Canon?[]
How is this canon when its not done by Toriyama himself? —NWG 
06:09, November 19, 2015 (UTC)
- Tarble was mentioned in God and God, which means his appearance, and thus this OVA, is canon to the series.—Mina Țepeș
06:11, November 19, 2015 (UTC)
- Tarble was never mentioned by name in said film. The only time I remember this was specifically mentioned was in the FUNi dub. Which even if it was to be granted, he wasn't eluded by name or mentioning his visit, this would be based on heavy assumptions. And even if he was that doesn't make said events to be 'canon' for various reasons. Outside that this isn't the authors work, which is key. Similar to how we don't use Bardock's battle as canon, that mind you was made by the same person if i'm not mistaken. But this is a separate conversation. The response that because "he was mentioned therefore the entirety is canon is based post-hoc, no even based on the 'good-faith'. —NWG 06:19, November 19, 2015 (UTC)
- And yet it's the fact that Bulma brought up Tarble at all that means this is the only scenario in which she could have met him. Vegeta is hardly the person to sit her down and explain: "Oh, also, I have a younger brother you've never met. Isn't it fun to share random bits of trivia?" And the line wasn't FUNimation only at all. The quote from the Japanese version, translated, is: "Vegeta! You've got an on-the-level younger brother, don't you?" to which Vegeta replied "On a faraway planet. What's worse, I don't even know where it is." And who is the only person that line could have been referring to? Tarble. Which means Toriyama acknowledged Tarble's existence, and in doing so, the OVA would be acknowledged as well, as its the only place Tarble appeared in. To site...-shudders-...Fairy Tail as an example, there's a filler arc known as the Key of the Starry Sky arc. It was anime-exclusive and considered filler, until it was alluded to in the manga, when a character mentioned the events of the arc in the manga. Then, a canon character who received a new look in the arc appeared in the canon manga, using the filler design, maning the author was acknowledging the events of that filler arc as canon.—Mina Țepeș
08:13, November 19, 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, for the late response. I've been busy. Bulma did not bring up Tarble by name, yes the context matters. ‘Could’ does not mean, it did there is vast key differences in both words that make different conclusions. Also, I don’t deny that he could not be referenced in future works by Toriyama, nor would I, state this has to do with the character himself. It’s a non-sequitur, I am referring to the OVA in itself. Let’s make it very clear. Regarding the quote, what of it? Where did it say, Tarble. Again, Context matters. That’s my point. Even if you could prove that it was Tarble (which it likely is, because i’m inclined to agree with the case that Toriyama would use him in his material eventually.)-that has nothing to do whether the material in question is canon to the author’s own material. Its a separate conversation altogether that I will not conflate into such. Fairy-Tail: I'm not to familiar with this, so I will use another example that you and I are familiar with that being the series Naruto. In Naruto, there is a character named "Raiga" that was a swordsman of the mist of Kirigakure, along with introducing a weapon that was never stated in the manga to exist, until the later arcs similar to the example that you've mentioned in your anecdote. And by your example I'd question; does that therefore make the filler arc event in Naruto canon to the manga, no. It doesn't. Because by your reasoning that would be deemed canon. And I would have to differ with that. Which let's remember our mission, and our role that separates us from the other wiki. This is why I disagree with the said position, based on an ad-hoc fallacy that disfigures the wikis' mission statement, setting a terrible precedent. I assume after this I will be presented with a burden to come up with a solution with Tarble, to which doesn't beg the question to. But I will answer this, before given such criticism. We should do the same thing you suggested to me a long time ago, on the topic of the Grand Kaiō. Where the contents of Tarble's light mention (because God Vs God is canon)-is on the canon, in form of a stub, as we would do for the Grand Kaiō and the material with the OVA are on the non-canon side. Because let's remember this is a debate on whether an OVA is canon. To me its obvious due to the obvious fact that this is not the author’s work, and in fact is Yoshihiro Ueda and Takao Koyama's works. Which has its place in the anime universe. In advance I'd like the courtesy of not using the false equivocation of Dragon Ball Super, because I do not want to waste my time having to explain the differences in both examples, setting the baseline further back into a conversation that doesn't need to be explained —NWG 06:55, November 29, 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, for the late response. I've been busy. Bulma did not bring up Tarble by name, yes the context matters. ‘Could’ does not mean, it did there is vast key differences in both words that make different conclusions. Also, I don’t deny that he could not be referenced in future works by Toriyama, nor would I, state this has to do with the character himself. It’s a non-sequitur, I am referring to the OVA in itself. Let’s make it very clear. Regarding the quote, what of it? Where did it say, Tarble. Again, Context matters. That’s my point. Even if you could prove that it was Tarble (which it likely is, because i’m inclined to agree with the case that Toriyama would use him in his material eventually.)-that has nothing to do whether the material in question is canon to the author’s own material. Its a separate conversation altogether that I will not conflate into such. Fairy-Tail: I'm not to familiar with this, so I will use another example that you and I are familiar with that being the series Naruto. In Naruto, there is a character named "Raiga" that was a swordsman of the mist of Kirigakure, along with introducing a weapon that was never stated in the manga to exist, until the later arcs similar to the example that you've mentioned in your anecdote. And by your example I'd question; does that therefore make the filler arc event in Naruto canon to the manga, no. It doesn't. Because by your reasoning that would be deemed canon. And I would have to differ with that. Which let's remember our mission, and our role that separates us from the other wiki. This is why I disagree with the said position, based on an ad-hoc fallacy that disfigures the wikis' mission statement, setting a terrible precedent. I assume after this I will be presented with a burden to come up with a solution with Tarble, to which doesn't beg the question to. But I will answer this, before given such criticism. We should do the same thing you suggested to me a long time ago, on the topic of the Grand Kaiō. Where the contents of Tarble's light mention (because God Vs God is canon)-is on the canon, in form of a stub, as we would do for the Grand Kaiō and the material with the OVA are on the non-canon side. Because let's remember this is a debate on whether an OVA is canon. To me its obvious due to the obvious fact that this is not the author’s work, and in fact is Yoshihiro Ueda and Takao Koyama's works. Which has its place in the anime universe. In advance I'd like the courtesy of not using the false equivocation of Dragon Ball Super, because I do not want to waste my time having to explain the differences in both examples, setting the baseline further back into a conversation that doesn't need to be explained —NWG
- And yet it's the fact that Bulma brought up Tarble at all that means this is the only scenario in which she could have met him. Vegeta is hardly the person to sit her down and explain: "Oh, also, I have a younger brother you've never met. Isn't it fun to share random bits of trivia?" And the line wasn't FUNimation only at all. The quote from the Japanese version, translated, is: "Vegeta! You've got an on-the-level younger brother, don't you?" to which Vegeta replied "On a faraway planet. What's worse, I don't even know where it is." And who is the only person that line could have been referring to? Tarble. Which means Toriyama acknowledged Tarble's existence, and in doing so, the OVA would be acknowledged as well, as its the only place Tarble appeared in. To site...-shudders-...Fairy Tail as an example, there's a filler arc known as the Key of the Starry Sky arc. It was anime-exclusive and considered filler, until it was alluded to in the manga, when a character mentioned the events of the arc in the manga. Then, a canon character who received a new look in the arc appeared in the canon manga, using the filler design, maning the author was acknowledging the events of that filler arc as canon.—Mina Țepeș
- Tarble was never mentioned by name in said film. The only time I remember this was specifically mentioned was in the FUNi dub. Which even if it was to be granted, he wasn't eluded by name or mentioning his visit, this would be based on heavy assumptions. And even if he was that doesn't make said events to be 'canon' for various reasons. Outside that this isn't the authors work, which is key. Similar to how we don't use Bardock's battle as canon, that mind you was made by the same person if i'm not mistaken. But this is a separate conversation. The response that because "he was mentioned therefore the entirety is canon is based post-hoc, no even based on the 'good-faith'. —NWG
How is this canon when its not done by Toriyama himself?
As to whether or not Tarble and OVA2 are canon or non-canon, I don't much care. But, I do want to address something. Where do we get the notion that Toriyama had nothing to do with OVA2? The old DB Wiki? According to Reddit (read the whole thing, not just the highlighted comment) and Kanzenshuu, Toriyama did have involvement in OVA2, which was shown on the Jump Super Anime Tour in 2008 (OVA2 = JSAT Special), and came up for the basis of the story. Though Toriyama's involvement alone doesn't make things canon.
And who is the only person that line could have been referring to? Tarble. Which means Toriyama acknowledged Tarble's existence
I do want to address another misunderstanding. As shown in the first link, Toriyama's involvement in G&G is not the same as his involvement in RoF. In RoF, Toriyama flat-out wrote the script for the entire movie, but he didn't have that level of involvement G&G (And no, seriously don't interpret that as him having little involvement in the script-writing process in G&G. He had a lot of involvement in it, but not the entire script like RoF).
It's entirely possible that the line referencing Vegeta's brother could have been inserted by someone other than Toriyama, as said in the first link. If lines do mean anything, in G&G, when Vegeta finally arrived to Bulma's party, Bulma was surprised to see him in his battle armor, suggesting that Vegeta didn't wear it until G&G, rather than OVA2.
Now let's get back to facts. Did Toriyama have involvement in OVA2? Yes. Was OVA2 specifically stated to be in the manga's continuity like G&G and RoF? No. Does a mention of a character from the OVA in the canon movie make the character and the OVA canon as well? Not sure. Carry on. ★WindStar7125 
02:15, December 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Okay. I've updated the canonicity tier structure. Now can we please solve the hole that is OVA2 being canon or not? Just so we can decide whether or not OVA2 is an exception or not on the tier structure? ★WindStar7125 19:36, December 4, 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe it falls under the status of canon. It fits what you've described in our new canon tier structure, imo. Specifically this little line here "This also includes any statements that are from the series within the manga's continuation." I believe it fits into that little bit of criteria, as it was stated in the movie that Vegeta had a little brother (in both versions, not just the English), and the only little brother of his we know of is Tarble.—Mina Țepeș 20:41, December 4, 2015 (UTC)
- I don't believe it falls under the status of canon. It fits what you've described in our new canon tier structure, imo. Specifically this little line here "This also includes any statements that are from the series within the manga's continuation." I believe it fits into that little bit of criteria, as it was stated in the movie that Vegeta had a little brother (in both versions, not just the English), and the only little brother of his we know of is Tarble.—Mina Țepeș
Yeah, I know, I put that line there on purpose because of OVA2. But you'll also notice that I left out putting "Yo! Son Goku and his Friends Return!" in the primary source material because I was unsure. But seriously, is it canon or not? ★WindStar7125 20:45, December 4, 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I meant to say I DO believe it falls under the status of canon. I put that message up when I woke up, didn't check the typo, sorry.—Mina Țepeș 05:06, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm...Ten has another opinion to throw into the hat. That God and God mentioning Tarble doesn't make this OVA canon, but it does make Tarble canon. Thus, if we follow that train of thought, the OVA and the events that happened are relegated to non-canon, but Tarble's existence at the very least is canon, and since Bulma knows about him, something happened so that she knew about him.—Mina Țepeș 05:10, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm...Ten has another opinion to throw into the hat. That God and God mentioning Tarble doesn't make this OVA canon, but it does make Tarble canon. Thus, if we follow that train of thought, the OVA and the events that happened are relegated to non-canon, but Tarble's existence at the very least is canon, and since Bulma knows about him, something happened so that she knew about him.—Mina Țepeș
- Sorry, I meant to say I DO believe it falls under the status of canon. I put that message up when I woke up, didn't check the typo, sorry.—Mina Țepeș
Yeah, I'll let you guys duke it out. ★WindStar7125 05:15, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
- I will be making a response in the morning. We should probably come with a solution by monday —NWG 10:38, December 5, 2015 (UTC)
- Oh dear. Just realized another situation. In the recent Super episode, Bulma made a subtle reference to how she switched bodies with frog Ginyu on Namek (recognizing frog Ginyu, his change ability, and detailing how she "didn't want to talk about it"). Here's the thing: Ginyu switching with Bulma was a anime-only filler scene that never happened in the manga, and yet it was referenced in the canon media that is Super. So does that make the filler scene with Ginyu and Bulma canon? I don't think so.
- NWG also has a similar point in which a subtle reference making things canon (such as Bulma's and Vegeta's in reference to the latter's brother) is questionable. But again, carry on. ★WindStar7125 05:45, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
- I will be making a response in the morning. We should probably come with a solution by monday —NWG
- Greetings, I was not going to respond to this because I didn't think this was the main concern of the wiki, I think at this moment we have much more on our plate than arguing this OVA. I have an argument ready and locked saved for the right time. But I don't think it will be needed. This shouldn't be something decided by a disagreement between Aha and I, we should ask the rest of the community to chime in. I can make my argument, and Aha can repeat his. We'll allow the community to chime in and converse on the forum. As we're likely not to budge. Also, I want remind the fellow commenters that my argument is not to say whether Tarble himself is canon, or not. It is obviously a separate conversation that I have not laid out. But deserves the equal amount of scrutiny. Yes, Vegeta notes he has some brother, my subjective opinion knows if they were to show that brother in the anime version of Super it would be Tarble, even if it was made in the manga. Toriyama would use this character, i'm sure. But empirically we're left with no answer, that such event has happened.
- I own God vs God, that has both the english and the japanese subtitles and dubs, and there is no reference to the event. Bulma's question was towards Vegeta, she never once made an assertion that implies that she knows of such brother, she asks in the context"If you have any brother" (paraphrase)-in general. Again, the context does matter. But I remind you we're talking about the Events of the OVA, not Tarble himself. It's a completely waste of time to explain this baseline(in terms of the issue of Tarble being canon as the issue, when its not). And even if I granted the position that is was it still wouldn't make the OVA2 canon by default. For the same reason again, Raiga's appearance in the manga makes his filler canon to the manga. Its a irresponsible precedent to allow, one that is used by Dragon Ball wiki for the entire series. It's one of the reasons that I'm happy that Dragon Ball Super was demoted to being a secondary source. Correction: Also, it was irresponsible on my behalf, to state that Akira Toriyama was not involved in any way.
@Windy: https://goo.gl/MrBcVU —NWG 06:19, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
It's one of the reasons that I'm happy that Dragon Ball Super was demoted to being a secondary source.
Well, you know, you could have said that on the canon talkpage for the tier structure dude! =w= But glad to know you agree ^^
TL;DR - Okay, so here are the four different stances on this:
NWG: OVA2 is not canon, a possible reference from canon media about a character that appeared in the OVA does not make it canon (Nothing to do with Tarble being canon or not, just the OVA).
Aha: Reference in canon media makes character and OVA canon.
TTF: Reference makes character canon, but not the OVA.
Me: IDGAD. I'm here for the tier structure. But this tho.
At least, both TTF and NWG agree that OVA2 is not canon. Tarble is a different discussion, I suppose. ★WindStar7125 06:51, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
I was going to but I was so busy, that I wanted to put some work on other pages, also I wanted to read everyone's responses, but my laziness was to the max this weekend. I agree, with the proposal. It ruins the consistency of the storyline. —NWG 07:32, December 7, 2015 (UTC)
- Okay.... likely going to classify this as non-canon. Any objections? ★WindStar7125 07:56, December 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Let's roll with non-canon.—Mina Țepeș 08:11, December 8, 2015 (UTC)
- Let's roll with non-canon.—Mina Țepeș
The story was made by Toriyama. And as someone said earlier, Tarble was referenced in Battle of Gods which is canon. There's no way Bulma could have known Vegeta had a brother unless he visisted which he did. Maybe Bulma didn't remember his name Meshack (talk) 03:40, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
- I refuted and addressed those comments. I'm not under the impression that its canon for the purposes that it was drafted as a story by Toriyama, now before we get the non-sequitur of super as a false-equation. Remember Toriyama never stated this as a "sequel" to his manga. The two are completely different. The Tarble stuff has been explained above. --—NewWorldGod 03:49, May 27, 2016 (UTC)
