Talk:No. 18 (Dragon Ball)

message: From the Android 17 article:
Android 17 is actually not a robot. He is an essentially a regular human with "upgrades" (I.E., Cyborg) along with his twin sister, Android 18. The two were experimented by Dr. Gero though very little of their history is given.
From this article
She is referred to in the original Japanese as an artificial human, which is translated as 'android' in the literal sense; she is not a robot, and it is implied in the manga she and her brother were originally runaways heavily fitted with cybernetics.
So this article says that the Androids are "Artificial humans", when the other says that they  were both human. Should one of these be modified?
:Both basically say that they are cybrogs, which is essentially what they are. The Japanese term Jinzoningen covers that definition of the characters, as well as describing true androids like 16 or 19, and even covers cell (since he was artificially created despite being mostly biological). In english we don't have a wide term to cover all of those, so for simplicity sake the dub just went with Android. Onikage725 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two different explanations 

message: Some of the listed Attacks are only from video games,
Can i delete them? they really have no place here. DBZROCKS 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: yes but this is not a FAQ and you really should sign your comments with the three (or four) ~'s
DBZROCKS 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Instead of deleting them, seperate them into sections. One for attacks seen in the anime/manga, the other from videogames. Both are appropriate as long as they are verifiable. Malamockq 17:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video Game Attacks 

message: "As a cyborg, Android-18 is extremely powerful, she is able to easily overpower a basic Super-Saiyan. This is first demonstrated to when she fights Super-Saiyan Vegeta, she is able to severely injure him and walk away completely unscathed save her clothes. 18 along with 17 and 16 is fitted with a infinite energy device. This makes it so that she never tires. She is at least capable of handling a regular super saiyan though her power pales in comparison to further SSJ levels. She has also been noted to be less powerful than her brother 17."
Too much original research to be left in the article, also many of the statements aren't true. Saying 18 can defeat a super saiyan isn't acurate since different saiyan's SS1 level can differ from others, and their own can change as the series progresses (for example, Goku's SS1 level when fighting Freeza is weaker than Goku's SS1 level when he sparred Trunks).
I rewrote it, but DBZROCKS wasn't satisfied with it. I'll reinstate the section when it is properly rewritten. Malamockq 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dude were you just talking to yourself? Anyway remember to add :'s to every paragraph. DBZROCKS 00:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You only add : when you are replying to someone's post, I was merely adding on to my original point. I removed the Power section again because if I only removed the parts that are Original Research the section won't make any sense. It requires a complete rewrite. You may attempt to rewrite the section if you wish, but don't revert back to the old version. Malamockq 17:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power section 

message: How was #18 able to have a child with Kurirun?Charles 22:08, 21 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charles Locke (talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As said by Kurirun himself 18 is a CYBORG not a full robot. DBZROCKS 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't leave forum-ish comments on the talk pages. These talk pages are for improving the article. 67.76.181.251 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Im lost  

message: I've noticed in the Buu saga section, there is no mention of her fight with Goten and Trunks. Should we add the info about it?
:you mean the one where she cuts their costume in half?--Marhawkman 11:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buu Saga 

message: I am confused as to whether or not this whole "lived together" and "births his daughter" thing is valid. It has always been listed that they are married and now it's suddenly changed. When I saw Camera Shy, Krillin said they were married. On Krillin's page it states that 18 is his wife.Darth G 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was probably the terrible dub by FUNimation or Ocean. I don't recall any mention in the manga and/or Japanese anime that #18 and Kuririn were legally married. You need to WP:SOURCE that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Terrible? got a WP:SOURCE for that? Krillin mentioned it when he talked to Goku in the tournament.--Marhawkman 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cut it out, he didn't reveal it in the manga, they were living in sin and no I don't have a WP:SOURCE for that either. They could have gone to a sperm bank for all we know. Regardless, we can't interpret anything beyond what the manga tells us. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually yes it WAS stated outright in the anime.--Marhawkman 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with DBZROCKS, Kuririn did not say they were married and he specifically told Son Goku that he lived with #18 on Roshi's Kame House and had a kid. To say they were wed is speculation, therefore, original research. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: LOOK: they were said to be married in the anime. That is factually correct. If you wish to dispute this further, provide proof.--Marhawkman 23:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Kuririn: "We live together... at the turtle master's house. We have one daughter... the girl you saw back there." — Dragon Ball Z manga, vol. 20, chapt. 237, pg 150. 
That convincing enough? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Inclusively, I found Dragon Ball Z episode #194 on YouTube where Krillin claims he "married" #18. Watch the video 'til around 3:00 min. Of course, this opposes the manga so we definitely can't use it as a canon source so to speak. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're missing the point. Wikipedia does not care about your definition of canon. All first party information is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. If you wish to differentiate between them you can add a sentence explaining the difference between the anime and manga. WP policy does not allow for writing an article about a subject and completely ignoring half of it. The article is about the character. Not the manga's depiction of the character.--Marhawkman 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:DBZ policey. Also the english version has to many plot holes to be used as a reference. Do you have a Japanese anime source? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for proving my point. from WP:DBZ "It would be inappropriate to pick any single distribution company over another." Like I said before, it's fine to note that there are differences, but completely excluding all information not found in the original Japanese manga is ridiculous and not within WP policy.--Marhawkman 00:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No no, you misunderstand, that sentence is refering to the english version, in that there are to many different english dubs to choose from and they are all full of plot holes, which is why we don't use the english dubs. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: “Excelsior!” My sentiments exactly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It still doesn't preclude using information from them as a source in the articles.--Marhawkman 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll seek the Japanese anime episode on YouTube. It's probably gonna be the same as the manga, however. PS: Marhawkman, my "canon" arguement wasn't literal, merely an expression. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Bah, only the English re-dub by FUNi at the site. MySpace and VideoSearch turn up the same results. At least we have the manga copies by Toriyama himself, should be enough to go by. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: At any rate, the real-world-point-of-view requirement mandates that the article not be written from an in-universe perspective, thus information unique to the english dub is not only warranted but required.--Marhawkman 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, not required. The Viz manga is closer to the original series than any of the English dubs. This also discludes the remastered Saiyan and Namek Sagas. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: What's your point? "Real world point of view" is a strictly "out of universe" perspective. In other words, it doesn't matter WHY there are differences. The fact that differences exist is sufficient reason to include BOTH versions. Needless to say, Continuity is completely ignored.
Besides, other than posting a copy of an unofficial translation, you haven't shown any proof that they AREN'T married in the original manga.--Marhawkman 11:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

text: There's at least one other episode to look into. In the episode of Dragonballgt where 17 kills Krillin, it's stated (in the dub at least) that Krillin is her "husband". The word "husband" is used several times. Just one more thing to look into. K9feline 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It's fine. We'll stick to the manga's description, and ignore any dub or filler material. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... no. Seriously, this is a wikipedia page. we can't just ignore the dub.--Marhawkman 10:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: cool. I don't have access to a copy so I couldn't check it myself. Any objection to talking to the admin to get the page unlocked now?---- Marhawkman (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You put the reference in such a sloppy manner that I had no idea what it was trying to say. So, yes, I had to check it out for myself and you were correct. Now that this mishap has been solved, I'm in favour of lifting the protection on 18's article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, so long, Lord Sesshomaru. Nice to see that being proved wrong hasn't changed your civility any. And if you really had no idea what it was trying to say, you wouldn'tve been able to check it out for yourself. And I accept your apology for starting this whole unnecessary dispute in the first place. K9feline (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't try to fuel any flames, I actually tried to find sources confirming Marhawkman's statements — everything turned up negative. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:HAR before you instigate anything further. We can safely move on. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Um what? YOU verified that the english anime says they're married. Saying that "everything turned up negative" is blatantly false. I do not have access to that chapter of either the Japanese or English manga. And it seems that your only source(to the contrary) is a fan translation.--Marhawkman (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Learn to be a little more civil, Marhawkman. We can drop the matter now and prepare to upgrade the article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Just a heads up to late you know, I got the page unprotected and edited it myself. K9feline (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Married or not? 

message: It certainly doesn't detract from the article having it at the end. "unneccesary" isn't a very good reason to get rid of it.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:FANCRUFT. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it's source based research. Fancruft is lists of trivial garbage.--Marhawkman (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  why delete list of games? 

message: :Image:Android 18 photo.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 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 lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Android 18 photo.jpg