Talk:Dragon Ball Z/Archive 4

message: When is the 4rth season supposed to come out I bought the third and it just said It was comming soon.Prince Of All Sayains  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Of All Saiyans (talk • contribs) 16:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 4 DBZ

message: When is DBZ's Season 4 Coming Out?Prince Of All Saiyans 13:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Season 4

message: I changed the DVD section into a wikitable, to give it a more organized look. I was going to also add a Spanish Audio Collum, but only one set had Spanish audio, so I decided against it. Anyone else have any suggestions for it? Takuthehedgehog 04:44, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: DVD section

message: Whats the point in this section? I cant see how its relevant. Unless someone provides ACCURATE reasons its not gonna be in the article.BlueShrek 23:45, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you're reasons for getting rid of it, exactly? You haven't given us much insight on why it should be removed other than the fact you see it as a pointless list. // DecaimientoPoético 02:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

text: What does the fact that they weren't "all released together" have to do with this?  You haven't really said anything new as to why you think it should go.  "The quality goes down" is very vague, and still doesn't provide us much insight into this situation.  One could say that about anything in the article, but that reason alone wouldn't justify removing it.  Dan 14:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The other DVD sections do provide all of the information that the table I created had. I had originally made it to clean up the old section on DVD releeases, I don't see why it didn't occur to me to just delete it. Takuthehedgehog 01:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

text: That's what I said. Takuthehedgehog 01:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: dvd release

message: Haha, half asleep and I did that revert wrong, looked at it completely the wrong way.  I thought that the Anon IP has added that stuff.  Sorry, guys.  :x  Lychosis T/C 16:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oopsy... 

message: This was added by someone:
[[Dragon Ball Z: The last stand of The Z Fighters: - Saiyans Rebirth] (2008) - Confirmed  
They claim it's confirmed, but where's the source? I won't believe it until there's proof it's actually being made. Schaef Dogg 18:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: its a fake, search for it on google, you get zero results--Mhart54com 08:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: you know it isn't right to pose as an anonymous editor, and im sure the video you saw was the dragonbll Z OVA--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 00:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  14th DBZ Movie??? 

message: "Another Story: Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans" does not fit the definition of an OVA. An OVA, according to Wikipedia is:
"is a term used for anime titles that are released direct-to-video, without prior showings on TV or in theaters. OVA titles were originally available on VHS, though they later became available on other media such as Laserdisc and DVD. OVA is sometimes used to refer to any short anime series or special regardless of its release format."
While the last sentence ends with "regardless of its release format", most OVA's are direct to video releases. "Another Story: Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans" is nothing more than a video someone compiled from the various scenes from the game Dragon Ball Z: Shin Saiyajin Zenmatsu Keikaku - Chikyū-Hen and Dragon Ball Z: Shin Saiyajin Zenmetsu Keikaku - Uchū-Hen. MastaFighta 06:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: but the Japanese call it an OVA is that not good enough?--Mhart54com 08:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "is nothing more than a video someone compiled" yes and that someone would happen to be TOEI animation!, which would also be why "the japanese call it an OVA", it was released on video, so TOEI could squeeze an extra buck out of DBZ. something which you would know had you actually checked the article for said OVA (This is an OVA, first released on VHS August 6th 1993, just after the Famicom game ... The OVA has been re-released in 2003 in Japan as an extra feature in the "Dragon Box" DVD boxed set. see, that's two releases of the thing as an OVA)68.255.174.7 16:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  OVA 

message: a live action movie has already been made its called "Dragonball: The Magic Begins" but it is for the dragonball series--Mhart54com 04:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a quick 2 min check on this movie. It is an unoffficial chinese movie published in 1989. It's not a fan movie, but still unofficial.. I'm not sure on whether it should be mentioned. - Zero1328 Talk? 07:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is still a dragonball movie, yes it is an unoffficial chinese movie--Mhart54com 07:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live action movie 

message: People have been wondering if the dragonball z live action film article should be merged with the dragonballz article. So there has been voting. To vote and express your opinion, go to 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dragon_Ball_Z_%28film%29
every vote makes a difference.
--Cman7792 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Film debate

message: Uncut Season 4 (Garlic - Android saga) has been confirmed and will come out february of 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5gCc-W-ou8  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.167.210 (talk) 03:01, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncut season 4 

message: Most of the information has been butchered. There is little or no useful information regarding the series itself. This is the same with many DBZ articles, there is either too little information or the info is worthless and boring. I dont see why every time you wiki-nerds see something you dont agree with you have to delete it. This article sucks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.197.68 (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then be bold and do something about it. Though I can't say many will sid with you. // DecaimientoPoético 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Changes 

message: The  Filmmaker James Wong has reportedly come aboard to direct the live-action feature film version of Dragon Ball Z. The film is expected to start production in Montreal in November.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=37957
http://movies.ign.com/articles/824/824447p1.html
Should we add this info or not? It official because it from IGN and Comeingsoon.net.
:Here's the CHUD article- http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=news&id=12002Onikage725 01:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CHUD is not a reliable source. Alientraveller 21:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Alientraveller -- let's not rush with a movie blog that relies on "an old and trusted scooper named Tailgunner Joe".  When a more reliable source independently reports the information in a more official capacity, we can then include it. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. When (if) the project goes into development, this should be easily verifiable. Onikage725 23:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

text: No, the source is some friend of CHUD's. Alientraveller 09:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

text: IGN is merely passing on the information found at CHUD.com because not all Net-savvy film-lovers go to CHUD.com.  In addition, if you notice the very article title at IGN, it says, "Dragon Ball Z Director? - Final Destination filmmaker said to be helming."  This is not confirmed in the slightest. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: About the live action movie

message: I probably missed something, but aren't the gravity in the Room of Spirit and Time the same as North Kai's planet? If this is the case, why would Son Goku have trouble walking on North Kai's planet if he had already trained in the Room of Spirit and Time? He is also much stronger when on King Kai's Planet in DBZ than as a child in DB so I can't find a conclusion.[[UserSxeFluff--SxeFluff 23:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely just a plot hole.--60 Delta 01:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

text: It was said the gravity in the RoSaT varies, so it could have been even higher than on King Kai's planet.  But Goku only stayed in there a month as a kid and may not have ventured out very far from the shrine portion.  Kami might have told him he couldn't take the gravity and only sent him in there for the extra time to train.  Of course, that's entirely speculation.172.169.27.230 18:10, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plot Hole with Training 

message: There should be a Garlic Junior Saga. If you don't want to take the time to create a Garlic Junior Saga page, then consider adding it to the end of the Freeza Saga or the beginning of the Cell Saga.  Also, you have clustered up the sagas. It should be spread out a bit, as the Dragonball has it. For instance. Sayain Saga, Namek Saga, Ginyu Force Saga, Freeza Saga, Garlic Junior Saga, Android Saga, Cell Saga, Babidi Saga, and then finally the Majin Buu saga.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.68.248.132 (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saga suggestions 

message: Has been completely destroyed. It sucks, it doesnt even have any information on the storyline or anything. The standards of the Dragonball articles have fallen dramatically and are very poor to say the least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.197.68 (talk • contribs) 
: Yea, The article was better before after this user Sesshomaru nukes everything. --SkyWalker 19:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Complain all you guys want, I'm simply following WP:V and WP:OR. Look at what happened to D.L. Hughley. No one complained there, the DBZ article is no different. And no offense guys, but they're policies, they can not be ignored. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See above^--Marhawkman 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Must I say it again? Of course anime episodes can be utilised as refs, I just think sourcing manga chapters/pages are more informal. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: That is true. However it is true, because the articles weren't violating policy to start with.--Marhawkman 22:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was not in direct violation of Wikipedia Policey but it was terrible. It was just a long article that just explained every release date for every Funimation box set. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion is actually not about this article specifically. Sessh lobotomized multiple article related to DBZ.--Marhawkman 22:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You make it sound as if I'm vandalising. Well, time to cut more unsourced bunk. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't have any problems with it if your edits were being made to improve the articles. but you've gone to Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point you've almost completely removed several of the character pages for no reason other than your misguided interpretation of policy.--Marhawkman 23:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm afraid this whole sorry incident has done nothing to improve the image that wiki users are nothing but tireless nit-pickers, who would rather follow their policies to an obsessive degree than write a good article. Sure this follows your strict interpretation of policy Sesshomaru, but the fact of the matter is, this article is now terrible (IMO) because of it! Instead of tearing the article to pieces, maybe it would be better to improve this article by either finding sources or rewriting it. The Real Mr Snrub 23:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section break 1 

message: A debate has sprung up regarding the implementation of wp:v and wp:or in regards to procedure for removing information that doesn't have references. In particular, whether all statements need to be referenced individually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marhawkman (talk • contribs) 
:I went through and looked at the history, and went through each section that was removed:
:# History: Deals almost exclusively with localization issues, which probably should be cited. Sentences like "severe restrictions were put in place for a cable program." go uncited and unexplained, while the entire "creative changes" section/sentence starts with "The FUNimation version is noted for" but doesn't attribute the noting.
:#Filler: The article suggests the infamously lengthy fight sequences were caused by the need for filler. If possible, this should be cited.
:# VHS/DVD releases: The material covered here probably ought to go under the history section, and cited, because the bulk of it deals with the Pioneer -> FUNimation differences.
:In short, go out and find sources, then come back and reintroduce/rewrite the material that was there. And then write some more, like a critical reception section, how it impacted the industry, etc, etc. Nifboy 01:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose I didn't explain it well, but the RFC was about this and the sub-articles.--Marhawkman 10:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section break 2 

message: According to WP:Lead section, "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Aside from stuff like vital statistics (i.e. Dragon Ball Z aired from this date to this date), the information in the lead should be a summary of the information in the main article; a "concise overview of the article", not the only place that information appears in the article.
The point I'm getting to is... There should be a plot summary section within the article itself, as is standard for basically all fiction articles in Wikipedia (go on, check as many as you like), and only then does a shorter plot summary make sense in the lead section. Philip Reuben 19:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read the above sections (especially "What in the...") to figure out what's going on. -- RattleMan 19:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The above is my contribution to that argument. Just an observation, not a reponse to anyone in particular or an invitation for a massive debate. A plot summary section in the body of the article, without any particular referencing (the work itself is the source), is standard across Wikipedia, so it baffles me that it would have been removed from this article. And, as I said, the way the article is structured now contradicts the style guideline about article leads. I think policy is clearly on the side of those who want a bit more detail in this article, even if there obviously needs to be as much sourcing as possible for things that don't relate directly to the plot. Philip Reuben 20:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section break 4 

message: Hello everybody:) I'm SJP and I have been at wikipedia for a year. As of this moment I have over 15.5K edits on english wikipedia. I mediated my first case in December of 06 for AMA, but I am not a very active mediator. I have only taken 4-5 cases. As a mediator, it is not my job to get involved in the dispute/advocate a side. I'm here to stay neutral, and help you help your selves reach a compromise.
I would like to give you all some words of advice, which I expect you all to follow. They will help you all reach a compromise more quickly than if you did not follow them. My first piece of advice is that you not comment on the editors:just comment on the content. As WP:NPA says, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." Secondly, stay civil. In other words, no rude comments, no judgemental edit summaries, no belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice, no ill-considered accusations of impropriety of one kind or another, no starting a comment with: "Not to make this personal, but...", no lies, and no name calling. Also, please remember that you do not own the article. Thanks for your time:)--SJP 20:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Break 5 

message: Page has been reverted again. The answer to lack of sources is find them and add them, not deleting the article.  All information present in the article is accurate, therefor sources exist for the information, the job is to add them, not vadilise the page. Revert the change again and you WILL be reported for vandalism.Xyex 20:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse me, but I was the one who reverted the page. The reason is that the content was deleted was not just because it was unsourced for so long, but it was because the information was not what was needed on this article. It was mostly paragraph opon paragraph of box set information. This is not content that should be the bulk of the article. Also, User:Sesshomaru is not vandalising Wikipedia, only trying to improve it, threatining him with being reported of vandalism is violation of WP:FAITH which states that we should assume fellow wikipedians are trying to help wikipedia, not hurt it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's hard to assume anyone is 'helping' by removing all information.  The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information, not remove it.  Simply deleting the information IS vandalism, plain and simple.  Unsourced information?  Alright, fine, source it.  Do not remove it simply because you are too lazy to locate sources that do exist for the information.  Is the article in need of some clean-up?  Sure.  But there aren't many articles that aren't.  Before you go around 'helping' by removing 90% of an article and leaving it in state that is no longer a valid article why don't you put some effort into improving it?  If the article is reverted to lists again I'll submit it for deletion as it no longer serves a purpose, the inforamtaion present in those lists is all found in other articles dedicated to that information.Xyex 23:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to provide information; it's to provide a solid encyclopedia. Removing bad content is a perfectly valid method for achieving that goal. I would most definitely not recommend that you put the article up for deletion; disrupting to prove a point is frowned upon here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction to my previous post.  I was in rush.  I didn't mean that I would submit it for deletion but that it *should* be submitted for deletion as the article, in it's current list state, does not meet wikipeida's guidelines.  And also, you contradicted yourself.  An encyclopeida IS a source of information.  That is the goal of wikipeida, providing solid information on subjects.  *Deleting* information that is solid, instead of providing sources for said information goes against the very concept of the site.  All I ask is that people stop being lazy and actually *improve* the site instead of hindering its progress.  But if someone else wont then fine, come December when I should have more free time I'll do it myself from the ground up.Xyex 02:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of working in a collaborative environment is working together to achieve a common goal (here, the improvement of the article). In these situations, just reverting edits isn't very productive (and neither is making wide-ranging insults like calling everyone lazy).I'd also like to point out that I didn't contradict myself. Information is just that, information, and is inherently neutral; sometimes the best way to improve the quality of a page is to remove content (sometimes it can be cruft, or sometimes it can be spun out into a separate article). EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Removing valid information isn't productive either.  If I'm not mistaken the entier purpose of the DBZ article is to cover the details of the sereis as a whole, in an overview fashion.  This is exactly what the original article did.  Yes, it could have used a few more source citations.  Does that validate deleting everything?  No, it does not.  Is it lazy to simply remove information instead of spending the time to cite these source (which would not be all that hard to find in the first place)?  Yes.  The information present on the page was neutral, some of the reasons for its removal, however, were not.  DBZROCKS has cited the focus on the FUNimation version as a reason for his removal of the information.Also, for the record, I'd like to point out I am collaberating here.  I just happen to be the current person stepping up to try and fix the article after the others have gotten feedup with dealing with individuals here.  I am far from the only person who thinks the removal of 90% of the article is a serious problem.  Did the article need some improvements, sure, but there's not a single article on the site that doesn't.  Simply removing information gets us nowhere.  Especially when such removal is far from the concensus.I used to think Wikipedia was a worthwhile endevour but if the belief of the admins is truly that unwaranted removal of information is better than improving it than perhaps I was wrong.  Oh, and you did contradict yourself.  You expressly stated that providing information isn't the purpose of Wikipedia right before saying it's pupose is to be an encylopedia, which means its purpose is to provide information.Xyex 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Xyex, remember to assume good faith. Even if you have reason to believe bad faith, do not say your oppinion. Accusations of bad faith do not help. Also, comment on the content, not on the contributers. Cheers!--SJP 12:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes calling someone out on something is the only way to get anything done.  The "Oh, everything's sunshine and rainbows" attitude only gets you so far when you're dealing with individuals who have crossed the lines into WP:OWN and WP:WL.Xyex 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Its policy to discuss the content and not the editors. Please follow it. When you comment on the editors you will only make things worse. If you talk about the content on the otherhand you will make things better over time. If you feel the inability to follow this policy, than feel free to take a break from this dispute. Thanks for your time:)--SJP 23:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally feel that I can understand Xyex's frustration. Maybe people don't realize this, but the "corporate" speak (i.e. so-called polite chastising) can come off as condescending. In some cases hypocritical. One example is when I made an edit and was told to experiment in the sandbox. How is that assuming good faith? That's the standard bit of text often quoted to IP addresses who mess up articles out of ignorance or inexperience, not something one would use as part of an editorial disagreement. Another example, SJP, would be how you're coming off. This is an observation, not an attack, but what you just said to Xyex seems to be "if you don't change your tune, then you need to go away. Thanks! :)" But what is odd is that this has gone on both sides. One user was basically accused of being a sockpuppet simply for being new and disagreeing with the "blanket deletion" camp. I was told an edit I made was "ridiculous." We've been called "fanboys" who simply want "their cruft back" here and on various talk pages, despite stating numerous times that this isn't our intent and we just want to discuss which info is in question before deleting ALL of it and leaving only a selection of lists that go against format policy. One user has said in discussion elsewhere about this dispute that "Xyex poses a problem" and that his edits are "junk." At one point I was asked sarcastically if I'd read a previous discussion that the user knew I had read , as we had interacted in said discussion. We face sarcasm, derision, and dismissal here, on our talk pages, and behind our backs, and no one else seems to give a damn. Yet the minute we reciprocate, the incivility card drops real fast. Frankly, it is a little one-sided. Onikage725 01:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I am trying to say is that it is best for this dispute to not comment on the contributers, but instead comment on the content. Usually name calling does not help situations, and policy does not allow for name calling. What I am saying to Xyex is that it is best for him to comment on the content and not the contributers. I'm sorry for not being clear enough.--SJP 03:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Anger is a strong emotion. It is very powerful, and when angry, I believe it is in or nature to act in ways we would not usually act. I have observed this in others, and in myself. I can sense Xyex is angry, so I suggested that he take a break if he feels he needs too. Sometimes, it is best to just take a break from a dispute for a while. Cheers!--SJP 03:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not angry, just frustrated.  Sesshomaru and DBZROCKS have both been coming across, both here and on various user talk pages, as though they are the wiki police and any changes not approved by them are junk.  A simple look at a few talk pages shows clear evidence of this and yet we are the ones being talked to about policy.  The difference is that we're being up front about the issue while they're doing it where it's not as easily noticed.  If this is wiki's policies at work then the policies are in need of some repair.Xyex 06:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't normally get involved with wikipedia articles, but after stumbling across this one tonight, all I have to say is wow. I have been reading some of the posts on this page and will have to agree with Xyex, this is vandalism. Over looking the text that wasn't sighted (yet true none the less), removing of almost all the sagas?!?! That alone discredits the person that made the edit. I understand that you are trying to make this page purely factual, but it is now to a point why it is not only untrue, it is completely useless. I believe that the page should be reverted and locked, or just deleted (even if it is a little extreme) since it tells nothing of use now. Rpgking4 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, my next step, if people continuously refuse to identify what content is in question and insist on deleting all of it, will be to propose a merger of both series' anime articles to the main Dragon Ball article (the one on the manga). The anime could go under "Other Media" or "Adaptations." I don't think this is necessary, but if all it is going to be is 3 paragraphs and some lists, then this no longer meets the criteria of an article. Onikage725 07:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would suggest that you, before you edit the article, get consensus to edit. Discusion is better than edit warring. Cheers!--SJP 11:03, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You should bring that up with Sesshomaru then, as he was the original source of the edit without consensus (cropping the article into nearly nothing).  All edits since then have been attempts to revert to the consensus that have been thwarted by Sesshomaru and DBZROCKS because they, and they alone, do not agree.Xyex 00:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Usually you should be bold in your editing, but in disputes, that is not best.--SJP 11:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I brought up WP:BRD. make the bold edit. See if it is reverted. Discuss amongst the interested parties to reach comprimise. The "D" in the process here somehow became "revert the revert and insinuate vandilism." I'm just saying that to illustrate why we've grown frustrated. Onikage725 00:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

text: We should just have a vote on which solution is the best, between mass deletion without any attempt at sourcing, or maintaining the article with its "disputed" content and gradually source it with the participation of all people involved in the DB project.Folken de Fanel 12:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea.--SJP 14:45, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Break 6 

message: This articule needs to be rearranged and reedited. It gives headaches just look at it. Its basicly a collection of random information about this anime series and thrown in no real order. From the discussion found on this page It'll probably be best to just start from fresh with a neutral over all  discription of the anime with references from reliable source (make sure you read the how to write a reference articles) I believe I've seen links to it on this page. If anyone out there is willing to pickup the project it'll be greatly appreciated. Rock on guys!!! Demon Lord Naraku 20:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for Reordering or Reediting this site

message: The movie is going to be shoot in Durango, Mexico under the direction of James Wong. The production, expected to film in 2008, plans to use the Mexiquillo Forest.
http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=39092
Justin Chatwin will be playing as Son Goku and James Marsters as Piccolo.
http://movies.ign.com/articles/835/835143p1.html
http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2007-11-11/heroes-lee-auditions-for-dragon-ball-z-movie
http://www.superherohype.com/news/topnews.php?id=6523
Should we add this or not?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.91.213 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this info technically go to the Dragon Ball page? The plot as pitched tus far is DB, and James Marster's as Daimao clinches it. It seems to me that everyone is calling this the "DBZ movie" becuase the layman doesn't know any better (the first prominent source on this even says as much- and refers to it as "Dragon Ball" while questioning a lack of "Z"). Onikage725 02:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More info on the DBZ movie

message: Since some silly dispute has the article locked (I am not reading through that huge topic to check it out), can an admin make a link fix in the article? In the scetion "VHS/DVD releases", can somebody change the link Famicom to Famicom? 
Oh, I also oppose the merge suggestion on the main page since DB and DBZ are seperate series. TJ Spyke 23:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before this request is made, I'd like for everyone to see the DBZ post I left at WP:AN. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thank you for correcting the link to WP:AN, Lord Sesshomaru. It sure was heartening to see an administrator do the right thing. :) K9feline (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link fix in the article 

message: I really don't think this is comedy. Common, I got the 3rd season of Dragonball Z, and it had mostly bloody violence. I didn't laugh once.
Just because you can find something funny doesn't make it a comedy. Many lives were lost, what's so funny about that?
Seriously, I need to know how this is a comedy, this looks like a damn serious animation to me. I'm just asking, how is it a comedy? TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 22:33, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "describes what you can see" isn't good enough. All TV shows have their funny moments, that doesn't make them comedy. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Whatever, do what you want, keep it, remove it, I'm not even watching this page, so I see no point in trying to change it. I don't care, I just wanted to point out how it's not a comedy. I have nothing else to say, have a nice day. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Okay, but we need a more objective point of reference. What does Shonen Jump categorize it as?--Marhawkman (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: -_- is this why the page is protected?--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 16:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No there was an edit war related to something else.--Marhawkman (talk) 16:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: good because fighting over this is stupid--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 23:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I would agree that it isn't a comedy although it is pretty funny at times, for example: pretty much every time Mr. Satan comes around.--Funkamatic (talk) 16:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Funkamatic, this conversation appears to be over. The prevalent genres, as of now, are action and sci-fi. See the article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comedy? 

message: I think dragon ball / z / gt should have its own dvd page, i mean other tv series have their own dvd page and they only have like 3 dvds, but dragon ball / z / gt series has 150+ dvds, please reply V_V
:I agree, but you are going to have to find references to everything though (as you can see in the above posts). You also might want to wait until this page gets cleaned up. You know, one step at a time. Rpgking4 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. When it does clean up, please add this page, I will fill it out fast. :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.85.224 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do create such a page, it can't just be a huge plot summary. You would need to include references from reliable sources, etc--C. ROSS 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, I was thinking about making a list.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.89.190 (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Own DVD Page 

message: I am going insane with the amount of information I write down gets suddenly deleted.
A good idea is annihilated because some jerks do not agree.
You people constantly delete 'unverified' data instead of re-writing it.
Dragonball Z IS ACTION BASED!! If you want to write about Goku's adventures then head to the Dragonball article because this one focuses on the fights!!
For the love of god, consider putting in a more battle based picture for DBZ instead of the childish one that's there.
Also, stop deleting everything I write. If you read it you will notice it's readable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holy damn (talk • contribs) 10:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current picture is a "cast photo" in the style of the series' opening credits, which to me seems entirely appropriate. It also represents the general colour scheme of the series much more than your replacement picture, and features a wider variety of characters (the entire cast isn't Super Saiyans...) Philip Reuben (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree with Philip Reuben.--Funkamatic (talk) 16:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dragonball Z is action based. It is not Dragonball. 

message: :Image:Dragonballz.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) 20:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dragonballz.jpg