From Dragon Ball Encyclopedia, the ''Dragon Ball'' wiki
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alternate timeline article.
 Buu had to be dead
That is, in movie #12. It wasn't what Goku said that made that clear, but rather the fact that no one was worried about Buu. Everything on earth was fine at the time, and everything was cozy in Otherworld, so Buu had obviously been defeated. Goku's comment only made it clear that they had already fought Buu (rather than Buu never having existed or some such). Iuvenes 09:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
- I don't remember anyone being worried about any of the regular series villains in any of the movies... -- 08:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- What has that got to do with anything, though? Also, I worded it differently the second time I wrote it, in such a way that should have taken care of your objections. It's clear that they had already fought him, and it's also clear that Buu is not terrorizing the universe at the moment (which is why I said he had "apparently" already been defeated, and I didn't specify by who). Iuvenes 08:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
- It just kinda seemed like it was implying that chronologically, the movie took place after Buu's defeat. At least I got that impression from reading it. (Also, we just don't know what the reason for their ignoring Buu was. Maybe they figured the whole Janemba problem was a bigger threat than Buu.) These movies and their inconsistencies are a bit of a pain. :-P -- 08:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Buu Is Probably Mixed Up With All The Other Villans That Were Revived Alienrun 00:25, July 5, 2010 (UTC) Alienrun 6:25 7/4/2010
 What happens to Buu in the alternate timeline?
What happens is the andriods kill everybody on earth (who knows maby Cell absorbed them) the andriods (or Cell) leaves earth to find more things to kill. So Babidi never gets energy to power Buu. Vegerot 23:29, 25 February 2009 (UTC) That makes since, but consider the fact that maybe the androids or Cell killed Babidi in their rampage. Imortality is a curse. 14:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- The PSP game Shin Budokai: Another Road deals with Buu in the Future Trunks Timeline. Jehmil 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 Back to the Future Theory
If Back to the Future has taught us anything, it's that going back in time and doing something to change the past can have serious reprecussions on your future. With this, I submit to you folks a silly theory for pure amusement purposes:
When Future Trunks3 went back in time to Timeline 1 and utterly destroyed Frieza1 and King Cold1, he changed that timeline to what we now know. ...of course...if that WERE true, then when he returned to HIS timeline, one would think that Androids 19 and 20 would be the ones ripping the planet a new one instead of 17 and 18... Still, just a little something to think about there. Maybe it can be worked into a rational theory. X3 01:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
- Dragon Ball clearly establishes another time travel theory, different from the Back to the Future one. Here every trip to the past creates a new timeline, and the traveller's timeline is actually never altered. So nothin in Trunk's timeline will change. In this universe, you can't change the past, you can travel to the past an create alternate universes, that's it.--Sega381 23:17, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
The main issue is with Krillin already meeting Gohan but then being suprised by him being Goku's son in episode 1. I think this is a small enough apparent contradiction to be explained away by something or other. Also, having the movie as canon to the anime is essential for the Garlic Jr. saga to make any sense. Jehmil 23:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC) User: JehmilNot true because the Garlic Jr. Saga was completely anime filler.
- That's why I said canon to the anime, of which the Garlic Jr. Saga is a part. Jehmil 06:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
And don't mention the 'He forgot they met' theory, because that's is just impossible, who would forget their best friend has a son. It always comes up in these discussions--Rod|talk 00:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Well, there's a similar (and pretty famous) issue that has to do with when Vegeta found out that his planet had been destroyed by Frieza. Even though there's a minor contradction, the episodes are still accepted as fitting into the main continuity of the show. DBZ has a lot of little things like this and I think the general consensus is, if it isn't really a matter of two contradictory events happening at the same time (Tien being dead after the fight with Vageta but being alive for the Lord Slug movie which supposedly happens during that period, for example) then the media should be accepted into the extended (anime) canon. Jehmil 06:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Tien was not in Lord Slug. You are right about the inconsistencies but Tien was absent in Lord Slug. He was in Tree of Might though which takes place after the Saiyan Saga. Super Saiyan Historian 06:55, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 Creation order for the timelines
There is no established "creation" order for the different timelines in the series. Depending a little on how one sees the timeline creation theory, there can be a few different orderings, some of them more coherent than the others, but none official anyway. Cell's trip to a past before Trunks first trip is the main cause of this confusion.
Going by the numbering on the article, timeline number 1 and 2 are clearly the "last" ones, as they depict the events in the series, and everything else regarding time travel has "already" happened in those timeline. Therefore, timelines 3 and 4 are the "first" ones, and 1 and 2 are the "second" ones. That much is clear logically. The ordering of creation of timelines 3 and 4, and betwen 1 and 2, is not that clear.
Let's start with timelines 3 and 4, which came before 1 and 2. Timeline 4 has a Future version of Trunks that travelled there; therefore, that cannot be the "original" timeline, as it has a traveller that changed the events. Timeline 3 has no travellers from the future, as far as we know. So the events in timeline 3 have not been altered by any time meddling. Therefore, timeline 3 has to be the "first" or "original" timeline, from which all the other ones, directly or indirectly, descend. As we have established that timelines 3 and 4 come before the pair 1-2, timeline 4 has to be the "second" timeline, the one that was created just after timeline 3.
So far we have that timeline 3 is the first one, then comes timeline 4; and after them, timelines 1 and 2 in no established order yet. Timeline 4 has the infamous Cell time travel, which creates the whole confusion. Cell's time travel can either create timeline 1, or timeline 2.
Let's see both cases. First let's notice that, at the time in the past where Cell arrived, timelines 3 and 4 were exactly the same; even more, they were the same timeline, as it was only a year later that Trunk's first trip to the past split them.
- Cell's time travel created timeline 1. This would imply that he actually created a "copy" of timeline 3, with the only difference that he was there in the past, and the rest of the changes he introduced later. This only makes sense if timeline 3 was somehow completely separated from timeline 4 when it was created. Otherwise, as the base of timelines 3 and 4 is the same, Cell would have created a copy of timeline 3. Later, when this "copied" Trunk went back to timeline 3, his increased power created a new timeline that stems from timeline 3, wich is timeline 2.
- Cell's time travel created timeline 2. As timeline 3 and 4 are the same before Trunk's trip, when Cell travelled before that, he was practically creating another branch from timeline 3, as it stems before Trunks travel to the past. But in this new timeline, timeline 2, Trunks again travelled to the past, after Cell's arrival, therefore creating timeline 1. This seems to be an easier explanation; the only inconsistency here is that, in timeline 2, Trunks should have seen the Future version of Cell, but there is no mention of that.
Even though there are strong arguments for both versions, and the second one seems more logical, there is no way to prove which "flow" those timelines took. So I think it's better to remove any information from the article about the "order" of timelines 1 and 2, as anything there would just be opinion. --Sega381 00:49, October 28, 2009 (UTC)