Jump to content

Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

New format

a new version of the list is being assembled at List of Dragon Ball characters/T1 that will include all characters of the Dragon Ball series'.BCKILLa

New format implemented. BCKILLa 18:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I would like to see more references to the original names of the characters (the evil dragons, for instance). These newfangled dub names confuse me, since some of them are completely off the mark. --Julian Grybowski 02:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. This page is all over the place, with some characters being listed by their Japanese names, some by their American dub names, and some of them don't mention one or the other. Also, some key characters are missing, some need to be elaborated on, and some are just... strange. The S

Symbols

I think we need a new picture to represent characters who are in the anime but not the manga. Beowulph 18:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean filler characters? Sure. Infinare 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Page length

The page is way to large, I think we have to break it down.

May I suggest we try List of Dragon Ball manga characters and List of Dragon Ball non-manga characters? That should break it down by about 1/2 I think. Beowulph 16:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

That might help, but a great deal of information is just crap. Fallacies and dub names abound. Needs a lot of cleanup.--193.195.185.254 00:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll give a few days and, if there are no objections, go ahead and change it then. Beowulph 01:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Supreme Kai

'Supreme Kai' is refrenced in many dragonball z pages but i cant find a page descibing who he is since i forgot. Anyone please provide me a link and one of us can make it easier for users to find information regarding this person. Tutmosis 02:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

He is the East Kaiôshin, the small purple-skinned character with the white mohawk that appears at the World Tournamnet, warning Goku, Vegeta, Gohan, Piccolo and the others of the threat of Babidi and his plan to awaken Majin Buu. He later fuses with Kibito using the Potara earrings. He doesn't have a page to himself at this time.Voice of Treason 03:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Please see Kaio. René van Buuren 12:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Alphabetical Order

I think we should list all the characters in alphabetic order not when they appear (that can be put into the description). Please share your opinion. 00:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

this page is fucked

sorry to swear, but it is. seperate into articles like List of Frieza Related Characters in Dragon Ball List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball List of Androids in Dragon Ball List of Dragons in Dragon Ball List of Humans in Dragon Ball List of Tournament Fighters in Dragon Ball List of other Aliens in Dragon Ball List of Namekians in Dragon Ball List of Animal Characters in Dragon Ball List of Majins in Dragon Ball etc. i'll do it because i think it needs doing and im bored. no-one will find anything on this page. Plough | talk to me 10:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll say. What happened? A lot of the movie villains are gone, and I don't mean gone to other cats either. Just out-and-out gone. Papacha 06:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

they are in List of other Aliens in Dragon Ball unless they are saiyans nameks or androids, or cooler who is on the freeza page

This page may not be allowed in Wikipedia. Please see WP:NOT guidelines, point two: Mere collections of internal links, except for disambiguation pages when an article title is ambiguous, and for structured lists to assist with the organisation of articles. I suggest making this a disambiguation page. -- ReyBrujo 18:55, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

seperate articles

I think that many characters deserve their own page. Characters like Recoome, General Tao, and Guldo are important enough to have their own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buster Sword (talk • contribs) .

This page should be some sort of table or list. The page looks terrible as it is. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.114.97.174 (talk • contribs) .

Questions

1. How can I turn A word into a link? The blue ones.

2. How can I turn A word into a header? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.114.97.174 (talk • contribs) .

To create a wikilink, surround the word with square brackets. In example, [[Goku]] creates Goku.
To create a heading, use = surrounding the word, at the beginning of a line. In example, ==Title== will create a title heading, and ===Subtitle=== creates a subtitle of Title.

--201.114.96.112 03:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

You can learn more by checking the help files. -- ReyBrujo 23:21, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!

More questions

How can I copy paste a table of characters, similar to the one of the characters of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?

I would like it with headers for:

  • image
  • name
  • 1st appearance
  • last appearance
  • name in japanese.
  • and check cells for comic, movies, dragonball, dragonball gt, dragonballZ

Already thankful

  • Gerardo Sanchez
  • Gerardo Sanchez
  • Gerardo Sanchez
  • Gerardo Sanchez
  • Gerardo Sanchez

oh, that's how you do lists!! hahahah. I just found out when signing.

I just realized this article has a table below. Still, howcome the page looks so "Un-wikipedic"? --201.114.96.112 03:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How do I get links like "king" to work connecting to the King of the Dragonball world (the blue racoon) instead of to the page of the word "king"??

To do this, you need to understand wikilinks: [[word]] links to word. [[word|something]] (note that there is a pipe between word and something) gives a link to word, but which reads something. You can thus link [[King of the Dragonball world]], or [[King of the Dragonball world|king]]. Note that you will have to replace King of the Dragonball world with the correct article name. If the name is in the same article, use # to denote that, in example, [[#King of the dragonball world|king]] will link to this article, to the section named King of the dragonball world. -- ReyBrujo 05:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Done

I'm done with the list I figured out how to solve my link problem on my own. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.114.96.112 (talk • contribs) .--201.114.96.112 03:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How am I suposed to sign? -G. S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.114.96.112 (talk • contribs) .--201.114.96.112 03:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Put ~~~~ at the end of your message. It will be converted into your signature, which you may later modify if you don't want it. -- ReyBrujo 03:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I want this article to have a table

Sort of like this: List of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles characters And I think it'd be great if it has mini pictures of the characters heads so that people can also identify them by fisically.

This way the article would be a useful general Dragonball characters guide. Can someone help me?--201.114.96.112 19:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Experiment

Name ID Picture A.K.A. Comics {{appears in:DB}} {{appears in:DBZ}} {{Appears in:DBGT}} {{appears in:DB Movie}} Video Games Action figure
Son Goku Kakarotto
Son Gokou
Son Gokuh
Goku-Sa		 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Pilaf Emperor Pilaf Yes No Yes Yes Yes Cameo Yes
Piccolo Pikkoro
Ma / Demon Jr.
The Child of Katattsu
Kamicolo		 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Bulma Briefs Buruma
Bloomers
Lena		 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Cameo Yes

Nevermind

I found out on my own... But right now I don't have the time to finish filling the info... Can someone else finish it?--201.114.96.112 20:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that is how most things are generally done here, experiment at the sandbox, learn, and then edit the article ;-) I suggest you to create an account, it is better if you plan on doing many modifications, or very important ones. By the way, I removed the head images from the table above, as our Fair use criteria is strict: we can't use fair use images in talk pages. In a similar fashion, you won't be able to create a table with the character thumbnails, as that goes against the Fair use criteria as well. That explain why the TMNT list of character does not have images in the table. -- ReyBrujo 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Same size

Is the a way to keep the tables the same size??--201.114.96.112 09:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no real reason to separate the Freeza R.C. from other aliens. Before any of my edits, the RR robots were not separated from the other androids and the red ribon were not separated from the regular humans.--201 23:03, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I also aded the word aliens to namekians and saiyans, it is more specific.--201 23:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody just refer to my edits as vandalism. Why would I vandalize my own creation? I'm just clarifying wich characters are aliens. Saiyans, Namekians and Freeza's are all aliens. Regular readers don't know that.

We aren't doing Red Ribbon related characters or Gralic Jr. related characters, I think in this context, even though there is a "Freeza related charactes" list, it is out of place to put them in a separate table, they are not even the same race. They also appeared in a row, so it's kind of implied they are together, just like in Red Ribbons case.--201 20:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

If someone is unaware that Saiyans and Namekians and Freeza are aliens, they can follow the links to the articles on those subjects and discover the fact on their own. Adding "aliens" is not needed. This article is just meant to serve as a table of characters in the articles referred to, not to reorganize the character groupings.
Daishokaioshin 20:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd know that, you moron. I created the tables From 0!!--201 20:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you created the articles or not. Also: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. - Daishokaioshin 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I can respect the Saiyans and Namekians, But the freeza table if not merged, should be a section of othr aliens.

Why not Gralic Jr. or RR related characters? The villains are organized according to sagas, here the organization is races, and Freeza related characters are no a race.--201 20:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Garlic Junior is a minor character from a movie and a couple of filler episodes, but if you want to create an article for Garlic Junior Related Characters simply click the red link and start editting. Likewise for Red-Ribbon Army Related Characters. And I don't think we're organizing according to Sagas, unless I am mistaken. We are organizing according to the articles that exist.
Daishokaioshin 20:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

We?? who's we, kimosabe? I started this from 0 with some help from Takuthehedgehog, who I think put the images. Of course, I'm not implying ownership. What I mean to imply is that, if there is a Freeza related characters table is because when I created it, I didn't realize that those aliens were not really a race. Observe carefully the other tables. All tables are listing characters by race regardless the saga or their boss. Other aliens is the table for characters from unknown alien races, just like freeza's crew.

Prior to the tables, there were only some list I made and prior to that this page was just a bunch of useless headers. The Freeza characters was my mistake to begin with.--201 02:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is too big

Maybe each table should be moved to the respective sub-list and this article should be re-formatted so that it looks lige a general index and not the horrible sequence of headers it was before.--201 05:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Saiyans Humans Animals Namekians Aliens Freeza Aliens
Androids Majins Slump Deities Fussions Other

Something like that + the character navigation infobox.--201 05:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I do think that the format we're using now is fine, I'd have to agree that the article is getting a bit lenghty. Do we have to add every single character to the page? Characters like the farmer from the beginning of Z, Ikose and Idasa, and other extremely minor characters don't really have to be there and only chracaters with at least SOME importance should be here. It would help shorten the article drastically. Sasuke-kun27 11:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think characters here have to at least be memorable.--201 07:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think this page should be shortened too. It was a good length, a few days ago. However, now its gotten so big that my computer can't load all of the images anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.165.237 (talk • contribs)

I think it's time to decide what characters stay and what characters we send packing. We have subpages that include pretty much every DB/DBZ/DBGT character to ever appear, we don't need all of them here. You want to see more characters, view the "List of..." pages. For example, characters like Denderotto and Gotan don't need to be added because they only make one extremely minor appearance. Should we start deleting some of the minor characters?
P.S. - I noticed some of your previos edits (referring to the IP user) and it would be greatly appreciated if you didn't make one edit at a time, but instead hit the "Edit This Page" button and made several of those edits at once. It's just easier to follow that way. Thanks! Sasuke-kun27 22:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Recoome and Guldo appear in GT and movie 12

In DBGT Goku is watching tv and the news announcer is saying how all these odd occurences are happening, with all these people coming from nowhere. Then we see many villains escaping such as Recoome, Guldo and many others. All that happened in the episode called "A Dangerous Union" Super 17 Saga dvd volume 9.

In Fusion Reborn when Frieza is telling everyone to attack Gohan the first person to fly in front of him pretty fast is Recoome. User:Recoome

I went back and checked and your right. They entire Ginyu Force is in Fusion Reborn and Guldo and Recoome are in GT. Sasuke-kun27 22:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this page really needed?

The page seems pretty pointless as it currently looks. I really don't think we need to list every character and totally demolish the fair use policy. It sould just link to the separate character lists with a brief description of each one. Nemu 00:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well...

I'm placing ALL of the images to the linked pages. Dragonball1986 13:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge

The discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball#Merging the lists. TTN (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Characters who deserve their own article

Any suggestions? Some pretty popular characters deserve their own wikipedia articles and are merged into a big list.Ehccheehcche (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Merge

It's really time to get these articles cleaned and merged. They have had plenty of time to build up information, so it is obvious that they don't have anything significant at this point. Goku still may have potential, but it still seems better to just gut it and build it back up at this point. TTN (talk) 18:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, first off why are you considering merging Goku? Have you even read the article lately? It article has more than enough going for it to exists. The others are ruff around the edges but still have enough to stand out. As many of those characters are just as import to the franchise as Goku. Sarujo (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree. I think most of those needs to be merged in, and this list needs to be edited a bit to make sure there are no single episode/volume type characters taking up space that can better be served focusing on the main characters. Keep in mind that their importance to the franchise is completely irrelevant. It is the existance of extensive REAL WORLD reliable sources that discuss the character conception/creation, and third-party reliable sources that can be used to give the article a full and proper reception section. If all that can be said about the character is tons and tons of plot summary, it needs to be merged. With that said, if anyone can show such demonstrable notability for the tagged character such to the point that the article can be taken to GA or beyond, then please do so here. Otherwise, lets merge and go. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes I know this all too well, I should think before I speak. But, your saying that there's no real world content in any of the articles. That not necessarily true. Sarujo (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that not all of the characters need individual articles, while at the same time, some of those tagged may be able to meet the relevant guidelines to have their own articles. I've never read or watched the series...my only association with it is the work I've done on its articles, and being amused at my brother's love of the series (where normally he picks on me watching anime LOL). That said, I do agree that of the ones tagged currently, I'd be very surprised if Son Goku's article can't be fixed up to be a GA class. Its got some bones going, but it needs a massive clean up and refocus back to the real world. Still, I do not think that particular one would be a good merge candidate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, What about merging the two Trunks articles into one, can that help with real world content for the character? Since the are two incarnations of one character? Sarujo (talk) 19:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
With Goku, good reception information really needs to be found for it before anything is decided. I believe I have been through this same discussion like ten times with all ending on the "it has potential" side. As it is the main character of a pretty large franchise, it should be fine, but good, meaty information is rather sparse sometimes. The "Other media" section is about 90% junk, so that doesn't really amount to anything. While those two characters are technically the same, they are too different to really do anything other than pile them both onto each other, leading to a mess. Neither has anything important anyways.TTN (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I merge the two a while back but it was reverted the next day and lead to a heated debate. I don't know how you can say that it would be a mess if they were properly writen with the right format. Sarujo (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Keep and fix Son Goku (Dragon Ball), Son Gohan, and Yamcha (which is a GA). If there's no chance in getting reception data for articles like Frieza and Cell (Dragon Ball), they should be merged. Well, the rest have no chance in becoming GAs so they could be cleaned up and merged. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Following Tintor2's start, I've added subsections for all proposed merges so each one can be more easily discussed individually. As noted earlier in this part of the discussion, any notes for keeping an article as a standalone piece should be backed up with demonstrable notability and real world sources on creation/conception and reception, not just the perceived value in the plot.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

*ahem* If you are just going to say keep without actually giving any supporting reason, please don't even say it. They are meaningless without actual reasoning, as has already been noted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

  • There was a clear concensus to Keep, and I support it. No new arguments have been raised, and finite space is not a reason. This is basically a submarine merge attempt, given it survived an AfD easily not too long ago. It should just be improved as per last time.JJJ999 (talk) 09:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Son Goku (Dragon Ball)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus felt the character Son Goku met all requisite requirements in WP:N to remain a standalone article.
  • Oppose Merge, highly notable fictional character and in some ways a cultural icon; sure there are plenty of sources on this one, including in various books studying manga/anime. Article needs a lot of clean up however. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
And? It has nothing to do with this discussion, it is not active and there isn't even any clear likely future version. We have to go with what is here now, not pick and choose among that "discussion". -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
It is active. It's the result of the 1+ year long conversations that got FICT marked as an essay. I think it's going to lead to a new FICT, which is what these merges used to be based on. If you don't want to participate, that's fine. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 23:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
And it has zero impact on this discussion until something tangible is actually produced. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Son Gohan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus felt the character Son Gohan met all requisite requirements in WP:N to remain a standalone article.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Vegeta

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is that Vegeta meets all notability requirements for having a standalone article and should not be merged.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Future Trunks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Unresolved
 – No consensus either way - issue of Trunks vs Future Trunks needs resolved before discussion on whether to merge one or both articles to the list can truly be discussed
  • Keep, notability is just a guideline, and also, the lamest guideline this place has. Thanos6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - For now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Important character. SSJ 5 (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (for now) - I'm half and half; apparently the character is important, so there should be reception, but if nothing can be dug up, the article can be easily condensed and merged. WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge unless reception information can be shown. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge, per Quasirandom.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - putting decision on hold a few days to allow those saying keep to show reception information is available -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I still feel that the two Trunks articles should be merged and rewriten as a new "Trunks (Dragon Ball)" article. As they are simply two incarnations of one character with minor diffences in personality. And that's really a trivial matter all together. Sarujo (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge the two Trunkses under Trunks (Dragon Ball) with trimmed and separated sections for each incarnation of the fictional character. --LøЯd ۞pεth 01:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge with the other Trunks article. He doesn't warrant two articles, but one should be fine. If Vegeta's considered notable enough in the real world, Trunks has appeared in nearly as many games, action figures, crossovers, the collectible card game, the Playdia FMV game (the one people usually refer to as the OVA), etc. For crying out loud, I see Trunks on T-Shirts every time I go to Hot Topic and FYE, on posters in various stores in malls, and one search of his name yields about a kajillion (probably shitty but still existent) fan tributes to him on Youtube. Onikage725 (talk) 00:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep- just as the other Trunks should have been. The has real world notability, sources could easily be found via a few searches. The character is a major character in a franchise that has sold hundreds of millions of books. To call it lacking notability is just wrong. Many AfDs were fought on these characters, and this sort of thing is really defying the consensus those AfDs built. This whole section should be scrapped and proper AfDs used.JJJ999 (talk) 09:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Merge Future trunks by himself does not have the Notability. He may be "cool" but he's pretty niche both in the aspect of the manga/anime and the rest of the (english speaking) world. Why don't we merge future trunks with regular trunks, that might do it.--FUNKAMATIC 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
He appeared in more books than Cell, and I would guess he has about the same real world coverage. Easily more if you include his young self. It's hard for me to really see how he doesn't get an article. Goten is a tad more marginal, but also gets over the line I think. The guy is in 7 books, plus the anime and GT, that's more than FriezaJJJ999 (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment while "consensus" said that the present Trunks is to be merged into this list, we have divided opinions regarding Future Trunks, but it seems that merging the two Trunkses together is a more common idea and, at least, it would be less damaging than having both of them merged into this list. A discussion took place some weeks ago and, if I am not wrong, consensus was to merge both articles into one.

Take a look at this revision, and you will notice that it is organized, well written, and little content is lost if we compare it to the small sections that were given to Goten, Baby, the Androids, etc. in this list. Together in this article, both Trunkses as one element of fiction are certainly a strong topic. --LøЯd ۞pεth 23:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Well, it's nice to know that someone appreciates my work. But now I feel that my rewrite need more work and sources to cement it's fate. Although we can use the manga tankobons, the "Dragon Ball Daizenshus", and the "Dragon Ball GT perfect file" books for Trunks' for the development and brief history sections. But I'm still weary about the Toonami bumper reference in the reception section as the only way that it could possibly be sourced is Toonami's official site "Toonami Reactor". But alas, their fan art bumpers are the one thing that they lack, and we can't use any unofficial fan sites or YouTube.
Ironically as decent as the rewrite was the three from that survey Thanos6, KojiDude, and Legoktm all gave out IDONTLIKEIT based complaints on the idea. Which only supports my belief that they didn't read it. Also stating that their differences were too radical for one page, and when I called their bluff by asking them to list the diffences, KojiDude made the excuse that they had "a life" and referred to my attempt as a lazy shortcut. Quote: "Don't take the short cut and merge it just because you're lazy." Now my comment here may seem like flaming or any other improper behavior. But rest assure, I'm not trying to pick a fight with anyone. I'm only stating the daunting this merger has been. But even with that survey in the past, I still feel strongly about the merger and hope that enough compeling suports will help bring the two Trunks' into one single article. AnmaFinotera said it best "...its, at best, and alter ego.". Which is pretty much what I've been saying along, and alter egos are nothing more but in most cases a person acting like somebody else. Bruce Wayne and Batman may be thought as two different people in the fictional public eye, but in the end it's still the same guy. I will say that there's some personality difference in Present and Future, but that can be summed up in two or three sentences. I feel that everybody's argument in difference is based off of Future and Kid, which is an unbalanced comparison as you can never compare a seven yrs with a seventeen yrs of anybody. A fair comparison is the adult forms of the two incarnations as we never see Future at seven and we never see Present at thirteen. If you did a comparison on kid and adult versions of Goku, Krillin, and Vegeta you'd get two different entities. Yet this alone doesn't entitle the child versions their own article. This very factor alone can help with real world content as by explaining why Toriyama created the difference in personality. As for the reception section, I managed to get the ball rolling on that one. Sarujo (talk) 04:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Based on your last comment, Sarujo, I think that the best we can do is perform the mergers. You have successfully identified what is wrong with your rewrite, so if we perform the mergers, we can work on it. Time was given to other characters for improvement, so the article about both Trunkses shall have it too. --LøЯd ۞pεth 01:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Very well, I must insist that when the merger takes place that the three images "Trunks Variant.PNG", "GT Trunks.PNG", "SS Trunks.PNG", and "Cross Epoch Trunks.PNG" be brought back as they they act as perfect representations. I still have these images for use. Sarujo (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Son Goten

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is that Son Goten does NOT meet notability requirements for having a standalone article and is to be merged to List of Dragon Ball characters. Article was merged on September 27, 2008. Umerged per complaints below. Remerged per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son Goten.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trunks (Dragon Ball)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Unresolved
 – No consensus either way - issue of Trunks vs Future Trunks needs resolved before discussion on whether to merge one or both articles to the list can truly be discussed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • keep- this should go to a real AfD, not the consensus of a handful of people. Many opinions have been fought over these characters is real AfDs, and they're being killed by a handful with submarine merges. There is at least as much real world coverage of trunks as there is Krillin or Bulma, who both easily won multiple AfDs. What the heck has changed since then?JJJ999 (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it shouldn't. AfD is not a merge discussion. The discussion and the consensus is perfectly valid and this discussion was closed so in the future, comments should be in a new section. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Discussion continued below.JJJ999 (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Very Notable Character both in future and in present.
  • Note - changed from resolved to unresolved on October 9, 2008 due to issue of whether to merge Future Trunks into Trunks causing conflicting results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Pan (Dragon Ball)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is to merge the Pan article to the character list due to lack of real-world notability. Article was merged on September 20, 2008.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Merge - Though I don't want it to be merged, very little info can be added to improve it.

Bulma

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consenus is to keep Bulma separately, with revisit in a month or so if article does not continue improving and notability can not be established
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • Keep - She's been around since the very beginning and is the whole reason Goku set out on his adventures.

Master Roshi

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is to keep Master Roshi as a standalone article; no opposition to revisiting in a month if article does not show significant improvement
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Given that the talk is all going on here, can we please get a consensus on notability? Surely the fact that he so clearly got approval for a standalone, the tag for noteability should be removed (we already have a tag calling for more sources, and fair enough). If his notability was in doubt he wouldn't have been approved for a stand alone, and survived AfDs and had support on the article talk page for noteability. Yes, sources must be added, but there seems no doubt as to the prima facie assumption he has noteability.JJJ999 (talk) 08:07, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Yamcha

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is to keep the Yamcha article separate; GA article commenters feel can be fixed up to better show notability.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Krillin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is to keep and allow time for additional work. No objection to revisiting issue at a later time if article shows no significant improvement.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tien Shinhan

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is to merge the Tien Shinhan article to the character list due to lack of real-world notability, main keeps only dispute guideline rather than address issues. Article was merged on September 27, 2008. - Others disagreed as to there being consensus, so merge was reversed.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
  • As per my above comments strong keep- there is nothing approaching consensus, and "wikipedia is not a democracy" does not mean you turn around and ignore consensus, which is the fundamental principle here.JJJ999 (talk) 09:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
As you said, Wikipedia is NOT a democracy. You don't just count the keeps and call it a consensus. The arguments were evaluated and consensus determined. People saying "keep" cause I like it, keep cause I don't like the guideline, or keep just to say keep have no value versus arguments grounded in actual policies and guidelines. Also, your "keep" does not count as the discussion is already closed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I see no consensus to merge--per WP:MERGE there has to be a "clear agreement". True, as AnmaFinotera says, it's not a majority vote. --but 4 people out of 7 not wanting to merge is not even close to a clear agreement to merge. There is no possible way of considering this a consensus to merge. DGG (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
As already noted above. The first "keep" is a generic keep put on ALL of these discussions because the person disagrees with WP:N. The second two give no reason WHY it should be kept, just that it should. And WhiteArcticWolf was on the fence. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree there was no clear consensus to keep separate either--if this had been an afd, the close would have been no consensus. But from the wording of policy, there has to be a clear consensus to merge. No DGG (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
And Quasirandom, the first merge, similarly blanketed all these discussions in the opposite manner. What's your point here? Clearly some people want all of these kept, some want all merged -- that makes their opinions no less valid. GlassCobra 18:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. I !voted four keeps and two neutrals -- hardly blanket merges. That said, more keeps than merges, even with discounting for lack of convincing explanation, is hardly consensus to merge. This one in particular should have been closed as "no consensus," which by default is no merge. Except possibly the result of Cell, though, the others are closed appropriately. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
This discussion closed weeks ago - new discussion is below. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
You are a liar. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear would be lying to themselves to pretend you didn't just lie flat out. The merge discussion was closed erroneously by you, then it was re-opened by 2 admins who said you had acted erroneously. It was never closed.JJJ999 (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Piccolo (Dragon Ball)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is to keep Piccolo as a standalone article to allow time for more development. No objection to revisit issue in a month or so if article is not significantly improved.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Frieza

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is to keep the Frieza article separate to allow time for expansion. No objection to revisiting in a month or two if no improvement shown.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cell (Dragon Ball)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is to merge the Cell article to the character list due to lack of real-world notability. No objection to a future recreation if notability through valid reception information can be established. Article was merged on September 27, 2008.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cell merger

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell (Dragon Ball) (2nd nomination) which closed as a merge AND subsequent DRV which upheld the AfD closing - Cell has been remerged to article.

Excuse me but since when 3 vs 3 is consensus? Who took the bold and incorrect decision to merge Cell without getting clear consensus as some other character discussions had? For the record, I oppose the merge, there is surely some material to be added to meet notability. If Freeza and Majin Boo are kept, Cell should be. --LøЯd ۞pεth 01:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The comments from Keep did not give a good reason and said Cell was simply important without mentioning anything about reception. This article is to be merged until reception can be shown.Tintor2 (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
What Tintor said. Wikipedia is not a democracy, so it is not a vote count. I feel my closing was correct. It was based my own experience in such discussions, including many other merge discussions and AfDs. You don't just count the votes and go. I neutrally evaluated the comments on the strength of their arguments. One "Keep" was a declaration against WP:N rather than actually discussing the notability of the character, a pointy keep put on all of the merge discussions that is negated by its nature and lack of any actual argument. This isn't the place to argue against an existing guideline or policy. The second only claims he's a main villain, again not speaking to any actual real-world notability and as such as no real weight behind it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • there are some real submarine merges going on here. I also vote keep. this should be the subject of a real AfD, where people can see what's going on, not back door votes like this.JJJ999 (talk) 09:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
As noted above, AfD is NOT a merge discussion. Its for discussion deletion. Merge discussions are fully appropriate on article talk pages. Both the anime and manga project and the Dragon Ball projects were aware of the discussion and the consensus here is fully valid. Also, stop the accusations of "submarine merges." These are valid discussions and the closings fully valid. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Since there are complains regarding this particular merge (Cell), I think that the article should be kept. I respect the decisions of other mergers, but this one is generating some controversy and all of you must not ignore the opinions of others accussing them of not giving "a good reason" or of not being strong enough. There is no consensus, and Wikipedia works with consensus. --LøЯd ۞pεth 17:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • According to WP:MERGE, " If there is clear agreement with the proposal by consensus, or if there is silence, proceed with the merger." So there has to be a clear agreement. Now, one lone protester does not prevent a clear agreement, or nothing would ever get decided. But three out of three certainly is not a clear agreement. There is no consensus to merge, there never was. At present, I see a consensus to unmerge. Myself, I have no opinion--I have not reexamined this article. I'm just commenting on whether there is consensus. DGG (talk) 17:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Completely agreed with DGG. Cell is a main villain for a huge part of Dragon Ball Z, and easily deserves his own article; further, this clearly had no consensus to merge. Requesting immediate unmerge from AnmaFinotera. GlassCobra 18:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Until there is out-of-universe information to add it, we can not have an article for Cell.Tintor2 (talk) 18:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. There is not enough out-of-universe information, this should remain as a redirect. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Gentlemen, the article is a redirect; how exactly do you propose more information be added? I find disturbing your willingness to disregard a character that retrieves over four million hits on Google; surely there is ample information and sourcing to be found. Though one could make a strong argument at this point as to the motives of continuing to clamor for a merge, especially given the fact that it seems likely that none of you would be willing to search for adequate sourcing, I will assume that you were merely unaware of the vast importance of this character. GlassCobra 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
We neither can perform redirects and merges without consensus. Your resolutions are bold and against policy. --LøЯd ۞pεth 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
How does the Google search add reception to the article? Already said, util reception information can be added, Cell cant have an article.Tintor2 (talk) 18:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes he can. Apart the fact that there are plenty of much more less notable and minor characters than Cell, and that with your merge you are not permitting others to prove notability of the subject, you are still ignoring the fact that you are acting without consensus. Your edits are being further edited, and instead of seeking a compromise or discussing the matter, you are not only underestimating others' opinions, but ignoring them. Wikipedia does not work like that. --LøЯd ۞pεth18:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I obviously agree about undoing this merge. It flies in the face of the consensus. It's obvious that real world sources exist, and given time some of us will undoubtedly get them. I don't have time this week, but when the tag is left eventually work is done for something of this level of notability. The decision to remove it is bizarre, and I will add Lord Shessmoru has in the past argued unsuccessfully for the removal of articles like Bulma, Krillin, etc, with some arguments that clearly are wrong, and were found to be wrong in the AfDs on those characters.- JJJJJJ999 (talk) 07:36, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
I should add, I have to wonder why articles like Krillin are being held open for so long with pretty much unanimous votes for keeping him, yet articles like Cell were closed so quickly with only 6 people expressing an opinion. It smacks of an agenda to remove articles. So Krillin is kept open until there is enough to argue he should be merged, and Cell is closed quickly. And look at the huge consensus to keep on this AfD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cell_(Dragon_Ball), there is no doubt that people like Lord S have gotten annoyed at losing via consensus, and are trying to submarine these articles by stealth, after being defeated less than 3 months agoJJJ999 (talk) 07:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
So the Cell unmerge discussion continues. I obviously continue to support an unmerge, but please feel free to express your view.JJJ999 (talk) 22:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion is done. The AfD closed as a merge. If you want to start yet another discussion, do so in another section as a brand new unmerge discussion, but expect to be be reported for continuing to be disruptive. Three different discussions have upheld this merge. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Majin Buu

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is to keep as a standalone article and allowed additional time to develop.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Baby (Dragon Ball)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
 – Consensus is to merge the Baby article to the character list due to lack of real-world notability
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Are these merge decisions working with consensus

  • Yes as both the Cell and Son Goten AfDs have ended in a merge, consensus agrees that the characters have no real world notability and that the merges are appropriate. Suggest and end to this RfC at this point and moving on to actual editing again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming

The last time I heard about the consensus, we were using the FUNimation Japanese subtitle character names. How come we are using the anime dub names now? Is there a discussion about this? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

It was something decided after a discussion with the anime project. TTN (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I found this: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Archive_29#.22Adhering_to_naming_conventions.22 - I see! I'll take a look at it. Thank you! :) WhisperToMe (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Zarbon section

What's the deal here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally mis-spelled Funimation. I am trying to adhere to the setup of the other references on the page. I already gave all the possible information where that description is available. Can't you just fix the reference to your liking so that the description stays on the page? That's pretty much it. The description for the word "mysterious" is from dbz volume 6 (a.k.a. dragon ball 22) and from the intro section (where all the character bios are given right before chapter 59. The desciption for the word "handsome" is from the direct Japanese version episode title. "Goosebump Time: The Handsome Warrior Zarbon's Demonic Transformation" - Zarbon (talk) 11:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't see any of that in the Viz manga. No offense, but why even call him "handsome" in the first place? It sounds wierd IMO. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's a matter of opinion. I find the best description from that word, "handsome". The fact that it is the only word that personifies him in the episode title is also reference and it shouldn't be neglected. For the word "mysterious", you probably didn't look in the correct Viz manga. Baring in mind that I am referring to the English version, check manga volumes 21, 22, and 23. Or moreso accordingly DBZ 5,6,and 7. I also have a problem with this whole "minor" characters bit. What we can do about that is reword to "tertiary". Zarbon is in 17 episodes (14 consecutively) and 3 non-consecutively, along with appearing in the Bardock special. He isn't a minor character. If anything, he appears more than any other villain other than Frieza in the entire Frieza saga. - Zarbon (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Zarbon, let me be honest with you. Describing him as "handsome" and "non-minor" is just ... wrong. You still haven't presented a reliable source (a vague episode title doesn't count). And he probably did make two or more cameos than the other minor characters, but that doesn't make him more notable. Can we please talk about these edits before making any changes? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I'm a little annoyed because I already brought up these same issues in the other talk page for the extraterrestrials. He pretty much appears and does MORE than all the other people. In some cases, more than some of the "secondary" characters who are on that list. For one, more than "Dr. Gero" and "Android 16" without a shred of doubt. Why in the name of all that is sacred are they under secondary. Gero is only in 8 canon episodes consecutively, less than half the amount of Zarbon. And 16 plays close to no role whatsoever cept for getting derailed by Cell once and killed by Cell the second occasion during Cell Games. I don't know why I have to bring this up over and over but you provoke a constant explanation as to why the character of Zarbon was more important, and I am obliged to further explain. He's in 17 episodes total. That should automatically be enough to put him under "secondary". And I'm not making the change this time until YOU approve it since I don't want to edit war. I have been complying with rules for quite some time now, and the initial reason behind my problems was this very same thing...in short, the wrongful degradation that Zarbon is getting here. I for one am not fond of characters like 17 and 18, in fact I don't like them at all, but you don't see me telling you they don't belong in the secondary section, since they played a role in the episodes they were in. In the same way, you cannot have a Namek saga or even furthermore, a Frieza saga, without Zarbon. Please reconsider moving him to the secondary section. I implore you to understand. Also, why is the episode title itself not a reliable resource when I had proved it to be a reliable resource a full year ago...episode titles were to be official...especially the original JAPANESE version episode titles. Nothing gets more canon and original than that. Please let me know how we can resolve this as you know that I find this character exceptionally important in the show's entirety, respectfully. - Zarbon (talk) 03:05, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If he's so notable, don't you think he'd have an article? I'm just saying it's beyond redundant. Even if it is my opinion, note that Wikipedia requires a reliable reference for these kinds of statements. Like I said above, a vague episode title doesn't cut it. Don't you think it'd be downright ridiculous if we took everything from the Japanese literally? It's a bias description, nothing more. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, he DID have an article until you and some very few others voted that they not have an article and only Frieza get one. I thought that was stupid to begin with since he's the second most appearing villain in the entire first DBZ arc other than Frieza. Since there's really only three arcs (Frieza, Cell, Buu) and Zarbon appears more than so many of those characters that are now listed as "secondary"...I assume you'd either have to move him up to secondary OR move down the likes who appear LESS than he does and play LESS of a role, included amongst those are android 16, broly, cooler, dr. gero, shenron, uub, general blue, commander red, etc. I thought it would be much easier to bring him up rather than bring them down. I'll leave that to you, but everything's wrong right now the way it is. Broly...a secondary character? almost makes me laugh. almost. - Zarbon (talk) 11:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

nappa and raditz

what happened to nappa and raditz--74.237.120.11 (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

and lets not forget about android 19...he's also missing. - Zarbon (talk) 11:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Secondary and main characters?

Krillin, Yamcha and Tenshinhan are all major characters in Dragon ball series! This is a list of all major characters, is it not? If not what's Baby (Goten also?) doing there? IMO DB Humans should be in main characters section, because they were major characters for the whole DB and good portion of DBZ. SSJ 5 (talk) 01:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree - especially Krillin, who had a good amount of screen time in all three series (Most in DB and least in GT). On that note, I am editing the ToC to show Hercule as Satan - as the series did originate in Japan and that is the name they gave him.

97.113.63.156 (talk) 05:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your edit has been reverted. We use the English names only in the header. Also, screen time is completely irrelevant to the issue of notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Seconded. This mess doesn't help at all. Let's just stick with the dub names in the section headers. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't read the whole discussion part and overlooked the Naming section. Performed the edit as a result of my search of "Satan Dragonball" which ended up redirecting me to the Character list. Looked at ToC and couldn't find the character I was looking for so I did a text search to find. Wanted to make it a bit easier for the next person looking which was the edit in regards to the name. If possible please consider an additional in-page redirect in the ToC (ex. add a link named Mr. Satan pointing to the Hercules section. No change in old links) for the characters that had their names change in the Dub version to make it easier to find for a person that has not seen the Dub.
Also overlooked the fact that the ToC had already listed Krillin as a main character. Was just reading the previous posters question and thought it was still relevant. What is the criteria for measuring what category a character belongs in? I agree that screen time isn't everything, but of the characters mentioned, Krillin had more then just screen time. He was also the martial brother of Goku and ended up fighting along side him in most of the episodes that I can remember in DB and DBGT. Tried looking at the Krillin part of the discussion to read up on the criteria used, but all I see are comments stating results of a discussion and not the actual discussion itself.
Thanks and sorry again!

97.113.63.156 (talk) 06:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I've fixed those redirects so they go directly to the Hercules section. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:07, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Major/Secondary/Minor

I have major deliberations with the breakdown. Personally, I dislike the usage of the word "minor" to begin with and prefer the word "Tertiary". In regards to this, I have moved android 16, broly, cooler, dr gero, evil dragons, gotenks, emperor pilaf, elder kai, nappa, raditz, and red ribbon army to the "minor" section because they appear less than some characters who are already listed in the minor section. This needs to be kept track of. Nappa is in 13 consecutive episodes, less than Captain Ginyu. Broly is only in 2 and a half movies. Cooler is in 2 mere movies. Dr. gero is in 8 consecutive episodes. Gotenks is pretty much only in a mere 5 episodes. The Evil Dragons are barely in an episode each, 2 at the most. Raditz is in only 4 episodes throughout the entire series run. And some of the red ribbon army are in 2 episodes aside from General Blue, the most important by appearance, who is in 14 episodes. All these people belong in the minor section until the likes of Zarbon (17 episode appearances), Captain Ginyu (13 episode appearances), and Dabura (16 episode appearances) amongst some others are also allowed to be in the secondary section. As of now, the people I mentioned all appear less and play less of a role than the three aforementioned. And on another note, I respectfully propose that the word "minor" be changed to "tertiary". - Zarbon (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

in discussions about fiction on and off Wikipedia major and minor are the usual terms. I would be very reluctant to substitute primary/second/tertiary, because, first, I have never seen the terms used in this context anywhere, and, second, it will further confuse the already confusing discussions with respect to primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. As possible synonyms for major I can think of: central, and principal. At the next level down, there is subsidiary. Some character lists use the distinction of multi-=episode and single-episode. In any case this should be a more centralized discussion, as it's relevant not just to this article. DGG (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm glad you realize that this is substantially an important topic...for any page on wikipedia for that matter...dealing with character importance level. I'd say that any word is better to substitute in place of "minor"...that word is just plain wrong considering it holds no basis but its own merit...it's too opinionated a word. Many of the characters in that section are the only reason I particularly like/love this show specifically and it is degrading to all the characters to call them minor, much worse than anything else. I proposed the word tertiary, but if you have a better suggestion, I'm sure everyone would be willing to hear that in its place. All suggestions are open...regardless, after my deliberation and process of thought, I'd say that tertiary would be my first choice until I hear a better suggestion. I prefer the word "supporting" also in place of "minor". - Zarbon (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Trunks vs. Goten

OK, one of you people who's been behind all this merging business, please explain the reasoning for Goten being merged and (present) Trunks not. Aside from Trunks's very minor role as a baby during the Cell saga, he and Goten have the same amount of screen time and share almost all of it. If one of them gets merged, both should be. If one is left, both should be.Thanos6 (talk) 04:27, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Trunks is a much more important character than Goten; he has a future appearance at the beginning of the Cell saga in Z, and is a baby along with Goten, but he also plays an important role in GT, whereas Goten is only in Z, then disappears altogether. GlassCobra 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
First off, Future Trunks and Trunks are two separate people. Second, yes Trunks has a more prominent role in GT, but Goten by no means disappears. Thanos6 (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, fair enough. Looks like I needed to update myself on GT lore. :P Not 100% sure here; I personally would probably have favored a merge of the two Trunks articles (if only because having two articles for the same person is a bit confusing), then keeping Trunks and Goten as standalones. GlassCobra 08:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeh, I think Goten is probably just worthy of a page. Though articles like Pan, and notably Baby were probably merged correctly.JJJ999 (talk) 08:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Good. We keep both Trunks and Goten. Also, the two versions of Trunks should stay separate. Thanos6 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm indifferent to whether Trunks is 1 page or 2, either can work. But Goten is worthy of a page, and trunks certainly is. Perhaps a section at the bottom of both their pages for each covering Gotenks.JJJ999 (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, should I go ahead and push Goten back? I'll wait a day or so for any opposition. Thanos6 (talk) 17:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I am not sure about this. I think that Goten does deserve a separated article, but the changes have been done. That's why I requested for comments, to see if these mergers have been performed according to actual consensus. This includes time: the discussion was closed after only 3 days, but this new section is a clear fact that the issue is still going on (same as Cell and Tien). I think that I support the decision that consensus reaches. For the record, and to avoid getting any version of Trunks merged into this awful list, I strongly suggest again the merge of both Trunkses into one article. --LøЯd ۞pεth 19:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
  • *drums fingers* So, when are we going to finish this discussion and recreate the Goten page? Thanos6 (talk) 02:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Now seems a good time, but perhaps others want to join the consensus?JJJ999 (talk) 07:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
    • They've had five-odd days, that's as many as VFD's get. They've had their chance. Reverting now. Thanos6 (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree, they seem to have left in order to avoid defeat... unfortunately wikipedia does not work that way.JJJ999 (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Neither have notability, I don't think, so we should merge both. And to preempt JJJ's inevitable "google hits" argument, "notability" is NOT random google hits that only mention the character's name in passing. It must state some verifiable information about creation, conception, or reception regarding the character. Suigetsu 00:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Regarding the remarks that people "left to avoid defeat" no, they left cause they got sick of the arguments and I personally got sick of all the personal attacks. The Goten issue is, of course, now moot as it was AfDed and closed as a merge. So let's refocus on the issue of Trunks and Future Trunks. I've started a subsection below since this area has gotten totally derailed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Puar's gender?

The list refers to Puar as male... but I could've sword thant Puar was referred to with female pronouns in the show (English at least; don't know about the Japanese version). So... which is it really? --BPM (talk) 08:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Puar is female. In Dragon Ball, when Oolong and Puar turn into pigs to stop Pilaf's wish for world domination, Oolong has a penis but Puar does not. Plus, as you said yourself, Puar was referred to with female pronouns in English. But technically, Puar should be referred to as it, the same for Cell and Majin Boo, because they don't have genders. In the manga, Cell is referred to as an it. Piccolo The Demon King (talk) 16:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Nappa "dominated" by Goku

I found this on the Nappa article. "Vegeta ordered Nappa to stop fighting due to Goku's clear dominance over him."

This is untrue. At first, Goku did dominate Nappa in their battle, but after Nappa powered up to full power, he had an even fight with Goku. Goku couldn't land a single hit on Nappa. Goku even said "This could take forever," and barely deflected Nappa's mouth blast. Therefore, it should be changed to something like "Vegeta ordered Nappa to stop fighting after realizing that Goku had been hiding a reserve of his true power." (i.e. Kaio-Ken) or "Vegeta ordered Nappa to stop fighting because he knew Nappa couldn't beat him." Piccolo The Demon King (talk) 16:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you could reword it to say that "Vegeta ordered Nappa to withdraw from the fight after it becomes clear that Goku is leagues more powerful than Nappa..." Suigetsu 00:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Tien, Goten and Cell have been nominated for Deletion

I notice the usual suspect (Lord Sess, AnmaFinotera, etc) have not notified this discussion. Typical.JJJ999 (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're basically just reserving the right to bitch about that and use it as a means to invalidate the "unmerge" discussion that you're bound to lose? Fascinating. Suigetsu 00:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unmerge Cell

This was already decided in the most recent AfD, and the decision was not ambiguous. This discussion is closed as disruptive and a waste of time. You may bring up the issue at deletion review if you wish. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
  • This discussion will inevitably be raised again here, now seems as good a time as any to begin.JJJ999 (talk) 05:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • Its only going to be raised again by you and at this point I would strongly advise you to seriously consider whether this one man crusade of yours has gone too far. Your DRV was closed for two reasons. Firdstly nothing had been deleted and secondly because we do not allow DRV to be used to as a platform to attack other users. You appear incapable of interacting with other users without calling them names and impugning their motives. This behaviour creates a poisonous atmosphere that damages the colleagiate working environmate that this project requires. Because you seem determined to ignore the warnings let me make them clear for you. If you continue to attack other editors in this way I will block you until you stop. Instead discuss the merits of particular positions and accept it if the balance of the argument is against you. The AFD close was a recommendation but the recommendation was accepted. That means that consensus was to merge the article. You sought to change consensus but lost. That's wiki. Please think long and hard about your further behaviour because, to be honest, your actions bring you very close to the edge of tolerable behaviour here. Spartaz Humbug! 06:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
      • One might have said the same thing after the original AfD to remove Cell. However people obviously began a process of revising that decision, leading to long discussions on the talk page, merge attempts and the 2nd AfD. You are effectively suggesting this process cannot happen again, which is incorrect. If you wish to propose the lines upon which discussion should take place, go for it. The threats are out of place and don't merit a reply. I will add that I have asked DGG if it is really appropriate to prevent further discussion on a talk page. It is only disruptive if other users here make it soJJJ999 (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Discussion is fine. Disruption is not. You don't indicate you heeded any part of my warning or took any of the concerns by raised by multiple users to heart. Spartaz Humbug! 07:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
        • Give it a rest, JJJ999. You can't just keep up the discussion forever without causing a lot of disruption. I suggest waiting several months, and then trying the discussion again. Hounding people over and over and over and over is only going to get people annoyed with you and cause them to be unwilling to work with you. As Wikipedia is collaborative, it's imperative for people to be able to work together. Therefore, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to let this issue rest for a while (several months at least) before you begin carrying the torch again. As others have indicated, further pressing of this issue may result in unwanted consequences for you. Disagreement and debate is fine; relentless harassment because you want your own way is not. Now, please pay attention to the discussion closure notices. You will not get another chance. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

For all the reasons advocated in his 2 AfDs, and the discussion above, I feel Cell should be unmerged and encourage people to continue the discussion here. This is exactly in line with what the closing Admin said on the appeal to the Cell closure, so I am doing no more than what they asked, to re-open discussion here. If anyone is going to be reported for being disruptive, it's you Collecto, so don't bother with the idle threats again.

Get real. The previous consensus was for unmerging, and that was a week ago at most, so me revisiting this is not silly, it is in fact exactly what the closing admin, and admins like DGG, recommended. Let's cut the "disruptive" act now thanks.JJJ999 (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Quasi, it is true that the consensus of the 4 day (2nd) AfD was to merge, but to claim that the consensus of the earlier merge discussion here was to merge is simply false. I would ask you retract that. 2 independent admins told you it wasn't, and unless I'm mistaken you actually agreed with them vis Tien, and said there was doubt vis Cell (and that was before others like DGG, Glasscobra, Lord O, etc, came on and opposed the merge, so how the addition of other parties would make something, you were already doubtful was done with consensus, "clear" is a mystery.JJJ999 (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
And none of the opposition (opponents?) could provide anything bordering notability. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, we do not run these things simply by counting the number of votes. Suigetsu 00:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
If you believe Admins like DGG and GlassCobra don't understand notability guidelines, I invite you to tell them as much. Oddly enough, the admins who told you off last time factored this stuff in.JJJ999 (talk) 00:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
They haven't "told me off" at all, but if you're going to inform them something, please tell them the truth and not some concoction. "Understanding notability guidelines" was far from what I said. I simply stated that none of them could provide notability, which they didn't. It does not matter if they are admins, as Admins are still not allowed to negate guidelines and policies on a whim. Suigetsu 00:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
JJJ, you ought to consider being more respectful towards the various editors and admins that have been involved in the shitstorm you've brewed. We've been extremely patient with your failure to accept your loss of the Cell and Tien articles, not once seeking arbitration despite obvious violation of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Just something to keep in mind. Suigetsu 00:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's right pot, I'm a black kettle. Seriously, you have been the most rude and poorly behaved poster I've seen in some time. The idea of you lecturing someone on etiquette is the sign of a true anti-genius. Why don't you work on your own behaviour before you waste my time commenting on mine. I'm not going to bother wasting time responding to your posts until I feel they require admin action. If you're going to go around claiming that there was never any logical opposition or that there was originally consensus, then by default you're the one who has questioned the credibility of the 2 admins who told you quite clearly that there hadn't been consensus, the closures were wrong, and that there were good arguments for keeping. I recommend you tell them if that's how you feel. I'd be delighted to do it for you if you like.JJJ999 (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose umerge until notability guidelines are met. ~ Itzjustdrama? 00:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unmerge JJJ999, are you saying that the consensus reached by the AfD is invalid? The AfD allows a wider community to voice their opinions and discuss, and it was a consensus for merge. I would advise you to accept the outcome, and stop continually bringing up this discussion, unless you have solid proof of notability of this article. There are other articles that have been merged with a much stronger and logical opposition than this article, e.g. Settings and themes of Code Geass, which also had it's own discussion regarding unmerge. As an editor, you really need to accept the opinions of your fellow editors. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:06, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I feel the 4 day closure was unfortunate, not invalid. I also feel alot of people support an unmerge, evidenced by the consensus to unmerge only 9 days ago. As such, I am doing what was recommended by the closing admin of the AfD appeal, that the discussion on merging could be reopened anytime on the talk page and continued here. I am continuing the earlier discussion, since I feel if the consensus can change in 9 days, it can change again with more time. If you oppose, then fine, but the people who are wasting time are the ones who bizarrely question whether a discussion can happen at all, or suggest that somehow there has been no argument or basis for unmerge (despite the earlier consensus, which whether AnmaFinotera likes it or not was explicitly upheld by 2 admins, and openly supported by both who voted keep)JJJ999 (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
A "consensus" of three is no clear consensus either. Funny how only "consensus" that agrees with you are valid in your eyes. You are not continuing an earlier discussion, this is a new discussion. And please stop speaking for other people and making false claims about the two admins who are involved here. They said there was not a clear consensus for the Cell merge, so the discussion was restarted at AfD. That's all. That does not mean the unmerge has been "upheld" or that somehow the consensus of three is more valid than the new AfD which had numerous responses. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Wrong againThere was no consensus either way when you improperly closed the merge (at 3-3), and you were told as much. After when a number of other editors came forward and supported Cell's notability and opposed the merge, there was consensus (and it was not 3-3 any longer). The editors included 2 admins who told you that you had been wrong to close, both of whom voted to keep Cell after examining the sources (DGG on the AfD and on the appeal to overturn the AfD, and GlassCobra on this talk page, as is evidenced above), the consensus was then 8-3 against a merge. Now that doesn't mean this will end up being the consensus now, but to suggest that the facts were other than I said is absurd.JJJ999 (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
There is really no need to keep bringing up the 3vs3 merge discussion. I too agree this was closed prematurely; however the article was brought up at an AfD for further discussion. From reading all of the discussions, etc, there is currently a consensus to merge. Once again, once solid notability is shown (as in a proper, verified reference by more than one person), I will support the unmerge. So while this discussion continues, why not browse through a library/book store and find some notability? Google searches aren't really enough for notability. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
part of the process of getting sources often comes about in a discussion like this, which is why I'm throwing the discussion out here so gradually discussion happens, consensus will be built and more sources will be found.JJJ999 (talk) 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
This I definitely agree with. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have replicated the key text below since AnmaFinotera is misrepresenting it

    • GlassCobra: "Gentlemen, the article is a redirect; how exactly do you propose more information be added? I find disturbing your willingness to disregard a character that retrieves over four million hits on Google; surely there is ample information and sourcing to be found. Though one could make a strong argument at this point as to the motives of continuing to clamor for a merge, especially given the fact that it seems likely that none of you would be willing to search for adequate sourcing, I will assume that you were merely unaware of the vast importance of this character"
    • DGG: "Keep i would have chosen to keep this one as sufficiently important, sufficiently distinctive, and sufficiently documented. DGG (talk) 15:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)"

JJJ999 (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

That is not the issue here. Google hits are not notability, even if an admin says it is. Additionally, please read what is told to you for once. Consensus is not determined by number of votes alone. It is determined through the validity of the votes, a quality none of your votes thus far have held. Suigetsu 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • If you believe that none of the votes to keep it as a standalone have any validity, then you must by default think that Admins like DGG and Glasscobra, among other editors here who supported a standalone, are ignorant of the rules, and credulous fools. As I said before, I invite you to tell them this. Sources aside from google hits were looked at btw, and I mentioned a number of independent books on the webpage. Some people found these persuasive. Others simply feel that, much like Sherlock Holmes or Batman, they may not know where to find the sources in a hurry, but that there is no doubt they exist. Whatever the reason, I suggest you take up these votes with the admins and stop accusing me of bad faith, and ignoring evidence.JJJ999 (talk) 01:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Please stop twisting my words. Disagreeing with admins does not mean I think them to be fools. I bear monumental respect for AnmaFinotera and Sephiroth BCR, and even The Rogue Penguin, and I've had my share of arguments with them. Please stop resorting to personal attacks and equivalents thereof to make a point; if you're going to argue, don't paint me as saying that admins are fools instead of arguing on the facts alone. This is my last warning for you, if you continue this blatant bullshit I will seek arbitration, and I'm much more cynical than the others that have threatened you with this, so don't label this an "empty threat" as you have with the others. Suigetsu 01:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
You just said consensus "is determined through the validity of the votes, a quality none of your votes thus far have held". I don't need to twist anything, you clearly just dismissed the validity of all the votes against a merge, which includes admins of good repute. The one who needs to watch himself is you.JJJ999 (talk) 01:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
While the arguments were a bit lacking, JJJ999 is right about there being opposition, and the opinions of those editors cannot be merely brushed under the carpet by saying they are invalid. As for the independent books, they would be much more convincing if someone with a copy of them would voice up on whether they are useful for notability or not. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I think AnmaFinotera took care of that, have to ask her though. And, per WP:ILIKEIT and its variations, in some cases, those opinions can be swept under the carpet. JJJ, I'm glad you rephrased yourself, because the validity of the votes and the position of the editors themselves. Did you even read my statement? It's getting hard to argue with you when you haven't said anything of value aside from "you're saying admins are idiots, you must be wrong," "you're ignoring my evidence, you must be wrong," etc etc. And by the way, "good repute" by its virtue does not automatically validate votes. I'm not saying I disrespect the admins, I'm saying their votes hold no weight unless they provide notability, a subject you repeatedly stray from in favor of twisting my words into some self-serving concoction you think can save the article. Suigetsu 02:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
  • You look at the sources and character and suggest they are invalid. I suggest others disagree. I recommend you address the sources and evidence which creates doubt as to notability, not just repeatedly throwing out the same stuff, while accepting anyone who makes a 1 or 2 line post agreeing with you, and ignoring anyone who made a 2 line post in any of the threads disagreeing with you. Yes, more needs to be done to find sources, I never disputed this, but that's part of this process. Some people believe for a character of this notability, sources can be foundJJJ999 (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
So far, none of the claimed sources have held up upon actual checking of the physical source, while its been well established that game guides for video games in a series can not be used to establish notability (but are reliable sources for adding content). None of the Google Book results claimed to be significant sources even showed the results, and as its pretty clear JJJ999 does not actually own any of these books, it seems to me that claiming the book says or does anything is invalid and a false claim of notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Super A-17

Shall we add a line about this character in A-17's section? After all, some links redirect there, but there is no single mention about the character. --LoЯd ۞pεth 00:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Good idea.Tintor2 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there should be something there, particularly with the redirect there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Good idea, actually. Go for it. Suigetsu 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Trunks and Future Trunks

As a note, I did not close the Trunks merges above because of the added issue of whether they should be considered together or alone. Anyone have a link to the previous discussion where Sarujo's suggested merge of the two articles into one was originally considered? It seems to me that we must first deal with the issue of whether they are the same or separate characters before we can really discuss dealing with their articles. So let's first deal with this issue: should Future Trunks be merged to Trunks and considered an "alter ego" of the character, or should the articles be kept separate and the characters be considered separate and distinct? Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mmmhh, hard decision. Its not like other characters that have future version that appeared short. Future Trunks appeared before Trunks and developed different abilities. Both have very different stories.Tintor2 (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Proposal/compromise: This discussion (Sarujo's merge proposal) and comments by Onikage725, Funkamatic, Sarujo, Kung Fu Man, Sanji_1990, and Lord Opeth in both Trunkses' discussions show that merging both versions of Trunks into one article is a recurring idea. For this discussion, it is important to note that all forms of Buu are in the same article, and Future Gohan and Future Bulma are in the same articles of their respective Present incarnations.
I If the result of this discussion is to get both articles merged together under "Trunks (Dragon Ball)", the article shall be kept under the same condition of the other articles: revisiting in a month if article does not show significant improvement. If the result is to kept separated, then the discussions above (in the "Merge" section), shall be re-opened.
I therefore vote for Merging both Trunkses together in a same article namely "Trunks (Dragon Ball). --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
As I noted in my earlier comments, I think the issue of merging here should be kept out of the equation until its decided if they are one character or another. Whether they are considered a single character or two is the question. When that is resolved, then the discussion should be restarted as to whether to merge the article or articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you, let's forget for now the merger into this list. For the record, I think that it is the same character, thus both article must be merged into one. I think we ought to think of this in terms of an element of fiction rather than "persons" or "timelines"; that's in-universe style. The features and attributes of the characters are almost equal. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree there. I could swear there is another discussion about the possible merging somewhere...one that I participated in, but I can't seem to find it. Hmmm...I'm inclined to view these as the same character and to support their being two articles being merged into one. As far as I can tell, they have the same basic characteristics and a few differences. In some ways, its like the Cardcaptor Sakura guardian characters (Yue, Ruby Moon, Kero, and Spinel Sun), which except for Yue are all currently considered one character (with Yue and his alter ego Yukito already slated for merging as part of the clean up). Or, in a similar context as Dragon Ball, Usagi from Sailor Moon is not considered a separate character from her 1000 year old future self, Neo-Queen Serenity. The latter has some personality differences and has had different life experiences, but it is still the same character at the core. As such, one should be the dominant focus of the article, presumably Trunks, with the latter having a subsection within an appropriate section of said article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we have to focus especially on one of the Trunkses. This revision shows almost equal attention to both portrayals. The idea is to give two separated plot sections for each portrayal, but get all other stuff together (origin, reception, appearance, etc.), which demonstrates that both of them are the same character. --LoЯd ۞pεth 17:04, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been more than 3 days and opposition has not come (silence equals consensus). Also, the consensus in the previous discussion, and the comments in this talk page (in both Trunkses merger proposals, as well as in this section) seem to point that the merge is the best option for now. I am for performing the merger ASAP, reverting to the version by Sarujo, and then begin with the improvement of the article. --LoЯd ۞pεth 14:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm guesing that they will speak up after the merger takes place. Oh and give me the word and I'll re-add the aformentioned images. Sarujo (talk) 04:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I commented above. Indifferent so long as they have a standalone article.JJJ999 (talk) 09:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
When the merge is performed, don't forget to update this list and the template appropriately, and to use the {{r from merge}} template on the Future Trunks article.:) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Tien Shinhan - round 2/3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was Merge to List of Dragon Ball characters. This does not exclude the possibility to re-split the article in the future, should it become possible to find a significant amount of reliable third party coverage and information, which cannot be adequately included in this list. G.A.Stalk 08:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the above merge discussion was considered not full consensus and reversed, and the AfD became a mess due to an editor making up sources. Also given time to let folks calm down and take a mental break some as the discussions got rather heated and were rather lengthy. In any case, we need to do a new discussion regarding the merging of Tien Shinhan to this list. Please note your view below and please remember WP:CIVILITY and stick to the issues, not the person commenting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge as per my original remarks above and in the AfD: He is an unnotable fictional character who has no significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. The article fails WP:N, WP:WAF, and WP:PLOT. Not a single "source" claimed in the AfD actually upheld scrutiny, with many being outright proven to be false. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose (entire process also)- you can't unilaterally decide to disregard all the previous discussion (which you participated in), and which occurred only weeks ago. I've asked for 3rd party intercesion. You refused to allow the Tien discussion to be closed before because you claimed the discussion wasn't finished, it now becomes absurd for you to claim it is finished when no further discussion has taken place. If anything, you should have to wait before reviewing the issue, as per your claim vis the cell AfDJJJ999 (talk) 23:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not inappropriate. YOU yourself had the original merge discussion invalidated after it was already closed. Just because people kept adding stuff after it was already closed does not reopen the issue. The AfD also came AFTER that discussion and it closed with "discussion on the talk page" rather than a straight merge or keep, making a new discussion not only fully appropriate but also necessary. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:38, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
You are a liar. Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear would be lying to themselves to pretend you didn't just lie flat out. The merge discussion was closed erroneously by you, then it was re-opened by 2 admins who said you had acted erroneously. It was never closed.JJJ999 (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It was not reopened by anyone. It was said the close was not a clear consensus for merge, which invalidate the close. This did not reopen the discussion, hence the AfD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
You closed that discussion as merge. I challenged the result. 2 Admins overturned it. Discussion resumed. You were unhappy with the way the discussion was going, so to circumvent it you went to AfD. the AfD called for discussions to resume on the talk page. It certainly didn't call for the old discussion to be abandoned. It's a flat out lie to suggest you closed the discussion. Indeed, you left the "merge discussion" link on Tien's page, and when I removed it you undid my revision (and then pupported to create a "new" discussion). You also asked various admins (unsuccessfully) to have the AfD discussion added on to the merge discussion on the talk page. Nice try.JJJ999 (talk) 00:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
They did not overturn it, they invalidated the close. The NEW discussion was in the AfD, which called for a new discussion. I also did not ask if the AfD could be added to the discussion, I asked if it was a merge consensus or if a new discussion was required. As no answer was given, I decided to play the safe route and do a new discussion. You are trying to selectively use only the first discussion full of canvassed keep remarks rather than actually reexamine the issue with fresh eyes. I don't see you demanding that the AfD comments also be included, but only those you think will help you win. Your actions, again, are inappropriate. And will you quite posting the same stuff in 3-4 different places. Post in the new discussion or better yet, give time for all the people you have now complained too time to answer. And also, refactoring other people's comments is inappropriate which is why I undid your edit here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
discussion was never closed, it is now resuming (if you wish to push it), therefore their consensus (which was still going 10 days ago) is still relevant. If you want consistency, you should act here in the same way you did for the Cell AfD, lay off for a month or two, then ask to resume discussions. Only 10 days after the last consensus is too soon. If you want to leave this open for a month, that works too, but somehow I doubt you really intend this in good faithJJJ999 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion was closed. For all purposes ended with the start of the AfD, which was starting a new discussion with a larger audience and getting away from the canvassed votes. And no, the Cell AfD closed specifically as a merge, ending the issue. The Tien AfD did not, requiring a NEW discussion. If people who previously commented in either place want to recommend here, they are welcome too, but you do not get the selectively go back and only pick to listen to the keeps above while disregarding the discussion in the AfD, which was a new discussion. And that is all there is to say. I asked an admin before starting this discussion and received no answer, hence I took the safer of the two routes. You think its inappropriate, fine, you've voiced your complaints in no less than FOUR different places. Give an admin time to respond, as no less than four will have read about this in one of those places within hours. And sorry, but there is no reason at all to leave this open for a month. An AfD only runs 5-7 days, so two weeks is more than enough time unless there is still active discussions with new views being added. You are the only one who has even said anything at all about closing this discussion within any specific time frame.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Reply- let's look at this logically. Pre-AfD the consensus was to keep Tien as a standalone. The AfD, which didn't factor this in, was to not delete or merge it. How would me agreeing to factor in the views I don't agree with (the AfD) and the views I do (the merge discussion) yield a different result to the keep I am suggesting? Sure, let's factor in all their views. But that still makes a resounding keep.JJJ999 (talk) 01:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The AfD does factor into things. The majority of the remarks there were merge, not keep, which does not make for a resounding keep if put together. In either case, a new discussion is underway to allow people to express their views again, which may have changed during those two discussions, particularly the AfD in which all claims of sources with significant coverage were shown to be false or incorrect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The AfD ended in decided for no merge, and the merge discussion was a clear keep. How me agreeing to add the two together, and not just the merge discussion, would change the AfD outcome is bizarre to say the least. It is untrue those sources were proven to be false. Some people doubted them, and those doubts were never resolved. there was some talk of people going out to get the sources, but they obviously never did. Logical Premise is an editor of good standing, there is no reason your word carrier more worth than his.JJJ999 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Again, no it did not. The AfD ended "no delete" not "keep." The later does not equal - no merge, it means the closing admin preferred a discussion to occur here. And yes, all of those sources were proven false. Check the A&M project page, other editors checked the sources as well - all completely false. He has received a warning from an admin for doing it as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. The series may have been the most popular of all the times but it does not mean this character received notability. No reception sources have been added and the article does not seem be better now. Like I told you, try creating a sandbox with reception of the character and later comment it. What was decided in the previous discussions? It seems everybody who want to keep the article is avoiding notability.Tintor2 (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge everything for crying out loud. --Masamage ♫ 23:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge per AnmaFinotera's thoughts. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge. I refrained from specific comment earlier, because I must admit that except for what I've read here at Wikipedia, I do not know any version of this series. But since consensus has been said to be uncertain, I took another look at it, and unless I misunderstand his role, I think that probably a merge is most suited. He;'s not a key character, and there lo is not really anything much distinctive to say except what he looks like. I doubt anyone will ever write very much worth citing. DGG (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment However, i do not accept any of the arguments of either side based on procedure. We can discuss a merge here as long as it takes to reach consensus. There are no deadlines for content discussion, and no way of getting closure. It's not usually productive, and I think sensible people after a certain amount of time will accept a compromise and have done with it and go on to something else,but there aren't any rules, except for being polite to each other. Maybe there ought to be, but that is another matter. There is certainly no rule established for how to deal with conflicting decisions at different processes--that's the real weak point. There are some things about wiki process that are inherently never going to be satisfactory, and if people don't concede to each other in impasses, things will deteriorate. DGG (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: it is important to note here that this discussion should have continued in the previous one (the one in the massive merger proposal), since the AfD did not end that discussion, and should have not ended it without clear consensus. However, I think that the best is to continue right now the discussion and do not wait for more time to pass. For this voting, I vote Merge so that these procedures are consistent. Tien was only important in the series for the 22nd tournament in the saga, in the rest he was supporting and losing importance to the point that he was only a filler (I even propose to move him from "Main" to "Secondary" in the List if the result is to merge). In the real world, notability has not been proven, and the burden of evidence fall on those trying to keep the article, not on those that propose the merger. --LoЯd ۞pεth 17:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge As a sanity check, how long has the notability of this character (and all DB characters for that matter) been discussed, and how much objective proof has been brought forward? There is one paragraph with reliable real-world-info sources at best, and that can neatly fit into the character list. – sgeureka t•c 15:33, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't know what else we're waiting for. Let's finish these discussions once and for all and merge Tien. --LoЯd ۞pεth 19:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
JJJ999 has requested that the discussion be left open for 2 weeks. If it is left open that long, he has agreed not to argue against the results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor characters

I'm fine with mentioning minor characters in other areas, however, an outright removal [1] is a bad idea. Tintor, it would be wise if we cleaned up and merged these guys somewhere so the redirect links can be taken care of. Otherwise, the links will exist for nothing. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Where would they be merged to though? I'm fine with the outright removal of very minor characters, they just clutter up the list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Akkuman appeared only to be defeated by Goku in a short time. Cui is almost the same but with Vegeta. Mutaito is a characters that died before the series start. His mention in Pikkoro, Roshi and Tsuru may be enough.Tintor2 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Depending on the live-action film, mutaitio may become more notable due to the fact he has a role in the film--FUNKAMATIC 23:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkamatic (talk • contribs)
That does not make him anymore notable at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thing is that this list is really disorganized. Due to the fact that Dragon Ball has lots of characters, we certainly cannot include them all, but this article has not a clearly defined inclusion criteria, and the sections (Main/Supporting/Minor) are rather subjective. I cannot explain myself why Super Android 17 has only a one-line mention in 17's article, and most of the characters of the Red Ribbon Army are not even mentioned at all, and we have such a section for Akkuman, Cui or Mutaito. Akkuman might have a mention in Uranai Baba's section along with the other minor fighters. And come on, the Red Ribbon Army is in no way "Minor", as it play directly or indirectly a key role in the three installments of the series. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Tien Shinhan

I haven't read the whole discussion above and: Merge him or not - but right now, there is no information available. It's just "Main article: Tien Shinhan" and if you click it, there is a redirect to the List-of-Characters-page. Could this be fixed? 85.178.114.186 (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Huh? If you click on Tien Shinhan, there is no main article link at all. His summary is right there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ummmm... it really WAS like that, for days, I swear ^^°. Whatever, now I have what I want. Thx. 85.178.75.205 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I still consider there is no information available. What was left in his section is almost nothing. No mention about any involvement of him in DBZ (his death, Kaio's training, etc.) There are larger sections of secondary and minor characters. --LoЯd ۞pεth 16:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
The merge section I did was longer, but it has since been trimmed, mostly for the good. I don't remember seeing anything about his death in the original article. If you feel it is missing important details, by all means add them to his section (preferably with the appropriate sources) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera: The trimming of the section was not for the good, because relevant information was gone. A trimming for good is when overdetailed information and redundant descriptions are removed, but Tien's section is not even a general overview, it is incomplete.
JJJ999: The idea of adding more information to the section must not be confused with restoring the article. Time was given to add reliable secondary sources and to prove the notability of the character before the merger and no one added anything. I suggest you and those interested in the topic to create a draft in an user subpage when you get those basic requirements, and then we can all discuss whether the article shall be retrieved or not. --LoЯd ۞pεth 18:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I tried to fix it up a bit, though it has been a while since I've read or watched anything to do with the series, so it may be a bit off. TTN (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how the merely 4 lines I added covering the rest of Tien's involvement since the 22nd tournament is excessive, but apart from TTN's "fix" (which cut more stuff and had Tien's plot section shorter than his physical description), there was also Sesshomaru reverting not only my edits, but everything he did not like. Sesshomaru, remember that this is not your article, this must be a collective work. --LoЯd ۞pεth 20:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm aware that this article belongs to no single individual. I always undo novel information and uncited content. So, if I reverted something if yours, it's likely that it was unsourced. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

So why exactly is my version of it being removed? The first paragraph in the current section is too focused on his first appearance, rather than acting as a general description, and the second paragraph contains useless sources. Reference 11 is completely unreliable, so reference 10, which seems like a general unreliable fan site, is completely irrelevant without something to relate Tien to JttW. TTN (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

But how are they unreliable? There has been plenty of discussions at Talk:Tien Shinhan confirming those references. I don't recall anyone disagreeing with them. Why didn't you say anything before? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a fan site, which pretty much guarantees that it is unreliable. The writer places "(I believe)" after one of the "facts", so that reduces any possible credibility. There are some long standing fan sites out there that are considered reliable, but I'm not seeing anything that establishes this one. The other one hosts manga, which probably kills any chance of editorial oversight. TTN (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If you deem the references unreliable, it wouldn't be unreasonable of us to ask you to find reliable ones to substitute. The claims in the 5 lines or so in question aren't exactly bold, I don't even see why a reference is required to start with. It's mostly common observations.--Koji† 23:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The sources are claiming specifically that this character was based upon another. Without proper sources, that is original research, which is exactly what the information from the fan site amounts to in the end. I don't know if any specific sources state exactly what AT took from JttW, so it would be sort of hard to replace them. Either way, they are not reliable, so they need to be removed. TTN (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a well known fact that Akira based the story of Dragon Ball (and Goku himself) on Journey to the West. I wouldn't think a reference is required to state that Tien also shares similarities to a character from JttW. It's not OR, it's a logical observation. OR is when you draw conclusions yourself, not pointing out common traits.--Koji† 00:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how obvious something may seem; if it not a primary fact, it needs a source. Without one, it is just as credible as any other fan assumption. TTN (talk) 00:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll get right ontop of finding a reliable source for "apples are red" then. It isn't stated as fact that he was based off the character-- it's stated as fact that he shares traits with him, which is un-arguable.--Koji† 01:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Again, you may find that it is completely obvious, but it is still original research without a source. You may want to read over WP:V if you dispute that fact. TTN (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Koji. It is preferable to find reliable sources to replace something one finds questionable than an outright removal. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about a very open resource. Beyond citing JttW as the inspiration, he doesn't really dive into his own creative process in interviews. If there is a relevant source, it will be likely be hard to find. Right now, though, there are two unreliable sources in the article. Is there any reason to believe that they are reliable, or can I remove them? TTN (talk) 01:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Koji said he was gonna go look for something. Let's see what he comes up with. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I apologize if I gave that impression, but I don't plan on a search in the near future. I think you might have taken my "apples are red" joke literally :-) @TTN: I'm not objecting to the removal of the sources, really, just the content. I don't think dbzsc is your #1 stop for factual information either, but I don't think simple comparisions of related characters should be axed because of it.--Koji† 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I still do not understand why my revision or TTN's revision need secondary sources, as it is not OR, it plot summary (a summary of a summary of a summary I would say). It would be unpractical to add a reference for every 5 words. --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why Tien Shinhan has been merged. Even if people want things to be shorter on this website Tien is a major character. Worse even yet, Cell was merged!!! As far Master Roshi and Freiza getting merged, I think it's a pretty bad idea as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.153.161.228 (talk) 02:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Turles

what about him? the movies links here (or an older version, where he was included). 91.15.165.90 (talk) 13:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC) also paragus and others linked in the entries for the dragonballz-movies. please check these dead links. 91.15.165.90 (talk) 13:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


there are also dead links in this article. for example gogeta in section pikkon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.165.90 (talk) 13:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Broly is Goku's cousin?

The last sentence of the Broly section reads as such: He is also Goku's cousin. When was that established? I must have missed that somewhere along the way.--24.26.56.214 (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

That's sounds too much like vandalism. Goku is no more related to Broly than he is to Vegeta. Sarujo (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Revisits of merging Frieza and Master Roshi

In the earlier merge discussions, Frieza and Master Roshi were kept as separate articles to allow additional time for the articles to be developed and notability possibly established. It has now been a month since those discussions closed, and neither article has shown significant improvement, increased sourcing, nor established notability since then.[2][3] As such, it seems appropriate for us to revisit the idea of merging them (as per their closure earlier). So, should Frieza and/or Master Roshi be merged into this list? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Merge both, neither has established notability at this point, and little effort has been made to even address this issue. If reliable sources exist for notability, they should have been added by this point, leading me to believe there are none. As such, I feel both should be merged. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Wait longer, I believe this will only aggravate the situation at Tien's mediation. -Malkinann (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
The mediation is over, as far as I know. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Hold on a second. The last thing we need right now is another merge discussion on top on the WP:NPA fest that JJJ999 has made at Tien's. As soon as that's done we can go ahead with the merging. Sasuke9031 (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I am hopeful that this will not be a problem. JJJ999 requested that Tien's merge discussion be left open for 2 weeks and agreed not to argue with the decision either way so long as someone who did not participate closes it. That two week mark will be tomorrow, at which time an uninvolved admin will close the discussion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge both per AnmaFinotera. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Frieza. The Popular Culture references clearly indicate that the character has impact outside the DB world, which most of the other characters' pages have failed to meet. I think that we have to use common sense in here. Merge Roshi. His article is awful: every plot involvement is covered in the introduction; it is written in a primarily in-universe style (what is that "Relevance and occupation" thing?). No further sections of deep analysis or popular culture impact have been added. --LoЯd ۞pεth
I might agree on the Frieza except look at the quality of its PC section. The first three are other anime/manga series (not that unusual), and all of them are only sourced to those series chapters/episodes themselves, making them all WP:OR as its editor interpretation, not sourced to a reliable source actually claiming "here is Frieza in X, Y, Z." After a month (or longer if we go from when the first discussion first started), nothing else has been shown or added at all, no real reception information, no creation/conception, etc. A handful of trivia style PC items do not, in my opinion, establish any real notability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both and allow a real, lengthly, good faith attempt for people to improve it. Since people here seem to have no interest in improving it, let others gradually do it. Frieza is obviously notable. Roshi has survived how many AfDs now?JJJ999 (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Remember that surviving AfDs is not really a sign that its fully notable, only that people do not believe it should be outright deleted. That does not mean it can not later be merged. And how much time do you consider a "real, lengthly, good faith attmept" when a month has passed without any attempt at all? I could see that argument if people were actually actively working on either (and I wouldn't have even brought up the topic yet), but no one has done anything with either despite knowing it was discussed for merging, that notability was a question, and as noted above, the issue would be revisited in 1-2 months if nothing was done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Roshi has certainly had edits to improve some aspects of it. This should continue. Frieza's notability is not even in question in my mind, so sources can be added.JJJ999 (talk) 22:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
What about Roshi? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Keep Frieza, Merge Roshi. That should make it clearer. Zarbon (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge them both to their list entries. This really shouldn't even require a vote. The other side needs to provide some sort of evidence as to how these are notable. They have had plenty of time to do so, and they obviously have not at this point. TTN (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
    • Not so fast. TTN, last I checked weren't you under some sort of investigation from wiki? What was the outcome of that, I ask because I seem to recall it was pertinent to this. I'll go check it out when I get time.JJJ999 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
      • Due to a whole giant storm of junk, I was unable to merge or redirect for six month. That has passed, so there is no longer anything open on it. TTN (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
No, I mean the ArbCom call against you by a number of admins to have that ban re-invoked, which was still going on in October last I checked. It suggested your seemed to exist solely to mass nominate hundreds of articles for deletion in short spaces of time, without providing any real attempt to improve content, provide discussion first, etc. With that in mind, what was the result of the October ArbCom (link please) and should your views here carry weight if that didn't absolve you?JJJ999 (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Was rejected. Has zero weight on this discussion. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge both – no notability asserted for either article. In absence of adequate sourcing to assert notability, merging is the next option. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Merge both – Roshi is a clear case. Frieza seems on first sight to have sufficient references. However if we look at how many of them are actually reliable third-party sources, lines thin out drastically. If we further count out those sources only used to reference in-universe information (IE. power level) or information that can just as well be referenced to first-party sources (voice actor), then that leaves us with the five PC references. And as AnmaFinotera pointed out above, at least some of them are original research. (IE. Someone might disagree with that the "miniature-sized badge" looks like his head.) Though I deem it possible to establish notability for Frieza, the current revision does not do so. And as for the request to give the article more time: That would be a reasonable request, if the article had improved on notability even by one bit. Yet, it has not. -- Goodraise (talk) 11:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Frieza, Merge Roshi: Frieza's article is badly in need of improvement, but it does provide references to the characters legacy in pop culture. Some people might say 'it's not enough', but I'd say its enough of a start to maintain an article that can hopefully go through significant improvement. Roshi, on the other hand, provides no notability whatsoever. I wouldn't be opposed to the article being recreated if/when that situation changed, however.kuwabaratheman (talk) 09:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep both--FUNKAMATIC 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Keep Both Frieza and Roshi These are notable characters of course, how many more notable characters are you going to delete from wikipedia? Frieza was the original main villain of the dbz series and Roshi trained Goku. They both seem rather important to me. Zachorious (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Both I agree with Zachorious, I can see Roshi being thrown in, but Frieza? And you are suppose to be Dragon Ball fans, yet the mot important villian in the entire series is going to be condensed down, that makes for a great encylopedia. Killa Koz (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't mean they need Wikipedia articles. If there are no secondary sources there's no point in keeping them. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the consensus here is to merge Roshi, but keep Frieza. This poll has been kept open rather long, shouldn't a decision be made... Zarbon (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sources will be found. They should both be kept unless there is a clear consensus to the contrary.JJJ999 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The same was said about Tien and other characters, but it was never found a source.Tintor2 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Frieza As far as I'm concerned, the "In popular culture" part of the article keeps expanding, showing that Frieza is indeed a bit too important to be part of the "List of Dragonball Characters" article. TGOMT (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This merge has been revisited so many times since October. A clear decision should be made based on the tally here. After counting it, the consensus is still Keep for Frieza and Merge for Roshi. Maybe the merge tag needs to be removed for Frieza and Roshi merged? Zarbon (talk) 17:57, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with User:Zarbon. Consensus shows that Frieza should be kept but Roshi is to be merged. Also, Roshi's article has still several issues and has not shown any improvement at all. --LoЯd ۞pεth 01:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I see no evidence the merge side will not just renominate Frieza later. Nor is merge a vote. It needs to have a clear consensus. No such consensus exists. Many believe other sources (difficult to find in Japanese) are quite findable. Frieza is a clear keep. roshi is no consensus, which means keep.JJJ999 (talk) 05:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Au contraire, my friend. Roshi has strong support for merge, most of which is rooted in notability. Frieza has a bit of keep, and a bit of merge, which to me means no consensus. If there is no objection, I think I'd like to sandbox what a merge of Roshi would look like, as it would be the first merge I have done, but I feel that the discussion has gone on long enough, and is in favor of a Roshi merge. As for Frieza, I view it as no consensus and will default to keep, continuing further discussion. Sasuke9031 (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I have performed the Roshi merger based on consensus. However, I think that a more important fact to support the merger was that the article remained with any improvement at all.--LoЯd ۞pεth 04:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

CELL

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell (Dragon Ball) (2nd nomination), the consensus was that he would be merged. If you really want it restored, however, you'll need to ask for the community's approval. Might I suggest sparking a discussion over at WT:WPDB? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:01, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Also providing reliable sources regarding creation/concept and reception that are independent of the subject would be very useful. Sourcing issues was the main reason for the merge. Without that I can't see the request getting any support. --76.71.211.47 (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Add the following

Can we please add the following secondary characters:

  • Dr. Raichi
  • Hatchyak
  • Soba

--Victory93 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that I think even the smallest roles still should be noted. Just think that if you were a new fan to a series and you wanted to know more about them or the characters. This is the best site to learn about most any anime! I didn't know aboutt Vegeta's brother and this is where I found out about it! People want to know so give them everything! Also, the thing about Broly (I think that is how it is spelled ;) ) The only thing that I know of him is that he is born on the same day as Goku. Something about Sayians born on the same day have a hate for each other.... I didn't know if that was true or not. Does someone know if that is a true fact? Let me know please. 76.213.115.206 (talk) 06:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)chibibluesayian-jin

So can we have these characters added? --Victory93 (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a terrible idea! They're WAY, WAY, WAY too minor. If you decide to bunch these together in a single section (with references of course), that's fine, but not individually. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:41, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor has nothing to do with it. The fact that they're Dragon Ball characters is why they should be added. Plus you're missing Turles and Slug who I recal appearing more than once so that doesn't make them minor. --Victory93 (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

No, you're wrong. Read Wikipedia:Notability. Just because a character makes a little more than a cameo does not signify inclusion to Wikipedia. And FYI, Turles and Lord Slug only had one-time appearances. They don't need mentioned individually but, like I said above, if you decide to create a single section for these guys (with plenty of sources) I won't stop you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

No, Turles and Slug did appear twice. FYI, they both returned in the DBZ special Plan to Destroy the Saiyans. --Victory93 (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Appearing twice doesn't make them notable either. Just because they returned in the DBZ special doesn't suddenly make them super notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Victory93 on everything. Leaving out info all because it may be considered minor is just silly. Also, Turles and Lord Slug are no different from any other DBZ movie villain. GeminiEntity (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Well since you wont for the time add so-called minor unless they've been grouped, I did so with Baby and Dr. Raichi to create Truffles. Hopefully this whole argument over how minor will stop. --Victory93 (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Also another note, Tapion who is seen as again a minor character but he plays a significant role as he was the one who gave Trunks the sword. --Victory93 (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Giving Trunks the sword doesn't make him a notable enough character to include in the list. At best, a mention in Trunks section stating he was given a sword by Tapion. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Adding citations

Okay, I'm going to be working on finding some citations. In the meantime, I am going to add back in the content originally added by Yami Takashi along with the necessary {{fact}} tags. This is to make it simpler to deduce what, exactly, needs to be sourced; it'll be easier for me to see what I need to find. Useight (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cited the voice actors, and i have a source to cite his power level sensing ability, and the other's lack there of. and i notice on the sandbox that a cite for the bomb/self destruct device being removed has been found. Yami (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Super Saiyan 2

Goten or Trunks can't go Super Saiyan 2 what about the GT Perfect Files? User:KoziKaz 12 November 2008


Also, Turles from the Dragon ball Z movie; the tree of might, wasn't mentioned in the list of dragon ball characters 3-20-2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.24.154.93 (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Andorid 16's bomb and power level sensing ability

Since multiple users have reverted the alterations of myself and Useight, and the User Sesshomaru redirected discussion to AnmaFinotera's Talk page, who then removed the whole discussion from his talk page both resulting in counter productivity, I shall bring it here.

Here is a link to the proposed alteration to Android #16's information Useight/Sandbox

Citations have been found for the mention and addition of Android #16's bomb being removed, and his ability to sense Ki, Fighting Spirits or Power Levels depending on your terminology.

Note that This site Giant Bomb Android 16 does require user registration to edit content, not unlike Internet Movie Database and Animenewnetwork. All of which have been used widely and are considered reliable even with the ability to edit their content. A vast majority of Articles use both of the latter mentioned sites.

Please also note that much of the article is not properly cited, yet allowed to be as is. Apparently multiple users would rather follow the rules and guidelines to a T when it comes to not adding/disallowing the addition un-cited content or content cited with questionable reliability, but not to removing un-cited content that already exist.

This act of discriminatory editing has contributed to counter productivity, and resulted in multiple disputes and situations that boarder on WP:OWN and WP:CIV violations.

The User Useight has added Fact tags to the content before, but was removed by the user AnmaFinotera Here despite there being a window of time allowed to find citations for fact tagged items, and the wording not set in stone.

Thought the content added to Androids #17 and #18 can be dismissed the content added to Android #16 is vital to the character, as they contribute to key elements of the character and story arcs he appears in.

Fact tags give editors time to cite their editorials, and should not be subject to immediate removal. Also the concept of excessive plot details and excessive addition of known unsourcable items is viewed on a person by person basis.

I recommend that the information pertaining to Android 16 be added in order to improve the quality of the article. Yami (talk) 20:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Per the discussion, it was agreed you'd work on it in the Sandbox, which you now seem to be ignoring and instead are claiming people are being uncivil and continuing to argue the issue. I also recommended that if you felt that the information was valid and wanted more views, then a request should be made for additional project input (which you ignored, but I will now do). Thus far not a single reliable source has been found for any of what you want to add, and the burden is on YOU to do that as the person wanting to add per guidelines. Fact tags do not automatically mean the content can't be removed, particularly when its clear this is not anything coming from the series, but personal opinions. Fact tags mean its plausible, but needs a source or it can be removed at any time. What you continue trying to add, being unsourcable to the series, is WP:OR and that doesn't belong here. Wikipedia is not the place for the airing of fan views, it is for reliably sourced content. www.giantbomb.com is a fansite, no matter what wrappings you put on it. Being required to register to edit means nothing. It does NOT meet WP:RS. Also, to correct your mispeaking, IMDB is also NOT considered a reliable source. Just because people stick it in articles doesn't mean its allowed. ANN is allowed as a reliable source with strong limits, as spelled out in the project.
Excessive plot details may be viewed on a person by person basis, but those far you are the only person claiming those are vital details that are notable for the OVERALL plot, not just for fans of the series who might care about minute details. Sesshomaru and I both have noted they are minor details based on our experiences in working with such articles and looking at actual high quality lists (i.e. FL level lists). We have pointed you to multiple guidelines related to this issue, but you continue saying we're "owning" and being uncivil because we have told you this and said the content didn't belong, neither of which is true at all. Being uncivil would be calling you an idiot or something, not informing you of existing guidelines and noting that we are speaking from experience. There is no "discriminatory editing" here, its called good editing based on knowledge, Wikipedia and project guidelines, and our experiences as active members in the anime/manga realm. You are the one making this an issue of editors instead of content, attacking the editors when you can't back up the content's validity. Again, for the record, I continue to oppose the proposed edit as being excessive minor detail that is not necessary to a general overall understanding of the series nor characters and being unsourced original research. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:38, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I have been working in the sandbox if you'd take a look, and it is not WP:OR and sources have been found. If wikipedia allowed youtube you could actually see for yourself.
I talking about you mentioning me being a fan and not being neutral so you are in fact the first to take the editor into this and not the content. Also you had a aggressive and rude mannerism on your tlak page, both the accusation against me and my fandom, not keeping good faith and your aggressive rudeness counts as WP:CIV
Removing the whole discussion on your talk page and calling it silliness is also counterproductive. Calling it a snarky remark is uncivl.
I didn't ignore any thing relating to asking for input from a project. Useight said it'd seem like forum shopping and i never said anything about it. So you are mistaken there.
Original research would be going to the penis article and saying that full moons effect erections, not stating facts about characters. Much of the content I placed have been used for the characters in various forms in various articles individual, merged or listed character articles. Good editing would be removing everything not cited by your terms.
It is not an excessive plot detail to mention how #16 gets to be a head that is crushed by cells foot, saying it was cell's foot might be but not giving the reader an explanation.
During 16's repairs he had his bomb (which was nuclear in grade if you watched the show on CN) 16 snuck up on cell, who couldn't sense 16 who was a machine, and grabbed cell with a vice like lock. He tries to blow up but can't, and then it's revealed that Bulma and her father removed the device. Cell uses a blast to destroy most of 16, who is reduced to a head. Latter he convinces Mr. Satan to throw him to gohan, he gives gohan a speech, and is then crushed by cells foot. Gohan looses it and turns Super Saiyan 2.
Adding much of that is excessive, but not mentioning his act of trying to blow up, failing and being mostly destroyed, reduced to a head then later fully destroyed.
Also 16 was the one who lead the androids to Master Roshi's island where 17 and Piccolo who had just recently fused with Kami go off to fight.
If i forgot to address something let me know.
Also that fansite as you call it counts as self publish i believe, which CAN be used with in limited circumstances as described in WP:RS
The show is decades old, sites have come and gone about it. Even the official site lends little help in sourcing, and it is impossible for characters to state things and there always be a reliable source that records the statement. "Keep in mind that if the information is worth reporting, an independent source is likely to have done so." that's also from WP:RS
Yami (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Why are you wasting time trying to find sources on the internet? Sourcing the manga or anime would be much simpler and far more acceptable. And if anyone's interested in a second opinion, the only relevant edits shown here are to 16's section (excluding the "bares a remarking resemblance" part). The other additions are trivial at best.
And while I'm at it, why do none of the six images in this article illustrate a main character? Only one of them even manages to depict a secondary character. ~SnapperTo 21:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
I already said multiple time the 17 and 18 bit can be dropped as well as the look like part on 16. Also how can I source the manga and anime? It would still have to say somethign about 16's ability, bulma removing the bomb, and the head thing. Wouldn't i still need some internet site to reference it? The episode where 16 reveals his ability is in the late Android Saga, Early Cell saga. The bomb, and head thing are in the Cell Games saga. Yami (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Uh, no, it doesn't. Internet references are NOT required (uh oh, emphasis) for anything on Wikipedia. Books, television series, etc can be referenced (and for many topics, books, newspapers, etc are preferred). For plot stuff like this, the primary work can be cited with no problems, its when you interpret or try to determine what something means that you need a separate citation for that claim. While I know you said you are not a "new" user (and took offense to the idea), I'm curious as to how you've been here so long without learning this? See Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and the MoS for more explanation there. To reference the manga you use the {{cite book}} template and reference the specific page number/numbers in the volumes (preferably English since that is, presumably, the ones you're actually reading). For episodes, its {{cite episode}}. See List of Naruto characters and List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters for two well developed lists (first is FL) using those citation methods for a better idea of how it works in practice. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Agreed there too...I think those came from some of the recent merges and really should be dropped. The whole list is definitely a big WIP in need of more strenuous cleaning, sourcing, etc but right now, it still is in the merge/no merge moments it seems. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Again, no, it does NOT count as a reliable source, nor does it meet the very limited availability of self-published at all. Adding your interpretation is original research. If you can't source it directly to the manga or anime, or to a real reliable source, it doesn't belong (again). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
What are you talking about interpretation? I've not interpreted anything. And I've been trying to cite the anime but apparently you still need the internet to prove that stuff happened.
Also please quit it with this attitude thing, seriously emphasizing NOT doesn't help any argument. Please review WP:CIV Yami (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Emphasizing NOT had nothing to do with civility. You don't seem to be getting it, so I am emphasizing the point. Please quit claiming people are being uncivil when they aren't and actually address the issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

So, do we know when, exactly, these events took place? Apparently the manga is 42 volumes long; it's going to be hard to source it from the manga without knowing which volume to check. Useight (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fin. ~SnapperTo 06:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks. Useight (talk) 07:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Season 4 Late Android Saga, Episode 138 Closing in seems to be the right episode, being that copyright laws are so strict, its hard to verify since the android saga is the 1 of the few sagas i don't own. but I'm trying to get to the most logical point where 16 reveals his ki sensing ability.
The androids take to the road to find goku. DBz might have high tech stuff but GPS really wasn't something the androids had.
If closing in is not the right episode on of the episodes before or after is it. i'll keep focusing on this part for the time. Yami (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

ok its been narrowed down. Some where between the Episode Closing In and Time Chamber 16's ability is mentioned

http://dbzepisode.org/episode-132-time-chamber/

After 18 ramshackled gokus's house, and insults chichi's fashion sense, she tells them goku isn't there.

17 ask 16 if he can track him and find his latest location. 16 says "It is difficult, but I will try. He has moved some distance from this location. My tracking mechanism has not detected his movements for the last two hours"

17 asks for more info and 16 says "Alright, Goku was last detected on a small island to the south"

Then they head out to roshi's

so i'm going serach one-by-one the ep where his ability to sense power levels is.

before anyone tries to nikpik at this, just because the term tracking mechanism is used means nothing. 16 is a android so terminology would be as basic as it comes. He does have the ability to find people and sense how strong they are with this mechanism, as he was able to do when he proclaimed cell was stronger then 17. Yami (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The episode 127 "Borrowed Powers" reveals 16's sensors being able to sense power levels (with details of where they are) 17 asks why 16 never said anything, and 16 uses the old "because you did not ask" gag. 17 and 18 seem to be able to feel the huge explosion caused by cell and piccolo fighting in ginger town, but that seems to be the limit of their ability if that is attributed to their abilities.

The episode 132 "Time Chamber" shows how the others have to use 16's ability to sense and track power levels. as mentioned in detail above. I'll get the referencing thing ready. Yami (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I gave you the chapter number (and the link to the manga list) so you wouldn't need to try and pin down when exactly the events occur. Use <ref>{{cite book|last=Toriyama|first=Akira|title=Dragon Ball Z, Volume 15|year=2004|publisher=Viz Media|chapter=Chapter 168|isbn=978-1-59116-186-8}}</ref> for the first source, and an almost identical source (changing volume and chapter number where necessary) for the others. ~SnapperTo 20:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Page numbers are also needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
They're useful, not needed. Anyway, the example ref would cover pages 14-15. The second would be 144-150, and the third is 164-165. ~SnapperTo 20:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
That's why i did the anal task of doing the episode one, because the most that is required with that is the title. Though i included the original air date, season and of course the series. its all referenced, except i can reference bulma repairing him really. the official site has a error, it actually say 16 was killed then repaired so that's made useless. 20:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Of the two, the manga is the preferred source since its the primary work. Episodes should really only be used if it is an anime only event. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Here it is, does it all look in order?

Android #16 (人造人間16号, Jinzōningen Jū Roku Gō, Artificial Human #16) is a large android developed by Dr. Gero. He is deemed a failure, and is deactivated until Android #18 reactivates and releases him.[1][2] Despite the other Androids disobeying and killing Dr. Gero, #16 still follows his orders to search for and destroy Goku. Unlike the other two, #16 processes a sophisticated mechanism to sense and track power levels in real time.[3][4] While trying to protect #17 and #18 from Cell, he is greatly damaged[5][6], though Bulma and her father Dr. Breifs repair him. After he is repaired, he ignores his old orders to kill Goku, and focuses on the fight against Cell. Like the other androids he had the ability to self destruct, but the device was removed during his repairs. This is made known only when #16 tried to self destruct and destroy Cell, which Cell retaliates by destroying most of #16.[7][8] His head and consciousness survived, but later is destroyed by Cell, which pushes Son Gohan over the edge to Super Saiyan 2.[9][10] In the anime he is voiced Hikaru Midorikawa in Japan,[11] Jeremy Inman in the Funimation dub,[12] and Scott McNeil in the Ocean Group dub. [13]


Yami (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to stick a {{reflist}} tag here, so the reflist can be found at User:Useight/Sandbox. Useight (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
See above, unless these are anime specific events, the manga is the preferred reference as it is the primary work. The episodes should only really be used for episode specific stuff. Beyond that, the extraneous fields need to be cleared out and the actual episode numbers added (missing from above). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Dub or original episode number, and what do you mean by extraneous fields? do you mean all the fields i didn't fill in? I'll see about getting the manga part set up, but i'm not sure about getting the actual page numbers. Copyright laws and the love of money is one of the things that blocks you from just obtaining this info at will. Yami (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the fields that weren't filled in (and don't need to be) should be removed. Use the original episode numbers unless its referencing something specific in the dubs. The page numbers have been posted above, I believe. Should be plenty of folks here with the manga who can provide specific page numbers, though chapters are adequate for now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:26, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


I think its all cleaned up now, kind of hard to tell with the wall of text Yami (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
ok, i added the manga references where i could figure out where they went. specific chapters for vol 16 needed, and of course the page numbers. Yami (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
do we add this into the article now, or wait for it to reach 100% completion? Yami (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ Toriyama, Akira (2004). "Chapter 157". Dragon Ball Z, Volume 14. Viz Media. ISBN 978-1-59116-180-6.
  2. ^ "Goku's Assassin". Dragon Ball Z. Season 4. Episode 134. 1992-04-08.
  3. ^ "Borrowed Powers". Dragon Ball Z. Season 5. Episode 142. 1992-06-03.
  4. ^ "Time Chamber". Dragon Ball Z. Season 5. Episode 147. 1992-07-08.
  5. ^ Toriyama, Akira (2004). "Chapter 168". Dragon Ball Z, Volume 15. Viz Media. ISBN 978-1-59116-186-8.
  6. ^ "Say Goodbye, 17". Dragon Ball Z. Season 5. Episode 152. 1992-08-12.
  7. ^ Toriyama, Akira (2004). "Chapter ?". Dragon Ball Z, Volume 18. Viz Media. ISBN 978-1-59116-637-3. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
  8. ^ "Android Explosion". Dragon Ball Z. Season 6. Episode 183. 1993-04-28.
  9. ^ Toriyama, Akira (2004). "Chapter ?". Dragon Ball Z, Volume 18. Viz Media. ISBN 978-1-59116-637-3. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help)
  10. ^ "Cell Juniors Attack!". Dragon Ball Z. Season 6. Episode 184. 1993-05-05.
  11. ^ http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=546
  12. ^ http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=1117
  13. ^ http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=746
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Dragon_Ball_characters/Archive_1&oldid=1228839059"