Wikimon:Community Portal

Community Portal Guidelines All archived discussions are viewable in the archive. If there is a page that needs to be deleted, please mark it with Category:Deletion. When discussing content, please use the ":" marker to thread your conversations, to make them easier to read. See Help:Threading if you aren't sure how to do this.

Open Talk Page Discussions Please weigh in your opinions on these unresolved discussions Need involvement? Add a link to the list at OpenTalk. Digimon Championship List of Digimon: Discrepancies Appmon: AppLink Uniqueness? Three Great Angels: Should it be renamed "Three Archangels"? File:Musyamon.jpg: Could someone fix the image (blade, cape, feet)? Trailmon: What is the source of their stats? World of Darkness: Should it be renamed "Dark Ocean" or "Dark Sea"? Triceramon X-Antibody: Where is the profile from? Duftmon: Some corrections for the Design & Analysis-section Armamon: Should Armamon be listed as a Weapon Digimon type? Bacchusmon: Are there any profiles attached to Drunk Bacchusmon's cards? Template:Screenshot: Addition request: custom filename

Huckmon/Hackmon

Hi all, just separating this out into its own thread since it's a bit off-topic from the previous. I would like to move the Hackmon page to "Huckmon" (including renaming Bao Huckmon, Savior Huckmon), and Hackmon (Appmon) page to "Hackmon". The reasoning for interpreting them with different spellings is below:

• Both JP and EN DRB use "Huckmon" for the white ver; they've used "Hackmon" in the past but it seems they're standardising to Huckmon recently.
• As confirmed officially, the etymology is from the JP word for 'white', 白(ハク)→ハック, and not the English word "Hack". "Huck" and "Hack" are no more or less valid than each other as anglicisations for ハック 'hakku'; compare ラック 'rakku' used for 'luck', バック 'bakku' used for 'back'.
• Huckmon and Hackmon have different official EN/CN/KR names, suggesting that they are meant to be interpreted as different names:
  • EN: Huckmon (white), Hackmon (black).
  • CN: 哈克兽 (white; transliteration of 'huck'/'hack'), 黑客兽 (black; 黑客 meaning hacker)
  • KR: 헉몬 (white; 'Heogmon', compare 덕 'deog' used for 'duck'.), 핵몬 (black; 'Haegmon', compare 랙 'laeg' used for 'rack'.)
• DCG JP has the name rule: "“Huckmon (ハックモン)” cards without the “Appmon” trait and “Hackmon (ハックモン)” cards with the “Appmon” trait are treated as cards that have different names." Presumably match other regions where Huck/Hack have different names, but it also suggests their names are intended to be different; the other Digis with similar rules are Xiquemon/Tyumon, Callismon/Charismon, Flaremon/Raremon which are spelt differently in English, otherwise the global rules align to the JP name instead. (There's Beelstarmon/Starmon but JP and EN are aligned on it)

I'm aware some may prefer Hack over Huck, but I feel at least on the wiki there isn't much basis to keep 'Hack', over 'Huck' which is more officially supported and isn't really a typo. If there are any concerns, please feel free to voice them, maybe within the next week? If there are no issues, I can slowly do the changes, as suggested by ImaginAlphamon I will still include a disambiguation header (maybe something like "For the Digimon/Appmon species with the same name in Japanese, please see Huckmon/Hackmon"). Thank you.--Garmmon (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2026 (CDT)

While I dislike the name Huckmon, you do make a good case for using it, and doing so would help to solve one of our disambiguation/parser issues, so I'm tentatively on board if there are no real objections to it. --TMS (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2026 (EDT)

That's a really interesting insight, I have to say. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate. I'm on board with whatever is decided. --Shadow Shinji (talk) 00:47, 3 June 2026 (CDT)

Thanks all for the inputs (: I do like Hack for the shared name too, but I do think Huck is more officially supported which I'd prefer on a wiki, and probably less shared page names on the wiki would make editing easier too. If there are no further objections by the weekend maybe I can start the edits, unless anyone else has further inputs. --Garmmon (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2026 (CDT)

It's been over a week since the topic came up, and no one's raised a serious objection, so I would say go ahead with it. --TMS (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2026 (EDT)

I actually do have a serious objection, which is that the treatment of Huckmon (Red) and Huckmon (Purple) as separate names is purely card game fiat. It is absolutely true that one of the reasons for this ruling is that every language the card game is dubbed into gives these two species different names, however if you actually look into the history, the actual reason is that, when BT-24 was initially being revealed, speculative Hadesmon lists would run two copies of [BT23-013 JESmon] so that, if they had summoning sickness or couldn't make the full climb to god grade, they had a stable warp over a free Huckmon. Before any of the other Translation Standardization Rulings took effect, the original purpose of the "Huckmon (Red) and Huckmon (Purple) are considered to have different names" was specifically to nerf Hades by taking away its access to Rush. The later move to combine it with Beel Starmon not being a Starmon (for? some reason?) and Callismon/Charismon being considered different names was for the sake of consistency with this original nerf. (Nerfs which they later proved they were willing to do by errata-ing Digital Translator to only affect Dukemon/SaintGalgomon/Sakuyamon, making it literally useless.)

If the community is truly united behind treating Huckmon (Red) and Huckmon (Purple) as different names, I'll accept that. But my stance remains the same: they should both be Huckmon. Ruki Makino (talk) 01:19, 8 June 2026 (CDT)

I actually started some of the moves and renaming already (including Savior Hackmon to Huckmon) so I will pause the rest first. For my stance, I fully agree that the card game ruling was introduced for the purpose of the card game environment, I was using it as more of a supporting point; the other points are more my main deciding factor: that 1) 'Huckmon' is the main spelling used officially for the white version, 2) there isn't much reason to treat 'Huck' as a typo of 'Hack' rather than an intentional spelling, and 3) all other languages' way of writing Hack/Huck's names suggest that Huck and Hack are meant to be spelt differently in English. Maybe for this case, do you have any objections to the other 3 points brought up, while putting aside the card game rulings? My intention with the Hack/Huck split is to treat them similarly to Callis/Charis, whose EN names are spelt differently despite having the same JP name, even before the card game ruling. I don't agree with Huckmon (Purple) however, I don't recall there was ever an instance that the Appmon was referred to as Huckmon (feel free to correct if I am wrong). --Garmmon (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2026 (CDT)

I highly respect the work Ruki Makino puts into this wiki firstly, but I just want to add context to the DCG ruling change. It’s what they call the “Language Standardization Rules”. As stated earlier, the EN and CN names for Huckmon and Hackmon are different. The “nerf” is one that applies only in JP, as Jesmon’s English card could not evolve from Hackmon, it evolves from Huckmon. Per this Standardization, they have pages dedicated to all the Digimon with the character for “Dragon” in their CN name clarified as not Dramon in name. Beel Starmon is the same for CN. By the old rules, all formats are to refer back to the JP names, effects, rulings, etc. Now it seems they want to, well, standardize these things, it’s all the same logic as why Vritramon isn’t considered a Greymon in EN, just applied to all languages. Anyways, the point here is that it’s not just a card game environment thing, it’s a general standardization thing. Hackmon isn’t considered to have the same spelling as Huckmon cards in JP, which obviously doesn’t make sense on its own, hence the Appmon trait ruling. If Arcturusmon isn’t considered a Starmon in CN anymore, then neither is Beel Starmon. Argomon in EN being able to evolve to Mega Gargomon, when Algomon cannot evolve to Saint Galgomon wouldn’t make sense (and I imagine this is why the Digital Translator change happened, to avoid cases like this and the Deathmon to Hadesmon evolution). And so on, it’s standardization.

All that to say, while the spelling in JP for Huckmon and Hackmon are the same, the official romanization has been different for years, the names are different in EN, CN, and KR, etc. I actually think the DCG ruling doesn’t need to be considered for this change, there’s enough evidence without it, I think. --NightwingFan (talk) 05:58, 8 June 2026 (CDT)

I 100% think Huckmon is a translation error, and that they're just being really stubborn in keeping it like Picklemon and Orgemon. Hakku isn't Hukku. Bandai Japan just can't spell. I'd prefer to stick to Hackmon, and if we *do* this, we should be switching stuff like Picklemon and Bulucomon as well. Also, this Wiki already has issues with Vamdemon and Demon. If they ever release a card saying "with demon in name", what its actually saying is "with Dēmon in name". people would think Vamdemon counts due to this wiki, but it doesnt, because Demon real name is Dēmon. In addition, there's the whole mess of types in this TCG. "Dragon" in Japanese counts 50+ types, and to be *truely* accurate, you would have to change Ankylosaur type to Armoured Dragon Type, Plesiosaur type to Long neck dragon type. And so many more. TCG rules causes a lot of headaches, due to how japanese and english work. the card says "one digimon with dragon in its name", and then you have to realise "wait, that includes these 50 other types because they have dragon in their japanese names!" so wouldn't it be argued we need to rename a shit tonne of types so that dragon and angel are easier to know which types count? and then you have japan changing the romanisation of LoaderLiomon to LoaderLeomon to fit Jeri's "digimon with leomon in its name" card...and then changed it back to loaderliomon months later (so technically we should be moving it *back* to loaderliomon). Muur (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2026 (CDT)

As usual, Muur, I disagree with your "slippery slope" argument. It's a common fallacy, after all. Renaming it to Huckmon in this instance is an elegant solution to the current problem, and Bandai's spelling of it is not the reason it's being renamed. We can stop there if we choose. I know you and many other people would love to argue minutiae until the heat death of the universe, but it's not necessary. --TMS (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2026 (EDT)

For the other names, perhaps another thread can be started for discussion if anyone does have an intention of renaming the pages? Since my intention with this thread is just on Huck/Hack, I'll just address those here.

Regarding "hakku isn't hukku", as explained above, both Hack and Huck are valid stylisations of 'hakku'. If we go by Bandai's given etymology, it's not based on the English word 'hack' either (even if we want to argue whether Bandai made it up to backpedal..this is the only officially given etymology we have so imo there's no point to speculate otherwise).

The Japanese transcription should be based on the word's pronunciation, not spelling. If it helps to clarify, 'huck' would be pronounced as /hʌk/. /hʌk/ would be transcribed to hakku, there is no common basis to transcribe it to hukku. See wikipedia Transcription into Japanese under /ʌ/ (for which a common English grapheme or spelling is ⟨u⟩), it is commonly mapped to Japanese /a/. I hope this clears it up, I'm not sure what other portion could be considered a translation error.

Thanks all also for the inputs, I appreciate it; if there are any other concerns or further objections, do bring them up, since I had already started on some of the work I'd like to know whether to proceed further. --Garmmon (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2026 (CDT)

Disambiguation Pages

It's recently been proposed that disambiguation pages be created for the various cases where one species of Digimon or Appmon has the same name as another. I wanted to post about it here to give people a chance to share their thoughts on the subject, since I've heard varying opinions on it from the few people I've talked to so far. --TMS (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2026 (EDT)

Personally, I've always preferred if Metal Greymon (Vaccine) was listed as such, instead of just Metal Greymon, same with stuff like Whamon Adult, it just creates less ambiguity and assumption like "Which Whamon?", a question I find myself asking a lot when reading pages on this wiki... (With Whamon in particular it would help a lot for instances where an ambiguous Whamon appears without a Level given, that way we wouldn't have to arbitrarily pick one.) But, I do worry that it could cause more confusion in cases like Hackmon (Digimon), which implies Hackmon (Appmon) is not a Digimon, just adding to the "Are Appmon Digimon?" confusion. Though, I hardly have every piece of Digimon information memorized, if the term "Hackmon (Digimon)" has been officially used, then who am I to argue its usage? KiraraKidohara (talk) 01:39, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

I don't know if I have a vote on this or not, but seeing as there are some who are reluctant about just referring to Digimon with the same name as "insert digimon"-species, creating disambiguation pages seems like a reasonable solution. Plus, the creation of disambiguation pages seems to just be par for the course for Wikis, specially when you consider just how big the IP has grown and how repeating names are just bound to occur (such is the case of Hackmon). Besides, the term is self-explanatory, it is to make things less ambiguous by clearly laying out which version of these the want to refer to.
Of course, it would be overkill to just group every mon with Greymon in the name in a disambiguation, but with at least 4 protag Greymon in different media with pages of their own, we surely need at least one page that clearly lists and separates the characters from the species. Take for example this one from the Wikirby where they even have the character separate from their own music themes, or this one where they add a "see also" section for closely related terms (which in our case could be used to link the page of the Greymon-species; or any 100% confirmed "insert digimon"-species for that matter; or some term too tightly associated with Greymon specifically like the Grey Sword), or even this one from the Transformers wiki where they list terms not to get it confused with.
Besides, it's not as if we didn't do Disambiguation pages already. We made them for Algomon, Arkadimon, and Rapidmon for crying out loud. Now, if it is agreed to not do them though, I'm no one to stop anybody, I'm just giving my argument as a random user in many wikis for this wiki --ImaginAlphamon (talk) 04:41, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

This sounds good to me as well, I think Whamon in particular is a good case as both designs are identical for the most part. It’s usually only known to us when it’s a File Island vs. Folder Continent set story or it’s a V-Pet or something with the Evolution stage listed. I’m not sure it’s really necessary for examples like Hackmon and Hackmon (Appmon) as both have very different designs and there are ultimately only the two. Greymon, Metal Greymon, and maybe Were Garurumon are examples I’d give as disambiguation page candidates, similar to the existing Imperialdramon disambiguation page, where several Digimon with the same name exist. --NightwingFan (talk) 04:49, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

Hey. I was the one who originally brought up this topic while reorganizing some of the existing disambiguation pages and creating new ones. Honestly, I'm surprised this hasn't been discussed before, especially considering other similar cases that have already been mentioned, such as Whamon and MetalGreymon.

In cases like the latter, I assume we would need to carry out a larger revamp as well—for example, distinguishing between Beelzebumon (2001 anime version) and Beelzebumon (2010 anime version), or Cyberdramon (2001 anime version) and Cyberdramon (2010 anime version). I'm not opposed to doing that for the sake of clarity and avoiding confusion; I'm just wondering how exactly we would want to handle it if we decide to go in that direction, all things considered.

As for Digimon vs. Appmon subspecies cases, considering there are already examples like Sistermon, Arkadimon, Algomon, and Eosmon, I honestly don't see a good reason not to rename the original pages to "[NAME] (Digimon)" and leave the base title as a disambiguation page instead. Other examples would include Batterimon, Cardmon, Navimon, Pokomon, and Gaiamon.

That said, I can also understand that this would involve a lot of extra work, and I can't really picture how we would go about implementing it, so I can ultimately see both sides of the argument. I'd also be fine with whatever decision ends up being made.

Regarding whether this change would imply that the Appmon versions are not Digimon, I think we all know—aside from a few people who insist otherwise—that Appmon are canonically Digimon-related subspecies. Otherwise, they wouldn't even be covered on this wiki in the first place.

For the record, Hackmon (Black) looks identical to Hackmon (White) under its hood. --Shadow Shinji (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

I don't have too strong opinions on this, but just adding some cents:

- I'm not fond of e.g. "Cyberdramon (2001 anime version)" because Cyberdramon didn't debut in and wasn't made for Tamers, unlike Cyberdramon 2010 which was specifically made for XW and officially named as such.

- Slightly off-topic and not sure how popular or unpopular this opinion is, but just putting it out, I personally would move white Hackmon to "Huckmon" which would differentiate it from Hackmon...apart from some inconsistency in early days, iirc nowadays official JP/EN media always uses "Huckmon" for it, and its etymology is officially confirmed which makes Huck a no less or more valid romanisation than Hack is imo. Hackmon is definitely designed and named as a homage to Huckmon but I'm of the opinion their names are meant to be interpreted(?) differently as Hack/Huck have different official names from each other in EN/CN/KR, it just so (intentionally) happens that both Hack and Huck = ハック in JP. --Garmmon (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

You make a good point. For what it's worth, the original Beelzebumon is referred to as Beelzebumon (L) in Super Xros Wars and Digimon Jintrix, with the "L" standing for Legacy according to the attack techniques description. The same naming convention is also used for the original Cyberdramon, Greymon, MetalGreymon, and Starmon. --Shadow Shinji (talk) 11:18, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

so changing agumon and Greymon to agumon 97 and Greymon 97? I’d rather just keep all the pages as they are. As mentioned above it’s a needless amount of work.Muur (talk) 12:36, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

Garmmon makes a good point, but I would argue that, as I said earlier, it is inevitable that we have to start differentiating the OG mons from the new versions and characters that come out, so while renaming the white one to Huckmon to differentiate the Digimon from the Appmon may seem like a simple solution, it would still have to be addressed in a disambiguation that Hackmon is a valid naming convention for Huckmon, in a similar vein to how the Transformers wiki does with characters who have completely different names in Japan, like the character listed as the 2002 iteration in this example.
If the main issue with this is having to rename the OG mons to have a ("insert year" anime version) and it being inaccurate tho, we could try to just rename the disambiguation pages to "insert term" (disambiguation) and leave the URL as referring to simply Hackmon and Agumon, while changing Hackmon's and Agumon's URLs to Hackmon_(Digimon) and Agumon_(97) with their species/debut year without changing the pages actual names.
Now, I don't know how complicated that would be, but that's my suggestion. And it being too much work is not really a good argument though, this is jus how information works. Reorganizing information like this in a wiki is the bread and butter for IPs this big.--ImaginAlphamon (talk) 13:32, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

I wouldn't say 'needless' but I think whether it is too much work is still something to consider, in that maybe it's best to decide if the change will be made after there is someone willing to commit to doing the cleanups along with it? I just noticed the Nanomon (Digimon) page was moved recently when trying to edit it, but I think a lot of pages are still linking to the original Nanomon page, imo the cleanup would have to be done together with the move otherwise it may become messier to navigate compared to if it was left as status quo. --Garmmon (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2026 (CDT)

My bad, sorry. I've come up with another solution: naming the disambiguation page with a special parenthetical, like I did with Nanomon (Disambiguation). Feel free to share your thoughts. --Shadow Shinji (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2026 (CDT)

No worries, I didn't mean it as a callout but more of..I'm not for or against the idea but it's more than just a page move/changing URLs, the old links and broken templates if any also need to be fixed to accompany the move, otherwise I think it will make things messier if it is only done halfway. But re: Nanomon (Disambiguation), I'm not sure how effective this page will be because imo a user would be more likely to search and go straight to the "Nanomon" page rather than purposely navigate to the "Nanomon (Disambiguation)" page for no reason, if it makes sense. --Garmmon (talk) 09:34, 28 May 2026 (CDT)

My view on disambig specifically is coming from practicality over hard rules. I don't like the idea of having a page like....let's say WarGreymon parsed because there's a wargreymon alt species that appears in one panel of a stage play brochure. Parsers are convenient but are a de facto pitfall for non-veteran editors, and just on a spiritual level, it irks me to have the main title for a prominent topic relegated to a mere redirect just so we can have "evenness". So, I would prefer that the unparsed title be actually *used* for an article unless the candidates are truly so close in notability that there's no obvious winner. Agumon (1999 Anime Ver.) to be "fair" to 2006 would be obviously ridiculous in my POV, while something like Jim (Battle Spirit) and Jim (Survive) would make more sense. My preferred setup is that the winner gets the unparsed title, with a you may to the disambig. One less page, one less redirect.KrytenKoro06 (talk)

Also, I strongly opposed creating new parsers for Digimon like Agumon. If they *must* be parsed, then the actual canon parser "L" should be used. I don't think they should be parsed in the first place, but inventing noncanon parsers to overrule canon parsers seems the worst of both worlds.KrytenKoro06 (talk) 17:32, 28 May 2026 (CDT)

Thank you, Kryten. My views on the subject largely coincide with your own. The Nanomon thing specifically, which I just noticed today, strikes me as a good example, since very few people are going to type in Nanomon looking for the Xros Wars Babies; a "did you mean" on Nanomon's page would be better. Does anyone have a response to make to Kryten's comments? Sorry, by the way, for going quiet for a couple days on account of my work schedule. I'm sure some of you are getting impatient for a decision to be reached. Once it is reached, I can handle any of the grunt work (like on Nanomon, if we go that route). --TMS (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2026 (EDT)

I have to second Kryten and TMS as well, I don't care for disambiguations being the default either Chimera-gui (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2026 (CDT)

Kryten has a lot of experience with wikis, so I personally trust that whatever decision you guys make will be the best one for the wiki. I'm not really a fan of made-up disambiguators like "Agumon (1999 Anime Version)" unless there's no other option. That said, I don't mind simpler disambiguators, such as renaming White Hackmon to "Hackmon (Digimon)", since "Hackmon (Appmon)" has never been officially used either, as far as I know. --Shadow Shinji (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2026 (CDT)

Well, since we haven't seen any objections yet, I'm going to go ahead and call this discussion in favor of Kryten's views. This can now become the place to discuss what to do about individual cases. The Hackmon issue can probably be solved through following Garmmon's suggestion in the section above this one. --TMS (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2026 (EDT)

Regarding Appmon, FYI DCG website uses カリスモン for Callismon and (アプモン)カリスモン for Charismon for the new card errata so there is some official basis for adding (Appmon). But re:Kryten's suggestion for the winner to get the unparsed title, other than Hackmon and Callis/Charis for which both variants are in DRB, in most of the remaining cases (Batterimon, Cardmon, Navimon, Gaiamon) I think the Appmon is more officially-recognised having DRB entries while the Digimon are for now mostly one-offs, yet currently the Digimon are the ones with the unmarked page. I don't have a strong preference for this (Digimon as default vs winner as default) but thought to add this in.--Garmmon (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2026 (CDT)

agumon 99 doesn’t even make sense when it’s from 1997.Muur (talk) 04:22, 8 June 2026 (CDT)

"Species" Groups

Recently, NightwingFan noticed that some Digimon pages listed a given "species" (Greymon-species, etc.) in their main info box as groups that Digimon belonged to, and made a number of edits to make this more consistent. However, I think that we should have a discussion about how this should be handled, since in many cases there's nothing to cite to show that a given Digimon belongs to a given "species," and some of the species that have pages (like the Mamemon-species) seem to be fan-invented terms not used within the lore. See here for further information and to catch up on the discussion as it stands: https://wikimon.net/User_talk:NightwingFan

Would everyone who has thoughts on the subject please share them here? --TMS (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2026 (EDT)

only official ones should be counted. i get that some people want stuff like "what are all the digimon with leomon?", but that just leads to bulbapedia where they have a crazy amount of made up stuff that people think is official. as with the fanart discussion, we should be sticking to official.Muur (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2026 (CDT)

I think I’ve figured something out here. For the record, I’ve made a few updates to some pages and groups for clarity, but I think we can clearly mark out which species are using 種 (shu), which refers to specific Digimon individuals but has been taken as referring to a group of sorts. For example, Nyokimon is a Botamon species (as in Botamon itself) and Agumon (X-Antibody) can better evolve to Greymon species (as in Greymon itself). 系 (kei) and 族 (zoku) seems to be referring to the actual grouping of a species (and we’d actually have to add a Centalmon-species page…).

As for the Garurumon-species, no such grouping exists anywhere that I could find. All others on the site currently do, either using shu, kei, or zoku (in the cases of a few like Greymon-species, they use both shu and kei). "Chessmon series" is an exception, but a similar grouping regardless. Agumon and Omegamon are probably better suited to Disambiguation Pages, as the actual naming used for both groupings in their respective Artbooks is akin to "lots of Agumon" and "lots of Omegamon", complete with making Omegamon sound like a menu item.--NightwingFan (talk) 07:28, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

Just inserting a very directed question here: Does anyone have a source for the Garurumon-species page and category, or at least some reasoning for why it should stick around? If no one does, I think for actual accuracy we should delete mentions of the Garurumon-species. It’s the only one of the current "-species" with no basis. --NightwingFan (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

Agumon-species is the same thing as a Disambiguation page. I honestly thought agumon already had one, since dub wiki does. So just make Agumon (disambiguation) instead of making up “species”. Then it’s the same exact thing. Or if the above suggestion wins, Agumon is a Disambiguation page and then we get Agumon 1997. Muur (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

Not really. The Agumon-species (or -series if you will) pages would include any species/variant/evolution/etc referred to as an Agumon as long as it can be identified as such like Toy Agumon for instance, while the disambiguation would be for pages for Agumon characters/titles/etc or Agumons that tend to be referred as simply Agumon, like the character page for Agumon (Savers) but not Yuki Agumon, or differentiating Agumon from Agumon (2006 Anime Version) for example.--ImaginAlphamon (talk) 13:58, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

or you just include them all. Muur (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2026 (CDT)

Let's go ahead and reduce the use of pages for the different groups and species (and Digimon that count as members of those species) to those that have an official source we can cite. If there are any clarifications that need to be made, we can discuss them here. --TMS (talk) 02:23, 1 June 2026 (EDT)

Sounds good to me, I’ve done a bit of the legwork, but I got lots to go so I’ll work on "reducing" and citing now. --NightwingFan (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2026 (CDT)

I appreciate all the work you've done on it, NightwingFan. --TMS (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2026 (EDT)

Metal Garurumon's Sunburst Moonlight profile uses ガルルモンけい. you can see this on Metal Garurumon's page.Muur (talk) 20:36, 8 June 2026 (CDT)

Thanks TMS, and thanks Muur! Thanks for restoring the page, I’ll look into things to see if it’s used in other game profiles. Not sure you or anyone knows off the top of their head, but I’m now curious if there’s even more similar cases of "species" groupings used in game profiles and such that I’ve missed. I’ll start going through them to see if I can find any.--NightwingFan (talk) 21:24, 8 June 2026 (CDT)

Digimon Adventure 13+

I think that we should probably cover this on the wiki. However, because it's not officially published, any information about it should be self-contained. Just wanted to post this before people started trying to make claims about the anime continuity based on 13+. Feel free to discuss here, but that's my current position. --TMS (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2026 (EDT)

It's being published unofficially. I think we should point out its existence and link to it (on Kakudou's page, maybe on the Digimon Adventure canon page) but no more than that. It is not an official part of the Digimon franchise as it is, even if it gave birth to Beyond, unless Toei/Bandai states otherwise.--Blaze Dragon (talk) 22:46, 3 May 2026 (CDT)

I would put a brief section on the BEYOND page, whilst also making sure to say the information was not published officially and thus isn't considered canon. something like "13+ is the backstory that Kaduko wrote for BEYOND. He says BEYOND/13+ a sequel to 02. The Wonderswan games, Hurricane Touchdown, Tri, Kizuna, and Beginning are stated to be alternate timelines. Ken/Wallace/Meiko/Menoa/Maki/Daigo/Lui remember the events of the ones they were in, but Tai and the others do not. Maki is stated to have travelled to the BEYOND timeline via the Dark Ocean, and Lui mentions having been to the Dark Ocean before so seems to have travelled over that way too". something along those lines. may also be best to wait for all three parts to be posted first. I don't think there should be a full page for it, but rather a brief description, and that yes, no one should put info on pages like TRI IS NON CANON on tri page or NONE OF THIS HAPPENED LUI IS A LIAR on his page etc. also some can give a bit of context to the actual OVA, such as that mystery digimon seems to not be arukenimon but rather "a small spider digimon"? also mentioning that toei *were* going to publish it and changed their minds (and not theorising why) Muur (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2026 (CDT)

I don’t see a strong reason to exclude this information. Situations like this aren’t fundamentally different from interviews, background notes, or creator blog posts, they all provide relevant context about the work and help clarify the author’s intent. That said, we should be especially careful not to label anything as “canon” or “non-canon”, now or in the future. That kind of classification isn’t really our role as contributors or fans, and it can lead to unnecessary confusion across the wiki.

There’s quite a bit of useful information here, and in this case the creator’s perspective is fairly clear, though we should stick strictly to verifiable facts. As explained on his blog, Kakudou was approached by Toei and given the chance to bring closure to the Adventure timeline. We don’t know why Toei chose not to publish it, but that doesn’t diminish Kakudou’s intent. If anything, it suggests he may be trying to reconcile or “repair” the continuity after later sequels that diverge from the original vision. One possible approach he takes is framing those sequels as parallel universes, events that still happen, but in a different way.

From a fan perspective, that’s an interesting way to address inconsistencies that are still debated today. It’s also not a new idea, the V-Tamer 01, Hunters, Appmon, and similar crossovers follow a similar logic, at least to some degree. While we can’t be certain what motivated Kakudou to take this route, we do know Toei gave him that opportunity, and it’s plausible he chose to use it to preserve his original work. Ultimately, our role should be to present the available information as objectively as possible and let readers form their own interpretations. It would also make sense to wait until the novel is fully released before incorporating everything into the wiki.

In that regard, I would ask administrators to be mindful of contributions from certain problematic users and to keep this kind of disruption out of the articles themselves. --Shadow Shinji (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2026 (CDT)

because toei rejected it. We could use some stuff to clarify some of the depicted scenes in the video, but going “hurricane touchdown is a different timeline! Only Wallace remembers it!!!!” On everything is too far and not hinted in the video.Muur (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2026 (CDT)

Muur, no offense, but your opinion on Kakudou’s decision isn’t relevant here, just like mine or anyone else’s. That’s the point I’m making. If it fits your headcanon, great; if not, Wikimon isn’t the place to vent your dissatisfaction. And honestly, this pattern applies to a lot of things you tend to dislike and speak loudly about.

If you want to be taken seriously as a contributor, you need to understand your role. You stated quite definitively that Toei rejected something, as if you had insider knowledge, yet in your earlier message you argued that we shouldn’t speculate about what Toei did or why. That’s contradictory.

At this point, your presence on the wiki feels more disruptive than constructive. Most of the time, you’re not adding anything meaningful to the discussion, and it’s unclear why the admins haven’t addressed what often comes across as erratic behavior. --Shadow Shinji (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2026 (CDT)

I said we shouldnt speculate *why* they turned it down publishing it in the end, not that they turned it down. he literally says "they were going to publish it, then didnt". so no inconsistencies. im not going to comment on the rest of your personal attack.Muur (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2026 (CDT)

Reiterating advice to cover this story (and the Bloom(?) story that informs canon but is not part of it) as done here.KrytenKoro06 (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2026 (CDT)

In my opinion that’s a great way to approach this kind of content, especially for Bloom. --Shadow Shinji (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2026 (CDT)

Okay, I want to clarify my thoughts on how to handle Adventure 13+ on the wiki. This is my opening proposal. It's not going to please everyone (which will almost definitely be true of any final decision as well), but I'd like to put it forward and gather people's opinions on it, after which I might modify it. Naturally, if any other mods have strong feelings about it, hopefully they'll speak up so it's not just me calling the shots. First and foremost, I think that it would be a good idea for someone to come up with a template (like the "Under Construction" message) to announce pages or sections of pages that cover unofficial material. That I'll need some help with. Probably need to have a page category for that sort of thing as well. Once we have all that, here's my initial proposal:

• I would give Adventure 13+ its own page, linked to from the Development section of Adventure Beyond's page. The 13+ page would give a full summary of the novella's events. For the description of events in Beyond on its own page, I would stick to describing the various scenes without delving into the connective tissue among them.
• Because 13+ is unofficial, it should not be used to make definitive statements about official material, such as the post-02 movies. Any of its more controversial takes regarding timelines, etc., should be limited to its own page.
• Where appropriate, notes can be added to pages (such as Blaze Dragon has recently done on the Chosen Children page) that refer to 13+. Once again, no definitive statements can be made in the main body of the text, but the unofficial additions to the lore can still be addressed in the notes.
• I'm not sure yet how to handle the evolution citations for 13+, or even if any citations should be made. Maybe Kryten has some input on how that might be handled, based on his Transformers Wiki experience.
• Characters, Digimon, and other concepts that appear in 13+ might possibly covered on their pages in a clearly labeled section for unofficial material. How exactly these sections should be organized I've yet to determine, and welcome input. We might handle them similar to how appearances in non-canon material are handled on the Zelda Wiki. Example here: https://zeldawiki.wiki/wiki/Moldorm#Other_Appearances

That's where I'm at at the moment. The same general rules can be applied to other non-canon but still relevant material, like Bloom. Let me know if there are any objections or suggestions for modification. Please remember to be civil to each other. It might be best for each participant to just state their full personal position and leave it at that, without making direct responses to users they don't like. --TMS (talk) 21:35, 5 May 2026 (EDT)

I think this is a solid approach for handling this kind of material on the wiki. My only suggestion would be to avoid overusing the term "unofficial", as it can come across as if we’re assuming readers don’t understand the difference between canon and canon-adjacent content, if that makes sense. Since the 13+ page will already include a banner and a redirect, I don’t think it’s necessary to tag every single mention of Beyond across the wiki (unless we want to end up like that infamous Gabumon meme).

To be honest, if some people didn’t take issue with the changes introduced by Kakudou in Beyond—and weren’t so vocal about it—I doubt there would be much debate about whether this material belongs on the wiki at all. This isn’t just a random fanfic someone made in their spare time; it’s an extension of an already established official storyline. Regardless of whether people like the direction it takes, it has been approved by long-time Toei producers like Hiromi Seki.

That said, I can see something like Bloom being a different case compared to Beyond—it arguably leans more into fanfic territory. Still, I really appreciate TMS for coming up with such a thoughtful way to handle this situation despite all the surrounding noise. --Shadow Shinji (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2026 (CDT)

as long as its listed as unofficial/non-canon/whatever. that user putting "unknown partner" (note, it was this guy in 13+) i consider acceptable. i dont think evolutions from them sholud be listed on species or character pages unless, again it has a note tht says "this is unofficial" (but then youd wonder why is it listed?) so its probably best not to. with evo sources you cant really put "unknown" (it was this in 13+). in regards to media like this, i prefer a development section similar to what we have now (so 13+ development a plot sypnosis on beyond, and a bloom development and sypnosis on rikollection) but if people want a full page then fair but we should make sure to state how it is not part of official canon. i think we should still have a brief description of the plot and etc on the beyond development section though because it makes it clear with a quick glance/read what the differences are. and yes, in no way can we use the unofficial version of beyond to make big claims for the official version. e.g., we do not see the beatbreak cast in beyond, but see them in 13+. so we shold not put them in beyond page. i dont want the information of them appearing on 13+ to appear on the page for tomoro for example. *however*, if we are willing to have an "unofficial/non canon appearance" section on those pages, for example, then I guess thats fine. e.g., you have the *official* lore of lui ohwada in the actual plot section talking about ukkomon killing his parents and thn trying to spawn 8 billion partner digimon. then you have an *unofficial section* that goes "in kadukos unofficial novel that beyond is based on, beginning existed only in his mind and his mum killed his dad then herself not ukkomon" etc. so youd have a *non canon* section on tomoro's page to say "glowing dawn was summoned to the dark ocean by takoto and helped the adventure cast beat dark gear digimon" but that we make it clear it is not part of official canon. in addition, we sholud try to keep stuff like this as limited as possible. by that i mean, kaduko itends this to be "the full version of beyond". if next month he goes "oh yeah i made up a sequel to beyond" and posts a new novel, we would not include his new novel as then that really is just fanfic. itd be a similar vein to if he hadnt made this novel and just randomly tweeted one day "beginning is non canon", it wodulnt be for him to decide (like konaka saying, "dukemon in tamers is not a royal knight", thats not your choic to make konaka). i think the only media we sholud consider right now for unofficial but we include information are 13+ due to beyond, and bloom due to rikollection.Muur (talk) 21:01, 5 May 2026 (CDT)

I think that's a good way to handle things but I have a question, how do we handle things that are shown in Beyond but are only given context in 13+? Namely, Beyond shows Jun and the Inoue siblings' Partner Digimon, but never states they are; 13+ gives context to those scenes. The reality is that they're shown in proper "canon" material (Beyond), should we consider them as such? For the time being I'll just leave the notes on the Chosen Children page but those two examples in particular may be worth graduating to full page status (Archnemon over Kodokugumon, just in case, but Holsmon should be fine as it is). --Blaze Dragon (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2026 (CDT)

I'm personally of the opinion to limit to one page as much as possible, and if there is a need to mention of 13+ outside of that page, to make at least a mention that it is unofficial material (like the Zelda wiki?). Maybe it is excessive, but my main concern is the potential blurring of what is official and unofficial info down the line, not all readers would be familiar with 13+ or necessarily click in to each media's page to find out what is unofficial or not, and a reader would generally assume on a wiki that all unmarked info is based on official sources.

My reasoning is because Kakudou went out of his way to specify this is not an official release, at this time he is publishing this info in a personal capacity for fans' enjoyment.. I feel the wiki can cover it in its own page but shouldn't be giving it any more legitimacy/official-ness(?) than he has already stated it to have.

Re:Digimon/evolutions, if it cannot be discerned solely from Beyond, I would still count it as 'unofficial', but that's my opinion.

Re:Tamers 1984, I see from this blog post that it contains Hongo Akiyoshi and Toei Animation's copyright, so my understanding is that it is officially licensed material. --Garmmon (talk) 06:52, 6 May 2026 (CDT)

Thank you all for your responses. I'm going to try to address the various concerns. First off, I'd like to reiterate that if we are going to include information on 13+, Bloom, and so on outside their own pages, it will need to be marked unofficial in some way, just so the casual user can clearly see what the material's status is despite any claims they may have seen to the contrary. As Garmmon points out, it's generally assumed that everything on a wiki is canonical unless otherwise specified. Secondly, right now the general consensus seems to be that evolutions in non-official material shouldn't be cited in the same way an official evolution would. For the most part, this shouldn't be an issue, as they can be cited in notes. The exceptions to this are KoDokugumon's apparent Warp Evolution to Archnemon and Dagomon's evolution to Dijiangmon, which haven't happened yet in other media. At the moment I'm leaning towards not including those evolutions in the lists, though they can still be mentioned in the section of the Digimon's page dedicated to unofficial material. Blaze Dragon's concerns are the most difficult to address. I think that the siblings' partner Digimon are minor enough that they don't need pages of their own (frankly, in my opinion, we already have too many pages for partner Digimon that are little more than background decoration - Xros Wars' ShimaUnimon, etc.). Any relevant information about those species in the context of 13+ can remain on its own page or the designated sections on the species pages. I think that for Beyond's page it should be possible to word things in such a way as to retain the short's original ambiguity (for example, saying that "Jun and company are seen confronting an Archnemon," without saying anything positive about that Archnemon's identity. If we need to discuss that further, it can probably be done on the Beyond talk page. Otherwise, feel free to respond to these points as was done above.

As for next steps, the biggest thing is coming up with one to two templates for designating a page or section as describing unofficial material. I don't know how to do that myself, but I'll reach out to Ainz about it tomorrow after work. In the meantime, thank you all for your patience (which I know rarely comes naturally to wiki editors). --TMS (talk) 22:18, 6 May 2026 (EDT)

That sounds reasonable to me as well. Thanks for the input, everyone. I had another question I wanted to bring up here: what about the lore that’s woven into the script but only implied or indirectly shown in the short? For example, the nature of the D-Terminal as a device created differently from a regular Digivice, which could explain why there are many more people partnered with Armor Digimon, or the newer complementary concept of a "Human Partner" due to the growing number of humans partnering with Digimon, like the Nordic Boy shown at the beginning, just to give a few examples. Do you think those elements could also be addressed to some extent? --Shadow Shinji (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2026 (CDT)

Most of what's said about the D-Terminal in 13+ is pre-existing lore. It's in the D-Terminal page already, even, with proper citations. The Partner Human name can be probably ignored or just added as a note since it's very minor, it's just there because there are so many Chosen Adults now that the original term feels out of place.--Blaze Dragon (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2026 (CDT)

I wasn’t aware of that, thanks for bringing it to my attention! I’d suggest that, when covering novel-related content outside the scope of the main article, it could be handled similarly to how Akihiro Kurata’s PreCure crossover appearance is presented here, along with the appropriate “unofficial” disclaimer mentioned earlier. --Shadow Shinji (talk) 02:07, 8 May 2026 (CDT)

I agree fully with TMS - I think this is valuable information that informs the reader about the intent behind the canon, but we should also make sure it is clearly marked to prevent misunderstanding on the part of the reader. We shouldn't assume that readers have as intuitive an understanding as we do. I also don't think trying to squeeze all the content into a development section will best serve the reader - for one, it overwhelms the section with info that is no longer truly about the development of the short (esp. given kakudou indicated the script wasn't completed in this state when the short was released), and it doesn't give the content itself space to breathe -- focus ends up more on how the details of the story upset the previous understanding of canon lore, which is crusty and more in the tone of a trivia section than a proper description of what 13+ (or Bloom) is. I don't see harm in having a full, properly marked article for 13+, or allowing reserved, careful expansion into topics where its clarifications shed the most light (ex. Archnemon, the castle, etc.).

while 13+ goes beyond planning notes, we might also decide how to handle planning notes like konaka's.KrytenKoro06 (talk) 09:52, 7 May 2026 (CDT)

any time 13+ is referenced, it should be marked unofficial. "itd be over kill to do it everytime" is a no, because someoen seeing a 13+ ref note that doesnt say its unofficial will think its official. so its misleading not to. i actually changed my views on teh word non canon. non canon would mean an official release that isnt part of the "canon" (of which we dont really have in teh first place other than dusk is non canon to the later story games because waruseadramon is stated as the member from kowloon co). so, unofficial i now prefer. for arukenimon and the halsemon...maybe. we do see the humans with them, so maybe we can say "arukenimon and the halsemon were stated to be partnered by those guys", as its given conext t it. but stuff like "tomoro was in the story", theres no way to state that via the officially canon video.Muur (talk) 15:38, 7 May 2026 (CDT)

Debloating card listings for sets with DUAL cards

The current version of Template:DCGTable has parameters n2 and nj2, which were added by User:Yuetmoon for the purpose of listing the option-side name for DUAL cards, a type of card introduced by ST-23/ST-24/BT-25 that is both a Digimon card and an option card. A relatively simple example like BT25-104 thus appears in the set's card listing as "Shine Greymon: Burst Mode/Final Shining Burst" and 「シャイングレイモン：バーストモード/ファイナルシャイニングバースト」, which wraps for three lines in the table, meaning it takes up more space in the card listing than any other card besides BT16-096 (which has a comically long name as a joke). I am advocating that these parameters be removed and that DUAL cards be referred to in set listings with only the name on the Digimon side.

The Digimon Card Game has numerous examples of cards that have multiple names, dating all the way back to BT-06. Some cards may naturally have as many as four different names without any effects being applied, which would obviously make listing it with all four of them in the set listing a case of bloat. Indeed, established policy before the creation of DUAL cards was to use the name on the title bar, where the traits and level are listed, as a "default" name that takes priority in categorization even though it doesn't in gameplay. This practice is referred to as canonization. While it is correct to say that AD1-020 is [Orimoto Izumi], it is nonetheless the case that [Tomoki & Takuya & Izumi] is the card's canonical name, so the card listing for AD-01 indexes it under that name exclusively. The other names are still written on the card, and if you want to see them you can just go to the card's page itself and read the card text. The [Omekamon] cards used by the Royal Knights deck, for example, are also named [X-Antibody] so that Omegamon X-Antibody's effects will fire in full if Omekamon is in evolution bases instead of the X-Antibody option cards. In the case of DUAL cards, they can be easily identified by looking at the way the card is visually formatted, similar to cards with link requirements or security boxes (which can't easily be identified by the card's name).

Additionally, option-side names for DUAL cards are thus far the sole exception to the longstanding design rule of "every option card having a unique name"; no two non-Digimon option cards have the same canonical name, and if game design requires a card be treated as having a name that was already used, the designers' established philosophy has been to use a Rule box to give the card multiple names. This provides evidence that, under the hood, the developers themselves consider the name of the option side on a DUAL card not to be "canonical," and thus represents an additional argument for indexing DUAL card only under the Digimon side's name.

All in all, the purpose of the DCGTable is navigation. The table should contain the minimum amount of information necessary for a player of the game to navigate a set. If it is deemed necessary that DUAL cards be easily identifiable on the card listing, this can easily be accomplished by adding an additional column to the table containing card type, since DUAL cards all have the same type of "Digimon/Option." (This would also help disambiguate cases where the same card name is used on both a Digimon and a Digitama.) Either way, my stance is that DUAL cards should be indexed on set listings solely under their canonical name, that being the name on the Digimon side, to prevent unnecessary bloat. In a worst-case scenario, a future promo pack may consist mostly or entirely of DUAL cards, like how LM-03 consisted of six ACEs and six consistency options, and under current policy such a pack would have every row bloated with additional names. Ruki Makino (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2026 (CDT)

As I mentioned on discord, I'm against the switch as the name of the card is both the Digimon and the Option Card not just the Digimon. A rule/effect adding an extra name isn't the same thing as a card being both a Digimon and an Option with two name bars. Muur (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2026 (CDT)

As I mentioned on Discord, as a judge, it is objectively untrue that "a rule/effect adding an extra name isn't the same thing as a card having two name bars." [Omekamon] is named [X-Antibody]. The card has both names at all times no matter where it is. However, [Omekamon] is still considered the canonical name, and in the same way, [Shine Greymon: Burst Mode] should be seen as the canonical name despite also being named [Final Shining Burst]. Ruki Makino (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2026 (CDT)

My editing reflects the official definition of the card name, as I mentioned before, the card name format is the official X description of the DUAL cards.--Yuetmoon (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2026 (CDT)

I understand your logic, however I think that using the name on the Twitter post is fallacious in this case. In the case of ACEs, the identifier ACE appended to the end of the name is a formatting detail for its in-game name, and thus referring to it as such checks out because it's the in-game name with an asterisk that doesn't affect how the name is managed internally but does affect how it's rendered. For DUAL cards, however, the card has two names. There is no single card named "Siriusmon/Planet Knuckle," the card is named "Siriusmon" and separately also named "Planet Knuckle" in the same way that "Omekamon" is separately named "X Antibody." Rather than defaulting to how the Twitter post refers to it, I believe that the most correct course of action is to reference the name on the card's Digimon side as its canonical name. After all, DUAL cards are not the only cards with multiple names, so we should treat the previous instances of cards with multiple names as being precedent-setting. Ruki Makino (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2026 (CDT)

If the issue is the bloat, maybe the list appearance can be reformatted for dual cards? I just thought to mention the current card list appearance is something I slapped together a long while back and I admit it could be improved in readability, please feel free to change it for dual cards/etc if it will help. --Garmmon (talk) 07:55, 25 March 2026 (CDT)

Sorry to chime in a little late here, but here’s something to consider: Why is Omekamon considered the "canonical" card name in the cases of the BT20 and EX11 versions which give it the name "X-Antibody" through rule text? My answer would be to say the actual card name is the "canonical" name and the name given through rule text is card text that overrides the rules of the game (that being the card name is found solely in the card name section). DUAL cards are both Digimon and Option cards, so while you choose to use only one card type’s effects at a time, both the Digimon name and the Option name are "canonical" card names. That’s just my two cents, but the official card game website could rule things differently or list the names differently in the card list or product pages, so whichever way it’s listed on Wikimon is subject to change anyways, I think. On the card list editing front, I did see the width of the template is set to 650px. Could that be changed to temporarily adjust for the length of DUAL card names if or until a new card list appearance is decided on? Just an idea. --NightwingFan (talk) 08:23, 25 March 2026 (CDT)

it's different because name bar vs rule bar. you have other rule cards like "name also treated as having greymon" or "name is also treated as sakuyamon". rule is obviously different to cards having two name bars. also this tcg didnt invent that, the old tcg has the same where cards are treated as also having differnet names. eg, miragegaogamon counting as metalgarurumon. youd have to change a bunch of cards from the 90s and 2000s tcgs if you push that for that. dual cards are just different. So nightwing stance is also mine. Muur (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2026 (CDT)

Rule is, in fact, not "obviously different to cards having two name bars" at all. It's exactly the same phenomenon. Ruki Makino (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2026 (CDT)

My answer is that, while all of the card names are objectively "the actual card name," as is explicitly stated in the game's rules, the name given on the name bar is treated as canonical simply because the card's formatting indicates it as the "main" one. Rules text isn't "text that overrides the rules of the game" at all, it's literally extra names/traits that are equally legitimate, but are deprioritized in the formatting because they're non-DRB-compliant. With this in mind, examine the formatting on DUAL cards. The option side's name bar has a significantly smaller text size, which makes it just about as obviously "less canonical" as rules text. Ergo, my stance is that we should treat the likes of [BT25-085 Beel Starmon] as having the canonical name [Beel Starmon] and just being Rule Name: Also treated as [Fly Bullet].

As mentioned above in the thread, my stance is that if it is necessary for DUAL cards to be easily identified as such on the card listing, this can be easily accomplished by adding a new column for the card's type, so that DUAL cards which would display as "DIGIMON/OPTION" can be identified on sight. As with all previous cards that have multiple names across all Digimon card games, you can always just go to the card's page to see the additional names. This would also be helpful for cases like Yggdrasill_7D6 where the same card name occurs on both Digimon cards and Digitama cards. Ruki Makino (talk) 22:05, 28 March 2026 (CDT)

Well that's an interesting idea, we have a way to denote ACE cards as ACE cards, but they were ultimately Digimon cards. So making it clear a particular DUAL card is a Digimon/Option card would identify it's more than just a normal Digimon card. I guess the question there is then do we list the Option name later in the Tamer/Option table with the same card number as above and once again as a Digimon/Option card? Either way this works for me and I would support it. We're just under two months away from getting to see the official card list on the DCG site, so either the current method or this proposal would get us to there with no issues imo.--NightwingFan (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2026 (CDT)

My stance would be to only list it once, both for reader convenience and because there are mechanical differences between the cards that go in the Tamer/Option table and DUAL cards (Option cards in the battle area aren't allowed to have cards under them and are trashed if they weren't placed there by an effect, but DUAL cards are Digimon that behave like Digimon). That said, if we do add the card type column I could see an argument for combining the two tables entirely. Ruki Makino (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2026 (CDT)

disagree, and my thoughts would not change.Muur (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2026 (CDT)

the official site will name it as shinegreymon/geogrey sword, ruining this head canon that the card is only a digimon.Muur (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2026 (CDT)

So the official site has updated with the BT-25 product page and it does list the DUAL cards as such: ベルスターモン/フライバレット (Beel Starmon/Fly Bullet). The English (world) site uses "BeelStarmon/Fly Bullet". So I think this question is answered. That said, about debloating, the official site does separate cards by type in their deck lists as Digitama, then Digimon, then Digimon/Option, then Tamer, then Option cards. So maybe this is what we would need to do, split the card lists further like on the product pages, as we current group together Digitama/Digimon/DUAL (Digimon/Option) cards and Tamer/Option cards. At the very least, DUAL cards should be separated into its own little section. --NightwingFan (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2026 (CDT)

Now that we have all the information, my personal stance is that the option card name is even less legitimate than we previously thought. Originally, it was expected that the card had both names at all times, in the same way that Rule boxes work. It turns out, according to the recent CRM update, a DUAL card is usually treated as only having the name on the Digimon side, and only has the option card name when it's being used. So rather than rules text, it's like [BT15-060 Omekamon] where it only has the option card name in an edge case and usually only has the Digimon name. With all of that said, I am in favor of the proposal above where DUAL cards are separated into their own table the way SP alt arts are. I've demonstrated how this might look on the page for LM-09, which was revealed today on English P-Bandai. Ruki Makino (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2026 (CDT)

link this crm thing? Feels more like it means when you use as a digimon is a digimon and when used as an option it’s an option.Muur (talk) 06:48, 12 May 2026 (CDT)

Can we add an extra section to the DUAL card table for the option portion's color? Sometimes it isn't the same as the Digimon portion's. CloneWarrior (talk) 10:40, 14 May 2026 (CDT)

I considered this but once again I would like to point to the fact that you can always just click on the card page and the color requirements are clearly listed in the rightmost cell on the row with the use cost. I could be convinced to add this information to the table if enough people really wanted but as of right now I don't think it's particularly necessary. Ruki Makino (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2026 (CDT)

I mean, this is also true of the color for the Digimon half of the card. Right now, we're only including half of the equally valid information under the "Color" section. CloneWarrior (talk) 23:20, 19 May 2026 (CDT)

Strictly speaking, the option side's "colors" are not "equally valid" as the Digimon side's colors. They're not colors, they're color requirements. [BT8-009 Hawkmon] can add Siriusmon/Planet Knuckle, because the actual colors are red/yellow which makes it a 2-color card, even though the color requirements are "red or [Gammamon] in text." A hypothetical searcher that could only add 1-color cards wouldn't be able to. Ruki Makino (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2026 (CDT)

Fanart images

Is there any objection to marking for deletion personal fanart by artists who have worked on official works before? I noticed some images e.g. File talk:Astamon illustration yang rui.gif (NightwingFan helped to check that it is personal fanart), File:Digimonbeatbreak illustration kariki hajime.jpg, that seem to be drawn in personal capacity and not in the capacity of official works/promotion. If there is no objection I would like to go ahead. --Garmmon (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2026 (CDT)

I've advocated for a long long time to delete fan art made by official artists. for some reason, people, including some staff, said "fan art made by bandai artists counts as official art" and I am so against that. The reasoning being "they are not fans, they are bandai staff." There are hundreds (maybe thousands) of this type of art on this wiki. Muur (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

Do you have the link to past discussion? I didn't really pay attention to this or check all the sources, I'm not aware of staff's stance on this. I can see promotion-related might be a grey area open to discussion but at the very least I feel those done in personal capacity shouldn't be here. (but if we go all-or-nothing for fanart I'll lean towards nothing) --Garmmon (talk) 02:38, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

Personally, I have nothing against the inclusion of fanart by official artists since in most other wikis it is usually limited to artists' articles, and "non-official" sections of galleries. As long as it is limited to either of those cases (with respect to the IP of course) or used as a "close enough representation" for stuff with no official visuals for the time being, I would dare to say that there is nothing wrong with it. But alas, I am no staff nor an influential figure in here, just a regular user passing by, so whatever you guys choose to do I won't stop you. --ImaginAlphamon (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

No worries and I appreciate the input, I'm also just a regular user hence wanted to know from Muur if there was a staff stance on it. The two examples I quoted are in the character pages' galleries themselves with currently no indication that they are unofficial fanart, and among fanartists, especially in JP, the general sentiment is 無断転載禁止 (do not reupload elsewhere without permission) hence my leaning towards deleting them. --Garmmon (talk) 03:35, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

I still think that might be a bit too "nuclear" of an option as it would mean that the few instances of fanart that contributed to the IP would be included in the deletion spree, such as Kuzuhamon Miko Mode's origin artwork. Maybe we should start including a "non-official" tab with a legend explaining this status and delete based on individual artist's desires? Or create some new rule that any "fanart" should be limited to their respective artist's articles? IDK, just making a suggestion. --ImaginAlphamon (talk) 04:00, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

it was on the wikimon discordMuur (talk) 08:10, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

My own stance is that fan art used in promotional materials should be retained, though clearly labeled for what it is. Other fan art by people who have worked on the franchise is fine on an artist's page, once again clearly labeled. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? --TMS (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2026 (EDT)

for me, no. my own is no art from them made for fun, and only commissioned by bandai/toeiMuur (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

I also disagree; art made for fun shouldn't be treated as official. There are also cases like Sasasi, who recently even deleted all the fan art from his Pixiv account. --Devie. (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

"such as Kuzuhamon Miko Mode's origin artwork" concept art isnt really the same thing as fan art. also where does it end? if they hired me to make one tcg card, do i then get to upload all other fan art ive ever made and all future? Muur (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

I can see Kuzuhamon Miko Mode being argued whether it's official...but otherwise at least for e.g. the fanart I see on Sasasi's page, which are definitely personal fanart, I also don't agree with 'Other fan art by people who have worked on the franchise is fine on an artist's page'; imo fanart etiquette is personal fanart by default shouldn't be reuploaded, instead of waiting for the artist to voice out before deleting it. I'm not sure what's the consensus on the promotion-related ones, either retain but clearly label them (TMS) or delete all that aren't officially commissioned (Muur)? If the concern is keeping a record, the posts can still be linked to even after the images are deleted from here so users can view them, but the autonomy is with the artist if they wish to delete them. --Garmmon (talk) 11:45, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

I personally agree with TMS stance here. At the end of the day, if an artist/illustrator is working in an official Digimon product and they made an illustration to promote that particular product, I don't see the harm in keeping it in the fan art section of the artist involved, so they can be checked if anyone is interested in knowing more about the artist or his/her track record in the IP. These type of articles also work as a portfolio of some kind sometimes (look at Watanabe Kenji as an example), in the same way that if you look up eg. Picasso or Dalí, you are gonna find tons of references, images and recreations to their art and painter's published work, even if some of those were just made for personal fun or not even commissioned by anyone else or any institution in particular. That said, I think Garm's remark is also very important. If an artist in particular feels more comfortable with a "no reupload" policy, that should be 100% respected in my opinion. It's kinda hard sometimes to figure out what kind of information is worth for a wiki, but I believe something that may help improve the quality of the information or accessibility of the site should always, at least, be taken into consideration.--Shadow Shinji (talk) 14:36, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

The thing with Kuzuhamon MD is that she was indeed fanart until they decided to just use that same artwork for the RB, background and all, with Sayo edited out. Just because we didn't know of it until about a year ago doesn't make the fact less true. But I agree, just because someone has worked for the IP shouldn't mean we/they get a free pass to upload everything they do in here. If anything, I would propose to at most just upload fanart that either promotes or celebrates the concurrent release of the respective products that an artist has worked for on an official capacity (such as celebratory illustrations by animators that are active on current productions like Beatbreak) but nothing beyond that (such as Sasasi's Sirenmon fanart, which shouldn't be here since it exists from way before he began working for the IP) unless officialized in some manner (Kuzuhamon MD as I already mentioned). But if we really should go with the "don't reupload without permission" approach moving forward for etiquette's sake, then so be it as long as no exceptions are made. --ImaginAlphamon (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

example nothing on this wiki makes it clear this is unofficial fan art drawn by kenji for fun. its current usage on the machinedramon and anubismon page makes users think its actual official art used by bandai. this art should not be on the wiki. and if it is allowed, needs to say "fan art by kenji" or something. even putting it on the artist's page just becomes a big fan art page instead of "this guy voiced agumon in episode 48"Muur (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

No one is saying it shouldn't be labeled as fan art. The argument is over whether it should be included in some capacity. If Bandai ever drew official attention to it (such as retweeting it), then I don't see why it shouldn't be on the site, and if they didn't, I don't see why it shouldn't be included (properly labeled) on the page of the artist who designed those Digimon in the first place. However, I seem to be in the minority, and I haven't seen any other objections put forward yet except for one or two people on Discord. If no one else has anything contrary to say on the subject in the next couple days, then we can begin purging everything. --TMS (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2026 (EDT)

one issue with RTs, is that you can *un*retweet, then there's no proof they did so. unlike seeing a picture of agumon if youre playing cyber sleuthMuur (talk) 12:54, 14 March 2026 (CDT)

As well as fan art by people who've officially worked for Bandai, I am also concerned about the fan recolourings we use for pages like Shoutmon Y especially because they are used as the main images on those articles and arent clearly labelled. Penguin (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2026 (CDT)

I can agree for clearly labelling fan recolours too, idk how updated the rules page is but it states "Also, do not upload fanart images into the main articles. Some exceptions can be made for recolors of official artwork, especially when existing images are too low quality". But tbh for my personal opinion, I don't feel there's a need to have fanmade recolours at all on a wiki, if a digi is that obscure that the best official image of it is a low quality one then so be it, it gives an accurate picture that this is whatever official representation exists of it rather than making one up. --Garmmon (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2026 (CDT)

”"Also, do not upload fanart images into the main articles.” The rules are very clearly, meaning we technically didn’t need the discussion.Muur (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2026 (CDT)

This discussion is because we don't have agreement on what constitutes 'fanart' in the case of artists who have contributed to the IP officially.. so I think it still needs staff decision.--Garmmon (talk) 19:16, 15 March 2026 (CDT)

Where I currently stand is that art used by artists to promote the franchise (such as the drawings posted to mark the release of a new episode, etc.) is fine. Any Digimon works the artists make that aren't tied to marketing may be deleted. --TMS (talk) 23:40, 18 March 2026 (EDT)

I think there is still some edit war going on..would admins be able to weigh in a decision on Digimon Collectors (Event) and File:Appmon sasasi.jpg‎‎? My stance is still to remove as they are completely unofficial works, furthermore majority of the fanartists' pages also explicitly say do not reupload their artwork elsewhere. If we still want to keep the DigiColle page I think it should link to the their pixiv/etc instead of reuploading the art on this site. --Garmmon (talk) 06:27, 21 March 2026 (CDT)

The fan art definitely needs to be deleted. Especially the ones related to the fan event; it doesn't even make sense for them to be on the site all these years. It would be better if the admins deleted these images as soon as they are marked for deletion, or this dispute will continue due to pure emotional attachment to the fan art.--Devie. (talk) 08:23, 21 March 2026 (CDT)

Devie may you elaborate on this? If what fans achieve wouldn't matter this wiki wouldn't exist to begin with.--Shadow Shinji (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2026 (CDT)

There are some discrepancies going on partly because some of you are taking certain topics to extremes, as if there were not gray areas or nuances, and basically policying those who have a different approach. I don't mean to sound dismissive to anyone in particular becase I appreciate this community, but this way of addressing certain issues on the site is making editing the wiki a sour experience sometimes.

Digimon Collectors was an event that had some relevance among the Japanese fandom at the time and is part of Digimon history, just like Digimado and some other examples who don't have an article here yet. I don't see why it can't have a simple article for informational purposes. The artwork on the posters were commissions that the organization ordered to the selected artists. As far as I know, those were public events so I don't see how this is crossing any line. If I'm wrong, please let me know. The artwork unrelated to the event posters is another matter; it doesn't make sense for them to be included in the article based on the wiki's new policy.

On the other hand, I often use the Appmon image by sasasi and wanted to include it in my personal profile here as a reference, along with many other articles and links I often use, so they are in a safe place and doesn't end up lost on the internet. I've included the artist's credits as well, and I don't mean to harm anyone. In fact, there are quite a few users whose profiles here include some kind of fan art, even some admins—I won't name users because that is beyond the point—and it's never caused any problems. Why this need to go after people like this and turn everything into something negative instead of focusing on what we have built as a community?--Shadow Shinji (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2026 (CDT)

I personally have no preference on DigiColle having an article or not if it is clearly marked as an unofficial event, but I am against hosting the images on the wiki. These artwork are not commissions, and even if they are they're not commissioned by official sources. The artists also clearly stated on their own accounts to not reupload their art (giving credit is not the same as having permission to reupload).

I hope this sounds objective, I don't have any intention to go after 'people' but rather the topic of hosting fanart here/linking to pages with unauthorised reuploads. I don't check everyone's userpages but if there are others' userpages hosting fanart reuploaded without artist's permission, I have the same opinion to remove them. --Garmmon (talk) 09:18, 21 March 2026 (CDT)

Sorry if it sounded too harsh or anything, it was far from my intention. I believe a link to Pixiv is actually a nice idea personally.--Shadow Shinji (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2026 (CDT)

wikimon isn’t your own personal image directory, shinji. Make your own site and host the images there. Or put them on your twitter page. Muur (talk) 10:16, 21 March 2026 (CDT)

Muur what part of don't talk to me you don't understand? You are a persona non grata to me, please stop commenting on things I do or I say.--Shadow Shinji (talk) 11:26, 21 March 2026 (CDT)

Shinji, if you don't want to talk to Muur (and I don't blame you), just ignore whatever he says. It's usually both easy and rewarding. But he's allowed to comment on things. Anyway, in this instance he brings up a good point. There's no real reason the images have to be on Wikimon instead of elsewhere. I myself plan to download them before I delete them from the site. Based on comments people have made in this discussion, the majority vote is for only cataloguing the "official" aspects of the franchise, rather than its broader cultural impact. I don't really agree with it, but that's the way things are shaping up. --TMS (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2026 (EDT)

think of it this way. when people want merch, whether thats a plushie or a card or a figure - they want official merch. people come to a wiki and expect every image to be official art. "knock off" art isnt what theyre looking for. maybe some people are...but theyll go to pixiv or google or twitter for that. Muur (talk) 20:35, 21 March 2026 (CDT)

looks this the d-arc pics are fan art. Kentas Colour is wrong and has caused fandom issues for ten years. https://wikimon.net/File:Darc_kenta.png Pic here. Here shows confusion. https://x.com/digikidult/status/2039385689293472022?s=46 Wikimon gives him pink digivice but he has purpleMuur (talk) 17:30, 1 April 2026 (CDT)

Could we perhaps preempt both sides of this debate by simply requiring editors to actually state where they got the images? If the image page clearly notes that it was made by a Bandai employee in an unofficial capacity, that should remove a lot of potential for reader confusion. However, an uncomfortable quantity of images, even those uploaded by veteran editors, have no attribution whatsoever, leading to issues like the Kenta kerfuffle.KrytenKoro06 (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2026 (CDT)