Talk:Agumon

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by the Video game characters task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

First header

can somebody add the relevant informations for the Movies and CD dramas in this article? Circeus 20:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note on Tai's Coming to the Digital World (Presumably refering to the first episode of season two)

While that was never clearly explained, as to how Tai arrived, it is apparent that without the aid of one of the newer digidestined it was possible to enter the digital world.(Otherwise Mimi would be unable to, as she does shortly before Palmon was attacked by one of the Digimon created by Arukenimon). If I'm right, the only requirements to enter the digital world is that the gate is open, a ask tha can be acomplished by a D3, but can also occur naturally.

Yeah, it never said in the show that you can't enter the digital world with a normal digivice, just that only the D3's can open the gate. --Cyber95 10:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

redirect?

why does BlackAgumon redirect here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.160.15.240 (talk • contribs) .

Because he's a minor variant of Agumon who's not significant enough to warrant his own article? See WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 23:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, he is prominent in digimon rumble arena —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PopiethePopester (talk • contribs) .

Different Name Origin? =

http://www.thedigiport.com/dex_Agumon_Savers.shtml

That site says that Agumon's name comes from "aguagu," a biting onomatopoeia. Does anyone know if this is correct and not "agurabana?" Indiawilliams 05:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to Shining Celebi from http://shiningevo.ultimatedigimon.com/index2.php (The Shining Evolution), both are correct, and both are right. There is no "correct definition as to where the name comes from. 69.166.72.160 15:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Omega4590[reply]

Image

3bulletproof16, will you please stop changing the image at the top to an old image of Agumon? This image is fine with the page and we have anought images of the original Agumon!! Pokemega32 20:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with 3bulletproof16, the image in the infobox should be the most recognizable kind. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gender Status

Is Agumon considered male or gender-neutral? The article refers to Agumon as both "it" and "him" or "his". Gabumon , however, is referred to in "his" article as "he" or "him". Which one should be considered correct, since the anime refers to Agumon as a "him"? Inclusive disjunction 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I myself would consider Agumon to be male, simply because Digimon have genders (and if you need proof of this, in Season 2, Veemon falls in love with Gatomon). Agumon's personality is best described as male. Anyways, this is just a fan's perspective, so take it as you will. --66.183.131.46 20:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right but during the Tamers season Renamon said that Digimon were not dived into genders 71.68.54.47 21:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They probably don't have genitals, but when even the characters in the story itself use "him" or "her" then it's pretty safe for us to do the same. -- Ned Scott 02:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just stick to it. I don't remember any digimon referring to itself with gender-pronouns, but even if it did...it's only the english dub. I don't think Japanese has pronouns that are explictly gender-sensitive. Also, the problem with referring to digimon as 'he' or 'she' is that we can't do it for all digimon. For example, we can probably agree that agumon is a 'he', but Botamon is generally an 'it'. Botamon is also apparantly Lalamon's fresh form, so i guess we must have he-Botamon and she-Botamon in the mix. And then there're digimon who don't show any apparant gender - should we just make an arbitraty decision about whether to user 'he' or 'she'? Or maybe use 'it' on then? Then we're going to have some digimon with the 'he' pronoun, some with the 'she' pronoun, and some with just 'it'. Not to mention, the same digimon will probably end up being referred to with different genders in different sections (IIRC, agumon is generally a 'he'. But the Botamon article's always referred to botamon as 'it's). Then what about things like silphymon. As far as Adventure 02 is concerned, Silphymon is a fusion between Gatomon (apparently a she) and aquilamon (apparently a he).

So really, i think we should just stick to using "it" the whole way through. It would look a bit funny on sections like Angewomon, but technically, it isn't wrong. Renamon states in Tamers that all digimon don't have genders. Otherwise, we'll have one small group of digimon with he/she, another group where people can potentially argue over, and the vast majority as its. --Saintmagician 12:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"1.5: IS SILPHYMON MALE OR FEMALE? (or "DO DIGIMON HAVE SEXES?")

For all intents and purposes, Silphymon is a male.

The issue of debate is whether or not Digimon actually HAVE physical sexes. Some will say they do, some will say they do not, and are merely "Digimon," and have a sex only in respect to their personalities.

If you believe that Digimon have physical sexes, then Silphymon is a male, due to the fact that he is Hawkmon's natural Ultimate form, regardless of having Gatomon's mind within him.

If you are a subscriber to the "no sex" belief, then you really can't peg a sex on Silphymon, because 'it' has two minds inside of 'it,' and hence is both male and female, but by the same token, is neither. However, if Hawkmon became Silphymon on his own, without Gatomon, then he would have a male mind.

Confusing, isn't it?

In episode 3.49, "D-Reaper's Feast," Renamon notes that "Digimon aren't divided into genders" - the line in the original version directly translates as: "By nature, distinctions of gender do not exist among digimon." Also, in describing Renamon, Tamers writer Chiaki Konaka states that "officially, Digimon do not have gender." But he himself notes that "If anything, gender seems fairly easy to identify in digimon," and says that Sakuyamon was clearly feminine.

To clarify some word misuse - Digimon ARE classified into gender, because gender is a cultural classification, where one is considered "he" or "she." Digimon quite blatantly and undeniably have that. It is being professed here that Digimon do not have SEXES, the physical classification of being male and female - which holds true for MOST Digimon, but characters such as Angewomon, LadyDevimon, Lillymon and, as Konaka notes, Sakuyamon, are quite blatantly female. So, the fact of the matter is that even the officials do not adhere to the official statement on the matter.

We do not know if Digimon reproduce - however, in the Japanese version of 1.13, "His Master's Voice," the "Scubamon" wanted Kari to be their queen so they could procreate with her (see question 5.1). But then again, these creatures were apparently not really Digimon. As this is a kid's show, I hardly think we should hold our breaths waiting, anyway."

Yeah, they do too have genders - they just don't have genitalia.128.211.181.173 18:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Let those pages stay separate including Agumon's. I prefer them that way. It will mess up the List of Digimon order with these redirects. Rtkat3 (talk) 10:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

heck yeah keep em'. (Popie the popester) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.129.42.15 (talk • contribs).

I beleive that there shouldnt be any merging when it comes to Digimon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.130.181.35 (talk • contribs).

Sorry guys, not gonna happen. See WP:FICT, as well as some of the AfD noms archived at Wikipedia:WikiProject Digimon Systems Update/AfD archive for just some of the reasons why we shouldn't have an article for every Digimon. -- Ned Scott 06:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the solution is losing much information, such as appearances and possibly alternate forms? Xolver 17:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Define "much information". If the information isn't encyclopedic per wikipedia standard, then it didn't quite belong there in the first place.Circeus 18:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances in X and Y media besides the anime aren't important? Why have information (like the "description" in this article) about Agumon in the anime, if Agumon in other media (movies, games, mangas) isn't important? It shouldn't be all summed up like that. If you think those are the standards, might as well only write "a fictional character in Digimon" along with his evolutions, and that's it. As a side note, apparently every Pokemon has his page. Xolver 19:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need to list and describ the appearance of every digimon in every digimon media - which is basically what we have been doing. For every digimon species, we've been listing its appearance in every digimon media. That's not needed. The anime is digimon's main media. So for the anime main characters, we give them proper articles. For things like the various Digimon games - any *significiant* digimon appearances can be documentated on the game article. So the thing about dot agumon i removed...can go to the article about the game where dot agumon appears (asuing dot agumon is at all significant to the game, otherwise, it's trivia and we don't need it here)/.--Saintmagician 01:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't Digimon originally a manga and not an anime? Who are you to decide that only the most popular media should appear on an article? Might as well name it Agumon (Digimon Adventures) like done with Agumon (Savers). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xolver (talk • contribs) 12:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you want to write up something about Agumon from a manga then no one is stopping you. We are just trying to organize these articles by character rather than by species. -- Ned Scott 07:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Who are you to decide that only the most popular media should appear on an article?" <<<so you think every digimon who's appeared in any digimon media should have an article. That's great. Why don't you tell it to all the people who've been voting delete in this AfD, and this, and this one. As for the X digimon and black digimon redirecting, take a look at this and this --`/aksha 07:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say anything about BlackAgumon.

Ned Scott, isn't this exactly why it should be called Agumon(Digimon Adventures)--meaning Agumon the character, vs. Agumon that means the species? Again, that's why the character from savers received a Agumon (Savers) article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xolver (talk • contribs).

That's just how Wikipedia normally does disambiguation, it's a bit of a first come first serve when there's only two articles that would share the same name. If other Agumon characters were notable enough to have their own article then we would likely move this article to a title like the one you suggested, then make Agumon a disambig page, but considering there's really only two well known Agumons, that won't be any time soon. As far as Agumon the species, that is isn't notable on it's own. Only in context to a character does it become notable. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put it this way - if we move this article to "Agumon (Digimon Adventure)", then the "Agumon" article name will still redirect to "Agumon (Digimon Adventure)". This is because there're only two articles called 'agumon', so we use disambiguation links instead of a disambiguation page. So really...there's not much point moving the article. --`/aksha 08:36, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extraneous Text

I spent hours trying to expand/source this article a few months ago...and now that text needs to be cut IMO. Why does this article need all the plot summary in the Description and Other Forms section? Looks to me that it should either go to Digimon Adventure and Adventure 02 or be deleted outright. Indiawilliams 01:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, all the Digimon articles need less plot summary. -- Ned Scott 08:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind a brief description under all the "Other Forms" section about how each digivolution came about, the circumstances, and any significant things that digivolution form did. But the Description section defintely could use a cut. --`/aksha 10:13, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I nuked the Description section, and I think the article's a LOT more succint for it. Indiawilliams 03:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uhh...i don't think it's such a good idea to just nuke the section. The description section serves for agumon as the later == sections serve for all of agumon's other forms. And i'd assumed "appearance" and "description" where standard sections (carried over form the old digimon layout). Anyway, i'm going to restore the description section with a much smaller description and leave it as. --`/aksha 09:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Well alright then. Now the Desciption's something I can deal with. One thing; is it necessary to mention that Agumon fought BlackWarGreymon in 02, since that battle did not progress the story in any way? I think mentioning that he was in the series but not a main character is enough. Indiawilliams 02:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i thought it was fairly important. Agumon did only two important things in 02 - one was being captured by Ken, the other was fighting blackwargreymon. Although i won't say it's *vital* for us to mention it. If you want to shorten the 02 section further, i'm not going to stop you. --`/aksha 07:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cannon?

Is metalgreymon (virus) actually cannon?

I've seen digimon adventure 02, and i can't remember it every being said that the controlled metalgreymon was of the virus attribute. And i don't remember it being purple either. Is this actually cannon, because i'd always thought it was just a fandom thing.

--`/aksha 12:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MetalGreymon (Virus) battles the Digidestined in episode 11 of Digimon Adventure 02, the same episode where Raidramon first appears. Nightmare SE 13:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* yes, i've seen adventure 02. What i'm asking is whether the term "virus" was actually used in the anime. Because i seem to remember the evil metalgreymon being referred to as just being an evil metalgreymon.

Now, can anyone confirm whether the whole "attribute changing to virus" thing is cannon or fanmade? as in does someone in the anime actually say metalgreymon turned virus? And was it actually purple. --`/aksha 09:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he was referred to as anything other than "MetalGreymon" but that was without a doubt his virus form (who also happens to be the original MetalGreymon). Also he looked blue and not purple.[1] Nightmare SE 12:04, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the script for this episode (for anyone who's interested, it's here). No mention of metalgreymon being a different 'version'. Different color, yes. But the term "virus"/"viral" has a very specific meaning in digimon. And in this case, there's no cannon evidence to believe that metalgreymon went through a attribute change when it went blue. --`/aksha 06:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the DigiDestined recognise him as a different version? He's just as much "MetalGreymon" as his vaccine counterpart if not more. There's no way to explain his change in appearance other then the fact that it could have only been a virus attribute MetalGreymon, although it doesn't necessarily need its own section in the article, but at least a mention. Nightmare SE 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that it's not cannon. It doesn't mean a digidestined had to recognise him as a virus version - a lot of the cannon information is not directly stated. For example, from those "digimon analyzer" screens that used to come in digimon adventure. Or from those "previous episode" summaries that happened at the beginning of 02 episodes.

Just because the anime doesnt prove an explaination for his change in appearance, it doesn't mean we make speculations about what "it could have been" and then include them into wikipedia.

The evil version of metalgreymon already does have a mention in the article. It just doesn't have a seperate section, and isn't called "blackmetalgreymon" or "metalgreymon virus". --`/aksha 12:59, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it not canon yet Botamon who was never given a name in the anime canon? And how is calling him an "evil" MetalGreymon not speculation? He was never called that, thats just speculation based on the fact that he was working for a villain, the only difference is the blue MetalGreymon that appeared in the anime has ALWAYS appeared as a virus attribute outside the anime. Nightmare SE 17:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because 'evil' is being used as a descriptive term. But if you consider it OR, then you're welcome to change it to something less judgemental. Like just "the MetalGreymon which was under Ken's control", and so on. As i explained before, saying it is a "virus" is defintely OR because the term "virus" has a very specific meaning in the digimon universe. When you say "the blue metalgreymon was a virus", what you actually mean is that "the attribute of the blue metalgreymon is 'virus'". You're NOT saying "the blue metalgreymon is a microscopic particle that can infect the cells of a biological organism". Virus isn't being used as a descriptive term, but used to mean "viral attribute". --`/aksha 10:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not said in the dub, but the Digi-Analyser screen says he is attribute Virus, I am almost certain.

Savers Agumon

Is there any categorical (in-episode) proof that Botamon is this Agumon's Fresh? Indiawilliams 19:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. I think it's either an extrapolation from Agumon (Adventure)'s Digivolution line, or from a V-pet toy. If it's from one of the v-pet toys, i'd say we don't include it, as per this discussion. --`/aksha 04:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The V-Pets keep the "official" lines, and in any case, Baby II digimon have always had the same Baby I form. Koromon has always come from Botamon, and in the v-pets, he still does, and ONLY does. So I don't see where the uncertainty comes from. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.211.181.173 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In one episode you see a botamon that scares mimi and someone says that it digivolves into agumon, on a flashback you see botamon digivolve into a koromon.

Other Forms

I added in an Other Forms section for some of the other Agumons so people would know about them (I added in the link to them), and had some info on BlackAgumon. Hope it was a good idea... Leosj 00:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it wasn't, this article is about Agumon the character from Digimon Adventure, SnowAgumon, ClearAgumon, ToyAgumon, ShadowToyAgumon and BlackAgumon can have their own entries in List of Rookie Digimon (Part 1). There's also happens to be bunch of other variations that there's really nothing to say about like Agumon Hakaze, DotAgumon, ExtraAgumon, etc. Nightmare SE 01:16, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Omnimon's defeat

I just watched both the nglish and original japanese version of Revenge of Diabor/Diablomon. And in the fight against Armageddamon, nowhere do I see in ither version, Omnimon being attacked by tendrils from a hole from Armageddamon's head. He flys in, stabs Armageddamon in the head, and fires down his throat. Armageddamon then blasts him at point blank range and sends him flying. Nowhere did I see thendrils or whips or strands or anything

WarGreymon and BlackWarGreymon

It's says BlackWarGreymon's death and noble sacrifice hit him hard what does that mean? 76.112.23.57 06:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute...

Why does a single digimon merit it's own article, but all the pokemon are merged into big lists? Seems inconsistent. Either merge all the digimon or give each pokemon it's own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.72.239 (talk) 18:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not all Digimon actually have their own article. A lot of them were merged into a generic "minor characters of season #", which is kind of like how the Pokémon articles are set up now. Only the main Digimon of each season have their own articles, and even then, they share it with each of their evolutions. A lot of other series give the main characters their own article. Using a Pokémon example, I believe Pikachu also has it's own article (I think it's the only one, though. Which somewhat makes sense, since most other Pokémon don't get the same light shined on them as Pikachu does).Gagbumon (talk) 03:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, Bulbapedia >>>>>>>> Wikipedia even when the Pokemon did have their own decent pictures. --Kurtle (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since it seems like so many people have forgotten this, I'll remind you all that Digimon was originally a Tamagotchi-type toy (from the makers of Tamagotchi, no less). The animated series didn't come around until about a year or two later. Agumon was one of the Digimon in the original toy. Just thought I'd point that out, since the article doesn't seem to mention it at all. And I agree, delete this article. 71.125.148.83 (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Koromon.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Koromon.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?