Talk:Kokomon (Adventure)

Kerpymon? Why are we still referring to this guy as Kerpymon instead of Cherubimon?
 * Please watch the movie. 06:09, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Kokomon is the in-trainning version for agumon or is that another digimon wait i know this kokomon is the in-trainning version for lopmon aka the Female Terreirmon in the show digimon tamers where it was around episode 30-45 but still i don't know if this is true or not. --(Dan67 17:09, February 6, 2012 (UTC))

Order of form appearances on the movie?
Why don't we just re-arrange his form in order of appearance on the movie? Make Endigomon, Champion level, on the first paragraph and so on. I reckon Lopmon should be last as he barely appeared in this digivolution stage in the movie. I never saw Lopmon in the movie at all. I know this is a little weird but this Kokoman was a movie-only Digimon anyways and won't matter much if we didn't follow the same format as the other 'adventure-Digimon' articles.Bluebeat 11:07, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because he evolves and degenerates and there isn't any necessity to going against our consensus style. 12:10, March 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * So you guys actually have a consensus style? I guess I didn't know about this. Do you guys have a page on it as well? Bluebeat 12:26, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * The official Manual of Style is here, although the style of listing the forms in order is consensus, and not explicitly spelled out in the manual. 18:48, March 31, 2012 (UTC)


 * Can we say that Endigomon briefly Digivolves into Antylamon because he didn't spend a lot of time in that form. Or was this cut from the English version?Bluebeat 07:22, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

KrytenKoro vs. Bluebeat
I've been asked to make a judgment between the two versions of the page. Below, Version 1 is KrytenKoro’s version of the page, and Version 2 is Bluebeat’s version. Comparing the two versions, this is what I notice about the differences:

Version 2 provides a lot of unnecessary links to Wikipedia. Everyone knows what a fiction character is and what the Digimon franchise is.

Version 2 mentions Gummymon as Chocomon’s twin brother in the opening paragraph while Version 1 doesn’t. I’m not familiar enough with the Wikia protocol to know if family relationships are generally mentioned there.

Version 2 specifies that Wendee Lee voices the “little” Kokomon. Volume 1 is more succinct, which is good.

Throughout, Version 1 keeps the dub and original separate, while Version 2 tends to mix the two, which could result in confusion.

Version 2 makes the claim that Chocomon was too corrupted to be reborn, which is not what the CD Drama says. This false statement is later made again in the section about Lopmon. Version 1 is more accurate.

Version 1 provides much more information in the Wendimon section.

Most of the differences in the Andiramon section and others are minor, though I’ve been told that Version 2 is just reverting the page to the old Wikipedia article, which is against the MoS.

At the end of Version 2’s section on Cherubimon, it is stated that his corruptive properties prevented his rebirth, which is a fan theory not mentioned in the canon materials.

In general, I’d have to say that Version 1 is better than Version 2.


 * Alright, let's get some things straight here:
 * 1. I did not put those Wikipedia links. There were made by someone else. Not me.
 * 2. This "fan theory" thing was already there before I first came here to edit this page.
 * 3. The CD Drama statement was made by someone else.


 * I suggest that you get those facts straight before you judge my edits so unfairly. Seriously all I did was try to make it look better and neater. Then 1-3 users make minor edits adding wrong info. then all of a sudden I get blamed for the entire format's inaccuracy because most of the admins here hated my own format? Unbelievable!
 * Let me ask you guys something. When those wrong info were there why didn't you remove them earlier? It wasn't until I entered this site and starting editing everything that you guys finally paid attention to the wrong info put by other users. Yet, all I ever did was try to make it a little bit better and easier to read.
 * Yes, it wasn't your manual of style but you know if you look closer I did didn't even remove all of the info that was already there. Yeah I removed a huge chunk but those were mainly based around the plot of the movie. So don't go calling my edits "inaccurate" just because you lot (including your friend whom you brought over here to judge my edits) hated my own format. But you guys probably put the blame all on me especially with that "Wikipedia" link because of what I said in my talk page.

Bluebeat 06:59, April 6, 2012 (UTC)


 * For the record, this was the format before I first entered this site.
 * - KrytenKoro's version
 * - Bluebeat's 1st version
 * As you can see all that inaccurate stuff that you blamed on me was already there before I edited the page. So guess who's more accurate? Neither of us. But you can clearly see that there was nothing inaccurate or wrong with my version other than the fact that it doesn't follow the "manual of style" here. I clearly didn't remove everything that was there. Your lot shouldn't have completely reverted my edits. The least that you could've done was add/change/remove things so that it would suite your style. Bluebeat 07:08, April 6, 2012 (UTC)