Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Heat P (talk | contribs) at 02:00, 8 November 2007 (→‎Discussion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:TrollWarning

Public Service Anouncement

Recentaly I visited a site called myfavorite games. This site may have many dragon Ball related images, but it also has something else: spyware. This site has enough spy ware to make your computer so slow it would take to an hour to type this sentence. So if you do not have reliable spyware protection, please do not go to myfavorite games, it may just mess up your computer. In fact it infected my computer so bad, I am typing this from school, and not from home as usual. This public service anouncement has been brought to you by DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The merging of the Tenkaichi articles

I was being bold and merged the Tenkaichi articles into a series page, as I did with the Saiyajin Zetsumetsu Keikaku articles. Many of you will be pissed with my actions, but I'm sure some other users with common sense will side with me. Now, I did mention at Talk:List of Dragon Ball video games that I'd be doing something to this effect, but the fact none of you noticed and commented isn't exactly my problem. If any of you have something to say in disagreement about this, please calmly and civily discuss it here or on the series page's talk page instead of reverting my edits and edit warring. // DecaimientoPoético 23:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Article Structure section, doesn't it say that all video games should have their own pages, or does this series not apply?--60 Delta 03:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also suggests we make chapter/volume and episode pages, but that's just ludicris. Merging into a single article when possible is recommended. // DecaimientoPoético 18:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, having all these pages for each game was a bad idea. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I only wish I could do something about the character table, though. With as many characters as the series has seen, it's kind of hard to manage such a list in the article, and it has a severe toll on my computer. Still, on a whim I was gracious enough to keep the lists in the first place and took three hours of my time (not all in on shot, of course) to fix and adjust it. I'll work on a new format throughout the week if someone doesn't beat me to it. // DecaimientoPoético 02:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not pissed by your actions at all; even though I don't touch those articles, merging them is probably the best option. Also just having one character list that shows which game the character was introduced in would probably be less stressful on your comp. --VorangorTheDemon 10:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on the merge

Add * Support if you agree with this move. Add * Oppose if you disagree. Please provide a brief explanation, then sign your name. 16:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Support as merger - Bitch and complain all you want, it won't change my opinion: Merging the articles was the best option we had. The separate pages had a lot of repeated (returning characters, story mode, etc.) and unneeded (Evolution Z, options) information. In the new series page, the character tables were easily condensed into a single table that lists all appearing characters in the whole series; the gameplay section notes the notable (and only the notable) perks of gameplay, obviously; instead of having to add 'Name origin' and 'Localization differences' sections on all three pages (not saying we did), we now have it all in one convenient spot. I could go on, if I felt like doing so. // DecaimientoPoético 19:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I guess it is better this way.--60 Delta 01:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Agree with Poetic Decay. Also having one merged article would probably be easier to manage edit-wise, in addition to cutting down on cruft. --VorangorTheDemon 10:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Large Support Like Poetic Decay said, one can complain as much as they want but in reality the pages were more or less the same thing. I do think the Budokai games should keep their pages because there were enough differences to warrent seperate articles. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 18:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like no one opposed it, dispite all the complants. There for, it stays. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 16:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, late as usual. Even if page was the same picture in the middle of a guy with his middle finger in the air, each is a separate product that deserves its own page and details such as date of release and any particular information pertaining to them. Rule should be that if Tekken gets a page for each game, DBZ does. You can keep the series article but each game should have a main article link to the original articles with full details. I'm also not exactly surprised at the responses given considering they're from the exact same people dead set on merging the contents of DBZ onto the back of a stamp and filing it away in a warehouse.Darkwarriorblake 17:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support I do agree with with some of what you said and at first I was against the merge. But reading all the arguments and whatnot, I figured that in the end, there wasn't enough information in any of the articles, especially Tenkaichi 2. You can't really compare it to Tekken. Tekken didn't start off as a anime. It started as a video game series and each articles, excluding Tekken Tag Tournament, has notible and useful information. The only way it'd be acceptable to bring the articles back is if they had more information, as well as important ones. So there, I said it. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 17:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles on things that contain much less information. It isn't quantity, its quality of information present. Darkwarriorblake 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, each article doesn't have either. The only one that did was the article for the first game. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 18:09, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactally, the Tenkaichi games are almost identical in terms of Gameplay, they don't have any significant roster changes, And the story is based off of an anime. The Tenkaichi Games are better merged because they can be merged and still have the same ammount of information than if there were seperate articles. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Tenkaichi Games

I am really annoyed by this move, and I think there are many others are like me. Sure there might be people out there that like it this new way, but I think you can see that at least 80% of people do not. So why keep it like this? You say that all the information is still there, yet when I try and find the individual page all I find is jumbled up information all around the place and did not find the information I needed. You have un-needingly turned 3 pages of information into 3 paragraphs. I think they deserve more than that, especially with information lost, I thought this was a site to get as much information as possible, not write as least as you can. I really cannot see why you changed it and kept it like this, I personally reckon that it was a pretty stupid move. I don't see why we have to put up with this because of you. You are the one that changed it, you. It isn't even democratic, sure we get to voice our opinion but there should be a poll done, because I am sure the majority would vote to change it back. I hope you see this, and I hope you reply, and I especially hope you change it back, otherwise you should be grateful for losing a lot of people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandox1 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you make a separate section when you could simply have replied above? Wikipedia is not a democracy. And it isn't really a vote, it's more or less a discussion, with people opposing and supporting something.--60 Delta 17:41, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kuririn redirects to Krillin

I'm not sure if anyone brought this up before, but, as stated in the heading, Kuririn redirects to Krillin. Was there a discussion that suggested this? If so, the history for Krillin is messed up, a history merge should be done.--60 Delta 17:52, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since he just did a copy paste move, why not just revert both pages? I'm gonna go do that. (EDIT: Done.)Takuthehedgehog 18:09, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling all Project Members!!!!!!

I am sure most of us here have seen the terrible shape of the Dragon Ball Z Saga articles right? Well I DBZROCKS have proposed a change. This would include

  • All Dragon Ball sagas would be merged into Dragon Ball (plot)
  • Saiyan saga shortened drastically
  • Namek Saga, Freeza saga and the Ginyu force saga unto Freeza saga
  • Android, Trunks, Imperfect/Perfect Cell sagas, Cell games saga into just Cell Saga
  • Fusion, Tournament, And related sagas into just Buu Saga
  • All Dragon Ball GT sagas into just Dragon Ball GT (plot)
  • All sagas would have 3 or so paragraphs
  • Exept for filler sagas which would simply be merged into the respective anime pages

If you would like to help (please), please go to my sandbox. Thanks!! DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it appears to be the work of newbies and sockpuppets that trash those pages. Why not have every single plot and saga in an article entitled Dragon Ball (narrative)? Seems more informative. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er..no? I don't understand why everyone is so dead set on reducing the entirety of Dragon Ball to a single page print-out stored in that warehouse at the end of Raiders. Maggie Simpson gets a page and whats she done thats all that important?Darkwarriorblake 10:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles should be shortened, but not so, that it's in a single article. It'd probably be better if we put them in three articles. Dragon Ball (plot), Dragon Ball Z (plot), and Dragon Ball GT (plot). The fact is, when you think about the series, the stories too long. So it'd be too troublesome for the readers and too tiresome. That's why I suggest these three. Also, some would say that the filler saga (refering to the Garlic Jr.) don't belong, but we have to remember that the anime series is the one with saga titles, not the manga. We can add that it was indeed a filler. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 12:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original sagas should remain, i.e. Freeza saga, Saiyan Saga, Cell and Buu Sagas. Not all this DVD making money mini-sagas. But if episodes of certain shows can get a page, an entire series of episodes deserves one.Darkwarriorblake 13:23, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dark Warrior. However, I also wouldn't object to the important episodes getting their own articles, like the first episode of Dragon Ball, or another example, where Goku becomes a Super Saiyan; but that could be a nightmare if we decided to make an article for every episode, considering in all three Dragon Ball series combined, there's over six hundred of them. For other metaseries like Star Trek, some of their eps have individual pages, just to use an example, one of my fav eps: Past Prologue (DS9 episode). However, I also agree that it could become crufty pretty quick if they aren't maintained well, but then again, maybe distribution of information (as in having episode articles) could make the character articles easier to maintain. So instead of explaining the details of situations, we could just direct to an episode article, people can get the details that way. --VorangorTheDemon 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But they aren't that notable, why would we want individual episodes? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 18:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because hes saying you make articles for NOTABLE episodes. Damn DBZRocks, youre one hell of an articlist. Hating on articles and such.Darkwarriorblake 20:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what notable episodes are there? I can't think of any that are wildly referenced in pop culture or out of Dragon Ball. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well let's see. I don't suppose the first appearance of a Super Saiyan would be of any importance. I mean its only what Super Sonic is copied from and the whole Super Saiyan thing was a huge anime culture dealie. Darkwarriorblake 21:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That information is in many articles already, I don't see how making an article about the episode would be needed. Example: Super Saiyan. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about individual episodes will be hard to maintain within this project, not based on the episode's notability but because keeping them free of fancruft will prove a challenge. - Caribbean~H.Q. 21:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not detailing the super saiyan, youre detailing the first appearance, show an image of the appearance, how it hapenned any anything important of note. I mean its pretty much the entire crutch of the series from thereon. Darkwarriorblake 21:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All of that information and more is already in the Super Saiyan article. If its about the episode, why would we just have the details of the Super Saiyan transformation? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my fault, I didn't mean info on just the super saiyan. You're not talking about how he changes physically or any crap like that but I'd consider it an important episode so you'd say that its episode number whatever of Dragon Ball Z, brief plot summary. I dunno. However other episodes with articles do it. I'd say there are a lot of scenes which were very important in anime popular culture such as Gohan's transformation to SSJ2. Darkwarriorblake 22:26, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. What about character and attack first appearences or noted fights? Like episode one of DBZ being noted for introducing Gohan to the series, or DBZ episode six being noted for Goku's death against Raditz and introducing Vegeta in the series? Perhaps Dragon Ball episode 13 being noted for introducing the Kamehameha? I'm simply saying since other series can get away with having entire articles for single eps (even completely unimportant eps), why can't we? Also instead of saying that "_____ was introduced early in the series" we could say "_____ was introduced in (DBZ episode whatever)" and have the link to the page. --VorangorTheDemon 22:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Episodes must contain sourced production and reception details in order to stand. There is no chance at all for this series, so please do not bother. TTN 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou TTN for your always useful, productive and invested help. Darkwarriorblake 00:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 Dragonball articles up for AFD

These Dragonball articles up for AFD are: Muten Roshi, Bulma and Kuririn. (Duane543 16:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Dragon Ball Z Live film

I was in the List of Dragon Ball films talk page and saw this link. I wanted to know more about it, so I came here and wanted a second oppinion on it. It seems pretty bogus, but that's just my oppinion. What do you guys think? --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the link not too long ago (I think it got archived though) here and at the DBZ main article. The general idea has been to wait for more info. This sounds sketchy and is so far the only source is second hand info "dropped off" by a "Tailginner Joe," who is described by the author as an "old and trusted scooper." Onikage725 15:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Need some help

Hey there. I haven't edited Wikipedia lately. I need some help on some articles relating to all the articles. I could edit some of these pages, but I will need some advice on this problem. Any comments? Thanks. Greg Jones II 23:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments: One, huh? and two, what is your problem exactally? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My problems are that some articles are in an in-universe style and I want to cite references or sources per WP:CITE. Also, I need some help expanding articles if I can. Greg Jones II 23:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You claim to not have edited Wikipedia lately yet your contributions say otherwise. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, actually, I have been active. If that is the case, I apologize for a part of my comment above regarding my claim not to have edited Wikipedia lately. Greg Jones II 23:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No prob! If you haven't done so already, you may want to read this and this to know what's going on. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for pointing out these facts, Lord Sesshomaru. I will go to these links you described above. Greg Jones II 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main article

Someone want to tell me what's been going on? Why has the MAIN article for DBZ been reduced to a stub and bloated with three lists? I know it needed more sources and some rewrites, but blanket deletion has NOT improved that article in any way. And lists aren't any better than plot summaries. Someone coming to Wikipedia to research DBZ can currently only find out what the opening/closing/insert songs where for the Japanese version and who the people who made or acted in the show are. Onikage725 23:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, Onikage725, see this and this to know what is going on. Thanks, Greg Jones II 11:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Solution for our saga problem

I finally got a look at the saga articles and I now I understand why so many people are conplaining. I still do agree with the merger, don't get me wrong, but the articles need to be fixed. Considering that these articles are basically about the same thing, they should have the same categories, because to be frank, it's very unorganized and unprofessional. Here's a list of things that need to be changed.

  • Longer Plot descriptions - Just as it states. The Saiyan saga's okay though. It's the best made article out of the four. Majin Buu is the worst. I also like how the other articles via Freeza and Cell saga have the plot split into the FUNimation sagas. Just add more to 'em and do the same with Majin Buu.
  • Saga airing - I think we should only put the original Japanese date instead of the U.S. date because before you know it, people will end up putting the air date from other countries like Europe and Canada.
  • Characters - I think it should be split up into three categories, even though in the Saiyan saga article it is. Heroes, Villians, and Others. Character names should be the original Japanese name, but things like God and Enma will unacceptable as they are Kami and Yama, respectively.
  • Introduction - Should be short and about three sentences. Something along the lines of "The (saga title) saga is the name of the (number of saga) saga within (which ever Dragon Ball title it is). (this next sentence is only relevant if the saga has more than one) FUNimation split this saga into (number of parts) parts; (name all the parts). This arc takes place after the (name of saga, this doesn't apply to the first saga in Dragon Ball) saga. This saga originally aired on (first date, and I don't mean only the year, I mean a specific date) to (date it ended)."
  • Episode Guide & Manga Chapters - Basically the same way that the Saiyan saga has it.

That's about it. What do you think. Oh yeah, another thing. I thought we were going to merge the Dragon Ball sagas into the Toei titled sagas and the Dragon Ball GT sagas together? What happened to that? --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 16:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, those saga articles were violating WP:NOR and WP:V policies. Sources must be placed or the unverified content may be challenged and removed on the spot. That's how policy works. Saiyan Saga has two refs but it really needs more. And about the plot mergers, I don't know what happened to that, it was DBZROCKS' idea. Maybe he changed his mind? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"On the spot"? NO, you're leaving out the challenge part of challenged and removed. Chellenge means you ask about it on the talk page. THEN you delete it if people agree that it is warranted.--Marhawkman 21:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They still need work. --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 20:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Greg Jones II 20:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ryu-chan, you actually own Daizenshū copies? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well first I would say that, the plot summaries need lots of fixing and that the episode and manga chapter guide aren't needed. Also main characters are not really needed as well. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Another issue is the verification between the original Japanese version and the Funimation version, since Funimation has been known to make minor plot changes in their dialogue especially with some of the things that I had seen in Tenchi Muyo! GXP and Yu Yu Hakusho. In most common cases people would extract this information from the DVD releases. But personally one thing I agree is long summaries that are not too detailed. -Adv193 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we are using the manga instead of the anime for references. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We still have to merge Dragon Ball and GT, so the manga wouldn't apply to GT. How exactly are we gonna merge DB anyway? By using Toei's original saga titles? --Ryu-chan (Talk | Contributions) 22:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball (plot) should do. For GT individual episodes should do for references. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind the manga, I'm thinking we shouldn't trust the Daizenshū, simple. I'm considering the removal of all refs concerning it, see Heat P's replies (see the below conversation). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the Daizenshu was official information. Does anyone know a site where I can read a translated version for myself? Ryu-chan (talk • contribs) 00:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because the Daizenshuu are rare doesn't mean they can't be cited. They shouldn't necessarily be the primary source, but "removal of all refs concerning (them)" is a bit extreme. Onikage725 16:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Wiki policy doesn't care if a book is old and hard to find. If it's an official source it's fair game. Also the "real world point of view" requirement means that anime only stuff needs to be included to prevent the article from having either a bias or an in universe perspective.--Marhawkman 21:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what anime only things do you speak of? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is what I meant on the Dragon Ball Z discussion page. For one when I said look at a policy and guideline review the whole thing and not a sentence or two. In that same policy look under Sources in languages other than English and it will tell you the same thing I been saying about the Daizenshū books. Yes they are official but they are not published in the english language or nor have they been translated correctly into our language. And that saying about Also the "real world point of view" requirement means that anime only stuff needs to be included to prevent the article from having either a bias or an in universe perspective. What and where did you get that answer from? If you want to get the deal on this in-universe stuff go to Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)/proposed-9-9-07 and Wikipedia:Writing about fiction. No I am not throw policies to correct you because that saying may be right but it is to give you a better look at that in-universe and real world stuff. But Daizenshū book as I say should not be used unless there is a published translations in english and not translated by editors do translations from editors is authorized but strongly discouraged. If done by editors and I will quote it from Sources in languages other than English, "Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation." The info most use is not a quote from Daizebshū but there info most found on the internet from other sites that supposetly translated the books. Now it is official book and most info is true as I have a few of these books but in german (they were published in Germany) I speak and read german so I can verify that what info is true out of the books I have but I will not bo it for there is no real way for people to know what i wrote is true as it has no english translation. So without the actual quotes or a verfied english published version the info can not be trusted as actual fact to give to the general public. Heat P 00:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In a basic nutshell, you can't use content as a reference unless it has a official english translation, which means that the daizenshu's being not untranslated makes it so that they can't be used a reference. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Who here supports the removal of the vague Daizenshū refs on the Dragon Ball-related articles? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edits) 23:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Well it is, its just the language barrier keeps it from being implemented. Of course if an english version was released, we could use it. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 23:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Of course, if we use common sense, we will all agree that databooks written by Toriyama and his team are perfectly reliable since they are part of the primary source discussed and partly secondary sources (because the books are mainly in-universe and contain various new details about the story, like chronologies, etc, but also contain interviews from Toriyama). The "problem" with the Daizenshu is that since they remain untranslated in english, some people here tend to talk about them without knowing what they are. Besides, the 7th Daizenshu has official french and german translations, it is thus less complicated to use it as a source since there are probably more people here speaking french/german than japanese (and euro versions of the Daiz' are a lot more easier to get). Folken de Fanel 00:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The Daizenshū (yes however its better handled by a user with adecuate knowledge of Japanese) or the manga are the only reliable sources for in-universe content, if there is no viable English alternative for a certain element there is no policy stating that sources in other languges can't be used, its just a matter of detailing the language in the reference template wich is a feature included in Template:cite book. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Let me give you the run down on that part of that policy on using other language source as I see I have not misassume anything I wrote.

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality (meaning that is the source readily and easily available? Dai books are not for english public), so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly.

Keep in mind that translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. In principle, readers should have the opportunity to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.(Now we know it was published by a credible source however as it has not been PROPERLY TRANSLATEDINTO ENGLISH by the publisher or the american rights holds (Viz manga) how is the general public going to know it is true?

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English: 

   * Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are generally preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
   * Where editors (Wiki editors) use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, there should be clear citation of the foreign-language original, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.

Now who here has the entire 7 volumes of Daizenshū to go and translate it on their own to citation the info put in the article quote by quote. Most likely a few to none of us and if someone does I bet I can count them on one hand. I read and reread that policy using my own advice and I see no incorrect assumptions. Also I said that editors can use the books for info but with a huge barrier and no corrcetly translation copies how is the general public who are not huge Dragon Ball going to know that info someone put on here is true? Common sense or not without a correctly translated copy of the volume you are using then it should not be used. I am not saying they can not be I am saying they should not be and if it seemed I was saying they can't I apologize. Now Folken de Fanel. if you intend to use the french version make sure you sue the name and publisher of that translated book. like I got the German copies they are not call Daizenshū, the are called simply Dragon Ball and what type of book it is like the 1 volume is Dragon Ball Artbook published by the manga rights holds Carlsem Comics in Germany. Now I said enough and I Support not using Daizenshū unless the editor has the book of his or her own and not using another site like Daizen X (I think thats the name) Heat P 02:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Dragon_Ball&oldid=170011825"