Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon/Archive 8

message: Someone just added a bunch of redlink digimon to the current List of Digimon (like BioThunderbirdmon, which i'd assumn should just redirect to Thunderbirdmon?), as well as Gizumon AT and XT. 
Should stuff like that be kept on the list?
Or should we just not worry about it now, since we're considering major reorganization of -mon articles anyway, and that article could be heavily affected. --Yaksha 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the current List of Digimon

message: What is this guy doing, exactly?  I think he's moving information, but I just want someone else to check.  --Raijinili 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems he's roughly doing one of the tasks listed on the to do list: "Split Frontier Digimon from characters for J.P., Tommy, Zoe, Koichi. See Takuya Kanbara as an example of how the human character should end up looking." I guess in light of some of the above discussion that should be taken off. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: someone's already reverted Tommy's article, and i'm about to go revert the other three. He's taken huge chunks of information out of the articles for those four characters, but has not put them into the new articles he's started (the ones for the digimon). So i'm going to restore them into the character articles. --Yaksha 06:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anon user blanking and making new pages 

message: When we use Japanese (reliable) sources in articles to describe the differences between the English and Japanese version in episodes or any other behind the scenes information, what would be considered as a "reliable" translation?  Unlike S-E, Toei has not provided the internation fans with translations, so what source could we call reliable for translations? —Mirlen 01:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I came across this article, List of Digimon whose English and Japanese names differ, which went under the radar I guess. Seems like an alright idea for a list, and it would be nice to have this information in one spot. -- Ned Scott 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would have defintely been useful. The list is quite short, there aren't that many digimon with name differences. Perhaps it could just be combined into one article with the list of digimon? --`/aksha 00:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's probably more than what's on that list. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably. but is it really significant? Almost every anime/manga has a list of name changes - just because it originates from another language. Digimon just happens to have tons of fictional characters (species), so a slightly longer list. --`/aksha 02:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, I don't think such a list is needed as the name differences are already on the Digimon article itself. - Plau 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a topic, I wouldn't say it's significant. I was thinking mostly for article navigation, which is considered an acceptable reason for a "list of" type article (WP:LIST). But, to be honest, I don't really care much either way :) -- Ned Scott 12:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) As long as both names are in the article and redirects are in place there should be no problems finding the correct page so its not really needed, but I'm certaintly not going to push for deletion. Shiroi Hane 12:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discovered article 

message: I've already started to put this in motion, and aren't done editing, but... I think the DATS article would be better serving to the project if it were changed into a catch-all article for the major and minor characters of the series, as well as for the concepts of the series, such as an elaboration of just what DATS is, and the nature of the Digivice iC, Digital World, and so on and so forth.  Thoughts?
This is what I've done so far: List of Digimon Savers Characters and Concepts
Thoughts?--Razorsaw 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, one thing is something I've mentioned before, a good deal of this should be merged with the main article. We'd likely still have enough for a second article, but right now the two are stepping on each others toes, in a sense. Also, remember WP:FICT and WP:WAF. We shouldn't summarize simply for the sake of summarization. We should only dive into this much detail when we can relate out-of-universe elements to it. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm a bit confused about how to go ahead with this.  Those links tell me not to describe things in a biographical sense, but I've seen multiple pages that do just that - not just random pages, but multiple ones.--Razorsaw 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of articles in need of improvement, but it's still a direction we should move towards. -- Ned Scott 01:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should rephrase.  Practically every fictional character page has a healthy bit of summary and bio; its a personal failing that I can't distinguish between the proper way of doing things.  I don't mean to be obstinant, I just feel personal responsibility for those pages, having created them, and I'm a bit unsure how to do it the "right way." WP:FICT and WP:WAF haven't been particularly helpful in-practice.--Razorsaw 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see. Well, that's why we're here, so we can all help :). Usually, most of that kind of stuff can be kept in such an article as long as more out-of-universe information can be added. It's hard to find a lot of out-of-universe information because most of the sources for that (interviews, commentary, etc) are in Japanese and remain untranslated. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, so it's ok that we don't have these sources right now. The idea is to just keep it in mind that summaries alone shouldn't be the end result. That being said, the articles you've created so far are actually in okay shape in this respect. As long as we don't write needlessly long summaries and try to keep the information relevant. Helping the reader identify the general character as opposed to stating every little detail, is petty much the idea. -- Ned Scott 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. Well, I've tried to be as brief as possible, with the side characters.  Satsuma is the only one that gets gets really long, in my opinion.  I think what they may be lacking is context, which is why I wanted to include explanations about DATS in other parts of the article, you know? -- --Razorsaw 02:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Ok, as an up-date, I've added everything I initially wanted to put into the article, besides several images.  I think now we can start thinking of what we need to add, slim down, or move, yes? - --Razorsaw 16:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm... I don't mean to be rude, and I'll admit I'm not heavily engrossed in the technicalities of this, but are we going to discuss how to pull this off at all?  I have some ideas if we need something to kick it off...--Razorsaw 23:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  DATS didn't need to be as big as it was, and a lot of it was technically inaccurate.  I don't think we really NEED a whole page to be long winded about how many Digimon such and such has defeated.  And I wrote that original page. --Razorsaw 16:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

text: There could be a need for two articles, but even if that's the case I think we should look at how those two articles compliment each other. Some info might be good on one article and not another, etc. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "DATS" article into "Digimon Savers Characters and Concepts" 

message: The RedVdramon image seems a little suspicious. The image says it's the Bandai art of RedVedramon, but it doesn't show up when doing a google image search for "RedV-Dramon", i can't seem to find it on the internet at all. The picture looks scratchy, as if it's someone's editing. 
I'm a bit tempted to replace it with the battle sprite of RedVdramon from D1 Tamers. The battle sprite is smaller, bit it's defintely the real thing. 
( and current RedVdramon picture)
What does everyone think? --`/aksha 03:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea.  You know, I think Akatorimon's artwork is similarly fake. --Razorsaw 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RedVdramon image

message: Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory.  These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages: 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory, 
*User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
*User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
*User:Badbilltucker/Science directory
and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory.
The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. 
It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Directory 

message: For a while now, we've been listing Digimon groups like the Seven Great Demon Lords and Royal Knights in the same category as "families" like Virus Busters, Nature Spirits, et all... and this is technically inaccurate. O_o Groups are a seperate category from Families listed as a special requirement on some cards, and also mentioned in profiles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Razorsaw (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll assume you're talking about the listing of a group into the "Family" box of the infobox on digimon articles? Yes, it's technically wrong. "Family" here very specifically refers to what a "family" is in the context of the Digimon Card Game. They should all be removed. --`/aksha 05:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't go that far.  Familys (not all of them, mind) are mentioned in the Bandai profiles.  They're just as valid a classification as Virus and Type, if you ask me. O_o - --Razorsaw 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: uhh...I just meant removing the families which are not actually TCG families from the box which says "TCG family". Take Lilithmon for example, "Nightmare Soldiers, Dark Area" are still in the family box. But the bit about her being one of the seven demon lords is no longer in the box. (Although it is mentioned in the opening sentence.) --`/aksha 01:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh.  So, what do we do about the Groups?  Reinstate that as a part of the infobox? --Razorsaw 02:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think there's a need to put something into the info box that will apply to only a small number of digimon. Most digimon don't belong to any special "group". I personally think having it stated in the opening paragraph is obvious enough. --`/aksha 02:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Perhaps a page that provides context, or a list on something like a new Digimon (creature) article?  Everyone knows what the Sovereigns, Royal Knights, and Seven Great Demon Lords are, but there should be some context for groups like 4 Great Dragons and Fusion Forms. --Razorsaw 05:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A concern about families and groups 

message: OK, perhaps someone has answered this question already but I ask it nevertheless: When we merge all the -mon articles shouldn't we keep all the -mon articles that are not stubs anymore? As I understand if an article is not a stub anymore than it can stay and is accepted and after all there are several dozen -mon articles that are no stubs. Diabound00 12:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it's really the notability of the digimon that determins whether it needs an article or not. The digimon who are main/important characters in some anime/manga/game will get their own articles for being main/important characters. However, a digimon is no longer going to have a unique article simply for existing as a unique digimon species. Coincidentally, or maybe not, just about all the digimon articles which are not stubs do belong to notable digimon. So no, we're certainly not thinking of merging Myotismon into a list of miscellenous ultimate digimon, or Calumon into a In-Training digimon list. --`/aksha 13:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't we keep -mon articles that are not stubs anymore? 

message: Digimon_layout compare to this Leormon which look better.  
First why heck is there Description subtitle when whole page is a description of a Digimon. 
Proprose 2 new categories in place it which cover areas that Description subtitle dose
: → = = Evolution = = 
::  → = = = Digivolve = = = -tree contrain all possible evolution use this digimon in it
::  → = = = DNA evolution = = =  - only ones cover here is that him + another digimon become and also if dna combination that becomes him
:: → Armour evolution - Tell which Armour digi-egg  can be use on him and what he becomes
:  → = = Abilities = = 
:: → X-Evolution - tell first is by defualt x digimon, if actual infomation on him maybe can create  = = = X-Evolution = = = put information there
::  → = = = Attacks = = =  - attack harm it target
::  → = = = Special Abilities = = =  - Stuff that a Digimon can do help him or benfit other digimon which include move that heal digimons, can levelite one around him.
Also is me does nothing noted where info that thing came from(tv series, mangama, games, cards, etc)
Omagaalpha 17:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good suggestions, but keep in mind that most Digimon will be sharing an article (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update/Article reorganization). Also, it would be good to structure the articles that are dedicated for Digimon to have more out-of-universe information (see WP:WAF). -- Ned Scott 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yea but the links gave me no where tell what article put together with. So then that put up for discussing how compacting Digimon together. Beside for X-Antibody version of the digimon put in. Question first link for me post ideas way organized article for include combining in single page. Also on user page put up example how think for different digimon be done.Omagaalpha 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The link Ned provided was to the talk page. If you follow the first link that was provided, and click on the "project page" tag, i think you'll find what you're looking for. The digimon are being sorted on the actual project page into new groupings, the talk page is for discussion. As for how the pages will be laid out, yes, we're working on that. --`/aksha 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard Layout need a change 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Beginning cross-post.
:See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stablepedia 

message: Someone has gone and made a Demisolarmon article based on a recoloured Kapurimon which is obliviously fan art, could someone get it deleted? Nightmare SE 00:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It just got speedy deleted. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Demisolarmon

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards