Talk:No. 18 (Dragon Ball)

The only female Z-fighter

Shouldn't it be mentioned somehwere on the page that Android 18 is the only female warrior in the DBZ canon (Albiet, Chi Chi was once a fighter in the original Dragonball, but she has never fought since then)? - Alph

Artificial Humans or Cyborgs?

Juuhachigou and Juunanagou are not machines. A better name would be Cyborg's 17/18.

Juunana-gou and Juuhachi-gou are artificially enhanced humans. Juuhachi-gou is the older of the twins, but Juunana-gou is more powerfull.

Cyborg is a more appropiate term. Android is a robot that looks like a human, so it doesn't make sense to name her that.

Erm, but Android 17 and 18 are their official names in the television show Cyclone49 12:11, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They are both the same power for your information.

Android 17 and Android 18 are the official ENGLISH names. However, Trunks explains that a better term to call them by is cyborgs after calling them Artificial Humans in the original. Jinzoningen, or rather Artificial Human, is the actual official ORIGINAL name. And #17 is stronger than #18, though weaker than #16.

I dunno if this has any bearing whatsoever, but in the (older)Japanese games, 18's always been labelled as "№ 18". I know "Juuhachi" is literally just "18" in Japanese and "-gou" is "(1) number; issue" or "(2) sobriquet; pen-name;"... So here's a question. ...why not just name them all "Number" or "№" and be done with it? The rest of the entries seem to coinside with the transliterations of names.(Freeza, Cooler, Tao Pai Pai, Muten Roshi, etc.) ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 05:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Fun fact: The Japanese actually label them in English as "Android Number ##" when writing them out long-ways. So "Android ##" is technically perfectly correct! X3 ~ Jessica Ingmann 01:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

why not call them c-18/17 and be done with it? its easier.

Picture

How exactly do you insert pictures into the information box? There doesn't seem to be any place in the template for it to put a picture in. Cyclone49 03:35, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You have to become a member. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.62.136.156 (talk • contribs) .

Two different explanations

From the Android 17 article: Android 17 is actually not a robot. He is an essentially a regular human with "upgrades" (I.E., Cyborg) along with his twin sister, Android 18. The two were experimented by Dr. Gero though very little of their history is given.

From this article She is referred to in the original Japanese as an artificial human, which is translated as 'android' in the literal sense; she is not a robot, and it is implied in the manga she and her brother were originally runaways heavily fitted with cybernetics.

So this article says that the Androids are "Artificial humans", when the other says that they were both human. Should one of these be modified?

Both basically say that they are cybrogs, which is essentially what they are. The Japanese term Jinzoningen covers that definition of the characters, as well as describing true androids like 16 or 19, and even covers cell (since he was artificially created despite being mostly biological). In english we don't have a wide term to cover all of those, so for simplicity sake the dub just went with Android. Onikage725 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Video Game Attacks

Some of the listed Attacks are only from video games, Can i delete them? they really have no place here. DBZROCKS 23:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Why can't attacks from video games be listed??? this is an information source, the more information the better! You had no right ot delete those moves and i will put them back up when I have the time.

yes but this is not a FAQ and you really should sign your comments with the three (or four) ~'s

DBZROCKS 21:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC) Erh I don't think listing attacks from video games make it an FAQ, what the hell are you on? three's and four's? I don't care for that.

Instead of deleting them, seperate them into sections. One for attacks seen in the anime/manga, the other from videogames. Both are appropriate as long as they are verifiable. Malamockq 17:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Power section

"As a cyborg, Android-18 is extremely powerful, she is able to easily overpower a basic Super-Saiyan. This is first demonstrated to when she fights Super-Saiyan Vegeta, she is able to severely injure him and walk away completely unscathed save her clothes. 18 along with 17 and 16 is fitted with a infinite energy device. This makes it so that she never tires. She is at least capable of handling a regular super saiyan though her power pales in comparison to further SSJ levels. She has also been noted to be less powerful than her brother 17."

Too much original research to be left in the article, also many of the statements aren't true. Saying 18 can defeat a super saiyan isn't acurate since different saiyan's SS1 level can differ from others, and their own can change as the series progresses (for example, Goku's SS1 level when fighting Freeza is weaker than Goku's SS1 level when he sparred Trunks).

I rewrote it, but DBZROCKS wasn't satisfied with it. I'll reinstate the section when it is properly rewritten. Malamockq 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's my rewrite if anyone is interested.

"As a cyborg, Android-18 is extremely powerful, she was able to easily overpower Vegeta in his basic Super-Saiyan form. This is first demonstrated during the Cell saga when she was able to severely injure him and walk away completely unscathed save her clothes. 18 along with 17 and 16 is fitted with a infinite energy device. This makes it so that she never tires.

During the Buu saga, she fights Goten and Trunks in both of their normal forms during a tournament, to a stand still, herself noting a significant difficulty in fighting the boys unlike her previous fight against Vegeta. During this time, Goten and Trunks are both disguised, and posing as an adult because tournament rules do not allow them to fight adults. After Goten and Trunks power up to their Super Saiyan forms she took note of their extremely powerful energy blast and sought to reveal their true identity before they got the upperhand. After revealing them, the referee disqualified from the boys from the tournament."

I didn't think there was any fandom in it. Everything is verifiable, and taken from the anime/manga, but feel free to discuss. Malamockq 17:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Dude were you just talking to yourself? Anyway remember to add :'s to every paragraph. DBZROCKS 00:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You only add : when you are replying to someone's post, I was merely adding on to my original point. I removed the Power section again because if I only removed the parts that are Original Research the section won't make any sense. It requires a complete rewrite. You may attempt to rewrite the section if you wish, but don't revert back to the old version. Malamockq 17:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Im lost

How was #18 able to have a child with Kurirun?Charles 22:08, 21 March 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Charles Locke (talk • contribs) 02:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

As said by Kurirun himself 18 is a CYBORG not a full robot. DBZROCKS 11:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't leave forum-ish comments on the talk pages. These talk pages are for improving the article. 67.76.181.251 03:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Android/Cyborg #18 should be categorized as a fictional immortal

On my unedited Dragon Ball Z manga on my computer, Volume 13, Tale 155, Page 181: Dr. Gero says to the androids (or cyborgs whatever) that he made himself a cyborg as well to gain eternal life as well. I'm rephrasing this from my edit summary on 18's history because that's the only source I have to prove this statement. I am not sure of what they translated in the Viz manga, I don't own all the Viz volumes, so I don't know what it said there about them being immortal. However, DBZROCKS stated in his edit summary that only Dr. Gero made himself immortal and not the others, but my manga says otherwise. I mean, do the cyborgs/androids ever age? Does anyone have volume 13 of DBZ published by Viz Media to confirm whether she and 17 are also eternal or not? 66.229.120.240 06:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

yes I do and that is what I am sourcing this on. He says to them "I have mechanichized myself as well I wanted eternal life". He does not say as well. Many people argue but they don't look different in GT! so? Many Dragon Ball charecters never change appearance. That does not mean they do not age. DBZROCKS 11:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm tricky. It's probably up to interpretation. Thing is, we aren't allowed to do that really. Though I will add that aside from 17 and 18, the only characters who don't seemingly age are Goku and Vegeta, which is explained as Saiyans staying in their prime longer. Bulma, Chi Chi, and Videl look noticeably older in GT. Onikage725 23:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Gero did say something in the like of making himself immortal like the androids/cyborgs. He's practically robotic anyways, with exception of his cerebrum. I can verify this tomorrow if you'd like — DBZROCKS' explanation doesn't make sense — guess I'm just so exhausted now from reading manga. Lord Sesshomaru

Gero was a different type of Cyborg. As evidenced when Piccolo ripped his hand off, Gero's cyborg body was totally mechanical. 18 isn't, thus she should age.--Marhawkman 21:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Buu Saga

I've noticed in the Buu saga section, there is no mention of her fight with Goten and Trunks. Should we add the info about it?

you mean the one where she cuts their costume in half?--Marhawkman 11:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah.

Married or not?

I am confused as to whether or not this whole "lived together" and "births his daughter" thing is valid. It has always been listed that they are married and now it's suddenly changed. When I saw Camera Shy, Krillin said they were married. On Krillin's page it states that 18 is his wife.Darth G 04:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That was probably the terrible dub by FUNimation or Ocean. I don't recall any mention in the manga and/or Japanese anime that #18 and Kuririn were legally married. You need to WP:SOURCE that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Terrible? got a WP:SOURCE for that? Krillin mentioned it when he talked to Goku in the tournament.--Marhawkman 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cut it out, he didn't reveal it in the manga, they were living in sin and no I don't have a WP:SOURCE for that either. They could have gone to a sperm bank for all we know. Regardless, we can't interpret anything beyond what the manga tells us. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It isn't outright stated but is hevely implied. In Volume 20 of Dragon Ball Z (or Volume 36 of Dragon Ball) Kuririn says that they are living together on master Roshi's Island, In Volume 23 Kuririn says that he wants to save his family from Buu and I think it is stated in GT and in the anime. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes it WAS stated outright in the anime.--Marhawkman 21:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm with DBZROCKS, Kuririn did not say they were married and he specifically told Son Goku that he lived with #18 on Roshi's Kame House and had a kid. To say they were wed is speculation, therefore, original research. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"We kind of got married" That is exactly what Krillin said to Goku.--Marhawkman 22:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

LOOK: they were said to be married in the anime. That is factually correct. If you wish to dispute this further, provide proof.--Marhawkman 23:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Kuririn: "We live together... at the turtle master's house. We have one daughter... the girl you saw back there." — Dragon Ball Z manga, vol. 20, chapt. 237, pg 150. ISBN 1-59116-808-2

That convincing enough? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusively, I found Dragon Ball Z episode #194 on YouTube where Krillin claims he "married" #18. Watch the video 'til around 3:00 min. Of course, this opposes the manga so we definitely can't use it as a canon source so to speak. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Wikipedia does not care about your definition of canon. All first party information is considered a reliable source under Wikipedia policy. If you wish to differentiate between them you can add a sentence explaining the difference between the anime and manga. WP policy does not allow for writing an article about a subject and completely ignoring half of it. The article is about the character. Not the manga's depiction of the character.--Marhawkman 00:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:DBZ policey. Also the english version has to many plot holes to be used as a reference. Do you have a Japanese anime source? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my point. from WP:DBZ "It would be inappropriate to pick any single distribution company over another." Like I said before, it's fine to note that there are differences, but completely excluding all information not found in the original Japanese manga is ridiculous and not within WP policy.--Marhawkman 00:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

No no, you misunderstand, that sentence is refering to the english version, in that there are to many different english dubs to choose from and they are all full of plot holes, which is why we don't use the english dubs. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 00:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

“Excelsior!” My sentiments exactly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It still doesn't preclude using information from them as a source in the articles.--Marhawkman 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll seek the Japanese anime episode on YouTube. It's probably gonna be the same as the manga, however. PS: Marhawkman, my "canon" arguement wasn't literal, merely an expression. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bah, only the English re-dub by FUNi at the site. MySpace and VideoSearch turn up the same results. At least we have the manga copies by Toriyama himself, should be enough to go by. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

At any rate, the real-world-point-of-view requirement mandates that the article not be written from an in-universe perspective, thus information unique to the english dub is not only warranted but required.--Marhawkman 11:26, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, not required. The Viz manga is closer to the original series than any of the English dubs. This also discludes the remastered Saiyan and Namek Sagas. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? "Real world point of view" is a strictly "out of universe" perspective. In other words, it doesn't matter WHY there are differences. The fact that differences exist is sufficient reason to include BOTH versions. Needless to say, Continuity is completely ignored.

Besides, other than posting a copy of an unofficial translation, you haven't shown any proof that they AREN'T married in the original manga.--Marhawkman 11:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There's at least one other episode to look into. In the episode of Dragonballgt where 17 kills Krillin, it's stated (in the dub at least) that Krillin is her "husband". The word "husband" is used several times. Just one more thing to look into. K9feline 21:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

• This user, K9feline (talk · contribs · logs), has already been warned in regards to this discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Lord S, chill. I wasn't lying and I wasn't making it up. The relevant clip from that episode (where Krillin is called her "husband" more than once) can be found here if you don't believe me. Yes, it's the dub, which I know you don't respect. But if you're truly objective on this subject, you'll investigate the original Japanese episode. I honestly don't know where to look. I stumbled across the above clip quite by accident. K9feline 04:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

It's fine. We'll stick to the manga's description, and ignore any dub or filler material. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh... no. Seriously, this is a wikipedia page. we can't just ignore the dub.--Marhawkman 10:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, under different circumstances, I'd argue that Dragon Ball GT cannot be accuratly dismissed as "filler material". Or I'd inquire about when "we" gained such an overwhelming consensus on what "we'll" stick to and ignore. Fortunatly, for now at least, I don't need to. Since, by literally the Manga's description, Krillin is married to 18. The conversation that led to this whole dispute is found in Volume 20 of the Dragon Ball Z manga published by Viz Manga. Krillin and 18 aren't listed in the Main Characters page of that volume, but they are in the remaining volumes of the series (vols 21-26). And the entry on Kuririn in these Main Characters pages is the same in all of them: " Kuririn: Goku's former martial arts classmate. He is married to # 18." I'd say that settles it. It's verifiable, a primary source, included with the storyline in a publication that my fellow editor Lord Sesshomaru clearly regards as reliable. For now, I can't do anything about this entry, but I'm going to edit and source this on the Kuririn page. Anyone who tries to revert this edit must give a neutral, verifiable reason why the Main Characters Page of the Viz Manga can't be used as a source before I back down on this. Anyways, glad to be of help. -- K9feline (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

cool. I don't have access to a copy so I couldn't check it myself. Any objection to talking to the admin to get the page unlocked now?---- Marhawkman (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, Lord Sessh (in his usual charming manner) first removed my edits in the Krillin page then placed them back in after he looked up what I was referring to and realized I was telling the truth. So I'm assuming there'll be no objections. I'm new here, so I don't know how you go about contacting an administrator. K9feline (talk) 23:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You put the reference in such a sloppy manner that I had no idea what it was trying to say. So, yes, I had to check it out for myself and you were correct. Now that this mishap has been solved, I'm in favour of lifting the protection on 18's article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, so long, Lord Sesshomaru. Nice to see that being proved wrong hasn't changed your civility any. And if you really had no idea what it was trying to say, you wouldn'tve been able to check it out for yourself. And I accept your apology for starting this whole unnecessary dispute in the first place. K9feline (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't try to fuel any flames, I actually tried to find sources confirming Marhawkman's statements — everything turned up negative. Read WP:CIVIL and WP:HAR before you instigate anything further. We can safely move on. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:45, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Um what? YOU verified that the english anime says they're married. Saying that "everything turned up negative" is blatantly false. I do not have access to that chapter of either the Japanese or English manga. And it seems that your only source(to the contrary) is a fan translation.--Marhawkman (talk) 16:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Learn to be a little more civil, Marhawkman. We can drop the matter now and prepare to upgrade the article. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

We could, if it wasn't still locked.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads up to late you know, I got the page unprotected and edited it myself. K9feline (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

why delete list of games?

It certainly doesn't detract from the article having it at the end. "unneccesary" isn't a very good reason to get rid of it.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

See WP:FANCRUFT. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No it's source based research. Fancruft is lists of trivial garbage.--Marhawkman (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Android 18 photo.jpg

Image:Android 18 photo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)