Forum:Name and Design Leads

Do we want to have more in-depth coverage of the etymologies and design basis for Digimon species
Right now, we give a very glossed-over one-sentence coverage that gives pointers to the name and design sources, without backing itself up a lot.

On one hand, this leaves some readers often confused about why we claim that a character has these basis, especially if they don't follow the wikipedia links we provide (ex. Majiramon). We also get complaints that the etymologies are sometimes redundant (ex. "Metal Greymon"), for when the etymologies are mostly obvious.

On the other hand, (and the primary concern to me), this means that we don't overplay our hand by claiming specific links as meaningful where it may just be an incidental detail. For example, if we don't make claims about Lilithmon's beauty mark being based on an obscure manga character who embodied lust, Leviamon being based on a character from the SCP website, or Vulcanusmon's octopus design being based on the myth that he was raised in Neptune's palace, we don't have to be worried about having lied, and we don't get made to look foolish if Bandai later releases something that shows this to be wrong. I know I've certainly recieved flack from Digimon messageboards for stretching myself a bit too far on stuff like VenomVamdemon or Belphemon Sleep Mode, so it is something we recieve criticism on. If we just say that its design derives from a certain character, without making specific claims about which details those are, it's much easier for us to defend, and much less likely to be criticized.

Those are the two extremes, though, which means there's room to tweak the balance slightly without falling into either pitfall. There's also the option of doing what Wikimon does, which is to just give a list of basic etymologies for the name in the infobox (in the style of definitions), and give an additional design editorial also in the infobox, where it is not visible on first glance. So, we could hide these in the infobox, and mark the design notes as editorials to make it clear that they are our theories, and not facts. (Of course, then we have to undo the redundancy removal we've done when a profile explicitly states the basis of the name and design, as with Arukenimon or Ballistamon.)

We also have little to no coverage on the etymologies for other versions of the names (ex. WonsiGoburimon), so using a definition-type infobox coverage at least for the etymology would help solve that problem. That still leaves how we cover design, though. 17:30, December 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * Might we consider removing the name and design from the intro paragraph and including a section further down the page? This would allow for a more in-depth explaination of the name and design than the one or two sentences which are currently part of the intro paragraph, without cluttering up the intro with akwardly-phrased explainations.
 * For example (ranging from simple to complex):

Name and Design

 * Triceramon's name and desgin are derived from the, a genus of herbivorous dinosaurs.

Name and Design

 * Biyomon's Japanese and English names are derived from the Japanese onomatopoeia for tweeting (ぴよぴよ "Piyopiyo") It's English name is a mistranslation of this.
 * Biyomon's design is a stylized, but reletively generic small, pink bird wearring a metal band which resembles a shackle or.

Name and Design

 * IceLeomon's design and English name are derived simply from "Ice Leomon". Physically, it is nearly identical to Leomon, except for its white fur and ice-themed attacks. It's Japanese name (panjyamon) is a reference to it's resemblance to the fictional from the animated film, .

This gives the page room for a more thorough explaination of their origins, which allows them to be less subjective as well as more friendly to new fans and readers who are less familiar with Digimon overall. Some didgimon (like triceramon) have very straightforward names and designs. Others are more complex (like ChaosBlackWarGreymon), have different english and Japanese names (like Goldramon), or have unclear or debatable origins (like Greymon) which can be fleshed out and discussed in the extra space. To depart from the "[Digimon's] name and design are derived from [one or two words; no eloboration]" template would give each, especially those whose origins are more abstract and less obvious, a more individualized and accurate explaination. Some digimon, with stub pages and very little information on them at all may not need this section. Vermilliomon for example, has almost no information except for his name and design and doesn't need a section dedicated to it. 157.228.90.241 22:35, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is, as I said earlier, if our claims on what the name basis is get too detailed, they get controversial very quickly. I've seen flack on certain messageboards for us even claiming stuff like "Agumon's name is from Agubarana", and I've also seen people arguing on messageboards where one guy will interpret our hypothesis as "official published info" and get reamed for it, which ends up making our wiki look bad. There's also the issue with your versions getting into a lot of personal interpretation, rather than sticking to published info. If we very clearly mark it as an editorial, and not official info, I think it could be acceptable: but then, if we're in the habit of doing the design sections as editorials, how do we ensure that we're keeping them all up to the same level of quality, and more importantly, what do we do for Digimon that have no published profile?
 * On a side note (I'm not sure how this factors into the discussion), your example notes that the Triceratops genus is herbivorous...and yet Triceramon is often portrayed as a carnivore in the series.
 * Basically...I'm personally willing to have more detail in the etymology descriptions, provided we find a way to keep it organized (like an infobox), but I have to vehemently disagree that doing so will make it less subjective. That is not at all the case in my experience. 23:00, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm always pushing for status quo? I like having vague references, and even redundant etymologies just work for me.  Unless we have specific sources, though, any etymologies and design derivations will be our best guesses and always more or less subjective.  I don't support moving it into the infobox, however.


 * ...Does wikimon take flack for their etymologies?


 * If there is significant controversy, I'd be in favor of removing the section altogether. Lanate (talk) 04:58, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

My habit of linking any use of real living things as derivations to the most practical species article
So, this is something I've been doing because I didn't want to have to deal with wikipedia deciding to change the name of an article, esp. when wwwjdic and wikipedia disagreed on the English name of an animal. In addition, it seemed like a good across-the-board level to take the design basis down to, since we're talking about Digimon species.

However, I'll be the first to admit that often this requires me to choose between a host of species and sometimes genii based on little more than which looks most reminiscent of the Digimon (ex. Kuwagamon), or which one would be best known in Japan (ex. Gomamon). Sometimes, it's little more than which species is the best holotype (ex. Myotismon).

In short, this is me kind of taking a double standard towards what I said in the previous section. We do have the "ws" template to solve the issue of code length that I've seen some people complaining about, but the larger issue of why we're even doing this at all remains.

So, do you guys agree with my actions on this? I can certainly see the arguments for both sides, and I'm willing to restrict the etymology stuff to the least-guessworky level of classification if my penchant for using species is unsatisfactory. 17:30, December 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * My recommendation is that in cases where the specific species for the name or design isn't certain, use the generalised animal.
 * For example, Greymon is said on his page to be based on Ceratosaurus. Is there a source that says this, or was it just the most famous Theropod Dinosaur with a horn? (Personally, I think it's most likely to be based on the much more popular and famous Tyrannosaurus Rex, but this too would just be my speculaton- no more valid than anyone else's.) It would be more correct to say that Greymon's design is based on Theropod Dinosaurs [in general]. The typical reader will get that he has horns because he's not a real dinosaur, he's a Digimon and horns look cool.
 * The same goes for Digimon like Kuwagamon. If there isn't a source saying he's based on a specific beetle species, just say he's based on horned beetles in general. It's a perfectly acceptable conclusion that the designer did not pick a single species and just drew a beetle monster that would look cool to kids. This way we aren't making assumptions which might turn out later not to be correct.157.228.90.241 21:32, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Except for about five Digimon whose name origins we have been explicitly given (Motimon, Calumon, Ballistamon, Arkadimon, Salamon (Eng name only)), there are not sources for any Digimon's name etymology. The only way we can provide any info on that front is to say "this is what the name and design derive facets from".
 * As for Greymon, it's got three claws and has horns that are an exaggerated version of what the Ceratosaurus has (nose and two above eyes), and its profile describes the hardening of its skull much like the Ceratosaurus is thought to have evolved. Ceratosaurus is also one of the earliest dinosaurs found, back when dinosaurs were still posed in the stance that Greymon is usually depicted. (See, this is what I mean: everything I just said was totally subjective, unofficial, and very easy to cherry pick, and its based entirely on responding to a "what if its X?" question. That's not easily covered by standard formatting, and can lead to arguments.) The question for me is, how do we qualify "certain"? I can find plenty of fundamental details about Greymon to say "this isn't even a theropod, it's closer to a lizard", but I can also find plenty of fundamental details that would narrow it down to Ceratosaurus. 23:21, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I support moving to a less guess-worky level? Lanate (talk) 04:58, December 7, 2012 (UTC)