Talk:Dragon Ball Z

Season 4 DBZ When is the 4rth season supposed to come out I bought the third and it just said It was comming soon.Prince Of All Sayains —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Of All Saiyans (talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Season 4

When is DBZ's Season 4 Coming Out?Prince Of All Saiyans 13:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)Prince Of All Sayains

according to animenation, its 02/18/08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.130.8 (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There are lots episodes of DBZ and some of them are most action and powerful fights with son gokou and gohan.--Daneynares 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell happened to this article?

It's so tiny now, and it's mostly just a list. What happened here? Where did all the good information go?

New section added

Hello everyone. Because I didn't see a plot section, I began to add it; I already wrote about tha Saiyans and Freeza sagas, I'm going to write about the Cell saga, because I cannot remember too much about the others. Can you help me in this? Thanks. Twicemost 04:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Can someone explain me why the section was deleted? Is there already an article for the series plot? Or it's that you are too reckless and erased it without giving the reasons in this talk? Man, this English Wikipedia is the real worst. Twicemost 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

dont do a space beforr your comment it stretches out the page

Uncut versions

If possible could anyone post more information about the uncut seasons please? ie. links to sites where you could order DVD's etc would be much apreciated! I tried to look on the funimations site but didn't get very far...

This was concerning:

---

Uncut version

In 2003, FUNimation began to redub the first two sagas (Saiyan and Namek). They also redubbed the first three Pioneer-distributed movies that were dubbed by the Ocean Group voice actors. The distribution of the redubs on DVD, under the Ultimate Uncut Special Edition title, began in April 2005.

In the summer of 2005, Cartoon Network started showing the uncut version of the first two seasons of Dragon Ball Z. This version used the original Japanese footage, with the exception of the Japanese opening and closing themes, and has an entirely new score of music. The uncut version also featured many scenes with large amounts of blood, mild profanity and language, as well as mild sexual humor and slapstick male nudity. Generally, while some lines were maintained from the original dub, several mistranslations were also corrected. The uncut episodes were given a TV-PG rating unlike the original dub's episodes which were given a TV-Y7 rating. Although only the first two uncut seasons have been released, more are expected soon.

---

Also, it may be a stupid question but could someone add if those versions mentioned were in english or merely subtitled? Again it would be much apreciated!

DVD section

I changed the DVD section into a wikitable, to give it a more organized look. I was going to also add a Spanish Audio Collum, but only one set had Spanish audio, so I decided against it. Anyone else have any suggestions for it? Takuthehedgehog 04:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

dvd release

Whats the point in this section? I cant see how its relevant. Unless someone provides ACCURATE reasons its not gonna be in the article.BlueShrek 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you're reasons for getting rid of it, exactly? You haven't given us much insight on why it should be removed other than the fact you see it as a pointless list. // DecaimientoPoético 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one the dvds werent all released together, The release dates arent really relevent, and it makes the article more of a mess. Also this articles quality goes down with it.BlueShrek 14:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

What does the fact that they weren't "all released together" have to do with this? You haven't really said anything new as to why you think it should go. "The quality goes down" is very vague, and still doesn't provide us much insight into this situation. One could say that about anything in the article, but that reason alone wouldn't justify removing it. Dan 14:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The other DVD sections do provide all of the information that the table I created had. I had originally made it to clean up the old section on DVD releeases, I don't see why it didn't occur to me to just delete it. Takuthehedgehog 01:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The information was irrelevent and pointless so its gone period dot dash.BlueShrek 15:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

That's what I said. Takuthehedgehog 01:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Statement

"The 'Z' was originally added to the title by Toriyama for the anime, to signify it as being the ending portion of the Dragon Ball series."

I'm considering removing this bit. Not only do I find it completely untrue and unsourced, but there wasn't anything on the net regarding this statement. Comments before I remove this "infinite" citation? Lord Sesshomaru

We're just talking about the second part, correct? The "to signify it as being the ending portion of the Dragon Ball series."? 'Cause the first bit seems like it should stay. I'd call it notable that the "Z" was only added in the anime, and the Manga as a whole was "Dragon Ball", but that's just me. Lychosis ^T/C 23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything in that sentence is WP:OR. It should be removed, how do we know that it was Toriyama and not the animation crew who added the 'Z' to the anime? Yes, the 'Z' was only added in the anime and the original manga series is known as Dragon Ball, we know that for a fact. I'll give it a few more days — if it remains unverified, I will get rid of it entirely. Lord Sesshomaru

Ah, I had overlooked the "Toriyama did this" bit. Well, I'm just saying, would a mention be left about the fact that the "Z" was added after the manga, or is that notable enough to justify inclusion? I mean, not everyone would know that. Just someone who wanders along and starts reading the "Dragon Ball Z" article might not know that, you know? I dunno, maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, but it's just what I think. You've got more experience with this than me, though, so please correct me if this is just stupidity on my part. :x Lychosis ^T/C 02:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, I see what you're getting at. If the sentence were reworded like, "The 'Z' was added after the [Dragon Ball] manga", then its acceptable. That's why there a Dragon Ball (anime) and Dragon Ball Z, to insure the distinction. Then again, if its obvious that the 'Z' was given only in this anime (and in the second part of the American version of the manga), why would it have to be mentioned here? Lord Sesshomaru

I dunno, I suppose it is just a triviality, but I just don't like to assume that things that are obvious to some are obvious to others. I mean, there's a good number of people who can completely overlook things, no matter how glaringly obvious said thing is. But again, you obviously know how things work around here better than I do, and I agree with you 'cept for what I said in the start of this. So, I'm just gonna say I have no objections at all. If nobody says anything, you'll have no one opposing the removal of that sentence. It was nice to talk to someone about an article, by the way. I think this might be the first time I've actually had a discussion like this with someone. :x Lychosis ^T/C 02:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice talking to you too. I say 2-3 days before I remove that whole bit. If you have any questions about the Dragon Ball series, please feel free to ask me. I contribute regulary at the special Dragon Ball wikia as well. My official account there is User:Burdock since I don't edit there by ip anymore. Lord Sesshomaru

<Unverified sentence on article removed. Please view this link, if you wish to understand reasoning.> Lord Sesshomaru

Oopsy...

Haha, half asleep and I did that revert wrong, looked at it completely the wrong way. I thought that the Anon IP has added that stuff. Sorry, guys. :x Lychosis ^T/C 16:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

14th DBZ Movie???

This was added by someone:

[[Dragon Ball Z: The last stand of The Z Fighters: - Saiyans Rebirth] (2008) - Confirmed

They claim it's confirmed, but where's the source? I won't believe it until there's proof it's actually being made. Schaef Dogg 18:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

its a fake, search for it on google, you get zero results--Mhart54com 08:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

seemGoogle... Really? Google is the last search engine I'd ever use for an unreleased, undated, and improbable media/film production. No offense if I snobby. I wouldn't even use wikipedia if I didn't know it was being edited by people who knew thier stuff. Also on youtube I've tooken a glimpse of an odd 'movie'. It sure seemed real. Strange enough, Future Trunks was in it. The Z fighters ( atleast the main Z fighters a.k.a all the saiyans-and Picoolo if I'm not mistaken-) were fighting a robot. it wasn't an android or some type of artificial lifeform but a robot the ones in DragonBall. i'm also sure Toriyama is working on the new game Blue Dragon. Still, a foureenth movie would be awesome.-Eric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.150.75.230 (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

you know it isn't right to pose as an anonymous editor, and im sure the video you saw was the dragonbll Z OVA--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

OVA

"Another Story: Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans" does not fit the definition of an OVA. An OVA, according to Wikipedia is:

"is a term used for anime titles that are released direct-to-video, without prior showings on TV or in theaters. OVA titles were originally available on VHS, though they later became available on other media such as Laserdisc and DVD. OVA is sometimes used to refer to any short anime series or special regardless of its release format."

While the last sentence ends with "regardless of its release format", most OVA's are direct to video releases. "Another Story: Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans" is nothing more than a video someone compiled from the various scenes from the game Dragon Ball Z: Shin Saiyajin Zenmatsu Keikaku - Chikyū-Hen and Dragon Ball Z: Shin Saiyajin Zenmetsu Keikaku - Uchū-Hen. MastaFighta 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

but the Japanese call it an OVA is that not good enough?--Mhart54com 08:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"is nothing more than a video someone compiled" yes and that someone would happen to be TOEI animation!, which would also be why "the japanese call it an OVA", it was released on video, so TOEI could squeeze an extra buck out of DBZ. something which you would know had you actually checked the article for said OVA (This is an OVA, first released on VHS August 6th 1993, just after the Famicom game ... The OVA has been re-released in 2003 in Japan as an extra feature in the "Dragon Box" DVD boxed set. see, that's two releases of the thing as an OVA)68.255.174.7 16:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Live action movie

a live action movie has already been made its called "Dragonball: The Magic Begins" but it is for the dragonball series--Mhart54com 04:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick 2 min check on this movie. It is an unoffficial chinese movie published in 1989. It's not a fan movie, but still unofficial.. I'm not sure on whether it should be mentioned. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It is still a dragonball movie, yes it is an unoffficial chinese movie--Mhart54com 07:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There is DBZ movie comeing out see more info here [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk) 23:11, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia&myfavoritegames.com

The site http://www.myfavoritegames.com, and its administrators have found information taken from their site and placed on Wikipedia. They wish that this information be checked and removed as soon as possible.

They would also request that information from their site not be added to wikipedia. if you could go through and remove the information throughout many of the dragon ball Z articles in question, it would be greatly appreciatedTensa Zangetsu 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I should note that we are all volunteers here. You would probably get a better result if you searched for and removed the text yourself. Also, I would say that there is no need for you to ask for it to be not added to Wikipedia; such an act is illegal. I am only talking about direct copy-pasting though. If it is original writing you're looking at, it's completely fine, but perhaps a citation could be used.. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I should've looked beforehand before commenting. It seems that you should all be already aware of what I just said.. woops. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:20, 3 September 2007 Colt 45. and 3 six axe, baby thats all we need, we can go to the park after dark smoke that tub a weed and i said a roll roll roll my joint pick out the seeds and stems we'll get high as heck okay cool

(UTC)

Film debate

People have been wondering if the dragonball z live action film article should be merged with the dragonballz article. So there has been voting. To vote and express your opinion, go to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_Ball_Z_%28film%29

every vote makes a difference.

--Cman7792 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncut season 4

Uncut Season 4 (Garlic - Android saga) has been confirmed and will come out february of 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5gCc-W-ou8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.167.210 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

why is thereno plot sumery in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.103.10 (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Article Changes

Most of the information has been butchered. There is little or no useful information regarding the series itself. This is the same with many DBZ articles, there is either too little information or the info is worthless and boring. I dont see why every time you wiki-nerds see something you dont agree with you have to delete it. This article sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.197.68 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Then be bold and do something about it. Though I can't say many will sid with you. // DecaimientoPoético 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

At least we can look at the better version in the history tab.24.154.94.204 11:48, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

About the live action movie

The Filmmaker James Wong has reportedly come aboard to direct the live-action feature film version of Dragon Ball Z. The film is expected to start production in Montreal in November.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=37957

http://movies.ign.com/articles/824/824447p1.html

Should we add this info or not? It official because it from IGN and Comeingsoon.net.

Here's the CHUD article- http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=12002Onikage725 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Then we should add it then because it official. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

CHUD is not a reliable source. Alientraveller 21:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Alientraveller -- let's not rush with a movie blog that relies on "an old and trusted scooper named Tailgunner Joe". When a more reliable source independently reports the information in a more official capacity, we can then include it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. When (if) the project goes into development, this should be easily verifiable. Onikage725 23:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

It was posted on IGN which is a reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk) 04:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

No, the source is some friend of CHUD's. Alientraveller 09:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

IGN is merely passing on the information found at CHUD.com because not all Net-savvy film-lovers go to CHUD.com. In addition, if you notice the very article title at IGN, it says, "Dragon Ball Z Director? - Final Destination filmmaker said to be helming." This is not confirmed in the slightest. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The Live action Movie's wiki page states that it will be based on the story of lord piccolo etc from DRAGON BALL and not DRAGON BALL Z. It seems that its only source is CHUD which actually says "I know jack nor shit about Dragon Ball (is there supposed to be a Z in there?)". I think we can safely say that this is not conclusive and that the movie could be based on either DB or DBZ. - Pachang —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pachang (talk • contribs) 11:53, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Plot Hole with Training

I probably missed something, but aren't the gravity in the Room of Spirit and Time the same as North Kai's planet? If this is the case, why would Son Goku have trouble walking on North Kai's planet if he had already trained in the Room of Spirit and Time? He is also much stronger when on King Kai's Planet in DBZ than as a child in DB so I can't find a conclusion.[[UserSxeFluff--SxeFluff 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)]] 18:19, 15 October 2007

Most likely just a plot hole.--60 Delta 01:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It was said the gravity in the RoSaT varies, so it could have been even higher than on King Kai's planet. But Goku only stayed in there a month as a kid and may not have ventured out very far from the shrine portion. Kami might have told him he couldn't take the gravity and only sent him in there for the extra time to train. Of course, that's entirely speculation.172.169.27.230 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Article Cropped

why is most of the info in this article gone? it really doesn't even talk about the show in general. whats up? Schaef Dogg 04:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unverified content

I have deleted almost everything in the DBZ page which included series and plot information that was not sourced per WP:V policy, and I've done the same for Son Goku and Yamucha. I will continue to remove every sentence and paragraph from all Dragon Ball-related pages that violates WP:OR, WP:NEU, WP:VERIFY and any other policy. Any assistance would most definitely be great. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It is also notable to add that all of the Dragon Ball Z Saga pages will be merged into four articles. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have no objections. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 16:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Rather than just deleting information, why don't you find verification or citation for said information? Deleting information from Wikipedia because no citation was recorded defeats the purpose of using Wikipedia as reference guide.Kakomu 18:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that there's jack for verifiable info on canon stuff. Pretty much the only thing that we have are the mangas, which actually have contradictions insode themselves. That both makes these articles impossible to edit and ultimately dooms them to never make GA. No one has the Daizenshuu (because it's super rare) and most interviews with Toriyama are long gone. --VorangorTheDemon 01:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel comfortable re-including the information back in so long as it doesn't violate any of the said policies. I won't get rid the content if it is backed-up at least by reliable sources. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

In otherwords you've decided that policy requires every sentence/statement to be individually referenced?--Marhawkman 23:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying every single little event, however, most of it does need citations. For example, dates, quotes, story & plot occurrences. Cases such as voice actors, OSTs and video games don't need a ref if those articles are already sourced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Does this have something to do with removal of "attack lists"? Those are simply the DBZ equivalent of a powers and abilities section.--Marhawkman 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, a list of attacks needs to be confirmed per WP:VERIFY. I realized that the Dragon Ball pages will never be good articles unless a lot of this stuff is sourced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't simply listing episodes that they were used be sufficient?--Marhawkman 00:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but wouldn't it be better to reference manga volumes? I don't object to citing anime episodes, however. Whatever works, long as we don't break any policy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Either or both works for me. It doesn't really matter to Wiki policy as long as it is an official(IE first party) source.--Marhawkman 00:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Glad we could come to terms. You're welcome to help in the mass removal of original content or, if you'd prefer, cite the most appropiate locations. By the way, if you do reference the manga, could you cite the page(s)? Most seem to forget about this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You mean page in volume? I probably won't cite the manga, but the page/volume numbering might be different in english and Japanese versions.--Marhawkman 00:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

You guys are going overboard on deleteing to a point that everything is being reduced to one or two sentences. In the end the links are meaningless because they say absolutely NOTHING about the subject if you find something that is to lengthy abbreviate it if you find something with out a reference find the source and jot down the references. User:Shinobigai —Preceding comment was added at 17:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, It's Sesshomaru's doing. He doesn't seem to understand the policy.--Marhawkman 23:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:REF, it will teach you how to reference pages. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

And then read: WP:When_to_cite If Sesshomaru keeps up what he's doing I'm gonna have to report it as vandalism.--Marhawkman 23:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

See bad faith. Also that is an essay, not a policy that overcomes others. Complain all you want, I'm abiding by WP:V and WP:OR. Look at what happened to D.L. Hughley. No one complained there, the DBZ article is no different. And no offense guys, but they're policies, they can not be ignored. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I AM assuming good faith. However, your demonstrated lack of understanding of policy has caused me to conclude you don't know what you're doing. OR and V DO NOT state that every tiny comment in an article needs to be individually referenced. It is permissable to simply use a list of anime episodes as a reflist.--Marhawkman 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Must I say it again? Of course anime episodes can be utilised as refs, I just think sourcing manga chapters/pages are more informal. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Good luck with getting manga pages as a source. For that people would actually have to have the manga. BTW even though you CLAIM to not be advocating that every tiny edit needs to be seperately sourced, that's pretty much what you've done. you deleted everything without a ref tag. Whether it had a stated source or not.--Marhawkman 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And YES WP:IGNORE does specifically state that POLICIES don't have to be rigidly followed. Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means your edits have been VERY detrimental to the to the articles you've edited and you've gone against wp:consensus the entire time.--Marhawkman 22:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What consensus? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Consensus has nothing to do with voting. It is the shared opinion of users regarding a subject. No one has agreed that your decision to remove the information was the right one. AND yes following consensus is part of policy.--Marhawkman 22:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok what I am about to say will sound mean and emotionless please do not take offense. First off Marhawk, there is no real consensus on your side. Only a bunch of users and IPs with nothing more to say than I Don't Like it have a problem with this. I really don't see why we are arguing about this, the Dragon Ball Z article has been terrible, and Sesshomaru is only getting rid of all the crap (sorry about the harsh language) that has been plaguing this article for months. Now the article is fresh for a rewrite that can actually give the reader more information than when the Funimation dub started and when the box sets are coming out. Sorry for having to make such harsh comments. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely said. Data that gets removed doesn't dissapear forever (unless deleted by an admin.), I don't understand why some people exaggerate stuff. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely said, DBZROCKS, as well. Greg Jones II 23:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

(OVERLY LONG) Listen guys To me DB characters as well as most anime, manga and other Asian based fictional characters on Wikipedia will never get a GA rating because to tell there stories and the bios of fictional people it will always come out to a in-universal type of article and there is not too many things in the US about Asian author and Mangaka (Manga artist). I have sat here somedays on my computer tried to write and rewrite Goku and Gohan's article before tackling them and bringing it to Wiki but no true real world stuffs really comes out. Of course Goku does have much influence outside of DB but it is usually in other piece of fiction. Some time ago the articles were ok but then the articles started to get overly long. Then Cruft started to show up and with that and the thing with in-universe reference something had to be done. Thats why many of the editors had to come to some agreement to shorten the article to remove the cruft and most in-universe text. But even with the Daizenshuu (DB universe encyclopedias) volumes (which I do have a few) it still will not give you the reference you really need as they are not published in the US and are rare to come by as Vorangor said before. I know it took me years to get the volumes I got. And being so rare and not in the US language it will be hard for others to find what they are looking for so the true and only real references in the US is the US Viz version of the mangas as the first and Funimation subtitled version of the anime as the second. We are not offical translator, most of us can't even read japanese, chinese or korean so things like offical names and stuff should not really be argued anymore. Stuff like when did Goku first us the Kamehameha should not be hard to find to reference. Stuff like what volume or chapter did Piccolo merge with Kami should be hard to find. So if you have a problem with something that need referencing and you don't have the manga well do one of a few things. Go on line google DB mangas and you find them there, Go the Books a Million or some comic book store in your area and buy it, or ask a friend that may have it or go to a user page and ask them. This arguing over references and policies is really getting old fast. To let you know a lot of policies and guidelines have a policy, essay, and guideline that seems to have the condradict, or is the complete opposite meaning and effect to something a editor may work on. And do not talk about canon please. I just brought that up for a reason as many anime follow a manga but to let it be known a lot of mangas are following or going off of a anime. So when someone says something like vegeta wasnt a SSJ2 fighting buu in the anime but he was in the manga, do one of two things. Go with what came first (the manga or anime), or if there is still a disagreement just put a reference or a line in the article telling the public of this and not argue over it. I understand the others too as a lot of info has be deleted but they have to understand too that this is an encyclopedia and not Dragon Ball only website and not all the information on a character has to be listed only the important and major event things. Heat P 17:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, what are you tryin to say? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok in short. I say using Daizenshuu books as reference should not be used since they are very rare only a few are out in the world now and are not pubilshed in the english language or released in the stated so the manga and anime should be the only real source unless interview like the ones in Shonen Jump can be used. Second there is no real way of saying this but in-universe text is really the only way to tell fictional character bio's. Ya I should let the admin know this but it is causing too much arguments over something so trival. Also if (no offense to anyone) someone is going to use a policy or guideline to fight a arguement, research every aspect of that policy and not a few sentences. And as I said in the last part of my above statement. The opposers of shorten the articles needs to know that this is not a DragonBall website, it is a everything encyclopedia. There is a DragonBall Wiki site for every last bit of info on DB. Only the most important information is needed on this one but to the editors a lot of the articles are miss much info or does not really read right. That is what I was getting at.Heat P 02:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you all the way. Since this is the case, we should only use the manga, both fansubbs and Viz', since they're practically the only reliable sources. The English dubs are also out of the question since they err on a lot of things. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No. Fansubs are NOT considered Reliable(by Wiki policy). The dub doesn't have as many changes as you seem to be implying. This situation requires using as many FIRST party sources as possible. The dub, while it might differ somewhat, is treated as a first party source.--Marhawkman 10:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep claiming "Wiki policy" but you haven't referenced which one(s). All of the English dubs ruined the anime, much like 4Kids "destroyed" One Piece. I was implying that I'd rather we use any if all manga sources than anything of the anime, which contradicts the manga in several ways. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

See: Primary source, WP:PSTS and WP:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)

All Fan translations are non-authoritative, and are at best Tertiary sources. Whether or not a dub is considered authoritative depends on the quality. the Funi dub had far fewer errors/changes than the Ocean Group dub. If you have specific reasons for Not considering it authoritative then please list them.--Marhawkman 21:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

All three items you've demonstrated don't back up anything you claimed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• The Daizenshuu books are a great source of information that can be sited as long as it is translated correctly and that what ever unique info placed on these pages from Daizenshuu states that it came from that source. Many articles use foreign publication all the time especially when most of the valid information cant be found in English. This is also the case with Dragon Ball because the vast majority of the info is in Japanese. Just because its not in English doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And omitting it would be against the whole idea of what wikipedia is an "everything" encyclopedia. Also there should be an article or brief explanation of the differences between Daizenshuu books and US DragonBall just so people know its out there. Besides that I support everything that Heat P said in his statement above. Supersaiyengoku 16:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Heat P actually said to not use the Daizenshū since they're extremely rare in the U.S. We should utilize the most reliable information available, of course, this discludes any English dubs. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey I'm not saying Daizenshū are not reliable source worldwide I am just saying that they really should not be used as a reference because of the rarity of the books. Where will you find someone with the entire 7 volume set translated correctly? See I have a few that where published in Germany ( I got them when I was stationed there )so I know the info most people get from them are true but this is not the german wiki site. So do to that even if you can go search the internet for passages from the books do to translation problem to US english

there is not real way for the rest of the John Q public to go out there and find these books to search or reference something they want to know. Only the most loyal of Dragon Ball fans will try their hardest to find that info. So the most reliable sources for Dragon Ball is the manga 1st then the anime. Heat P 23:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

From the guideline (which is NOT an essay as was said earlier)-

===When a source may not be needed===

• General common knowledge – Statements that everyone recognizes as true. Example: "Paris is the capital of France."
• Subject-specific common knowledge – Material that anyone familiar with a topic, including laypersons, recognizes as true. Example (from Processor): "In a computer, the processor is the component that executes instructions".
• Plot of the subject of the article - If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information.
• Text–source relationship – The maximum distance between material and its source is a matter of editorial judgment. The source of the material should always be clear. If you write a multi-sentence paragraph that draws on material from one source, the source need not be cited after every single sentence unless the material is particularly contentious. Editors should exercise caution when rearranging cited material to ensure that the text-source relationship isn't broken.
• Where summary style is being used – The Summary style policy says there is no need to repeat all of the references for the subtopics in the main "Summary style" article, unless they are required to support a specific point.

So... were more references preferable, even needed? Sure. But is the answer to assume that anything without a little blue number behind it needs deletion? Clearly not. Onikage725 17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Take this for instance, how is DBZ anymore notable than D.L. Hughley? Did you see what happened to his article? I don't see any complainers there, but plenty here. Goes to show that fans want their junk back. The information isn't lost forever, go ahead and re-add it but if it violates WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and/or WP:NEU I will remove it again. Please reference what needs to be referenced, and that includes a lot of stuff, not every single thing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

didn't I already explain this? Your interpretation is ridiculous. The DL Hughley article is completely irrelevent(as explained elsewhere). You're not helping. Referencing things that "need referenced" is vague at best. In this case, I'd say that nothing needs to be specifically referenced. Why? It's an article about fiction written in the past tense. Most contentious information would be essentially fan-theories, and inappropriate for Wiki. And yes the policy on references does allow for a list of episodes to be used at the end of the article and sparsely linked to in the article.--Marhawkman 11:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Please look at the information I took the time to post Sesshomaru. I tried to present actual, Wikipedia-backed information. A guideline directly related to the issue is more relevant than what happened to a completely unrelated article. Specifically read "Subject-specific common knowledge," "Plot of the subject of the article," and "Where summary style is being used." By way of example, under censorship the article says the following- When it was marketed in the US, the distribution company FUNimation alongside with Saban decided to initially focus exclusively on the young children's market, because the anime market was still small compared to the much larger children's cartoon market. To handle the dialogue, voice actors from the Ocean Group were hired. What kind of source would you propose for this? The comparison of the anime market/US children's cartoon market is a little speculative but it is also 100% true. Do we really need to search the web for some crap to say that anime was niche in the early 90's? I'm sure it could be found. That they focused on kids, one need only cite an episode from those airings. They aired in early morning children's blocks and contained heavy content edits. The Ocean Group wouldn't need any source beyond the end credits (if a reference on that would even be needed at all). That's kind of my point on how a lot of this stuff, while it could be cleaned up and written with less speculation, does NOT qualify as blatant fancruft. Onikage725 15:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Zenkai

As I was watching the season Dvd with the Japenese, the ending song mentioned ZENKAI but it was refering to DBZ. Could The Z in Dragonball Z mean Zenkai and Zetto. I also heard Zenkai in the Spanish Version Telemundo. (Kelvin Martinez 03:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

That's just part of the song's title. "Dete Koi Tobikiri ZENKAI Pawaa!". Translated on one site as "Exit destroyer and regenerated power" and on Daizex as "Come Out, Incredible ZENKAI Power!" And if I recall, it was most often translated amongst fans back in the day as "Come Out, Full-force Power!" Not actually sure what Zenkai means (though there is a discussion in one of the Daizex podcasts on it), but it isn't the Z of the show's title. Onikage725 23:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

This Article

Has been completely destroyed. It sucks, it doesnt even have any information on the storyline or anything. The standards of the Dragonball articles have fallen dramatically and are very poor to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.197.68 (talk • contribs)

Yea, The article was better before after this user Sesshomaru nukes everything. --SkyWalker 19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Complain all you guys want, I'm simply following WP:V and WP:OR. Look at what happened to D.L. Hughley. No one complained there, the DBZ article is no different. And no offense guys, but they're policies, they can not be ignored. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

See above^--Marhawkman 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Must I say it again? Of course anime episodes can be utilised as refs, I just think sourcing manga chapters/pages are more informal. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to be a WP:DICK but Wikipedia:Ignore all rules is a policey. However, it completely doesn't apply here. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That is true. However it is true, because the articles weren't violating policy to start with.--Marhawkman 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article was not in direct violation of Wikipedia Policey but it was terrible. It was just a long article that just explained every release date for every Funimation box set. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is actually not about this article specifically. Sessh lobotomized multiple article related to DBZ.--Marhawkman 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You make it sound as if I'm vandalising. Well, time to cut more unsourced bunk. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have any problems with it if your edits were being made to improve the articles. but you've gone to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point you've almost completely removed several of the character pages for no reason other than your misguided interpretation of policy.--Marhawkman 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid this whole sorry incident has done nothing to improve the image that wiki users are nothing but tireless nit-pickers, who would rather follow their policies to an obsessive degree than write a good article. Sure this follows your strict interpretation of policy Sesshomaru, but the fact of the matter is, this article is now terrible (IMO) because of it! Instead of tearing the article to pieces, maybe it would be better to improve this article by either finding sources or rewriting it. The Real Mr Snrub 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I love DBZ and would like to see improvement on this article (See Reediting article below). But reviewing the history of this article, related articles, and the talk pages of those who have edited it at one time or another has made me afraid of even trying to contribute to a better DBZ page. I am even afraid of expressing this opinion right now. Everyone who has tried to better this page has been harassed, blamed for vandilizing, and even blocked etc. I can garentee that if your not careful of what you do or say someone will find a way to block you. Its ugly but its true. Even the most experienced Wiki user could be confronted with headaches for just touching this site. Lets try to get along. With love and concern of my fellow editors, Demon Lord Naraku 10:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC: implementation of Verifiability as related to DBZ character articles

Template:RFCmedia A debate has sprung up regarding the implementation of wp:v and wp:or in regards to procedure for removing information that doesn't have references. In particular, whether all statements need to be referenced individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marhawkman (talk • contribs)

I went through and looked at the history, and went through each section that was removed:

1. History: Deals almost exclusively with localization issues, which probably should be cited. Sentences like "severe restrictions were put in place for a cable program." go uncited and unexplained, while the entire "creative changes" section/sentence starts with "The FUNimation version is noted for" but doesn't attribute the noting.
2. Filler: The article suggests the infamously lengthy fight sequences were caused by the need for filler. If possible, this should be cited.
3. VHS/DVD releases: The material covered here probably ought to go under the history section, and cited, because the bulk of it deals with the Pioneer -> FUNimation differences.

In short, go out and find sources, then come back and reintroduce/rewrite the material that was there. And then write some more, like a critical reception section, how it impacted the industry, etc, etc. Nifboy 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I suppose I didn't explain it well, but the RFC was about this and the sub-articles.--Marhawkman 10:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for Reordering or Reediting this site

This articule needs to be rearranged and reedited. It gives headaches just look at it. Its basicly a collection of random information about this anime series and thrown in no real order. From the discussion found on this page It'll probably be best to just start from fresh with a neutral over all discription of the anime with references from reliable source (make sure you read the how to write a reference articles) I believe I've seen links to it on this page. If anyone out there is willing to pickup the project it'll be greatly appreciated. Rock on guys!!! Demon Lord Naraku 20:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

What in the...

Ok, this is why I've pretty much been a ghost around here lately. Everything goes from one extreme to the other. I understand the need for citing sources, and the fight against cruft and original research... but it is ridiculous that one of the longest-running and most well-known animes ever has had its Wikipedia entry reduced to this. A brief introduction followed by a list of songs featured in the series and two more lists for cast and staff? Round this off with a paragraph on the live-action film that we aren't even sure is off the ground yet and I'd say we have a vastly improved article now </sarcasm>. Whatever happened to lists = bad? Why do these comprise the bulk of the article while actual information (that, granted, needed cleanup and sourcing) gets arbitrarily deleted? Not only do most sub articles on DBZ get reduced to near-stub status, but now the MAIN article? Someone explain this to me. I know it needed copy-editing, sources, and removal of cruft, but what we have here now is honestly only worthy of an AfD or RM request. There is NOTHING worthwhile in this article (nor up to any standards).Onikage725 23:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

See the above for the reasons. Greg Jones II 11:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw that, but I don't buy that everything in the article was completely impossible to verify. Simple deletion of everything but some lists did not improve the article's quality. I'm not assuming bad faith or saying this was anyone's intention. It just seems like we went from one extreme to the other. If a series like Death Note can have a sourced article, it seems like DBZ could. And all but deleting the article instead of looking at things like Animerica, Shonen Jump, ANN (just a few things off the top of my head), and even the FUNi and Atari websites and notable sites like Daizex for some citations or citable info seems to me like cutting off our nose to spite our face. Onikage725 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

How is DBZ anymore notable than D.L. Hughley? Did you see what happened to his article? I don't see any complainers there, but plenty here. Goes to show that fans want their junk back. The information isn't lost forever, go ahead and re-add it but if it violates WP:VERIFY, WP:NOR and/or WP:NEU I will remove it again. Please reference what needs to be referenced, and that includes a lot of stuff, not every single thing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to pop in here, I believe that Wikipedia rules are stricter on verifiability for biography articles than any others. DBZ is fictional; you can't really compare the two. -- RattleMan 07:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

It's still original content. Shouldn't be too hard to source what may need to be sourced, and the information isn't lost for good. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 08:34, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

There are different guidelines for writing biographies on real people and writing articles on works of fiction. Comparing an anime to a stand-up comedian is apples and oranges. There's also the notion that what works for article X doesn't necessarily mean it applies to article Y. Every article should be judged and edited on its own merits. You'll notice the rules usually state to weigh issues on a case by case basis. Wikipedia also strives on building consensus. Remember the core argument against ALttP and others on naming conventions? This is obviously a contentious issue, so blanket deletion of the whole article (and by this logic, the lists might as well be deleted too, leaving us with an opening paragraph and a mention of the supposed live action film) is not the best immediate solution IMHO. Onikage725 15:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have undone your ridiculous edit to the page. Naming conventions have absolutely nothing to do with material that violates the verifiability and original research policies. Most from WP:WPDB supported my reasons for the mass removal of unsourced data, and WP:OR is a reason enough to take such an action without needing to alert others. Did you even read this and this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes... Ive left comments. You've even responded. You know damn well I've read the discussions. Why are you acting like a sarcastic jerk? Onikage725 20:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Onikage725, WP:CIVIL. Greg Jones II 20:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Onikage725, I suggest you read up on WP:NPA as well. As much as you disagree with a person adhering to policies, there is no right to start name-calling. Highly innappropiate, please be more mature in the future. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, I told you Im done here. But for the record, dont exhibit this condescending attitude, ignore anything I say, behave in a contentious manner (i.e calling edits "ridiculous" and asking me to read a discussion you KNOW I've read) and then throw the incivility card. That said I already told you in no uncertain terms I no longer care about the outcome. So back off. Onikage725 01:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't mean to upset you, Onikage725. I will let you go. Greg Jones II 02:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you even read the rules regarding OR? Something is only considered original research if it represents a point of view without sources backing it. NOT EVERY LINE IN AN ARTICLE NEEDS IT'S OWN REF TAG.--Marhawkman 21:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You're correct, but then again, we have gone over this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, we did. But as I pointed out before, what you're saying and what you're doing don't match. You say you're not going to wipe out everything without a ref tag, but you have gone and done exactly that.--Marhawkman 11:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like we have the world against a single, self-righteous clean-up man, here. The point of Wikipedia articles is to inform the reader about the subject of the article. Not only this main page, but virtually every DBZ article has been so radically minimized that they convey practically no information about the show anymore. This page doesn't even say what DBZ is ABOUT, other than a cursory mention that it involves Goku's "adult life" - as if that's informative in the slightest. It is literally a cast and song list, which are both totally useless. Any random fan site would provide better factual information, plus analysis and interpretation, than this purported encyclopedia article. Such extreme editing nullifies the entire purpose of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.81.97.140 (talk) 20:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

People are right when they say this crusade is getting ridiculous when it comes to deleting plot summaries, ie "what the article is about", if it is "not sourced".

As others have pointed out, we have enough policies and guidelines saying there is no need for citation with plot summaries:

• When a source may not be needed: " Plot of the subject of the article - If the subject of the article is a book or film or other artistic work, it is unnecessary to cite a source in describing events or other details. It should be obvious to potential readers that the subject of the article is the source of the information."
• Primary information: "The term primary information describes information that can only be taken from primary sources, i.e. the original work of fiction or an affiliated work of fiction (e.g. another episode of the same series). Even with strict adherence to the real world perspective, writing about fiction always includes using the original fiction itself as a source"

In these condition, I really cannot understand why this passage was deleted :

The series continues the adventures of Goku as an adult who, along with his companions, defend the Earth and many other planets against various villains. While the original Dragon Ball anime followed Goku through childhood into adulthood, Dragon Ball Z is a continuation of his adulthood life, but at the same time parallels the maturation of his first child, Gohan, as well as the slow evolution of his rival, Vegeta from evil to good. The separation between the series is also significant as the later series takes on a more dramatic and serious tone.

It is merely a plot summary, based only on the primary source, and doesn't contain any analysis on the source material. It merely states facts from the manga/anime. Only the last sentence may require precise examples of the "more dramatic and serious tone", since there's an hint of opinion/judgment.

It was just useless and counterproductive of Sesshomaru (and it may even be seen as provocative) to remove that.

In consequence, I'm going to reintegrate the paragraph I've quoted, since it's strictly a plot summary, as per the "when to cite" guideline, and if Sesshomaru has a problem with that, he'll have to provide precise, very clear and undisputable policy elements saying plot summaries must be sourced before doing any revert.

And finally, I agree with him when he says that sections about releases, interpretations, explanations of editorial choices etc, have to be sourced. But of course, the way he handled all this was just clumsy, counterproductive, and deprived of any common sense.Folken de Fanel 21:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with what you did and I don't have any qualms, this article really needs citation-style refs though. Example, how do we know that DBZ aired from 04/26/89 - 01/31/96? That needs to be sourced ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take one minute to throw this out- http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=244&page=25. That took like... I dunno.. a minute to find. Wasn't that more productive than deletion? How about as a suggestion saying which things are in dispute and deciding what does and does not need a source. And for what does, if one is available or if the info should be rewriten or deleted. That would be more productive and beneficial to the article than deleting most of it. That said, I'm out. Onikage725 12:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well.... that's what the wikipedia rules say you should do. However Sessh seems to have either missed or ignored that part.--Marhawkman 15:58, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The time you waste criticizing others was the time you could have used to improve Wikipedia. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I don't get Sessh- the rampant attitude. Your attitude of late has bordered on WP:OWN, you leave these curt little replies that ignore any point made (for example this little exchange that ignored my valid proposal, or your edit summary telling me to see WP:REF because I made a simple mistake and didn't see that the air date was listed twice- and to my knowledge, WP:REF doesnt make issue of citing in infobox vs citing in article), remove and/or ignore comments, etc. You've been highly critical of others. And I recall when another user was presenting himself in much the same way as you currently are, you began scheming with another user about how to have him removed from Wikipedia. Yet now you get uppity of a little criticism? I think myself and a few others would appreciate it if you spent a little less time acting like your shit doesn't stink and a little more time working with your fellow editors towards a consensus on what is obviously a contested issue.

Ironically enough, WP:REF does identify itself as a guideline, and does list alongside under relevant policies WP:IAR. I do find it funny how you earlier identified it as a policy, and stated that IAR has no merit towards it. Maybe I'm not the only one who should bone up on the rules. Sorry to criticize when I could be using this time to improve Wikipedia, but I do feel that hypocrisy damages the Wikipedia process (most importantly, the policy of building consensus.Onikage725 19:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If this isn't number consensus, then I don't know what is. Are you implying that I'm someone you know? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Number consensus? Ryu-chan agreed (DBZROCKS' comment was a sidenote about the merging of the Saga articles, not on this article). Kakomu spoke against the deletion and suggested looking for citations. Vorangor mentioned that finding refs would be hard. Marhawkman disagreed and you two went around about it for awhile. Shinobigai was against it. After more arguing, DBZROCKS supported the deletion, stating it was terrible and fresh for a rewrite. Greg Jones praised his response (as did you). Heat had a comment that, from what I can tell, isn't for or against deletion of the majority of the article, and is instead trying to explain to people the nature of sourcing this stuff and what the problems that arise are about. He goes on to add that the article needs to be shortened and trivial stuff should be on the DB Wiki, but that alot of stuff tends to go missing with the shortenings.Then we have another argument on sources, fansubs or dubs, etc. Supersaiyengoku says the Daizenshuu shouldn't be discounted as a source. This was discussed a little bit. I copied text from the guideline on when a source isn't needed (which itself included note of a policy on summary style), and voiced an opinion that the article needs trimming and better souricing, but outright deletion of the whole body of text. You compared it to DL Hughely and said "fans want their junk back."

So explain to me how this is a clear consensus? The only thing clear to me is that it is a debated topic that hasn't reached any sort of resolution short of you deciding to enforce your will on any who disagree. It seems to me that of the contributors to the discussion, there's a 50/50 split for/against with 3 others expressing views related the topic but not specifically stating on if this should or should not have all been deleted. 4 vs 4 with 3 neutral does not = consensus, my friend.Onikage725 14:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR - that should explain why I did what I did. And what is with the long replies fom other users these days? Why can't people say what they need to say in a paragraph or two, really. No offense, but I think you and the other opposers are too attached to original research. As said earlier, it shouldn't be difficult finding sources if the information I deleted was supposedly verifiable. Enough of this, we have to improve this article and fill it with verified data ASAP. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Why aren't you looking for verified data, then ? It would be much better than disrupting Wikipedia with controversial comment deletions...Folken de Fanel 21:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Onikage, there is no clear consensus to remove such a large amount of content. Whats more, those policies you cite Sesshomaru in no way justify the non-specific, whole sale deletion of content which you are doing, you must challenge suspect content first by bringing it to the talk page for discussion. Based on the lack of consensus and policy grounds for this wholesale removal, I will reinstate the content shortly, then we can work together to source any challenged content. The Real Mr Snrub 23:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This user, The Real Mr Snrub (talk · contribs · logs), appears to be a single-purpose account. Please see the user's contributions for evidence. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki-warning: whoever adds that cruft back again in the page without sourcing a significant amount of content will receive {{uw-unsourced}} templates. I will eventually add references myself in due time. Meanwhile, I'd like for the opposers to have patience, it's going to go through a change. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Now THAT is a clear violation of WP:OWN. We've had enough patience with you. If you feel the need to add "unsourced" templates, fine. As long as you don't continue these wholesale deletions.--Marhawkman 11:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:OWN has absolutely nothing to do with this. I rather we do "wholesale deletions" of fancruft and original content than get the page all messy and cluttered with {{citation-needed}} tags. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the point of WP:OWN, you'd rather, but it doesn't seem to be shared by everyone here, to say the least. And trying to intimidate people who would not agree with you with threats of "unsourced" templates (or trying to prevent people to express a different opinion than yours by deleting their comments) is precisely a case of WP:OWN.

You don't seem to want to listen to others. Pretty much everyone here agrees that these articles generally lack sources, however we have all found your actions pointless and more confusing and disruptive than positive for the articles. Look at the facts, your wholesale deletion policy has lead you to blindly delete even perfectly valid paragraphs not even needing sourcing, and the only effect of your behavior here was to create more fights than ever. Your actions have failed because things got deleted, but not sourced.

People here all know articles require sources, this has not been questionned, but all want a new start, because you handled all this in a very clumsy way, and you spent more time fighting and threatening people not agreeing with you than actually adding sources. It would indeed be a case of WP:OWN if a user like you maintained, by any means, a way of handling the article that the majority has obviously rejected.Folken de Fanel 09:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

DBZ history of games

I like it. It could use a few improvements, but it presents the information nicely and most importantly prevent the inf from cluttering the main page.--Marhawkman 11:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

The lead section is inconsistent with the style guideline

According to WP:Lead section, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Aside from stuff like vital statistics (i.e. Dragon Ball Z aired from this date to this date), the information in the lead should be a summary of the information in the main article; a "concise overview of the article", not the only place that information appears in the article.

The point I'm getting to is... There should be a plot summary section within the article itself, as is standard for basically all fiction articles in Wikipedia (go on, check as many as you like), and only then does a shorter plot summary make sense in the lead section.