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

message: :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)
thread_title: From [[WP:NOR]]

message: Some of you might already notice that I made some changes to the WikiProject banner, . 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)
thread_title:  Changes to the WikiProject banner 

message: 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)
thread_title:  BlackGrowlmon 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: So you're all atheists?

message: 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)
replies: text: Well if it just adds clutter I don't see why it needs to be around. - Indiawilliams 06:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category:Digimon voice actors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New PS2 Game-Digimon Savers Another Mission 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Change title of Digimon Battle Pet Article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Emphases on secondary characters with Digimon 

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Recolor Digimon 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ornismon 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sounds good to me. Good work! -- Ned Scott 19:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Character pages 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Agumon article 

message: A request has been made at WP:CVG talk to ingrate the  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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  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)
thread_title:  Intergration with {{tl|cvgproj}} 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Red links in Episode Citations 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Special Evolution"

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: digivolution section of the info box

message: 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)
thread_title: evolution section of the article

message: 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)
thread_title: lack of or missing information

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: "Appears in" and "Characters in"

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