Talk:MagnaAngemon

Untitled
For MagnaAngemon, as well as Daemon, Arukenimon, Mummymon, and Sakuyamon, the Digimon have "forms" that are not considered separate Digimon.

Did we want to implement galleries for this? I think it would be inappropriate to create an entirely new section (like Gallantmon and Gallantmon Crimson), since the appearances are never distinct, and are not separate Digimon.

Finally, we need to make sure that these five pages have both images. If we can get Bandai images, good, if not, Toei or cards. Thanks! 19:50, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

I have Bandai Images for Lord HolyAngemon and Sakuyamon(miko). Got them from DMA Digi-dex.Omegamon 23:08, May 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are just low-quality cutouts of the cards themselves. So then, we'll be using the cards. 23:10, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

MagnaAngemon's page is wrong!
On MagnaAngemon's wiki page it says that he digivolves from Angemon (With Ankylomon). This is incorrect because in the first and second seasons of Digimon, Angemon never needs Ankylomon to Digivolve to MagnaAngemon.
 * Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers
 * Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers
 * Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers
 * Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers
 * Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers
 * Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers

13:57, July 31, 2011 (UTC)

Actually he is right, when magnaangemon is fighting blackwargreymon anklyomon was not even use to make magnaangemon so obviously he is not needed. idk how to sign these things. sorry
 * Again, as the page says, he DNA Digivolves with Ankylomon to form MagnaAngemon in Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers. That is why there is a citation there claiming that the evolution is sourced to Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers, and why I posted above, and I quote, "Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers, Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers, Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers, Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers, Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers, Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers". This repetitive posting of "Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers" across both the article and this talk page is not meant to say that the evolution happens in every source except Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers; it in fact means, in accordance with standard citation practices, that Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers is exactly the source in which you'll find evidence for Angemon and Ankylomon DNA Digivolving to MagnaAngemon; in short, it means that the source for the evolution is Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers. In the future, when seeing a citation that states "this claim is evidenced by Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers", a smart person would instead think "I should go check that game, Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers, and verify whether this is correct", and then they would go do that, and go play Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers. A very dumb person would immediately ignore the citation to Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers and start editing the page or talk page to claim it isn't true, perhaps thinking "I've never played this game, Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers, so obviously it doesn't exist. Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers doesn't even sound like a real name, what the hell's a Digimon? And Tag Taming? Pshaw! Certainly no game such as Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers exists, despite this article having a section on the game, Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers, in which it explains the detailed game mechanics of how Angemon and Ankylomon DNA Digivolve. I mean, I bet that totally operational link to an article named Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers is some kind of rickroll, or something; I'm certainly not going to waste the time to click the link to the article Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers or even read further on the page to the section Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers to confirm anything! Everybody knows that the correct thing to do is to just shoot my fool mouth off!"

So yeah, don't be that person. Use and verify evidence, don't just spout your own opinions. 16:59, July 20, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, really uncalled for. Change this to W/or without anklyomon then because angemon evolves into this during the first season agiast piedmon before anklymon is even seen, so obviously is not needed for this, the game was a special circumstance which on other talks you have said something similar to anime takes precedence over games, canon beats none canon. magnaangemon in first season is canon, that game. Not canon. be back in few with episode, and link, also with episode and link to second season when same thing happens. and since it saying my account does not exist now i cant sign in. i have no problem debating over something but do not get rude. Bully you know alot obviously but think you have to agree, since this evolution was first shown without anklyomon, it is safe to say he is not needed. one game does not override two seasons of the show. -j_spencer93-
 * ...I don't understand what you're saying. Angemon is already there.  The (w/ Ankylomon) is a supplement to the already existing Angemon solo digivolution.  All that says it that MagnaAngemon can be formed from Angemon by itself or Angemon and Ankylomon. Lanate (talk) 07:15, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

And i know that game is considered canon before you even point that out, i called it not canon because it appears and happens after the first incident of magnaangemon and their are so many inconsistances with it and the actual show it aint funny. some of us do know about the games do our research and play them, and still tell you your wrong.

point is canonically it does not need anklymon and he should not be there. like other evolutions in games that did not end up listed, that DNA evolution should be placed in the article on this page about the game it appeared in, not what is required to evolve to him since it is not required at all.

season 1: episode 52: piedmon's last jest. and i not meaning to be a jerk, just if it is done on one page all pages should be done like that if it makes the digimon clearer. it being set up like this could be confusing to some, since it shows anklymon is needed.

think the fight between magnaangemon and blackwargreymon is season 2: episode 34.
 * And our point is that MagnaAngemon, according to canon materials, can be explicitly formed from either Angemon alone or Angemon with Ankylomon. There is no contradiction; in no way does the infobox state that MagnaAngemon has to be formed from either Angemon or Angemon and Ankylomon only; it only states that there is a canon source that MagnaAngemon can be formed from Angemon by itself or Angemon and Ankylomon. Lanate (talk) 07:27, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Lanate- the problem with this is, bully is constantly on other pages making changes to make them simpiler and to show that game only evolutions usually are listed only on their article on the page, and shows canon evolutions on the actual next form, as do most admin on here. but this page is not correct at all, this only happens in one incident, ever, in a game with debatable canon. Actually idk why some evolutions are only mentioned in game articles on pages instead of next form, doing that would show full evolution range, but using only manga and anime canon forms makes it clearer to show what they are supposed to do. If this was done here all digimon would need changed so that their prior forms and next forms matched all the cards, games, etc released and since this site does not do that, kuwagamon for example on a card evolves from biyomon, then it needs changed. Also if this site does it this way, then i suggest changing all evolution to show it this way to make all of them the same instead of randomly listing a game evolution and show it as something important when it is questionably canon.

Its misleading. I have seen other infor removed from pages on here because of being misleading. either state all game evolutions in prior or next forms, or remove all game only from them unless its their only appearance as digimon in the first place. shit, i should be an admin apparently.

and why not make this like omnimon it has w/o instead of just w/ for thos that do not know w/o means with or without while w/ means with.

btw to make this clear, sorry about all the post, and just realized both this episodes listed on here. bully and lanate love this site, and what i have seen you two correct and explain. But this directly goes against other rulings and how things are written on other pages. just think it needs to be consistant or wiki ends up in a mess. bully has pointed out things to me that cleared a few things up, but think how he reacted to this instead of simply saying it in this game is bogus but stating it only in 1 game goes against his previous statments before. see my point?


 * DW:EVOLVE is our official policy. Go to wikimon if you want a complete list of all possible digivolutions.


 * Omnimon has it without because WarGreymon + MetalGarurumon is the first instance, most well known, and the (w/o) are special cases. Because in this case, Angemon by itself is the first instance, it is listed first.  I honestly don't know what your problem is with our policy.


 * I honestly don't see your point either. There is a source where Angemon + Ankylomon > MagnaAngemon exists.  That in no way supersedes the Angemon > MagnaAngemon digivolution and source.  I don't even know what you're arguing with the messed up grammar in your statements.  Lanate (talk) 07:44, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Lanate in that very thing you posted you make the point why it should say w/o anklymon

and you are mistaken, i do not have a problem with your policies. just not sure why this one, in same circumstances as omnimon is different.

I am sorry about the gammar i will correct it for simple people will understand. I do not appreciate others acting superior or mouthy to those just trying to help. That is my first problem. Second problem is that this evolution is typed wrong, which you point out in your own counter argument. Understand?
 * See that ref next to Angemon? That says Angemon[1]?  That [1] ref already does that w/o Ankylomon because the infobox says that, yeah, Angemon can digivolve to MagnaAngemon by itself in this particular episode, and the next line underneath says that in Digimon Adventure 02: Tag Tamers Angemon and Ankylomon is also storyline-based.  There is no need for a separate "w/o Ankylomon" line when having Angemon by itself with a source already concisely imparts the same information.  The "w/ Ankylomon" line is a supplemental addition to the above data that in no way invalidates it. Lanate (talk) 07:56, July 26, 2012 (UTC)

Actually no, the 1 ref beside it would actually revel this is its first appearance. To make this correct, the 1 at the bottom should state: this is only a DNA evolution in "enter game name" and in normal circumstances is not.

But since you have both references. although you do on omnimon too and it still diff, then lets drop it. Its acceptable and misleading for those, prob around 70%, people that do not look at the ref, and as a information site just wanted to make it clearer.
 * "Angemon w/o Ankylomon" is the same as saying "Angemon", which is why we do that. The Omnimon page is a special instance because it normally has two components, and neither of them is the primary, so that there's no easy way to say "okay starting with this guy, add these guys" without making it even more confusing and in a few cases redundant. Try it yourself, you'll end up having a ton of redundancies trying to put it in the normal format. Omnimon's version is the exception, not the rule.
 * Doing it this way, with a base form and then listing possible additions, is also necessary for dealing in any logical way with the Xros Digimon. (Well, "was" I guess, since we eventually went with charts for those.)
 * Listing it in this way is the most efficient way we've found to deal with the normal situation of alternate components like this, and there are both links to the sources and material on the page to explain the details, in case anyone is confused about what specifically the infobox means (Again, the infobox is not meant to be comprehensive across the franchise. It is meant to give a quick update about the most important appearances of the species, which we've defined as "when it appears as a character".) By necessity, the material in the infobox is compressed and relies on links and citations: we expect readers to follow them, instead of merely glancing at the box and then drawing a line in the sand based on the abbreviated and heavily-out-of-context view they just got. So, when the citation says "this evolution happens in this source", it's very frustrating when we get people coming in and calling us misinformed or even liars, when we've correctly cited the claims using the standards of general academic works. at a certain point, the readers need to start following the rules and following up on citations.
 * Arg...in fairness, looking at MadLeomon I can see how some confusion could be imparted, since the difference is really whether the first line is cited or not...I guess I could compile a list of all similar situations, and we can have a discussion on how and whether they could be clarified? I'll take this on myself, since it's mostly a problem of my own making. 14:30, July 26, 2012 (UTC)