Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon/Article reorganization

See the Project page for the to do list and a summary of the efforts being discussed here.

Pokemon and Digimon Update

I updated the Pokemon and Digimon section, pointing out that Digimon tends to borrow more from the Mecha/Super Robo genre and pointed out several mecha references. Granis 10:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, This was edited out by someone, I thought it was a very good piece of Information that does a great deal to differ Digimon from Pokemon. Granis 08:36, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's get started

The stuff on the To-Do-list is mainly from Ned Scott's suggestions over on the talk page for the Digimon System Update main project page.

The massive -mon list comes from List of Digimon. I basically copied that list over, and went through it to get rid of any items on the list which were merely redirects. So that list is a list of all our -mon articles, not a list of all digimon.

The last section is stuff from List of Digimon which don't have articles. Not too sure what to do about them since i don't know what most of them are.

The whole idea of the list is that digimon can be moved from the "currently existing -mon article" list to the "organization of future article" lists. So a digimon will be crossed out on the first list when it is added to one (or more) of the latter lists. This way, we can keep track of what goes where, and make sure we don't miss anything.

I've already put a few obvious categories there (D-Accel, Armor...although they are open to discussion, they're just the ones i could think of), we really need to decide what to do with the rest of the digimon.

there is going to be tons of miscellaneous digimon that don't fall into any obviouse category. How are we going to put them into articles? By season (so like "miscellaneous from Digimon Adventure", "miscellaneous digimon from Tamers"...etc?) or by the actual type of digimon? I guess all the digimon that are card-game only can be put into either levels or families. --Yaksha 11:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably our best bet for origination would be by level. For some levels this would mean having more than one list article, simply because of the large number of Digimon each level includes. Something like Mega Digimon (A to F) or List of Mega Digimon (A to F). This would pretty much cover all Digimon and wouldn't have major issues with over-lapping lists. Although, in the case of over-lapping lists we can simply place "For this Digimon see link to other list".

As far as what to do with List of Digimon, we can probably replace the article itself with a category. Even if the 'mon don't have individual articles anymore, we can still categorize redirected articles, so they will show up in a category. -- Ned Scott 07:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Digimon as an article should probably go. It seems to be an indiscriminate collection of information rather than an actual encyclopedic article.--Saintmagician 08:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, lists are generally treated differently than articles when they are for navigation. See WP:LIST#Purpose of lists. -- Ned Scott 08:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

DNA digimon

already ran into a problem. A DNA digimon, like Paildramon, would go into Veemon or Wormmon's article?

Or should the information be repeated on both?

Or should we consider the DNA digimon a new character (since it's a combination of two seperate characters), and have a seperate article for Paildramon/Imperialdramon/Fightermode/Paladinmode? --Yaksha 12:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably just put the info in both articles. Aside from summaries of the plot, there really isn't a lot to say about the DNA Digimon. -- Ned Scott 07:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I highly agree that the info is in both articles. It just makes more sense.--Digimonlover8 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It's best if DNA Digivolved Digimon have their own articles. User:Fractyl

--> replied on the digimon project talk page. --`/aksha 09:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Diving into the work

I've got some days off coming up after tomorrow (technically today), and I'll be able to be a bit more active here. I also want to try to contact some editors that were previously active in the project but haven't replied to the ideas yet, so we can get more input and such on how to tackle the situation. I'm very much looking forward to this, and I think doing this will make the information we present on Digimon more focused, better written, and over-all be more helpful and encyclopedic. -- Ned Scott 07:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Right, could someone detail exactly what needs to be done at the moment? I want to help but this restructing of articles is rather intimidating. Indiawilliams 01:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

if you look at the project page linked to this discussion page, you'll notice i've made a "Currently existing –mon articles" list (which should include every -mon article we have). As well as "Organization of future articles" lists. some of the items on the "Currently existing –mon articles" are crossed out, meaning that the digimon has already been put onto a list in the "Organization of future articles" section.

What needs to be done is for people to look at every existing mon article (as in click on every non-crossed out link in the list of "Currently existing –mon articles"), and decide what to do with it. So does the digimon deserve its own article? Is it an armor digimon who should be put together on an article with other armor digimon? is it just a alternate form of a main chosen digimon (i.e. Chibomon with Veemon, since Chibomon is the same character as Veemon)? and so on. Or is it just a random digimon who appears in an episode to fill up space, and should be put into a "Mega digimon A-H" article?

It does get a bity messy - like the way Agumon will need a page for the Agumon who is a charcter in adventure/02, and the Agumon who is a character in Savers

Once it's decided, the digimon should be crossed off the "Currently existing –mon articles" list, and placed someone on the "Organization of future articles" section.

i've sorted out most of the digimon i'm familiar with into groups under the "Organization of future articles" section. But it'd be good if someone could check it to make sure there're no mistakes, and see if they agree with all the digimon i've listed as "Important Digimon" (i.e. they will have an article to themselves.) --Yaksha 02:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Digitamamon is a character that is recurring in the first two seasons, but overall doesn't play much of a roll in the plot. Where exactly should it be put? Important digimon or champion-level digimon? Clevomon 06:49 EST, 7 October 2006

I'd say give him a page of his own. But i'm not so sure on it. He is a character in the anime, or at least in Adventure 02 (as oppossed to just a "pop up and get killed/freed/beaten in one episode" digimon), but a rather minor character. We can just list him as having a page of his own, and then see how everything else sorts out. i'd suspect for most of the champion digimon who end up on the champion-digimon combined pages, there'd be nothing to say about them except their digivolution line and where they turn up. So Digitamamon may be a bit out of place on it, since there is a little more we can say about him as a character. --`/aksha 11:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, another idea is to just create List of Digimon Adventure minor characters and List of Digimon Adventure 02 minor characters, with "see also" in both so each can mention the roll they played in each series. -- Ned Scott 21:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good idea! In that case, a few of the ones I recently added to Important Digimon will have to be moved. I'll get right on it! But why not lists for the characters like that in Tamers, Frontier, and Savers? Maybe we should just have one big list for all minor characters... Clevomon 19:34 EST, 8 Oct 2006

So digimon who are "minor characters" in two seasons will be on the minor character article for both seasons? That sounds okay. So chosen digimon aside, we're going to end up with three clear 'tiers'. Important digimon who get their own page; then minor characters who get put into "minor character" articles (or articles like the armor digimon articles); and lastly digimon who just exist (like the D-Accel digimon, or the ones who end up in "mega A-H" style articles). --`/aksha 00:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much, but also that each Digimon might be in one or more basic product categories, such as anime & manga, card & video games, etc. So there will be, say, more than one place for Agumon (which we know since he's been at least two different major characters) in that he'll have his anime info in one place, then things that don't apply to the anime but apply to a video game will then go to one of those other lists / articles. Although, I think we should keep the "game only" info (apart from ones that play a major role in the plot of some video games) pretty minimal. This is likely where we'll dumb things like the card numbers and such as well. -- Ned Scott 03:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is basically to avoid confusion when listing card and anime info side by side. Personally I'd be fine with not including card-game-only 'mon and info at all, but I'm not sure how others will feel about that. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind leaving out card game information. Detailed information about trading card games isn't something wikipedia usually includes anyway (we don't go into nearly that much detail for say, pokemon cards or yugioh cards), and it's a real pain collecting. The only bit of card game information i'd say maybe include would be the digimon family information.

Some digimon will defintely end up in more than one article. It's inevitable if we're trying to get articles that focus on digimon as characters, rather than digimon as species. "Although, I think we should keep the "game only" info pretty minimal." I'm thinking get rid of game only info completely from the articles about anime/manga digimon (so like the champion A-H style articles) Information about digimon in games (unless they're a major character in it) can just go onto the game article (sort of like this). --`/aksha 07:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

So, quick review, how exactly will this work again? Clevomon 19:30 EST, 9 Oct 2006 (UTC)

You mean about my comment with the games? See the article on DW3, and notice how there's a section for DW3 exclusive digimon. That's what i meant. So the articles on digimon video games will have a section about the digimon who appear in the video game. The exception would be digimon who play a large role in a video game, in which case they're treated as a character and given a seperate page (e.g. Millenniummon) --`/aksha 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, the minor characters for Digimon Adventure and Digimon Adventure 02 with only a few exceptions tend to repeat. Does anyone else think that those two lists should be combined? Clevomon 21:01 EST, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Do they overlap a lot? The minor characters list we have right now for them, the only digimon who overlaps is Digitamamon. Let's just list them seperately, and if it turns out the two lists do repeat a lot, we can combine the lists into one "Digimon Adventure/02 minor characters" article. --`/aksha 03:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Hey, there isn't anything on the Scubamon right now, but they're pretty notable. I wonder if info on them should be merged with Divermon? Clevomon 17:07 EST, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The scubamon are just divermon in disguise right? We could put in an entry on "Scubamon" in either the 02 minor characters page, or a Miscellanous digimon page, just saying where they appeared, and how they turned out to be Divermon. I'll add it to the list of digimon who currently don't have articles, so we don't forget. --Saintmagician 00:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Confused...about Magnamon

Just a little confused about Magnamon's level. Magnamon appears as Veemon's armor form in Adventure, as a golden armor digimon. But he also appears as a main character in Digimon X-Evolution. The Digimon X-Evolution features the 13 royal knights. In the context of the story, the 13 royal knights are meant to be 13 most powerful digimon who keep order in the digital world.

The thing is, all the Royal Knights are mega digimon. Or at least all 9 of the 13 who appeared in X-Evolution. Magnamon alone is Armor. Even Golden Armor is supposed to be a level below Ultimate.

In the actual X-Evolution movie, Magnamon plays quite a big role, and he seems to be on par with all the other Royal Knights (who are all mega digimon, or mega2 digimon like Omnimon). (there's a summary of the movie here)

So....i just found it really really strange. That not only is magnamon the only royal knight who isn't mega, but that the role he plays in X-Evolution suggests Magnamon is as strong as the other royal knights

So i've been wondering whether there's been a mistake. I tried to google for it, but nothing really useful. Most of it came from our article here in wikipedia anyway. The shiningevolution encyclopedia also has Magnamon as armor, but Magnamon X as Adult (champion), which is even wierder.

I really think we need to do a bit of fact-checking here. I don't suppose anyone has actually seen, or has a copy of, X-Evolution (or Digimon Chronical, the manga series that X-Evolution is based on.) --`/aksha 04:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I started to watch the fansub of it, but I haven't finished watching it yet. Maybe I'll watch it tonight. -- Ned Scott 04:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I do believe he's as strong as a mega because of his gold-digizoid armor which is designed for offence (red-digizoid is for defence, while blue-digizoid is for speed).Nightmare SE 11:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen the movie. Magnamon exists at the eponymous level of Armor, which is equivelant with Adult/Champion sometimes in the card game. But he's special in that he's stronger than most armors, and his strength level varies between his various portrayals. Generally, though, he's a case like Lucemon; of a lower level, but greater in power because he's special.

GoldVeedramon and the Hyper Bio Digimon

The exact status of the Hyper Bio Digimon (BioThunderbirdmon, BioStegomon, and BioCoatlmon)are unknown, so for the time being they should not be merged with their armor digimon forms, but rather their human forms (Kouki, Ivan, and Nanami, respectively) Also GoldVeedramon is a digimon who uses the Digi-Egg of Fate, other than Terriermon Thegreyanomaly 02:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that's just popular speculation about GoldVeedramon. -- Ned Scott 02:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Armor digivolution only existes in Digimon Adventure (+ TCG), so just because these bio digimon share names with 'armor digimon', saying they are armor would be speculation anyway. If the bio digimon comes from humans, then having them included in the human article seems sensible. Otherwise, group them together into one Hyper Bio Digimon article.

With GoldVeedramon, i think i was the one who removed it from the Digimental article, since the GoldVeedramon article says he's a champion, not an armor. But it seems i was wrong --> http://shiningevo.ultimatedigimon.com/encyclopedia/digimon/gold_vdramon.html. GoldVeedramon exists only in the card game, so if the cards say so, then he's the fate armor of Veemon. --`/aksha 02:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ops, wrong again. It seems like according to the article, he appears in wonderswan games as a champion. But the statement isn't sourced, where as the shingingevolution encyclopedia has him down as Armor. So i'm just going to remove the statement. --`/aksha 02:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Armor and Adult/Champion are equivalent in the Japanese Digimon card game (and in all the other Japanese sources I can think of.) His level field shows Adult, but Armor is displayed elsewhere on the card. Basically, Gold V-Dramon that evolve through the use of a Digimental are Armor, while Gold V-Dramon that evolve normally are Adult. The only difference between Armor and Adult is the type of evolution used to attain that form, as near as I've ever been able to tell. Shining Celebi 19:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

But as for the hyper bio's. They should be kept as is until enough knowledge is available to make articles on Kouki, Nanami, and Ivan

Thegreyanomaly 03:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they shouldn't be made at all until there is enough verifiable content. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is knowledge on the three hyper bio digimon, but there is not knowledge on their Human selves -- Thegreyanomaly 05:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I'm going to change the redirecting so the three bio digimon redirect to the digimon savers concept article, since that's where they are actually described. --`/aksha 06:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Gururumon

Currently he doesn't have his own article, instead his article redirects to Garurumon, shouldn't he be apart of the Misc article? Nightmare SE 14:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of Gururumon before. If it is actualy a seperate digimon from Garurumon, then yes. But, most digimon redirects exist because they're either typos, or a minor variation of a digimon (so a dark version, a X-antibody versio, a virus version...etc.) If Garurumon doesn't fall into either of these two categories, then yeah, add it in. --`/aksha 03:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Gururumon is a recoloured Garurumon similiar to Digimon like Saberdramon, Solarmon, IceDevimon, SandYanmamon, Hyogamon, SnowGoburimon/SnowGoblimon, etc. He has appeared in the card game and various Digimon video games, and has been around for a very long time, and he is not an evil version of Garurumon, he's not even a virus attribute.

Also I discovered another Digimon without an article, Rockmon (known as Gouremon undubbed), a champion level digimon who looks like a wire-frame version of Frigimon and has only appeared in three video games.Nightmare SE 09:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. I don't think a centralized decision was ever made about exactly which digimon to give articles and which ones not to. The main problem with giving digimon like that articles is that there's really not much to say about them. Just an info box, a picture, a list of attacks and a couple of sentences in the intro. Which means a permanently stubbed article.

But if we merge many digimon into miscellanous digimon lists, then these giving digimon (who currently don't have articles of their own) individual entries shouldn't cause any problems.

I'll go restore the 'list of digimon who currently don't have articles'. I got rid of it in my last edit because i thought it was pointless trying to deal with digimon who don't even have articles when we're trying to reorganize existing articles.

But it's probably a good idea to keep track of such a list. I've added Rockmon and Gururumon onto it. If there're any other unique digimon who you are sure does exist, then feel free to add them on. --`/aksha 01:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

this is a big job..

Sorry I haven't been more involved with helping to keep this moving. I think we pretty much know, or at least have the basic idea, of where to put info. I think our next step is to take some example articles and show how a merged / listed entry will look, or whatever. We probably need examples for human characters with partner Digimon, examples for a list of Digimon, etc. I'll see what I can come up with, and I suggest that everyone feel free to experiment around with different formats and such in their sandboxes. Although, I'm not sure about what to do with some of the elements of the "list of Digimon" type articles. Are we going to bother with card numbers and attack names for them? There's so much cruft and weird trivia to pick though, for a lot of these it would almost seem easier to start from scratch.. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

i've had some thoughts on how to do article layout, but i haven't really had time to try making any sample articles to show what i mean. And i doubt i will any time in the next few weeks, i'm about to hit exam week. I guess i'll just dump down all the ideas i had here, and hopefully you or someone else can make sense of it =P. --`/aksha 04:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

some ideas for the new articles

General TCG things

• Card numbers - i think not. They're just a data dump, it's meaningless, difficult to verify, and doesn't tell the reader anything about the digimon.
• Digivolutions - avoid (unless the digimon is TCG-only...although i don't think there're any TCG only digimon). Just take a look at Agumon's TCG digivolutions (here) to get an idea of how much of a mess it will be. The large number of digivolution possibilities enhances the strategy aspect of a card game, but otherwise makes little sense - it's just a data dump.
• Trivia - avoid TCG trivia. Every card in the TCG has a digimon description - in other words, an "intersting (but useless) fact". It's just pure trivia.
• Attacks - avoid TCG attacks (unless for TCG only digimon). And we need to be more strict on the "we will delete attacks unless you tell us where they are from". Because most of the attacks on the digimon now are unsourced, and i'm highly suspicious of where they come from. And almost impossible for us to verify each one.

things like "attribute" and "type" and "family" may be worth keeping, since they do describe the digimon.

As you can see, i don't think very highly of TCG information. The Digimon have an encyclopedia entry because they appear in anime/games/manga...etc, not because there's a trading card on them.

I couldn't agree more. The less TCG info the better. -- Ned Scott 06:25, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Article layout for individual digimon

• Chosen digimon - i don't think sharing an article with the human is a good idea. Mostly because i think the articles will become too long - just imagine the length of Tai + Agumon together in one article. The chosen digimon are sort of, as much of a main character as the chosen humans. Although with the ones who play a relatively minor role (like Guardromon and Kazu), it may work. IMO articles should be named after the human.
  • Frontier digidestined = one page. Since the digimon are not seperate characters.
• Important digimon characters - pretty much the same as they are now. But the articles need to be cleaned up, and slightly rewritten to focus on the digimon as a character.

articles of lists of digimon

This includes all the articles that'll include many digimon.

I'm thinking each digimon get given one subheading (so the TOC would list all the digimon on the article).

Something that looks very roughly like this:

Right now, it looks like we'll have about 20 digimon per article.

For the info box, i'm thinking something along the lines of:

• picture
• Attribute
• Type
• TCG family
• Appearance (the main place. So if a digimon appears in tons of places, then just put "various")
• Digivolves to
• Digivolves from
• see also

The digivolves to/from boxes should only be used for the cannon digivolutions of the digimon in the media specified under "appearance"

Things like armor digivolution won't be needed, since all armor digimon are grouped together. DNA digivolution also won't be needed - it only happens in the card game and to digimon who're main characters of Adventure.

An extra line for "level" will be needed in only some lists.

the "see also" line is explained in the next bit

Additional problems

The biggest problem is disambiguation. Simple things like Agumon adventure and Agumon savers, a link can be added in the "see also" line. So agumon adventure will have a link to agument savers and vice versa.

Similarly, rapidmon armor would have a link to rapidmon ultimate.

But, the agumon article currently documents agumon's appearance in things like Frontier, Next, D-Cyber...etc. Where is all that going to go? On Agumon adventure's article or on agumon saver's article? Or should we have another entry for agumon (species) in one of the miscellenous article lists? --`/aksha 04:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)'

Saw it Next Manga that agumon in savers got that way because he was illgeal type that why not like the normal agumonOmagaalpha 18:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed templates

Have been working on article layout, starting with how the articles for the Chosen Digimon should look like.

This is Veemon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saintmagician/Veemon

I was worried the article may end up too long - since it's like...11 articles merged into one. But it turned out a lot of the actual content was repeated again and again, so the article isn't all that long.

The only problem is, i can't figure out where to include the type/attribute/TCG-family information. Trying to include these three random facts into the prose was too hard, the only place they would fit in would be in an info box, so here's a second version of the layout with infoboxes for each of Veemon's forms - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Saintmagician/Veemon2

I find all the infoboxes clutters up the page a bit too much (and makes it longer than it needs to be), but the other alternative is to just not include those three bits of information.

Any thoughts? Feedback? --Saintmagician 08:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

here is a layout for groups of digimon on one page. This one is for the Digi-Egg of Courage --Saintmagician 04:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

It looks really good, I like it. I'm not a big fan of infoboxes in the first place, so I'd lean towards only including the first one, or making a less "boxy" looking one for additional use. Maybe a simple table that is mostly just to format the placement of the type/family/etc info just below the picture, but in a cleaner, simpler, way. In any case, it's a step in the right direction. -- Ned Scott 23:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

-shakes head- I;m sorry, i personaly don't like this set up. It's to bloody confuseing. I was looking for info on Minomon, and I don't want to have to scroll through a long list to find what i need. Just do one page per mon. ~~ Cryptic. (Not a member, just a user) [January 11, 2007]

Sectional redirects will jump to the specific part of the article that has that Digimon, so if you use the old titles and URLs you'll be taken right where you want to be. For example, Growlmon. -- Ned Scott 19:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

A concern about combining evolved forms into one page

I was thinking about this - and what should we do about characters that are evolved forms of Digimon (say Agumon) that have taken on a life outside of their own. By this, I mean Magnamon, Omnimon, WarGreymon, and the like. They've all been characters in their own right - Magnamon existed independantly of Veemon in X-Evolution, Omnimon is a separate character in V-Tamer, X-Evolution, D-Cyber, and Savers (by all appearances). The same goes for WarGreymon, who has appeared in several circumstances.

That said, Omnimon at least deserves a page to himself. O_o I mean, how does one consolidate something like him into a particular page? He can't be in both Agumon and Gabumon's pages. ---Razorsaw 17:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

They will have separate areas depending on who they are. For example, there will be an Agumon (Savers) as well as an Agumon or Agumon (Adventure). Then these areas will have see also links when appropriate. So when we talk about merging different Digimon we mean to merge the information that is about the same character. As for Omnimon, other than plot summary there really isn't much to say about him, and we could easily have a duplicate section in both articles. If it becomes an issue we can split the article later on, but I don't think it will be necessary. -- Ned Scott 04:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, our current articles focus on digimon species. So Omnimon talks about every omnimon that's ever appeared in digimon merchanidise.

We're hoping to switch to having articles which focus on digimon characters. So the magnamon from digimon season 02 is the same character as the veemon from digimon season 02.

For DNA combined digimon, i'm afraid we most likely will just end up putting them on both articles (so information for paildramon on both the veemon and wormmon article).

But otherwise, split the articles as Ned's outlined above. --`/aksha 11:14, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Add more to Willis (digimon the movie)

Oh just thought i'd mention i was scrolling through the pages and noticed there's very little detail on the main charactor of the digimon film. like it could be said that he created the virus rather than just saying his digimon was infected by one. also that he was obnormally smart as he was in elementary school and taking classes and coloarado state --Jonoridge 18:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Panimon and Lykamon

I've recently discovered that both Panimon and Lykamon were listed as Ultimates (Perfects) in their articles which I removed, neither of them have official levels (same goes for Hermmon who is listed as a Mega), from what I've heard they were supposed to appear in V-Tamer but they never did because of time restraints, if they had appeared they would have been created the same way Callismon was created which means they would have been more than likely Megas. Currently Lykamon is listed on the Ultimate Misc section (Panimon is not listed anywhere...) , I'm not sure if we should move him to the Mega Misc section or not, but he should be removed from the Ultimate section.Nightmare SE 14:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

uhh...no i'm starting to suspect whether they actually exist or not. I'll try some google searches, but if there's no reliable sources to support the fact that they where meant to have appeared in V-Tamer but got cut out, we shouldn't have anything on them at all. Otherwise, we can simply merge them into the V-Tamer section. So add a section in the V-Tamer article about digimon who were supposed to appear, but got cut out. --`/aksha 01:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I guess you're right, but they do have images, they can be found on Wikimon. [1] [2] [3] Nightmare SE 02:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

sectional redirects now work

From the Wikipedia Signpost:

"Redirects to sections now work, using text such as #REDIRECT [[Main Page#Other areas of Wikipedia]]. The feature should be used cautiously, because users may be confused by being sent to the middle of a page when clicking an ordinary-looking link, and the redirect notice will be obscured by the jump."

This means all those redirects that the article merging will create will now be able to point specifically to that Digimon on a list. So a link such as Tacomon could redirect specifically to a section on List of Digimon based on food, etc. -- Ned Scott 05:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

For example C'mon Digimon. -- Ned Scott 06:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Rosemon page needs editing

Apparently, someone with little knowledge of English grammar and spelling edited the Rosemon page. I can fix the spelling mistakes, but the summaries of Rosemon's moves are worded wrong and need to be rewritten.

Merging Ai and Mako with Impmon

Umm, hi, I'm still kinda new here, but I really love Digimon and have been editing a few of the Digimon articles for a while now.

Anyway, I saw a message stating that there was discussion 'bout merging Ai and Mako's article with Impmon's, and while I realize that there's not a whole lotta information on Ai and Mako ('specially in comparison to some of the other Tamers), I still think that they warrant seperate articles. Every other Tamer, including Alice McCoy and Minami Uehara have their own articles seperate from their Digimons', and they have just 'bout as much information and are 'bout as well known (or unknown) as Ai and Mako. Every other Tamer has their article, so it'd make sense for Ai and Mako's article to remain seperate as well. Plus, if their articles were merged, then someone trying to use the wiki search engine for their names will get limited or no results since they'd be under Impmon's article and title name. And, as it's been stated on his article, though Impmon's primarily known for Tamers, he has appeared in other Digimon franchises, and he may yet appear as someone's Partner in a future franchise, so I think it's best to keep Ai and Mako seperate in order to avoid as much confusion as possible as to which one belongs to which franchise and that Ai and Mako were Partners only to the Tamers Impmon.

So, I think their articles should remain seperate, but that's just my personal opinion. Tasermon's Partner 12:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting the ball rolling

Here's the improved format for Veemon - User:Saintmagician/Veemon3

The first format (User:Saintmagician/Veemon) doesn't have a place to put the type/family/attribute information. The second layout i did (User:Saintmagician/Veemon2) lists the type/family/attribute information vertically under the digimon's picture as an infobox. The downside to this was that it made the page excessively long.

There's really no way to table the information vertically (one below the other) without making the page really long.

So i figured to table the information horizontally. I ended up adding 'attacks' into the table too - it made the sections look a bit neater.

If there isn't any problems with this, i want to get things started. Starting with merging the articles for the chosen digimon (basically the stuff that Ned's already added merge tags to). I know we're far from being completely ready, but i really do want to get a start.

Are we defintely merging the frontier digimon articles with the frontier human articles? It makes sense since the humans actually turn into digimon - so they're the same character, but i just want to make sure.

Also, are we actually going to merge any other chosen digimon into the human partner's article? And if so, which ones?

--Saintmagician 09:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm tempted to abandon most of the infobox altogether, but I'm not sure how popular that idea will be. So much of it can easily be written into sentences for the actual article, and very little of it is really useful "at-a-glance". Maybe a more basic infobox with like the ones for the human characters should be used, and the rest placed in the article itself somehow.

The task of merging and redoing so many articles seems to daunting.. So for myself I think I'm going to dedicate my efforts into the main anime character Digimon. I'm not worried if we don't have a listing for every Digimon, let alone an article for each one. I'd be fine with a Digimon like Mikemon being nothing more than a trivia line for Gatomon. (which is pretty close to the current situation, since it's been merged) It would make our jobs a lot easier to simply state that not all Digimon will be included on Wikipedia, and for some it might be best to start from scratch. In any case, I think we should focus on the "major" Digimon first, and make them our shining examples.

I'm fine with keeping most of the partner articles separate, but there are some very minor ones, like Ai and Mako, that are very minor and are actually overshadowed by their Digimon. Heck, I'm tempted to merge Kazu Shioda and Kenta Kitagawa, since they're such a pair in their series. But I'll take what we can get for now, so if that means not even touching the human articles for now, so be it. -- Ned Scott 10:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the big infobox or the small infoboxes? I think the big infobox is worth keeping - it gives a comprihensive listing of all digivolution forms for the chosen digimon at the start of the article. I've got no problems with ditching the small one though.

How about we just ditch the 'type' and 'family' information all together (they're pretty much trivia anyway) and see if anyone complains (or even notices). Attribute can be summarized quite easily at the start of the article in prose.

I think for the time being, we'll give all the chosen digimon (except the frontier ones) seperate articles from their partners. Despite the fact that this merge has been planned for months now, i still think we're going to get some people going "what the hell do you think you're doing?!? *revert*" . --Saintmagician 12:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

anyway, i think i'll go put the Veemon article into mainspace and see what happens. --Saintmagician 12:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. -- Ned Scott 12:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I fiddled around with the old digimon infobox template a bit, the new one is now at Template:Digimon_Infobox. I don't really want to edit over the existing digimon species infobox, i'm worried i might end up causing problems in all the existing -mon articles that use it. --Saintmagician 12:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging of Too Many Articles

I've noticed lately a great deal of articles have been merged and it doesn't make very much sense. I mean, it would make sense of certain articles such as Digimon with different modes (like Imperialdramon has three different forms, as well as Lucemon) and Digimon with X forms (like Gallantmon/Dukemon and Gallantmon X/Dukemon X), but some like the merging with Guilmon and his other forms is truly unnecessary. It would make things easier just to leave the Digimon articles seperate (unless if its merging multi-formed Digimon and Digimon with their X forms just like I mentioned before). Unknown Dragon 17:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia policy is concerned, we have no reason whatsoever to keep them separate. Most of them still wouldn't make WP:FICT or WP:WAF. the only reason the situation was kept so for so long was the sheer amount of work that the merges require.Circeus 19:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, i think quite a few digimon AfDs in the last few months didn't end up as a 'delete' only because we said we (the DIGI project) already had a merge planned. No offence Unknown Dragon, but why didn't you say this earlier. The talk page of every digimon article has been tagged with notices linking to this planning page, which has been talking about the merge for about 3 month now. --Saintmagician 12:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, to be honest I have not noticed this until now, when I have begun searching for info on certain Digimon characters. And also, with the ones that I DID see, I honestly did not think that they would be merged. Unknown Dragon 20:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The articles on species of Pokémon are kept separate; information on Ivysaur and Venusaur are not found as small subsections on the Bulbasaur article. Either the merging of Digimon articles is truly unnecessary, or someone needs to tell the PCP that they have too many articles as well. —Typhlosion 22:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

One, they're not the same thing. Two, yes, a lot of Pokemon articles should be deleted. -- Ned Scott 22:35, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Are they not all fictional creatures that undergo instantaneous metamorphosis (despite the fact that both refer to the process as "evolution")?

Furthermore, merging Pokémon articles would probably be more feasible than merging Digimon articles, as Pokémon's evolutionary trees are uniform and well-documented. Digimon evolutionary trees, meanwhile, criss-cross and conflict between various media. Should Wizardmon be merged into Candlemon or Lopmon? It has been attested to evolve from both; the former in Digimon Frontier and the latter in Digimon World DS.

And what about Aquilamon, who evolves from Hawkmon in Digimon Adventure 02, but evolves from Biyomon in Digimon Savers? Should the articles for Hawkmon and Biyomon be merged? Should information on Aquilamon be put into both articles? And if the latter is done, where should "Aquilamon" redirect to? —Typhlosion 22:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Ned Scott on this subject (I can't see more than a strict few individual pokemon articles as being notable), and also believe that almost none of the individual character articles from Digimon are inherently notable enough to pass our guidelines. However, in both cases, the debate has probably been so thoroughly exhausted that there is little we can do about the articles' presence.Circeus 00:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The monster concept is very common in anime, yes. My point is that the use of these different monsters as characters is different between the two shows. A single Digimon character can have several different monster forms, while most Pokemon (as characters) have one. Digimon as characters at least stand a chance of being notable, while Digimon as species most likely dose not. -- Ned Scott 06:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I've said this before and i'll say it again - giving every digimon a seperate article is more like giving every yugioh card a seperate article. If a digimon is notable enough for a wikipedia article, it's because they've been a character in the anime (or possibly the manga), NOT because there's a card for them, or because they got programmed to pop up in a game or two.

As for the pokemon articles, Ivysaur and Venusaur don't share articles with Bulbasaur because the pokemon articles are arranged per species. The digimon articles used to be like this two, but now we're arranging them per character because most individual digimon species are not notable enough to warrant articles. If the pokemon people wanted to organize articles per character - then Ash's pikachu would have a seperate article, and if (hypothetically) Ash's pikachu evolved, then Ashs' raichu would not have a seperate article because it's still the same character. However, most pokemon characters aren't really notable enough for articles. Pokemon are far more notable as species, probably because the pokemon games (with their emphasis on species) are so popular. In the case of digimon, it's the anime that's more popular. --`/aksha 07:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Turuiemon

Turuiemon is currently listed as Digimon Tamers Lopmon's Champion form in the Project Page, I'm going to remove him from there and add him to the Champion Misc section unless there are any objections as Turiemon is not officially Lopmon's Champion form. Nightmare SE 01:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Digimon" Article?

Were we still making an article for Digimon as creatures? Indiawilliams 22:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I want to. It's something on my todo list for after i get all the merges done. But if you want to go ahead then you're more than welcome. --`/aksha 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Like the Digimon (creature) (or whatever it would be called) idea a while back? Seems fine to me. -- Ned Scott 02:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

What should be on it, do you think? Of course we want to explain that they're fictional creatures that live in their own world (and sometimes cross over to 'ours'), and that they Digivolve, but how specific should we be on this? Indiawilliams 00:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It needs to cover all the unique things about digimon. The way i see it, an outside reader (someone who hasn't seen digimon) wouldn't understand our -mon articles at all. For example, what the hell is an attribute? About how virus types are normally portrayed as evil (at least in adventures). The stuff from Renamon's talk page regarding Digimon gender needs to be included (and i think the production notes on this site had a few comments about digimon gender too). We need to comment about how a digimon is named after its species - and (except in the V-tamer manga) they don't have individual names. We need to explain how digimon change names when they digivolve into a different species (the exception being arkadimon). We should also cover the whole "digimon don't die, they get reborn" deal. Maybe also a bit about how the digi-destined digimon seem to digivolve all over the place, but digivolving for normal digimon is a bit like growing up - it's a way one change. We should probably explain what 'type' is as well (it's still mentioned in a lot of articles). and explain what the mode business is. --`/aksha 11:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

On that note, I was thinking, should we even mention types and attributes in the other Digimon articles? As you said people reading the articles have no idea what these mean; more to the point I don't think they'd want to have to constatnly refer to another article to find out what they are. And, for the most part, type and attributes just don't seem to be all that relevant. They don't even seem to be mentioned in the Digimon canon all that much, as opposed to say Pokemon and their weakness/resistance system that's an important factor in manga and anime battles. Indiawilliams 03:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, type is already been phased out. I've kept it out of the new infobox that we're using. all the "digimon by type" categories where deleted through a CfD about a week ago. And i've more or less been removing mentions of type in the articles - mostly because it's meaningless detail that really disrupts sentence flow.

As for attribute...well, i'm pretty neutral about this. I don't think we really *need* to mention it. But if people want to, i'm not against it. At the end...we've only got three different attributes, it's not nearly a big a mess as type. And it is mentioned in the anime (i'm quite sure the "evil digimon are mostly virus" and "vaccine is really strong against virus" concepts did get bought up in adventure)

either way, i think both of them should get a mention on the digimon species article. But having type in the -mon articles is defintely a level of detail we don't need. --`/aksha 11:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I started the article. I suck when it comes to figuring out organization so maybe you guys can fill in the details. Indiawilliams 03:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Did they mention Tai's birthday in the mangas?

Keep the articles separate

Let the articles stay separate. I know they aren't the same, but this merge on some of them is pointless. They already did it with Agumon, Guilmon, Terriermon, Renamon, Impmon, Veemon, Hawkmon, Wormmon, and the Royal Knights. I want them separate again. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:20, 31 January 2007

Maybe you should look at WP:ILIKEIT. Circeus 22:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Too much speculation

There is a lot of speculation in the digimon related articles so while you guys are merging and etc, etc, you could also check that you are not overlooking the speculation or copy and pasting it to the new articles.Sam ov the blue sand 05:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've defintely been keeping an eye out for it. But if you find anything that's obviously just someone's speculation, you're welcome to edit the article and remove it. --`/aksha 07:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Digimon Adventure minor characters

Umm, I was looking at this article, and there are only two characters on it, Daemon and Willis's Terriermon. Unless more characters are added, might I recommend simply merging Willis's Terriermon with the main Terriermon article and givin' Daemon his own article, or mergin' him with something else? Having a list of minor characters with only two characters on it just kinda seems like it's unnecessary, 'specailly when Terriermon can be merged with the main Terriermon article.

But that's just my personal thoughts on the subject. Tasermon's Partner 16:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

More will be added, it's all a work in progress. As noted above, we're separating the articles by character instead of by Digimon species. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Completed merge of Armor Digimon

After three days of work I was able to merge all Armor Digimon into two lists. The first list includes the Armor Digimon A-N, while the second goes from O-Y (since there is no Armor Digimon whose name starts with Z). Hope you are OK with this lists. Diabound00 16:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

If the two list of Armor Digimon are completed, shouldn't they be marked as (Complete) on the main page? I'm going to go ahead and put (Complete) next to them under the Masterlist part of the page. Does anyone disagree with this or feel that they are not complete?--Mmmundo 20:16, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Cherubimon's Frontier Status

Even Though Cherubimon has a Virus form as well, He is put in just the villians section. Shouldn't His Virus form be separated into its own article? Also, I believe this because He was on both sides in Frontier. RedneckCherubimon 8:27, 3 March 07 (GMT -5)

NOTE: If this topic has been discussed before, please delete this section.

Omnimon having his own article

Even though Omnimon is a Digivolved form of both Agumon and Gabumon, Omnimon should have his own article. Omnimon appears a great deal of times in the Anime and the Manga, plus, no one Digimon article (Agumon or Gabumon) should keep solo status on Omnimon since Omnimon acts as a true mega form for both (I also know that Omnimon's info can be found in the Royal Knights article). I think there should be an article for Omnimon, having information on all of the roles he played, not unlike the Gotsumon article. I also think that Imperialdramon (and his various modes) should also have his own article. Unknown Dragon 17:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

We're changing away from that format of having articles by Digimon species, and instead going by character. -- Ned Scott 05:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we should stick Omnimon in the Gabumon article, though. Indiawilliams 17:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I know, but Omnimon seems to be a character on his own, something seperate from Agumon/WarGreymon and Gabumon/MetalGarurumon altogether, plus he has enough information on him to have an article focusing only on him. Unknown Dragon 02:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

And that is exactly what you don't understand. "an article focusing only on him". Exactly which "him" are you referring to? The word "Omnimon" isn't the name of an individual character, it's the name of a digimon species, which at current includes several omnimon who have charactered in several different digimon items. This is the point which you are not understanding. --`/aksha 07:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Man you just love bashing and arguing me don't you? What I mean to say is having an article focusing on ALL of Omnimon's roles and appearances! In other words you should just have an article talking about the Omnimon species, does that clear it up for you? Unknown Dragon 01:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a personal problem against you. And i know what you're trying to say. The kind of article you have in mind is exactly the kind of article "Omnimon" once was. In fact, all digimon species used to be like that. But now they're not. And Omnimon is no exception. --`/aksha 09:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

List of In-Training Digimon is Finished

All except Pinamon I think has information on it. Now to rest my fingers. Also if there are any pages that need a spell check tell me as I have a whole page spell checker.trainra 07:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Susanoomon

Shouldn't he be mentioned and merged in to all the Frontier DigiDestineds Articles (Minus Kouichi of course)? trainra 10:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I only added him to Takuya and Koji's pages because they where originally like that. But if all five of the kids actually combined to become Susanoomon, then yes, he should be on all the pages. However, i had been under the impression that it was only Takuya and Koji who bought the 20 spirits together, didn't the other kids give their spirits to those two? Since, only Takuya and Koji have unified forms (EmperorGreymon and MagnaGarurumon being 10 spirits each). --`/aksha 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Koji and Takuya became Susanoomon first when Kouichi was scanned, then when they returned to the real world all 5 of them (Takuya, Koji, Tommy, J.P. and Zoe) became Susanoomon to defeat Lucemon Shadow Form mode. Than when that his done and he is attavked by its Larvae Mode he expels all 5 of them from his body. trainra 05:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. In that case, he should be on all their pages. I'll go add him in.--`/aksha 05:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Chracter merge?

CHaracters like Tai Kamiya do not have much notability outside of the said anime show and magna, so I was wondering if we ought to merge them into, say List of Digmon: Digital Monsters DigiDestined (season 01) or something (we can come up wti ha better title). Hbdragon88 05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

That could be a good idea, but doesn't each character have alot of information about them. That could cause a problem with the end article being to cluttered or to lengthly.--Mmmundo 03:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Mmmundo each character is noteworthy enough to have their own articles. trainra 09:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

A merge isn't a bad idea, especially considering that most of the character articles are just plot summary that needs to be trimmed down. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand where you are coming form with the merging of the character articles, but I just think that there is too much information about each individual DigiDestined ( even if the majority of the article is just a plot summary). The plot summaries in each of the individual DigiDestined's articles usually explains in greater deatil their own personal involvement and role that they played in a specific event. Each individual article also gives a little back story to each character that I do not think can be given/expressed clearly if they are merged into one master list. I do, however, agree that the character pages do need some trimming down and some rewritting to maybe make them more unified.--Mmmundo 03:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not really a big deal right now, especially with all the very minor Digimon still left to merge. -- Ned Scott 03:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Greymon Family

What do we make of this?-- bulletproof ^3:16 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I fixed it up a bit, but I think it should just be deleted. Nightmare SE 18:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Same here. We'll see what happens. -- bulletproof ^3:16 19:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it should be deleted.--Mmmundo 02:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Myotismon/VenomMyotismon/MaloMyotismon

How do we merge these 3 articles: Myotismon - VenomMyotismon - MaloMyotismon into one? Or should they even be merged into one? I mean they are technically the same Digimon right? And they definately fall under the Important Digimon characters list - they (or he) played a very important role as one of the main villians in Digimon Adventure/02. I would merge these 3 articles together but I have no idea how to. If someone could help me out in doing this, I would very much appreciate it!--Mmmundo 02:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

similar to the partner digimon pages Kennethayes 12:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Kuramon/Tsumemon/Keramon/Diaboromon/Chrysalimon/Infermon/Armageddemon

How do we merge these 7 articles: Kuramon - Tsumemon - Keramon - Diaboromon - Chrysalimon - Infermon - Armageddemon into one? I mean they are technically the same Digimon right? And they definately fall under the Important Digimon characters list - this digimon played a very important role in two Digimon Adventure/02 movies. I would merge these 7 articles together but I have no idea how to. If someone could help me out in doing this, I would very much appreciate it!--Mmmundo 02:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

chrysalimon is not needed in this character page =) Kennethayes 12:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Etemon/MetalEtemon

How do we merge these 2 articles: Etemon - MetalEtemon into one? I mean they are technically the same Digimon right? And they definately fall under the Important Digimon characters list - they (or he) played a very important role as one of the main villians in Digimon Adventure. I would merge these 2 articles together but I have no idea how to. If someone could help me out in doing this, I would very much appreciate it!--Mmmundo 02:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Digimon Sovereigns

I'm pretty sure that I have (not single handedly of course) completed the Digimon Sovereigns group. I marked it as (Complete) on this page. Does anyone disagree with this or feel that there is something more that needs to be added to that page?--Mmmundo 03:39, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Masterlists

For the Masterlists, why is it that Champion, Ultimate, and Mega have a (Part 1), but not a (Part 2) list made. Is this an error or is this because that no one has gotten around to making one yet? Wouldn't it be a good idea to go ahead and make the Part 2 lists for these levels even thought that they would be empty - this way we could be free to better organize them. When I say better organize I mean with both Part 2 and 1 made, we could decide something like all Digimon of this level whose name begins with A-M could go in Part 1 and all those with N-Z could go in Part 2. If we did this now we could save us time and work later in making sure that each part (1 and 2) are balanced and are not overly lengthy. It would save us from having to move the Digimon around later if we just went ahead and put the Digimon where it is suppose to go. Does anyone else agree on this? And could or should we decide on a specific alphabetical organization (A-M go in Part 1, N-Z in Part 2 - just an example)?--Mmmundo 20:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Because people don't have time. XD. I will be working hard 2 weeks later.

Champion, Ultimate and Mega forms need to have 4~5 masterlist-pages for each level. Around 40 Digimon per page. Kennethayes 12:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can we decide on something definite for the number of pages for the Champion Digimon section. There is 148 Champion Digimon so I think 40 per page (like Kennethayes has previously stated) sounds good. Does anyone disagree or think 40 is too much or too little? If it is 40 per page, we are going to need 4 pages.

• List of Champion Digimon (Part 1)
• List of Champion Digimon (Part 2)
• List of Champion Digimon (Part 3)
• List of Champion Digimon (Part 4)

Any opinons on this - I think we should get this settled before we started to marjoryly merge so we know what Digimon go to what section of the list so we won't have to be moving them around later.--Mmmundo 21:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Soulmon Merged

I have merged the main article Soulmon to List of Champion Digimon (Part 1). I think I redirected it right from its orginal article - can someone please check to make sure that I did it right? Also for some reason Soulmon does not appear in the Category:Champion Digimon page anymore after I made this merge. Why is that - did I do something wrong when I merged it? If so can someone tell me what I did wrong so I do not make the same mistake again in the future (I plan to be a big part in the merging of Digimon into their appropriate level category). Thanks. --Mmmundo 20:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Not to be pushy/rude - but can somebody please look into this for me asap, I'm eager to get started with merging but I dont want to do something wrong. Like I have previously stated I have succeeded in merging Soulmon to the List of Champion Digimon (Part 1) but since I have done this, under the Category:Champion Digimon Soulmon is no longer there on the list and he was there before I did the merge. Did I do soemthing wrong bacause I have seen other merges to the List of Champion Digimon (Part 1) page and they are still present under the Category:Champion Digimon. Please help! Thanks.--Mmmundo 00:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Next time you merge a -mon article to the masterlist leave the categories (which are at the bottom). Nightmare SE 01:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for fixing it and for helping me!--Mmmundo 01:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - but when you said leave the Categories, what did you mean. Because I just tried to do Eaglemon for the List of Mega Digimon (Part 1), and it didnt work, its is still not showing Eaglemon in the Mega Category.--Mmmundo 01:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also how did you fix the Soulmon thing I had messed up?--Mmmundo 02:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the Eaglemon page. You can see what should be left behind here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eaglemon&action=edit. Kennethayes 12:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much - that was very helpful!--Mmmundo 19:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Also leave inter-wiki links. trainra 06:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Champion List

The Champion Digimon whose names begin with A-C are complete and are on the Champion list (List of Champion Digimon (Part 1)).--Mmmundo 21:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Finished D-E - I think we need to make a List of Champion Digimon (Part 2).--Mmmundo 01:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just made List of Champion Digimon (Part 2), now we really need to decide how many Champion Digimon go into each list!!! We should probably make 2 more lists also List of Champion Digimon (Part 3) and List of Champion Digimon (Part 4).

Can we please decide on how many lists of Champion Digimon we need and how many Digimon go on each page. I say 3 lists and 50 Digimon on each page. Also the list List of Champion Digimon (Part 1) has Digimon on it that should not be there. It has Digimon whos name begins with letters that are no were near the beginning of the alphabet, therefore they should not be there condsidering it is the first part of the list of Champion Digimon.--Mmmundo 00:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I say we have roughly 37 per page that is four pages (148/4=37) currently I am going to move the Digimon who don't belong in list one to list three for now to prevent confusion. trainra 05:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

37 per page sounds awesome - great job in rearraning them.--Mmmundo 20:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

So List of Champion Digimon (Part 1) is completed, right? If so it should be marked as (Complete) on the main page.--Mmmundo 21:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just (Completed) List of Champion Digimon (Part 2). Although all the names are down (all 37), the information for them is not complete.--Mmmundo 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just (Completed) List of Champion Digimon (Part 3). Although all the names are down (all 37 + alot more that need to be moved to List of Champion Digimon (Part 4), the information for them is not complete.--Mmmundo 02:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well than it's not completed is it? trainra 07:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Guess not - why does List of Champion Digimon (Part 2) only have 34 Digimon in it, and List of Champion Digimon (Part 3) has 38? I thought we decided on 37 Digimon per page.--Mmmundo 14:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just "finished" List of Champion Digimon (Part 4). I think we have all the Champion Digimon (all 148) listed either on Part 1, 2, 3 or 4. Please help to make these lists even (37 per page) and finish putting the information in for every Champion Level Digimon.--Mmmundo 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

NO, STOP, DESIST. Keep them the way they are, the reason they are like this is so that the letter groups don't cross pages. I meant roughly by the way, sorry for confusion trainra 00:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - I didn't move them, I thought that they were going to be 37 per page exactly, but they look good the way they are now.--Mmmundo 01:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

roughly around 35 to 40 is okay. new digimon introduced from time to time. Kennethayes 17:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Digimon Adventure minor characters

For those that appeared in two seasons e.g. Digitamamon and Wizardmon, should a new heading be added saying "Both Seasons" do you think? Also I believe Vademon should not ba added to the minor characters section as his section isn't nearly large enough and was a one off villain. trainra 06:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think that there should be a heading for Digimon that appear in both seasons, maybe it should be called "Digimon Adventure and Digimon Adventure 02" or "Digimon Adventure and Adventure 02" or "Digimon Adventure/02".--Mmmundo 21:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

but that's clumsy Kennethayes 19:00, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Clumsy? How would you suggest to word it?--Mmmundo 19:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate List

We are probably going to need:

• List of Ultimate Digimon (Part 2)
• List of Ultimate Digimon (Part 3)
• List of Ultimate Digimon (Part 4)

and someway of organizing them (roughly how many per page). There are currently 141 Ultimate Level Digimon.--Mmmundo 18:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

How about this?

• A~D = 34
• E~L + Ma = 28 + 10 = 38
• Me~Mz + N~R = 18 + 16 = 34
• S~Z = 35

There are too many Mmmmmon... Kennethayes 16:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. - Question: Why are Ultimate Level Digimon whose letters begin with letters that are no where near the beginning of the alphabet (like Zudomon) on List of Ultimate Digimon (Part 1)? Also, shouldn't we go ahead and make all the Ultimate lists (all 4) now so that we have freedom to move the Ultimate Digimon around more - this will cause us from having to do this later. I'm going to go ahead and make these lists: List of Ultimate Digimon (Part 3) and List of Ultimate Digimon (Part 4). Does anyone see anything wrong with me doing this or disagree that it is not yet time? (we are going to have to make them all eventually - so why not sooner than later)--Mmmundo 23:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

when dealing with the "chosen digimon" articles, the "general" part of their stonger forms are removed. (Jan~Feb) in late february (?), we only have fresh, in-training and armor lists completed. rookie ~ mega have part 1 only. so we added back those main characters' ultimate / mega to the masterlists. and for new ones like VictoryGreymon, Lotusmon, we just add into the masterlists.

it's not a problem to start the part 3 or 4 earlier. but i like to complete part 2 before starting part 3. thus i gave up wendigomon when dealing with lopmon & antylamon in rookie/ultimate lists. XD Kennethayes 06:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I have finished merging all of the Ultimate Level Digimon unto 4 parts. Although they are all merged, some of them do not have any information about them, and they still need to be in the proper order on the pages and spaced out in a logical way (See Kennethayes way above).Mmmundo 01:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mega List

suggestion:

• A-B 31
• C-F 35
• G-L 32
• M-Q 39
• R-Z 39 - Kennethayes 10:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If we could, I think it would be a really good idea if we kept the maxium at 4 pages. It doesn't matter that much, just thought that it would look neater because of Champion and Ultimate lists are also 4 pages. However, there are quit a few more Megas than Champion or Ultimate.--Mmmundo 13:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

that is. but 45-47-44-40 will be really long for each page. Kennethayes 13:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

That is true - I guess 5 pages would be alright for all of the Megas, its not like we can't change it later if we wanted/had to.--Mmmundo 14:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished some heavy merging, B-F. These Digimon need to be placed on their proper pages though. There are some Digimon on List of Mega Digimon (Part 1) that should not be on that page. Also wouldn't it be a good idea to go ahead and make the rest of the lists for the Megas? Have we decided on how many pages we are going to have for them yet (See above)?--Mmmundo 19:58, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Help!

Somebody please block/stop user: 189.177.59.25 this user has continually been messing up the Digimon articles! This user deletes things for no reason and continually writes in spanish on articles that should not be in spanish! I would block him myself but I'm fairly new and don't know how! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mmmundo (talk • contribs).

This user made exactly 2 edits hardly "continually been messing up" by any definition of "continually" Circeus 03:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright I admitt continually messing up was probably a poor choice of words on my part. However, the user did mess that one section up a little, took out a Digimon (Lucemon Shadow Lord Mode) and wrote in Spainsh under the Lucemon Larva. Now there is really no excuse for anyone to be writting in Spanish under that article, as this is not the Spanish section of Wikipedia (wouldn't you think that person could see that nowhere else in that article Spanish had been written?) It just made me angry when I have been working really hard on the mergings, as we all have been, and someone comes and, what looks to me, deliberately messes it up. Also on another note someone has tampered with the Agumon section.--Mmmundo 20:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries, it strangely happens more often than one would think. Thankfully it's easier to track such changes now with the article merges, instead of watching each and every single Digimon article (which I actually have on my watch list.. oyi what a pain.. ). -- Ned Scott 00:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Pinamon

Can someone please check on the article Pinamon and merge it to its proper list. I'm not sure if it is already merged or not. Also I thought Pinamon was an in-training Digimon but on its article it says it is a fresh level Digimon.--Mmmundo 00:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

oh... it's merged, but not yet redirected. (just like kuramon a few days ago) Kennethayes 06:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

My fault, I didn't redirect, Sorry trainra 12:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Stubs

There are still many stubs that we still have to take care of. See - Category:Digimon stubs. Does anyone else think that if would be a good idea to merge Ophanimoon with the Digital World article? Why is Suijinmon still being considered a stub, it has already been merged to List of Mega Digimon (Part 4). Also what is up with Harimogemon and Babydramon, why have they not been merged yet - even though they are fan made and have not appeared in any media, they have still been made official Digimon (haven't they?).--Mmmundo 19:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed and Redirected some. I am going to get yelled at for this probably but I feel someone has to. Mmmundo you need to actually research the digimon you are merging and look at the information in the article, changing the template and merging it just doesn't cut it.

• First of all please remove the "(Digimon) is a fictional character from the digimon anime" and the "(Digimon) is a Mega Level (type) Digimon. Remove the Bits in bold as they are unneeded.

• Secondly, see the part that says actor on the template, move the name of the voice actors there and have in what if there is more than one series and the language eg. Steven Blum (Frontier, English), (Japanese persons name) (Frontier, Japanese).

• Third, take away card digivolutions in the template.

• Fourth, in the image section take away all but the image except when the image exceeds 275px because than it stretches the template.

• Fifth, The way Digimon appear in the games/show/manga is in a certain order, usually we go:

Digimon Shows (Adventure, 02, Tamers, Frontier, Savers and X Evolution) Their respective movies and CD specials go in their respective categories.

Digimon Manga

Digimon Games - Battle Pets or other significant hand held.

Digimon Games - Playstation (Worlds 1-4 than Rumble Arena than Card Battle [Not sure about last two])

Digimon Games - Gameboys (Battle Spirits, 1.5, 2 than World DS than Sunburst/Moonlight

• Sixth, If you see a digimon has a rather significant section in one of the show's sections consider merging it to the minor characters section, e.g. BlackWarGreymon.

• Seventh, whenever you get too the attacks section make sure it goes in bold by adding ''' to each end.

• Eighth, Avoid trivia sections, try working them into the introductory paragraph for the digimon.

• Ninth, Make sure you add the Redirects from digimon to the characters you merge.

• Tenth, Good places to get information for attacks and such (that I use) are the Digiport and Wikimon. Just type those into Google. A good place fro eng/jap voice actors is Patamon's World.

• Eleventh, (I believe) you should not add the lists to the articles you created section on your user page as they were planned to be created by a group, not you. If anyone deserves to add this it would probably be `/aksha and Ned Scott as they started the project.

• Finally, a suggestion for you userpage, instead of Articles I have heavily contributed to and have all the lists, have:

List of Champion Digimon (Part 1), (Part 2), (Part 3) and so on and so forth.

Now I know I have left myself open to flaming and the Don't bite the newbie's speech but I felt this had to be said as it would make things a lot easier for everyone. I'm sorry if I offend you Mmmundo. trainra 12:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Trainra. Ok, first of all you didn't offend me and if I'm ever doing something, or in this case multiple things, wrong I hope that you (or anyone else) would tell. I was only trying to improve these articles and help as much as I could with the mergings so that others could take a rest and maybe do something else. The last thing that I wanted to do was to make things more complicated, and if I have done this than I apologize to the entire Project Digimon community. Also I think that it would have been better if I was told that I was doing something wrong when I first started working on the Champion mergings. I would also like to thank you for the advice that you have given for my user page, I have changed it to make it more accurate. Again I would just like to apologize for any trouble I may have caused, I was only trying to help - not make more work.--Mmmundo 12:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't been able to watch the articles as much as I used to, so I'm not sure what all happened, but over-all it seems everyone is doing a really great job. A few bumps along the road are inevitable. Regardless of any mistakes that might be made, we are progressing at a very good rate. Don't be afraid to make mistakes, as we're all pretty understanding most of the time. It's how we learn and how we grow.

Again, the end result is we're still doing great and making a lot of progress, and I hope everyone feels really good about that. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

hmmm..................

the {digimon stub}-like code should be manually removed when merging articles and there'll be no problem.

i understand you want to help the project.

ps. the "English, Japanese, deceased" are really space-occupying (for a less-than-285px-width box), but i dont have a better idea. Kennethayes 11:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand why we have to include "deceased" for the voice actor part. Why does it matter if the person is living or not?--Mmmundo 23:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't, and it's been removed before. Most such credits don't indicate the living status of the person. -- Ned Scott 03:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we please do something about Babydramon and Harimogemon - aren't they real/cannon Digimon? If they are, can't they be merged with the other articles (their proper level article)?--Mmmundo 23:09, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Babydramon should be merged. Harimogemon should be added to Togemogumon as that is what it was changed to. Maybe something like Origin. Another thing quickly too, what do we do when we merge the Royal Knights? I just went to do it and it confused me, e.g do we add Crusadermon into the main list and list of minor characters in the digimon frontier page?trainra 11:09, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just merged Babydramon to List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1).--Mmmundo 04:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I dont know why Babydramon should be added. It is not an awarded contest Digimon. (HolyDigitamamon and Technodramon are awarded.)

You cant find anything about "Babydramon" if you type ベビドラモン or ベビードラモン or ベビィドラモン in yahoo japan nor google japan. What's its katakana if it exists?

Also Babydramon is not "registered" in DVR, though Megchan's, theDigiport and many English webs do have it, with limited information.

Where does it comes from? Is it really a Rookie? Go to the history of the Babydramon page and see the oldest edit.

Babydramon is a rumored digimon. The rumor was possibly caused in the third season when Impmon teased Devidramon and refered to him as "big baby 'dramon"

The attribute, level, type and attack were added by that red-named user after a year, without statng the source. We never have Small Dragon Digimon but only Infant Dragon Digimon.

I guess this is the origin of the Babydramon pages in other webs.

And I suggest removing it from the masterlist, otherwise it will be misleading. Kennethayes 05:34, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Images found.

I have found images for:

• Digi-egg of Darkness
• Belphemon Sleep Mode
• DarkDramon
• HolyDigitamamon
• Ketomon (LCD'ish)
• Kiimon (I found proof from a wonderswan game.)
• Lotusmon
• SaberLeomon
• SkullMammothmon
• and all Trailmon except the Armoured one.

I will upload as many as I can tonight but the rest will probably have to wait till the weekend, exams. trainra 11:16, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

thank you =) (as i am too lazy to cut images from cards and i dont think card images are good)

kiimon image? DVR said that only its name was released; while i dont remember if i had seen it in the game before. i would like to take a pic of ketomon from my d1-tamers too... if i have time

you added to holydigitamamon "except in the V-pets", but i believe that image is just the "digimon DOT-bitmap" for contest. there should be no v-pet having holydigitamamon. Kennethayes 07:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it sure looks like Kiimon, I don't know from which game though. Are you sure, I thought there was one that had him in it? Also, my Ketomon I think is a fake image, but it is pretty close to what we had before, Keto and Kii both have tiny images though but they are the best I could find. trainra 07:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done all but the Trailmon. After this is done I can place bits from the Drama CDs on their respective pages, that is if it is needed?trainra 11:03, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

HolyDigitamamon: I'm quite sure, as all v-pet Digimon must have bandai images. ホーリーデジタマモン：〔デジモンウェブ第3回ドット絵コンテスト“ボルケーノ太田賞”入賞作〕

Ketomon: I have taken the "photo" of Ketomon already (DC), but shall I upload it now? I guess yours is better, as mines is a photo of the WSC screen, the color is quite "unreal".

What's happening to the template? Kennethayes 05:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I have a lot of official artwork images taken from the Bandai website sime years ago. They are currently mirrored here and were originally taken from bandai.com/poll_images/big/ (which no longer exists). Images are all similar to Image:Yukimibotamon.gif. Unfortunately the sites went all flash for later series, but I have the Digimon Visual Dictionary which has images and profiles for all Digimon (not including Trailmon, ADRs etc) up until at least partway through Frontier (the last Digimon in the book is Strabimon). The images are all have backgrounds though, and look similar to Image:Cupimon.jpg (the full profiles look like this). I have other books with potentially useful images like this that go up till the end of Tamers (never seen anything published for Frontier and have to admit I've not looked for Savers), but most like this one would need touch-up work to be useable (you can see anything I've previously scanned at http://digimon.thenexxus.org/scans/ and a list of available books at User:Shiroi Hane/Resources#Digimon). My time is limited at the moment, but if there's anything specific you need drop me a line and I'll see what I can do. Shiroi Hane 23:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions.

Multiple questions have come to my mind recently.

1. What do we do with the Royal Knights as the majority of their info is on their page?

2. The images link on the main page is going to become obsolete isn't it, so maybe we better change that to the categories. (?)

3. In the current template we are using for the main lists, can we put a card appearances link, or maybe in the Digimons sections, because some of the Digimon we have only appear in cards?

4. Should a disambiguation page be created for all the lists. e.g. List of Rookie Digimon and List of Champion Digimon would both link to List of ... Digimon?

5. On the Digimon template should we add Digimon Organizations, e.g. Royal Nights, Ancient Warriors etc. etc.?

I think that's all. trainra 11:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

1. I would like to process it like I deal with the Demon Lords, but I don't know if that's good.

5. I guess mentioning the organization(s) in the text is better/enough. Kennethayes 06:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we should do them like we do DigiDestined characters - with the main thing.KrytenKoro 00:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Type:

Can we decide on a way to make the Type: section in the Digimon Infobox unified? Through out the articles, I have seen this section done in many different ways. Examples include:

• Ja: Demon Man Digimon
• Ja: Demon Man Digimon
• Ja: Demon Man Digimon
• (Ja): Demon Man Digimon
• (Ja) Demon Man Digimon
• (Ja:) Demon Man Digimon
• (Ja:) Demon Man Digimon

Which one of these ways is the right one? Can we decide on a set way and make them look all one way, so it looks better and more together.--Mmmundo 18:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

the one who start using this is me. i used to use something like (Ja:), but i had changed to Ja: and En: for a long time already. (at most 2 styles)

i guess wew dont have "right ones" in wikipedia? Kennethayes 13:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

K but can we decide on one type? If we decide on one type I'm willing to eventually go through them all and change then to make them the same.--Mmmundo 16:42, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, well if no one has an opinion/preference, I am going to change them all to: (Ja:) - thats the way I think it looks best.--Mmmundo 00:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just finished changing them all to (Ja:) - pretty sure I got them all.--Mmmundo 14:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

How about the Old: / New: or Va: / Da:?Kennethayes 16:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If I see any of those I will change them too =)--Mmmundo 18:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we also do this for voice actors (Ja:) ~
(En:)?KrytenKoro 02:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Article Rename?

I have noticed that the List of minor characters for the Digimon anime are not all uniform:

• List of Digimon Adventure minor characters(ok)
• List of Digimon Frontier minor characters (ok)
• List of Digimon characters in V-Tamer (changed to List of Digimon V-Tamer minor characters)
• List of minor Digimon Savers characters (changed to List of Digimon Savers minor characters)

- does anyone else agree that these two articles should be renamed, for neatness/uniform sake? I think that it would look much better. I dont know how to rename articles and I would never do it without first consenting others.--Mmmundo 01:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking about that the other day as well, but then I started to think about how other anime articles do their character lists. Basically, drop the "minor" all together, list all characters, but use {{main}} and a brief description for the ones who have their own article. Just a thought. But other than that, it wouldn't bother me to rename the articles. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Not familiar with Savers but the V-Tamer article should stay as it contains most of the main characters, I believe. Trainra 06:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

They should be renamed to "List of characters in ~~", like most other things do.KrytenKoro 00:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Digivolves from/to:

I have a few questions for the Digivolves from/to sections. I'm going to use Aquilamon as an example, should it be:

WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon/Article reorganization
Digivolves from	Hawkmon (Adventure 02), Biyomon (Savers)
Digivolves to	Silphymon (Adventure 02), Garudamon (Savers)

or

WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon/Article reorganization
Digivolves from	Biyomon (Savers), Hawkmon (Adventure 02)
Digivolves to	Garudamon (Savers), Silphymon (Adventure 02)

See the difference? The first one is in the order it appeared in the anime in chronological order, the second one is in alphabetical order. Which way to people think would look better? I dont really have a preference, but I would like them all uniform. Like the type: section I redid, I'm willing to go through them all and change them to make them the same. I just wanted to know which way people think looks the best. Please respond.--Mmmundo 15:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Should be same as the text part's order, i.e. animation, manga and then games (if any).

Just like actors, partners etc. Kennethayes 16:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cool, so then like the first example I have - I will get to work.--Mmmundo 18:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys think that I should make what they appear in Linkable ([[]])? Example: Joe Kido (Adventure) or Joe Kido (Adventure)<--Mmmundo 18:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What digivolutions do we take into consideration? We use the animes, the magnas but do we use the games? If we use the games, then what specific games (if not all of them) do we use?--Mmmundo 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe the user Yaska said it best, "Digivolutions that happen in games which aren't determined by the player (i.e. storyline digivolutions) should be noted in the same way as the anime/manga digivolutions." Nightmare SE 19:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also I know that we have to mark where a specific digivolution came from if there are more than one possible digivolution, but do we have to mark where it came from if there is only one possible/cannon digivolution for the Digimon? - do you guys know what I'm talking about?--Mmmundo 18:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You mean like Gabumon -> Garurumon? The problem is say SkullGreymon -> Machinedramon, if it isn't marked then one could easy remove it thinking its fan cruft. We probably should just makes notes/references since writing say Digimon World DS next to Machinedramon in the info box takes up a lot of space, so what I'm trying to say is we should make it like the List_of_Fresh_Digimon page. Nightmare SE 19:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So you think that we should make notes/references for every single digivolution (actually sounds like a pretty good idea to me, as you are right, it does take up a great deal of space)? If we are going to be doing that, then we are going to need a large number of dedicated people to be working on this.--Mmmundo 21:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So when we are adding references for the digivolutions, should we still include what the appeared in and the reference, or is the reference simply enough?--Mmmundo 22:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have found that - http://digipedia.db-destiny.net/ - is a great place to find digivolutions!--Mmmundo 02:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually nearly all Digivolutions are already stated in the masterlists (except the Megas).

And it's unnecessary to give a reference/source for those digivolutions in animation series, which are known by nearly all Digimon fans. We're not finding the digivolutions from those webpages. Kennethayes 06:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

For the Digimon's description, I guess these kinds of references should be avoided.

D-Tector (Ophanimon): If he doesn't get you with his razor sharp claws, Parrotmon will defeat you with his Sonic Destroyer attack.

And also this kind.

SuperStarmon is a Mutant Digimon that is the Digivolved form of Starmon. He is referred to as a legend in his own time.

Bokomon: SuperStarmon, a legend in his own time. His special attack is Haley's Squall.

Kennethayes 07:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we do need to provide reference to the anime series, because these are not always obvious - stuff like Pagumon to Raremon is not obvious, and only appears in one episode. We've also got to consider that this isn't a "walled garden" - what we write should be accessible to those not entirely familiar with the franchise.

As reliable sources - we can rely on the Manga, the Anime, the storyline of the game's, and to a small extent, the cards (the Win Ratio 80% type cards, and if they talk about it, the comments part of the card - I don't know of many that refer to digivolution, but if they do, it should be regarded as canon).

I've done some of the references for the anime and card references -

Digimon Adventure, "No Questions, Please" [24]

and

http://tnis.hp.infoseek.co.jp/web-digimon/st-934.jpg

The manga ones should be the same as the anime, with the chapter name in place of the episode.KrytenKoro 00:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Appears:

For the appears: section what media do we include? So far I have:

• Digimon Adventure
• Digimon Adventure 02
• Digimon Tamers
• Digimon Frontier
• Digimon Savers
• Digimon Next
• D-Accel
• Digimon Pendulum X
• Digimon Tamers: Brave Tamer
• Digimon v-pet
• Digimon Pendulum Progress 2.0
• The Golden Digimentals
• Our War Game!
• Revenge of Diaboromon

^Not in order^

Is there any more that I'm leaving out? Do the games count? If so which ones? For the movies do we include the name of the movie or just the season it was in? Example:The Golden Digimentals or would we just put Digimon Adventure 02? What if the Digimon appears in a specific season and a movie for that specific season - do we list both? Also when we have a complete list, if someone could tell me the order they go into, so I can change them all, would be great. Responses/Input/Help would be much appreciated!--Mmmundo 19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Also Michi E No Shinka Armor ?--Mmmundo 01:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Could I please get some sort of response - dont you think this is kinda important?--Mmmundo 19:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's really important. Just follow the practice.

V-pets and games are normally not to be stated. I/We just don't want to blank the Freshs' and In-Trainings' appearance? Kennethayes 06:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it is important...thats what I thought too, that the games were not to be included. However alot of these articles have a games appearance in the appears in section (mostly DS). Shouldnt these be changed to only include the anime and magnas?--Mmmundo 13:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A lot? (except the Freshs and In-Trainings and unprocessed Megas?) Kennethayes 05:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand now, my mistake. But why does it matter if we blank the Fresh and In-Trainings appearance section. Why should we add information that we would not normally include just to make it 'look better'? Or maybe this is not the case at all, do I have the right idea?--Mmmundo 16:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Maybe the Freshs/Intrainings don't have much description on their anime/manga/game appearances, so if the "appears in" section is blanked, you won't know where do they come from. Especially for those v-pet ones like Chapumon, Bombmon etc. But I think blanking should be okay. Kennethayes 04:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you.--Mmmundo 04:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Digimon Images.

Which digimon images take precedence? Toei or Bandai? Trainra 09:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to go thtrough the images and put Fair Use Rationales on all the Digimon Images, but what do you want me to do with the orphaned ones, any comments? Trainra 06:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I would say Toei, as they are the anime representations of the character (the form "more familiar to the audience"). Orphaned images should probably be left to die, as they're not likely to find any use.

I'm not sure I understand...

What exactly needs to be done with, for example, the Dark Masters and Celestial Digimon? I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "completing" them.KrytenKoro 01:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agumon and friends?

I'm not sure I like the fact that typing in a characters name usually leads you to the Adventure profile of that Digimon - for example, when typing the profile on Mephismon, it took me about ten minutes to finally find the actual profile I wanted, that of Tamers Omnimon, instead of the Adventure version, which doesn't even link to the lists. While making the digivolution's name a link is a nice solution, I still don't think it is satisfactory - we already have the "main" links in the lists, why not have the lists be the primary destination of the redirect, and then, let someone choose which incarnation they want from there? Agumon and stuff could be changed to "Agumon (Adventure)", which would work well enough, and it would make typing the profiles much easier - instead of typing "Biyomon" and having to check that the link points to the correct one, you could just type "Biyomon (Adventure)", and in the list profiles, you could just type "Biyomon" as the rookie form of Birdramon, instead of "List of Rookie Digimon (part 1)#Biyomon|Biyomon". This seems to be a more logical and uniform way to set this up.KrytenKoro 01:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)