This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Voice of Treason (talk | contribs) at 11:25, 1 September 2006 (→OVA). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 11:25, 1 September 2006 by Voice of Treason (talk | contribs) (→OVA)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Dub Name Confusion
Why is "Turlus" mentioned as Tullece's dubbed name, when FUNimation's version (and related merchandise, such as the CCG) have referenced it as "Turles". Is this a dub name from a country other than America? If so, then both names should be accredited instead of replacing "Turles" (which was on the page previously) with "Turlus". The S
Sparking! NEO
All right, where has it been said that Tullece is in Sparking! NEO? Thus far, I've not seen screens or any other mention of him in the game. The S 06:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Lookalike
I want to know why Tullece looks like Goku so much. Later!!! 205.188.117.74 20:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
It's right there in the topic, under Character History & Relations. The S 02:04, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Design
We can actually say that Akira Toriyama designed Tullece, because Tullece looks exactly like Goku, and Goku was designed by Toriyama. Jienum
- Unfortunately not, because he didn't design everything there has to do with the character, unlike Bardock, a Goku clone Toriyama did design from the ground up Voice of Treason 04:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- What I meant was, Goku and Bardock look exactly like Tullece, so it can be said that Toriyama did design Tullece, didn't he? Jienum 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, because he didn't. That's like saying if I drew a really good picture of somone who looks like Vegeta, then Toriyama is the one who came up with the character design. Just because the character was based on somone created by Toriyama, doesn't mean Toriyama did the design.--KojiDude 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Write-up
The work put into it is commended, but the new text was not to the quality of the first, which can be seen as comparison. In addition to unencyclopedic prose, there's hyperbole, play-by-play, removal of links, and odd phrasing and content. The main reason it seems to have been done was to lengthen the section so a second picture could be added, which then interfered with the text below. Pics don't come before content. Voice of Treason 00:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed. This is especially true since there are ample amounts of images of this character already on this page, not to mention spread across the internet. The S 02:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please don't revert to the melodramatic synopsis again. It's full of prose, hyperbole to the extent of being near parody, and play by play that belongs nowhere near anything claiming to be an encylcopedic reference. The arrangement is fine as well. Just because other DBZ articles are set up poorly doesn't mean this one uniformly has to be. Voice of Treason 07:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Is the pure-Japanese title necessary in the section title? Can we just have the translated title (instead of "Chikyou Marugoto Chou-Kessen", we have "Super Deciding Battle for the Entire Planet Earth")? -- RattleMan 07:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sure. It's a proper translation, so that's certainly doable, and probably should have been set that way for a long while since its policy to provide those where available. So you're very right - the new title will also keep readers from mistaking the title of the dub as the translation for the original; it works out for the best for everyone. I think I'm wording myself as a bit of a jerk when I really don't want to be, but there seems to be a legitimate difference in quality between the two edits. To me and at least one other, anyway. Voice of Treason 07:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
OVA
Saying that "Plan to destroy the Saiyajin" is video-game footage is as stupid and wrong as saying the entire DBZ series is not an anime but video-game footage from DBZ Budokai.
An OVA is an anime specifically made for the video market, which won't be shown on TV nor in the cinemas, only released in VHS/LD/DVD.
"Plan..." was released in VHS in August 1993 and was never shown on TV nor in the cinemas.
The Playdia video-game, wich used footage from this OVA, was released in August 1994, a year later.
Now, please think a little... How could "Plan..." possibly be "videogame footage" if the videogame wasn't released until a year after the release of the anime on VHS ?
As I said, in this case, the entire DBZ series could as well be labelled video game footage for the Budokai games, instead of being a TV series...
Moreover, and that's the final point, "Plan..." appears in an official listing of OVAs made by Tôei Animation in the 1990s :
It's an OVA. Period. Folken de Fanel 09:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- You're right, it would be a OVA. But, you could have been just a tad bit nicer in presenting that (not trying to insult or critisize or anything, just saying...).--KojiDude 20:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, maybe Voice of Treason could have avoided shouting "IT'S A VIDEO GAME" in his edit summary. That would have been a "tad bit nicer"... Folken de Fanel 22:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's emphasis, not TEXTUAL SHOUTING!!!. Though since you've long since made up your mind pertaining to me and what I do, I'll be giving you an online purple nurple any time now. I hardly ever edit anymore anyway, so your vitriol's especially wasted on me. You did ignore that you put all games under OVAs at first in your haste to put me in my place though... just FYI.
- Misplaced Pages. Serious business. Voice of Treason 03:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently you've not yet understood that you're not the centre of the world. I contribute to Misplaced Pages in order to make the articles accurate, not to "put Voice of Treason in his place". I don't care about you. It's just that the Tullece article was inaccurate. So don't take it personal.
- And my "vitriol" isn't "vitriol", it's an explanation for anyone believing "Plan..." is game footage.
- We're on Misplaced Pages here, if your seeking attention, seek it in the real world, not on the internet.
- By the way, I hope for you that your pitiful reaction wasn't merely your revenge on me for having proved you wrong. Folken de Fanel 10:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Ah. So taking a comment personal is but a matter of course for me, after you get your knickers in a twist over a comment that was in no way inflammatory in the first place? Of course, you could choose to continue to back-bite and attack, as you've done well on that front 'til now, going as far as to continue fighting some "war" after attempts were made at levity (something, something purple & nurples).
- I don't expect an apology, being you're in war-mode and all, but that's TWICE (that's meant for emphasis again) you've made assumptions about me, and poor ones at that. First in taking something written as a "tad not nice" attack when it was never meant in this way (and if you still believe it was meant in that fashion, I apologize), and now with this "center of the universe" diatribe and accusation of trollery. I don't know what your past Wikipedian experiences are (and at this point, don't particularly care to), but whatever they are, I hope they go a slight bit better in the future.
- Don't be so quick to pull the trigger on people; you made your decision about me long before you and I ever spoke a word. Still, take care. I assume my pitiful reaction can at least amount to THAT. Voice of Treason 11:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, yes, he could have avoided that, but there's no reason to yell back and call him stupid is there? 0=) --KojiDude 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- I've not called him "stupid", I said "saying that is stupid". That's not the same thing. ;)
- Folken de Fanel 22:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, yes, he could have avoided that, but there's no reason to yell back and call him stupid is there? 0=) --KojiDude 22:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
- Um, actually, you're all wrong. I don't want to hurt anyone's feelings, but it's true. It is not an OVA, but where the Budokai thing came from, I don't know.
The footage was originally created as a visual guide for the Famicom game Dragon Ball Z Gaiden: Saiya-jin Zetsumetsu Keikaku. In other words, it was basically an animated strategy guide. There's an entire article dedicated to it at daizex.com. The S 03:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's an OVA, since it was created specifically for the video marked. That it served as an "animated walkthrough" doesn't change the way this anime was produced. Moreover, Tôei Animation officially recognizes it as an OVA :
- Folken de Fanel 08:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- It's an animated walkthrough, just like the S said. It was released for the video market for the fact that since it's a walkthrough, people are gonna buy it, right? Also, like the S said, an entire article can be found here
- No it's not an animated walkrthough. It's an OVA, serving as an animated walkthrough. It's an anime, it was released on VHS, so it has nothing special. It's an OVA. And for the 3rd time, read this official website listing "Plan..." as an OVA : (how long are you going to ignore it ?). Daizex is wrong on this, that's all.
- Folken de Fanel 10:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)