Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball

Proposal: Merge Broly and Coola articles

Villains who are only present in a couple of hours each worth of animation should not have their own articles, based on the apparent current standards for merging. Piccolo Diamao and Kaio-sama both have far more importance, and popularity alone should not constitute deleting articles. —The preceding comment is by 141.155.119.33 (talk • contribs) 141.155.119.33: Please sign your posts!

Both of those villians are present in at least two of the movies. And it makes no difference how often they appear, it depends on their importance in the series. I agree that Coola has no real significance in the series, but Broly on the other hand is the most referenced non-series villian.--VorangorTheDemon 15:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It depends on real world information. If we can give enough non-trivial development and reception information, even minor characters can have articles. These should be merged if that much isn't possible. TTN 16:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If this helps, here's a link from Daizex with design notes and sketches from Toriyama on a number of movie projects- http://www.daizex.com/multimedia/images/character_designs/index2.shtml

Pic of Coola design's with translation- http://www.daizex.com/multimedia/images/character_designs/dbz_movie_5_toriyama/coola.jpg

Goku from movie 5 (first movie SSJ appearence)- http://www.daizex.com/multimedia/images/character_designs/dbz_movie_5_toriyama/ssj_goku.jpg

Coola's minions - http://www.daizex.com/multimedia/images/character_designs/dbz_movie_5_toriyama/coola_armored_squad.jpg

And Broli- http://www.daizex.com/multimedia/images/character_designs/dbz_movie_8_toriyama/broli.jpg

I'll admit I suck at sourcing, and don't know if that stuff is helpful enough, but everyone can take a look. Onikage725 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Those really helpful at all. They give no real insight into the thought process, and would only give a couple of sentences. You're looking for at least a couple of solid paragraphs, which requires some detailed sources. TTN 17:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Geez. Anything else count? Cuz if the criteria for keeping a DB character article is a couple of solid paragraphs from Toriyama, then we can go ahead and scratch the whole lot of 'em. I'll just flat out say that now. The guy's a bit of a scatterbrain. He touches on some things in the occasional interview, like what a bitch it was to draw Cell in the long run, how much he loved Piccolo as a character, what a douche Vegeta is, etc (not in those exact words obviously). I've never heard of him sitting down and tolling out some great George Lucas-esque level of insight into his characters (beyond basing most of his originals off of Journey to the West). Onikage725 18:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

We want a couple of solid paragraphs built with varied sources. AT doesn't have to be the only one, but we need more than simple, jotted down notes that provide nothing from him. TTN 18:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need articles like Broli and Coola? They're no more notable than characters like Burdock and Zarbon. They're merely supervillains that did nothing but appear in a few movies and perhaps in DBGT for no reason. I agree with the ip guy. Just merge them to their respective lists. I did the same for Mr. Satan and Oob. Every character can have their own page at Dragon Ball wiki Onikage, so use that daiex information there. Lord Sesshomaru

Hey don't single me out. I was just sharing some links to design notes in case they were helpful. I don't even edit that wikia (though I do have an account). I may tend more towards eventualism than immediatism, but I don't particularly care if these two get merged (my own fondness for the Coola article aside). Onikage725 00:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyone oppose if I redirect those two to their lists? Lord Sesshomaru

Nope. Fire at will. Takuthehedgehog 00:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If Broly and Cooler keep their own articles should Garlic Jr. get one? He had his own movie and his own saga. I'm not necessarily suggesting he have one, but if Broly and Cooler are determined to be notable enough there's a pretty compelling argument that Garlic Jr. is too. --Toxicroak 09:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. I should have noticed that the decision to merge Broly/Cooler has already been reached and thus there's no point to for Garlic Jr. to have his own article. --Toxicroak 09:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey I'd say give it another day or two. The conversation went for like a day and a half and wasn't very active (the meat of it was whether or not some daizex links would help). Give some people a chance to notice this and respond. Just cuz I didn't raise an objection doesn't mean someone else doesn't know some sources. The outcome will probably ultimately be the same, but under two days seems a little quick to have reached a consensus to drop an article. And wouldn't putting them up for afd be appropriate in these situations? Onikage725 11:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the afd part, I guess that isn't really appropriate. I tagged the articles as proposed merges though (to list of Saiyans/Extraterrestrials respectively) and linked to this talk page. Onikage725 12:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason i see for the merge for one thing the article is not a stub, secondly the notion that its not important may i remind you all that the purpose of wikipedia is to bring knowlege and information to everyone no matter if its important or not its still information pertaining to a certain subject matter. I propose that this merge proposal be deleted danieljackson 02:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, it is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. The problem with the articles is that they are covered for the most part elsewhere. Let's pick 'em apart, starting with Broli. The bulk of his article is "History" and "Forms and Transformations." History is pretty much covered on the individual articles for the films. The article adds no new perspective on the SSJ1 state that isn't covered in the Super Saiyan article, which has a more comprehensive section on the LSSJ state as well. The only new material is on Bio-Broli, but this could be merged with the movie article and/or given a sub -section to Broli's list entry. Coola seems a bit more varied, but in the end is the same. The name pun can be condensed, as the whole paragraph is lifted from the Freeza article more or less. His henchmen are covered on the list already. The section on The plot summary can be left to the two movie pages. Each video game has an article. Remove everything that isn't covered elsewhere and you have an opening paragraph and a cool picture. Onikage725 10:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge them. Neither of them were in the manga.User:Mr. Blonde 139 9:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't merge them. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia They are notable enough on their own. The fact that they didn't appear in the manga is UTTERLY irrelevant to wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. ED-209 prominently appeared in only one Robocop movie for example (the others were just for a few minutes or even seconds). Brolly and Koola have both appeared in more than one movie as the primary antagonist as well. Brolly appeared in 3 movies, and Koola appeared in 2. That's notable enough for their own articles. Malamockq 19:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Blonde, you fail to understand that whether they appear in the manga or not doesn't determine if they get an article. Notability is the main criteria. // DecaimientoPoético 20:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

ED-209 has an article? Haha...anyway. Hey if you know my history, I normally vote against a merge (*coughBulmacoughMutencough*), but in this instance I don't feel the articles themselves are actually needed. I could see Broli being notable enough maybe, at least in America (it seemed like the scores of Vegeta fans dumped him when the Legend came forth) but the fact is both articles in their current state are redundant. Look 'em over. Again, you know me, and I'd much rather give a decently written article the benefit of the doubt. Onikage725 11:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. User:Mr. Blonde 139 12:47 PM, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've actually got something constructive to say (I think). The Broly article contains a good deal of character information not found in the plot summaries of the movies. It's probably enough to warrant him an article, unless someone is willing to condense and revise the character information into the "List of Saiyans" list. Cooler on the other hand just has an extended plot summary for his character bio. The only section that provides information not seen elsewhere is the last paragraph of his character bio, and this could easily be incorporated into the "Return of Cooler" page. Even if he is a notable character, there's little information in his article that couldn't be found in the plot summaries for his movies. So I'd say leave Broly, but merge Cooler. Sorry if I'm being a nuisance, I'm still trying to figure out how to find valid arguments for and against articles being merged. User:Mr. Blonde 139 11:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

What the hell just happened? First, Broly was deleted and now Coola is up for deletion as well. When was it decided this is the way we'd be going about this? Restore Broly's article, take Coola off the deletion list, and leave them be. No one decided on merging them yet. // DecaimientoPoético 18:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah whoa... the database is locked, so can't do much now. But the merge proposal tag was taken off Coola's article and Brolli's was deleted? This was still a contested issue. Not only that, but the proposal is to merge them, not delete. Currently the only entry on Brolli is the name "Bio-Broly" on the list of Saiyans with a dead link to "main article." Not exactly what I call a merge. Onikage725 21:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

All this merging is stupid

I mean really, most of the articles stand alone. And as for the argument that they just retell the same thing, so does a real encyclopedia. we should make an article for each character. STOP THE MERGING —The preceding comment is by 4.161.140.4 (talk • contribs) 4.161.140.4: Please sign your posts!

You're opinion, however, lots of the characters where we suggest a merge aren't important enough in the series to have their own articles. Coola is a perfect example, along with Broly and for example, Yajirobi. None of them are important enough to have their own articles. --VorangorTheDemon 06:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

4.161.140.4, please read WP:NOTE. That should answer all your questions. Lord Sesshomaru

Pictures

Can we use no longer pictures in the list articles?--Homei 20:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reason being? // DecaimientoPoético 20:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There can be images for the more important characters, but no gallery. See WP:FAIRUSE for information. Lord Sesshomaru

Manga vs Anime

I was thinking... what if we distinguished more between the two? It has been suggested before that we make a seperate article for the dub of the anime, but what if we just seperated the two formats? Most other articles that have a manga with anime adaptations seem to primarily focus on the manga. The big (huge) problem around here is deciding which English source is best, but the fact is we don't even distinguish between versions. A lot of these articles are a mishmash of dub, Japanese version, Viz translation, original manga, etc. Non-manga events and characters are not distinguished, manga-only events aren't even mentioned (quick examples- Dende's brother Cargo's death isn't even mentioned in the Namek saga article, let alone the manga and anime discrepency about his death; Trunks is a Super Saiyan in the future right from when we meet him in the manga, but his bio only reflects the TV special version of events). Maybe if we started by properly seperating and ordering our facts we could then worry about which adaptation each article should use on a case by case basis. It sounds a bit much, but Dragon Ball is a huge series and its history in English has been varied and confusing. Onikage725 19:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

<A very similar discussion has taken place at User talk:Snapper2#A few things. I strongly suggest that everyone who will join into this discussion read what transpired there first and then respond here.> Lord Sesshomaru

Just wanted to note that the anime is now being aired on Cartoon Network during Toonami. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not really what this topic is about, but yeah I noticed that too. That's why I corrected my statements to say barely playing or the like intead of not playing. Onikage725 05:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Kamehameha article?

I was just wondering if the Kamehameha should have it's own article. I know there was a Kamehameha article a while back, but I was just thinking about it and the Kamehameha has numerous real-life references. There's actually an international Kamehameha competition that happens every year, along with numerous attacks in other animes being inspired by or parodies of it. Should there be a Kamehameha article? --VorangorTheDemon 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no one has anwered me, I think I'm going to start one. --VorangorTheDemon 20:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You should find a good number of sources first. TTN 20:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Neko Majin Characters

Back when everything had its own article, I didn't really have a problem with this. However, I have a big problem with the merging of characters like Onio and Kuriza to lists of characters in Dragon Ball. They aren't Dragon Ball characters at all. They are related to cross-over characters, but they don't exist in the Dragon Ball series (certain Japanese-only video game easter eggs aside). This is like listing Goku as a Dr. Slump character because Arale saved him once in a crossover. Hell I don't even think we have Arale on our earthling list, and she actually showed up in the series proper. Onikage725 10:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Kamehameha translation

What exaclty is the translation of Kamehameha? It can't be "Turtle Destruction Wave" because "Kame" means "Divine", not "Trutle". Or is it simply called "Turtle Destruction Wave", but that's simply it's name and not it's translation? The reason I'm asking this is because we almost had an edit war on the Goku article regarding what Kame meant. I know it means divine, as in Kamekaze (Divine Wind), Kame Senin (Divine Old Master). --VorangorTheDemon 18:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, it's Kamikaze, not KameKaze. And Kame Sennin means Turtle Immortal. Ryu Ematsu

Right, Kame is turtle. You're thinking of Kami (much like Piccolo's "other" and God of the Dragon Ball Earth). And you may be thinking of Muten Roshi (Invincible Old Master). Onikage725 04:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems this is much translated: Turtle?????? Hmmm... Anyone know how to translate?

--A legend 22:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Kamehameha means Turtle Destruction Wave. Kame covers the Turtle part, Hame covers the Destruction part, and Ha can actually be translated as either Wave or Blast, but more often than not Wave. That's why I have to laugh everytime someone quoting the dub refers to it as the "Kamehameha Wave". If it were called that in the original Japanese, it'd be Kamehamehaha. Reminds me of when people call an ATM an ATM Machine. Anyhow, Kamesenin means Turtle Hermit, same as Tsurusenin means Crane Hermit. As above, Kame = Turtle, Tsuru = Crane, Senin = Hermit. And as said above, its Kamikaze, not Kamekaze. Kaze means Wind, and Kami essentially means God, which can also be wanked into meaning "divine". And as said above, Muten Roshi means "Invincible Old Master". Hope that helps. Fuad Ramses 05:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

A possibly more well known example of "Ha" (if anyone doubts the translation is the Hadouken. In this case, "Wave Motion Fist." Onikage725

I guess we can call it the 'Turtle Destruction Wave' or 'Turtle Destruction Fist', right?--The source of the cosmos... 02:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Dragon Ball

In case anyone had not noticed, I have created a portal for Dragon Ball. Before anyone features it around the Wikipedia articles, it still needs improvement; use WP:Portal or Portal:Naruto as reference for upgrades. Reason why I have gone ahead and created this was having hope and kept in mind that this might end the constant edit warring and fan-bias with "Dub names" Vs. "Japanese names" and the like. Suggestions anyone? Discuss further on the talk page there instead of here. Lord Sesshomaru

Here is the link to that talk page, Portal talk:Dragon Ball#Improvements. Cheers, Lord Sesshomaru

Onikage725, I had lefted a comment for you back at the talk page of that portal. Lord Sesshomaru

I'm in.

I'm diving headlong into this work group. I've been reading over some of the chracter information and such, and a lot of it reads terribly. Some of it seems to be blatantly copied from other sources, there are glaring spelling and grammar errors, and it just really needs to be fixed up. I can't do a whole lot of work right this minute, but I'll be giving a lot of the Dragon Ball pages a spit-shine later tonight. I'll throw up a list of the ones I've seen that really need work later on, as well. Dan 16:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to adress that issue now. However, I would like to know what articles that you are talking about. --VorangorTheDemon 10:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the one that set me off, and prompted me to join this project was List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball. To be specific, "Jaga Bada", I believe.

"A "villain" in DBZ movie #11, Super-Warrior Defeat!! I'm the One who'll Win, who wants revenge on his old classmate Mr. Satan for beating him in martial arts when he was a child. He funds experiments that create Bio-Warriors, including Bio-Broly. On the left Dr. Kori ("Kori Hakase"), a scientist who assists in the creation of Bio-Broly."

That's just painful to look at. Dan 11:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

How to improve our editing and the Dragon Ball articles

I was reading a lot of our articles and noticed that we are in serious need of improvements on some of them. I think it's time that we all refresh our memory by reading the guidelines on how to write good articles and go from there. Lately, I've been working non-stop on the Goku article, and I believe that it's coming along smoothly, however, more stuff and edits are needed. --VorangorTheDemon 10:26, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Merging more characters

I doubt anyone will support me on this, but I'll still bring it up. Unless we can get some out of universe information from real sources, all of the characters besides Goku need to be merged. At this point, all we're doing is retelling different parts of the series around twenty times and buffering it with some tasty cruft. That is not acceptable without suppling some sort of real world context to these. A few may have a few minor notes from AT on them, but that is not enough to hold an article. Only Goku, who has a definite development background, definite reception possibilities, and definite real world impact possibilities, is worth waiting around for. Again, I doubt anyone wants this, but please think about it. TTN 14:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll again ask for an example of what would be considered a decent article (in this genre) if you know of one. I'm asking that because it would help me (and probably alot of us) to have a point of reference. There's also the point to keep in mind that list entries have to be reasonably sized. A number of the characters in this series wouldn't fit well on a list- they'd make them too large. I also don't fully understand comments about there not being adequate real world info, because I don't know what qualifies as adequate. I've never gotten the sense from other articles and from the rule itself that there has to be "X number of references" to qualify as an article. There is info out there, but it is hard to track down. Its added as its found. Articles were written in magazines, interviews with Toriyama were translated in Shonen Jump, but we don't all have all of that readily available. I just think its rash to try and nix almost every article just because none of the VA's have appeared on Leno or Viz hasn't translated any Daizenshuu ()or anything like that).Onikage725

I don't think there are any decent anime/manga character articles. I believe a few are listed as GAs, but they probably need to be delisted (all plot from what I can remember). There is certainly potential for some (like Goku), but it is never utilized. By cutting off the plot sections and the cruft, most of these articles can easily be summed up in two to four paragraphs. None of the characters are very complicated. If you want good character examples, look under the media section of the FA list.

The information needs to be more than bits and pieces found in a Q&A column. The fact that Yamcha is based off of x doesn't get him an article. We need to be able to describe how Yamcha was built as a character (How was his personality developed?, Was his role in the series his original role?), how he has been viewed in the series (under utilized and useless?, good or bad motivations?), and how he has impacted things (popular culture, non-trivial references). That is very unlikely for all of the characters beyond Goku (who may not even reach that point himself). TTN 14:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been working non-stop on the Goku article for almost two weeks (to someone's dismay, they pretty much told me that my edits were crap. All I have to say to them is if my edits are crap, then why don't you fix them yourself? I forget who said it.). What I think that we need to do is look at other anime articles (GA) and compare ours to theirs. By using those examples, we could improve the articles. --VorangorTheDemon 15:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to improve Goku, you need to cut the plot down to three to five paragraphs, and trim the rest down in general. I don't believe we have any quality GA anime or manga characters (If there are any, they're most likely plot only ones that need to be delisted). TTN 15:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there are some Sailor Moon GAs, but they seem to be just sourced plot reiterations. TTN 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll cut it down. Even though this is a little off subject, I also believe that discussion should start about possibly merging Saiyan and Super Saiyan. I would really like to add a "regular form" to the Super Saiyan article, but if we do, it would no longer be about Super Saiyans, it would be about Saiyans. However, I can't help but feel that the article is incomplete with out the regular Saiyan form. --VorangorTheDemon 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this discussed before? I believe once those Dragon Ball articles are completely rewritten in encyclopedic appearance, with complete references and all, then they stay. Look at Beelzebub's and Paifu's article. If they can look like that, there should be no reason for a merger. Bulma's page is the only one that hasn't been redirected as of yet. Who will be bold enough to do that? Lord Sesshomaru

Pretty sure doing that to Bulma will get reverted, since (if I'm not mistaken) the discussion about her was in favor of keeping. Onikage725

Actually, those two examples are just sourced plot summaries. Unless they're trimmed and given real world information, they should be merged. TTN 11:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, here to give my two cents, I'm still learning how to be a good Wikipedian, so if what I say is useless, just tell me. I've noticed that the plot summaries for the sagas tend to be very broad, giving information about all the really important major events. Plot summaries in character articles tend to be more detailed, giving accounts of that character's actions in the saga. For example, Piccolo's smaller actions in the Buu arc are detailed in his character article, while they are only briefly mentioned in the saga articles. My theory is that we could detail the minor, but more important character actions in the plot summaries, and trim everything that isn't absolutely relevant out of the saga plot summaries. That makes it more encyclopedic - if someone wants a detailed run-down of Piccolo's actions in the Buu arc they can go to his page, whereas if they want a plot summary with detail given only to the major events, they can go to the saga article. That way, information is more categorical and easy to find.

One last thing - these articles have already been written, and they're there for people who want to read them. I need to ask - why do they NEED to be merged? Isn't that more time consuming (nominating, voting, condensing) than just doing a little clean-up? This is a serious question, I'm not just a fan asking for character articles to stay because I like them.

If there are any valid points in here, tell me. If what I've said is useless, just delete it. User:Mr. Blonde 139 1:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree on summaries. Most of them need to be trimmed, but I don't think they need to be outright deleted and merged, relegated to a paragraph on personality. And while the Saga articles should cover the majority of the plot summary, what you said has merit. For such a long series, the potential for both lists and saga articles to blow up if everyone that isn't Goku is merged is very real. Given that the series is so long, I don't think the main characters having articles is a problem. They need cleanup, and certainly need to take a less in-universe approach to their writing, but I think nixing all of them is the opposite extreme. Onikage725 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia. I do love how they invent little things like CRUFT to make things even more difficult to maintain but its still basically a big resource for information. 6-7 years ago when DBZ was at its height of popularity, the ability to come here, type in Brolly/Broli, etc and find some decent information on what they did, a pic and info on what they could do in the manga would have been substantial. Its decline in popularity isn't a reason to go deleting stuff. You think the Vegetto article is small? There are articles that basically have an album photo and a list of tracks that appear on it. At least a Vegetto article, a broly article, etc, etc have a purpose and are useful information that people can and will look up. Compared to a throwaway paragraph on a list page. No, spovovitch doesn't need his own page but this insane merging needs to stop as does this transformation/technique condensing on Goku's page. No fan, old or new is gonna read that and give a crap in the end, it provides them with no immediate information nor illustrates anything in particular about Goku.

Renaming Muten-Rôshi

Moved from: Muten-Rôshi. I'm aware this has been discussed plenty of times before, but just bear with me.

I find it strange that we use Muten-Rôshi as the article name when not once do I ever remember him being called such, even in the manga (although I only have the first four volumes of DB and 15 of DBZ). Shouldn't we be using Master Roshi - a more common name - instead? With the Son Goku article, the common name argument was completely different from this one (it was essentially an argument over using his full name or part of it), so please don't use that as an example as to why this title should remain the same. Thoughts? // DecaimientoPoético 01:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

He's refered to as both "Muten Roshi" and "Kame-Sennin" in both the Viz manga and the Japanese subtitles on FUNimation's DVDs. Master Roshi isn't used in the manga, only the dub and video games. Takuthehedgehog 00:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a serious problem calling him "Master Master" (technically old master or teacher, but it can go either way). That's just silly and unencylopedic, if you ask me . And as Taku said, Muten Roshi, as well as Kame-Sennin (Turtle Immortal- remember he did drink that potion), are used in the manga as well as being the original names. Onikage725 12:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've picked up the manga (longer than I had thought, actually), so I forgot exactly what he was called and just assumed it was Master Roshi. A mistake on my part. At any rate, we should use a more common name to fans and non-fans alike. "Master Roshi" is probably his most well known name, and I'm sure "Kame-Sennin" is right up there with it. // DecaimientoPoético 14:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, here's what I like about this name over the others. Muten is more likely his name. "Master Muten" would have been a far better english title than master Roshi. Roshi comes off in the dub as his name, but it is his title signifying him as a master. Hence my "Master Master" comment. Familiar or not, it is so beyond inane that it hurts my head. By the same token, Kame Sennin (Turtle Immortal, or even the english used Turtle Hermit) while familiar, is simply another title. If we use Master Roshi we are being redundant, and basically guilty of rhetorical tautology. If we opt for Kame Sennin... hell we might as well use Jackie Chun. The only reason we use Tsuru Sennin is because we arent given a real name for him. By contrast, the dub called him Shen I believe, and we aren't using that. Onikage725 12:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd go for Muten Roshi. It's easier to type than Kamesennin or Kame Sennin and he is usually referred to as Muten Roshi-sama in the Japanese-audio of the uncut Dragon Ball DVDs, even moreso than names like "Old Timer" or "Turtle Hermit". Lord Sesshomaru

Haha "Old Timer." Ya know, I forget the dif ways people translate that one. I know in Japanese he (Goku) tends to call him/any authortive old guy "Jii-chan," which is a disrepectful yet affectionate form of Ojii-san or Grandfather. I suppose that'd basically be like calling him "gramps." Naruto does the same thing, calling Tsunade "Tsunade no Baa-chan" (Baa-chan being the short and disrespectful version of Obaasan or grandmother) and most subbers translated as "Old Lady Tsunade." In case it is worth mentioning in the Muten article, does anyone know off the top of their heads what the manga and subs use? I don't have anything on hand at the moment. Onikage725 23:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Viz manga: Muten-Rôshi, Kamesen'nin, Muten-Rōshi, Turtle guy, Kame-Sennin and/or Kame Sennin (unsure of these last two for Viz manga)

Japanese dialogue w/ English subs on DB DVDs: Muten Roshi, Turtle Hermit, Kamesennin, Old Timer, Turtle guy (unsure of this one for DVD) Roshi, Kame Sennin and/or Kame-Sennin (unsure of these last two for DVD)

That's about it. In both the manga and Japanese audio (with subbs), he is commonly referred to as Muten Roshi. Therefore, I'm in favour of using this common, standard and simple name. We don't need the obscure "ô", "ou" or "ō since the normalised "o" on the subtitles make the name(s) just as official as any other romanized letter.

Let's get this over with: everyone in favour of the standard name, Muten Roshi, state "support" with your reason(s). All who oppose it for another name state "oppose" with your reason(s).

• Strong support by my vote. Lord Sesshomaru
• Support per my reasons above. Actually, I'd be for a move to Muten Roshi (romanized characters, no hyphen). Onikage725 22:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Same reasons as Onikage --VorangorTheDemon 06:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Support: Same as Onikage and Vorangor. Takuthehedgehog 21:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: Is there anyone else? I'll give it 2-3 more days before I move the page. Lord Sesshomaru

It has been done, see Muten Roshi. Now all that's needed is taking care of the redirects and double redirects. Lord Sesshomaru

Toei or FUNimation's movie titles?

Should we be using FUNimation's movie and tv special titles, or should we switch to Toei's titles, as translated on the Japanese subtitle track of the movies? The dub movie titles tend to have names in them, so they'll use the dub spelling, ex: Broli movies, Burdock TV Special, Coola movies. Takuthehedgehog 05:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Good question, if the movie / special was officially released in the U.S., use the U.S. title. Use the original translated name if it was only given elsewhere (like Japan or China). This might solve problems in light of this. One move which I still believe should be done is Freeza Saga to Frieza Saga, but that's just my thought. Lord Sesshomaru

This is always a tricky one. My thoughts are that for the movies we should use the FUNimation titles for the article name itself, as we're dealing with single movies released straight to DVD (for the most part). I disagree on the saga articles however. Those articles detail certain arcs of the story, but I think we should go by the main original arcs. Right now it seems like we go by FUNimation box set releases, which doesn't make much sense to me. By doing so we now have many sub-saga articles to coincide with FUNimation's marketing, and the sagas themselves have seen some restructuring. Old style, season 1 (the "Saiyan Saga") ends... I forget exactly, but while everyone's getting ready to set for Namek. Now Season 1 ends with the kids and that invisible space ship. Season 2 (the "Namek Saga") started a little later, and went until Goku beats Ginyu. Season 3 started with the Cpt. Ginyu Saga. Now season 2 ends with the whole Ginyu arc, and season 3 will kick off with everyone resting at Freeza's ship. My point is that FUNimation seasons and sagas are not based on solely on story arc or even broadcast history. It has to do with what works best for marketing DVD releases. This is fine and makes sense for them financially. However it doesn't make sense for us to write encyclopedic articles on the plot of the Dragon Ball series based on one adaptations ever-changing business model. Onikage725 14:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

As anal as I am about using original titles, I must admit that the English titles are much shorter and easier to type. --VorangorTheDemon 20:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

We don't have to refer to them by their whole name every time we mention them. We can shorten them for passing refrences.

• DB Movie 1: The Legend of Shenlong
• DB Movie 2: Princess in Devil's Castle
• DB Movie 3: Mystical Adventure
• DB Movie 4: Path to Strength

• DBZ Movie 1: Return Gohan
• DBZ Movie 2: The World's Strongest
• DBZ Moive 3: Deciding Battle
• DBZ Movie 4: Super Saiyan Son Goku
• DBZ Movie 5: Mightiest vs. Mightiest
• DBZ Movie 6: 10,000,000,000 Warriors
• DBZ Movie 7: The Three Super Saiyans
• DBZ Movie 8: A Super-Fierce Battle
• DBZ Movie 9: The Super Incredible Guy
• DBZ Movie 10: The Dangerous Duo
• DBZ Movie 11: Super Warrior Defeat
• DBZ Movie 12: The Rebirth of Fusion
• DBZ Movie 13: Dragon Fist Explosion

• DBZ Special 1: The Father of Son Goku
• DBZ Special 2: Resistance to Despair

• DBGT Special: Goku Sidestory

Of course, other abreviations could be used also. We'd probably have to decide on one for each movie and special to stick to. Takuthehedgehog 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Human 17 & Artificial Human 18

Ok, who agrees with these new names? Since they're cyborgs, they may have to be moved to Cyborg 17 and Cyborg 18 respectively, such a long title like these look crufty. The same for Dr. Gero but, discuss away! Lord Sesshomaru

Well if I remember correctly Jinzōningen is translated in english as Artifical Human. I myself think its ok. Also if you think about it. A cyborg, be it part human or animal, and a android, which is a robot in human, animal or human like form is what the title suggest since now the cyborg is not a full human, nor organic. (think Robocop only his human face was remained.), the cyborg is artificial since it was made from organic and mechanical parts and I dont have to say anything about androids. Plus when a language is used a title (like we us android others use cyborg, etc...) the other AH in the series are titled with that title name. (Cyborg 19, Android 19, Jinzōningen #19 etc....) So to make it fair plus its tranlated correctly from Jinzōningen, Artificial Human seems to be the right chose but thats to me. Don't just look at these two you have 7 other AH. Yes technically 17, 18 and Gero (remember brain, organic) are Cyborgs and the others from what we know are Androids, but with other countries keep there titles with all the AH and do not seperate them, and the translation of Jinzōningen as I said, the best bet is to use Artificial Human. Heat P 14:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Heat, Artificial Human sounds okay.--$UIT 17:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Jinzo/Jinzou - man-made, synthetic, artificial. Ningen - human being, man, person. Many old fansubs used to call them "man-made men." But the accepted translation (and the official one) is Artificial Human. Android is used for lip synch reasons in the dub, but we don't have a blanket term like the japanese do for synthetic beings. Jinzoningen Juunana-gou (8 syllables). Artificial Human Number Seventeen (11 syllables). Android Number Seventeen (7 syllables). Android was the obvious choice (and because the majority of Dr. Gero's creations were Androids, it was simple majority not to use Cyborg). But as for official translation- Artificial Human. Cyborg, while correct, is the product of original research. Onikage725 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Since Funimation's translation as "android" (as in completely mechanical) for 17 and 18 is not correct, this name is fine by me. Also if you look at it, "cyborg" has the same amount of syllables as "android", so I think that's just laziness on Funimation's part. Again, I am "anal" when it comes to names of DB characters on Wikipedia. I always try to emphasize referring to stuff in the DB universe by their literal translation, and not the half-a** Funimation titles that they are often referred by. I also agree with Onikage about "cyborg" being OR. EDIT: If you run into any "Android 20"s along the way, I think that it could also be changed for him. He is also an artifical human. --VorangorTheDemon 18:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The use of the word "android" does not imply that these characters are completely mechanical. The android article states that robots are completely mechanical, cyborgs are part biological and part mechanical, and androids can be either. Answers.com defines "android" as "An automaton that is created from biological materials and resembles a human. Also called humanoid." Even if these characters were not actually androids, the most common term should still be used in the article title. Jecowa 01:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling them cyborgs isn't original research at all. Refer to DBZ manga, vol. 14, page 31. ISBN 1-59116-180-0; #17 says to #16: "You understand me, don't you, 16? You were created from a human male too." To which #16 replied, "No. I was created from nothing." #18 also says to #16, "Then you're fundamentally different from us..." Later in DBZ manga, vol. 20, page 150. ISBN 1-59116-808-2; Goku is speaking to Kuririn about #18's kid. Goku says, "I mean... how does a robot have a kid...?!" Kuririn replies to Goku, "She's not a robot. She's a cyborg!"

Here's my two cents: have #17's & #18's articles moved to their cyborg names based on this information. Now about the others, except Dr. Gero whom is also a cyborg (ie, has his human brain), title everyone else with Android, though I don't know if #8 (Eighter) was a human that died and came back to life or just your run-of-the-mill android.

Any other thoughts or concerns on what should be decided? Lord Sesshomaru 17:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd still say Artificial Human is fine. Differentiating between Android and Cyborg is ok with me personally, but it's going to look crufty IMO. They're almost always referred to by a blanket term. Artificial Human in the japanese scripts, Android in the dub. If I'm not mistaken, Viz uses the japanese term but tosses in little notes and dialogue here and their to help readers differentiate (basically trying to curb some of the "lost in translation" effect). Basically what I'm getting at is that while 17, 18, and 20 may be cyborgs, they are never named as such. "Artificial Human 18 is a cyborg" does not mean we should call her article "Cyborg 18." That's what I mean by original research. I'm aware that other languages have opted for cyborg (and I agree Vorangor, FUNi could have used both terms if they'd felt like it), but our only concerns here are the primary source and notable english adaptations. The original and english subs and manga use artifical human (unless I'm mistaken about Viz, I don't have any on hand), the dub uses android. Android is only semi-accurate, Artifical Human should cover everything. And should any readers be thinking of coming in with an "English Wikipedia" comment in favor of using android (haven't seen this in a bit but it still happens), just note A) noone wants "Jinzoningen" and the term is translated as Artifical Human in english sources. Onikage725 20:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Human is used in the Japanese subtitles on FUNimation's DVDs. Takuthehedgehog 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, so you're saying that the Japanese subtitles are a direct translation of the language being spoken on the DVD? That has never happened in history of the world!

Are you saying that more people will know Android 17 and 18 as "Artificial Human 17 and 18"? No one wants Jinzoningen or Juuhachigo, what they want is for those names to be translated. I'm for the convenience of the reader, while you fight against the dub. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Quit it ALTTP. If you haven't figured it out yet, you're the only person who wants the crappy English dub information. You appear to be the only dub fanatic as well, in order to support your view you'll need more people to help establish something official. Lord Sesshomaru 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for revealing reality to you, but welcome to it - Artificial Human 17/18 is not an official English name. No English material besides a direct translation of the Japanese names in the Japanese subtitles ever uses these names - the closest thing to it being official is it being a translation of the official Japanese names. Now, it's not the official Japanese name, but a translation. Let me count the number of people who view Wikipedia who would be helped by using an unbelievably unknown name for these characters - no one. The only people who care are you Japanophiles. The majority of people in English-dominant countries do not recognize the characters as "Artificial Human 17 and 18".

This isn't even a debate. Even if you somehow argued that Artificial Human 17 and 18 are official English names, they are so obviously not the most common ones. It's a matter of guidelines blatantly stating that AH17/18 are NOT good names for the articles, and you have completely failed to explain why this is good for non-fans or those who have only seen the dub (AKA - most of the people who know of the series, as well as the characters), so it's so obvious that it's not a case of dub fanboyism, but otakuism. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I undid the recent bad faith move attempts of #17 & #18 by A Link to the Past (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) per violating our consensus policy. He knows by now that if he does not agree with something [that has been] decided by a community, it can be changed by talking it out, not by being reckless. Lord Sesshomaru 08:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you please stop vandalizing Wikipedia by ignoring facts and deciding that it's best for the user to make the article title less convenient for the user? Android 17 and Android 18 are the most common names. It states it ever so clearly that it's best to use the most common names. There is no disputing that A17 and A18 are the most common names, and at no point can anyone show anything that would show that AH17 and AH18 are even a blip on the radar in comparison.

And this consensus of yours is bull. The fact that your only reply to opposition was telling the opposition to be quiet and that no one cared what the user had to say shows that your consensus is full of crap. Just because you ignore opposition does not mean that opposition doesn't exist, and it does NOT mean that your so-called consensus means anything at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus policy is bull? ALTTP, you are well on your way of being blocked. This edit summary & comment is unacceptable. This is what I meant by you not wanting to get along with others. I have never seen such audacity before. If you're gonna keep this up I'll have to propose a ban. Despite you being blocked many, many times you haven't changed. I've contacted the WP:DBZ sysop Deskana to help handle this afffair. Lord Sesshomaru 16:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Bull, that's exactly what this consensus was. Is there any good reason why you ignored me and the guideline which states to use the most common English name? Let me answer that for you - no. I made a point that guidelines clearly state that this move was bad, and all you could say was "Quit it" (which I hope was "quit using facts plz". And am I to understand that one who calls my edits bad faith can complain when I call his edits bad faith? Anyway, until you actually bother to discuss this, the discussion is not over and consensus has not even come close to being found. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Frist of all, Artificial HUman is more accurate, considering the two aren't even Androids to begin with. The articial even says so. And after the Cell saga of the English dub, they stop calling then Android 18/17 and start calling them by their number. This is all plain logic. So quite trying to fight a futile battle. Ryu-chan

Accuracy doesn't matter!!! Unless you're from an alternate universe, of course. Which is more common? Look at the official Dragon Ball Z web sites, the official Dragon Ball Z merchandise, all material created because of the popularity of the series. Show me ANY piece of merchandise which calls the characters "Artificial Human 17 and 18". Wikipedia flat-out tells editors to use the most common English name. Artificial Human 17 and 18 is not the most common, and accuracy is only relevant to fans, not to the intended audience - aka, people who want to LEARN about the series. Either you find a guideline which validates ignoring the common name guideline or you stop moving the articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Well everyone else apparently wants Artificial Human also. If you don't think so, then read the whole discussion. Not only is Artificial Human more accurate, it is also in FUNimations english subtitles for the Japanese version. That's just like saying we should change Son Goku's name to Goku just because it's more common to anyone who's watched the english anime and not read the manga. On wikipedia, majority rules all. So you've lost. Ryu-chan

Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. We have guidelines in place for a reason. We use guidelines to be guided to what is good for the article. And why did you bring up accuracy? No guideline on Wikipedia even remotely implies that going with the creator's name for the character is a good idea. And yes, in FUNimation's subtitles, which are a direct translation of a Japanese name, they use Artificial Human 17. The only way that it would not be so is if the subtitles were not direct translations. But the fact that they are says that they did it because they were required to, not because they consider AH17 an official English name. Majority rules all, which is why we look at the majority - which name is more well-known (and thusly more helpful to readers) - Android 17, or Artificial Human 17? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is honestly starting to get irritation, so lets ask everyone else what they think on this issue. Ryu-chan

True, the act of ignoring anything you can't answer DOES irritate me. Answer the question this time - which is more common, Android 17 or Artificial Human 17? Don't even bother responding to me if you're going to ignore my question. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Artificial Human naturally. That's one of the reasons everybody above wanted it. Ryu-chan

Really? Why is it more common? It isn't used in the English dub, which is what most Americans and Britains see, it isn't used in merchandising, it isn't used in the English manga, it is only used in English subtitles. By that fact, it is NOT more common, and I fail to see how you could argue such a thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Add * Support if you agree with #17 and #18 being called Artificial Human 17 and Artificial Human 18 based on the information provided. Add * Oppose if you disagree if you think they should be Android 17 and Android 18 and/or have something else in mind. Please provide a brief explanation, then sign your name. 17:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

• Speedy keep - bad faith revert by A Link to the Past (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Lord Sesshomaru 17:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy move - since Sesshomaru is vandal, it's only logical to NOT stay at his vandal move. He moved based on guidelines that were created by Dragon Ball fans, which directly and knowingly contradict a guideline that applies to this project. There is no official Wikipedia guideline that supports this move. And by the way, Sessy, you opened up ANY accusation of vandalism from me the moment you began to refer to my move based on official Wikipedia guidelines as a bad faith move. Are you implying that this project is above this guideline? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - In keeping with Dragon Ball task force's naming conventions. Also, Artificial Human is used more often then Android. Because simply googling "Android" or "Artificial Human" would get many off topic results, I googled "Artificial Human Dragon Ball" and "Android Dragon Ball". Artificial Human got 679,000 results. Android got 549,000 results. Takuthehedgehog 22:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No project is allowed to make naming conventions which contradict Wikipedia naming conventions. And a better Google search: "Artificial Human" + "Dragon Ball" gets hundreds of thousands less Google hits than "Android" + "Dragon Ball". Also note how if you compare Artificial Human + "Dragon Ball" to Artificial Human Dragon Ball, you lose many Google hits. Remember next time to try to avoid a problem such as this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Bah, I thought the results were fishy. I still standby the other half of my comment. Takuthehedgehog 01:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
      • And I still say that the guideline can't be enforced because it has less officialness than WP:UCN, which directly contradicts it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

At this point you guys almost seem to be avoiding anything remotely used by the dub out of spite. -- Ned Scott 04:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

And one of the moves was a cut-and-paste move. Do this through WP:RM. -- Ned Scott 04:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a general statement or directed? Cuz it sounds like a fairly bad faith based stance if you mean the task force as a whole. And, if you track any similar name discussions, one could easily say the other side avoids anything that wasn't from the dub out of spite. Seriously, anything DB related that wasn't aired on Toonami falls under immediate scrutiny, and anyone who supports it is dismissed on the grounds of being a "fanboy," regardless of their reasoning. I'm not pointing a finger at you or anything, just saying that the pendulum swings both ways on these debates.Onikage725 17:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose that if Sesshomaru does not participate in the discussion, his opinion on it shouldn't count. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Link, what do you want me to say here? If I recall, you're the one who began this entire edit warring without so much as sparking a discussion on why you disagree with the names. Exactly, this is why I called bad faith on your part; you moved the names, and didn't bother to alert anyone. This reply, which you repeatedly removed, [1], [2], was not a threat. Simply, a concern of what to do if you must persist in disturbing the goal of WP:DBZ. Lord Sesshomaru 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You join the discussion and don't discuss? And yeah, I didn't discuss - sure, I stated my reasons why I moved, but hey, since when was discussion discussing?

No one was acknowledging my comment, so I took action. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I really need someone to explain to me how FUNi's subs are Japanese and/or unnofficial (as is usually brought up in these discussions). Last I checked, I couldn't read Japanese. Yet I have no difficulty with the sub track. Also last I checked, a licensee releasing a product = official. Hell, many anime and foreign films don't even get a dub when released in an English-speaking country. This doesn't mean that there is no official release applicable to those countries simply because it was subbed into English (I guess I must have bought some form of bootleg when I bought Versus at FYE, due to its lack of a dub). Noone is pushing Jinzo-ningen, or any other Japanese term here. I'm sorry for the sarcasm, but saying things like "Artificial Human is not used in any English source" or "is Japanese" is ridiculous dub fanboyism. And since the ones making those kinds of arguments are always the first to pull the "fanboy" card, I think it is high time we start keeping some things in perspective. Onikage725 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, if we want to get technical, the most common name for them is "17" and "18" or "#17" and "#18." I don't recall if the dub used "Number" often when referring to them, but most often in the original they are simply Junana-go and Juhachi-go (#17 and #18). These designated numbers effectively become their names, whereas Jinzoningen/Artificial Human/Android/Cybrog, Mechanical Man/Man-made Man (that's all of 'em right?) is a title that is used comparatively less. I'd like to propse that we consider going by these more common useages of their names (thus eliminating any need to bicker over translation of their title classification). I'd also like to discuss this without a lengthy debate on whether "#" counts as flagrant use of the Japanese language. Onikage725 23:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

1. Japanese subtitles

1. English dub
2. All merchandising
3. English manga
4. Video games

Which sounds more common?

And no, I'm sorry, but #18 is NOT more common. It is a shorthand version of Android 18. Do you see any official merchandise call her #18? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

In the series itself, Jinzo-ningen/the androids is used to describe Dr. Gero's creations as a whole. The full title is used in reference by the characters and narrator during the relatively brief arc in which they were the primary focus. Other times during that arc, outside of that for a good part of the remainder of the saga, and nearly every instance after, they are referred to by their number without the descriptive title. Kinda like how we have a Hiei article on the Yu Yu Hakusho pages, not Jaganshi Hiei. Or in DB comparisons, Piccolo rather than Piccolo Ma Junior or Piccolo Junior. The "other" Piccolo only has his title in his name to differentiate the two. Most people referring to the characters tend to just say the number as well. Onikage725 03:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This is your own original research. You can show that she's sometimes known as 18, but not that it is more valid than Android 18. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually all I said was that in the show they are more commonly referred to without the title. That's not original research. There's a difference between "sometimes" and "most often." You brought up a good point about merchandise. It'd be nearly impossible to test one set over the other on a google search. What does anyone else think? Onikage725 23:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

But that cannot be verified. The fact that FUNimation treats Android 18 as her full name shows that it most likely is her full name. Additionally, there would be no disambig necessary with Android 18, as 18 is a number used for several subjects. And on top of that, there would be no confusion in using what is clearly her full name, as those who know her as 18 would most likely know her as Android 18 as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to crash the party or anything but there are a few more pressing matters that what Android 18 should be called, like the issues below. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I did some research and some of the manga (Dragon Ball manga, not the DBZ portion) and came across something interesting. Jinzōningen, as we already know, means Artificial Human. But in many other media's, they use different terms. In the Dragon Ball manga, they translated Artificial Human #8 as Mechanical Man #8, dispite the fact that he is, unlike #17 and #18, actually an Android. I think when Viz translated #17 and #18 as Android #17 and Android #18, they were trying to follow the anime. Makes sense considering they translated Jinzōningen as Mechanical Man early on. To be honest, I don't care about which names are more common. And I'd much prefer using Android's over Artificial Human, considering I saw the English dub and haven't seen many episodes in Japanese except for the first 39 (Season One Box Set) and a few movies, but I'm fighting for the more accurate name. And as stated before, #17 and #18 are cyborgs. So using Android is both illogical and unaccurate. And since everyone else has been doing a search, I decided to do one. I put in Android Dragon Ball on google and came up with 699,000 results. Then I put in Artificial Human Dragon Ball and came up with 700,000 results. Adding signs such as the plus sign will throw off the accuracy of the search. And I wanted the search to span over all of the Dragon Ball series, so I didn't add a Z or GT. Though some people write it as Dragonball, officially it's two words, so I wrote it as so. So there you have it. Artificial Human is more common than Android and Android is still not accurate. Ryu Ematsu 14:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

My mind is blown - I never knew that if you did an extremely vague Googlesearch, you'd end up with that! Did you ever consider searching for "Artificial Human" + "Dragon Ball" and Android + "Dragon Ball"? Didn't you ever once question why it got more hits, considering it's only used on the English subtitles on the DVDs? Also, fun fact - WIKIPEDIA IS NOT FOR FANS. I don't care and never will care that it's "inaccurate" to use the most helpful name. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It's time for me to give you a fun fact - WIKIPEDIA IS FOR EVERYONE. Every single one of us are fans. If you're not a fan, then why are you fighting so hard about it. You soyund like a fanboy. And my searches weren't vague. I didn't limit the sources I used in my search, that's why I put it like that. Whether it's official sites, or fans sites, the point of the search was to find out which one was more common. That's why I didn't use any qoutations when I searched. It would've been a vague search if I only put Android and/or Artificial Human. Now here's a list of searches for everyone.

Artificial Human = 110,000,000
Android = 4,860,000
Artificial Human Dragon Ball = 700,000
Android Dragon Ball = 699,000
Artificial Human + Dragon Ball = 700,000
Android + Dragon Ball = 699,000
Artificial Human Dragonball= 146,000
Android Dragonball = 484,000
"Artificial Human" "Dragon Ball" = 2,600
"Android" "Dragonball" = 262,000
"Artificial Human" + "Dragon Ball" = 2,600
"Android" + "Dragonball" = 262,000

As I explained before, doing such things puts limitations on the search. The plus signs don't do anything at all the search, as you can see from above. However, the qoutations limit the sources you're using to 'prove' your fact that Android is more common than Artificial Human. My search without the qoutations shows all the Dragon Ball sites that use both of them, making it more accurate. Meaning that Articial Human is indeed more common. It's kind of pathetic how only one person is fighting for a such a dumb cause. Ryu Ematsu 16:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, necessary limitations! So evil, huh? The first one is TWO WORDS without any quotations. There are going to be many, many web pages that use those two words and have neither of them be related to Dragon Ball. A 1,000 hits difference when you use four extremely common words, and a search using one less common word with two extremely common words. Why are quotations bad? If one is referring to the character of Android 18 as Artificial Human 18, there is no logical reason for them to not refer to her as "Artificial Human". Why would the two words be separated? Same goes for Dragon Ball - in a web page about Dragon Ball, the only logical assumption is that they will keep the two words as a phrase when referring to it, not put something in between. So why is something, which has never appeared on any secondary merchandise, on television, or in the manga, why is it more common? Because you twist Google hits to your advantage? Accurate Google hits show the phrase "Artificial Human" to be less common than Android, in the context of Dragon Ball. Dragon Ball didn't invent the words Artificial, Human, Dragon, or Ball, so why do you act like it's okay to do Googlesearches and no make them a phrase? Did it occur to you that Artificial and Human could be used in a web page in a different paragraph in a different context? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Guys, guys... please. Can we resolve this conversation without going down the "screw you" path? Onikage725 16:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This tiresome arguing is starting to get on my nerves. Tell me, why are you fighting so hard for this. I mean, you changed there articles and didn't tell anyone and plus you're the only one who's fighting for it. No one agrees with you and you keep trying to fight. Majority of people already said they want Artificial Human and you keep on going. So why? Ryu-chan 17:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically, because you won't listen to facts, reason, logic, reality, etc., I should give up? Yes, it is hard to deal with people whose arguments are not even based on truth, but I'm not one to just bend over backwards and give up because people refuse to open their eyes and realize that Wikipedia is not a Dragon Ball fan hangout, and that the articles are for the readers, not the writers or the fans, and that the articles should teach before all else - not even appeasing anti-dub fanboys is a very high priority. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, tell me, what does it mean when you search for Artificial Human Dragon Ball and get 700,000+ hits, and then search for "Artificial Human" "Dragon Ball", and you lose almost all of those hits? It pretty much means that most of the hits from the first Googlesearch were not discussing Dragon Ball. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am about to outline my position on the matter in response to the last post. I am not attacking anyone, rather just stating a contrary opinion. Please keep any replies or rebukes (in agreement or disagreement with my comments) civil, as I will endeavor to show the same courtesy. Let's all remember these are supposed to be discussions, not fights.

I don't understand what we are "teaching" by cleaving to an adaptation (one of many) that is widely known to be inaccurate. I'll take it a step beyond 17 and 18. According to FUNimation, Cell is an android. Yet Cell was created through gene-splicing and grown like a clone. He doesn't even fit as a "bio-android" on those grounds. According to the dub, Cell's a very lifelike robot (I believe the narrator even used the word "mechanical" on one occasion). And what about the different FUNi-lead projects? Prime example- seasons 1 and 2. Saiyan Saga or Vegeta Saga? Vegeta Saga is more current, but Saiyan Saga is more well known. The more current version portrays Dende as having a brother, but the more well known version does not. Obviously I've watched the dub. This isn't about dub "hatred." It's just hard to be consistent if you're going by a adaptation of a foreign work that is not only inconsistent with the original work but also with itself. I fail to see how going by that will "teach" readers simply on the grounds that this stuff was licensed out to lunch boxes and trading cards. Onikage725 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a second opinion here, as at this rate neither of you is going to concide defeat. this entire time could of been spent improving the article in question, instead of arguing what it is to be called. We should just count this as One Change the name and One keep the name. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This is EXACTLY what dub hatred is - you've basically argued that FUNimation is a bad source of information. You constantly use Viz to trump FUNi, and when they're on FUNi's side, you don't even acknowledge this? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

What dub hatred do you speak of? I thought the arguement was over. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking to Onikage. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that's a misconception. I'm sorry if I've come off that way, but if you were to follow my history on this series' articles you'd see I've outlined a stance of using the most correct, informative, non-contradictory information- so long as it is used in an English source (as opposed to straight Japanese- this *is* the English -language wikipedia after all). If you don't believe me, try to propose renames to Vegerott, Djinn Boo, Cultivars, or Pocus and see how quick I cite the dub. It isn't about being on sides, it's about the information and the reader. In this case, I think calling, for example, #18 an android in her title and then adding "but not really" in the first paragraph is confusing as hell for a non-fan. Onikage725 23:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There's no guideline that supports "most accurate", only most common. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're incorrect, there is WP:MJ, which WP:WPDB adheres. Lord Sesshomaru 04:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Link, you've tried to turn this into a popularity contest, and dispite what you say is more common or more popular, the majority of us find Artificial Human more common. It's true that the popularity is important, Wikipedia isn't about that. It's about providing the readers with correct and accurate information and that includes using correct names. Ryu-chan 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not true. Link has brought up many valid points, and trying to spin it off by calling it a popularity contest is just stupid. He's not doing that, he's pointing out to you, in plain English, that the majority of our readers think their names are Android ##. Accuracy has nothing to do with this, because they're not androids, or cyborgs, or anything, they're cartoon characters. The title is nothing more than a logical way for readers to find an article. Titles are not a statement of something or an endorsement of something. If these names are more "popular" than "artificial human", then that's what we go with, because that is more common.

You might have found it easy to downplay Link because he gets mad easy and has annoyed a lot of people here, but that's no reason to ignore a completely valid point. I don't like it when I see users bully other users because they're not good with words or with how they bring things up. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

See, my problem is when WP:PG is ignored in the process of trying to uphold it. WP:PG says to "edit in good faith, show civility, (and) seek consensus," yet these debates often devolve into bad faith assumptions, incivility, and "I'm right, you're wrong" stances on the issue. I also think that showing bias to one adaptation because "this is English" is a problem too. This is the English language wiki. Keyword, language. It is all too easy to have to contend with systemic bias due to the simple fact that most people editing articles of this nature are likely young males who, in the case of DB, are familiar with the US dub. But this wiki isn't a limitation from which information may come. It is the language that the articles are written in. I could fully accept the "don't use Japanese" stance if anyone wanted to use "Jinzo-ningen." But noone does. The terms "Artifical Human" and "Cyborg" have been in use in regards to these characters since before there even was a US dub. I am hard-pressed to believe that worldwide, Android enjoys greater use. I can also find nothing in the guidelines that cares about where the english word comes from (or language/country of the license holder resposible for the adaptation)- only that it is common. Now hey, I am fully willing to debate the issue, or debate interpretation of guidelines. You know why? As per WP:PG- Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception, and the category page on guidelines states that they are not mandatory. Combined with the same page's listing of Wikipedia's number 1 key policy of building consensus, and the fifth pillar of Wikipedia (Wikipedia does not have firm rules), and I take severe issue with people going into a discussion and throwing down guidelines as if they were policies with the attitude that no further discussion is necessary on the matter (in some cases going so far as to insinuate that anyone who feels otherwise is a vandal). Treating guidelines as policy as a means of ignoring any attempts to discuss a matter or build consensus is not Wikipedia's stated process. Onikage725 14:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:NAME. The most easily recognizeable English names should be used. That's the rule, and it's pretty clear. --Kinst 05:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

• comment Can we give this a rest already? look at all the pages we editors have spent arguing over a name for one article! Think at all the improvements we could of made to the articles were editing on! By now it is clear neither Onikage or his other arguees are going to change their votes. So why don't we just narrow this down to support or opose and explain your reason. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, my last official suggestion was to drop the title altogether (and thus the fighting over which translation of said title to use) and just go by their names of Seventeen/Eighteen or #17/#18. Obviously with a series header of (Dragon Ball). But noone else was feeling that idea. Onikage725 12:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Our jobs as wikipedians is to provide information for people who seek it. Dispite a name being the most popular doesn't matter when it's not correct. I respect FUNimation, so I'm not a dub hater. But I do hate the fact that they screwed up the transation in all three series (not as bad as 4kids though). The stories are generally the same. They could've even tried to make the translation more accurate in the Box Sets, which they didn't (I only have Season One). And we all know that they can translate accurately (as seen with anime's like Fruits Basket and Fullmetal Alchemist) so because of this, they are not a reliable source. Viz made some of FUNimations changes in the Dragon Ball Z portion of the manga while Dragon Ball barely had any changes (refering to Mr. Popo's lips and whatnot). Some of the changes I'm referring too is the fact that they called #17 and # 18 Androids, while calling #8 a Mechanical Man. This is, why would they translate it like that if #17 and #18 are actually cyborgs, while #8's an android. And stating their name as "Android", then saying they're not is contradictory. In the end, popularity of a name doesn't matter. Providing our readers with correct information is. And if memory serves right, there was another debate about a year ago for Roronoa Zoro's page arguing about whether his name should be Roronoa Zoro's or Roronoa Zolo's. Roronoa Zoro won that argument, so why can't Artificial Human win over Android? Ryu-chan 16:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That is a wonderful point about 4kids. I was just looking at some of the shows that 4Kids distributed, and each article is clearly on the original work with due notice on adaptations. You can see this on Yu-Gi-Oh, One Piece, Shaman King, Ultraman Tiga, etc. Pokemon seems to be the exception, but most Pokemon names are from the NoA game releases anyway. Original characters are kept in dub form for consistency, and conflict between NoA and 4kids is given to NoA (i.e Lorelei, noted as Kanna in japan and Prima in the anime dub). I looked at another FUNi license, Yu Yu Hakusho. Cases of basic translation goes with the dubs, but cases of error (i.e. Suzuka as Suzuki) favor the original. And just as an aside, I'm used to Suzuka as a watcher of the Yu Yu dub, but I fully agree that Suzuki is more appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Onikage725 19:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my point during the whole argument. I respect FUNimation as much as the next person, but as I stated before, our job is to deliver correct information. Another thing that I hated about the dubbed version of DBZ though was the Tuffle story about Planet Vegeta being destroyed(I don't know their Japanese name. it was like Tsu-something ^^;;). The Japanese version story made a lot more sense. The Endlish dub story was confusing. That's an example of this. Good example of good translation is as I stated before Fruits Basket and Fullmetal Alchemist. But overall, FUNimation did good. It would've been better if the translation was accurate though (like the english dub of Naruto). Ryu-chan 19:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Tsufuru. And yes, I agree if for no other reason than consistency (within these articles and across Wikipedia amongst the other manga articles). I keep trying to say that if we start a precedent for dub names exclusively, where does it end? How ridiculous would it be to have a list entry on General Tao, a hired assassin with no military rank who's name was screwed up in flashback, fixed in the DB dub as Mercenary, but then re-popularized as General due to the Tenkaichi games. Onikage725 09:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As Link kept bringing up "we have to use the most used names" and whatnot. It should only go to a certain extent though. This is because sometimes the company uses different localizations. Let me give a couple examples. M. Bison, Balrog, and Vega were known as Vega, M. Bison, and Balrog respectively. This was because Capcom was afraid of being sued by Mike Tyson (which makes me wonder, why did they change three names instead of two). Overall, Japan's localization is the only one that uses those names. I'm not sure if it's the same with Akuma. A few months ago, there was a debate about Might Guy's name being Maito Gai in the article. Might Guy won not because it was the most common name, but because it was a translation of his name. I've noticed that sometimes in Japanese when people say certain english words, they usually add a "a" or an "o". That is also the same thing with the Cooler article. Even though it's Coola, it still translates as Cooler. It was also understandable for 4kids to change Zoro's name to Zolo (even though their real reason was because they didn't want him to be confused with the fencer or something like that) because in Japanese, the "l" is also an "r", kind of like how Lee's name in the Japanese version was pronounced and spelled in romanji Ri. An prime example of the "o" usage is Lloyd from Tales of Symphonia. In Japanese, his name is spelled (in romanji) and pronounced Roido. Ryu-chan 18:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Great. Now the pages are Android 17 and Artificial Human 18. Due to both redirect pages having more then one edit, they can't have articles moved to them. Once this is settled we'll need to have an admin make the necisarry moves. Takuthehedgehog 04:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I like how Sesshomaru waited until barely after I was blocked to discuss this. Great strategy - only discuss when the opposition cannot.

Anyway, my argument has NOTHING to do with popularity and everything to do with helping the reader. If the guideline were about popularity, the guideline wouldn't exist. But it does. None of your reasons explains why the guideline doesn't apply in this case. The fact that other anime editors do the same as you is irrelevant - those editors don't acknowledge the guideline, either. Your opinion of the dub has no bearing on this argument, because the quality of the dub is purely POV. So you don't like it? I see. You're within your right. But where does it say that your dislike of the dub is more important than someone's appreciation of it? If you try to override a guideline by using your opinion on the dub, you're using your POV. I find the dub to be fine, and some being incorrect translations or renamings doesn't matter in naming, as the name should be the most easily recognizable, which Artificial Human 17 is not. The fact of the matter is that in the entire English-dominant world, Android 17/18 is the most well-known names for the characters. In every single English version of every DB medium, it's the one and only name (and no, subtitles are not a "medium"). And I'm bothered that your arguments tend to involve certain mediums being more or less credible in certain debates. Several people argued that because Son Goku is used in the manga, that it's an English title and the article should use it, but now, when it uses Android 18, the manga isn't worth mentioning? Hate on the dub all you want, but the only way to explain away the manga usage of the name would be to say that the manga is not good enough of an argument, which would discredit its usage in all other debates involving it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, the Dragon Ball Z portion of the manga followed certain main changes that the anime had. And as I stated before too, one prime example is the fact that they translated Jinzōningen as Android in the DBZ part, while translating it as Mechanical Man in the DB part, which is a more accurate translation. No one was saying anything about hating the dub. All we said was FUNimation could've translated it better because of other anime's they've done. The Yamcha article should be Yamucha, but people didn't make a big deal about it because they're names are so close. Way earlier, you said that wikipedia is not a democracy. But if that were true, then why do we have votes on articles (that's right. you stated this when I started a vote)? You contradicted yourself for starting a vote on changing Son Goku (Dragon Ball) into Son Goku, dispite Son Goku (Dragon Ball) being more specific. Credibility varies from person to person, so that's why we vote on it. Throughout the article, we refer to them as #17/#18, but in the opening, we have to use the article name. This much is true. But it's even more unaccurate when the article goes as "Android #17, also known as 人造人間17号 (Jinzōningen Junanagō) in Japanese is a fictional character who first appears in the Dragon Ball manga created by Akira Toriyama, as well as Dragon Ball Z and in Dragon Ball GT." Does Android #17 translate into Jinzōningen Junanagō. In Japanese, it'd be Andoroido Junanagō. Most of the people who've watched DBZ on Cartoon Network already moved on. The people who still watch the Dragon Ball series have gotten more into anime and gotten more acquainted with the Japanese version, accepting it more. This also goes with the names too. And it's honestly pretty rare to see someone choose the dub over the original. I'm biased on that subject to be honest, but now that DBZ doesn't show on cartoon network, FUNimation should've been able to translate it more accurate and whatnot, which they chose not to do (even though they said they'd fix the translation error in the Season Boxset, which they didn't). Ryu-chan (Talk) 18:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are superfluous and original research. Being helpful to the reader is infinitely more important than being accurate. A mistranslation is extremely trivial, and your logic that fans have moved on is original research. Also, it isn't a democracy. No one established a vote on anything, and I most definitely did not establish a vote on Son Goku. It's called a discussion. If democracy mattered, then that would mean that if six people wanted an article to be replaced by the word penis and only five people opposed, the article should be vandalized. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Quote me: This isn't about dub "hatred." Twice now you've informed me otherwise. Please refrain from informing me what my own opinions are in direct contradiction to what I state. It's rude. And if you want to draw parallels that is fine, but insinuating that an opposing position to yours is vandilism is likewise rude. Within the confines of this discussion, noone presently involved has dropped that word. Sesshomaru did a ways back, which lead to you doing the same, and I doubt anyone could call what came of the "productive." And honestly, I think this has gone past any one of us needing to say more. Clearly more input or outside opinions are necessary. We've all made our stances known. We've made it clear we won't be wavering. The only thing left is bickering. That seems to be the way around here, but one can still hope for a little civility, neh? Onikage725 02:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, okay, so you are basically saying that no guideline will change your mind. On multiple occasions, the WP:JP guideline has been stated to NOT cover these disputes, and I'm tired of them being cited. The only relevant guideline is the "use common name guideline". Your opposition is rooted solely in your personal opinion of quality, not Wikipedia standards of quality. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "basically saying" anything of the sort. I said don't put words in my mouth, don't insinuate vandilism when there is none taking place, and at least attempt to be civil. I also suggested that this little "discussion" (and I use the term very lightly) has moved past the productive stage and is going in circles. As usual. I've stated my position, why, and proposed a compromise. Everyone else wants to bang heads in a stalemate forever. That's fine, you all have fun. I'm done with this topic, however it works out. And for the record, Link, me pointing out to you that putting words in other peoples mouths is rude was not a cue for you to further tell me what I think and accuse me of inappropriately citing a guideline I never cited in the first place. Take that attitude and point it somewhere else. I'm not engaging you in another week or two of pointless bickering. Onikage725 01:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"android 17" -wikipedia 57,800 hits	"artificial human 17" -wikipedia 199 hits
"android 17" "dragon ball" -wikipedia 34,600 hits	"artificial human 17" "dragon ball" -wikipedia 139 hits
"android 18" -wikipedia 193,000 hits	"artificial human 18" -wikipedia 193 hits
"android 18" "dragon ball" -wikipedia 67,900 hits	"artificial human 18" "dragon ball" -wikipedia 146 hits

Artificial Human 17 and Artificial Human 18 seem to be much less common than Android 17 and Android 18. Jecowa 16:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that we need to distinguish between most commonly used English Name and most commonly used name in official English references. Most English references use "Artificial Human", and not "android", even though Android could be the most common term to the general public. I think it's more appropriate to use the most commonly used name in reference, and not in casual conversation. This is an encyclopedia after all... --VorangorTheDemon 21:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Using the most commonly used name in references is NOT what an encyclopedia would do - if (and only if) most English references use Artificial Human, that shows that people with knowledge of the series prefer that title. An encyclopedia is created to help the uneducated, not the educated, and giving the title to a title less commonly used by the public helps only those who need none. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Common names says to "use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things." It goes on to say, "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" It does not mention anything about English references. It looks as though most English speakers know these two fictional individuals as Android 17 and Android 18. Jecowa 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds about right. Maybe it's time for an RM of 18's article. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello fellas and ladies. Well I am on to let something be know. Nothing against anyone AT ALL to make it perfectly clear so no one will come and try and bit me head off but this goes to to editors that are using the guidelines on common names and other things. I myself do not care much on what you name the robots (using it as a general term here) anymore, but this is an encyclopedia, and encyclopedia are not for general knowledge it is for complete and fact based knowledge. Per Wikipedia's on page, and I will give you the definition, that guidelines are not mandatory as you guys are making it out to be as. Here is the definition.

"A guideline is any document that aims to streamline particular processes according to a set routine. By definition, following a guideline is never mandatory (protocol would be a better term for a mandatory procedure). Guidelines are an essential part of the larger process of governance.

Guidelines may be issued by and used by any organization (governmental or private) to make the actions of its employees or divisions more predictable, and presumably of higher quality." So I know guidelines are used to help extermely but they do not have to be used as long as the information is accurate. This is not a governance or as Link said a democracy so the essential part of larger process of governance does not apply here. But can be used as the last sentence said for higher quality. But remember it is not mandatory. Thats all I wanted to say. No I am not reverting my earlier statement but now I dont care much on what you call them. Heat P 05:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines are created to establish certain levels of quality certain articles should reach. They are mandatory solely because they are not necessarily always true. An encyclopedia is created to help people learn. Are you saying that if we do not call the article Artificial Human 17, that the article is factually inaccurate because it would use the most common name (and also the most helpful name to the vast majority of readers - or as I like to call it, the better name)? If you had any guideline or policy that backed your argument, you'd have something. However, you do not. You may be able to ignore a guideline, but not for the reason that you don't want to enforce it in this case. Regardless, this is what Wikipedia states about guideline usage:

"A guideline is any page that is: (1) actionable (i.e. it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors) and (2) authorized by consensus. Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."

It recommends that we use the common name, and the recommendation exists because consensus was formed. The guideline exists because of consensus, and the guideline applies to this discussion. Additionally, it states the OCCASIONAL exception. It mentions nothing about anyone being able to ignore a guideline on a whim, you have to have a reason backed by any guideline or policy on Wikipedia that would give enough leeway to ignore it. As it stands, many have stated that these articles are the exception to the rule, but have not said why. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

"...the article is factually inaccurate because it would use the most common name (and also the most helpful name to the vast majority of readers - or as I like to call it, the better name)". I would just like to state as one who has argued the other side that the reason I feel the way I do is because I disagree with the second half of your statement. Android may be the most common (at least in America, I still doubt worldwide, but I won't harp too strongly on that), but I don't see how it is the most helpful to the uneducated. Those of us in the know (for example, everyone in this debate) knows the score. We see "Android" and we know already "originally Artificial human, technically a cyborg." it is a quick leap and really isn't a big deal. That is to us already educated on the subject. Someone uneducated... I'll say my 48 year old father... let's say for some reason he has a need to see what this character is about. He would read Android in the title and think "robot." He'd probably associate with Data from Star Trek and similar types. Then we would expect him too, in the course of the reading, retroactively correct what he first thought due to an inaccurate (but common!) name. That isn't encyclopedic, and is why I argue that it should be one of those exceptions to the guideline. That's also why I keep asking you to watch your attitude. It is 100% fine that you have a different view, and feel strongly against mine/others. But shrugging off any other view leads to a limiting conversation. Things like saying there is no reason to take exception from the guideline when people have given reason upon reason upon reason (and the only objection to most has just been to re-cite the same guideline, hence why this just turns into a circular argument) is dismissive. Onikage725 12:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Link I just let you know that guidelines are not mandatory and again you contridict yourself. By say it is mandatory then putting the statement, "Guidelines are not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. is very condescending. But nice arguement but dont chop my head off now. For one I do not ignore guidelines, I do not edit anymore. I come on occasion to give advice. I do not care what name is used. For using common names is ok. But I still feel that information should be completely fact based and not common knowledge based. I do not need guidelines to prove anything or everything when the definition for it is on this website. Now how would you use guidelines and polices to back up something that guildlines are defined as? Editors are using their common sense, not everyones common senses are the same. Mine is different for others but comes to a similar point not the same but similar. Your oppossing editors use theirs to edited not just translation and other means but to were it is for the world to know. Yourself and you supporting editors are using your common senses on a level that is more close to home, use info that is more commonly used in the states and some surrounding countries. Thing is everyone who edits it is a fan of DB but some on a different level as others. Myself, I am on a level that is between translations and funimation. Some use translations others go off the knowledge used in just the states. But you all need to come to an agreement, Link just listen, this goes to others as well. I been on here arguing ang argeeing til I stop editing. I feel that I need to be netural, someone that sees both sides. I only brought up the guidelines because you and others are making it seem like its completely mandatory to use when its not I am not taking sides. Also WP:DBZ needs to come up with a straight and nice formate for who articles need to be. I look at one than go to another character and see that the articles a differnet in form. So come to an agreement and get it fixed. All this fighting and arguing is not nessesary. Heat P 08:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This argument has been blown out of proportion, its not that hard if we think about, step one leave a note on the main project's talk page, two leave the same note on the pages being addressed (if not done already) three wait for a concensus (let at least twenty users outside of the argument express their opinions) and last let the name that wins by concensus be the page's name and add a note saying also refered to as... with the other name. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, common sense. It doesn't say "common sense or just an old reason why you may not want to use this guideline". The idea of catering to people who don't NEED to learn about the characters (those who are more in-tune with the series - the whole anti-dub stance this project has is proof of that) is not valid in any legitimate encyclopedia. The guideline can't just be ignored. Consensus exists that says it's a good guideline, and no valid reason has been provided to say that the guideline need not be used in this case. - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I *just* went out of my way illustrate why I think using an inaccurate translation of the name in this case would confuse the non-fan. Your retort is that we are catering to hardcore fans. This is precisely what I mean about your dismissive attitude, mistating other peoples intentions for them, and overall rudeness and wiki-lawyering is getting tiresome.Onikage725 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

	Artificial Human 18	Cyborg 18	Android 18
Title accurately describes the subject	yes*	yes	yes†
Subject's name in the English graphic novel	no	no	yes
Subject's name in the English animated series	no	no	yes
Subject's name on the English DVD subtitles	yes	no	no
Subject's Most common name in English	no[3]	no[4]	yes[5]
Subject's official English translation	no	no	yes[6]
Google's machine translation of "人造人間18号"[7]	no	no	yes
* "Artificial" as in "not natural." Humans don't have robot parts by nature's design.
† The word "android" describes both completely mechanical robots and part-human cyborgs.

Am I missing any other arguments? Jecowa 09:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd question the Google translation. Their Japanese-English software is in the beta stage. The top Japanese-English translation sites translate Jinzouningen as cyborg or robot, jinzou as artificial/synthetic/man-made and ningen as human/man/person. Also, android does not refer to part-human cyborgs. A cyborg by definition is part-human. There is a class of android (bioroid) that is similar to a cyborg, but they aren't the same thing. A Biologically-based Android may have organic components, but they are still made. For example the humanoid Cylons on the current Battlestar Galactica - so close to humans that they can reproduce, yet still created and even mass-produced within certain model series, with brainwaves/personalities that can be transmitted into another body. 17 and 18 are stated to have come from human bases (i.e. birthed from a human womb), and their robotic components are augmentation. Onikage725 13:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Jecowa but that thing above is wrong. Android's are nothing more than robots that appear human. Cyborg's are robots with a human brain, which in general is what #17 and #18 are. Link keeps contradicting himself by saying that this not a popularity contest, and yet he wants the "most common name", not caring of how accurate the information is. And another thing that's contradictory is the fact that in the article, it says something along the lines of "Android #17 is not an Android, he's a cyborg." It someone 'uneducated' reads that, they're going to say "WHAT?!". And I already explained why they translated Jinzouningen as Android, which was to follow the anime because, as stated before, in the Dragon Ball portion, they translated it as Mechanical Man, dispite #8 actually being an Android. And if you honestly don't believe that, then remember that they changed Mr. Satan to Hercule to go with the anime (and for another reason we all know of). Think about that. Ryu-chan (Talk) 17:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Separate Article for Videl

I think Videl is a pretty big topic to have its own article. The Information in the List of Earthligns article is not enough. She is one of the major characters in DBZ and so should get her own article. UzEE 00:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, it doesn't matter on how much info there is, it depends on how much of it is relevent to the series. Videl's character is not relevent to the series, she never was even at her introduction. Most of the info on her would fall under WP:CRUFT. --VorangorTheDemon 18:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Videl was an important character towards the Majin Sagas. If not a serperate page, then at least create a seperate article for secondary characters. Its too much cluttered over there. UzEE 20:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Videl does not have enough information to warrant an article. Whether she's a "major character" in DBZ (which she isn't) doesn't mean anything; what determines if a fictional character gets an article is if it has more than just a plot summary to write about. Videl has no real out-of-universe information, nor any importance aside from a small part in the DBZ storyline and being the mother of Pan. Also, as Vorangor said, most of the information we could come up with would most likely fall under WP:CRUFT.

If you wish to attempt creating a potential article for Videl, or even a List of secondary characters in Dragon Ball, you can do so at User:UzEE/Videl or User:UzEE/List of secondary characters in Dragon Ball. After doing so, you can request the page(s) be reviewed here by members of the task force and see what kind of reception you get. // DecaimientoPoético 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

She doesn't need a page, but feel free to attempt one on that sub-userpage UzEE. If it doesn't work out, she can always be merged. Lord Sesshomaru 16:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok Guys, I think I understand what you meant. The Article would go under WP:CRUFT. Sorry to bother you guys! And thanks for the help! UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 22:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not necessarily the article would be considered cruft. We're just saying that in all the time we could have improved on Videl's previous article (which was merged due to lack of out-of-universe information), we didn't, and history is more than likely possible to repeat itself. // DecaimientoPoético 00:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Sci-fi in Dragon Ball anime

This has been pestering me for a long while. Although it is evident that the complete Dragon Ball (manga), DBZ & DBGT is sorted/categorized under Science fiction-related subjects; what of the first part of Dragon Ball, in this case, the Dragon Ball (anime)? In the infobox of that specific page, where it says "genre", I have long noticed that this doesn't follow the same stylistic. Why is this? Wouldn't the Dragon Ball (anime) article also be styled as Science fiction and then categorized under the same criterion? To clear up what I'm asking, Dragon Ball introduced the concept of extraterrestrial life and space travel after Part I (ie, after the 23rd tournament and later filler episodes that followed) but they did have some "sci-fi" connection or relation to the rest of the series (e.g., Dinosaurs, Goku sending Boss Rabbit to the moon, flying vehicles, out-of-this-world capsules that can contain objects, and perhaps others).

Is this information enough to sort and categorize Dragon Ball (anime) under Sci-fi subjects? Lord Sesshomaru 01:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a valid point. I never took capsule corp into account before. Dragon Ball was pretty Sci-Fi too I guess. Like General Tao! UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 23:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How is he sci-fi? I brought this discussion up because I'm unsure of whether the first part of Dragon Ball (ie, Dragon Ball (anime)) would have to be categorized within the sci-fi territory, see Category:Science fiction anime and manga. Lord Sesshomaru 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball has elements of Sci-fi (space travel, flying cars, dinosaurs, aliens etc.) however the main focus of the manga/anime isn't sci-fi so I personally don't think this category fits it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly what I've been thinking; the only aliens ever seen (or at least implied to be aliens) in the first part of Dragon Ball were those two characters from the Dr. Slump crossover, King Nikochan and his servant. Kami, Piccolo Daimao, and Son Goku were only revealed to be extraterrestrials in Part II (DBZ) so I'm discounting that. Overall, the focus and style isn't on any on that stuff yet those sci-fi elements are inserted in the story. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

While that first part was primarily fantasy/martial arts (with Sci Fi elements like cyborgs and Capsule Corp), we should keep in mind that Dragon Ball in its original form spans the contents of the anime's Dragon ball and Dragon Ball Z. In that regard, I would say yes, classify the whole thing as sci fi. Onikage725 23:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying is a fundamental reality, albeit isn't a sci-fi theme supposed to be "a broad genre of fiction that often involves speculations based on current or future science or technology"? It is also "fiction in which science and/or technology is a key element", is it not? Dictionary.com says a number of definitions here. The series Dragon Ball eventually becomes sci-fi ploted after the first portion of the series. In other words, the arrival of Raditz, the introduction of space pirates, Son Goku's extraterrestrial past unveiled, all things brought up by Toriyama-sensei much, much later after Dragon Ball, pt. I. In other words, indeed, the onward movement of the story has those elements; however, it doesn't revolve around that sci-fi phase in Dragon Ball (anime). Any other views or suggestions on how this can be decided? Lord Sesshomaru 03:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The question really shouldn't be whether to remove Sci Fi from Dragon Ball but whether to add Fantasy to Z (and Supernatural to all). With the exception of the Cell Saga, Z is rooted in magic. In the Saiyan and Freeza Saga everyones still looking for the Dragon Balls to grant wishes. Characters force themselves through naturally-occuring monstrous transformations. The mystical nature of ki remains the same. Goku and others train with a god. The Garlic Jr. arc- the dead zone, the race of beings from the "devil star," the mystical water and encounter with previous gods of the earth. The Buu Saga has a wizard and a demon king trying to resurrect a being magically created from pure evil, and the local pantheons highest deities get involved. Z is quite rooted in fantasy. Likewise, Dragon Ball has enough sci fi to warrant the inclusion. Pilaf has a mech. The RR is heavily into robotics (heck, it's their scientist who causes the most sci fi-ish arc in the whole series), Tao Pai Pai converts into a cyborg, the CC has all kinds of outlandish gadgets. Capsules themselves apparently grant them seemingly limitless control over matter compression. Far more impressive than building a space ship, and we are introduced to capsules in the first episode. Onikage725 12:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, I plum forgot about Tao Pai Pai becoming a cyborg (guess that's what UzEE meant above), also the major usage of technological travel is seen. Artificial Human #8, along with the RR army and Pilaf robots are also a major factor, and with everything else aforementioned now I agree we put the sci-fi topics on Dragon Ball (anime). As for supernatural fiction and fantasy genre, yes for Dragon Ball manga & anime show but not 100% sure if its accurate for styling exclusively in the DBZ page, DBGT is even farther from those sights so an automatic no to that. Let's not forget the kemono genre, appearing very often in the beginning portion of Dragon Ball but it isn't notably demonstrated in DBZ/DBGT save for Oolong, Pu-erh, Umigame, the King of Earth, and some filler material (e.g., after escaping Piccolo a young Gohan meets orphans & one of them is a fox kid, Nappa kills off the navy military & among those soldiers was a lion humanoid, there's a cameo of an anthro bear (or was it a boar?) in The History of Trunks where #17 and #18 go to an amusement park and ride a rollercoaster. That's about all I can remember.)

Here's what I believe should be done according to the information given in the discussion:

1. Dragon Ball (manga): add supernatural
2. Dragon Ball (anime): add supernatural and sci-fi
3. Dragon Ball Z: add kemono, fantasy, and supernatural even though it isn't as distinctive as the first two except for several instances
4. Dragon Ball GT: add drama, kemono

Does anyone want to add their thoughts in light of these analogies? Lord Sesshomaru 19:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree (especially on the lack of need to include the anthro's past DB), except on the fantasy grounds. GT... eh, not so much. But Z is still heavily routed in mythology. Sure we take the sci fi route of outing the earth's god as an alien, but we also meet a whole extended pantheon. DB had one lower-level Kami, but Z gives us 4 Kaio's, Dai Kaio, two Kaioshin (and the others in flashback). Of course Enma Daio is important as well. On top of the magical Dragon balls we know, we get a whole new set (as well as the race of beings who made them). Garlic Jr. and his race are demonic. Bojack is demonic. Dabura is a demon king. Babidi uses magic. Buu is a magical creation, as is Hirudegaan. Most transformations in Z that occur outside of the Cell Saga (and some within) are naturally occuring and more fantastic than sci fi-oriented. There's even a whole arc (in the anime) that takes place exclusively in Heaven, a tournament held by the gods. DBZ most certainly took on more sci fi elements than DB, but the series' fantasy roots remained as well. Oddly enough, outside of the black star dragon balls (*gag*) and the concept of the Evil Shenron Saga, DB GT is almost exclusively sci fi-oriented. Onikage725 22:21, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Onikage, DBZ should probably include Mythology in mix also based mostly on all the influence all the gods there had there since almost the begining, I'm not sure about adding it on GT since all they do there is rescue Goku and make his tail grow back. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I missed the Fantasy parts in Dragon Ball Z. It should be categorized under fantasy too. As for GT, there were references to fantasy too, like Android 17 escapes from hell, and the dead are also resurrected. But its still not the dominant over the Sci-Fi factor. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 21:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested move per WP:MOS-JP#Names & WP:GOOGLE

I have requested a move/rename at this area and everyone is invited to participate in the discussion. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru 03:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure your tone is appropriate. "Much slower than expected" is a very heavy indicator of expected outcome (in this case, approval to move), that you expected this to be done over the course of a few hours. It would seem that you have clearly come here with the sole intent to canvas for votes. If you were to do this properly, you would also have notified users involved in the other concerned pages of this move. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me sum this up: I did the same for other talk pages and last night my Internet connection failed while I was editing. I'll admit that at the time I was rushed & didn't think it was "that big" of a move since it didn't occur to me that other WikiProjects would/should be involved, though meant no bad faith here. I did not even know of the existence of WP:JAPAN until after I let the members at WP:CHINA know of this and would've broaden the invitation had I not lost connection. Thanks for listening, Lord Sesshomaru 02:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles that need help

I have posted this to ask for some help with some articles. While many of us have been so busy with all the main charecters many pages are suffering, being edited by few good users. A list of such articles follows:

• Oozaru
• Kuririn
• Cell (Dragon Ball)
• Pan (Dragon Ball)
• Dragon Ball (artifact)
• Earth (Dragon Ball)

I think we need to give these articles more attention or they will only to continue to get worse. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I kinda think Pan should be merged to the list of Saiyans (I know she's major within GT, but her article is just a bloated plot summary and there really isn't anything else of relevance to add), and Oozaru maybe to the Saiyan article. What do you think? Onikage725 23:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think Oozaru deserves its own article, adding it to the Saiyan page would make the page too big. Pan just needs some better writing and some more images I think she merits an article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Vegeta article

I have made a drastic change to the Vegeta article. See the Vegeta Talk page for more details. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up the characters

Seeing as these will never be allowed to be merged, they should at least be of some quality. Plot summaries need to be cut completely and replaced with one to three paragraphs that give a general overview of their role. Personality, appearance, forms, techniques, and anything else should be combined into a overall general description that is free of any OR and cruft. After that, any important details can be placed in new or relevant sections. Please don't say that the information is important, as it is purely fan geared information that belongs on another wiki. TTN 22:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I may as well just throw this out here. Another idea, though it will never be allowed to take effect, would be to merge all but Goku onto a list of the main characters. This would be the only list, and it would encompass only the most important characters. Ones like single movie villains would redirect to their respective movies, minor one arc characters would redirect to cleaned up arc articles, and the most minor ones just receive no mention at all. TTN 22:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Not a good idea, we have already merged most dragon ball charecters already and the merged content is usually not of the same quality as the page. We can't just keep removing more and more dragon ball pages, if we do there wont be anything left to edit. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The thing is that they certainly cannot be left in their current condition. The best case scenario is that real world information is found. That is unlikely. The next best thing is my solution up there, though that is only a temporary fix. The most realistic scenario is to completely overhaul the workings of Dragon Ball on this site. Current content could be transfered to another wiki, and the number of articles could be vastly decreased. That would be in the best interest of the site, but that would require everybody here to either fully accept it as the correct method, or we could "force" the content over to another wiki and just say 'Oh well." The first is impossible, and I would never want to try the second. So at this point, option two, trimming these way down, is the best. TTN 23:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As hard as this may seem we need to get rid of the 'Attacks' sections in all the articles, and Out of Universe information is needed ASAP, I recomend begining with 'Reaction' sections. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Reaction sections? what would that entail? I suggest more Sections on the creation of the characters such as the one on Majin Buu's page. Also I think we need to not get rid of the attack sections but to rewrite them so it is in paragraph format. Also more images are needed so there is more than just a mountain of text. Also the real killer is the plot summaries, we need to shorten them and just transfer the information to the saga pages which are in great disrepair. In fact the saga pages are crappier than my baby cousins diapers at this point. the lists need more good editors editing them. Before we attack articles that are maybe C status we should focus on all of the stubs and start class articles we have. Also TTN define Cruft, you seem to avoid answering that question and when you do you define it very vaguely (no offense) DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 01:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

They would contain reception from critics and fans (back by reliable sources) and other stuff like media attention. This is unlikely for most of them. Development is fine, but you need actual sourced information. The stuff on Buu's article is just OR. The best way to clean these other than adding that information is described in my method up above. Doing it any other way really isn't going to solve anything. Cruft encompasses OR, game guide information in video games, fan based information that has no baring on the encyclopedic coverage of a topic, trivial lists, and other stuff like that. TTN 01:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Mostly agreed. The saga articles need an overhaul (and merging in my opinion, no need for all the anime DVD-set sub-sagas like "Cpt. Ginyu"). Also, we should probably re-do the attack lists, transformations, and abilities into one section in paragraph form. Look at articles on comic book characters (which is basically what these characters are) and you'll see what I mean. Onikage725 08:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest a redone special attack list that is split up into different articles in alphabetical order like the naruto ninjutsu list so the list isn't that long. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 11:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

God, don't even get me started on the jutsu articles... Onikage725 14:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I ment to use the format not make it incredibly long like those articles. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Getting started

OK, seeing as nobody is actually going to even try any time soon, I am just going to get started on cutting after I know that everybody has seen this message. I will be removing the plot, technique, transformation, and video game lists completely, and try to cut any OR as I see it. I will not be adding anything to replace it, as I don't feel like it. That is not an excuse to revert, though.

In the place of the plot sections, a very, very brief description of their role can be added. It should be three paragraphs at most for the larger characters, and one or two for the smaller characters. Techniques and transformations should be built into a general section that also encompasses their background or personality. Please don't try to argue or anything. If you like this information, I'm sure there are plenty of DB wikis ready to take it. TTN 17:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

? "I will not be adding anything to replace it, as I don't feel like it" Isn't that kind of Mass deletion kind of Extreme when it could take you say 5 minutes to make it into a paragraph? Also Yes such a mass deletion of information that is good and partaining to the subject is a reason to revert. Deleting all of the stuff you described would leave nothing at all. You seem to refer to everything related to these articles as Cruft. What then would be the ideal Anime/ Manga article? As you seem to disagree with everything in the articles you should probably know what you are trying to do with them. You can't just delete an article on the grounds that its "too crufty". DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have described the ideal character article sever times: a brief, concise description of the character and their role, and real world information to make it relevant. To have that, this stuff needs to be cut, and I really don't feel like rewriting over ten articles. Seeing as none of the participants of the task force will do it willingly, I'm going to have to force it. If you want to make a resolution to work on it for a few weeks, be my guest. But please actually try to get it done. TTN 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The video game lists should probably be converted into prose...- Caribbean~H.Q. 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There really is nothing to be said about them. It would just be a repeated paragraph throughout the various articles with slight variations. If an appearance is important enough to mention, it will probably be better placed in another section. TTN 17:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I will than. and I'll get Heat P to help with the plot summaries, hes good with that. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

If you're willing to give it a week, I've been planning to hit a few of them soon. I don't do a lot of editing aside from spot-checking errors because I work a lot and have school. School's in swing, but I after tomorrow I'm on vacation from work for two weeks. I intend to try and trim some of the superfluous content. And if you, Heat, and Rocks are willing to as well maybe we can make some headway. I don't think massive deletion with nothing in its place is the answer. Going from one extreme to the other won't work. Onikage725 14:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Kid Buu weaker than Super Buu

I have a question...

When is it stated that Kid Buu is weaker than Super Buu? If I remember correctly, when Vegeta and Goku escaped from inside Buu's body didn't they noted that it was strange that Buu's power was getting STONGER and not weaker.

I recently got in a conflict for wanting to add Vegetto and Gotenks to the known Super Saiyan 2s section and was denied because it was said to be "unofficial" and "not stated in the Daizenshuus" despite obvious appearances that would suggest otherwise. Is it also stated that Kid Buu is weaker than Super Buu in the Daizenshuus as well? If so, where?--Lucky Mitch 01:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They never reached Super Saiyan 2, not even in the anime. Both of them no doubt had the ability, however, were never seen in it. The Daizenshuus are official Dragon Ball guide books certified by Toriyama himself, also the fact that unlike the anime, regular Super Saiyan and Super Saiyan 2 transformations in the mangas are easily distinguishable because of the different consistencies of the auras and the absence or presence of sparks/ bolts. The Super Saiyan's regular aura in the manga is actually gentle waves, not the blazing like in the anime. Super Saiyan 2 (and 3) in the manga has a blazing aura and blue bolts. Neither Gotenks or Vegetto ever display bolts in their auras in the manga (well actually Vegetto does the instant he transforms into a Super Saiyan, however, Toriyama stated that he did not turn Super Saiyan 2). And about the Buu thing, Super Buu's power only increased when he was turning into the bulky form of Buu, and not when he turned from bulky Buu into Kid Buu.--VorangorTheDemon 09:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

See my talk page for all the answers. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing with Kid Buu is that it is stated he was more dangerous than previous forms (due to his lack of sensibility). As for outright power... well Kid Buu + 2 Kaioshin + Goten + Trunks + Piccolo + Gohan = Super Buu's final form. As for the whole "power diluted by good" thing, that was solved when he ate himself. When Evil Buu ate Fat Buu, the resulting Super Buu was said to be "pure evil" and a "beast of destruction." And his power only went up from there. Look at Goku's reaction when facing Super Buu 2 (with Piccolo and all them). He is confident that with Gohan's help they can win. Against SB3, he was so desperate that he nearly fused with Mr. Satan. Against Kid Buu, he spurned potara and opted for a 1 on 1 battle. He bit off a little more than he could chew due to unforseen limitations with his physical body, but he still felt a lot more confident against Kid Buu than Super Buu. And at the end of the day, they don't actually say Kid Buu was stronger, so it can't really go in. Onikage725 14:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No no no. Goku was confident that he and Gohan fused could beat super buu. It was only when Buu reverted back from super Gotenks that he was confident that Gohan could handle him. But when Buu absorbed Gohan, Goku had no chance. But When they ripped out all of the people from buu he reverted back to plain Super Buu. who was still stronger than Goku and Vegeta combined. But when super Buu reverted back to Kid buu his Chi rose and then dropped to a point to where Goku says "we can take him". He was evenly matched with Super Saiyan 3 goku with goku only losing due to buu's energy being unlimited. IF you look at the evidence you can see that Super Buu is the strongest. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are you saying no? I don't disagree with you :p

Super Buu + Piccolo/Goten/Trunks isn't quite SB3, so I still count it as just an alternate SB2 phase (same people involved, just working power differently). And we're still talking stronger than base Super Buu, who went toe to toe with SSJ3 Gotenks. So the fact that Goku didn't think they needed to fuse to beat him even at that point shows us something. Onikage725 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onikage725 (talk • contribs) 09:09, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

It's true, Kid Buu is quite a bit weaker then Super Buu. You can see it by comparing Super Saiyan Gotenks (roughly equal in power to SSJ3 Goku) to Super Buu. He was nothing against him, that's why Gotenks had to go to 3. SSj3 Goku and Kid Buu are roughly the same, which in turn, makes SSj3 Goku, SSj Gotenks, and Kid Buu all roughly equal in power; and Super Buu is stronger then any of them since SSJ Gotenks couldn't beat him. --VorangorTheDemon 05:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)