Talk:Royal Knights/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


If Imperialdramon Paladin Mode is the founder of the Royal Knights, then why isn't he a member?? —This unsigned comment was added by Plau (talkcontribs) .

He just isn't. He's reported as the founder on several cards, but his group field is blank in all cases, while the Royal Knights have "Royal Knights" in the group field. It's also worth noting that he's not a Holy Knight type, like all other Royal Knights. And Imperial Dramon Fighter Mode isn't a Royal Knight, so STOP ADDING HIM, whoever is doing it. --; Shining Celebi

I would just like to point out that since four remaining Royal Knights are unknown, we don't know for *sure* that Imperialdramon Paladin Mode is not a member. It's likely that he is not, but it's not impossible. Out of all the rumored "candidates" he seems the most likely, to me. As for the not a Holy Knight type thing, he's more than capable of just mode changing to get there. I mean, he never seems to run out of modes, does he? Also, since his group field is blank, that's not necessarily negative confirmation. Again, since it's blank, we can't be one hundred percent sure he's not a member. They could be deliberately keeping this blank to not spoil the fact for some future enterprise (whether an X sequel or Digimon Savers or something all together different). Okay, I'm kinda getting long winded here, but my purpose was just to point out that Imperialdramon (in whatever mode) can very well possibly be a Royal Knight. Since this is speculation it does not belong in the article; I was just pointing this out. Besides the unknown four could potentially be any digimon.Jupiterzguy 03:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Imperialdramon has two mode changes, neither of his 3 forms are Holy Knights, and he can NOT mode change again, Imperialdramon PM's family is Virus Busters. Nightmare SE 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Why? What's to say he can't mode change again? (Not trying to be argumentative, just sincerely curious.) I've never heard of any kind of limit on mode changes, is there one?Jupiterzguy 17:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The question isn't why wouldn't he, but rather why would he? Since movie 4 he has made no appearances except in a few video games and cards, but more importantly both Imperialdramon's mode changes had little to nothing to do with him or his partners, same goes for Paildramon even reaching mega.
Besides with your reasoning then we might as well consider Beelzemon and Belphemon as candidates since they too have mode changed, wait why stop there, we might as well list every digimon ever made since whose to say they won't mode change into a Holy Knight?
It should also be noted that UlfroceVeedramon FM and Gallantmon CM are not part of the Royal Knights respectively despite keeping the same type, and that in all groups (Royals Knights, Seven Great Demon Lords, Four Great Dragons, etc) there is only one mode changed digimon, Lucemon Falldown/Fallen/Chaos Mode, and he's really more of an evolution than an actual mode change. Nightmare SE 18:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


I don't know whether he is a Royal Knight? Clairfy. - Plau

Nope, Susanoomon is not a Royal Knight. Not listed as one on any cards, not mentioned as one in any profile, and he's not a Holy Knight type, which all the Royal Knights are. Shining Celebi 14:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Man stop addin all these digimons in the list. Only 9 are known right now. Later on when we find out the rest will put them on. In the mean time stop addin digimons —This unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

notes taken off the article and put here

got these notes on the article, not sure if they're verified or anything, but they shouldn't really be on the article itself:

Contrarily to the rumors, Chaosmon is not a Royal Knight. TigerVespamon is believed to be a Royal Knight, however this has yet to be confirmed. Rapidmon (Armor) is also not a Royal Knight.''

-- Ned Scott 00:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree, But they keep popping up. - Plau 10:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

-- Hello, i'm the person who gave the info on the Mecha Rouges, I know that there are 9 Royal Knights listed right now, but for some reason it shows Chaosmon on the right screen. I thought he wasn't a Royal Knight? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

I'm not that familiar with the Royal Knights concept, I'm not even sure where most of the "members" come from, as I am mostly just familiar with the TV shows. I assume it's a grouping from the card game? Or are some video games also involved? -- Ned Scott 00:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It's a grouping on the cards (signified by having "Royal Knights" in the grouping field, even though "Royal Knights" is not a standard Digimon family). However, the grouping seems to be consistent with, and based form the Royal Knights in X-Evolution, and get mentioned in the anime. --`/aksha 03:01, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Chaosmon and TigerVespamon

Both of these Digimon are not Royal Knights. They are not listed as Hoyl Knight Digimon in Japan ( all the Royal Knights are Holy Knight Digimon )and if they were Royal Knights, their profiles would state that.


what happened, did you guys stop doing this or are you finding any more?

did you guys get to find any more?

As of now there AREN'T anymore, there are rumors of a sequel to Digital Monster X-Evolution, perhaps new Royal Knights will appear in it... Nightmare SE 08:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

another sequel?

Its just a rumor from DVR... for now. Nightmare SE 17:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Digimon Savers

In the new opening of Digimon Savers they show a line up of The Royal Knights but they have blanded most of them out, should it be added?

It almost looked like there were all 13 of them.

You know what, I was thinking about this, and I think I know why they put the 9 Royal Knights in the 2nd opening. I'm not saying this might happen, I'm just want you to imagine this. What if the 9 Royal Knights were looking for something, you know, like finding the 4 remaining Royal Knights.

Should these sections be added

Simple just give me your opinion on if these sections should or shouldn't be added

  • Total number of appearances
  • Moves
  • Assumed Royal Knights (basically who people think are the other members and the reasons why, this section is not ment to confirm that they are the missing royal knights)
  • If Digimon alternatives such as Gallantmon crimson mode or medival gallantmon are still considered royal knights
    • The X antibody (if they are still royal knights after getting it)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarDragon (talkcontribs) .

I think that to be included one should cite a specific reference, such as a TV episode or card description, that states that such and such is a Royal Knight or not. And then avoid the speculation all together, as we can't really cite a reference for speculation. -- Ned Scott 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Savers Appearance

I read an article saying that the Royal Knights will appear I believe in episode 40 of Digimon Savers.

Yeah i saw that as well i noted it, it is just in note form currently, expanded later --WarDragon 23:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Speculation/General Clean-up

There is a bit of unfounded speculation on this page. For example: It is theorized by some fans that the Royal Knights were among the Digimon that fought Lucemon prior to his defeat at the hands of the Ten Ancient Warriors. During his imprisonment he was able to recruit Dynasmon and Crusadermon to his services in a manner similar to Cherubimon. This is entirely speculation and has no purpose in an encylopedia article.

Also, in this same vein, I removed a bit of redundancy (and speculation). There was a section at the top that listed the same sentence twice (that Gold Rabidmon was not a member. I simply removed one of them). There are a few places that could use similar clean up but I didn't feel right in doing it. However, the Rabidmon thing really was just unneeded so I felt fairly confident in removing that.

Also, also. I was thinking that perhaps the note about Imperialdramon being the founder instead of a member should go near the top of the members section rather than the bottom. I dunno, it just seems important enough to merit being at the top of the section.Jupiterzguy 03:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

K, thanks for sharing your thoughts, i think they are quite valid so i updated the main page :) --WarDragon 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


I'm confused, who's Duftmon? Is he a real digimon or someone just made it up. And is it true he is a Royal Knight?

He's real, he's going to be in episode 43 of Digimon Savers. Nightmare SE 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

So now that a tenth Royal Knight was revealed, do you think more will appear in Digimon Savers?

Possibly, we'll just have to wait and see. Nightmare SE 04:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Duftmon's real! See the pic below. User:Fractyl [1] [2]


I'm removing it. Two reasons:

1. We have absolutely no information for it. And "he's going to appear" falls into the categoy of "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball".
2. I'm suspicious. thedigiport is a good fansite but a fansite (and for some reason won't even work for me right now). We seem to get a lot of fake digimon, and this article seems to attract fake royal knights like a magnet. For some reason, i get absolutely nothing when i google for "Duftmon". So i have absolutely no reason to believe it exists, let alone is a royal knight.

If it does exist, and will appear in savers, then verifiable information on it should be popping up soon. Waiting a few weeks won't hurt anyone. --`/aksha 09:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess it wouldn't hurt to wait a little longer until we get further information on him, but the digiport is not the only website confirming Duftmon, Shining Evolution [3] and Digital Starlight [4] (two very reliable Digimon related websites) have cofirmed his existence as well. Nightmare SE 15:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
It still feels a little like crystal-balling. How about we add it in once episode 43 is actually released (which is also when we'll actually have a picture of this guy.) --`/aksha 07:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
According to the preview at the end of Episode 42, Duftmon will be in Episode 43. That should be sufficient proof of his existence —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

X-Digimon Image use

I am just wondering, why the person who is now in charge of this section, wants to keep the X-Digimon pictures up and not have the anime look (specifically Gallantmon, Omnimon and Magnamon)--WarDragon 13:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

because we're arranging articles by character. The magnamon (armor of veemon) of 02 isn't the same character as the magnamon who was in x-evolution and was part of the royal knights. So why should we use the 02 magnamon picture for the royal knight magnamon?
And i can't see what's wrong with them being x-digimon or not having the anime look. The royal knight's main appearance is still the x-evolution movie - where they were x-digimon (or at least became x-digimon), and the entire movie was computer grapiced.
If you want to dig up some screenshots/artwork of gallantmon/omnimon/magnamon from x-evolution without the x-antibody, or some screenshots/artwork of them from digimon savers, then i'm not going to complain.
I just don't want to use the same gallantmon/omnimon/magnamon picture here as what we have on guilmon/agumon/veemon articles. Since the point is that they're *not* the same characters - using the same picture makes it seem like they are. --`/aksha 14:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
You're incorrect here.

Magnamon NEVER becomes an X-Digimon in the movie. Only Gallantmon and Omnimon do. - -- 15:07, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually most people would consider the first main appearance of the Royal Knights as Frontier, as it was first mentioned around that time. Last time i checked the Royal Knights and the normal mega versions (except magna since he a armour) in contrast to one another they are the same digimon there is no difference in appearance, Gallantmon is Gallantmon, Onmimon is Onmimon, only in personality is it different.

With the Digimon X movie, for 50 minutes all the knight were normal not X, no nothing, just their normal mega forms. Then for the last 20 minutes Gallantmon X appears and Onmimon X later, they are the only two. Hell to be honest we don't really know if the "x-digimon" still remain there status as some consider them other forms while other argue there the same person, and then they drag the other forms into the mix (but lets not do that =P)

I would properly agree getting some savers pictures due to the different artists they look bulkier and fatter almost.--WarDragon 16:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, of course gallantmon is still gallantmon, omnimon is still onmimon. The names "gallantmon" and "omnimon" refer to species. But they're not the same characters. It's the same reason why Agumon and Agumon (Savers) have different pictures. If someone put the picture for the agumon in digimon adventure onto the Agumon (Savers) article, i'd revert them too.
As for the x-digimon being the same person or not...i really don't know. I've never seen X-Evolution. The Royal Knight article used to state that the digimon, in their x-antibody forms, where still considered to be the same royal knights. So i'd just assumed that was true.
I'll go and do a quick google search and see if i can come up with anything. Otherwise, we'll just have to wait until pictures of them from Savers come out. --`/aksha 11:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, after a bit of poking around, it seems the pictures in question are actually based off TCG pictures. here is a scan of a japanese Magnamon card. If you really think the pictures now look so bad, we can replace them with either TCG pictures or with screenshots (this used to be used on the old omnimon article) from X-Evolution until we get pictures from Savers. --`/aksha 11:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Since i have a copy of the epsiode i took some screen-captures and replaced the images, are these ok?--WarDragon 19:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to replace Crusadermon and dynasmon's pictures. Those two pictures where never CGI in the first place - they're the same design as the crusadermon and dynasmon in savers, except better quality full body shots. Everything else seems fine. I don't suppose this new Duftmon has appeared by now? --`/aksha 11:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the picture weren't the best and i will properly get better ones when they appear again if i can. Nope Duftmon has been said to appear around epsiode 43 which is about 3 weeks away, as an episode airs on the Saturday i think then get on the internet around sunday late to monday. I would like to say that even though he was only mentioned last week it is currently hear-say internet talk (not trustable unless offical source), and until the ep airs with him in it, don't add him.--WarDragon 16:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree with you on Duftmon completely. Hence i've been removing it from the article every time someone's added it. --`/aksha 09:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Duftmon again

It isn't mere Internet hearsay. It comes from an official source. There's a Japanese publication that comes out weekly(?) that lists the next upcoming four episodes by airdate, with their titles and some brief summaries. That's where Duftmon was mentioned. They've been a consistent source for these things since Savers began, although they do list plenty of other shows, so far as I know. It's not the stuff people on the Internet just pull out of the air. I don't post stuff on my site that isn't from an official source, and if I don't know I say that I don't know its veracity. Of course, waiting doesn't hurt anyone, but people do come to these pages for news and the latest information too. Shining Celebi 20:40, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

We're not saying it is absolutely and completely wrong or in-factual information. The reason I don't put it up is that while being a Digimon fan, I want to put it up and say "duftmon is appearing in episode 43" with pride (basically), as we are finally finding out another royal knight with only 3 more to go but without some hard, gritty evidence. Hell DVR could be one of the most reliable sources in the world but being human we question way too much and want something they can see, feel (to a degree) and understand to basically say yes this is true. I feel the information "is more speculation until it is shown" attitude, as while I want to hole-heartily believe it, I still have my own doubts and would like to see the episode, and then add it. I mean this information just appeared one day and everyone believed without any sort of questions being asked and just agreed, when people do something like that I need to question it and get the evidence. So I am sorry if you had any offense if I said "Internet Hearsay" in a bad tone.

But anyway I was thinking that since all the episodes have a preview in the episode before there is bound to be some sort of information or even a picture (hopefully they don’t black it out) so we can add information a week early and then at least my doubts would have gone by then--WarDragon 01:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Duftmon will not go on the article until it actually appears, as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. And Wikipedia isn't for people who're looking for 'news', we have wikinews for that. Here on Wikipedia, it won't hurt to delay adding something for a few weeks if it means avoiding the addition of false and unverified information. We've had way too many cases of made-up digimon slipping into Wikipedia in the past.
Put it this way, if we're in the old format of one digimon per article, and someone created an article for Duftmon you think it would survive an Article for Deletion? I highly doubt it. If you don't believe me, take a look at this AfD, where the article for "Digimon Wii" was deleted as per "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball". --`/aksha 07:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't Duftmon appear in some form or another in the epsiode 43 preview in epsiode 42? Then we can at least it wouldn't be crystal balling?--WarDragon 15:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

At first, I was going to say that I didn't completely disagree that Duftmon shouldn't be here, simply that it was absolutely not true that his existence and future appearance were just Internet hearsay, and also that I usually don't expect any Wikipedia article to survive afd, since there are plenty of delete-happy Wikipedians that are quite content to declare anything they don't know anything about non-notable, fancruft, or something similar. In this case, there are plenty of acceptable Digimon articles that have been nominated for afd and deleted, especially before this WikiProject. Even nowadays, real and verifiable Digimon are deleted because someone wrote that it was a "rumored" Digimon in the article, and for some people, no amount of evidence seems sufficient to identify something as verifiable.
But in this case, and having actually read the policy for the first time, I agree with the deletion of the Digimon Wii article, simply because there was no content to it, and there was no need for an entire article on an upcoming game with no information. But Duftmon is an entirely different case. He would be in this article, along with the other Royal Knights, so it wouldn't be just an empty article repeating the title. Secondly, though, WP:NOT#CBALL does not apply at all.
WP:NOT#CBALL says that Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. We're not talking about unverifiable speculation, we're talking about a Digimon referenced on various fansites, in both English and Japanese, announced in a Japanese publication that regularly carries such information. WP:NOT#CBALL makes it clear that the policy is meant mainly to prevent people from creating articles about their own speculation about what might happen, not to prevent someone from adding official information about an upcoming event to an article. The policy does not apply to the addition of Duftmon to this article at all.
I completely understand the need to avoid editing in false information, since Wikipedia and especially this WikiProject are often accused of being riddled with errors. But I feel we're being a little too overzealous here, as in a few other cases. If reliable sites have the information, it is, by definition, not unverifiable by Wikipedia's standards. Let's worry more about the stuff they don't have, like some of these Digimon's biographical information and so on, and let's keep adding sources and references. Shining Celebi 20:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

A little extra info

It seems that like a lot of orginazations, each of the Knights have different thoughts on the same issues, causing In-fighting and arguments, but at the same time it is shown they are also able to work on the same side, even just after an argument. I belive this should be added to the article somewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 03:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

It has been suggested that this section be split into a new article. (Discuss)

Well i would like a reason why this was put up. I mean does that mean the entire rk's will be put with the other gallantmon's and omnimon's? or is it jsut so we can expand a bit more on the information about the episodes as i feel a few will be a bit short--WarDragon 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)