Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dragon Ball/Archive 4

message: I was wondering about a weekly newsletter. Some other projects have them so why not us? It would be interesting to have--$UIT 05:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey that sounds good I'd love to help out with that. DBZROCKS 11:53, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Newsletter? 

message: Power level's back (the user not the article)! Celebration! DBZROCKS 21:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The return of Power Level 

message: Hey everybody, I was recentally looking at Majin Buu and noticed how awesome it is now. I think it qualifies for good article status, any thoughts? DBZROCKS 22:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No way. It has too much in-universe information, and no OOU info. It is full of crufty lists, and not enough prose. Its writing is crappy, so it needs a giant rewrite. It has few citations, which aren't that great. ...and it goes on and on. Nemu 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guess thats a no. Wait a minute I did those Citations!:) DBZROCKS 22:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: It didn't really change much since then...--$UIT 02:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For an article about a fictional character: NO. I don't believe it's "good article status". It's too detailed and needs to be re-written. It needs to focus on the character's fictional info rather then if he was a real person. Toriyama's inspiration/development of the character, appearences, and perhaps media/cultural influence of the character needs to come first, then brief mentions his personal info (bio, personality, physical appearence, abilities, etc). That's how articles on fictional characters are supposed to be written. --MajinVegeta 06:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bingo, she hit the jackpot. Making references to him as "the character" when talking about him in the article will also help. -凶 07:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good I guess, as for the making of the charecter I think I can grab some pictures from Daizex. DBZROCKS 12:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Majin Buu, Good article? 

message: Ok I am kind of tired of it when someone whats to put a fixed article in the new Good Article review when many of us work so hard to fix it to have someone comes with a big fat NO because to them the article is not good enough because of the in universe perferences. If you, who continue to say no to them feel this way, why don't you please go on these articles and fix the articles to an out of universe perference so it can look more encylopic. This is not a personal attack on anyone just a message that if you see it is not good enough, fix it then.Heat P 04:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  In Universe?? Fix it then 

message: Ok this has gone on long enough I think it is time to seriously crack down on Dragon Ball articles. Many of them are ok but many lack images and good writing. I think we should assign members to specific articles to really improve certain articles, (but of course they can help with other Dragon Ball articles) not just minor editing, Im talking changing sections rewriting adding images cleaning up shorting. But in a more rapid manner than usual. Also many of our video game articles need to be "undubbed" as I would call it. Speaking of video game articles many are too short and have little more than what charecters where in the game. I think with our vast pool of 17 active users we can do better than this! Also many of our saga pages are jumbled and mess up beyond recognition (They usually don't even have images) so whos with me in totally cracking down on Dragon Ball articles? DBZROCKS 22:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you actually plan on doing that, you have to be willing to cut down on the cruft by a lot. Ability and transformation lists need to be turned into actual prose. Video game lists should be cut. Plot summaries need to be cut even more than they are right now, and they should implement a more out of universe writing style. There is also the massive need for plain old out of universe info. That and a general clean up will greatly help these. TTN 23:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do plan to do that and no offense TTN but you use the words Cruft and Crufty an awful lot. DBZROCKS 23:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you you rather I use "pointless information", "overly described details", "information only fans need", "junk", or something like that? Cruft is a word that encompasses all of that into one neat little word. TTN 23:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah I guess I shouldn't be picking on anyone, I do use the word Whoops a lot in my edit summaries. DBZROCKS 23:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with TTN. I've known about this excessive info for a while, just chose to not act on it and occupied myself with other articles. I think TTN pretty much summed up what has to be done on the articles. I think that the Super Saiyan one is fine, just the Character articles need help. And don't forget about these characters being fictional ones, therefore information regarding who/ what they were inspired by, name translations/ puns, design, ect. That should be the first thing in the article. Personality/ Bio come second. Perhaps we could separate their bios into three sections rather then having a section for each saga. Like for (eg. Goku) we could only mention the important events in the saga. (Personally I don't believe that his fight with Ginyu actually serves a significant purpose other then preparing him for the fight against Freeza, therefore should only be mentioned that he narrowly defeated Freeza's Ginyu force before
fighting freeza himself.) I also don't believe that we need to actually assign articles, I think we just need to keep tabs on what articles are being worked on. --MajinVegeta 07:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait a minute there, I think there might be a solution to this, first off I think we should improve the saga pages, therefore making it easier to shorten the information in the charecter section, also maybe we could just have everyone work on one article extensively for a day and seriously improve it. DBZROCKS 12:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestion, that's a start. But I also know that encylopedic format is needed for character articles, the info is all there, the sections just need to be re-arranged. It honestly only takes five minutes tops to re-arrange sections on character pages. That could be a start on the character pages, then we could edit the info later. I already started on the Goku page, and the Buu page. The appearence/ design and development is the first thing on the page, all the other stuff comes after. --MajinVegeta 01:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to Crack down! 

message: Seeing as though this task force's talk page is constantally reaching long page status I sugest we do two things
# Make it so that our achives are dated (Ex: March 2007) 
# Have a seperate archive page so that the talk page isn't clogged up with all the archives. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes to number 1, no to number 2. That's what an archive box is for.--$UIT 03:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: I'm pretty sure that most of you have noticed an increase in vadalism lately, I sure have. I've had to fix up the Goku article (Persistant change to Funi names), Super Saiyan article (Ascended Super Saiyan 4 and Broly is Super Saiyan 8, WTF?), Gohan (Name change to Son Gohan Jr.), and of course the persistant argument on the Vegeta article that most of you are probably aware of (Vegeta saga or Saiyan saga?). I just think that we should address this issue strictly, with possible threats of reporting (I did on the Super Saiyan article and they stopped for now). What's your opinion? --MajinVegeta 18:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I actually missed most of that... I agree with you 100% though. Onikage725 20:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Increase in Vandals

message: It doesn't seem to make much sense to have the King Piccolo article as a redirect. Coola and Broly are movie villains, and had therein had far less air time than Piccolo; Android 17 and Bebi also are (not arguably) far less influential on the series than Daimao. Whoever decided to go with the merge should do the same with all characters who are not significant. What exactly is the criteria for a character having his/her own article and being included in the template?
:As far as I can tell, popularity. Like you said, 17 is a side character in the Cell saga, isnt really around that long, and has a brief revival in the middle of GT. Daimao had a greater impact to the series overall. But Daimao is from the lesser seen Dragon Ball, and the Cell Saga was the height of the dubs popularity. Easier to gain support to merge some old villain not everyone even saw than to drop the oh-so-popular android. Why do you think people want to merge Roshi when articles like Cell and Buu are in such poor condition right now? Onikage725 14:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too Overzealous with mergers?

message: Please discuss at Talk:Freeza Saga#Requested move to Frieza Saga. –Pomte 07:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to rename [[Freeza Saga]] to [[Frieza Saga]] 

message: Is there a way to make that reliable? I did a search for Freeza, and while I get a number of prominent hits, I also get some entirely unrelated links. On the other hand, a search for Frieza is just as bad. The first "Frieza" hit is our own "Freeza" article (with the hit coming from the naming section), then there is a fansite that switches between names (uses Frieza and Freeza, uses Kulilin, the admin calls himself "Freeza-sama"), absoluteanime (which is wierd for using both names and mutliple sources within its article- Kiwi, Baata, and Recoome is right there a mix of all 3 English sources), and a Faq on gamefaqs. Is there a way to run the search to weed out crud? There are so many fansites showing up, and as far as I can tell none of them know what version they want to use for naming. Onikage725 16:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way to make a Google test reliable and also there is a policey that says that google tests do not assert notability. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree DBZROCKS, and the problem with searching for "Goku" on Google is that the person searching can mean either the Dragon Ball Goku, the one from the Japanese adaptation for Journey to the West, or the one from Saiyuki. Therefore I don't think that Google is a reliable source for deciding what the most commonly searched spelling of the name is. Same with Frieza, someone could be looking for those other things with the name "Frieza". I have also searched Frieza and come up with completely different results then what I was looking for. Same with Gohan, I always come up with pictures of bowls of rice.--VorangorTheDemon 21:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Google test

message: It seems with only a four user consensus some random user deleted List of Dragon Ball special abilities! All in favor of its return say I. With a reason for its return DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You want to goto the Wikipedia:Deletion review for this. Saying "I" isn't going to do much for you. TTN 21:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that but I wanted to get concencous on wether the article should be brought back. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Consensus? More like a random delete, I didn't even hear of this proposal. Who was involved in this "consensus", anyone from the Task Force? I doubt it. --VorangorTheDemon 06:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't matter. I'd never undelete something based on a discussion on a talk page. List it on deletion review if you want. --Deskana (talk) 06:37, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I take back what I said, TTN was a member that was involved in the consensus. Regardless, I viewed their comments, and they actually were halfway reasonible. But on the other hand, I would've opposed. --VorangorTheDemon 06:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's one thing I hate about this process. You put time and effort into something. You don't look at it for a couple of days. Someone comes along and says "this article sucks/is unencyclopedic/is cruft" and throws it up for deletion/merge. Three or so days later, worldwide consensus has been established by 3-5 people who happened to notice the tag. Onikage725 09:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There should have been a warning left here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So everyone in the project can pile on and oppose its deletion? I understand why you feel the need to be involved in the discussion, but I also understand why someone might conveniently forget to inform you all. --Deskana (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a pretty unfair assumption. Should the Video Game project not be told that a video game article's being deleted, or (this probably would never happen) not tell the Shakespeare WikiProject when an article in their spectrum is getting deleted? You shouldn't just assume that everyone in the project would not contribute anything. Would you assume that the Pokémon project would do that? Because they really don't - for all you know, someone had a very convincing argument that would just completely reverse the decision. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said they shouldn't have notified you. I just said I can understand why they might be able to conveniently forget to. There's a difference. --Deskana (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's still an argument for the DR. If there's a significant chance that a second nomination could have a different result, that would warrant it passing the DR. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt there is any real need for that, as it likely won't Unless others feel strongly that it would, of course. The arguments left were fairly spot on, and I personally can't think of a particularly good counter. Especially considering that most notable characters have an article and each one has a technique list on their article. I still just would have liked it if we had been informed though. The whole debate was like four people. Shouldn't at least the anime and manga wikiproject have been notified? Onikage725 21:07, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF!? 

message: I am not the one to usually question the quality of an article for FA, but I've noticed that the Super Saiyan article hasn't really been majorly altered in quite some time. In my opinion all that's needed is spell check and more references, and I think it'd be good for nomination. There's no point in having a decent article laying around if nothing's going to be done with it. Thoughts? Suggestions? --VorangorTheDemon 20:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. It's not even ready to be much more than a B (if even that high). It has no real world information and it is written mostly in an in-universe perspective. It also needs a pretty big copy-edit (removing a lot of the fancruft from it and neatening is up). TTN 20:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Super Saiyan]] near FA status?

message: I was just looking at the Saiyan article and it is really a mess. My break is almost over, so I can't really sit here and do the kind of cleanup it would need... but does it really need any? Do Saiyans as a race have any real world notability? Super Saiyans maybe do. Kids dying their hair blonde and other series' doing parodies is commonplace. But this? I hate the word cruft, but I really can't think of a better term. Should this go on afd? Onikage725 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: About the Saiyan article, I would support a merge into the Super Saiyan article if it was purposed. The Saiyan article could get better, but only from removing certian things and organizing it. There really isn't any real world reference to it, no body references "Saiyans" in media, but they do reference the Super Saiyan. As for the Buu saga article, I don't care what you do with it, perhaps taking a chainsaw to it is all that's needed. It's mostly cruft anyway. --VorangorTheDemon 20:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Saiyan

message: I was looking through alot of the character articles and I realized that many of the techniques listed on them would be considered cruft. I don't think the average person is gonna know (or care) what the name of an attack is that the character only uses once in the series. (eg. Vegeta's round energy rings or whatever it is). Thoughts? I think all that's needed is the signature attacks (eg. Goku: Kamehameha, Kaio Ken, Genkai dama, and the flying technique). It cuts down on cruft and space, so erasing the minor techniques benefits us in two ways, length and cruft. Suggestions? --VorangorTheDemon 20:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably a good idea. A *full* list would benefit a wikia or fansite. The only question would be what criteria should we use? Piccolo, for example, has one signature he's used quite a bit that many people don't really know- his Bakurikimaha (limited DB exposure in the states combined with FUNi either not naming it or calling it Masenko-HA leads to confusion), whereas everyone is used to his two biggies from the Cell saga (the gekiretsukodan/light grenade and scattershot), but those were only done once. Onikage725 10:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but also the Bakurikimaha (as far as I can remember) was actually a technique that was mostly used by Piccolo Daimao, not Piccolo Jr. I can't really remember one instance in the original series where Piccolo Jr actually used it, even though Gohan learns it from him. I also agree about the Wikia and Fansite thing too. I don't even know if the flying technique is needed, pretty much every one knows how to do it. It's not a signature attack, if we're to lable that as a technique for each individual, we might as well lable basic energy blasts as well. --VorangorTheDemon 22:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Piccolo uses it at the very start of Z, on Raditz. While I'm pretty sure he used it in DB, I'd have to take out my DVDs to double check. It was Daimao's biggie, and as such Ma Jr.'s until he developed some newer stuff (since he was Daimao reincarnate). And since you mention it, I think some of the articles actually do list variants of your basic energy bullet under techniques. Last time I looked, Buu's list had a "if he used it, it goes on" look to it, when all we would really need for him is Henka Beam, absorption, and genocide attack, maybe kamehameha and that pissed off explosion thing he was doing all the time early on.Onikage725 11:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor techniques actually needed?

message: Another editor indicated that participants here might be interested in joining a discussion about the inclusion of the line "this is the first funimation dub to include cursing" in Dragon Ball Z. Interested users are welcome to discuss the issue at Talk:Dragon_Ball_Z#Recent_edit_warring. Thanks.--Chaser - T 19:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  cursing in Dragon Ball 

message: What happened to the categories?--$UIT 22:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only category it seems to have been in previously was Category:Dragon Ball special abilities, which has since been deleted. So, since the category doesn't exist, it was simply removed, I guess. I've added the "Dragon Ball" category for now. -- RattleMan 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Super Saiyan article