Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

Someone just added a bunch of redlink digimon to the current List of Digimon (like BioThunderbirdmon, which i'd assumn should just redirect to Thunderbirdmon?), as well as Gizumon AT and XT.

Should stuff like that be kept on the list?

Or should we just not worry about it now, since we're considering major reorganization of -mon articles anyway, and that article could be heavily affected. --Yaksha 00:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What is this guy doing, exactly? I think he's moving information, but I just want someone else to check. [1] --Raijinili 02:49, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems he's roughly doing one of the tasks listed on the to do list: "Split Frontier Digimon from characters for J.P., Tommy, Zoe, Koichi. See Takuya Kanbara as an example of how the human character should end up looking." I guess in light of some of the above discussion that should be taken off. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

someone's already reverted Tommy's article, and i'm about to go revert the other three. He's taken huge chunks of information out of the articles for those four characters, but has not put them into the new articles he's started (the ones for the digimon). So i'm going to restore them into the character articles. --Yaksha 06:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just creating a new topic for discussing whether to keep all the mon articles.

If every -mon article has a seperate article, some will permanently be stubbed simply because there's nothing to say about them.

Vitual Pet only digimon
We should combine all the digimon in one digivolution line into one article. I'm talking about digimon like Fufumon, Popomon, Pupumon and Bombmon.

Armor digimon
Digimon like Stegomon, there is simply nothing to say about them other than the fact that it's the Friendship Armor form of Patamon.

We should split the digimental article to an article for each digimental. And then combine the armor digimon into them. So an article for the Digi-Egg of Hope will include Saggitarimon, Moosemon, Sheepmon, Oryxmon, Bullmon, and perhaps even Pegasusmon. The page should also include Armor digimon that exist only in the TCG, so like Kenkimon is the Friendship Armor of Gabumon or Solarmon, and there's really nothing else to say about it. So it should go into the Digi-Egg of friendship article (although noted that it exists only in the Card Game.)

Others
Groups of Digimon like the "Olympus Twelve" need to be combined into one article. (e.g. digimon like Marsmon and Minervamon). For digimon that belong in one of these groups, but there is something to say about them, they should still have an entry on the group page but a link to their main -mon article (e.g. Mercurimon.

X-Digimon
All X-Digimon articles need to be merged. I noticed there're still a lot of seperate articles for X Digimon when i was compliing the X-Digimon list on the X antibody article. FOr many of them, there's absolutely nothing to say except for the fact that they're an X version of some other digimon.

I've actually already been doing this, hopefully no one here minds.

But what do people think about the other three ideas? --Yaksha 00:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Merging Digimon that are exclusive to the v-pet, or that are exclusive to another single product (such as only seen in one manga or one video game) probably should be merged to either that article or a "List of Product Name Digimon" or some grouping to that extent. Considering the size of most of those articles, they could easily share the main article space without making things too big.

Grouping the Armor Digimon seems to make sense. Not so sure about grouping it based on families or some of the groups like "Olympus Twelve", but something to that extent would be a good idea. We might have to throw some ideas around for ways to group them, but the basic concept is there.

X-Digimon grouping, like the Armor grouping, seems to make sense as well, but we might want to hold off on that pending how it fits in with the other grouped merges.

With this system we probably should list all Digimon, but for major characters such as partner Digimon, put the bulk of that character-related info in another article, such as a corresponding human article. Basically what Indiawilliams and Yaksha suggested in the above section. It sounds like we're on the right track here. -- Ned Scott 02:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This being said, we probably will still find some cases were a Digimon can reasonably get it's own article. But even in those situations I think it should be more about a Digimon character more than just any and all tid bits on the Digimon itself. -- Ned Scott 02:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

perhaps this is the point that we should be either listing or tagging -mon articles which could possible go? So i'm thinking we should consider doing something about any digimon that has almost nothing under the 'appearances' section? --Yaksha 06:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering, should EVERY Digimon that has appeared in an anime/manga keep a distinctive article? I'm thinking of examples like Harpymon and Boarmon who played a part in one episode and/or movie but have not been seen in any other media. Shall those articles be merged into lists too, when we come up with them? And how much information about their appearances would we include in the lists?

Another thing, will there be room in these condensed Digimon articles to have images of every Digimon that has a design? Indiawilliams 18:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

For the first question, yes, i think they will be merged. Since there's really nothing to say about them except from the fact that Harpymon is a Hawkmon + Digi-Egg of Light, and that it has a fight with renamon during which renamon digivolves. For a lot of these mon articles, the 'information' in the appearances section is either insignificant, or really could go onto a more main article. Like in this case, the whole fight could be mentioned on the renamon or rika article. Since IIRC, the whole rika-with-the-stick thing was an significant point in Rika and Renamon's relationship.

About the second question, i don't see why not. Those article that are just lists of episodes from some TV/anime series...often have one picture per episode. So i don't see what's wrong with us having one picture per digimon on an article. --Yaksha 07:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

We've got a lot of good ideas going so far. Here's a proposal I've been thinking about for what to do and where to go from here.

What to do

• create lists for all Digimon as a species / creature with links to specific characters that are that kind of Digimon.
• We'd have to figure out a good way to group these lists, maybe by level or by family, etc
• Any 'mon who is not a character (as in, more than just seen) in an anime, manga, video game should only use the list entry and have no other article. Won't really be hard since there's usually nothing to say about these 'mon anyways.
• Any 'mon that is exclusive (or mostly exclusive) to one product/series should be merged with an article on or related to that product/series
  • This would apply to the 'mon as a character and be in some kind of List of Digimon Name characters or something to that extent. They would link back to their entry on the lists, but could also include the same content as the lists if applicable.
• Partner 'mon characters would be merged with their human partner article and contain information across all Digivolutions that are seen in the series.
• Some major character 'mon that don't have a human partner might be notable enough to warrant a full article, but again would be an article about the character and would contain all Digivolutions of that 'mon seen in the series (the article would probably be titled after the most common Digimon form that they take)

How to do it

• Maybe similar to article assessment, we could use our banner and tag different pages (technically the talk pages) regarding what needs to be done with the information in that article. Sort of like, one grouping of articles could be "articles that contain anime and manga characters" and "articles that have no notable appearance" etc.
• Set up a dedicated to do list and maybe a separate discussion page
• write up basic instructions on how to help so that editors outside of this conversation can easily join in and help
• Track all the redirects (likely by category) that this will cause (as well as all those existing redirects)
• update links to point to specific parts of the list articles, since redirects can't use page anchors. One way to make that process easy will be using things such as AWB and NedBot.
• we'd need to discuss:
  • What groupings to use for the 'mon lists
  • how the lists will appear
  • what level of information the listed 'mon should have

Another idea I had was to consistently link the 'mon info with external links to some of the existing Digimon fan websites such as Wikimon or Megchan's Digimon Encyclopedia. Think of it like the IMDB links on most movie articles. I haven't been to many of these sites in a long time, so I'm not sure if this is a good idea or not.

In other words, our next step would be to get some ideas on what this will look like and figure out a good way to categorize the existing pages.

That is what I propose we do. At least that's what I can think of at the moment, no details set in stone, etc. -- Ned Scott 04:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

And, of course, promote WP:WAF, WP:FICT, etc, along the way. -- Ned Scott 05:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Megchan's Digimon Encyclopedia is good for TCG information, but that's about it. It's really a TCG encyclopedia rather than a digimon encyclopedia. Although i've found the TCG information has been the one most difficult thing to sort out in the -mon articles. Linking to a digimon wiki would probably be better since they are updated, but using another wiki as a reference on a wiki sort of defeats the purpose of referencing.

For the -mon articles, i think maybe we should revive the Digimon (creature) article (which currently redirects to digimon.) And get rid of the "List of Digimon" article. The Digimon (creature) article can contain all the general information about digimon, what they are (like that paragraph on Renamon's page about its comment on gender)...etc. And it will also list all digimon, or at least all our of articles on -mons. In other words, it'll act as the -mon main article.

Otherwise, i agree with everything else in your "what to do" list.

As for how to do, tagging would work. Another option would be to set up a subpage, and copy the entire "list of digimon" over to the subpage. Then we just start making headings and sorting the list (so moving digimon from the massive List of Digimon into headings). And use the talk page of that subpage to talk about how we should organize it, i can see it being messy.

The first task would be to decide what type of articles we want (so what digimon grouped into what article), and place all existing -mon articles into a future mon article category (so all armor digimon together, all digimon that deserve their own article together...etc.)

And then we would need to do all the housekeeping tasks. So tagging articles that need to be changed (which i guess will be the vast majority of mon articles), writing up instructions, dealing with redirects and links, as well as the categories, deciding how we want the pages to look, deciding how we are to group digimon on the main article which will have the complete list...etc.

I think it's a bit hard to decide how articles in the future will look until we actually decide what kind of article we want (so for example, are armor digimon defintely going into the same article...etc.) --Yaksha 07:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Megchan's enclopedia contains card contains translations of the cards yes, but the opening paragraph is general information such as name origins, possible evo/devos, first anime appearances etc. Shiroi Hane 17:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Megchan's enecylopdia is useful no doubt, for its TCG information especially (the possible evos/devos are also TCG evos and devos), and all the translated stuff. But it doesn't work as a one-stop-shop because it's missing one important thing - and that's digivolution lines from the anime and so on. FOr Digimon world DS (and any other digimon game i suspect), decent information should be obtainable at gamefaqs.com. for anime and manga digivolution lines, i've yet to find any good places.

I'm going to go set up a sub-page for this re-organising -mon articles thing. Given the huge number of articles that is going to be involved in this reorganization, we're going to need a seperate space to keep track of everything. and we should move this discussion over to talk page of the subpage so this place doesn't get filled with -mon-reorganization discussions.

Subpage at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Digimon_Systems_Update/Digimon_Article_Reorganization --Yaksha 09:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me or are there way too many digimon that show backwards digivolutions to other digimon but that dont show any way for that digimon to have digivolved to that digimon in the first place? Shouldnt we work on cleaning up those unconfirmed backwards referneces before trying to move the articles themselves around? Sephikus 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, cleaning up digivolutions is defintely one thing we will have to do. But i'm not too sure what exactly your refering to here? Is it just the problem of -mon articles with unsourced (and possibly incorrect) digivolutions? In that case, it should be easy to fix since (from the looks of things) we're planning to not include all TCG digivolutions into the articles. So we're going to just stick to the cannon digivolutions from the official anime/manga/games. --`/aksha 10:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

When we use Japanese (reliable) sources in articles to describe the differences between the English and Japanese version in episodes or any other behind the scenes information, what would be considered as a "reliable" translation? Unlike S-E, Toei has not provided the internation fans with translations, so what source could we call reliable for translations? —Mirlen 01:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I came across this article, List of Digimon whose English and Japanese names differ, which went under the radar I guess. Seems like an alright idea for a list, and it would be nice to have this information in one spot. -- Ned Scott 19:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Would have defintely been useful. The list is quite short, there aren't that many digimon with name differences. Perhaps it could just be combined into one article with the list of digimon? --`/aksha 00:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there's probably more than what's on that list. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably. but is it really significant? Almost every anime/manga has a list of name changes - just because it originates from another language. Digimon just happens to have tons of fictional characters (species), so a slightly longer list. --`/aksha 02:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree, I don't think such a list is needed as the name differences are already on the Digimon article itself. - Plau 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As a topic, I wouldn't say it's significant. I was thinking mostly for article navigation, which is considered an acceptable reason for a "list of" type article (WP:LIST). But, to be honest, I don't really care much either way :) -- Ned Scott 12:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As long as both names are in the article and redirects are in place there should be no problems finding the correct page so its not really needed, but I'm certaintly not going to push for deletion. Shiroi Hane 12:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I've already started to put this in motion, and aren't done editing, but... I think the DATS article would be better serving to the project if it were changed into a catch-all article for the major and minor characters of the series, as well as for the concepts of the series, such as an elaboration of just what DATS is, and the nature of the Digivice iC, Digital World, and so on and so forth. Thoughts?

This is what I've done so far: List of Digimon Savers Characters and Concepts

Thoughts?--Razorsaw 22:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing is something I've mentioned before, a good deal of this should be merged with the main article. We'd likely still have enough for a second article, but right now the two are stepping on each others toes, in a sense. Also, remember WP:FICT and WP:WAF. We shouldn't summarize simply for the sake of summarization. We should only dive into this much detail when we can relate out-of-universe elements to it. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about how to go ahead with this. Those links tell me not to describe things in a biographical sense, but I've seen multiple pages that do just that - not just random pages, but multiple ones.--Razorsaw 00:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of articles in need of improvement, but it's still a direction we should move towards. -- Ned Scott 01:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I should rephrase. Practically every fictional character page has a healthy bit of summary and bio; its a personal failing that I can't distinguish between the proper way of doing things. I don't mean to be obstinant, I just feel personal responsibility for those pages, having created them, and I'm a bit unsure how to do it the "right way." WP:FICT and WP:WAF haven't been particularly helpful in-practice.--Razorsaw 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, that's why we're here, so we can all help :). Usually, most of that kind of stuff can be kept in such an article as long as more out-of-universe information can be added. It's hard to find a lot of out-of-universe information because most of the sources for that (interviews, commentary, etc) are in Japanese and remain untranslated. Wikipedia is a work-in-progress, so it's ok that we don't have these sources right now. The idea is to just keep it in mind that summaries alone shouldn't be the end result. That being said, the articles you've created so far are actually in okay shape in this respect. As long as we don't write needlessly long summaries and try to keep the information relevant. Helping the reader identify the general character as opposed to stating every little detail, is petty much the idea. -- Ned Scott 02:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well, I've tried to be as brief as possible, with the side characters. Satsuma is the only one that gets gets really long, in my opinion. I think what they may be lacking is context, which is why I wanted to include explanations about DATS in other parts of the article, you know? -- --Razorsaw 02:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as an up-date, I've added everything I initially wanted to put into the article, besides several images. I think now we can start thinking of what we need to add, slim down, or move, yes? - --Razorsaw 16:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hm... I don't mean to be rude, and I'll admit I'm not heavily engrossed in the technicalities of this, but are we going to discuss how to pull this off at all? I have some ideas if we need something to kick it off...--Razorsaw 23:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I got an issue with this. We all know people can go too far in breaking down a subject and having too many pages. But there is also such a thing as putting too much information on an article. There are times in which an article will have so much information that it should be broken down. Digimon Savers Characters and Concepts is one of those pages. It should be at least broken into two pages. --Eldarone 16:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. DATS didn't need to be as big as it was, and a lot of it was technically inaccurate. I don't think we really NEED a whole page to be long winded about how many Digimon such and such has defeated. And I wrote that original page. --Razorsaw 16:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

There could be a need for two articles, but even if that's the case I think we should look at how those two articles compliment each other. Some info might be good on one article and not another, etc. -- Ned Scott 06:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we make a decision to use just one of them, even if its just arbitrary. Having "Fate/Destiny" or "Destiny/Fate" looks really...unprofessional. The digiegg is called either the digiegg of fate, or the digieg of destiny. Having both of them like this just makes it look like we're unable to make a decision. --`/aksha 03:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't one the dub name and one the original? -- Ned Scott 03:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

something like that. Whichever one was used in the english release of the digimon movie should be the better known one. Don't suppose anyone has an easy way of confirming whether the english digimon movie uses fate or destiny? --`/aksha 03:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The dub name is never mentioned in the movie. Its only called Destiny in the US card game. --Razorsaw 18:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Destiny is the dub, Fate is the original, according to http://digistarlight.net Nightmare SE 14:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I watched the fansubed movie, and I don't believe it's named in the original as well. It seems to be a term used in just the card games. -- Ned Scott 02:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It must have been named. Whenever an armor digimon digivolves, they're always given a nickname that includes the name of the crest (so flamedramon is "the fire of courage" or something. And Nefertimon was something like the angel of light). When the digiegg was used, the nickname given to rapidmon-armor should have included either fate or destiny.

Either way, if the US cards use Destiny. Can we use Destiny instead of "destiny/fate" unless there's a reason to use fate instead? --`/aksha 02:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they just said "golden armor energize!"74.140.118.84 21:56, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The RedVdramon image seems a little suspicious. The image says it's the Bandai art of RedVedramon, but it doesn't show up when doing a google image search for "RedV-Dramon", i can't seem to find it on the internet at all. The picture looks scratchy, as if it's someone's editing.

I'm a bit tempted to replace it with the battle sprite of RedVdramon from D1 Tamers. The battle sprite is smaller, bit it's defintely the real thing.

(battle sprite and current RedVdramon picture)

What does everyone think? --`/aksha 03:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably a good idea. You know, I think Akatorimon's artwork is similarly fake. --Razorsaw 04:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Akatorimon's artwork is fake. But, since it is just a recolor of Kokatorimon, it looks better than a sprite, because thats all we have of him. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KingBurgermon (talk • contribs).

Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:

• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
• User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
• User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
• User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
• User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 00:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Many of the Digimon pages seem to have attacks that are neither on the cards nor anywhere in the anime. One example: Neemon. He has two attacks on the cards, and never attacks at all in the anime. Many of these attacks also have no description, and, to-say, they sound different than the digimon's other attacks sound. Does anyone know if there is some other source for attacks that I am forgetting, or is it reasonable that these are fan-made attacks? In any case, they should be removed if there is not a description for them.128.211.254.142 03:21, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, you're forgetting the games =). In the anime, digimon tend to stick to just one or a few attacks. Same goes for TCG. But in the games, digimon sometimes have many attacks...i guess...kinda of like the more powerful attacks as you advance type of thing. So a lot of attacks come from the games. Or various digimon movies. --`/aksha 03:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

However, there's samples like MaloMyotismon, where there are 20 attacks listed. And in the games, the attacks have names like "MP Skills: Fire, Bomb, Freeze, ^Heal Light, Cure Light, Pwr Down". Digimon World 3 seems like it might have some of these, but many of them apply to game mechanics, such as HP, MP, or weaknesses. As for the movie thing, the only new attack I know of is "Trinity Burst".

There's also this feeling that alot of the descriptions seem completely made up, such as "Black Hovering: When he's jumping he can hover in the air.. So no-one can catch him and he can do his black rain move better." Or, as it seems to be the idea to reorganize digimon pages so that each individual doesn't get a page for only two sentences, maybe the digimon with their new attacks could be moved to the video game pages.

It just seems to me that at the least, canon and game attacks should be seperated. And "generic attacks", such as "Moon Tracer - A generic attack shared by multiple fighters in Digimon Battle Spirit." should be removed.74.140.118.84 20:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

For a while now, we've been listing Digimon groups like the Seven Great Demon Lords and Royal Knights in the same category as "families" like Virus Busters, Nature Spirits, et all... and this is technically inaccurate. O_o Groups are a seperate category from Families listed as a special requirement on some cards, and also mentioned in profiles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Razorsaw (talk • contribs) 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC).

I'll assume you're talking about the listing of a group into the "Family" box of the infobox on digimon articles? Yes, it's technically wrong. "Family" here very specifically refers to what a "family" is in the context of the Digimon Card Game. They should all be removed. --`/aksha 05:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far. Familys (not all of them, mind) are mentioned in the Bandai profiles. They're just as valid a classification as Virus and Type, if you ask me. O_o - --Razorsaw 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

uhh...I just meant removing the families which are not actually TCG families from the box which says "TCG family". Take Lilithmon for example, "Nightmare Soldiers, Dark Area" are still in the family box. But the bit about her being one of the seven demon lords is no longer in the box. (Although it is mentioned in the opening sentence.) --`/aksha 01:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. So, what do we do about the Groups? Reinstate that as a part of the infobox? --Razorsaw 02:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to put something into the info box that will apply to only a small number of digimon. Most digimon don't belong to any special "group". I personally think having it stated in the opening paragraph is obvious enough. --`/aksha 02:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps a page that provides context, or a list on something like a new Digimon (creature) article? Everyone knows what the Sovereigns, Royal Knights, and Seven Great Demon Lords are, but there should be some context for groups like 4 Great Dragons and Fusion Forms. --Razorsaw 05:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

A great many Digimon images have recently been marked as not having a fair use rationale. (see Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Digimon media). To comply with our fair use policy these images need fair use rationales written up for them or they will be deleted in about one week from this time. We must remember that we are dealing with a great amount of copyrighted material, and in order to use these images we have to follow the policy on this.

Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about it. If they get deleted then that's fine, we can always find them easily at a later time and re-upload them with all the required info and fair use rationales. We've got a lot of work (such as the mass 'mon article merging), and a lot of us are also busy in real life and with other Wikipedia articles. It won't be the end of the world if we can't get to them all in one week.

Here's some examples of images that have fair use rationales and a good image description page: Image:Digimon Tamers ep01.jpg, Image:Kamisama Kazoku ep03.jpg, Image:Battle Programmer Shirase.jpg. I'm not sure, but I don't think the fair use rationales have to be in this exact format, but basically some kind of message is needed that explains why the image is needed in an article and why it won't hurt the market to use the image.

Feel free to ask any questions about this. -- Ned Scott 09:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed a lot of those pictures claim to be official art - exactly where does official digimon art like this come from?

It's from Shawujingmon's official profile on the Digivice 20x site. Shining Celebi 19:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should just stick to using screenshots and TCG pictures in future? They're really easy to find (i think scans of every digimon card can be found on the net), it's obvious how to justify their 'fair use', and hard to fake. (i'm referring to fanart when i say 'hard to fake'. Pictures like this Image:Akatorimon.gif look quite suspicious.) --`/aksha 12:01, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

talking about which, what is the policy about fanart if the fanartist gives permission? As in, if someone draws a picture of a digimon, and says they'll release their drawing completely, would we be allowed to use it? If so, would it be under the "I am the creator of this work..." license or fair use? or both? or is fanart by definition already a breach of copyright? --`/aksha 12:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Fan art that is made to look specifically like a copyrighted character will still have copyright complications because the character is still owned by someone else. WP:ANIME had this come up once because we were using a fan art image (for a while, too) as the mascot/icon of the Project. Then we found out that the fan art was still considered copyrighted, and that's what lead to us using Wikipe-tan. -- Ned Scott 05:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, perhaps someone has answered this question already but I ask it nevertheless: When we merge all the -mon articles shouldn't we keep all the -mon articles that are not stubs anymore? As I understand if an article is not a stub anymore than it can stay and is accepted and after all there are several dozen -mon articles that are no stubs. Diabound00 12:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

it's really the notability of the digimon that determins whether it needs an article or not. The digimon who are main/important characters in some anime/manga/game will get their own articles for being main/important characters. However, a digimon is no longer going to have a unique article simply for existing as a unique digimon species. Coincidentally, or maybe not, just about all the digimon articles which are not stubs do belong to notable digimon. So no, we're certainly not thinking of merging Myotismon into a list of miscellenous ultimate digimon, or Calumon into a In-Training digimon list. --`/aksha 13:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Digimon_layout compare to this Leormon which look better. First why heck is there Description subtitle when whole page is a description of a Digimon. Proprose 2 new categories in place it which cover areas that Description subtitle dose

→ = = Evolution = =

→ = = = Digivolve = = = -tree contrain all possible evolution use this digimon in it

→ = = = DNA evolution = = = - only ones cover here is that him + another digimon become and also if dna combination that becomes him

→ Armour evolution - Tell which Armour digi-egg can be use on him and what he becomes

→ = = Abilities = =

→ X-Evolution - tell first is by defualt x digimon, if actual infomation on him maybe can create = = = X-Evolution = = = put information there

→ = = = Attacks = = = - attack harm it target

→ = = = Special Abilities = = = - Stuff that a Digimon can do help him or benfit other digimon which include move that heal digimons, can levelite one around him.

Also is me does nothing noted where info that thing came from(tv series, mangama, games, cards, etc) Omagaalpha 17:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions, but keep in mind that most Digimon will be sharing an article (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update/Article reorganization). Also, it would be good to structure the articles that are dedicated for Digimon to have more out-of-universe information (see WP:WAF). -- Ned Scott 21:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

yea but the links gave me no where tell what article put together with. So then that put up for discussing how compacting Digimon together. Beside for X-Antibody version of the digimon put in. Question first link for me post ideas way organized article for include combining in single page. Also on user page put up example how think for different digimon be done.Omagaalpha 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The link Ned provided was to the talk page. If you follow the first link that was provided, and click on the "project page" tag, i think you'll find what you're looking for. The digimon are being sorted on the actual project page into new groupings, the talk page is for discussion. As for how the pages will be laid out, yes, we're working on that. --`/aksha 04:16, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 23:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 00:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Someone has gone and made a Demisolarmon article based on a recoloured Kapurimon which is obliviously fan art, could someone get it deleted? Nightmare SE 00:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It just got speedy deleted. -- Ned Scott 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:03, 29 December 2006 (UTC)