Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon/Archive 5

message: Please, when replacing a screenshot or other image, do think of nominating the older one at WP:IFD. Also, a screenshot should replace the Tohma art in Digimon Savers, any good scene suggestion? Circeus 15:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Something from Episode 7 would probably be good, there was a lot Toma in that ep. Shiroi Hane 13:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Image replacement

message: After looking over all the Digi-stubs and the Digimon articles to be expanded I decided to again read the Wikipedia article about stubs and stumbled upon the following passage:
A stub is an article that is too short, but not so short as to be useless. In general, it must be long enough to at least define the article's title, which generally means 3 to 10 short sentences. Note that even a longer article on a complicated topic may be a stub; conversely, a short article on a topic of narrow scope may not be a stub.
Especially the last sentenced caught my attention: a short article on a topic of narrow scope may not be a stub. Wouldn't that mean that many article we currently define as a stub or are in the category digi-expand may not be stubs any more? Examples are Flamedramon or even articles like Growlmon. Most Digimon are in fact articles of narrow scope so there is the question if it wouldn't be better to get rid of the digi-expand category and define this and other articles as full articles, since they are small topics and in their articles stands all necessary informations.
This is currently my opinion. Please tell me what you think of it or if we should go along as we do now. Diabound00 11:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Digi-expand isn't considered a stub categorization.  It does contain the text "this article may be considered a stub", but that's about it.  Just because you say an article is good and that you are done with it doesn't make it so.  By Wikipedia's standards, the vast majority of Digimon articles are crap.  Don't fool yourself about this, there is a lot of work left to be done. -- Ned Scott 01:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I understand that the vast majority of Digimon articles are crap but this is because this Digimon never appeared in any series and their article don't include much, except the infobox and some sentences. However I question if it's necessary to have the digi-expand category. Most of the articles in this category can be considered full articles and if someone wants to expand them, then OK. However I don't think they need to be in a special category. Examples are the one that I gave above. Diabound00 05:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rethink Digimon stub situation 

message: For a while now I've been thinking about some things we should improve on the 'mon articles.  When one views such an article from a standalone perspective the majority are very confusing.  Even some of the well written ones can be confusing to those unfamiliar with the topic.  I've come up with a list of things that might not be clear to the reader:
*Every article should make it clear that a Digimon is both a "species" as well as individual (and sometimes unrelated) characters.  For example, it's not always clear that the Tokomon from one show is a completely different Tokomon from another, or that there are other Tokomon also called Tokomon. (wow, I think I just confused myself when writing that).
*It's not clear that some digivolusions only apply to certain animes/ mangas and not others, and which apply to where.
*Many factors do not explain themselves, or include a wikilink that can explain it.  Such as the concept of Digivolution.
*It's not always clear on what relation Digimon have to their alternative forms (such as virus, dark, x, etc) or what that even means. (in other words, what is this virus that makes DarkDIGIMON different from DIGIMON? is it an actual virus or is it just a term that Bandai uses?)
*Digimon card games.  I myself am not very clear on the card games, but from what I understand there is more than one version of the game, and the same mon can have a different card in these different sets?
*Basic Digimon info.  I can't find the exact wikipedia page right now, but I do recall reading some good advice that says, don't make your reader have to read several pages just to understand one.  Although linking to Digimon and things like Digivolution do serve to explain what these concepts are, one should also include a sentence or two in addition so that the reader doesn't have to open a second article to understand the basics.  Digivolution by it's very name seems a bit self explanatory, but there are other examples of digi-concepts that can also be applied to this.
*Linking to anime and manga series.  Although there are links in the info box for "character in" and "appears in", it would also be good to link to these articles under their headings someway.  So when something says  ===Digimon Adventure=== some sort of statement should be provided to link to that article (such as, This Digimon also appeared in Digimon Savers.  (The WP:MOS asks to avoid linking the headers directly.)
I think we should refine this list and add to it with any concerns anyone else has and put it up as a sort of "List of goals" type thing on the Project page.  A good way to find information is just find someone on the internet who doesn't know about Digimon and ask them to read a 'mon article, then ask them what they learned and what they were confused about.  Doing these types of things will greatly improve the articles and make them more helpful for everyone. -- Ned Scott 02:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To make card game info easier I think we'd just take the same approach as the digimon infobox, and only list those evols as "to" and "from". -- Ned Scott 06:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  creature mon article revamp 

message: I also have some basic suggestions to our over all Digimon layout that might help with some of the above issues and other things as well.  For one, only the appearances are sub-divided into different series.  I think that most of the articles probably should have such division.  For example
Mon Article
Intro
==Digimon Adventure==
blah blah
===Digivolutions===
Digivolutions seen in this series
===Trivia===
Trivia specific to the series
==Digimon Tamers==
blah blah
===Digivolutions===
Digivolutions seen in this series
==Digimon Card Game==
blah blah
===Digivolutions===
card game "to" and "from" digivolutions
==Trivia==
maybe a generic trivia section as well?
Something like that. 
Now I know Digimon are different from Pokemon, and we hate to compare the two, but from an article standpoint we can learn a lot from articles such as the Featured article Bulbasaur.
And also, I've been playing around with an idea in my head about making two different articles for a 'mon.  One would be a Character article, one would be a Species article.  So there could be Agumon and then Agumon (Digimon Adventure) or Agumon (character).  The reason for this is that a character really should have information on all their evolutions on one article.  The article name would take the most common form (such as Agumon) but list all his forms from Digimon Adventure and talk about the events around them.  Even though WarGraymon and Agumon are different "species" or whatever, in Digimon Adventure they are the same character.  But we'd still keep a generic Agumon article (and link to it from the character page).
In addition to this idea, I was thinking that for main characters such as Agumon, we could take this idea and them merge it with the human character article. When Agumon digivolves, it usually involves not only development in Agumon's character, but in Tai's character as well.  In this case, we'd simply use one article, Taichi Kamiya, but could still use Digimon (character) for Digimon who held major roles such as Myotismon.  There again is a good example of a way to merge information while keeping it separate for card game facts and such.  Myotismon is the same character as VenomMyotismon and MaloMyotismon, but right now his information is split 3 ways and that can be very confusing for the readers.
Like I said, these are just ideas swimming in my head right now.  I'm not saying we should do something exactly like this, but something that would address these issues at the very least.  Personally, I like the ideas, but I'd like to get some more feedback from everyone. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To make card game info easier I think we'd just take the same approach as the digimon infobox, and only list those evols as "to" and "from". -- Ned Scott 06:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout suggestions 

message: I've went ahead and made new categories for the different Digimon %28card game%29#Digimon families to replace their "list of" type articles.  I wasn't sure if I should bring this up on the talk page first before doing anything, but I decided to be bold since I didn't think anyone would object to it.  And Wikipedia's guidelines on Articles that are lists and Lists vs Categories seem to support such action as well. (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes)  You might notice the mass edits by NedBot, which is going through all the 'mon articles listed on the family pages and adding them to the new categories.  From what I read in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) Category:Digimon Family name Family seemed to be the way to go.
This should help us out in maintaining these lists.  Basically, the main category "page" will look almost identical to the original articles (for example, :Category:Digimon Nature Spirits family replaces Nature Spirits.  It will briefly explain what the family is and what Digimon are included (the text is taken directly out of the old articles).  To add or remove a Digimon from the list one just needs to go to that Digimon's article and add or remove the category.  This is also good since many Digimon belong to more than one family.  Any mass changes can easily be done with NedBot or by using software such as AutoWikiBrowser.
The categories so far:
* :Category:Digimon Nature Spirits family
* :Category:Digimon Wind Guardians family
* :Category:Digimon Metal Empire family
* :Category:Digimon Nightmare Soldiers family
* :Category:Digimon Deep Savers family
* :Category:Digimon Virus Busters family
* :Category:Digimon Dark Area family
* :Category:Digimon Jungle Trooper family
* :Category:Digimon Dragon's Roar family
Also, the new article Digimon (card game) serves as the replacement for Digimon families.
The only category I didn't make yet was the Unknown one for Unknown Digimon family.  I wasn't sure if I should make it, since, if I understand correctly, it's just a list of Digimon that aren't in any family.  This might be something that Wikipedia can generate by comparing the family cats to all the Digimon articles? Not sure if that's a feature yet (I remember some people talking about it).  Anyone know anything about this, or if we should make a Category:Digimon unknown family?
There's lots of pro's to this, but if anyone happens to think of any con's then the cats and articles can be restored to their original state, easily, or modified if needed.
NedBot is still in the process of adding articles to the new categories, so when you read this it might not have added them all yet.  If there is any 'mon that should be included in a family that weren't on the old article lists (Nature Spirits, Wind Guardians, Metal Empire, Nightmare Soldiers, Deep Savers, Virus Busters, Dark Area, Jungle Trooper, Dragon's Roar) you can add them by simply adding the appropriate Category to the article.
Any thoughts, concerns, additional ideas?  Again, sorry for going ahead and just doing this if anyone has any objections, but like I said, corrections can be applied pretty easily. -- Ned Scott 03:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just had a thought: I'd like to collaborate with Circeus (and, of course, anyone else who wants to get involved) before I do anything, but I believe this process can be further streamlined by having 's own fields trigger the addition to the cats.  In other words, all you would have to do to add a Digimon article to one of the new cats would be to edit the infobox to list it as apart of that family.  This would be good since then one would only have to make a single edit to include it in both infobox and category, instead of two (and possibly forgetting to do one or the other, making the lists more accurate). -- Ned Scott 04:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I generally scoff at using templates to add categories to article. It is too easy to cause the system to break afterwards, for a variety of reasons. Otherwise, your process looks okay tome, although I'd probably have favored a unified "list of digimon by family" list myself. Circeus 18:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For the record, Unknown is indeed its own Digimon family. It's marked with a UK symbol and has a special background and everything on the cards. It's not just the absence of a family. Shining Celebi 02:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for the clarification.  I shall apply the actions to Unknown as the others have. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Category:Digimon Unknown family -- Ned Scott 05:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New categories for Digimon families 

message: I've recently noticed a lot of unsourced and questionable attacks listed in digimon articles. Most, if not all of the attacks added by IP addresses are invalid. Please be on the lookout for any recent changes made by IP addresses to digimon articles. 3bulletproof16 23:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Remember to assume good faith, though.  Also, it's possible that some attacks are seen in video games or some other minor usage. Although, anything added to an article without source information and / or edit summary is likely to be removed. If anyone sees info being added without an explanation, and it seems fishy, then it would be a good idea to remove it or use the  tag.-- Ned Scott 04:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attacks added by IP addresses 

message: To accompany the infobox template for Digimon creature articles, I have created a seperate infobox for the human characters! It can be viewed right here Template:Digimoncharacterinfobox. Please review at Template talk:Digimoncharacterinfobox. --Roadrunner3000 02:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably wait before any infobox usage and figure out an over all article layout first.  Personally, I never really felt that an infobox would be of much use for the human characters.  But like I said, we should figure out an over-all layout first, see what info we want to get across, what info we have, what the reader should get out of the article, and so on. -- Ned Scott 06:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, it's... already there.. well, whatever, lets give it a shot, I guess.. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so it actually grew on me pretty fast! I used the feilds that Roadrunner lined out and updated the template to be a bit "lighter".  I also put this new version at a new template name that wasn't so "smushed", Template:Infobox Digimon character. Check it out on Taichi Kamiya. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Infobox Template!!!

message: Earlier today User:Marcjs created the article CyberSeraphimon. Information in it looks very suspicious and I believe the digimon is non-existent. Any help confirming or clarifying this would be appreciated.-3bulletproof16 17:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Makomon and Gilgesmon from the same user. No hint of a google hit for any of the three. Clearly hoaxes and quick WP:AFD fodder. Circeus 18:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for confirming that for me.-3bulletproof16 20:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A google search tha unearth nothing for digimon typically confirms an hoax. Circeus 20:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[CyberSeraphimon]] 

message: I provided screenshots for as many episodes as I could in List of Digimon Adventure 02 episodes and List of Digimon Adventure episodes. I also copyedited the summaries for style and stuff. Circeus 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: Considering how much we've been working on our lists of episodes for Digimon, including finding screen caps for them, I thought this discussion would be of interest to all of you.  An editor at Talk:List of Lost episodes/Use of images is claiming that using images for a List of episodes type article does not qualify the images for fair use.  Please add any thoughts or comments to the discussion that you feel are relevant. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the exact thing is that screenshots are not appropriate for multi-season episode lists, but okay for single seasons? I fail to see anything in WP:FU or WP:FUC that can be interpreted as preventing this use of screenshots. In any case, this looks like a disagreement on application of a policy more than anything else. I've added a section as a call to calm down, sit and actually discuss how the policy applies here. Circeus 16:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issue regarding images being used for "Lists of episodes" 

message: I just noticed there's a few Digimon that say in their articles that they only appear in Digimon World 3.  Such as Oinkmon, Vemmon, Gaiamon, Galacticmon, and probably more.  If these 'mon don't have cards or anything then I think we might want to merge their articles with Digimon World 3, since they're unique to the game. -- Ned Scott 13:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No opposition here. Will make a few people at AFD happy. Circeus 17:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digimon that appear in ''Digimon World 3'' only 

message: I suggest we add more pictures for Digimon who dont have any. I have added a picture for Penguinmon.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Useranonymous (talk • contribs) .
:If you find any more articles without pictures feel free to place them in :Category:Digimon articles in need of images. And remember, all fair use images MUST have source info and a fair use argument made for each use of the image (the vast majority of the images we currently use don't have these statements, but at least we should try our best at adding the info for new images). See Wikipedia:Image description page#Fair use rationale.  Other than that, go for it :) -- Ned Scott 20:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Less seen Digimon pics 

message: A CfR showed up on my watch list, it has been proposed to rename :Category:DigiDestined to :Category:Digimon main human characters. see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 15#Category:DigiDestined to Category:Digimon main human characters.
-- Ned Scott 22:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomination has been withdrawn, the idea being that our WikiProject takes a look at our current categories and come up with any possible name improvements that fit with the other cats. -- Ned Scott 07:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CfR Category:DigiDestined 

message: Well, I know there was talk about making an article for the English dub movie to explain the differences and such.. James Epstein seems to have thrown up an article about it just recently, not really sure what to do with it. It's kind of going off in a weird direction..  Digimon: The Movie, as well as Kids In America (Len Song), Here We Go (Digmon single), and Digimon: The Movie Soundtrack.  I think the latter three should definitely just be merged into the article about the dub version movie (rather, just the sound track list, as Here We Go info should go on Digimon Adventure 02's section on the dub music.  Len already notes their Kids in America song on their article). I gotta to back to work in a minute here, but I thought I'd note this. Even if the articles are going in a weird direction, he seems willing to work on articles, and I think we should introduce him to our WikiProject. -- Ned Scott 22:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digimon: The Movie articles 

message: Please leave the WP:CVG banner on the talk pages. They automatically classify an article for the Wikipedia 1.0 project. If you could put  back on any pages that they have been removed from, that would be appreciated. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell no one has removed any of them... -- Ned Scott 22:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see, this is just a general message being sent out to WikiProjects that have articles that also fall under WP:CVG.  Sounds good to me. -- Ned Scott 22:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  banners 

message: Someone has made a request to move Digimon: Digital Monsters (anime) to Digimon: Digital Monsters via Talk:Digimon: Digital Monsters (anime)#Requested move. See there for discussion, I guess. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Move it?  Why?!  That guy is an idiot. Hbdragon88 10:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No major objection was raised and the article has now been moved to Digimon: Digital Monsters. -- Ned Scott 19:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move  

message: has made numerous alteration to articles' structure (notably separating the subheaders of "description" and rebaming "digivolution" to "evolution")$ that will have to be reverted. I'll start on it once I'm done with my watchlist. Circeus 00:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All fixed now. Most edits proved to be actually relevant. Let's hope this user will collaborate in the project! Circeus 04:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding [[User:Karok]] 

message: A new user, , has created the article Digimon Battle Pets.  It's not necessarily a bad article, but a few things come to mind.  One, is this the correct name for such an article? Two, he made the article in basically one edit, is this a copyvio off another Digimon site? At least the idea is good, since before the main info on the Digimon v-pet was just a list of bullet points on Tamagotchi#Digimon (and actually, that whole section had gotten deleted by an anon the edit was unnoticed for a month or so. It's just been restored tonight.. oops). Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 08:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I've wondered before if such information should be it's own article, or under a ==History== or ==v-pet== section on Digimon. -- Ned Scott 08:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Gear-Richie has told me via his talk page that he is indeed the author of the added content, so as far as I can tell there is no copyvio.  Things are looking good. -- Ned Scott 19:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  another suprise Digimon article, Digimon Battle Pets 

message: I just noticed something very... weird... I was trying to link to Angemon, and this happened: Angemon‎.  Then I typed it out again, and it worked: Angemon. Am I going crazy? I can copy and paste the "bad link", but as far as I can tell, it's the exact same letters. -- Ned Scott 22:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I copied the bad link to TextPad and I got this: Angemon?.  But the good link is just good old Angemon.  So somehow your bad link has some sort of hidden character that is unviewable or something.  Perhaps you mistyped or perhaps we should take it to the Help desk.  x42bn6 Talk 01:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So weird.. I even checked for spaces in front of and after the text.. oh well -- Ned Scott 06:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Huh?? 

message: Hi everyone. I'm not a member of this WikiProject, but given that it -- along with all the other video game WikiProjects -- is technically a subsidiary of the overall Computer and Video Games WikiProject, I thought I'd bring to your attention this proposal for the deletion of spoiler tags from all computer and video game articles. An in-depth explanation of the reasoning behind this can be found on the discussion page I've linked to (and a lot of additional discussion on the matter can be found in the places linked to from there, such as the spoiler warning talk page and this archive from it, in which a motion to contest the spoiler warning's Guideline status was successfully put forth), but to briefly summarize the reasoning behind this:
::"In no way do [spoiler tags] actually contribute to the encyclopedia's purpose of being informative about subjects on a comprehensive level, and, in actuality, they're redundant of the fact that this is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is defined as a comprehensive source of information on a variety of subjects. This is...not a fansite or blog. Also, given that Wikipedia is not censored -- and, again, given that it is an encyclopedia -- what encyclopedic purpose are spoiler tags serving? The answer is 'not a single one.' We already have a spoiler warning accessible from the bottom of every page of this encyclopedia. Wikipedia need not constantly reiterate that it is an encyclopedia."
If all of you could drop by and weigh in on this, we'd all appreciate it. We really feel like we're working toward the betterment of video game articles on Wikipedia -- and the betterment of Wikipedia as a whole -- by pushing for the removal of this unencyclopedic content. Thanks for your time. Ryu Kaze 22:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for the spoiler warning as common courtesy to readers. -- Ned Scott 19:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very flabbergasted by this statement. What makes you presume the readers even care...? I'm certain people arrive to wikipedia to learn content, not hide from it. Although, I would be willing to hear some edvidence sustaining how this assists the encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 20:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for one, I'm a reader.. and I was one long before I become an editor. The typical "spoiler warning" is found all throughout the internet, to the point where readers almost expect them. I think this was pointed out on Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. I watch for it all the time, even now, when I look up quick article about something I'm watching/ about to watch/ etc. (For example, I'll wonder about basic info, such as, did this come from a manga, how many seasons did this last, was this done by the same animation studio as blah blah, etc). WikiProject Stargate even went to the point of making a "spoiler free" version of their episode lists (List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes without spoilers). On some articles that aren't well formatted, I sometimes won't read it at all, for fear of the spoiler tag not being properly used. -- Ned Scott 20:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would conclude this is not valid reasoning. Yes, I can spy it could be difficult to avoid information if headers were not inserted or there wasn't suitible formatting but this is a simple fix. Generally, however, I find the "spoiler" bit difficult to swallow. If you do not want information, then why would you come to a comprehensive encyclopedia....? Spoiler tags are all about the internet: on review sites, blogs, gamefaqs and the like. We are none of those things. I do not see how a encylopedia which thrives on the sharing of knowledge can possibly be analyzed in comparison to the remainder of the internet. Its a good idea on discussions, gameplay postings but has no place in a comprehendum of knowledge and data. If people feel offended about learning, then they are at the wrong website. That's not what wikipedia is about at all.-Randall Brackett 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, Wikipedia is as much apart of the internet as meat is to a hamburger. Just because Wikipedia has the potential to hold a great depth of information doesn't mean people don't causally use it. (in-fact, I use it for more "casual" information than I do for in-depth character analysis) This really isn't the place to discuss this, in any case. -- Ned Scott 21:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may ask, can we please keep all discussion of this matter on either the spoiler warning talk page or the Computer and Video Games talk page? Simply for organization's sake. Thanks. Ryu Kaze 22:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe I just said that, and made a copy of this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Spoiler warning. -- Ned Scott 22:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't say it in that many words, and the message was more for the benefit of others who may join our discussion-in-progress. The attitude was unnecessary. Ryu Kaze 22:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler tags