![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
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
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)
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)
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) .
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thought I would note a discussion topic that I've started on Talk:Digimon Tamers#Emphases on secondary characters with 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)
Apparently Bandai is going to spell it Lalamon and not Raramon. See Talk:Lalamon. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
I'm going to go through the Digimon Adventure and Digimon Adventure 02 character articles and:
Any objections? Hbdragon88 17:41, 31 August 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- Yaksha 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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:
-- Yaksha 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- Yaksha 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
"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."
"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)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
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)
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
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)
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)
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) .
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thought I would note a discussion topic that I've started on Talk:Digimon Tamers#Emphases on secondary characters with 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)
Apparently Bandai is going to spell it Lalamon and not Raramon. See Talk:Lalamon. -- Ned Scott 07:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
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)
I'm going to go through the Digimon Adventure and Digimon Adventure 02 character articles and:
Any objections? Hbdragon88 17:41, 31 August 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- Yaksha 11:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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:
-- Yaksha 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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:
-- Yaksha 11:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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'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)
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)
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)
"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."
"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)