Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Non-Canon evolutions being added Ancient Mega Digimon Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Mega_Digimon

There is some IP adding Non-Canon and unsourced evolutions to Ancient Mega Digimon, specifically, AncientGreymon. Though IP address has changed regularly, it is obvious that it is the same user. IP has been warned about his actions by Ned Scott, though it appears as he has chosen to ignore the warnings and continue to add the nonsense. Help and assistance in this matter (preferably soon) would be greatly appreciated. --3bulletproof16 05:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The user is still active...--3bulletproof16 15:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The user is sill active in the following articles: AncientTroiamon, AncientVolcamon, AncientMermaimon, AncientSphinxmon, AncientGreymon, AncientBeetlemon‎, AncientMegatheriumon‎, AncientKazemon, AncientGarurumon, AncientWisemon, Blossomon, HippoGryphomon, Aldamon,‎ JetSilphymon‎, RhinoKabuterimon, RedVeedramon, Daipenmon,‎ and Beowulfmon. Help and assistance in this matter (preferably soon) would be greatly appreciated. --3bulletproof16 18:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

User still active as... [1]. --3bulletproof16 22:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I can understand AncientGreymon and AncientGarurumon, bith the others should be left alone until info presents itself. Fractyl

A new IP has been adding non-canon evo lines and unbelievable info. [2] & [3] have been saying Calumon digivolves to Gatomon and that Gatomon slide evolves to Nefertimon. I've reverted it back to the way it was since there is no proof of Calumon digivolving to Gatomon anywhere and even though it might be possible for Gatomon to slide evolve to Nefertimon, she hasn't anywhere so there's no point in keeping that. KL 16:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Where to use some evos

I and user Fractyl have a disagreement as to where some evos should be placed. The nexus is specifically whether it is pertinent for Elecmon and Garudamon to be listed in pages like Hawkmon or WereGarurumon based on partial evolution lines that happen to intersect.

I believe this is a fundamentally flawed display of information that probably breaks WP:NOR: Where the hell are we going to cite the line Hawkmon → Aquilamon → Garudamon as canon? Garudamon is not even mentionned in Hawkmon! Circeus 22:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

While 02 had Hawkmon become Aquilamon, Savers' Aquillamon can become Garudamon. Elecmon can digivolve to Garurumon (virus). So it makes sense to that extent. Now if both were from the card game, I would see it as WP:NOR if placed in a infobox. Fractyl

Maybe we should just do away with "lines" altogether, except maybe for main characters like Agumon, Renamon, Agnimon etc and just have "can evolve from" and "can evolve to"? Shiroi Hane 00:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, if you check, each profile listhas two EVOs: The infobox holds "offical" EVO stated on the anime, with V-pet (profiles & per-rookies) providing a few loose ends. The "digivolution" bracket repeats same line, though with info on the potential EVOs from the card-game. Fractyl

From WP:NOR

Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article.

This is a clear case: Fact A: in Adventure, Hawkmon's drect evolution is Aquilamon, and there is no direct evolution to Ultimate without DNA-evolution. Fact B: In Savers, Piyomon evolves to Aquilamon, then to Garudamon. Combining these two into Fact C: "Adventure Hawkmon can evolve to Aquilamon, then Garudamon" is clearly original research. Does that make sense? Circeus 21:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

But if you note, "Fact A" is mentioned on the "Digivolution" bracket of Hawkmon..Hawkmon's normal and special digivolution line, as seen in Digimon Adventure 02 and its side-stories:. That way, the two can not be confused. Now that's ALOT of "reliable sources", but for the sake only those seen on anime & manga have a big say. The rest, not to ignore the info, are mentioned on the "DigiVolution" bracket & the "Special Digivolution" sub-bracket. Now understanding that Info, I alter Biyomon's line in the Digivolution bracket have "Adventure" & "Savers" Lines. It does matter the continitiy as long as "why it is so" is answered & it lessens confusion. Fractyl.

Confusing

I think a lot of confusion here comes from how we present the evolve information. Even for me it's been a bit confusing. For one, the concepts and rules of Digivolution aren't exactly clear, and the article Digivolution only contains anime info. We might think about taking evolves out of the infobox and just sub-sectioning the Digivolution sections of the articles by series/ video game/ etc. It might also be a good idea to make clear somewhere that Bandai doesn't make evolves so strict, and while we list known evolves, that doesn't mean a Digimon doesn't have any other form it can evolve to in other products/ stories.

So basically, what I would suggest for the short term, list what you see in Savers separately, list what you see in others separately, and let the readers make their own conclusions. -- Ned Scott 01:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorta similar, though I still think any Digivolution, anime and/or logical lines (V-Pet, similar-naming in some), should be in the infobox. While the brackets list the alernates, which remain there. There are many good examples. Fractyl

We could re-section the infobox as well, if everyone really wants to keep the evolves there as well. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

But what are we going by the anime, cards, or what we see, this is very confusing because Hawkmon in 02 didn't evolve to Garudamon, but as we saw in Savers Aquilamon did, but the only difference was that he previously evolved from Piyomon (Biyomon). The infoboxes for the main Digimon are supposed to show their Digivolutions saw in the anime, so on Hawkmon's page it should not say that Hawkmon can evolve into Garudamon, because he did not in the anime, but for Aquilamon we can say that he can evolve into Garudamon, and Biyomon for that matter, and put Savers in () by them, this will indicate that he evolved into Garudamon, and Biyomon, in Savers, not 02. This is just my suggestion.Amigobro2 04:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you noticed on Hawkmon's page, in "Digivolution", his 02 line is stated: "Hawkmon's normal and special digivolution line, as seen in Digimon Adventure 02 and its side-stories". As long as someone places the info on the "Digivolution" bracket, the infobox shouldn't be altered.

Adding Gotsumon to the Savers template bar

Savers Gotsumon has presented himself as a fairly prominent villain, having done as much as Mercurimon, and past villains like the Devas. I move that we add him to the Digimon Savers template into the villains category, along with Mercurimon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Razorsaw (talk • contribs) .

The real reason to put any link on the nav box is if there is info in another article about the show that isn't in the main article(s) already. If that article has enough relevant Savers-specific info that isn't already covered by the links that are already in {{digimon savers}} then go ahead. Personally, I don't think it's quite there yet, but whatever, all of our anime articles need some organization tweaking anyways. Just remember that the nav box really isn't a list of notable characters, just links to other articles. Nothing gains status by being included or excluded. -- Ned Scott 01:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that mean DemiDevimon should get added as he was a major villian in the story? Fractyl

Well, no. It's not about if they were a major character, it's about if their article contains significant info that isn't already covered. -- Ned Scott 06:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Changes to the WikiProject banner

Some of you might already notice that I made some changes to the WikiProject banner, {{WikiProject DIGI}}. For one, I put in a new image, Image:Mozilla.png. Even though it's Mozilla, in that image he looks very much like a Digimon, and we can't use real Digimon images in the banner. He also appears different from the average image of Mozilla, so I don't think there will be much confusion. We can remove it if anyone really doesn't like it.

I also shortened the text of the banner so it takes up a little less space, and then expanded on what is shown when you click "Show". Instead of just being the to do list, it now has the sentence about participation and a collection of links in a section called "Quick help". I put in links for infobox help and the Digimon layout page, as well as guidelines and policies that directly affect us that aren't always followed (such as Manual of Style (writing about fiction)). Basically, I put in links that I thought casual editors might over-look, or that editors might not be aware of, etc.

This does make the expanded banner long when you click show, but I think the trade off is good, and they can always click "hide" :) -- Ned Scott 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

BlackGrowlmon

Someone added an image to the BlackGrowlmon entry but they didn't set the image in an info table (the one that details evolutions and the like). I don't know BlackGrowlmon's information so hopefully one of you can fix that page.12.216.254.30 21:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So you're all atheists?

I notice that if you hit the 'what links here' button for the project page it links to talk pages with the WikiProjectAtheism. Just thought you might like to know. Badbilltucker 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems this is a minor typo. A user from that WikiProject liked out WikiProject banner and copied and pasted the code for it, but didn't change all the links. -- Ned Scott 21:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Category:Digimon voice actors

I almost forgot about Category:Digimon voice actors being around. I kind of think we should delete this category, since it's not much better than our lumped cast listing, and it's been replaced by individual cast/credit lists on each series. I'd hate to see what this would look like if every anime had a category for their voice actors. -- Ned Scott 05:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Well if it just adds clutter I don't see why it needs to be around. - Indiawilliams 06:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

New PS2 Game-Digimon Savers Another Mission

We should make a page for this game, now that the title is out and I have the V-Jump scans. I wanted to wait for the title and scans before I told you guys, because it would be more official. The release date is November 2006, in Japan of course. If you need the scans for proof I'll put them as references on the page. The game is a side story, what I'm told, and it features the Seven Great Demon Lords and the Savers cast.

Here's one summary from SakuyamonX on Digimon Himitsu:

More news (from DGAS on DVR's BBS) about the new PS2 game. The game is called "Digimon Savers Another Mission", and the story involves the Seven Great Demon Lords. It features the cast of Digimon Savers (no surprise).

I will try to get a translation on the actual scans.--Amigobro2 15:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I finished the page please look over it. Digimon Savers: Another Mission --Amigobro2 17:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Change title of Digimon Battle Pet Article

Nowhere has Bandai ever used the term "Digimon Battle Pet". Why, might I ask, is it being used as the official term in the article for it? It was titled "DigiMon" (which is now officially spelled Digimon)...or even "Bandai(c) DigiMon". "The original Digital Monster!". Within the fan community it's usually called the "original Digimon", "Digimon v-pet" or just Digimon pet".

I think this topic should be changed to reflect that, instead of making up a term for it. Dejitaru Davis 23:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

It probably should be renamed to Digimon battle pet without capitalizing "battle pet", or something like Digimon v-pet or Digimon (v-pet), etc. I'll have to refresh myself on naming conventions. I don't think the intent was to make up a term for it, since "battle pet" is just another word for a specific type of v-pet, but we probably should still change the article title (that is to say, move it). -- Ned Scott 00:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing the capitalization would be good, or even better would be one of the v-pet names. Among the File Island messageboards (as far as I know, it's pretty much the definitive for the v-pet/pendulum/digivice information) "v-pet" seems to be what it's most commonly called. It might be worth consulting them. Dejitaru Davis 22:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, guys. When I made the article, I chose "Digimon Battle Pets" because I couldn't think of anything more specific that would separate it from the franchise name. I ruled out Tamagotchi and GigaPet, as they were neither, so that was the most creative thing I could come up with at three in the morning. Anyway, my vote rests with Digimon pet. --Gear-Richie 05:46, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: I haven't actually checked to see who's doing it yet (It'll take a year to sift through it all), but when some people are editing this article, it turns into a redundancy issue. People will reword things or add info about them, and in the NEXT PARAGRAPH exists the information they just typed. I don't know if they just missed the delete key, or they just don't read, but now that info needs cleaning. --Gear-Richie 05:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries, it's an easy fix. I've already moved the page and updated all the links to now point to Digimon virtual pet. As far as the thing about people making those redundant edits.. yeah.. it seems to be a problem on a lot of our articles, actually. Not sure if we just need to make the page organization clearer or if it's a case of newbie-ism that we'll just have to watch out for. -- Ned Scott 22:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Emphases on secondary characters with Digimon

Thought I would note a discussion topic that I've started on Talk:Digimon Tamers#Emphases on secondary characters with Digimon:

"Not sure if we should have the secondary characters have a list box like the main characters do. With the exception of Ryo, the other characters are largely developed without Digimon partners, so the fact that they later get a partner isn't exactly a true reflection on their over-all character. Thoughts?" -- Ned Scott 04:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Recolor Digimon

(I archived the last two months of discussion because the file was 37KB long.)

There's LOTS of Digimon stubs for characters that are merely recolors of other Digimon (ShimaUnimon, Tekkamon . . .). Unless a recolor Digimon has been featured in the Digimon universe (i.e. - BlackWarGreymon) shouldn't we just merge these stubs with their main articles? - Indiawilliams 15:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. -- Ned Scott 23:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, it'd get mighty confusing and somewhat screw up some entries. Look at Icemon. He's got more than just Gotsumon's colors, he's a whole different level. --Razorsaw 11:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not convinced there'd be any real confusion there at all. Not only that, but most of the Digimon articles don't meet WP:FICT in the first place. It seems the only real reason to have separate articles is for the infobox, and I'm not sure if that's a good enough reason. -- Ned Scott 11:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

On that note, do you think that maybe we should give color variants an infobox, or at least put an image of them in the main articles? All of the minor Digimon that aren't color variants still get separate articles, and these articles have as much information as we can reasonably put into them. Why shouldn't it be the same for the recolors?Indiawilliams 21:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Lalamon

Apparently Bandai is going to spell it Lalamon and not Raramon. See Talk:Lalamon. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ornismon

There's a mess with Ornismon. There are three (known) pages for it: Ornismon, Ornithmon, and Onismon. I just fixed a double redirect from Ornithmon to Ornismon. The page Onismon is the one with content, but the "bolded first instance" of the title is "Ornismon" rather than "Onismon", resulting in an inconsistency. I've never heard of Onithmon (LOL C WUT I DiD THIER?) so I suggest someone else do something about this. --Raijinili 23:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

No idea what the canon name says, but Ornismon, 4,590 hits has more hits than Onismon, 91 hits and Ornithmon, 1,470 hits, which could give us a quick hint on the real name. Until a canon name is found, we could just stick with Ornismon, which, according to Google, could be argued as the most well-known name. x42bn6 Talk 01:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Character pages

I'm going to go through the Digimon Adventure and Digimon Adventure 02 character articles and:

Remove the crest and digivice images, as they are decorative
Put "Between Digimon Advenutre and Digimon Adventure 02" information into the Digimon Adventure header
Put "Digimon 02 series epilogue" information under the Digimon Adventure 02 header
Rewrite the bios. I've already done Kari, Tai, and Izzy.

Any objections? Hbdragon88 17:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Good work! -- Ned Scott 19:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I say fansite links would be good, if people want info that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. I don't follow Digimon fansites, though. --Raijinili 00:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. This would help keep the Wikipedia articles clean of cruft while satisfying even the most trivia-hungry fan. -- Ned Scott 06:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

You sure about that? I can see taking out the digivices, but the crest images seem important...at least to me, anyway. --Gear-Richie 05:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The crest images are a bit more borderline, but I can see it going ether way. It would probably be alright to keep the crest images. -- Ned Scott 22:40, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree with the crests. Besdies, I'm sure that we could create our own free images - they can't have possibly copyrighted the actual symbol themselves, right? So we can create a tear drop, a sun, etc. If not, I would argue that their use is limited - I would favor stating how Tai stood up to Etemon as his sign of courage rather than simply show a crest image. Hbdragon88 21:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Episode pages

Anyone like the idea of episode pages? The Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh! projects are doing them, and they sound like a good idea here too. Like the titles at the beginning, and the airdates, then synopsis, what humans and Digimon appeared in the episode, debuts, major events, dub edits, etc. How's that sound? Matty-chan 04:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think they'd be appropriate for us. (that being said, I don't think they're appropriate for Pokémon or Yu-Gi-Oh ether). WP:WAF says that we should only recap and summarize when it's to aid the article about the show, as articles aren't supposed to be retellings of fiction. And Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Television episodes recommends that our lists of episodes be filled out, then move to a season or story arc type article before episode articles. Actually, Digimon Frontier does have such an article, Digimon Frontier plot summary.

If a reader wants to experience Digimon then they should watch Digimon. Reading about what happens would not do the show justice. Most people who are going to visit these articles don't need to know what Digimon was fought in episode 14, because that's what watching the show is for. As it is now most of our articles don't even meet WP:FICT recommendations.

There was also a couple of previous discussion on this, (not that we can't revisit the idea, but not a lot has changed since then): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update/archive2#"sub pages/ articles" for series articles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update/archive2#Oohhh... Boy... (episode articles).

It's a bit of a misconception right now on Wikipedia that for fictional articles to expand they should include all plot details (one reason WP:WAF came into effect). I keep coming across talk pages, guideline pages, and AfDs that show this is a mounting concern. It's not that it's a bad idea, it's just that.. Wikipedia is not the place to do this, even if "others" are doing it. It's very likely that there will be a movement to merge and cut down the majority of existing episode articles despite popularity, kind of like how user boxes came under fire. -- Ned Scott 06:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Agumon article

Basically I rewrote the Agumon article completely. What do you think of it? Is there anything that needs to be changed to make it better, other than finding sources for the more tecnical trivia (that ShineGreymon quote comes to mind)? 12.216.254.30 05:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Digimon dub article

I was thinking we should make Digimon: Digital Monsters into a purely dub-related article and use Digimon for the anime over-view. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 23:09, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what takes precedence on the articles, the English or the Japanese names. Like for Digimon Adventure, should that be renamed "Digimon: Digital Monsters" and "Digimon Adventure" can redirect to it? That way Digimon can be a more general article AND we give "Digimon Adventure" the proper English name for that series. Indiawilliams 05:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, when the different series got split from the main article this was a bit of a concern. However, since Digimon: Digital Monsters is a title used for four other separate series, it was seen as a good idea to have one article that could lead into four other articles since each series (at least three of them) were still mostly independent. What was next was to name those four articles, and something like "season one", "season two", didn't seem right. The Japanese names, however, are rather descriptive, in that even if you've never heard of them there's a good chance you'll know what season we're talking about when we mention of those names. So, in a way, we're using the Japanese names for the four season articles because they're also descriptive and we didn't think there would be an issue of confusion. As long as "Digimon:Digital Monsters" was able to lead into the four articles, as well as the four articles in some way reference the other articles also as "season" to some extent, then readers shouldn't have a hard time finding their way around.

The reason I bring up making Digimon: Digital Monsters a "dub only" article is because that is the title used by the dub, and Digimon Savers as well as Digital Monster X-Evolution aren't really apart of that. Also, many "dub / original differences" notes are scattered in many articles (which, for some, should still remain on those articles even if mentioned in another). We could have write-ups about how Bandai and Fox Kids handled the show in America and other English speaking countries, as well as dub-specific reviews and reception information on the Digital Monster article, as we do now, but make it less confusing as it would be only about that which has been dubbed.

Original notes are, of course, specific to the individual seasons, and then having a dub article that can contain information that is true for all four seasons, but of course including notes in both places (and/or of both versions) when needed. So, in other words, the dub article would be an over-view of the dub, and the individual series / season articles will still be about both versions.

I also think it make a bit more sense to describe and branch out on the anime articles on our main article, Digimon, rather than having the readers click a second link. Especially considering that the animes are the most notable / noticeable product of Digimon. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

But I don't know if we really need a separate article just for the dub. Other than some edits and the inserting of the humorous dialogue the dubs aren't really that different than the original series. Now if Digimon had one of those dubs that completely changes the nature of the show (think Duel Masters) we'd have a case for a separate article. As it stands, though, I think noting the aforementioned edits and writing changes in the current articles is really all that needs to be done for the dub's sake. Indiawilliams 19:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the article currently does contain a lot of good dub-based info, and there is room for more. Not just dub edits, but info "behind the scenes" about the translation, English writers, distribution and reception (reviews, ratings, etc), marketing, etc. Basically I think we should keep that, expand on it if we can, but branch off the anime info from Digimon directly. -- Ned Scott 04:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That would be fine. But of course for an article like that we're going to need reputable sources. I hope you and the other project members have sources, because I haven't read an "official" Digimon article in years. Indiawilliams 05:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dot" Digimon, "Des" Digimon, and Bun

Why can't articles be made for them? Sure they're obscure, but then again, so is Red Tornado I. When I tried to give them articles, Ned Scott stopped me and told me they violated some policy I've never heard of. Could someone please elaborate? Belgium EO 21:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I told you they violated guidelines (WP:FICT). I've said this many times, and I'll say it again, a Digimon getting it's own article or not is not an indication of the Digimon's importance. Those Digimon are exclusive to specific Digimon products, such as a specific game or manga, or they're minor variants of other Digimon who have existing articles that are better written. There are so many anime characters out there, actual characters, that share articles with a larger topic and still have a great amount of information. This is about information organization, making things easier for the readers and the editors. Spreading a few sentences across several articles doesn't help anyone.

It's a major misconception right now that we should have an article for each Digimon, that having it's own article makes it "important". It's no more or less important as it's own document or with another, but alone it's harder to find and maintain. Just because you can find another article that is obscure doesn't make it ok. That's like saying, I shot someone, but it's ok because a lot of people get shot. Finding more examples of articles to be merged doesn't prove a point, other than that there are a lot of articles that need to be worked on.

Additionally, these articles have been around for a long time and most aren't more than two sentences long. Some of the "des" ones only said "this is a Digimon" and that was it. There's nothing else to be said about these characters, they're not notable. If you want to add something, add it to the articles they're currently living in. Per WP:FICT, if you can develop that section in an appropriate and encyclopedic way, and it grows large enough, then it can have it's own article. -- Ned Scott 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Intergration with {{cvgproj}}

A request has been made at WP:CVG talk to ingrate the {{WikiProject DIGI}} template into the CVG header itself. As Digimon encompasses both anime and other things, it wouldn't be completely assimilated, only for the Digimon video game articles. Thoughts? Objections? Hbdragon88 07:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A shared banner space for articles that fall under more than one project would make the talk pages less cluttered, while still making both projects known. Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. -- Ned Scott 17:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I donno though.. I'm not wild about the suggested styles on the talk page. And the whole "emphases" on making the other project a "supporting" project doesn't seem... quite right.. -- Ned Scott 07:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

PDSU has less pages to work with, and can more easily focus on the shared pages. It should be the primary. --Raijinili 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

The concept of one being "primary" is what I have a problem with. How we mark the article doesn't change how much effort or how much focus we give it. But it doesn't seem like an issue, since on those shared articles there's only two project banners, and {{WikiProject DIGI}} takes up less space than your average WikiProject banner. The discussion for merging project banners seems to have come about for talk pages that have much more than just two boxes at the top. -- Ned Scott 07:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Red links in Episode Citations

I just noticed that every time I cite an episode (look to Agumon for example) the links to the dates in the citation notes do not actually exist. I know you can link to dates but I've fiddled around with the citation template and I just can't get it to display the dates in a format that's linkable. Anyone know how I can do this? Indiawilliams 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:DATE#ISO date formats: It should go YYYY-MM-DD. Linking to dates has the effect of allowing the dates to be displayed in different formats when a user changes their viewing preferences. (which, is kind of an odd way to do it) -- Ned Scott 07:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Problems with -mon articles

Mostly problems with the -mon articles. I've outlined the problem, and made proposals regarding possible solutions. Hoping decisions can be reached here about what to do with these problems.

Since this is going to be long, i'm splitting it into subsections. And i realize since people may want to reply to individual subsections of this topic, i've signed each section seperately. --Yaksha 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

"Special Evolution"

I ask? What is special evolution?

According to DinoBeemon, special evolution seems to be alternate TCG evolutions.

DinoBeemon has "DNA Digivolution (Ultimate) - Stingmon + ExVeemon or Greymon + Gatomon or Kabuterimon + Kuwagamon or Flybeemon + Honeybeemon or Searchmon + Shadramon or Shurimon + Yasyamon or Peacockmon + Apemon = DinoBeemon" under the subsection titled "special evolution"

According to Gatomon, special evolution seems to refer to anime-canon armour and DNA digivolutions.

Gatomon has "Armor Evolution (Armor, Digi-Egg of Light) - Nefertimon Armor Evolution (Armor, Digi-Egg of Knowledge) - Butterflymon (Michi E No Armor Shinka) DNA Digivolution (Ultimate)- Aquilamon + Gatomon = Silphymon" under the subsection titled "special evolution".

As far as i know, the term "Special evolution" doesn't actually come from anywhere in the digimon canon. And even if it does, it seems to be causing confusion between the articles.

Proposals:

agree to stop using the term altoghter on the -mon articles (so like, "alternate card game evolutions" instead on DinoBeemon)
can someone explain where in the digimon cannon this comes from (if it's from the digimon canon) and exactly what it's meant to refer to? So we will be using the term "special evolution" for the same thing over the -mon articles.

--Yaksha 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

digivolution section of the info box

What goes into the "Digivolution" section of the info box?

The template talk page for the info box doesn't help. It says only cannon digivolutions should be added there, but since there is no agreed definition of what 'canon' is in the digimon fandom, this can mean only anime digivolutions, or any anime/game/manga digivolutions, or even including the TCG digivolutions (since the digimon trading card game is very much official)

Agumon for example, seems to list only digivolutions present in the anime in that box. Except for BlackWarGreymon. The only BlackWarGreymon that appears in the anime is made from control spires. Sure, BlackWarGreymon does digivolve from MetalGreymon in Digimon Story...but the BlackWarGreymon info box lists make it seem like BlackWarGreymon can also digivolve from SkullGreymon, which isn't true according to the SkullGreymon page.

Other pages, like BlackGatomon and LadyDevimon list TCG evolutionary lines in the info box, since they don't have any digivolution lines in the anime. Which is misleading since someone looking at it can easily think "oh...there's only one digivolution line for this digimon. I guess LadyDevimon evolves from BlackGatomon and into Lilithmon in all anime seasons/games/manga/TCG". Which isn't the case.

Proposals:

It lists all digivolutions
It lists all digivolutions that are canon in the anime. In which case we should rename "Digivolution" into something that shows the digivolutions listed there are only the ones that appear in the anime.
It lists all digivolutions except TCG-only ones? In which case it also needs to be renamed into something that makes it clear TCG-only digivolutions will not appear in the info-box (i.e. "Digivolutions (excluding Card Game-only digivolutions)").
get rid of it altogether. And have the only digivolution data on the article to be the actual "evolution" section of the article?

--Yaksha 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like it would be better to take it out of the infobox, since it's too confusing and chunky to keep multiple paths in the box. We shouldn't be too worried about keeping things in the infobox just for the sake of using the infobox. -- Ned Scott 20:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to bring this up at the info box template talk page. Having it out of the info box would make things a lot simpler. --Yaksha 00:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

evolution section of the article

This section also has problems. You have articles which lack this section altogether like LadyDevimon. Then you have articles like BlackGatomon and BlackWarGreymon who have just only digivolution tree listed under the 'evolution' section, and gives no indication whether this tree is a TCG only tree, from the anime...etc.

Proposal: 1. have all the evolution section of all -mon articles to be like the evolution section of YukimiBotamon. That is, list digivolution trees seperately, under sub-headings that correctly communicate to the reader where the trees come from. This includes TCG information (instead of the prose-form as in the article Agumon. The prose form may work fine for Agumon, but then an article like BlackGatomon where the only evolution line is TCG really should be written in prose as well, instead of bullet listing.) Any additional notes regarding trees can go under the actual tree listing. --Yaksha 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

lack of or missing information

When there is a lack of information (i.e. Siphymon has no forms below ultimate because he is created through DNA digivolving), can we still list the lower levels and just write "N/A" next to them? Instead of leaving them black.

So instead of

Ultimate - Silphymon Mega - Valkyrimon

I'm thinking:

Fresh - N/A In-Training - N/A .... Ultimate - Silphymon Mega - Valkyrimon

Many extra lines, yes. But it demonstrates that the reason there are no entires for Silphymon's lower forms is because he lacks them, and not because wikipedia simply hasn't included the information. The article could also explain why those forms do not exist.

This also goes for the TCG information. Stingmon has no "card game information" section on his info box. I'd assume he does have a card, but simply no one has entered his information. Can we make it standard that when there is a lack of information, we put "N/A" instead of just not including them onto the info box? Similarly, this shows that wikipedia doesn't currently have any information on stingmon's cards, and not that stingmon doesn't exist in the card game. --Yaksha 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Attribute and Type

on the info box, both of these are under the section of "card game information."

Attribute exists over all of digimon, not just the card game. I'm quite certain Type does too.

Having them under the "card game information" is misleading since it suggests attribute and type are TCG only.

Does anyone have any problems with moving those two lines up with "Level" (just below the picture) instead of being down in the "card game information" section? --Yaksha 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

This one I know.. the data comes from the cards, even if it does apply to other media also. Shiroi Hane 11:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but it exists in the anime too. There're references made in the anime to "virus types" or "virus digimon" (as in references made in dialouge). Someone who's never seen/played/heard-of the card game, but has only watched the anime, should still have known about the three digimon attributes.

"Appears in" and "Characters in"

Agumon - has a large list under "character in" but only "Digimon Frontier, V-Tamer" for "appears in"

I'd assume "appears in" refers to places where agumon appears in but doesn't character in, but it's illogical because you can't appear in something without being charactered in it.

It's also inconsistant, because digimon that don't appear in the anime don't have the "anime information" section. So the "apperas in" box for them includes everything they appear in.

Another point is that if the "character in" box is to be under the subheading of "anime information", it should include only anime seasons that the digimon appears in. For example, Agumon lists "D-Cyber" in its "character in" box. HOwever, "D-Cyber" is not an anime, it's comic. So it either shouldn't be in the "characters in" box, or the "character in" box shouldn't be under the subheading of "anime information."

Proposals:

Appears in box should include everything the digimon appears in. character in box ONLY for anime that the digimon characters in
Get rid of the "character in" box from the anime section. Instead have a "character in" box right below "level". and a "also appears in" box under the "character in" box (thus making it clear that the "also appears in" box refers to only things not in the "character in" box.)

--Yaksha 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What I go by is that "Character in" is for media where they were a main, or at least scripted/recurring character. "Appears in" is for chameos etc. Shiroi Hane 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Gender

Some digimon obviously have genders. Even with what Renamon says in Tamers (Renamon says digimon have no genders). Some digimon obviously resemble one of the human genders, hence we can refer to them as being either male or female.

Exactly how does one realize that HisyaRumon is male? Is Silphymon male or female? Since it is a DNA-digivolution for a female Gatomon and a male Aquilamon.

I mean...where does the information regarding its gender come from? If not, who is deciding? Or is it just arbitrary? (as in random?) --Yaksha 11:28, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Digimon are essentially genderless and asexual, regardless of physiognomy which is based on human concepts rather than biology so it is best to avoid gender references where possible. Shiroi Hane 12:03, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

(post edit) Silphymon is Aquilamon's evolution, not Gatomon's. Shiroi Hane 12:10, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Silphymon is for some reason listed as Aquilamon's ultimate form for Adventure02. But it's defintely also achievable by DNA digivolution between Aquilamon and Gatomon (also in digimon Adventure02). Which is where the female Gatomon + male Aquilamon comes in.

Talking about which....why is Silphymon listed as Aquilamon's ultimate form for Adventure 02 on the Aquilamon page? Silphymon may be a possible ultimate for Aquilamon in the TCG, but Aquilamon has never digivolved into Silphymon on his own in Adventure 02. --Yaksha 12:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when have the Digimon ever digivolved on their own? In Digimon Adventure, (excluding Gatomon) they had to use the Digivices to get to Champion. They had to use the tags and crest to get to Ultimate level. Angemon and Angewomon had to shoot Tai and Matt with arrows to give them more power so Agumon and Gabumon could use the tags/crest + digivice to get to Mega level. In Digimon Adventure 02, they had to use the D-3s and DigiEggs. They had to use other Digimon as a power source [4] to get to Ultimate level. In order to get to Mega, the other Digimon had to give up their newly received power to go to Ultimate level and give it to Paildramon. In Digimon Tamers, they had to use the Digivices, Blue Cards, Calumon, and had to biomerge to Digivolve. In Digimon Savers, they have to use a DigiSoul. The partner Digimon have never digivolved on their own without the help of something else but its not like thats listed on each page. And for Genders here you go, http://digipedia.db-destiny.net/misc/faq.htm#1.5 KL 23:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you're trying to say, but he means to digivolve with only one Digimon. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Aquilamon going to Silphymon on its own is a thing from the games right? Because it certainly does not happen in the anime. Can someone say what games it is from so i can go and add that line into the -mon pages involved?

as for gender, i've been editing a lot of the fresh and intraining pages, and i'm going to go by what Shirio Hane said "Digimon are essentially genderless and asexual...[...]...it is best to avoid gender references where possible." and using "it" when it's impossible to avoid using singular pronouns. --Saintmagician 02:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

But should you be doing that for Digimon that were referred to by a gender in the show? For example, I think it would be good if the descriptions for partner Digimon were gender neutral but in the 'Appearances' sections we refer to the Digimon that were given genders in the show (and manga/whatever) as having them. Otherwise I believe there'd be confusion if a layman read this article and then watched the anime. It's not like this is Pokemon where even the main monsters are referred to as 'its.' Indiawilliams 17:47, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Japanese has gender specific pronouns (e.g. atashi, boku) but I don't think there are any equivalents for "her" and "him" so the Digimon aren't referred to by gender. Some digimon, e.g. Angewomon, clearly have the appearance of being male or female however that is because they are designed to look male or female, not because they necessarily are. While Digimon may live in communities (e.g. that village in Tamers.. I think it was chuchidarumon), they are never seen to breed sexually or have any need to; you will never see a male Leomon, a female leomon and a bunch of little leomon kids, just a bunch of male-looking Leomon (OK, maybe a bad example here since Leomon has always appeared to be the only of his kind but you get the picture). Shiroi Hane 22:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Some additional ideas

I'm very glad to see some new discussion on updating our 'mon layout. I'll probably sum up some of in just a bit, but here's some previous discussions (that didn't really take off) that have some things that were brought up.

-- Ned Scott 02:51, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I started reading the first link you provided there. Some of the problems mentioned still aren't fixed now. And i don't see any good ways to do it (e.g. making it clear on *every* -mon article that a digimon is both a species and individuals.) Does anyone else think we need to have a general Digimon-species page?

So an article about what digimon are, how they refer to both a species and individuals, how the same digimon over different media are actually different, what the attributes are (i can't find anything on exactly what the attributes are), the fact that the types don't do much...etc. That kind of general digimon stuff. --Saintmagician 03:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, personally I think we should only create individual articles for Digimon who've actually been characters, then use some sort of list or grouping for the rest. Then, take the articles this would "remove" and transwiki them to another wiki. Wikipedia really wasn't the best place for this level of Digimon-specific info, as most of the articles don't meet the basic fictional notability recommendations (WP:FICT). Transwiking the articles will allow us to still link to them from Wikipedia, and we'd have more freedom about the level of information included. It would save all the work done so far, as well, and protect the articles from being deleted. -- Ned Scott 03:25, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's not what i meant. I mean a general article called "digimon" that talks about what digimon are and stuff. So it would cover the point of digimon being a species and also individuals. And it would explain general digimon stuff like the attributes, which i don't think is actually explained anyway else, and address the "do digimon have genders" thing.

When you say remove them to another wiki? Exactly what do you mean? (what other wiki?) --Saintmagician 04:05, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there's an existing Digimon wiki, but we'd probably create one via Wikia and maintain it mostly as we currently do to our articles, but will allow for more "trivial" information and such, maybe even a sanctioned "speculation" section (only if such speculation is separated from "fact", well labeled, and in moderation. If people really want such a section). Articles on Wikipedia would be able to point to this "external" Wiki, and most of the anime and manga info meets WP:FICT, so those articles could coexist in both places and be synced. Granted, these are just ideas in my head right now that I'm throwing out on the table, but I think it's a pretty good idea. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That is, we'd still try to avoid WP:OR and maintain a WP:NPOV, as well as being verifiable, and all those other good things from Wikipedia that other such sites lack. -- Ned Scott 04:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe there already exists a digimon wiki. Two actually, i don't remember the links off the top of my head. But when searching for digimon information, google often returns results from them.

regarding the actual digimon articles on wikipedia, yes, i also think something needs to be done about the -mon articles for lesser-known digimon. There are a few -mon article which are going to be permanent stubs because there simply isn't anything to say about them except for the fact that they exist, and list off links to pages for its other digivolution forms. --Saintmagician 05:19, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

-mon article layout

The existing mon article layout is good, but a bit too general. Especially on the digivolution sections, meaning there are still -mon articles all over the place.

I've made a more detailed version of the mon article layout, which is more specific on how to deal with digivolutions, so hopefully it can cover all possibilities in any -mon article.

The layout is here. Paragraphs that has "notes" and "end notes" around them are not actually in the layout, just notes about why things are the way they are, or what should go where.

The section on digivolutions is sort of complex, to see how it works out, see SnowBotamon --> Nyaromon --> Salamon.

What do people think? --Yaksha 05:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

That layout is a very good idea and I don't have problems with using it for all Digimon. When I have time I will rewrite -mon articles to fit this layout. Is there anyone against this? Diabound00 09:54, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Not me, I dig this! Rewrite away. :) Indiawilliams 22:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

First, avoid using trivia sections in articles. That info needs to go somewhere more relevant.

Secondly, where do you place real-world context or commentary taken from reliable sources? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 10:01, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I included the trivia section because there's a trivial section in the currently existing -mon article layout. I assumed people here had agreed on having a trivia section. Seeing as it's discouraged, i'll go get rid of it. The trivia sections on the few -mon articles which do have them can either just go, or have their content moved to another section/article.

As for real world context or commentary, i will add a note for the intro paragraph, and the "appearances" section for people to include real world context where relavent.

If you believe real world context/commentary needs its own section, feel free to go add one. But if you do, can you add a note there to clarify exactly what you mean. I'm not really 100% sure what you are referring to when you say "real world context or commentary" either.

Otherwise, do you think the digivolution stuff is okay? Because that's the section that's currently causing all the pain, and that's the main thing i've been trying to address on this layout. --Yaksha 13:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also added a note at the bottom to not use gender-specific pronouns on the -mon articles. --Yaksha 14:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, why are you messing around with gender? Digimon were cleary called 'he' or 'she' in the anime. They don't have biological sexes, of course, but gender is something that was cleary marked. Indiawilliams 15:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't reply to this, I get it now. Indiawilliams 22:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

just one last note on this. The Digimon in Frontier that does come from humans, it's okay to refer to them with gender? Since the humans do...turn into digimon...using 'it' would be sort of wierd. --Yaksha 00:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Certaintly. Also, I'm not saying never to use gender when referring to Digimon, just avoid it when you can as it then avoids debate. About the new layout, I don't like the underlines. Its may be just a personal stylistic issue, but I've not used underline for anything other than links in years. Shiroi Hane 00:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Question

Can someone who's experienced with the -mon articles confirm whether the level categories (i.e. the "Baby Digimon", "In-Training Digimon"...etc categories) include ALL -mon articles on wikipedia? I've been using those categories to go through the -mon articles and i don't want to miss any. --Yaksha 05:45, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked but I would go through them all anyway. Level is one of the most basic distinctions for any Digimon. Indiawilliams 17:34, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I did start going through the card list in the Visual Dictionary the other night. I got through the Rookies and only found one missing. Shiroi Hane 17:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

uhh...visual dictionary? What's that? --Yaksha 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Character article layout

There seems to be the need to create a consistent standard for the character articles pertaining to Digimon according to the to do list. I do have a proposal for a new layout that is currently used by those who successfully edited several Star Wars character articles (Palpatine, Padmé Amidala, and Jabba the Hutt to be exact) to F.A. status quite smoothly by using this layout (Wario also followed the same format but was stripped of its FA status due to its lack of citations and references):

==Appearances==
This replaces the character's biography. This section includes an account of fictional works a character has appeared in; although this would be rather hard, considering that each Digimon series has 50+ episodes. (This would be where we would divide into subsections into different series, or by seasons for the English version, rather.)

==Characteristics==
This section describes how the character is portrayed in fiction. (This is the section that will need a slather full of references.)

==Concept and creation==
This section details the processes that created the character. (This is also another section that will need a slather full of references.)

==References==
This section is optional, but is absolutely a must when nominating an article to be either GA or FA. A nominated article without references receives a full flat-out rejection. Few references in an article receives a stripping down of its FA status (e.g. Middle-earth, Wario) even if it does pass through the initial process.

The Trivia is gone and incorperated into article. Any fictional article that has a Trivia section and is nominated for either FA or GA will also receive a rejection undergoing the peer review process (I am speaking from experience when somebody nominated an article which I was heavily involved in for GA).

So, what do the members of WP:DIGI think? —Mir l e n 22:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be fine. But i have to ask...just how often is it that an article about a digimon character will have anything to say in the "concept and creation" section? Most Digimon characters don't exactly have as much meaning behind them as the famous Star Wars characters do.

Most of what we have on Digimon Character articles now is "Appearances" and "Characteristics" information. So splitting the article into those two sections (and then "appearances" further by season, game, manga...etc.) seems to be a good idea. We won't have much to say for "concept and creation" or "character in popular culture" (the articles you linked to all seemed to have a section on that.)

One thing that i think does need to be done is to fix up the articles for the Frontier characters. Even though the human characters in Frontier are the digimon, i still think they need different articles. All the digimon the characters in Frontier turn into need decent articles (as oppossed to what we have now, see Kazemon).

And the character pages should focus more on the character and less on what the digimon form does. With most of the Digimon information actually moved to the -mon article. --Yaksha 13:10, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

True. But misc. facts on Takeru and Yamato's pages in the Trivia section in the light that they were named after Yamato Takeru would go under the concept and creation section. There I think we can also talk about perhaps the differences between the Japanese and English version (the "creation" of the English version characters from the original version, so to speak) that doesn't go under the previous sections. Also, we can fill out the Concept and creation section for the Tamers since Chiaki J. Konaka has a site on its history. Not to mention we can pull out interviews from various cast and crew members on information concerning a character's concept and creation. I do remember reading a translation of an interview with Hiroyuki Kakudou on the original ending of Digimon Adventure 02. —Mir l e n 14:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The splitting of Frontier Digimon and human info is on the to do list :) Although, I would actually prefer an article system where human and Digimon shared an article, at least the human would share it with their Digimon and would help us avoid confusion such as the two Agumons. This was apart of one of the ideas I proposed in the previous discussion links above, and would be able to summarize all forms of the partner Digimon in one place as well. It really seems sloppy to have to go between 3 or 4 articles just to read about what is basically the same anime character (for the Digimon).

I do think Mirlen has the right idea, and that we need more out-of-universe perspective in these articles, desperately. I think the real issue here is one we're all a little afraid to bring up, since we've all worked so hard on all of these articles. And that is, should we really still have an article for every Digimon? Which is why I brought up the idea of transwiki'ing, so even if those articles shouldn't live on Wikipedia, they would not go to waste (and would likely become better articles since we could be softer on the whole OR thing). -- Ned Scott 20:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I realize that most of the Digimon stubs need to be dealt with, but I don't know. They're part of the official canon and all so I think they still need to be in Wikipedia (but not have individual articles). Would it be feasible to, say, expand the Digimon family lists to include information on every Digimon in that family (and wikilink to Digigmon that have articles of their own)? We could still include card game information (evolutions/card numbers/etc.) and there'd be less articles for people to navigate through while keeping the information on Wikipedia. Indiawilliams 22:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Indiawilliams on having lists for Digimon families. From Guide to writing better articles:

"If the subject, a character in a TV show, say, is too limited to be given a full article, then integrate information about that character into a larger article. It is better to write a larger article about the TV show or a fictional universe itself than to create all sorts of stubs about its characters that nobody can find. And if you find a lot of related fiction stubs? Merge them! Make yourself a characters of X page, and go cut-and-paste crazy, leaving a solid characters article, and a trail of redirects in your wake."

On the topic of conforming to WP:WAF, I have a question regarding tenses for this WP. Are all Digimon articles going by present tense or past tense? Usually all articles covering fictional material should be in present tense, unless the fictional material covered is considered as fictional history (e.g. mythology), which I doubt pertains to the anime (WP:1SP). —Mir l e n 00:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

"I would actually prefer an article system where human and Digimon shared an article, at least the human would share it with their Digimon and would help us avoid confusion such as the two Agumons." I think it's important that the -mon articles are complete. So the Agumon article should be the "main article" for everything to do with Agumon. However, a subsection on each Human character's page about their digimon, including all their digivolution forms (and then some kind of link to the main article for that -mon) would be very nice.

"On the topic of conforming to WP:WAF, I have a question regarding tenses for this WP. Are all Digimon articles going by present tense or past tense?" I vote present. --Yaksha 00:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Most often go with present tense, unless the tense used in an anime/manga is different, such as a flashback, etc. -- Ned Scott 02:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)