Opinions on the description of DBZ Techniques

MisterFlashdude · Post by **MisterFlashdude** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:08 pm

Something's been irking me and I'm here to get the opinions of the members of my favorite DBZ board.

Bascially, I'm sick of reading descriptions of some of the techniques used in DBZ as if it was being used on a regular basis.

Such as this description taken from Goku's wikipedia entry, under the 'Father-son Kamehameha'-- "This is where a some one who is dead assists someone alive with a Kamehameha."

Who the hell is someone? This was only done once within the story and only by Goku and Gohan. What is the purpose of describing this event as if your neighbor down the street is blasting off kamehameha's with his dead cousin?

And, of course, it's not only that wikipedia entry. Far too often have I read descriptions of techniques that are written in the same fasion. I can understand that kind of thing for a normal Kamehameha, which is used often and by many individiuals in the series... but stuff like that? It ticks me off.

Anyone else feel the same way or am I just spending too much time reading information on DBZ...?

Saiyan · Post by **Saiyan** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:20 pm

Eh, it's just not you. If I remember correctly, Mike or Julian rewrote the whole Wikipedia article on Tullece because of the BS that the people put on there.

Wikipedia is just a bad place all together to read up on DBZ info...except for the Tullece article, that's reliable

.

EDIT: Haha, I was just reading up on that Wikipedia article, and one of his attacks is "Invisible Jumping":

Invisible Jumping
Goku uses this attack to become temporarily invisible by jumping around back and forth. After the technique, Goku stops for a surprise attack.

What the hell?

tarsonis · Post by **tarsonis** » Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:41 pm

Anytime I see nonsense like "This is where a some one.." (what does that even mean?), I try to fix up the articles. There's a lot of badly-written stuff out there.

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 4:18 am

As a rule, never use Wiki as a valid source to use as proof for something. The very nature of how it works renders it invalid since *anybody* can edit an entry.

tarsonis · Post by **tarsonis** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 6:13 am

Jerseymilk wrote:As a rule, never use Wiki as a valid source to use as proof for something. The very nature of how it works renders it invalid since *anybody* can edit an entry.

Maybe it can't be the absolute proof for something, but it's still an excellent source of information. If something's wrong, it's usually fixed quickly.

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 2:14 pm

Yes that is true, however there's always that doubt so it can never be used as a solid source.

BlueSky · Post by **Kaboom** » Fri Jul 14, 2006 5:29 pm

I say you should have to pass some sort of I.Q. and/or Grammar test in order to contribute to Wikipedia. It wouldn't have to be that big a deal; just a few questions during registration. If you pass, you're registered. If not, you get a message that says, "Sorry, Dumbass, this site is for smart peoples. Now go away.."

Post by **desirecampbell** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:36 am

SSj Kaboom wrote:I say you should have to pass some sort of I.Q. and/or Grammar test in order to contribute to Wikipedia. It wouldn't have to be that big a deal; just a few questions during registration. If you pass, you're registered. If not, you get a message that says, "Sorry, Dumbass, this site is for smart peoples. Now go away.."

The whole point of a 'wiki' system is to let anyone and everyone contribute. The way it's set up - noone can really complain about any specific article: if you know there's wrong information there, then correct it.

I don't read any article without reading the 'talk page' to see what's being discussed and argued first.

Destructive Majin · Post by **Destructive Majin** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 5:33 am

I don't check WikiPedia much. At most cases, I just use the Google search engine to find some websites with articles about the information I was looking for. There are much pages on WikiPedia that aren't correct, and then the ones who know the correct solutions don't take time to correct it. I'm also like that, I know much about Dragonball but I don't take the time to contribute in that WiKi system..

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 12:42 pm

SSj Kaboom wrote:I say you should have to pass some sort of I.Q. and/or Grammar test in order to contribute to Wikipedia. It wouldn't have to be that big a deal; just a few questions during registration. If you pass, you're registered. If not, you get a message that says, "Sorry, Dumbass, this site is for smart peoples. Now go away.."

Just because someone has a high I.Q. or is smart "bookwise", doesn't mean they're smart in other areas, such as having "common sense". That also doesn't mean you're an automatic authority on something either.

DaemonCorps · Post by **DaemonCorps** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 1:15 pm

Destructive Majin wrote:There are much pages on WikiPedia that aren't correct, and then the ones who know the correct solutions don't take time to correct it. I'm also like that, I know much about Dragonball but I don't take the time to contribute in that WiKi system..

Oh Lord, I remember one time I corrected the Fusion Reborn section on tv.com and just kinda gave up on correcting everything else, since well... cleaning up someone else's mistakes just kinda sucks

.

MisterFlashdude wrote:Anyone else feel the same way or am I just spending too much time reading information on DBZ...?

Way back when, there used to be a bunch of sites with crap like that. And just to set things straight: You're in a forum that discusses about a show that's not even aired for the most part and has reached its peak of popularity about 6 years ago; I'm pretty sure you're not the only one who spends to much time on DBZ stuff

.

BlueSky · Post by **Kaboom** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:31 pm

Jerseymilk wrote:Just because someone has a high I.Q. or is smart "bookwise", doesn't mean they're smart in other areas, such as having "common sense". That also doesn't mean you're an automatic authority on something either.

Oy. Sorry for making a joke...

Jerseymilk · Post by **Jerseymilk** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 6:53 pm

I wasn't lashing out at you. I understand you were saying it in a joking way, I just wanted though to add that to it. As in "there are dummies every aspects of life". I don't think I'm the one taking things too seriously here. -_- You took my comment as a personal attack, which it wasn't.

Kanzenshuu

Opinions on the description of DBZ Techniques

Opinions on the description of DBZ Techniques

Who is online