Talk:Dragon Ball: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:52, 10 July 2008 editAnmaFinotera (talk \| contribs)107,494 edits →From Talk:Dragon Ball Z: What happened?: reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 13:07, 7 January 2025 edit undoAirshipJungleman29 (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors44,335 edits assess
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~skiptotoc~~}}		{{Skip to talk}}
			{{Article history
	{{WikiProject Anime and manga\|dragon-ball-work-group=yes\|class=Start}}
			\|topic = langlit
	{{todo}}

	{{archive box\|auto=long\|]}}
			\|action1 = GAN
			\|action1date = 01:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
			\|action1link = Talk:Dragon Ball/GA1
			\|action1result = listed
			\|action1oldid = 571998372

			\|action2 = GAR
			\|action2date = 13:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
			\|action2link = Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Dragon Ball/1
			\|action2result = delisted
			\|action2oldid = 1267661325
			\|currentstatus = DGA
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|class=b\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Anime and manga\|dragon-ball-work-group=yes\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Media franchises\|importance=Mid}}
			{{WikiProject Magazines\|importance=Low}}
			}}
			{{Todo}}
			{{Refideas
			\|1=https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2024-09-08/toyo-keizai-dragon-ball-rights-are-unresolved-after-akira-toriyama-death/.213418
			}}

			{{Round In Circles}}

	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = Talkarchivenav
	\|maxarchivesize = 200K		\|maxarchivesize = 200K
	\|counter = 1		\|counter = 3
	\|algo = old(30d)		\|algo = old(30d)
	\|archive = Talk:Dragon Ball/Archive %(counter)d		\|archive = Talk:Dragon Ball/Archive %(counter)d
	\|archiveheader = Talkarchivenav
	}}		}}
			{{Annual readership}}
			{{Archive box\|auto=long\|
			----
			]<br>
			]
			}}
			__TOC__

			== Dragon Ball Daima ==
	==Dragonball (2009) film==
	I really don't think adding a link to the ] article, when the ] article redirects to the ], should be considered controversial in the least. The movie is ''named'' "Dragonball". I'd understand if it had some sort of subtitle, like the other films, but the simple fact is that typing the ''name of the movie'' takes you to a disambiguation page that doesn't include the movie directly, and requires a minimum of three more clicks to reach.

	I also highly object to arbitrarily issuing ''any'' sort of vandalism warnings simply for editing the page without first discussing it on the talk page. I have a registered account, and I meet the requirements to edit the page as outlined in the semi-protected template on the page.] (]) 23:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

	:Please ]. That warning was to let you know that discussion is preferred over any instance. Now regarding the film, why only ] and not the others? Just because of a redirect? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 23:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

	::''Dragonball'' is the ''name of the film''. The others have subtitles, for example, '']''. If one wants to view the ''Dragon Ball Z: Super Android 13!'' article, they will be taken directly to it, with no redirects or disambiguations involved. However, if someone wishes to go to the article for the film called '']'', they have to navigate additional links to get to the film, which is exceptionally ironic, as none of the other official Dragon Ball media is even actually spelled that way.
	::In fact, considering that, it might be better to move ] to ] and include a {{redirect\|Dragon Ball}} in the article.
	::Also, I'm perfectly calm, and I'd like to (politely and calmly) let you know that you should exercise more caution before telling someone to "calm down", as it ''can'' actually upset or provoke someone who ''isn't upset'', despite perceptions (which can easily be mistaken when interpreting only text). ] (]) 00:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

	:::That hatlink is inappropriate, as this page is titled "Dragon Ball". You have good reasons for ''Dragonball'' (film) to be listed on the dab. Guess it can be re-added. I'll undo myself. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 00:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

	== Peer Review Alert ==

	I've nominated a related page, ] for peer review, and would welcome constructive criticism. ] (]) 20:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

	== From ]: how many seasons are there? ==

	I know the sagas but not the seas ns.were the sagas the seasons? if so it'll take forever to get every episode on dvd. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:Try surfing through ]. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 04:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

	== From ]: Power Level ==

	Hey all! I've been wondering. Maybe there should be like an article or something in here about power levels. Like, explaining the origin of power levels, how Akira Toriyama, the Dragon Ball author, got the idea for power levels, and the list of all the power levels read throughout the series, demonstrating how their strength increases with training and near-death experiences, not forgetting how the power levels differentiate between the manga, anime and the Daizenshu. Anyone think that's a good idea? ] (]) 16:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

	:That would be a good idea. Maybe I could start an article on that. ] (]) 04:59, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

	::Please see ] and ] before doing so. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

	I see that there are more "deletes", but how bout we have a new process. i'll start an article on it and if you think it isn't important, you can delete it, but if you think it is, we'll continue on with it. i think that's fair. ] (]) 20:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

	== From ]: Power Level Article ==

	Guys, we should start some discussion and make improvements to the power level article. ] (]) 21:48, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

	== From ]: Android 18 Article ==

	Hey guys, maybe we should make a full article about Android 18. I mean, she is of course Krillin's wife and we did make an article about Young trunks and goten. maybe we should make an article about android 18. ] (]) 17:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)Jimblack

	== From ]: Satanism? ==

	In the T.V. series that I have watched (in Latin America) there seem to be elements of "satanism" in the plot, like several characters with a shape traditionally attributed to Satan in the Western culture, the number 666 in a car, or the name Mr. Satan for one of the characters. Is there an explanation of this issue? I came to the article for more information about it, but there doesn't seem to be any. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 23:16, 22 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	The saiyans in DBZ are often named after vegetables. Kakarot - Corot Radditz - Radish... Vegeta Brolli etc. so is dragonballz vegetalblist?
	I would say that its just an example of DBZ being a quirky anime <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	Its not a satanic show, but a certain character and his daughter (Hercule) have the family name 'SATAN'. Probably something of irony because within the show he is a hero, but to viewers he is a complete jerk...atleast until further episodes. The 666 is to represent the car being his. It's just his character, don't worry. Also, if when mean characters with the shape attributed to Satan within western culture, what can you expect? Most of those characters (that you are talking about) are evil and live within HFIL, or DBZ's variant of hell. To be fair, many beings are angels or angelic, including the series main character after he dies. And in the culture the creator grew up in, many icons and architectures have demonish traits, even though they could just be mythical creatures (Dragons and all that). So to summarize, it ain't satanic. And it better not be referenced in that light in the future. --] (]) 07:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
	== Merge ==

	I have proposed that ] be properly merged back here to ]. I can not see a single valid reason these two should be separated. They are not significantly different in terms of characters, story, etc, and their separation like this violates ]. This article also needs a massive clean up and rewrite to bring it inline with the MoS. Thoughts? -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 02:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

	:The thing is this: the anime adaptation of this manga is split in ''Dragon Ball'' and ''Dragon Ball Z''. The DB articles were structured this way because it is easier for the editors involved (and the readers). If we're merging on the grounds that the plot and characters are the same, then ] must be merged, too. Merging only ] seems wrong because the DB TV series only adapts roughly half of the manga (again, the other half is adapted as DBZ).--] (]) 03:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

	:Also, let me add that the DB articles seem poorly organized. I don't see why ] is a disambiguation page when all articles mentioned (expect one) are DB-related. ] should be the main article, not ], with a hatnote pointing readers to ]. That's what I think.--] (]) 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

	::Believe me, I agree there. The DB articles are a mess. Every series has 2, if not 3 episode lists, the all have a lot of excessive OR and redundant stuff, etc. You are probably right, and ] should be included (and maybe ]?). I'd also support putting the merged form at ] with the appropriate hat note.-- ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

	:::Unlike DBZ, DBGT is a separate production not adapted from Toriyama's manga. So I don't think it should be merged here.--] (]) 03:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

	::::I agree with the merger, the removal of the disambiguation page, hatnote proposal, and that "Dragon Ball" should be used over "Dragon Ball (franchise)". Wouldn't it be best if we combined the ''Dragon Ball'' manga and anime articles (except for ''Dragon Ball GT'') to the franchise page? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 01:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	:::::That sounds about right to me. :) -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	::::::Col, could you update those merge tags to reflect my idea? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	:::::::All done. I pointed the discussion here since its already on going. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 02:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	::::::::Thanks. You sure are quick to handle these things ;) ] <small>(] • ])</small> 02:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	:::::::::Well, things have certainly changed since I last commented. I'm not sure about merging the franchise, manga, and two anime articles... mainly because it seems kinda messy in my mind, can't picture it. ''But'' if there's a clean, organized way of doing it, count with my vote.--] (]) 03:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	::::::::::I believe similar changes will happen to the '']'' articles. If you ask me, this is the best thing we can accomplish now. If anything gets bloated, unmerging is always possible. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 03:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	::::::::::I think it can be done, relatively easily actually. Most of the articles seem to repeat the same stuff in slightly different ways. The merged article will likely need a little clean up and trimming, though if merged carefully, it shouldn't be to bad. If I can, I may try working on a merged version in my user space, to help if consensus is a go. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 03:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

	:::::::::::So ], ], ] and ] should be merged together, but ] be kept seperate? I think Dragon Ball GT should be part of the merger. It is part of the series, although only supervised, not actually written, by Akira Toriyama. ] (]) 08:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

	::::::::::::I agree, from what I've read on the series. While it isn't based on the manga specifically, I couldn't tell that it was significantly different either? -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

	:::::::::::::Think it's safe to say that ''Dragon Ball GT'' should be merged too. When you think about it, this series is just another continuation, and it's too short (shorter than the previous works). What do you say Collectonian? ] <small>(] • ])</small> 05:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

	::::::::::::::I can really see both sides. I'm still leaning towards a merge, though, as it is a direction continuation, and really no different from, say, the ''Gunslinger Girl'' seasons, with the second one done by a totally different company. I'm just not seeing that much unique information that would cause a size issue at all. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

	DBGT is too much. At least the DB TV series and DBZ are directly adapted from Toriyama's manga. But GT is a different beast altogether, a ], created by Toei. I don't think merging GT is necessary or beneficial.--] (]) 13:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

	:I support the merge. The DBGT article lacks production and reception section and need a nice clean up.--] (]) 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

	::DBGT is not an entirely different story, it is a continuation of DBZ. Akira Toriyama actually sstated that he liked GT's story. ] (]) 16:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

	:::I support the Merge of Dragon Ball GT, however, I noticed from the history page that the DBZ article has useful information before you just tore it asunder (Even those that are SOURCED). Are you actually SETTING things up for a merge, hmm?? ] (]) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

	::::I think that if they are to be merged, EVERYTHING has to be put into it. Every single one of the articles mentioned. But the problem is, the 2008 version of the Dragon ball Z page is just too short, and I think that if it is reverted back to an earlier, longer, 2007 version, it will be too long to merge...so, if we expand the articles, no, if we leave them too short, yes. Ironic, but necessary. domkippy <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	===Update===
	I've done the first merge, of franchise, followed by a ton of clean up. I removed a lot of unsourced claims and obvious OR/personal opinions. Meanwhile, anyone want to tackle cleaning up the {{tl\|Dragon Ball}} template and merging in the {{tl\|Dragon Ball characters}} template? -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
	:Not sure what you mean. Redirect cleanup? Alas, I'm more worried about the histories of the pages. We'll need to request history merges after this is all done. ] <small>(] • ])</small> 18:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

	::Redirect clean up, and merge in the character sections. It will no more later, as the ep lists are also cleaned up. Not sure on the best way to fix it though to match the new article structure, though maybe it should wait till all done. But something to think about either way, to fix the organization. Yeah, at least a merge of the franchise history would be good. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 19:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

	Manga article merge done. I've moved this discussion here with a redirect on the old talk page that will come straight here to keep the convo going. The rest of the discussions from that talk page have been archived to a named archive linked to in the new archive box above. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 01:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

			I was wondering if we should add the details about the new anime ] (]) 02:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
	] merge completed. Anyone who has read most/all of the manga series want to tackle fixing up this articles plot to cover the entire series? Its kinda piece meal right now from the Dragon Ball manga and Z articles. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 06:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

			:Agreed, there's already a redirect for it, but the article only mentions its existence in the info box. ] (]) 11:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
	== From ]: What happened? ==

			== Why is there no Dragon Ball Daima article yet? ==
	This article is crap. I know there alot of useless information in some of the originals but come on, who keeps delting everything? Im not saying this article needs to be a point by point guide but it needs alot more information than this and whenever I try to add stuff it is deleted rather than improved. more info is needed. Arguments? ] <small>—Preceding ] was added at 17:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

	~~Yea,~~ I ~~was~~ ~~just~~ ~~about~~ to ~~ask~~ ~~why~~ ~~this~~ ~~article~~ ~~got~~ ~~crapped down~~. ~~WTF?~~ ~~Imma~~ ~~get~~ to ~~the~~ ~~history~~ ~~and~~ ~~revert~~ if ~~thats~~ ~~all~~ ~~good~~ ~~with in~~ ~~yalls neighborhood.--~~] (]) 07:23, 6 ~~July~~ ~~2008~~ (UTC)		Series comes out in a little over a month. It's fairly significant. Why isn't there a Daima article yet? Why does it just re-direct here? ] (]) 11:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

			:It already released now, someone really ought to make an article. ] (]) 00:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
	Nevemind, can't. UGGG, this article blows even worse!--] (]) 07:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

			== GA concerns ==
	:The old version was pure OR and unsourced. Its also been cleaned up in preparation to be merged. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 08:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
	::The post ws not uncivil or claiming to own the article i am fead up seeing you ruin article for no reasons, dragonball z should not be merged with dragonball there enterily serparate shows but you clearly have no knlowledge of the show. i am agree clean up articles but when you go to the poitn of just using wikipedia rules ro ruin something then your purist who own hads one thing on there mind do it your way or no other wa without havinga middle ground to make tihng to wikipedia standards but also to provide the most correct information and not what you see it as, as someone who knows nothing on the subjects <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 11:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:::Yes, it was, not that this one is much better in terms of civility, mor grammar. And the merge has already been agreed to by consensus, and will happen. It is not significantly different series and does not qualify for having a separate article. Just because I haven't read every chapter of the manga or watched every episode does not mean I am not able to work on the article, nor that I know nothing about the subject (and telling someone not to edit an article because they don't know anything about it is a claim of ownership under the guidelines). I don't read ], but its now a C class article and well on its way to being a B and a future GA or FA, through my efforts. I didn't get most of the middle because of all the bad spelling and hideous grammar, so no reponse there. Will note, however, that Misplaced Pages is not about providing "correct" information, but "verifiable" information, and there is a difference. If you can't provide a RELIABLE source, not just "because I said so", it isn't verifiable and has no place here. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 11:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

			I am concerned that this article no longer meets the ]. Some of my concerns are listed below:
	...I don't want it merged, I just want t back up to a good class article and alot more info. Verifiable or whatever, just get it down please. I'm not gonna do it cuz I'm lazy :]--] (]) 16:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

			*There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs
	:It is being merged. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
			*There numerous block quotes used in the article, which I think would be better as prose.
			*The lead is very long and contains a table, which is very usual for an article. I think this area needs to be reformatted.

			Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Is not, should this go to ]? ] (]) 01:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
	::I agree the anime and manga should never have been merged in the first place. The anime is three full-fledged television series, with details and plot lines that were never included in the manga. There are over 500 episodes in the three animes and it's simply ridiculous to think that even a brief summary can be confined to a subsection in a manga article. The articles may have been unorganized before, but so much good material has been removed that this can no longer be called encyclopedic at all. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

			== Split proposal ==
	:::Consensus disagrees with you. No good material was removed at all, only pure, unsourced ] and fan theories. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 14:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
			{{archive top}}
			I think that the topic of ''Dragon Ball'''s cultural impact is notable enough to justify its own page, and can probably be expanded upon significantly. I've started a draft for a new page with the content from this one: ]. Does a split sound reasonable? ] (]) 22:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

			:It's been several days with no objections, so I will take that as an affirmative. ] (]) 10:36, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
	::::No offense, but that's a load of BS. All that's left of Dragon Ball Z is three little paragraphs. Before, there were multiple articles detailing the plot of the series, the DVD releases, the major and minor sagas, the voice actors and the characters. I won't lie and say ''all'' of it had sources cited, but a great deal of it did, and it would have been much more reasonable to go through and patch up the loose ends than to remove everything. (And ironically, the three paragraphs that remain are unverified.) It's been totally butchered to an appalling degree. The old articles need to be restored. I'll fix their problems myself when that's done.] (]) 23:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
			{{archive bottom}}

			==GA Reassessment==
	:::::That isn't going to happen. The sagas were removed months ago as they replicated the episode page - totally unnecessary. Voice actors and characters are in the character lists which have not been removed at all. The DVD releases are in the episode lists where they belong. In this merger, again, the only thing "lost" was having the information spread across four articles and better focused here. The problems with them have been fixed by merging similar articles back together. The next step, once the final merge is done, will be to clean up, source, and expand this article per the to do list above. -- ] (] '''·''' ]) 00:52, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
			{{Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Dragon Ball/1}}

Latest revision as of 13:07, 7 January 2025

Skip to table of contents

Dragon Ball was one of the Language and literature good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
September 8, 2013	Good article nominee	Listed
January 7, 2025	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anime and manga: Dragon Ball High‑importance

	Anime and manga portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Dragon Ball work group.

Media franchises Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Media franchises, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to media franchises on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Media franchisesWikipedia:WikiProject Media franchisesTemplate:WikiProject Media franchisesmedia franchise
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Magazines Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

To-do list for Dragon Ball: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-07-21

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Expand : : Find all Voice actors for the anime adaptations
Update : : Make sure all license/airing info is up to date
Verify : : Check all sources to make sure they are WP:RS; source all unsourced, non-plot summary section
Other : : Clean up List of Dragon Ball video games, merge back any games that fail WP:N; add real lead
Clean up List of Dragon Ball soundtracks, merge back any that fail WP:MUSIC; add real lead

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2024-09-08/toyo-keizai-dragon-ball-rights-are-unresolved-after-akira-toriyama-death/.213418

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.

Archives

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dragon Ball (manga) archive
Dragon Ball GT archive

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Dragon Ball Daima

I was wondering if we should add the details about the new anime 66.244.95.12 (talk) 02:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, there's already a redirect for it, but the article only mentions its existence in the info box. Whatever you do, I'm probably not interested. (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Why is there no Dragon Ball Daima article yet?

Series comes out in a little over a month. It's fairly significant. Why isn't there a Daima article yet? Why does it just re-direct here? 141.126.92.77 (talk) 11:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

It already released now, someone really ought to make an article. 2601:406:8480:7940:555C:1516:19B8:E836 (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

There are numerous uncited statements throughout the article, including entire paragraphs
There numerous block quotes used in the article, which I think would be better as prose.
The lead is very long and contains a table, which is very usual for an article. I think this area needs to be reformatted.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article? Is not, should this go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Split proposal

The following discussion 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.

I think that the topic of Dragon Ball's cultural impact is notable enough to justify its own page, and can probably be expanded upon significantly. I've started a draft for a new page with the content from this one: Draft:Cultural impact of Dragon Ball. Does a split sound reasonable? Di (they-them) (talk) 22:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

It's been several days with no objections, so I will take that as an affirmative. Di (they-them) (talk) 10:36, 26 November 2024 (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.

GA Reassessment

Dragon Ball

The following discussion 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The article contains uncited passages, including entire sections and paragraphs. Notes are used as citations to other Misplaced Pages articles, instead of citing the information directly in the article (note b and e) Z1720 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I'm pretty sure all those notes and several paragraphs regarding sales, estimated circulation figures and such were added by sockpuppet user Maestro2016, known for including that kind of information in several articles, doing sums with different sources (which is against WP:SYNTH), using sources of questionable reliability, and more, so I would recommend to check and remove that kind of content. Xexerss (talk) 22:20, 27 December 2024 (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. Categories: