Talk:Baby (Dragon Ball)/Archive 1

message: Why is this topic called "Bebi (Dragon Ball GT)"? Would "Baby (Dragon Ball)" not suffice instead? After all, Bebi is just Japanese phonetics for "baby". That would be like making topics on Piccolo and Trunks, and calling them "Pikkoro" and "Torankusu".... The S 03:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article name should probably be "Baby (Dragon Ball)" because the official English name of the character is "Baby". However, I think that name was used once and so we can't rename it without an admin. If you want to add it to Wikipedia:Requested moves, I'd second it. JRP 04:12, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bebi/Baby

message: I would appreciate it if others could assist in reverting the vandalism by that anonymous user. Kibitoshin is the Japanese name for the Fusion of Kaioshin and Kibito. Kibitokai is the English dub name for that same Fusion. I don't know why the anonymous user fails to understand something so simple, despite my attempts to explain it to them. Regardless, I am sure that the rest of you can comprehend this, and also know that my inclusion of the character's name isn't an attempt to make this article about anyone besides Bebi. After all, Goku's name is included in the article, is it not? Why does this anonymous user not object to this, and claim that the article is about Bebi and not Goku?
Daishokaioshin 07:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism and Names

message: it says Bebi is the only villan not seen when the gateway to Hell was opened. It is possible that since he was an artificial life form he had no soul to be sent to the Afterlife. but cell was there and hes a artificial life form too.
:Cell is a Bio-Android, made of human, Namekian and Saiyan cells.
::Right. Cell was a living being. Bebi was some kind of organic metal, and wasn't actually born or even grown (like Cell) but was simply BUILT. Android 16 didn't appear in Heaven when he was destroyed because he was just a machine. He may have had a personality, but that doesn't seem to equate to a soul. It's complicated, and it may be best not to discuss the issue of souls, since it's a touchy subject with some people. It MAY be best to remove that part of the article entirely, unless others feel it is okay enough to remain without causing further confusion. ::Daishokaioshin 21:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Best to get rid of it. Toei included Android 19 (a machine model like 16) in Hell for no reason but a sight gag. Gero is still a cyborg, as is Dr. Myuu (though it's been so long since I've seen GT he might have been a full robot too). No one is supposed to be just strutting around in Dragon Ball's Hell anyway, it's a massive plot hole created by animation filler. Voice of Treason 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bebi wasn't supposed to be released from Hell, and nor were the other villains. They were meant to have become evil spirits, too evil to have been allowed to keep their bodies. Jienum 19:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, you can't torture somebody that doesn't have a body.--KojiDude 19:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bebi did have a body. It was the one that liquified itself to take over other people's bodies. Remember Majin Buu, who had his own body and tried to take over Vegetto's? Jienum 15:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What? I said that in answer to the "why dead evil people get their bodies" question.--KojiDude 02:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  bebi soul 

message: Planet Vegeta, Planet Plant, and Planet Tuffle are all the same planet. Planet Vegeta is the new name the Saiyans gave to Planet Plant when they took it over, Planet Tuffle is Bebi's new name for it. So, technically, it is Planet Vegeta. (Just wanted to clear that up)--KojiDude 16:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Planet 

message: Who the hell did that to the article? What's the point? It was fine the way it was. Now it's just too stretched out and long to read. And the pics are too small. I leave for 9 days and I come back to see this? What the hell, guys?--KojiDude 16:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please give more constructive comments, like what needs to be modified, added, removed, etc. Be specific, remember that not everyone editing here knows how a good article should look like. -- ReyBrujo 16:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the extra titles are really pointless for one thing. The pics should be a little bigger, and one of them should be removed so we don't break the fair use policy. The information definitly needs to be trimmed down a bit. Any un-official names should be removed, too.--KojiDude 17:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the titles, the picture of Baby and Majuub and the Power part can go, but that's just about the shortest way to describe Baby's biography (at least, that's what I think). Jienum 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long... 

message: Listen, I told you why it isn't canon. You have yet to provide any proof or facts. What do you have to show that GT is canon, besides your opinion, that overules the facts I gave you? Nothing. In my opinon, everything after the point where Freeza uses his Death Ball on Namek (Androids Saga, Cell Saga, Buu Saga, everything) is non-canon, but I'm not going around changing articles to make it say that, am I? No, because it's my opinion, just like GT being canon is your  opinion. Stop vandalizing.--KojiDude 21:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, stop. The reasons for GT being non-canon aren't opinions, TJ, they're facts. See fact and opinion. Nobody wants to argue with you, and nobody wants to see you end up blocked. You're a good contributor, but you're pushing your own opinion into an article, which is bad faith.--KojiDude 22:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Because if I made a section like that, he woudl vandalize it to say that it's debatable (which it isn't). I'm following WP:IAR and trying to keep the false information out of the article, and at the same time I'm trying to protect the person I'm edit warring with from being blocked. I'm trying my best to end this but he won't listen to the facts and only thinks of himself. I'm starting to wonder if I'll be able to go to sleep tonight without him vandalizing behind my back...--KojiDude 05:07, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know anything about DBZ personally.  I used to watch it, but I stopped, so I can't really come to the aid.  Perhaps you should cite the source(s) you have?  If he cannot cite one yet he continues to edit in the manner which he currently is, then it's not your issue if he gets blocked or not. --Concordia 05:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I consider him a friend, so it is my issue if he gets blocked, because I would feel guilty.--KojiDude 05:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you guys should get on gtalk, AIM, MSN, Yahoo! or whatever messenger you both use and sort this out.  There's no point in constantly reverting, neither of you seems willing to stop, you both have approximately 40 reverts each, it's getting a tad out of hand. --Concordia 05:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 100%Agreed -- bulletproof 3:16 05:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done everything I can to get him to stop, but he won't. I doubt chating with him would help at all. Besides, the only one of those I have is MSN and I'm (patcheticly) more or less clueless as to how to sign on...--KojiDude 05:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Open Windows Messenger or MSN Messenger (whichever you have), type in your e-mail address/MSN passport, put in the associated password, and press sign in.  If you need help with it still, leave a message on my talk page.  I'd be more than willing to help you. --Concordia 05:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Over 50 reversions from each of you. Damn, you guys are really going at it... -- bulletproof 3:16 05:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason I put that it's debatable is because no official source has stated whether it's canon or not, so it's something that fans of the show continue to debate. I am not putting in the article that he's canon, just that it's debatble. I have editors who agree with me and Koji has one(maybe more) that agree with him. Most websites consider GT canon but no official source has said if it is or not. For now I won't revert, but I did put up citation tags on the parts of it being non-canon so you have a opportunity to proove it. I suggest seeing what the people at Wikiproject: Anime and Manga think so we can reach a consensus. TJ Spyke 05:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good man.  I know this really wasn't my place to intervene, but even with how fast recent changes updates, I could see you guys constantly reverting and I was getting concerned.  --Concordia 05:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wiktionary:canon. Read the second definition. Canon is what is created by the original author, that is more than enough proof. (Try not to ignore what I say this time, please)--KojiDude 05:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says "particularly created by the author", that means things not created by the author can also be canon. Being created by the author will severely help something, but not being created by the author doesn't automatically make something non-canon. TJ Spyke 05:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way Dragon Ball's canon follows the rules of canon gets rid of the word "particularly" (which is why Filler is considered non-canon, and why the movies are considered non-canon, and why GT is considered non-canon).--KojiDude 05:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are the first person I have met who considers the filler non-canon. There is a difference between "canon" and "fanon/personal canon". TJ Spyke 05:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm not, because everyone who contributed to List of Dragon Ball special abilities labels filler non-canon within that article.--KojiDude 05:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I said you are the first I met who thinks that, I didn't say you are the only person who thinks that. TJ Spyke 06:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the only one who thinks GT is non-canon either: List_of_Dragon_Ball_special_abilities#Jibaku--KojiDude 06:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: He might have a point there. If you can't clearly show one side or the other then just don't comment on the canon status and let the reader come to their own conclusions. -- Ned Scott 08:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are too many unintentional POVs in articles on Dragon Ball. I agree with Jargon. Remove anything that may suggest something as being canon or non-canon. Provide facts, and let the reader decide instead. -- bulletproof 3:16 22:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TJ 

message: Why was this removed? Was this a spur-of-the-moment desicion, or something that was officially decided? Lordshmeckie 23:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Trivia sections are frowned upon at Wikipedia. When there are trivia sections the relevant information is supposed to be move into the correct heading and the actual trivial details are to be deleted. Jay32183 00:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Support The licenced English anime uses Baby. Jay32183 07:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell, we're just picking what we like instead of what we should use a lot of the time (which isn't a good thing to do). Nemu 13:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. We need to come up with some sort of system for naming DB articles instead of randomly selectng names as Nemu (or do you want me to call you TTN?) mentioned above. We could use the manga names, but not all characters are in the manga. We could use the English anime names, but there's more than one English dub. We can't just use the American names because the English Wikipedia is shared by all English-speaking people. Every system I can think of is flawed in some way or another. // Sasuke-kun27 16:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Huh? That doesn't make any sense at all. Viz is pretty bad with keeping original names. 'Vegerot', 'Djinn' Boo, 'Hercule'. And such an 'if' doesn't matter - there isn't a manga. 'Bebi' is a direct romanization of the kana, but that kana could just as easily come from 'baby' - indeed 'baby' is a correct romanization of ベビー, just as 'bebi' is. The difference is 'baby' is used on official merchandise (Japanese and English), and is an official romanization of the name (in at least one English dub). That information is enough to warrant the name changed based on the MOS-JA for Japanese articles and the WP:Anime Wiki Project. But that's not my main goal here. I don't want to just enforce rules. I want to figure out what the proper name is. From the information we have, 'Baby' seems like the best choice. --DesireCampbell 18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept and creation section I added for the in-universe concern would be the perfect place to discuss how the character was originally named and if it was changed for English that reasoning can be explained there too. Jay32183 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  http://img146.imageshack.us/img146/4058/cap004lv1.png It's not 'my names a pun on "baby"', but it's probably as close as we'll get. --DesireCampbell 21:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: :Add any additional comments:
So is Bebi an actual name for him or is it just the prefered fan name? If it's the later, then it should be moved no matter how popular it is. Nemu 04:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno, same thing with some other DB articles.--SUIT 04:52, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then instead of just randomly voting, we try to figure that you. Why do we vote anyways? I always see "discuss, don't vote." Nemu 13:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bebi is just the fan name. The official English with this character is the Funimation dub, in which he is called Baby. That's not just US, that dub goes to Canada and Australia as well. If the UK is different give the website of the official dub there, otherwise it's a meaningless claim.Jay32183 18:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion