Talk:Dragon Ball GT

Redirect

If anything, the articles for DBZ and DBGT should be restored. Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z and Dragon Ball GT are separate entities set within the same franchise. Having Dragon Ball Z be nothing more than a section in the main Dragon Ball article is like having Star Trek: The Next Generation be nothing more than a section in the Star Trek article. They should be split back up, there is more than enough notable content, sources, and differences. Also, it's misleading to have Dragon Ball Z redirect to Dragon Ball. TJ Spyke 15:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I Second This Motion - Gohan — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.80.188.172 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Added canonicity debate

As follows,

Since 2014, with the release of the film Dragon Ball Z: Battle of Gods and the announcement of its sequel, both of which feature heavy involvement from Toriyama, the canonicity of Dragon Ball GT has been called into question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.113.113.161 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The Wikia, or any open wiki, and especially a forum post on the Wikia is not a reliable source of information. —Farix (t | c) 18:19, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Dictadure in this article?

What problem do you have? Reference is first rate. Wikipedia is for all users while respecting the rules. You are breaking the rules. Tell me if there's a problem with the reference (no lies), or it is not of interest to some.--Battousai hades (talk) 21:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

NPOV

The Reception section of this article states that reviews were mixed to negative but the section only states mostly negative points. This needs reworded to show a more NPOV. DrkBlueXG (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Funny how practically nothing changed years after you called them out on that. I'd also like to point out that the average reviews, regardless of anyone's personal opinion, are inarguably mixed to positive. It has a 6.8 on imdB and a 70% user rating on Rotten Tomatoes. These are mainly English-speaking sites. How many of those audiences do you think watched the dub? Whoever pasted all those quotes dogpiling on the show is clearly biased and trying to paint the narrative that almost everyone hates in when most people don't. If you actually read those quotes, they're hardly relevant. For example, "a bad idea that spawned out of someone's desire to make more money on the back of Toriyama's work," is factually incorrect. Toriyama designed the main cast, designed many planets they visit, approved the initial outline, named the show, designed the logo, oversaw production, and is openly very proud of it. Also, if they'd done their research, they'd know that the show that came out differs from their original vision. They're citing Todd Douglass Jr. of DVD Talk lmao, really scraping the bottom of the barrel there. I'd remove it, but someone's just bound to put it back. JohnStartop (talk) 00:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Dragonball (4-Star).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Dragon ball all of them

How do I watch it 2A00:23C7:76DD:E701:A560:5DE4:229E:292C (talk) 07:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this page is for discussing improvements to the article only, not a forum for general talk about Dragon Ball GT. Bowler the Carmine | talk 20:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"ベビー" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect ベビー has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 26 § ベビー until a consensus is reached. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 09:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"ドラゴンボールGT" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect ドラゴンボールGT has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 26 § ドラゴンボールGT until a consensus is reached. Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 09:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Charliephere edits

The content added by @Charliephere: (these edits specifically) do not seem particularly relevant to the article, especially sentences such as, with fans immediately noticing that certain aspects of the plot (Goku being turned into a child) and the content of the show itself resembled Dragon Ball GT, as if fan appreciation were relevant to the article. I find several problems with the user's edits anyway, and I have already reported them at WP:ANI, but that is another matter. Xexerss (talk) 00:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Daima is a successor to GT, there are multiple aspects of the show that resemble GT, and news platforms such as CBR and ComicBook, which are used for other citations in this article, also say this, which I have also used as a citation. If you have a problem with sentences like that, change it, that's what wikipedia is for, there is no reason to just wipe out the article of anything another editor has done. Charliephere (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the problem is basically that everything you added is simply poorly written, so I think you should familiarize yourself with the site's policies and guidelines, write according to them, and add it, or preferably consult someone who can make copyedits before including it in mainspace. And no pal, it is not my task to correct your lousy edits. I would if you would at least really try to conform to site guidelines and policies, but I realize that is not the case. Xexerss (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

They arent poorly written, and I'm not saying it's your job to clean up my writing. I'm saying that I dont see a problem with it, but if you dont like something about, you are perfectly capable of changing it rather than just deleting everything.

What don't you like? Charliephere (talk) 09:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

If you really had any intentions of knowing the guidelines, policies, consensus, MOS, etc. you would figure it out yourself, but you are obviously not trying to improve edits, just win a discussion and do things your way. Xexerss (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

at least we both agree we want this discussion to end Charliephere (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Noting here that I have reverted, and concur that the edits add too much detail for an encyclopedia article, violating the WP:UNDUE policy, and the language reads as an editorial, not a bald description of fact, violating WP:SUBJECTIVE. Per WP:BURDEN, it should not be readded without consensus. Note: I arrived at this discussion by way of the AN/I thread. EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:39, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

we came to the conclusion it was a good faith addition/rewrite in WP:ANI... and I was told to make it more "smart" and less crufty/factually-blunt, which I did and you've now joined in and said that it's too detailed and not direct statement of fact.

Can't win with this.

(also, the tone is as neutral as the subject allows, I made it as neutral as possible, there isnt any bias, and after looking through WP:SUBJECTIVE, I dont see anything I've done here in there) Charliephere (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll present some examples. This list is not exhaustive, only illustrative.

...both fans and popular news sites like CBR immediately noticing... Which fans? Which news sites other than CBR? The statement gives the impression that multiple sites have noted this, but the source only provides one, and that source does not mentions fans noticing. The "immediately" is likewise unsourced and gives a false impression of obviousness.

All that follows in that paragraph is excess detail; it exhaustively compares this other work to GT, but it is otherwise unrelated. The article on that series could have such comparisons, and it might be WP:DUE, but I fail to see how having it in this article is a benefit when, if readers want to know more, they can click over to the other article.

The next paragraph effectively argues that GT belongs in the same universe as the rest of the franchise. Why? Has the article implied elsewhere that it's somehow excluded? Without something to establish that it's considered separate from the DB franchise, there's no point in trying to show that it's not. It'd be like having a paragraph in Rogue One describing how it appears on timelines of the Star Wars franchise.

Can't win with this. Note that winning isn't the point. Sometimes consensus goes against you. That's okay; it happens to all of us.

As for neutrality, I still wonder if this connection is notable outside a niche fandom. All the sources seem to be from the CBR or Screenrant, which doesn't show wider relevance. It also goes into more detail than is needed; "Screenrant considers GT to be in the same universe as the rest of the franchise." with a link to that article, and done. If people want to know why it's so considered, they can click on the source link, which will do a better job than we can. As for subjectivity, the middle paragraph makes comparisons, but the source does not. So it seems that noting the likening of the two Gokus is very much a subjective assessment, and perhaps a WP:NOR violation.

It's entirely possible that many of these objections will end up unsubstantiated. If so, great! But a defensible version should be workshoped here before attempting to put it back into the mainspace. EducatedRedneck (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

now, just to start, thank you, you are by far the most respectful sounding person I have spoken to in this specific thread.

But when you say ""Can't win with this." Note that winning isn't the point.", I didnt mean it to say it as if I was trying to "win", I meant it as a way to express frustration with having one editor say one thing and then another editor saying another thing, and me getting flack for both, as if I'm the test dummy for editors to get away with whatever.

"Which fans? Which news sites other than CBR? The statement gives the impression that multiple sites have noted this, but the source only provides one, and that source does not mentions fans noticing. The "immediately" is likewise unsourced and gives a false impression of obviousness" I mean, it was very immediate and obvious lmao, but yeah I understand what you mean, that's on my fix-up todo list, if I get the "pleasure" of doing anything on this platform.

"effectively argues that GT belongs in the same universe as the rest of the franchise. Why?" I dont think it has, it brought up the official timeline which has GT, and it's in the article since it's been in 2 exhibitions and an encyclopaedia. "Has the article implied elsewhere that it's somehow excluded?" Maybe, but at the same time have they officially said anything to counter GT being separate, no, every news article on it being separate is usually more like an opinion piece, plus going to much into it's canonicity would get WP:FANCRUFT police on me, as the creator of this thread told me.

I think I've pretty much covered the rest of your stuff in these 3 points. Charliephere (talk) 15:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)