Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters/Archive 1

message: 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)
thread_title:  New format 

message: 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)
replies: text: Do you mean filler characters? Sure. Infinare 19:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Symbols 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Page length 

message: '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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  Please see Kaio. René van Buuren 12:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supreme Kai 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposal: Alphabetical Order 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  this page is fucked 

message: 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) .
*i agree with Mercenary Tao having his own page, and i also think the Red Ribbon Army should, but not individual Ginyu Force members. Plough | talk to me 10:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  seperate articles 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  More questions 

message: 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"??
*Gerardo Sanchez —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.114.96.112 (talk • contribs) .Irwin
:To do this, you need to understand wikilinks: word links to 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. 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 will link to this article, to the section named King of the dragonball world. -- ReyBrujo 05:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Done 

message: 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)
thread_title:  I want this article to have a table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nevermind 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Recoome and Guldo appear in GT and movie 12 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Is this page really needed? 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Characters who deserve their own article 

message: *Clean up. Through it needs trimmings, it has out-of universe info.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: And it has zero impact on this discussion until something tangible is actually produced. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Son Goku (Dragon Ball)]]

message: *Clean up. Through it needs trimmings, it has out-of universe info.Tintor2 (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Son Gohan]]

message: *Keep, notability is just a guideline, and also, the lamest guideline this place has. Thanos6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Vegeta]]

message: *Merge. Very short article, minor character in comparison to others.Tintor2 (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Son Goten]]

message: *Merge. Very short article, minor character in comparison to others.Tintor2 (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Discussion continued below.JJJ999 (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Trunks (Dragon Ball)]]

message: *Merge. Very short article, minor character in comparison to others.Tintor2 (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pan (Dragon Ball)]]

message: *Keep, notability is just a guideline, and also, the lamest guideline this place has. Thanos6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Bulma]]

message: *Keep, notability is just a guideline, and also, the lamest guideline this place has. Thanos6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Master Roshi]]

message: *Keep, notability is just a guideline, and also, the lamest guideline this place has. Thanos6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Yamcha]]

message: *Keep, notability is just a guideline, and also, the lamest guideline this place has. Thanos6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Krillin]]

message: *Keep, notability is just a guideline, and also, the lamest guideline this place has. Thanos6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: This discussion closed weeks ago - new discussion is below. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:36, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Tien Shinhan]]

message: *Keep, notability is just a guideline, and also, the lamest guideline this place has. Thanos6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Piccolo (Dragon Ball)]]

message: *Keep, notability is just a guideline, and also, the lamest guideline this place has. Thanos6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Frieza]]

message: *Keep, notability is just a guideline, and also, the lamest guideline this place has. Thanos6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: We neither can perform redirects and merges without consensus. Your resolutions are bold and against policy. --LøЯd ۞pεth 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: [[Cell (Dragon Ball)]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: We neither can perform redirects and merges without consensus. Your resolutions are bold and against policy. --LøЯd ۞pεth 18:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Cell merger

message: *Keep, notability is just a guideline, and also, the lamest guideline this place has. Thanos6 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Majin Buu]]

message: *Merge. Minor character in comparison to others.Tintor2 (talk) 00:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Baby (Dragon Ball)]]

message: *Keep - Notable villian, last of the tuffle race, is responsible for Goku going SSJ4.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.3.53 (talk) 06:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Are these merge decisions working with consensus 

message: 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)
replies: text: It was something decided after a discussion with the anime project. TTN (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: What's the deal here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Zarbon section 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Major/Secondary/Minor 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Good.  We keep both Trunks and Goten.  Also, the two versions of Trunks should stay separate. Thanos6 (talk) 08:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trunks vs. Goten 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Puar's gender? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nappa "dominated" by Goku 

message: I notice the usual suspect (Lord Sess, AnmaFinotera, etc) have not notified this discussion.  Typical.JJJ999 (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tien, Goten and Cell have been nominated for Deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes. Good idea.Tintor2 (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, there should be something there, particularly with the redirect there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Good idea, actually. Go for it. Suigetsu 00:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super A-17 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Tien Shinhan]] - round 2/3 

message: I'm fine with mentioning minor characters in other areas, however, an outright removal  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: That does not make him anymore notable at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor characters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Turles 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Broly is Goku's cousin? 

message: 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. 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)
replies: text: The mediation is over, as far as I know. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: What about Roshi? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep Frieza, Merge Roshi. That should make it clearer. Zarbon (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Was rejected. Has zero weight on this discussion. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: The same was said about Tien and other characters, but it was never found a source.Tintor2 (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Revisits of merging Frieza and Master Roshi 

message: *cell should have hios own page like majin boo and frieza  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.39.3 (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  CELL 

message: Can we please add the following secondary characters:
*Dr. Raichi
*Hatchyak
*Soba
--Victory93 (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Add the following 

message: 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  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)
thread_title:  Adding citations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Super Saiyan 2 

message: is a large android developed by Dr. Gero. He is deemed a failure, and is deactivated until Android #18 reactivates and releases him. 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. While trying to protect #17 and #18 from Cell, he is greatly damaged, 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. His head and consciousness survived, but later is destroyed by Cell, which pushes Son Gohan over the edge to Super Saiyan 2. In the anime he is voiced Hikaru Midorikawa in Japan,http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=546 Jeremy Inman in the Funimation dub,http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=1117 and Scott McNeil in the Ocean Group dub.
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=746
Yami (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't want to stick a  tag here, so the reflist can be found at User:Useight/Sandbox. Useight (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: do we add this into the article now, or wait for it to reach 100% completion? Yami (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Here it is, does it all look in order?