Talk:Super Saiyan

message: I agree with VorangorTheDemon. But another puzzling thing is the rumors that the Original Super Saiyan was the first legendary super saiyan. The first  (original and legendary) Super Saiyan was Bardock, when he fought Chilled, Frieza's ancestor. This would mean Bardock is the Original Super Saiyan, and yet the first Legendary Super Saiyan. That means he also had a weak power level. According to Son Gohan's journal, Goku's power level was 50 times his regular power level, so it was 6,400,000. Yet Bardock (in regular form) had a power level of 10,000 and yet his power level in Super Saiyan was 30,000 short of being equivalent to Frieza's power level on Namek, so it was 500,000. That means that if Bardock is the "legendary super saiyan", then how is Broly the Legendary Super Saiyan? Norris (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:34, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  An Odd Thing about the Legendary Super Saiyan 

message: Wouldn't it be worth mentioning how easily Kid Trunks, and Kid Goten managed to achieve super saiyan?  I'm notexplicity explained in the anime other than Gohan being surprised by his younger brother transforming so easily, and Goten explaining that he thought everyone could do it.  Could this be because they are sons of saiyans who had transformed before their conception? Grimmie (talk) 12:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It could be mentioned, but the part about them being able to achieve Super Saiyan so easily because they were concieved after their fathers reached SSj is purely fan speculation. Also, we can't be sure when exactly Vegeta acheived Super Saiyan, or if he was a Super Saiyan when Trunks was concieved. Toriyama never actually explained why Goten and Trunks had it so easy when the older characters had such a difficult time. The issue with the Dragon Ball series is that the rules and/or details that Toriyama makes earlier in the series are sometimes forgotten, discarded, or changed all together. This creates canon plotholes and inconsistencies, which ultimately makes it harder for us to write these articles. The Super Saiyan concept has been revamped several times by Toriyama himself, as well as other things like Saiyan tails and such. Goten, Trunks, and Bra don't have tails while Gohan did, even though all three characters are of the same percentage of Saiyan heritage. This of course can be contributed to Toriyama's forgetfulness to actually design the characters with tails. It has nothing to do with "human genes being more dominant in those characters" as many fans have fabricated through the years.--VorangorTheDemon (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! Thanks for the reply. Grimmie (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ease of transformation for young characters

message: The structure of this article is in question. You can help reach a consensus by voting here.   UzEE  (Talk • Contribs) 11:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Structure 

message: I'm not entirely convinced that all the info regarding the Legendary Super Saiyan is accurate. I don't think it's proven that the chi increases as battle continues, and I can't find reference supporting the claim that it does. I also can't find any evidence to support the fact that the form has no chi consumption. I've attempted to edit it several times to where it doesn't make those claims, but someone keeps reverting my edits. Just stating the movies or what Daizenshuu it's in isn't enough, we need to site the exact page or exact original Japanese movie quote. Otherwise it's WP:OR --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Info about the Legendary Super Saiyan 

message: In the SSJ4 section it mentions that Toriyama drew his own version of the form and included it in a DVD set. I think it would be interesting to see this and/or have it in the article, are there any pictures available? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: scroll down to see it. There is a better one out there though.-- bulletproof 3:16 03:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the article should include it, but I don't think it should be required. O yea, and thanks BulletProof for finding more references about the Legendary SSj. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toriyama-drawn Super Saiyan 4 

message: Has that been confirmed? -Kazi22 Talk 29 January 2008
:No. There are no other "Full Power" SSj forms beyond the first form. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Super Saiyan 4 Full Power

message: Hey, I was just looking up random resaerch to look up, and come to find that SS4 is not on here! I doubt anyone has any objection to even saying that SS4, while it may not have been in the manga (I'm not sure on that, I've never actually read the manga's, but I don't know if it is in there or not), it was at least in the American anime. I would just add it myself, but I'm new to this and it would most likely be taken down due to lack of references on my part. Just my opinion. --TriCheeseSorrow (talk) 02:51, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: SSj4 was removed by a vandal several days ago, however those edits have since been reverted. None of Dragon Ball GT was manga, the manga ended at the end of Z. Also, none of the movies were manga either, which explains why there is a separate section with Toei (the animation company who made Dragon Ball) only forms. If you are going to be frequently editing the Dragon Ball articles, might I suggest that you join Wikipedia's Dragon Ball project (WP:DBZ) --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would also thank you for NOT just going ahead and editing the article. Instead bringing the matter here is a lot more easier for everyone. I'll drop you a welcome note I made for WP:DBZ. It would help you get started. Enjoy.  UzEE  12:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Your welcome, UzEE. Also, I saw the updated information. Doesn't SS4 base some of its energy off of the Sayin tail transformation (the giant ape)? I know I read that somewhere, it may have been a magazine. I assume either that idea is just in the American version, or that there just wasn't a reference for it. I will try to find the magazine in which I read it in.--TriCheeseSorrow (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Saiyan 4 

message: I have an argument
I submit that while originally Vegeta may have utilized an inefficient form of Super Saiyan, by the Majin Buu Saga, he gained complete mastery of the form (he did transform into SS2, afterall) and so should be included in the list of confirmed users of Full Power Super Saiyan. Anonymous, well-meaning fan  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.117.26.97 (talk) 00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue is that there is no definative pre-requisites for SSj2. And Vegeta has never been confirmed to be a Full Power SSj, so stating that he is would be WP:OR.--VorangorTheDemon (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Power Super Saiyan 

message: The reason why I erased the forms is because this is an article about the Super Saiyan, not a guide, therefore there is no reason to point out the different physical traits of every Super Saiyan form. We need to talk more about the evolution of the concept from OOU instead of how each form looks and is achieved in the series. There's also a reason why there's a box now at the top of the page that states that there's alot of unimportant information regarding this subject. Arguments? --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the forms don't need their own sections, but I think the least we could do is give a short description of each in the Appearence part. I don't really see what would be uncyclopedic about it.-KojiDude (Contributions) 15:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: This is an article, not a guide

message: I'm sure we're able to get this section filled up. Removing it won't help it's case. Any ideas? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could leave it removed until you have something to actually write. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to have a blank section. Get a starting sentence at least.--KojiDude (Contributions) 18:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't find much of any reception on the net, save for a few action figures. You? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:52, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose (if you had a cite) there's the wide range of parodies. I always thought of a Reception section as stating more of how fans reacted to whatever the article is about.--KojiDude (Contributions) 19:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Parodies ... you must mean Neko Majin? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. You could probably merge it with the "In other Media" section, too.--KojiDude (Contributions) 22:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception data 

message: The Daizenshuu have already revealed that the first SSJ form has 50 times the ki or power level of the base form, but now, what's been going around is that the Official Super Exciting Guide has revealed that SSJ2 has two times the strength of the SSJ form and that SSJ3 has four times the strength of the SSJ2 form. Shouldn't this info be verified, and if so, included in the article? Mekhatronic
:There's nothing that states that, it's simply an observation that it is fifty fold for Goku's first transformation. No one is sure if that increase is consistent for all Saiyans, and there's several theories that the power ratio of Saiyan to Super Saiyan decreases as time continues.-71.192.19.78 (talk) 05:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power of Super Saiyan forms 2 and 3. 

message: There is no need for a Saiyan page and a Super Saiyan page. They should be merged together. Does anyone agree? A lot of Dragon Ball pages are being merged so this should be, too. DBZfan29 (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If they are merged, Super Saiyan should be merged in Saiyan since Saiyan is the primary term. If you want more responses, ask in the wikiproject and add the merge tag. Still none of these articles pass WP: notability.Tintor2 (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

text: I think both should be redirected to Dragon Ball, with perhaps a brief merging of one or two sentences in the plot section to explain the concept at first mention. Neither is a notable term nor concept on its own. Both articles are primarily original research and plot regurgitation which is simply unnecessary. Only one has even a single reliable, third-party source and then only for a minor point. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with what you're saying... well, if I could understand most of it! Anyway, an old page named Dragon Ball (artifact) was merged so this should be, too (there isn't even a page for the main idea of the series so why should "Saiyan?). DBZfan29 (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That can be simply explained in th characters articles.Tintor2 (talk) 17:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Redirect 'em both to Dragon Ball, per AnmaFinotera. 「ダイノガイ千？！」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with Saiyan Article