Talk:Super Saiyan/Archive 2

message: Since the talk page was getting so long. If you would like to continue past conversations or have something to discuss about the current article, please do so below. Voice of Treason 18:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Created an archive to SSJ discussion

message: Throughout all of the Dragonball series, GT is the only one with a female (Pan) who's even 1/4 saiyan. I want to know why females can't go super saiyan. I heard that Akira had a hard time making them look like SSJs or something like that and when I tried to picture Pan as a SSJ, it ended up looking like an ordinary blond girl (just with spiky hair.) --Sasuke-kun27 21:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it really matter? KojiDude (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. But it wouldn't hurt to point it out and ask. --Sasuke-kun27 21:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess Toriyama never drew one, seeing as how there isn't a single cannon female Saiyan that plays a big role in DBZ, nor is there a non cannon one with the right power or motivation to reach it. KojiDude (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pan probably isn't strong enough.--Geterdone 12:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Both Pan and Bra are canon saiyans since they appear in the manga, but they were never shown to be able to transform. The GT Perfect File just infers that females can possibly transform.
Just putting this out there, but I also noticed that they don't have any tails either. Sasuke-kun27 23:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Probably for the same reason Trunks and Goten do. Pan might not have even had one scince she was only 1/4 Saiyan.--KojiDude 23:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female Super Saiyans 

message: i know dbaf is just a hoax or fan art whatever but can anyone tell me where are pics of anything higher than than ss10?
:No, because there is no SS10. Try asking for your fanart on a forum or something.
:Daishokaioshin 22:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: then where is ss10 fan art?--Geterdone 20:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I said ask on a FORUM. This is NOT a FORUM. This is a page that is related to the article Super Saiyan, not a form of SSJ that doesn't exist. Daishokaioshin 05:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AF 

message: Why does this name keep coming up? It's a fan name! There are two known forms that are between the Super Saiyan and Super Saiyan 2 form. People keep calling them Ultra Super Saiyan 1 and Ultra Super Saiyan 2 or Ascended Super Saiyan and Ultra Super Saiyan. All wrong names. 
The first should only be called Super Saiyan 2nd Grade since such a name comes closest to the Japanese term for the form, namely Super Saiyan Dai Ni dankai. 
The second should only be called Super Saiyan 3rd Grade since such a name comes closest to the Japanese term for the form, namely Super Saiyan Dai San Dankai. 
The most worst name for Super Saiyan 2nd Grade, would be Ascended Super Saiyan, since the true Acended Super Saiyan is in fact Super Saiyan 2. Goku and Vegeta wanted to reach a higher SSJ form during the Androids/Cell arc. They wanted to experience the boost in power, speed and agility all over again, but now from the base of Super Saiyan, meaning their goal was Super Saiyan 2. Super Saiyan 2nd Grade and Super Saiyan 3rd Grade are try-outs of becoming a Super Saiyan 2, thus making Super Saiyan 2, the true ascended Saiyan like Goku also states.
Core4Sure
:The Japanese term for the forms is just "Beyond SSJ". I don't know where you got those names, but they are never used in the anime or manga. There is one name for both stages, and if we're going to go by the original names it would have to be "Beyond Super Saiyajin". 2nd Grade and 3rd Grade are as much fan names as Ultra and Ascended. There is no "true ascended super saiyan" since that term comes from the FUNimation dub, which means absolutelt nothing in terms of validity. These are the generally accepted names that are being used in this article. Deal with it.
:Daishokaioshin 00:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thing to think about on this subject, is that Ascended and Ultra are the most commonly used names in america, and this is the English Wikipedia. Both the names are given, anyway, so it's not really a problem.--KojiDude (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is, there is no official name to those tranformations.  So fan names are the only thing to go by, and most people call them Ultra SSJ or Ascended.  Whatever they are most commonly called, should be used. Lengis 18:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ultra Super Saiyan

message: For the article for Ascended Super Saiyan, please do not put in the sentence(and is more defined in appearance than before) ever again. The previous sentence(Also the hair gets longer and is is slightly sharper in appearance) is much better. Because the hair of an Ascended Super Saiyan is not defined as previously thought but more sharper in appearance and texture.
64.107.164.130 20:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ascended Super Saiyan

message: Why was some text of the false super saiyan form deleted. Goku used the form again in the otherworld and because he had reached SSJ during that time, he was in full control. Why was this deleted?
:Probably because he didn't use it. The fact that that thing in the Afterlife is non-canon filler aside, Goku never used Giji Super Saiyajin at any point in the anime, and thus there was no original point for him to have obtained the ability. And if he was in full control then it wasn't Giji SSJ. He had normal SSJ, which was far stronger than any false transformation. There would be no REASON for him to use a weak imitation of the real thing.
:Daishokaioshin 02:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  False Super Saiyan 

message: Trunks' USSJ isn't "mistaken" for SSJ2. In Budokai one, he uses ASSJ and USSJ (called Super Trunks and Super Trunks 2). In Budokai 3, it's clearly supossed to be SSJ2. I haven't played Budokai 2 in a while, but from what I remember it's the same as Budokai 3. Either way, the video games aren't considered a reliable source while writing this article, anyway.--KojiDude 19:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Saiyan 2 Trunks 

message: i have a great picture of ss5 goku you know the famous picture i think we should make a section entitled fake fanmade supersaiyans in order to let people that dont know about af that any thing beyond ss4 is fake —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Big foot123456789 (talk • contribs) .
:No. All we need to do is put a sentence in the first paragraph to state that. No sections are needed. It'll just draw trolls to the article.--KojiDude 18:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or we can just direct our little unsigned friend to Dragon Ball AF. -- bulletproof 3:16 18:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To kill it once and for all

message: I forgot to mention, I took out the picture of LSSJ Broly (the one of him running with the quote). The picture was more or less useless, and kinda squeezed the paragraph making it look a little sloppy. We really only need one pic (as only one person uses it), and the full body shot is more or less perfect.--KojiDude 19:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed picture 

message: Ok, I know this is irrelevant, but, could somebody explain to me how in the bloody hell that thing with the double entry section happened?--KojiDude 22:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that was me screwing up with the editing. That's the last time I watch tv while editing. Nemu 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope... That was my fault... That's the last time I smoke weed while editing. >_< -- bulletproof 3:16 22:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: That's just the basic fair use rational for pictures. The fair use policy says to use a limited number of pictures for an article to illustrate it. The pictures should be illustrating the text. There's already a picture for that. It just isn't needed. Nemu 22:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Goku&Vegeta's SSJ4's are very different, so both of them should be shown. Maybe a picture with both of them together would work.--KojiDude 23:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page is just designed to show what each form is like. People can look at Vegeta's page if they would like to see it. There only needs to be one example per form. Nemu 00:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: Added the section before reading that it had been suggested and rejected. I don't see a reason not to have it, as long as it's made clear that it's fake, since it seems to be a source of rumor even these days and this would help clarify it... but if people are REALLY serious about ignoring the AF myth in its entirety, please feel free to revert
--((Original Poster))
Moved, on suggestion, to the Dragon Ball AF page
--((Original Poster))
::Just curious why SSJ5 redirects to this page instead of the DBAF page.  Any takers?  CPitt76 00:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I redirected it. Now it goes to AF.--Atomic-Super-SuitWhat Have I Done?!  23:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake SSJ 

message: Why is Onio even in there? He is just a parody. He is not in the dragonball Z Continuity.
Onio being a Super Saiyan was just a joke in a parody. People who become SS as a joke in something that has nothing to do with DBZ except a few cameos (that conflict with the series' timeline by the way) don't need to be listed.--KojiDude (Contributions) 02:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Onio