WikiProject Anime and manga	(Rated C-Class, Low-importance)	Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Portal v • d • e This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.  C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the assessment scale. This article has been reviewed for compliance with the WikiProject's B-Class criteria: B1 (Referencing and citation) = Y Passed B2 (Coverage and accuracy) = N Failed B3 (Structure) = Y Passed B4 (Grammar) = Y Passed B5 (Supporting materials) = N Failed B6 (Accessibility) = N Failed  Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Dragon Ball work group. It has been suggested that this article be merged with one or more articles.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Deletion of character sections (Part 1, other characters) 1.1 Android #8 1.2 Android #16 1.3 Android #19 1.4 Announcer 1.5 Bardock 1.6 Broly 1.7 Bulla 1.8 Cooler 1.9 Crane Hermit 1.10 Cui 1.11 Dabura 1.12 Dodoria 1.13 Dr. Briefs 1.14 Dr. Gero 1.15 Dr. Myu 1.16 Elder Kai 1.17 Emperor Pilaf 1.18 Evil Dragons 1.19 Fortuneteller Baba 1.20 Garlic Jr. 1.21 General Rilldo 1.22 Ginyu Force 1.23 Giru 1.24 Gotenks 1.25 Grandpa Gohan 1.26 Guru 1.27 Kai 1.28 King Cold 1.29 King Yemma 1.30 Korin 1.31 Launch 1.32 Marron 1.33 Mercenary Tao 1.34 Mr. Popo 1.35 Muri 1.36 Mutaito 1.37 Nail 1.38 Nappa 1.39 Ox King 1.40 Pikkon 1.41 Porunga 1.42 Raditz 1.43 Red Ribbon Army 1.44 Saibamen 1.45 Spopovich 1.46 Turtle 1.47 Zarbon 2 Character Names 3 Articles with names 4 FUNimation Names Changes 5 Porunga Again 6 Semi-protected article proposition

[edit] Deletion of character sections (Part 1, other characters)

The list of other characters is much too long, as are the secondary characters. Thus, I propose a discussion to decide which of these characters need deletion, which of them need to be joined into other sections, and which ones deserve to be kept. Frankly, movie villains should probably be moved to the movie article, but we'll see how that goes. Anyway on to the discussion, please state if the character should be kept, deleted, or merged into another article/section. Please provide a detailed reason for why you believe this should happen.

Touch sig to keep from archiving (remove when all discussions are done) Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Android #8

• Merge, Android #8 and pretty much all of the androids should be moved to a section entitled "Dr. Gero and his creations" or something similar. As for Android #8 himself, he is a minor, one chapter character that contributes little to the overall plot, thus the above merge. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Would really just be Dr. Gero and note any relevant creations as needed.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, one chapter character that doesn't appear to warrant mention beyond chapter summaries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - He can be mentioned in chapter summary.じんない 03:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete too minor, shouldn't be mentioned here at all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I don't agree with merging Android 8 with Dr. Gero, considering the former predates the latter by a few years. Jonny2x4 (talk) 00:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into a Gero's creations section or into Gero's section itself (like Tambourine or Piano in Piccolo Daimao). --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - He was crucial in the Red Ribbon arc but not afterwards. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Android #16

• Merge, Again, merge to "Dr. Gero and his creations", most of the info can be kept, just shortened and under a new section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, can be a subsection under Dr. Gero is desired, but appears to notable enough. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Android 16 is probably one of the most important from a plot perspective of all the androids.じんない 03:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per what DBZROCKS said. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into a Gero's creations section or into Gero's section itself (like Tambourine or Piano in Piccolo Daimao). --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - 16 was only crucial in one arc and barely appeared in another. But he played a large role in the duration he was in. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Android #19

• Merge, Merge to "Dr. Gero and his creations", the character isn't really notable enough to stand by himself. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, to minor to mention beyond chapter/episode summaries -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - He can be mentioned in chapter summary.じんない 03:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per what DBZROCKS said. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into a Gero's creations section or into Gero's section itself (like Tambourine or Piano in Piccolo Daimao). --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - 19 was integral in the Android saga as his fight was likely the most important of the saga's battles, both against Goku and Vegeta, as well as story development. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Announcer

• Delete, aside from providing commentary, this character does little to nothing to contribute to the plot, and he does not have any major relationships with any characters. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete unnotable background character that does not have any actual role beyond providing commentary -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unnotable even by most fans, let alone Wikipedia standards.じんない 03:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the character appeared all throughout merely to announce fights but had no integral attachment to the plot. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bardock

• Keep, Notable enough to have his own special, important relation with the main character. Also mentioned in the Manga, so he is not just a movie only character. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move to Dragon Ball Z: Bardock - The Father of Goku, short mention in the manga doesn't warrant inclusion here and movie/special characters should be covered in their articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - The info should be kept, but not sure how.じんない 03:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move, per above comment.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per what DBZROCKS said. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Move to the TV special (Father of Goku). --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Move or Merge - Bardock's appearance is very limited. For the duration that he appeared, he should be mentioned but either in another section or as a merge for another character's small story arc. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Broly

• Merge, move to the Dragon Ball movie list. Movie related character, would be better off in the Movie section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move to movie list per DBZRocks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - The info should be kept, but not sure how.じんない 03:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral I'd prefer not to comment on this one. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Move to the movie article or section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Broly was never a primary character and for the two-and-a-half movies he appears in, he poses a brief role if any. He can be considered a tertiary character at best, and even then won't warrant a keep for his separate section. Best to mention him but not keep his own section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bulla

• Delete, minor backround character from GT. Little to no contributions to the plot, no outstanding contributions to other character's development and has no character development of her own. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with brief mention in parents section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - i think at best just a 1 sentance under her parents is fine.じんない 03:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - a completely tertiary character, if not lesser. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cooler

• Merge, to Dragon Ball movies. Not notable enough to stand without his two movies, has little to no character development or relevance to the anime or manga. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move to film list; doesn't existing in manga nor anime series -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - The info should be kept, but not sure how.じんない 03:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Move, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete serves no purpose. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Move to the movie article or section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - He was a primary resonance in two movies, but aside from that, doesn't pose or warrant as a primary or secondary character slot. He should be mentioned in an article to that extent, but doesn't warrant his own section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Crane Hermit

• Delete Minor Dragon Ball character that has few appearances, and makes little lasting contributions to the plot. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with brief appropriate mention in students section if relevant. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - numerous unremarkable appearances without lasting impact, either through plot, gags or real-world impact, should be removed.じんない 03:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - Crane Hermit is integral to two sagas in which he appears, pertaining to the plot. However, his information is limited to that extent and should be merged if not deleted with the saga he appears in. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In list also? 118.71.83.56 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cui

• Weak Merge The character is not very relavent by himself, but could be easily merged with a section about Freeza's minions (and titled as such). DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with brief mention in Freeza section as one of minions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete DragonZero (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with Freeza's minions.じんない 03:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete totally non-notable. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into a Frieza's minions or acquaintances section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Cui is integral to the saga he appears in. He is not only a secondary character in the manga, but also the anime. He appears prior to the Namek saga as a mysterious figure and follows throughout, even to the pre-Namek threats he gives to Vegeta, and leading to his eventual clash against Vegeta and execution. He's a secondary character in the Namek saga. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dabura

• Delete, Non notable Dragon Ball character that does little to contribute to the overall plot, and even as a minion of Bobidi is not that notable. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per DBZRocks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 03:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Dabura is integral to the Babidi and Majin Buu sagas, both in the manga and anime. Dabura is also the most notable of all Babidi's minions. Aside from the fact that he has a battle against Gohan and Majin Buu, his internal struggles, meditation, and further development in the series qualify him as a secondary character, not a primary, but definitely a secondary in the Buu arc. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dodoria

• Merge, easy merge to a section about Freeza's minions, important enough to the plot to be mentioned there. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with brief appropriate mention in Freeza's section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Freeza's minions.じんない 03:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any Frieza-related section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into a Frieza's minions or acquaintances section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Aside from Zarbon, Dodoria is the second most important and integral character in the Namek Saga. He has the most brutal battle against the Namekians, reveals further secrets to Vegeta, and chases Gohan and Krillin, not to mention the fact that he has earlier history with the elimination of Bardock's team as well as the actual level of importance he plays in the saga he's in. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Briefs

• Weak Delete, Dr. Briefs does make some contributions to the plot, but overall, does not make any lasting contributions. He does do more than most minor characters but not enough to deserve a section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mentions in Bulma and Android #16's sections. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - any necessary information can be added to Bulma or Android 16.じんない 03:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - he can have a small mention if he isn't deleted, in Bulma's section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Gero

• Merge, Notable enough to have a section titled "Dr. Gero and his creations", his actions have lasting effects in that he created all of the Androids, as well as Cell. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep with current name. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - is there any reason to even ask if he has his own subsection which if anything will grow after this?じんない 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, perhaps include in his section the minor androids in the same way as Piccolo Daimao's minions are in his section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - To remove Dr. Gero is to remove the entire purpose of the Android saga, as well as the further installments in GT. Gero is one of the most crucial and integral secondary characters in DBZ. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Myu

• Delete, He creates Baby and Super 17, but he really does nothing else but that, and he has very little backstory, and lacks relationships with other characters. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mention in Baby and Super 17's sections as his creator. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per DBZRocks.じんない 03:44, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Dr. Myuu plays a particularly important role in the saga he's in. He should be mentioned in a Machine Mutant section at the least, if his own section is deleted. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Elder Kai

• Weak keep, has notable contributions at the end of Z and at the start of GT. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up and shorten. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Neutral - his contributions are worthy of mentioning, but I don't know if he deserves his own section.じんない 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Unsure so I don't have anything to convey ATM. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Elder Kai appears only after the mid-Buu saga. Although he is integral to some degree, he doesn't warrant his own section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Emperor Pilaf

• Delete, non-notable, has minor contributions in Dragon Ball, and a very minor contribution to the plot in GT, but overall has little importance. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep but shorten. Seems to have appeared in more than a few episodes. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep He was the main villain for the first arc and came back a few times in Dragonball. I would say he should be in the secondary characters section given his importance to the first arc and several later arcs.じんない 03:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Pilaf is very notable in the sagas he appears in. However, due to the fact that more important and much more highly integral characters are being merged, his merger in the sections appropriated with tertiary characters is better suited to his appearance. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Evil Dragons

• Keep, They are the final villains of Dragon Ball GT, and they have their own arc, so a keep is a good idea. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, clearly notable within the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable as the last enemy of the series.じんない 03:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above comments.Tintor2 (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - all the dragons were notable and should be kept. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fortuneteller Baba

• Delete, Only a non backround character in one Manga volume, for the rest of the series, makes no large contributions. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, unnotable; only mention needed is in chapter summaries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Can be mentioned in chapter summary.じんない 03:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Although an entire saga is based on her name, her appearance as a background character who appears time to time doesn't necessarily warrant a keep. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Garlic Jr.

• Weak Keep, notable enough to have his own movie and filler arc, but at the same time, does not make any actual contributions to the plot. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!!
• Keep, he does have an Arc named after him, so presumably at least somewhat notable. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above.じんない 03:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Unsure so I don't have anything to convey ATM. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Collectonian. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Garlic Junior's primary appearance in one movie, and his eventual secondary appearance in the DBZ saga at least hold a merger for him. However, he is never a primary villain nor a primary character aside from his brief appearances limited to both instances. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] General Rilldo

• Stong Delete, Minor Dragon Ball GT villain who makes few contributions to the plot, and serves as a one-shot villain, unnotable. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per DBZRocks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 03:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Rilldo qualifies for the same treatment as Myuu. They are both integral in the saga they appear in. His fight against Goku was notable. He shouldn't be deleted but should be merged with a Machine Mutant section, the same case as Myuu. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ginyu Force

• Strong Keep, merge under the aformentioned section about Freeza's minions, but otherwise keep as is. Many notable contributions to the series, and are main villains for multiple volumes. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as own section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - they should have their own subsection under Freeza's minions as they are the principal villians aside from Freeza during the arc.じんない 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - The Ginyu Force never plays the role of primary villains. However, as a group, they pose as secondary villains. They aren't officially aligned with Frieza's military and they aren't his minions. They are mercenaries hired by Frieza, and are ultimately integral to one saga, the Ginyu arc. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Giru

• Strong Delete, very minor character that has no spoken dialouge, and does nothing except to function as a Dragon Radar. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, while minor, seems to have at least some supporting role. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the info can be added in the episode summaries and if we have a section for the dragon radar somewhere, there too.じんない 03:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - Giru's appearance is very limited to a few instances in GT. In the entire story, he barely plays a tertiary role. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Gotenks

• Merge, A fusion between Goten and Trunks, whose information can be placed in both of those respective characters articles, not notable enough by himself. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate notes in Goten and Trunks sections. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per above.じんない 03:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Goten and Trunks, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete very minor character, shouldn't even be noted. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Fusions are very brief in appearance. They aren't noteworthy and establish even less than the Goten and Trunks characters as stand-alone references. This is a definite delete due to its very brief appearance. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Grandpa Gohan

• Keep, major contribution to the plot in that he raises Goku, and Gohan is named after him. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete raising Goku and having Gohan named after him are not really notability factors to me. He dies quickly, then isn't seen again except for flashbacks, correct? So delete, and mention as is appropriate in Goku and Gohan's sections. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Collectonian. He is used a prop, not an actual character. His importance as an idea is needed for Goku's section and perhaps a few others like Master Roshi, but he plays no part in the storyline.じんない 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Comment No he actually appears as the mystery champion that Goku faces at Baba's in chapters 105-108. So he's not limited to flashbacks. Althought I know it's redundant at this point, I just thought I'd point that out. Sarujo (talk) 11:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That makes him at most a one-time character which is better suited to chapter summaries.じんない 21:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep what DBZROCKS said. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. "Not an actual character"?? What is he if not?? --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the extent of Grandpa Gohan's importance can easily be described in a small section under Goku's history, only to briefly serve as mentioning him. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I agree with DBZROCKS. And besides, he appeared in the film adaptation. Sutsare (talk) 22:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Guru

• Delete, not very notable, dispite giving a one time power-up to two characters. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete role easily covered in chapter/episode summaries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Collectonian.じんない 04:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with the Ginyu Force section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Guru plays a minor role in the saga he's in. Aside from being a guiding light to his people and a philosophic and knowledgeable character overall, his appearance is brief. However, the events leading to his demise and his eventual acceptance of his fate are reasons why he should be mentioned in a section and not deleted completely. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kai

• Delete, King Kai can be kept for the contributions he makes to the plot, but the rest of the Kaios are filler anime characters that are very unnotable. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge some into King Kai to give explanatory info. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with Supreme Kai.じんない 04:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per DBZROCKS. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete but mention them in King Kai's section. --LoЯd ۞pεth 04:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - King Kai is highly integral, maybe more than any other Kai in the series run. The amount of his appearance, both in manga, and anime, as well as filler, is enough to at least warrant a mention of him in a section rather than completely delete him. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] King Cold

• Strong Delete, very, very minor villain that appears in one volume, and does not even do much except get defeated by Trunks in said volume. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, DBZROCKS already said it well -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - I personally love the character of Cold. However, his appearance is very brief in the saga he's in (spanning four episodes). He can at least be mentioned in the Frieza section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] King Yemma

• Delete, Serves little purpose in the overall plot, provides only exposition. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete extremely minor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 04:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Yemma never plays a secondary role. He's always either a tertiary or even lesser character who briefly appears from time to time, same as the likes of Fortuneteller Baba. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Korin

• Delete, serves little purpose in the overall plot, besides giving Goku a one-time powerup. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete no need for mention beyond chapter/episode summaries. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - mention it in the chapter/episode.じんない 04:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section (if one exists). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Although he's integral to a few plots, Korin's appearance is very limited and fits under the same consensus as Fortuneteller Baba and Yemma. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Launch

• Delete, Minor backround character that does little besides provide comic relief during Dragon Ball, and completely disappears partway through Z. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with possible very brief mention in Tien's and Roshi's sections. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. While she does do little more than provide comic relief, she is for the duration she is a part of - which is several arcs - play the role in it. The amount of rehashing plot that would need to be done - Roshi, Goku, Tien and Krillin would make it worse than leaving her in.じんない 04:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section (if one exists). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep a recurring established presence for a considerable part of the series. --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Launch should be mentioned in another section, although her appearance in later sagas is very limited. Her actual development as a character from the start accomplishes something for her role. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marron

• Delete, does nothing relavent to the plot at all. No notability besides being related to Kuririn/Krillin. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mention in Krillin and #18's section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with a brief mention in Krillin's and #18's sections.じんない 04:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Never played even a tertiary role. This character was just in the background for the sake of being there. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mercenary Tao

• Delete, minor, one chapter villain that does nothing significant in the overall plot. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, too minor, already covered in chapter summary. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per aboveじんない 04:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC).
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Crane Hermit's section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Mercenary Tao is a primary character in Dragon Ball. However, his appearance ratio is diminished greatly in DBZ. For the sake of mentioning him, he should be maintained to some degree by being mentioned in a saga arc or another character's profile, such as anything in relation to the Red Ribbon Army's orders. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Merge He was significant enough to develop Tenshinhan and Chiaotzu into Z Fighters, and was mentioned in three sagas, and appeared in two sagas of Dragonball.

[edit] Mr. Popo

• Delete, Minor backround character with little significance to the plot. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, too minor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge relevant info with Kami.じんない 04:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Kami's section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Mr Popo's not mentioned in the entire article... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurtle (talk • contribs) 00:03, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Popo is a secondary character whenever he actually appears and always seems to play some role. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Muri

• Delete, Very minor, character that appears in a very limited ammount of chapters. There is nothing to say about the character then the very minor contributions he makes to the plot in one volume. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete appearances too brief. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - note contribution in the chapter/episode list.じんない 04:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Muuri's purpose was to show the Namekians endurance and ability to try and withstand even against greater odds. However, his appearance is very limited and the fact that he barely appears just to get butchered by Dodoria, proves his lesser role. His further appearances after revival are extremely brief, once to allow Dende to become the Earth's Guardian, and another to help with the Dragon Ball's wishes. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mutaito

• Strong Delete, Very minor character that is only very lightly expanded upon in the anime, not notable enough to have his own section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate brief mentions in Roshi and the Crane Hermit's sections. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mention in Roshi's section.じんない 04:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section, an outright removal shouldn't do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Mutaito is lesser than Crane Hermit based on appearance. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nail

• Delete, serves little purpose in the overall plot than to be defeated by Freeza and fuse with Piccolo, after he fuses with Piccolo, he disapperas from the plot. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mention in Piccolo's section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per Collectonian's comment.じんない 04:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Piccolo's article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Same consensus as Guru. Nail was integral in some of one saga, but limited in appearance and never a primary role. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nappa

• Delete, Minor villain, that serves no purpose overall than to be defeated by Goku to show off his new power. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mention in Vegeta and Piccolo's section as warranted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Collectonian.じんない 04:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section, an outright removal shouldn't do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Served as the active antagonist for 11 chapters straight (if I did my math correctly). He was around about as long as the Ginyu, and had as much or more screen time than Cpt. Ginyu. And above there was enthusiastic votes to keep the Ginyu Force due to their roles as primary antagonists before the boss stepped in. Nappa was Vegeta's "Ginyu." Onikage725 (talk) 00:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Comment, except that the Ginyu force were main villains for around three volumes, while Nappa was only a major character in one. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Nappa is the most important secondary character in all of the Saiyan Saga. His role alone established the entire battle of the first saga of DBZ. Without Nappa, more than ten episodes would be thrown aside. His very essence, role, amount of appearance, and storyline constitutes the makings of a secondary character. Nappa is integral to the plot and should keep his own section without a shred of doubt. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ox King

• Merge, Can be mentioned in Chi-Chi's article, not notable enough on his own, and has importance in one section of one volume, and for the rest of the series, is regulated to being a backround character. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with the appropriate mention in Chi-Chi's section/article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per above.じんない 04:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or merge, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge - Ox-King was never a primary character, always a tertiary character. His appearance was limited and the only time the storyline revolved around him was when Goku and Chi-Chi searched for the Bansho Fan and the Furnace to stop the fire from burning down his castle. However, he never appears thoroughly enough to warrant a keep. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pikkon

• Delete, Minor character that has very little purpose other than to pad out the anime with filler. As he is a filler character, he has no lasting effects on the plot at all. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, while being filler only is not, in and off itself, a reason to remove a character, still appears to be a minor character -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Collectonian.じんない 04:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Delete - Pikkon is so limited in his appearance of four episodes, even when not incorporating the fact that the entire saga was filler, Pikkon's importance beyond that is barely notable. He can be mentioned if there's a section of Other World contestants, but his role is strictly lesser than tertiary. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Porunga

• Merge, Porunga is basically Shenlong/Shenron's Namekian counterpart, and thus, can be mentioned in his section. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep, maybe he his counterpart, but still distinct it seems. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and rename the section to Dragon Gods or something per the Kai/Supreme Kai.じんない 04:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Shenlong's section as the Namek variant of the dragon. --LoЯd ۞pεth 03:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Porunga's purpose is the same as Shenron's. He can be mentioned in a section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Raditz

• Delete, Besides being the brother of the protagonist, Raditz does little more than serve as a minor, one chapter villain. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with appropriate mentions in Goku and Bardock's section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 04:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to any relevant section, an outright removal shouldn't do. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Raditz is the first secondary villain to appear in DBZ. His role is integral to the plot, as well as the fact that his battle is a deciding one. To delete Raditz or Nappa is nothing short of a mistake. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Red Ribbon Army

• Strong Keep Very notable, multi-volume villains that are very notable in that they also affect Dr. Gero later in the series. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per DBZROCKS. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above.じんない 04:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - General Blue, General White, Assistant Black, Commander Red, etc. all play secondary to primary roles in the sagas they are in. None of them should be deleted or merged. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Saibamen

• Strong Delete, extremely minor characters that, besides having no dialouge, serve little more purpose than to provide cannon fodder. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, nothing more than a tool and already mention in main Saiyan article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 04:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - they can be mentioned in a small section for Nappa or Vegeta or pertaining to the Saiyan saga. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spopovich

• Strong Delete, minor one volume villain that does very little in the overall scheme of things. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete one-time character. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above.じんない 04:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per the above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Merge - Spopovich's fight against Videl was important, as well as his stealing of Gohan's energy, his return to Babidi, and brutal execution at the hands of the wizard. He can at least warrant a mention if not his own section under Babidi's section. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Turtle

• Strong Delete, extremely minor backround character, that serves little more purpose than to simply provide a source of comic relief. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete with mention in Roshi's section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Roshi's section.じんない 04:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to Roshi's section. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Turtle was never a secondary or tertiary character and his extremely brief appearances from time to time don't warrant a keep. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Zarbon

• Merge, More notable then Dodoria at the very least, should be merged into a section about Freeza's minions. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, has enough notability on his own for at least his own section. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above.じんない 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above.Tintor2 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Zarbon is the most important villain in the Namek Saga (not counting the Frieza saga). He plays more of a role than the entire Ginyu Force combined. His appearance is integral not only to Vegeta and Frieza's character arcs, but his own as a secondary character overall, both in the Bardock storyline and the Namek saga. His overall persona as a villain is second only to Frieza, who is a primary character. - Zarbon (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Character Names

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the names being used throughout the Dragon Ball articles for characters, and this seems to be the best place to bring up a discussion. Per WP:MOS-AM and WP:ENGLISH, all of the Dragon Ball articles should be using the official English names from the primary work, the manga, yet it appears they are using a mix of dubbed English names, fan preferred spellings based on pronunciation, and the manga names. This makes it very confusing for editors who do not read or watch the series to figure out which name is the one to be used. For example, Freeza's article is Frieza, however from my understanding the English manga uses Freeza. So why is the spelling Frieza being used instead of Freeza? Ditto the characters of Kuririn, Chaozu, Shenlong, and Kaio-sama (the apparent Viz manga spellings) over their dubbed spelling counterparts. I feel all of the articles should be updated and moved (for those with standalones) to accurately reflect the manga spelling, with the dubbed spellings noted as needed. This would be most in keeping with Wikipedia's guidelines and with what is done with other articles where the dub uses different spellings (or different names all together). Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is using "fan-preferred" names, but, get this, the original Japanese names! On another note, the dubbed names are used more often and I have never seen a page using the manga names. The Viz spellings should be used throughout Wikipedia because the anime is based off the manga, not vice-versa. GT should be the only one that uses dub names since it does not have a manga counterpart. Of course, that statement is very debatable and I'm not sure even I agree with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by D4c3nt3n0 (talk • contribs) 19:59, September 19, 2009

I think the reasoning was that the anime names are much more prominent in the other Dragon Ball media. The constantly released video games and the like greatly outweigh the manga in terms of usage. TTN (talk) 01:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I vaguely recall someone metioning a discussion that lead to a consensus to use the names and spellings used in the subtitles of Funimation Entertainment's uncut releases. It's propably burried somewhere deep in the archives of some Wikiproject or Manual of Style page. *sigh* Goodraise 01:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The primary work is manga, not anime or videogames, as such the names from the manga should be used. The romanization of some of the names should not have taken some liberties with the original work of the author. For example, Frieza loses all the relations that Dragon Ball characters have with a certain theme. フリーザ has to do more with Freeza or Freezer that with Frieza (father King Cold, brother Cooler). I my opinion, all characters should be renamed as they are written in the manga, adding a small sentence about other romanizations, like with Jushin Liger. And if they have been romanized in English by the original author, that could also be used instead of the Viz manga if there is no consensus. Jfgslo (talk) 02:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The majority of the public are exposed to the names from funimation. Those are the ones that should be used, but due to all the confusion that is caused when more hardcore fans use the original names the characters lists should also contain other spellings. The funimation dub should be what is generally used though.--FUNKAMATIC ~talk 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there not some sort of precedent? Is there not some sort of policy on this? Hikui87 (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Policy, no, but guidelines, as noted above, is that it should use the English names of the primary work within all articles, and notes on the differences in the character list as needed. For DB, that would be the manga, however others feel that the Funimation dub is more well known so it should be used. However, considering both are best sellers, I do not see the validation there anymore myself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

How could it be affirmed that the majority of the public know the names from the Funimation broadcast? Is there any source stating that? Even if that were true, Dragon Ball is known in almost all the English-speaking world, not only in the US. And that's not including the rest of the world. More importantly, the manga is the primary work, and normally the main source for most information regarding a work of fiction it's the printed work, like most American comic-book characters like Superman, Batman, Wolverine, etc.

These are the key phrases to decide what names to use:

WP:ENGLISH

"Use the most commonly used English version of the name of the subject as the title of the article, as you would find it in verifiable reliable sources (for example other encyclopedias and reference works)." I honestly don't think that reliable sources will be found about this topic, at least not like encyclopedias and reference works, which leaves us with the following policy.

WP:MOS-AM

"Characters should be identified by the names used in the official English releases of the series. If there are multiple English releases, such as both a manga and anime, use the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known in the English-speaking world (usually the primary work)." This is the key one. We have to decide which one has contributed more to Dragon Ball becoming known in the English-speaking world. In my opinion, it was the manga, since Dragon Ball has been known for a very long time thanks to it, and, in the US, the first broadcasts of the anime where unsuccessful while the manga was already a success, and I have the impression that it was this success with the manga that lead Funimation to keep on trying. But again, this is not definitive. We need the opinions of people from other English-speaking countries in order to have a more accurate perception.

If we want accuracy, which is also desirable by other Wikipedia policies, we should use the romanizations given by the author (Toriyama) in his Japanese works and then include the alternatives as stated in WP:ENGLISH. After all, most guidelines aren't meant to be a strict rule. But for the moment, first we have to define which one, manga or anime, helped more in making Dragon Ball known in the English-speaking world. And remember, US TV is not the whole English-speaking world. And if we go by the primary work, it's manga. Jfgslo (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Curve ball: The Viz manga is not the primary work; that would be the Shonen Jump Japanese manga. The Viz manga is translated from (based on) that. Also, the Funimation dub is not based on the English "primary work" but translated from (based on) the Toei anime, which is in turn based on the Shonen Jump manga.

My personal opinion is that the Funimation names are over-Anglicized and lose the original effect (Bloomers, Bra, Trunks, etc.), but as Funkamatic pointed out, this makes me a "more hardcore fan" and therefore invalidates my opinion.

We should definitely NOT use Toriyama's romanizations, as these are intended for the Japanese audience. Japanese uses a romanization system for itself for cultural reasons that is somewhat awkward for English speakers. This article is about the English incarnations of Dragon Ball whether we decide to use the dub or translated manga as a primary.

Also, "the one that is best known and that has contributed most to the work's becoming known" is very subjective. The translated manga may have come first, but it would be hard to argue that more people know DB from the manga than from the anime.

Another way to look at it is that the dub is a visual/auditory medium, whereas the translated manga is a literary medium. Written names should come from the written version. Is that a good standard to go by? Hikui87 (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a curve ball at all. The manga is the primary work. The Viz manga is the primarily English translation of that work (and considered still to be the "primary work" for this purposes, a translation of it, but still for our purposes here it works...) :) In most cases, we go with the English version of the primary work. If the manga is the primary work, we look to its English version. If the anime is the primary work, we look to its English version. And so on. DB seems to be one of the few sets of anime/manga articles not following this standard. Even ones with far more drastically changed dubs are following the English manga for their articles, with the character list (and individual articles where there are any) noting that "in the English dub of the anime adaptation, the name was changed to X..." and so on. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Should we vote on this? I'm all for using the Viz manga names, but I'd rather not just go changing stuff. Hikui87 (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am also in favor of using the Viz manga names. We should not be afraid of changing stuff. That's the purpose of these discussions, to improve current information. The only real change would be in the character articles. For example, Freeza would be the main one and Frieza now would be a re-direct, and the different alternative names would be in the first line of the article anyway, so nothing really lost. No big deal. Honestly, I don't quite understand why the anime was considered as the base for the names in the first place. It has always been pretty clear to me that the manga is the primary work and therefore it should be used as the source for this kind of data. That's the way that this kind of thing has been done not only in manga/anime articles but for almost any other work of fiction which started in printed media and then went to another. And there was no need for a vote in those cases. Jfgslo (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose I however am not okay with changing the name. I believe we should look upon WP:N when naming characters. The more notable of the names should be used. As per Frieza, we should use Frieza since it is the name that appaers more often in the secondary sources within his article. Like in the article Godzilla, he has a number of aliases (aliai?) but his primary name is the more notable instead of the original Gojira. If we are to vote on this, I would oppose. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We should look at third-party English language sources to determine what names are used most. (BTW, aliases is correct. Alias has no Latin plural.) Goodraise 23:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Godzilla, however, is the romanization used by the Japanese producer, and, in this case, were are not using the names that the author gives to their characters, are we?. Also, just because most people use a certain term doesn't make it "correct". Peking was much more commonly used some years ago until the Chinese government insisted that the correct romanization should be Beijing, even though a lot of people in the English-speaking world kept on using Peking for years. More importantly, how do we determine how many of these secondary sources are reliable? Just because more fan-created pages or publications use certain romanizations, doesn't make them reliable. I'm all for the sources approach but only if they are reliable. For example, if there are more fan-created sources that report a certain event or name from Harry Potter movies differently from the books, that doesn't make them more reliable. Jfgslo (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to add a little more to my first statement. While I think the manga names should be used in all articles, they still aren't the most known ones. If anything, the characters' page should use manga names, the anime use FUNimation names, and the manga pages the manga names. Also, I have just changed Hercule's name to Mr. Satan since it is the manga name and is currently being used by FUNimation in their remastered sets. However, the GT sets didn't get a revised dub so Hercule as the name was left in. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm pretty sure the remastered sets aren't being seen mainstream. The original FUNimation dub which aired in the 90's were the mainstream and most recogniable version of the sagas. Objectively, it appears to be WP:FANCRUFT. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? If so, you are very wrong. As you can see, the season sets have taken over many pages, including the film pages. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Indeed. If you can take a look at this sentence: In 2006, Funimation Entertainment remastered the episodes then began re-releasing the series in nine individual season boxsets. Notice the words boxsets. The episodes were not re-aired on any channel. To the objective eye, it remains what it was in the 90's since the remastering was not released mainstream, nor advertised publicly. You would need to dig deeper to find the existence of these boxsets, hence WP:FANCRUFT. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, you make no sense. I owned the season sets and they do use Mr. Satan over Hercule. No one is talking about the episodes re-airing. I was just saying that the season sets are primarily used on Wikipedia, so what's on it should be used. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment. You personally own the season sets. However, others, do not own it. Those who do not own these remasterings only remember the dub from the original FUNimation dub from its original airing on mainstream cable, i.e., the more recognizable dub. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The season sets are huge sellers, and are a reason we are finally getting the Dragon Boxes. If what you say is true, the series shouldn't be broken up into seasons in the episode lists, and, names like Tenshinhan and Chaozu shouldn't be used here. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Huge sellers where? The names are what I am regarding. We may use the boxsets for the division of the seasons. However, the more recognizable dub, the Chiaotzu, Hercule, Tien Shinhan, etc. dub must be used. More recognizable to whom you ask? Why every child who watched the original FUNimation dub in the 90's, the mainstream cable dub. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

This old dub is no longer important as those releases have been canceled. Just because Z never re-aired, probably due to the fact that Cartoon Network ended the anime block, doesn't mean it is more recognizable. If the season sets are used throughout WP, every aspect of them should be used, too. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 00:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Oppose - in accordance with last year's BIG discussion at WT:ANIME. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I've lost track, which position is an Oppose vote supporting? Personally, I know the anime and manga project has worked hard to create a system that applies to all titles the project supports. The most encyclopedic approach would be consistent with those standards, and use the names from the official English translation of the manga, while acknowledging that variant names exists in other media. I understand that Dragonball represents a unique circumstance, having reached a potentially wider audience than most anime, but I'm not convinced that that still remains a relevant argument, particularly with the existing, current versions of the anime hewing closer to the manga names. It seems easier and more consistent to simply follow the standards used by the project at large. Doceirias (talk) 00:45, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

What discussion? What was the consensus? Hikui87 (talk) 04:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Given WP:MOS-AM I'd actually have to go with the Geneon or Funimations translations as when they came on when manga and anime wasn't so popular and were many young boys introductions to the world of anime. It is the anime, not the manga, that has gotten so much commentary and critism for its role in advancing a genre. History of anime#1990s confirms the anime's impact on the genre internationally.陣内_Jinnai 07:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that that article is a good source of information, as it seems to be incomplete and a little biased. A quick look at its Japanese, Spanish and German Wikipedia counterparts shows a different story about the 1990s. And I do remember a totally different situation in the 1990s than that expressed in that article, particularly with the Western market. By that logic, all articles should be based on anime, not manga, as anime will theoretically be more known than any printed work. However, that doesn't seem to apply to, let's say, The Smurfs or Harry Potter. Undoubtedly, the cartoon and films are more known in the English world and still, the base of their character articles are the printed works. Same with Batman and all other American characters and their many appearances in other media. I don't see why manga and anime are any different. Jfgslo (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

In general, I agree, but you have to remember there are special cases. Anime which transcend their manga counterpart. Dragonball is clearly an example of that if ever there was one.陣内_Jinnai 17:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the real core of the debate. Does the Dragon Ball anime really transcend the manga version? I my opinion, no. Dragon Ball GT was not well received neither by the critics nor by the public and that was an original anime production. At the end of the "first series" (before Z), the anime was supposed to finish there, but the impact that the manga had was so strong that the anime came back in the form of Dragon Ball Z. And once the manga finished, the anime was not that important. In fact, as the years go by, less references are made about GT, the only original anime series (not counting the movies which haven't had that much of an impact except for the TV specials). Still, this mostly refers to the Japanese market, and the English Wikipedia must be based in English-related material. I would really like to hear how other English-speaking users outside of the US perceive which one has had the more influence. The Funimation broadcast covers only a part of the English-speaking world.

And I'm also in doubt of another aspect: How could we measure which one has been more influential in the English-speaking world? Do we use TV ratings, polls, DVD vs manga sales? Why would you say that the anime transcend the manga in this specific case? Normally we would do this with academic or published by respected sources material, but as I said before, I sincerely doubt that we'll find reliable sources upon these subjects. It has always been a problem for anime/manga related articles. A lot of online sources, for example, are either fan-created or rely on Wikipedia, which makes them unreliable.

If the discussion does not find a good convincing argument, a voting should be done about whether or not the anime transcends the manga or vice versa. That should avoid similar conflicts that may rise in the future. Jfgslo (talk) 19:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yeah that does seem to be the core. I believe we should use the original names given to any fictional character's article. But there are exceptions. Especially since the more recognizable name wasn't the original. One way we could show that the anime transcends the manga names is by looking up newspaper articles with the Anime dub or the Manga Translation. Say, if we can find more newspaper articles mentioning Frieza rather than Freeza, then the dub is used instead. If we find more newspaper articles saying Son Goku instead of Goku then Son Goku is what we should use for the page and so on. Maybe we should set it that if you can find at least 5 (or more) newspaper articles (English articles, not articles that must be translated to english because if they have to be translated, then they belong in the appropriate wikiepdia, remember this is the English Wikipedia. ) with the anime dub then that should be the name and vice versa. Sounds fair? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds okay to me. I think this is the right way to go. Why don't we try to find articles in the way you describe? I'd also like to add that they should not be from anime/manga related publications as they most likely will be aimed at an specialized market, not the general English-speaking market. Same thing with TV/Comic related publications. I would also like to see publications from England, Canada, Australia and the other English-speaking countries where Dragon Ball is known, if possible. That should give us a more appropriate general view of the English-speaking world. They must be obviously in English and must not be a translation of a foreign-language article. This is important. Remember, this is the English Wikipedia and Wikipedia's naming policy provides that article names should be chosen for the general reader, not for specialists. We don't use Nippon-koku instead of Japan just because is the official name. Jfgslo (talk) 21:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that there may be a conflict with the Dragon Ball work group. In the scope section I found this:

"All information should be based on the original versions. Mainly, this will mean the Japanese versions (though at least one video game will refer to the English version). Because there are so many, no single English adaptation can be used as the English version. Besides the out-of-print adaptations, there are at least three English anime dubs and another company doing the manga, as well as another company translating the video games (which has been inconsistent at best). It would be inappropriate to pick any single distribution company over another."

Perhaps the information there is outdated, but anyway, what is the official position of the Dragon Ball work group regarding the current discussion? As it is know, the current positions, whether for the manga or the anime, are in conflict with the scope of the group. In this case, what should be the approach? Has there been a similar conflict about using English or foreign sources with task forces in other Wikipedia projects? Jfgslo (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

(EC) The Dragon Ball work group must comply with the guidelines of the anime/manga project, overall Wikipedia guidelines, and the consensus here. The page is very old and while it has had some updates, that section wasn't updated to match even the last consensus that the English dub named be used. Whatever the consensus decided here is, the work group pages will be updated accordingly to properly reflect actual guidelines. If there is a conflict with a task force, it generally should follow its parent project's guidelines, and both must follow Wikipedia's overall guidelines and policies (a project can't set a guideline that conflicts with those). That said, several folks commenting here are members of either the task force or project (or both). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment Well, this is awkward. Seems like the Argument was solved already.

Q: What version of the series are you following, and why?

A: Since there are so many adaptations of Dragon Ball available, we have to stick to one to avoid conflicts, and maintain a general level of agreement. For instance, a character's name varies with publisher, like Vegetto is also known as Vegerot in the Viz version of the comic. That is why we adhere to the comic and in most cases where there is conflict, we prefer the Japanese-language English subtitled version of the show.

Q: Why only follow the comic and not the show and movies?

A: This is not entirely true. The task force does follow the show, but only to a certain extent. For example, in the case of Dragon Ball GT, there is no reference from the comic available, simply because it is not based on a comic. Also, the movie and video game pages take all reference from their respective content. Only in a case of collision, we give preference to the comic as it was as the original author intended, without any potholes as there are in other media.

[[1]]

I guess there is no need for consensus since the Wikiproject has already stated that the comic should be the basis. The Viz media comic. Well, I guess this argument is over. At least make a mention of the FUNimation translation. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 00:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is always a need for consensus. Consensus is the driving force of Wikipedia (also, DB is a task force, not a project). Consensus can change and as noted above, the FAQ currently conflicts with the main task force While I agree that the FAQ more accurately reflects the guidelines regarding these issues, due to the conflicts and continuing discussion, we can't just say the argument is over. It is good to revisit the issue, if nothing else, to ensure that is still the consensus. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm for keeping the FUNimation so that means there is no consensus. Then just disregard my last comment and I'll continue looking for newspaper articles that contain the FUNimation versions to prove that the FUNimation version is the more recognizable version of the names. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

A quick Google search:

Frieza: 880,000; Freeza: 385,000

Tien Shinhan dragon ball: 12,700; Tenshinhan dragon ball: 62,500

Chiaotzu dragon ball: 29,800; Chaozu dragon ball: 13,800

"dragon ball" added because of the Chinese food pages mixed in. I'm still for using the manga names though. Hikui87 (talk) 04:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit: This is not meant to be scientific, just a start.

Unfortunately, as WP:ENGLISH states, Google hits are an unreliable test. How many of those site are using the info from Wikipedia? Also, try these searches to see a different result:

Frieza dragon ball

Freeza dragon ball

Freezer dragon ball

Now try these searches with a "Z" or using "" with dragon ball.

Of course, you cannot use Freezer alone because that will be severely biased as that term is far more widely used than the others. But adding dragon ball makes freezer the name with more results.

As i mentioned before, fan-sites are not a reliable source of information and most likely, most of Google results come from such websites. The solution proposed by Subzerosmokerain seems to be the fairer and more reliable one at this point. Check also Wikipedia:Search engine test to see why such searches in Google are not useful for the purposes of Wikipedia, particularly the part about notability. Jfgslo (talk) 05:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Kuririn 347 000 / Krillin 281 000
2. Buruma 102 000 / Bulma 19 800 000
3. Son Goku 543 000 / Goku 1 340 000

Looks to me like we should take a page from the Roronoa Zoro debacle which caused the policy page to be updated and assess them all individually. No matter what you could say Bulma, FE, is just so widely known by comparison that it would fail the "most commonly used English name" even if we assume only 1% of those sites are RSes.陣内_Jinnai 05:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. If we do that, then this discussion would have to change its focus, as we would have to determine each name case by case. I'm not against that but it will take a lot more effort. It actually makes sense for some of the characters (Bulma, Trunks) but maybe not for others (Frieza/Freeza, Chiaotzu/Chaozu, for example). Still, this is an interesting proposal as it would change the current focus from anime/manga to character recognition. What do other Wikipedia contributors think? The problem with this approach would be that it could cause an inconsistency with other Dragon Ball articles and for some characters that recognition won't be as clear as with Bulma which will make really hard to determine which name to use. The advantage would be that it would use the most recognizable name for each character, regardless of the media, ending further problems with primary work. Jfgslo (talk) 05:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there some way to see how many times each name has been searched for? That would certainly give better results for name recognition. Hikui87 (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. But before that, there is a point regarding this approach and the main reason why I do not trust much in these search result with some names. With "Bulma", there is not doubt, after all, as far as I know, no other thing uses the term "Bulma" besides the character in Dragon Ball. However, Krillin/Kuririn is another story. The results that Jinnai presented are slightly misleading because "Kuririn" can also be used for other things not related to the Dragon Ball character, like "CoroCoroKuririn Seed Busters", or "Kuririn Pez". If we add the words "dragon" and "ball" in theory it should give us a result closer to the Dragon Ball character, right? But the results then turn in favor of Krillin. Now try to compare those results using "Dragon Ball". Now the margin has become much larger in favor of "Krillin". Try the same test with "Krilin". The word "Bulma" always keeps a large margin against "Buruma" even doing this tests. But this won't be the case for all characters, particularly those who may have a broader use in media not related to Dragon Ball. If we had a conflict with Piccolo, for example, we would have several problems as it is a real Italian word which will mean that a lot of the results would be biased. Even if we learn how to know how many times a name has been searched for, how do we discern between the searches that are looking for a similar term and the searches for the Dragon Ball character?

If we want to follow this Google hits approach, we must first determine how are we going to consider a term as not biased. The case of "Bulma" was pretty easy, as the difference is in the millions, and while the difference became smaller using "Dragon" and "ball", it was still significant to determine that it was the most commonly used term. But I am quite sure that this won't be the case for all names and thus, we need to establish some kind of protocol to make the searches as little biased as possible. This won't be a problem for some characters, but some will have it ("Goku", for example, is used in other concepts not related to Dragon Ball, like Bansha no goku). Jfgslo (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Articles with names

(Will add more)

• BBC
  • Goku
  • Lord Piccolo, Bulma
  • Goku, Vegeta, Cell, Friez, Buu
  • Goko
• New York Times
  • Goku, Lord Piccolo, Master Roshi
  • Goku, Lord Piccolo, Master Roshi
  • Hal Erikson
    • Buu, Vegeta, Trunks, Goten
    • Yamcha, Android 20, Goku
    • Gohan
    • Babidi
    • Cell
    • Mr. Satan, aka Hercule (literally), Videl
    • Kami, Piccolo
    • Android 18
    • Pikkon
    • Majin Buu, Babidi, Jewel, Kiela, Hercule, Mighty Mask
    • Olibu
    • Tien
    • evil Buu
    • Dabura
    • Super Namek
    • Dr. Gero
    • Yamcha
    • Supreme Kai
    • Kibito
    • Grand Kai, King Cold
    • Chi-Chi
    • Captain Ginyu
    • Dende
    • Keroni, Peroshki
    • Frieza
    • Yakon
    • Bulma
    • Lime
    • Android 19
    • Spopovitch
    • General Tao
    • Chiatzou, Shen, Mercenary Tao, Oolang, Launch, Pu'er
    • Shin
  • Jason Buchman
    • Goku, Krillin, Lord Slug
    • Tunks, Gohan
    • Goten, Taipon, Minosha
    • Cooler
  • Camilla Albertson
    • Goku, Majin Buu, Vegeta
    • Kibito Kai
    • Great Kai
    • Paragus, Broly
    • Gohan
  • Goku, Cooler, Gohan
  • Bulma, Goku
  • Lord Jaguar, Broly
  • Garlic Jr.
  • Goku
  • Dr. Wheelo, Goku, Gohan, Krillin
• The Hindu
  • Goku
  • Goku, Piccolo, Chi Chi, master Roshi (lowercase M)
• Manga: The Complete Guide
  • Jackie Chun, Gohan, Son Goku, Goku - he notes in the first line of Dragonball section his official name is Son Goku, but uses Goku for the rest of the section and the DBZ section.
• China Daily
  • Goku, Lord Piccolo, Master Roshi
  • Goku, Lord Piccolo

陣内_Jinnai 04:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Sydney Morning Herald
  • Frieza, Gohan, Goku
  • Yuma, Spopovich, Babadi

Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FUNimation Names Changes

Now that all of FUNimation's Z season sets have been released, it's time to talk about its somewhat "revised" dub. One change from the original dub I caught immediately was that "Hercule" (a FUNimation-only name) was now being addressed as his Japanese/manga name, "Mr. Satan." I have explained this many times when changing his name on the article (WP seems to follow the dub, so I thought it was appropriate), but people are complaining that since this remastered release never aired on TV, it's not worthy of a change. WTF!? They even said the season sets weren't big sellers (then why are we getting a Dragon Box release!?), so more people were familiar with the original dub. Unfortunately, the GT sets weren't revised at all I think, so the name remained "Hercule." Hercule isn't even his name in the Japanese version, it's Mark, so don't argue we can change it to "Hercule Satan." This issue might get resolved if all pages follow the manga names, but that might take forever! Any thoughts? D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, it even says this currently in the article that Mr. Satan is used in the "uncut" dub/version of the show. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Have patience. The current discussion about the names is going in another direction. Basically neither manga nor anime, but what names are more commonly used by non-anime/manga/TV/comic media. As Wikipedia polices state, when using names with different variations, we must use the most commonly used in the English-speaking world. This means, we have to check mainstream media sources where such names are used. As you can see in Jinnai's investigation, we can start seeing a pattern with some of the names. The purpose of the investigation is to know which names are more commonly used in the whole English-speaking world, not only in some parts of the US. Jinnai exemplified this with the Roronoa Zoro case, where there were also conflicting versions of the name and it was determined that the names would be revised individually. This is currently the approach with the names that we are trying to use, either for determining if the anime version has had more "impact" than the manga version (or vice versa) in the English-speaking world, or to determine the most common variation of the names, because even if it's anime the one that ends up showing greater "impact", the anime version has used several name variations for several characters, which still makes it confusing, as you just pointed out with your example.

If you believe that Mr. Satan is the most common variation used in the English-speaking world (this is the English Wikipedia after all), I suggest that you try to do what Jinnai is doing, that is, find mainstream media articles where both names are used in order to prove that it is far more common to find Mr. Satan than Hercule. I have no doubt that Mr. Satan is the most common variation in the non-English-speaking world, but I also know that most American fans knew him with the name Hercule because of the possible controversy that might have attracted "Satan" in the original broadcast. And when I mean mainstream, I do not mean anime/manga/TV/comic related publications, but more general publications like newspapers. That way you'll have a very strong argument in your favor for using Mr. Satan instead of Hercule. Try to look also for non-American mainstream sources to have a wider view of the English-speaking world. Jfgslo (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Porunga Again

Collectonian recently reverted someone's edits to the page that made a section about the Namekian dragon, Porunga. He is a character that appears in the story many times, so he should have his own section. Shenlong has one, so he should, too. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by D4c3nt3n0 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose the dragons could be merged in one section.Tintor2 (talk) 02:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he was merged into Shenlong's session per consensus above. He does not need a separate section, which is why the dragons were merged.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

But, why? He isn't the same character. If it was meant to happen, why not merge them under a name like "Dragons." He isn't Shenlong, and there are different dragons in the series. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 03:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

No, he isn't, but he is the same type of character which is why he was merged there, as he is the Namekian equivalent, but relatively minor to the series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You said you aren't a DB fan, so how can you assume he is minor character? He played a big part in the Namek/Freeza arc, a smaller part in the Majin Buu arc (restoring Goku's health to fight Buu), and even made a tiny appearance in GT when he restored Earth after it exploded. In conclusion, he should have his own section or be a part of a "Dragons" section. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 03:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not have to be a fan to participate in discussions, and per the other discussions, he is a minor character overall. Being a large part in a single arc does not make him a major character. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your last statement a little, because Zarbon has a section and is really not that important besides the fact he beat the crap out of Vegeta once. Also, No. 17 has a section and he only played a big role in one arc. Again, there should just be a "Dragons" section because he is some-what important and is definitely not Shenlong and shouldn't be included in the Shenlong section. And I never said you couldn't participate in the discussion, so don't twist my words. I was just saying you assumed he was very minor and you didn't know that he was as important in an arc, just like No. 17 and Zarbon (more important actually)... and maybe Pilaf who appeared in just thirteen episodes (then again he was the first villain, so he is important...). D4c3nt3n0 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC).

Oops. I hadn't even read the section from the list when I commented here.Tintor2 (talk) 03:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

The dragons are way too brief in their appearance. They appear once every 50 or so episodes and briefly, and Porunga's brief onscreen appearance for about 3 or 4 non-consecutive episodes amounts to what exactly? I don't see the comparison with actual characters in the series. For one, much of the primary fighters from numerous sagas have been removed already, such as Dodoria, Android 19, Dabura, etc. Why in the name of all that exists would Porunga have a section when actual appearing and fighting characters don't...? - Zarbon (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I see your point. He doesn't need his own section, but maybe rename the Shenlong section to "Dragons." They aren't the same characters so Porunga shouldn't listed under Shenlong. Also, why do the artificial humans and Freeza's men need their own section? Zarbon is probably as important as Porunga, so why can't we do this. Have a section for all the artificial humans (Dr. Gero a/k/a/ No. 20, No. 19, No. 18, No. 17, No. 16, but not Nos. 15-13), a section for all of Freeza's men (Dodoria, Zarbon, etc.), and a section for the dragons (Shenlong, Porunga, GT Shenlong, Evil Blue Shenlong that appears in the last arc of GT). D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a minor but important difference between Shenlong and Porunga, and Porunga and Zarbon: both Shenlong and Zarbon have meaningful interactions with the story as characters, while Porunga is mostly a plot device. An important part of the Freeza's saga is the duel between Vegeta and Zarbon. Shenlong is an important character that has appeared since the original Dragon Ball series and he even "dies" at some point. Porunga barely appears twice and in the manga his appearances are even less significant, important plot-wise, but insignificant nonetheless. The Androids also have a a lot of interaction, particularly 16, 17 and 18. However, I agree that, with the exception of 18, these characters would benefit from a section for their type (Freeza's underlings, Androids.) But I don't think that their GT counterparts deserve to be in the same section as Shenlong and Porunga. GT is entirely different from the rest of the series and they should have their own section. Jfgslo (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Zarbon may have been important, but as Collectonian said, an importance in one arc doesn't mean he deserves his own section. Thanks for agreeing though that they should be in one section, that's it. Another thing, I wasn't talking about the evil dragons that FUNi calls the "Shadow Dragons," I was talking about the blue Shenlong that appeared when Goku and co. collected the cracked Dragon Balls. Of course, this Shenlong could also be mentioned in the Evil Dragons section since he created them from the Dragon Balls. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I knew you were referring to the GT Shenlongs. In my opinion, they should not be on par with Shenlong and Porunga even if they are similar. They are anime exclusive characters and have no real relationship with the original story. They have more in common with the "Shadow Dragons" than with the original dragons. That's what I meant when I said that they should not be with Shenlong and Porunga. Jfgslo (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about the evil dragons, I was talking about the Shenlong that appears when Goku and the others gather the cracked Dragon Balls. He is actually Shenlong, just in an evil form. I was just saying he could go under both sections since he is Shenlong and he did bring up the evil dragons. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know you were referring to the Shenlong created by Kami-sama before separating from his evil and the Shenlong that appeared with the cracked balls. I know that the Evil Dragons and those GT Shenlongs are not the same, but I stand in the same position since GT and most things there were not created by Toriyama and many times contradict the manga. To put it bluntly, all related to GT (including the evil Shenlong) must be treated differently because that is not part of the original story by Toriyama and thus only applies to the GT anime. This is only my personal opinion, nothing more. Jfgslo (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is any change to be made, in all honesty, a GT character page should be created seperately. Dragonball is a manga by Toriyama that spanned 42 tankobon volumes, the last 26 had the Z added to them, but they were labelled as the same story by the author. GT is, at best, a non-linear continuation that would warrant its own list. On the subject of a "Dragons" section, to do that would give equal weight to both dragons, even though Shenlong was a continuing character/major plot device throughout the entire run of DB/Z. As stated, Porunga only appeared in 2 scenes in either the manga or anime. He really only merits a mention in Porunga's, or possibly Guru's section. StryyderG 17:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by StryyderG (talk • contribs)

[edit] Semi-protected article proposition

I have noticed that this particular article has to be daily restored from vandalism and bad edits. I think that it would be beneficial to semi-protect the article, considering that the names are still in discussion and that it's an enormous waste of time having to be restoring the page daily. Since most of the vandalism comes from anonymous users instead of registered Wikipedia contributors, a low-level protection would suffice. What do other editors thinks? Jfgslo (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. While unregistered users do have some things to offer, most of them that visit this article simply mess it up to be frank. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 02:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I support a semi-protection lock. WP:RFPP is definitely the place to go to for these matters. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)