The Dragon Ball Wiki

[Herms]

Speaking of that old "dub/fan races" thread of mine, it seems the DB wikia hasn’t changed any of their incorrect race names. They’ve still got a page for “Bas-jin”, the name for Gurd’s race that came from that unofficial tabletop RPG. There’s a page for “Bune-jin”, supposedly Pui-Pui’s race, despite him being clearly identified in the series as coming from Planet Zun. There’s still a page on genies, which Popo apparently is. It even has this great tidbit: “Diet: Unknown, but Mr. Popo did swallow one of Goku's weaker Kamehameha waves”.

The space orphan who Gohan and co. meet in filler are still called “Ritoians”, actually a corrupted form of “Littians”, the name of the small race who Kuririn and Gohan’s armor was made for. The name is mistakenly applied to the space orphans due to a slipup Greg Werner made back in the day.

The race kid Boo wipes out in the anime filler are still said to be from planet “Aruhua”, which is simply a really bad Romanization of “Alpha”, the planet’s real name.

Here’s a new one: Shik-jin, the race of a planet destroyed by Vegeta and co. in filler. Their original name of the planet is “Sharts” (Shaatsu), which I’d assume is a pun on “shirt” (shatsu in Japanese). Did they change the name in the dub, or is this just another mistake or bit of nonsense like the stuff above? Although I can’t imagine that the dub would call the people there “Shik-jin”. Did they just use the name “Shik” for the planet in the dub, and the DB wikia people simply assumed that the name of the race would be “Shik-jin”? Even though it’s Shaatsu-seijin in Japanese, not simply Shaatsu-jin.

Which brings up another thing that bugs me. In Japanese, if a fictional race is named after a planet, they are generally called [Planet Name]-seijin, sei meaning “planet” (sometimes “star” too), and jin meaning “person”. The Japanese term for a Namekian, for instance, is Namekku-seijin, literally “Person of Planet Namek”. However, virtually everywhere on the DB wikia, you see the sei part left out. Garlic Jr. is said to be a “Makyo-jin” rather than a “Makyo-seijin”, Pui-Pui is called a “Bune-jin” and not a “Bune-seijin” (though his planet’s name is Zun anyway), Yakon is called a “Dark-jin” because he’s from the “Dark Star” (Ankoku-sei/Dark Planet in Japanese), and not a “Dark-seijin”. They seem to know a little bit about how races are named in Japanese, but not that much (and they clearly can’t be bothered to do any research).

And that brings up yet another thing that bugs me: what's with this "X-jin" stuff to begin with? They translate Saiya-jin to Saiyan and Namekku-seijin to Namekian (which is perfectly fine in itself), but then when it comes to these minor races they're turn around and start using (garbled) Japanese names as the standard? I don't understand that at all. Same thing with the minor techniques. For major ones they'll use the Funi dub names, but when it comes to minor ones, the sort only really named in games or guidebooks, then suddenly they start using "Kankousen" and "Busshitsu Shutsugen Majutsu" and "Hoono no Tama" or "Nobiru Ude". Talk about inconsistent. I guess the problem is that minor attacks like these aren't really named in the series and therefore have no dub names, but if they're so big on being an English wiki and all that jazz, why not simply translate these game/guide names into English? Even I, a real dyed-in-the-wool Japanese version fan, don't see any point in leaving these tentative, non-proper noun names in Japanese. Do they simply not know how to translate them? I don't get it.

[SHINOBI-03]

I have one question for those who say "This is an English DBZ wikia. And therefore, it should be primarily based on FUNimation's dub."

If what you are saying is true, then how do explain basing the wikias of Naruto and One Piece on the Japanese version instead of their respective dub versions?!

You don't see the Naruto wikia use "Fire Style: Phoenix Flower Jutsu" over "Fire Release: Phoenix Immortal Fire Technique", right?! Even though that's what the English dub used.

You don't see the One Piece wikia use "Navy" over "Marines", right?! Again. That's the term used in the English dub.

So how the hell you say FUNimation's dub is a must because this is an English wikia and treat the Japanese version as a minority and unnecessary?!

Do I smell hypocrisy disguised as "Nostalgia" and "familiarity"?!

[linkdude20002001]

You don't see the One Piece wikia use "Navy" over "Marines", right?! Again. That's the term used in the English dub.

Didn't someone on the podcast say that "Marines" is just what the Japanese call the "Navy"? So technically using "Navy" over "Marines" is the correct thing to do.

[B]

Do I smell hypocrisy disguised as "Nostalgia" and "familiarity"?!

Smell it? They're spitting it in your face. That discussion thread others in this thread have linked to have them clearly stating "More people are familiar with this, so that's what we go on." Completely ignoring accuracy.

Hell, if you wanna just accept that they're basing things off the dub, they shouldn't be using any Japanese sources since those will directly contradict "facts" from the dub.

[Gaffer Tape]

*snip*

That's another thing I've never understood. Why the hell are they constantly using (misusing) all these Japanese suffixes if they're "the English Dragon Ball yadda yadda whatever"? I mean, they're not exactly jumping on board to say "Saiya-jin," but they still feel compelled to litter as much random Japanesiness as possible. I assume it's in an effort to sound more authoritative, but it just comes off as schizophrenic. Well, and as you said, wrong. But I do find it funny that we get hit with the ridiculous insults of "weeaboo" and the like when they're the ones just randomly adding bad Japanese into their pages.

[Adamant]

You don't see the One Piece wikia use "Navy" over "Marines", right?! Again. That's the term used in the English dub.

Didn't someone on the podcast say that "Marines" is just what the Japanese call the "Navy"? So technically using "Navy" over "Marines" is the correct thing to do.

No. The Japanese original uses the word "kaigun", which translates to the word "navy" in English. The equivalent of this word in various languages, including Norwegian and German (likely where Oda took it from), is "marine". Since English is apparently the only language in the world, some dumbass fansubbers took it to be the English word "marine" (a completely different and mostly unrelated word), and this stuck as the "proper" translation among the dumber fans out there.

But yeah, "navy" is correct.

[Blue]

You're talking about the same fanbase who uses the word "nakama" and says there is no REAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION for it.
Navy/Marines seems tame by comparisons.

[DemonRin]

You don't see the One Piece wikia use "Navy" over "Marines", right?! Again. That's the term used in the English dub.

Didn't someone on the podcast say that "Marines" is just what the Japanese call the "Navy"? So technically using "Navy" over "Marines" is the correct thing to do.

No. The Japanese original uses the word "kaigun", which translates to "navy", as well as the word "Marine", which also means "navy" in various languages, including Norwegian and German (likely where Oda took it from). Some dumbass fansubbers took it to be the English word "marine, since English is apparantly the only language in the world, and it stuck among the dumber fans out there.

But yeah, "navy" is correct.

And what's more, FUNimation ALTERNATES Between the two in their dub...

But, I'm sure it's already been said plenty here, but... the Wiki is REALLY off... The fact that I can go to their page for the main character and the article is named "Goku". No Son, just "Goku". They do it because of "Familiarity to Dub audiences" but honestly, if you don't already know by now that his name is "Son Goku"...

Also, there are some articles that don't even bring up the Character's Japanese name at all.

Son's article starts with "Goku (孫 悟空, Son Gokū) is the protagonist of..."
Bolded the part I'm talking about. Son's article has that there.
Then I go to another article, OH Let's Say... the article for Sgt. Metallic.
"Major Metallitron is Goku's second challenge in Muscle Tower." SOMETHING Is Missing here, whatever could it be?...
It lists "Sergeant Metallic" as one of his alternate names, but doesn't do anything to alert the reader that that's his actual name rather than the made up Dub name (that even changes his rank...)
And while I'm at it, his alternate names list him as: "Sergeant Metallic", "Android #1", and "Full Metal Jacket"
I'm sorry, but it does nothing to tell the viewer where these "Alternate" names came from. Is it ever confirmed anywhere that he was "Android #1"? As in that he was Dr. Gero's first Android? Is that canon or did someone make that up? Is it from a Daizenshuu?

It's not just his article either, Majin Boo's article has like 8 alternate names. Buu, Boo, Majin Buu, Mr. Buu, Fat Buu, Good Buu, and Rolie Buu. Once again, it does nothing to alert you where ANY of these names come from, and then there's the fact that Everything past "Mr. Buu" isn't official in the slightest. "Fat", "Good" and "Rolie" are things I've never seen anyone but the fans refer to him as. What are they doing in an encyclopedia?!

You're talking about the same fanbase who uses the word "nakama" and says there is no REAL ENGLISH TRANSLATION for it.
Navy/Marines seems tame by comparisons.

Oh, don't get me STARTED on those morons...

[Herms]

Is it ever confirmed anywhere that he was "Android #1"? As in that he was Dr. Gero's first Android? Is that canon or did someone make that up? Is it from a Daizenshuu?

Nope, it's pure BS. Quite the opposite, Daizenshuu 4 actually classifies him as simply a "robot", along with the pirate robot and the RR plane pilot robot guy. Android is a completely separate category, even for androids like 16 or 19 who are basically the same as robots. They're classified as "mechanical-type androids, while 8, 17, 18, and Cell are "biotechnological-type androids. Kinda arbitrary, but it would seem pretty clear from this that they don't consider Metallic as part of Gero's line of androids.

I don't know, maybe some other crazy dub claims that he's Android No.1 (it doesn't say that in the Funi one, I'm fairly sure). But I'd guess it's simply fan speculation BS. I can kinda understand why fans would be tempted to count him as one of Gero's androids, but even then why place him as No.1? Wouldn't it make more sense for him to be No.7?

Speaking of which, as it happens the last time I checked out the DB wikia they had a thread where someone was asking whether the pirate cave robot was Android No.2, because it had "2" written on both of its feet. I had to explain that no, the pirate robot was completely unrelated to the RR Army, and had been in that cave for centuries.

It's not just his article either, Majin Boo's article has like 8 alternate names. Buu, Boo, Majin Buu, Mr. Buu, Fat Buu, Good Buu, and Rolie Buu.

"Rolie Buu"...? Huh.

[Bussani]

And what's more, FUNimation ALTERNATES Between the two in their dub...

FUNimation seems to refer to the whole thing as "the navy" but the individual members as "marines". But yeah, it does get confusing.

[Puto]

You don't see the One Piece wikia use "Navy" over "Marines", right?! Again. That's the term used in the English dub.

Didn't someone on the podcast say that "Marines" is just what the Japanese call the "Navy"? So technically using "Navy" over "Marines" is the correct thing to do.

No. The Japanese original uses the word "kaigun", which translates to "navy", as well as the word "Marine", which also means "navy" in various languages, including Norwegian and German (likely where Oda took it from). Some dumbass fansubbers took it to be the English word "marine, since English is apparantly the only language in the world, and it stuck among the dumber fans out there.

But yeah, "navy" is correct.

Though, to be honest, the reason most of those fans hate the use of the word Navy is because 4Kids used it, to the point of painting out the word MARINE and writing NAVY in its place. And apparently if 4Kids does something, then it must be wrong.

[SonEric84]

I've never even heard anyone say "Rolie" Buu...what in the world is that supposed to be referring to?

[Adamant]

Though, to be honest, the reason most of those fans hate the use of the word Navy is because 4Kids used it, to the point of painting out the word MARINE and writing NAVY in its place. And apparently if 4Kids does something, then it must be wrong.

I don't see them advocating the use of "Ruffy" over "Luffy" because 4kids used the L-word.
Nah, it's pure "the fansubbers said x so it's x" bs. I'm sure the same people hate how the DVD subs translate "nakama" too.

(blah, that previous post of mine was a mess. I should be more sober when I write these things)

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

Though, to be honest, the reason most of those fans hate the use of the word Navy is because 4Kids used it, to the point of painting out the word MARINE and writing NAVY in its place. And apparently if 4Kids does something, then it must be wrong.

Agreed. Fans have been going on and on about 4kids' usage of "Zolo", when there's really nothing wrong with it. It's the same deal with using "Luffy" over "Ruffy".

[VegettoEX]

Agreed. Fans have been going on and on about 4kids' usage of "Zolo", when there's really nothing wrong with it. It's the same deal with using "Luffy" over "Ruffy".

Except that the author (as well as the anime) spell the name as "Zoro", and it's further sensible to spell it that way since his birthday is November 11th, which is what you'd call zorome (a sequence of the same number)... and wasn't the change because they didn't feel like dealing with the "Zorro" confusion and possible royalties/shenanigans, so the change was less about "accuracy" and more about copyright-convenience, making it mostly (if not wholly) irrelevant to pay attention to?

It would be like spelling "Kuririn" as "Kulilin". I suppose you could, and it's certainly not wrong, but it kinda ignores the pun (kuri being "chestnut") and no-one really spells it that way (you've got the lovely "Kylilin" spelling or what have you to use your "L"s with, instead, if you want to go with the author's usage... unless I'm totally wrong, and it was "Kulilin" on the hat).

EDIT: Huh. Looks like it was "Kulilin" on the hat (both in the manga and TV version), though now that I'm looking around, LANDMARK and some other places write it out as "KLYILIN" (despite me taking that scan from LANDMARK itself). Interesting. Oh, well. I'll just be indignant about it. That fits in well with the conversation as a whole.



Hey, let's talk about DragonBall and perhaps its awful Wikia.

[Piccolo Daimaoh]

Except that the author (as well as the anime) spell the name as "Zoro", and it's further sensible to spell it that way since his birthday is November 11th, which is what you'd call zorome (a sequence of the same number)... and wasn't the change because they didn't feel like dealing with the "Zorro" confusion and possible royalties/shenanigans, so the change was less about "accuracy" and more about copyright-convenience, making it mostly (if not wholly) irrelevant to pay attention to?

I am fully aware that the creator spells it as "Zoro", but as a anglicization, there's really nothing wrong with "Zolo". It's the same deal as using the "Blooma" anglicization. The creator and Anime spell it "Bulma", but "Blooma" is still correct.

[Gaffer Tape]

Well, I'd argue that the difference is that Blooma leans more towards the meaning of the name, while Zolo leans away from it. So while they can both be argued to be technically correct, one arguably has a stronger sense of purpose and justification behind it than the other.

[Herms]

Hey, let's talk about DragonBall and perhaps its awful Wikia.

Yeah, speaking of which, I checked out their alternate timelines page and I’m guessing this thing would cause Olivier Hague actual physical pain.

A number beside a characters name indicates which dimension (what timeline they are from); if there is no number be side the characters name, that means that they are from the dimension (timeline) the description is under.

Why don’t you just pick “dimension” or “timeline” and stick with it?

The timelines were unchained because of a time machine. As the androids 17 and 18 killed all the heroes and the Z Fighters of Earth, Bulma created a time machine to send Future Trunks to the past to prevent Goku from dying, to warn the Z Fighters about the future android threat, and to find a way to stop the androids in the future world (either a way to deactivate the androids or a way to destroy them, maybe even taking Goku to Future Trunks's timeline).

“The timelines were unchained”…? I…what? Anyone know what that means?

I love that second sentence. Yep, the androids killed all of the heroes. Oh, and the Z Fighters, them too. I also love the idea that Bulma was actually working on the time machine at the very same time as everyone was getting killed. Talk about thinking ahead.

It should be noted that, in the universe of Dragon Ball, one does not have to directly interfere with a timeline to disrupt it. Simply by nature of going back in time at all, various random changes were made to the timeline. For example, Androids 19 and 20 came first, despite any explanation for why they would, and Androids 17 and 18 are also inexplicably stronger than Future Trunks remembers. Therefore, even if a time traveler follows a "look but don't touch" policy, they risk changing history.

Timeline 1 is where the main story takes place, and Future Trunks and Cell arrive from the future. Timeline 2 is the original timeline from where Future Trunks originates. Timeline 3 is from where Cell originates and goes back in time by killing Trunks and stealing the time machine, this timeline is briefly seen. Timeline 4 is never seen, but is a timeline which Trunks from Cell original timeline (3) goes back in time and destroy (probably due to the blue prints) Androids 17 and 18 from timelines 4 and later 3.

There's probably a lot I could say about how stupid these two paragraphs are, but I think they pretty much speak for themselves.

OK, so this page is basing its timeline analysis on Daizenshuu 7’s, TripleRach’s translation of which can be found here. The first three timelines in this setup are straightforward enough (the main series timeline, Future Trunks’, and Cell’s), but the fourth one has been subject to misunderstanding. Basically, the idea is that timeline 4 is the same as the main series’ timeline, except that Trunks returns to his timeline to stop the androids with their emergency shutdown controller, and so is not present for the Cell Games, raising the question of how the Cell Games would have unfolded without Trunks there. Meanwhile, Trunks returns to his own timeline, where he is killed by Cell, who goes back in time to become the main Cell we see in the series.

This, admittedly, makes no sense. But while Daizenshuu 7’s timeline 4 doesn’t make sense, it’s not some completely mysterious timeline where any crazy thing could have happened. As already mentioned, the main mystery that Daizenshuu 7 focuses on in regards to timeline 4, and the reason they put a big “?” on it, is what would happen at the Cell Games with Trunks absent. That’s it. The only other real mystery about timeline 4 is how this setup could possibly work, but that’s a whole different can of worms.

Anyway, the DB wikia’s explanation of timeline 4 is kinda weird. Half of it seems like a garbled version of Daizenshuu 7’s explanation, and the other half seems like they’re trying to come up with their own explanation, which would be fine I suppose, if they detailed their explanation clearly and didn’t seem to be talking about Daizenshuu 7’s version instead at times:

No characters from this timeline are ever seen. This is the timeline where Future Trunks3 originally went to from timeline 3, and it is what timeline 1 would have been if only Future Trunks3 had gone back in time, but not Cell3. This timeline can be seen as the first "version" of timeline 1.
As timeline 3 is the "original" timeline, timeline 4 is the first alternate timeline ever created, by the first time travel ever done.
[snip]
The events explained in the fourth timeline depend on the assumption that Future Trunks3 came to this timeline and somehow found the Android's blueprints there without Cell revealing the existence of the laboratory basement. It must be assumed that Future Trunks3 did not simply find a way to deactivate the Androids in his own timeline and was then coming back to let the Z-Warriors know how before Cell stole his time machine, in order for this fourth unseen timeline to have any relevance.

One big inconsistency is that they describe Cell in timeline 4 as being “Likely killed by Future Trunks3 and Krillin as a fetus like in timeline 1, as the android's blueprints were next to him”. However, directly below this they have a chart adapted straight from Daizenshuu 7, showing Cell in his perfect form in timeline 4.

Anyway, backing up a bit, here’s part of their explanation if timeline 2:

This timeline can be seen as the "improved" version of timeline 3, which was the "first version" of the timeline for Future Trunks3. Thanks to Cell3's trip to the past in timeline 3, this timeline and timeline 1 were created. In order to defeat Cell3 in timeline 1, Future Trunks increased his power and was able to destroy the Cell from this timeline when he went back to his future in this timeline.

The DB wikia really has a knack for taking a complicated subject and making it merely nonsensical

Now my personal favorite part:

Inconsistencies
There are several inconsistencies, plot holes or unexplained events in the timelines described above. They include the following:
• Cell3 travelled back in time to year 763, according to him, because that was the year that was programmed on the machine. But if Future Trunks3's story is similar to Future Trunks2's story, he was about to use the machine to tell the Z-Fighters from timeline 4 that he had defeated the androids in his universe. However, there is no reason for Future Trunks3 to go to the year 763 to do that; nobody knew him at that time, since his first trip was to year 764. (This might only be explained by the inaccuaracy of the time machine.)

That’s it, that’s the entire “Inconsistencies” section. Apparently by “several inconsistencies”, they meant one. I guess they couldn’t be bothered to list any more.

Finally, under the section “Other Timelines”

Numerous Dragon Ball publications ignore the events of manga canonicity and tell stories that usually conflict with the canonical sagas. Although unverified, a reasonable explanation may be that these story arcs are part of different timelines. However, it is unknown how these timelines were created, since one cannot attribute most of them to time travel.
Such contradictory publications include:
• The first three Dragon Ball movies are their own timeline: Curse of the Blood Rubies, Sleeping Princess in Devil's Castle and Mystical Adventure
• Dragon Ball movie 4, The Path to Power.
• Dragon Ball Z movie 2, The World's Strongest
• Dragon Ball Z movie 3, The Tree of Might
• Dragon Ball Z movie 4, Lord Slug
• Dragon Ball Z movie 6, Return of Cooler (movie 5, Cooler's Revenge, is not necessarily contradictory; see canonicity section for more info.)
• Dragon Ball Z movie 7, Super Android 13!
• Dragon Ball Z movie 10, Broly: Second Coming (movie 8, Broly: The Legendary Super Saiyan is not necessarily contradictory; see canonicity section for more info.)
• Dragon Ball Z movie 11, Bio-Broly
• Dragon Ball Z movie 12, Fusion Reborn
• The OVA 'Plan to Eradicate the Saiyans'
• Dragon Ball GT (since Akira Toriyama wrote the info on Dragon Ball Online which is a canon replacement for the events of this series.)
• The Dr. Slump remake
• Various 'what-ifs' and side-stories in video games such as:
o Budokai Tenkaichi
o Budokai Tenkaichi 2
o Budokai Tenkaichi 3
o Raging Blast
o Budokai
o Super Butōden 2
o Dragon Ball Z: Buyū Retsuden
o Dragon Ball Z: Kyôshū! Saiyan

Yes, numerous “publications” ignore the manga, such as…movies and video games. I don’t think that word means what they think it means. Apparently DBZ movie 8 isn’t contradictory, but then I guess there’s no way Broli fan boys would allow it to be. Oh, and I do love to see the DB wikia talking about “publications” that “ignore the events of manga canonicity”. Pot, kettle?

[jjgp1112]

Quick question: couldn't Movie 7 possibly take place in the 4th timeline? I mean, yeah, nothing's confirmed, and by no means should it be on the Wiki (I actually confess to saying that Movie 7 took place in timeline 4 on the wiki about 2 years ago, but I went back and fixed it), but it's plausible, right?

[SonEric84]

Quick question: couldn't Movie 7 possibly take place in the 4th timeline? I mean, yeah, nothing's confirmed, and by no means should it be on the Wiki (I actually confess to saying that Movie 7 took place in timeline 4 on the wiki about 2 years ago, but I went back and fixed it), but it's plausible, right?

Well, the movies are pretty much stories that take place in an alternate universe from the canon storyline anyway, right? So saying it took place in timeline 4 is just as plausible as any other timeline from the main one really.


Edit: Just so you know, by no means am I trying to shoot down that theory, I just don't understand (for use in the wiki) why they would decide on timeline 4 as though it is fact when technically it is just as likely to take place in timeline 29, you know?