Talk:Digimon Adventure (1999 TV series)/Archive 1

Archive 1

spacers

not sure if I like the spacers or not on the main character list.. thoughts? -- Ned Scott 08:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it looks pretty nice. And organized, unlike most of the Digimon lists. ClaudiaVice 05:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Edits

What did I do wrong this time!? I added more info about the theme songs & the titles of the movies in Japanese & Rōmaji. I didn't change the characters names to all be Japanese this time either. And even though I didn't add it back, what's wrong with having a "Digimon Adventure" image that includes Hikari & Tailmon in an article called "Digimon Adventure"?Linkdude20002001 07:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, one thing I've noticed is that you keep changing "season" to "series". Saban refer to 02 as "Digimon Season 2", Tamers as "Digimon Season 3", Frontier as "Digimon Season 4" so season is the correct term. Digivolve is the correct English term for "shinka", alternative terms are explained on the Digivolution page itself. Shiroi Hane 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in Japan, these ARE separate series. In the US they are considered one...so its more of a technicality than anything else. BTW, I've modified the summary of Our War Game and identified the "water" the nukes land in at the end as Tokyo Bay.Pkmatrix 00:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

we know that, that's why the series name is also given. It's kind of like "Japanese name/English Name" in a way -- Ned Scott 07:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Besides, they're the common season names used by most English fans. Circeus 14:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about fan consensus, it's about the facts. "Digimon Seasn" whatever is only used in the English dub. In Japan, each series was comprised of two 20~ episode seasons, aired back to back with no breaks in between. In all honesty, so far there have been 10 seasons of Digimon spread across 5 different series. This can cause of lot of confusion with people who don't understand that. For example, back when Toei announced it was contracting 3 more seasons worth of Digimon. There are still people who are waiting for "Season 5" through "Season 7" as a result - when in reality, Toei contracted the second season of Tamers (Oct-April) and two seasons of Frontier (April-Oct, Oct-April).

At any rate, I do have to admit, I'm a bit baffled by the people running the Digimon wikipedia articles. While the vast majority of wikipedia articles regarding anime, manga, and videogames use the original native-language source material as the primary, canon source, with the dub details as secondary information, the Digimon wikipedia articles are the opposite. WtW-Suzaku 09:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no. WP:DIGI just follows what WP:ANIME does, to use names most likely to be recognized by English readers. There are many other articles that do this as well. -- Ned Scott 09:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

RTÉ

I know RTÉ showed season one in Ireland, but I'm not sure which other seasons. Anyone else know per chance? codu (^t/^c) 12:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Help

Could someone post an internet link to where you can buy digimon on DVD?Sheenfanficker 02:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

If you search http://amazon.com for "Digimon" they sell the first 13 dubbed episodes on one DVD. Digimon: The Movie (the dub of the first three movies in one) is also available on DVD. Those two are the only DVDs which are dubbed. You can buy the original version in Japanese on DVD through many specialty sites, but it costs an arm and a leg. -- Ned Scott 05:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

A question

From the article - The season was highly regarded, and garnered millions of viewers. It also became one of the biggest anime exports out of Japan, specifically the third, after Sailor Moon and Pokémon. (It is possibly the fourth largest, if Dragonball Z is included.) - why is Dragonball Z not included? (You can answer on my talk page if you so wish). —KingIvan 10:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted that part; couldn't figure out why the heck it wasn't part of the main list. *Shrugs* That whole statement needs a source anyway so I put a citation tag by it. Indiawilliams 23:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Other Characters?

What digimon need to be included here? Those who helped in the final fight and who else? trainra 09:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

sure

who ever put in a talk page sora had no filings (there quote: know there are a lot of fans out there who don't like the fact that Sora and Tai didn't end up together, but that's just how things turned out. Please stop putting in comments like 'Sora also had feelings for Tai'. You may want it to be true, but that's not what happened in the series. She wound up with Matt. Anything else is just original research, and that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Thank You)well its complete crap its more than fa spec searis 1 was mostly taiora or ive also thound more websites taiora than ones not, the only soratto webs are fan spec and alot of o2 eps were taiora pluss theres more taiora ofical pruff(whole 01 and 2 02 eps) than soratto(2 02 eps) so whoever putt it on soras talk page and on wikipedia that sora had felings for only matt are stupid blind chavs.espio's da man

i also forgot 1 reson people get the rong idea is the 25 years later but i lernt something new mats kids hair looks like sora's hair but aculiy its tk's hair in 01

Please, when posting a comment, use correct grammar and punctuation. For example, "who ever put in a talk page sora had no filings" should be "Who ever put it in the talk page ' Sora had no feelings '?" More importantly, sign your posts. I'm not patronising you, just making you aware that other users may find it easier (and they will) if you use the correct style/type of comments/posts. King Wagga 20:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

id sign it. espio's da man i s my acont name

Stop the lameness

Apostrophe (talk · contribs) and Ned Scott (talk · contribs), and whoever else might get involved, stop the reverting (all of you) and edit summary exchanges and get to the talk page. This is verging on WP:LAME levels. Circeus 13:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Two reverts is "verging on WP:LAME levels"? You don't get around much, do you? Regardless, I stopped caring after the second revert. ' 15:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if it gets any longer, it will be lame, especially considering the topic. Can this be pettier? Circeus 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't understand Apostrophe's rationale for removing "Season" from the infobox. -- Ned Scott 06:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

please don't delete the infoboxes

i spent a long time putting in the ages

i don't see a problem with leaving them there —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dewy17 (talk • contribs) 04:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the ages is that we have two sets of them (original Japanese, and English dub. And 4 sets for the original cast of Adventure), and it's not really that important that it needs to be in the infobox itself. It'd be much more useful to actually have a note in the article itself that explains their age in which version. I'll stop removing them if you feel strongly about it, but there's my two cents. -- Ned Scott 05:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Christianity?

I've noticed that bits of Christianity are in the first season (i.e 666 and Apocolymon, a play on the term apocolypse). Has anyone else noticed this and if so, should it be added? 69.92.33.74 17:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so as it is a kids show at the end of the day, and the apocolypse is about "the end of the world", so it isn't about Christianity specifically. Wild ste 19:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

YEs, they do draw heavily on Christian mythology - however, they also do this for basically every other mythology. If anything, the main mythological basis for the series is a combination of Norse and Christian demonology.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Article name and focus

I recently updated the infobox to remove it from Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete infobox parameters by removing the title parameter entirely from the movie component. At the same time, I removed the value from the name parameter in the infobox header, with the reasoning that any notes stating that the article only covers season one should go in the lead, not the infobox (and especially not the title). However, my edit was quickly reverted by another user with the reason '....ummm, no, that's the movie's name. It's not just " ".'. Now, I'm confused... I thought this article's focus was season one of Digimon, not the movie. Furthermore, what exactly is the name of Digimon season one, "Digimon Adventure" or "Digimon Adventure / Season one"? If it's the first, then the value of the name parameter in the infobox header needs to be cleared, and the movie component's title parameter needs to be removed entirely, since it's identical to the article's name. However, if it's the second, the article needs to be moved so that its name is in agreement. And one more thing, to address the issue in the revert rationale, not specifying a title parameter in an infobox component doesn't mean that the title for the media that component covers is " ", it means it's assumed to be identical to the article's name. —Dinoguy1000 21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The name of the movie is Digimon Adventure. However, it is considere "separate" from the tv series itself; "Digimon Adventure" is sort-of a catch-all term for the universe involving Tai and his friends (Digimon Adventure (movie), Digimon Adventure (series), Digimon Adventure 02, Digimon Adventure V-Tamer 01). The movie is included on this page not because it has the same name, but because it is considered part of the storyline for the first series.

"Season 1" is what it is called in America - Digimon Adventure is its Japanese name, whereas in America it was simply called "Digimon: Digital Monsters" for the first three seasons. At least, officially.

If consensus is to remove the title where redundant to the article, go ahead, but the movie should keep its title in.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the movie's title should *not* be left in. There are countless other instances nearly identical to this, involving pretty much every conceivable combination of anime, manga, novels, movies, OVAs, TV specials, etc. etc., and no other instance is done in this way. As I previously stated, omitting the title parameter makes no assumption on the name of the media, except that it is the same as the article's name, nor does it assume that the media is the same as the main media type of the article, so there is no reason to include it here. —Dinoguy1000 18:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The movie came first, and was the "basis" for the name, as the series was named Digimon Adventure to evoke recognition. (Though technically both of them are named to evoke recognition for V-Tamer 01, and the animated versions came out at about the same time). There is no reason to remove it out of any reason but fear of "redundancy" - when it is NOT supposed to be redundant (it's not a subtitle, like "Tenchi Muyo! in Love", or "Pokemon: The Movie"). The few bites that it would "cost" to keep the title in are hardly worthy of crying "redundancy", and removing it would do more to make it confusing - you're essentially calling it just "Animated film", and all the other Digimon movies still have their title in.

There is good reason in this case to keep the title in - the other Digimon movies have their titles included, including one just below this, and unlike most other cases, it's not meant to be a movie released "for" an anime series. In fact, most of these cases would have "The Animated Series", "The Series", "The Film", or "The Movie" somewhere in there to make it clear one is derived from the other. This is not the case here. There is also the fact that practically EVERY Digimon fansite uses "Digimon Adventure" to refer to the movie, so it is useful an recognizable to the common reader. The argument to remove it, however, essentially consists of "most other anime decide not to use this" and what appears to be a beauracratic tendency. It is safe to compromise on removing the anime's title header, since it is obvious what the article is about, but removing the movie title as well would only serve to make the page more confusing, not less.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 00:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* Let me try this again: My argument was not meant to be a OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but rather a demonstration of project consensus. Regardless, though, the purpose of the title and name parameters is a technical one: Each article should generally focus mainly on one or two media for a given series, and the article title should be identical to the title of that/those media (if each one has a different title, the article title should be the same as the title for the earlier media). Since the infobox header's name parameter defaults to the article's name, which in turn should be identical to the main covered media, the only reason to use it is if the article title differs from the title of the media for technical or disambiguation reasons (e.g. the title includes a number sign (#) or the dabtext (manga) or (franchise)). Now, in each infobox component - manga, anime, movie, etc. - the title parameter is meant to be used only if the title for that particular media differs from either the article's title or, if provided for the above reasons, the infobox header's name parameter. In short, the title and name parameters are not meant to be a commentary on how the various media types are related to each other, they are provided for technical reasons only. And on a related note, if the movie came first, its component needs to be listed first, once again per project consensus. I hope this helps clarify exactly what I was trying to say above. —Dinoguy1000 17:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As it's been several days since my last comment, without any replies, I'll go ahead and make the changes to the infobox again. This time around, if you disagree, please mention why here instead of reverting, and we can attempt to reach a compromise through discussion. —Dinoguy1000 17:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The first movie should list the name. This is a situation where you'll actually cause confusion about the title, rather than help. The average reader won't assume that the missing title is the page name, they'll just wonder why the title is missing. If the only problem here is that the article is put into some stupid maintenance category then I'll cut that from the template code (already have, in fact). -- Ned Scott 12:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it should not. Doing so here runs directly counter to what every other anime and manga series article on Wikipedia does (for proof, see Category:Anime and manga articles using obsolete infobox parameters). If you really have such a problem with this, propose a change to the infoboxes to automatically insert the article name into components with an omitted title parameter. Otherwise, as I have already explained, title is meant to be used only if, for whatever reason, the media's title differs from either the name in the infobox header or the article name. —Dinoguy1000 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been driving for the past two days. Assuming consensus is only valid if you see some form of capitulation, or it's been at least a month or two. Two or three days is ridiculous.

While the main infobox may default to the article name, the movie box won't.

Furthermore, this bureaucratic nonsense is just that. Wikipedia is PRIMARILY meant to help the reader - every policy, every guideline, is merely a reflection of that purpose. Regardless of what "every other anime" does, what is most helpful and least confusing to the reader is to have the movie title there. I will be reverting it's removal until a valid reason is presented for why removing it is beneficial to the readers.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to add my sentiment that declaring broad consensus when both 1) only a few editors have even attended the discussion and 2) the specifics of the cases have not been reviewed first is a textbook example of "Other stuff exists". It's blatantly misrepesentative as to both the meaning and purpose of "consensus", and seems to me more like smoke and mirrors designed to allow detached policy-editors to beat their opinions over content-editors' heads.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Dinoguy1000, the maintenance category was added not too long ago, and I suspect it was discussed somewhat about reducing repetitive info in the infobox. When the category was added I was going to say something about it, because it does cause confusion for some situations, but never got around to it. Don't get caught up in the idea of what something was "meant to be" when that has no real meaning behind it. Far more than likely, this is a situation that was not considered. I don't think there was more than a handful of editors who discussed the matter originally, and they'll probably tell you that this wasn't intended to be a hard line rule. -- Ned Scott 01:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I still fail to see why "this situation" is any different from any of the other several thousand transclusions of {{Infobox animanga}}. However, I will concede that I've been somewhat bureaucratic on this whole thing, now that I've taken a second look at my comments and stopped to think about it, with the added point that this could end up being a significant stumbling block for me in the future if I'm not more careful (I blame it on my highly analytical thought process =P ). Regardless, even though, as was pointed out earlier, I've not cited any policy or guidelines for my side of the argument, I still see no reason why this should be a "special-case article". If not including the name of the media is really that confusing for readers (which I doubt IMHO), a solution should be found and applied across *all* animanga infobox transclusions, not just to this one article. On that note, I can only see two possible infobox-wide solutions to this problem, and they both have significant issues (defaulting title parameters to the article's name means we have to go through all articles which transclude the infobox and correct instances where the article name doesn't match the title of the media for whatever reason, and adding a first_media parameter or similar to all components to remove the header row on the first media treated in the infobox leaves too much possibility for vandal abuse or bad hacks to extend the functionality of single components). Of course, if anyone has a different suggestion, I'm all ears. —Dinoguy1000 16:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

One size doesn't fit all. Think of it like this: We have a situation here were there are two movies (four or five counting the next season, which was the same story), one gets named, one doesn't. Someone says "it's the Digimon Adventure movie" and someone else goes "I know that, but what is the title?" or "which one?" It's already slightly confusing to see the title be the same as the show, but leaving it blank makes it more confusing.

The rationale for removing redundant titles had more to do with situations that were really obvious, like when there was both an anime and a manga. Two works of fiction, an anime and a manga are both called Death Note, that makes sense. The Digimon Adventure movie and series didn't have that same relation. For most English readers, the movie is something they didn't even know about until somewhere in the second season of the show, where as in Japan it was debuted first. To make matters more confusion, the movie "Digimon Adventure" was edited and put together with three other movies to make a single Digimon: The Movie.

Like I said, one size doesn't fit all. We don't need to worry about applying something project wide because of few rare instances where we make an exception. -- Ned Scott 01:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finally explaining this, Ned! This is what I was waiting for. Personally, I still disagree with the need for the field, but at this point, I'm beyond caring. If anyone feels like requesting unprotection instead of just waiting out the remainder of the two weeks, go ahead, I'm not going to remove the field any more (though I may tweak it so the page doesn't get sorted into the maintenance category). —Dinoguy1000 16:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for getting out of hand and pissy during this discussion; I'm very glad we came to an agreement.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who should be apologizing, I think I hardballed on this far worse than I've ever done before... Stubbornness isn't always a good thing. =P —Dinoguy1000 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

"Excessive Images"?

How? It has small, low-quality pictures of the eight main characters and their Digimon, and then the promotional posters of the movies (which now longer air or are available for purchase from Toie, and so cannot affect their purchasability).

Honestly, this doesn't seem excessive by any consideration I can think of.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 23:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It is, per WP:NONFREE, which generally limits fair-use images to 2-3 per article. If you can get a group shot of the characters to replace the individual shots, that would greatly alleviate the issue, though I still have reservations about the promotional posters - do they actually add to the encyclopedic value of the article, or do they just serve as decoration? —Dinoguy1000 16:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Aah, strike that, it seems Ned already found a group shot. I'm still concerned about the promotional images, though; at the least, they need captions explaining what they're showing and (possibly) why they are significant to the article. —Dinoguy1000 16:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup?

I believe that the contents of this article do not adequately reflect the guidelines presented in the Manual of Style, what with excessive original research, inconsistencies in tone and tense, etc. I have made attempts to remedy some of these problems, but they have been reverted. Is there anything that can be done? Immblueversion (talk) 21:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation Needed

The page's top summary claims that the series was originally only slated for 13 episodes. This, as of now, is only a rumor until a source is cited. Granted, it is a rather popular rumor, and one that makes SOME sense, but it is a rumor nonetheless; interviews with the Japanese producer and director make absolutely no mention of an initial 13-episode deal, and some quotes actually seem to imply that the show was slated for more than 13 episodes to begin with. (Translation of said interview can be found here: http://digitalscratch.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/interview-memories-of-da-pt-5/#more-793) Please consider revision or deletion. andrewm123476.226.249.8 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Characters Ages in Parrotmon fight

I know this seems like a stupid thing, but they all appear a lot younger then this part of the artical states. Kari and TK were only babies/toddlers when Parrotmon attack, so they were a lot younger then 5/6 years old. This is further proven by the fact (admitally in the dub) TK says he was a little kid when they lived there and couldn't remember much about living there.Wild ste (talk) 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

In the original Japanese version, the characters' ages are 7 (T.K. and Kari), 9 (Izzy and Mimi), 10 (Tai, Sora, Matt), and 11 (Joe). Their ages were upped by a year for the English dub (for... whatever reason), making their ages 8, 10, 11 and 12. The Parrotmon fight at Highton View Terrace took place four years before the events of the series, meaning the characters would all be four years younger. This means that their ages at the time of the fight would be 3, 5, 6 and 7 in the Japanese version, and 4, 6, 7 and 8 in the dub. andrewm123476.226.249.8 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Nine Digi-Destined?

Shouldn't it be mentioned that Sam, the brother of Ken Ichijouji, was an original digidestined. He was initially supposed to be the ninth child... bearing the crest of kindness. However, due to his un-timely death he could not serve and his crest would be absorbed by Ken later, causing him to see the error of his ways. I just feel that it be mentioned. Also, Sam's digivice (which later changed and became Ken's) shared the originial look of the first digidestined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.147.108 (talk) 23:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is all 100% fan speculation. There is nothing to support the theory that the Digivice was originally Sam's. It was intended for Ken all along, since it took him to the Digital World even while Sam was still alive. Also, the Japanese Digimon video games (for the WonderSwan Color: Digimon Anode/Cathode Tamer and Digimon: Tag Tamers, I believe are the ones) have the young Ken as a DigiDestined (working together with Ryo; long story), and while there are a few continuity problems between the games and the show, the writers used them as the basis for the backstory of Ken in the anime. The Digivice and the Crest of Kindness were both meant for Ken all along, meaning that, if anything, HE was the ninth DigiDestined, not Sam.

But, since Ken got his Digivice and Crest after the events of the first series were already over, that hardly pertains to this page at all. Therefore, shouldn't this be in the Digimon Adventure 02 discussion page? 76.226.249.8 (talk) 21:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

May 2000

In almost every article about digimon adventure it says that in May 2000 the digidestined gave their crests to free the sovereigns. What episode/movie/comic book/audio drama did this take place in? I have comprehensively gone though the entire continuum but have not been able to find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.129.99 (talk • contribs)

I believe it is in an episode of Digimon Adventure 02. -- Ned Scott 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

All that is in Adventure 02 was episode 27 where Izzy explains dna digivolving to the new digidestined. Is this the only time we see that they gave up their crests, or is there a proper episode where it happens for real? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.129.99 (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope, all we got was the flashback in 02 episode 27, like you said. 99.117.238.52 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Crests

I'm surprised to see no mention of the crests in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.87.51.64 (talk) 04:56, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dub edits

Didn't this article and Digimon Adventure 02 have dub edit sections? I know for a fact that on one of the two I even added a (very rare for this kind of info) print book reference to one. Of all the series these are the two that were most heavily hit too. -- Ned Scott 09:41, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't remember, but this show did not suffer a lot of localization and no major plot points were changed. A list of dub edits isn't exactly notable, and it would only encourage a lot of users to add in non-encyclopediac entries counting any other dub edit not mentioned. If you insist, a brief mention just like in the Digimon: The Movie article might suffice, but I would not try to focus too much on it. lullabying (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Villains Section

This section is full of mistakes. Can someone fix it? Kuwagamon was never stated to work for Devimon. The Rookies did not kill it. The one in Server later on was stated to be a different one, and we have no reason to believe the one that appeared in the human world was the same one either.

Shellmon likewise was never stated to work for Devimon. It was only sent flying by Greymon and appeared in the Dark Masters arc when they returned.

The "Nightmare Soldiers" were Piedmon's army, not Devimon's. Monzaemon did not work for anyone. He was a good Digimon corrupted by a Black Gear and was never killed.

Megadramon was a member of Machinedramon's Metal Empire.

Cherrymon was a member of Puppetmon's Wind Guardians.

Not all Gazimon were killed by episode 20. A pair appeared at the beginning of the next arc and were seen by DemiDevimon.

VenomMyotismon ate DemiDevimon AFTER he had already been revived. He didn't need him to evolve.

Apocalymon is never stated to be responsible for any villains except for the Dark Masters. He was not killed by the Chosen Children. He blew himself up.

Piedmon was not killed. He was sucked into MagnaAngemon's Gate of Destiny. 68.9.233.144 (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

All of this was correct, except for Piedmon. After he got sucked in, the gate was deleted with him inside it. This is why everyone says the Dark Masters are defeated and his portion of Spiral Mountain deletes.72.12.219.170 (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Digimon Adventure --> Digimon: Digital Monsters

Why are we not using the English name for this page? We're not calling Digimon Fusion, Digimon Xros Wars and it seems to be doing fine. Is this title something everyone has gotten used too? If so, that is hardly a compelling case. The anime is much more well known. —KirtZ^Message 03:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Because the name "Digimon: Digital Monsters" applies to the franchise as a whole in the west. ggctuk (2005) (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The franchise page isnt titled that. I dont see why we cant call the page Digimon: Digital Monsters (1999 anime), the WikiProject already uses English names for articles where available. —KirtZ^Message 11:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Because this is more commonly called by its translated Japanese title like the following two seasons are.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

My best guess is that people did not want to use Digimon Digital Monsters (season 1) since the first four series keep the same name in the West. Another issue regarding the third season is that for some reason the DVD release used Tamers, not Digital Monsters so if this is moved that one may be a different case.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, regarding Fusuon the difference there is that is a unique title for that series so it was used just like Data Squad was used for the 5th series over Savers.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

One other thing, in case anyone was wondering, when the characters were first inroduced in the dub they were introduced with the original name, the dub name in brackets (unles they kept the original name) and then the surname. I wanted to make sure that someone did not mistake this for some weird Wikipedia compromise hybrid (if it was Yagami would have been used for Tai). Kari was introduced later and that particular name format was dropped so that is why Hikari "Kari" is not used.--67.68.22.129 (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Children's War Game

Since there isn't an official translated title for Bokura no War Game!, I looked through Japanese media outlets and most of them list the title in English as "Children's War Game!" and that title even shows up on the title card in the movie. However, I did notice that Toei's official English website lists the title as "Our War Game!" http://corp.toei-anim.co.jp/en/film/detail.php?id=354 (though I'm concerned a lot of their titles are inconsistently translated on the website anyway). I added a source for the "Children's War Game!" title:

"「デジモンアドベンチャー ぼくらのウォーゲーム！」がYouTubeで配信中　4月16日までの期間限定". ITmedia (in Japanese). 2018-03-22. Retrieved 2018-10-08.

I'm totally cool with the title being reverted back to "Our War Game!", but I think "Children's War Game!" should at least be listed in the footnotes anyway, considering there isn't even an official English title for the film anyway. lullabying (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Remake series title

The intro paragraph names the title of the remake as "Digimon Adventure Psi," but this doesn't seem to be supported in official sources. The official site consistently refers to it as 「デジモンアドベンチャー:」, apparently "Digimon Adventure:" as odd as that reads. I've yet to see "Psi" or "Ψ" anywhere on the website. Also, the description for the official English teaser contains " Digimon new TV animation "DIGIMON ADVENTURE:" " Rbcarlson (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I have been following the issue. ryokutya2089 is the first to mention Ψ, but I think it may have been a misinterpretation of the last symbol that appears to represent the Digivice (this is similar to what happened to the official English title of AppMon, given that it has been known as Appli Monsters until Toei decided to give it official name in English). Given that the official logo shows only "Digimon Adventure:", then it's appropriate to mention it as such. --G(x) (talk) 06:50, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

English version

• I'm curious why this article does not mention which company dubbed the English version. Danny Lilithborne 23:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The individual articles used to all be apart of Digimon: Digital Monsters, which does talk about the dub and Saban and all that. I guess we just haven't placed that information on these articles yet since the split. The individual anime series articles do need a lot of work. -- Ned Scott 23:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, alright. It was just a little confusing is all. :) Danny Lilithborne 00:03, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jwigins (talk) 05:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Manga versus Manhua

@EvergreenFir:

Regarding this edit

It is true the Digimon series is Japanese, but the specific product is written by a Hong Kong author. Some other pages on other wikis say it was first published in Chinese. This would make it a manhua, not a manga.

For example, while Spider-Man is an American property, Spider-Man: The Manga is a manga as the author is Japanese and the work was first published in Japanese by a Japanese company. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

As far as I know, the term use is based on the publisher, not the author. See for example Boichi. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: AFAIK the original publisher is Rightman Publishing Ltd., which is a Hong Kong company. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I acquired the Tokyopop (American English) volume 1 and the inside cover stated that it was first published in Hong Kong by Rightman. So I changed the description back to it being a manhua. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay thank you for looking into it and explaining. I appreciate it EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 11 August 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

---

• Digimon Adventure → Digimon Adventure (1999 TV series)
• List of Digimon Adventure episodes → List of Digimon Adventure (1999 TV series) episodes

– The other 2020 reboot series has almost equal pageview stats similar to the 1999–2000 one. Even with more page views total within last 90 days, I'm unconvinced that such stats suffice to make the original anime the primary topic of the same name. Meanwhile, the base title should be that of a disambiguation page. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

For what I understand, the official title for the 2020 reboot is "Digimon Adventure:". 94-kun (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

• Support Since the official title is a stylization, I don't think it makes a signficant difference. The reboot is also not a straight-up remake, so they can be considered two separate series with the same name. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.