Talk:Super Saiyan/Archive 4

message: Theres too many politics and nitpicking about adding something to the articles so I'll let someone else do it but find some sources and add something about Legendary status increasing aggression, it's mentioned on other ones and it probably increases the aggression of a saiyan the most out of any form being that broly said about 3 words and did nothing when he wasn't any kind of super saiyan and when he was legendary he blew up entire galaxies.
Also my second point and i'm sure i'll be hated for this but you can check the Bio-Broly movie, bio broly is not a super saiyan, he's only legendary. he walks out of the tank legendary and he's legendary in the tank too, hard to tell but even if you doubt look at the other 2 movies when he went from super saiyan to legendary, he always made a big bang to become legendary and thats never seen so he had to be legendary the whole time and he was never a regular super saiyan. Lucasthalefty 05:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Legendary Symptoms

message: So lately the former MajinVegeta and I have been edit warring over the color of a Super Saiyan's arua; I say gold while she says white.  She has provided two pictures claiming her case, the first being a Super Saiyan pre-teen Gohan clearly with white aura, the second a Frieza Saga Super Saiyan Goku with white aura.  I'm willing to accept the first picture as a viable source since the second has SSJ Goku with white hair and I'm not about for a second willing to accept that SSJs have white hair.
However, colors in the manga have been known to sporadically switch.  Official DBZ art by Mr. Toriyama have Chibi Gohan's namek outfit in either light purple or GREEN.  Goku's undershirt switches from blue to black as well as his gi clearly is colored in a light orange color, but described as golden yellow in Dragon Ball Z Vol 25 on page 151 in the bottom left corner.  Due to the inconsistant colors used and to stay consistant with the rest of the article, I would normally vote for the description to stay as golden yellow. (Example of consistancy with rest of article; False, USSJ, USSJ2, SSJ2, & SSJ3 are all pictured with gold arua with False SSJ even STATING to have golden arua)
However, as with earlier discussions over what to do with contrasting manga/anime information (I was around for the Goku article  arguments), I vote that we comprimise by avoiding the problem altogether and just not state it as any color at all and instead focus on the activity of the arua such as "gentle waves" to "blazing torrent" when we describe it.4.252.215.212 18:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, but just as a reminder, the issue with that is that False Super Saiyan is not a transformation made by Toriyama, Toei created it exclusively for Movie 4, it never appears in the series. Toei made the auras gold/yellow to match the hair, that's all it was. And the inconsistent colors are explained by some chapters being exclusively in ink (black), while several were actually colored. --VorangorTheDemon 11:44, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Super Saiyan arua color

message: The talk page was getting overly too long. If you would like to continue past conversations or have something to discuss about the current article, please do so below. Thank you. Heat P 06:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived latest SSJ discussion 

message: Which one to use? I've always used Bebi, not Baby. Baby for the main article is understandable because that's what most English speaking people know him as, but not in descriptions because I thought we use Japanese names as much as we could. The reason why I bring this up is because I recently changed Baby to Bebi, but a user reverted. --Majinvegeta 01:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted your edit for consistancy reasons. If the main article is Baby, then the most obvious name to use in all other articles is Baby. We use Son Goku and Son Gohan over Goku and Gohan on all Dragon Ball pages; we use Kuririn over Krillin; and we use Muten-Rôshi over Master Roshi. // DecaimientoPoético 01:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ~.^   Well......Shouldn't the page name be changed, since "Baby" is not his name, it's "Bebi". If what you say is true, then we should change the page name to Bebi because it is his original Japanese name, my example extends to the name of the Goku article, being that his Japanese name IS indeed Son Goku. So shouldn't the page name be changed to Bebi if we use the Japanese names on all others? --Majinvegeta 15:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave the name-changing to the rest of the community. I don't care much for what we name the articles, though I wish we could decide on one single language to name the characters from. // DecaimientoPoético 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was decided by consensus that we move the page to Baby. If you want it moved back to Bebi, start another move discussion--$UIT 18:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't know that there was a consensus. Oh well, guess we could keep it the way it is, I just thought it was odd because every other article has the Japanese name. It's not really a big issue though. --Majinvegeta 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I recall correctly, we go by consistency, so we should use the japanese name, since FUNimation has a way of translating things so that the translation loses its meaning. I say we use Bebi. It'll cause less confusion between the kid vegeta we see in flashbacks in DBZ, and the possessed Vegeta we see in GT. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.183.44.106 (talk) 18:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe not, but atleast when someone sees "Bebi vegeta" they know its not Vegeta as a baby.71.183.44.106 20:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bebi is just how the Japanese pronounce Baby (I think... correct me if I'm wrong).--$UIT 03:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Why is there a dicsussion on Bebi or Baby on the Super Saiyan talk page? Move it to Baby/Bebi's article. When the problem is fixed there then go to other articles and fix the same problem then. Thank you. Heat P 05:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason it's here is because it is "Baby Vegeta" under the Super Saiyan 4 section. I changed it to Bebi, but Poetic Decay reverted. That's why it's here, but I agree, it should be on the Baby page. --Majinvegeta 06:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: So is it going to be Baby or Bebi? If it isnt going to be Bebi, can someone explain to me why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.183.44.106 (talk) 00:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bebi Vegeta or Baby Vegeta?

message: I think it would be wise to change the source of Super Saiyan Transformations, Daizenshuu EX has several flaws that I can note. First off, they refer to Giji (False) Super Saiyan as "Quasi" Super Saiyan, refer to original Super Saiyan as SSJ1, and they use anime info, and don't go by the manga info for transformation. I am thinking about changing the source as soon as I find a good Super Saiyan guide. Opinions? --MajinVegeta 01:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Source Change

message: :Image:Saiyanredhair.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Saiyanredhair.jpg

message: seeing the change to the fourth paragraph of text for this article, the dates for all official parts should be included, or an article should be made specifically for both the anime and the manga. this should be done to all information that changes between the anima and manga or the content is biase to one side of the story and not remaining neutral --Ditre 02:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe it's biase, because it is what it is. I included the discrepencies a while ago, but someone decided that it should be erased and changed to the 30 year period, which according to the manga and the corresponding episode, the 30 year period is inaccurate. Also we should note that the manga is the higest level of canon (I know that we aren't supposed to talk about canon and non-canon here, but I firmly believe that this conversation warrents a mention of it), and Toriyama had direct connection to the manga, as opposed to the movies where he did not. Both the manga and corresponding anime episode (DBZ episode 2) states that Planet Vegeta was destroyed roughly 3 years before Raditz's arrival on Earth. And most of the movies aren't even consistent with the timeline of Dragon Ball, therefore I believe that the anime series date and the manga date should be used as dates and time periods are quite often mixed and tweaked in the movies. And this goes for all the Dragon Ball related movies, not only the ones in question. --MajinVegeta 22:05, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  dates 

message: I have read through the mangas and watched the anime (Japanese) and I don't think that it states that a Super Saiyan emerges every thousand years, I believe it states that it had been a thousand years since the last Super Saiyan. If this is the case, then it does not mean that a Super Saiyan emerges EVERY millenia. Anyone care to elaborate? --MajinVegeta 03:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From the manga (most canon of sources) volume 8 (DB #24) page 52, Vegeta says "They say a Super Saiyan appears only once in a thousand years... I've always said it was just a myth... and I was sure that even if it were possible... the only warrior who could possibly become one... was me!" I'm changing it back.Detective X 05:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, does that constitute every thousand years? That's my question. --VorangorTheDemon 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In order for the thousand years factor of the myth to hold any ground, it would have had to at least happened twice or more in the so-called past, no?  Just saying...Detective X 05:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. I was just wondering because before it said, "every thousand years", and I also did not believe that it ever stated that.--VorangorTheDemon 05:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree. However, it was introduced as a legend, and its deteriorating status as a legend (due to more people gaining access to it) is already noted in the article. --VorangorTheDemon 15:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Once every thousand years, or just 1,000 yrs since the last Super Saiyan?

message: I was just wondering if we should add a "Regular Form" to the list, because I feel that if you don't, it's kinda like cruft. You don't really know what's going on if you aren't a fan. Suggestions? --VorangorTheDemon 22:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Add a "regular form"?

message: We need an explanation on what exactly ki is because the transformations don't make sense then. The first time Ki is mentioned in the article is in the False Super Saiyan section, and there's no explanation to what it is. --VorangorTheDemon 15:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation in "Ki" needed

message: This topic and the Oozaru topic could possibly be merged into a "Saiyan Transformation" article. --74.194.118.12 20:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merging

message: Future Gohan is not historically individual enough to be considered separate from Gohan of the primary timeline. Both of the Trunks characters have enough individual info to be considered separate characters, even though they are genetically the same person. Also if you want to add Future Gohan to the list, then we'd also have to add Future Goku and Future Vegeta for consistency. They, technically speaking, are part of that time line as well. Not to mention the link that was provided leads to the regular Gohan article anyway, there's no sense in having two separate links for the same article. --VorangorTheDemon 09:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that is true, but that wasn't my point exactly. My point was that the two characters (even though they are genetically the same person) have been brought up completely different, have fought completely different battles, lived in a completely different environment for their entire lives, which does in turn make them individual characters. Gohan's environment was only different for the time after the Freeza saga, which makes him some-what separate, but not entirely considering that the most important chunk of his life was completely identicle to his character from the primary timeline. --VorangorTheDemon 02:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Future Gohan wasn't added to the list and Future Trunks was

message: Is Bio-Broly considered a different character then Broly? I don't think he is. --VorangorTheDemon 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bio-Broly is a clone, he is not Broly (He looks like a melting zombie).Pikazilla 19:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why discuss Bio-Broly on the Super Saiyan page?--$UIT 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because People keep adding Bio-Broly to the page as a separate character. --VorangorTheDemon 02:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This list?--$UIT 03:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they kept putting him as a separate character on the lists. --VorangorTheDemon 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bio-Broly

message: Since a special section was dedicated to Goku's transformation into False Super Saiyan, should there be a section explaining what Broly's Restricted Super Saiyan form was?  It is a unique transformation with blue hair, green eyes, and a darkening of the skin instead of lightening.  4.252.211.72 08:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No for two reasons. "Restricted" is not a name, and Broly's form was just a full Super Saiyan form. Nothing really special about it really. Just the weird blue hair caused by the control device on his head. -- bulletproof 3:16 16:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restricted Super Saiyan

message: I think most of us can agree that Vegeta was most definetly a Super Saiyan 2. It is clearly stated and shown in both the manga, the show, and the video games. To say otherwise can only be seen as ignorance on the subject. I say this only because one particular person keeps removing Vegeta's name from the list of known Super Saiyan 2s--Lucky Mitch 01:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be two particular people. I don't know what you're talking about, but I don't remember Vegeta ever achieving SS2 in any of the media you listed. // DecaimientoPoético 01:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Woh woh woh. I didn't even see that it was being added to the Super Saiyan 2 section! I thought it was being added to the Full power Super Saiyan section. Yeah Vegeta was a SSJ 2. My bad.-- bulletproof 3:16 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Super Saiyan 2 Vegeta

message: I was wondering if we could also place Vegetto and Gotenks in the known Super Saiyan 2s section. Gotenks must have reached Super Saiyan 2 in order to get to Super Saiyan 3 and there is clearly electricity and very spiky hair on Vegetto. 
I have evidence proving Vegetto's Super Saiyan 2 transformation in this video  (skip to 0:49 if you just want to get to the point)
And I have these pictures,, , .
(UNSIGNED POST ENDS HERE)
The best way I can put it in the way it was explained to me is that the only ones listed are the ones we actually see use the form.  It's perfectly safe to assume that Vegetto and Gotenks could use SSJ2 (Goku explained that you needed to access SSJ3 through SSJ2).  However, we never actually see them use the forms so they aren't listed.  In the anime, whether a character had the correct appearance in SSJ2 was subject to the artist (in SSJ2 Goku vs. Majin Vegeta fight, sometimes they were drawn as if they were SSJ as evidenced by Goku's five groups of hair in front of his face over the only 3 he should have in SSJ2) and with the sparks in the aura added at random times with no consistency makes it hard to spot sometimes, but the Daizenshuu states Vegetto was only seen as a SSJ when fighting Buu.  In the manga, when Vegetto first transforms, he has sparks, but never again and his hair isn't drawn to be any longer than what it was in his base form so he's apparently only SSJ in the manga too since Toriyama always had sparks in the auras of his SSJ2 pics.  Apparently a picture isn't worth a thousand words here either because I agree that your first picture appears to be a SSJ2 Vegetto (and if I remember correctly, it originally had SSJ2 Goku & SSJ2 Vegeta in the background) but it was argued earlier about adding Future Gohan to the SSJ2 list due to official artwork released by Toei and Shin Budokai 2 having an original story just like the movies being denied. You can sleep at night knowing that Vegetto and Gotenks can go SSJ2, but try to let it go that they'll probably be deleted if you add them to the article.4.252.210.192 02:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its perfectly safe to assume so and so did this... sure, on a forum or fansite. Unfortunately for your argument, Wikipedia policy does not allow speculation, assumptions, theories, or any other sort of Originla Research in articles. Because there is no official, verified evidence supporting your claim, Vegetto, Gogeta, and Gotenks cannot be added to the list of individuals who achieved Super Saiyan 2.-- bulletproof 3:16 03:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure, but it isn't stated that he was Super Saiyan 2. --VorangorTheDemon 12:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Super Saiyan 2 Vegetto and Gotenks

message: I have one question and one statement.
Question:
Since when are we only going by the manga version and not the animie version? I don't see how it can hurt to mention both the manga's and the show's version of the series?
Statement:
I have several pictures of Super Saiyan eyes upclose. I spent alot of time looking at all the shades of green they most closely resemble and it came down to Teal in the dark and Persian green in the light. I thought it was just a little bit closer to teal (of course that is strictly my opinion, if they look more Persian green to you, that's fine we can change it to that) but I can assure you they are most definitley NOT light green.
See for yourself in these pictures:
(Vegeta) ,  , , , , , , 
(Trunks) , , , , , , 
(Gohan) , , , , , , 
(Goku) ,  , , , , , 
(Goten) , , , , , , 
--Lucky Mitch 01:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lucky Mitch, I advice that you take whichever disputes you may have to our project's talk page at WP:DBZ for a quicker response. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: VorangorTheDemon please respond

message: I have removed this section as it contains numerous unverified and unsourced claims which constitutes as original research. -- bulletproof 3:16 01:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Inconsistencies created by Toei section

message: Hey it's obvious that Trunks reached Super Saiyan 2 when Baby 1ST TRIED TO TAKE OVER HIS BODY. HE HAD THE ENERGY WAVE COMING FROM HIS BODY A CLEAR SUPER SAIYAN 2 TRAIT (NOT SUPER SAIYAN OR FULL POWER SUPER SAIYAN). Also I'm pretty Sure Goten went to Super Saiyan 2 to fight Gohan when he took over his body. Otherwise why would Gohan even bother going Super Saiyan 2??? Also it would make much more sense that both Trunks and Goten would reach Super Saiyan 2 in order to push Gotenks to Super Saiyan 3.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcelite (talk • contribs) 05:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Super Saiyan 2 never appears in GT, and neither Trunks or Goten ever were confirmed to have achieved the transformation ever in the series (GT included). --VorangorTheDemon 07:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Saiyan 2 of GT Trunks for Sure/ Goten??? 

message: Since the descriptions of the Super Saiyans are as according to the manga appearence, don't you think it's more appropriate to have manga images, and not anime ones? I'm going to add several manga images that I've uploaded from scanning my volumes of manga. Is that ok? --VorangorTheDemon 01:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect, I congragulate you on finaly geting some decent Manga images. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 12:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you DBZROCKS, I worked hard to scan, and I'm exicted that no one has reverted it. If they do, I'll be quite p*ssed. I just figured: "Manga descriptions.....Manga images", it made much more sense then saying that we'd do the manga descroptions with the anime screens. All of the manga pics except the Super Saiyan 2 and 3 ones are from my personal collection. And I will attempt to fix those references that you pointed out when I have the time. Thanks again!--VorangorTheDemon 13:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: What the hell is this? Looks like vandalism to me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it's vandalism, there's no such thing as a "Fat Super Saiyan". And in addition, the vandalism is an ill attempt at humor. I mean get real, if you're going to vandalize, at least spare us the annoyance by making the vandalism amusing. All this vandalism as of yet has been simple, immature jokes that only fourth graders laugh at. But luckily, there hasn't been a lot of it too much lately. :) --VorangorTheDemon 10:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I've removed all but four: The image showing all Super Saiyans, the original Super Saiyan state, Super Saiyan 3, and Super Saiyan 4. There are major differences between the three states I just listed (as opposed to the slight physical appearance change of body mass in the Grade 2 and 3 SS states and Legendary SS, and the addition of lighting in SS2), so keeping them is somewhat important. // DecaimientoPoético 18:08, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't see why :Image:DragonballZ-Episode286 300.jpg is needed. It may as well be removed since we already have :Image:Super Saiyans.JPG wonderfully captivating the Super Saiyan 1st forms. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:15, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the "Super Saiyans" image that you're talking about simply portrays the characters in the series who achieve it: The point of the article is to portray the actual form itself, not the characters who use it. I added the manga images because since we are adament about using manga descriptions for the forms, it makes absolutely no sense to use anime pictures unless it is a non-canon form (Giji Super Saiyan, Legendary Super Saiyan, Super Saiyan 4). --VorangorTheDemon 08:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know you have good meaning but there is a copyright policy, sorry. IMHO, manga images should only be used if there are no anime ones. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well isn't there a copyright policy for the anime ones too, unless they were ones that were released by Toei themselves? Technically speaking, all the images that are being used are copyrighted, even that "Super Saiyans" one, which (as far as I know) is a scan from the Daizenshuus that someone did, licensed person or not.--VorangorTheDemon 10:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My point being, an image for every section goes against image usage policy. And yes, any and all images are copyrighted. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm, makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up :) --VorangorTheDemon 10:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fat Super Saiyan?? 

message: Ok, the list of Super Saiyan 2 users has Goku, Vegeta, and Gohan. But shouldn't Broly also count as a user? I mean, I'm pretty sure that Broly very briefly transformed into that state in the 8th movie (I mean, there WAS lightning enveloping around him while he was powering up to the Legendary Super Saiyan form [in fact, considering that in his first fight with Goku, that white aura that usually appears when powering up was at least 100x his size, it seems very likely that it was that.].). now, if it turns out i am mistaken, i will withdraw it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.32.159.24 (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to say it, but numerous other characters have lightning around them as well, but in order for them to be added to the list, they have to be confirmed users as stated in the Daizenshuu (official Dragon Ball guide authorized by Dragon Ball creator Akira Toriyama). Also as a side note, Super Saiyan 2 lightning is blue, Broly's is yellow. We've had this problem before with people adding random names to the lists, that's why I placed internal tags on the lists that you see when you go to edit the page. (They look something like this: ). There's no more confirmed users beyond those three for Super Saiyan 2. Even though characters like Gotenks and Vegetto for example were without a doubt able to use it, they are never officially stated to have been seen in that form, therefore they aren't confirmed users. --VorangorTheDemon 22:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Umm... About the super saiyan 2 users... 

message: Is there a reason to why it's gone? Tell you the truth, I wouldn't mind if we didn't re-add it to the list, it's not exactly a transformation anyway. We could mention it in a different section though. --VorangorTheDemon 18:46, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where'd Giji Go? 

message: I noticed earlier that Giji Super Saiyan (False Super Saiyan) had been removed, and I decided that perhaps it would be best if it wasn't re-added, because it techincally speaking isn't a transformation, and I had always thought that it made the article messy because of the fact that the article started off with that transformation, and not actually the Super Saiyan transformation. So as a result, I decided to create a new section. I did however remove Legendary Super Saiyan because most of the info on it (other then appearence) is unconfirmed. We actually don't know what makes Legendary Super Saiyan so much stronger then the regular Super Saiyan forms (which it actually being stronger is complete bogus because both Gotenks and Vegetto were stronger then Broly in their regular Super Saiyan forms), therefore I added it to the new Section with the Giji Super Saiyan. I haven't really seen good reference for the Legendary Super Saiyan, there's not much elaboration on it at all, not even in the Daizenshuu. --VorangorTheDemon 16:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fight between Vegetto in his normal state and Buu/Gohan was only in the anime, it never happened in the original manga series. In the manga he goes Super Saiyan a few seconds after he's fused. But I also see your point, Vegetto and Gotenks aren't normal Super Saiyans like Goku or whoever else. And also regardless, Legendary Super Saiyan was not in the original series either, it was a form made up by Toei in order to emphasize the original fact presented that there was single legendary Super Saiyan. --VorangorTheDemon 14:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Section- Removed Transformations

message: In the text it is stated that "The legend also originally stated that only one Super Saiyan would emerge in a thousand years; this is later contradicted when another Super Saiyan appears one year later. As a result, the legendary status of the Super Saiyan ceases (...)"
I might be wrong but there IS a Legendary Super Saiyan which happens to be the most powerful being in the Universe -- Broly. He would be the depositary of such legends, having Son Goku, Vegeta, etc only achieved a superior state, but without being... you know, legendary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.153.135.67 (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "legend" section is strictly based on the account of the Super Saiya-jin told in the original manga series. Broly was not part of the original series; he was simply a character created by Toei. Also as a side note Broly being a superior Super Saiya-jin is bogus because both Gotenks and Vegetto surpass him in their regular Super Saiya-jin forms. --VorangorTheDemon 07:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legendary Super Saiyan 

message: Is it worth noting that Katsuyoshi Nakatsuru designed SSJ4? I'm trying to find the direct quote, but I recall Toriyama saying as much in a statement regarding Japan's DBGT Dragon Box release. Onikage725 13:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe it's worth mentioning, however, sourcing it is going to be an issue.--VorangorTheDemon 13:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SSJ4