Talk:Angemon-species

Do we include Angewomon? 20:40, January 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think so. Lanate (talk) 09:53, January 28, 2012 (UTC)

Pidmon
Since Pidmon is a variation of Angemon, shouldn't he be added?  Tailed   Fox  19:53, March 19, 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that. 217.41.238.172 11:51, December 2, 2012 (UTC)

How is Piddomon, who is listed as a variation of Angemon not part of the Angemon species? His Bandai art isn't even an original drawing. It's photoshopped from Angemon. How is ChampionMegaDancermon, a made-up, joke form of Veemon a part of the species when Angemon's nearly identical variation is not? 157.228.89.30 01:57, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Because he's never been called part of the Angemon-species, and all other instances of the whole "species" thing indicate that it focuses on anything with the species name, well, in the species's name. ChampionMegaDancermon is "UltraAngemon" in Japan, so there you go.
 * Pidmon will probably be included if he ever gets a profile that calls him an Angemon. If he doesn't...well, we're not in the habit of totally making shit up here just because "eh, close enough". 06:30, December 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * The name is the most superficial part. Bandai evidently didn't feel they needed to specify that the pink Angemon they made on MS Paint is a closer relative to angemon than the joke crayon drawing that isn't even a real digimon.157.228.88.244 15:16, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that they do specify that in every other case. Take note of that first one, because that's the one where Bandai explicitly says, "Yes, the name is almost always the least superficial part."
 * This wiki does not pretend it has the ability to read Bandai's minds, and we're not going to start now. Pidmon will be added if and when Bandai specifically calls him a member of the Angemon-species, and not a second sooner. 16:59, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I do wish they'd hurry up with that. I think it's awfully silly that the digimon who is physically more like Angemon than literally any other Digimon ever, Isn't even mentioned on the page for relatives of Angemon.
 * Can we not at the very least, do away with the crayon drawing, if for no other reason than because it's not a real Digimon? I've been avoiding tackling that head-on here, because it's a totally seperate issue, but I just think it has no place on any list of real Digimon. 157.228.90.241 20:27, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally agree. I think the Spoof Digimon should either be clearly delineated from "real" Digimon, or excluded altogether. 21:18, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind wiping the spoof Digimon from the groups I guess... Lanate (talk) 04:41, December 7, 2012 (UTC)
 * To clarify, I'd be fine with UltraAngemon having something like "imaginary" or something called out. He's meant to be an Angemon, at least. 04:47, December 7, 2012 (UTC)

Relatives
On a partly related note, Is Devimon not stated explicitly several times to be a corrupted Angemon or Angemon-species Digimon? Does he not belong here? The last time I turned evil, I was still the same species.

Might we consider a section on this page for those who are obvious relatives of Angemon, but have not been explicitly referred to by the term, "Angemon-species"? Fellas like Seraphimon who don't have Angemon in their name, but who digivolved from Angemon and are still an angel in a metal mask, ought to at least receive an honourable mention, don't you think? Just a thought. 157.228.90.241 20:27, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * As cited on this page, Devimon's profile states that he was and is no longer a member. He did in fact change his species, from Angemon to Devimon (a lot of the -species stuff is unclear whether they're talking about the specific Digimon, or a grouping). Beyond that, your specific argument is...well, nonsensical in context, because changing species is exactly what Digimon tend to do when they turn evil.
 * The problem with that is that there are a ton of Digimon who digivolve from Angemon. Some of them, like Chimairamon, still even have the angel parts. If you're just looking for a grouping of Angel Digimon, we already have Category:Angel Digimon, and it might be worth setting up new pages like "Holy-species" and "Metal-species" based on the broader, more generic categories that the profiles include (which, honestly, are using the "kind" translation of the word, and probably aren't meant to be technical anyway). Trying to twist the black-and-white barriers for stuff that is "obvious" or "clearly deserves a mention" (and I'm not using these as mockquotes, this is a common thing to say in the fandom) leads to arguments because you're now defining a subject by singular fan interpretation, and you'll never get all fans to agree on any one interpretation. The profiles say that the name is in indicator for these groups: we list all species that satisfy that criteria. The profiles add that a species does or does not fall into the group despite their name: we modify the list accordingly. Going beyond that leads to arguments and a loss of credibility for the wiki. 21:10, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest then that we include on this page a "See Also" or "For relatives of Angemon and other Angel-based Digimon which are not confirmed members of the "Angemon-species", see Category:Angel Digimon." This would make the page less of a dead end. 157.228.90.241 22:50, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you're conflating the concept of "type" with the concept of "-species", and it's not quite the same. For example, the "Greymon-species" includes Dinosaurs, Cyborgs, Androids, Undead, Ancient Dragons, Dragon Men, Dragon Warriors, Warriors, Light Dragons, and Dark Dragons. It's an alternate form of classification, rather than a subset or superset of types.
 * As an analogy, it wouldn't make sense on that page to say "for other Dragon-based Digimon", since that doesn't even include all Greymons, and it would go past the point of reason to include links to all the types that Greymons have. So we can see that, while "Angemon" species sounds close to the "Angel" type of Digimon, it's not related in functionality. As for listing which ones are relatives, there's an incredible pantsload of Digimon that evolve to or from Angemon, especially if you include the evolutions to and from the other members...some of those lines include Kotemon or Tentomon, and soon you've got the entire franchise in there because it's all a giant game of Six Degrees to Kentaurosmon.
 * Basically, you're trying to connect this page to "Angel Digimon", and that simply isn't the point of this page. It's another form of classification that members of this page can be classified under, but it's not functionally linked to what we're discussing here. It'd be like connecting the Virus Busters to Vaccines, or Royal Knights to Megas. 23:13, December 6, 2012 (UTC)

"Angel-species Digimon"
These are referenced in Ophanimon and Seraphimon's profiles: Ophanimon is the "final form of female Angel Digimon", while Seraphimon is the "highest-ranked being among Angel Digimon" and "rules over them all". So far, we've not made articles for stuff like this or "Holy-species Digimon" that are sometimes mentioned, because the descriptions are pretty vague. However, should we consider the Angemon-species to be synonymous with the Angel-species Digimon for the purposes of these descriptions? 16:28, October 5, 2013 (UTC)

Angel Digimon
From Cherubimon's profiles: "Angel Digimon, which are positioned at the ultimate "Virtue", have the aspect of their being easily stained by its antithesis of "Vice" as a consequence of their extremity."

This seems out of place in Cherubimon's article, but I can think of nowhere else to put it. Where should it go? 19:48, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * How about making an Angel Digimon article? We have more info about them that fits nowhere else, like the number of wings showing the rank. The only other place where it could possibly go, is the Angel Digimon category, and I'm not sure if we want articles in the category pages. 23:35, March 10, 2015 (UTC)
 * I support this. Lanate (talk) 01:34, March 11, 2015 (UTC)