Talk:Dragon Ball

With all do respect, What the f**k are you thinking?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thre is Dragon Ball the manga, Dragon Ball the anime, Dragon Ball Z the anime and Dragon Ball GT the anime. They are different stuff and they should each have it's own article. If we do this then we are going to have to merge all Transformer articles together and all the Pokemon articles together. I am completly against wikipedia "responsable" users turning well written articles into basic ideas that take all the interest and joy of reading out of it.

I suggest splitting the articles into their former glory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.61.127.66 (talk • contribs) 19:17, September 23, 2008 (UTC)

I suggest signing your posts.--KojiDude ^(C) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball is about the franchise. Individual articles for the different anime adaptations and spin-offs could be created, but there is little difference between the series, so it is best to just keep them merged and create one really good page rather than a bunch of half-baked ones. --erachima talk 00:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"create one really good page rather than a bunch of half-baked ones." Since the merger, this article has gone from Start-Class to— *gasp!* Start-Class!!--KojiDude ^(C) 00:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

And your point is? That doesn't mean it has not been improved (that assessment was done in August). It is closer to the C side than it was before. :P It is better sourced than it was, though it needs more. No one seems to be ready to help with the work left to do that could get this really going, unfortunately. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not getting back into this discussion! – J U M P G U R U ^■TALK■ 22:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

This merger is awful. Each series should have it's own article since there is so much to be said about each one. So much has been lost in this merger and now all we are left with is cliffnotes and abrigdments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 05:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Geez, this article is horrid. Next time a consensus is reached to merge an article, it should at least make sense. Next we should merge every article that has a movie and book counterpart... Wikipedia seems to be run by a bunch of idiots... ugh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.1.176 (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

We are not idiots... ugh. If it's anyone who's the idiot it's you. IP's like you have no respect for real users who are actually trying to make this an article. Notice how the rating went from a "Start" to a "B" class. — J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 00:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the header Collectonian!! I just couldn't help but do that!! \(>o<)/ — J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

:P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Can we PLEASE re-spilt the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.40.63.122 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not without a compelling reason. --Farix (Talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)\

How is this, Because Dragon Ball Z is more notable than Dragon Ball. Because of this, this page needs to be moved to Dragon Ball Z. But this isn't an accurate representation of the franchise, to just have DBZ as a page for the whole thing. Besides, Dragon Ball has enough notariety by itself. I move for a discussion about this. It really is ridiculous.--FUNKAMATIC 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That is only your personal opinion and does not reflect actual reality. Dragon Ball Z is PART of Dragon Ball, it is not a separate series nor does it have enough notability on its own to justify any kind of split. Both are fully and properly being covered in a single article, as is appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you would read the article, Collectonian, you'd find that they actually ARE separate series. And having them all merged into one makes it too long without going into enough detail for each respective series. Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z are both extremely long, as well as extremely popular, series -- and they demand and deserve their own articles. "...nor does it have enough notability on its own to justify any kind of split." Well, I think that I'll quote you again in saying, "That is only your personal opinion and does not reflect actual reality." Also, I don't agree that each series is "fully and properly being covered in a single article..." If you look at articles written about other series, you'd find that a lot more could be said about both Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z. The article for Cardcaptor Sakura -- an anime which, as far as series length, quails in comparison to either DB or DBZ on their own -- is longer than the sections for DB, DBZ, and DBGT combined. Also worth noting is that the original series Cardcaptor Sakura, and the adaptation Cardcaptors, are separate articles. Bottom line, this article is way too long, without doing each series justice. I fully support a split. NoriMori (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have read the article, I wrote large chunks of it, but thanks anyway. They are NOT separate series, they are the same series, period. They do not" demand nor deserve their own articles. They are the same series, and nothing "deserves" anything here. Sure, you could write a whole book about the series, that doesn't mean it all belongs here. And, as FYI, Cardcaptors is being merged into Cardcaptor Sakura, just hasn't been done yet. The articles will NOT be resplit, nor is the article "too long". -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well then I think you need to read it over again, because the article clearly says that they ARE separate series. And it's really a moot point anyway, as their status as either one series or separate series doesn't really affect whether they should be split or not. "They do not" demand nor deserve their own articles. They are the same series, and nothing "deserves" anything here." You really enjoy making your personal opinions look like gospel, don't you? When I say "demand" I mean that splitting them would make them more readable and would make people feel less reserved about the amount of information they decide to add. When I say "deserve" I mean that they are each long enough and notable enough to warrant having their own articles. And the fact remains that Cardcaptor Sakura is not even half as long as either DB or DBZ, but the article for it is still longer than the three sections for DB, DBZ, and DBGT combined. "...nor is the article "too long"." Wow, that whole "My opinion is fact" thing really gets on the nerves. I think it's too long, is that better? I wouldn't have a problem with it being so long, if it did each "series" justice, but I really don't think it does (and there are lots of people on this page who seem to agree). The combination of the length of the article and the lack of information makes it too wearisome. I guess instead of "long," the word I meant to use was "wearisome". It feels too long. Or rather, giving each "series" the attention it "deserves" would make it too long. Too cumbersome. I guess that's the word. It's a cumbersome article. There's too much to cover for there to be just one article. As I said before, I fully support a split. And Collectonian, if you're going to reply to this, can you try to be a bit more polite, a bit less aggressive, and a bit more...open? And a bit less...overbearing...totalitarian...or something? Seriously, I'm not trying to be insulting or cheeky or anything like that, I'm just asking, because your attitude just blows me away. NoriMori (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, considering your attitude in your first post in this topic, please do not turn around and attempt to lecture me on mine (and stick to the issues, not the editors). And no, there is nothing to be open about. The article clearly says they are the same series, with different names for some releases. Project consensus agreed that they ARE the same series, and that they should NOT have separate articles per the guidelines governing anime/manga articles. Again, the article is NOT too long. It is only slightly longer that Tokyo Mew Mew, a featured level article on a much shorter series. And none of its extra length comes from excessive content or the need to spit. Plot isn't too long, production is a nice healthy length. The anime section needs tightening up, but again, it isn't so long it needs splitting (nor would it be a valid split). Reception section actually could be expanded a bit. The article as a whole is far better than any of the splits originally were, with good summary stile sections. People should be reserved about the information they add. This is not a series guide, its an encyclopedia, its here to provide a summary, not an in-depth guide. The article is fine. It needs final clean up, it needs sourcing, it does not need to be ripped apart so fans can cruft it all up again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I think combining all 3 animes, 2 manga series, and all the other stuff makes this article cluttered. Just my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.224.229 (talk) 05:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think it makes this article look awesome. Is your vision of un-cluttered, a really weak article with little to no sources, and one gigantic cluttered pop-cuture section, and boat-load of original research what you see as a non-cluttered article? This page was completely ignored before and the Dragon Ball Z page was the most cluttered thing of all. You're just trying to make excuses. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 04:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why can't we try to see if consensus still supports the merge or seperation? I have read the article in its current state and found it to be severely deficient. Also, it seems as if the articles were merged because of annoyance with fans, not because they actually needed a merge. Metalb (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

See the note at the top of the page. The only people calling for a split are fans wanting more plot info, which isn't going to happen. The merges were not done because of annoyances with fans, but because per our guidelines, separate articles were neither appropriate no necessary. This article is not "deficient" unless you are looking for excessive amounts of plots, for which there is a Dragon Ball wikia and plenty of fansites. Closing as this is going nowhere slowly. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First US Dragon Ball game

Sorry to break it to whoever wrote that, but the first Dragon Ball game released in the United States was not a GBA game. The first Dragon Ball game released in the United States was in fact Dragon Ball GT: Final Bout for the Sony PlayStation in 1997, It was just reissued in 2004. A few years before the GBA game.--Ashitaka96 ^{| E-mail • Talk |} 17:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Source? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.Tintor2 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tintor2 and to Collectonian. For one look at the Final Bout article, two a quick search on the internet, as Tintor2 obviously did, will prove it. Whoever thought a GBA game was the first DB game to be released in the US obiously hasn't been fan very long. I never owned the US verison, but I did rent it back in the day. Before the GBA was released. I do own a Japanese import of it.--Ashitaka96 ^{| E-mail • Talk |} 18:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Dragon Power for the NES, released in 1988? Whelkman (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

He has a point, Dragon Power was released even before the Dragon Ball series was released in the States. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

The best I can see on that hideous video game list, Dragon Power was first being released in 1986. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, and yes that list has some major issues and hygiene problems. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I should say, 1988 US release. Whelkman (talk) 02:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep...that seems to be the first for both countries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually the first Dragon Ball game in the US was Dragon Power for the NES. --VitasV (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Technique named after a butterfly?

I recently found out that "Kamehameha" -- a technique in the DB franchise -- is also the name of a species of butterfly (Vanessa tameamea). If you look up "Kamehameha" on Wikipedia it'll show you other things called that, too (mostly related to Hawaii). So I came to this article to find out if the name of the technique is related to the butterfly, or any of the other things called "Kamehameha", but it didn't say (as far as I know -- I didn't read it in great detail). It just says that it was the only technique that Akira Toriyama didn't come up with himself -- his wife suggested it. Does anyone know where she got the idea for that name? If anyone is able to confirm the origin of the name as far as this technique goes, I think it would be nice if that information could be included in this article. Just a thought. :) NoriMori (talk) 01:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

That's original research without a source, so no, it should not be added. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but he never explained it. Erudecorp ? * 03:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's obviously a pun on the Kamehameha kings, "kame" / "turtle", and "ha" / "wave". The butterfly connection is extremely far-fetched. Erigu (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

It has been explained. His wife got the idea after hearing about King Kamehameha I. I thought we all knew that--it's Dragon Ball 101.--124.40.63.122 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Kai

Toei has announced in Jump that a new Dragon Ball series is coming in April. It has an official title and Logo now, Dragon Ball Kai. The best explanation for what it is, is that it's an HD Directors Cut Of DBZ. what's known is scarce, but it will be edited to "Focus more on the action" and that, to some capacity, it will be redrawn over the old animation, but what exactly will be redrawn and to what extent is entirely unknown, and all of the original Japanese Voice actors (sans the ones who've died) will be coming back to re-voice their characters. The opening theme will also be "Renewed", though what that means exactly isn't known. Even though little is known, it IS coming out, that's been confirmed, so it should be mentioned here at Wiki. Also, Toei is treating it like a new series as far as Organization goes, it's being called "Dragon Ball Kai" "ドラゴンボール改　「カイ」" Kai, meaning "Rnewed" or "Redone", so it should also be given it's own section instead of being lumped in with DBZ. Here's the source of the info [1] while this is the source of the new title [2] DemonRin (talk) 11:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a new series, but a digitally remastering of DBZ for HDTV. It's worth mentioning in the DBZ section, but it doesn't deserve its own section. --Farix (Talk) 12:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

They're also Recutting it to "Focus more on the Action", and "Updating" the old animation with new technology not to mention the Audio is being completely re-recorded and redone, and Toei is actually designating it with a completely Different title, Dragon Ball Kai. Why would it get a New title if they werent considering it a new series? Why not "Shin Dragon Ball Z" or something? why remove the Z? DemonRin (talk) 13:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Marketing. But given one of the meanings of Kai is "Updated" its not really much of a title change. Nor does a title change always denote a new series. --Farix (Talk) 13:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's "Just Marketing" or what, but Toei is, in fact, giving it an entirely new name complete with a new Logo. since it's being recut to "Focus more on the action", it will obviously also have a different episode count and episode titles. You can't just write that off. I'm not talking writing a book about it, just one new setion in the (=) right under GT for organization's sake, and like a very small paragraph.DemonRin (talk) 14:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It is not a new series at this point. It doesn't need a new section, or anything else. It should just be mentioned in the Dragon Ball Z section as a new remastered series. Unless and until it is actually released with better sources clarifying what it is, that is all it needs. And remastered series have been given new titles before, it isn't a major deal. Its title isn't even new, just noting "Redone." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can it be added to the end of DBZ then, and just given the new title bolded at least sine Toei IS giving it a new name? Then, when April 5th Rolls around and we see a completely Recut series with new Episode titles listed in the Japanese Newtype under the new name, can we change it?DemonRin (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The title doesn't need to be bolded either. Considering it isn't being released till April, this seems like a lot of future telling. At most a 1-2 sentence line noting it was announced is all that is needed. Neither source actually supports your claim that it is a new series with new episodes, only that they have remastered it for HD, replaced the opening/endings, and had the actors redo the vocals. This has been done in other releases, and it is not treated separately unless it is significantly different. Its a 20th anniversary thing, so I seriously doubt they actually changed the story or anything else, only "cleaned it up" and made use of new technologies to make it look better. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

We now have confirmation that the entire series' Story is being recut and restructured to make it more "Speedy" and make it line up to the Manga better. This guarantees a new Episode count and listing. The source is VJump http://i430.photobucket.com/albums/qq29/kei17/kai_high.jpg DemonRin (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't guarantee anything until it airs. It also still doesn't mean it needs another listing, particularly when it still has not aired yet. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

We're not working under a deadline, DemonRin. It won't hurt to wait and see how exactly this release unfolds before adding the information on it (but that also doesn't mean that you should refrain from posting updates here; they'll help sort it all out and source it when the release does happen). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I knew that if I added the information to DBK that it would get removed. Look all the stuff I added was what was confirmed by Toei and Shueisha (Weekly Shonen and V Jump). I never add mights and maybes on the grounds they confuse people. So I don't understand why removing confermed information from an article just because a bunch of editor could agree on the COA. Sarujo (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

It does not need its own section at this time. It hasn't even begun airing, and right now its relying primarily on people's presumptions of what is and is not going to happen (not fully supported by the sources). Intentional or not, it is being presumed its a completely new series rather than a "remix." A redo, even with a new soundtrack, does not necessarily need another section. An appropriate length note has already been added to the article. Beyond that nothing more is really needed until it actual begins airing or more specifics are given. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

But what I added was not presumptions they were facts from Toei and Shueisha. I will admit it is a remix, but the new project is best suited instead of new series. It not like 2003 Astro Boy, New Super Android Cutey Honey, 2007 GeGeGe no Kitaro or those Dr. Slumps shows. It's more like the special edition of the Star Wars Trilogy, as Toei just cut corners and made DBZ HD friendly. Sarujo (talk) 02:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Which means it needs a newer section even less necessary than before. Again, until it airs in April, I don't see what the rush is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Look I'm just upset that all that hard work I put into finding the reliable information is being rejected rather than incorperated into the place that everyone feels is appropriate. I thought I was doing a good thing. My findings came from the Jump magazines with one instance of ANN. The whole point of my adds was to removed all the speculation with bonified facts that was give from the bigwigs. Sarujo (talk) 03:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you ended up doing unnecessary work to repeat what was already in the article, but the truth is all the pertinent info was already there and sourced to reliable sources based on the same magazine articles. I have added back the one statement in your version that was not already in the article with its source (with the reference mostly fixed - still needs the real title). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, it probably will do well to have a small section for it beneath the Dragon Ball Z section, namely because it's already been confirmed by V-Jump that it'll be re-edited to more closely follow the manga, and the audio will be almost completely redone and at the very least, the opening/ending themes are being completely remade. Regardless, probably the most notable thing is that upcoming Dragon Ball Z products are already being remarketed as Dragon Ball Kai products, namely Dragon Ball Z Story, which has been renamed Dragon Ball Kai: Saiyan Invasion. However, at this point, there's no need to rush things. WtW-Suzaku (talk) 05:55, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That last sentence regarding Dragon Ball Kai:

"A report in V Jump indicates that the episodes would be edited to more closely follow the manga, resulting in a faster moving story, and to remove."

I don't get the "to remove". Is it pertaining to filler content? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, as that isn't confirmed really. It was supposed to say "to remove damaged frames" from Sarujo's earlier edits, so fixed. :) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

To be more precise, their removing those flubs that appeared in painted cells. Dust, scratches, blotches, and the all too common "shakey camera syndrome". I wonder if their also going to fix those coloring flubs. Sarujo (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't if this is any helpful at this point but on the official website as seen here. if you highlight the new logo the following message appears:

"Dragon Ball Z" broadcast start 20th aniversary comemoration! To use up-to-date digital technology, Z legend revives with TV animation!! "Dragon Ball Kai" April 5, 2009 9:00 at the Fuji Telecasting Co. series broadcasting start!! (C) Bird Studio/Shueisha Publishing Co., Ltd & Fuji Telecasting Co., Toei Co., Ltd. animation

The website blog or Topics is boasting even further of new songs which will premire at the Tokyo International Anime Fair on March 20th and the vocalist will also make an appearance. Sarujo (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Their will never be enough info to warrant it's own article, the info should be merged with the DBZ section (don't know why DBZ doesn't have its own article, each of the 3 DB series has more than enough info and notability to warrant their own article and I think they should go back to separate articles). TJ Spyke 00:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That bad attempt at making an article has already been redirected here. A new editor who had no clue what he was doing. Any no, none of the articles have "enough" info to warrant separate articles and the whole "OMG, split them back" has been discussed to death. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z alone is notable enough to warrant its own article and finding reliable sources would be a cinch. The next time their is a discussion to revert them back to their original states (separate articles instead of crammed all together), let me know since I will fully support it. TJ Spyke 01:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It has absolutely nothing to do with notability in this case. Per the anime/manga guidelines, they are all the same series, and are covered under one article. You might support a split, however the project has consistently and fully supported their merging, which is why they were merged. The separate articles were nothing but long plot summaries that have no place here. This article has far more real world information than ANY of the three standalones had. That is what Wikipedia is about, the real world info, not 25 pages of plot summary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the anime/manga project would consider them the same series (if they do), but that is ridiculous. They are part of the same canon, but are seperate series. It would be like trying to say Star Trek is just 1 long series rather than 5 separate series that are part of the same canon (there were 6 series, but the animated one is not considered canon). TJ Spyke 01:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, they are the same series. There is ONE manga series, one. The anime adaptations are based on that, except GT which is still related to it. They are all the same characters, same basic story, just a continuing advancing plot. That is why we have one character list, because it is all the same. This is applied to all anime/manga articles that have multiple adaptations, including renames/new names. Unless there are significant differences between adaptations, we do not consider them separate and they are all covered in a single article. Star Trek is separate series because they all have different primary characters and different focuses (and they are TV series, not anime/manga, which is a different set of guidelines). The only arguements generally made for splitting is people wanting to put in more plot summary (which isn't appropriate either way) or just loving Z and hating to acknowledge that its related to the rest for some odd reason I just can't fathom. It be like loving Star Trek TNG and wanting to deny Star Trek ever existed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You have to realize that this article is not about the anime series, but the manga series. The anime adaptions are mentioned as part of the broader topic of the manga. The anime adaptations do not differ significantly from the manga storyline, so per WP:MOS-AM, they are covered by one article instead of having separate anime and manga articles. --Farix (Talk) 13:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I've never been saying DBK needs it's own ARTICLE, just it's own titled section of this Article like Z and GT have now. Also, we have a Commercial now, not only does Son's Voice say this, but the words "新番組" (Shin Ban Gumi) or "New TV series". then Son (who narrates the CM) says "New TV series: Dragon Ball Kai Begins Next Month!" They are flat-out calling it a New series, so can we just give it it's own section now? Totally not deserving of it's own article but it's own section maybe under Z now DemonRin (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, I don't think it needs a new section. There is little to say about it that isn't already said (and FYI, linking to copyright violating videos like that is a fast track to getting banned from editing, I'd suggest you remove it). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... I guess then wait till it comes out. DemonRin (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Collectonian on this one. DBK doesn't have enougt notoriety.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 20:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Uhh...is there a reason you copied and pasted her signature? XD – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 01:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I speak for Funk, but I would do it because I'm too lazy to type it out (most of the time I'm not, surprise surprise), and/or I'm afraid of misspelling her username (once again, most of the time I'm not). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 19:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why I shouldn't, J U M P G U R U? --FUNKAMATIC ~talk 15:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Nah, I was just joking. I thought it was funny that you actually went out of your way to copy and paste her signature. – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 16:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It was just anounced in Weekly Shonen Jump that DBK is getting two new theme songs. "Dragon Soul" and "Yeah! Break! Care Break!" which will be performed by Tanimoto Takayoshi. Sarujo (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

So is Dragon Ball Kai getting added otherwise I might add it in! --VitasV (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

It is already added under Dragon Ball Z. Said statements already notes that it was getting new openings. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the question that alot of people were asking was, would there new theme songs or remasters of "Cha-La Head-Cha-La" and "Detekoi Tobikiri Zenkai Power!". Since it was uncertain prior to my above statement. But now it is definitely confirmed. It has also been anounced on the DBK website that Shunsuke Kikuchi will "not" be composer. Instead, Kenji Yamamoto will be composer on this project. Yamamoto, as some of you may recall, co-wrote many songs for DBZ and was acting composer for many of the Dragon Ball Z console video games. Sarujo (talk) 01:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I learned through what would be deemed unreliable source (I'm not going to lie) that each frame of this redone footage is done through what I call "digital tracing" over the excisting frame. Which is something that I myself could in my spare time on Photoshop for free. But to be more specific, their taking screenshot from maybe the negatives, digitally tracing new drawings, coloring these new "drawings" with a new pallet, and creating from scratch drawings to fill the widescreen ratio gap. As they gave away all their countless libraries of sketches and cell. So I get the same sensation on this project that I do everytime Bandai puts out another Dragon Ball video game. Same story, only with with a generationally relevant makeover. Sarujo (talk) 03:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Dragon Ball GT plot summary

I moved the text in the "anime sequel" sub section of the plot summary to the Dragon Ball GT since I believe its completely misleading to have it there. I'm not arguing whether Dragon Ball GT is "part of the series" or whether its "canon or not", I just think that a plot summary of Dragon Ball GT is better in a section for the Dragon Ball GT than a sub-section about the manga. If we're gonna cover GT in the plot summary, we might as well cover all the animated Dragon Ball spinoffs (filler episodes, movies, TV specials, and OVAs) there too, since they're every bit part of the franchise. Jonny2x4 (talk) 19:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it needs to be removed all together, as the episode list also covers it and, as you note, it isn't not a part of the actual manga series. I have done this and left a one line summary, which is all it should get in the main article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:46, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

So, why is all this a single article and not a franchise page?

Dragonball, Dragonball Z and Dragonball GT are radically different shows, all very notable on their own, with entirely different histories behind them that are part of the same franchise. By the logic used here, we really should all go gangbang articles about any movie, television or video game-related franchise and just mash all those together into singular articles.

From what I've read, this crap was pushed forward entirely by a small handful of elitist internet nerds looking to make some sort of ill-defined example out of these articles against the will of pretty much everyone except them. Some of my favorite parts were Collectonian constantly asserting unpopular opinion of this franchise being a single series and JumpGuru calling IP-users idiots compared to REAL USERS like her. Rofl because the idiots here are obviously not the ones that can't seem to create half-way decent articles for three of the most notable comics/animated series in history. 

Oh and the 4,000 line, singular character list is absolutely fucking terrible. Since when did half-assed conceptions of WP:N override WP:SIZE? - Norse Am Legend (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC)