Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon/Archive 2

character articles
the same as how we're standardizing the digimon article's layout, I think we should apply this same logic to the human character articles as well. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As faras human goes, I think concatenation of the relevant sections (e.g. drama cds, movies) and agreement on the images we'll use is more important than layout itself,if only because overall there's less information the article needs to carry Circeus 13:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC).
 * aye, that was what I ment by layout :) --Ned Scott 19:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

"sub pages/ articles" for series articles
I noticed we now have a List of Digimon episodes. I was wondering if we should split this up by series as well (but still make it a separate page from the main articles). Along with info such as original air dates and maybe even if the episode was ever released on VHS, etc (since a handful were). As well, really try to keep the article a list, and not get filled up by tons of notes made for each episode.

This could also become a problem for the series articles as well, so in addition I think a "detailed plot" article for each series may be the solution, such as the one found here Eureka Seven. The separate article allows fans to dive deeper and get more detailed without cluttering up the main article. --Ned Scott 22:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever we end up doing, I don't think the serie is dense enough in material to allow for separate episode articles. As much as possible we want to keep the Digimon articles cruft-free. Circeus 22:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I definitely agree, separate episode articles should not be encouraged. Hopefully that will be something a detailed story article will also prevent, giving a place for those kinds of notes. -- Ned Scott 05:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * And then I look at Little People (Dilbert episode)and I go "damn... We could do better" *shakes head*. I just might come around to it, but right now, I think there's more important stuff to do. Circeus 18:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

is it possible to merge some digimon (monster) articles?
Although I feel that our main priority right now should be the more anime-related articles..


 * main and secondary characters
 * extremely similar Digimon (creature) articles, such as Agumon and Agumon X I think could be merged together.


 * and maybe even some baby type forms that always lead to the same 'mon, such as Botamon and (even more of a maybe) Koromon to be merged with their more common form Agumon. although koromon and agumon are probably bad examples, since they're all apart of a main character 'mon.  but for lesser characters, I think this might make sense.


 * non-anime, non-manga, or other wise very minor characters
 * and in light of a current issue (Articles for deletion/Solarmon (2nd nomination), I think we might want to find and deal with such articles. Also, in all reality, some of these digimon articles probably do need to be deleted.  As much of a fan of digimon that I am, I know it's not our own personal fansite.  That doesn't mean that this information must be lost, there are many other digimon wiki-like web sites out there too that we can use to fit every tiny little detail.  Basically, if a 'mon isn't mentioned in one of the anime series or mangas, or isn't a major factor in a game, then it probably shouldn't be on wikipedia.  or I should say, it shouldn't have it's own article.


 * possible plan of action
 * For the short term, at least, I think we should go through the articles and come up with a list, possibly tag with a category like an "endangered species" list of articles that are as empty as solarmon, etc.


 * Maybe even making a second layout different from the new standards-to-be like Agumon and make a second layout that will allow more than one minor digimon to be on the page.

these are just thoughts floating around in my head right now, sorry for the long post :) -- Ned Scott 05:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * not to pick on the Agumon article, it just just the first one to come to mind. that article is looking awesome, by the way. -- Ned Scott 05:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do wish that section redirecting was made for Wikipedia soon 1 2 because it would help something like this hugely. What we could do, however, is, like you say, merge all those hopeless articles together into one page and redirect the lost pages there.   x42bn6   Talk  01:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

un-needed lists

 * List of Chosen Digimon
 * instead of having this list, why don't we tag the articles they link to with a category and then use the category listing? -- Ned Scott 06:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

DNA Digivolution
Should the DNA Digivolution be included in the NORMAL Digivolution line or should a seperate section be created. - plau
 * they seem to only really be apart of Digimon Adventure 02 and some of the card games. and since they require a second 'mon, I'd say it wouldn't be apart of their normal process. -- Ned Scott 09:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Movie stuff
I've rewritten Veemon, but for the life of me, I can't make enough sense of the section about the two first movies in the Digimon Adventure 02 to write it in. Can somebody have a look in that? Circeus 20:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Should Digimon always be capitalized?
personally, I don't think the word Digimon should always be capitalized. There's Digimon the brand / franchise, and then there's digimon the fictional monster. I think we should figure this out, along with some other digi-words and such, and add it to our guidelines. -- Ned Scott 07:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, I've always seen the term capitalized, and since it's usually invariable invariable (as are most individual Digimon's names), I'd go for the capitalization route. Unless we can find official sources, I though the standard for the fandom should be held, per Naming conventions (common names)
 * Capitalize:
 * Digimon (when refering to the franchise)
 * Individual Digimon
 * DigiDestined (though I do not get the second capital, and the word is not invariable AFAI, so I think the cat ought to be renamed)
 * Harmonious Ones/Holy Beast
 * Deva
 * Attack names
 * Do not capitalize
 * digimon ("a digimon")
 * digivolution
 * levels
 * I think setting up a specific standard for the use of English/Japanese is actually more important. And WP:Anime is NOT helpful there:
 * Characters in translated Japanese manga, anime and video games are a special case. They are sometimes given new Western names (as in Pokémon for example), or they may keep their original Japanese names in either Japanese or Western name order. They may also have non-Hepburn transliterations of their names, or even different transliterations between different editions or between manga, anime and/or video game versions (as in Yu-Gi-Oh!, for example).
 * But I think since this is the English Wiki, it makes sense to use primarily the English names/spellings, and mention the japanese terms inthe main articles and lists only. Of course, any issues in translation should be mentionned (such as the collapsing of Halsemon's various Japanese attacks) Circeus 15:08, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Aditionally, the terms "digimon" and the name of all digimon species are generally treated as invariable. Circeus 00:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I personally would prefer a capital because I cannot imagine "pokémon" without capitalisation. That said, I am a total moron when it comes to Digimon so I don't know what is best.  But when I have been going round each and every one of the Digimon articles, I have capitalised every single occurance.   x42bn6  Talk 07:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Portal:Digimon
Should someone create a Digimon Portal. Discuss - Plau
 * you mean a main article that will logically lead into all the other digimon-related areas? hopefully that is what Digimon (and in some small part it's infobox) will be. -- Ned Scott 03:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


 * He means a Portal, like Portal:Anime and manga. Shiroi Hane 05:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oohhh... Boy... (episode articles)
I just found this.

As I've said earlier, it's at least a reasonably good article, but now there's little hope of getting it deleted (considering the amount of individual episode articles everywhere.) Circeus 18:35, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * yeah, I noticed that too. I was thinking we could merge it into a "detailed plot resume" like the one found in Eureka Seven, as well as that article serving as a single article for all those little episode notes that fans love to add. This would also help separate some spoilers from the main page for those who are just looking for basic info and haven't seen the series.-- Ned Scott 22:01, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe someone could write articles for ALL the series finales. - Plau
 * I've cleaned up the article (twice, an anonymous user reverted my changes for some reason), but I still think that it should really be merged with the respective series article.  x42bn6  Talk 00:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

plot summary articles
created plot summary articles to reduce / prevent individual episode articles. So far I did a quick article with Digimon Frontier plot summary, and merged End of the Line (Digimon) to it. What do you guys think of this idea? likes, dislikes? -- Ned Scott 20:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Like, though we mioght want to refer events by the precise episode they occured in. (Gosh, I,ve been very slowing up with my work in the project, I'd better kick in more XD) Circeus 20:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Issues
I and user:Fractyl seem to have a disagreement over content. Fractyl has been adding non-canon evolutions to the 01/02 digimon articles for a while, and has been rather consistently reverted, but he still insist on inserting mention of AncientGarurumon in Gabumon. Circeus 22:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * if it's non-canon to both card game and anime, as it would currently seem, then he's just adding fan speculation. I'll add a note on his talk page to stop the speculation edits, so he knows it's not just you that thinks that way. -- Ned Scott 04:43, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I dunno about the cardgame, but even then, discussion of the mega in the Rookie article? Inappropriate. Gabumon might evolve to just about any mega, AFAIK Circeus 14:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Imperialdramon Paladin Mode
Should Imperialdramon Paladin Mode be considered a DNA of Imperialdramon Fighter Mode and Omnimon? Discuss. - Plau 20060310 16:12 (GMT+8)


 * THe CCG threats him as such, although the anime does not, strictly speaking. Circeus 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * So do we put him as yes in the articles, or no? - plau
 * I say that we put it in Imperialdramon because I think most of the Digimon is Imperialdramon. Links from Agumon and Gabumon and their families can link to Imperialdramon.   x42bn6  Talk 07:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Toko.jpg
We have a bit of an issue on our hands. It seems User:Admrboltz does not believe that Digimonimage provides enough copyright information for Image:Toko.jpg and is trying to get the image deleted because of this. I have tried to explain to him that Bandai is the source and usage is all explained in Digimonimage. He continues to revert my edits on the image and insist on more information, even though there is no more information to be given. This is a big problem, since a great deal of Digimon-related images are only tagged with Digimonimage, thus they are all targets for this guy. -- Ned Scott 08:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Since no response has been given from the uploader yet, I doubt he'll respond (or even check his talk page) in time to save this image, I've been looking for where EXACTLY it came from, if it came from another web site. A Google image search  shows several web sites with almost the same image, meaning any one of these could be considered a source.  Is it really necessary to know which exact one, if any of these, this image comes from (and if from a web site at all)?  The image itself, before it was scanned in as a .jpg file, came from Bandai... -- Ned Scott 08:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All images must provide a detailed source (eg, what website you found it from, if you made it, etc). Being as Digimonimage is a Fair Use image, it must not only have a source, it must have Fair Use rationale, and source, per Item 10 in the Fair Use Policy. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 08:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible. We already know the copyright holder.  I am not the uploader, so I can't say where he found it.  But clearly there are several places where he could have found it.  But the vast majority of those websites just took it from some other web site.  Even if the uploader did give a URL for the image (again, IF it came from the web at all) it would be meaningless.  We know where that image started it's journey, so where is the problem?  And where is this considered a violation for Wikipedia? WP:FU doesn't seem to imply that Digimonimage does not contain the necessary information.  -- Ned Scott 08:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Explain that digimonimage is used as a more specific case of character-artwork. if the image in question isn't official character artwork, then I don't know what is! We only use these pics so farbut to illustrate the character articles, so fair use plays in a pretty straightforward fashion (although there is a case for using fanart, but I'm not going into such a can of worms). If some pics should be deleted over issues like that,it oughtto be the duplicate pictures of the digimentals (eg. we cerainlydo not need both of Image:DEoC3D.jpg and image:Digi-egg of Courage.jpg!). Besides, even if we gave a link to were we got the pic, whoever own that site, unless it's bandai itself, cannot claim any copyright on the pic in the first place. I've been snatching the screenshots off random sites myself with that rationale.
 * As an extra comment, it's also because digimonimage is a case of character-artwork that I insist on having either both it and tv-screenshot or only tv-screenshot on appropriate page: Image:V-mon.jpg is certainly not "official artwork", whereas Image:Tentomon2.jpg is. Circeus 14:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have requested the help of WP:FU on this matter. Please see my comment at Wikipedia_talk:Fair_use. A dmrb♉ltz (T | C) 17:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All image uploads, including all these Digimon images, need a source URL or other exact source documentation (e.g. "Digimon Player's Guide 1, published by Bandai 2005, page 34"). One reason Wikipedia requires this is so other editors can verify the copyright status of the pictures. Another problem ensues if one of these images was grabbed from a non-Bandai site and the image was modified by someone along its "journey"; the modified image is a derivative work and the modifications are copyrighted to someone else. Tempshill 19:09, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * well, no, if you modify a Digimon image then you don't own it, you just modified someone else's image.. they still don't get any copyright ownership since they didn't have it to start with. The point is that any URL given will give you no additional information for verification reasons.  I understand completely why you are asking for exact source, but what I'm saying is it won't help you, it's irrelevant.  The only reason you need a source is to help you verify the copyright status.  it seems to me that we have that.  these characters, even if someone else draws them, are owned by Bandai.  In addition, you have multiple wikipedians here telling you that these are indeed originals from Bandai itself, not fan-drawn, not modified.  In other words, you have verification.  In addition, source, as a legal copyright term, is not always "the last web server the image was on" or whatever.  Telling you that these images are in-fact from Bandai is, legally speaking, providing a source.  The last URL is about as relevant as saying "I got this picture off my hard drive".  A big stink about this is happening only because an "exact" source isn't provided, and the reason it wasn't provided is because it was irrelevant.  You are completely getting caught up in the little details instead of thinking about why we ask for a source. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There are several errors and misconceptions in the above reasoning.
 * 1. I did not say you own a Digimon image if you modify it. Technically, if you modify a Digimon image, the modified image is a derivative work, and you own the copyright to the modifications you made, unless the modifications are uncopyrightable (usually meaning truly trivial).
 * 2. Bandai's Digimon are surely copyrighted by Bandai. However, a fan-drawn Digimon drawing is copyrighted to the fan.  An important point in this whole matter is that our use of a Bandai drawing of a Digimon probably falls under fair use, but if we were to use a fan drawing of a a Digimon, this would definitely not fall under fair use. (Incidentally, if the fan were to try to sell copies of his drawing, Bandai might sue the fan for violating their original copyright on the original Digimon drawing, claiming it's a derivative work and the money is theirs.  But this is beside the point and does not nullify the fact that the fan drawing is copyrighted by the fan.  If such a lawsuit were to take place, Bandai wouldn't automatically obtain the copyright to the fan drawing, for example.)
 * 3. Your statement is appreciated that multiple Wikipedians are telling us that the drawings are originals and not fan-created, but let's say Wikipedia runs for many years after we all lose interest and do other things with our lives. At that point Wikipedia is stuck with several hundred images with no source citations. This makes it unnecessarily hard for other editors to verify the copyright status of the images. Verifying the copyright status of uploaded images is already a menial and thankless task even if source URLs are provided, and one of the reasons that our policy is to require an exact source is to make this marginally easier.
 * Hope that helps; drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks - Tempshill 19:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, what if the person who uploaded it, modified it as well, what URL would you use then?--Amigobro2 07:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And indeed, I cleaned up some of these pics into gifs. Doi get a copyright because I modifeid them? Circeus 13:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, yes, your modifications are copyrighted to you, unless they are uncopyrightable, which usually means truly trivial modifications. Tempshill 19:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Hope that helps; drop me a note on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks - Tempshill 19:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, what if the person who uploaded it, modified it as well, what URL would you use then?--Amigobro2 07:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And indeed, I cleaned up some of these pics into gifs. Doi get a copyright because I modifeid them? Circeus 13:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, yes, your modifications are copyrighted to you, unless they are uncopyrightable, which usually means truly trivial modifications. Tempshill 19:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Technically, yes, your modifications are copyrighted to you, unless they are uncopyrightable, which usually means truly trivial modifications. Tempshill 19:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Let them delete it. It's notlike the image will be hard to find again, with url (almost all official pics, as well as good quality screenshot, are available at wikimon ) Besides, the jpg versions are badly grainy when resized. Circeus 19:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * indeed -- Ned Scott 05:00, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

We all want Wikipedia to be copyright compliant, and to follow the guidelines as best we can. But if we waste our time arguing little details and ignoring the reasons behind those details then we're missing the point. Not only that, but most of these images have to be gone through and updated with better images anyways, Toko.jpg included. We are not trying to be excluded from the rules. As a WikiProject, we are obligated to follow all guidelines and rules to the best of our abilities. And no one wants to see Wikipedia get into legal harms way (any more than it is). I just wanted to make that clear. -- Ned Scott 20:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

A new version of Image:toko.jpg has been uploaded and provides a specific source.
 * Seeing as how Admrboltz has decided to re-add the no source template even without any consensus.. I've decided to say "screw it all" and upload a new version with URL information to please him. -- Ned Scott 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, as you can see here, the original source of this image was the Bandai website itself (right down to that little grey mark above his head) Shiroi Hane 02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I could kiss you right now. This I kept looking on the Japanese Bandai web site, I didn't think to just look on the American one.  Now a lot more images can gain better source information and everyone will be happy. -- Ned Scott 03:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeuck, get off!:P Got a directory on an old HD full of official artwork like that, luckily I'd saved them using webstripper so just needed to pull the original URL. Shiroi Hane 17:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Drama CDs
Just as the movies are distinguished in the individual series articles, so should be the Drama CDs, because they too are in continuity... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.92.127 (talk • contribs)

Separate articles for mangas
It seems illogical to me that after having given the 5 TV series and also the games separate pages of their own, that the manga storylines remain on the Franchise page. V-Tamer, for example, did run to 58 chapters and that is about the same length as a series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.92.127 (talk • contribs)
 * well, it's actually only been recently that the TV series were separated. if you wish to do something about it then I encourage you to make the articles yourself, and perhaps even make an account and join this WikiProject.  -- Ned Scott 04:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)