Talk:Dragon Ball (manga)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dragon Ball (manga). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131103153259/http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/culture/AJ201303270032 to http://ajw.asahi.com/article/cool_japan/culture/AJ201303270032
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161010101706/http://comicsalliance.com/akira-toriyamas-dragon-ball-is-full-of-laughs-and-action-that/ to http://comicsalliance.com/akira-toriyamas-dragon-ball-is-full-of-laughs-and-action-that/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dragon Ball (manga)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Sagecandor (talk · contribs) 20:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll look this one over and post up a review later. Sagecandor (talk) 20:34, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Sagecandor: Do you plan to do this review? -- 1989 19:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do, will get to it soon. Read over the article, looks good. Just going to write up a post related to each of the good article criteria. Sagecandor (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to report that this article nomination for good article status has been promoted. This is how the article, as of July 26, 2017, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Writing quality is good. Per WP:WIAGA criteria number 1, it is clear and concise. Good enough for good article. The lede is of a good size and is a good summary of the good article. The plot summary is a good size and not overly long and is a good summary of the plot. Good sourced info on production. Good job with publication and good coverage in a neutral way of controversial issues. Good use of legacy section and good overall use of citations.

2. Verifiable?: Good use of citations in an inline citation format in the article. Plot summary is matter of fact and is okay as is, per WP:PLOTSUMMARY.

3. Broad in coverage?: Good job being thorough with the article, covering all major aspects including Introduction, Plot summary, Production, Writing, Development, Characters, Publication, Japanese publication, English publication, Controversy in the United States, Spin-offs and crossovers, Reception, Popularity, Critical reception, and Legacy.

4. Neutral point of view?: Good job being neutral with the article. The wording is written in a neutral and matter of fact way. The article satisfies WP:NPOV. In particular, the article does include both critical and controversial aspects including Controversy in the United States and in the Reception section. This demonstrate the good job with neutral point of view.

5. Stable? Both article talk page and article itself are stable.

6. Images?: Both the fair use image and the free licensed image are good as far as good fair use rationale and good licensing.

Good job ! If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it Good article reassessed. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status, and congratulations.— Sagecandor (talk) 18:40, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Super

Would it be possible to include dragon Ball super on here? The anime is a sequel to Dragon Ball and DBZ however it has its own Manga series that isn't from the original manga. Bluhaze777 (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Date dispute

The edit special:diff/808433434 was disputed. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:11, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

<ref>{{Cite tweet |number=535534283654725632 |user=FUNimation |title=#ThrowBackThursday. On 11/20/84, the 1st chapter of #DragonBall was published in Weekly Shonen Jump Issue #51 pic.twitter.com/JNWA1A5Vpe |author=FUNimation |author-link=FUNimation |date=20 November 2014 |access-date=2 December 2017 |language=English |archive-url=http://archive.is/2014.12.06-013021/https://twitter.com/FUNimation/status/535534283654725632 |archive-date=6 December 2014 |dead-url=no |link=yes}}</ref> 

Possible reference. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:33, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The dates are the issue's cover date, which are the only dates that are consistently verifiable by reliable sources across all magazine publications. —Farix (t | c) 14:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

That is the issue date and not the sale date. The sale date is confirmed in the previous issue.[1] --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:39, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Can you consistently find publication dates that aren't issue dates for every Japanese magazine? Because if you cannot, then we must settle on the issue dates to maintain consistence across all manga articles. —Farix (t | c) 15:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I would have to look more into that if you want consistency and perhaps raise the issue on a relevant WikiProject rather than at the talkpage on one manga, but this date discrepancy is mentioned in other articles by Shonen such as Shonen Jump (magazine). This probably non-reliable source[2] has a good explanation of why, and has listings specific to Dragon Ball. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Bardock typo

In the "Spin-offs and crossovers" section, near the end of the second-last paragraph Bardock is misspelt "Burdock", and the anchor/link doesn't go to the correct section. I do not have privileges to make the edit myself Joestrong23 (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not a misspelling, it's the official English name used by Viz. I fixed the link tho. Xfansd (talk) 20:51, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

New source

Hello,

If it is useful, here is a new academic work about Dragon Ball :

• Ducarme, Frédéric (November 18, 2018). "Are nekketsu shōnen manga sports manga? - The example of Dragon Ball". Comicalites.

There are several other papers in French from the same author (see the Bibliography section in the French version).

Cheers,

FredD (talk) 14:24, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Copy-editing queries

I've made a start on the lead, but I'll wait to see what you think before I do any more. One query that I have at this point:

• "had strong comedic aspects early in its run": (I reworded this in the copy-edit to a comedy focus) This is in the lead but does not really come across in the "Writing" section, which is where it should really be placed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:13, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

That part comes from the Critical reception section. Jason Thompson commented that Dragon Ball "turns from a gag/adventure manga to a nearly-pure fighting manga" and the comments by James S. Yadao right after that say something similar. Xfansd (talk) 21:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• The above answer does not really address my point that it should say something about this in the writing section.
• Before I get into the production section, I'd appreciate it if someone could look at the points I made in the FAC; some of them need to be addressed before any further copy-editing is done. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Sarastro1: Done --1989 22:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• I've reworked the first paragraph of production, but I think we need a little more precision on time. I've changed the first sentence to "In 1980, Akira Toriyama had created the popular manga Dr. Slump; by 1983, he wanted to end the series but his publisher Shueisha would only allow him to do so if he agreed to produce another manga for them", but I've plucked the first date from the Dr Slump page so you need to check that the source supports that date; if not, we need another source. Also, I've basically made up the 1983 date from what comes in the rest of the paragraph, but we certainly need to know when it was that he wanted to end the series, and we need a source that supports it. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Slump article uses the same two citations that this one does. Torishima says in citation number four on this page that Toriyama wanted to end it "after six months or so," that would make it 1980, the same year he started it. In citation number one Toriyama says he was told he could end it if he started his next work in "three months," which is exactly what he did. Slump ended in September 1984 and Dragon Ball began in December 1984, that's three months. While those specific dates are not given in citation number one, Dragon Ball's start date and Slump's end date are both sourced in their articles. 1983 needs to be removed and what follows I think should be changed to something like "if he agreed to produce another manga for them shortly after," because his agreeing to end a popular series and start a new one within only three months is unusual and the whole point that makes it interesting. Xfansd (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just a note to say that I haven't forgotten this, and hope to get a lot more done this weekend. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Xfansd and 1989: We need to be very careful here to say what the sources say. We need a good source to give the years and we need to include it here. It might also help if I knew what the sources do say, but I'm afraid I don't know a word of Japanese, so I'd require a little help! Sarastro1 (talk) 08:43, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• The other obvious question is what he was doing for those three years until he started work on Dragon Boy? Was he just sitting and working discontentedly? Something is off about the time frame there. I'm also dubious about saying "shortly after" given that the time frame for this whole thing is years, not months. Also, if he was experimenting on other stories while Slump was ongoing, that doesn't quite work either. As I say, the timeframe needs work. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

During the years he was serializing Slump, he was creating one-shots on the side. The idea being that if a one-shot was well-received by readers, it could be developed into a serial. But Shueisha wasn't going to just let him stop Slump without a new serial ready to start in its place. It wasn't "years" tho. It was a year if you're counting when the one-shot Dragon Boy was published to when Dragon Ball started, but the serial Slump ended and its replacement serial DB started three months later. That is "shortly after." Xfansd (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Since it was serialized in a shōnen magazine, Toriyama added the idea of the Dragon Balls to give the characters a physical activity of gathering something.": I'm still struggling with this one. What is the connection between its serialisation in a shōnen magazine, and the need for a physical activity of gathering something? Do we mean that it needed some action, or a quest-like aspect, to appeal to its audience? Also, it might be worth contrasting this theme of Dragon Ball with the themes of Journey to the West, even if it's just a sentence or two comparing them. He based it on the novel, but how? In what ways? Sarastro1 (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It originally said "Since it was serialized in a shōnen magazine, Toriyama added the idea of the Dragon Balls to give it a game-like activity of gathering something, without thinking of what the characters would wish for." So yes, it was to appeal to its child audience. It already says how the characters were loosely modeled on those of Journey to the West. I can add something like Toriyama wanted it to be like Journey to the West with its "setting always changing, different enemies popping up, different locations." That would be taken from citation number 9. It was also chosen because it is in the public domain and its Chinese setting is different from Slump's US West Coast feel, China was not a popular topic in manga at the time and would make it unique. Taken from citation one. Xfansd (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• "Although he suspected the fighting genre would appeal more to its shōnen audience, Toriyama tried to stick to the Journey to the West adventure aspect by avoiding that in the beginning, which he enjoyed": This probably fits more into the section above, when we are discussing the writing. But again, we need to spell out how it compares to Journey to the West. As written, this doesn't quite make sense, and without seeing the sources, I'm not quite sure how to re-write it. Sarastro1 (talk) 08:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I initially had "Although he suspected battles would appeal more to its shōnen audience, Toriyama tried to stick to the Journey to the West adventure aspect which he himself enjoyed. It was only after he became tired of Torishima nagging about its popularity, that Toriyama gave in and drew more battles with the first shown Tenkaichi Budōkai." Journey to the West follows the "pilgrimage of the Tang dynasty Buddhist monk Xuanzang who traveled to the Western Regions, that is, Central Asia and India, to obtain Buddhist sacred texts." The beginning of Dragon Ball has Goku and Bulma traveling to collect the Dragon Balls, then it turns to fighting with the tournament, then goes back to the traveling and collecting with Red Ribbon Army arc, before Toriyama gave up on the "adventure" aspect and gave in to the fighting. So the "Journey to the West adventure aspect" refers to the traveling.

I wrote almost the whole article, 1989 came in and changed it in order to get a GA and FA, and made some edits I don't agree with. Most of which seem to only be a result of them not being familiar with the sources. I tried to stick to what the sources say, so I would suggest looking at this older revision Dragon Ball (manga). I'm not really invested in getting this to FA, I'm mostly just here to make sure stuff doesn't get screwed up. Xfansd (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hmm. I've no particular interest in getting involved in a dispute; before nominating for FA, the primary contributors should be consulted. Also, I've no particular interest in having to fight for every question and edit. If 1989 and Xfansd come to some sort of agreement, please let me know if you wish me to continue. A final point from a FA viewpoint: the nominator should be able to verify questions from the sources, and be able access the sources for verification purposes. If I were to continue, I would require verification from the sources for some of the questions I'm asking. (If this is nominated again, I will recuse as FAC coordinator) Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

There's no dispute. 1989 edited what GA and FA reviewers suggested, and I tweaked any edits that I felt changed to much from what was in the sources. I linked to an old revision as I naturally feel it works better and could answer some future questions you might come to, in the hope it would save time. But I agree 1989 nominated it and asked you to do this, so they should be commenting here more. Xfansd (talk) 19:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

I will, but not this instant. I don't know the information from the offline sources, so I am unable to comment on that. Since you added the information from the offline sources, you will have to address their concerns with that text. -- 1989 00:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pman447 here, i'm sorry if this is in the wrong section as i'm completely new to editing on wikipedia, but i'll get to the point.

• i just noticed that in the section that shows tankōbon sales for dragon ball includes Denmark and Sweden, but not Norway. I unfortunately do not have much information other than that it is translated to norwegian and published in full in my country. If someone more experienced in working with wikipedia articles could assist me by adding the information i would be able to take a look at my volumes i could at the very least find out who published it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pman447 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Comicalités source

I'd like to discuss @FredD:'s edit where they added: "Although the Saiyans arc borrows some elements from Superman, the influence of American comics was never important in Dragon Ball, and Goku remains more a sportsman than an avenger or vigilante throughout the manga." to the Production section. First I'm assuming the cited source 1 is a website that republishes papers that were first published in various academic journals? In this case, an English translation of one written by Frédéric Ducarme from the French Comicalités? Curiously, there is no listed translator.

Of course listing influences and inspirations is important and useful. But I am always on the watch for instances where "reliable" writers/critics write a piece and state confidently "x was influenced by y", "x shows clear inspiration from y" and the like without citing a source and then that gets added to Wikipedia as is and treated as a straight fact. That is what FredD is doing here. The source says "Other particular influences in Dragon Ball include Bruce Lee’s and Jackie Chan’s movies, but also Peter Pan (for the first half of the manga) and Superman (for the second half)." but provides no citations for the claim. We have several sources where Toriyama talks about Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan movies as an influence on Dragon Ball, so no problems there. But in 36 years, never has Toriyama, nor anyone else associated with the franchise, cited Peter Pan or Superman. If this paper had said "Toriyama once told a colleague that he was influenced by Superman," then adding something like "Ducarme wrote that Toriyama once told a colleague that he was influenced by Superman" would be acceptable. But writing simply "Dragon Ball was influenced by Superman" is misleading and wrong.

The paper also states "Dragon Ball, whose scenario borrows elements from Superman," and this claim does have a citation; "In manga n° 17, we learn that the hero was sent from another planet while a baby, and belongs to a now-extinct super-strong alien people." Which makes it clear that here, and let's include the previously mentioned quote, Ducarme is simply making a comparison to Superman based on what happens in the story. Thus we can not morph it into the edit that FredD made, which treats the influence as fact instead of opinion. Their edit also makes it seem like other "American comics" were an influence, however no others are mentioned in the paper.

To conclude, I'd like to clarify that I'm not arguing against adding anything from the source, just that it be worded correctly and put in its appropriate place, the Reception section. I just went and made an edit like this. Xfansd (talk) 03:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The borrowing from Superman is more than obvious (superpowerful baby sent alone in a small capsule to Earth while his planet explodes, etc), so people may think that American comics are a major influence. What I wanted to say by using this source is that this influence is only a one-time thing, and as said in the paper, Goku is not an avenger in the spirit of American superheroes, despite superficial resemblance. I think that this comparison is important. I'm open to any insight on this regard. Cheers, FredD (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

publication date

WP:A&M/ORS mentions that retailers are considered reliable sources for release dates. Do tweets count? If so this tweet from Funimation can verify that the initial publication date for Dragon Ball was November 20th, rather than December 3rd. It seems to be in line with WP:TWITTER but I'm not super well-versed in these disputes. Shakuran13 (talk) 10:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's just hypothetically say it is reliable and can be used to change the start date, what do you suggest be done with the end date? Cause we're not gonna add that new start date and keep the current end date. Find a reliable source for the other end date that you obviously want to add and you'll have my support for the change, but I'm not gonna support mismatching them. Xfansd (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Overall sales

Given that most japanese sources give 260M sales overseas for Dragon Ball manga (even Toei said it in an article recently, https://corp.toei-anim.co.jp/en/press/press-6953497287618550869.html), and that we don't have a reliable source for the Korean sales (the one we have is down), I think it is pretty confident to measure the sales as 260M worldwide. Cracker-Kun (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Circulation problem.

Dragon Ball Sales exceed 300. by just simply counting the overseas it is much more then officially announced. For example here are the current numbers and sources

Asia: Japan: 160M

South Korea 20 million copies, Source

China 10 million copies, Source

Taiwan 10M, Source

Hong Kong 8.4M,Source

Total of Asia sales:208.4M

Europe/South america:

France 35 million copies,Source Source2

Brazil 34 million,Source

Spain 20 million ,Source Source2

Italy 16 million,Source

Germany 8 million,Source

Total EU/SA: 113M

Total combined:321.4M at the very least. this is not accounting for USA/SEA countries.although the US Copies are most likely counted since Viz is owned by shueisha.

At the time of the announcement of Dragon Ball Kai at the Tokyo International Anime Fair 2009 it has been announced it reached 350M there already. Source Source2 and the source is shueisha themselves. Some japanese people emailed toei and confirmed that Shueisha number is correct (Which was the source at the Kai announcement)

Toei said in the announcement of the movie that it has 260M, it is the official figure. Cracker-Kun (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Dragon Ball total circulation is 260 million copies.

Until right now in this date, there are no official japanese sources or any japanese reliable source announcing that the total worldwide circulation of Dragon Ball is 300 million copies. So far, these are the latest japanese articles about the Dragon ball (promoting the film), and it says 260 million instead of 300 million.: https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/67d6762c95b6729a8e59ad271c86b3ce28418321 https://mantan-web.jp/amp/article/20220307dog00m200052000c.html

As you can see, until right now, the total circulation is still in 260 million copies. Even the japanese wikipedia, it also said that it is 260 million copies. https://ja.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E3%83%89%E3%83%A9%E3%82%B4%E3%83%B3%E3%83%9C%E3%83%BC%E3%83%AB

When it comes to "circulation", japanese official release is still the most reliable source. You can wait on the official announcement from Shuiesha or Toei animation to change the circulation in this page. Selenne (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2022 (UTC)