Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon/Archive 1

&#123;{Digimon}}
I stumbled upon this and I think that while it is relatively pertinent, the template as is is a hueas piece of clumped links of which only a few are relevant to any articleit might be added to. So I'm considering breaking it into 4 or 5 distinct templates: a dedicated one for eachseason and one overall eith only links to, say, the games, seasons and Lingo, what do you all think?Circeus 04:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. However, there should be links on each template to each other season.   x42bn6   Talk  01:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought that just a link to the digimon article would be sufficient, thought the season templates would obviously include cross-references. Circeus 02:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the first part.  x42bn6   Talk  06:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Halt application of the infobox!
I think we should agree to a common format for the entirety of the digimon articles before we start listing info only in the Infobox. If only because quite a few seem to have been misapplicated.

For example, there are valid encyclopedic informations that do not belong in the infobox, and ought to be listed in the article, for examples information about irregular/non-standard evolutions and attack descriptions. An infobox is for basic information, and usually most of it should be duplicated in greater details in the article.

Other stuff to decide include:
 * is the list format I used for minor apparitions in agumon pertinent?
 * What information do we want?
 * In what order?
 * Should we include a physical description of the digimon,with size and all?
 * Should we include the etymology of the names?

etc. etc.

Circeus 16:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the Digimon's abilities, you know, how some can fly, swim, bring good luck, etc? Should that be in the infobox?


 * On another note, I say yes to the etyomology part.


 * N. Harmonik 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, here's a formal proposal for organization:


 * Lead with quick mention of the digimon type, main appearances, character in, whenever appliable. (e.g. "Kokuwamon is a digimon in the Digimon card game and anime", but "Gabumon is a character and digimon from the anime and card game"). Includes a quick physical description and the etymology.


 * Infobox: (I'll work on the details for infobox later.)


 *  ==Data== 
 * Here, we have a detailed physical description of the digimon, mentionning his level and attribute. If the digimon has a complete/nearly complete canon evolution line, it should given, eventually with discussion of other possible evolutions, but only for the levels directly above and under the digimon discussed (to avoid needlessly forking information between articles.)


 * Attacks are listed here, with description whenever possible and source (i.e. used in the anime? in video games? in the card game?).


 *  ==Important events== 
 * This section is only pertinent to digimon who were important characters or villains. It would include most details about what they did in the series, aprtners etc. Comments on personnality for individual digimon go there, but should ideally be backed up by references to specific events, with episode names or numbers.


 *  ===Subsections by season=== 
 * Movie events should be treated as part of the season they are linked to, except for Digimon Hurricane Touchdown!! Supreme Evolution!! The Golden Digimentals, which is, if I recall, officially out of continuity with the anime.


 *  ===Other appearances=== 
 * Everywhere the digimon is not a main character, including games and mangas, is listed here in a succinct list format.


 *  ==Trivia== 
 * Stuff that can't be fit anywhere else, for exaple, the discussion about the Myotismon link in Renamon


 * Illustrations: If possible, the Infobox should contain a screenshot more than 270px wide. Official character art are used to illustrate the Data section. Aditional screenshots may illustrate specific events in Appearance.


 * How does that look for a standard? I'll try and make Agumon and Gabumon (and a third random article for non-character, likely Gesomon) into it so that they can be referred to as examples. Circeus 19:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Then we must make a firm layout for that too. I suggest something like this:
 * x42bn6mon is a fictional Mega-level Spamming Digimon from the Digimon 02 series. It is known as Spammon in Japan.
 * This does look like too many wikilinks, but here is why:
 * fictional character as piped link as character generally has a human touch to it
 * Category:Mega level Digimon as piped link so users can see any others
 * Spamming as type of Digimon. I understand they come under different families (Cyborg, Virus etc.) so perhaps this is a proposal.  :P
 * Digimon as a no-brainer. But I do think we need a page such as Digimon (Digimon) (!), as Digimon is for the franchise, but this new one is about the Digimon themselves.  This link would then go there.
 * Series as no-brainer.
 * Japanese name, and create a redirect page too.
 * x42bn6  Talk  07:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with the creation of digimon (creature) (better for disambig, me think). Could includemerged stuff from digivolution and Digimon families. Circeus 18:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, infoboxes aren't really ment for this type of use. The suggested layout seems like a good idea, I say go for it. -- Ned Scott 02:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Agumon is about complete and would only lack stuff like a more detailed character analysis and movie/Drama CDs plot stuff (none of which I can provide, being only vaguely familiar with anythoing non-02). How does it look? Circeus 20:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Gabumon done too. What do you think? Can probably use some editing, though. Will go back and add stuff to Agumon tomorrow. Circeus 02:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think I can honestly say I've poured about as much content into Agumon and Gabumon as I can. A torough copyedit would be greatly appreciated, since my spacebar has this annoying tendency to act up on me. Circeus 19:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Gesomon done. Could really use a good official art (I mean one with a white background). Circeus 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So, do you think that organization structure can be upheld for most Digimon article? I still believe someone really familiar with 01 should have a go at making a quick character analysis and describe the voices at Agumon and Gabumon. Circeus 18:41, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

fansubs
I was wondering if we should mention fansubs for Digimon, namely WolfPackProductions, for those who wish to see the show without the american edits. I know it's an iffy subject, since Digimon is licensed, but seeing as it's one of the best references for the "real" version of the show for those of us who don't speak japanese.. but I thought I'd put it up for discussion first. --Ned Scott 08:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The fan influence section of the franchise or an identical section inthe anime article sounds appropriate. Circeus 14:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Attack Section in Infobox Digimon
i think you should create a attack section because they can become quite big. and secondly, Shouldn't Lucemon and Lucemon Falldown Mode and Lucemon Satan Mode be in seperate articles, because technically, they are different digimon. - plau


 * The attacks' details are included in my proposed article layout above ("Data" section). However, I agree that this section tends to become a bit big for digimon with attacks from many sources. You think it should be removed from the infobox? Circeus 14:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I would prefer if it was actually expended. But i have no problem if you removed it completely. - plau


 * What do you mean "expanded"? I never intended it to include attack descriptions, it that's what you're thinking. Circeus 18:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, how bout the Lucemon and Lucemon Falldown Mode and Lucemon Satan Mode problem.


 * Whatever you do I can do with. Circeus 02:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Image identification
Can somebody confirms that image:Agumon.jpg is indeed from 02? Looks like 01 to me (I'd ask the uploader, but they've been banned). It'd be really great to have the exact episode too. If someone would be so kind as to check episode name and number for Image:Agumonadv.jpg, it'd be greatly appreciated. Circeus 19:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone confirmed it's 01, Episode 45, to be exact. *facepalm* Now 2 out of three pictures in that article are from the same episode. I'll look out for a replacement. Circeus 18:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

"Digivolution" Section on Digimon Articles
Should we still include an digivolution section? Because it's already in the Infobox. -Plau


 * I restaured it because it is pretinent to explain different evolution (i.e. dark evolutions) and alternate stuff (e.g. the long list of potential evolutions.)


 * OK, but we should still leave out the main evolution.


 * Maybe... Any other opinions around? Circeus 14:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I donno, I kind of like the info being there twice, since the infobox is really an at-a-glance thing and not really a replacement. Like the article should be able to hold itself with or without an infobox. -- Ned Scott 15:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

digi-standards
I've created digi-standard for marking articles considered as guides for other like-articles. What do you guys think? good idea, bad idea? -- Ned Scott 11:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * How about making it a brown box,like so:


 * Besides, it really should go on the talk page.