Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Digimon/Archive 3

Individual Digimon Pages
Here is a guideline on how to layout pages for individual Digimon articles.

Proposal moved to WikiProject Digimon Systems Update/Digimon layout. Circeus 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

plau (Please help me complete this!)

expanding episodes lists
I put this in the todo box, but I'll also mention it here for any discussion.


 * all lists of episodes (1,2,3,4,5) need short (I stress short) descriptions and screen shots and follow List of Planetes episodes as an example of how they should look.

-- Ned Scott 09:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Figured List of Planetes episodes was a good example, but if anyone has a better suggestion feel free to list it. -- Ned Scott 11:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I put a few images up on List of Digimon Adventure episodes and List of Digimon Savers episodes to give an idea of what I was thinking. -- Ned Scott 21:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)


 * A quick comments on Screecaps: I think you should replace the one with WPP text. Also, we want to avoid having too high-resolution screenshots. Circeus 00:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * agreed. I uploaded new versions with 320 x 240 res, and replaced the ep 2 one. -- Ned Scott 04:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of the following episodes for season one: 26, 27, 31, 32, 34-38, 40-54, if nobody minds :) Kit 23:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Having recently found a sourcefor them, I'lleventually be able to write summaries for all 01and 02 episodes. It just takes way too long downloading them Circeus 00:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Tell me about it. I once waited over five hours for a single episode to download. Are you sure you want to do all the episodes? As I said, I'd be happy to do some of them, or at least make screenshots...Kit 00:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, we all work on them in some way. We revise existing summaries, find better screen shots, etc. So basically, just go for it.  No one is really assigned a position or such. If someone wants to add something or change how something is worded, then they'll just merge the information. -- Ned Scott 00:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not high-quality: it's off youtube.com, and I can do 2 episodes a day easily, and that's enough for me. Circeus 00:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

noticed some of the descriptions getting kind of long. see List of South Park episodes for a great example of "short, sweet, and to the point". Although ours can be a bit longer. I'm thinking there should be about a three-ish sentence limit. -- Ned Scott 06:14, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I try toanswer 4 questions: Who do they meet? Who do they fight? What do they learn? What do they find? And it,s notalways easy to sumamrize the most compelx episodes. Circeus 22:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally I think they really only need enough of a description to be used to identify that episode, since each series will also have a plot summary article. -- Ned Scott 01:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are the sites for original airdates and titles in Japanese, I'm too busy right now so can someone else finish the episode lists.--Amigobro2 00:17, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Adventure: http://member.toei-anim.co.jp/ctr/app/00...=digimon_l

Adventure 02: http://member.toei-anim.co.jp/ctr/app/00...imon_2nd_l

Tamers: http://member.toei-anim.co.jp/ctr/app/00...imon_3th_l

Frontier: http://www.toei-anim.co.jp/tv/digimon_F/

Some formatting ideas are being thrown around at Talk:List of Digimon Adventure episodes, thought I would mention it here incase some of you didn't have that article on your watch list. -- Ned Scott 07:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * implementing ideas and now using a new template, Digimon episode, to ease both episode entry and any future style changes. Also using that template's talk page as new guidelines for making episode entries. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 09:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

combining characters and some credits for better organization
take a look at User:Ned Scott/sandbox for some ideas I've been getting on combining character and voice actor info. what do you guys think? -- Ned Scott 05:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks great, I think we should do it.--Amigobro2 07:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Amigobro2 11:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool. - plau


 * since it's looking good I'll put it in the article and see how it looks. Mimi and Palmon, and Kari and Gatomon could use better pics.  and some of the short descriptions could be a bit better.  I figure for both images and short descriptions basically should give you just enough info to ID a character if you've only seen one episode.  That way it's descriptive, but not a spoiler. -- Ned Scott 09:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * and maybe a better image for Tai and Agumon, since you can't really see Agumon in that one. -- Ned Scott 10:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate articles for Digieggs/Digimentals
I will start a page for the Digieggs/Digimentals of season 2, O.K.--Amigobro2 07:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a wise idea. This information should already be on the character pages, there's no reason to duplicate the information.  It'll just be another stub article. -- Ned Scott 08:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's there to show all Digivolutions and explains it a little more, plus it has the Digiegg of Darkness which no one owns.--Amigobro2 08:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you think the article will support itself then go for it. It never hurts to try. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I do think, however, that we definitely need to choose just one version of the Digiegg image instead of having two versions for each. -- Ned Scott 09:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I've already pointed that out earlier. I saywe go with the white backround ones. Clear-cup Official art and cleaner-looking. I think the page should make it clear that the term covers 2 very different concepts in the English version, though. Circeus 13:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you shouldn't keep calling them "Digiegg/Digimental" Just call them by "Courage" or something. - Plau
 * Thank you for your comments, I really need them, and thanks, Plau for making the page look better, I always thought that digieggs was spelled "digi-eggs", but someone told me I was wrong. Thanks again.--Amigobro2 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Could anyone give me the names of all the Armor Digimon, I can get the pictures I just need the names, Thanks.--Amigobro2 09:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think they are listed in the rookies' pages. Circeus 14:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean just the 'normal' forms? Gatomon's page lists Nefertimon, but iirc her alternative Armour forms from other digimentals including Maildramon, Tylomon and Swanmon. Shiroi Hane 15:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

merged Mitsuo Yamaki with Hypnos (Digimon)
I merged Mitsuo Yamaki with Hypnos (Digimon), since Yamaki pretty much goes hand in hand with Hypnos, and since Yamaki's article had such an awesome write-up, I thought it would be a good idea to merge the two articles. I mean, his life is his work, at least in the show. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 09:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I find that the merging of two articles Hypnos and Yamaki to be unhelpful. One article dealt with Hypnos the agency, the other dealt with the history of Yamaki.  Nowboth articles have too much information for one topic, and not enough for the other.  I request that we keep the two articles seperate --Eldarone 13:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I combed over both articles carefully. By Wikipedia standards this is hardly too much information.  In addition, all of Yamaki's information was about him and Hypnos.  As an element of the show he might as well BE Hypnos.  I made sure information on both sides were preserved, as well.  The only thing that wasn't preserved was something about Yamaki's non-canon history, which I'll restore now as a note.  I must apologies, I thought a merge of this type was such a no brainer that no one would object to it.  If I had known you thought otherwise I would have started it as a discussion first.  But I still feel this is better for both articles. -- Ned Scott 22:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Hypnos article focused on the agency (mission, resources, actions, personel, etc.), and Yamaki's article mostly focused on him and how he related to his life's work. I think it would be better if the two articles were spilt up to prevent confusion and for categorical reasons.  Although, I do support creating a note for Yamaki's non-canon history.  While not mention in the show, at least it was published and not fanfiction.  --Eldarone
 * sorry, I have to disagree with you. Yamaki has no real personal life, even when he was "acting on his own" it was always related to his work, let alone anything mentioned in his article.  Even if it does have non-Hypnos information it still makes sense to group his bio under a Hypnos heading or article, for "categorical reasons".  There is no confusion, and I don't understand what you could mean by categorical reasons. I fail to see your logic on every point you make.


 * I don't mean this as a personal attack, but I think you feel this merge is a demotion for Yamaki, as if to say he's not as important to the show. People seem to think that if someone or something has it's own article rather than sharing the article it makes it more or less important.  And I think that's your real objection to this merge. -- Ned Scott 06:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * And yes, we do get to see him in the show as a character that is more than just his work. But still that article was mostly about Hypnos and events in the show than specifically about him.  Being merged with Hypnos doesn't mean that he is nothing more than Hypnos, it just means it's very close subject matter. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yamaki shows his 'human side' whenever he takes off him sunglasses. Moments that come to mind are meeting with the kids before they left for the Digital World, the time we see him at home with Reika and at the end of the 2nd movie, again with Reika. Shiroi Hane 16:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should take a vote on wither or not Yamaki should have been merged with Hypnos. If Votes say Spilt, we seperate the two topics into their orginal articles. If the votes for merge, then we rewrite the article for both Hypnos agency and Yamaki.--Eldarone 16:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

If there is no objections, within 48 hours I will split the Hypnos article and return the Yamaki article. --Eldarone 23:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I object. I'll put together a straw poll, if you insist, to settle this issue. -- Ned Scott 01:05, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * however, "for the record" see voting is evil for why I've been reluctant so far to put this up for a vote. -- Ned Scott 01:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I see it as necessary. We can't agree on wither or not the Hypnos/Yamaki articles should be seperate or not.  Since we can not be in agreement with each other ideas, and to avoid a argument, this is probably best.  I put a hold on any changes, and decide to wait to see what others say on this issue.   --Eldarone 04:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:DIGI welcome template
Should someone create a template to welcome/invite people to join WP:DIGI. - Plau 07:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's what I threw together so far, from previous messages I had left people when they joined: WP DIGI welcome message. It very much needs a grammar check, and could probably be worded better in a few places. Feel free to edit this as much as you see fit. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Be sure to use instead of  per Template_substitution -- Ned Scott 08:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Created
Created WikiProject DIGI to mark articles that are related to our WikiProject, just as WikiProject Anime and manga and WikiProject Japan do. And you might notice I moved the to do page to be compatible with this new template. -- Ned Scott 06:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Digimon Fontier
I think each digimon should have their own page. This is because strictly speaking, their are different digimon. Also, it would help clean up the page. Discuss - Plau 02:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Being different Digimon doesn't mean each gets it's own article (nor does it have anything to do with status or how important something is), but I do understand what you are saying. If these Digimon are also used in the card games then it might be a good idea, but if not I'd rather us try to touch up those character articles before splitting them. -- Ned Scott 03:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * actually, although I'd like to merge more articles (and possibly find an acceptable way to merge Digimon creature articles) I think it probably would be a good idea to give the Digimon their own articles. But keep maintain character-related information on the human character articles, then use the  template when applicable. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am going ahead, stop me if anything goes wrong. - Plau 11:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Thought I should note that Takuya Kanbara is a good example of what to leave on the human character article, as well as how to tie in with the new split mon articles. -- Ned Scott 10:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

too many groups of mon articles
Personally I think several of these types of articles should be merged or possibly deleted. We've got several of these articles, including: The Seven Great Demon Lords, Four Great Dragon Digimon, Olympus Twelve, Digimon Sovereigns, and Celestial Digimon.

Lesser, but still somewhat needless articles for groups (could be merged to their respective main articles): Ancient Warriors, Legendary Warriors. -- Ned Scott 21:11, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, The article do not have much incommon apart from all having fancy names. - Plau 08:20, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more like merging them with an article they were related with, rather than merging them all together. -- Ned Scott 02:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course, the Digimon Sovereigns, Four Great Dragon Digimon, and the Olympus Twelve have nothing to do with the Ancient or Legendary Warriors. The Celestial Digimon might be merged, as their main purpose were guardians of the Human Spirits. Finally, the Seven Great Demon Digimon, with the exception of Lucemon, have nothing to do with the Warriors either. So still, not much of a connection. I don't think they should be merged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legendary (talk • contribs).
 * No, no, you misunderstand me. For example, Digimon Sovereigns would be merged with a Tamers related article, Legendary Warriors would go with a Frontier related article, etc. -- Ned Scott 20:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Still, the Digimon Sovereigns appear in both Tamers and Adventure, the Four Great Dragon Digimon appear a lot as well (and never all four in one series), the Olympus Twelve and Seven Great Demon Lords haven't appeared as a unified group ANYWHERE yet. The Celestial Digimon might be merged with Digimon Frontier, and we might merge the Warrior pages together, but that's really about it as far as mergers. I don't mind those, but any other mergers won't really work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Legendary (talk • contribs).

a note about digi-stubs
''The following was taken from my talk page. I thought it would be good to note it here as well, incase others are wondering the same things as Diabound00. -- Ned Scott 10:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)''

Why are you adding the digi-stub to the Digimon which have enough informations, like Flamedramon? Sorry if I ask but IMO they are not stubs anymore. Diabound00 09:33, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This might be considered a good amount of information for a digimon article, but it's still considered a stub by wikipedia. Calling it a stub does not make the article any less important.  A list of attacks, infobox, and one or two paragraphs does not make something a full article according to wikipedia.  Also, the point of labeling stubs is to allow us to see what articles still need to be worked on, as to not be forgotten and left to be Article-for-Deletion-bait. On that same note, it helps protect articles from being deleted because it tells people that there are those who are working to expand the article, and that it (hopefully) will not remain so small. -- Ned Scott 10:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That being said, some Digimon really don't have anything more to tell, and may forever be considered "stubs" by Wikipedia. But that's what happens when there are separate articles for each Digimon. There are about one thousand Digimon articles, and most of them are stubs. However, stubs are not all together unacceptable on Wikipedia. -- Ned Scott 10:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, I understand, although I can't really agree with this. About the idea of merging, there is the question HOW we should merge. Perhaps we can merge all Armor Digimon which evolve from the same Digimon, like all Armor Digimon Veemon can evolve into... Diabound00 11:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's one of our biggest hurtles, how to make an acceptable way to merge minor articles. Everything from how to handle the infoboxes, what groups to merge, what to include and not include, mon that would go in more than one group, etc, make this a very difficult issue. If it were up to me I'd just leave the articles separate, but this is Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is not our own fan-site, it's an online encyclopedia. But whatever we decide about things of that nature, it will require planning ahead of time, and everyone's involvement, before action is taken. -- Ned Scott 11:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking about maybe making a second "level" of digi-stubs, to help us categorize what's been done and what's needed to be done. One level of stub would be "extreme" stub, meaning no infobox, very little info, etc.  The next level would be 'mon articles that are or near complete, but still might be considered a stub by Wikipedia.  Something like adding a variable to the existing stub would make this pretty easy, such as  for whatever we consider default, and  for the new level .  It would also help us organize what articles needed the most attention, etc.  Any thoughts? -- Ned Scott 20:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea. Because in this way we would also reduce the number of stubs in the Digimon category. Diabound00 05:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'm trying it out. See what you guys think.  Use    for "semi-stubs", nearly compete, but still short, Digimon articles. Then use the normal  for more extreme stubs. Articles using  will show up in Category:Digimon semi-stubs, a sub-category of Category:Digimon stubs.  This will allow us to separate articles a bit better by how much information they have about them.


 * From the description I put on Category:Digimon semi-stubs: "For the purposes of organization, a sub-stub category within was created. "Semi-stubs" are similar to normal Digimon stubs, but with more information and are nearly complete regarding the topics they cover. However, these may still be considered stubs by Wikipedia." -- Ned Scott 09:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It has been decided from here to use   instead of. All the articles that were listed the old way have been updated, as well as its listing on the Project Page. -- Ned Scott 01:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Transliteration of long "o"
What is our position on this point? I'dlike to know what to do with the changes madeto characters article here. Circeus 13:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd say revert, this issue seems to have already been addressed in Manual of Style (Japan-related articles) -- Ned Scott 20:37, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

cleaner participants handling
I took the same idea that WP:Anime had for their participants section. Granted we don't have nearly as many participants, but I think it's a cleaner and more efficient way to handle the task. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 09:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources for Digimon Savers
I put a note on the talk page for Digimon Savers about citing sources, thought I would mention it here too:

''A great deal of information in Digimon articles simply comes from observation from the show, thus making the show itself the source. Because of this there hasn't always been a lot of source citing in Digimon articles. Digimon Savers articles will be hammered with info in these next few months, much of which can't always be assumed as cited from the show as some of us only speak English. For the time being I would like to ask that extra steps be taken with edits to Savers related articles, and cite new information as much as you can.''

As well as some basic info on how to cite sources on wikipedia, like using the tag.

I was thinking maybe we should put together some kind of guide to prepare editors and these articles for all the incoming information. Not just for citing sources, but any other issues that might come up with tons of people wanting to contribute to the articles. Maybe check and see how other similar in-progress anime articles handled the similar task. I have this feeling like the flood gates are about to open. (not that that is a bad thing, hopefully it will help get in more wikipedians to help out on these articles.) -- Ned Scott 06:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Tamers infobox
In the box for Tamers, Takato, Rika and Henry are listed as "Tamers", but Kenta, Kazu, Ryo, Jeri and Suzie are all listed under "other characters". Shouldn't they be listed as tamers too? Jedi Amara 15:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * They were listed under Tamers, but I placed them under other characters for a few reasons. One, it seemed like a bit of a spoiler (although, not a huge one), and the "Tamers" section really should be renamed "main characters".  They become tamers later on, and for the majority of the series are just normal humans.  The navigation box is really just meant to help find the related articles, not really as a statement of status of characters. -- Ned Scott 20:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Raramon
So I decided to go looking myself into the claim from WtW that Lalamon was really Raramon. The claim was that there was a Rara plant that had flowers that look like the 'mon. I couldn't find anything exact, but I did find a couple of pages that said "the rara tree, also know as Erythrina". The Erythrina does appear to have a flower that.. I guess looks like Lalamon. Considering we don't really have anything strong to support Lala over Rara, I've gone and done a quick and dirty move from Lalamon to Raramon. -- Ned Scott 05:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * and note Talk:Lalamon -- Ned Scott 05:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've applied for a histmerge on the two articles. Shiroi Hane 11:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

trivia from IMDB
imdb.com has some interesting trivia on Digimon that would look good on the articles, and with a citable source to boot! -- Ned Scott 06:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * IMDB is not a reliable source. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Granted, but considering the alternative being no source, I'll take what I can get. But you do bring up a good point. I guess it wouldn't be a good idea to cite imdb as the source, but it is a good starting point to find info.  So I guess... find interesting facts on imdb, comfirm on a second site, then add? -- Ned Scott 07:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm starting to see what you mean. There is some pretty shady info on there, but it doesn't take much to be able to confirm or deny much of it. -- Ned Scott 07:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've scanned it quickly and most stuff is basically a funny detail related to data available, etymology (most of which are probably megchan's anyway) or stuff thatcan be checked by watching the show. Circeus 14:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

new images for infoboxes?
I've been thinking about this for a while and I think a landscape image might look better than a portrait image (like that is used on most infoboxes). I take it that originally it was intended for landscape images to be used, as seen on Template:Infobox animanga, and a good example on Strawberry Marshmallow. An infobox is supposed to be able to give at-a-glance info to the reader, but most of our portrait images make it so that you have to scroll down before you actually see any real info from the infobox. Thoughts? -- Ned Scott 05:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you refering to the Animanga infobox, the digimon infobox or the character infobox which has not been created yet? Circeus 15:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Animanga. -- Ned Scott 15:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think using the official promo art is fine. They don,t even stretch the same (frontier and 02 are shorter). Also, if you look at the actual Neon Genesis Evangelion page, you,llsee they currently use the movie poster, which is not very different in size from the images we use. Considering the size of the TOC in these articles, I don't think we realy have any reason to reduce the size of the infobox Circeus 17:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)