 (UTC)Gamewolf67

Not Fusion Reborn but Dragon Ball Z: Shin Budokai. JeangabinTalkContrib 21:12, December 14, 2012 (UTC)

Familly Kamehameha

@Weedle, i know that broly saw him, but saying that he wasn't an illusion is speculation and saying he was an illusion is also speculation so i think we should leave it as it is with the word "possible' and let the reader choose wich one to believe                                                                       

   The         R-                              -Less      One                                             16:24, January 12, 2014 (UTC)

Had it been an illusion to encourage Goten and Gohan, I doubt Broly would see anything at all. So sorry, but its pretty obviously not an illusion. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 00:12, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

the illusion is not there to encourage Goten and Gohan it was there because Goten wished it to be there and Goku encouraged them because he want to   The         R-                              -Less      One                                             08:06, January 13, 2014 (UTC)

"Lit." translation

Something worth mentioning is that there is actually no "literal" translation of the word Kamehameha. Kamehameha comes from the ancient Hawaiian king "Kamehameha", and actually doesn't mean anything in Japanese. This "lit." should get removed. --Ketchup Revenge (talk) 03:05, February 5, 2014 (UTC)

There is a Chinese character that literally translates to "wave", though. Wc12271991 (talk) 09:16, March 9, 2018 (UTC)

Though I personally wouldn't add that in a literal meaning as the whole name is kind of a nonsense word, "Kamehame Wave" is definitely a valid translation, so I'd be fine with putting that in the literal meaning section if people feel it should be included. BubbleRevolution (talk) 09:23, March 9, 2018 (UTC)

Users

Since Future Goku and Goku are both the same person just different timelines Future Goku would be a user. Same with the Future counterparts of Krillin, Yamcha, and Tien Shinhan. The only difference between the timelines would be is the fight with the Androids and Cell. I am not speculating.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  01:33,10/9/2014 

I have to disagree and say that you are indeed speculating. We never see any of those characters use the Kamehameha, so we cannot list them as users. While you may believe your logical connections make sense, it is not our part to draw conclusions here—we simply state facts observed from licensed media. Similarly, we could theorize that Cell can use many Z Fighter techniques included with their DNA that we never see him use, but we do not because we never saw him use them. If the readers choose to believe that Future Tien knows Kamehameha, that is their decision. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 01:48, October 9, 2014 (UTC)

Future Goku's page even says he uses the Kamehameha, so is it ok if I add him back on there.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  01:52,10/9/2014 

Except the fact that Future Goku had the exact same past as Goku, up to the point he died of his disease and Goku defently used the Kamehameha multiple times in that past, that's no speculation that's a fact, he had the same past and in that past the Goku we know used the technique. The whole point with Cell isn't comparable cause we never see at any point of the series neither past, present, or future use those other techniques you talk about and it's not stated in any way as well, so your example doesn't make a lot of sense, one is factually stated and the other is a vague example that holds little to no relevance.--Red Cyclone Fest (talk) 02:08, October 9, 2014 (UTC)

Red Cyclone 10X wasn't saying that Cell has used the moves he was saying that Cell could possibly use them. But 10X if the past is the same for timeline 1, 2, and 3 then I don't have to speculate seeing as how we know Tien, Yamcha, and Krillin all use it back in Dragon Ball. Krillin and Yamcha use it in Dragon Ball Z before the Androids show up if I am correct on Yamcha.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  10:23,10/9/2014 

I never said he did, I understanded very well what he said and I was explaining that we never see any evidence that he can use them, neither on screen or on words as oppose to the Future Goku being able to use the Kamehameha, who is stated to have the same past life with the main series Goku.--Red Cyclone Fest (talk) 16:00, October 9, 2014 (UTC)

Red Cyclone Fest, I'm sorry that you didn't understand my Cell example, but I'll try and simplify it to help you work through the relevance and similarity. Cell is stated to have the DNA of the Z Fighters, and to know their techniques as well. The future Z fighters are said to have the same past as the current Z Fighters. We never see Cell use some techniques, despite the implication that he knows them. We never see the Future Z Fighters of interest use Kamehameha, despite the implication that they did use it. The takeaway here is that there is an implication step where we must use our own logic, without actually observing the events in licensed media. This type of inductive conclusion is not allowed on this encyclopedic website, although readers may of course come to this conclusion on their own. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 00:41, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

Don't be sorry since I indeed understanded your example and you don't need to simplify me anything I'm not an idiot, but you see what I meant by a vague example, is that you never even stated which techniques you're talking about and furthermore the techniques you mentioned are not only not shown but not stated to be used by Cell as well. However it's stated that Future Goku had the exact same past with Goku, in which Goku did use the Kamehameha, in other words the conclusion is not in any way inductive, it's deductive, since having the same past is a absolute evidence that he used the technique, it's a fact, it's not about conclusions, or using logic to state something that isn't a fact. Your message doesn't change my statement at all, there's no counter argument here, it's a fact and it should be used as such.--Red Cyclone Fest (talk) 01:30, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

If your case was deductive then we wouldn't be having this conversation, and making such a claim doesn't strengthen your argument. The alternate histories are all slightly different. The Androids are different, Goku's heart condition happens at a different time, Goku doesn't make it in time to fight Frieza, etc. Minor? Yes. All necessarily caused by Trunks? No. We don't observe it, so we don't state it. This is the same strategy we use for character forms that seem like they should definitely exist but are not seen. For instance, when Saiyans fuse they can achieve higher levels of Super Saiyan than they would be able to alone, such as Goten and Trunks reaching Super Saiyan 3 only as Gotenks. However we did not state that Vegito (composed of a Super Saiyan 3 Goku) could attain that form unless it was officially stated.

Please understand, I'm not trying to pick a fight and say you are wrong. I'm merely trying to point out that this site is for relaying observations in licensed media, and nothing more. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 02:02, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

Ok 10X Future Goku's page says he uses Kamehameha so can I re-add him at least.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  02:16,10/10/2014 

We're having this conversation because you're trying to dispute that what I'm saying is deductive, not because I'm incorrect and what strengths my argument is that it's stated in fact that until the point that Goku returned to earth, he and his counterpart had the exact same life, nothing different up to the point that Frieza came on planet earth and of course Trunks is the main reason the past changed, since Goku would have defeated Frieza, by changing that he changed the entire course of time, so of course it was all caused by him, who do you think changed the timeline a magic Genie, it's stated on the page here that the two Goku's had the exact same life up to the point Frieza came to earth, so again it's a deductive conlusion, if they had the same life up until that point they, then Goku defently used the technique, what's so hard to understand?

Also I have no idea why you would need to point out that you're not picking up a fight with me, since I never once said you did, what's the point? Either way again I have backed my argument and there's really no counter argument here, since it's something that was stated.--Red Cyclone Fest (talk) 02:43, October 10, 2014 (UTC)

You're just rehashing things you've already said and making semantic arguments, neither of which have relevance here. This article is not licensed media. Where in licensed media can those characters being observed using Kamehameha? The answer is that they cannot be observed using it. Thus, it does not belong it the article. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 06:22, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

Arguing about revelance doesn't prove your point, what I said is relevant to the subject, even if I repeated the same thing, the only reason I did so, is because you continued to reply with words that seem to ignore the evidence I provided and I'm not arguing about senmatics, you're, deductive is the process of reasoning from one or more statements (premises) to reach a logically certain conclusion and from the statements that I mentioned and by observing the series I can say that's certain that he used that technique. Your argument about the page here not being licenced doesn't make any sort of logical sense, are you trying to imply that the page here in the wiki itself, contains false information and doesn't follow the rules of the wiki itself?

Frankly the statement that I mentioned does not come only from that page, it can be observed from the media, so you're wrong in saying that. In the animated series Future Trunks never once mentioned aside from the fact that Frieza was defeated by him, that anything in the past was different, it was at the time exactly as he expected it to be, Goku was there exactly when he expected him to arrive, the past only changed the second time around, if you can't from that as proof by observing the media, it is really your own problem, if you don't believe me, you can invite other people to this discussion, in order to reach consensus, since discussion with you really doesn't seem to get anywhere and anything I said by this point is indeed relevant to the discussion and that's a fact.--Red Cyclone Fest (talk) 08:38, October 12, 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing about relevance, I'm specifically telling you that some things are not relevant and that they need not be stated. For instance, defining "deduction" is both a semantic argument and picking at word usage, neither of which help here. Deduction is largely only useful for mathematics or direct observation, which is what is required here. This is obviously not the case in this instance. Please try and follow that the point is they are not using the Kamehameha, and nothing about the definition of a word. It is never observed, and thus we cannot post it on this website. As someone with zero article edits here (you), listen to a bureaucrat (me) on what the site policy is. Your opinion about a word definition has no impact on the fact that what you are suggesting is not the way our encyclopedic website works.

My argument about licensed media does make logical sense, despite it confusing you and you claiming that it does not. In fact, you followed up with the correct conclusion, which is that our site may be incorrect (hence this discussion). No wiki, or even wiki article, is perfect and it's up to the community to constantly improve the site. Think for a minute about your suggestion of using the article as a source, I could simply cite the users list posted currently as use it as evidence that the future versions don't use the move. This wiki does not constitute licensed Dragon Ball media. This is a publicly available, community-created encyclopedia maintained by fans. Licensed media means manga, anime, movies, video games, and a few other published sources.

Finally, the burden of proof does not lie with me to prove that unseen event did not occur, rather it lies with you to prove that the unseen event did occur. Trunks never states that Tien didn't use a Kamehameha in his time, but he never states that he's allergic to blueberries either. Does that mean he's allergic (your argument)? No. Does it mean he's not allergic, the most probable scenario? Who knows. We have not observed either case, and thus we cannot include it in our encyclopedic article (site policy). Please provide a quote/screen capture for each instance of these characters using the techniques if you believe it happened, and refrain from further rehashing of your argument that there is no evidence against it, for as I've said the burden of proof is always on the side claiming an event did occur. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:50, October 13, 2014 (UTC)

While I could bother to respond give you logical points and arguments, I really don't see the point, considering that you're messing up meanings, not paying attention in what I actually said, taking things completely out of context and actually comparing apples and oranges, especially with that example of yours, you're not making a valid argument you're just maniplulating words and the actual reasons for each of my statements, on top of making failed assumptions that I don't understand your messages. Also while you maybe a bureacrat and an administrator, that doesn't really make you more credible than me in any way, I have been on other wikis and I have read all the policies and rules of this wiki, otherwise I wouldn't bother to join this discussion in the first place and really nothing good can come out of blindly following anything an administrator says, simply because he happens to be one, an administrator exists to enforce the policies of the site, not order people around.--Red Cyclone Fest (talk) 00:10, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

This is really pointless. I recommend just not putting any Future characters (ex. Goku, Vegeta, Krillin) as a user. They aren't really seen much or have a part in the series, so there is really no point in putting them on there anyway. I think this is the best route to take (like leaving to speculate). -- TheGreatKuzon! (talk) 00:31, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

Ok Red actually 10X being an admin does making him more creidable then you to some users like me we need source my sources are the anime and the manga because of that the past of Goku and them from Trunks's timeline are the same as the ones we know but with the expection of Future Goku I agree with 10X. Now to the great kuzon just because they are barely seen don't mean anything besides video games Future Gohan is seen the a little bit more then the others and he really doesn't use in energy based attacks but because he uses them in the video games he is on there.  Goku20  Talk  ULTRA DBZ  ULTRA POKEMON  00:52,10/14/2014 

Future Gohan using specific techniques in video games is a good example Goku20. Thanks for pointing out that our policy is to use sources, which you know since you've edited here before. Red Cyclone Fest, you should take a note here that the policy is to only state info that was observed. I'm sorry that you were unable to understand the policy of this wiki, most other wikis, and Wikipedia—only presenting proven facts on an encyclopedic site. I would encourage you to take advice from admins on wikis, along with other veteran users, since they will generally know a lot more than you about local site policy. Further, making personal attacks in place of providing evidence is bizarre and counterproductive. As our rules state, personal attacks are not allowed. -- 10X.Ka^.me_.ha^.me_.ha^.._.^..talk_.^..._.contrib. 05:11, October 14, 2014 (UTC)

What's the Thai version of the Kamehameha? Khizer1 (talk) 18:49, May 18, 2016 (UTC)

BULMA????

WHEN DID ANYBODY SEE BULMA USE KAMEHAMEHA???? Khizer1 (talk) 12:49, May 28, 2016 (UTC)

Translation

Okay, made an edit but it got changed back so I might as well take it here. I was actually going to make a talk section for it first, but saw someone else brought it up two years ago and no one responded, so I figured no one would care.

The literal translation listed on the page isn't accurate, as "hame" (はめ) doesn't mean "devastation". The only thing close to it would be "hametsu", but that's not really likely to have factored in to the name given that it's been officially stated that the name came from the Hawaiian king Kamehameha per a suggestion from Toriyama's wife, as it fits with the name "Kamesennin" and would be easy to remember. The closest thing to an accurate translation would be something like "Turtle Hurtle Wave", as the name itself really doesn't mean anything in Japanese. Thoughts? BubbleRevolution (talk) 02:54, May 7, 2017 (UTC)

Japanese meaning 2: electric boogaloo

As I said in the previous discussion topic, "Kamehameha" doesn't mean "turtle destruction/devastation wave". Just wanted to put this there so it doesn't turn into more edit warring. I'm not trying to stir things up, just trying to keep the information on the wiki factual. BubbleRevolution (talk) 09:03, March 9, 2018 (UTC)

translation

Why was the lit. translation removed? I get that in actual Japanese language that there is no translation for "Hame" and that the name is a reference to a Hawaiian King and I especially know that this wiki shouldn't include speculative information but wouldn't it also be correct to say that it is a pun of the Literal translation "Turtle Devastation Wave" as nearly everything about Dragon Ball is pun-based from Saiyans to attack names. Authors have been known to alter and/or mutate certain words with the intent of being the same word.--Jack Jackson DB Fanon/MUC Wiki admin [mod] 02:56, May 25, 2020 (UTC)