Talk:List of Digimon Adventure characters

First header

Who suggested to put Oikawa's article in the minor character list? That's incredibly stupid. Oikawa may have appeared for only eight episodes, but he was one of the most important characters in the plot of 02. Demon of Light 18:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The vast majority of Digimon articles will be merged. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update/Article reorganization, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:ANIME. -- Ned Scott 02:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Keep

Let those pages stay separate including Rapidmon's (Armor). I prefer them that way. It will mess up the List of Digimon order with these redirects. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur merging would cause chaos within the structure of the pages danieljackson 16:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is a bit late. It's already started and is almost finished. Trainra 10:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Splitsection

Section Daemon should be split into separate article, because there is no separate article about this Digimon and there is vast amount of articles about less significant Digimon, which only appear in cards or in only one episode. --83.131.14.250 21:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All -mon articles are currently undergoing a mass-merger, which means all those less significant Digimon who currently have their own articles like Grademon won't soon. Nightmare SE 23:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Humans too?

In my Wikipedia travels, I came across this article and thought that it might do well to merge it into this one. However, this article seems exclusively Digimon...are humans allowed too? IzzyFerret 19:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The person depicted in that article is not real, aka. it's fake. Also there will be a few humans who will be merged into this areticle, eventually...trainra 22:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That appears to be a hoax character. I've marked it for deletion. -- Ned Scott 22:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes

First off, we should add the main chars to this page as "main" links. Also, since many of these characters are in both seasons, we should just remove the dividing construct of which season they premiered in, and alphabetize.

• Digidestined
• Villains
• Other Humans

• Family
• Other?

• Other Digimon?

• Allies?
• Wild?
• Villains' Armies?

Something like that.KrytenKoro 20:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Great work! -- Ned Scott 18:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried to re-org it today, but Wordpad crashed. gah.KrytenKoro 15:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive Cleanup

Now that the reorg is complete, we need to do massive cleanup/trimming, as well as filling in missing sections, like the CD characters, or other Allies like Meramon and Frigimon.

We also need to make sure there is at most one picture per form of a character - Wizardmon shouldn't have had 3 pics, for example. The least copyrighted pics are the white background ones we like to use anyway, so let's try to replace other pics with those.

Thanks for your support, and for your help!KrytenKoro 05:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Non-free images

It's my understanding that lists that contain non-free images like this are unacceptable. There were similar findings with List of ____ episodes and so forth. There is an image help desk and a talk page dedicated to non-free image use questions, I believe. It would be nice to get a few more opinions on this issue. Please do so before reverting me. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please actually look at the situation before blindly reverting us. You cannot compare the list of episodes situation to this list, they're completely different. I should know, I was heavily invested in those discussions. -- Ned Scott 06:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't blindly revert anything. I'm saying that the non-free content policy can be tricky, and second or third opinions would be best rather than what appears to be an edit war. --MZMcBride (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This is also being discussed at WT:NFC. -- Ned Scott 22:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ned, for raising this issue there. Hopefully, some definitive answers can come about. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

However, in the meantime, per WP:NFCC ("Note that it is the burden of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created") the images should be removed, and I have done so. Black Kite 18:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to wait because the matter is currently being discussed with JMilburn, but as for your critique, a valid rationale is present on each of the image pages. As such, I have re-placed the images.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:07, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please read Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. If some of the images can be justified by the fact that they are necessary to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the topic per WP:NFCC#8, then feel free to replace those images if it is explained how they meet our guidelines, and updating the rationales to reflect that. Please note however that images such as File:Leomon.jpg are already used in a main article, and therefore can never be justified per WP:NFCC#3a (overuse). Black Kite 09:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That is not what 3a means at all: That the bare minimum of images are used for that part of the one article - so, no image galleries like most wikia wiki's try to do.

You are also vastly twisting the words of what the list policy suggests:

"If another non-free image of an element of an article is used elsewhere within Wikipedia, either referring to its other use or, more preferably, repeating its use on the list are strongly preferred over including a new, separate, non-free image. If duplicating the use of a non-free image, please be aware that a separate non-free fair use rationale must be supplied for the image for the new use."

It does not say that non-free images cannot be used in a list if used elsewhere; it is in fact saying that it is preferable to use the same image, as long as the file article lists that use.

Furthermore, the image rationale's do not claim that they are for illustration, they claim they are for "identification". However, in an attempt to appease your demands, I have added more specific rationale to those pages.

I have also repeatedly demonstrated that the article text does reference the image designs, and I am incredibly tired of this simply being ignored (not even refuted - just over and over, ignored).

I can see however, that you and JMilburn will completely refuse to listen to a thing I say, so all I will ask is that you discuss the issue with User:Ned Scott, and cease performing the extremely bad faith move of marking the images for deletion "because they are orphaned". I will cease reverting the images here until the discussion is over, but I will continue to remove the orphaned notices from the image pages if they are re-added.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 21:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Which is equally disruptive. If the images can't be justified for non-free use, then they clearly need to be deleted, per Wikimedia policy. Black Kite 23:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

...I have given the justification that the policies require over and over, and have even added it to the image articles. Neither you nor JMilburn have actually refuted these justifications - you continue to claim that somehow, no justifications at all have been given, sufficient or otherwise. This is bullshit.

On another note, there is a fucking discussion going on, and aggressively pushing your desires before even acknowledging the discussion is a massive abuse of your power. You have yet to actually show how the images are violating a policy - in fact, you massively misquoted the policies you tried to cite.

All I am asking is that you at least attempt a whit of discussion with Ned Scott, who is much more knowledgeable in these matters than I. Hell, he'll probably agree with you, and I will gladly get out of your way and even help put the images up for deletion if he does. But right now, what you are doing is to refuse all discussion, mark all the relevant articles for deletion by dishonestly changing or removing the rationales given on them, and generally violate all of the spirit of this project.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 04:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

So, wait, you're just going to blindly agree with whatever Ned Scott says? Great. J Milburn (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't what he said at all. KrytenKoro comes to his own conclusions, so if he's agreeing with what I've said before then it's not because he just blindly did so. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Showing a handful of well chosen example images of significant characters to this series, the artwork used, and the variety of different character types, is a valid fair use rationale as asked by our policies. A good sampling of characters without detailing each and every one.

The way the policy works is that a reasonable rationale should be presented, not that everyone must agree to it. -- Ned Scott 05:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no sourced discussion on the appearance of these characters. Some kind of group shot may be useful at the head of the article as a general illustration of the style (I'm sure there will be a publicity shot of the main characters somewhere?) but the use of these shots of characters seems rather arbitrary. Why them? Why that many? The use of portraits in lists like this has been discussed no end- why do you feel this list is any different to the hundreds of others that have had the portraits removed? J Milburn (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• We've argued this issue ad nauseum for years now. The result? List after list after list after list articles have had per character images removed. What we've ended up with are articles with a cast picture, such as List of students at South Park Elementary or articles with a very limited number of individual images for highly significant characters to the series, such as List of characters in Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones. See also Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles which was hammered out after long debate. Here in this article we have eight images of characters that are, in terms of importance, indistinguishable from any other character. If the argument is that these characters should have images, then so should all characters on the list. What would be appropriate for this list is File:Digimon Adventure group shot.jpg or something like it. One image per character is not the way to go. If you want to change this interpretation of policy, take it up at WT:NFC. Barring a change in consensus at WT:NFC allowing per character images, I'll put the cast shot on this article and remove the per character images. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • You're talking to one of the people who supported those actions. I was there when WP:NFC#Non-free image use in_list articles" was hammered out. I would greatly appreciate a little bit of respect, rather than being looked down upon and treated as some mindless newbie who "doesn't know any better".
    
    We are not using one image for every single character, and the ones they are being used for do have significance in the series. This brainless blanket ban on fair use images for characters has been shot down time and time again. It's so easy to look down on something because it's a "cartoon" and then railroad the local editors, without giving the situation any real consideration.
    
    "If the argument is that these characters should have images, then so should all characters on the list." An all-or-nothing strawman argument. It wouldn't be logical to show images for every single character when most of those characters are on the screen for five seconds to sell a toy. I personally felt it was a decent show, but we can't forget who pays the bills for these things. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Not to mention that what the characters look like is hardly discussed in the article at all. Most of the character section are slabs of plot summary (which probably fail WP:NOT#PLOT as well, but let's not go there for goodness sake). Where the characters appearance is discussed, the text is usually good enough anyway - for example "(Arukenimon) usually appeared in the form of a woman with odd red and purple clothing and large shades concealing her eyes." Do we then need a non-free image of a woman with odd red and purple clothing and large shades? Clearly not. Similarly, "(Mummymon) usually appeared as a humanoid dressed in a royal blue coat and an odd hat with randomly scattered golden buttons and wielding a cane (which he rarely used, if ever). However, his appearance was hardly human; his skin was grey and wrinkly, he lacked ears and a nose, and he had only one eye, and it too was of an unusual yellow color. In addition, his physique was odd, with wide shoulders, long arms and unusually large hands...". Perfectly well described, and per WP:NFCC#1, that's good enough. I have not examined every single one; there may be one or two that could possibly be justified with a very good rationale - but certainly most of them don't. As an aside, the Leomon image does not belong here at all and should not be restored under any circumstances, as the character has a separate article in which the image already appears. Black Kite 15:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • And where the appearance is discussed, it's completely unsourced... J Milburn (talk) 16:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We worked hard to move away from a situation of having individual articles that had one or more images each, removing hundreds of such images from Wikipedia. I really don't understand or appreciate being treated like some screaming fan who doesn't understand our policies.

I'm all for reducing our dependancy on fair use images, and I welcome the idea of using a group shot over individuals when it makes sense. I also think the images and choice of which characters being presented could be improved upon. Devimon, and his physical characteristics which become a theme throughout three different series, should have an image, but he couldn't doesn't. Arukenimon and Mummymon are pretty mindless characters, despite being viewed for a short time as "major" villains, and probably could go. And Leomon shouldn't have a separate article, that's just something that hasn't been dealt with yet.

We can get a lot more done if you guys would treat other people in this discussion with some respect and drop this all-or-nothing attitude. -- Ned Scott 04:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• I hardly think actually editing an article so that is in line with our image policy is an all-or-nothing attitude, Ned. You are basically breaking that policy every time you restore those images. However, I'm quite happy to give you a short time to try to justify any of those images, so I won't remove them again - yet. Black Kite 08:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
  • If you want to call it an "all or nothing" attitude, you can, but the point is that this isn't a matter for "compromising" or finding a "happy medium". We already have our compromise- our NFCC is our compromise between being as free as possible, and being as informative as possible. Therefore, this article must meet that, not a compromise between that and the view of some people who would like more content. J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I know I haven't been around much these days, but please wake up. I am on the side of the NFCC policy. I'm fairly certain I've been in similar discussions with both of you in the past. Users such as User:KrytenKoro and myself have reduced the image use in these articles by hundreds. Why are you acting this way? Why do you think you can talk down to one of the editors who was there and involved with the very policies and guidelines you cite? You are treating myself and KrytenKoro as if we don't know any better. I already gave you a valid rationale, as asked by policy and guidelines, but you disagree with it. Instead of saying that you tell me that I haven't justified anything at all, rather than disputing any reason I gave. Because of things like that I am given the impression that you guys are coming at this with an all-or-nothing attitude.
      
      Our policies don't ask that everyone must agree on the rationale given, but that a reasonable one be put forth that satisfies all the points in the policy. You cannot just assume that you are right and I am wrong. You have to come down on the same level and discuss why you don't feel the rationale I have given is justified, and then try to get a consensus on that. I've done this countless times, I've been on the Wiki for years, and I know what I'm talking about. I want to work with you guys on this issue, not against you. -- Ned Scott 06:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, I remember seeing you in similar debates, which is why I find it all the more upsetting. I hate to say it, but I think you may be suffering from "I love NFCC but..." syndrome- the same reason we have such violent disputes with WikiProjects about how they interpret the NFCC with regards to their articles. No one's immune to it. Just a couple of days ago, I had to make this edit- an article I had written from nothing, and even taken to FAC, contained three (!) decorative non-free images, one of which I had even defended at a previous IfD debate, but, clearly, none of which were needed. In any case, it is probably best if you now direct your attention at the IfD debtes, and provide specific rationales for each image there. J Milburn (talk) 10:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Massive clean-up in the individual profiles

I believe we should do something about the individual profiles. All of them seem to lack some sort of notability, because basically the majority of them are just summarizations of the character themselves.

I have some information we could use for a "reception" section for the characters, particularly of the Adventure characters. We could analyze how much their character singles sold and how well they ranked on the Oricon charts. (This is Takeru's, for example) In addition, Toei released a series of online polls on their website throughout the end of Adventure and until the end of 02, so we can see who voters voted as the "best" in a certain category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lullabying (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Merger with individual character articles

As is noted in the discussion above, the individual characters in these two anime series are not sufficiently notable to justify their own articles. As such, the following articles should be merged here: Taichi "Tai" Kamiya, Yamato "Matt" Ishida, Sora Takenouchi, Biyomon, Koushiro "Izzy" Izumi, Tentomon, Mimi Tachikawa, Palmon, Joe Kido, Gomamon, Takeru "T.K." Takaishi, Patamon, Hikari "Kari" Kamiya, Gatomon, Davis Motomiya, Veemon, Yolei Inoue, Hawkmon, Cody Hida, Armadillomon, Ken Ichijouji, Wormmon, Wizardmon, Willis (Digimon), Diaboromon, Dark Masters, and Yukio Oikawa. Neelix (talk) 14:17, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Of which ancient discussion on this page are you referring? While some of the articles may not warrant their own articles (I'm looking at you, Diaboromon), I don't think that can be said for many on the list you listed. JPG-GR (talk) 21:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The above one mentioning that the articles are just talking about the characters, not any notability that they might have (compare the Evangelion group which, although not the best, at least talks a bit about the reception of the characters and, in the case of Rei Ayanami I believe, a bit of their real-world impact). That's what I gathered, anyway. Also, the Myotismon article seems to have vanished and the content not merged into here - is there anything we might be able to do about that (getting the content that was on the article or something and moving it here; I don't think I saw it). Comics (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The two main Digimon in these two series, Agumon and Gabumon, were merged here in individual AfDs. If Agumon and Gabumon are not sufficiently notable to justify their own articles, I can't see that any of the other characters in these series are. As far as I can tell, none of the articles in question provide more sourced information than would be acceptable on an entry in this list. As for Myotismon, no sourced information was included on the article, so information about Myotismon should be added to this list from other sources. Neelix (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I included information from the popularity polls and Oricon. Is it not enough? lullabying (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The popularity polls are primary sources. Oricon is a secondary source, but it isn't sufficient in itself to justify a topic's notability. Your contributions aren't going to waste, though; they will be a great asset to the character list. Neelix (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've ceased caring a long time ago about Digimon articles being endlessly condensed into smaller and smaler chunks, but I see no agreement for the merge, and a week is a very short time to wait for articles that have been on Wikipedia longer than you have. Shiroi Hane (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

5 days is the standard time to wait for a response to a suggested merger. No one rebutted my arguments in that time, so I carried out the merger. If you believe that a particular character deserves its own article, feel free to start a splitting discussion. Neelix (talk) 19:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

See my split discussion. I do not believe you really gained conensus, as Animebot removed your notificaitons early, as you did not link them back here. — trlkly 07:23, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Character article for Taichi "Tai" Kamiya, separate Digimon from children

While I do see need for the recent character profile merges, I think Taichi "Tai" Kamiya should get his own article, mainly because he is the poster boy of the Adventure franchise and is now also appearing in the Xros Wars series. An outside influence he has was that his image was parodied in a short of Angela Anaconda, though it was tied to Digimon: The Movie.

Also, on the character descriptions, to avoid less clutter, I think we should list the children first and then their Digimon instead of together as a unit. lullabying (talk) 02:13, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Split proposal

This article is way too long and we need to fold out the longer sections into new articles. Multiple sections could even be folded out into divisions, like a foldout for the Digidestined. As far as I understand foldouts do not necessarily need notability by themselves as long as the parent article is notable. Verifiability is the only requirement.

The actual merger was done without linking to the talk page, which hampered discussion. Some merger proposals, like the one one Palmon were even removed by AnimeBot because they didn't link to an actual discussion, so those people didn't even have a way to see them. It is quite likely argument would have been made to keep articles for the main characters, as has happened in most other fictional works.

— trlkly 07:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have a couple of comments to make on this. For starters, most of the sections of this article were merged perhaps due to a feeling that they weren't really notable. I would support splitting this article into things like 'List of Main Digimon Adventure Characters' (or something like that), 'List of Digimon Adventure Villains' and 'List of Minor Digimon Adventure Characters'. They may be main characters but that doesn't mean they have notability (compare with say, Buffy or The Doctor, Goku or Pikachu).

Alternatively, since most of the content of this article was the result of (I'm assuming) poor merging, maybe the article could just cut back on unnecessary content rather than split itself up again? Comics (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, Most of the content in this article was once all seperate articles and over time because of unreferenced and notability issues were merged here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Further agreed. Can we call that concensus then? Op47 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Digimon Adventure characters. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for //www.foxkids.com/digimon/characters/matt/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Tri vo's?

Should we list the tri. VOs revealed by Jeff Nimoy? Or should we wait for official confirmation? Gistech (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Clean up for Digimon Adventure characters article

The article has been cleaned up from excess paragraphs. Rectify 54 (talk) 12:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Warning, do not let anyone use IP address to change each articles. Rectify 54 (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Enjoy reading all articles Rectify 54 (talk) 18:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Propose to create separate article for Yamato Ishida

Taichi Yagami was notable enough to have a separate article (as he's one of the most well-known faces of the franchise), but I believe Yamato Ishida should get one too. He's the most popular male character in the series and theme songs have been released under his (band) name in real life. The only task we'd probably have to do is find reviews certifying his reception, which isn't difficult since most of the articles that discuss Taichi also discuss him as well. lullabying (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources I've compiled that we can use: Interview with Yoshimasa Hosoya about Knife of Day, Interview with Vic Mignogna about performing as Matt lullabying (talk) 23:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Yamato and Knife of Day being featured in the 3rd ending, Knife of Day's Oricon profile, Knife of Day peaking at #46 on Oricon lullabying (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Official popularity polls: #1 with 164 votes, #1 with 391 votes, #1 with 787 votes, #2 with 662 votes. I may also get CanCam's 2015 Ikemen Book 2 to see if he's listed in there. lullabying (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Yamato and Taichi featured in a fashion collaboration for smart lullabying (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Quote: "One touching moment in season 1 has Matt agonizing over the way he has dealt with little brother T.K., who looks up more to Tai, who is Matt's age but has always treated T.K. with respect." (Camp, Brian; Davis, Julie (2007). Anime Classics Zettai!: 100 Must-See Japanese Animation Masterpieces. Stone Bridge Press. ISBN 9781933330228.) lullabying (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Reception about how Yamato's parents' divorce resonated with Western views lullabying (talk) 08:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A draft has been written at Draft:Matt Ishida. Feel free to provide comments. lullabying (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Too big

This article is too long and has way too much trivial information that is not useful to a wider audience of readers. Could we consider consolidating some of the sections and limiting information on individual Digimon? 72.190.205.146 (talk) 10:25, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree thoroughly. The article is far too dense and trivial. Jtrrs0 (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I've been removing a lot of the plot summary on this article and I feel it can be condensed and organized more. lullabying (talk) 00:26, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's my suggested options of revamping the article.

1. Digimon (especially partner Digimon) should list their signature attack only (or at least any attack that was actually seen in the show). While it's nice to list the Japanese names for the attack, information might be too detailed and border on WP:FANCRUFT. Also, it's Wikipedia's policy to focus more on terms the general audience is more familiar with, and that would be the Western attack names.

2. Partner Digimon get their own name; listing them under their assigned DigiDestined gets a little messy and obscures their presence.

3. Do we need to list the international DigiDestined (with the exception of Michael and Willis) when they only appear in 1-2 episodes AND in minor roles? They don't seem to be notable. lullabying (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

As long as you it applies to undue weight and I can agree. The entire minor characters seem also to count fancruft unless the characters return later. Matt/Yamato or anybody else could be given his own article but only if they are given real world response to pass WP:Notability. See Tai's reception section as an example.Tintor2 (talk) 22:52, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tintor2: I'm in the process of gathering articles for reception regarding Matt/Yamato right now in the above section. I also edited the article and removed a lot of detail. If there is anything else that needs to be changed, be sure to let me know. lullabying (talk) 04:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal

F. E. Puricelli tagged this article for WP:SPLIT to List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters but did not start a discussion discussing why, so I will start the discussion. I do not believe that the article should be split. The characters are the same, albeit with a different cast in a different continuity, and there is not enough sourced information that would make it necessary to have a split article. lullabying (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I made the draft just in case (Draft:List of Digimon Adventure (2020 TV series) characters). 04:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)F. E. Puricelli (talk)

It's good you made a draft, but the draft mostly copies information from the original article and offers nothing new. lullabying (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that as of now, it might be too early for a split. I would rather just wait at least until this specific series is nearing the end of its run. In the meanwhile, it could be a good idea to add the new voice cast to the current page until then. BJnCCs (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

theyre different characters. this isnt the same continuity. split them.Muur (talk) 05:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

They have the same names, backgrounds, and Digimon partners. They're the same characters except in a different continuity. lullabying (talk) 08:02, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

As I said before, it still might be early for a split, which is why I suggested to at least add the new voice cast to the current page in the meanwhile. We still haven't been properly introduced to Takeru and Hikari as DigiDestined yet or have seen Patamon and Gatomon in-series proper. I think that once we have enough episodes with them and what their dynamics are are defined enough, it would be safe to make the page split then. BJnCCs (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

the reboot characters have multiple exclusive evolutions, which would make things way too confusing. listing skullknightmon, axekngihtmon, alterous mode, blitzgreymon etc here would just cause confusion when they have nothing to do with the original continiuty.Muur (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Is Gatomon a Rookie-level or Champion-level Digimon?

When I was reading this list, I was shocked that Snowbotamon, a leucistic variant of Botamon, is nowhere in this list.

I mean that Gatomon is a Champion-level Digimon but, however, there is contradictory information about Gatomon's Digivolution line. That is to say, Nyaromon and Salamon should have been referred as Gatomon's In-Training form and Gatomon's Rookie form, respectively, and not as Gatomon's Fresh form and Gatomon's In-Training form as the latest editions of this list said.

In other words, I think we should change the information about Gatomon by adding Snowbotamon (who is Gatomon's actual Fresh form) and modify information about Nyaromon and Salamon.--André the Android^(talk) 16:33, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

• @André the Android: Digimon has intertwining evolution lines, but for this article in particular, only list the evolution lines depicted in the show. lullabying (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Lullabying: Ok, this means that I would have to limit myself to correct information about Salamon and Nyaromon, as well as retrieve some removed references.

I understand that it is a debate when it is about one of the main characters whose default form is its Champion form, especially if it is about a Champion-level Digimon who has a striking resemblance to a Rookie-level one. I say that because I have to correct information as I am going to improve this list as I can.

Besides, thanks for informing me before I can edit this list.--André the Android^(talk) 07:13, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

gatomon was used *because* shes champion. it was halfway through the series and they decided to add Kari but giving her a rookie wouldve been too late at that point so they looked through the list of existing digimon and chose gatomon as she was a small champion. gatomon existed for two years before she ever showed up in the anime. if she *was* a rookie she would not have been used in the show. as for yukimibotamon, it *is* a form of kari's gatomon but it was only shown in the ryo video games and the mahua adaption.Muur (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2021 (UTC)