Talk:Agumon

Shouldn't this article be called Agumon (Adventure) like the article about the savers one? Shadoom1 06:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most likely, yes. That way the main Agumon will be the species entry for Agumon, instead of a character entry. It's work in progress as we split digimon back into individual articles from the lists. -- Ned Scott 07:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

DS name
So apparently the Agumon with the red bands is officially named "Agumon (2006 anime version)", or as we would do it, "Agumon (Data Squad)/Agumon (Data Squad version)"

This presents a lot of problems for naming schema, since that's how we do characters. Do we want to go with the second, which would be ugly but workable, or can anyone find sources for an alternate official name? (I've heard tell of "Agumon (Subspecies)". If we can get an official source for that, we're golden). If we absolutely had to, we could name it under "Agumon (Reptile)" and "Agumon (Dinosaur)", since they have varying types. Not even Mr. Lister's  Koromon survived intact.  05:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

what about Agumon(Old) and Agumon(New). Kuramon93 05:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The main problem with that classification is that the former is still in use, making the "old" tag misleading.


 * I named "Agumon (Subspecies)" as such because that version of Agumon's profile always mentions that it's a subspecies of Agumon. Lanate (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

just because the original is still in use doesn't mean that "old" can't apply. I mean take Falcomon for example we call the DS Falcomon "New". Kuramon93 06:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And what we decide for Agumon will apply to Falcomon as well. Besides, "Old" and "New" were classifications we, the wikia, made, rather than official classifications. Lanate (talk) 06:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

well it doesn't appear to me that there are any official classifications so I think that the wikia classifications are as official as its gonna get. Kuramon93 06:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * And that's the point that KrytenKoro just pointed out, that there are official classifications, only that they conflict with our naming scheme. Lanate (talk) 11:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If we wanted to be slightly less...honest about the official name, but still close enough to keep the door closed on fully arbitrary naming like the DMA has, we could go with "Agumon (2006)" and possibly "Agumon (1997)". It's still close enough to the official name that we could say "nuh-uh, no 'Arkadimon (Heelspike)' here!", but still allow us to wiggle it so that we don't have to re-rename hundreds of articles and links to fit a new schema. Or, since we use the dub name, "ShadowToyAgumon", instead of the Japanese subspecies name, "ToyAgumon (Black)", we could claim that the dub name is simply "Agumon", and pick one of its attributes or types to name it under. However, I do think we will have to abandon "Subspecies" if we can't get a semi-official source with that as the name. Not even Mr. Lister's  Koromon survived intact.  14:58, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, the below is the info we have from the Japanese site (translation in a little while). Do we have any info from the video games?

Other Digimon With Agumon in Name
I am new here, sorry if this is posted wrong. Anyways, should toyagumon, shadowtoyagumon, and clearagumon be listed in variations because they do bear agumon in their name, or is there a reason they in a different sections and not listed?
 * I believe Lanate left it out because it is simply a Puppet Digimon in the shape of an Agumon, like with ExTyrannomon. You should ask him, though. 13:53, July 24, 2012 (UTC)
 * Pretty much that, yes. Lanate (talk) 18:11, July 24, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, what are you going to do about the agumon in digimon: redigitize. he does look significantly different, i am not sure if that game is out yet though, so no further data is available to me so guess i should of waited to post this until i knew more lol
 * It's still the same species, they just used a different art for some Digimon in that game. They did the same in Digimon Collectors. 13:56, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

is that game out yet? or just speculative? i looking forward to getting it is reason why, and try to add anything from it to this site
 * It's released in Japan. 21:30, July 28, 2012 (UTC)

"Agumon Burst Mode"
I really want to name it Agumon (Burst Mode) based on Agumon (Adventure)'s line in Xros Wars that "that Agumon can fly", but I know that it's totally reaching. Lanate (talk) 04:04, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with it. I mean, it's still Agumon. 05:49, October 2, 2012 (UTC)
 * In the "Off-screen Last Battle" special, Gaomon wonders if that is a proper Evolution, and Agumon explicitly calls that a Burst Mode, with Gaomon commenting on how unorthodox it is. I think we can now take the name as official. Is Gaomon's comment on the unorthodexeness of the form relevant to the article. 22:50, September 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Good with me. 03:23, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Agumon (Burst Mode)? I don't think Gaomon's comment is relevant though. Lanate (talk) 04:47, September 16, 2013 (UTC)
 * Or Agumon Burst Mode. Anything really. I'm good. 06:56, September 16, 2013 (UTC)

Mascot
You think that Agumon could be considered an assumed mascot of its series? :/ --Ethanthegamer (talk) 05:48, January 1, 2013 (UTC)
 * It appears on the fifteenth anniversary logo. 07:53, January 1, 2013 (UTC)

forever dj 19:15, November 1, 2013 (UTC) yep agumon is the mascot

Attacks
Didn't we decide to get of "attacks in X" pseudo-sections? 03:08, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, but those are generic techniques, aren't they? Shouldn't we treat generic techniques different from species techniques? Lanate (talk) 04:10, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * I say remove them entirely if they're generic. 12:07, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Didn't we have a discussion that touched upon this at some point though? How do we treat generic techniques?  I initially mentioned putting them in the game subsection blurb we write, but that was rejected for some reason. Lanate (talk) 12:12, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * They may be generic, but there's no player input into getting those. Agumon already starts with Fire Breath, and he learns Mach Jab after defeating the Gabumon/Betamon that attacks them after Taiga arrives in the Digital World. I would say they are canon due to not having player input. 12:37, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * By the same token, you can argue the same about any of the player-given Digimon and their initial generic techniques. I wouldn't mind placing them on the Agumon character page, but I just don't think that generic attacks belong on the species page, otherwise attack lists are going to grow extremely long. Lanate (talk) 13:13, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * My mindset is that Pokemon-esque, generick attack lists used due to the constraints on a video-game, similar to the VG-only evolutions that we exclude from the infobox, will overwhelm the species page if we list them all, and water down what is "unique" about the Digimon. Due to their shared nature, I feel they are best covered in detail on a central Appendix, as with Dawn and Dusk's subpages, and then listed as an attack possessed by the Digimon in its stat-section.
 * On a related note, I'm currently trying to find time to write up a draft that more clearly focuses the species information in one area, then the serial-specific stuff elsewhere, with infoboxes for various game-stats a la KHWiki. I know I first brought this up a few months ago, but hopefully I should have a rough draft soon. 13:29, October 15, 2013 (UTC)
 * Started it here, if you guys want to help fill it out, it should be fairly easy to see where I'm going with it. I'll try to have it up to snuff as soon as possible, but I could use some help setting up the video game infoboxes. 14:24, October 15, 2013 (UTC)

Hey!
Who the heck said that V-Jump and Saikyō Jump's Editor-in-chief Iyoku owned an Agumon!?

Yusheng02 (talk) 15:55, January 4, 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor-in-chief is a character in Digimon World Re:Digitize, where he has an Agumon named V-Long. 16:19, January 4, 2014 (UTC)

Mach Jab
So, I think we should consider it a proper attack for Agumon rather than just an "attack in Re:Digitize", because besides learning it after the first battle in Re:Digitize, he also has it in All-Star Rumble. Here. 11:24, August 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with including it sourced to ASR, but I'd like to get confirmation that Re:Digitize doesn't use a Pokemon-system if we're going to source it there as well. 13:52, August 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think Mach Jab counts as species attack for RD since Agumon inevitably learns the attack after the first battle in the game, therefore I think Agumon learning Mach Jab counts as happening as part of the story. 13:55, August 1, 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not so much worried about the techniques' use in fiction, as with DW:EVOLVE, but more the techniques being a completely different beast than the system used elsewhere in the franchise. Stuff like that and Dawn/Dusk techniques, to avoid miscommunicating with readers, I feel would be better served by linking to a game-specific Attacks Appendix.
 * But that's if it uses the Pokemon system, which I'm not clear on (I know World 1 does, but...). If Digimon don't pass on their techniques to other Digimon, then no matter the storiness of the attack or size of the list, it's still a technique that belongs to that Digimon (rather than one it merely learns) and I'd have no problem with listing it here. 14:01, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

Digimon-Appmon Crossover
So, according to YouTuber ZeroDex, Digimon and Appmon are getting their very own, game exclusive crossover featuring Agumon/WarGreymon, Gabumon/MetalGarurumon, and Omnimon with Agumon and Gabumon's app icons being their respective crests, and Omnimon's app icon being the combined form of the two. Should we include that? Here's the source video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHaAaDL1q5E .Legognocchi101 (talk) 01:20, February 27, 2017 (UTC)

Appli Monsters
Agumon is from Haru's Digimon Universe save data. Do we want to say Haru is his partner? 01:25, August 12, 2017 (UTC)
 * Guilmon is Takato's fanmon brought to life and we count that so I think we can count that. Chimera-gui (talk) 01:49, August 12, 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a completely different thing. Guilmon is Takato's Partner because the red D-ARK belongs to Takato and is connected to Guilmon. There's no such similarity with the Haru and Agumon case, which happens in a world where Digimon aren't even important to begin with. 21:50, August 13, 2017 (UTC)


 * I would say yes; I mean, we consider Agumon and Gabumon as partners for Mameo in DW1, why not the monster you have raised up in a similar-gameplay videogame? As far as I'm concerned, one of the main requirements to be considered as such is that the human Partner is able to make evolve the particular Digimon, which is the case of Haru.--Charles.929 (talk) 00:14, August 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't the Xros Wars kid (EDIT: Taiki. His name is Taiki. Wow, you really hate him don't you?) able to make multiple Digimon evolve in the manga? As far as I'm aware, the main requirement to be considered a partner is that official material states "is X's partner". 17:07, August 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the only Digimon to Digivolve in the manga were the five partner Digimon and the Starmon Corp through DNA Digivolution. And while outright statement is preferred, that's not always possible as we've learned before. As for the red D-ARK, remember that it was originally Takato's card scanner meaning he could have theoretically used any of his cards to make his partner. Chimera-gui (talk) 18:12, August 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * If it's not possible, why do we need to claim there's a partnership? Do we have a source arguing that this Agumon can't be without a partner? 18:58, August 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * But in Tamers there was no D-Ark or Digivice of any kind connecting Alice McCoy and Dobermon (Yes I know that they are confirmed to be partners by official sources) or Minami Uehara and Seasarmon. In Data Squad there was no Digivice (Data Link/Burst or any other) linking Kristy Damon and Biyomon. But they are all considered partners. AvengingArchAngel (talk) 11:54, October 4, 2017 (UTC)
 * As I told before, I would say Agumon is partnered with Haru indeed, not only because the latter made the former evolve, but because Haru was the partner of Agumon in the Digimon Universe RPG game, no matter if there's a Digivice involved or not. In my opinion, is pretty much the same as when Taichi is dragged into the Digital World and meets Zeromaru for the first time in V-Tamer, or when Taiga lands into the Digital World and finds Digimaru waiting for him in Re:Digitize Decode. --Charles.929 (talk) 11:32, October 14, 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen the episode, but it sounds like this Agumon was a product of Uratekumon's abilities, not an independent creature. I would not consider it to be Haru's partner in any meaningful way, unless we had published info calling it that specifically. 13:01, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * True but it does parallel to Tamers where Terriermon came out of a video game to become Henry's partner and that Guilmon was a set of drawings before being brought to life by Takato's Digivice. Chimera-gui (talk) 14:20, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * But those were specifically empowered by the DigiGnomes, who were explicitly said to be responsible for *everyone* who got a partner. 20:39, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * That's true and while Appli Monster's setting has paralell to that of Tamers, there is no explict mention of Digimon being a native lifeform to it do to Appmon occupying the niche they would have. Chimera-gui (talk) 21:45, October 16, 2017 (UTC)

So is the consensus yes or no?

AvengingArchAngel (talk) 23:20, October 16, 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm leaning toward no since, in my understanding, Digimon as a concept is fictional in the Appli Monsters universe, as in, the Digimon species does not exist outside of an Appmon's powers to make fictional things real. Without something explicitly calling Agumon Haru's partner, I'd rather leave it off. Lanate (talk) 02:52, October 17, 2017 (UTC)

Well who has spoken for and who has spoken against?

AvengingArchAngel (talk) 03:19, October 17, 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to say no as well for the same reason as Lanate. While it would have been possible in theory, Digimon simply do not exist in the Appli Monsters universe as an actual lifeform. Chimera-gui (talk) 04:44, October 17, 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for taking so long, I was studying for a test.
 * If I remember correctly, the "if they evolved it, then they are partners rule" only applies to Savers because the requirement in that series is having a compatible DigiSoul.
 * Also, techincally, that Agumon is real and self-aware before Uratekumon did anything, and so were all those videogame characters. Agumon explicitly described Uratekumon's abilities as "pulling them from their videogame worlds" and they don't instantly and automatically return after Uratekumon's ability, instead they have to actively go back to them. We are dealing with a Wreck-It-Ralph situation here.
 * That said, I vote "no" because Digimon aren't important for the story and universe of the series. 21:27, October 20, 2017 (UTC)
 * Digimon still do not exist as an actual lifeform in the Appli Monsters universe, Agumon is simply a video game character programmed to have the abilities of the actual species like how Sergeant Calhoun is programmed with painful, artificial memories of a wedding that presumably never actually happened in-game. Chimera-gui (talk) 04:09, October 21, 2017 (UTC)