Talk:Terriermon

Japanese Chin -- should we mention it as basis for design, or is it not obvious enough? 17:07, January 24, 2015 (UTC)
 * If the new page format gets applied across the broad, this could be added in the Design section. Chimera-gui (talk) 18:21, January 24, 2015 (UTC)

"Clinical"
This change. All design sections we did so far were like this. Even Lanate has been putting the number of toes on these. 15:59, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * If that's the consensus, then that's the consensus. I guess I'll just register that I'm not quite on board with that -- in my mind, these sections were supposed to replace/clarify "design derived from", and it feels like a misfire if we're detailing number of toes but forget to mention "looks like a terrier". 17:20, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the lack of mention was my fault. I did mention Gaioumon being a samurai version of WarGreymon in its design section. 18:09, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * I was actually following G-SANtos's lead on the description end. I'm actually ambivalent-to-leaning-against that level of detail, but I thought that was consensus. Lanate (talk) 18:16, September 18, 2015 (UTC)
 * At bare minimum, I think we should make sure the section focuses on the meaning of the design ("this character is a kitsune and has yin-yang emblems referencing their dualistic nature in Shinto mythology"). I'm not necessarily opposed to also going into clinical enumeration of design details, though in some cases ("this character wears purple frilly panties, a violet strapless bra, and mauve socks"), I feel like it's over-indulging on data to the point that it will actually bore the reader and therefore be less informative overall. I'd definitely be happier with a more broad-strokes approach in places like that ("this characters wears undergarments in various shades of violet..."), especially if those details can be tied into conscious character design ("...matching their Digivice color"). However, that request is a personal preference and not something I'm arguing is the only acceptable way -- I definitely do feel that we must have the sections focus on the theme behind the design, though. 18:18, September 19, 2015 (UTC)