7,345 Pages

Universe 6 arc

It has been said in an interview that this "Champa Saga" is the Universe 6 arc. Do we change it to Universe 6 Saga or keep ot as it is Meshack (talk) 15:58, April 6, 2016 (UTC)

Champa Saga

What name do we use? Toei promotes this saga as the "God of Destruction Champa" arc or saga but it has been called the Universe 6 arc or saga. Kanzenshuu continues to title this as the Gid of Destruction Champa arc. Which one do we use? SSGKakarotto (talk) 00:39, May 8, 2016 (UTC)

Potaufeu Arc

So, when did we decide the Potaufeu Saga was now part of the Universe 6 Saga? I was for placing it as a part of the Univere 6 Saga from the beginning, but I'm curious as to what made us decide on finally doing this. Was it officially confirmed to be part of the saga? Diamonddeath (talk) 06:28, October 2, 2016 (UTC)

I think it should be its own saga. The title cards for the episodes are proof that its a seperate Saga because they always change the silhouettes when its a new saga. The universe 6 episodes have the silhouettes of Beerus and Champa in a space background while the Potaufeu episodes have the earth background with a Monaka silhouette. I think thats enough proof that its a seperate. - SuperTiencha (talk) 03:45, November 3, 2016 (UTC)


Since the Future Trunks Saga will be starting in June, I'm pretty sure this is just a few episodes of down time in either the beginning of the Future Trunks Saga or the end of the Champa Saga and not necessarily a saga all on its own. This can probably be deleted, and the episodes can be added to the Future Trunks Saga. Diamonddeath (talk) 01:58, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

They don't directly relate to the Champa Saga, though. If it was one or two episodes I'd agree, but now that it's five episodes I think they deserve their own page. I'd be fine with it being merged with another one of the sagas, though, it's a minor thing haha. -- Final ChidoriTalk 02:40, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

These episodes are not part of the Champa Saga, and are also not part of the Future Trunks Saga (since it's confirmed to start in June and this saga has already started). It's a mini-saga like Garlic Jr. and Super 17 were.--Neffyarious (talk) 03:21, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

The same can be said of all standalone episodes throughout the series, then. Why is this one the exception? This is sort of like the aftermath of the Champa Saga and can therefore easily be considered a part of it. Diamonddeath (talk) 21:17, May 10, 2016 (UTC)

Most standalone episodes are confirmed to be part of a larger saga when they are released as part of it on DVD. The Champa Saga was all about the tournament, while this mini-saga has it's own plot taking place on Planet Potaufeu, with a new villain (Copy-Vegeta). It's different enough to be it's own saga.--Neffyarious (talk) 03:45, May 11, 2016 (UTC)

this isn't a real saga, these episodes are apart of the champa saga. you don't even have any real proof that this saga exist.Nikon23 03:00, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

You don't happen to have proof that these episodes are a part of the Champa saga, do you? -- Final ChidoriTalk 03:14, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

how can you provide proof for a saga that doesn't exist?! this was clearly made up by the administration. this is the same guy that wanted to call Super Saiyan 2nd Grade, Super Super Saiyan Final Chidori Nikon23 03:43, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

Made up by the administration? What? The point is that this saga is long enough to be considered it's own mini-saga, it's not like one or two episodes wrapping up the previous saga. -- Final ChidoriTalk 03:45, May 15, 2016 (UTC)

like i said, it was made up by the administration, it's not a real saga.that's not grounds for it being a actual saga, that's pure assumption. but keep on spreading false infromation to the community. i could care less anymore User:Final Chidori Nikon23 06:34, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

you would compare this to the last 5 episodes of the piccolo jr saga that takes place after goku defeats majunior and follows a little adventure of him and chichi trying to save her father. you know. the chichi saga. 0551E80Y (talk) 08:10, May 16, 2016 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, these episodes should be added to the end of the Champa saga. It's clear by the name changes that this wiki is just making the mini-saga up. -- Final ChidoriTalk 20:06, May 16, 2016 (UTC)
reality called in, and said "yeah it is part of Piccolo's arc". Sorry facts don't care about your feelings in both releases, Japan and US they released this under the Piccolo Arc. --{{SUBST:User:ONEY PUNCH/Sig‎}} 11:43, May 24, 2016 (UTC)


Can we merge this into the Champa saga? It's not an official saga and I don't think the wiki should just make it up. -- Final ChidoriTalk 20:57, May 22, 2016 (UTC)

i think we should merge this with Universe 6 saga also. the wikipedia also list these episodes apart of the Universe 6 saga. Nikon23 05:24, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

This is part of the Champa arc and is going to be released with the next bluray. --{{SUBST:User:ONEY PUNCH/Sig‎}} 11:41, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

so is anyone going to merge this saga with the Universe 6 Saga. it seems like everyone is being ignored. Nikon23 21:32, May 24, 2016 (UTC)

We seem to be conflicted about this. Hopefully we will get an official statement (such as a DVD release, guidebook entry, or video game chart) that clears up whether this is a separate saga or not. Until then, our stance will be an unofficial, temporary one. Doesn't matter much either way until something official comes out telling us what's what. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 23:06, May 25, 2016 (UTC)
How can you say it doesn't matter? It does matter! you're spreading false information. It doesn't exist. It's not a real saga. This us beyond ridiculous and laughable. You can't really take anything as valid information from this wiki anymore Nikon23 19:14, June 2, 2016 (UTC)
What an extreme and ill-formed response. There is no official info either way. Your guess is exactly as wrong as anyone else's. Find an encyclopedic source if you want people to do what you say. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 01:20, June 3, 2016 (UTC)
now if i throw insults you, then i'll get blocked. don't throw insults at me! you adminstrators i swear. but yet you're still claiming that this saga exist. i been found a source, you all choose to ignore it User:10X Kamehameha Nikon23 02:13, June 7, 2016 (UTC)

I said your response was extreme and ill-formed, which is 100% true and not an insult. In response to my request for something official, you say we're spreading false info, call it laughable, and then jump to the entire wiki somehow being invalid. You ignored the request for a source and made an irrelevant claim with no basis in this discussion. Not even you believe the entire wiki could possibly be invalid, so saying so did not make sense and did not further the discussion. Present an officially licensed breakdown of the sagas, or come to terms with the fact that we must temporarily do our best. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 01:19, June 9, 2016 (UTC)

if this is your best, then it's laughable and nothing more. this wiki is joke. i stand by my statement Nikon23 22:04, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Please calm down Nikon, this should be a civil conversation. Calling the wiki a "joke" just proves 10X's statement about your responses being extreme correct. Since there's no official saga list out yet, all we can really do is organize them the best way we can. -- Final ChidoriTalk 22:09, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
calm down nothing! he offended me twice now and i stand by my statement. it's a joke, like i said. my opinion. Nikon23 22:12, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
Not being calm isn't helping your case at all, nor is insulting the wiki and calling it a joke. 10X clearly didn't mean to offend you at all, he was just saying that your responses were extreme. -- Final ChidoriTalk 22:17, June 13, 2016 (UTC)
i don't really care. i call it what it is. i'm offended and it's nothing you can say that can change my mind. you didn't say it, so why are you worried about it. they hide behind the rules all the time. you expect me not to get offended from that response?! funny i said this wiki was a joke and now everyone's offended. respect works both ways, not one Nikon23 22:39, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Stop {{SUBST:Usuario:YonedgeHp/Firma}} 22:47, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

stop what? it's over. Nikon23 22:55, June 13, 2016 (UTC)

Who's hiding behind rules and which rule is s/he hiding behind? Not sure I understand what you're talking about here, this topic has little to do with wiki rules. I'm not offended that you called this wiki a joke, I'm just simply asking you to take it easy so this problem can be solved peacefully. If you're ready to actually discuss the topic now, I'm all ears. -- Final ChidoriTalk 00:41, June 14, 2016 (UTC)
it's over. i'm not discussing anything. Nikon23 23:03, June 14, 2016 (UTC)

Broken saga navigation box.

I've noticed this for a while now on this page and a couple of other DBS saga pages, but the navigation boxes seem to be somewhat broken. I attempted some temporary fixes, which good at the time but didn't last and had be removed. Is there any actual way to get the boxes to display correctly and in the right order without broken or incorrect links? Wixelt (talk) 23:26, June 22, 2016 (UTC)

I'll take a look, which template is broken?
Edit: Oh boy. I found out what you're talking about (episode numbers, right?). See, the problem is that all of the complicated code was made by the skillful Nonoitall, which unfortunately means it's fairly hard to understand. It's also sort of outdated, as it was made back before Super was even a thing. As far as I can tell, it's not created to list episode numbers for arcs that are still in progress. I'll try to fix it if I can come up with a solution, I don't exactly want to change too much since I don't want the other pages getting ruined. Maybe we'll have to create a new infobox specifically for Super. -- Final ChidoriTalk 01:48, June 23, 2016 (UTC)
If it's too complicated to fix, that's fine. I just looked at it not working and thought it was worth mentioning in case someone had a simple solution or knew their way around it. Wixelt (talk) 16:47, June 23, 2016 (UTC) more proof that this imaginary saga on this wiki doesn't exist. Nikon23 19:22, June 25, 2016 (UTC)

That's a fan site run by 1 guy. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 05:29, June 27, 2016 (UTC)
this fan site is more up to date than on here. this isn't the first time this site was used as a reference. this is where most of the new info and pictures from xenoverse 2 came from recently. but now it's a fan site. i showed you two sources that this saga doesn't exist and you keep ignoring them.Nikon23 19:31, June 28, 2016 (UTC)
Screen captures are different than a fan's decision to organize things one way or another. Kanzenshuu, Wikipedia, and DB Wiki are all fan-run sites. Just because the other two organize a page one way doesn't make it correct. A licensed publication or official statement from a creator makes something correct. We don't have that yet. I'm at a loss for why you are fighting so hard to convince us a fan's arbitrary opinion on Wikipedia is a fact. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 22:57, June 30, 2016 (UTC)
still in denial, over this make believe saga and the proof came out less than a hour ago. Nikon23 08:11, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
What is the new proof? If it's legit we can merge this page into the U6 Saga page.--Neffyarious (talk) 09:18, August 26, 2016 (UTC)
i can't translate japanese. i saw the boxset on amazon japan and on Kanzenshuu. Nikon23 09:22, August 26, 2016 (UTC)

You mean this. I suppose the mini-arc being released alongside the full saga could be enough to allow a merge.--Neffyarious (talk) 15:07, August 27, 2016 (UTC)


Where's a source for the validity of the arc? There was not an announcement for a Potaufeu Arc. Kanzenshu didn't post about it or any other reliable source. Meshack (talk) 11:33, September 19, 2016 (UTC)

so.. are we going to finally merge it now, since there's no proof that this was ever a sperate saga? Nikon23 01:51, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for a source Meshack (talk) 22:01, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

did you read the post above these? Nikon23 23:00, September 21, 2016 (UTC)

why was this place re-created? i thought this wa smerged with Universe 6 Saga? Nikon23 21:01, October 11, 2016 (UTC)

Someone we ended up with 2 talk pages. I'll merge them. -- SSJ4 Goku(2) 18:32, October 12, 2016 (UTC)

Why "Arc" and not "Saga"?

Of all the sagas amongst all the different series, only the Copy-Vegeta story is referred to as an Arc. The inconsistency triggers me. Can't it be renamed to Copy-Vegeta Saga?Bullza (talk) 01:31, July 24, 2018 (UTC)

Neff told me that Christopher Sabat called it the Copy-Vegeta Arc at the Kamehacon. DragonEmeperor (talk) 02:20, July 24, 2018 (UTC)
Did he then specifically refer to the others as Sagas? Not that it should really matter either way as it should be consistent regardless.Bullza (talk) 02:32, July 24, 2018 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.