Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon/Archive 4

message: I'm trying to "archive" Digimon Articles for Deletion here at Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update/AfD archive.  If you know of any others please list them there.  Feel free to change the format or whatever, as I've really just thrown them up there for now. -- Ned Scott 23:06, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Old AfDs 

message: I'm working through the Digimon articles in order of appearence in the Digimon Visual Dictionary to add kana (and infoboxes) where missing. As I go I've been compiling a list of articles that are missing images (I've already added a few missing ones and taken them off the list), but was wondering if we oughtn't have a centralised list, either on a subpage or as a section on the project's to-do list? I have a fair amount of source material - the Visual Dictionary has images of all Digimon up to at least partway through Frontier and I also have the V-Jump Koushiki Daizukan for the previous series (were any books or mooks ever released for Frontier? I've never seen any), I just need to make the time to scan them etc. Shiroi Hane 21:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest tagging all of them as part of :Category:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update images (or something similar). Then you can just view the category to see all of the images. --日本穣 Nihonjoe 22:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've thrown something rough together at :Category:Digimon articles in need of images. Shiroi Hane 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Images 

message: I've been looking up on how to run a WikiBot for some of our more redundant edits and tasks.  I've created NedBot and he is currently awaiting approval per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals.  Check out his user page for examples of tasks it would do.  If you have any more suggestions of things we could have the bot do, please list them. -- Ned Scott 21:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:BOTS is requesting additional input on the use of NedBot for Digimon edits.  Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#NedBot. -- Ned Scott 16:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NedBot is still awaiting approval. I think the Bot approvals group is waiting for more input from our WikiProject about Digimon edits.  If anyone else can leave a comment on Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approvals#NedBot it would be greatly appreciated and will likely speed the approval process. Thanks. -- Ned Scott 22:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiBot for WP:DIGI 

message: I was getting some ideas from Pokémon Collaborative Project (I know I know, Digimon and Pokemon are different.  But they are similar in that both WikiProjects are dealing with a great many of "monster" creature articles that have information from animes, mangas, video games, and card games.)  I noticed they used a generic reference/ source message at the end of their articles, (WP:PAC/S#References and External links), and thought this might be a good idea for us as well (with less emphases on video games, as most of our information seems to be taken from the anime or card game).  Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 22:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  references and sources 

message: Hello. I'm a member of the Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing articles using these criteria, and we are are asking for your help. As you are most aware of the issues surrounding your focus area, we are wondering if you could provide us with a list of the articles that fall within the scope of your WikiProject, and that are either featured, A-class, B-class, or Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Do you have any recommendations? If you do, please post your suggestions at the listing of all active Hobbies WikiProjects, and if you have any questions, ask me in the Work Via WikiProjects talk page or directly in my talk page. Thanks a lot! Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:52, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team|Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team]] cooperation

message: While testing some replacement stuff with NedBot I noticed it was replacing d'Archmon with D'Arcmon.  Anyone know if there is a correct version? -- Ned Scott 00:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the article is at D'Arcmon anyway, I don't think it makes such a difference in the end. Circeus 00:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: well, that's just a technical issue with Wikipedia capitalizing the first letter anyways (which is why NedBot corrected it.  He was making sure things like metalgraymon linked to MetalGraymon). -- Ned Scott 01:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

text: At the moment the article contains a mix of both d'Arcmon and D'Arcmon. I personally think they should all be d'Arcmon. Shiroi Hane 01:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll set the bot to make corrections to d'Arcmon then. -- Ned Scott 03:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with Frontier characters is that, to my knowledge, Shueisha did not publish any Koushiki Daizukan books for the series and, other than the Digimon Visual Dictionary (which does not include romanised names and only covers Digimon from the start of the series), I've not seen any books which cover Frontier so there is little reference material. Shiroi Hane 11:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, many Japanese sources which *do* contain romanised names have got them wrong; I was very active in Digimon fandom for quite some time -- might still get back to that some day -- and I can tell you there was a sizeable chunk of people who preferred to use names which made sense over those which were the "official" romanisations... ;) —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 00:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: If the name is based upon an original English name, d'Arcmon because the d' is always made small (see Jean de Rond d'Alembert, for example).  x42bn6 Talk 07:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  d'Arcmon or D'Arcmon 

message: I just wrote a long discourse (or a rambling mess, depending on how you look at it) on the problems with how evolutions and evoltion lines are handled at the moment but it failed to save so I have to start again... The infobox talk page says to only include 'canon' information, but does not make it clear what is considered canon. It also states that you should only use 'from' and 'to' for digimon with no canon lines, but should the other possiblities be discarded even if there is a 'canon' line, and what about those who only have a partical complete line or multiple 'canon' lines? Should every digimon on a particular line show every other possibility from that line? e.g. Botamon's page lists both MetalGreymon and Skullgreymon as ultimates, but Gigimon's does not include Megidramon - which is correct? Also Pururumon's page doesn't list Hawkmon's Armour forms, and Hawkmon's page doesn't list Aquilamon's jogress.... Shiroi Hane 01:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noticed this problem too. Bandai seems to like to change these things a lot.  I was just thinking about the whole Digmon thing in that Digimon Savers appearance.  Maybe less emphases on the card game data might help to eliminate a great deal of variables.  Also, it probably should be noted on all the articles that there really is no set evolution, as Bandai might explain it differently in a future Digimon product.  Heck, most information on the articles aren't really clear if it's about the Anime version, card game version (and which card game), video game, manga, etc.  (as well as noting that a Digimon in one appearance is usually an unrelated character to the other appearances). I guess we need to revisit the layout and be a bit more specific on some things, as well as addressing unusual data. -- Ned Scott 09:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding Digmon.. it was unfortunate that in the Savers episode they did not state Digmon's level - the 02 Digmon was an armour, but I'm assuming the one in Savers is more likely to be an Adult. Shiroi Hane 12:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that still means an Adult Digimon evolved into another Adult Digimon... Mh. Muy estraño... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 17:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't see anything particularily wrong with any of the edits I've looked at, although I can't necessarily verify all of the information they've added. Shiroi Hane 12:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, neither could I verify them. We need verification for this. --Siva1979Talk to me 08:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like video-game attacks to me, maybe that can help us narrow the search. -- Ned Scott 11:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digivolutions 

message: I've previously only heard Raramon's Baby II form called "Badomon," but the Digivice IC page calls it "Budmon."  I don't want to start a new page without knowing which page to make, but the code is here: User:Blue_Mage/sandbox.
Also, I should point out that the newest cards introduce new families, including Dragon's Roar (such as GeoGreymon), and Jungle Trooper (such as Sunflowmon).  --  Blue Mage
:From what I could tell from the Wikipedia edits, no one ever cited a reference for "badomon".  I think Budmon, actually having a source of info (from the Digivice iC), would be the one to go with. -- Ned Scott 05:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Badomon is simply the most obvious romanization of the name. Budmon makes a lot of sense given the lineage. On the subject of the new cards.. has anyone seen scans of the option cards? Shiroi Hane 06:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Badomon or Budmon 

message: I semi-protected the page totry and deal with a massive streak of vandalism from anon users. Circeus 02:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Digimon]] semi-protected